Darlie Routier A Miscarriage Of Justice?

[watson]

Hi all, I just came across this case recently. That of a woman who has sat on death row for 10 years, convicted in 1996 by a Texas court of knifing to death 2 of her little sons, self inflicting grevious wounds on herself, and trying to stage the scene as a rape/robbery gone bad, all while her husband and other son were present in the home. This area of the message boards seems the best place to start a discussion of it. At the time she was the first woman sentenced to death in Texas since the Civil War. The case happened the same year as the more famous 'Ramsey' case, and like that one, happened in the middle of the night, in a upper middle class home, with only both parents and the children known to be present. What evidence did they convict her on?............IMO after reviewing the case ...NONE. They did have a suspicious crime scene with indications it 'MAY' have been staged. They also had a police dept. that had never handled such a case (more shades of Boulder CO), and a political prosecutor who grandstanded the case as proof of '1996 tough on crime' Texas. In a time when it takes years to bring a murder case to trial this womans was 4 months after the crime, talk about a 'rush to judgment'!
They also had a husband present who supposedly slept through everything, and was having financial troubles at the time, as well as evidence of an intruder, and a ME who refused to testify for the prosecution and instead testified for the defense. Crime Library has this story in it's 'killers' section and there are sites on the web to read up on. I don't want to make this post too long, so if there's interest in discussing it I'll post case details later.

[AMS80]

Hi Watson! I recently read a book on this case, "Hush Little Babies." I need to go back and read specific parts to be able to have a meaningful factual discussion, but when I read about this I saw it as more of a "Scott Peterson" conviction than, say, a Jeffrey MacDonald conviction, in that there wasn't stunning physical evidence as in the JM case, but many pieces of the puzzle fit together to point to DR's guilt. IIRC, DR's actions both directly after and in the few days after the boy's murders put a less than shining light on her demeanor. When speaking to the 911 operator, she seemed adamant to get the point across that she had already touched the murder weapon. She was less than helpful with life-saving procedures of the boys, bringing wet towels (how in the world that will help I have no idea) back and forth to Darrin, not really using them, and more worried about her own superficial wound. The fact that the boys wounds were so much more brutal than hers is puzzling. She changed her stories many times. The legendary "graveyard" birthday party, some diary entries that pointed to depression, and her own changing stories showed her emotional instability. IIRC, there was also talk of blood found on the back of the shirt she was wearing during the murders which insinuated blood splatter from her raising the knife to stab the boys. All of this plus the apparent lack of an intruder are some of the reasons I think she is guilty. I will go back and try to get some more meaty facts for you, though!

[JTF]

I run a website on the Jeffrey MacDonald case and this case is similar in many respects. Granted, there is far more physical evidence in the MacDonald case than in the Routier case, but they are similar in terms of what was not present at the crime scene. If memory serves, there is not a shred of foreign DNA in the Routier household nor were there any unsourced fibers and/or head hairs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only concrete piece of debatable evidence in this case is a bloody fingerprint found on a table in the living room. Darlie Routier is not the first nor will she be the last cold-blooded killer to concoct a ridiculous scenario involving home invader(s) killing small children, while leaving the adult(s) very much alive.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[watson]

Sorry it took me so long to get back on this. You both make good points JTF and AMS80, but 1st I did promise to post the case facts/details for all readers and as IMO the case deserves an in depth review....These facts are almost all from the Crimelibrary section, and from a 20-20 documentary done in 2001 rebroadcast 2006 and a little from official sources.....Wednesday night Rowlett TX Dallas county 6-96 upper middle class suburban home of the Routiers. The family (mom, dad, 2 boys 5 and 6) had been watching big screen tv in the family room as usual. Dad went upstairs to bed c.12:30-1:00am, a 3rd child (an infant) and a small poodle type dog were also upstairs. Young mom (age 26) Darlie wearing a Victoria Secret night shirt remained dozing on the sofa by the tv, with the 2 boys who as often had been allowed to bring their pillows and blankets down to fall asleep by the tv.
Darlie then reported she was woken shortly before 2:30am by 1 of the boys calling out to her, or a tuging on her shirt. She opened her eyes to a man wearing 'black jeans and black shirt' in the room with her, who had a knife and attacked her from atop her. She reported she blocked and warded of many blows with her arms the knife sometimes getting through before he gave up, getting off her, fleeing through the attached kitchen. Jumping up, she flipped on the kitchen light seeing and retreiving the bloody knife from the floor on the other side of the kitchen leading to the garage before turning back to the family room where the light revealed both boys stabbed to, or near death. Screaming, she called 911 at 2:31am, husband Darin ran in soon after and can be heard on the tape.
Police arrived in 5 minutes to find a family room and kitchen awash in blood from both boys and Darlie (who had a gapping slash to her throat and other more minor stab wounds). Police kept paramedics out for 2-4 minutes while checking the garage and elsewhere for the reported intruder. Lots of police and paramedics then moved through the scene. 1 boy was dead, 1 died in the ambulance, Darlie was rushed to the hospital. Police closed off the scene for investigation 2 hours after arriving.
Police found... 'a trail of blood' leading from the kitchen to or into the garage. In the garage they found a cut window screen big enough for a man to go in and out, but no blood in the 'dewy mulch' outside the window or on the lawn or backyard gate. 1/3 of a block (225 feet) from the gate they did find a sock with the boys blood on it in the alley that ran behind the backyards on the block.
On the kitchen counter Darlie's purse with her 'expensive looking' jewelry laid out next to it, with no blood on or near at all.
In the family room the coffee table was tipped over, a lamp shade was askew, and a flower arrangement had been knocked over, but the stems weren't broken.
In the bloody kitchen a wine glass was shattered all over the floor, a vaccum cleaner that had been parked there lay on it's side with some blood on it. The front and lip of the kitchen sink had lots of blood on it, but luminol revealed a massive amount of blood in the sink and drain had been rinsed away, and that 1 of the boys bloody handprints had been wiped from the sofa.
Both parents gave full statements that am, and several times in the next days. None of these statements were recorded or written down by police until Darlie's written signed statement was taken on Saturday 6-8-96 when she was getting out of the hospital. Initially police reported no finger prints other than the Routiers. Police were not experienced in this type of crime and did not have a complex crime investigator on staff, so they hired a private 'crime scene consultent' (James Cron) to look at the scene the day following the crime and advise them.
Those are the basic facts....I'll post the facts re: ME and med reports, and the short (Darlie was charged 12 days after the crime 6-18-96) police investigation, and get to your good questions JTF and AMS80 in a different post as I don't want to make this too long.

[watson]

To finish up with the facts....all these are from, besides the sources already given, the ME and injury report, injury and crime scene internet photos. I was in error in my first post in this thread about the ME. The autopsies were done by something called the Southwest Institute for Forensic Science (SWIFS) and they testified for the prosecution, an ME for a TX county for the defense. SWIFS found the 1 boy died from 4 stab wounds to the back all were placed so as to kill, there was also 2 superficial cuts to the back. There were no defense wounds. The other boy died from 2 stab wounds to the chest placed in the heart area so as to kill, there was also a superficial cut to the forearm that might be defensive and a minor stab wound to the back of the thigh indicating he was moving. The presumed weapon for all victims was the bloody knife from the home found at the scene.
Darlie had a long cut to the neck, starting where a mans necktie knot would usually be, and moving upward to the right at c.a 40 degree angle all the way to the right edge of the neck, about 7-8 inches long. I've found no source but guess such a cut would need c. 20-40 stiches. The same slash wound continued from the middle of the neck to the left and down onto her chest as about a 2" superficial cut near her arm pit. There was also another stab or cut wound near her left armpit requiring 3 stitches. A deep stab wound to the top of her right forearm requiring 5 stiches. Superficial cuts going at a 45 degree angel to the insides of her left thumb, mddle, and ring fnger. Massive continuous bruising to the under sides of her forearms (I've never seen such bruising short of a car accident), significant bruising to her upper arms, and wrists, swelling and redness to her finger tips and around the fingernails .
After his 1 day at the scene and considering the wounds to the boys and Darlie,and where the weapon came from, consultent Cron told police he thought the crime was staged, meaning an adult in the house, either the mother or father, did it. Police were suspicious of Darlie....because her verbal statements varied about 10% each time, and police strongly felt she did not cry enough, and was not hysterical enough about her sons murders. Talking to nurses at the hospital, they echoed the same thing. Police decided to watch Darlie.
According to Darlie, prior to the murders the family had planned a birthday party for 1 of the boys, invitations had been sent etc., the boys were counting down the days, then the murders happened. Darlie told others the boys would've wanted it to go on. So, 8 days after the murders, and after the funerals, on 6-14-96, as scheduled, after a somber graveside memorial service led by a minister, Darlie held a short birthday celebration with singing Happy Birthday, balloons, and the infamous jumping and dancing around with silly string 'so the boys could see it from heaven'. Police and the media videotaped the somber service and the 'birthday', but the media only showed the public the dancing on the graves with silly string suggesting she was celebrating the murders. She was arrested and charged 4 days later.
In the national spotlight, the DA announced he'd seek the death penalty, the first time for a TX woman since the Civil War.
After the arrest the PD developed the following info......
The father Darin Routier had been having serious business and money problems. He admited to them he had even thought of staging a fake robbery of the house as an insurance scam to get money but chickened out.
That Darlie had been depressed recently by weight gain from her last pregnancy, and her husbands money woes. That in her diary before the murders, she even wrote she would kill herself but she loved her boys and husband too much.
2 foreign finger prints in blood were found at the scene that did not belong to any house occupant, or emergency worker.
1 foreign facial hair, and 1 foreign pubic hair not from the family were found in the family room. and remain unidentified.
At first Darlie had only a court appointed lawyer, it took her family about 1 month to raise money to hire lawyers. They had only 3 1/2 months to get, and study all the case materials, do any testing, interview everyone, line up any experts or witnesses, plan and practice a defense, attend and take care of the many pre-trial motions and appearances, before her trial started
in November 1996

[AMS80]

I run a website on the Jeffrey MacDonald case and this case is similar in many respects. Granted, there is far more physical evidence in the MacDonald case than in the Routier case, but they are similar in terms of what was not present at the crime scene. If memory serves, there is not a shred of foreign DNA in the Routier household nor were there any unsourced fibers and/or head hairs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only concrete piece of debatable evidence in this case is a bloody fingerprint found on a table in the living room. Darlie Routier is not the first nor will she be the last cold-blooded killer to concoct a ridiculous scenario involving home invader(s) killing small children, while leaving the adult(s) very much alive.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

Howdy Watson and JTF!

IIRC LE found dust where intruders entered the house completely untouched, as well as mulch undisturbed in the intruder's "getaway" path. I think that during her trial the defense attorneys actually brought in a mock set-up of the window and had the biggest attorney crawl through it to show it could be done without disturbing the dust. Didn't seem to change the jurors mind much, though. Also, the Routier's had a motion-sensored security light that turned off automatically after a certain amount of time (18 minutes? I honestly can't remember) which was not on when LE arrived, even though it was in the direct path of where Darlie said the intruder fled.

Off topic: JTF I religiously keep up with the MacDonald thread and have studied the case a lot. You, as well as the other regulars over there do a great job of discussing the case. I need to join chat sometime!

[JTF]

Watson: Thanks for providing the case info. It's good to know that my memory is relatively intact. The impetus for the defense team not bringing the unsourced facial and pubic hairs to the forefront is probably due to the fact that the hairs were found in the play room, not the living room. In addition, if the hairs showed any evidence of being forcibly removed, you can bet your bottom dollar that the defense team would be lauding their significance to the media. Despite what some of the documents have indicated, the 2 bloody prints are still a topic of debate within the appellate process.

AMS80: Your input on the MacDonald case thread would be a nice addition. I would also like to invite you to the Live Chat which occurs every Tuesday from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. EST through my website.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[Riviera]

Story in the Crime Library---->

Darlie Routier: Doting Mother/Deadly Mother
By Joseph Geringer

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/routier/1.html

[watson]

Hi all again. Yeah, I figured posting the facts was a good idea, since I'm relatively new to this case and for the benefit of all those brand new to it. As always if I got any facts wrong let me know so I can correct.
Getting to some of everyones points........
*Was there any foreign DNA found? I guess the short answer is...nobody knows. There were the 2 unidentified hairs, neither tested for DNA as far as I know. Further, DNA analysis was not as advanced in 1996 as now, at the trial the analyst testified about 20% of all DNA material tested garnered 'no result' for profile on the 'intial test' using 1 testing method. None was retested by the state (trial transcript vol.38, the transcripts are avaiable on a site called 'Justice for Darlie'), and as far as I read, the defense did no DNA testing of its own.
*Mentioning the knife and fingerprints in the 911 call....the audio of this is also avaiable on line (although I could not get it to play, I read a partial transcript), as I read it the call was some 5 minutes long, and 1 of those where the operator keeps the victim on or near the phone, giving instructions, asking questions, till police arrive. It was the operator who 1st brings up the knife saying don't pick it up, just leave it where it is, and Darlie answering 'oh my God I just did, you could have got prints off it maybe...' Possibly suspicious, but not what the media led us to believe.
*Putting wet towels on the boys....Wet towels of the dish towel variety were definitely used because they're in the scene photos and were mentioned in the trial. Although I don't yet have a better source, according to the article on the lawyer website Justice Denied.org, she was told to put the wet towels on the boys by the 1st police at the scene, in the minutes they were there before EMT's were let in. This might also explain the rinsed away blood in the sink, and why she 'seemed not to want to give medical care'. Reportedly when police arrived they were holding the EMT's outside, telling her to do some 1st aid to the boys, while she was screaming at them, the intruder had gone in the garage so the EMT's could come in.
*Blood splatter on the mothers shirt....this is an area I look forward to getting into more, as it's 1 of the few potential solid pieces of evidence police had. Unfortunately for them, on her whole blood drenched shirt, only 4 tiny drops or specks were the boys blood (the rest was hers) these were in the area of the top and I believe, front of the right sholder. A blood consultent testified it was splatter and 'could' be consistent with her wielding a knife in her right hand in a downward motion (TT vol.38).
*Were the 2 ailien hairs forcibly removed, and the exact orgin of the bloody prints? Don't know, I'll try and research some more.
*Mother Darlie's actual written statement, the entire trial, some scene and injury photos, the 911 call, are all avaiable on line, I've found Darlie's own site (the Darlie site), Justice for Darlie, and the Justice Denied.org section so far best to access these source materials.
There's also a book I haven't seen yet....Media Tried, Justice Denied, Christopher Wayne Brown, Ad Vice Marketing Inc. 1999 that is supposed to have over 200 pages of case materials and photos.

[tv]

watson, thanks for posting this information. I've always been fascinated by this case and have gone back and forth on whether or not she's guilty. One thing that's always bothered me about the case is I wonder what motiviation anyone would have for breaking in, killing two small children, only wounding the mother and then fleeing? I know there are crazies in the world but it just seems too far-fetched to me.

