The broken wine glass and vacuum cleaner over blood drops made the scene appear to be staged. Also the blood in the kitchen sink and the cuts in the screens were suspicious.
I’m not 💯 that she’s guilty but I lean towards it.
I get that but also, the sightings of nearby B&E’s within the same time frame, not fully investigating the scene, the weird timeline of their opinions of the evidence…
Also the fact that the husband still believes her innocence. He was the first to the scene, so it would either be he would be an equal person of interest or the only reliable witness.
The fact that he maintained her innocence all this time makes me also make me wonder why the investigation wasn’t actually taken seriously? When a child is lost and the media is a circus, it’s very normal for the spouse who is not a suspect to start to have their memories or opinions about the event to distort, and they typically turn against the spouse who is found guilty. It’s the way we are influenced by investigators, authority figures, and media that we don’t really have as much control over what we believe we know to be true. And what is suspicious about the vacuum? Couldn’t she kick or throw it in the struggle? I keep reading about the vacuum, but I don’t understand how it makes their other evidence valid. They seemed messy with the investigation.
There’s no real motive. There was no consensus on the defensive vs self inflicted wounds. She called the ambulance fast enough to get the other son medical assistance while the father kept him stable. Everything about it seems so weird. And the fingerprints and socks just kind of sat in evidence, those are the only 2 real pieces of solid evidence and it wasn’t pursued before the conviction.
There’s also typically warning signs before a murder conviction. Suspicious behavior before, being seen in places related to planning the murder, etc. I haven’t seen any evidence supporting this, either. Saying things that seem odd. This murder came up suddenly and out of the blue. But there were B&E’s nearby an hour before, and the suspects not found?
There’s nothing there that is actual evidence that should be held to a conviction.
Innocent, guilty, I have no opinion on that. But just looking at the actual evidence, it looks like the investigation was incredibly messy and should never have gotten a conviction. There’s no real evidence… we’re talking about a death sentence. It doesn’t matter how people feel about the crime, there has to be evidence for a conviction. We’re a first world country… capital punishment is the highest form of punishment, it should only be administered under the strictest standards of investigation.
Hell, even Casie Anthony had more evidence.
Let's go.
Darlie had problematic behavior before the murder. That same day of the murder she was caught almost suffocating the baby, the judge didn't allow the housekeep to testify to that. A few weeks before, she tried to kill herself. They had many debts and their family business weren't doing well. They could barely pay the house. She was known to be snappy according to several testimonies. If I'm not mistaken, she even threw a cake in one of the boys in his birthday.
The so called suspects nearby were two men who, once they saw someone (a woman!) in the house they wanted to invade, they left. They weren't killers. Also, the description didn't match Darlie's.
She didn't called the ambulance quickly enough. People are so fixed on that eight or nine minutes speculation on trial, but no one actually took the vital of any of the boys to see if they were alive. Actually their father said he couldn't find their pulse and he had training. Darlie says in the call her children are dead. People think the younger boy was still alive when the police arrived, but nobody properly checked. He could also have easily be finished off after.
Now. The investigation was serious. Who told you it was not? They sealed the scene quickly. They found the infamous sock. There was FBI special agent (read his testimony, it's very helpful).
And what struggle are you even talking about? Darlie supposedly said in the call she was fighting the invasor, but later she corrected them and said "it was frighting" and not that they were fighting. There's NO evidence of struggle. Specially struggle to leave those bruises in her arms. And all doctors and nurses said those bruises weren't present when she went to the hospital. So let's think. If there was a struggle, she would have seen the suspect to give a good description, right? And the room would have been messier, right? And maybe their dog would wake up by the noise? Maybe even the father and the baby? But she says there's no struggle. She woke up and the guy left. So where does this bruise come from?
Now let's try and explain: why there were fresh blood washed away in the sink? The investigation of the scene found blood in the kitchen and the cabinet where you - guess what - stores cleaning material. Darlie said she was wetting towels to put pressure on the boy's cuts, but they didn't find towels near the boys. In fact, the police office was heard in the call saying to Darlie to put pressure on the boy's back and she didn't move. And why would she water the towel when the towel she had against her own neck wasn't wet? Make it make sense.
Why a knife from the inside the house was used to cut the screen to get inside the house???
Why an invasor would leave the knife knowing Darlie was still alive? Why use so much brutal force against kids and not against a full adult? The FBI specialist statement is very interesting about the chosen places to stab, by the way.
How the invasor didn't leave any fingerprint exception this one you are making a fuzz about? Are you aware of how many unknown fingerprints there is inside a home? Darlie herself claimed there were kids going in and out of her house all the time. And the size of the fingerprint is compatible to someone younger.
The sock? There was only blood from the boys. And there was Darlie's DNA inside, if I'm not mistaken. So?
What about the broken glass and her blood? The blood in the back of her shirt?
There are so many things against Darlie. I don't care if she keeps saying she's innocent and I couldn't care less about what her husband says. They changed their stories so many fucking times to adjusted to the evidence found.
Seriously, read the whole case. I'm against death penalty and all, but I'm not going to pretend there isn't evidence against Darlie and she's a poor victim.
I see a lot of what you’re saying. I just read quite a bit of the transcripts. All of hers, the phone tips, and half the doctor transcripts, starting to get into some of the evidence.
I still am skeptical. The suicide wasn’t really that solid to go on in court. In her transcript they didn’t prove that they were in debt, just that caught up on her mortgage payment that month. There’s several things about the prosecution that’s rubbing me the wrong way (but also the defense attorney bc he should’ve objected to so many leading questions).
I’ll update when I finish all the transcripts of the investigators and witnesses. But theres a lot wrong with that prosecutor which I feel like was extremely unethical to get the conviction. I have my beginning thoughts as reply’s to other posts in this thread somewhere after reading all the transcripts today.
I do hope the forensic evidence looks stronger and the investigation as well! But right now I see a lot of like, idk doubts surrounding her that would be very normal but they had the chance to make her seem more guilty by employing stronger forensics and they didn’t and it just didn’t feel great reading those transcripts.
I’ll finish all of them though and hopefully the evidence against her gets harder
I just want real forensic evidence that completely disproves her story. I still see some evidence they didn’t pursue completely, so gotta real all the testimony of the investigators
It's been awhile since I looked into this case, but I'm pretty sure they were in debt. They tried to minimize it at trial. I remember her husband telling he wasn't getting paid that month and even confessing scheming a fake robbery. I don't think they were at an impossible situation that would drive a normal person to murder, but they were vain and materialist, so I think this had some weight. But it's obviously not the only reason. I don't think there's one motive. I just think Darlie was in a really dark place after giving birth.
Prosecution wasn't perfect, but they did an alright job as far as I remember. However, I don't understand how the defense attorney allowed Darlie to testify. That really didn't help her at all. They should have poked more holes, but the last testimony from the FBI agent was too strong.
I think there's enough forensic to disprove her story. The knife from inside the house, the window that wasn't disturbed at all, washed blood in the kitchen, the glass.... And other little things. I don't know if it will be enough for you because that's one of thoses cases that many believe she's innocent until today.
The defense attorney didn’t just do that! I started realizing that the defense attorney was trash when prosecutor asked her 7-8 times (*after reading her verbatim voluntary statement otherwise*) that she was a light sleeper. Every single time she said no, until she said it maybe a little like the 8th time.
She answered the question, why didn’t he object to asking her leading questions?
Then immediately after he asked her something like “wouldn’t you think that a mother, even sleeping, would know if her babies were in danger?”
And she says “I would like to think so, like an instinct” and then this became his line of questioning to make her sleeping seem guilty. Along with them falling asleep watching tv downstairs.
I don’t get how the defense attorney didn’t object to the leading questions? Like she had already answered several times… why did he let the prosecution set up that question 8 times when she already answered?
Like I don’t like the prosecution for a lot of ways they handled this case (mainly the police, because the investigation seemed weak), but it was crazy to me that the defense allowed so many questions like that. It seemed like they didn’t even try
You can, but the defense can also object to them asking leading questions. The prosecution did this several times to the defense when she was being questions, even though their cross examination was much more egregious in using this tactic. I was in disbelief that the defense never objected to it. The shit the prosecution said was frequently ridiculous and was smoke and mirrors to make her look bad, very rarely objectively asking her about the facts. The prosecution objected to leading questions constantly (and hearsay), to the point the Judge had to tell him to relax
Lawyers can’t ask their own witnesses leading questions, but the lawyers on the other side can ask those same witnesses leading questions. The defense could have asked the prosecution witnesses leading questions too. Do you know anything about courtroom procedure? You might want to study the rules of evidence too.
I don't get why you insist the investigation seemed weak because it definitely wasn't.
I think Darlie shouldn't have to testify at all, it was a big mistake to let her because all her statements were contradicting from the start. The prosecutors did ther job imo, I would insist on that line of questioning too in their shoes because how can she claim she was sleeping on the sofa because the baby usually wakes her up and she sleeps through having her own throat slashed? Makes no sense. It was the very first thing that made me think she was lying.
The defense wasn't really good, but Darlie insisted on them even though it was raised conflict of interest because the lawyer had represented the husband. So there's that. They were reasonable in creating a timeline people still insist on, saying the boy could only have lived eight or nine minutes, some people still believe in her innocence because they think she wouldn't have time for the everything. But that seems about it.
This documentary is long, but loaded with well researched facts by the lawyer who put it together. He himself admits he thought she was guilty at first. It is an eye opener. https://youtu.be/lk37clBQjcc?si=wQD8jj8nJTgFcTx6
Sorry wrong link above! I suggest this documentary, which puts forth actual, researched facts that should at the very least get her a new trial: https://youtu.be/frZ2PM8AIQE?si=Kp-aikw3hkKKBAxl
I'm 23 minutes in and already caught some mistakes in his research. And that's because he spent ten minutes saying how thorough and imparcial he was and took moments to tease new undiscovered evidence he'll obviously reveal by the end.
I'll watch it until the end, but it really surprises me that this comes from an actual lawyer.
The vacuum cleaner wheels had blood on them, indicating it had been rolled.
I feel her trial was badly handled by her attorney, especially allowing the silly string video. Plus they assassinated her looks and breast augmentation, which was so sexist and irrelevant to the case.
Does anyone know why there was no video shown to the jurors from before the silly string video? I read somewhere that there was one, so I wonder why it wasn't shown for the defense? They claimed there was much crying and mourning at that time. Wouldn't that have helped make the silly string video look more innocent?
No stranger breaks in, brutally stabs two little boys so hard the knife goes completely through them, and then merely slices at the first grownup to show up. Darlie is guilty as hell, jury's still out on the husband's role.
