Darlie Routier

[Blahblah]

8 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.

There have been many, many tests done over the yesrs. None of them have exonersted her. Some of the results have even been kept secret at Darlie's request. 

I'm not sure how much experience you have with the legal system but it is, by nature, adversarial. Of course the prosecution will present evidence that supports their case. That's their job.

[Aine]

I know I'm idealistic and I know that what I am describing is not how the legal system in this country works. But I do have experience in the legal system in the US as a victim, and I was a law student in Australia for 2 years before deciding to pursue my psychology doctorate (in which forensic psychology is one of my main research and practice passions and I'm near the end of my PhD right now). The US and Australia, while having different systems, both derive their laws from the constitution, legislative decisions, the executive branch, and common law. Also, both constitutions and the people who should be representing the rule of law (i.e. prosecutors) should operate under an assumption of innocent until proven guilty. To me, and to many people, this means that a prosecutor shouldn't need to "cherry-pick" evidence to prove their case (such as just showing the silly string part of the video). If she's truly guilty, the full context of that video should be shown because the duty of the state isn't to 'win', it's to make sure the right person is punished for the crime being brought against it.

From all that I've already said, it doesn't work like that in the real world in most cases right now. It is an unfavorable consequence of the system of prosecutors in many jurisdictions being elected that the attitude does become about 'winning' rather than being 'right'.

And if you're familiar with the law at all, I'd like to direct you towards the American Bar Association's Code of Ethics regarding client-lawyer relationships. Under Rule 1.7, red flags should be up for you as an attorney if you are representing someone with a significant relationship to a current client or former client. You can get them both to sign waivers, but even that should be weighed ethically with the consequences of your own unknown biases that could affect your performance for one client or the other, your objectiveness, and both clients' knowledge of things like implicit biases. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_7_conflict_of_interest_current_clients/comment_on_rule_1_7/

A capital case is absolutely not the place to be going into grey areas of the ethics code. Any good defense lawyer would have offered some evidence of Darin as a possible alternative for the crime or at least his financial motives and previous insurance fraud schemes.

There is also no documentation that I can find that the sock as been DNA tested. It makes sense for Darlie's DNA to be all around that home. That sock is what should be tested and the state of Texas has blocked that at every turn and have a long history of doing similar things so far as blocking retesting or testing or calling into question since disproven science used to convict death row inmates (e.g. Rodney Reed, Cameron Willingham, Joe Bryan, Timothy Cole etc.) and outside of Texas (e.g. Sedley Alley, Ray "Jeff" Cromartie only a month ago, Tommy Ziegler etc.). Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head as someone who follows true crime.

This piece by the Tampa Bay Times, inspired by Ziegler but also addressing the greater problem of the legal system not testing potentially exculpatory evidence in capital crimes, is a decent start at looking into this issue: https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-let-dna-testing-remove-doubt-in-death-row-cases-20181130/

My boyfriend is a law student studying for his bar exam, including the MPRE- a separate exam on top of the bar exam relating to professional ethics. He wants to do criminal law but is unsure whether that will be pursuing a prosecutorial career or a criminal defense career. As I have tested him with flash cards and all the rest, he and I have noted many similarities between their code and my own code in psychology. One of the big ethical dilemmas in psychology is also "dual relationships", meaning we have a prior or current relationship (personal/professional/patient) with someone who also has a relationship with the patient sitting in front of me. I recently did an intake and in the course of the session, I realized that the reason it was all sounding familiar was because this individual's half-brother had been my patient 3.5 years ago for only 8 sessions and they were estranged. Neither had a bad thing to say about each other, the estrangement was forced by other family members. However, we should do everything in our power to avoid, and pursue every possible alternative, rather than entering into a "dual relationship". My prior knowledge of family dynamics from one perspective could bias me or in some way impact my objectivity, and potentially impact the quality of care I give her in some way that neither she or I would detect because implicit biases are very real and we're not good judges of our own objectivity. So after intake, I had to have the difficult conversation with her that I knew someone she knew and due to that, I wasn't the best therapist for her and I'd find someone amazing who I trusted and (with her permission) would pass on what she told me and the intake information gathered so she didn't need to start from scratch.

