Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2009 11:42:46 GMT -5
Her site, much like the Free the West Memphis Three site, is full of red herrings. Does anyone here think she is innocent? If not, do you think she was in it alone?
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Jun 20, 2009 12:39:10 GMT -5
You're right about Darlie's site and I do not think she's innocent. Maybe Darren discovered what she'd done and gave her a beat down before she called police, which would explain all those bruises in the photographs taken at the hospital.
I think if Darren had been in on it, Drake would've been killed, too. So, he probably had no idea and still has no idea as to why Darlie killed Devon and Damon.
kma367
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2009 13:27:53 GMT -5
You're right about Darlie's site and I do not think she's innocent. Maybe Darren discovered what she'd done and gave her a beat down before she called police, which would explain all those bruises in the photographs taken at the hospital. I think if Darren had been in on it, Drake would've been killed, too. So, he probably had no idea and still has no idea as to why Darlie killed Devon and Damon. kma367 Do you think the bloody sock was connected? If so, how did she manage to dispose of it and cover up the crime scene in such a short period of time without help? (based on Damon still being alive when the paramedics showed up)
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Jun 20, 2009 13:48:16 GMT -5
As I understand it, the area wasn't that far away and Darlie could've taken the sock out and gotten back in a short period of time before she called police. I wouldn't be surprised to find out some day that Darren tried to help her cover up or stage the crime scene, though.
As for Damon still being alive when paramedics got there, you just never know. I've seen and read about people who have survived devastating injuries that even surprise doctors. Damon tried and was able to hang on for a while, where Devon wasn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2009 13:20:11 GMT -5
I read all the true crime books about the case many, many years ago, but have never really delved into the complete trial transcripts. Based on what I know, I lean toward her being guilty. The one thing that causes me to have a lingering doubt is the sock, and if she had enough time to plant it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2009 23:39:09 GMT -5
I read all the true crime books about the case many, many years ago, but have never really delved into the complete trial transcripts. Based on what I know, I lean toward her being guilty. The one thing that causes me to have a lingering doubt is the sock, and if she had enough time to plant it. Could the sock have been from different point in time? If not, why would an intruder take the sock to begin with and then drop it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2009 13:16:42 GMT -5
The easiest way I can explain the sock is if Darin was involved. Even absent that theory, there was time for Darlier to dump it, but it was not much. Why would an intruder take it and then drop it? If only I knew what goes through a murderer's mind. Maybe it was the classic souvenir and he accidently dropped it while running away. It's been yeeears since I read about the case, so I can't remember the prosecution's theory on the sock. Can you refresh my recollection?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2011 3:53:50 GMT -5
For the record, Darlie and her family are NUTS! I used to run a pro truth, i.e. anti-Darlie, site, and they followed me to multiple places in Dallas. (For example, I would go to lunch, and come back to slashed tires and a "Free Darlie" bumper sticker. Scary people.)
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Jan 19, 2011 16:36:30 GMT -5
Welcome to the board, BHudnall. I'm can't say I'm surprised by what you said about Darlie and her family. I think the crazy woman believes she didn't do it. What's always puzzled me is the husband. How could he not know she was involved and how could he support her?
Feel free to post information about the case here. I've only marginally read some of the claims made by the defense, which are not credible and some of the information that refutes the defense claims.
I do remember that the court reporter for her trial really screwed things up with the transcripts. Has that all been resolved?
Where do the blood tests requested by the defense stand?
