I apologize up front for getting distracted from the case I’ve been researching. I will get back to it, but I was captivated by the opening statements in the Casey Anthony trial. I, along with the rest of the country, wanted to hear Jose Baez explain those 31 days. However, I never expected to hear what I heard. I have to know what everyone thinks.
Before I get started, let me say I’m trying to watch the trial with an open mind. I, like many others, formed opinions of Ms. Anthony over time. However, most of these opinions were formed due to a ‘media’ trial, not a court trial. I have taken great effort to push my opinions aside and try to watch as if I’m hearing it all for the first time. After all, to be truly fair, she is “innocent until proven guilty”. It can be very difficult for many of us to remember this, especially with such a horrible crime. Although, now I guess I have to say ‘alleged’ crime until the case is proven.
I do have to wonder if we will ever really know the whole truth on the family dynamics involved here. I really don’t want to concentrate too much on the allegation of sexual abuse. As far as I’m concerned, that’s something the defense must prove since they accused. However, I wasn’t shocked to hear them use that argument since we’ve heard the allegations in the past. What shocked me was the admission that Caylee was never missing, but that on June 16, 2008, she drowned in the family swimming pool.
I had to rewind and listen to that again. Did I really hear that right? A completely different story emerges. As I listened, I had to admit it; Jose Baez made it sound really good. After all they say truth is stranger than fiction; but can Casey be believed? She seems to lie every time she talks. It’s going to be a long 6-8 weeks (if it’s actually done in that time) trying to wait to hear all the witnesses.
I paid extra close attention when Jose Baez started talking about Roy Kronk. I will admit, I have always thought there was something a little suspicious about his story. I don’t believe he had anything to do with the death or disposal, but I can believe he moved the body or parts of it. The first day he called to report it, he left the area instead of waiting for an officer. This could be viewed as the act of a Good Samaritan who just didn’t want to be involved. With one report, I would agree, but he called three days in a row. Why was he so interested? My curiosity wants to know. I can’t wait to hear his son testify and tell the story. Why would his son lie?
Another issue with “the meter reader” is the report. When he made those calls three days in a row, he reported seeing what he believed to be a skull. It wasn’t found. When he called back in December, he reported seeing a bag. This time, he led the officers to the spot where Caylee’s remains were found. They were all in the bag, including the skull. I want to know how, between August and December, a skull got into a bag from the ground. It didn’t get there without help.
Finally, the ’forensic’ evidence that we’re supposed to hear. I’m waiting to see if I can believe the process the State is presenting. Most of the case is based on circumstantial evidence, and while enough of it is convincing, forensics always makes it easier.
A dog trainer will testify that the dog, trained to target decomposition, hit in the Anthonys’ back yard and Casey’s car. I wonder about his reliability. Apparently the dog was taken into the back yard two days in a row; he hit one day, but not the next. If this is true, how can the dog be considered reliable? The smell is either there or it isn’t; it’s not here today and gone tomorrow.
The test on the car also wasn’t done correctly, according to Jose Baez. He said the dog was only given Casey’s car, and not a lineup. If true, the dog really means nothing. Just like any identification, there should have been multiple cars lined up. The officer also should not have known which car was Casey’s. Then when the dog hit on her car, it could be trusted.
I may have a hard time with the air sample expert. I don’t even know how he’s going to try to explain it, but he’s going to have to be tremendously convincing for me to buy into it. After all, this expert has a patent on this process. Of course he’s going to testify to its’ reliability. If his ’science’ becomes accepted, he stands to make a fortune. I’ll listen to his testimony, but I doubt that will play a part in my judgment.
Did I have a pre-conceived notion of her guilt before the trial started? Of course, I did. Casey Marie Anthony is a horrible excuse for a mother for partying and lying the 31 days away. Everything points to the theory that she killed her own daughter. However, when a trial starts, I look at it as though I’m sitting on that jury. The law REQUIRES that we assume a defendant is innocent. The State has the burden of proof, and opening statements are not proof, on either side. That’s why we have to listen to the evidence presented IN COURT. The media will present whatever story is going to get the most attention.
I have thought all along Casey was guilty, but as of today, she is innocent for the moment. I did find myself wondering today, “Could this have been an accident and Casey flipped out?” The real issue with that is the duct tape. Why tape her head?
At least we may get some answers. With this line of defense, Casey almost has to take the stand. If not, it means nothing.
What do you think? Do you want to hear Casey Anthony testify and explain herself? Feel free to comment, just not hatefully
About Me
- Sharon's spot
- I am a die-hard Cubs fan. I also love NHRA, a John Force Racing fan. I have very strong opinions about our legal system, and am very passionate about injustice. I want to do my part.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
"Deep in the Heart of...Injustice" - Part IV: The Evidence (Physical)
As we continue on with the physical evidence, I’d like to go ahead and post a link to Darlie’s petition. I have found two links, but they are both for her petition for a new trial. You only need to sign one, but I want to make sure I give every opportunity. Click either Petition1 or Petition2 to sign her petition.
This petition has nothing to do with whether you believe she‘s guilty, it’s about the errors in the investigation and trial. My sole purpose for asking that you sign this petition is to gain a new trial for Darlie Routier. The case was seriously mishandled, and justice needs to be served. Even is you believe she committed this horrible crime, don’t you want to be absolutely positive if she is to be put to death? The whole issue boils down to this: DEATH IS DIFFERENT! This case needs to be re-tried if justice is to be served.
Now, let’s continue on with the physical evidence. I have been struggling with how I want to do this, and I hope it makes sense when I’m done. I really want to cover everything as thoroughly as I can without having been there. Most of the evidence will come in again when I review the ‘Trial Error’. During this time, I’d like to deal with the evidence and how it was used, or not used during trial. Some errors may come to light during this stage, but only the errors that need to be disclosed. For the most part, I’d like to look at the evidence as the jury most likely saw it. I’ll try my best.
I want to start with the most obvious: the ‘Silly String’ tape. The footage was obtained by ’bugging’ the grave of Damon and Devon Routier, the murder victims. As far as I’m concerned, the whole situation is appalling. I understand why the jury came to the conclusion it did, but the State should be ashamed. Anyone who’s heard about this case, knows about “The Silly String Graveside Party”. It shows Darlie and the family having a birthday party at the boys’ freshly dug graves, laughing and spraying the party favor as though it was a normal party. Given what the jury saw, I completely understand the shock. I have to admit, when I first saw this video, I was infuriated. How could a ‘grieving’ mother possibly act like this? I accepted that she was where she belonged, and should stay there. The video portrayed Darlie exactly the way Prosecutor Greg Davis wanted her to be viewed. He ignited the ‘hatred’ that jurors would have for such a ‘self-centered’ mother. I did, however, have questions as to why this video was even admitted into trial. No court order was ever obtained for this ‘bug’. Police did NOT have permission from the cemetery owner to come on the property, nor did they have permission from Darin or Darlie Routier (who owned the grave site). Besides, the illegalities, this video only showed part of what took place that day.
The police were recording another movie from the parking lot; once again, illegally. This tape showed a tearful, heartbroken mother having a graveside memorial service. It was prior to the ’party’, and Darlie was so grief-stricken, she couldn’t even maintain her composure. They gathered, hugged, loved and CRIED; everything you would expect from a grieving parent. The judge deemed this tape inadmissible because it was recorded illegally. REALLY?! How convenient for the prosecution! *Note: The jury obviously wasn’t aware the ‘Silly String’ tape had been recorded illegally, nor did they know there was a second, illegal recording.