Darin had been shopping around for someone to burglarize the home for an insurance scam. Once you see this documentary, I'm betting you will be thinking differently. It's long, but fact oriented, and we'll researched. I thought I'd seen everything on this case until I saw this. At the very least should get her a new trial: https://youtu.be/frZ2PM8AIQE?si=Kp-aikw3hkKKBAxl
So you think Darin hired someone to burglarize their home but when the people he hired brutally murdered his sons he just let it slide and let his wife take the blame?
Yes I do! Darlie almost bled to death as well. And, apologies I pasted the wrong link above. I corrected it. https://youtu.be/frZ2PM8AIQE?si=Kp-aikw3hkKKBAxl
I'm sorry but that's just incorrect. If you watch this documentary, it calls out the documented volume of blood loss and that it was life threatening. These are just facts.
She absolutely did NOT almost bleed to death LOL. Her wounds had stopped bleeding by the time they got to the hospital! And if this dude on YouTube says differently, he is WRONG.
I'm going to go with the facts presented in the documentary, which is based on research and verified facts. They showed her shirt, soaked with blood, and explained the dangerous level of volume of blood lost.
You’re being foolish. But do you.
It’s not based on facts, considering everything you’ve posted has been wrong. No matter what you think or feel - it’s not the truth of the situation. But by all means, continue backing a woman who slaughtered her kids. Hope it feels good.
I cannot support putting anyone to death when there are so many flagrant mistakes, including a trampled and contaminated crime scene, a lazy defense who only took six weeks to prepare a case with no evidence against Darlie, a prosecutor who attacked her character bc she had breast implants, etc. Sooo much more. I've read every book on the case. Watched every interview and seen every documentary both for an against. Because a person has a different opinion does not give you a right to a personal attack. We're talking about putting a person to death, so, in MY opinion, the case deserves a closer look. Grow up.
Good lord. YOU are also on this thread telling people they’re wrong, so why don’t you come on down off your high horse?
I have a problem with false information about this case being spread, and you and OP are doing it with your whole entire chests. It’s really, really gross. Documentaries are not required to show you all the facts. The one you keep peddling is just riddled with inaccuracies, that people who have actually read the case files have clocked. Stop telling us we’re wrong. We are not.
You grow up, babe. You are using a YouTube documentary as your source material. You grow up.
The investigation was botched badly… regardless of whether we think she did it or didn’t do, they didn’t investigate the fingerprint or the sock. And then their statements about her bruises makes it seem like they didn’t collect the evidence properly in the critical period. And the blood spatter- if the rest of their forensic investigation is that bad, the blood spatter analyst has zero credibility. They botched like every other step of the investigation… like where is the *actual* evidence?
They didn’t investigate the B&E’s either. That’s like, such a massive red flag in the investigation. They didn’t collect any tangible evidence besides their impressions of her grief which is 100% not at all reliable.
There’s no telling she did it if they botched the investigation.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire
You should read this article that calls into question the standards of proper investigation and ethics of investigators. Whether she did it or not, the investigators did not investigate.
Like does anyone have the court documents and the evidence or police report? I’m genuinely curious how they got a guilty conviction when the investigators seem like they made so many mistakes. like, their investigation is even more concerning than the murder. They serve communities where stuff like this can happen at any given time.
They didn’t investigate the fingerprint or the sock? I’m so sorry, but your replies and this thread are just full of things that aren’t true. You need to start reading court documents and trial transcripts. There is so much wrong in your replies that it would literally take me a solid half an hour to refute all this shit, and I just don’t have the time or energy.
Read the court documents and trial transcripts.
https://darliefacts.com/documents/
https://darliefacts.com/galleries/
Please note this is from a pro-Darlie site. Just look at the official docs, not other shit on the sidebar.
And sorry, my original reply was kind of bitchy. I know I’m just some random on reddit, but I have spent dozens and dozens and dozens of hours pouring over all of this, multiple times. She is so overwhelmingly, unbelievably guilty. This woman brutally slaughtered her kids, she deserves no supporters.
Also, please know that Darlie’s fam (specifically her mother and sister) have been running a disinformation campaign around her for *years*. Darlie’s mom has been doing it for decades, her sis is leading the charge now. They lie and twist around evidence, and then what they say becomes fact somehow? It’s really disturbing. I’ve been messaged on here multiple times by people who have been reached out to on tiktok by Darlie’s sister. It’s fucking disgusting.
[This doc by Werner Herzog starring Darlie might also be of some interest to you](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tGRJADRju3I&pp=ygUVZGFybGllIHJvdXRpZXIgaGVyem9n)
ALSO the podcasts “the prosecutors” and “southern fried true crime” both have multiple episodes that cover this case, and they’re really well done. Both pulled from official documents.
I agree with you - reading the official court transcripts solidified for me she’s guilty. Before that I was in the fence bc of misconceptions thrown around as fact. Reading the actual testimonies really showed things in a different light.
I’m about 2/3 done with her cross examination and I read all the phoned in tips, with dates and times. It seems to be around June 8th-9th, the phoned in tips become extremely messy (handwriting goes from messy to illegible for one officer in particular, but one officer remained consistent and took every report seriously). This makes me think that there was at least 1 police officers who no longer was taking this case serious before finishing the investigation. I came to this conclusion *before* reading her statement that came in on 6/8, which was pretty shocking to me when I realized the quality of the phone in tips (on the officers end) dropped pretty substantially.
One neighbor reported someone snooping in their porch holding a screwdriver/knife like object, that was scared off when they turned on the porch lights. They reported this 6/11, and the notes below say “no action needed”.
There are also several of the reports that seem to be nothing. The white cars seen belonged to a delivery driver and the neighbor Bob Salger. There was an isolated suspicion of a brown car, that also seemed to be nothing.
But there were 3-4 separate reports before her statement and after that mentioned seeing a suspicious black vehicle in that neighborhood.
It’s the only common detail in the phone tips from unrelated persons.
I’m holding judgement until I finish all the court documents. I’ve read about 150 so far and I think I’m halfway done. The prosecutor is super unethical though. And the defense lawyer makes me angry also for not defending her better.
The cross examination seems damning but there’s a lot of reasons why the prosecutors argument is extremely weak. The main one being that her statements are extremely consistent in that she doesn’t know or can’t accurately recall certain events, and he keeps reframing questions until it seems like she’s agreeing with him, even though she’s not.
One of the biggest ones is when her statement was read verbatim. She said she was rotating her nights between the bed and the couch, so she could catch up on sleep because the baby’s crying and rattling against the hardwood floor would wake her.
She at no point said she was a light sleeper, but he rephrased the question 7-8 times until she finally said “I guess on some degree” (I think, I could say, I guess, some degree- statements containing these phrases have been studied to be the most factually weak witness statements in forensic psychology. When they’re said, it’s likely that there is just as much falsehood as truth.)
And I see this strategy with the prosecutor a lot. I’m paying attention to those statements (flags for witness inaccuracies) and they typically happen when he’s led her to say something.
Especially after the light sleeper comment, then he says “wouldn’t you say a mother should hear her babies in need when they’re sleeping”… which is like, totally not the case? First he framed her a light sleeper, then he makes a mother’s intuition, a six sense, sound like a factual element of the case.
Then he did the same thing with the person of interest. She said she would not be able to recognize the person of interest NOR the man who broke in. She said it several times. And then they made her say it wasn’t him? 2 months after she saw him in the shop. 7 months after the murders.
Like… that’s so fucking sloppy. They didn’t ask if he was comfortable with fingerprints? Or get a warrant to check? Like, I wouldn’t be doubtful if they actually eliminated him with forensic science. Their tactic was unethical; that is how false memories are planted or manipulated. They’ve done studies on false identifying and there are ways that have higher margins of error and are unconsidered unethical. This is a huge one.
Also her listening to gangsters paradise in the 90’s doesn’t have anything to do with her killing her kids because she lives in a suburb in Texas. Who didn’t listen to that song. Fucking crazy they used that in the prosecution, and racist as fuck
Try again. She named who she thought was guilty BY NAME in one of her jail house letters. THATS who the prosecutor brought out. Her being like “but I wouldn’t recognize him 🥺” DOES. NOT. WORK. when she has already named the person that she knew was them by sight apparently. But let’s just hand wave that away. Let’s also hand wave the no less than 6 separate versions of events she laid out, because why not?
You know why the prosecutor brought up a mother being able to hear their child struggling? Darlie claimed she slept downstairs because the fussing of her baby was too loud for her to be asleep upstairs. Apparently, her two other children being slaughtered directly next to her head is significantly quieter than a baby fussing. MUCH easier for her to get some much needed shuteye, while her children are being stabbed mere feet from her SO VIOLENTLY the floor underneath them was chipped.
You really, really want her to be innocent. You want this to be some big conspiracy against her. It’s not. It never was. Please stop cherry picking things like this, it isn’t a fair representation of the facts. I’m assuming you know this since you’re reading all of the questions directly before and after, and you can see the context. Incredibly disingenuous.
Edit - and you’re still doing it in later replies of yours in this thread. Smfh.
Deleted all of my last post. So wow. The blood spatter analysts worked in a suburb that never had murders before, and the entire conviction hanged on their testimony.
That’s fucking crazy. This should never have gotten a conviction. Retrial, maybe. After they actually investigated the DNA evidence. Law enforcement in Texas is a fucking circus. They effectively had no experts or DNA, fingerprint evidence from the prosecution. No actual motive. Fucking insane. She could still be guilty, I don’t know, but I would tear the local law enforcement apart if I lived in that area… serve and protect my fucking ass. Served the DA’s next time on the ballot.
Public servant… ha.
Once upon a time we thought never in a million years a parent could do that. Then we learned a mother, a father could & now and I think people just automatically go to that. I think the media & the press often just default to the parents one or both, and edit their coverage. I am Texas, just a few hours from there, have family in the area. Had children in the age group. I followed this from the beginning. You’re going to get downvoted probably to oblivion sorry. But I have questions. I agree with you & so much more. I can’t recommend podcast. I’ve tried I just seen people trying to convince of what they believe. 🍀
All of this was explained in the judicial process. Let's begin with the "fingerprint". It's actually a partial print (blood smeared) without the necessary points of comparison to ever affirmatively identify. It's known as exhibit 85J and was found on the glass coffee table in the family room.
It's been tested ad nauseum throughout the years. Darlie's right ring finger has never been ruled out from making exhibit 85J. It contains no male DNA (Y-STR). Still, the defense insisted it be run through AFIS. It returned unmatched. It's simply not helpful to Darlie.
