Innocence Erased: Victoriously healed by His embrace

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Innocence Erased: Victoriously healed by His embrace file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Innocence Erased: Victoriously healed by His embrace book. Happy reading Innocence Erased: Victoriously healed by His embrace Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Innocence Erased: Victoriously healed by His embrace at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Innocence Erased: Victoriously healed by His embrace Pocket Guide.

The truth in love is this jersus camre to love, heal and forgive and we need to also. Just maybe you can take the first step to forgive your Mum. Failure of the individual or failure of God! It is SIN! How can we have fellowship with Him? Q: What would happen if a murderer kept on murdering? How then do we look at other sin? The Adam and Eve story is interesting. The fact is, until they ate of the fruit, they could have not known what was evil and what was good….. Both choices would have been equal to them. It seems that Sarah turned to Christianity because it more conveniently fit the values that she held dear.

Could it not be argued that God reaches out to people in different ways? And that Sarah is clearly intelligent so He appealed to her intellect? So in the case of a child being raped, the free will of the rapist is more important than the free will of the child being raped? It seems you want a God who would intervene in every illness, every injustice, every bit of suffering including non-man-made ones, Tsunamis etc.

That sounds like you want a perfect world! If that is the case, then what would a God who created a perfected world do with all the imperfect people? Interestingly enough, the Bible does talk about God ending all injustice and suffering in the world which is what Sarah said in her last paragraph. Can punish all injustices which is what makes us rage when we think of children being raped? The issues you raise about suffering were all raised in the Old Testament book called Job thought to be one of the earliest books in the Bible.

So your difficulty with why a God would allow suffering is not new one but one the Bible actually tackles itself. The God of the Bible is not saying you should hold on to a blind faith in a utopia. He demonstrates that what He will do when He physically raised Jesus from the dead, never to die again. He claims to be in control of the world.

And so you expect Him to intervene. But what if His way of intervening is one that marries both love and justice? Because most of them do believe in God. Either way, the free wills of two individuals—while perhaps of equal value—are exerted in priority of the means and leverage which those respective agents have. The rapist free-will overrides the child because they are stronger and there is no environmental constraint against doing so. Whether from a purely naturalistic perspective or a theistic one, it is an irrelevant point.

Why would God be responsible to restrain whatever you arbitrarily conceive as the evil actions of human beings? Christianity is the only religion that gives anything on that question, and the explanation is internally consistent with the full system of the worldview. Humans rape, murder, rob, and exploit each other in every imaginable way. That is a fact.

Only a theistic worldview provides any means of validating that such things are objectively wrong: that they ought not to happen. If you are not a theist, but a naturalistic materialist, then this behavior would be expected as part and parcel with survival of the fittest. If you are a theist, then you are left with exploring the issue of what evil is, why it exists, and what is God doing about it. Christianity answers all of these questions quite directly, consistently, and comprehensively. Why is he obligated to do so? I have yet to hear a decent argument of why God is obliged to do these things that everyone touts he should do.

CD — imagine if you had the power to prevent a rapist from brutally raping a child without any risk to yourself or to anyone else. Would you prevent the rape or would you sit there and do nothing? To be a good person, you would have an obligation to prevent the rape. That is how it is concluded God — if he exists — has an obligation to prevent the rape.

He already has intervened, except it was at great harm and cost to Himself. This is the work of the cross. Evil has been dealt with from the eternal vantage, and in the future will be removed altogether. The little suffering we endure in this life is minuscule to the joys of eternity in Christ. Moreover, pain, evil, and suffering all play an important role to bring the state of humanity to our attention.

If everything were perfect which they would be if God directly intervened in every act of evil this world endures , then we would perceive no need of a savior for humanity and the world itself. Pain is necessary for survival in this broken world, and is the consequence of evil for which we ourselves are responsible. Can you see all ends? Can you perceive the past, present, and future and understand the eternal ramifications of this or that?

How do you know that helping one will not result in the harm of another? Or that to help one may hurt the whole? The Father turned His back on His only begotten Son, Jesus, who was blameless and perfect, and permitted Him to endure the worst imaginable suffering—physically, emotionally, and spiritually—for the sake of the eternal salvation of humanity at large.

Why then is this of any significance in light of that reality? Because Christians list omnipotent and omnibenevolent as attributes of their god. If those attributes are correct, then he has both the power and the will. The fact that societies have established moral standards is not evidence of a deity by a long stretch. Go read the epistle of Romans if you genuinely want to try to understand this issue.

At the end of the day, all humans are absolutely evil and God-hating by default from birth, and with no way to personally rectify this state. Thankfully, evil people can still do good things. If everyone is indeed evil, then God is—no matter how benevolent—obligated to do anything for them. God owes us nothing. We deserve much more than the evil that is permitted to happen to us. The Gospel is the answer to this problem: He graciously and at inconceivable cost provided the means to give us rebirth into the goodness of Christ, and thus mend the chasm between God and man.

The problem with these discussions about God and evil are that they seldom consider attempting to evaluate it from a theocentric perspective, but rather an exclusively anthrocentric perspective. Common grace—that evil, while present, remains restrained and good things happen to bad people i. Everyone feels entitled. All this drivel and personal incredulity is nothing more than petulant whining. An internally consistent explanation of these issues is laid out very clearly in the Bible, as conveyed by Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament. Notably Romans deals with this issue extensively.

You are welcome to do your due diligence and read it for yourself. The notable point is that God loves both, in spite of their evil. That is the message that Christianity preaches: that God is love, and even the rapist can find redemption, forgiveness, and love in His mercy just as much as a child can. Thanks Milton. I see the Christian view of God as all knowing, all powerful and all present.

The crime or the action is never what was intended in a perfect world. But the Christian story does not end there, it ends with good news, victory over evil. The son did not remain dead but was alive and out of the tomb three days later, according to Christian belief. At this point I am a temporal being, but I look forward to an eternity.

My choice is to be with God for an eternity as he intended, with no suffering or pain, or an eternity separated from God. If he was all knowing, as you say, then he had foreknowledge of the results of the system he designed. This means he is responsible for any and all evil arising from the system.

The “Victorious Sect” Arrests | HRW

There is no way around that. If the Jesus stories are true, then Jesus lost absolutely nothing. His death was in no way a substitution. Look at the facts……. He rose again in three days, became immortal, sat at the right hand of a god, and was destined to rule the world. Please explain how that in any way equates to the human experience of death. That would mean that god sacrificed himself to himself to circumvent rules he himself put into place. I appreciate your feedback, Phil. I try to be pointed with my answers without being offensive. It is a hard line to toe.

Thanks for more questions, and I apologise for my tardiness in replying. There is more to the Jesus story, it is not only about death and resurrection. Prior to his death he lived for 30 years, thereabouts. He had a following due to his alleged authority and power for a period of roughly three years, recorded by eye witnesses and a man who decided to record a careful history. A man who was able to heal, raise people from the dead, teach religious leaders, calm storms, send pigs to drown, turn water into wine is quite impressive. These stories, over years later, require faith to believe.

As I ponder the death of Jesus I am struck by the torture and death. The friends that carefully laid his body in a borrowed tomb and the women that came to care for his body on the third day. With regards to omnibenevolent, I am not convinced. He loved the world Jn , he desires not the death of a sinner Ezek , he generously loved and forgave but allows people to reject him free will.

Actually, the term omnibenevolent was new to me on this thread and I am still contemplating it. Personally, I think that it is quite possible that a person named Jesus existed. There is certainly no definitive proof, but there is anecdotal evidence. For me the question is demonstrating that he was also a deity, or son of a deity depending on which type Christian you may be. The very earliest one was written some thirty years after the supposed crucifiction. It is also a fact that eye witness testimony is one of the most unreliable forms of testimony. That is why forensics is so important in major criminal trials.

Furthermore, the supposed miracles are at the level of modern day parlor tricks and are unimpressive even if it were possible to demonstrate that they actually happened. Thank you Milton. I am not sure whether you have actually read the gospels or the book of Acts? The gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts clearly include elements of first person account. John likewise makes an autobiographical comment in John I would dispute your assertion about eye-witness testimony insofar as persons involved in an event verses persons that perceived an event.

