Drake Routier - Darlie Routier's son
Junior Detective

Miamisburg, OH

#161 Dec 6, 2010
Sad wrote:
Dear Junior D,
You keep referencing the below as evidence of Darlie Routier's guilt:
-----On May 21, 2003 the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Routier v. State, 112 S.W.3d 554, 2004 Tex. Crim. App. Lexis 92, 2nd paragraph, wrote, "The appellant (referring to Darlie) does not challenge the legal or factual sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction..." -----
I am not sure that the above means what you think its means. It's is almost certainly not an admission of guilt. I am not familiar with the document it was lifted from, but it probably is a legal appeal to her conviction, and refers to the grounds for appeal that they are pleading for.
I take it to mean that they are appealing her conviction NOT on the grounds that there was enough evidence presented at trial to convict her but for another reason ( new evidence, jury or judicial misconduct, etc).
Thank you for you input. I have never said that the phrase is an admission of guilt because it is quite clear that neither Darlie nor her attorneys are ever going to admit that she is guilty. What I have said, at such recent posts as # 142 and # 155, is that they have conceded her guilt as of May 21, 2003. On appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, from which I have quoted, the presumption of innocence Darlie had at trial became a presumption of guilt. The attorneys had two ways to attack that presumption of guilt, either through a successful attack on the substance of the evidence (which might have resulted in her being set free entirely) or a successful attack on the procedure used to obtain the conviction (which might have resulted in a new trial). Indeed, they could have challenged the conviction on both substantive and procedural grounds. However, her attorneys raised no argument about the substantive side of the ledger. They did challenge the procedural side of things by claiming in 14 points of error that Darlie's right to a fair trial was compromised, but they lost on all of those points. That might have been very close to the end of the matter, but that very same court later held that she could conduct limited additional DNA testing in order to try and support her actual innocence claim, and that part of the case is still going on. That gives her one more crack at relief on the substantive side of the case, but when those tests come back and do not show the existence of an intruder, she will have nothing with which to challenge the substantive side of her conviction, and she can not challenge the procedural side of the conviction because all of her claims in that regard either were raised or could have been raised. In short, she will be out of anything left to argue. That is why the concession I have recited is so important, but it is not the only reason I cited it. People like Dave Moffett over at the Prison-Talk forum and Lindsey McIntyre at post # 157 on this forum ("there is real good evidence that says she's not guilty and they need to analyze that") keep claiming that there is evidence that exists that proves Darlie is innocent, but they never say what that evidence is or why her attorneys have not made the same claim and are out looking for that evidence--in the form of any evidence of an intruder--if it does exist. Put another way, if those DNA tests don't show any actual evidence of an intruder, Darlie will have not rebutted the presumption of guilt either substantively or as a matter of procedure, and even though Darlie will still claim to be innocent and file a few more pleadings, that result will start to spell the beginning of the end for her. If Dave Moffett and Lindsey McIntyre have such great proof of Darlie's innocence, they need to get ahold of Darlie's attorneys who have not been able to find it themselves, as evidence by the passage I have cited time and again.
A Norman

Hephzibah, GA

#162 Dec 6, 2010
I so believe in my heart that she did not do this. I feel that she should be let go. God forbid that it will be too late before they relize that she did not do it. The truth will come out one day.
Truth

Booneville, MS

#163 Dec 7, 2010
Just to set the record straight,i have never met Darlie Routier or spoken to her in any way. i saw the evidence and based my beliefs on what God reviled to me while viewing "ALL" the evidence.then as i have been shown other pieces of this Puzzle my beliefs have only been made stronger.Darlie Routier did not murder her children.she is on death row because law enforcement and Prosecutors for that county locked in on her and refused to look at anyone else, they failed these Little boys, all three because they put away the wrong person for two boys murders and took Drakes Mother away from him for 13 years, they also failed the communities where this happened, this person has killed since this happened. of this one thing you can be sure of the Prosecutors in this county will fight tooth and nail to keep any new evidence from coming out because if Darlie is granted a new trial she would never be convicted of this, the evidence speaks for it's self, you just have to have enough brains in you head and your eyes open to 'SEE'the truth.i hope and pray that God opens the eyes of the people in Texas so they can see that this needs to be reopened!
BeyondBelief

