The Darlie Routier case

I agree. I think their depiction of this case is irresponsible at best. She was found guilty, so they can show things (like the silly string) that lead the jury to reach a guilty verdict, but they should, like you said, have said something about the debate and doubt over said verdict.

I have watched the Werner Herzog interview with Darlie more than once. I still cannot decide if I think she's innocent or guilty. It's a horrible case.

And like you said, it does make me wonder what other stories they've told one-sidedly or possibly inaccurately.

* * * * * * *
How much could a banana cost? Ten dollars?

Good point. I follow the Routier case and see Texas justice at work. Grab the closest person, guilty until proved innocent.

How many details could YOU recall if you experienced the horror she went through?

Why didn't the defense present exculpatory evidence? She didn't get those bruises washing dishes!

There ARE homicidal maniacs out there. I won't venture into what might have happened that awful night, but it is my firm belief that Darlie is not guilty of killing her son.

Filicide happens, but there is almost always a precipitating event. Darlie and her boys were sound asleep. Mothers and fathers fly into rages and sometimes a child is a victim of that rage. Where is the rage here? What mother, for no reason, would stab her firstborn in the chest, right through to the floor? Sorry to be graphic, but that's what happened to Devon Routier. There are killers who copycat movies - maybe this psycho liked the image of "Bob" in the original "Halloween".

Getting too far afield here. There is\was a petition online demanding a new trial, or an appeal. But it's Texas. I'm afraid, innocent though she is, Darlie will never be free. Texas doesn't like to admit to mistakes.

Texas, besides its over-eager justice system, is a swell place, especially Austin.

After watching multiple interviews with Darlie, as well as seeing pictures of the injuries she sustained and the police video of the memorial before the Silly String incident, I have huge doubts as to her guilt.

I've read in a couple of different places that her (now ex-)husband, Darin had been talking about some scams he could run to make money, the one closest to the murders being that he would hire someone to make it look like their house had been robbed so they could get the insurance money (he did say in an affidavit that no one was supposed to be home).

I have also thought it very strange that the lawyer who represented her also represented her husband, who made the lawyer promise not to try to pin the murders on him (Darin).

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that Darin himself did it. Or, that he'd hired a person for the aforementioned insurance scam and told him to do it at night. The person gets there, sees unexpected people in the living room (Darin would probably have assumed that everyone would be upstairs sleeping), panics, and starts getting rid of witnesses - especially if it was someone the family knew.

And I agree - Deadly Women's portrayal of her case was completely one-sided.

I first found out about this case when it was aired on Unsolved Mysteries. I have always had doubts about this case.

I can see points in where she is guilty and points in where she is innocent.

I never understood the point they made about the silly string and the funeral birthday party. People grieve in different ways. I wouldn't consider it relevant to her guilt.

The theme seems to be that they grab the person and make the evidence fit the person. I'm not sure that's the way to prosecute someone.