The Watergate Scandal is a case where a number of men were all involved. Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. Absolutely impossible. Phil, yes, I have read the old and new Testaments several times through.

It admittedly has been quite some time, though. But even if they were written in first person from beginning to end, it would provide questionable evidence at best. However, even Biblical scholars agree generally that we have no idea who the authors of some of the gospels are and that in some instances, one borrows from the other. If the fact that some people died for what they believed makes the belief true, then it would make Islam true, as well as Hinduism, Bhuddism, and numerous other religions.

People die to this day for various religious and political ideologies, that does not establish the truthfulness of their beliefs. You can Google the accuracy of eyewitness accounts and find ample information demonstrating the questionable value of eyewitness accounts. The guilty go free and the innocent are convicted based on eyewitness accounts. For such a claim as people rising from the grave, far more evidence would be needed to substantiate the claim. All claims are not equal in terms of weight, and therefore the quantity and quality of evidence needed to support the claims also will vary.

If the only claim was that there was a man with the name of Jesus who lived in the middle east 2 thousand years ago, perhaps the gospels would suffice, because such a claim could easily be true and would carry little importance. But when you throw in the miracles and god claims, the bar is raised substantially. It is the difference between me telling you there was a car in my garage or telling you there was a magical dragon in my garage. Milton, thank you so much for your reply. A few years ago I realised that caring for a person was far more convincing and compelling than arguing with them.

But, I do not feel that you and I are arguing in the negative sense. There is no point in us discussing technical details back and forth as every claim that we each make can be rebutted by a counter claim. Thank for reminding me that, if I truly believe that Jesus is the son of God, and that God exists, it is more powerful for me to live as one who learns from and follows him i.

The narrative of Jesus records a man who loved the outcast and took the religious leaders to task. He was not impressed with knowledge, he was impressed with care and service. Can you have good without evil? Without evil, how do we know what is good? The whole of human civilization and culture fights against natural selection. We can certainly build a moral framework based on human relations using the Golden Rule, for example, which antedates Christianity and is common to many cultures without invoking a deity at all.

For example, if another species were dominant, that reproduced by some other means, the concept of rape might be meaningless. It is only a crime in a human society that values autonomy. Christians are very ready to thank God for finding them a parking palce or saving one person in a plane-crash, but not to blame Him for letting the plane-crash — or a tsunami killing hundreds of thousands — happen. In light of the culture of the time, forcing the man who raped the woman to marry her was culturally appropriate as both a solution and a disincentive to rape.

Having the rapist marry her would be compensatory to the irreparable damage he caused to her. Men knowing that they would be forced into a marriage with a woman that may be below his station or ambitions would disincentivize him from raping her in the first place. It is also worth noting that if he would not marry her he would be stoned to death. All of what you articulated there goes back to the main point of the author and the beginnings of her pursuit of God: why should we value these things? Why do we have a sense of right and wrong? Evolutionary sociological and psychological arguments fail miserably to deal with this, and philosophy takes ardent note of that.

From the Christian evaluation, the suffering of this life is infinitesimal compared to the glory of eternity to come. And the suffering of this life is necessary to point us toward God and to terms with the fallen state of humanity and the creation at large. Chapter and verse for the stoning, please. My reading was that he would just have to pay the bride price without getting the bride. Why would we fight against what is, according to you, essentially who we are? You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what natural selection is.

You seem to think it involved constant physical battles between individuals or species, or tribes, or something. Nothing of the sort. Human consciousness changes everything. The concept that Darwin posited, which was flawed in a number of sense was simply a derivation of earlier work by a man who like many men do not want to accept that they are a created being, and thus accountable to their creator whether we wish to be, choose to be, or not — it just is.

As such there is no need for ethics, morality or such, because survival is the only criteria. I mean, really! The argument is valid. I am only arguing that a being that has the power to stop evil and does not is not a wholly moral being. And this is not an argument against the existence of God, but of the Christian God specifically. But, again, Christianity specifically deals with this. As for the creation, God created it for the purpose of humanity and human free will.

Though what we are discussing here is not an issue of free will, but restraint. Free will is a matter of the ability to make fully autonomous decisions. Restraining those decisions being carried out is another thing altogether. I am arguing against the existence of the Christian god, because the author specifically references the Christian god. If you wish to argue the pros and cons for any one of the thousands of other gods, we can, but not within this thread. Demonstrate your assertion that a god created the universe for humanity and free will.

I was just making an observation on that matter. I know you are arguing against the true God. How would you like me to demonstrate it? What criteria would you like fulfilled? It would probably be faster for you to just go and read the accounts. My answer would be that an omniscient god would know what that evidence would be in my case.

So i will await his submission of that evidence. In the meantime, i have no reason to believe. I think that is fair. Fair enough. I would recommend it to you. I will pray that God will reveal Himself to you on the grounds that are necessary for you. Keep searching, and you will find. Keep knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who searches finds, and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. What man among you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?

If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him! Therefore, whatever you want others to do for you, do also the same for them—this is the Law and the Prophets. For the gate is wide and the road is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who go through it.

How narrow is the gate and difficult the road that leads to life, and few find it. If you will concede the possibility that He is there, and if so you would wish to find Him, then He will most surely find you. CD, I have no problem conceding a god may exist. I just know that there is no convincing evidence for it to be true.

Milton, your thinking is still fundamentally anthropocentric, and more specifically Milton-centric. On the justice of suffering: 1 All humankind is in rebellion explicit or otherwise against its creator. This is not a mistake; it too is a lesson in human evil and call to repent. Why do hundreds die in natural disasters? Why are children mistreated and slain? You and me and people just like us. Why does God not step in and stop it? He will. But in the meantime he wants us to recognise our utter general culpability and turn to him for mercy. Yet we would rather blame him for giving us exactly what we corporately asked for — to rule ourselves and our world in our own way.

Now, there are half a dozen possible objections to this. But if any of them hold, then we are in a worse place — if there is no God who will judge, then there is no justice, no right, no wrong. These are all things we make up to try to make ourselves feel better in a dog-eat-dog world. As for evidence of God, why do you assume the problem is a lack of evidence? There are none so blind as those who will not see. But he does offer some of us two gifts — the gift of realisation that we need him, and the gift of salvation. For those he gifts with the first, the second follows easily.

Grace To Grace - Hillsong Worship

Perhaps in his mercy and plan he will offer them to you. Finally, let me observe that when the Apostles speak in public in the book of Acts , their ultimate focus in not on the crucifixion of Jesus but on his resurrection. To their thinking, the resurrection of the Christ is the sign that he is King and the judgement of God is coming upon the world Acts , Acts The apparent reign of ignorance and evil is coming to an end; do not be caught up in its fall.

God in his mercy offers you a way back to him. You have actually put thought into your reply. Unfortunately, I disagree with your reasoning. My main point is that if god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent then he has both the ability and the desire to end immorality. He does not. Is he is incapable or unwilling? It is irrelevant that he may step in at some point in the future and stop it. The point is that he can stop it now and chooses not to. Therefore, if he exists, he is immoral. Let me give my original question to you, because virtually everyone else on this thread has dodged the question and not answered it.

Maybe you will be the first to have the courage. If you could stop a child from being raped without any risk to you or others, would it be immoral not to stop it? If you think it is immoral, then you and I agree…. If I could stop a child from being raped, without any risk to myself or others, would it be immoral for me not to stop it? In accordance with human conceptions of morality, it would be immoral for me to stand idly by.

Is God bound by human conceptions of morality? Did evil break me? Yes, but only until I allowed myself to be loved back to wholeness. Why do children starve to death? There is ample food to provide for every being on Earth. Look into the vast amounts of perfectly good food disposed of every day because of its aesthetics bananas are a great example!

Why is all of this perfectly good food thrown away? Because it is a financial drain to transport this food to the starving, when they cannot pay even a cent towards the cost, significantly impacting profits. True, re: wars, etc. As far as communism is concerned, it works very well in theory, but every failed example throughout history failed because of human greed in those at the centre the greed which also causes capitalism to fail! He designed the entire system knowing beforehand what the consequences of his choices would be and he was okay with those choices.

