Retesting of DNA Granted in Routier Case

Started by ScoopD (aka: Pam), November 18, 2008, 04:17:22 PM

previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Go Down

Elric of Melnibone

He could always pimp out mamma'stalking for the pocket change...

You can lead an ass to water and if you fight long and hard, you can make it drink.  But at the end of the day, after all the fighting, it is still an ass.

Banned from PTO 3 times so far for life.

JTiscool


He could always pimp out mamma'stalking for the pocket change...


How is he going to do that when he would need to pay people to deal with her?  :o
My reason for supporting the death penalty? A murderer has less of a right to live than his victim and already presents a danger while incarcerated for life. They have nothing to lose when the most they can get is Life in prison without parole.

Elric of Melnibone

I thought they would pay him.  You dont think $0.02 is being excessive???
You can lead an ass to water and if you fight long and hard, you can make it drink.  But at the end of the day, after all the fighting, it is still an ass.

Banned from PTO 3 times so far for life.

JTiscool


I thought they would pay him.  You dont think $0.02 is being excessive???


Are you kidding me? That's more of a steal than selling a jolly rancher for $10. She's not even close to being worth the gum on the bottom of a shoe  ;D ;D ;D ;D
My reason for supporting the death penalty? A murderer has less of a right to live than his victim and already presents a danger while incarcerated for life. They have nothing to lose when the most they can get is Life in prison without parole.

Kitten Resq

Oh mannnn, is Dave still drooling over this little biotch?  I thought he would have tired of her long ago.
Some people say I'm a horrible person, but it's not true!  I have the heart of an innocent girl....in a jar, on my desk

Victims have a dignitary interest in justice and vindication without interminable delay caused by guilty prisoners' attempts to stave off punishment.

ggbop

When Darlie is realesed  ;D ;D ;D, Dave intends to be at the gate so that they can run off into the sunset together.  She even drew him a tracing of her hand as it will be the nearest they will ever get to holding hands  ::)
Genesis 9:6
"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man. "

ggbop

Crime scene photos  - WARNING, some are graphic

http://www.routiertranscripts.com/

Genesis 9:6
"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man. "

JoeGuru

Great article:

http://justice4newcomers.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/no-doubt-in-darlie-routiers-circumstantial-evidence/

Quote
NO DOUBT IN DARLIE ROUTIER'S CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

THE TRUTH OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

The continuing antics by supporters of Darlie Routier leave more then a lot to be desired, especially when confusion of facts tumble down to blatant lies. The focus on the case has somewhat shifted of late, to the ridiculous and impossible claims by the Routier clan.

The focus now lies not on Routier herself, but more on the propaganda spread by her supporters, which does little more than highlights the clear and convincing evidence of her guilt. For the past 16 years Routier and her supporters have spewed propaganda relating to the physical evidence against this murdering mother.

One of the greatest spiels is that Routier was 'convicted on circumstantial evidence'. One of their favourite lines is 'The prosecution's case against Darlie Routier, presented in court in 1997, was based on circumstantial evidence. '

Circumstantial evidence is any other evidence where there is not an eye witness. Most cases are based on circumstantial evidence, and always have been. It is nothing new, or unusual, or sinister, as suggested by the Routier clan.

Circumstantial evidence is not just pulled from anywhere, it is not unsubstantiated evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence which may allow a judge or jury to deduce a certain fact from other facts which can be proven.

It is the burden of the prosecutors to show, through a set of circumstances that link, that their theory of what took place is the only logical explanation and that the circumstances can be explained by no other theory.

In some cases there are small amounts of circumstantial evidence that can not be explained easily, or do not fit together to form a pattern, or link to a lead to the perpetrator.

In Routier's case all of the circumstantial evidence pointed to Darlie Routier, and linked together to tell the story of how a mother killed her two young sons, Devon and Damon.

Conversely, in circumstantial evidence cases, it is the job of the defence to show that the same circumstances could be explained by an alternative theory. In order to avoid a conviction, all a defence attorney has to do is put enough doubt into one juror's mind that the prosecution's explanation of the circumstances is flawed.

However, this did not happen in the Routier case. The defence had nothing of evidential value to put forward, because there was none. Although the defence tried to put forward the theory that an intruder had committed the murders, they had no evidence of an intruder, not one tiny piece of evidence even pointing to an intruder.

Darlie Routier helped convict herself further when she took the stand. She had written to various people from prison , telling them that she knew who the alleged 'intruder' was. She even named some people. Her letters were nothing more than barefaced lies, and she was caught out at trial in the lies she had written, to family members and supporters.

Routier stood in court and actually asked if it 'was legal' to intercept her prison post. The resounding laughter from the court reduced Routier to tears, together with the realisation that she had been caught out in her ploy to deter people from the truth of her guilt.

The prosecution proved Routier's guilt using circumstantial evidence. That is very important, because it means there was enough evidence, that linked together to tell a story, evidence other than an eye witness, that linked Routier to the murders.

And so, although people may be sceptical when they hear 'circumstantial evidence' sprouted aloud by supporters, all it really means is that there was enough evidence against Routier to prove her guilt.

Sometimes people get lucky and there is not enough circumstantial evidence, or it can not be linked. In the Routier case, there was a mountain of circumstantial evidence, including physical evidence that all linked to prove her guilt.

And so Routier remains one of the unlucky ones, and remains what and where she deserves to be. A murdering mother on death row...

JoeGuru

As it's been point out so many times: the tactic of these "supporters" is to create questions (I hesitate to use the word "doubt") by spinning unrelated, irrelevant underwear poo--then throwing it against the wall to see if it will stick.

Pubic hairs, "reports" of strange, suspicious vehicles, "reports" of people trying to break in to the house, manufactured claims, etc.--what connection do these have to the crime?

The answer: nothing.

ggbop

Genesis 9:6
"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man. "

ggbop


As it's been point out so many times: the tactic of these "supporters" is to create questions (I hesitate to use the word "doubt") by spinning unrelated, irrelevant underwear poo--then throwing it against the wall to see if it will stick.

Pubic hairs, "reports" of strange, suspicious vehicles, "reports" of people trying to break in to the house, manufactured claims, etc.--what connection do these have to the crime?

The answer: nothing.


But sometimes it works - no one knows better than you the amount of doubt Hank and his Skank have created over the years by using exactly the same tactics
Genesis 9:6
"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man. "

time2prtee

Here is a copy of the DNA report from June 2015

https://youcouldbewrong.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/dr-06262015103716.pdf

Saw this posted in a few places
"Indeed, the decision that capital punishment may be the appropriate sanction in extreme cases is an expression of the community's belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death."  SCOTUS

Peace and Comfort to all Victims and Families

Go Up