Wakefield, UK

#164 Dec 22, 2010
Having just watched a programme on this murder for the first time, I conclude that indeed Darlie was guilty. Blood doesn't lie it tells a story all of it's own, it can't be hidden or washed away easily. The killing of any child is disturbing but when a mother kills her own children it is unthinkable, and there is no forgiveness. Everyone makes up their own minds on cases like these.
prairie guy

Dallas, TX

#165 Dec 22, 2010
Junior Detective wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't want to undermine my theory too much by saying that I can't be sure I am 100 percent correct, but the obvious problem I and everyone else has is that we weren't there. Darlie would be the only one who would know if she is the killer. Not only does she have no incentive to tell us she is, but she quite clearly lied in this case by testifying that she didn't know who the intruder was and then being impeached with two letters she wrote to family and friends in which she said in one letter that the intruder "is Glenn Mize" (a customer of Darin) and in another letter that the intruder is "Gary Austin" (a neighbor of the Routiers). She expressed no hesitation when making these three statements ("unknown/Glenn Mize/Gary Austin") and was not under any duress when she made them, but we know that not all of those statements can be true at the same time, so at least two of them have to be false. That means that she is inventing the intruder for her own purpose of blaming someone else and, thus, getting off the hook.
I agree with you that this case is more complicated than it appears to be. Too, I think almost everyone is starting with the conclusion (she did it/she didn't do it) and trying to mold the evidence to fit that conclusion. I could not care less about who wins and who loses in this case. What I did in formulating my theory is I read or viewed as much about the case as possible. I then made mental puzzle pieces regarding the evidence and I compared those mental puzzle pieces to what we have seen in other cases, so long as a pattern was established. In that regard, I asked, what does it mean that a knife was used (it usually indicates a personal motive), what does it mean that the attack was relatively unsustained (indicates jealousy as opposed to a homicidal intent, which would be more indicated by a sustained attack), what does it mean that the assailant put a knife in Damon's back six times (indicates rage and an intent to inflict pain), what caused the rage (so far, in studying these cases for 21 years, the only thing that I have found that causes rage is a sudden, unexpected, and personal loss of control by a person who needs to be in control), what does it mean that Darlie and Darin, even at the crime scene, tried to introduce possibilities for a motive other than what the evidence is telling me, such as them indicating the crime had an economic motive or that someone apparently attacked Darlie because she is so beautiful (indicates an intent to deceive, which is why these types of crimes are known as "mixed-motive" crimes), and so on. Also, as I indicated, I did not make up the approach I used, as the FBI has been using for about 30 years, "pattern evidence," and there are actually people who analyze crime scenes for a living who use the same approach. I just hate it that a lot of people in this death penalty case are basing their conclusions on pure guesses. However, I don't view my conclusion as the final word; if someone else comes along with a better approach, theory, and conclusion, I am open to listening to it. For now, I feel relatively confident with my approach and conclusion.
Since this case is more than 14 years old, I don't think there are many highly important questions that have not been answered. We don't have to answer every one, just the important ones and I think those have been answered. As for the bloody fingerprint, I think the FBI is trying to identify it, but the evidence at trial was that there were not enough points for comparison, so it was unidentified and unidentifiable.
Having read the transcript, read like she was really
suprised that Davis produced those letters too.
However you can't judge emotion by what you read in a
transciprt, but I would have liked to seen her face when
he produced them.
prairie guy