How is he not culpable? As much as we might like to be, or believe that we are, we are not gods, so cannot perceive nor judge His actions or lack thereof, depending on perception by our own standards. The Bible however, says that God knows our every thought before we have them, not that He chose them for us.

Though, as I said, many people have different perspectives on this topic — many of which make not a shred of sense to me! To follow the logic that God is culpable for sending people into a world in which He knew the cost of our poor actions would be like saying a knife maker is culpable for designing a kitchen knife that someone used to kill somebody, or a teacher is culpable for setting a test that students would fail, if they chose not to study in preparation.

We all have the opportunity to make good choices, or terrible choices. Something is moral or it is,not. Why would you imply it is somwhow moral for your god to allow a child to be raped, but immoral for humans to do so? The act of rape is to me immoral, and so is allowing it to happen when you could easily stop it. Whether god stopped a rape in another instance is irrelevant. I am concerned with the ones he does not stop. If Christians say human morals are derived from god and are objective in nature, then how can our moral standards be different?

In what context is child rape moral? To say your god would allow someone to rape a child just so the child could hit rock bottom and maybe recover sometime in the future to learn some lesson is obscene. Allowing children to be raped to teach then a lesson about life is a horrendous idea. How can you even think that could somehow be moral? Is that the best an all-loving god can do??? What about those who do not recover? Finally, I find it odd that you are telling me you believe it is impossible for an all-knowing, all powerful being to overcome the drawbacks of a human economic system and feed starving children.

If that is so, then he is surely no god. I am surprised you are proposing to limit the power of your god in such a manner. On the other hand, if he could have prevented the course of history that brought us to this point, then there would perhaps be no starving children. If that is so, then he remains responsible for those results. Obviously, I write as a human being, and my opinions and perspectives are my own, which I have formed based on my own limited understanding and life experiences.

I may be dead-wrong, and as I am absolutely no theologian, I stress that my perspectives represent only myself, not my family, my church, my denomination, and certainly not Christianity as a whole. I do have a friend however, who is a very learned woman of God, and a priest.

I will send her this link and see if she wishes to answer some of your questions more accurately and concisely than I will ever be able to without years of studying theology! On saying that though, here is my completely worthless! People with faith in God understand that we are nowhere near being on a level playing field with Him, so will not ever assume to judge His actions, based on our limited understanding.

Not only do we have no right, but we are somewhat concerned for the state of our immortal souls! We are each tempted, we each question and doubt, and we each place higher value on human concerns and endeavours, and the pursuit of immediate gratification, rather than the things that really matter. As I said above, I certainly did not mean to imply that a child would go through such an ordeal for any kind of lesson. Their suffering is as a result of the evil afflicting another individual.

I do however, believe that we can learn from all suffering that we experience. I know I sure have. I also posit that anyone who truly finds God can find healing of any and all things that they suffer, experience, or — the most unpopular stance — commit. What it boils down to, in my humble opinion, is that any situation, no matter how base, how vile, how debilitating, can be injected with hope and eventual healing through faith; that all hurts can be healed through God.

I do not believe it is impossible for God to cure the wrongs of the world. The Earth was created with more than enough for everyone, yet the gift to humanity of free will, along with temptation, caused all of this to crumble. To somebody who does not have faith, death is the endgame, so to think of people dying from starvation, after a life albeit extraordinarily short in far too many cases of suffering is unconscionable and disgusting — hence your mistrust and hostility towards faith, as God is then to blame for this.

When one does not have any faith in anything outside of physical human experience, the ills of life are all that matter; they are the most important and debilitating questions in existence. When one does have faith, the ills of life are infinitely easier to bear. If you imagine the primary purpose of life as an opportunity to experience existence both with and without God, so that when you are faced with an opportunity to choose how to spend your eternity, your choice will be informed by your life experiences, the suffering of a godless world is easier to understand, endure and see through.

I have to distance myself enormously and place this conversation on a hypothetical plane in my mind in order to have this discussion at all, as the reality of suffering and starving children throughout the world causes me significant distress. The fact that there are children in agony due to their lack of food and clean water in parts of the world, whilst people in my own small corner of the globe throw elaborate birthday parties for their dogs, sickens me.

I feel the pain of these people especially the mothers, with whom I can most strongly identify , and I try to help in my small ways, through child sponsorship and feeding some of the local poor, when I can. I also thank God every single day for the riches my family can enjoy. I see the good that many Christian and non-Christian organisations do to try to remedy the situations and alleviate the suffering, then I also see the individuals affected by greed who exploit even these organisations most often from within.

In these, I again see lives with and without God. I see that free will and life are gifts given to humanity such that we might experience existence both with and without God, and be able to make our decision at the time of judgement. I also look forward to a world that is free from all of this. He will however, always be there to pick up the pieces and to heal the hurts, as well as to allow good to come from any evil experienced.

In my personal experience, my incredible hurts drove me away from the path that I was on to medicine, and instead redirected me to education. So if you had the power to prevent rapists from brutally raping children without any risk to yourself or to others, would you prevent such heinous acts?

Or would you sit there and do nothing? Which of those two courses of action or inaction do you think would present you as a more morally sound person? So you would stop the rape. The most important question here is the implicit one — what obligates me to act? If the oppressor is powerful, I may draw persecution to myself, or even be unjustly blamed for his offence.

Conversely, the more social support I get for intervening, the more likely I am to go out of my way to perform it. Firstly, this is not a new question. Consider Psalm 10, a lament to God that the powerful are getting away with evil. Secondly, while we act from a very limited moral and temporal perspective, God does not. Broadly speaking, to turn a blind eye to evil that I could prevent is to condone or even participate in it.

If I see one of my enemies mistreating another, am I bound to prevent it? This is the first reckoning. But there is an alternative reckoning. God will not and cannot overlook evil, or dismiss it cheaply. Instead, Jesus, Son of God, comes to be human, to suffer as a human, to be rejected by humans, to die as a human, and to be judged by God as the innocent ideal human in place of all other rebellious evil humans.

In that death, he takes the evil done upon himself. Moreover, he takes the evil suffered upon himself also. For me to overlook evil is immoral. Sorry, but if your god does not intervene and stop an immoral act, then he is complicit in the act. His future acts cannot unrape the child. I think that having another person pay the penalty for your own immorality is a sick concept.

If your great grandfather killed someone, would you think it fair that they put you in prison for his transgression? No, that is the response of a man who is truly unaware of his own depravity. I answered your question, and you complain about it because my answer holds you and I as guilty as the hypothetical rapist. We humans have a wonderful moral system. God has a slightly different system. He starts with his own perfection, compares that to his rebellious, treasonous creation, and withdraws from us because he does not want to destroy us utterly.

Well, many cultures have had some variant on that. It does. Victoria and others who suggest that we ascertain whether Darlie is truly guilty, necessarily imply a new trial — a second chance most death row convicts would welcome. But there already was a trial. A jury weighed the credibility of witnesses and the evidence and found her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. She had a well-known defense attorney too; not the barely-paid public defender most convicts get. At this point, the burden is on Darlie to prove her actual innocence.

The juror said he recants his verdict as he wasnt shown all the evidence.

Reward Yourself

Get u story right. Jury didnt agree. There have been many cases where the was prosecutorial misconduct!! It is true that some people found guilty at trial were eventually exonerated. However, there are many, many more who were not. She had a very experienced and competent defense team, was found guilty by a jury, had appeals, and is now awaiting execution. Her team have known this for years. And it will most certainly not end with her release. BTW, I am percent against the death penalty. But from a legal point of view, she has exhausted all of her options.

With due respect to her passionate and caring supporters, I think it is time to prepare for the inevitable. I remember when this happened and imo she was guilty from the beginning. No one with a heart wanted to think she did it, but she acts like a classic sociopath. Watch her again and see if you can spot the lack of empathy for anyone else. I completely disagree with you. Just because she is not a blubbering, crying woman does not make her guilty. Thank God none of you are in any actual position of authority over this matter.