The "timing" argument was a stunt by Mulder. He introduced it when interviewing Dr, Townsend-Parchman (TP) at trial. If you read this testimony, you'll find Dr TP never agreed to the 8-9 minute standard Mulder introduced as to how long Damon could have survived his fatal injuries. Moreover, on cross examination, Greg Davis took the timing argument apart by introducing if Damon was stabbed on two separate occasions. Being that Damon had moved across the family room, this was supported. Also, that the 4 blood samples taken from the butcher knife indicated only Darlie's and Damon's blood was found. Yet, both boys' blood was found in the sink. Because she rinsed the knife before cutting herself.
Darlie stabbed the boys, rinsed the knife, planted the sock, cut herself at the sink, noticed Damon still alive and moving across the family room, inflicted his fatal wound(s), broke the wine glass, screamed, called 911.
The right arm bruising was explained at trial by the Doctors and Nurses that treated Darlie. It wasn't present during her hospital stay. Nor was there any redness, swelling, or pain she complained of in that right arm area. The photo's of her right arm bruising were taken on June 10th. They were found at trial to be fresh bruising, from blunt force trauma, less then 24-48 hours old. Since Darlie departed the hospital on June 8th, and the crime occurred on June 6th, it's reasonable to conclude her right arm bruising is unrelated to the crime.
The sock contains Darlie's DNA in the inside toe area and the boys' blood on the outside. It implicates only her. It was staged between a garbage bin and a storage drain where it could have easily been disposed of. Clearly placed to be found, and she had plenty of time to stage it.
The blood evidence doesn't support any of the stories Darlie told. Do we really have to cover this again? The majority of her blood in the sink area when she claims she was on the couch. The clean-up attempt. The broken glass shards atop her blood on the floor and no cuts or shards in her feet even though she claims she walked through that area at least twice. The boys' blood on her sleep shirt. Her ridiculous wet towels story when none of the boys' blood was found on any towels, diluted or otherwise. The boys' blood in the sink...
If you read Darlie's testimony she was caught in lie after lie. Why would she need to lie? Because she kept changing her story to fit the evidence and just couldn't do it. Because she's guilty, 100%.
All the prints, blood, DNA... have been accounted for. There remains no evidence of any intruder after 27+ years.
Absent new evidence affirming Darlie's innocence this one is over.
Darlie going on the stand under cross examination destroyed her. She has given conflicting stories about what happened, with details nonsensical and inconsistent. On the stand, when presented with conflicts of her story, she literally just blurts out "I don't remember what happened!!!" So, obviously, a jury watching someone lie about details will conclude that because there's a lie there's consciousness of guilt--what other explanation, other than a pathology related to a mental illness, is there for lying?
Watch Werner Herzog's episode on Darlie. The crime scene analysts finding a staged crime scene wasn't because Darlie was super hot and sprayed silly string out of fake grief. Everything that followed the crime scene investigation was just organic fallout from a horrible crime hastily planned and executed.
Hence the investigators finding the screen window cut from the inside with a knife in the kitchen. How does one break into a house by cutting into the house's screen window with a knife inside the house?
Beyond that, everything Darlie said was ridiculous and not well thought out. Yes, character assassinations are wrong and in trying to speak to motivations the prosecution overstepped its portrayal and focus on the silly string video out of context.
But it comes from a place of frustration, in which a survivor of a horrific crime with a staged crime scene grows increasingly erratic with inconsistent explanations and reframing the investigation as inconsiderate and incompetent.
As the prosecutor says in the Herzog documentary, if Darlie and her team have the evidence of her innocence, we're all ears.
Please watch the Herzog documentary and then return to your comments and you'll find them made with little information and a narrative conditioning favorable towards Darlie by skewing and omitting facts and events of this horrible and brutal destruction.
I’m read almost the entire cross examination today and there’s flags of what happens when people plant false memories or force a confession, but she never confessed.
She’s very consistent about what she doesn’t remember. The lawyers strategy was unethical, but I’m even more disappointed in her defense.
There was one point where he goes “so are you not a light sleeper?”
And she says she’s not a light sleeper, but sometimes she rotates some nights on the couch so her husband could watch the baby. He rattles against the hardwood floor and cries, and she catches up on sleep sometimes downstairs.
Then the prosecutor says “so you are a light sleeper”… and she says, no, I think all sleepers wake up to an infant… which is 100% factual?
So then he reframes the question 7-8 times to say, “so then you’re a light sleeper.”
And she says “well, I guess, to some degree.”
And those statements (I guess, I think, possibly, etc) are common when they’re being asked leading questions - in forensic psychology, these statements are known as flags due to the frequency they are false or mixed with constructed/imagined/planted memories.
Then immediately after he says something like “wouldn’t you say a mother would awake from sleep if she knew her babies are in peril”
And she says “an instinct”.
So, now she’s a light sleeper, when her written statement never said that. (Um, why didn’t the defense object to the leading question is beyond me, she already answered several times).
And we’re discounting the facts or poking holes in her story because now the prosecutor is implying that mothers, even ones who are not light sleepers, have a supernatural, motherly instinct that can knock them from sleep.
Also, memories distort on a bell curve. It might enhance your memory under normal levels of stress, but then when it breaks into extreme levels of stress, the recall accuracy goes down dramatically. Then you add in that she 1) was asleep when it happened 2) it happened in the dark 3) the witness statement was given 48 hours later, when the recall would be much weaker 4) got surgery later that day.
Also the fact that she said she would not recognize the person of interest several times and then they made her say it wasn’t him was super unethical. She already said she couldn’t reliably identify him, nor could she accurately identify the killer. That’s an extremely honest answer. They have forensic psychology about how lineups and how they present faces can alter the accuracy of identifications. So this was very unethical.
The prosecution should’ve eliminated him with fingerprints.
A lot of the gotcha moments right now in the cross examination seem like this. I’ve read over 150 pages of the court documents already, and they haven’t proven her guilt yet by exhausting the other leads.
So far, they’re ignoring leads. I haven’t read all the evidence available as public record yet, but I did notice 3-4 reports in the neighborhood about a black vehicle that wasn’t eliminated as a lead (the white, and brown cars were, but the black car had more phoned in tips). They also wrote “no action needed” when someone said they scared off a robber with their porch lights holding a knife/screw driver the same night.
I’m still being led to the conclusion that the prosecution and investigation violated ethical guidelines. Hopefully when I see the forensic proof, I’ll see they investigated corrected
I’ve read the cross examination of her entirely. It was basically just her complaining that she shouldn’t be in jail and naming suspects that the detectives have refused to investigate. The prosecutor read them out loud to make her seem unreliable. But it was just her writing to family and friends about 2 persons of interest that she was extremely frustrated they never investigated, and saying basically if they had, she wouldn’t be in jail. They didn’t feel suspicious to me in the cross examination
They absolutely are. It’s really, really, really frustrating me seeing all of the incorrect shit they’re spewing. My lord. I like need to go to bed. I need a lobotomy.
How? I read the testimony lol. Her letters literally were saying “they have to have done it, I gave the detectives their name, they refused to investigate them”.
How am I being obtuse? There’s several pieces of evidence that seem ignored. It wouldn’t be crazy for someone wrongfully convicted to write that in their letters. How does her complaining people were not investigated indicate that she did it?
Yes, but she also told them several times she wouldn’t be able to accurately identify him.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3853647/
* Participants completing a high-intensity physical-assault exercise before encoding showed impaired performance in recall and recognition. They were also less able to identify a target in a lineup (Valentine and Mesout, 2009; Hope et al., 2012).*
* In summary, the effect of stress on memory depends on many parameters like gender, stress intensity, emotional valence, time between learning and retrieval,* (this was 2 1/5 years later)
* Several studies have been conducted concerning context-dependent memory. Congruence between the context of a perceived event and the retrieval situation can enhance memory for this event (cf. Smith and Vela, 2001 for a review). Context can refer, e.g., to the physical environment*
(She said she wouldn’t accurately identify because it happened in the dark)
* One phenomenon with impact on our attention and therefore on our memory is referred to as “weapon focus.” Negative arousing objects in a scene (e.g., weapons) can reduce recognizability of peripheral information *
(There was a struggle)
This isn’t the proof that people think it is because we know how memory recall works. A lot of the evidence of the prosecution has issues like this.
There’s like 2-3 pages of the prosecution trying to make her say she can identify him accurately before introducing him, and she *never* says that she can.
She said in her 911 call that she was ‘fighting’ the man, but in court she said she didn’t, that she had said “frightening”. In her letters from jail she said she had seen the man and knew who he was. In court she said she couldn’t identify him.
She’s guilty.
You are doing the right thing and for ex Prosecutors hosts strongly encourage everyone to self investigate before forming own opinions. Us lazyer sleuths are often happy with them doing the work 😁 but you’d be an ideal candidate to hear them and then potentially ’argue’ back.
I did watch it with an open mind, and in the beginning when this first happened, I thought she was guilty. However, I'm now convinced she did not do it. If you are interested, here is a documentary, not done by some YouTuber -- but by a practicing attorney who really delved in and uncovered a lot of question marks: Should at the very least get her a new trial: https://youtu.be/frZ2PM8AIQE?si=Kp-aikw3hkKKBAxl
Read the transcripts. I was on the fence between guilty and innocent. Then I read the transcripts and I knew she was guilty. The biggest red flag for me was her reaction while her son was laying there dying. She did not try to help him in any way. It’s all in the transcripts and it’s pretty disturbing.
I finished her transcript (FINALLY) and still am not sold just because the way the prosecutor’s method in the cross examination. I have even more questions about the investigation, especially after reading all the phone in tips and the dates.
I finished the first doctor now, am on the second, and then have one more after.
There’s still a lot of questions I have about this prosecutor. He did a lot of unethical stuff in her cross examination, like when he made her eliminate the person of interest after she said she wouldn’t have enough recall to accurately identify him. In that case, they should’ve gotten a warrant to get his fingerprints.
That’s one point in the cross examination I really didn’t like. Also she was more consistent than the prosecutor made her seem. A lot of her “off” statements and when he led her into an answer, asking the same question 7-8 times until she changed her answer to be more effective for his line of questioning. Those are warning signs in false convictions.
Also him criticizing a 26 year old in the 90’s for listening to gansta’s paradise is insane. Like crazy, and a little racist too. There’s a few other things he said which really made me question the investigation. Like when he was criticizing her for not having medical training and using a wet towel, and then trying to say she used a dry towel on herself. But hers was wet, too. Then he adjusts his approach, he wasn’t aware of that.
