The attorney that represented Darlie Routier at trial had an apparent conflict of interest, because he reportedly had a pre-arrangement with Darin Routier and other family members not to pursue any defense that could implicate Darin. This attorney allegedly stopped key experts for the defense from completing forensic examinations.
Other areas of concern which were never brought to the attention of the jury include the pictures of Darlie's cut's and bruises on her arms which were taken when she was hospitalized the night of the murders. At least one juror told reporters he would never have voted to convict if he had seen the photographs.
Bloody fingerprints have been found that do not belong to Darlie, Darin, the children or any of the police or other people in the Routier house the night of the murder. This contradicts testimony given during her trial that there were no fingerprints found outside the home.
Questions her defense team want answered:
- A bloody fingerprint was found on the living room table. Who does it belong to?
- There was a bloody fingerprint on the door of the garage. Who does it belong to?
- Darin Routier's jeans had blood on them. Whose blood is it?
- A pubic hair was found in the Routier living room. Who does it belong to?
- How did the blood on Darlie's nightshirt get there and whose is it?
- Did the police get debris on the knife in the kitchen while investigating the murder or did it come from the screen door?
Darin Routier has admitted to trying to arrange an insurance scam, which included someone breaking into their home. He has admitted that he had begun the initial steps to arrange a break-in, but that it was to be done when no one was at home. No jury has heard this admission.
The incriminating Birthday Party film that was viewed by the jury showed Darlie dancing on the graves of her son along with other family members, but did not include the filming of the hours previous to that scene when Darlie sobbed and grieved over the graves with her husband Darin. Why was the additional footage not shown to the jury?
Neighbors reported seeing a black car sitting in front of the Routier home a week before the murders took place. Other neighbors reported seeing the same car leaving the area on the night of the murders. Were these reports investigated by police?
Investigators during her trial invoked their fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination during cross examination, preventing the defense from rebuting their testimony. What did these investigators fear by being cross-examined?
There was discussion of the police not protecting the evidence as they collected it which could have possibly damaged it's origins. Did this really occur?
More Questions that Need Answers
- The screen which investigators reported to the press as being cut from the inside was later proven in court to be cut from the outside.
- When the paramedics arrived at the scene they said that Darin Routier was outside, but Darin was inside trying to save his children. Who was the man outside?
- Was the testimony from the nurses in the hospital coached and rehearsed in mock trials by the prosecution prior to their testimony, as it has been reported?
- The surgeon who operated on Darlie said that the cut in her neck was 2mm of the carotid sheath but was superficial to the carotid artery. The necklace she was wearing was damaged as a result of the wound but it also blocked the knife from going deeper into her neck. Did the jury get a clear understanding as to the seriousness of her wounds?
- Was there an improper read-back of testimony to the jury by the court reporter, due to mistakes she made in the transcript?
- The prosecution has reportedly refused to provide access to any evidence in their custody in the case. Why is it not readily available to all interested parties?
- The advancements in DNA testing could put many of these questions to rest. Why is there such a reluctance to do the testing?
- Some writers who have interviewed Darlie Routier have decided to help her fight to get a new trial. Since reporting their opinions on her situation, they report that their ability to visit her has been blocked or made so inconvenient that little can be accomplished.