I've only read one book on the case, I can't remember the name of it, but it was very pro-Darlie. I didn't realize there was information on Crime Library about the case. Thanks again! :)

[AMS80]

Hey Watson! I'm still trying to find time to get back to the book so we can discuss the physical evidence! Life needs to slow down for a minute so I can post on here LOL! Mercy sakes it's been busy around here! Be in touch soon!

JTF working on comin over to MacDonald thread too!

[watson]

Ditto that AMS80, summer is not the best time for armchair internet detectives, there is just too much else to do. I haven't made much progress in my research since last week, I guess it'll take a while. Still I hope to drop in for a little while every day or two to discuss.
TVDinner....the motive or lack of it, really bothers me too. It's just another 1 of the features of this case that make it stand out. The motive of an intruder, if there was one, is troubling as it was to the police and FBI. On the other hand, the motive of the mother for doing it is troubling also. The prosecution never came up with one, instead just suggesting she was 'depressed', or that the family's money problems were involved. I've never understood how if someone was depressed, murdering 2 of your 3 children, staging a robbery, and cutting yourself is supposed to get you un-depressed. Also the family had no insurance to collect on the boys outside of a policy that paid funeral expenses (listed at $5000 each according to the 20-20 documentary) so apparently there is no way the murders could have helped their money problems. I so far don't see a motive for Darlie either.
Although it's too early in my study of the case to say, here's my idea of the motive of an intruder...... he came to the house to steal, entered through the cut screen, was a very brazen home invader cooly gathering up valuables as the family slept, then 1 of the boys woke up (the one with the stab wound to the chest, but also a gash on the back of his thigh) the intruder caught him, knocked him down, killed with 3 stbs to the chest, hearing the other boy stir, and having gone so far, he silenced that boy with 3-4 stabs to the back, he was standing there deciding what to do next, kill the sleeping Darlie, rape? When she woke, and the fight began and the rest happened as she said. Far fetched that a burgler wouldn't have just run, when the 1st boy woke up, that he would lay out the stuff he was stealing, instead of just taking it? Yep, but it's not unheard of for a home invader to stay long at the scene and committ other crimes there, consider the recent case of the doctors family, where a home invasion started as theft, progressed to kidnapping, extortion, rape, murder, and finished as arson. Just a thought.

[tv]

You make a lot of excellent observations, watson. The lack of motive is a real stumbling block for me. I guess it's possible she's just plain crazy and has no real motive or at least not one we'd understand.

I think the parents acted more than a little strange after the fact. I'm not even including the silly string party in the strangeness because I believe that could have been misinterpreted.

Thanks for giving me some food for thought.

[Results]

I have some questions for you if you don't mind answering them if you can. Darin admits to plotting a home invasion for an insurance fraud and the neighbors witnessed a vehicle watching this house previous to the murders. Was there any life insurance on Darlie? If there was how much? I also read that it was common for Darlie to let the kids bring pillow and blankets to watch TV and fall asleep so it appears that someone knew they would be down there and it looks like robbery was not the motive so who would want these 3 dead? It is hard for me to believe that the detectives did not look in Darin's directions after claims of plotting an insurance scam of robbery. TIA for any help. JMHO

[AMS80]

I have some questions for you if you don't mind answering them if you can. Darin admits to plotting a home invasion for an insurance fraud and the neighbors witnessed a vehicle watching this house previous to the murders. Was there any life insurance on Darlie? If there was how much? I also read that it was common for Darlie to let the kids bring pillow and blankets to watch TV and fall asleep so it appears that someone knew they would be down there and it looks like robbery was not the motive so who would want these 3 dead? It is hard for me to believe that the detectives did not look in Darin's directions after claims of plotting an insurance scam of robbery. TIA for any help. JMHO

Hi, Results! I found this through a quick search.

http://www.texnews.com/1998/texas/routier0612.html

As mentioned above, I read one book on this case, but don't recall reading anything about the $250,000 life insurance policy (in which Darin was the beneficiary) as stated in the article above.

IMO I think Darlie's motive had less to do with money than with frustration of her ever-changing life. Don't get me wrong, she was missing the money that the couple had enjoyed before, but more than that she was missing the attention she had gotten in her younger years. Diary entries show that she was depressed, arguably to the point of suicide. Tensions in her heightened until she snapped. She didn't think she would get caught, and the situation would give her the attention that she wanted (oh poor Mother Darlie!).

Watson: How have you been? I'm finally finding some time to post!

[Results]

Hi, Results! I found this through a quick search.

http://www.texnews.com/1998/texas/routier0612.html

As mentioned above, I read one book on this case, but don't recall reading anything about the $250,000 life insurance policy (in which Darin was the beneficiary) as stated in the article above.

IMO I think Darlie's motive had less to do with money than with frustration of her ever-changing life. Don't get me wrong, she was missing the money that the couple had enjoyed before, but more than that she was missing the attention she had gotten in her younger years. Diary entries show that she was depressed, arguably to the point of suicide. Tensions in her heightened until she snapped. She didn't think she would get caught, and the situation would give her the attention that she wanted (oh poor Mother Darlie!).

Watson: How have you been? I'm finally finding some time to post!

Hi AMS! Thank you for the article. The attention part doesn't make sense. She would have acted a lot different to get the attention she wanted IMO if that is what she wanted was attention. Where the sock was found that had blood on it she didn't have time to go that far to put the sock there. I looked at the pictures of Darlie and those bruises are horrible it clearly indicates something happened to her. Foreign fingerprints, the sock, the bruising, and her husband admitting that he was plotting an insurance scam and neighbors witnesses a vehicle observing this house doesn't add up to Darlie. This is one tragic case 2 beautiful innocent boys were murdered. The comment that the Dad made to the police about his boys being murdered throws me even more in his direction. JMHO

[Results]

More information of Patterson and Frosch taking the fifth amendment -

The next day Patterson and Frosch took the fifth, it was done before the jury came into the court room. After that, both Patterson and Frosch were excused and not required to testify again. The fact that the officers were excused for taking fifth was kept secret from the jury. The lawyers were restrict from telling the jury that they took the fifth because it my prejudice the case. I would think the jury would believe that there is nothing left to cross the cops on and their statements on direct go unchallenged though plausibly false. Along with pleading the fifth, the grave scene video was much more complete was also suppressed since it related to the fifth. This tape shows the silly string incident in a different context than what the news showed and the defense was denied this evidence. This definitely hurt Darlie's defense because if prevented her from being able to challenge the officers earlier testimony and clarify the silly string.

I think the jury should have been allowed to know that 2 officers pleaded the 5th. JMHO

[AMS80]

Hi AMS! Thank you for the article. The attention part doesn't make sense. She would have acted a lot different to get the attention she wanted IMO if that is what she wanted was attention. Where the sock was found that had blood on it she didn't have time to go that far to put the sock there. I looked at the pictures of Darlie and those bruises are horrible it clearly indicates something happened to her. Foreign fingerprints, the sock, the bruising, and her husband admitting that he was plotting an insurance scam and neighbors witnesses a vehicle observing this house doesn't add up to Darlie. This is one tragic case 2 beautiful innocent boys were murdered. The comment that the Dad made to the police about his boys being murdered throws me even more in his direction. JMHO

Good points, Results!

I am just speculating on her motive, as I really don't know for sure! I just don't understand the sole financial motive due to the low monetary gain for the boys. Killing Darin would have given her much more.

I'm not convinced of iron-clad evidence of an intruder. First and foremost, why would an intruder break in, kill two of the most helpless and unable people in the house, and not make darn sure that Darlie was dead so she couldn't identify them? Even though Darlie's wounds seem severe (there is speculation as to how severe), they are nothing compared to the savagery inflicted on the boys. IIRC there are also disagreements between hospital staff as to whether Darlie had those bruises in the hospital (this is a muddy issue, as it is hard to tell when bruising will show up, etc...I would have to go back and read up some more on this).

Moving on to physical evidence in the house. The knife used to cut the screen came from the butcher block in the kitchen, it was found in its original location. Did the intruder get in the house without being noticed or cutting any screen, get the knife, cut the screen, and put it back? Did he put it back before murdering the boys? If so, why not just use that knife? Traces of cleaned-up blood were found in the kitchen sink and down the front of the kitchen cabinet. Either the intruder had lots of time to clean up the scene, or Darlie inflicted her own wounds there and cleaned it up herself.

Darlie changed her stories a few times. I need to go back to verify the different versions, but they ranged from one of the boys waking her, to waking up and seeing someone standing over her, to her waking up to feeling pressure "down there" and on and on. She claims to have chased the intruder through the kitchen to the utility room. Her bloody footprints are on the kitchen floor, but under broken glass, in which Darlie had no injuries to her feet. Staged scene? Also, there are no bloody footprints leading to the utility room.

There are a couple other things that I've mentioned in my above posts as well. This is all IMO.

[Results]

Good points, Results!

I am just speculating on her motive, as I really don't know for sure! I just don't understand the sole financial motive due to the low monetary gain for the boys. Killing Darin would have given her much more.

I'm not convinced of iron-clad evidence of an intruder. First and foremost, why would an intruder break in, kill two of the most helpless and unable people in the house, and not make darn sure that Darlie was dead so she couldn't identify them? Even though Darlie's wounds seem severe (there is speculation as to how severe), they are nothing compared to the savagery inflicted on the boys. IIRC there are also disagreements between hospital staff as to whether Darlie had those bruises in the hospital (this is a muddy issue, as it is hard to tell when bruising will show up, etc...I would have to go back and read up some more on this).

Moving on to physical evidence in the house. The knife used to cut the screen came from the butcher block in the kitchen, it was found in its original location. Did the intruder get in the house without being noticed or cutting any screen, get the knife, cut the screen, and put it back? Did he put it back before murdering the boys? If so, why not just use that knife? Traces of cleaned-up blood were found in the kitchen sink and down the front of the kitchen cabinet. Either the intruder had lots of time to clean up the scene, or Darlie inflicted her own wounds there and cleaned it up herself.

Darlie changed her stories a few times. I need to go back to verify the different versions, but they ranged from one of the boys waking her, to waking up and seeing someone standing over her, to her waking up to feeling pressure "down there" and on and on. She claims to have chased the intruder through the kitchen to the utility room. Her bloody footprints are on the kitchen floor, but under broken glass, in which Darlie had no injuries to her feet. Staged scene? Also, there are no bloody footprints leading to the utility room.

There are a couple other things that I've mentioned in my above posts as well. This is all IMO.

You have very good points also. The bruising is in the evidence file where she is still hooked up to an IV so the bruising was there while she was in the hospital. There is no way the prosecution can claim she had no bad bruises on her in the hospital because the picture clearly shows she is hooked up to oxygen and she still has the IV hooked up.

This is interesting to me because it shows there is reasonable doubt if Darlie did in fact murder her children. JMHO

The link for this picture and statements that I have been reading.

http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/HerProof/CourtTV.html

Additional information on Barry Fife -
3 years prior to the murder, Darlie was in Pennsylvania visiting relatives. When she returned to Dallas, Darin told her that his car was stolen. Being suspicious, Darlie confronted Darin. Darin fessed up to her and admitted that he when to Barry Fife to have the vehicle stolen. She got angry and Darin and Fife, did not approve of Fifes influence on Darin, and confronted Fife about what he did. She threatened to report him to the police. Fife (who used another party to steal the car) told her, "You do not know who you are dealing with. He would hurt your family and hurt your kids." Darlie eventually let it go because of the threat and the concern of getting her husband into big trouble. When the murders happened three years later, Darlie and Darin both named Barry Fife and Ben Claybour (Denton TX) as possible suspects. Claybour had once stolen Darin's credit cards and charged up $10,000. The Routiers reported this to the FBI, but they never charged Claybour despite the fact that he signed his own name on the charge slips. It was not till years after Darlie's conviction that Darin revealed that a short time before the murders, he had approached Fife to burglarize his house. Fife has a history of this kind of activity to defraud the insurance company. Fife's friend, Ben Claybour, left the state when police wanted to question him. The police did not do any further follow up on Fife or Claybour and arrested Darlie for the murder. They probably arrested her in hopes that she knew more and would rat out her husband rather than face capital murder charges. However, this plan failed because Darlie knew nothing and was not withholding any information from the DA. Unfortunately, after the DA's plan failed, they were now committed to following through her prosecution. They certainly could not release her after making such a public arrest, even though behind the scenes, it was intended to setup her husband. If Fife did arrange a burglary and he used the same person that stole the car, then that person would have a reason to kill Darlie since she would immediately suspect Fife's involvement.

[AMS80]

You have very good points also. The bruising is in the evidence file where she is still hooked up to an IV so the bruising was there while she was in the hospital. There is no way the prosecution can claim she had no bad bruises on her in the hospital because the picture clearly shows she is hooked up to oxygen and she still has the IV hooked up.

This is interesting to me because it shows there is reasonable doubt if Darlie did in fact murder her children. JMHO

The link for this picture and statements that I have been reading.

http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/HerProof/CourtTV.html

Additional information on Barry Fife -
3 years prior to the murder, Darlie was in Pennsylvania visiting relatives. When she returned to Dallas, Darin told her that his car was stolen. Being suspicious, Darlie confronted Darin. Darin fessed up to her and admitted that he when to Barry Fife to have the vehicle stolen. She got angry and Darin and Fife, did not approve of Fifes influence on Darin, and confronted Fife about what he did. She threatened to report him to the police. Fife (who used another party to steal the car) told her, "You do not know who you are dealing with. He would hurt your family and hurt your kids." Darlie eventually let it go because of the threat and the concern of getting her husband into big trouble. When the murders happened three years later, Darlie and Darin both named Barry Fife and Ben Claybour (Denton TX) as possible suspects. Claybour had once stolen Darin's credit cards and charged up $10,000. The Routiers reported this to the FBI, but they never charged Claybour despite the fact that he signed his own name on the charge slips. It was not till years after Darlie's conviction that Darin revealed that a short time before the murders, he had approached Fife to burglarize his house. Fife has a history of this kind of activity to defraud the insurance company. Fife's friend, Ben Claybour, left the state when police wanted to question him. The police did not do any further follow up on Fife or Claybour and arrested Darlie for the murder. They probably arrested her in hopes that she knew more and would rat out her husband rather than face capital murder charges. However, this plan failed because Darlie knew nothing and was not withholding any information from the DA. Unfortunately, after the DA's plan failed, they were now committed to following through her prosecution. They certainly could not release her after making such a public arrest, even though behind the scenes, it was intended to setup her husband. If Fife did arrange a burglary and he used the same person that stole the car, then that person would have a reason to kill Darlie since she would immediately suspect Fife's involvement.

I should have been more clear when I said "in the hospital." What I was referring to was the initial night/day when they were brought into the hospital. I can't remember where I read this, but some thought that the bruising was consistent with crossing the arms in front of the chest and ramming them repeatedly against something. This kind of bruising would look a lot like defensive wounds.