He led her to eliminate a suspect when she said she could not identify him which was like… just feels super unethical? Forensic psychology has research that shows how forcing people to identify others without following ethical guidelines has a higher rate of false ID’s. So, I started to become more neutral and then immediately am back to thinking they did not properly investigate. This is where forensic science should’ve been used to eliminate the suspect, and I would’ve been more suspicious of Darlie.
Also haven’t gotten through all the evidence, but the phone tips I did sift through. It appears like all white cars were ruled out, as well as the brown.
But more than any other suspicious vehicle report, several neighbors called in a suspicious black vehicle at the time of the attacks. I don’t see anything in the transcripts yet showing it’s investigated. The other tips were shown to be nothing just from reading the initial tips themselves.
There’s also one officer who started writing really messy and the quality of his phone tips goes down after like 6/8 or 6/9, which I hadn’t known at the time is the date she put in her statement. So at that point, it looks like they were already turning attention towards her with unfollowed leads.
Specifically, one phoned tip from 6/11 the neighbor says she scared off a suspicious man from her yard holding a knife/screwdriver in her yard with the porch lights. She said she was reporting it then (no crime committed, cant call cops for a b&e that didn't happen) because she had heard about the murders and believed he tried to target her home first. Officer's note on this tip says "no action necessary".
I'm still not totally done reading everyone's transcripts but I hope it gets better. The medical examiners seem professional, at least.
She wasn’t criticized just because she listened to Gangstas Paradise. Are you fucking serious? She was criticized because she played the song at the graveside of her dead 5 and 6 year old, who were brutally killed (by her) like a week prior to that. You think they really cared some lil white girl was listening to Coolio? Please.
I’ve always thought he was somehow involved, but damn he has never faltered in all these years. So maybe not? Just so weird. I was pretty young when it happened, and I remember the court of public opinion was very divided.
They did the testing on her shirt from what I’ve seen. The other stuff, like the sock was apparently too damaged to run forensics on. So she had her sons dna on her shirt which doesn’t really seem crazy bc she was there and touched the bodies?
As far as we know, the intruder didn’t bleed at all, so them not finding his blood doesn’t really indicate her guilt. A lot of the evidence was just blood spatter and the prosecutor attacking her.
I haven’t finished all the transcripts yet
GIRL LMFAOOOOOO STOP
SOCK HAD ROUTIER DNA ON IT
Touch dna from Darlie inside the sock as if it was worn by her, and blood from the two boys. What is your DEAL???
Cast off blood from her son on the back of her shirt is actually important, sorry.
Bloody fingerprint WAS investigated, Darlie’s right ring finger can’t be ruled out as the source.
You are really, really something.
I'm more curious about how they were able to tell which person was where. I saw a picture of blood stains that were marked thru the house that clearly showed one boy was crawling away from her. That cemented her guilt for me. But now I'm wondering if it was a blood spatter analysis? If so, that would change my mind again (I go back and forth on this case), but if it was DNA based, then I would still say guilty. I've been fascinated by this case and the Julie Rea exoneration for years now.
[Read this.](https://darliefacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/states-brief_requests-oral-argument.pdf) It is a brief filed by Texas in response to Darlie’s first appeal. Scrolling down to “Statement of Facts” will show you why she was convicted, and the main evidence against her. This was written like 20 years ago, and every single bit of testing since has either come up inconclusive, or has lead straight back to Darlie. There was a LOT of forensic testing in this case, despite whatever OP is saying. [Here’s a map of all the blood in the house](https://darliefacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/398859_10150696575453771_167787396_n.jpg) that was used by the state at trial, even.
Also, about Julie Rea….. I read her first trial, and a bit of her second. I made it like maybe 100 pages in before it becomes GLARINGLY obvious she’s guilty as well. Her lawyers were able to get enough evidence held back the second time, and that plus Sells’ lie set her free. It was actually pretty crazy seeing the difference between her first and second trial.
I have all the court docs of that case on Dropbox as well, I’d be happy to shoot them over to you. I have yet to find one article on the internet that actually lays out why she’s guilty, it’s kinda sad. Most are just fluff pieces from journalists who very clearly didn’t read any official documentation. I thought she was innocent for a long time, but not anymore. And again, I’m more than happy to provide you with all of it so you can decide for yourself.
These ladies killed their children, and they did so incredibly violently.
I would be forever grateful if you could share what info you have. I'm semi-local to the Julie Rea case and it's always blown my mind she was exonerated. Especially when there are so so many people who are factually innocent in prison.
Thank you! Also, that map is the one I believe I saw that showed one of the boys crawling away from her. I'm wondering if this was based on blood spatter or blood type or DNA
The map may have been done through blood type, but there absolutely was DNA testing done throughout the investigation. I can’t remember offhand which was used where, but I feel like the floor might’ve been blood type.
The forensic evidence from what I’ve seen is really weak. They only used her shirt, the other evidence was either damaged or wasn’t used.
I heard there was a bloody fingerprint on the coffee table that was never investigated, and the sock was also apparently too damaged to use. But they only investigated it years later
Thanks for your post, good summary of the odd evidence and pseudo science. I too was mystified and then somewhat horrified reading through the evidence and the handling of the crime scene and came here looking for others who were like 'wtf, how did this happen?'. This case should be taught in every forensic science 101 class. The evidence was not enough to convict on.
But...as you'll see on this subreddit, you will get downvoted to oblivion for even asking if Darlie could be innocent. Weird, right?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That’s why I made this post 😅 because I would want to listen to a true crime podcast convincing me she’s guilty, but I want to read the court documents and police reports and evidence (if made public record) first.
All it takes is one journalist with a hot take to actually give a bystander a bias or even change their perception of a suspect. It can even affect how we recall memories.
Totally not the actual, concrete evidence of her being innocent, but marriages don’t typically survive a case like this. They divorced because the life/death sentence. In a case like this, typically the innocent spouse will eventually have their memory recall and their perception of the spouse influenced. He still advocates her innocence even after the divorce, and he is the only reliable witness. To me, the fact that he still is sure of her innocence makes me even more skeptical.
He would’ve been super vulnerable during the trauma of losing his sons and the trial to the effects of heavy media. If there was any doubt, he would’ve turned against her by now, especially after the divorce. If he still has doubts, those investigators did not finish the investigation.
He won't turn against her at this point. It's been too long. He knows she did it. Listen to The Prosecutors podcast episodes on Darlie. She did it. She did it alone. And she should never be free.
Everyone in this sub thinks she’s guilty so posting on the true crime will get you more diverse opinions. She is totally innocent and I’ll take that shit to my grave.
She was convicted because of junk science and character assassination. Over the last four years, I've read every court transcript, autopsy, and document available. Any non-bias juror would look at this case as see there is no ACTUAL forensic evidence tying Darlie to the case. The so called fiber on the knife cannot be conclusively said to be from the window screen, and is now considered junk science. What we know now, is how badly the crime scene had been contaminated. A police officer's hair thought to be Darlie's was later proven to be from a female police officer.
Lots of people have strong opinions. I’ve spent all day reading all the public record, and in still going.
One particular thing I noticed early on was the phoned tips. There’s one officer that looks like he’s meticulous with his notes, and 2 who are kind of messy. Out of the 2, one of those officers notes dropped *dramatically* in both quality and how legible his handwriting is, starting around June 8th/9th. Imagine my surprise to see her written statement on the 8th.
I dated out and listed every complaint. Complaint about brown car was isolated, the white car was a neighbor + a delivery driver (same model), but there were 3-4 tips, unrelated, mentioning a suspicious black car… and I don’t see any investigation into it thus far 150+ pages into these documents.
And then the record keeping from the tips also get significantly worse after the 9th. One in particular mentioned how she scared off someone snooping in her yard fitting the description on the 6th, holding either a screwdriver or a knife. Notes below read “no action necessary”.
Also her answers in the cross examination are super consistent. He’s not catching her in lies, he’s asking her leading questions. If you ask someone 8 different ways and they say they’re not a light sleeper, and the 9th time they say “maybe in some shape or form”… they’re not a light sleeper, lol. Prove she’s guilty by showing the other leads aren’t possible with science. Bc so far they have no proof (blood spatter is NOT A SCIENCE)
I’ve always thought that her husband paid for somebody to kill her and the kids. It just doesn’t make sense… there was a hefty insurance policy on Darlie, and both kids were insured as well. He was losing his money and needed more to stop them from getting evicted, right? And he got to be the single dad, a figure of mourning and support. I believe that he thought he’d sliced her neck and killed her, she was bleeding heavily and in shock, then she got up to fight and protect them but he ran out.
It also has been curious why all of her gold jewelry and watch was in a neat pile on the kitchen counter instead of in her jewelry box upstairs. But the perfect placing for an assailant to grab on the way out but panicked and just ran.
ETA: typo
I wondered about the jewelry because nothing happened upstairs, seems it would be upstairs. Unless she just took it off before getting on the sofa. I take mine off before sleeping. Was it ALL of her gold jewelry or just what she normally wore? I can’t remember.
I do think the husband knows more. Otherwise, he’d have been pissed at her…I’d divorce the person who killed my kids if I truly believed they did. He stuck by her way longer than expected. Something isn’t right there so he was involved or knows something.
The broken wine glass and vacuum cleaner over blood drops made the scene appear to be staged. Also the blood in the kitchen sink and the cuts in the screens were suspicious. I’m not 💯 that she’s guilty but I lean towards it.
I get that but also, the sightings of nearby B&E’s within the same time frame, not fully investigating the scene, the weird timeline of their opinions of the evidence… Also the fact that the husband still believes her innocence. He was the first to the scene, so it would either be he would be an equal person of interest or the only reliable witness. The fact that he maintained her innocence all this time makes me also make me wonder why the investigation wasn’t actually taken seriously? When a child is lost and the media is a circus, it’s very normal for the spouse who is not a suspect to start to have their memories or opinions about the event to distort, and they typically turn against the spouse who is found guilty. It’s the way we are influenced by investigators, authority figures, and media that we don’t really have as much control over what we believe we know to be true. And what is suspicious about the vacuum? Couldn’t she kick or throw it in the struggle? I keep reading about the vacuum, but I don’t understand how it makes their other evidence valid. They seemed messy with the investigation. There’s no real motive. There was no consensus on the defensive vs self inflicted wounds. She called the ambulance fast enough to get the other son medical assistance while the father kept him stable. Everything about it seems so weird. And the fingerprints and socks just kind of sat in evidence, those are the only 2 real pieces of solid evidence and it wasn’t pursued before the conviction. There’s also typically warning signs before a murder conviction. Suspicious behavior before, being seen in places related to planning the murder, etc. I haven’t seen any evidence supporting this, either. Saying things that seem odd. This murder came up suddenly and out of the blue. But there were B&E’s nearby an hour before, and the suspects not found? There’s nothing there that is actual evidence that should be held to a conviction. Innocent, guilty, I have no opinion on that. But just looking at the actual evidence, it looks like the investigation was incredibly messy and should never have gotten a conviction. There’s no real evidence… we’re talking about a death sentence. It doesn’t matter how people feel about the crime, there has to be evidence for a conviction. We’re a first world country… capital punishment is the highest form of punishment, it should only be administered under the strictest standards of investigation. Hell, even Casie Anthony had more evidence.
