A Request On Behalf Of A Dear Friend, Darlie Routier

[DaveM]

Some of you who have been here a while know of my close and now decade-long friendship with Darlie Routier. Darlie has been on Death Row in Texas since 1996, convicted of a crime she not only didn't commit, but could not have committed. In recent months, significant progress has been made on her appeals, and a large amount of long-sought evidence has been ordered released for DNA testing and other expert examination. Enough has been examined to essentially shatter the prosecution's case against her and clear her name. To actually accomplish that feat, however, far more will be needed. And with that I will share a letter received from Richard Burr, Darlie's lead Federal attorney (and, in a strange irony, one of those who helped Bush steal the election in 2000):

"As you well know, the federal judge reviewing Darlie Lynn’s case, Royall Furgeson, has granted our motion for DNA testing, analysis of critical unidentified fingerprints, and chemical analysis of the material found on the bread knife in the kitchen that a trial prosecution expert testified was consistent with material in window screens (and thus an important piece of evidence supporting the prosecution theory that Darlie Lynn staged the crime to appear to be committed by an intruder).

If we were to test all of the DNA samples that Judge Furgeson has allowed, more than 100 samples would be tested. The estimated cost of this testing is more than $200,000.

We do not believe that Judge Furgeson will be able to fund all of this testing with court-accessible funds. As a result, the defense team, working with our DNA expert, Dr. Elizabeth Johnson, is going to propose DNA testing in stages – starting with the testing that is most likely to identify the DNA of the as-now-unknown intruder(s)/assailant(s). We estimate that the first-stage testing will cost $35,000 – 45,000. Judge Furgeson may not be able to fund all of that amount, but will probably be able to fund about half of it. As we proceed through the testing, if we need to pursue additional testing of the materials Judge Furgeson has already given us permission to test, we anticipate that he will fund part of the testing at each stage but will not be able to fund all of it at any particular stage.

For these reasons, we need to raise as much as we can through private donors to supplement the funds Judge Furgeson can make available.

We estimate that we need to raise about $50,000 to allow us to pursue the testing that may become necessary and that the Court cannot fund. We may need more, but if we can raise this much, we can be confident that we will be able to get the critical testing done.

Please do whatever you can to help us raise this money.

Thanks much,

Richard Burr, Burr & Welch, P.A."


In short, the issue for Darlie Routier is no longer guilt or innocence. The difference between life and death for her is $50,000. She is in effect presently held for ransom by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and if the price is not paid, they will kill her without batting an eye. And there are people who will cheer them for doing so.

I know she is not the only person on Death Row. I know she is not
the only one with a valid claim of innocence. I believe, however,
that her present situation is unique in that it can be resolved, not
by signing petitions or carrying protest signs, but by contributions
from those who value justice and are willing to back their words with
their wallets.

Please do not consider this post a solicitation for money (even
though that's more or less what I'm getting at). I cite it because
this case is literally answering the question of what makes
the difference between who is executed and who goes free or receives
a lighter sentence. The answer, rather obviously, is money. Nothing
more, nothing less. We often speak of conscience, and of the value of sticking to it. Far less often is the literal cost of doing so. I have raised over $15,000 for Darlie Routier, improbable as that may seem in that my annual salary is roughly half that amount.

Let's assume you were locked away and $50,000 could keep a needle
full of poison out of your arm. What about someone else's (anyone else's) arm? Would you want to pay it? Would you want SOMEONE to pay it? What about your family, your friends? What monetary value might they place on your life, or that of another? Spooky to think about, isn't it?

None of you know Darlie Routier, so how much interest you may take in this I have little idea. I am merely spreading the word to all I know and begging that they make any gesture they might care to, even it all that involves is cutting and pasting this post into an e-mail and bulk-forwarding it.

If anyone would like the addresses for donations and further
information I will happily provide it. For now please spread the
word...you are doing God's work and I thank you. Darlie thanks you
too.

[Elliott]

Will you send me an email? I live in Texas; I know some people. Best, Elliott

[Bat]

I really don't understand why DNA testing isn't standard proceedure in any murder case! Why doesn't the state have labs which are responsible to the courts and ultimately to the state for funds, guilt or innocence not a factor?
Do they charge extra for fingerprinting?? Where is the justice in not having such resources necessary to establish innocence (or guilt) of a suspect?
Is it more economical to support a person in prison, up to and including their execution? This should be on a ballot in every state in the union...or on a bill in every legislative body, since I don't think it is right to vote on a civil rights issue, which this definitely must be, since it is supportive of the right to have charges against one proven in a court of law; and certainly that evidence presented in this case shows the presence of 'habeas corpus' evidence, doesn't it? Sheeittt! Where's the justice? I thought we were guaranteed such stuff in the Constitution. Or isn't Texas one of the states in the union under that 'piece of paper' 's jurisdiction?
Bah. Until that is settled, there should be stays of execution in all cases where damning evidence has not been presented.
I wish the lady all the luck in the world at having evidence forthcoming to prove her innocence!!