For me, it's just the lack of evidence of an intruder! Honestly I would much rather think of a stranger doing this to these boys than their own mother!

[Results]

I should have been more clear when I said "in the hospital." What I was referring to was the initial night/day when they were brought into the hospital. I can't remember where I read this, but some thought that the bruising was consistent with crossing the arms in front of the chest and ramming them repeatedly against something. This kind of bruising would look a lot like defensive wounds.

For me, it's just the lack of evidence of an intruder! Honestly I would much rather think of a stranger doing this to these boys than their own mother!

ITA about a stranger than their own Mother. I'm not sure about anything in this case but there is a lot that seems to be way out there that makes you go hmmmm. The police woman's hair in that screen who was never on the scene I would love to know what that was about and how it got there. JMHO

[Results]

I should have been more clear when I said "in the hospital." What I was referring to was the initial night/day when they were brought into the hospital. I can't remember where I read this, but some thought that the bruising was consistent with crossing the arms in front of the chest and ramming them repeatedly against something. This kind of bruising would look a lot like defensive wounds.

For me, it's just the lack of evidence of an intruder! Honestly I would much rather think of a stranger doing this to these boys than their own mother!

She was in surgery for 2 hrs so when do you think she had time to make them. Then she was probably doped up from the surgery and sleeping a lot. I don't see a time frame for her to make those bruises on her arms and that bad bruising on both hands before her leaving the hospital. JMHO

[AMS80]

ITA about a stranger than their own Mother. I'm not sure about anything in this case but there is a lot that seems to be way out there that makes you go hmmmm. The police woman's hair in that screen who was never on the scene I would love to know what that was about and how it got there. JMHO

Wouldn't it be great to be able to know exactly what happened in all of these cases we're interested in? I swear that would be one of my 3 wishes if I had a genie LOL :)

Check your PM box!

[Results]

Wouldn't it be great to be able to know exactly what happened in all of these cases we're interested in? I swear that would be one of my 3 wishes if I had a genie LOL :)

Check your PM box!

That would be great without a doubt! Thanks for the PM! :)

[watson]

I have some questions for you if you don't mind answering them if you can. Darin admits to plotting a home invasion for an insurance fraud and the neighbors witnessed a vehicle watching this house previous to the murders. Was there any life insurance on Darlie? If there was how much? I also read that it was common for Darlie to let the kids bring pillow and blankets to watch TV and fall asleep so it appears that someone knew they would be down there and it looks like robbery was not the motive so who would want these 3 dead? It is hard for me to believe that the detectives did not look in Darin's directions after claims of plotting an insurance scam of robbery. TIA for any help. JMHO
*****************************************
Hi Results, and AMS80, to AMS... Been doing ok, we just got done with several days of heavy rain/ flooding round here, we're drying out now, hope you've been good, I've made some good progress on researching the case last couple weeks too. Looks like you guys have discussed Results questions, but here's some points (this stuff is just from the official statements, LE, ME, forensic reports, and official evidence (from the trial transcripts).
1.)There was life insurance on both Darlie and Darin but none to speak of on the kids. As far as I know Darlie's life was insured for $100,000, but it could've been $250,000 (it would be in Trial Transcript (TT) vol.33 evidence of ofc David Mayne).
2.) It was normal and a treat for the boys to bring their pillows and blankets down to fall asleep in front of the big screen, according to both parents.
3.)Darin admitted in years past to having his car stolen as part of an insurance scam, and due to the Routier's serious money problems, to planning in the months before the murders, a fake home robbery for an insurance scam, but never carrying it out (Darin's sworn affidavit).
4.) But, that's not all...confirming Darlie's written statement at the time of the murders, he also admitted the couple had been having relationship problems (one reason Darlie was on the couch), that they had argued earlier that night while discussing their relationship, and Darlie told him before he went up to bed, she was going to leave him, and file for legal seperation (Darin's affidavit).
5.) All the insurance policies in question, along with everyones personal documents (birth certs, marriage license, s.s. cards) along with family bills mixed in, were all out in a stack in the family room on top of a geeen box where the murders occurred (TT vol.33 ofc Mayne).
6.) Similar to the Ramsey case, only the parents were 'known' to be in the house with the children, but only Darin was by himself (unless the few months old infant is counted) and therefore unaccounted for during the murders, which he supposedly slept alone through.
7.) Darlie said her attacker in dim light, wore black jeans, black t-shirt, and dark baseball cap (Darlie's written statent, TT ofs. Waddel , and Walling). When police arrived Darin, was wearing dark 'blue jeans', was shirtless, and a black baseball cap usually worn by 1 of the boys was in the utility room by the blood trail. I could not clarify from the transcripts if Darin's jeans were black 'blue jeans', dark 'blue' jeans, or black jeans.
8.) The exact time recording of the 911 call Darlie made, makes it very unlikely she would have had time to plant the sock 1/3 block away, but Darin would have no time problem in doing so, since he's not proven to be at the scene till after the call starts. (911 tape timed transcript).
9.) Darin admitted that when he hired Darlie's lawyers for her in 10/96, 1 month before trial, he did so on condition they not suggest he might have been the killer. (Darin's affidavit).
So, am I saying Darin did it? No, but if I were the investigator knowing everything but #9 above during the investigation, I sure would've taken a long look at him, rather than her. So, why didn't the detectives? Maybe because they arrested her only 12 days after the crime (6-18-96) when a proper investigation would've just been picking up steam, and long before 1 could've been completed.
I used Justicefordarlie.org, not for it's viewpoint, but to access the trial transcripts and evidence, and Fordarlieroutier.org to access the 911 transcript.

[TuscanDreams]

More information of Patterson and Frosch taking the fifth amendment -

The next day Patterson and Frosch took the fifth, it was done before the jury came into the court room. After that, both Patterson and Frosch were excused and not required to testify again. The fact that the officers were excused for taking fifth was kept secret from the jury. The lawyers were restrict from telling the jury that they took the fifth because it my prejudice the case. I would think the jury would believe that there is nothing left to cross the cops on and their statements on direct go unchallenged though plausibly false. Along with pleading the fifth, the grave scene video was much more complete was also suppressed since it related to the fifth. This tape shows the silly string incident in a different context than what the news showed and the defense was denied this evidence. This definitely hurt Darlie's defense because if prevented her from being able to challenge the officers earlier testimony and clarify the silly string.

I think the jury should have been allowed to know that 2 officers pleaded the 5th. JMHO

hiya Results. In this instance, the officers had no chiocke but to take the Fifth, because Mulder -Darlies atty- was accusing them of illegally planting microphones at the grave. It is not illegal for them to do this, but Mulder knew what he was doing and when he accused them of illegal acts, they had to shut up.

Honestly, I don't think their testimony would have helped Darlie. I think she's guilty as he!!and Darin may have helped with the coverup.

Also, the bruises on her arms are from Devon kicking her while he fought for his life.

Just a note- I used to think she was innocent. I wrote on her behalf to the Gov., etc. Then, I realized she's as guilty as sin.

[One2Snoop]

hiya Results. In this instance, the officers had no chiocke but to take the Fifth, because Mulder -Darlies atty- was accusing them of illegally planting microphones at the grave. It is not illegal for them to do this, but Mulder knew what he was doing and when he accused them of illegal acts, they had to shut up.

Honestly, I don't think their testimony would have helped Darlie. I think she's guilty as he!!and Darin may have helped with the coverup.

Also, the bruises on her arms are from Devon kicking her while he fought for his life.

Just a note- I used to think she was innocent. I wrote on her behalf to the Gov., etc. Then, I realized she's as guilty as sin.

What made you change your mind?

[TuscanDreams]

What made you change your mind?

The book, "Media Tried, Justice Denied" changed my mind. It was written by Chris Brown in an effort to defend Darlie and declare her innocence. The autopsy photos of the boys are included in the book and after seeing their injuries- which reveal a personal attack- compared with Darlie, there was no doubt in my mind that she did this.

[watson]

[QUOTE=
Also, the bruises on her arms are from Devon kicking her while he fought for his life.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not aware of any defensive wounds on either of the boy victims, doesn't this have to mean they did not fight with their attacker? I'm not aware of any evidence they kicked anyone, or any evidence that kicking would cause the continuous and massive bruising found only on the bottom of the mothers forearms. Is there any, or is it just speculation?
Isn't true that if the boys were laying down with their feet up in the air kicking the undersides of her arms as she stabbed them, she could not have stabbed Damon only in the back, or Devon in the chest? Wouldn't they have stab wounds to their legs and feet? Wouldn't she also have kick bruises elsewhere like on her face, neck, chest?
Devons lethal wounds were 2 close together deep stab wounds to the chest in the heart area, Damons 3 close together deep stab wounds in the center back, and 1 in the lower back. Doesn't this have to indicate someone stabbed them when they were not moving and intended to kill them quickly and quietly while they slept, and basically did so with little movement on their part?

[TuscanDreams]

I'm not aware of any defensive wounds on either of the boy victims, doesn't this have to mean they did not fight with their attacker? I'm not aware of any evidence they kicked anyone, or any evidence that kicking would cause the continuous and massive bruising found only on the bottom of the mothers forearms. Is there any, or is it just speculation?
Isn't true that if the boys were laying down with their feet up in the air kicking the undersides of her arms as she stabbed them, she could not have stabbed Damon only in the back, or Devon in the chest? Wouldn't they have stab wounds to their legs and feet? Wouldn't she also have kick bruises elsewhere like on her face, neck, chest?
Devons lethal wounds were 2 close together deep stab wounds to the chest in the heart area, Damons 3 close together deep stab wounds in the center back, and 1 in the lower back. Doesn't this have to indicate someone stabbed them when they were not moving and intended to kill them quickly and quietly while they slept, and basically did so with little movement on their part?

Hi Watson. It is nearly impossible to pick out bruises on the heels of the boys, as the feet mottle first when death approaches. I don't have the book by Chris any longer, so this is from memory- I studied this case until I was blue, until I figured out she was guilty.

Devon had wounds to the back of his thigh and his forearm- they were defensive wounds. Devon kicked his mom when she stabbed him, he was fighting for his life. Devon was stabbed in the heart and Damon was stabbed in the liver. Darlie had a scratch on her neck, basically a papercut.

I've always thought that Darlie intended to stab the boys while they slept, but she woke Devon up and he fought back. I'll have to find some of the pics on the net to refresh my memory regarding your other questions.

Sadly, Darlie killed her sons and she will never take responsiblity. If she took any type of ownership of what she did, she'd just be another muderer. If she continues to claim she's innocent, she gets attention.

Interestingly enough, Darlie was molested as a child by a step parent, which is seen in many cases of filicide- including Susan Smith.

[kathk58]

Hi Watson. It is nearly impossible to pick out bruises on the heels of the boys, as the feet mottle first when death approaches. I don't have the book by Chris any longer, so this is from memory- I studied this case until I was blue, until I figured out she was guilty.

Devon had wounds to the back of his thigh and his forearm- they were defensive wounds. Devon kicked his mom when she stabbed him, he was fighting for his life. Devon was stabbed in the heart and Damon was stabbed in the liver. Darlie had a scratch on her neck, basically a papercut.

I've always thought that Darlie intended to stab the boys while they slept, but she woke Devon up and he fought back. I'll have to find some of the pics on the net to refresh my memory regarding your other questions.

Sadly, Darlie killed her sons and she will never take responsiblity. If she took any type of ownership of what she did, she'd just be another muderer. If she continues to claim she's innocent, she gets attention.

Interestingly enough, Darlie was molested as a child by a step parent, which is seen in many cases of filicide- including Susan Smith.
Wow, I guess I read different accounts of this tragedy. Think the entire investigative team had been recently transferred from Boulder. Not to mention the D.A.'s having been separated at birth. Darlie's neck injury was within 2 mm of her carotid artery resulting in damage to the carotid sheath. The larger of the 2 wounds to her right arm was deep enough to splinter the bone and resulted in leakage of marrow. Not to mention she is right handed. The photos of the bruising of her arms are horrible. What defies understanding is that nurses who cared for her at the time testified months later that she had no bruising or defensive wounds !!! HUH? More Rocky Mountain High. The children were probably sound asleep, and being so young could not fathom what was happening before being mortally wounded. Darlie on the other hand said she woke up with the man on top of her. She probably started to move around defensively and was trying to get up, which could account for her having fewer and less deep wounds. I think the guy was psychotic and killed the kids first just so they couldn't disturb him while he raped and killed their mother. Guess he didn't expect 1 of them to still be able to get to his mom. A grown women, however slight her build, is much more difficult to hold down than 5 or 6 year old children. I'm sure the profilers will say that rapists don't kill children. Unfortunately, that's not always the case. Profiling is a tremendous help to law enforcement, but it's more of an art than a science. Sociopaths, psychopaths do not follow the book. Their total lack of conscience, compassion and remorse are some of the things that make them so dangerous. I have to stop now, but I'll be back. Thanks to all of you who care enough to take the time for these discussions. I don't post often but this case is 1 that really scares me. Thanks, Kath

[watson]

Hi Watson. It is nearly impossible to pick out bruises on the heels of the boys, as the feet mottle first when death approaches. I don't have the book by Chris any longer, so this is from memory- I studied this case until I was blue, until I figured out she was guilty.

Devon had wounds to the back of his thigh and his forearm- they were defensive wounds. Devon kicked his mom when she stabbed him, he was fighting for his life. Devon was stabbed in the heart and Damon was stabbed in the liver. Darlie had a scratch on her neck, basically a papercut.
************************************************** *****
Hi Tuscan, I think it's important to consider the wounds of the boy victims too. When I 1st came across this case from media sources, they kept saying the boys were 'slaughtered'. The tv program showed lots of blood at the scene. So, I was really surprised when I read the autopsy reports and found that Devon only had 2 serious stab wounds, and Damon 4, all of them grouped closely together. Your right there were some other wounds, but these were minor were they not? I wanted to check the autopsy reports again (online at fordarlieroutier.org) for accuracy before responding to your post....Beside his only 2 serious wounds, Devon had a minor stab wound to the back of his left thigh 3/4" long 3/4" deep. If he was laying on his back, someone trying to stab down into his chest and he raised his legs in a defense posture, this would explain this wound, and I agree it could defensive, but there's only the one. He also had some very mild brusing on the palms of his hands, spots 1 1/4" x 1/2", and 1 1/2" x 3/4" on the meaty part directly below the thumbs (the thenar eminence). That again I'd call probably defensive, if he was laying down with his palms up. The 1 1/4" long cut on his left forearm was on the top of the arm, and barely there at only 1/8" deep and IMO probably an accident of the stabber as his arm lay on his chest, and therefore wouldn't be defensive.
Damon's only other injuries were a very superficial cut on the back of his left sholder 1/8" deep, and a 3/4" deep but only 1" long cut, near the closely packed stab wounds that probably was started as another stab. He had no defense wounds and no other wounds at all.
So, I'd change my comment to... the boys had just about no defensive wounds at all (only 1 of them Devon, had a slight stab to the back of his thigh, and barely there superficial bruising on only a small part of his palms).
Your theory about kicking is good but doesn't seem to be supported by the evidence. Everyone can agree blood pools in and discolors the lowest part of the body, but the lowest part would only be the feet if the body was standing or sitting. These boys were prone. For Devon, the ME makes clear in her report, blood and discoloration were on the back of his body, not his feet and legs 'rigor mortis is general and post mortum lividity is purple and....on the posterior aspect (the back) of the body.' She notes no kicking bruising, or injuries to his feet. For Damon, whose body came from the hospital ER, the the ME specifically notes no discoloration at all...'the body is in a good state of preservation, with reduced blanching', she actually notes she inspected his feet and legs... no bruises from kicking, no injuries. I just don't see how two barefoot boys could kick a stronger, heavier adult so much as to leave heavy purple/black bruising on the adult, but no trace on their own bare flesh. The ME's found no evidence they kicked anyone.
Darlie's wounds are for another post, but come on 'a paper cut'. I know you don't really mean it, and are just advocating for your position, but the wound to her neck is a geat big slash, 8" long, that left an enormous scar, visable all over the courtroom at her trial 5 months later (TT vol.28 Dr. Townsend-Parchman), it was closed with surgical tape instead of stiches to reduce scarring but if stiched, probably would've taken about 40 stiches to close the wound, some parer cut!