In an interview, Darlie defended the birthday party. When asked why she did it, Darlie said it was for the children. She said, “It was a gesture of love for my boys and it was a way to help ease the minds of their little friends who were in pain. I wanted them to see Devon and Damon as being happy in Heaven. It doesn’t make sense to kids if you tell them how great Heaven is and then sob with grief. It barely makes sense to adults. This was a celebration of Devon’s life -- not his death. It made sense at the time. I just wish the jury could have seen the rest of the tape. Then maybe they would have understood.” I had never thought of this, but it is a very good point. As a child, how can people going to Heaven be a good thing if it causes everyone else so much pain?
Once I researched, and learned about this other video, I felt horrible for condemning a human being based on half-fact. I do feel, without a doubt, that this tape is what convicted Darlie. None of it should have been allowed in court, but it disgusts me that Greg Davis could sleep at night knowing he convicted a woman by omitting evidence that could have, and probably would have freed her. And this is just one piece. I was always taught to respect the ‘justice’ system, but I’ve come to realize, there’s also an ‘injustice’ system. We really need to do something about the latter.
Let’s now move on to the State’s theory that the scene was staged. The first thing police noticed is that Darlie’s jewelry and purse were on the counter, in clear view. They wondered why these things would be left if this was a burglary. I’ve seen a lot of cases where burglars have left with nothing when they’ve been confronted. The house was dark. Maybe whoever did this assumed the family was ‘in bed’, and not asleep on the couch and living room floor.
The scene was also considered ‘staged’ due to the lack of property damage. Only one glass from the wine rack was broken, and the vacuum was tipped over. This seemed to be the only real ‘damage’ to the house. One would assume that a struggle would cause visible damage to material belongings, as well as bodily damage to a person.
To be honest, I found this a little strange myself. A wine rack is not very sturdy, so one would think many things would be broken. I did think of the possibility that maybe this happened before Darlie struggled with ‘the intruder’, possibly after ‘he’ attacked the boys. If one simply backed into a wine rack, it is very possible that only one glass would be broken. Could this ‘breaking glass’ have happened while Darlie was waking. To know any more, one would really have to know the extent of the struggle.
The vacuum is also strange. It appeared to just be ‘laid’ over, not tipped in a struggle. The blood seemed to be on the floor underneath the vacuum. If it had been knocked over in the struggle, one would expect to find blood ‘on’ the vacuum. Though this bothers me, if this is the only ‘solid’ evidence the State has, it’s pretty sad. After all, Darlie never mentioned either of these things. Why would a person stage a crime scene if they didn’t plan on using it in some way?
Finally, I want to look at the State’s position on the cut screen and the mulch outside the window of entry. According to them, the screen was cut from the inside, and the mulch outside the window was completely undisturbed. It was the State’s position that an intruder could not have possibly done this. I really haven’t found anything that I can use to defend the State on this one. Actually, this part made me laugh at them a little, especially since they were proven wrong in court.
First, the screen… Police actually made press releases and sworn statements that the screen was cut from the inside. Really? I don’t feel any of these officers were qualified to make that sort of statement. Reporting their feelings in their report is one thing; going to the media and doing a press release based on ‘personal feelings’ is something completely different,. These officers were WRONG! It was proven in court that the screen was, indeed, cut from the outside. Officers made deceptive statements, AND gave those statements to the media. Darlie never stood a chance. I try very hard to show a great deal of respect for police officers; I plan to go into law enforcement, myself. However, officers like these, make me question people put in that position.
Now, the mulch… This really makes me laugh at law enforcement and cry for Darlie. I heard A LOT about this ‘undisturbed’ mulch when I first heard about this case. I wondered how an intruder could get in and not show any signs; then I saw the house, and heard Lloyd Harrell explain. He was the investigator for the defense team. The window of entry had absolutely NO MULCH to disturb; it was concrete. How could an intruder disturb the mulch when there was none there to disturb? Now, you understand my laughter. This really should be quite obvious to anyone looking at the house. How can there be such an issue over mulch that doesn’t even exist?
These are a few of the issues I want to go over. I hope to start, next time, on DNA type evidence. I’m still organizing my thoughts, since that’s always a critical topic, but I wanted to get you started with some of the other issues.
Once again, I want to encourage you to click on one of the links above to sign Darlie’s petition for a new trial. Even if you really believe she’s guilty, make the State do the right thing. If she did it, their evidence will prove it. We can not let a human being be executed based on half-truths and lies. If we don’t want to be part of the problem, we must DO something to fix the problem. The Texas court system is known, nationally, as one of the least likely court systems to find and correct errors in capital cases. This must be changed. If a State makes a mistake, they must fix it. Plain and simple.
This petition has nothing to do with whether you believe she‘s guilty, it’s about the errors in the investigation and trial. My sole purpose for asking that you sign this petition is to gain a new trial for Darlie Routier. The case was seriously mishandled, and justice needs to be served. Even is you believe she committed this horrible crime, don’t you want to be absolutely positive if she is to be put to death? The whole issue boils down to this: DEATH IS DIFFERENT! This case needs to be re-tried if justice is to be served.
Now, let’s continue on with the physical evidence. I have been struggling with how I want to do this, and I hope it makes sense when I’m done. I really want to cover everything as thoroughly as I can without having been there. Most of the evidence will come in again when I review the ‘Trial Error’. During this time, I’d like to deal with the evidence and how it was used, or not used during trial. Some errors may come to light during this stage, but only the errors that need to be disclosed. For the most part, I’d like to look at the evidence as the jury most likely saw it. I’ll try my best.
I want to start with the most obvious: the ‘Silly String’ tape. The footage was obtained by ’bugging’ the grave of Damon and Devon Routier, the murder victims. As far as I’m concerned, the whole situation is appalling. I understand why the jury came to the conclusion it did, but the State should be ashamed. Anyone who’s heard about this case, knows about “The Silly String Graveside Party”. It shows Darlie and the family having a birthday party at the boys’ freshly dug graves, laughing and spraying the party favor as though it was a normal party. Given what the jury saw, I completely understand the shock. I have to admit, when I first saw this video, I was infuriated. How could a ‘grieving’ mother possibly act like this? I accepted that she was where she belonged, and should stay there. The video portrayed Darlie exactly the way Prosecutor Greg Davis wanted her to be viewed. He ignited the ‘hatred’ that jurors would have for such a ‘self-centered’ mother. I did, however, have questions as to why this video was even admitted into trial. No court order was ever obtained for this ‘bug’. Police did NOT have permission from the cemetery owner to come on the property, nor did they have permission from Darin or Darlie Routier (who owned the grave site). Besides, the illegalities, this video only showed part of what took place that day.
The police were recording another movie from the parking lot; once again, illegally. This tape showed a tearful, heartbroken mother having a graveside memorial service. It was prior to the ’party’, and Darlie was so grief-stricken, she couldn’t even maintain her composure. They gathered, hugged, loved and CRIED; everything you would expect from a grieving parent. The judge deemed this tape inadmissible because it was recorded illegally. REALLY?! How convenient for the prosecution! *Note: The jury obviously wasn’t aware the ‘Silly String’ tape had been recorded illegally, nor did they know there was a second, illegal recording.
In an interview, Darlie defended the birthday party. When asked why she did it, Darlie said it was for the children. She said, “It was a gesture of love for my boys and it was a way to help ease the minds of their little friends who were in pain. I wanted them to see Devon and Damon as being happy in Heaven. It doesn’t make sense to kids if you tell them how great Heaven is and then sob with grief. It barely makes sense to adults. This was a celebration of Devon’s life -- not his death. It made sense at the time. I just wish the jury could have seen the rest of the tape. Then maybe they would have understood.” I had never thought of this, but it is a very good point. As a child, how can people going to Heaven be a good thing if it causes everyone else so much pain?