Thanks,
kma367
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2011 1:27:42 GMT -5
It's funny....her supporters are mirror images of these guys here. Honestly, I kinda backed out after the whole stalking thing. Flattening tires, bumper stickers...really creepy. Her mom was working at Erickson when I was a network admin for a company, and she tried to get me fired. (Imagine my surprise when I opened the "abuse@blahblah.com" andd...voila, Darlie Kee was spouting craziness. I did get some face time with one of the lead detectives, and he told me some pretty fascinating things. Talked to one of the ER nurses that treated her that night....(Iused to go to church with her -the nurse.) Said she was the "smuggest grieving mother she'd ever treated." There are some inconsistencies, but nothing that is material to the case. (Typoes and other oddities, but nothing that changes anything. I mean, nothing sheds doubt on her conviction. Hence, the lack of a new trial. But, her supporters have shocking and revealing info...theyre just biding their time. ) Here's something I wrote many years ago....it was actually published in the Dallas Morning News. (Written by Bhud) The Vast Rowlett Conspiracy (VRC), not to be confused with the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy", was apparently created just to put Darlie Routier in prison. Why? Well, no one seems to know. To Darlie's supporters, though, the VRC is a growing entity, swallowing anyone who remotely supports the jury conviction of this woman. Their argument for Darlie's frame up? "Well, I know Darlie, and I know she wouldn't do this." Therefore there MUST be a conspiracy to frame her. Regardless of their careers, the police, nurses, doctors, EMTs, lawyers, court reporters, news crews, jurors, and even the Govenor of Texas have conspired to convict an innocent woman according to her supporters. The Players in the VRC: Darlie's neighbors: They must be key players, as some of them brought damaging testimony against her in the trial. The Rowlett PD: Obviously this was a frame from the get go to get Darlie, and keep the heat off this genius intruder who wasn?t smart enough to just pull the screen off, but instead broke in undetected, stole a knife, cut the screen, crawled in, put the knife back, and then found a knife with which to kill Darlie, while stealing nothing, and leaving no evidence behind. Dallas County City and residents of Kerrville, Texas The FBI Former Governor George W. Bush Black Cars (Maybe if Art Bell was still broadcasting this would get some pub? Black cars/black helicopters...hmmm) Any pro-justice person. Just ask a pro-Darlie type. The creators of Luminol The Learning Channel Darlie's Attorneys. Of course they're in on it, being buddies with the judges/prosecution and all. Judges, prosecution team, all legal types The entire State of Texas Huntsville Priso The list goes on and on. As the evidence against her stacks up, the VRC grows exponentially. Eventually it will even include the Executioner. Things to watch for: - Lots of use of the words THEY or THEM, or some such, when referring to the VRC players. If you offer fact, they may counter with "Oh, that's just want THEY want you to believe." - Religious references. If you mention anything about getting straight with God or whatever, they will respond with something like: "If you attend any church it is all in vain because God does not hear the prayers of people full of hate." (An actual email from a VRC-er) - Promises of "Shell Shocking Evidence" (SSE). They'll promise you the world in shocking evidence, but claim they can't reveal it this time. As Bill Cosby said in his "Noah" skit...."R-i-g-h-t" You get the picture. Proceed with caution for they are onto the VRC!!!! -Bhud www.oocities.com/starkman14/VRC.html
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Jan 20, 2011 15:56:59 GMT -5
I think Darlie's attorneys were using the issues regarding the court reporter (who I believe was eventually convicted of some type of criminal charges in Texas related to her work - can't remember what, though) and the problems with the transcript entitled Darlie to a new trial. A few of the attorneys I worked with at the time felt that Darlie's side were right, since the record was being represented as so inaccurate it was useless to either side in the direct appeals.
I've seen the claims of shocking new evidence many times from supporters in the WM3 case, Mark Byers the chief one among them. There's also an attorney in New Jersey who has predicted their release from prison with a year - three times. Of course, he's been wrong two times, so far and is wrong again based on the timing of the new trial hearings.
Thanks for posting info about the VRC. It appears I, too, am a member.
kma367
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2011 14:33:03 GMT -5
My first reaction when reading about this case was she was guilty. Mostly, I think, based on her behavior. Which I decided was not really fair. So I tried to take out her strange behavior from the situation and deal with just the facts of the case. I was left with things the intruder theory just does not easily accommodate. Here are a few examples. First, why would a lone burgler enter a house inhabited by two adults and three children without a weapon? Next, after locating a knife, why would he enter a room with three people and attack the two children (the ones least likely to pose a threat) while leaving the adult that would be most likely to be able to fight back, get help, or have access to a weapon alone? Why take the time to clean up blood yet leave the murder weapon behind? Also, based on the wounds suffered by the boys and Darlie, the attacker would have had a significant amount of blood on himself yet no one saw anyone looking like they had been in a battle wandering around the area. And finally, but maybe most importantly, why did the crime occur at all? Nothing was taken, nothing was gained by the killings. If you accept the intruder theory, you are left with no motive at all for the attacks. No reason to have entered the house to begin with and absolutely no reason to have attacked the boys. Although you do not need a motive to prove guilt, it certainly helps and a lack of any kind of motive, as in this theory, makes you skeptical.
|
|