Routier asks judge to retest evidence - Convicted baby killer tries to weasel out of death penalty

Associated Press ^ | July 3, 2002 | Associated Press Staff

[leilani]

Say what? I actually agree with your post #26 thesis, that women are MORE likely to abuse their kids, maim & murder their kids, & statistically do whatever you name it to their kids, and yet we'll never hear about that distressing little factoid from the good folks at NOW & their flunkie shills at CNN & CBS. So what else is new?? What in heaven's name does that have to do with the fact that the judge in this case ERRED big time by admitting prejudical evidence into this particular trial, pray tell?

[dighton]

I always thought this woman was convicted, not on the facts, but on that 'silly-string' ceremony on the kids' graves.

IMHO, Darlene Routier did a poor job of (1) faking a home invasion, and (2) stabbing herself to appear a victim of the "invader." This is worth reading for an overview of the case, if you haven't already done so.

Sensational crimes committed by amateurs -- a rookie in this case, I believe -- are investigated by professionals. There's a moral in that.

[Illbay]

I don't know if the judge did as you say or not. I do firmly believe that if this error was made it will (or would have been--I don't know the status of the appeals as of now) caught on appeal.

As I say, I think our system allows great deliberation in cases such as these. NO ONE approaches the death penalty lightly.

[Greg Weston]

I saw on some show awile back 3 or 4 of the jurors saying if they had been presented all the facts they probably would voted not guilty. 4 did initially right off the bat. Here is one.

http://www.reporternews.com/1999/texas/juror0629.html

[Rodney King]

thanks, i'll check it out.

[leilani]

Know what, I don't have to read it because I already BELIEVE that she & her husband set the whole thing up for insurance money. But I was not on the jury. My objection here on FR is to the judicial error re the admission of the "graveside birthday party" tape, presented out of context at trial. The problem is that the trial's jurors have begun to see it IN context, and are starting to repudiate their verdicts. Which is what I thought this thread was ABOUT! Face it, the JUDGE screwed UP here. It doesn't make the Mom -or the weaselly Dad innocent, it just makes the conviction highly suspect. Is the difference between these two concepts so hard to grasp?

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks, Dighton. Yes, the forensic evidence against Darlie was very damning.
The prosecutors did a good job, as did the police in their investigation.

[dighton]

My objection here on FR is to the judicial error re the admission of the "graveside birthday party" tape, presented out of context at trial.

Perhaps we're talking at cross-purposes.

For all I know, there were legal errors that would justify appeal: which is your point, I believe. You may very well be correct.

My point (not directly opposed to yours) is that she murdered her children, and did a wretched job (as one would expect from an amateur) of covering her tracks.

[MeekOneGOP]

If she did it only for the insurance money, that proves only their stupidity, since all
they had on the two boys was enough to cover burial costs.
The only errors I really can see is with the court reporters errors. Did you hear about that?
The real issue in this case is the forensic evidence. You oughta check out Dighton's links.

[adopted_lil_teacup]

I am new so be gentle! LOL Why was the silly string tape wrong to let in as evidence? She acted that way, it wasn't an actress playing her. Also if there was a solom grave side service before the silly string then why didn't her lawyers show her crying and carring on, then fixing her make up take her nerve medication and pop a piece a gum in her mouth, since it was all videotaped? If you are allowed to ask people about a persons demeanor after they suposedly commited a crime, why was this tape wrong? It was all over the news. Do you honestly believe that the jurors did not know of it's exitence? And that was only days after the murders. Not weeks or months. She was popping gum like a 12 year old and laughing like all her troubles were gone. And of course temporarily they were. Robbery wasn't a motive, rape wasn't a motive and i don't think revenge was a motive so why would someone break in STAB 2 little boys to death, what kind of witness would they be, but barely stab an adult. Why cut her throat, but stab the boys. Also how did this imaginary person know that the husband wasn't a lite sleeper and come down the stairs with a gun and kill the
intruder? I think that the jury now doesn't want to feel the weight of the desision they made. No one wants to believe that a mother can and will kill her children. Look at the most recent famous cases, Susan Smith, Andrea Yates and Patsy Ramsey. If this were a serial killer knocked off his game that night, where are the similar murders? To date I have not heard of a child killing where the child(ren) was killed in the house next to a sleeping adult, the adult only being somewhat injured and an other adult slept thru it in the bedroom. Some one would have to be really nuts for this to be a stranger intruder. And there was no signs of a organized/disorganized crime scene. It was an organized crime scene. That says a lot to me. To the jury too, at the time they saw and heard the evidence, with out the guilt of sending some one to the death chamber. That is just my opinion. Thanks for letting me share it.

