Darlie Routier Case and UM stange ways of presenting case

[ddelta]

Okay the other day i was watching the Darlie Routier (SP???) case on UM as the last appeal. She was the mom on death row in Texas for supposedly killing her two oldest sons while they slept. She said she woke to an intruder standing over her and the guy slashed her but really killed those two boys. After watching the murder and the sock that was found a few blocks away I really felt she might be innocent and was shocked to think those cops being so cocky saying they have the murderer of those two boys. So i decided to do some research and after reading ALL the evidence she is guilty i believe and i was thinking that UM seems to do these Last Appeals sometimes keeping out other evidence out.

In one article i read that they brought in a luminole specialist to check for washed away blood. Well the cops were perplexed why the entire kitchen was full of blood but the kitchen sink was clean. When the guy used his light he found the entire sink had blood in it but was washed away. This would make NO SENSE for a perpitrator to do when he just killed a family. They also found a child handprint in blood on the couch washed away.

Also the screen where the person had come in had been split in half...however neither side was pushed in or out for a body to get through. I think the UM said something about the dust being undisturbed but nothign about the slit...i saw a picture on one website and it literally is a cut in a screen...no way a man came through that.

Finally and most telling with the exception of the sock, not one trace of blood was found outside the home, but in the home everything was a mess with blood...would not make sense with someone.....

So i am a little agitated with UM. If you want to do a final appeal that is all good...there are many good cases that UM got the person off. But how can you present a case so one sided to the person. They should of presented all of the facts and let the audience decide. I know i thought how could they think this woman is so guilty.....until i dug a little further in research.

Anyone else notice this???

[DarkDante]

Jeffery MacDonald

Said a similar thing happened to him and his family and although he is not on death row will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars because he too is jailed for the murder of his family - The point being UM did a segment on his story too and presented it much the same way the Routier case was presented. Jeff Macdonald comes off like a saint in his UM segment although a book written on the subject (the name escapes me at the moment) really portrays him as a stone cold killer. I personally am still on the fence about the guilt of both Routier and Macdonald but UM (since they were probably petitioned to run these segments intially by loved ones) seem to make the accused look "pretty innocent" in these final appeal segments.

Btw the only appeal case that I definatley thought the guy was guilty of his crime 100% is Stuart Heaton.
Later.

[mercy1825]

I don't know about him. I know DNA recently may have further implicated him, but why do you think he is definitely guilty?

[ddelta]

Yes the MacDonald case is the other one i was thinking of. UM preesented it as he got a raw deal. Well like three weeks later i saw on A & E and they presented a ton of other evidence that says he did it. The most telling part was what an FBI analyst did on a "blood map". He showed all the blood types in each room and then his whole reasoning of how it each got there. It all came together and the most tellign sign was the there was no blood type of MacDonalds in the living room where he said he was attacked but a ton of his in the bathroom where they believed he stabbed himself....so i think he is very guilty too....

Makes me wonder if in other Last Appeals if UM hid facts that might of showed the person to be guilty.

[nohwheregirl]

It's pretty obvious from her prison interviews that Darlee absolutely loves the attention she's gotten from her supposed martyrdom.

[CrushedVelvet]

I personally went back and forth on this case for years but have finally decided that I believe she had a bad case of post partum(sp?) depression and did the killings. I also became convinced by things she DIDNT say in her interviews; just natural things that as a mother I felt she left out. And where was her anger? Wouldnt murdered children, being falsely accused and a death sentence make a person angry? She seemed melancholy at best.

[DarkDante]

after discussing the case with several members of this board, re-watching the UM broadcast on vhs and researching a bit online - I feel 100% Heaton is guilty - my opinion and I'm sticking to it

[ddelta]

The Heaton case....can someone tell me what this is about...i don't recall.

[Kane]

Originally Posted by ddelta

The Heaton case....can someone tell me what this is about...i don't recall.

Stuart Heaton is the Illinois man who is serving a life sentence for the 1991 murder of Krystal Nabb. Although he was linked to the crime by DNA, he maintains his innocence. (UM did a segment on the case in December of 1994.)

You should be able to find something on the case, via Google. Go to google.com, and type "Stuart Heaton" and/or "Crystal Nabb."

[ddelta]

bump

[treeman]

I watched this story on TrueCSI last night and found it quite fascinating. They had you thinking it was the Mother that did it for like 3 quarters of the story then all of a sudden they make you think it was the father who set it up and he even failed the lie detector test quite badly!

But one thing about this case was the mothers response when they asked her whether she killed her children. 'no not that i remember anyway.' what kind of response is that? Seems quite odd if you ask me.

Plus she threw a party for her kids at their grave yard a week after their death for one of her son's birthday. She seemed kinda happy in a sick way.

Any news on this case?