[TuscanDreams]

Hi Watson,

Years ago, I was a paramedic and the analogy I used was a paper cut in comparison to the cuts on the boys.

Personally, I don't think Darlie should be on death row. I think she should be in a mental health facility to determine what can be learned from her to prevent this type of crime.

More on this later, it's a great discussion! One more thing, the boys were laying on their backs when they were deceased, because Darin placed Devon on his back and I think the medical personell placed Devon on his stomach to rescuitate him.

Actually, Darlie Kee, Darlie Routier's mom, is very kind and sweet. If you google her, you will find an email address for her. She'd love to hear from you and she will write you back. She's had a horrible time, she lost her grandsons and her daughter. While we disagree that Darlie Routier is innocent, I still like Darlie Kee.

[jaxread]

Ditto that AMS80, summer is not the best time for armchair internet detectives, there is just too much else to do. I haven't made much progress in my research since last week, I guess it'll take a while. Still I hope to drop in for a little while every day or two to discuss.
TVDinner....the motive or lack of it, really bothers me too. It's just another 1 of the features of this case that make it stand out. The motive of an intruder, if there was one, is troubling as it was to the police and FBI. On the other hand, the motive of the mother for doing it is troubling also. The prosecution never came up with one, instead just suggesting she was 'depressed', or that the family's money problems were involved. I've never understood how if someone was depressed, murdering 2 of your 3 children, staging a robbery, and cutting yourself is supposed to get you un-depressed. Also the family had no insurance to collect on the boys outside of a policy that paid funeral expenses (listed at $5000 each according to the 20-20 documentary) so apparently there is no way the murders could have helped their money problems. I so far don't see a motive for Darlie either.
Although it's too early in my study of the case to say, here's my idea of the motive of an intruder...... he came to the house to steal, entered through the cut screen, was a very brazen home invader cooly gathering up valuables as the family slept, then 1 of the boys woke up (the one with the stab wound to the chest, but also a gash on the back of his thigh) the intruder caught him, knocked him down, killed with 3 stbs to the chest, hearing the other boy stir, and having gone so far, he silenced that boy with 3-4 stabs to the back, he was standing there deciding what to do next, kill the sleeping Darlie, rape? When she woke, and the fight began and the rest happened as she said. Far fetched that a burgler wouldn't have just run, when the 1st boy woke up, that he would lay out the stuff he was stealing, instead of just taking it? Yep, but it's not unheard of for a home invader to stay long at the scene and committ other crimes there, consider the recent case of the doctors family, where a home invasion started as theft, progressed to kidnapping, extortion, rape, murder, and finished as arson. Just a thought.

I dont it is just a matter of the $5000 for each child to be considered. Dont you think removing the 2 boys would have had a huge impact on the household finances.? Not just day to day but into the future as well.
As far as you not understanding how doing this crime would help Darlies depression,you are looking at it from your point of view. You are not a desperate,depressed,sociopath.If all criminals looked at there potential crimes logically and sanely we probably wouldnt have any crimes.

[wind149]

I have watched this case profiled on many shows and I have always came up with the same conclusion the prosecutor did. Darlie is as guilty as sin and there are many factors as to why that is. She, while injured, just like with Jeffrey McDonald, had superficial wounds compared to the deep knife wounds in her children. Her throat slash was not even near fatal, and the bruises could easily been self inflicted and the other cuts on her arms were not deep penetrating wounds either. If an intruder came to that house to steal, or some crazed killer, he would have left no living witnesses and even Darren would have murdered. This case is so eerily similar to the McDonald case it is not even funny. While the insurance amounts were not large, the money could have bailed them out a tad and I think Darlie was only into Darlie and when the business was not doing as good as they hoped and she could not have all the nice things she thought she was entitled to and she was one that liked to show off what they had. All of sudden the fancy house and the jewels and cars could all be gone and she could not handle going poor again. And if your wife is screaming frantically downstairs, don't you think you would be hauling butt to the first floor? How could anybody sleep through that carnage? Easy, if it is your wife doing the killing. Old Darren ain't an innocent babe in the woods here either. His polygraph was inconclusive, not telling the truth. I think the reason he has stuck by her all these years is he does know what happened that night and while I don't think he wielded the knife, he knows damm well who did and has tried for the last 11 years to run the spin that she is as innocent as a lamb. She is going to die for what she did because the crazed killer only exists in she and Darren's heads. The Rowlette police found dripped blood that was hers over the sink. What a perfect place to slash your own throat. The blood found in the living room was a mixture of hers and the boys but mostly the boys which proves to me that she was not stabbed in the living room like the boys. She did her own gig in the kitchen. I mean come on, here your kids have deep, stab wounds that prove to be fatal, and 98% of her blood is in the kitchen, but yet she says she woke up to the "Killer" slashing her throat??? The scene to me looked staged and the silly string gravesite yahoo did not bode well with me either. She did not seem like the grieving mother, but her mother will spin ya the this is what Devin would have wanted. No, what I think Devin would have wanted was to live and his mother decided that he and his brother were a financial burden. She is a liar, a manipulator and no one should have any sympathy or empathy for her and should shed no tears the day she meets her maker.

[Marcia3]

Wow, Wind, I'm so glad to see you posting on this thread. Based on what you have written here, it's obvious that you are able to see this case for what it is, and while you and I don't agree on what should happen to Billy Flynn, we absolutely agree on what should happen to Darla.

I also suspect that Darren knows much more than he has admitted to over the years. Delusions come in many shapes and colors. They are totally delusional if they think that Darla will receive a new trial and be found NG as a result. JMO, of course.

[wind149]

Marcie,
The good thing on this board is we all agree to disagree and I know where you are coming from with Bill Flynn and I respect your opinion, it is a mixture of people that have been mulling that case over. Some agree with me ,some agree with you and that is fine, makes it more of a challenge! As for this vapid, evil, child killer, she is NEVER going to get a new trial if anything, her execution date should soon be looming as she has been there for 10 years and the average stay on death row in TX could be as little as five years to about 12, so I would say she better start praying. Every time I have seen her profiled on those crime shows ,whining about how tough her life in behind bars and how she is so innocent, she is another one who will not give up the spin anymore than Pam Smart will and it is sickening. Just like Pam's mother, Darlie Key is so bamboozled and refuses to see the killer of her grandchildren is the same woman who speaks from behind a glass partition. These poor women are delusional to a fault and in the end it is not going to matter for Darlie Key. Linda Wojas moans often about Pam and what a raw deal her daughter got and it is to the point now where people especially from NH are just plain sick of seeing her on their TV's. These two women killed people they claimed to have loved, one for the insurance money the other for the want of a rented condo, a dog ,and a leather couch and her husband wanted to grow up and not be a head banger rock musician. But if both of them actually admitted their guilt they would have to tell their parents the real truth and all their spins over the years would be in vain, not that anyone believes it beyond their fool parents. I would find it very hard to live with myself, but I am not a sociopath. This woman is as evil does and the day they execute her will show the world that we don't tolerate child killers in this country. I know that she has some of those bleeder anti-DP terrorists on her side and I do believe there is a Free Darlie web-site out there, but I have not felt the need to look it up. I did look up Pam's and I signed that guest book alright and told that doctor that put it out there that she is delusional and blinded by Pam, the rest of us know the real Pam, especially the ones from NH such as myself. We will never let that witch forget what she did and we all should just forget she exists like this child killing scumbag.

[Marcia3]

I'm curious as to your opinion on what Darla's motive may have been for killing her sons. I'm not sure that she had one beyond a vague notion that life might be better without all of the responsibilities that come with children. Everyone who is raising, or has raised, children knows that there are days when you're lucky to have time for the "luxury" of showering and changing your clothes! The physical, emotional, financial stresses can eat away at the strongest of souls.

However, I don't think Darla is a strong person, I think she wimped out when the day-to-day work and sacrifices necessary for children piled up. I'm not saying she "snapped" because I hate it when people use that expression.

Anyway, she has always made this about herself, IMO, and not about her two children that were robbed of the chance to grow up. I don't believe that the evidence indicates the intruder story, not at all. But I still have these sneaking suspicions that her husband knows much more than he's telling.

I am not typically an enthusiastic supporter of the death penalty. In this case, though, it just seems to fit.

[watson]

Wind, it's clear you've seen the same tv programs on this case most of us have. The prosecutor in this case told a 'story' to get a conviction. The tv producers retold his story on tv, and now people who watch the programs re-tell the story. But, where's the facts and evidence to 'prove' this story???
The 'story' is that Darlie was selfish. Ok, lets say she was, maybe 1/2 the people in the country are selfish, does this 'prove' their murderers?
The 'story' is the couple were having money problems. How many people today in 2007 are having money problems, does this 'prove' their murderers?
About the only 'fact' or 'evidence' this prosecutor had originally to back up anything he said, was (as you point out) the wounds on Darlie were different than those on the boys. Her throat was slashed, she had a few non lethal stab wounds, and was beaten to a pulp (at least her arms were), while the boys each had a few lethal stab wounds with just about no evidence of other injury. The prosecutor said this 'proved' she murdered the boys and injured herself......Why? How?
I mean really how and why does the fact that she was beaten and slashed and stabbed only some, while she says she was struggling, and the boys weren't beaten and stabbed deeply, apparently while sleeping, indicate she did it?
If she did it, couldn't she have easily have said an intruder broke in stabbed the boys, robbed the place and not injured herself at all?
What the prosecutor didn't have to 'prove' his story in this case was, any fingerprints, any hairs, any fibers, essentially no other forensic evidence, any witnesses, or any hard facts at all, (case facts) isn't that true?
Then what about the defense evidence skipped in the hurried trial.....2 fingerprint in the boys blood one, on the doorway leading to the garage, she says the killer ran through, the other at the scene that aren't hers. Doesn't this alone raise a doubt to her guilt?
P.S. blood in the sink.......Aren't the case facts that the layout of this house was that the family room where the murders took place, and kitchen are one room divided by a island counter and wine rack. The sink being only about 15 feet and in view of where the murders took place. That she used the counter phone, in her 5 3/4 minute long 911 call while standing and bleeding by the sink, that she also got towels for the bleeding boys at the sink as the 1st police on scene told her to, and wet towels there as well? (websleuths archives, this case, floor diagram, case facts all the case websites including Jsticefordarlie, fordarlierotier.org etc.). Given these facts I'd say the prosecutor has no proof to back up his idea she cut her throat at the sink. Her blood would've been there anyway.

[wind149]

Who would have wanted to kill the Routier family? While I know some murderers kill just for the sake of killing, I don't see where this family had any enemies, they appeared to be an average American family, not connected to any criminal elements. The insurance money was scant, I will agree there, but I think Darlie was only into Darlie and when the business was not doing well, and she had the responsibility of these boys and I think she did not want to be a mother anymore and the kids were a financial burden. If a crazed killer had entered that home he would have made sure no one survived including the baby and Darren. What does not add up for me is here she is screaming as she claims frantically for Darren and yet, he does not come downstairs until the boys are already fatally wounded and Darlie is injured. As I said, if I heard my landlord screaming, I would be hauling butt over to her house to find out why! Her wounds could easily been self inflicted, including the bruises. Having worked in law enforcement and I had spoken to some of my detectives about this case, we had a case where a woman just wanted her husband out of the picture, she wanted total custody of the kids, and she wanted the money and the house and figured the only way she could get all of this is to self inflict bruises on herself and claim the husband did it and he was arrested for domestic violence and then we get wind of the fact she had bragged to friends how she set him up and how she got everything and she found herself being charged with false info to a police officer, her husband who happened to be a decent fellow who would never lay on a hand on anyone including that selfish witch, got custody of the kids as Family Court based on what she had done terminated her parental rights and he got the house. It totally backfired on her and this is the same thing that happened to Darlie. She tried to run the intruder spin and not one iota of evidence has pointed to that fact, the fingerprints could have been there from the Avon lady for all we know. If Darlie did not want her kids dead ,then who did? I watched one show where two retired detectives went on a snoop to find out some things about the family and it was on that show which was on Court TV I believe, that made me take a second look at Darren.The detectives found a guy who claimed Darren wanted him to steal his Jag for the insurance money and break into the house and make it look like a robbery months before the murders and he turned Darren down. Now this guy was no choir boy, but he was telling the truth as he had no reason to lie and had not done the deeds so that tells me that Darlie and Darren were intending on breaking the law before that fateful night and gives credence to the murders were committed by Darlie and Darren knew all about what was going down and he should burn in hell with her. When they questioned Darren about the guy's claim, he had a ready answer that the guy had it in for him but never explained why. I was totally convinced after seeing this show which was on maybe a year ago? Until some fool comes forward and tells the world he was the killer, I believe the killer is in custody and sitting on death row.

[AMS80]

<respectfully snipped>

The 'story' is that Darlie was selfish. Ok, lets say she was, maybe 1/2 the people in the country are selfish, does this 'prove' their murderers?
The 'story' is the couple were having money problems. How many people today in 2007 are having money problems, does this 'prove' their murderers?
About the only 'fact' or 'evidence' this prosecutor had originally to back up anything he said, was (as you point out) the wounds on Darlie were different than those on the boys. Her throat was slashed, she had a few non lethal stab wounds, and was beaten to a pulp (at least her arms were), while the boys each had a few lethal stab wounds with just about no evidence of other injury. The prosecutor said this 'proved' she murdered the boys and injured herself......Why? How?

If, indeed, Darlie expected to kill the boys in their sleep and things went awry, a haunting illusion immediately comes to my mind. In an above post someone asked why the boys had no stab wounds to their feet or lower limbs. I do not think that Darlie uncontrollably stabbed the boys over and over while they kicked and fought her back. I do believe they were kicking her, but have you ever seen a mother try to calm down an uncontrollable child? I think it is a possibility that she held them down with her arms and possibly stabbed them again when they were pinned? I can literally see her talking to them while they are fighting her (shhhh it'll be alright). Maybe her bruises were inflicted after all of the stabbing took place?