[thathamiltonwoman]

Ilbay, I suspect Darin because he'd have to sleep like a zombie not to have heard what was going on downstairs. On the 911 tapes Darlie is screaming and carrying on like a banshee. It's unlikely that (if a bad man did come into the house) she wouldn't have screamed during the attack. Darin testified that he didn't wake until he heard her yelling. By the time he came downstairs one of the boys was dead and the other was dying. It's not a knee jerk blame-the-man thing it's just a suspicion. As for Rusty Yates, I'd like to give him a good thump upside the head but no, I don't think he egged Andrea Yates on.

[thathamiltonwoman]

One more thing, the silly string and balloons at the grave looked bad but playing "Gangster's Paradise" at the funeral didn't help Darlie in the public eye either.

[leilani]

Hi! ALT! The silly string tape was wrong to let into evidence because they didn't show the stuff on the tape right before and the right after the now notorious silly string part, which shows the mom in a VERY different light, but what's most important is that there are now about FOUR jurors from the trial who now say that if they had seen the WHOLE tape, in context, they wouldn't have convicted. Which is frightening. Rightly, or wrongly, this woman was convicted by evidence 4 of the 12 now say was unfairly presented. I know she was represented by good counsel (Doug Moulder ain't mashed potatoes), and I don't know if this is a Houston V Dallas kinda thing, but I just cannot imagine that Dick DeGuerin would have ever let this judge get away with putting up that edited tape w/o objection. There's really no excuse for what happened there.If we're gonna put somebody away, we've GOT to do it honestly, and in a way we can all feel good about. I think even you will agree, there's something very wrong when 4 of the jurors who put this woman away are now repudiating their verdicts. My instincts tell me we need to put her & her hubby away, but we need to do it in a way we can all feel honest about it. That's all.

[Catspaw]

I followed some of the trial, but what really got my attention was that the transcript was fouled up by the court reporter. I don't remember all the details, but I do remember that parts of the transcript were missing, that another court reporter tried to reconstruct the transcript & couldn't or didn't (and anyone here is free to correct me if my memory has faded). An accurate and complete transcript is essential to an appeal, Routier didn't have one and had no way to obtain one. There's no way to correct this kind of error.

As far as the specifics at trial, I'll pass. But without a complete and accurate transcript, the court of appeals is not going to be able to review her case.

[TN Republican]

It's not like she was Bobby Bonds, Archie Manning, or even Ed Begley, Sr., for that matter.

[lone star annie]

She is definately a narcissist. Darin is either involved or he is being totally manipulated by his wife. My guess is he knew and she is keeping it quiet so he can work to free her. If he does not stay loyal to her, she will tell all about him. Narcissists work that way.

[leilani]

No you're absolutley right. This case is now famous because the court reporter committed somewhere close to as I recall, 36,000 , yep, 36000 errors!!!! That alone will get an appeal. Nuts. Just crazy. But hey, this is Texas, and we'd sure as heck rather be here than New Jersey, even if our judges can't read!

[dighton]

Darlene Routier

Darlie. A fine reporter you make!

[Greg Weston]

"Doug Moulder ain't mashed potatoes"

You ever read the book or see the movie "The Thin Blue Line" about Randall Dale Adams who came within a day or 2 of frying for a crime he didn't commit? Doug Mulder who prosecuted Adams comes off as the sleaziest,slimiest scumball prosecutor in Texas history. Maybe Routier thought she needed a guy who would use any tactic under the sun to get her off. But I think she would have been better off with someone else. I don't know how you hire a guy like that knowing his history.

[NewsGal]

Gentleman:

I don't know why you have to bring gender into it. I don't believe Darren was involved because he is a man or because I don't believe Darlie was capable of pulling the murders off by herself.

Darren is a fruitcake himself who has been more concerned with his wife all along than he has with the murders of his children. This was noticeable from the very beginning wherein he was bragging to the nurses about Darlie's boob job, this was when his two son's bodies were still warm. I think he would do anything for her, including killing his kids and/or covering up for Darlie.