-Ben

[carebears]

Originally Posted by ddelta

Okay the other day i was watching the Darlie Routier (SP???) case on UM as the last appeal. She was the mom on death row in Texas for supposedly killing her two oldest sons while they slept. She said she woke to an intruder standing over her and the guy slashed her but really killed those two boys. After watching the murder and the sock that was found a few blocks away I really felt she might be innocent and was shocked to think those cops being so cocky saying they have the murderer of those two boys. So i decided to do some research and after reading ALL the evidence she is guilty i believe and i was thinking that UM seems to do these Last Appeals sometimes keeping out other evidence out.

In one article i read that they brought in a luminole specialist to check for washed away blood. Well the cops were perplexed why the entire kitchen was full of blood but the kitchen sink was clean. When the guy used his light he found the entire sink had blood in it but was washed away. This would make NO SENSE for a perpitrator to do when he just killed a family. They also found a child handprint in blood on the couch washed away.

Also the screen where the person had come in had been split in half...however neither side was pushed in or out for a body to get through. I think the UM said something about the dust being undisturbed but nothign about the slit...i saw a picture on one website and it literally is a cut in a screen...no way a man came through that.

Finally and most telling with the exception of the sock, not one trace of blood was found outside the home, but in the home everything was a mess with blood...would not make sense with someone.....

So i am a little agitated with UM. If you want to do a final appeal that is all good...there are many good cases that UM got the person off. But how can you present a case so one sided to the person. They should of presented all of the facts and let the audience decide. I know i thought how could they think this woman is so guilty.....until i dug a little further in research.

Anyone else notice this???

Maybe you would change your opinion from guilty back to innocent like you originally thought if you had done research on the internet and read information about Darlie's case on these websites.

http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/HerProof/CourtTV.html

http://www.victimsofthestate.org/CC/IMM.htm

Julie Rea Harper was arrested a couple of years after her son Joel Kirkpatrick's murder and given a new trial and acquitted. She is just like Darlie always claiming that an intruder killed her son. Serial Killer Tommy Lynn Sells confessed to killing the Routier boys and confessed to killing Joel after seeing Joel's story on 20/20. I am not sure if Sells killed the Routier boys like he confessed because he could have been in prison in June 1996, but I have other people on my list of suspects such as Chad Patterson,Barry Fife, and Ben Claybour. The FBI considers Sells a suspect in the Routier case but he has not been charged with the Routier boys. I am not totally sure who killed those precious boys and committed such a heinous crime but I believe with all my heart and soul that Darlie is 100% innocent. Crimewriter Barbara Davis thought Darlie did it too but she saw photos of Darlie's wounds that she claims were not seen at trial. Charlie Stamford a juror at Darlie's trial said he didn't see the photos either and now says he made a mistake in sending Darlie to death row and saying guilty. Routier is a very forgiving person and forgave Charlie for saying guilty in her 97 trial. Barbara Davis who told the world Darlie was guilty in her book Precious Angels now feels Darlie is innocent and believes in Darlie's innocence so much that she has become friends with the family and donates all proceeds from the book to Darlie's defense fund.

[carebears]

DDelta I think your teddy bear icon is cute.

[MegtheEgg86]

Originally Posted by nohwheregirl

It's pretty obvious from her prison interviews that Darlee absolutely loves the attention she's gotten from her supposed martyrdom.

I know this post is years old, but I tend to agree. I have no idea if the woman is guilty or not, but that much is apparent to me for sure.

[Guardian]

I have a lot of questions on this case that I just havent had the time to really look into. Most of my posts on the board these days are done on breaks at work using my droid to post. So in depth research is not easily done from there. But anyway, the main question I have, and I do feel that she is likely guilty, but my question is how do you explain the sock? To me as a juror, that is the one bit of evidence that would make me doubt her being guilty. I just cannot come up with an explaination that fits the known facts and still manages to get that sock to where it was found in the time alotted.

As far as UM only presenting the final appeals in the manner they do, I would have to guess they do them a bit more one sided because as far as the case is concerned the person has already been found guilty. They are not having a trial in the UM segment. They are simply pointing out the evidence that was either overlooked, or not presented correctly at the trial of these people. UM made Jeff MacDonald appear like a saint, I agree. I think he never would have ended up where he is if he hadn't started bad mouthing the MPs on TV. At that point I think they railroaded him. In that case, no matter what else you believe, you have a man that told his story of being attacked, described at least one attacker, someone else admitted to being there and watched the crimes being commited and this person fit the description MacDonald gave, and there was even physical evidence found at the seen that backs up both stories. Yet MacDonald is still in prison. I feel that if there were video of the crime showing that MacDonald didn't do it, he would somehow still be where he is today.

Back on topic though, Darlie Routier may well have commited the crime. But there are questions that have not been answered that in my opinion, at least would have given her reasonable doubt.