Dallas, TX

#166 Dec 22, 2010
Gia wrote:
I was wondering how many of you writing actually know the facts of this case. I wonder how many of you know Darlie and or her family. Look, the point is friend or not, Darlie did NOT get a fair trial. When the court transcripts had over 30,000 errors and the court reporter was in fact jailed for false statements within the transcript (she was also stripped of her license)the law states that a new trial should be awarded. What case have you ever heard of (especially a capital murder case) where the LEAD DETECTIVE in the case is not called by the prosecution but by the defense and then pleads the fifth???? C'mon folks. Darlie IS innocent and I know that. However, if you feel she is guilty, at least get your facts straight and give me an argument that is factual, articulate and fair. THEN we'll debate. Until then, shut it. I am always up for an INTELLIGENT debate and would never put you down for your beliefs if they have merit and principal. Oh, by the way, Drake is doing very well. He is a teenager now and sees his mother often. He lives with Darin not his grandparents. He excels in sports and is doing well in school. Darlie is still involved in his life as his mother and makes decisions regarding his future.
I would agree that detectives taking the fifth is not solid
testimony for a team collecting evidence in a capital murder trial.
However, it is important to understand that these two guys pled the
5th to collection of evidence that may not have been introduced
at the trial. The disregard for the law had to do with the placement of audio recording data at the graveside area where the
boys were buried. I think that the pleading of the 5th also took
part outside the presence of the jury. The police department had
also place video recording devices at the cemetary as well. The silly string video, as well as the accompanying interview was made
with direct consent from the Routiers, by the NBC local affilliate
from Dallas. While police officers taking the 5th seems abysmal,
I concur the impeachment of testimony that would have occured on
the whole of the trial because of the incident would not have been proper, as I say I don't think any of this illegaly collected evidence was produced at trial.
Junior Detective

Miamisburg, OH

#167 Dec 28, 2010
prairie guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Having read the transcript, read like she was really
suprised that Davis produced those letters too.
However you can't judge emotion by what you read in a
transciprt, but I would have liked to seen her face when
he produced them.
Darlie had written several letters while she was in jail awaiting trial and had no idea that they were being reviewed by jail personnel before they were sent out. Since they were evidence, Toby Shook, the assistant prosecutor who introduced them at trial, had every right to subpoena them, However, while Darlie was being cross-examined by Shook about them, she questioned whether they they had not been obtained illegally, as if prison was some place that you have a great expectation of privacy. Shook explained that the State had the right to subpoena them. Darlie then started crying because she realized that she might not be going home after the contents of the letters were revealed. At trial, she testified that she did not know the intruder's identity, but that he was built like Detective Chris Frosch, who was six-feet tall and 200 pounds, and was white. Toby Shook then produced a letter Darlie had written to neighbor Karen Neal stating that she knew "Glen Mize" (a customer of Darin Routier), did "it." Glen Mize was then produced in court (was escorted in by Chris Frosch) and shown to be Hispanic, considerably shorter than six feet tall and considerably heavier, by about 50 to 60 pounds, than the 200-pound "intruder." Darlie then agreed that he was not the intruder, but one wonders how she could have believed he was the intruder since he looked nothing like the intruder she described. Toby Shook then produced a different letter in which she said the intruder was Gary Austin, who was a neighbor of the Routiers and Darlie knew about him because he looked into their yard from his back porch balcony into their hot tub. She did not then answer directly Shook's question that there was no house at the end of their block in their neighborhood that fit that description. In short, she made three different factual statements about the intruder's identity that contradict each other and involve two statements that were never meant to see the light of day. At least two of those statements have to be false and I contend that since there was no intruder, all three of them are false. Interestingly, the name of Chad Patterson, the son of lead detective Jimmy Patterson, surfaced during the investigation as a possible suspect, but I can't find that she ever named him as a possible intruder or whether she even knew him. The only conclusion that you can draw from the letters, though, is that she was lying about the existence of the intruder in order to make it appear as though there was an intruder. I have had a few people try and talk there way out of her three statements about the intruder's identity, but they have been unable to do so because they can't show how all of those statements could be true at the same time. Indeed, the letters about Glen Mize and Gary Austin appear to contain internal falsehoods to the effect that Glen Mize bore no resemblance to the intruder she described and Gary Austin's house apparently did not resemble the house she described in her letter.

If you are interested, Barbara Davis covered the relevant exchange between Shook and Darlie Routier in her book, Precious Angels, starting on page 267 and continuing at pages 271-272. Her defense attoreny's lame attempted rehabilitation produced an explanation that she wrote the different things because she was being told that information by other people, but one has to wonder why other people who never allegedly saw the supposed intruder would know more about his identity than Darlie would. In short, the letters are direct evidence of the fact that she was lying about the intruder's existence. Ever wonder what the results of those current DNA tests will be?
Junior Detective