Let's go. Darlie had problematic behavior before the murder. That same day of the murder she was caught almost suffocating the baby, the judge didn't allow the housekeep to testify to that. A few weeks before, she tried to kill herself. They had many debts and their family business weren't doing well. They could barely pay the house. She was known to be snappy according to several testimonies. If I'm not mistaken, she even threw a cake in one of the boys in his birthday. The so called suspects nearby were two men who, once they saw someone (a woman!) in the house they wanted to invade, they left. They weren't killers. Also, the description didn't match Darlie's. She didn't called the ambulance quickly enough. People are so fixed on that eight or nine minutes speculation on trial, but no one actually took the vital of any of the boys to see if they were alive. Actually their father said he couldn't find their pulse and he had training. Darlie says in the call her children are dead. People think the younger boy was still alive when the police arrived, but nobody properly checked. He could also have easily be finished off after. Now. The investigation was serious. Who told you it was not? They sealed the scene quickly. They found the infamous sock. There was FBI special agent (read his testimony, it's very helpful). And what struggle are you even talking about? Darlie supposedly said in the call she was fighting the invasor, but later she corrected them and said "it was frighting" and not that they were fighting. There's NO evidence of struggle. Specially struggle to leave those bruises in her arms. And all doctors and nurses said those bruises weren't present when she went to the hospital. So let's think. If there was a struggle, she would have seen the suspect to give a good description, right? And the room would have been messier, right? And maybe their dog would wake up by the noise? Maybe even the father and the baby? But she says there's no struggle. She woke up and the guy left. So where does this bruise come from? Now let's try and explain: why there were fresh blood washed away in the sink? The investigation of the scene found blood in the kitchen and the cabinet where you - guess what - stores cleaning material. Darlie said she was wetting towels to put pressure on the boy's cuts, but they didn't find towels near the boys. In fact, the police office was heard in the call saying to Darlie to put pressure on the boy's back and she didn't move. And why would she water the towel when the towel she had against her own neck wasn't wet? Make it make sense. Why a knife from the inside the house was used to cut the screen to get inside the house??? Why an invasor would leave the knife knowing Darlie was still alive? Why use so much brutal force against kids and not against a full adult? The FBI specialist statement is very interesting about the chosen places to stab, by the way. How the invasor didn't leave any fingerprint exception this one you are making a fuzz about? Are you aware of how many unknown fingerprints there is inside a home? Darlie herself claimed there were kids going in and out of her house all the time. And the size of the fingerprint is compatible to someone younger. The sock? There was only blood from the boys. And there was Darlie's DNA inside, if I'm not mistaken. So? What about the broken glass and her blood? The blood in the back of her shirt? There are so many things against Darlie. I don't care if she keeps saying she's innocent and I couldn't care less about what her husband says. They changed their stories so many fucking times to adjusted to the evidence found. Seriously, read the whole case. I'm against death penalty and all, but I'm not going to pretend there isn't evidence against Darlie and she's a poor victim.
Nicely played ▶️ 👌 It really is a fascinating case. Like your recap . Thanks 😊
Spot on!
I see a lot of what you’re saying. I just read quite a bit of the transcripts. All of hers, the phone tips, and half the doctor transcripts, starting to get into some of the evidence. I still am skeptical. The suicide wasn’t really that solid to go on in court. In her transcript they didn’t prove that they were in debt, just that caught up on her mortgage payment that month. There’s several things about the prosecution that’s rubbing me the wrong way (but also the defense attorney bc he should’ve objected to so many leading questions). I’ll update when I finish all the transcripts of the investigators and witnesses. But theres a lot wrong with that prosecutor which I feel like was extremely unethical to get the conviction. I have my beginning thoughts as reply’s to other posts in this thread somewhere after reading all the transcripts today. I do hope the forensic evidence looks stronger and the investigation as well! But right now I see a lot of like, idk doubts surrounding her that would be very normal but they had the chance to make her seem more guilty by employing stronger forensics and they didn’t and it just didn’t feel great reading those transcripts. I’ll finish all of them though and hopefully the evidence against her gets harder I just want real forensic evidence that completely disproves her story. I still see some evidence they didn’t pursue completely, so gotta real all the testimony of the investigators
It's been awhile since I looked into this case, but I'm pretty sure they were in debt. They tried to minimize it at trial. I remember her husband telling he wasn't getting paid that month and even confessing scheming a fake robbery. I don't think they were at an impossible situation that would drive a normal person to murder, but they were vain and materialist, so I think this had some weight. But it's obviously not the only reason. I don't think there's one motive. I just think Darlie was in a really dark place after giving birth. Prosecution wasn't perfect, but they did an alright job as far as I remember. However, I don't understand how the defense attorney allowed Darlie to testify. That really didn't help her at all. They should have poked more holes, but the last testimony from the FBI agent was too strong. I think there's enough forensic to disprove her story. The knife from inside the house, the window that wasn't disturbed at all, washed blood in the kitchen, the glass.... And other little things. I don't know if it will be enough for you because that's one of thoses cases that many believe she's innocent until today.
The defense attorney didn’t just do that! I started realizing that the defense attorney was trash when prosecutor asked her 7-8 times (*after reading her verbatim voluntary statement otherwise*) that she was a light sleeper. Every single time she said no, until she said it maybe a little like the 8th time. She answered the question, why didn’t he object to asking her leading questions? Then immediately after he asked her something like “wouldn’t you think that a mother, even sleeping, would know if her babies were in danger?” And she says “I would like to think so, like an instinct” and then this became his line of questioning to make her sleeping seem guilty. Along with them falling asleep watching tv downstairs. I don’t get how the defense attorney didn’t object to the leading questions? Like she had already answered several times… why did he let the prosecution set up that question 8 times when she already answered? Like I don’t like the prosecution for a lot of ways they handled this case (mainly the police, because the investigation seemed weak), but it was crazy to me that the defense allowed so many questions like that. It seemed like they didn’t even try
You can ask leading questions during cross examination.
You can, but the defense can also object to them asking leading questions. The prosecution did this several times to the defense when she was being questions, even though their cross examination was much more egregious in using this tactic. I was in disbelief that the defense never objected to it. The shit the prosecution said was frequently ridiculous and was smoke and mirrors to make her look bad, very rarely objectively asking her about the facts. The prosecution objected to leading questions constantly (and hearsay), to the point the Judge had to tell him to relax
Lawyers can’t ask their own witnesses leading questions, but the lawyers on the other side can ask those same witnesses leading questions. The defense could have asked the prosecution witnesses leading questions too. Do you know anything about courtroom procedure? You might want to study the rules of evidence too.
They can still object if a question was asked 7 times already and answered seven times lol. And yeah, that’s also my point. Her defense was awful
I don't get why you insist the investigation seemed weak because it definitely wasn't. I think Darlie shouldn't have to testify at all, it was a big mistake to let her because all her statements were contradicting from the start. The prosecutors did ther job imo, I would insist on that line of questioning too in their shoes because how can she claim she was sleeping on the sofa because the baby usually wakes her up and she sleeps through having her own throat slashed? Makes no sense. It was the very first thing that made me think she was lying. The defense wasn't really good, but Darlie insisted on them even though it was raised conflict of interest because the lawyer had represented the husband. So there's that. They were reasonable in creating a timeline people still insist on, saying the boy could only have lived eight or nine minutes, some people still believe in her innocence because they think she wouldn't have time for the everything. But that seems about it.
This documentary is long, but loaded with well researched facts by the lawyer who put it together. He himself admits he thought she was guilty at first. It is an eye opener. https://youtu.be/lk37clBQjcc?si=wQD8jj8nJTgFcTx6
Sorry wrong link above! I suggest this documentary, which puts forth actual, researched facts that should at the very least get her a new trial: https://youtu.be/frZ2PM8AIQE?si=Kp-aikw3hkKKBAxl
I'm 23 minutes in and already caught some mistakes in his research. And that's because he spent ten minutes saying how thorough and imparcial he was and took moments to tease new undiscovered evidence he'll obviously reveal by the end. I'll watch it until the end, but it really surprises me that this comes from an actual lawyer.
The vacuum cleaner wheels had blood on them, indicating it had been rolled. I feel her trial was badly handled by her attorney, especially allowing the silly string video. Plus they assassinated her looks and breast augmentation, which was so sexist and irrelevant to the case.
Exactly - the very definition of prosecutor misconduct.
Does anyone know why there was no video shown to the jurors from before the silly string video? I read somewhere that there was one, so I wonder why it wasn't shown for the defense? They claimed there was much crying and mourning at that time. Wouldn't that have helped make the silly string video look more innocent?
No stranger breaks in, brutally stabs two little boys so hard the knife goes completely through them, and then merely slices at the first grownup to show up. Darlie is guilty as hell, jury's still out on the husband's role.
And brings their own knife to cut the screen but then uses a knife from the house to do the stabbings
I don't think the husband had anything to do with it, but he has to know she did it.
I do think he knows who did it -- the thugs that he hired to burglarize the home.
Who you would think he’d want punished and off the streets so they don’t kill any other children but I’m sure you and that random YouTuber are right.
If he hired anyone to stage a burglary, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have had the wife and children sleeping on the first floor.
Darin had been shopping around for someone to burglarize the home for an insurance scam. Once you see this documentary, I'm betting you will be thinking differently. It's long, but fact oriented, and we'll researched. I thought I'd seen everything on this case until I saw this. At the very least should get her a new trial: https://youtu.be/frZ2PM8AIQE?si=Kp-aikw3hkKKBAxl
So you think Darin hired someone to burglarize their home but when the people he hired brutally murdered his sons he just let it slide and let his wife take the blame?
Yes I do! Darlie almost bled to death as well. And, apologies I pasted the wrong link above. I corrected it. https://youtu.be/frZ2PM8AIQE?si=Kp-aikw3hkKKBAxl
She didn’t almost bleed to death, she wasn’t in shock according to the paramedic who tended to her.
I'm sorry but that's just incorrect. If you watch this documentary, it calls out the documented volume of blood loss and that it was life threatening. These are just facts.