<snipped again for space>

Then what about the defense evidence skipped in the hurried trial.....2 fingerprint in the boys blood one, on the doorway leading to the garage, she says the killer ran through, the other at the scene that aren't hers. Doesn't this alone raise a doubt to her guilt?

Can you explain more about the two fingerprints? I can't find my book on this case, and I remember something about one fingerprint in the living room possibly being a partial of one of the boys. The hair and fiber evidence doesn't bother me at all. Things like that can be tracked in by children very easily. What does bother me is that Darlie claims a massive struggle with an intruder in her living room, yet no massive amounts of hair or fibers in that location? (deja vu from MacDonald...give me a break!)

P.S. blood in the sink.......Aren't the case facts that the layout of this house was that the family room where the murders took place, and kitchen are one room divided by a island counter and wine rack. The sink being only about 15 feet and in view of where the murders took place. That she used the counter phone, in her 5 3/4 minute long 911 call while standing and bleeding by the sink, that she also got towels for the bleeding boys at the sink as the 1st police on scene told her to, and wet towels there as well? (websleuths archives, this case, floor diagram, case facts all the case websites including Jsticefordarlie, fordarlierotier.org etc.). Given these facts I'd say the prosecutor has no proof to back up his idea she cut her throat at the sink. Her blood would've been there anyway.

IMO to get that amount of blood in the sink you would almost have to be leaning over it. I'm sticking to my belief that she inflicted her wound there and tried to clean it up.


Hi, Watson! Long time, no post! Ha! My responses to some comments in your post are in red.

As stated in my above posts, there are many reasons I think she's guilty. The intruder entered with no weapon? How did they cut the screen with the knife from inside the house? When LE arrived, why wasn't the motion light on in the suspect's getaway path stated by Darlie? Why no blood, hair, fibers outside the window they climbed out of?

Again, I don't think this was about money, but more frustration with losing the life she once had. Sad.

IMO. Great posting with you again, Watson!

Results: get your bootie over here and join me and I'll get my bootie over to the TG board, deal? :patriot:

[Tap Dancer]

I know that she has some of those bleeder anti-DP terrorists on her side and I do believe there is a Free Darlie web-site out there, but I have not felt the need to look it up.

The first I heard of Darlie was on "Unsolved Mysteries" years ago and I just Googled her name. Justice For Darlie (http://www.justicefordarlie.net/) is one of the first websites to come up. There are a lot of very disturbing photos of the crime scene there. I need to read up on this case again because it's been a while. I'll always wonder about her husband being "asleep" upstairs while all this was happening... Why wasn't he (or was he?) ever considered a suspect?

[AMS80]

The first I heard of Darlie was on "Unsolved Mysteries" years ago and I just Googled her name. Justice For Darlie (http://www.justicefordarlie.net/) is one of the first websites to come up. There are a lot of very disturbing photos of the crime scene there. I need to read up on this case again because it's been a while. I'll always wonder about her husband being "asleep" upstairs while all this was happening... Why wasn't he (or was he?) ever considered a suspect?


Hey TD! Off topic-I loved, loved, loved Unsolved Mysteries LOL!!! I used to watch it everyday during the summer when I was still in high school and college while it was still on Lifetime...I wonder if they have episodes on dvd? Ha!

You bring up a good question about Darin...actually one of two questions that baffle me in this case...the other being the bloody sock.

I'm wondering how much noise either boy would make if stabbed unexpectedly. I think they fought back after the initial stabbing, but I'm not sure how much a stab wound would knock the wind out of you, I'm guessing a lot. I think it's possible she stabbed one of the boys, then moved onto the other, thinking the first was dead. I honestly can't remember whether she claimed either Devon or Damon came to her while she was on the couch, but I think it's a part truth. I think she thought the first one she stabbed was dead and they weren't.

IMO :)

[accordn2me]

<snipped> At the time she was the first woman sentenced to death in Texas since the Civil War. <snipped>You've mentioned this twice now, first in this post then later in this thread. (I haven't read all the posts even on the first page.....) I'm curious why you've pointed this out twice? :shrug: Is it correct information? Karla Faye Tucker comes to mind. IIRC, she was relatively recently executed in TX. Even though I got C's in history, I don't believe she could have been alive during the Civil War.

ETA: OH wait! Silly me....Karla Faye was probably sentenced after Darlie.

[Wichita]

You are right. Karla Faye was convicted in 1984, and was the first woman sentenced to death in Texas since the Civil War. She was executed in 1998.

[Tap Dancer]

Hey TD! Off topic-I loved, loved, loved Unsolved Mysteries LOL!!! I used to watch it everyday during the summer when I was still in high school and college while it was still on Lifetime...I wonder if they have episodes on dvd? Ha!

Actually, several "Unsolved Mysteries" DVD box sets have been released. :)

[Results]

Hi, Watson! Long time, no post! Ha! My responses to some comments in your post are in red.

As stated in my above posts, there are many reasons I think she's guilty. The intruder entered with no weapon? How did they cut the screen with the knife from inside the house? When LE arrived, why wasn't the motion light on in the suspect's getaway path stated by Darlie? Why no blood, hair, fibers outside the window they climbed out of?

Again, I don't think this was about money, but more frustration with losing the life she once had. Sad.

IMO. Great posting with you again, Watson!

Results: get your bootie over here and join me and I'll get my bootie over to the TG board, deal? :patriot:

You got a deal! The main thing that bothers me is that sock down the road with the blood from the crime scene on it. How did it get there because there was no blood dripping from the house to the sock? The woman police officer how in the world did her hair get to the crime scene when she said she had never been there before? Darlie threatened to tell on her husband and friends for insurance fraud so just maybe Darren wanted all 3 down stairs dead. Doesn't anyone find it odd that he said he would pay for Darla's defense as long as they did not point a finger at him? Sounds like a very loving husband. Too many holes IMO. I'm saying at this point I don't know but there are signs that something is wrong. JMHO

[AMS80]

You got a deal! The main thing that bothers me is that sock down the road with the blood from the crime scene on it. How did it get there because there was no blood dripping from the house to the sock? The woman police officer how in the world did her hair get to the crime scene when she said she had never been there before? Darlie threatened to tell on her husband and friends for insurance fraud so just maybe Darren wanted all 3 down stairs dead. Doesn't anyone find it odd that he said he would pay for Darla's defense as long as they did not point a finger at him? Sounds like a very loving husband. Too many holes IMO. I'm saying at this point I don't know but there are signs that something is wrong. JMHO

Like I said above, the sock is one of the only questions for me. Do you think that if Darin had something to do with this, did Darlie just not recognize that it was him? Do you think she would protect someone who killed her sons and tried to kill her? Do you think he hired someone?

I'm glad you're here :beer:

[Results]

Like I said above, the sock is one of the only questions for me. Do you think that if Darin had something to do with this, did Darlie just not recognize that it was him? Do you think she would protect someone who killed her sons and tried to kill her? Do you think he hired someone?

I'm glad you're here :beer:

I'm not sure how he is involved but him not hearing anything at all makes me wonder just what he was doing. Darren reveals about hiring a burglar years after the murders happened. If it was an intruder, if Darren hired someone to do this then it is very possible that Darlie fought like hell and the intruder would more than likely have bruises etc. IF Darren had revealed this when all this happened at least LE would have had the chance to bring some of these people that were plotting to commit a crime with Darren. Why would Darren not reveal this information until years after his wife is convicted? JMHO

I'm glad I'm here too! :rose:

[AMS80]

I'm not sure how he is involved but him not hearing anything at all makes me wonder just what he was doing. Darren reveals about hiring a burglar years after the murders happened. If it was an intruder, if Darren hired someone to do this then it is very possible that Darlie fought like hell and the intruder would more than likely have bruises etc. IF Darren had revealed this when all this happened at least LE would have had the chance to bring some of these people that were plotting to commit a crime with Darren. Why would Darren not reveal this information until years after his wife is convicted? JMHO

I'm glad I'm here too! :rose:

I think it's more likely that Darin slept through the attack if Darlie did it rather than an intruder. I don't think it was a spur-of-the-moment rage attack on the boys after an argument or something. I think they were asleep. As I said above, I'm not sure how much noise you could make after being stabbed unexpectedly? If Darlie did do it, that would mean she didn't scream or make noise from being attacked, which could explain further why Darin didn't wake up.

I need to sit down and really think of some explanations for the sock. I'll get back to ya :)

[Results]

I think it's more likely that Darin slept through the attack if Darlie did it rather than an intruder. I don't think it was a spur-of-the-moment rage attack on the boys after an argument or something. I think they were asleep. As I said above, I'm not sure how much noise you could make after being stabbed unexpectedly? If Darlie did do it, that would mean she didn't scream or make noise from being attacked, which could explain further why Darin didn't wake up.

I need to sit down and really think of some explanations for the sock. I'll get back to ya :)

Excellent points! Looking forward to hearing what you think about the sock!
:beer:

[AMS80]

Excellent points! Looking forward to hearing what you think about the sock!
:beer:

Okay here goes...beware that these are initial thoughts and not even incredibly imaginative ;)

I think that Darlie planted the sock after she stabbed the boys and before she called 911. I don't think an intruder did it, only because I don't think there is any evidence at all of an intruder even being in the house (see posts above or I'll tell ya my opinon through PM). I also don't think Darin planted the sock because:

He was in his bedroom when Darlie awoke him with her screaming. It is unlikely that he killed the boys without awaking her, and went back upstairs and got in bed after their struggle. However, this is based on Darlie's lack of denial against Darin's statements. If somehow she was protecting him, though I think it's unlikely, I could be wrong.

Now...why didn't anyone witness Darlie walking? Quiet neighborhood and everyone was asleep?

I know that was a shoddy explanation, but it was all I got for now :hat:

[wind149]

The sock has always bothered me too. If a crazed killer came into the home why in hell would he drop a bloody sock yards from the house? I mean some weirdos do strange things like take items from the house to be able relive the "moment" like that freak BTK but rarely do they leave something like a sock behind. And the blood in the sink. How come all of that is Darlie's? Easy, if you stand over a sink to superficially slice your own throat and those bruises could easily be self-inflicted. I still don't buy Darin's end of the story either. You wife is screaming frantically just a floor below and you sleep through it all till just about the time the cops show up? Please, do they think all of us are morons? What made me take a second look at Darin was the show I saw where the detectives interviewed a a guy who while was no means a member of a church choir, who claimed Darin asked him to break into the house and make it look like a burglary and to steal his Jag, months before the murders. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth and it proves these people are evil, and would stop at nothing to get what they want. Darlie is a superficial, vapid, calculating witch who is where she needs to be and just like with Pam Smart we just need to forget she exists. She is never going to get a new trial, there are no other suspects, she is going to die for what she did and just like with Linda Wojas Pam's mother, Darlie Key needs to wake up and face the fact her daughter is a murderess, the woman who killed her grandchildren in cold blood because the kids were a burden to her, and she wanted it all, the money, the prestige, and the business was not doing well and she could not handle the fact that it could all go away and even if the insurance money was a drop in the bucket, sympathy flowed toward she and Darin and I remember on one show I watched some people came forward with monetary donations not to mention all the sympathy that came about, until she was arrested anyway. The sock is a key piece of evidence and I am sure forensics went over it with a fine tooth and I have never heard about them finding skin cells or fingerprints not from the family. Wasn't the blood on it from one of the boy's? As for fingerprints, I am sure there are prints in my house from the former tenant, the cable guy, my friends, my sister, my landlord, her brother, the list could very well be long. As I said, it could be the Avon lady for all we know. She is guilty of this crime and just needs to shut the f**k up and do her time and when the Supreme Court gets their act together, put her to death and send her all the way to hell as she is not going to see those boys in heaven.

[AMS80]

The sock has always bothered me too. If a crazed killer came into the home why in hell would he drop a bloody sock yards from the house? I mean some weirdos do strange things like take items from the house to be able relive the "moment" like that freak BTK but rarely do they leave something like a sock behind. And the blood in the sink. How come all of that is Darlie's? Easy, if you stand over a sink to superficially slice your own throat and those bruises could easily be self-inflicted. I still don't buy Darin's end of the story either. You wife is screaming frantically just a floor below and you sleep through it all till just about the time the cops show up? Please, do they think all of us are morons? What made me take a second look at Darin was the show I saw where the detectives interviewed a a guy who while was no means a member of a church choir, who claimed Darin asked him to break into the house and make it look like a burglary and to steal his Jag, months before the murders. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth and it proves these people are evil, and would stop at nothing to get what they want. Darlie is a superficial, vapid, calculating witch who is where she needs to be and just like with Pam Smart we just need to forget she exists. She is never going to get a new trial, there are no other suspects, she is going to die for what she did and just like with Linda Wojas Pam's mother, Darlie Key needs to wake up and face the fact her daughter is a murderess, the woman who killed her grandchildren in cold blood because the kids were a burden to her, and she wanted it all, the money, the prestige, and the business was not doing well and she could not handle the fact that it could all go away and even if the insurance money was a drop in the bucket, sympathy flowed toward she and Darin and I remember on one show I watched some people came forward with monetary donations not to mention all the sympathy that came about, until she was arrested anyway. The sock is a key piece of evidence and I am sure forensics went over it with a fine tooth and I have never heard about them finding skin cells or fingerprints not from the family. Wasn't the blood on it from one of the boy's? As for fingerprints, I am sure there are prints in my house from the former tenant, the cable guy, my friends, my sister, my landlord, her brother, the list could very well be long. As I said, it could be the Avon lady for all we know. She is guilty of this crime and just needs to shut the f**k up and do her time and when the Supreme Court gets their act together, put her to death and send her all the way to hell as she is not going to see those boys in heaven.

Good post, Wind! Welcome! :beer:

[Amy]

[QUOTE=watson;8923496]
snip....
At the time she was the first woman sentenced to death in Texas since the Civil War.

....snip
QUOTE]


Not quite.


Karla Faye Tucker died by Lethal Injection in Texas on February 3, 1998.
She was pronounced dead at 6:45 pm. Karla was the first woman to be
executed in the U.S. since 1984.

[RaVeN71806]

It took me most of this morning to read up on this and IMO I believe the parents did it one covered up the other or vice versa...because what I've read just doesn't add up from the window being cut from the instead if I'm correct, and didn't she hear anybody hurting her children I'm sure one of them screamed or yelled they just didn't lay there getting stabbed to death there had to be movement from one of the boys...and how the father sleep threw the whole thing up until the cops came..I have to agree with the others that feel there guilty..theres to many things that don't add so many gaps that place them for killing these two little boys...and I said both of them because one is hiding for the other..and I believe the sock is the sole evidence...