Miamisburg, OH

#168 Dec 28, 2010
prairie guy wrote:
<quoted text>
I would agree that detectives taking the fifth is not solid
testimony for a team collecting evidence in a capital murder trial.
However, it is important to understand that these two guys pled the
5th to collection of evidence that may not have been introduced
at the trial. The disregard for the law had to do with the placement of audio recording data at the graveside area where the
boys were buried. I think that the pleading of the 5th also took
part outside the presence of the jury. The police department had
also place video recording devices at the cemetary as well. The silly string video, as well as the accompanying interview was made
with direct consent from the Routiers, by the NBC local affilliate
from Dallas. While police officers taking the 5th seems abysmal,
I concur the impeachment of testimony that would have occured on
the whole of the trial because of the incident would not have been proper, as I say I don't think any of this illegaly collected evidence was produced at trial.
I am always amused by people who suggest there was something sinister about the lead detective pleading the Fifth Amendment because he had the right to do that given there were questions about the legality of how the evidence was being gathered at the gravesite. The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, later affirmed the federal trial court's ruling that as a matter of law, neither Darlie Kee nor Darin Routier's statutory or constitutional rights had been violated regarding the gravesite evidence gathering, see Kee v. City of Rowlett, 247 F.3d 206 (March 28, 2001), but at the time of Darlie's trial in early 1997, detective Patterson had to be plenty concerned about whether he was exposed to liability due to the way the gravesite evidence--or lack thereof--was gathered.

The issue of whether Darlie received a fair trial was presented to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and, indeed, was the only issue presented on appeal to that court because Darlie and her attorneys conceded that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support her conviction for the capital murder of Damon Routier.(People have scanned the relevant opinion, filed May 21, 2003, and come back to me and said, "I don't see where Darlie admitted guilt," and I tell them that she and her attorneys did not admit guilt, they conceded the legal and fatual sufficiency of the evidence supported her conviction because they made no argument in that regard, which that court noted in the second paragraph of that opinion.) Darlie and her attorney raised 14 points about why Darlie allegedly did not receive a fair trial and that court rejected all of them. As a result, the ruling stands for the time being that Darlie did receive a fair trial. Gia may be confusing the right to a fair trial, which a defendant has, with a right to an error-free trial, which a defendant does not have.

Of course, Gia, you know that Darlie is innocent, and that is because you have absolutely no idea about how to perform a proper technical analysis of a crime scene. Darlie was making comments about death as early as April of 1996, about the same time the Routiers were beginning to run out of money. She wrote a "suicidal thoughts" note in her diary on May 3, 1996. Life was spinning out of control for her. On the night of June 5, 1996/morning of June 6, 1996, she lost control over the only bigger thing that she could lose control over than the money, and that was the source of that money. Darin pitched her off the 5801 Eagle Drive gravy train and that is when she exploded outward and stabbed the two boys in a jealous rage. You have to understand that in dealing with classic manipulators such as Darlie the most lethal thing about them is when they undergo an extreme loss of control, as she did that fateful morning.
prairie guy

Dallas, TX

#169 Dec 30, 2010
Just a small side note on this, but not really related. Assistant district attorney for Collin
County Texas was indicted today, 12-29-10.
I think it said his game was Greg Davis.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/d...
Mark

Sanford, NC

#170 Jan 1, 2011
mel wrote:
i hope drake gets to see darlie alot, cause he should thats his mother. im glad i didnt go through that, having to go to prison or jail to see my mom or father. well its not darlie,s fault that its like that, if theres any one to blame its the state of texas for wrongfully convicting her. i hope and pray that she is found innocent, and gets her freedom back, because she deserves it. im so sorry i misjudged her. i was so wrong.
You still are wrong my friend. READ the court transcripts. The evidence is overwhelming.
Mark

Sanford, NC

#171 Jan 1, 2011
Truth wrote:
Just to set the record straight,i have never met Darlie Routier or spoken to her in any way. i saw the evidence and based my beliefs on what God reviled to me while viewing "ALL" the evidence.then as i have been shown other pieces of this Puzzle my beliefs have only been made stronger.Darlie Routier did not murder her children.she is on death row because law enforcement and Prosecutors for that county locked in on her and refused to look at anyone else, they failed these Little boys, all three because they put away the wrong person for two boys murders and took Drakes Mother away from him for 13 years, they also failed the communities where this happened, this person has killed since this happened. of this one thing you can be sure of the Prosecutors in this county will fight tooth and nail to keep any new evidence from coming out because if Darlie is granted a new trial she would never be convicted of this, the evidence speaks for it's self, you just have to have enough brains in you head and your eyes open to 'SEE'the truth.i hope and pray that God opens the eyes of the people in Texas so they can see that this needs to be reopened!
Soooo, God told you Darlie didn't do it? Is that what you're saying here?
Jon