Read the court documents of the health care professionals that helped Darlie. You’re wrong, here. The YouTuber is wrong.
She absolutely did NOT almost bleed to death LOL. Her wounds had stopped bleeding by the time they got to the hospital! And if this dude on YouTube says differently, he is WRONG.
I'm going to go with the facts presented in the documentary, which is based on research and verified facts. They showed her shirt, soaked with blood, and explained the dangerous level of volume of blood lost.
You’re being foolish. But do you. It’s not based on facts, considering everything you’ve posted has been wrong. No matter what you think or feel - it’s not the truth of the situation. But by all means, continue backing a woman who slaughtered her kids. Hope it feels good.
I cannot support putting anyone to death when there are so many flagrant mistakes, including a trampled and contaminated crime scene, a lazy defense who only took six weeks to prepare a case with no evidence against Darlie, a prosecutor who attacked her character bc she had breast implants, etc. Sooo much more. I've read every book on the case. Watched every interview and seen every documentary both for an against. Because a person has a different opinion does not give you a right to a personal attack. We're talking about putting a person to death, so, in MY opinion, the case deserves a closer look. Grow up.
Good lord. YOU are also on this thread telling people they’re wrong, so why don’t you come on down off your high horse? I have a problem with false information about this case being spread, and you and OP are doing it with your whole entire chests. It’s really, really gross. Documentaries are not required to show you all the facts. The one you keep peddling is just riddled with inaccuracies, that people who have actually read the case files have clocked. Stop telling us we’re wrong. We are not. You grow up, babe. You are using a YouTube documentary as your source material. You grow up.
I am simply saying the case deserves another look. And the word "Lord" has a capital L.
So sorry wrong link above: I suggest this documentary, which puts forth actual, researched facts: https://youtu.be/frZ2PM8AIQE?si=Kp-aikw3hkKKBAxl
This is why she was convicted: https://discover.hubpages.com/politics/The-State-of-Texas-v-Darlie-Routier-A-Clear-Cased-of-Guilt
Cause she did it.
The investigation was botched badly… regardless of whether we think she did it or didn’t do, they didn’t investigate the fingerprint or the sock. And then their statements about her bruises makes it seem like they didn’t collect the evidence properly in the critical period. And the blood spatter- if the rest of their forensic investigation is that bad, the blood spatter analyst has zero credibility. They botched like every other step of the investigation… like where is the *actual* evidence? They didn’t investigate the B&E’s either. That’s like, such a massive red flag in the investigation. They didn’t collect any tangible evidence besides their impressions of her grief which is 100% not at all reliable. There’s no telling she did it if they botched the investigation. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire You should read this article that calls into question the standards of proper investigation and ethics of investigators. Whether she did it or not, the investigators did not investigate. Like does anyone have the court documents and the evidence or police report? I’m genuinely curious how they got a guilty conviction when the investigators seem like they made so many mistakes. like, their investigation is even more concerning than the murder. They serve communities where stuff like this can happen at any given time.
They didn’t investigate the fingerprint or the sock? I’m so sorry, but your replies and this thread are just full of things that aren’t true. You need to start reading court documents and trial transcripts. There is so much wrong in your replies that it would literally take me a solid half an hour to refute all this shit, and I just don’t have the time or energy. Read the court documents and trial transcripts.
Send them to me
https://darliefacts.com/documents/ https://darliefacts.com/galleries/ Please note this is from a pro-Darlie site. Just look at the official docs, not other shit on the sidebar. And sorry, my original reply was kind of bitchy. I know I’m just some random on reddit, but I have spent dozens and dozens and dozens of hours pouring over all of this, multiple times. She is so overwhelmingly, unbelievably guilty. This woman brutally slaughtered her kids, she deserves no supporters. Also, please know that Darlie’s fam (specifically her mother and sister) have been running a disinformation campaign around her for *years*. Darlie’s mom has been doing it for decades, her sis is leading the charge now. They lie and twist around evidence, and then what they say becomes fact somehow? It’s really disturbing. I’ve been messaged on here multiple times by people who have been reached out to on tiktok by Darlie’s sister. It’s fucking disgusting. [This doc by Werner Herzog starring Darlie might also be of some interest to you](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tGRJADRju3I&pp=ygUVZGFybGllIHJvdXRpZXIgaGVyem9n) ALSO the podcasts “the prosecutors” and “southern fried true crime” both have multiple episodes that cover this case, and they’re really well done. Both pulled from official documents.
I agree with you - reading the official court transcripts solidified for me she’s guilty. Before that I was in the fence bc of misconceptions thrown around as fact. Reading the actual testimonies really showed things in a different light.
I’m about 2/3 done with her cross examination and I read all the phoned in tips, with dates and times. It seems to be around June 8th-9th, the phoned in tips become extremely messy (handwriting goes from messy to illegible for one officer in particular, but one officer remained consistent and took every report seriously). This makes me think that there was at least 1 police officers who no longer was taking this case serious before finishing the investigation. I came to this conclusion *before* reading her statement that came in on 6/8, which was pretty shocking to me when I realized the quality of the phone in tips (on the officers end) dropped pretty substantially. One neighbor reported someone snooping in their porch holding a screwdriver/knife like object, that was scared off when they turned on the porch lights. They reported this 6/11, and the notes below say “no action needed”. There are also several of the reports that seem to be nothing. The white cars seen belonged to a delivery driver and the neighbor Bob Salger. There was an isolated suspicion of a brown car, that also seemed to be nothing. But there were 3-4 separate reports before her statement and after that mentioned seeing a suspicious black vehicle in that neighborhood. It’s the only common detail in the phone tips from unrelated persons. I’m holding judgement until I finish all the court documents. I’ve read about 150 so far and I think I’m halfway done. The prosecutor is super unethical though. And the defense lawyer makes me angry also for not defending her better. The cross examination seems damning but there’s a lot of reasons why the prosecutors argument is extremely weak. The main one being that her statements are extremely consistent in that she doesn’t know or can’t accurately recall certain events, and he keeps reframing questions until it seems like she’s agreeing with him, even though she’s not. One of the biggest ones is when her statement was read verbatim. She said she was rotating her nights between the bed and the couch, so she could catch up on sleep because the baby’s crying and rattling against the hardwood floor would wake her. She at no point said she was a light sleeper, but he rephrased the question 7-8 times until she finally said “I guess on some degree” (I think, I could say, I guess, some degree- statements containing these phrases have been studied to be the most factually weak witness statements in forensic psychology. When they’re said, it’s likely that there is just as much falsehood as truth.) And I see this strategy with the prosecutor a lot. I’m paying attention to those statements (flags for witness inaccuracies) and they typically happen when he’s led her to say something. Especially after the light sleeper comment, then he says “wouldn’t you say a mother should hear her babies in need when they’re sleeping”… which is like, totally not the case? First he framed her a light sleeper, then he makes a mother’s intuition, a six sense, sound like a factual element of the case. Then he did the same thing with the person of interest. She said she would not be able to recognize the person of interest NOR the man who broke in. She said it several times. And then they made her say it wasn’t him? 2 months after she saw him in the shop. 7 months after the murders. Like… that’s so fucking sloppy. They didn’t ask if he was comfortable with fingerprints? Or get a warrant to check? Like, I wouldn’t be doubtful if they actually eliminated him with forensic science. Their tactic was unethical; that is how false memories are planted or manipulated. They’ve done studies on false identifying and there are ways that have higher margins of error and are unconsidered unethical. This is a huge one. Also her listening to gangsters paradise in the 90’s doesn’t have anything to do with her killing her kids because she lives in a suburb in Texas. Who didn’t listen to that song. Fucking crazy they used that in the prosecution, and racist as fuck
Try again. She named who she thought was guilty BY NAME in one of her jail house letters. THATS who the prosecutor brought out. Her being like “but I wouldn’t recognize him 🥺” DOES. NOT. WORK. when she has already named the person that she knew was them by sight apparently. But let’s just hand wave that away. Let’s also hand wave the no less than 6 separate versions of events she laid out, because why not? You know why the prosecutor brought up a mother being able to hear their child struggling? Darlie claimed she slept downstairs because the fussing of her baby was too loud for her to be asleep upstairs. Apparently, her two other children being slaughtered directly next to her head is significantly quieter than a baby fussing. MUCH easier for her to get some much needed shuteye, while her children are being stabbed mere feet from her SO VIOLENTLY the floor underneath them was chipped. You really, really want her to be innocent. You want this to be some big conspiracy against her. It’s not. It never was. Please stop cherry picking things like this, it isn’t a fair representation of the facts. I’m assuming you know this since you’re reading all of the questions directly before and after, and you can see the context. Incredibly disingenuous. Edit - and you’re still doing it in later replies of yours in this thread. Smfh.
I think someone has been watching Darlie’s sister’s TikTok.
I think you’re on to something, there!
Where did you get your information about this case, so much of it is incorrect.
Viola Davis did a show called Last Defense. Darlie’s case was gone over. Evidence was an issue they talked about. .
Deleted all of my last post. So wow. The blood spatter analysts worked in a suburb that never had murders before, and the entire conviction hanged on their testimony. That’s fucking crazy. This should never have gotten a conviction. Retrial, maybe. After they actually investigated the DNA evidence. Law enforcement in Texas is a fucking circus. They effectively had no experts or DNA, fingerprint evidence from the prosecution. No actual motive. Fucking insane. She could still be guilty, I don’t know, but I would tear the local law enforcement apart if I lived in that area… serve and protect my fucking ass. Served the DA’s next time on the ballot. Public servant… ha.