[Amy]

It took me most of this morning to read up on this and IMO I believe the parents did it one covered up the other or vice versa...because what I've read just doesn't add up from the window being cut from the instead if I'm correct, and didn't she hear anybody hurting her children I'm sure one of them screamed or yelled they just didn't lay there getting stabbed to death there had to be movement from one of the boys...and how the father sleep threw the whole thing up until the cops came..I have to agree with the others that feel there guilty..theres to many things that don't add so many gaps that place them for killing these two little boys...and I said both of them because one is hiding for the other..and I believe the sock is the sole evidence...


In the pics, it looked like a sizable house--meaning, the bedrooms could have been quite distanced from the living room. In fact, IF we believe Darlie, her sole purpose for sleeping in the living room was that the baby wakening during the night disturbed her sleep, so she was in the living room where she wouldn't be bothered.

So, it could be that, since there was no screaming, again from Darlie's mouth, Darrin might not have been awakened. Too bad Darlie waited to scream, if she had the second she "felt pressure" maybe Darrin could have arrived on the scene sooner. But, I guess her delay in screaming COULD be because her other story seemed to be something about one of the little boys waking her up.

Of course, I don't know if that (sleeping in the living room) was a routine thing she did, or if this was the first time.

[Results]

IIRC I read it was a treat for the boys to be able to camp out on the floor in front of the TV while they went to sleep and Darlie stayed down there with them. I'm still reading this case and learning but I do think something isn't right but don't know what just yet. JMHO

I have read that on both sides of this debate that the TV crew only showed Darlie and family with silly string and not when they cried and prayed at the grave. I believe that you lie when you leave any part of the truth out and especially in a murder case. No need to lie if you have solid proof of their crime. JMHO

[Amy]

IIRC I read it was a treat for the boys to be able to camp out on the floor in front of the TV while they went to sleep and Darlie stayed down there with them. I'm still reading this case and learning but I do think something isn't right but don't know what just yet. JMHO

I have read that on both sides of this debate that the TV crew only showed Darlie and family with silly string and not when they cried and prayed at the grave. I believe that you lie when you leave any part of the truth out and especially in a murder case. No need to lie if you have solid proof of their crime. JMHO

It may have been a treat for the boys, but Darlie was quoted as saying that she was a light sleeper and she was bothered by all the sounds a baby makes at night, and her solution was to sleep downstairs.

Which made me think, at the time I read that....hmmm, she is such a light sleeper that the night noises made by a baby keep her awake, but she wasn't awakened by any sounds of the murders? Even if the intruder was very, very quiet on entering, surely there would have been noises with the stabbings that would have been as loud as the little noises a baby makes at night.

As for the silly putty thing.. The defense knew of the portion of video that showed a solemn group prior to the birthday thing...the defense had the opportunity to show that, but for whatever reason did not.

[RaVeN71806]

It may have been a treat for the boys, but Darlie was quoted as saying that she was a light sleeper and she was bothered by all the sounds a baby makes at night, and her solution was to sleep downstairs.

Which made me think, at the time I read that....hmmm, she is such a light sleeper that the night noises made by a baby keep her awake, but she wasn't awakened by any sounds of the murders? Even if the intruder was very, very quiet on entering, surely there would have been noises with the stabbings that would have been as loud as the little noises a baby makes at night.

As for the silly putty thing.. The defense knew of the portion of video that showed a solemn group prior to the birthday thing...the defense had the opportunity to show that, but for whatever reason did not.


Now that I've read shes was light sleeper that brings me to my question again How did she not hear anything happening to her sons? if my daughter makes any sound out the ordinary I'm just like that and in her room checking on her to make sure shes ok..its so really hard to believe she didn't hear a damn thing...

[KTScarlettOkity]

One question I have regarding this case is why the wounds the boys received are different than those of Darlie? The boys seem to have suffered from deep stab wounds to vital organs, yet Darlie's seem to be slashing wounds. Forgive the morbidity of the question, but I'd think that if this was a third party there would be some similarity to the wounds. Specifically if she said the intruder had was already in the process of attacking her when she awoke.

[AMS80]

One question I have regarding this case is why the wounds the boys received are different than those of Darlie? The boys seem to have suffered from deep stab wounds to vital organs, yet Darlie's seem to be slashing wounds. Forgive the morbidity of the question, but I'd think that if this was a third party there would be some similarity to the wounds. Specifically if she said the intruder had was already in the process of attacking her when she awoke.

This is a very good point KT. I think it is highly unlikely an intruder would come into the house, and first kill the most helpless parties while leaving one more their size to fight back or identify them later. The difference in the wounds reminds me a lot of the MacDonald case (not surprisingly, I didn't buy his story either :D )

IMO.

[Results]

It may have been a treat for the boys, but Darlie was quoted as saying that she was a light sleeper and she was bothered by all the sounds a baby makes at night, and her solution was to sleep downstairs.

Which made me think, at the time I read that....hmmm, she is such a light sleeper that the night noises made by a baby keep her awake, but she wasn't awakened by any sounds of the murders? Even if the intruder was very, very quiet on entering, surely there would have been noises with the stabbings that would have been as loud as the little noises a baby makes at night.

As for the silly putty thing.. The defense knew of the portion of video that showed a solemn group prior to the birthday thing...the defense had the opportunity to show that, but for whatever reason did not.

Can you please send me a link or show me where in the transcripts that information about her sleeping habits? I also find it odd that so much activities were going on in that neighborhood. Many leads were given to authorities but I think they had their minds made up. Please understand at this point I don't have an opinion of who done it yet. I find some things very strange and I am trying to read the transcripts very careful and to get facts presented at trial so please be patient as I learn of this case. JMHO

[sp33dball]

Sorry this is a little off topic but I'm doing some research on this case and was wondering if anyone knew or had a list of the witnesses that were questioned before the trial? Of course Darlie and Daren were questioned but I'm having problems finding anything else. If anyone has information or could point me in the direction that would be amazing. Thanks!

[KTScarlettOkity]

Results~ I don't know if this is exactly what you're looking for, but it's a copy of Darlie's statement to the police. On page 4 she states that "I had been sleeping on the couch the past week or so on and off because the baby slept in our room in the crib and when he moved he woke me up."

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/acrobat_files/DarlieRoutier-VoluntaryStatement.pdf

I would think that one who is woken up by movement in a crib could be considered a light sleeper.

A general thought~ After reading her statement again, she indicates that she was woken up by pressure on her right shoulder by Devon. And she saw a man by her feet walking away from her. If that was the case, again I think the difference in the wounds is significant. If this "man" was walking away from her one would think he was done with his attack. So why were her wounds so different than the ones the boys received?

[Amy]

Can you please send me a link or show me where in the transcripts that information about her sleeping habits? I also find it odd that so much activities were going on in that neighborhood. Many leads were given to authorities but I think they had their minds made up. Please understand at this point I don't have an opinion of who done it yet. I find some things very strange and I am trying to read the transcripts very careful and to get facts presented at trial so please be patient as I learn of this case. JMHO


I think where I read the light sleeper info was on one of the pro-Darlie sites. I didn't read the transcripts, didn't really follow the case at the time.

As for many leads--who is to say they never looked at anything else? As in all cases, there are usually numerous leads to follow, and once the LE checks them out and discounts them, I would think that would show up in their records, but would not necessarily be listed out for the public to read, nor would it always come up in the trial.

I would imagine that a defense attorney who does not present the sober tape at the gravesite to counteract the silly tape--would probably not have questioned the police about any other leads they followed.

[Amy]

Results~ I don't know if this is exactly what you're looking for, but it's a copy of Darlie's statement to the police. On page 4 she states that "I had been sleeping on the couch the past week or so on and off because the baby slept in our room in the crib and when he moved he woke me up."

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/acrobat_files/DarlieRoutier-VoluntaryStatement.pdf

I would think that one who is woken up by movement in a crib could be considered a light sleeper.

A general thought~ After reading her statement again, she indicates that she was woken up by pressure on her right shoulder by Devon. And she saw a man by her feet walking away from her. If that was the case, again I think the difference in the wounds is significant. If this "man" was walking away from her one would think he was done with his attack. So why were her wounds so different than the ones the boys received?


Thanks for finding that. That is what I remembered. It spun my head a little. I kind of tho't that was a ritual of motherhood--where, no matter how you used to sleep, once you are a mom, you BECOME a light sleeper so as to be aware of every little move your baby makes!!!!

It does seem to me that ANY sound the intruder made, and any sound the kids would have made--even ASLEEP, there would have been SOME noise during the murders, that should have awakened one who is bothered by every movement a baby makes.

And, as always--why the ferocious, vicious, deadly stabbings of two little kids, but not to the adult in the room? One who would be more likely to identify the intruder? And, one who is able to create such carnage on a couple of little kids would have been able to make sure the slash to the throat would have been deep enough to cause death to the adult. IMO

[wind149]

Took me a few days to get back to ya and thanks for the heads up. I can't find one shred of truth from Darlie's lying mouth. I still can't help but compare this to the Jeffrey McDonald case. He saw "Hippies" and when those murders went down, it was right after the Manson horror show and the hysterics that went with it that every person with long hair was a murdering hippie. It was so easy for JM to blame it on them, and yet, the ones the police did think of as possible suspects were never charged and most of them died by their own hands by the late 70's. The "boogie man" who cut the hole in the screen oh so carefully, who fatally stabbed both boys and inflicted superficial wounds to Darlie, and yet, Darin and the baby were unharmed??? In my tenure as a dispatcher, and common sense tells me too, is if you have a nut-job that just kills to get himself off, he will NOT LEAVE any living witnesses!!! JM didn't!!! He too, especially being a doctor, knew how to inflict his superficial wounds and one question that was always on my mind, was did they do tox screens on the good doctor? I can't help but wonder, even with his ice pick wound that it had to have hurt and does anyone know if Darlie was subjected to a tox screen as well?? I can't find any evidence to the fact on either cases. In both cases, it is my conclusion that they both are calculating, evil, people who murdered their own family members just to get them out of the way. In JM's case, he clearly did not want to be a family man, he wanted to be the swinging bachelor doctor squiring young ladies to all the parties, he wanted the prestige, the perks, and he felt tied down and I think what set him over the edge was Colette was pregnant again. In Darlie's case, almost the same motive. She clearly did not want to be the stay to home Mama, she wanted the good life, the fancy house, the Jag, jewels, and I think she felt tied down too and when the business started to fail and the cash was not flowing in, she could not handle the fact that everything she always dreamed about was all slipping away and in her sick mind she blamed her kids and I gotta wonder why she spared Drake's life? I wonder what bullcrap spin she and Darin have told to that poor child that is now what 11? So I think for certain that both of these evil people are right where they need to be, except I think the good doctor should have fried in the chair 30 years ago.

[watson]

Happy T-Giving all,
I think some really good points and discussions are being made, and had in this thread. I've been too busy to post for a week or so, wish I had more time to devote to this kind of stuff. Being back up to speed now on the thread I just wanted to comment/respond to some points made on page 2.
Wind....the same stuff that left a bad taste in your mouth about this case, left the same in mine. Darin admitting to LE that he had his own car stolen, faked a report to the insurance company, collected the money, and planned to do the same thing with a staged burglary of his home is striking. Someone could say he didn't tell about his plans to stage a home invasion until years after the trial, but as absolute fact his jag was stolen 1-2 years before the murders, he did collect on it, and as you say LE interviewed the guy he hired that did it. So, since that's true and he's capable of that, what else is he capable of, and doesn't his story of planning a fake home invasion have to be taken very seriously too? Someone asked above...if he did have something to do with it, why didn't he tell LE of his plans to stage a home invasion at the time of the crime.....well, if he did do it he'd be admittting at least to conspiracy to murder...not something most people want to do. Why admit it years after the trial?......Guilt at his wife sitting on death row, perhaps?
Wind.....you also mentioned, who would want the Routiers dead, and what kind of stranger intruder would do this crime? You got me there. By the facts these people were low risk for any crime, and much more low risk for murder. Remember in the facts...Darlie's purse, Darin's wallet, and 'expensive looking jewelry' from the home were all laid out on the kitchen island totally free of any blood (underneath, on top, or around) so they had to be collected and put there before any stabbing or cutting started...what kind of behavior is that for a real burgler?
When I got into this case (from one of the tv programs noted above) I did so, wondering where the 'beef' was in the prosecutors case. (Like the old Wendy's Burger commercial where the little old lady looks for the beef in the sandwich ). I was looking for the beef (the facts and evidence) that proved or even indicated this woman did this, and couldn't find any. If Darlie didn't do it, who the facts and evidence we have points to, is something I haven't really considered, and I guess would be a good topic for another thread.

[watson]

Hi AMS80, Yep it's been awile since I posted before today, wish I had more time to devote. You asked above about the 'fingerprints', and that's a good question, because I don't think they were too well covered in the tv programs noted above, because at that time I don't think the latest info was in. I researched it again this week to get the most up to date facts I could (if anyone can find more please chime in), here's just the facts.......
The prints in question are 3 fingerprints at the scene in the boys blood. 2 of the prints were on the left side door jamb (the left side of the doorway) leading from the utility room to the garage, about 1 foot above door knob level. These are really significant because they are on the route Darlie said the killer took into the garage, and because they were noted by the 1st officers on the scene (ofc. Walling TT vol.29 ) within minutes of the crime. The 3rd print, is small, a partial of a finger, in the boys blood on the glass 'couch back' table in the family room where the crime occured. It was found by the states criminalist and fingerprint analyst James Cron later that morning (TTvol.34).
At trial in 1996 Cron testified that the 2 prints on the door jamb were 'too wet' and lacked enough detail to type. The prosecutor argued they were probably Darlie's. Concerning the 3rd print on the glass table Cron testified since it was small it was probably a childs, and as it was partial he could not get a match. The prosecutor argued it was probably one of the boy victims in their own blood, although the state never took their prints (all from Cron's testemony vol. 34). At closing the prosecutor is said to have told the jury that the state lab had eliminated Darlie, Darin, all LE, and EMT workers from the print on the glass table (without the state lab testifying as far as I can find) so it must be one of the boy victims (justicefordarlie.net re 'fingerprint').
During the appeals process and in the years since the the prints have been tested and re-tested using methods, experts and info not avaiable in 1996. Results..........The 2 'wet' prints on the garage door jamb within minutes of the crime: the upper print can be exclude from being Darlie's although it can still not be typed, the lower print is also excluded as being Darlie's, and is identified as (hold onto your hats!) as Darin's middle finger of his left hand (affidavit expert Glenn Lagenburg, 2003). Needless to say this was an unexpected result for a defense Darin was cooperating with, and the defense paid a 2nd expert to test the 2 door jamb prints...result...Darlie is confirmed excluded from both prints, the lower print lacks sufficent detail to say for sure it's Darin's (affidavit expert Robert Lohnes, June 2003).
....the 1 print on the glass couch back table: since the state did not print the boys as part of the investigation, their bodies were exhumed, printed, and both boys were excluded from the print (agreed in apellate motions), the defense relies (as I read it) on the state's position at trial, that the crime lab had excluded Darlie from this print too, as well as Darin and all LE and EMT's, so the appelate defense claims the print is a unidentified stranger print (justicefordarlie.net).
So, there's the bloody fingerprint facts. If anyone can find more info, or can wade through the trial transcripts and find something I missed, let me know, I like to be accurate. One of the great things about this case, was that there was a trial (although I believe a deeply defective one, due to the ineffectiveness of so called defense lawyers), so all the evidence and actions there had to be taken down, and is now public on the net, as are all evidence entered in the appeals process.