Sanford, NC

#172 Jan 1, 2011
A Norman wrote:
I so believe in my heart that she did not do this. I feel that she should be let go. God forbid that it will be too late before they relize that she did not do it. The truth will come out one day.
They need to quit wasting taxpayers money feeding the baby killing fat bitch and fry her as soon as possible.
sammy

Arnold, MO

#173 Jan 1, 2011
mel wrote:
marsha your totally wrong. darlie lynn routier did not get a fair trial. darlie lynn routier was screwed. you know it, i know it, god knows it and so does everybody else. i went against her at one time, but i was wrong. no more, im behind darlie one hundred percent and thats final. hang in there darlie.
Mel you are so wrong...she is guilty and murdered those babies in cold blood and she will pay for it.....read the trail transcripts...SHE IS GUILTY
Phyllis in Az

Phoenix, AZ

#174 Jan 20, 2011
I lived in Dallas and also lived in Rowlett, where Darlie lived...I know first hand about the "small town" cops and how fast they can draw a conclusion...they want to make a name for themselves...they tramped thru Darlies house and destroyed evidence that would have helped her case..the woman is innocent, but Greg Davis was a glory hunter, looking to make a name for himself in Dallas, and he wanted to see Darlie in prison.I hope Darlie gets her freedom, she deserves it.
Phyllis in Az

Phoenix, AZ

#175 Jan 20, 2011
As for the "silly string" incident at the gravesite, that was Darlies sisters idea..and most people didnt see the religious ceremony that took place minutes before the silly string thing.
The ceremony was a 2 hour devotion to the boys, and Darlie was deeply moved.Some of you are like the law in Texas, too quick to judge!
Phyllis in Az

Phoenix, AZ

#176 Jan 20, 2011
God bless Darlie and her family, and may freedom for her prevail.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#177 Jan 29, 2011
Hey, JR Detective, I did read the trial transcripts a long time ago. How did you get the info that Darin told her she could just go ahead and leave when she threatened separation that last time?
I agree that she is guilty as sin, I just don't think I had heard this fact before. Also, just curious, do you know what Darin is up to these days?
Thanks.
Junior Detective

Miamisburg, OH

#178 Jan 30, 2011
AR-grits wrote:
Hey, JR Detective, I did read the trial transcripts a long time ago. How did you get the info that Darin told her she could just go ahead and leave when she threatened separation that last time?
I agree that she is guilty as sin, I just don't think I had heard this fact before. Also, just curious, do you know what Darin is up to these days?
Thanks.
No one in this case provided direct evidence that Darin told her to leave on the night of June 5/morning of June 6, 1996, but fear not, I did not make that up. Rather, it is a reasonable inference to draw from all of the other evidence in the case. Darin's customers started leaving him apparently some time in early 1996, allegedly because of the quality of the work, but Darlie's spending continued unabated. Finally, in April of 1996, the Routiers' financial problems were such that they had to pull Damon out of his private preschool in a cost-cutting move. The financial problems started weighing heavily on Darlie, as evidenced by an entry in her journal dated April 21, 1996 in which she talks about trials she was undergoing and adds that, "When I am no longer here, I want people to be able to talk about the good I did while I was still here." (at the time, Darlie was 26 years old; reference for this information is Barbara Davis, Precious Angels, 1999, pages 88-89). Clearly, something was depressing her and I contend that it was the loss of control over the money situation.) On May 3, 1996, with nothing getting better, she writes to her three sons in her journal that she hopes one day they will forgive her for what she is about to do. "My life has been such a hard fight for a long time and I just can't find the strength to keep fighting anymore." (B. Davis, pages 90-91). On May 9th, the Routiers receive a letter from American Express demanding immediate payment of nearly $ 1,000 for an outstanding balance and on May 23, 1996, the Routiers receive a notice of foreclosure on their house (B. Davis, pg. 93). Darin was trying to keep his business, Testnec, running, but business was slower than usual (B. Davis, pg. 94) and their personal debt was more than $ 200,000 (B. Davis. pg. 94). Darin then goes to Bank One on June 1st and fills out a loan application for $ 5,000, but is turned down later that same day.(B. Davis, pg. 94). Darin reapplied two days later and apparently added some collateral to try and sway things, but he was turned down again.