Once I researched, and learned about this other video, I felt horrible for condemning a human being based on half-fact. I do feel, without a doubt, that this tape is what convicted Darlie. None of it should have been allowed in court, but it disgusts me that Greg Davis could sleep at night knowing he convicted a woman by omitting evidence that could have, and probably would have freed her. And this is just one piece. I was always taught to respect the ‘justice’ system, but I’ve come to realize, there’s also an ‘injustice’ system. We really need to do something about the latter.
Let’s now move on to the State’s theory that the scene was staged. The first thing police noticed is that Darlie’s jewelry and purse were on the counter, in clear view. They wondered why these things would be left if this was a burglary. I’ve seen a lot of cases where burglars have left with nothing when they’ve been confronted. The house was dark. Maybe whoever did this assumed the family was ‘in bed’, and not asleep on the couch and living room floor.
The scene was also considered ‘staged’ due to the lack of property damage. Only one glass from the wine rack was broken, and the vacuum was tipped over. This seemed to be the only real ‘damage’ to the house. One would assume that a struggle would cause visible damage to material belongings, as well as bodily damage to a person.
To be honest, I found this a little strange myself. A wine rack is not very sturdy, so one would think many things would be broken. I did think of the possibility that maybe this happened before Darlie struggled with ‘the intruder’, possibly after ‘he’ attacked the boys. If one simply backed into a wine rack, it is very possible that only one glass would be broken. Could this ‘breaking glass’ have happened while Darlie was waking. To know any more, one would really have to know the extent of the struggle.
The vacuum is also strange. It appeared to just be ‘laid’ over, not tipped in a struggle. The blood seemed to be on the floor underneath the vacuum. If it had been knocked over in the struggle, one would expect to find blood ‘on’ the vacuum. Though this bothers me, if this is the only ‘solid’ evidence the State has, it’s pretty sad. After all, Darlie never mentioned either of these things. Why would a person stage a crime scene if they didn’t plan on using it in some way?
Finally, I want to look at the State’s position on the cut screen and the mulch outside the window of entry. According to them, the screen was cut from the inside, and the mulch outside the window was completely undisturbed. It was the State’s position that an intruder could not have possibly done this. I really haven’t found anything that I can use to defend the State on this one. Actually, this part made me laugh at them a little, especially since they were proven wrong in court.
First, the screen… Police actually made press releases and sworn statements that the screen was cut from the inside. Really? I don’t feel any of these officers were qualified to make that sort of statement. Reporting their feelings in their report is one thing; going to the media and doing a press release based on ‘personal feelings’ is something completely different,. These officers were WRONG! It was proven in court that the screen was, indeed, cut from the outside. Officers made deceptive statements, AND gave those statements to the media. Darlie never stood a chance. I try very hard to show a great deal of respect for police officers; I plan to go into law enforcement, myself. However, officers like these, make me question people put in that position.
Now, the mulch… This really makes me laugh at law enforcement and cry for Darlie. I heard A LOT about this ‘undisturbed’ mulch when I first heard about this case. I wondered how an intruder could get in and not show any signs; then I saw the house, and heard Lloyd Harrell explain. He was the investigator for the defense team. The window of entry had absolutely NO MULCH to disturb; it was concrete. How could an intruder disturb the mulch when there was none there to disturb? Now, you understand my laughter. This really should be quite obvious to anyone looking at the house. How can there be such an issue over mulch that doesn’t even exist?
These are a few of the issues I want to go over. I hope to start, next time, on DNA type evidence. I’m still organizing my thoughts, since that’s always a critical topic, but I wanted to get you started with some of the other issues.
Once again, I want to encourage you to click on one of the links above to sign Darlie’s petition for a new trial. Even if you really believe she’s guilty, make the State do the right thing. If she did it, their evidence will prove it. We can not let a human being be executed based on half-truths and lies. If we don’t want to be part of the problem, we must DO something to fix the problem. The Texas court system is known, nationally, as one of the least likely court systems to find and correct errors in capital cases. This must be changed. If a State makes a mistake, they must fix it. Plain and simple.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
"Deep in the Heart of...Injustice" - Part III-The Evidence (Lifestyle)
Now that you have the background of the story, and a glimpse at the 911 call, let’s go over some of the evidence used in court. I think, to try and stay focused, I’ll take one piece of evidence at a time. We’ll look at it from the view of the prosecution and the defense, then I’ll give my view. You can decide for yourself how you want to view everything. This post will not deal with whether or not the evidence was handled properly (that’s coming soon), just the evidence itself, from different views.
I’d like to start with the evidence the prosecution used to say that Darlie murdered her two children because they were in the way of her “lifestyle”. The prosecution claimed financial and marital problems as well as post-partum depression drove Darlie to murder. How many of us have these issues occur to us at least once in our lives? I’d imagine quite a few.
First, let’s look at the financial problems. According to the prosecution, Darlie was used to the finer things in life. The Routiers’ had a $250,000 home, expensive cars and toys, and Darlie was always fashionably dressed with nice jewelry. The prosecution claimed that Darin’s business was faltering, they were financially strapped and behind on house payments. These so-called facts are disputed.
As far as the business went, Darin had $26,000 on the books and said business was stable. He did acknowledge that there were good weeks and bad weeks, but this can be said of most businesses, no matter the product or service. Even big corporations have bad quarters; it doesn’t mean financial despair. Besides, Darin made circuit boards for computers. We all know computers are here to stay. I can not believe that business was “bad”.
The prosecution also tried to claim that the Routiers’ were behind on their house payments, and used this as evidence. However, from what I’ve been able to find, the only house payment that was late was June’s payment. I would think this would be understandable, considering their sons were killed just days before the payment was due. Who would worry about a now insignificant house payment after a tragedy like this? No one in their right mind. I find it absolutely disgusting that the prosecutor would use this against a person who had just lost their children! It proves NOTHING!!!
The Routiers’ bank account was another piece of evidence used to show financial problems. On the day of the murders, they had less than $2,500 in their savings account. However, the day of the murders is what the prosecution focused on. As a juror, I would want to know about the account before and after, as well. So I watched… I will touch on what I found when I get to “Trial Errors”.
The prosecutor also claimed marital problems contributed to Darlie’s mental state. She had been suffering from post-partum depression since the birth of their then 7-month-old son, and occasionally had trouble sleeping. Because of this, Darlie and Darin sometimes slept separately. This is reason to assume marital problems? Really Mr. Prosecutor? I’ve had back surgery, and quite often can’t sleep in the bed very long. More times than not, I will end up in the living room sleeping on the recliner. Does this mean my marriage has problems? NOT. Sometimes, life happens.
This is the first part of the evidence that I wanted to go over. I wanted to touch on “lifestyle” evidence first, because I don’t see it as solid. I generally look at this part as “puzzle pieces”. They fall into place, or not, after the rest of the evidence is gathered. In this case, I don’t think the pieces fit. You can decide as we uncover the rest of the evidence.
Most of the information in this part I actually got from a show made for TruTV called “The Investigators”. It was Season 4, Episode 10, and it originally aired Thursday, April 29, 2004.
I’d like to start with the evidence the prosecution used to say that Darlie murdered her two children because they were in the way of her “lifestyle”. The prosecution claimed financial and marital problems as well as post-partum depression drove Darlie to murder. How many of us have these issues occur to us at least once in our lives? I’d imagine quite a few.
