Anyone remember Darlie Routier murder case? (Rowlett, Van: attorneys, law school, university)

[DitsyD]

Originally Posted by laurenlo2737

I 150% think she deserves a new trial. I'm still undecided on whether or not she actually did it. But, it's clear the entire trial was one-sided. Multiple investigators and crime scene specialist fully believe she did not do it based on physical evidence but....they were never called to testify....a picture was painted of her and that's what was held on to throughout the trial. I'm not saying she's totally innocent, I don't know, but there's a huge part of me that feels like she is. I watch a loooooooot of crime shows (like most of yall) and you always "know" who did it while watching the show or reading about the crime, I didn't feel that with this one. Not once. It's hard to believe that someone would just walk in and kill two boys and try to kill the women but.....they talk a lot about how much money they had and all the jewelry they had...if someone broke in to rob them and saw people and panicked? very likely to be an intruder....idk just my thoughts. I feel she at least deserves a new trial.

If there were professionals that had evidence that she didn't do it, then her defense team should have called them to the witness stand. Her lawyer must not have felt that they had evidence or were credible.

[jbb303]

This case has been going through appeals for more than 20 years and the Innocence Project wants nothing to do with it. That says a lot about the case. I haven't watched part 4 of The Last Defense, but my take didn't change: she was convicted on a ton of circumstantial evidence that has held up in the courts since her trial.

[MurphyPl1]

Making my neighbors dad a lot of cash and publicity for the last 20 years.

[usc619]

Hope she fry

[kyam11]

I just finished watching the 4 part special and these are my observations:

1) . I have no clue if she did it.

2) . Her lawyers ego and ineptness got her convicted

3) . The people of Kerrville are about as simple and backwards as people could be. The lady juror has the mindset, sophistication and intelligence of a 6 year old.

4) . You don't ever want to be tried in Kerrville

5) . Based on what I saw it was definitely not beyond a reasonable doubt however it is possible that because her lawyer was so poor he simply did not cover what should have been covered.

6) . I remember watching a show a few years back where multiple police officers said the accused didn't grieve the right way, the jurors claimed the accused didn't grieve the right way, the family said the accused didn't grieve the right way. Accused was convicted. Well one of the same officers proved the accused innocent about 5-10 years later. The irony is they never asked any of those people "I thought you said he did it because the accused did not grieve the right way. Was that quite possibly the dumbest thing you have ever said and done?" There is no right or wrong way to grieve. You grieve how you do.

[laurenlo2737]

Originally Posted by DitsyD

If there were professionals that had evidence that she didn't do it, then her defense team should have called them to the witness stand. Her lawyer must not have felt that they had evidence or were credible.

That's the one thing that drove me insane about this entire case!! Like why would you not call those witnesses?! In my opinion, I think her lawyers thought the opposite, I think they felt the prosecutors evidence wasn't going to be enough to actually convict her and they were cocky so they didn't try as hard as they should've. Which isn't fair to either side. It would be nice to see this go back to trial with ALL evidence from both sides.

[laurenlo2737]

Originally Posted by kyam11

I just finished watching the 4 part special and these are my observations:

1) . I have no clue if she did it.

2) . Her lawyers ego and ineptness got her convicted

3) . The people of Kerrville are about as simple and backwards as people could be. The lady juror has the mindset, sophistication and intelligence of a 6 year old.

4) . You don't ever want to be tried in Kerrville

5) . Based on what I saw it was definitely not beyond a reasonable doubt however it is possible that because her lawyer was so poor he simply did not cover what should have been covered.

6) . I remember watching a show a few years back where multiple police officers said the accused didn't grieve the right way, the jurors claimed the accused didn't grieve the right way, the family said the accused didn't grieve the right way. Accused was convicted. Well one of the same officers proved the accused innocent about 5-10 years later. The irony is they never asked any of those people "I thought you said he did it because the accused did not grieve the right way. Was that quite possibly the dumbest thing you have ever said and done?" There is no right or wrong way to grieve. You grieve how you do.

completely agree with literally everything you said lol

[PriscillaVanilla]

She has steadfastly maintained her innocence all these years.

[hbdwihdh378y9]

She staged the crime scene. That means guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

If once isn't enough, go back and read comment #18 50 times.

She did it.

[Listener2307]

I followed closely, since I lived in the area at the time.
She's guilty, but I don't care what they do with her.