I can say that in my opinion she never had a chance either way. Within 20 minutes of entering the home the lead detective had made up his mind that there was no intruder, simply because there was no blood in the garage? The lead detective never considered any other possibility, therefor of course evidence was likely overlooked. As a mother of two though, I could not imagine loosing my two babies and then on top of it all, getting blamed for it and spending half my life potentially all of my life in prison for it.

Simply reading the transcripts of the trial will tell you that she never received a fair trial. No one gets to judge a person for their behavior on their recently deceased sons birthday less than 2 weeks later but that person. I have always thought if she did have something to do with it the husband had to have been right there with her. She also testified for herself against her lawyers advice and that says a lot to me. Guilty people usually will do anything to avoid being questioned about the event. Either way, why would anyone want to see someone loose their life?

Also consider Texas has sent for innocent people to death row than any other state. Somebody please loan Juror 8 two grand so she can get a boob job! Or at least send the poor woman a training bra. So she is innocent? Who comes in a home and brutally murders two children only. Kinda attacks her, I know she almost died, yeah right and leaves and has never committed another crime? Just makes no sense.

Her and Darrin did it without a shadow of a doubt. And they do this the one night she sleeps downstairs with the boys. Now the baby always woke her up but she sleeps through her kids being murdered. Come on people. Now Texas is stalling, waited 9 years to get the fingerprint tested. She is innocent. She was railroaded because she was different than the rest of the fine upstanding ladies of the community with broomsticks stuck you know where! I am so sorryfor the loss of the Routier children. I have so much reasonable doubt in my mind. She has wounds that are not self inflected. What about the dna under her fingernails as well as the sock.

She deserves a new trial. I am saddened by the whole process. She willl face her exoneration from Jesus Christ , however her demise comes. In a case filled with unanswered questions and reasonable doubts, justice should be the only concern. As far as the silly string video, no one saw the crying and praying that happened before that.

People deal with grief in different ways. The TV presentation on channel 7 sucked. No indication that there is an ongoing investigation, that The defense attorney Mudder has sinse died, A forensic investigator has since deceased. Last time I watch this show!! Darlie, I hope you see this. I believe you are innocent. I am going to write to you. My name is Michelle. I am so sorry for what has happened to your children. And to you. Your friend, Michelle in Tucson ,Arizona. How did their blood splatter get on the back of her shirt? The only way is if she did the stabbing.

You are supporting a murderer. Do u know how stupid u sound? Y does she have a bruised arm? Why is there a sock down the street. Whos fingerprint on wall?? I do not believe Darcie killed her 2 sons and stab herself. First her first Attorney did a very poor job putting on defense.

Character judgement should never been allowed to the extent that happened. If you People out there think the Police are always telling the truth you are Crazy. They lie, make up things that is not true and are extremely biased. Texas is the worst State in America to be charged with murder.

Justice is not blind. You have to prove your innocence. Frankly because she did a Birthday Party for her son just because you do not like the way she and her family celebrate Diamin. They did not show the first part of recording. Darkie never stood a chance! She was already convicted Guilty.

I can not say either way but I feel she never had chance. Americans our Justice System needs to be revamp that you are Innocent Until proven Guilty not the other way. I believe we have too many innocent people dying because they are innocent. My opinion? I think he found someone and it went south. Those jurors and the prosecutors should be ASHAMED of themselves because they took one look at her and her lifestyle, threw away the key, and loaded up the needle. They know a staged scene when they see one.

There is no way those boys blood got on the back of her shirt unless she did it. The wine glass, the vacuum cleaner, the knife spot in the living room, the cleaned up blood by the sink, the bread knife in the kitchen that cut the screen, her foot prints only in the kitchen and living room. Her foot prints leading back to stab the little one again. Her running around the house while on the phone. The blood evidence is overwhelming that she did it. With That much blood there is no way an intruder would not have been noticed. How did the boys blood splatter get on the back of her shirt?

Did it just jump there? I was 14 when the murders took place. Living in North Texas I was frightened about a murderer being on the loose. Looking at all the evidence I do not believe this woman should be in jail. I hope justice prevails for this women. Where was the new game changing evidence? Im calling Netflix now to greenlight this.

Conflict of interest? The first time I met Darlie was in August of , just before I began writing a series of newspaper articles revisiting the case. The series turned into a book project. However, that does not make them correct in their assessment. I do think many factors contributed to Mrs. First, one must consider and respect that just because a defendant is convicted of a heinous murder, does not make a mother guilty of killing her children in such a heinous fashion.

Secondly, It is painfully obvious the Dallas Police where very affected by the Susan Smith case which occurred shortly before the Routier boys were murdered in such a heinous fashion. After Dad retired from the Judicial System he joined with my brother who is now retired. One of his specialties was Criminal Law. I believe that seeing cases from the inside out for many years of my life gives me an ability to speak reasonably and responsibility on cases such as this one. They believed they had served their profession well. It appeared to me that in Dallas at the time of her original trial much was made about Darlie having breast implants, and dressing in what jurors saw as a sexy or provocative way.

The blatant sexism in this case and the Prosecutors obvious attempts to convict her of killing her two young boys has NOTHING to do with guilt or innocence. As I have not read all the transcripts, etc. I only speak about what I saw on several videos. It is such a sad system when Lady Justice is not blind nor deaf to all the information they saw or read that was not presented during the trial. I am dumbfounded why it has taken more than 20 years for defense attorneys to get the Dallas Police to finally be forced to have the bloody fingerprint tested by a laboratory.

That is a blatant attempt showing the Dallas Police as not wanted evidence Mrs. Routier might not be the killer. Today she and her ex-husband may be forced to know even the possibility they might be wrong. Routier is guilty or innocent. Yet, I am certain that she did not receive a fair trial by any standard.

Routier is not a murderer, leaving them with no answer to the question of who killed their children and or how a jury could be clueless as to their responsibility at seeing ALL the evidence of the possible killers and making an informed decision. Seemingly, Texans have yet to believe or understand that women are indeed supposed to be judged on the facts and not some antiquated idea that if you dislike her lifestyle then she may be a murderer. In fact we are all guilty of something if we have lived to adulthood.

On the opposite side of the equation we must accept our system of justice is far from perfect. Yet, it still remains one of the best systems in the world. You can simply email me at: pjosborne56 gmail. Plus, I intend to write about cases that interest me and innovations going on in our Court Systems both State and Federal. For me it will be an interesting experiment to see if I find folks who are interested in what I write along the way! What a living hell this life must be for her. Very sad!!! I am beyond disgusted with all of you today. How much money do you all make off of this?

What new development was there? If anything, stop for these boys. Let them rest in peace and stop making money off their mother. Bottom line is the system failed the real victims, these two little guys. I have now idea if she is innocent or not but it is their duty to exhaust every possible scenario. If one can be convicted of perceived character, that lady needs locked up. Horrible, judge mental person.. The bloody sock found near a sewer by the home had the kids dna and chloroform. Someone knocked her out and stabbed her thinking she was dead.

Cruz narrative. I read a piece about five years after she was incarcerated that provided actual details of her daily prison life as a somewhat coarse and hardened, clumsily scheming woman…possibly the kind who would stage this sort of mayhem and accidentally stupidly almost kill herself with a poorly managed self inflicted wound.

I have been following her case for years. I have never thought for once that she was guilty. Its is very clear to me however that the police and prosecutors used Darlies lifestyle, ie, breast implants, blonde hair and her personality to pre judge her. There is so much the jury did not see and hearing from some of the jurors, they also pre judged her on these facts. Who the crap cares if she had her breasts done or wore tight clothes!! Shame on the police and prosecutors!!! Praying for and we WILL see the day she walks free.

It is very sad that the REAL killer will probably never be brought to justice because of this sloppy investigation. Why would a stranger kill 2 young boys, yet leave an adult witness alive with superficial wounds? Yet the boys wounds were so severe, they didnt stand a chance.