First, let’s look at the financial problems. According to the prosecution, Darlie was used to the finer things in life. The Routiers’ had a $250,000 home, expensive cars and toys, and Darlie was always fashionably dressed with nice jewelry. The prosecution claimed that Darin’s business was faltering, they were financially strapped and behind on house payments. These so-called facts are disputed.
As far as the business went, Darin had $26,000 on the books and said business was stable. He did acknowledge that there were good weeks and bad weeks, but this can be said of most businesses, no matter the product or service. Even big corporations have bad quarters; it doesn’t mean financial despair. Besides, Darin made circuit boards for computers. We all know computers are here to stay. I can not believe that business was “bad”.
The prosecution also tried to claim that the Routiers’ were behind on their house payments, and used this as evidence. However, from what I’ve been able to find, the only house payment that was late was June’s payment. I would think this would be understandable, considering their sons were killed just days before the payment was due. Who would worry about a now insignificant house payment after a tragedy like this? No one in their right mind. I find it absolutely disgusting that the prosecutor would use this against a person who had just lost their children! It proves NOTHING!!!
The Routiers’ bank account was another piece of evidence used to show financial problems. On the day of the murders, they had less than $2,500 in their savings account. However, the day of the murders is what the prosecution focused on. As a juror, I would want to know about the account before and after, as well. So I watched… I will touch on what I found when I get to “Trial Errors”.
The prosecutor also claimed marital problems contributed to Darlie’s mental state. She had been suffering from post-partum depression since the birth of their then 7-month-old son, and occasionally had trouble sleeping. Because of this, Darlie and Darin sometimes slept separately. This is reason to assume marital problems? Really Mr. Prosecutor? I’ve had back surgery, and quite often can’t sleep in the bed very long. More times than not, I will end up in the living room sleeping on the recliner. Does this mean my marriage has problems? NOT. Sometimes, life happens.
This is the first part of the evidence that I wanted to go over. I wanted to touch on “lifestyle” evidence first, because I don’t see it as solid. I generally look at this part as “puzzle pieces”. They fall into place, or not, after the rest of the evidence is gathered. In this case, I don’t think the pieces fit. You can decide as we uncover the rest of the evidence.
Most of the information in this part I actually got from a show made for TruTV called “The Investigators”. It was Season 4, Episode 10, and it originally aired Thursday, April 29, 2004.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Deep in the Heart of...Injustice - Part IIa: The 911 Call
I found a really good site last night that had the transcript and the audio for the 911 call. I would very much like you to visit the site below, and check out this transcipt. It does not have the analysis, which I think is better, but I believe there is a little more detail to the transcript. I also believe if you check out both sites, you may have different opinions on each one.
I was impacted a great deal by the audio, hearing the emotion and hysteria. After listening to the call, I felt horrible for Mrs. Routier. Please check it out by clicking below:
911 call
I was impacted a great deal by the audio, hearing the emotion and hysteria. After listening to the call, I felt horrible for Mrs. Routier. Please check it out by clicking below:
911 call
Monday, February 7, 2011
Deep in the Heart of...Injustice - Part II: The 911 Call
Let’s begin…at the beginning; the 911 call placed by Darlie Routier the morning of the fatal stabbing. I am using an analysis from Statement Analysis
I encourage you to visit this site and read the entire analysis. These are the personal opinions and represent only the author of this analysis. I will give my opinion at the end. I believe this analysis was also conducted on words alone, no verbal. In Statement Analysis, they listen and analyze, they don’t interpret.
911 calls are often called an “excited utterance”. This means that a person’s sensitivity is so strong that the calls are often entered into evidence.
The first statement Darlie made to the 911 operator was “…somebody came here…they broke in…”. Since a 911 call represents a state of “excited utterance”, the order is critical. It displays what is most pressing on the mind of the caller. Since words are chosen in less than a microsecond, first statements are most important. With this being the case, Darlie’s main concern seemed to be ‘someone broke in’ rather than ‘my children are hurt‘. She also changed from “somebody” to “they” in one statement, both of which are gender neutral.
Her next statements referred to the attack. “…they just stabbed me and my children…”. It is highly unusual that the mother would name herself over the children. It is also odd the she would not identify the assailant by gender, since she herself was stabbed.
She also made statements changing them from ‘children’ to ‘kids’ to ‘my little boys‘ to ‘my babies‘. There seemed to be no change in reality to justify the change in language; this indicates deception.
Darlie stated to the operator “…my little boy is dying…”, indicating she knew the extent of the wounds. Operator originally called this out to emergency personnel as an unknown medical emergency; not a possible stabbing.
About 30 seconds into the call, Darin Routier, Darlie’s husband, entered the room. His identity was unknown to the operator. The operator again announced an unknown medical emergency and it came to light that one of the children was breathing. Finally the 911 operator reported a possible stabbing.
More than a minute into the call, Darin’s name finally entered the conversation. Darlie told him “…I saw them Darin…”, “…Darin…I don’t know who it was…”, “…we go to find out who it was…”. She still didn’t identify gender, and she reverted back to singular instead of plural with who “it was” rather than who “they were”. Was she trying to conceal the identity of the attacker?
While the ambulance was en route, the 911 operator attempted to gather more information. Darlie then stated “…somebody came in while I was sleeping…me and my little boys were sleeping downstairs…” Once again, it was singular and not plural. She also seemed to make it a point to explain that they were sleeping. This appeared to be persuading, not reporting.
Finally, a little over two minutes into the call, Darlie stated “…some man…came in…stabbed my babies…stabbed me…I woke up…I was fighting…he ran out through the garage…threw the knife down…my babies are dying…they’re dead…oh my God…”. She gave the gender, but “some” would indicate an attempt to conceal identity. After what “some man” had done to Darlie and her children, as a protective mother, one might expect to hear much harsher language to describe her assailant.
At some point, the operator asked Darlie “…who’s there with you…”? Darlie’s response, according to the transcript, was “…Karen…(unintelligible)”. The operator asked again “…is there anybody in the house…besides you and your children…”? Darlie responded “…no…my husband he just ran downstairs…he’s helping me…but they’re dying…oh my God…they’re dead…” She had already said “Karen”, but when asked again, just her husband was there.
Almost three minutes into the call, Darlie told the operator “…I feel really bad…I think I’m dying…”. She asked repeatedly “…when are they going to be here…”? Darlie then stated “…I gotta just sit here forever…oh my God…”. Having to “sit” usually indicates anger or impatience. Some would expect a mother not to complain about having to “sit” but to complain about the lives of her children. She also stated “I” gotta just sit, which indicated a personal inconvenience. Most bleeding mothers would expel their own blood while helping their children.
Darlie continued the contradiction. She stated “…they killed our babies…”, even though she had already identified “some man”. The excited utterance continued when she stated “…no…he ran out…uh…they ran out in the garage…I was sleeping…”. She seemed to correct herself on the number of intruders, but returned to “I was sleeping”. It was not a response to a direct question.
After being told by the operator not to touch anything, Darlie stated “…I already touched it and picked it up…”. When an activity is mentioned more than once, it is highly sensitive. It appeared her fingerprints on the knife concerned her. This is not expected from an innocent victim who’s children are dying before her.
Over four minutes into the call, the operator finally tells Darlie “…ok ma’am…listen… there’s a police officer at your front door…is your front door unlocked…”? Darlie responded “…yes ma’am…but where’s the ambulance…”?