I did think I could be objective in her case and there were no deviations in her account from my previous patient's account. But I don't know what's coming and I could unintentionally break confidentiality by reflecting some knowledge, however small, that was shared to me by the other person and not them. I can think I'm flexible with what is true from one person to another but when my job, similar to an attorney, is partly to point out inconsistencies or discrepancies in stories told, thoughts, and emotions without being adversary and to pick up on gaps in what I'm being told (because they're usually being avoided for a reason), I need to be ethical from the outset and prevent rather than react.

In a capital murder trial, where the only uninjured adult in the house is never really looked into by police and isn't challenged or offered by the defense and defense attorney previously represented said person? That's sketchy as all hell from an ethical standpoint. 

Also, quite honestly, I don't care at all about Darlie's version of events. Her version is that she woke up to her children being murdered and suffered close to lethal injuries herself. It is well documented, with plenty of replicated peer-reviewed research to support it, that our minds don't remember like a video tape and are actually less reliable on the whole during times of acute shock and distress. Many have scattered memories of snippets of the trauma and because we're humans, our brains are hardwired to make sense of those pieces into a narrative and the human brain is very vulnerable to creating memories that 'make sense', especially after trauma. We believe them to be true but it's also well documented that we're not a good judge of the validity of our memory as a whole step-by-step recount during times of distress when studies are done proactively rather than retrospectively. The knowledge about trauma on the brain and memory is more recognized and documented now than when Darlie was convicted. She likely remembers small snapshots or snippets vividly if she was also a victim but she would be filling in gaps without realizing that's what she's doing because she's trying to make sense of the insensible, while panicked, terrified, confused, injured, and disoriented. I had a nap last weekend for an hour and I got confused about what day it was and was so disoriented after being woken suddenly. 

Again, I am not saying she is innocent. My only argument is that there are issues in the state's case and the competency of her counsel. The police also really focused on only her. A good prosecutor should have counseled the police to rule everyone else out before arresting Darlie, even if she was the prime suspect. There is really no more evidence pointing to her than there is to Darin. You want to be sure when you're going to be ordering the killing of someone. At the very least, I'd like to be sure more than I'd like to be reelected as prosecutor. ?‍♀️

Edited December 11, 2019 by Aine

[adidas]

@aine tldr all of it (sorry) but the sock DNA testing was submitted as evidence, as given in links earlier in the thread. Page 2.

DNA evidence is admissible in court for a reason.

[Howl]

On 12/11/2019 at 12:23 AM, Aine said:

There is also no documentation that I can find that the sock as been DNA tested. It makes sense for Darlie's DNA to be all around that home. That sock is what should be tested and the state of Texas has blocked that at every turn and have a long history of doing similar things so far as blocking retesting or testing or calling into question since disproven science used to convict death row inmates (e.g. Rodney Reed, Cameron Willingham, Joe Bryan, Timothy Cole etc.) and outside of Texas (e.g. Sedley Alley, Ray "Jeff" Cromartie only a month ago, Tommy Ziegler etc.). Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head as someone who follows true crime.

This, this, THIS going on with Rodney Reed right now.  And in the WTAF! category: The state has refused to test the murder weapon (a belt used in the strangulation of Stacey Stites) and other items for DNA. 

Reed is no angel and has previous sex crime convictions.  He claims he had consensual sex with the victim and Stacey's relatives have confirmed they were involved romantically.   He finally received an indefinite stay of execution last month after over 20 years on death row. 

Here's where things get crazy.  The woman's fiance at the time of her death, Jimmy Fennell,  was a police officer who was subsequently convicted of the kidnapping and rape of a woman he pulled over.  Fennell was the prime suspect for months after Stacey's murder. 