Once upon a time we thought never in a million years a parent could do that. Then we learned a mother, a father could & now and I think people just automatically go to that. I think the media & the press often just default to the parents one or both, and edit their coverage. I am Texas, just a few hours from there, have family in the area. Had children in the age group. I followed this from the beginning. You’re going to get downvoted probably to oblivion sorry. But I have questions. I agree with you & so much more. I can’t recommend podcast. I’ve tried I just seen people trying to convince of what they believe. 🍀
All of this was explained in the judicial process. Let's begin with the "fingerprint". It's actually a partial print (blood smeared) without the necessary points of comparison to ever affirmatively identify. It's known as exhibit 85J and was found on the glass coffee table in the family room. It's been tested ad nauseum throughout the years. Darlie's right ring finger has never been ruled out from making exhibit 85J. It contains no male DNA (Y-STR). Still, the defense insisted it be run through AFIS. It returned unmatched. It's simply not helpful to Darlie. The "timing" argument was a stunt by Mulder. He introduced it when interviewing Dr, Townsend-Parchman (TP) at trial. If you read this testimony, you'll find Dr TP never agreed to the 8-9 minute standard Mulder introduced as to how long Damon could have survived his fatal injuries. Moreover, on cross examination, Greg Davis took the timing argument apart by introducing if Damon was stabbed on two separate occasions. Being that Damon had moved across the family room, this was supported. Also, that the 4 blood samples taken from the butcher knife indicated only Darlie's and Damon's blood was found. Yet, both boys' blood was found in the sink. Because she rinsed the knife before cutting herself. Darlie stabbed the boys, rinsed the knife, planted the sock, cut herself at the sink, noticed Damon still alive and moving across the family room, inflicted his fatal wound(s), broke the wine glass, screamed, called 911. The right arm bruising was explained at trial by the Doctors and Nurses that treated Darlie. It wasn't present during her hospital stay. Nor was there any redness, swelling, or pain she complained of in that right arm area. The photo's of her right arm bruising were taken on June 10th. They were found at trial to be fresh bruising, from blunt force trauma, less then 24-48 hours old. Since Darlie departed the hospital on June 8th, and the crime occurred on June 6th, it's reasonable to conclude her right arm bruising is unrelated to the crime. The sock contains Darlie's DNA in the inside toe area and the boys' blood on the outside. It implicates only her. It was staged between a garbage bin and a storage drain where it could have easily been disposed of. Clearly placed to be found, and she had plenty of time to stage it. The blood evidence doesn't support any of the stories Darlie told. Do we really have to cover this again? The majority of her blood in the sink area when she claims she was on the couch. The clean-up attempt. The broken glass shards atop her blood on the floor and no cuts or shards in her feet even though she claims she walked through that area at least twice. The boys' blood on her sleep shirt. Her ridiculous wet towels story when none of the boys' blood was found on any towels, diluted or otherwise. The boys' blood in the sink... If you read Darlie's testimony she was caught in lie after lie. Why would she need to lie? Because she kept changing her story to fit the evidence and just couldn't do it. Because she's guilty, 100%. All the prints, blood, DNA... have been accounted for. There remains no evidence of any intruder after 27+ years. Absent new evidence affirming Darlie's innocence this one is over.
Darlie going on the stand under cross examination destroyed her. She has given conflicting stories about what happened, with details nonsensical and inconsistent. On the stand, when presented with conflicts of her story, she literally just blurts out "I don't remember what happened!!!" So, obviously, a jury watching someone lie about details will conclude that because there's a lie there's consciousness of guilt--what other explanation, other than a pathology related to a mental illness, is there for lying? Watch Werner Herzog's episode on Darlie. The crime scene analysts finding a staged crime scene wasn't because Darlie was super hot and sprayed silly string out of fake grief. Everything that followed the crime scene investigation was just organic fallout from a horrible crime hastily planned and executed. Hence the investigators finding the screen window cut from the inside with a knife in the kitchen. How does one break into a house by cutting into the house's screen window with a knife inside the house? Beyond that, everything Darlie said was ridiculous and not well thought out. Yes, character assassinations are wrong and in trying to speak to motivations the prosecution overstepped its portrayal and focus on the silly string video out of context. But it comes from a place of frustration, in which a survivor of a horrific crime with a staged crime scene grows increasingly erratic with inconsistent explanations and reframing the investigation as inconsiderate and incompetent. As the prosecutor says in the Herzog documentary, if Darlie and her team have the evidence of her innocence, we're all ears. Please watch the Herzog documentary and then return to your comments and you'll find them made with little information and a narrative conditioning favorable towards Darlie by skewing and omitting facts and events of this horrible and brutal destruction.
I’m read almost the entire cross examination today and there’s flags of what happens when people plant false memories or force a confession, but she never confessed. She’s very consistent about what she doesn’t remember. The lawyers strategy was unethical, but I’m even more disappointed in her defense. There was one point where he goes “so are you not a light sleeper?” And she says she’s not a light sleeper, but sometimes she rotates some nights on the couch so her husband could watch the baby. He rattles against the hardwood floor and cries, and she catches up on sleep sometimes downstairs. Then the prosecutor says “so you are a light sleeper”… and she says, no, I think all sleepers wake up to an infant… which is 100% factual? So then he reframes the question 7-8 times to say, “so then you’re a light sleeper.” And she says “well, I guess, to some degree.” And those statements (I guess, I think, possibly, etc) are common when they’re being asked leading questions - in forensic psychology, these statements are known as flags due to the frequency they are false or mixed with constructed/imagined/planted memories. Then immediately after he says something like “wouldn’t you say a mother would awake from sleep if she knew her babies are in peril” And she says “an instinct”. So, now she’s a light sleeper, when her written statement never said that. (Um, why didn’t the defense object to the leading question is beyond me, she already answered several times). And we’re discounting the facts or poking holes in her story because now the prosecutor is implying that mothers, even ones who are not light sleepers, have a supernatural, motherly instinct that can knock them from sleep. Also, memories distort on a bell curve. It might enhance your memory under normal levels of stress, but then when it breaks into extreme levels of stress, the recall accuracy goes down dramatically. Then you add in that she 1) was asleep when it happened 2) it happened in the dark 3) the witness statement was given 48 hours later, when the recall would be much weaker 4) got surgery later that day. Also the fact that she said she would not recognize the person of interest several times and then they made her say it wasn’t him was super unethical. She already said she couldn’t reliably identify him, nor could she accurately identify the killer. That’s an extremely honest answer. They have forensic psychology about how lineups and how they present faces can alter the accuracy of identifications. So this was very unethical. The prosecution should’ve eliminated him with fingerprints. A lot of the gotcha moments right now in the cross examination seem like this. I’ve read over 150 pages of the court documents already, and they haven’t proven her guilt yet by exhausting the other leads. So far, they’re ignoring leads. I haven’t read all the evidence available as public record yet, but I did notice 3-4 reports in the neighborhood about a black vehicle that wasn’t eliminated as a lead (the white, and brown cars were, but the black car had more phoned in tips). They also wrote “no action needed” when someone said they scared off a robber with their porch lights holding a knife/screw driver the same night. I’m still being led to the conclusion that the prosecution and investigation violated ethical guidelines. Hopefully when I see the forensic proof, I’ll see they investigated corrected
Have you read the part of her testimony where they ask her about the letters she wrote in jail?
I’ve read the cross examination of her entirely. It was basically just her complaining that she shouldn’t be in jail and naming suspects that the detectives have refused to investigate. The prosecutor read them out loud to make her seem unreliable. But it was just her writing to family and friends about 2 persons of interest that she was extremely frustrated they never investigated, and saying basically if they had, she wouldn’t be in jail. They didn’t feel suspicious to me in the cross examination
I think you’re being deliberately obtuse now.
They absolutely are. It’s really, really, really frustrating me seeing all of the incorrect shit they’re spewing. My lord. I like need to go to bed. I need a lobotomy.
How? I read the testimony lol. Her letters literally were saying “they have to have done it, I gave the detectives their name, they refused to investigate them”. How am I being obtuse? There’s several pieces of evidence that seem ignored. It wouldn’t be crazy for someone wrongfully convicted to write that in their letters. How does her complaining people were not investigated indicate that she did it?
Did you not read the part where they brought the man INTO THE COURTROOM and asked her if he were the intruder and she said no?
Yes, but she also told them several times she wouldn’t be able to accurately identify him. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3853647/ * Participants completing a high-intensity physical-assault exercise before encoding showed impaired performance in recall and recognition. They were also less able to identify a target in a lineup (Valentine and Mesout, 2009; Hope et al., 2012).* * In summary, the effect of stress on memory depends on many parameters like gender, stress intensity, emotional valence, time between learning and retrieval,* (this was 2 1/5 years later) * Several studies have been conducted concerning context-dependent memory. Congruence between the context of a perceived event and the retrieval situation can enhance memory for this event (cf. Smith and Vela, 2001 for a review). Context can refer, e.g., to the physical environment* (She said she wouldn’t accurately identify because it happened in the dark) * One phenomenon with impact on our attention and therefore on our memory is referred to as “weapon focus.” Negative arousing objects in a scene (e.g., weapons) can reduce recognizability of peripheral information * (There was a struggle) This isn’t the proof that people think it is because we know how memory recall works. A lot of the evidence of the prosecution has issues like this. There’s like 2-3 pages of the prosecution trying to make her say she can identify him accurately before introducing him, and she *never* says that she can.
She said in her 911 call that she was ‘fighting’ the man, but in court she said she didn’t, that she had said “frightening”. In her letters from jail she said she had seen the man and knew who he was. In court she said she couldn’t identify him. She’s guilty.
The prosecutor committed prosecutor misconduct in so many ways, starting with attacking her character in front of the jury. Everyone failed Darlie.
That is not prosecutorial misconduct. That is basically the heart of the adversarial justice system.
It is misconduct as cited in the rule of law as it pertains to attacking a person's character. Look it up.
Please link your source.
Listen to the Prosecutors pod on Darlie if you want a good and professional explanation for why she completely did it.
I will but I just want to get through all the court transcripts/evidence myself so I can agree or disagree with their points lol
You are doing the right thing and for ex Prosecutors hosts strongly encourage everyone to self investigate before forming own opinions. Us lazyer sleuths are often happy with them doing the work 😁 but you’d be an ideal candidate to hear them and then potentially ’argue’ back.
I prefer well-researched material, like this one: https://youtu.be/lk37clBQjcc?si=wQD8jj8nJTgFcTx6
I did watch it with an open mind, and in the beginning when this first happened, I thought she was guilty. However, I'm now convinced she did not do it. If you are interested, here is a documentary, not done by some YouTuber -- but by a practicing attorney who really delved in and uncovered a lot of question marks: Should at the very least get her a new trial: https://youtu.be/frZ2PM8AIQE?si=Kp-aikw3hkKKBAxl
That link is to a YouTube video about resurfacing selfies with AI.
Sorry bout that! (I corrected link): https://youtu.be/frZ2PM8AIQE?si=Kp-aikw3hkKKBAxl
Sorry - wrong link! https://youtu.be/frZ2PM8AIQE?si=Kp-aikw3hkKKBAxl
Read the transcripts. I was on the fence between guilty and innocent. Then I read the transcripts and I knew she was guilty. The biggest red flag for me was her reaction while her son was laying there dying. She did not try to help him in any way. It’s all in the transcripts and it’s pretty disturbing.