Old Case, New Developments

Of course she didnt get a license plate. Hours after the murders?! Why would the killer use his own knife to cut the screen then once in, decide to look for a different knife in the Routiers kitchen to kill them with and then leave it behind.. There was never no real evidence to charge her with. The law is innocent until proven guilty but did not provail in this case that I saw. None of it really added up and if the trial would of been in a different town with a better attorney she would never be on death row. You can see the envy pouring off of her when she speaks.

My my, what timing. I would think going after the adult first would be what he would do. With the same force used on the 2 defenseless children. But no, the adult potential witness has superficial wounds. Same with a cut on her arm. Oh and the minor cuts on one or two fingers, when she was supposedly fighting with the killer. How would a stranger know Darren was upstairs? And why leave Darlie alive? No evidence of Darlie fighting with anyone. How convenient that no license plate was written down. Especially since hours after the murders the neighbor supposedly saw the same car.!

And still no license plate. Reread the story!!! U dont have a clue!!! The neighbor lieing to i guess. Everybodies lieing but the cops right!!! Yeah right! The neighbor saw the car before the murders that same day!! And in this case the complaint that the police never followed up on the neighbors sighting of a car parked in front of the Routier houseTWICE! I mean come on…. Wow, with a description like that they should have tracked down that car within hours! How many black cars can there be in Texas? Yes and the people saying this are serious. Poor misunderstood murderer. If there was any credibility to this information, especially if it would lead to Darlies conviction being overturned, it would have been done a long time ago.

The reason they didnt find anyone else who committed the murder is because the murderer is Darlie. I believe that she is innocent. I hope that She at least gets another trial. The entirely legal circumstantial evidence on which a jury convicted Darlie Routier will be substantiated, disproven with DNA testing. I say bring on the dna test and run the fingerprint.

Join Kobo & start eReading today

All it will do is help end the arguements. Either she did it or didnt. If the test come back in her favor we should all be happy that the technology is here and saved an innocent women. If it comes out againt her we should all he happy that the technology is here that helped put a gulty person away. Regardless the evidence will tell the truth and justice will prevail.

What i dont understand is if a judge ordered the fingerprint to be ran years ago why it hasnt been done. Something is fishy with that part. We can all just wait and see what happens next. The fingerprint was ran!! They said its not a match for anyone in house. They were trying to get dna testing not fingerprint. Although J was compared to the fingerprints of the Routiers and first responders with no match found it has not been run through the national law enforcement database.

Ignorant people for sure. Well said. Look at her body for all the evidence classic signs of a woman Fighting off someone damn. Did they ever do a dna test on the flesh they discovered under her fingernails? Also, if someone wore the sock they found with the boys blood on it…there should be some dna from dead skin on the inside of the sock.

Sad all the way around. Disgusting repulsive putrid bad mother. Spoiled rotten brat. Only way Darlie is leaving TDR is in a body bag. Hope every cemetery refuses her carcass. I doubt even YOU believe that anymore, Jade. Oh I believe it. Everyone with a rational mind believes it. Darlie murdered Devon and Damon. There was no intruder. Darlie Routier is right where she belongs. Common scumbag capital murder defense attorney strategy to take it to the court of last resort…documentaries.

No one has ever been let off death row because of a documentary. Just scumbag defense attorney stall tactics. You remember…It was Glen Mize! I saw him! Darin will have to tell you more because they read my mail! Pathetic liar is all Darlie is. Damaged from her shitty childhood thanks to her mother. Darlie will be executed for what she did to those little boys. This disgusting case of filicide will be talked about for centuries. Know this. When this first happened, I thought she was guilty. All we had to go on was what the media was reporting. Idiot,youd ignore facts such as someone slit her throat and bruised her arm and threw a bloody sock out a football field away from her house where u say she ran with her throat slit because your stupid thinks two spots of blood on the back of her shirt is more telling!!!!

God please dont ever let u be a juror either! Stupid people! I was and still am convinced DR is guilty of this terrible crime. However, there are aspects about this trial that I believe were fundamentally unfair to her and may have had a bearing on the outcome. The biggest glaring mistake is the transcript.

The thing was so bad that the transcriptionist lost her license over it. An accurate transcript is an absolute must and I think on that one fact alone she deserved a new trial. It has to be fair. JMO… I would hope that people on any jury I was judged by would understand what reasonable doubt is. Did they ever test the skin underneath her nails for DNA? Would also eliminate her guilt but in Texas who knows! It will never happen. However, they had made up their mind from day one that she was guilty and that was it.

Tunnel vision from there on in!!! IMO, only a moron could look at those wounds and believe that she inflicted them herself. Get real!! ALL of them were superficial wounds. None of them almost died, like Darlie!!! One of the things that really angered me was that stupid juror who finally decided that Darlie was guilty because she had breast implants and nice jewellery!!!

You put someone on death row because of that? I hope karma finds that woman. Everyone who put her on death row should pay dearly. Too bad they have protection for the detectives, cops and prosecutors. And as far as Texas and Justice goes they suck!! Old case same old bullshit no new developments. Family has been claiming this shit for years. Darlie did it. I guess the family needs something to hand on to until that day.

Btw Kathy Cruz is personal friends with the killers mother so every article about this killer is biased just like TLD. Killer Darlie Routier committed a repugnant crime. This is the legacy everyone in the state of Texas with the last name of Routier has. None of you KNOW who did it. I do not believe this woman did this at all I believe she was the sole purpose of the attack. I think the guy drugged her with what was on the sock, and then when the kids started waking up he shut them up.

I think he was there to rape her not to Rob anybody and as far as her acting like that at the grave grave site so big deal! She was a 26 year old house wife, not a Sherlock Holmes fiction writer. The intruder dropped the sock. And Darin desperately needs a hair cut. Can someone please answer a couple of questions for me? Why was the Routier family going to PA, aside from Darlie having family there? The reason I ask is because I know around the time that the murders happened, there were a lot of homes being robbed in that area and surrounding areas like Garland, Mesquite, Dallas, when a loved one had passed away and obituaries in the papers would list family members full names and what city they lived in.

Disgusting to say the least. Her grandparents and other relatives lived there. Her mother is from Altoona. They were scheduled to fly out on June 14, My second question is what she had to gain by murdering her 2 boys? Do you know how many people hit rewind on that one…? I hate to break it to you Ms. Failure alert just like Avery.

Impeccable reputations to this day. I volunteer Jade for a pelvic exam performed by Ser Gregor Clegane. Your daughter had her freedom to gain because she was tired of being a broke mother. Your daughter also tried to smother Drake the day before she murdered Devon and Damon. Why did you lie to Robert Riggs on camera about Darlie taking a polygraph. You lied about that. You lied because she failed it. You are a liar Darlie Kee just like your daughter.

I know it was him! Mize right up in front of Darlie. Darlie is a psychopath. She said "reading the newspaper" in the tone in which a Minister's wife might have said: "Presiding at a Cabinet meeting"—not from any arrogance of mind, but because the habit of a life-time, and the attitude of her friends and relations, had led her to consider Mr. Her promptness of action showed that she considered the case as pressing as Mrs. Archer; but, lest she should be thought to have committed herself in advance, she added, with the sweetest look: "Henry always enjoys seeing you, dear Adeline; and he will wish to congratulate Newland.

The double doors had solemnly reopened and between them appeared Mr. Henry van der Luyden, tall, spare and frock-coated, with faded fair hair, a straight nose like his wife's and the same look of frozen gentleness in eyes that were merely pale grey instead of pale blue. Archer with cousinly affability, proffered to Newland low-voiced congratulations couched in the same language as his wife's, and seated himself in one of the brocade armchairs with the simplicity of a reigning sovereign. Archer responsively.

But now we live in a constant rush," said Mr. Lovell Mingott. There was a silence during which the tick of the monumental ormolu clock on the white marble mantelpiece grew as loud as the boom of a minute-gun. Archer contemplated with awe the two slender faded figures, seated side by side in a kind of viceregal rigidity, mouthpieces of some remote ancestral authority which fate compelled them to wield, when they would so much rather have lived in simplicity and seclusion, digging invisible weeds out of the perfect lawns of Skuytercliff, and playing Patience together in the evenings.