Less than five minutes into the call, the police officer told Darlie “…nothing’s gone Mrs. Routier…”. “…(unintelligible) the problem Mrs. Routier…”. Seconds later, the operator told Darlie “…ok…listen ma’am…need to…need to let the officers in the front door…ok…”
Darlie then made a statement hard to believe: “…God…I bet if we could have gotten the prints maybe…maybe…”. Her concern became fingerprints. A mother in the middle of an emergency of this nature should be concerned only with the welfare of her children.
As the statement continue, Darlie tells her husband “…somebody who did it intentionally walked in her and did it Darin…”. Focusing on the intent of the assailant is another indicator of deception, and this could have been a truthful statement. Many statements can be completely truthful, just missing information. Darlie told Darin what would be obvious, but also attached motive.
Darlie also stated “…there’s nothing touched…”. People are usually expected to report what did happen, not what didn’t happen. Even if accurate, this is another indicator of deception. How can anyone be sure what didn’t happen?
According to Statement Analysis:
It would appear that the focus of this 911 call is:
1. He entered
2. They broke in
3. He stabbed me; they stabbed me
4. He stabbed children; they stabbed children
5. I was asleep
6. I touched the knife
It appears that Darlie is withholding the identity of the assailant, and has intimate knowledge of the crime. Darlie appears to be more concerned with building an alibi than the welfare of her children.
Police would do well to focus on this 911 call.
Now I'd like to express my opinions.
Although there are a few statements in this 911 call that I have to agree are suspicious, I don’t believe it’s fair to judge someone solely on their words. Anyone can sit in their calm, undisturbed world and say “I would never say that”, or “The children would be my first concern”. While I, also, believe that of myself, I have never been, and hope I never am, in that situation. I’ve never had to wake up to an intruder and deal with the after-math, and without having been in that situation, I will not sit here high and mighty, and say for a fact what I would or wouldn’t say. While I understand that a state of “excited utterance” does need to be considered, it also needs to be remembered that everyone reacts to stress differently.
Let’s try looking at this from another view: someone who just wants to know the truth. I do have a problem with the first statement she made being about the intruder(s) and not her children. I do feel very strongly that I would scream something about helping my children, but I just can’t say it factually without being there. I do have a problem with Darlie’s changing from singular “somebody” to plural “they”, but I won’t condemn her on that one aspect. There is always the possibility of confusion in the moment. Maybe she just wasn’t sure.
According to Statement Analysis, it is highly unusual that the mother would name herself over the children, but I completely disagree. We often speak the way we do out of habit, and I’m speaking from experience. There are certain things that I say the same, no matter the situation. Unfortunately, most of us don’t really use proper English. If we did, we would always put ourselves last in an order. “She and I” went… “The kids and I” all like… This is not the way most of us speak. I, myself, am horribly guilty of “Y’all wanna go shoppin’?” Oh my high school English teacher would cringe. I, myself, give no weight to her saying “me and my children”. That may be how she spoke all the time.
It does seem a little suspicious that she wouldn’t know the gender of the assailant since she, herself was attacked. That would have been personal enough, I would think you could determine gender. However, later in the call Darlie does state they had been asleep. If this is the case, that may have hindered a gender determination. I know when I wake up, it takes me about 30 minutes of being up to function. I could probably walk out of my bedroom first thing, and walk right past an intruder, and never know it if they didn’t attack. Maybe she just doesn’t snap to reality that quick.
There are several instances where Darlie used different terms to refer to the children; my “children”, my “boys”, my “kids”, my “babies”. According to Statement Analysis, when language changes, there must be a change in reality. Since there seemed to be no change in reality, these changes were determined to be deceptive. Really? I think this is stretching. I have many friends that refer to their children as “kids” just because it’s easier, but different emotions make them use different terms. Let’s face it, when they’re sick or hurt, they’re our “babies” even if they’re twenty years old.
Darlie’s statement, “…my little boy is dying…”, could indicate that she knew the extent of her son’s injuries. It also could be a way of trying to hurry the process of dispatching the paramedics. After all, the operator originally called this out as an unknown medical emergency, and I really have to wonder WHY?!? Though ’emergency’ was used in the call, I believe it might have been a little more serious had the operator said possible stabbing, especially if the possibility of children was added. Let’s also remember the police arrived before the paramedics, and I don’t think this call showed much concern for the children from the officer.
Finally, the operator reported a possible stabbing.
The operator attempted to collect more information while waiting for officers and paramedics to arrive. While Darlie’s statements about she and the boys sleeping were analyzed to be persuading, not reporting, I can see the opposite. In Darlie’s mind, maybe she thought she gave all the information. The operator is trying to gather MORE information; some might see this as more information. Should Darlie have just kept repeating what she had already said?
Once the gender of the assailant was revealed, Darlie’s use of “some man” cam into question. As far as a protective mother using harsher language, that COMPLETELY depends on the person and their beliefs. From what I understand, Darlie is a devout Christian and wishes no ill will. I have met several people that feel this way. If she was truly a Christian at the time of the attack, bad language may have been a “no-no”. When I was growing up, my mom was (and still is) a very strict, devout Christian. The word “poop” was literally not allowed.
When Darlie was asked who was with her, the analysis says her response was “Karen”. When asked again if there was anybody in the house besides herself and the children, Darlie seemed to be deceptive. She now reported only her husband who had just ran downstairs. I wonder if she really said “Karen” the first time. “Karen” and “Darin” sound A LOT alike.
About half way through the call, Darlie began telling the operator that she though she, herself, was dying. She made the statement “…I gotta just sit here forever…”, which was taken to indicate anger or impatience and a personal inconvenience. Depending on the amount of blood she had lost, she may have been dying. Once again, without being in that situation, I can’t imagine what I would be thinking or feeling. I have seen instances when a parent if of no help to a child, some just because they panic.
When the operator told Darlie that the officer was at her front door, she began asking where the ambulance was. She asked this more than once. I believe that shows some kind of concern. After the officer had already spoken to Darlie, the operator told her again to let the officers in the front door. How would an officer have been speaking to her if they weren’t already in the front door. Just an example of miscommunication.
Darlie then made statements about prints that disturb me. I do have to wonder how any mother in this situation could possibly worry about prints. The reason I do not know how I would act in this situation is because I can understand someone’s head being very foggy. However, is one’s head is foggy, I don’t know how they could have the mindset to think about prints. The only thing that should in any way have been on her mind, besides her children, is her own blood loss.
I don’t understand the where the deception is in Darlie telling Darin the someone did it “intentionally”. The analysis reports the deception is in focusing on the intent of the assailant, and attaching motive. Where is the motive? Every legal book I’ve ever read, every legal show I’ve ever watched and every professor in every legal class I’ve ever taken taught me that motive is reason, not intent. I think, with these injuries, that intent to harm was clear. Motive is the reason behind the intent, not the intent itself. At least that has always been MY understanding.
I have now explained why I feel the way I do about certain points in this 911 call. I do agree that some statements Darlie made really can’t be defended, but if we all had to pay for things we said wrong in the heat of a moment, there would be a lot less people walking among us. I just don’t think that anyone should be condemned primarily on statements made in a stressful moment. Investigate the statements? Yes, of course. Investigate them thoroughly and fairly. However, a determination of guilt should not be rushed to based on a 911 call. It should be a basis for the investigation and linked in with other EVIDENCE.