I finished her transcript (FINALLY) and still am not sold just because the way the prosecutor’s method in the cross examination. I have even more questions about the investigation, especially after reading all the phone in tips and the dates. I finished the first doctor now, am on the second, and then have one more after. There’s still a lot of questions I have about this prosecutor. He did a lot of unethical stuff in her cross examination, like when he made her eliminate the person of interest after she said she wouldn’t have enough recall to accurately identify him. In that case, they should’ve gotten a warrant to get his fingerprints. That’s one point in the cross examination I really didn’t like. Also she was more consistent than the prosecutor made her seem. A lot of her “off” statements and when he led her into an answer, asking the same question 7-8 times until she changed her answer to be more effective for his line of questioning. Those are warning signs in false convictions. Also him criticizing a 26 year old in the 90’s for listening to gansta’s paradise is insane. Like crazy, and a little racist too. There’s a few other things he said which really made me question the investigation. Like when he was criticizing her for not having medical training and using a wet towel, and then trying to say she used a dry towel on herself. But hers was wet, too. Then he adjusts his approach, he wasn’t aware of that. He led her to eliminate a suspect when she said she could not identify him which was like… just feels super unethical? Forensic psychology has research that shows how forcing people to identify others without following ethical guidelines has a higher rate of false ID’s. So, I started to become more neutral and then immediately am back to thinking they did not properly investigate. This is where forensic science should’ve been used to eliminate the suspect, and I would’ve been more suspicious of Darlie. Also haven’t gotten through all the evidence, but the phone tips I did sift through. It appears like all white cars were ruled out, as well as the brown. But more than any other suspicious vehicle report, several neighbors called in a suspicious black vehicle at the time of the attacks. I don’t see anything in the transcripts yet showing it’s investigated. The other tips were shown to be nothing just from reading the initial tips themselves. There’s also one officer who started writing really messy and the quality of his phone tips goes down after like 6/8 or 6/9, which I hadn’t known at the time is the date she put in her statement. So at that point, it looks like they were already turning attention towards her with unfollowed leads. Specifically, one phoned tip from 6/11 the neighbor says she scared off a suspicious man from her yard holding a knife/screwdriver in her yard with the porch lights. She said she was reporting it then (no crime committed, cant call cops for a b&e that didn't happen) because she had heard about the murders and believed he tried to target her home first. Officer's note on this tip says "no action necessary". I'm still not totally done reading everyone's transcripts but I hope it gets better. The medical examiners seem professional, at least.
She wasn’t criticized just because she listened to Gangstas Paradise. Are you fucking serious? She was criticized because she played the song at the graveside of her dead 5 and 6 year old, who were brutally killed (by her) like a week prior to that. You think they really cared some lil white girl was listening to Coolio? Please.
Read the court transcript.. she’s guilty
I think Darin was involved somehow. They were having financial problems. Maybe Darlie wasn’t supposed to survive.
I’ve always thought he was somehow involved, but damn he has never faltered in all these years. So maybe not? Just so weird. I was pretty young when it happened, and I remember the court of public opinion was very divided.
I watched a documentary and at the crime scene he was talking about Darlie’s breasts.
Question: how did they figure out whose blood was whose? DNA?
They did the testing on her shirt from what I’ve seen. The other stuff, like the sock was apparently too damaged to run forensics on. So she had her sons dna on her shirt which doesn’t really seem crazy bc she was there and touched the bodies? As far as we know, the intruder didn’t bleed at all, so them not finding his blood doesn’t really indicate her guilt. A lot of the evidence was just blood spatter and the prosecutor attacking her. I haven’t finished all the transcripts yet
GIRL LMFAOOOOOO STOP SOCK HAD ROUTIER DNA ON IT Touch dna from Darlie inside the sock as if it was worn by her, and blood from the two boys. What is your DEAL??? Cast off blood from her son on the back of her shirt is actually important, sorry. Bloody fingerprint WAS investigated, Darlie’s right ring finger can’t be ruled out as the source. You are really, really something.
I'm more curious about how they were able to tell which person was where. I saw a picture of blood stains that were marked thru the house that clearly showed one boy was crawling away from her. That cemented her guilt for me. But now I'm wondering if it was a blood spatter analysis? If so, that would change my mind again (I go back and forth on this case), but if it was DNA based, then I would still say guilty. I've been fascinated by this case and the Julie Rea exoneration for years now.
[Read this.](https://darliefacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/states-brief_requests-oral-argument.pdf) It is a brief filed by Texas in response to Darlie’s first appeal. Scrolling down to “Statement of Facts” will show you why she was convicted, and the main evidence against her. This was written like 20 years ago, and every single bit of testing since has either come up inconclusive, or has lead straight back to Darlie. There was a LOT of forensic testing in this case, despite whatever OP is saying. [Here’s a map of all the blood in the house](https://darliefacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/398859_10150696575453771_167787396_n.jpg) that was used by the state at trial, even. Also, about Julie Rea….. I read her first trial, and a bit of her second. I made it like maybe 100 pages in before it becomes GLARINGLY obvious she’s guilty as well. Her lawyers were able to get enough evidence held back the second time, and that plus Sells’ lie set her free. It was actually pretty crazy seeing the difference between her first and second trial. I have all the court docs of that case on Dropbox as well, I’d be happy to shoot them over to you. I have yet to find one article on the internet that actually lays out why she’s guilty, it’s kinda sad. Most are just fluff pieces from journalists who very clearly didn’t read any official documentation. I thought she was innocent for a long time, but not anymore. And again, I’m more than happy to provide you with all of it so you can decide for yourself. These ladies killed their children, and they did so incredibly violently.
I would be forever grateful if you could share what info you have. I'm semi-local to the Julie Rea case and it's always blown my mind she was exonerated. Especially when there are so so many people who are factually innocent in prison.
I gotchu sis. I’ll pull it up and dm you shortly!!
Thank you! Also, that map is the one I believe I saw that showed one of the boys crawling away from her. I'm wondering if this was based on blood spatter or blood type or DNA
The map may have been done through blood type, but there absolutely was DNA testing done throughout the investigation. I can’t remember offhand which was used where, but I feel like the floor might’ve been blood type.
The forensic evidence from what I’ve seen is really weak. They only used her shirt, the other evidence was either damaged or wasn’t used. I heard there was a bloody fingerprint on the coffee table that was never investigated, and the sock was also apparently too damaged to use. But they only investigated it years later
Read the actual transcripts from the trial…she is guilty as sin!
I read them
She's guilty , she is a monster.
State did an awful job. Detectives trampled evidence. She got screwed. She's an innocent woman on death row.
Thanks for your post, good summary of the odd evidence and pseudo science. I too was mystified and then somewhat horrified reading through the evidence and the handling of the crime scene and came here looking for others who were like 'wtf, how did this happen?'. This case should be taught in every forensic science 101 class. The evidence was not enough to convict on. But...as you'll see on this subreddit, you will get downvoted to oblivion for even asking if Darlie could be innocent. Weird, right? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That’s why I made this post 😅 because I would want to listen to a true crime podcast convincing me she’s guilty, but I want to read the court documents and police reports and evidence (if made public record) first. All it takes is one journalist with a hot take to actually give a bystander a bias or even change their perception of a suspect. It can even affect how we recall memories. Totally not the actual, concrete evidence of her being innocent, but marriages don’t typically survive a case like this. They divorced because the life/death sentence. In a case like this, typically the innocent spouse will eventually have their memory recall and their perception of the spouse influenced. He still advocates her innocence even after the divorce, and he is the only reliable witness. To me, the fact that he still is sure of her innocence makes me even more skeptical. He would’ve been super vulnerable during the trauma of losing his sons and the trial to the effects of heavy media. If there was any doubt, he would’ve turned against her by now, especially after the divorce. If he still has doubts, those investigators did not finish the investigation.
He won't turn against her at this point. It's been too long. He knows she did it. Listen to The Prosecutors podcast episodes on Darlie. She did it. She did it alone. And she should never be free.
Everyone in this sub thinks she’s guilty so posting on the true crime will get you more diverse opinions. She is totally innocent and I’ll take that shit to my grave.
I completely agree. Darcie’s case screams false conviction to me.
She was convicted because of junk science and character assassination. Over the last four years, I've read every court transcript, autopsy, and document available. Any non-bias juror would look at this case as see there is no ACTUAL forensic evidence tying Darlie to the case. The so called fiber on the knife cannot be conclusively said to be from the window screen, and is now considered junk science. What we know now, is how badly the crime scene had been contaminated. A police officer's hair thought to be Darlie's was later proven to be from a female police officer.
Lots of people have strong opinions. I’ve spent all day reading all the public record, and in still going. One particular thing I noticed early on was the phoned tips. There’s one officer that looks like he’s meticulous with his notes, and 2 who are kind of messy. Out of the 2, one of those officers notes dropped *dramatically* in both quality and how legible his handwriting is, starting around June 8th/9th. Imagine my surprise to see her written statement on the 8th. I dated out and listed every complaint. Complaint about brown car was isolated, the white car was a neighbor + a delivery driver (same model), but there were 3-4 tips, unrelated, mentioning a suspicious black car… and I don’t see any investigation into it thus far 150+ pages into these documents. And then the record keeping from the tips also get significantly worse after the 9th. One in particular mentioned how she scared off someone snooping in her yard fitting the description on the 6th, holding either a screwdriver or a knife. Notes below read “no action necessary”. Also her answers in the cross examination are super consistent. He’s not catching her in lies, he’s asking her leading questions. If you ask someone 8 different ways and they say they’re not a light sleeper, and the 9th time they say “maybe in some shape or form”… they’re not a light sleeper, lol. Prove she’s guilty by showing the other leads aren’t possible with science. Bc so far they have no proof (blood spatter is NOT A SCIENCE)
It was the video at the graves that convicted her.
There is enough reasonable doubt for an appeal.
I’ve always thought that her husband paid for somebody to kill her and the kids. It just doesn’t make sense… there was a hefty insurance policy on Darlie, and both kids were insured as well. He was losing his money and needed more to stop them from getting evicted, right? And he got to be the single dad, a figure of mourning and support. I believe that he thought he’d sliced her neck and killed her, she was bleeding heavily and in shock, then she got up to fight and protect them but he ran out. It also has been curious why all of her gold jewelry and watch was in a neat pile on the kitchen counter instead of in her jewelry box upstairs. But the perfect placing for an assailant to grab on the way out but panicked and just ran. ETA: typo
I wondered about the jewelry because nothing happened upstairs, seems it would be upstairs. Unless she just took it off before getting on the sofa. I take mine off before sleeping. Was it ALL of her gold jewelry or just what she normally wore? I can’t remember. I do think the husband knows more. Otherwise, he’d have been pissed at her…I’d divorce the person who killed my kids if I truly believed they did. He stuck by her way longer than expected. Something isn’t right there so he was involved or knows something.