There is so much wrong with this case that it has been taken on by the Innocence Project, who have  10 Facts About Rodney Reed’s Case You Need to Know

 

[nausicaa]

On 12/11/2019 at 1:23 AM, Aine said:

There is also no documentation that I can find that the sock as been DNA tested. It makes sense for Darlie's DNA to be all around that home. That sock is what should be tested and the state of Texas has blocked that at every turn and have a long history of doing similar things

This is completely, quantifiably false.

The sock has been tested. It was tested during the original investigation and then again during the 2008 re-testing.  A cursory Google search brings this information up.

 

I'll repeat what I said on page two since some people can't be bothered to read further back:

The sock was tested for the original trial. The blood belongs to the two boys. The inside of the sock has been tested for touch/skin cell DNA. Only Darlie's was found. 

There have been over a hundred 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

 

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by nausicaa

[Four is Enough]

I've always thought she was guilty, but I did hate to see the silly string and boob job thing brought up..

The sock? My DNA is probably in my husband's socks. While I've never worn them, I do put my hands inside them and pull them right side out... transfer right there. Proves nothing..

Why it's in someone else's yard? Weird.

[Blahblah]

On 12/24/2019 at 6:15 AM, Four is Enough said:

The sock? My DNA is probably in my husband's socks. While I've never worn them, I do put my hands inside them and pull them right side out... transfer right there. Proves nothing.

Proves nothing about Darlie having touched the sock, but says a whole lot about the absence of anyone else's DNA. 

 

[Blahblah]

https://hubpages.com/politics/The-State-of-Texas-v-Darlie-Routier-A-Clear-Cased-of-Guilt
 

This link was posted on Websleuths recently. 

I found the discussion around the sock interesting given that this is the most commonly cited reason for doubt by many Darli supporters. The logic generally goes like this: “She didn’t have time to plant the sock because the police turned up 3 or 4 minutes after she made the 911 call.“

BUT nobody knows when the sock was planted or how long she waited to make the 911 call. The clock only starts ticking when she makes the call. Plenty of time before that to do whatever she wanted.

 And I am aware of the evidence that one of the boys would only have lived for 9-10 minutes and was still alive when the police arrived. But there is also evidence that she could have stabbed him, then staged things (including the sock)then returned to the house to find him still alive and crawling into a different location, then stabbed him again before calling 911.

When the police arrived, the sink had been cleaned, the floor wiped, the expensive vase carefully tipped over without damaging the flower stems, the broken wine glass placed on top of blood spatter etc. With all of that, there was easily 3-4 minutes to run three houses up the street and lay down a sock.

I just keep coming back to the blood evidence. There was no evidence of anyone else’s presence. Darli’s bloody footprints were everywhere yet not one left by the intruder? The crime scene photos show how much blood was present. If there was an intruder they must have had the footwork skills of a prima ballerina and the night vision of an owl to step around all the blood, while being chased/fought off by Darli.

Edited December 29, 2019 by Blahblah

[Syriana]

On 12/28/2019 at 12:01 PM, Blahblah said:

Proves nothing about Darlie having touched the sock, but says a whole lot about the absence of anyone else's DNA. 

 

That's easily explained by the perpetrator (if not Darlie) wearing gloves.

 

[mstee]

From a psychological standpoint , if she is the killer I’m surprised she didn’t just kill the baby if stress was the trigger. I’ve heard in psychology lectures that attachment grows as a child gets older (which is logical) and that’s why you see less rates of parents murdering children as they age. It’s more common for a parent to lose their cool with an infant than a 10 year old and become homicidal. 
The whole case is very bizarre. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out it was her and I wouldn’t be surprised to find out it was a random killer. 

[Blahblah]

@mstee that would be true normally, but I don’t think Darlie is normal - I suspect narcissistic traits are present. The children are satellites of her and serve as props for her.

It is possible that she only enjoyed the kids when they were babies, and were totally under her control, and any attention/praise directed towards the baby was reflected directly on to her - “ooh your baby is gorgeous”, “look what you did Darlie, he’s cute” etc.  And disliked  having older kids who had developed their own personalities, could answer back, were able to make more of a mess, take attention away from her etc.  