Larry has been going it rather harder than usual lately—if cousin Louisa won't mind my mentioning it—having rather a stiff affair with the postmaster's wife in their village, or some one of that sort; and whenever poor Gertrude Lefferts begins to suspect anything, and he's afraid of trouble, he gets up a fuss of this kind, to show how awfully moral he is, and talks at the top of his voice about the impertinence of inviting his wife to meet people he doesn't wish her to know.

He's simply using Madame Olenska as a lightning-rod; I've seen him try the same thing often before. It shows what Society has come to. But instantly she became aware of her mistake. The van der Luydens were morbidly sensitive to any criticism of their secluded existence. They were the arbiters of fashion, the Court of last Appeal, and they knew it, and bowed to their fate. But being shy and retiring persons, with no natural inclination for their part, they lived as much as possible in the sylvan solitude of Skuytercliff, and when they came to town, declined all invitations on the plea of Mrs.

Newland Archer came to his mother's rescue. That's why Mrs. Mingott felt she ought not to allow this slight on Countess Olenska to pass without consulting you. At any rate, she will be when Newland marries.

Husband and wife looked at each other again. Their pale eyes clung together in prolonged and serious consultation; then a faint smile fluttered over Mrs. She had evidently guessed and approved. Lovell Mingott—she and I would have been happy to—er—fill the places of the Lawrence Leffertses at her dinner. Archer sounded a sympathetic assent. Austrey, arrives next week on the Russia. He is coming to enter his new sloop, the Guinevere, in next summer's International Cup Race; and also to have a little canvasback shooting at Trevenna. I am sure Louisa will be as glad as I am if Countess Olenska will let us include her among our guests.

Archer, who knew this to be a hint that the seventeen-hand chestnuts which were never kept waiting were at the door, rose with a hurried murmur of thanks. This kind of thing must not happen in New York; it shall not, as long as I can help it," he pronounced with sovereign gentleness as he steered his cousins to the door.

Two hours later, every one knew that the great C-spring barouche in which Mrs. Mingott's door, where a large square envelope was handed in; and that evening at the Opera Mr. Sillerton Jackson was able to state that the envelope contained a card inviting the Countess Olenska to the dinner which the van der Luydens were giving the following week for their cousin, the Duke of St. Some of the younger men in the club box exchanged a smile at this announcement, and glanced sideways at Lawrence Lefferts, who sat carelessly in the front of the box, pulling his long fair moustache, and who remarked with authority, as the soprano paused: "No one but Patti ought to attempt the Sonnambula.

She had appeared there first, in Newland Archer's boyhood, as a brilliantly pretty little girl of nine or ten, of whom people said that she "ought to be painted. Poor Medora, repeatedly widowed, was always coming home to settle down each time in a less expensive house , and bringing with her a new husband or an adopted child; but after a few months she invariably parted from her husband or quarrelled with her ward, and, having got rid of her house at a loss, set out again on her wanderings. As her mother had been a Rushworth, and her last unhappy marriage had linked her to one of the crazy Chiverses, New York looked indulgently on her eccentricities; but when she returned with her little orphaned niece, whose parents had been popular in spite of their regrettable taste for travel, people thought it a pity that the pretty child should be in such hands.

Every one was disposed to be kind to little Ellen Mingott, though her dusky red cheeks and tight curls gave her an air of gaiety that seemed unsuitable in a child who should still have been in black for her parents. It was one of the misguided Medora's many peculiarities to flout the unalterable rules that regulated American mourning, and when she stepped from the steamer her family were scandalised to see that the crape veil she wore for her own brother was seven inches shorter than those of her sisters-in-law, while little Ellen was in crimson merino and amber beads, like a gipsy foundling.

But New York had so long resigned itself to Medora that only a few old ladies shook their heads over Ellen's gaudy clothes, while her other relations fell under the charm of her high colour and high spirits. She was a fearless and familiar little thing, who asked disconcerting questions, made precocious comments, and possessed outlandish arts, such as dancing a Spanish shawl dance and singing Neapolitan love-songs to a guitar.

Under the direction of her aunt whose real name was Mrs. Thorley Chivers, but who, having received a Papal title, had resumed her first husband's patronymic, and called herself the Marchioness Manson, because in Italy she could turn it into Manzoni the little girl received an expensive but incoherent education, which included "drawing from the model," a thing never dreamed of before, and playing the piano in quintets with professional musicians. Of course no good could come of this; and when, a few years later, poor Chivers finally died in a madhouse, his widow draped in strange weeds again pulled up stakes and departed with Ellen, who had grown into a tall bony girl with conspicuous eyes.

For some time no more was heard of them; then news came of Ellen's marriage to an immensely rich Polish nobleman of legendary fame, whom she had met at a ball at the Tuileries, and who was said to have princely establishments in Paris, Nice and Florence, a yacht at Cowes, and many square miles of shooting in Transylvania.

She disappeared in a kind of sulphurous apotheosis, and when a few years later Medora again came back to New York, subdued, impoverished, mourning a third husband, and in quest of a still smaller house, people wondered that her rich niece had not been able to do something for her. Then came the news that Ellen's own marriage had ended in disaster, and that she was herself returning home to seek rest and oblivion among her kinsfolk. These things passed through Newland Archer's mind a week later as he watched the Countess Olenska enter the van der Luyden drawing-room on the evening of the momentous dinner.

The occasion was a solemn one, and he wondered a little nervously how she would carry it off. She came rather late, one hand still ungloved, and fastening a bracelet about her wrist; yet she entered without any appearance of haste or embarrassment the drawing-room in which New York's most chosen company was somewhat awfully assembled.

In the middle of the room she paused, looking about her with a grave mouth and smiling eyes; and in that instant Newland Archer rejected the general verdict on her looks. It was true that her early radiance was gone. The red cheeks had paled; she was thin, worn, a little older-looking than her age, which must have been nearly thirty. But there was about her the mysterious authority of beauty, a sureness in the carriage of the head, the movement of the eyes, which, without being in the least theatrical, struck his as highly trained and full of a conscious power.

At the same time she was simpler in manner than most of the ladies present, and many people as he heard afterward from Janey were disappointed that her appearance was not more "stylish"—for stylishness was what New York most valued. It was, perhaps, Archer reflected, because her early vivacity had disappeared; because she was so quiet—quiet in her movements, her voice, and the tones of her low-pitched voice.

New York had expected something a good deal more reasonant in a young woman with such a history. The dinner was a somewhat formidable business. Dining with the van der Luydens was at best no light matter, and dining there with a Duke who was their cousin was almost a religious solemnity. It pleased Archer to think that only an old New Yorker could perceive the shade of difference to New York between being merely a Duke and being the van der Luydens' Duke.

New York took stray noblemen calmly, and even except in the Struthers set with a certain distrustful hauteur; but when they presented such credentials as these they were received with an old-fashioned cordiality that they would have been greatly mistaken in ascribing solely to their standing in Debrett.

It was for just such distinctions that the young man cherished his old New York even while he smiled at it. The van der Luydens had done their best to emphasise the importance of the occasion. Archer, in her grandmother's seed-pearls and emeralds, reminded her son of an Isabey miniature. All the ladies had on their handsomest jewels, but it was characteristic of the house and the occasion that these were mostly in rather heavy old-fashioned settings; and old Miss Lanning, who had been persuaded to come, actually wore her mother's cameos and a Spanish blonde shawl.

The Countess Olenska was the only young woman at the dinner; yet, as Archer scanned the smooth plump elderly faces between their diamond necklaces and towering ostrich feathers, they struck him as curiously immature compared with hers. It frightened him to think what must have gone to the making of her eyes. The Duke of St. Austrey, who sat at his hostess's right, was naturally the chief figure of the evening. But if the Countess Olenska was less conspicuous than had been hoped, the Duke was almost invisible.