Once again, please visit the website above and read the entire analysis. Analyze and interpret what you will from it. Please, just keep an open mind as my research continues. The next part should begin dealing with evidence, and each topic will be looked at from both sides. My mind can be changed, too, but I stand by the fact that this doesn’t even need to be about guilt or innocence. I just want to show that there were errors made (I believe numerous) in the case and Darlie Routier deserves a new trial. If guilt is proven, so be it.
I encourage you to visit this site and read the entire analysis. These are the personal opinions and represent only the author of this analysis. I will give my opinion at the end. I believe this analysis was also conducted on words alone, no verbal. In Statement Analysis, they listen and analyze, they don’t interpret.
911 calls are often called an “excited utterance”. This means that a person’s sensitivity is so strong that the calls are often entered into evidence.
The first statement Darlie made to the 911 operator was “…somebody came here…they broke in…”. Since a 911 call represents a state of “excited utterance”, the order is critical. It displays what is most pressing on the mind of the caller. Since words are chosen in less than a microsecond, first statements are most important. With this being the case, Darlie’s main concern seemed to be ‘someone broke in’ rather than ‘my children are hurt‘. She also changed from “somebody” to “they” in one statement, both of which are gender neutral.
Her next statements referred to the attack. “…they just stabbed me and my children…”. It is highly unusual that the mother would name herself over the children. It is also odd the she would not identify the assailant by gender, since she herself was stabbed.
She also made statements changing them from ‘children’ to ‘kids’ to ‘my little boys‘ to ‘my babies‘. There seemed to be no change in reality to justify the change in language; this indicates deception.
Darlie stated to the operator “…my little boy is dying…”, indicating she knew the extent of the wounds. Operator originally called this out to emergency personnel as an unknown medical emergency; not a possible stabbing.
About 30 seconds into the call, Darin Routier, Darlie’s husband, entered the room. His identity was unknown to the operator. The operator again announced an unknown medical emergency and it came to light that one of the children was breathing. Finally the 911 operator reported a possible stabbing.
More than a minute into the call, Darin’s name finally entered the conversation. Darlie told him “…I saw them Darin…”, “…Darin…I don’t know who it was…”, “…we go to find out who it was…”. She still didn’t identify gender, and she reverted back to singular instead of plural with who “it was” rather than who “they were”. Was she trying to conceal the identity of the attacker?
While the ambulance was en route, the 911 operator attempted to gather more information. Darlie then stated “…somebody came in while I was sleeping…me and my little boys were sleeping downstairs…” Once again, it was singular and not plural. She also seemed to make it a point to explain that they were sleeping. This appeared to be persuading, not reporting.
Finally, a little over two minutes into the call, Darlie stated “…some man…came in…stabbed my babies…stabbed me…I woke up…I was fighting…he ran out through the garage…threw the knife down…my babies are dying…they’re dead…oh my God…”. She gave the gender, but “some” would indicate an attempt to conceal identity. After what “some man” had done to Darlie and her children, as a protective mother, one might expect to hear much harsher language to describe her assailant.
At some point, the operator asked Darlie “…who’s there with you…”? Darlie’s response, according to the transcript, was “…Karen…(unintelligible)”. The operator asked again “…is there anybody in the house…besides you and your children…”? Darlie responded “…no…my husband he just ran downstairs…he’s helping me…but they’re dying…oh my God…they’re dead…” She had already said “Karen”, but when asked again, just her husband was there.
Almost three minutes into the call, Darlie told the operator “…I feel really bad…I think I’m dying…”. She asked repeatedly “…when are they going to be here…”? Darlie then stated “…I gotta just sit here forever…oh my God…”. Having to “sit” usually indicates anger or impatience. Some would expect a mother not to complain about having to “sit” but to complain about the lives of her children. She also stated “I” gotta just sit, which indicated a personal inconvenience. Most bleeding mothers would expel their own blood while helping their children.
Darlie continued the contradiction. She stated “…they killed our babies…”, even though she had already identified “some man”. The excited utterance continued when she stated “…no…he ran out…uh…they ran out in the garage…I was sleeping…”. She seemed to correct herself on the number of intruders, but returned to “I was sleeping”. It was not a response to a direct question.
After being told by the operator not to touch anything, Darlie stated “…I already touched it and picked it up…”. When an activity is mentioned more than once, it is highly sensitive. It appeared her fingerprints on the knife concerned her. This is not expected from an innocent victim who’s children are dying before her.
Over four minutes into the call, the operator finally tells Darlie “…ok ma’am…listen… there’s a police officer at your front door…is your front door unlocked…”? Darlie responded “…yes ma’am…but where’s the ambulance…”?
Less than five minutes into the call, the police officer told Darlie “…nothing’s gone Mrs. Routier…”. “…(unintelligible) the problem Mrs. Routier…”. Seconds later, the operator told Darlie “…ok…listen ma’am…need to…need to let the officers in the front door…ok…”
Darlie then made a statement hard to believe: “…God…I bet if we could have gotten the prints maybe…maybe…”. Her concern became fingerprints. A mother in the middle of an emergency of this nature should be concerned only with the welfare of her children.
As the statement continue, Darlie tells her husband “…somebody who did it intentionally walked in her and did it Darin…”. Focusing on the intent of the assailant is another indicator of deception, and this could have been a truthful statement. Many statements can be completely truthful, just missing information. Darlie told Darin what would be obvious, but also attached motive.
Darlie also stated “…there’s nothing touched…”. People are usually expected to report what did happen, not what didn’t happen. Even if accurate, this is another indicator of deception. How can anyone be sure what didn’t happen?
According to Statement Analysis:
It would appear that the focus of this 911 call is:
1. He entered
2. They broke in
3. He stabbed me; they stabbed me
4. He stabbed children; they stabbed children
5. I was asleep
6. I touched the knife
It appears that Darlie is withholding the identity of the assailant, and has intimate knowledge of the crime. Darlie appears to be more concerned with building an alibi than the welfare of her children.
Police would do well to focus on this 911 call.
Now I'd like to express my opinions.
Although there are a few statements in this 911 call that I have to agree are suspicious, I don’t believe it’s fair to judge someone solely on their words. Anyone can sit in their calm, undisturbed world and say “I would never say that”, or “The children would be my first concern”. While I, also, believe that of myself, I have never been, and hope I never am, in that situation. I’ve never had to wake up to an intruder and deal with the after-math, and without having been in that situation, I will not sit here high and mighty, and say for a fact what I would or wouldn’t say. While I understand that a state of “excited utterance” does need to be considered, it also needs to be remembered that everyone reacts to stress differently.
Let’s try looking at this from another view: someone who just wants to know the truth. I do have a problem with the first statement she made being about the intruder(s) and not her children. I do feel very strongly that I would scream something about helping my children, but I just can’t say it factually without being there. I do have a problem with Darlie’s changing from singular “somebody” to plural “they”, but I won’t condemn her on that one aspect. There is always the possibility of confusion in the moment. Maybe she just wasn’t sure.
According to Statement Analysis, it is highly unusual that the mother would name herself over the children, but I completely disagree. We often speak the way we do out of habit, and I’m speaking from experience. There are certain things that I say the same, no matter the situation. Unfortunately, most of us don’t really use proper English. If we did, we would always put ourselves last in an order. “She and I” went… “The kids and I” all like… This is not the way most of us speak. I, myself, am horribly guilty of “Y’all wanna go shoppin’?” Oh my high school English teacher would cringe. I, myself, give no weight to her saying “me and my children”. That may be how she spoke all the time.