Wasn’t there evidence from a neighbour that she would make the boys play outside all day, and would complain about the mess they made inside the house?

And very soon after the deaths, she was talking about going on holiday and getting pregnant again, and hoping for a girl.

[AuntKrazy]

On 12/23/2019 at 7:01 AM, Howl said:

This, this, THIS going on with Rodney Reed right now.  And in the WTAF! category: The state has refused to test the murder weapon (a belt used in the strangulation of Stacey Stites) and other items for DNA. 

Reed is no angel and has previous sex crime convictions.  He claims he had consensual sex with the victim and Stacey's relatives have confirmed they were involved romantically.   He finally received an indefinite stay of execution last month after over 20 years on death row. 

Here's where things get crazy.  The woman's fiance at the time of her death, Jimmy Fennell,  was a police officer who was subsequently convicted of the kidnapping and rape of a woman he pulled over.  Fennell was the prime suspect for months after Stacey's murder. 

There is so much wrong with this case that it has been taken on by the Innocence Project, who have  10 Facts About Rodney Reed’s Case You Need to Know

 

Texas has too long of a history of not allowing DNA evidence in after trial verdicts, especially in cases where it may exonerate the convicted person.  I started following some of this back prior to when Lester Bower was executed back in 2015.  

I'm not entirely sure how we rectify this discarding of scientific evidence when it is also coinciding with the backlash and anti-science movement growing in the US.

[JezMyOpinion]

On 1/26/2020 at 1:16 PM, mstee said:

From a psychological standpoint , if she is the killer I’m surprised she didn’t just kill the baby if stress was the trigger. I’ve heard in psychology lectures that attachment grows as a child gets older (which is logical) and that’s why you see less rates of parents murdering children as they age. It’s more common for a parent to lose their cool with an infant than a 10 year old and become homicidal. 
The whole case is very bizarre. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out it was her and I wouldn’t be surprised to find out it was a random killer. 

It was her. Her knife used to cut screen, jewelry wasn't taken at sink where clean up occurred, she named 2 men in her jail letters & freaked out on the stand when asked about it, blood under the glass & vacuum, no cuts on her feet, wine glass was latched wouldn't have been knocked down, Domain didn't bark, motion lites not on, she called media herself to film that grave scene. Her mother had the opportunity a few years ago to go on Dr. Phil? Worldwide attn and any dna testing? She refused. Why? She knows her daughter did this. Her fans say necklace was embedded, had to be surgically removed but it simply fell off when bandage removed. Bruising on her arms prob caused by boys kicking her off. Her wounds were superficial & she didn't know what/where carotid was. She was lucky she didn't kill herself. She was such a light sleeper that she would wake up when Drake turned over in his crib yet she slept through all that? She's guilty. http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/

[LiLSeaWitch]

100% Guilty.  Besides the blood evidence or lack of an intruder evidence, just read her testimony. I have followed this case from the beginning as I was on maturity leave when it happened. As a mother as much as I really wanted her to be innocent, you have to look at the evidence and read the trial transcripts. You can find documentaries for or against. To truly make an informed opinion dig a little and not at the pro darlie sites, they tend to twist or down right make up things. The 2015 DNA evidence leaked out before they had it sealed and it did not clear her.  She was only convicted of murdering her younger child, murder has no statue of limitation, she can always be tried for the other.  Honestly imo, it was her testimony that sealed it.  Her attorney did not want her to testify but she insisted.  If not for her testimony, personally, I still think she would have been found guilty but perhaps not received the death penalty. 

[Bobology]

Thank you, @LiLSeaWitch. I have never been that deep into all the info regarding this case but I have always leaned toward Darlie not committing the murders just because. Posters here have caused me to rethink my original opinions, and your post, in particular, is good for me to read.

On a silly note, I know "maturity leave" was an auto correct, but it should be a thing! I'm retired but I still need "maturity" breaks now and then, lol.