[DaveM]

Bat--there are two problems. The first is that some DNA testing WAS done, but it was done in 1996. Developments in testing since then allow for items to be tested which were not in 1996 and also to get more information from a test than was possible 12 years ago.

The other problem is that in Texas, only the prosecution has an unlimited right of discovery. The defense is allowed to work with what the prosecution chooses to provide. So....about a third of crime scene photos were never examined for presentation in court, four bloody fingerprints which do not match anyone who was in the house have never been tested (the testing has been ordered, but not yet done--one afternoon's run through the NCIS database will most likely prove the presence of an intruder), a 911 tape made by Darlie was edited by "someone", removing crucial information (though the length of the tape renders it impossible that she could have committed the crime), one prosecution "expert witness" was given a day pass from a state hospital to testify about evidence he was not qualified to examine, then barred from testifying for the defense.....and much, much more.

Darlie's panties were missing and hospital and police records indicated that a "rape kit" was done. It was never presented in court, and according to authorities now....it never existed. A sock with Darlie's saliva and the blood of one of her sons (and other evidence I cannot discuss at this point) was found in the alley behind the house, approximately 75 yards from the house. Near it, a knife had been stuck into the ground. Police collected the sock but ignored the knife. A neighbor who had heard men talking and laughing in the alley at the time of the murders was not even known to the defense until four years after the trial. Nor was another witness who saw four men walking away from the house at the same time. The first police officer on the scene encountered a man in the front yard who has never been identified (he claimed to be Darlie's husband, but when the officer entered the house, the husband was inside). This was not mentioned during the trial and despite the fact that it appears in the officers notes and was reported to other officers, the police officer in question now denies that the encounter occurred.

Three of the jurors in Darlie's case now say they would not have voted for conviction had they seen evidence which was withheld at the time. Another, revealing an utter ignorance for American law, claims to have voted for conviction "because they didn't prove her innocent".

One of the major concerns at this point is that, although a large number of physical evidence has been ordered released, we do not yet know how much of it still exists or what condition it may be in. In other recent cases in Texas, evidence has been released in contaminated condition, making it unusable for testing. Prisoners have been executed over "missing" or contaminated evidence.

But we shall see. I do believe that when all is said and done in this case, it will be the beginning of the end of capital punishment in the United States, starting with Texas.

If any of you know any rich folks who could use a tax deduction....surely this is a worthy one. At last estimate, Bill Gates was making this sort of money every four seconds or so. Yes, we are getting in touch with him.

[hoops]

Davem, can i donate thru amnesty international?
peace
hoops

[DaveM]

Hoops--Amnesty can always use money, no matter what the occasion. In the case of an American prisoner on Death Row, however, they will not take any action until an execution date has been set. Mercifully, that is not the case here--yet. By that point there is usually little to no chance of getting the system to intervene in a case on the basis of evidence of innocence.

I can provide you with the address of Darlie's attorney, to whom donations may be sent if you wish. The Innocence Project, which helps many prisoners with claims of innocence, is also a great organization and more than worthy of your help. One of their attorneys has worked with Darlie and has been helpful--the problem we face at present is not in getting legal fees paid but in paying for the services of several independent testing facilities as well as an independent expert to present the results in court.

Darlie's family has already spent more than $300,000 in ongoing attempts to get her out of prison. Her present law firm has done more than $200,000 in pro bono work since that money was exhausted. Clearly, people believe in her. But just at the moment, something more than belief is needed to clear what will, we hope, be the final hurdle.

[hoops]

davem, please PM me that address. thank you
peace
hoops

[DaveM]

Bumping back to the top.

[sky]

Dave,

I beleive I saw something about this case a few times several years ago on a couple of the news shows like 60 minutes and primetime or 48 hours or something.

Isn't she the woman that was supposed to be sleeping on the living room couch when someone went upstairs and killed her sons? If I remember it correctly and this is the same case,-- I remember that on those shows they said that there was evidence that she tried to clean herself up and the crime scene before calling police?

If this is not the same story just disregard everything I wrote above.
Sky

Sky

[sky]

Dave,

I want to ad though that I can not think of anything more terrible than be accused of a crime if you truly did not do it. Especially something so bad as what she was accused of...

I hope that the truth and whatever it is will be discovered, and that whoever did this will be punished wether or not it is this young woman.
Sky

[DaveM]

She's been on a lot of news shows over the years--the case dates back to June of 1996. Yes, she was sleeping on the couch in front of the TV with two of her three sons when someone attacked all three of them. The two boys died and Darlie only survived because whoever slashed her throat missed severing her carotid artery by 2mm (the artery was nicked). The prosecution claimed she had cut her own throat, for which she would have had to have held the knife in her left hand. She is right-handed and her right arm would have been weak or paralyzed by another of several stab wounds she received at the same time.

Much of what has been shown on TV is incomplete or at least fails to include significant material, some of which was not known at the time of Darlie's original trial. Some of what has been on TV, too, is outright wrong. There has been, for example, a mention of no disturbance in mulch under a window through which an attacker or attackers apparently entered the home. There is no mulch under that window. We are asked, too, to believe that the screen was cut from outside using a blunt-tipped bread knife taken from a block inside the home. In tests, similar screens popped out of their frames before an identical knife could puncture them.