It does seem a little suspicious that she wouldn’t know the gender of the assailant since she, herself was attacked. That would have been personal enough, I would think you could determine gender. However, later in the call Darlie does state they had been asleep. If this is the case, that may have hindered a gender determination. I know when I wake up, it takes me about 30 minutes of being up to function. I could probably walk out of my bedroom first thing, and walk right past an intruder, and never know it if they didn’t attack. Maybe she just doesn’t snap to reality that quick.
There are several instances where Darlie used different terms to refer to the children; my “children”, my “boys”, my “kids”, my “babies”. According to Statement Analysis, when language changes, there must be a change in reality. Since there seemed to be no change in reality, these changes were determined to be deceptive. Really? I think this is stretching. I have many friends that refer to their children as “kids” just because it’s easier, but different emotions make them use different terms. Let’s face it, when they’re sick or hurt, they’re our “babies” even if they’re twenty years old.
Darlie’s statement, “…my little boy is dying…”, could indicate that she knew the extent of her son’s injuries. It also could be a way of trying to hurry the process of dispatching the paramedics. After all, the operator originally called this out as an unknown medical emergency, and I really have to wonder WHY?!? Though ’emergency’ was used in the call, I believe it might have been a little more serious had the operator said possible stabbing, especially if the possibility of children was added. Let’s also remember the police arrived before the paramedics, and I don’t think this call showed much concern for the children from the officer.
Finally, the operator reported a possible stabbing.
The operator attempted to collect more information while waiting for officers and paramedics to arrive. While Darlie’s statements about she and the boys sleeping were analyzed to be persuading, not reporting, I can see the opposite. In Darlie’s mind, maybe she thought she gave all the information. The operator is trying to gather MORE information; some might see this as more information. Should Darlie have just kept repeating what she had already said?
Once the gender of the assailant was revealed, Darlie’s use of “some man” cam into question. As far as a protective mother using harsher language, that COMPLETELY depends on the person and their beliefs. From what I understand, Darlie is a devout Christian and wishes no ill will. I have met several people that feel this way. If she was truly a Christian at the time of the attack, bad language may have been a “no-no”. When I was growing up, my mom was (and still is) a very strict, devout Christian. The word “poop” was literally not allowed.
When Darlie was asked who was with her, the analysis says her response was “Karen”. When asked again if there was anybody in the house besides herself and the children, Darlie seemed to be deceptive. She now reported only her husband who had just ran downstairs. I wonder if she really said “Karen” the first time. “Karen” and “Darin” sound A LOT alike.
About half way through the call, Darlie began telling the operator that she though she, herself, was dying. She made the statement “…I gotta just sit here forever…”, which was taken to indicate anger or impatience and a personal inconvenience. Depending on the amount of blood she had lost, she may have been dying. Once again, without being in that situation, I can’t imagine what I would be thinking or feeling. I have seen instances when a parent if of no help to a child, some just because they panic.
When the operator told Darlie that the officer was at her front door, she began asking where the ambulance was. She asked this more than once. I believe that shows some kind of concern. After the officer had already spoken to Darlie, the operator told her again to let the officers in the front door. How would an officer have been speaking to her if they weren’t already in the front door. Just an example of miscommunication.
Darlie then made statements about prints that disturb me. I do have to wonder how any mother in this situation could possibly worry about prints. The reason I do not know how I would act in this situation is because I can understand someone’s head being very foggy. However, is one’s head is foggy, I don’t know how they could have the mindset to think about prints. The only thing that should in any way have been on her mind, besides her children, is her own blood loss.
I don’t understand the where the deception is in Darlie telling Darin the someone did it “intentionally”. The analysis reports the deception is in focusing on the intent of the assailant, and attaching motive. Where is the motive? Every legal book I’ve ever read, every legal show I’ve ever watched and every professor in every legal class I’ve ever taken taught me that motive is reason, not intent. I think, with these injuries, that intent to harm was clear. Motive is the reason behind the intent, not the intent itself. At least that has always been MY understanding.
I have now explained why I feel the way I do about certain points in this 911 call. I do agree that some statements Darlie made really can’t be defended, but if we all had to pay for things we said wrong in the heat of a moment, there would be a lot less people walking among us. I just don’t think that anyone should be condemned primarily on statements made in a stressful moment. Investigate the statements? Yes, of course. Investigate them thoroughly and fairly. However, a determination of guilt should not be rushed to based on a 911 call. It should be a basis for the investigation and linked in with other EVIDENCE.
Once again, please visit the website above and read the entire analysis. Analyze and interpret what you will from it. Please, just keep an open mind as my research continues. The next part should begin dealing with evidence, and each topic will be looked at from both sides. My mind can be changed, too, but I stand by the fact that this doesn’t even need to be about guilt or innocence. I just want to show that there were errors made (I believe numerous) in the case and Darlie Routier deserves a new trial. If guilt is proven, so be it.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Deep in the Heart of...Injustice - Part I; The Case
Imagine falling asleep on the couch, at the end of a normal day, while your two oldest boys sleep on the floor watching TV. Now imagine, if you can, waking in the middle of a real-life nightmare, and your two sons lay dying. According to Darlie Routier, that was what happened to her during the early morning hours of June 6, 1996. The police, however, saw her as the murderer. Her story is a horrifying one, and there are still, more than a decade later, many issues needing to be resolved. As she sits on death row, I’m sure Darlie has to wonder if a resolution will ever come. This is the case of TX v. ROUTIER.
I’m going to do my best to help, along with others, to get her story out as I research the details. For those of you who don’t know about the case, I will start with a basic outline to give you an idea. From there, we will look at the investigation and facts, from both sides. By the end, I hope both sides will come together for justice. Let’s get started on the story behind the mystery.
Around 2:30am the morning of June 6, 1996, Darlie called the Rowlett Police Department screaming that an intruder had just stabbed her and her two boys. Her boys, Devon, 6, and Damon, 5, were dying. According to Darlie, she was sleeping on the couch in the downstairs family room while her boys slept on the floor in front of the television. She was woke by her son and saw a man in a baseball cap standing near the couch. According to Darlie, the stranger left through the kitchen and utility room and out through the garage. He left behind a bloody butcher knife from the kitchen.
Darlie’s husband, Darin Routier, was sleeping upstairs with the couples’ 8-month-old son. He woke to Darlie’s screams and ran down the stairs to the family room to find the blood-soaked bodies of his two oldest sons and his wife. The attack left one child not breathing, and the other struggling for air. They had both been savagely attacked. Darlie, herself, had been stabbed and her throat slashed. When the chaos would finally come to an end, both children would be dead.
The investigators didn’t take much time in deciding that Darlie Routier had murdered her own children and inflicted her own wounds. The State, along with the help of the media, painted her as a “self-absorbed, materialistic, cold-blooded housewife” who murdered her children because they were in the way of her “lifestyle”, but those who know her say different. The State claims her wounds are self-inflicted and superficial, but medical personnel seem to dispute this. The police said there was no evidence of an intruder, but as you’ll learn, there were prints and DNA, some not belonging to anyone in the house.
Let’s also remember that this happened within 2 years of Susan Smith’s cruel and heinous acts. She really did kill her children, and eventually admitted to it. Could the public outcry from this case affect the way Darlie Routier’s case was handled? Could it have caused the State to go into this case with blinders on?
The State does have a tape of “The Silly String Graveside Party”, as it has come to be known, that shown in part, would make a mother cringe. However, the rest of the tape was not admissible because the State obtained it illegally, but was that really the reason? I don’t believe so, but you can decide as we go.