*****as always I have no axe to grind in discussing these cases, if I take a position I believe it's wholly based just on fact and evidence*****

[wind149]

As much as we all arm chair here, the fact remains that regardless of the fingerprints, and not one shred of anything came about during and after the murders of those two little boys who now would be 14 and 16. Everything points to Darlie and ten years later as we have come even further with technology, still nothing has came about such as the "crazed killer" I want to say the Rowlett Police are not stupid, southern, yahoos Barney Fife's here and I think they handled the investigation to the best of their ability and turned it over to the prosecutor who also is a smart man and they convicted the right person here. I have said this before and I will say it again. There is no crazed killer, he only exists in Darlie's and Darin's heads and they both know it, there will not be a new trial ever, but, the one thing I know will happen at one point? Darlie will be executed for murdering her own children and all her whining, sniveling, and conning people onto her side as the grieving mother wrongfully convicted is pure D Crap and if I had my druthers she would have fried in the chair 10 years ago, not LI, that is to good for her. I did some research on women on death row. TX has 5 women with Darlie the headliner, and the one thing I did find, is very few of them are on the row for killing their kids, more like abusive spouses or drug deals gone bad. Susan Smith is another evil b***h who killed her boys because the guy she was hung up on, did not want children, and she was desperate to keep this guy because he represented all she wanted, the money and prestige too, but instead of giving the boys to David, she figures if she dumps them in the lake, she could run the car jack story and everyone would buy the spin and she could go on national TV weeping for sympathy, and when the boys are not found right off, it probably seemed to her that LE was buying it, but she underestimated the Sheriff. He came off as a good old boy, but in reality, he is a smart cookie and saw through her bullcrap and as we all know, she confessed, and received a life sentence. Me, I wanted her to get life, scary isn't it? I did not want to give her what she wanted and that was a DS so she could play the grieving, whack-job, moaning about how she wants to die for what she did and I saw through that crap and so did Tommy Pope, the prosecutor. I hope SS rots in her cell for her entire life and I have a feeling parole is not going to happen for at least 50 years when she is about 85 years old. Darlie has been on DR for 10 years and while TX executes men more quickly than women, she might very well be there at least another 5-6, but someday, the last appeal will exhaust and we will get to see a sniveling Darlie on American Justice or Anderson Cooper, how they are executing an innocent woman, her Mama will be center stage running the spin of please don't kill my baby, she loved them babies, she didn't kill them, it was a crazy maniac that did it ,and Darin will be choking back tears, bemoaning the state of TX is murdering an innocent mother and blah blah.

[watson]

Whoa Wind, Talk about not taking cases personally. We are armchairing here right in front of our computers. In your last post you sound like you were the prosecutor in the case, or Rowlett PD, mayor of the town, but I don't even think they'd take the case that hotly. Evil b***h's frying in electric chairs, sniveling women moaning and rotting in their cells forever etc. etc., aside, from the facts and evidence I think the local police did an ok investigation in this case, and don't think I said otherwise (my only concern was that the investigation only took days in such a high profile, low evidence case). At trial, from the transcripts, the main police witnesses IMO seemed honest and professional. The prosecutor at trial also IMO opinion seemed to be a professional doing his job, using and arguing with what he was given to get a conviction. From the transcripts I didn't note anywhere where he acted improperly. I don't think the police or the prosecutor were the problem in this case, the clear problem at trial to anyone who reads the transcripts, I think, was the defense lawyers...drunk?...incompetent?...unprepared?...or all three? I think the transcripts show their performance made a mockery of what was supposed to be a trial, and a searching for truth. They made the stuttering joke lawyer in the Cousin Vinney movie look like a real life person!
It's called ineffective assitance of counsel and that's not even legal in Texas. As for the state of Texas, if they wanted to do what what was fair, and constitutional in this case, they'd grant a re-trial. If the evidence is good and strong the verdict will be the same, she'll still be guilty and everyone will have a clear conscience. Why would anyone who believes in the current verdict and her guilt, be against a re-trial??? Are they afraid that the evidence they rely on is so weak/poor the verdict would be different, or that something is wrong with the case? If that's true then how can they really believe in her guilt at all? If their so sure, it shouldn't matter if she was re-ried once or 100 times the result would always be the same so why the big refusal?

[AMS80]

Took me a few days to get back to ya and thanks for the heads up. I can't find one shred of truth from Darlie's lying mouth. I still can't help but compare this to the Jeffrey McDonald case. He saw "Hippies" and when those murders went down, it was right after the Manson horror show and the hysterics that went with it that every person with long hair was a murdering hippie. It was so easy for JM to blame it on them, and yet, the ones the police did think of as possible suspects were never charged and most of them died by their own hands by the late 70's. The "boogie man" who cut the hole in the screen oh so carefully, who fatally stabbed both boys and inflicted superficial wounds to Darlie, and yet, Darin and the baby were unharmed??? In my tenure as a dispatcher, and common sense tells me too, is if you have a nut-job that just kills to get himself off, he will NOT LEAVE any living witnesses!!! JM didn't!!! He too, especially being a doctor, knew how to inflict his superficial wounds and one question that was always on my mind, was did they do tox screens on the good doctor? I can't help but wonder, even with his ice pick wound that it had to have hurt and does anyone know if Darlie was subjected to a tox screen as well?? I can't find any evidence to the fact on either cases. In both cases, it is my conclusion that they both are calculating, evil, people who murdered their own family members just to get them out of the way. In JM's case, he clearly did not want to be a family man, he wanted to be the swinging bachelor doctor squiring young ladies to all the parties, he wanted the prestige, the perks, and he felt tied down and I think what set him over the edge was Colette was pregnant again. In Darlie's case, almost the same motive. She clearly did not want to be the stay to home Mama, she wanted the good life, the fancy house, the Jag, jewels, and I think she felt tied down too and when the business started to fail and the cash was not flowing in, she could not handle the fact that everything she always dreamed about was all slipping away and in her sick mind she blamed her kids and I gotta wonder why she spared Drake's life? I wonder what bullcrap spin she and Darin have told to that poor child that is now what 11? So I think for certain that both of these evil people are right where they need to be, except I think the good doctor should have fried in the chair 30 years ago.

Hi Wind! Good to see ya and hope you had a good Thanksgiving holiday!

ITA agree with ya on both cases. If you're interested in the MacDonald case, there is a thread on it under "General Crime Discussion." There are a lot of very informed posters over there, and a couple of great links to sites with original transcripts, etc. :)

[AMS80]

Hi AMS80

<respectfully snipped>

So, there's the bloody fingerprint facts. If anyone can find more info, or can wade through the trial transcripts and find something I missed, let me know, I like to be accurate. One of the great things about this case, was that there was a trial (although I believe a deeply defective one, due to the ineffectiveness of so called defense lawyers), so all the evidence and actions there had to be taken down, and is now public on the net, as are all evidence entered in the appeals process.

*****as always I have no axe to grind in discussing these cases, if I take a position I believe it's wholly based just on fact and evidence*****

How ya doing, Watson? I hope you had a great Thanksgiving weekend...mine was too good...not too thrilled to be back to work :cool:

I won't pretend to understand all of the details about the fingerprints. From what I can see, there are differing opinions of the prints. I still don't believe there was an intruder in the house, and I have a very hard time believing that Darlie would sit on death row for years protecting Darin if he was the one that caused these horrendous murders. I would possibly buy the theory that Darin is covering for Darlie, but I don't think so. If there was stone-solid proof that one of the fingerprints on the door was Darin's, do you think maybe he touched Darlie or one of the boys, then ran that way to see if the intruder was gone? We still don't know the blood types, so it's gonna be a mystery until we do. There is absolutely no evidence of an intruder. There should be some. IMO.

[watson]

IIRC I read it was a treat for the boys to be able to camp out on the floor in front of the TV while they went to sleep and Darlie stayed down there with them. I'm still reading this case and learning but I do think something isn't right but don't know what just yet. JMHO
***************************
Hello Results,
Just thought I'd share some info on the boys sleeping in front of the big screen in the family room. I heard it on the tv program that was done about the case, noted above in the thread. I also think I remember reading it in some of the write ups of the case facts, but can't point to the exact source. I got the sense from the tv program and the case write ups generally, that the info on the boys 'camping out' or falling asleep in front of the tv came from statements of Darlie and Darin about usual family practices etc. Darlie was very forthcoming with statements to the police. Talking to them several times at the scene and shortly thereafter. As I understand it these statements were not recorded nor written down by the police (nor would they normally be), but that hours, days or weeks later the police wrote down their recollections of these statements in their police reports. Police also took a formal written statement from her, and had her sign it. That's the only one I've seen and I'm not sure if she mentions the sleeping in front of the tv treat there or not, but it's avaiable on the internet. No one as far as I know has ever focused on the boys sleeping there that night, but maybe they should have, as it became part of how the crime unfolded, plus there's more to it than that..........
From Darlie's statement(s) and Darin's too, Darlie had been usually sleeping on the couch downstairs for a couple of weeks or longer prior to the crime because of their marital difficulties. She did not want to share Darin's bed and they weren't sleeping as husband and wife. As I recall she did not first say this detail, (maybe she wished to keep it private), but instead said she'd been sleeping downstairs because the baby in the master bedroom kept her awake (maybe that was partly true too). At any rate, according to both of them the boys often brought their pillows and blankets down to fall asleep in front of the tv. On the night in question all agree Darin went up to bed 1st, when they were still awake, the boys fell asleep, and according to Darlie she fell asleep (as she was usually sleeping there anyway), and the crime happened about 2:30am.
More...... they had guests over earlier that night, when the guests left Darin and Darlie had a 'discussion' about their marital difficulties and improving their relationship which was non-fruitful (from the guests, Darlie and Darin's written, and non written statements). Darin would later admit that aside from being non-fruitful, Darlie had told him during the 'discussion' she planned to file for legal seperation from him (Darin's affadavit), (the couples marriage license, kids birth certificates, and social security numbers (the kind of stuff you might need to file a legal proceeding) were found neatly stacked on a green box in the family room by police the next day (TT evidence collection)). Only a couple or few hours after this discussion and the statement about seperation the crime occurred.

[Shelley420]

One question I have regarding this case is why the wounds the boys received are different than those of Darlie? The boys seem to have suffered from deep stab wounds to vital organs, yet Darlie's seem to be slashing wounds. Forgive the morbidity of the question, but I'd think that if this was a third party there would be some similarity to the wounds. Specifically if she said the intruder had was already in the process of attacking her when she awoke.

I would say because she fought back whereas those poor little boys didn't get a chance. The intruder may have been in the process of attacking her but hadn't actually stabbed her yet as she woke up just in time.

I don't know if Darlie is innocent or guilty, but to me there is too much doubt (same as Patsy Ramsay) to say she is guilty.

The bloody fingerprint - how did it get there if not from an intruder?

If she wanted to get rid of her kids and not be a mother anymore, wouldn't she have killed all of them? Why leave the baby alive? To me that makes the motive invalid.

I think the silly string incident at the gravesite was poorly reported, I don't read anything into this at all.

Her story changed - look at what she had just been through, it is normal to have a dodgy memory when you are experiencing extreme trauma.

After seeing her bruises and wounds, I wouldn't say they are superficial. The bruising is severe. It is where it should be if someone was attacking her. I think if she did do it to herself, she did a great job. What person who has inflicted injuries to themselves has thought to not only stab/cut themself (quite badly) but to severely bruise themself as well?

The stab on her arm apparently went down to the bone and there doesn't seem to be any hesitation marks on her neck (from what I could see).

Stabbing your kids to death is a pretty hands-on way to kill your kids if you want to get rid of them, why choose that method? To me, unless she was a psycho anyway, it would be impossible for a mother to do this. There are plenty of other less violent ways to kill someone, ways where you wouldn't have to actually kill them up close in a horribly violent way. If she did do it, she must have hated those kids so much. What sort of mother was she prior to this happening? Did she abuse and mistreat her sons?

I know this isn't clear cut one way or the other. I just don't see how people can say for sure she is guilty. There is not enough evidence against her for me to say she is guilty. There are just too many doubts. Her story is possible....maybe improbable, but possible.

[Amy]

I would say because she fought back whereas those poor little boys didn't get a chance. The intruder may have been in the process of attacking her but hadn't actually stabbed her yet as she woke up just in time.

I don't know if Darlie is innocent or guilty, but to me there is too much doubt (same as Patsy Ramsay) to say she is guilty.

The bloody fingerprint - how did it get there if not from an intruder?

If she wanted to get rid of her kids and not be a mother anymore, wouldn't she have killed all of them? Why leave the baby alive? To me that makes the motive invalid.

I think the silly string incident at the gravesite was poorly reported, I don't read anything into this at all.

Her story changed - look at what she had just been through, it is normal to have a dodgy memory when you are experiencing extreme trauma.

After seeing her bruises and wounds, I wouldn't say they are superficial. The bruising is severe. It is where it should be if someone was attacking her. I think if she did do it to herself, she did a great job. What person who has inflicted injuries to themselves has thought to not only stab/cut themself (quite badly) but to severely bruise themself as well?

The stab on her arm apparently went down to the bone and there doesn't seem to be any hesitation marks on her neck (from what I could see).

Stabbing your kids to death is a pretty hands-on way to kill your kids if you want to get rid of them, why choose that method? To me, unless she was a psycho anyway, it would be impossible for a mother to do this. There are plenty of other less violent ways to kill someone, ways where you wouldn't have to actually kill them up close in a horribly violent way. If she did do it, she must have hated those kids so much. What sort of mother was she prior to this happening? Did she abuse and mistreat her sons?

I know this isn't clear cut one way or the other. I just don't see how people can say for sure she is guilty. There is not enough evidence against her for me to say she is guilty. There are just too many doubts. Her story is possible....maybe improbable, but possible.

It seems that, even on the police videos, there indeed was a "solemn" memorial prior to the silly string thing. The DEFENSE had access to, and knew of this part of the video, yet, chose not to show that. It would seem to me (but I don't remember reading so) that the photographer/reporter that the Routier family invited to the "party" surely also got the "solemn" service on tape. The defense would also have had access to this, yet chose not to put into evidence that the family didn't go to the cemetary to throw silly string around. Why didn't they?

