Routier asks judge to retest evidence
Posted on 07/04/2002 9:24:31 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
Routier asks judge to retest evidence
07/03/2002
Dallas - Death row inmate Darlie Routier was back in a Dallas courtroom today, wanting to retest evidence used to convict her for stabbing her two sons in 1996.
Routier's attorneys are asking to retest the night gown she was wearing the night of the killings, which had cuts and blood evidence. The attorneys also want to test carpet, tile and floor samples to see if bloody footprints were left by someone else.
AP Darlie Routier |
State District Judge Robert Francis said he would review their request and possibly rule on it Monday.
Routier's attorneys have said they have new evidence that a bloody fingerprint found inside the house did not belong to Darlie Routier, her husband, her sons or investigators.
Routier has maintained her innocence and says an intruder killed her sons, 5-year-old Damon and 6-year-old Devon.
AP / FILE Devon (left) and Damon Routier |
Maybe I understand finance well, and save for my daughter in other ways. Do you have any idea what the commissions and fees are on anything other than term life insurance policies?
So just maybe you will admit that the life insurance policy is not necessarily as big an issue as you think.
OK, fine.
But then, I forget, you have all the facts and have convicted her based upon your life experiences.
I believe that I do have all the facts. You seem to think that I don't know about two similar "M.O."'s, but you won't provide a link. You also won't answer this question: Are the M.O.'s similar in that a stranger broke in and stabbed kids, or just that there have been two other break-ins in the years since the murders?
If what they are doing is illegal, it behooves the judge to issue a gag order. If s/he's not doing so, then maybe it's time to let people know this judge ought not be reelected.
But in general I have no problem with legal maneuvering so long as it is within the realm of what is legal.
This is a senseless statement. Routier was convicted, not by the "life experiences" of a commentator on an Internet message board, but by a jury of her peers in accordance with the laws of the state of Texas.
In that case it is people like YOU who refuse to see facts, and would rather fit the facts to your own prejudices. There's nothing wrong with doing that (so long as you aren't in a position of authority), but I think you ought to know that your opinion is worth no more nor less than anyone else's, but it is NOTHING next to the deliberations of our legal system.
If twelve good men and women found her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that is MORE than a preponderant weight against her. She has had her day in court, and she's working out her legal options now. In the end, if she dies for this crime, it will be because she did the murders.
All of Darlie's many pieces of diamond jewelry were left on the countertop undisturbed. Darlie killed her boys because she is a narcissist sociopath. I believe Darren was involved as well.
Have you ever noticed that when murders of children by their mothers occur, the tendency on FR among many of the females here is to assume the husband was in on it as well?
Why is that? Is it that we cannot accept the notion that a woman would be so cold? But the FACT is that in terms of the PROBABILITY of death, children have more to fear from their mothers than from any other single individual.
Mothers DO kill their children, with alarming regularity. Fathers do it as well, but far less frequently. In fact, a woman's children are killed more frequently by her husband or boyfriend who is not the father than by their own biological father.
Please understand: I'm not criticizing. I'm simply pointing out a certain attitude that the both of you exhibit that I find frequently on FR. I just thought you might want to do some research and reexamine your assumptions.
I hope this doesn't come off to harsh; it wasn't meant to be.
I believe I said that...
And this is written in stone where? Several jurors in Routier's trial now believe she is not-guilty. "Evidence" was presented in a misleading fashion.
BTW, what's your dog in this fight?
Amen, I always thought this woman was convicted, not on the facts, but on that 'silly-string' ceremony on the kids' graves. Everyone grieves differently, for every child they'll ever lose. Any parent who has ever lost a child surprises themselves in that regard. But the fact that they don't follow some CBS soap opera central casting script when their kid dies doesn't prove they killed their kid. It's absolutley not a legitimate reason to send someone to Huntsville, without other incriminating facts. This woman was convicted on the basis of prejudicial evidence, no question about it. She should have a new trial. (She'll probabaly be convicted again, but at least some of us Texans can feel better that she's on death row because of the facts, not because of some lame, mass-hysterical 'All My Children' sentiment about how she should have acted at her sons' grave.)
Please produce a link.
That in itself is a preposterous statement. Either you are unacquainted with this case, or have chosen to ignore the overwhelming evidence against this woman.
No, no no!!! As a matter of fact I think, as a non-juror who has never been privvy directly to this trial's evidence, there are nonetheless some pretty serious reasons to suspect both Mom & DAD in this case. I just want them to be convicted for the right reasons so that everybody can respect our justice system in the morning, if you get my drift.Getting a quickie conviction on the basis of mass-hystrical-emotion doesn't serve our society one teeny bit. At all.
We'll see what happens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