These are just the highlights of the many serious issues involved in this case. As we go through all the facts, I hope you will feel as I do; Darlie Routier MUST receive a new trial if justice is to truly be served. This case has become huge in the world of capital punishment, but persuading your view on the death penalty is not my objective. My hope is that both sides, whether for or against capital punishment, come together for a new and fair trial. Even proponents of capital punishment should want to be positive they are executing the right person.
Stay tuned for the next post. We will begin going through each sides' evidence, and how it was dealt with. It gets very...suspicious.
I’m going to do my best to help, along with others, to get her story out as I research the details. For those of you who don’t know about the case, I will start with a basic outline to give you an idea. From there, we will look at the investigation and facts, from both sides. By the end, I hope both sides will come together for justice. Let’s get started on the story behind the mystery.
Around 2:30am the morning of June 6, 1996, Darlie called the Rowlett Police Department screaming that an intruder had just stabbed her and her two boys. Her boys, Devon, 6, and Damon, 5, were dying. According to Darlie, she was sleeping on the couch in the downstairs family room while her boys slept on the floor in front of the television. She was woke by her son and saw a man in a baseball cap standing near the couch. According to Darlie, the stranger left through the kitchen and utility room and out through the garage. He left behind a bloody butcher knife from the kitchen.
Darlie’s husband, Darin Routier, was sleeping upstairs with the couples’ 8-month-old son. He woke to Darlie’s screams and ran down the stairs to the family room to find the blood-soaked bodies of his two oldest sons and his wife. The attack left one child not breathing, and the other struggling for air. They had both been savagely attacked. Darlie, herself, had been stabbed and her throat slashed. When the chaos would finally come to an end, both children would be dead.
The investigators didn’t take much time in deciding that Darlie Routier had murdered her own children and inflicted her own wounds. The State, along with the help of the media, painted her as a “self-absorbed, materialistic, cold-blooded housewife” who murdered her children because they were in the way of her “lifestyle”, but those who know her say different. The State claims her wounds are self-inflicted and superficial, but medical personnel seem to dispute this. The police said there was no evidence of an intruder, but as you’ll learn, there were prints and DNA, some not belonging to anyone in the house.
Let’s also remember that this happened within 2 years of Susan Smith’s cruel and heinous acts. She really did kill her children, and eventually admitted to it. Could the public outcry from this case affect the way Darlie Routier’s case was handled? Could it have caused the State to go into this case with blinders on?
The State does have a tape of “The Silly String Graveside Party”, as it has come to be known, that shown in part, would make a mother cringe. However, the rest of the tape was not admissible because the State obtained it illegally, but was that really the reason? I don’t believe so, but you can decide as we go.
These are just the highlights of the many serious issues involved in this case. As we go through all the facts, I hope you will feel as I do; Darlie Routier MUST receive a new trial if justice is to truly be served. This case has become huge in the world of capital punishment, but persuading your view on the death penalty is not my objective. My hope is that both sides, whether for or against capital punishment, come together for a new and fair trial. Even proponents of capital punishment should want to be positive they are executing the right person.
Stay tuned for the next post. We will begin going through each sides' evidence, and how it was dealt with. It gets very...suspicious.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Don't be Cruel
I didn't really plan on writing about animals, but as I watched my cats play this morning, I was once again aggravated by the circumstances which brought me the second cat, "Stitch". I never wanted more than one cat, but I am a huge sucker. Especially for babies.
It was about 3 months ago, and I was Christmas shopping. Luckily, my husband was a huge help. He walked my cart out to the car, loaded everything in and went to put the cart in the corral. Suddenly I heard him say: "Hey, look. A free tackle box". I turned around and saw what appeared to be a brand new tackle box sitting in a parking spot. "Surely not", I thought to myself, as I approached to pick it up. As I bent down, I saw movement and knew it wasn't a tackle box. It was a very small animal carrier, with two kittens inside. They were so cute, and so young. I was sunddenly infuriated.
One by one, people started stopping to se what was going on. These kittens were so sweet and lovable, I had to do something. My husband and I both knew we were going to end up with another cat. However, already having a cat at home, "Echo", I couldn't just take them home without them being checked for sickness. I was also told I only got to keep one, which I understood. Luckily, our animal shelter is a no-kill shelter (without valid reason), so off we went.
I filled out all the necessary paperwork, they checked and spayed the cats, and in less than a week we had our new addition. They also assured me they would have no trouble finding a home for the other kitten. Both kittens got a clean bill of health and were as lovable as they could be.
"Stitch" took instantly to her new forever-home. As the months have gone by, she and "Echo" have become best of friends. They provide all-day comedy for me.
For some reason, as I watch them play this morning, I am taken back to that parking lot. "Stitch" is so healthy, playful and lovable that it breaks my heart to think about what could have happened. I do realize these kittens weren't "mistreated". They were healthy and friendly, so they had to be cared for. What I don't understand is how someone can take a totally defenseless animal, put them in a box and just dump it somewhere? I don't care that they were taken to a very busy store where it was guaranteed they'd be found. There's no guarantee WHO will find them, and some people are very cruel to animals. I understand not everyone can keep and animal, for whatever reason, but there are other alternatives. Shelters are not usually a great option, but if that's all there is, use it. Don't risk dumping an animal for it to possible wind up in a worse situation. These kittens were lucky, but I have seen animals not so lucky. At least at the shelter they get food, shelter and a hope at adoption. Dumped in the elements, who knows?
If you're an animal lover, and your shelter offers it, volunteer for the foster program. It's a great way to do your part. Check with your local shelter.
It was about 3 months ago, and I was Christmas shopping. Luckily, my husband was a huge help. He walked my cart out to the car, loaded everything in and went to put the cart in the corral. Suddenly I heard him say: "Hey, look. A free tackle box". I turned around and saw what appeared to be a brand new tackle box sitting in a parking spot. "Surely not", I thought to myself, as I approached to pick it up. As I bent down, I saw movement and knew it wasn't a tackle box. It was a very small animal carrier, with two kittens inside. They were so cute, and so young. I was sunddenly infuriated.
One by one, people started stopping to se what was going on. These kittens were so sweet and lovable, I had to do something. My husband and I both knew we were going to end up with another cat. However, already having a cat at home, "Echo", I couldn't just take them home without them being checked for sickness. I was also told I only got to keep one, which I understood. Luckily, our animal shelter is a no-kill shelter (without valid reason), so off we went.
I filled out all the necessary paperwork, they checked and spayed the cats, and in less than a week we had our new addition. They also assured me they would have no trouble finding a home for the other kitten. Both kittens got a clean bill of health and were as lovable as they could be.
"Stitch" took instantly to her new forever-home. As the months have gone by, she and "Echo" have become best of friends. They provide all-day comedy for me.
For some reason, as I watch them play this morning, I am taken back to that parking lot. "Stitch" is so healthy, playful and lovable that it breaks my heart to think about what could have happened. I do realize these kittens weren't "mistreated". They were healthy and friendly, so they had to be cared for. What I don't understand is how someone can take a totally defenseless animal, put them in a box and just dump it somewhere? I don't care that they were taken to a very busy store where it was guaranteed they'd be found. There's no guarantee WHO will find them, and some people are very cruel to animals. I understand not everyone can keep and animal, for whatever reason, but there are other alternatives. Shelters are not usually a great option, but if that's all there is, use it. Don't risk dumping an animal for it to possible wind up in a worse situation. These kittens were lucky, but I have seen animals not so lucky. At least at the shelter they get food, shelter and a hope at adoption. Dumped in the elements, who knows?
If you're an animal lover, and your shelter offers it, volunteer for the foster program. It's a great way to do your part. Check with your local shelter.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)