Being a well-bred man he had not like another recent ducal visitor come to the dinner in a shooting-jacket; but his evening clothes were so shabby and baggy, and he wore them with such an air of their being homespun, that with his stooping way of sitting, and the vast beard spreading over his shirt-front he hardly gave the appearance of being in dinner attire. He was short, round-shouldered, sunburnt, with a thick nose, small eyes and a sociable smile; but he seldom spoke, and when he did it was in such low tones that, despite the frequent silences of expectation about the table, his remarks were lost to all but his neighbours.

When the men joined the ladies after dinner the Duke went straight up to the Countess Olenska, and they sat down in a corner and plunged into animated talk. Neither seemed aware that the Duke should first have paid his respects to Mrs. Lovell Mingott and Mrs. Headly Chivers, and the Countess have conversed with that amiable hypochondriac, Mr. Urban Dagonet of Washington Square, who, in order to have the pleasure of meeting her, had broken through his fixed rule of not dining out between January and April. The two chatted together for nearly twenty minutes; then the Countess rose and, walking alone across the wide drawing-room, sat down at Newland Archer's side.

It was not the custom in New York drawing-rooms for a lady to get up and walk away from one gentleman in order to seek the company of another. Etiquette required that she should wait, immovable as an idol, while the men who wished to converse with her succeeded each other at her side. But the Countess was apparently unaware of having broken any rule; she sat at perfect ease in a corner of the sofa beside Archer, and looked at him with the kindest eyes. He's very fond of gambling—he used to come to the house a great deal.

This pleased her companion so much that he forgot the slight shock her previous remark had caused him. It was undeniably exciting to meet a lady who found the van der Luydens' Duke dull, and dared to utter the opinion. He longed to question her, to hear more about the life of which her careless words had given him so illuminating a glimpse; but he feared to touch on distressing memories, and before he could think of anything to say she had strayed back to her original subject. Are you very much in love with her?

She continued to consider him thoughtfully, as if not to miss any shade of meaning in what he said, "Do you think, then, there is a limit? And you found it all out for yourselves—it was not in the least arranged for you? Archer looked at her incredulously. You must forgive me if I sometimes make these mistakes. I don't always remember that everything here is good that was—that was bad where I've come from. Wherever I go I have that feeling. That's why I came home. I want to forget everything else, to become a complete American again, like the Mingotts and Wellands, and you and your delightful mother, and all the other good people here tonight.

Ah, here's May arriving, and you will want to hurry away to her," she added, but without moving; and her eyes turned back from the door to rest on the young man's face. The drawing-rooms were beginning to fill up with after-dinner guests, and following Madame Olenska's glance Archer saw May Welland entering with her mother. In her dress of white and silver, with a wreath of silver blossoms in her hair, the tall girl looked like a Diana just alight from the chase.

There's the Duke being introduced. It was the lightest touch, but it thrilled him like a caress. Urban Dagonet. The Countess greeted them with her grave smile, and Archer, feeling his host's admonitory glance on him, rose and surrendered his seat. As he moved away he saw Lawrence Lefferts, tall and resplendent, leading his wife up to be introduced; and heard Gertrude Lefferts say, as she beamed on the Countess with her large unperceiving smile: "But I think we used to go to dancing-school together when we were children—.

Lovell Mingott's. As Mrs. Archer remarked: when the van der Luydens chose, they knew how to give a lesson. The wonder was that they chose so seldom. The young man felt a touch on his arm and saw Mrs. I told your cousin Henry he must really come to the rescue. He was aware of smiling at her vaguely, and she added, as if condescending to his natural shyness: "I've never seen May looking lovelier. The Duke thinks her the handsomest girl in the room.

The Countess Olenska had said "after five"; and at half after the hour Newland Archer rang the bell of the peeling stucco house with a giant wisteria throttling its feeble cast-iron balcony, which she had hired, far down West Twenty-third Street, from the vagabond Medora. It was certainly a strange quarter to have settled in. Small dress-makers, bird-stuffers and "people who wrote" were her nearest neighbours; and further down the dishevelled street Archer recognised a dilapidated wooden house, at the end of a paved path, in which a writer and journalist called Winsett, whom he used to come across now and then, had mentioned that he lived.

Winsett did not invite people to his house; but he had once pointed it out to Archer in the course of a nocturnal stroll, and the latter had asked himself, with a little shiver, if the humanities were so meanly housed in other capitals. Madame Olenska's own dwelling was redeemed from the same appearance only by a little more paint about the window-frames; and as Archer mustered its modest front he said to himself that the Polish Count must have robbed her of her fortune as well as of her illusions.

The young man had spent an unsatisfactory day. He had lunched with the Wellands, hoping afterward to carry off May for a walk in the Park. He wanted to have her to himself, to tell her how enchanting she had looked the night before, and how proud he was of her, and to press her to hasten their marriage. But Mrs. Welland had firmly reminded him that the round of family visits was not half over, and, when he hinted at advancing the date of the wedding, had raised reproachful eye-brows and sighed out: "Twelve dozen of everything—hand-embroidered—".

Packed in the family landau they rolled from one tribal doorstep to another, and Archer, when the afternoon's round was over, parted from his betrothed with the feeling that he had been shown off like a wild animal cunningly trapped. He supposed that his readings in anthropology caused him to take such a coarse view of what was after all a simple and natural demonstration of family feeling; but when he remembered that the Wellands did not expect the wedding to take place till the following autumn, and pictured what his life would be till then, a dampness fell upon his spirit.

Welland called after him, "we'll do the Chiverses and the Dallases"; and he perceived that she was going through their two families alphabetically, and that they were only in the first quarter of the alphabet. He had meant to tell May of the Countess Olenska's request—her command, rather—that he should call on her that afternoon; but in the brief moments when they were alone he had had more pressing things to say.

Besides, it struck him as a little absurd to allude to the matter. He knew that May most particularly wanted him to be kind to her cousin; was it not that wish which had hastened the announcement of their engagement? It gave him an odd sensation to reflect that, but for the Countess's arrival, he might have been, if not still a free man, at least a man less irrevocably pledged.

But May had willed it so, and he felt himself somehow relieved of further responsibility—and therefore at liberty, if he chose, to call on her cousin without telling her. As he stood on Madame Olenska's threshold curiosity was his uppermost feeling. He was puzzled by the tone in which she had summoned him; he concluded that she was less simple than she seemed.

The door was opened by a swarthy foreign-looking maid, with a prominent bosom under a gay neckerchief, whom he vaguely fancied to be Sicilian. She welcomed him with all her white teeth, and answering his enquiries by a head-shake of incomprehension led him through the narrow hall into a low firelit drawing-room. The room was empty, and she left him, for an appreciable time, to wonder whether she had gone to find her mistress, or whether she had not understood what he was there for, and thought it might be to wind the clock—of which he perceived that the only visible specimen had stopped.

He knew that the southern races communicated with each other in the language of pantomime, and was mortified to find her shrugs and smiles so unintelligible. At length she returned with a lamp; and Archer, having meanwhile put together a phrase out of Dante and Petrarch, evoked the answer: "La signora e fuori; ma verra subito"; which he took to mean: "She's out—but you'll soon see.

What he saw, meanwhile, with the help of the lamp, was the faded shadowy charm of a room unlike any room he had known. He knew that the Countess Olenska had brought some of her possessions with her—bits of wreckage, she called them—and these, he supposed, were represented by some small slender tables of dark wood, a delicate little Greek bronze on the chimney-piece, and a stretch of red damask nailed on the discoloured wallpaper behind a couple of Italian-looking pictures in old frames.

Newland Archer prided himself on his knowledge of Italian art. Hamerton, and a wonderful new volume called "The Renaissance" by Walter Pater. He talked easily of Botticelli, and spoke of Fra Angelico with a faint condescension. But these pictures bewildered him, for they were like nothing that he was accustomed to look at and therefore able to see when he travelled in Italy; and perhaps, also, his powers of observation were impaired by the oddness of finding himself in this strange empty house, where apparently no one expected him.

He was sorry that he had not told May Welland of Countess Olenska's request, and a little disturbed by the thought that his betrothed might come in to see her cousin. What would she think if she found him sitting there with the air of intimacy implied by waiting alone in the dusk at a lady's fireside? But since he had come he meant to wait; and he sank into a chair and stretched his feet to the logs.

