Introduction

I first became interested in the case of Darlie Routier around 2012 after seeing a documentary on television in the UK.

At the time I thought that the conviction seemed to be extremely unsafe, yet Darlie Routier had been sentenced to death nonetheless.

Subsequent appeals bore no positive result, and they seemed merely to support the original verdict regardless of justifiable objections. It seemed to me that the appeals were held in front of people who had no interest in righting the wrongs of their own system.

At the time I wasn’t concerned whether Darlie was guilty or not guilty. My concern was that it was obvious justice had not been served and the case against her contained serious miscarriages. The least I would have thought a justice system would have done is called for a retrial.

However, the more I learned about the basis for Darlie’s conviction the more I became aware of the downright purposeful manipulation of evidence by the prosecutor, Gregg Davis.

Not only were there very dubious procedures used to collect and analyse evidence from the crime scene, it turned out that Davis had purposely withheld important evidence from the jury.

I don’t know what the situation is in the US, but such actions here in the UK amount to perjury, and well as other prosecutable crimes, such as perverting the course of justice – whoever commits them.

The majority of the trial was a theatrical performance of little substance by the prosecution, all carefully orchestrated to lead the jury along a false path.

Each time Davis presented one of his so-called ‘experts’ to give evidence they seemed to come up with the most bizarre reasoning based on conjecture rather than the facts the evidence presented. The videos of physical demonstrations by various ‘experts’ were totally ridiculous and unnatural, obviously staged to give a specific result, often using the most unnatural human movements imaginable.

Although the public tend to trust evidence that has been forensically tested, evidence is only as good as the way it is collected and analysed. As we have seen in this case, so-called ‘experts’ can make the most ridiculous and bizarre claims yet they will be believed because they are presented as forensic – scientific. People tend to forget that it is just as easy for ‘experts’ to make errors, or misinterpret findings, as it is anyone else in other walks of life. If they want to, ‘experts’ are capable of putting their own spin on their findings and make the evidence fit their version of events.

This is why most western jurisdictions have extremely strict protocols concerning what constitutes real forensic evidence and what does not. Even then, mistakes happen and misinterpretation occurs.

I also learned that the police department had made their minds up about Darlie’s guilt within a couple of hours of being called to the scene and failed to investigate other leads.

This is incredible incompetence as any respectable investigator will tell you. All leads must be followed until they become exhausted or prove to be innocent. Never, ever, do professional investigators follow only one path when there are others in the case – no matter what their intuition or ‘gut feeling’ tells them.

The person who influenced the decision of the police department was someone called James Cron. He is one person, and a person who seems woefully underqualified to make such a statement in a professional capacity. He based his decision on flimsy reasoning based on flawed observations at the scene, and his subsequent analysis of ‘evidence’ wasn’t any different.

I thought that if this was so obvious to me why don’t other people see it. Well, I found a lot of people do see the injustice that has happened here. Even some of the jurors at the trial have since said that there is no way they would have found Darlie guilty if they had been aware of the evidence that was withheld by Davis and his cronies.

Davis and his minions made a point of appealing to the jury at an emotional level rather than a factual one. The facts that were presented were often purposely made complicated and confusing to put the jury off trying to analyse them too much.

Emotions are a strong driving force in the decision making process of the average individual, and Davis succeeded in winning over the jury at a base emotional level by launching a tirade of irrelevant character assassinations on Darlie Routier.

Something that is a personal bugbear of mine is injustice and corruption by those who pretend to be the safe keepers of our societies.

I find it an affront that Davis and his cronies think that they can do whatever they like if they pretend it is ‘justice’, when in fact it is nothing but their own self-serving weaknesses and prejudices that they use as a measure.

To them justice only applies if you can afford to buy it, or are part of their political system.

I now personally believe that Darlie Routier is not guilty of the crime she has been convicted of, and for me that is quite a serious position to take. I don’t usually come to a conclusion of guilt or innocence, just whether the process was fair and just. However, with extensive access to information concerning this case over the past six years or so I certainly believe that Darlie Routier should be released and compensated for the state of Texas’ failure.