At this point, Darin can't earn enough money and can't borrow it, meaning his financial back was up against a wall. Meanwhile, Darlie was pressing him for money around this time because they needed to go to Philadelphia for a wedding in roughly a week and then she and one of her friends wanted to go to a vacation in Cancun about three weeks after that. Darlie kept hammering him for money, but he didn't have it. The evidence at trial shows that she talked to him about a separation on the evening of the 5th. What I believe this means is that she used her "we need to separate" trick, which is always in the past when Darin coughed up the money to keep her from leaving. This time he couldn't do that, so I don't understand what he could have said other than to call her bluff and say, "Good, leave and don't come back," when what he really needed was only some breathing room. What I believe happened is that she took what he said literally and exploded in a rage when she figured she was being sent back to her difficult, no-money childhood.(My analysis is based on 20-years of informal crime scene reading, with special focus on "intruder" crimes.)

From what I hear, Darin has tried to rebuild his life as a photographer in Lubbock, Texas, his former hometown. I have heard both that they are and are not married, but my understanding is that they are still married. Apparently, Drake lives with Darin's parents in Lubbock. Also, my understanding is that Darin has not visited Darlie for a few years.
Sinsaint

Jersey Shore, PA

#179 Feb 6, 2011
Junior Detective, I do so hope you stay that way.

1) Much of the information you are using as your citing material comes from a book that the author, Barbara Davis, no longer stands behind.

2) Your lack of understanding the wording of an appeal filing is glaringly apparent. Darlie cannot dispute the substance of the evidence because that would require proof from her that the evidence or test results are faulty. She can't really do that when she can't do her own testing. And she has filed appeals disputing some of the evidence and those appeals were reject without even a stated reason why.

One I can think of right off the top of my head was an issue revolving around a kitchen knife that the prosecution claimed had screen fibers on it. What the prosecution didn't mention is that the knife in question had been dusted for finger prints along with the window ledge where the screen had been cut. Darlie can't attack the sunstance of this evidence unless she has proof it's faulty and she can't get the proof if she is denied the opportunity to have it tested. The judge denied the request because he felt dusting powder particles are larger than screen fibers which is probably true but not the issue being raised. Cross contamination was the issue, not what the fibers were.

Also, rather than quote from a book I will quote from a court ruling on the subject of Darlie being allowed to have items tested...

"The parties should also be advised, persuant to the Supreme Court's holding in House v. Bell, discussed in this Court's Order on August 2, 2006, once the state courts have finally resolved petitioner's request for DNA-testing, this court will entertain a motion permitting petitioner to obtain DNA-testing of any material currently in existance which petitioner identified in her motion for reconsideration and which the state courts have refused to make available for such testing. As best this court can tell from the information before it, the state courts required more than four years to rule on petitioner's initial request for DNA-testing. This court will not require a period even vaguely resembling four years to rule on a similar request...."

Which in a nutshell means that if the state court didn't soon rule to let Darlie have these items tested the appeals court would. They later did just that. To date the DA has not turned over the requested items for testing. What I found strikingly odd in that ruling was that the DA is now trying to claim that any male DNA found at the scene would just suggest Darlie had an accomplice. I guess this was news at even that court since they said, and I quote "the theory underlying the prosecutions case against petitioner is as convoluted and counter-productive as any death penalty case to come before this court." The appeals court also noted that Darlie's neck wound was, in fact, "perilously close to being fatal" and lends credence to the fact that it was not superficial of self-inflicted. There is no mention of the stab wound to her arm that splintered bone and caused marrow to leak out. To me that isn't superficial not it something I would think could be self-inflicted.