It was odd to have summoned him in that way, and then forgotten him; but Archer felt more curious than mortified. The atmosphere of the room was so different from any he had ever breathed that self-consciousness vanished in the sense of adventure. He had been before in drawing-rooms hung with red damask, with pictures "of the Italian school"; what struck him was the way in which Medora Manson's shabby hired house, with its blighted background of pampas grass and Rogers statuettes, had, by a turn of the hand, and the skilful use of a few properties, been transformed into something intimate, "foreign," subtly suggestive of old romantic scenes and sentiments.

He tried to analyse the trick, to find a clue to it in the way the chairs and tables were grouped, in the fact that only two Jacqueminot roses of which nobody ever bought less than a dozen had been placed in the slender vase at his elbow, and in the vague pervading perfume that was not what one put on handkerchiefs, but rather like the scent of some far-off bazaar, a smell made up of Turkish coffee and ambergris and dried roses. His mind wandered away to the question of what May's drawing-room would look like.

He knew that Mr. Welland, who was behaving "very handsomely," already had his eye on a newly built house in East Thirty-ninth Street. The neighbourhood was thought remote, and the house was built in a ghastly greenish-yellow stone that the younger architects were beginning to employ as a protest against the brownstone of which the uniform hue coated New York like a cold chocolate sauce; but the plumbing was perfect. Archer would have liked to travel, to put off the housing question; but, though the Wellands approved of an extended European honeymoon perhaps even a winter in Egypt , they were firm as to the need of a house for the returning couple.

The young man felt that his fate was sealed: for the rest of his life he would go up every evening between the cast-iron railings of that greenish-yellow doorstep, and pass through a Pompeian vestibule into a hall with a wainscoting of varnished yellow wood. But beyond that his imagination could not travel. He knew the drawing-room above had a bay window, but he could not fancy how May would deal with it.

She submitted cheerfully to the purple satin and yellow tuftings of the Welland drawing-room, to its sham Buhl tables and gilt vitrines full of modern Saxe. He saw no reason to suppose that she would want anything different in her own house; and his only comfort was to reflect that she would probably let him arrange his library as he pleased—which would be, of course, with "sincere" Eastlake furniture, and the plain new bookcases without glass doors.

The round-bosomed maid came in, drew the curtains, pushed back a log, and said consolingly: "Verra—verra. Should he wait any longer? His position was becoming rather foolish. Perhaps he had misunderstood Madame Olenska—perhaps she had not invited him after all. Down the cobblestones of the quiet street came the ring of a stepper's hoofs; they stopped before the house, and he caught the opening of a carriage door. Parting the curtains he looked out into the early dusk. A street-lamp faced him, and in its light he saw Julius Beaufort's compact English brougham, drawn by a big roan, and the banker descending from it, and helping out Madame Olenska.

Beaufort stood, hat in hand, saying something which his companion seemed to negative; then they shook hands, and he jumped into his carriage while she mounted the steps. When she entered the room she showed no surprise at seeing Archer there; surprise seemed the emotion that she was least addicted to.

As she spoke she untied her little velvet bonnet and tossing it away with her long cloak stood looking at him with meditative eyes. My relations despise it. But at any rate it's less gloomy than the van der Luydens'. The words gave him an electric shock, for few were the rebellious spirits who would have dared to call the stately home of the van der Luydens gloomy. Those privileged to enter it shivered there, and spoke of it as "handsome. Leaning back, she folded her arms behind her head, and looked at the fire under drooping lids.

  • The Prisoner of Carmody Castle (Forbidden Desires).
  • Lay | Definition of Lay by Lexico.
  • Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson.
  • Weather-Related Power Outages and Electric System Resiliency!

A proper sense of his dignity caused him to answer: "I was afraid you'd forgotten the hour. Beaufort must have been very engrossing. She looked amused. Beaufort took me to see a number of houses—since it seems I'm not to be allowed to stay in this one. What does it matter where one lives? I'm told this street is respectable. Do you all think so much of that? Why not make one's own fashions? But I suppose I've lived too independently; at any rate, I want to do what you all do—I want to feel cared for and safe.

New York's an awfully safe place," he added with a flash of sarcasm. One feels that," she cried, missing the mockery. The analogy was well meant, but did not altogether please him. He did not mind being flippant about New York, but disliked to hear any one else take the same tone. He wondered if she did not begin to see what a powerful engine it was, and how nearly it had crushed her. The Lovell Mingotts' dinner, patched up in extremis out of all sorts of social odds and ends, ought to have taught her the narrowness of her escape; but either she had been all along unaware of having skirted disaster, or else she had lost sight of it in the triumph of the van der Luyden evening.

Archer inclined to the former theory; he fancied that her New York was still completely undifferentiated, and the conjecture nettled him. The van der Luydens do nothing by halves. It was such a nice party. Every one seems to have such an esteem for them. The terms were hardly adequate; she might have spoken in that way of a tea-party at the dear old Miss Lannings'.

Unfortunately—owing to her health—they receive very seldom. He coloured a little, stared at her—and suddenly felt the penetration of the remark. At a stroke she had pricked the van der Luydens and they collapsed. He laughed, and sacrificed them. Nastasia brought the tea, with handleless Japanese cups and little covered dishes, placing the tray on a low table.

She detached a small gold cigarette-case from one of her bracelets, held it out to him, and took a cigarette herself. On the chimney were long spills for lighting them. But I want help so much more. You must tell me just what to do. It was on the tip of his tongue to reply: "Don't be seen driving about the streets with Beaufort—" but he was being too deeply drawn into the atmosphere of the room, which was her atmosphere, and to give advice of that sort would have been like telling some one who was bargaining for attar-of-roses in Samarkand that one should always be provided with arctics for a New York winter.

New York seemed much farther off than Samarkand, and if they were indeed to help each other she was rendering what might prove the first of their mutual services by making him look at his native city objectively. Viewed thus, as through the wrong end of a telescope, it looked disconcertingly small and distant; but then from Samarkand it would.

A flame darted from the logs and she bent over the fire, stretching her thin hands so close to it that a faint halo shone about the oval nails. The light touched to russet the rings of dark hair escaping from her braids, and made her pale face paler. And my dear old Granny? She wanted to keep me with her; but I had to be free—" He was impressed by this light way of speaking of the formidable Catherine, and moved by the thought of what must have given Madame Olenska this thirst for even the loneliest kind of freedom.

But the idea of Beaufort gnawed him. She lifted her thin black eyebrows. I thought it so straight up and down—like Fifth Avenue. And with all the cross streets numbered! I may simplify too much—but you'll warn me if I do. Archer winced at the joining of the names, and then, with a quick readjustment, understood, sympathised and pitied. So close to the powers of evil she must have lived that she still breathed more freely in their air. But since she felt that he understood her also, his business would be to make her see Beaufort as he really was, with all he represented—and abhor it.

He answered gently: "I understand. But just at first don't let go of your old friends' hands: I mean the older women, your Granny Mingott, Mrs. Welland, Mrs. They like and admire you—they want to help you. She shook her head and sighed.

Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson

But on condition that they don't hear anything unpleasant. Aunt Welland put it in those very words when I tried Does no one want to know the truth here, Mr. The real loneliness is living among all these kind people who only ask one to pretend! He drew down one of her hands, clasping and chafing it like a child's while he murmured reassuring words; but in a moment she freed herself, and looked up at him with wet lashes.

I suppose there's no need to, in heaven," she said, straightening her loosened braids with a laugh, and bending over the tea-kettle. It was burnt into his consciousness that he had called her "Ellen"—called her so twice; and that she had not noticed it. Far down the inverted telescope he saw the faint white figure of May Welland—in New York. Madame Olenska, again with a hand at her hair, uttered an exclamation of assent—a flashing "Gia—gia"—and the Duke of St.

Austrey entered, piloting a tremendous blackwigged and red-plumed lady in overflowing furs. She wasn't asked to the party last night, and she wants to know you. The Duke beamed on the group, and Madame Olenska advanced with a murmur of welcome toward the queer couple.