Creepy Wikipedia

You sure as hell can’t prove anything “within reasonable doubt”….

Her knife used to cut screen, jewelry wasn't taken at sink where clean up occurred, she named 2 men in her jail letters & freaked out on the stand when asked about it, blood under the glass & vacuum, no cuts on her feet, wine glass was latched wouldn't have been knocked down, Domain didn't bark, motion lites not on, she called media herself to film that grave scene. Her mother had the opportunity a few years ago to go on Dr. Phil? Worldwide attn and any dna testing? She refused. Why? She knows her daughter did this. Her fans say necklace was embedded, had to be surgically removed but it simply fell off when bandage removed. Bruising on her arms prob caused by boys kicking her off. Her wounds were superficial & she didn't know what/where carotid was. She was lucky she didn't kill herself. She was such a light sleeper that she would wake up when Drake turned over in his crib yet she slept through all that? She's guilty. http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/

After more reading it still seems like a lot of this is based on blood splatter stuff which is still super weird. It really sounds, the more I read the statement of facts, they took someone who was pretty fucked after what happened and who was already a little crazy and then cross examined the fuck out of her till she was like "I don't remember what happened!"

Which like shit I get that way when my girlfriend questions something I said too much. I have 0 confidence in my own memory.

I mean I agree with the defense like if you're willing to kill why not kill the husband for his life insurance why not idk rob someone. Killing your kids is such a shenanigans way to go about this if the motive is financial struggles.

The big thing that makes me question things is one of the knives in the block having fibers that are supposedly consistent with the intruder's entry point on it. A lot of people take that as she cut it from the inside and put the knife back. I mean that sounds compelling and all but like that's really the only thing here that feels like actually evidence that it may have been a staged crime scene.

Other than that it just seems a lot like they're speculating on blood stain patterns, remarking on a lack of evidence that there was an intruder when a lot of the evidence they expect from an intruder aren't the type of thing that HAS to be there, and they keep referencing these statements on the wound she had that are in my opinion really inconsistent. Like why'd they do the exploratory surgery? Idk the whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense to me.