Hospital personnel were instructed by prosecutors to contradict their own written notes describing Darlie's state of mind and the severity of her injuries. The first officer to arrive on the scene confronted a man who had just emerged from the home and identified himself as Darlie's husband--when the officer went inside he found the husband attempting to perform CPR on one of the boys (the man was never identified but this was never mentioned in court). At least four bloody fingerprints which cannot be tied to anyone who had a reason to be in the house (including all police and emergency services personnel) have never been run through the NCIS database, leaving a strong possible lead unexplored. A blonde hair caught in a cut window screen which prosecutors claimed belonged to Darlie proved to be from a police officer. I could literally go on with more for a solid ten pages, but....you get the idea.

Yes, the prosecution's claim was that Darlie had staged a crime scene after killing her two sons. This was based in part on the discovery that a luminol test performed in the area around the kitchen sink tested positive for blood. It was never tested for human blood, so the result could well have reflected nothing other than that someone had washed their hands at the sink after handling meat. The kitchen knife supposedly used as the murder weapon had no trace of blood from one of the boys on it. Indeed, the wound patterns on the boys and on Darlie suggest two different weapons and at least two different assailants.

A somewhat grisly timeline may be established by the fact that one of the boys, according to medical experts who testified in court, could not have lived longer than nine minutes after being stabbed. Darlie's recorded call to 911 (which is believed to have been edited by persons unknown) lasted just under six minutes. A police officer was outside the house for two minutes after that, and on entering the house, found the boy still alive.

A sock containing blood and other material from inside the house was found approximately 75 yards from the house in an alley, though no visible blood trail or anything of the sort led between in and the house (there is some controversy about this, as police used the wrong type of search dogs in an attempt to find trails from the house). A knife was stuck in the ground near the sock, but was ignored by police. Markings on the sock strongly suggest that it was used to wipe blood from a knife and used for other purposes during the crime.

Given the length of the phone call, the presence of police officers, and the length of time the boy could have survived after being attacked, in order for Darlie to have committed the crime she would have had to attack the boys, run down the alley to leave the sock (leaving no trace, despite being covered in blood herself), run back to the house, move furniture and other items on the first floor, cut the screen on a garage store window with a knife that couldn't have done it and then returned the knife to the knife block (without getting any blood on same), all within approximately 90 seconds in order for her to have called 911 when she did. Several attempts to merely place the sock where it was found in that span have proven fruitless. The simple fact is that Darlie could not have committed the crime as prosecutors claimed.

We are also asked to believe that her husband (who was sleeping upstairs) never heard a thing--for reasons unknown he was never even considered a suspect despite being the only uninjured adult in the house. We are asked to ignored the affidavits of three people (including a police officer) who saw four men leaving the area of the home at the time of the crime (roughly 2:30 a.m.). Half a dozen similar crimes which took place in the same area during previous months were ignored. A black car that was spotted parked near the Routier home on several occasions during the week prior to the killings was never checked into--odd, since four men in an identical car were stopped by a police officer for speeding only a few blocks from the scene immediately after the crime took place. They were allowed to go when the officer who had stopped them received the call directing him to the scene of the murders.

Anyway, I can go on and on about that. There is a lot of material at www.fordarlieroutier.org for study if you want to look into it further (the 911 tape is most instructive of how this case has been handled--it is not as usully played on TV). And if you're interested, I strongly recommend that you give it some time. If nothing else, this case is a fine object lesson in how "reasonable doubt" and even exculpatory evidence are not enough when prosecutors are in a hurry to close a case.

I have been acquainted with Darlie Routier since 1999. That acquaintance has now spanned several hundred letters, I know not how how many hours on the phone,and 16 hours face to face on Death Row. Through all of that time I've tried to find a hole in her story, a hint that she was lying, the slightest indication that she (with absolutely no history of violence or contact with police prior to this) could have on impulse committed this terrible crime. I simply cannot find it. The known facts just don't fit.

And I'd best get off my soapbox.

[DaveM]

I hate to keep harping on this one note, but Darlie is having a rough time right now over several matters which I cannot discuss publicly. There isn't much of a tangible nature that anyone can do about the situation, but if any of you are in the mood to send cheery encouraging cards and the like, please, please send them off to:

Darlie Routier #999220
Mt. View Unit
2305 Ransom Rd.
Gatesville, TX. 76528

She probably will not be able to reply but if you tell her that Dave sent you, she might. Do know you will be bringing comfort to someone who really needs it right now. I thank you, and trust me, Darlie thanks you too, though it may be a while before she gets around to doing so personally.

[hoops]

Dave,
thanks for getting this info to us.
peace
hoops

[gisli]

She doesnt have access to computer???? Have an email?

[DaveM]

No, she's locked up tight and only gets to see a television now and then when they feel like it--definitely no computers. She's been in prison since 1996 and doesn't really know what an e-mail is. Texas believes "hard time" should be just that....and when they get nasty, it's one step short of sensory deprivation and all but calculated to drive a person insane.