Faulty judicial system ruins woman's life?
Darlie Routier has been accused of murdering her two children. These accusations originate from Darlie being the only confirmed living being in the same house as the kids during the night they were killed and not dead. The case is eventually brought to court, with Mrs. Routier standing still charged for the murder of her two kids. The locations itself is a red flag. The murder of the two kids eventually became so famous, by the time the trial was deemed ready, most of the citizens of the resident town knew about it. Therefore, it would be hard to find a citizen for the jury without bias. So the case was moved. To Kerrville. Where 95% of the people on trial are convicted. This already establishes a clear disadvantage for the defense. But this disadvantage did not originate due to evidence in the case. How can the tendency for defendants to be convicted be part of a fair trial? This creates bias, and Mrs. Routier is more likely to be convicted because of a factor outside of the case. This cannot be part of a fair and thorough trial.
Then the actual trial begins. The prosecution starts by attempting to introduce Routier as a selfish, callow and dangerously unstable woman. There is no evidence to prove this beyond confirming that she actually murdered her children, and all the evidence for that is one entry in her diary stating "Forgive me for what I am about to do," slight inconsistencies in the story of what happened from the hysterical Routier who had just lost her two children and how some people recreated how a knife should fall as Routier described it and saying Routier had to be lying because a knife didn't drop the right way. For all we know, what she is "about to do" is tell her kids that Santa Claus isn't real. Besides, this entry is a whole month before the murder of the two children. The inconsistencies in the story could originate from Routier reasonably not remembering everything about the night her two children died and she was introduced to the possibility of life in prison. And the whole knife scenario is the very literal definition of circumstantial evidence. Not enough to base a case on. Point being, there is no reason to tie this journal entry or the knife scenario into the murder case and therefore the prosecution is left with no reasonable evidence to connect Routier to the crime. Yet this is never brought up by the defense. The inconsistencies are never pointed out and the defense crashed and burned, with Routier sentenced to life in prison. This is not evidence convicting a criminal. This was the work of the lawyers. In summary, there was little evidence to convict Routier of the crime she stood accused of, but she was convicted of it anyhow in the city where most defendants are convicted and the prosecution was allowed to form a faulty case. Regardless whether Routier killed her two children or not, this case was not decided by a concrete story or fair evidence, it was decided by the triumph of one lawyer over the other.
Then the actual trial begins. The prosecution starts by attempting to introduce Routier as a selfish, callow and dangerously unstable woman. There is no evidence to prove this beyond confirming that she actually murdered her children, and all the evidence for that is one entry in her diary stating "Forgive me for what I am about to do," slight inconsistencies in the story of what happened from the hysterical Routier who had just lost her two children and how some people recreated how a knife should fall as Routier described it and saying Routier had to be lying because a knife didn't drop the right way. For all we know, what she is "about to do" is tell her kids that Santa Claus isn't real. Besides, this entry is a whole month before the murder of the two children. The inconsistencies in the story could originate from Routier reasonably not remembering everything about the night her two children died and she was introduced to the possibility of life in prison. And the whole knife scenario is the very literal definition of circumstantial evidence. Not enough to base a case on. Point being, there is no reason to tie this journal entry or the knife scenario into the murder case and therefore the prosecution is left with no reasonable evidence to connect Routier to the crime. Yet this is never brought up by the defense. The inconsistencies are never pointed out and the defense crashed and burned, with Routier sentenced to life in prison. This is not evidence convicting a criminal. This was the work of the lawyers. In summary, there was little evidence to convict Routier of the crime she stood accused of, but she was convicted of it anyhow in the city where most defendants are convicted and the prosecution was allowed to form a faulty case. Regardless whether Routier killed her two children or not, this case was not decided by a concrete story or fair evidence, it was decided by the triumph of one lawyer over the other.
I completely agree with you. The points you made about how the diary is circumstantial evidence, and the knife example do make it seem like the prosecution is just trying to win the case. I think that the way the defense completely dropped the ball on bringing in the forensic experts who would have completely disproved the prosecution, was a huge mistake on their part. Just even these discrepancies in the trial are enough to make me think that something is definitely not right. While the defense should have brought in the two forensic experts, the prosecution should not have met with the nurses before the trial, and manipulated them into saying bad things about Darlie. This was one of the many tactics the prosecution used to convince the jury that Darlie was not only a bad person, but a terrible mother.
ReplyDelete