3) There is a little something in the law called "disclosure." Look it up if you have to. In layman's terms it means that if you intend to use something as evidence you must disclose that evidence to the other side prior to using it. Darlie knew about these letters prior to using it. It wasn't a Perry Mason moment. The reason why it may have seemed that way was because every time she tried to explain that she was "told by..." it was objected to due to the Hearsay rules. She wasn't allowed to testify about what other people were telling her. And yes, she did say she saw the guy. She said that from the beginning. Her assuming that the guy she saw that night was one of the men she was being told about is completely reasonable.
Sinsaint

Jersey Shore, PA

#180 Feb 6, 2011
I also read the book "Precious Angels" and view it in much the same light as the author currently does: Regurgitated vomit from a trial that, at best, only painted Darlie as a self-centered, egotistical, trailer trash skank. I read the trial transcripts (albiet not all since I have neither the time nor the inclination) and found them to be rather enlightening. Darlie's testimony, specifically cross-examination, didn't prove much of anything in the way of guilt.

Here's my summation of the testimony: Darlie admitted to talking about the business even though she didn't personally work there. So lazy and self-absorbed she hired a cleaning service. That the gate was broken and held up with shoe laces (for the love of all that's trashy convict her already). That she didn't have a spot where she stored her vacuum cleaner. I can sympathize with that since I have two vacuums and a shampooer that have no storage, rather they float around the house and up sitting in a bedroom or the last area I used it. Proves nothing.

She allowed her kids to listen to songs that the title implies violence (when in actuality the song is about stopping violence). That she thought about committing suicide with pills (and I guess opted for doing it with a knife instead?). That she left her kids spend the night at someone's house on Mother's Day and, worse yet, went out that evening with a few other mothers. What's more.... this was an annual even yet she didn't regularly attend church. Oh, the horror.

And then there is the "Silly String Party". Silly string that someone else brought because one of the boys loved the stuff. While I might not have done it my fiance died and I have taken things to his grave on certain occasions. Roses on his birthday, statue bunnys at Easter, a small Christmas tree, etc. Actually, it's quite common yet when she did it everyone pretended like it was unheard of. No, she didn't take a classic wreath to the site. She took balloons and silly strings... things her kids would have liked. I won't even go into the two hours of illegally obtained footage that showed the occasion was also very solemn and that Darlie was distraught and emotional.

What else... Oh, that she "warmed up" to the guy video taping. Skank. That she left windows open in the summer. That the baby woke her up at night so she wanted to sleep downstairs. That she had no real recollection of the direct attack even though she didn't have a head injury. I can relate. I was in a car accident in '95 that left with a broken arm, fractured vertibrae, some injuries to my leg but no head injury. I was told that while I was trapped in the vehicle I talked to rescue workers, even joked about trying to crawl out and also had conversations with EMS once in the ambulance. To this day I don't remember any of that. My doctor called it shock and said it wasn't uncommon for me to not remember. I guess Darlie is being held to a higher medical standard.

Then there is the fact that she had no facial injuries (I guess they were pointing out her vanity) but neither of the boys did either. That her breasts were not injured, again, I guess we should assume vanity is at issue. Of course, that ignores the fact that she has a scar going across her neck. That the attacker left her alive even though most people (even the attacker) could have assumed that slicing her neck would be a fatal wound. And lastly, the letters from jail. That part of the testimony means nothing to me since every time she tried to explain what she wrote it was objected to due to the Hearsay rule.

What did we find out? That she would spend money to clean her house but not fix a gate. That she had annual outings with other mothers but didn't attend church regularly. That she did something most people in morning do but because is appeared festive she must be a murderer.

JR, I could debate the merits of this case with you all day but if you intend to use a book that even the author discredits there is little point.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lubbock Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Lubbock Arrest Mugshots and Criminal Records Sep 24 Jack 2
S.C.P. Pro-Wrestling *THIS SATURDAY* 9/24 @ Jak... Sep 21 SCP Wrestling 1
Nikki dee ray (Apr '15) Sep 21 FairEnuf 40
TTU Students are Baaaaaaaaack...... Sep 3 Juan 1
lubbock guys Sep 3 sassy 1
News DPS Trooper Caught on Video Breaking Glass (Aug '07) Aug 30 Horses 11
Review: Vape 180 (Sep '13) Aug '16 Namrak 14

Lubbock Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Lubbock Mortgages