We all (well, most all people) say, no way could a mother "do that' to her own kids!!! But we find indeed, mothers drown their kids (that's pretty personal, while holding them under, unless one has 3 or 4 hands, it's pretty obvious the child(ren) would be looking mom in the eyes while she is drowning them.) Cutting their arms off--now that's pretty close up and person, done by a mom. Stoning--well, I guess you can stand off a bit of a distance for that, but not much, done by a mom.

Just the other day, there was a report of a mom who stabbed her 2 children to death in a dressing room---just as close up and personal and angry as what happened to the Routier kids. By a mom. We can't fathom it, but it does happen. People who KNOW these mothers can't fathom it--yet it is true.

People who know the moms (for the most part) say, she went to all their activities. They walked to the ice cream store on Sundays, a happy, close family. Etc etc etc---yet the mom up and kills her babies.

[Marcia3]

I agree, most of us who have raised children, or are still in the process, cannot imagine that kind of violence, or feeling so desperate for whatever reason that we would take the lives of any of our children. No matter how tired or stressed out most moms become, they do not take that out on their offspring.

The number of moms who kill their children is very small, but it always grabs the headlines (probably because there are so few). Cases such as Darlie Routier's stays on our minds because there is just the tiniest little bit of doubt creeping in from time to time.

I've always wondered about the videotape at the cemetery. I've seen the silly string segment, and have heard/read about the more sober segment which was not shown to the jury. I find it hard to imagine that the defense wouldn't have shown it once the PA showed the silly string moments. It would have at least provided some counterbalance to the natural reaction to watching Darlie behave that way over her sons' new graves.

If she did not kill her boys, but was in on a larger conspiracy with her husband then she still deserves the penalty she was given. If it was an intruder, then her sentence would be a grave miscarriage of justice. My own opinion is that she did, at the very least, participate in the plan to kill them. Her motives are not so difficult to figure out, IMO. She wanted the life she had before they were born. The money, freedom, etc.

The saddest aspect, of course, is that two young lives were brought to a violent end long before they should have been.

[Shelley420]

Her motives are not so difficult to figure out, IMO. She wanted the life she had before they were born. The money, freedom, etc.


I really don't agree with this motive. To me it doesn't make sense. Why have another baby if this was the case? If she had no worries about killing, she could have had an abortion.

Why leave the baby alive? If she did do this, she could have easily set things up to include the baby. Why leave alive the one thing that would stop her having the prior life before kids? A baby is going to take many more years of looking after than the other boys, who were a fair bit older.

I don't know, it just doesn't make sense to me.

[baked_tater]

I have always wondered if DR might be covering up for some kind of involvement from someone else in the home that evening. That husband of hers seems so creepy for some reason. JMO.

[Marcia3]

I really don't agree with this motive. To me it doesn't make sense. Why have another baby if this was the case? If she had no worries about killing, she could have had an abortion.

Why leave the baby alive? If she did do this, she could have easily set things up to include the baby. Why leave alive the one thing that would stop her having the prior life before kids? A baby is going to take many more years of looking after than the other boys, who were a fair bit older.

I don't know, it just doesn't make sense to me.

That's a very good point, and one that I hadn't considered. You're absolutely right. My first thought is that perhaps Darlie couldn't bring herself to kill a small baby, or maybe she thought that it would look less suspicious in terms of a motive if the baby survived.

Absent of this motive, what do you think her motive could have been? Did she just lose it momentarily, and then once she had attacked her boys, needed to cover it somehow?

[Marcia3]

I have always wondered if DR might be covering up for some kind of involvement from someone else in the home that evening. That husband of hers seems so creepy for some reason. JMO.

But Darlie doesn't come accross as someone who would go to DR to cover up someone else's crime, particularly if they had killed two of her children and then attacked her. I agree totally that her husband seems creepy, and I've always wondered if he didn't have much more involvement than he let on or admitted. If Darlie didn't kill the boys, then who did, and why?

For that matter, why did Darlie kill them, if she did? Seems like there are more questions than answers, years after the senseless killings.

[Amy]

I have always wondered if DR might be covering up for some kind of involvement from someone else in the home that evening. That husband of hers seems so creepy for some reason. JMO.

I just can't imagine going to death row to cover up for a spouse. I'm wondering, tho, if there was a conspiracy (between Darlie and Darren) and their "plan" was for Darlie to take the fall, thinking that she would be more likely to get off, maybe with a post partem defense, or at least nothing much more than a slap on the wrist? And, that it didn't go down that way, but, by the time trial started it was "too late" to change course?

But, even if it was that, I can't imagine a husband letting his wife go to DR for something he was an accomplise to. I think, if I were sentenced to death, and hubby didn't speak up, I'd be for speaking up for him!!! Altho, a "change" is story by the one facing execution might be ignored. Then, I wouldn't be giving prison interviews still singing his praises, I'd be for making sure the world (who already has some questions about him) would hear every little seamy thing about the SOB that sent me up a river!!!

My list of what I can't fathom just grows longer--sitting on DR while spouse is free to "go on" (if indeed he was in on the murders) or killing one's own child(ren) or spouse, or parent.

[AMS80]

I really don't agree with this motive. To me it doesn't make sense. Why have another baby if this was the case? If she had no worries about killing, she could have had an abortion.

Why leave the baby alive? If she did do this, she could have easily set things up to include the baby. Why leave alive the one thing that would stop her having the prior life before kids? A baby is going to take many more years of looking after than the other boys, who were a fair bit older.

I don't know, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Hip new mom with baby stroller versus older, more experienced mother with three kids and more responsibility. I have maintained the opinion from the beginning that this was less about financial matters than it was about Darlie's dire need to feel young and beautiful again. Moms with babies get plenty of attention.

Plus, Darin was upstairs with the baby. Who knows if it would be alive if it was downstairs with the boys.

[KTScarlettOkity]

I would say because she fought back whereas those poor little boys didn't get a chance. The intruder may have been in the process of attacking her but hadn't actually stabbed her yet as she woke up just in time.

I don't know if Darlie is innocent or guilty, but to me there is too much doubt (same as Patsy Ramsay) to say she is guilty.

The bloody fingerprint - how did it get there if not from an intruder?

If she wanted to get rid of her kids and not be a mother anymore, wouldn't she have killed all of them? Why leave the baby alive? To me that makes the motive invalid.

I think the silly string incident at the gravesite was poorly reported, I don't read anything into this at all.

Her story changed - look at what she had just been through, it is normal to have a dodgy memory when you are experiencing extreme trauma.

After seeing her bruises and wounds, I wouldn't say they are superficial. The bruising is severe. It is where it should be if someone was attacking her. I think if she did do it to herself, she did a great job. What person who has inflicted injuries to themselves has thought to not only stab/cut themself (quite badly) but to severely bruise themself as well?

The stab on her arm apparently went down to the bone and there doesn't seem to be any hesitation marks on her neck (from what I could see).

Stabbing your kids to death is a pretty hands-on way to kill your kids if you want to get rid of them, why choose that method? To me, unless she was a psycho anyway, it would be impossible for a mother to do this. There are plenty of other less violent ways to kill someone, ways where you wouldn't have to actually kill them up close in a horribly violent way. If she did do it, she must have hated those kids so much. What sort of mother was she prior to this happening? Did she abuse and mistreat her sons?

I know this isn't clear cut one way or the other. I just don't see how people can say for sure she is guilty. There is not enough evidence against her for me to say she is guilty. There are just too many doubts. Her story is possible....maybe improbable, but possible.

Shelly, by her own statements she did not fight back during the attack on her. In her signed police statement:

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/acrobat_files/DarlieRoutier-VoluntaryStatement.pdf

"I woke up and felt a pressure on me. I felt Damon press on my right shoulder and heard him cry, this made me really come awake and realized there was a man standing down at my feet walking away from me. I walked after him and heard glass breaking. I got halfway through the kitchen and turned back around to run and turn on the light. I ran back towards the utility room and realized there was a big white handled knife laying on the floor, it was then that I realized I had blood all over me and I grabbed the knife thinking he was in the garage.”

By her own words, she woke up after she was stabbed. Which is why I think the difference in the wounds is significant. She alleges she was asleep just as her boys were when she was stabbed, so why were her wounds slashing vs. fatal stabbings?

I do think Darin knew from minute one that she was guilty of the crime and that both their versions of events are concocted.

[protectkidz]

I've always thought that Darlie Routier was innocent of the killings of her boys.

I've always thought that the killings occurred due to Darlie and Darren having someone come in to steal their stuff for insurance (she certainly had a HUGE pile of jewelry sitting on the counter, lol - or maybe I just don't wear that much).

But so much time has gone by that I can't see how she would continue to cover for someone else.

It can only be one of two things:

A) Darlie did indeed commit these crimes., or

B) She truly does not know who the person was who committed the crimes.

[Shelley420]

That's a very good point, and one that I hadn't considered. You're absolutely right. My first thought is that perhaps Darlie couldn't bring herself to kill a small baby, or maybe she thought that it would look less suspicious in terms of a motive if the baby survived.

Absent of this motive, what do you think her motive could have been? Did she just lose it momentarily, and then once she had attacked her boys, needed to cover it somehow?

I don't think she had a motive because I don't think she is guilty. Well I really don't know if she is or not, but to me the evidence is not there for me to be able to say she did it. The fingerprint in blood is probably the main unexplained thing for me. Where did it come from?

[Shelley420]

Shelly, by her own statements she did not fight back during the attack on her. In her signed police statement:

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/acrobat_files/DarlieRoutier-VoluntaryStatement.pdf

"I woke up and felt a pressure on me. I felt Damon press on my right shoulder and heard him cry, this made me really come awake and realized there was a man standing down at my feet walking away from me. I walked after him and heard glass breaking. I got halfway through the kitchen and turned back around to run and turn on the light. I ran back towards the utility room and realized there was a big white handled knife laying on the floor, it was then that I realized I had blood all over me and I grabbed the knife thinking he was in the garage.”

By her own words, she woke up after she was stabbed. Which is why I think the difference in the wounds is significant. She alleges she was asleep just as her boys were when she was stabbed, so why were her wounds slashing vs. fatal stabbings?

I do think Darin knew from minute one that she was guilty of the crime and that both their versions of events are concocted.


Yes, I admit this doesn't add up, but to me isn't really evidence of her being guilty. The stab wound in her arm was pretty bad and apparently was right down to the bone.

Darlie denying that she and the intruder struggled is really weird. If she was lying wouldn't she have said, "yes we struggled and that is how I got stabbed, slashed and severely bruised." It just doesn't make sense to deny it. I believe she did struggle and fight an intruder (who left the fingerprint in blood). I believe that she was in shock at the time and wouldn't have been able to remember much at all. She would have had post-traumatic stress syndrome afterwards which would have affected her memory of the actual events of that night.

I just watched a show on TV called "The Exonerated" about guys who had been on DR for years and had been found innocent through DNA etc. It was very sad.

[Results]

I don't think she had a motive because I don't think she is guilty. Well I really don't know if she is or not, but to me the evidence is not there for me to be able to say she did it. The fingerprint in blood is probably the main unexplained thing for me. Where did it come from?

I wonder if Darlie would consent to go under hypnosis to see if they can take her back to that night to get details that are in her memories? Some things are not adding up and why would her husband say I will pay for your defense only if you don't point the finger at me? This is your wife on murder charges of your children you would think he would want them to find the real killer and not worried about hisself instead of his wife. Some things just don't add up.

[deputydi]

<snip>
I do think Darin knew from minute one that she was guilty of the crime and that both their versions of events are concocted.
I agree. I can't imagine how one would sleep through being stabbed unless somehow you were rendered unconscious. Darlie claims to have only realized she was stabbed after seeing the "intruder" running away from her. There is nothing in her report that describes any physical contact with the intruder. How did she get those bruises? I have read her version many times and it just doesn't ring true.

[forensic_nxgr]

I agree. I can't imagine how one would sleep through being stabbed unless somehow you were rendered unconscious. Darlie claims to have only realized she was stabbed after seeing the "intruder" running away from her. There is nothing in her report that describes any physical contact with the intruder. How did she get those bruises? I have read her version many times and it just doesn't ring true.

Hello!
I see that this thread is not really active anymore, but I thought I'd comment anyway...

I completely agree with you Deputydi and all others who believe Darlie is guilty and Darin knows/knew from the start. Everyone who bothers to study this case well must come to this conclusion.
Believing in Darlies innocence is left only to those who skim through her support-site and look no further.
This case caught my interest because it contains so many different factors; everything from fibers, bloody prints, blood pattern analysis (galore!), knife imprint, conficting testimonies, hundreds of crime scene photos, 911 recording, "traumatic amnesia", PPD, Phen-fen, hypnosis, police reports, almost complete court transcritps online, luminol....I could go on...
Anyway.

My goal was to figure out EXACTLY what happened in order to explain every single piece of evidence, the timeline, and also what caused these murders to happen.
Were they premeditated (if so how much so and for how long?) or did things get out of hand and snowballed from there?
Was Darin involved at all (to what extent?) or did he just realise what had happened and cover for her (why?)
Who cut the screen (when/why?)
Who planted the sock (and why?)
What caused Darlies injuries (how were they infilcted?)

I think I have the answer to most of these questions (+ many more) apart from a few which still linger in slight uncertainty. If someone feels like discussing the details of this case with me I'd be glad to take a last good look at this case.
:read:

[forensic_nxgr]

I wonder if Darlie would consent to go under hypnosis to see if they can take her back to that night to get details that are in her memories? Some things are not adding up and why would her husband say I will pay for your defense only if you don't point the finger at me? This is your wife on murder charges of your children you would think he would want them to find the real killer and not worried about hisself instead of his wife. Some things just don't add up.


Darlie has already undergone hypnosis while in prison. The result was that she had the opportunity to 'tweak' her earlier stories and include memories of having witnessed a second intruder in order to boost the new and improved defense-theory of what happened. (the Darlie-innocent-theory does not work with one sole intruder).Very convenient for her.
I used to have access to the full handwritten report online, but have some difficulties finding them right now.
Some of the material on this case has disappeared as this case lost general interest.

[forensic_nxgr]

I don't think she had a motive because I don't think she is guilty. Well I really don't know if she is or not, but to me the evidence is not there for me to be able to say she did it. The fingerprint in blood is probably the main unexplained thing for me. Where did it come from?

The fingerprint in blood on the table is unidentified as of now because it is of poor quality (partial with few points of comparison). Darlie has not been ruled out as a donor. The print however is too small to have belonged to a full grown man.
This should be taken into consideration!

Darlies family/defense team do not want the print further examined by other experts with uptodate technologies because they know the risk of identifying the print as hers is too great and would damage their case beyond repair.
They prefer keeping it a mystery. ;)

[forensic_nxgr]

I've always thought that Darlie Routier was innocent of the killings of her boys.

I've always thought that the killings occurred due to Darlie and Darren having someone come in to steal their stuff for insurance (she certainly had a HUGE pile of jewelry sitting on the counter, lol - or maybe I just don't wear that much).

But so much time has gone by that I can't see how she would continue to cover for someone else.

It can only be one of two things:

A) Darlie did indeed commit these crimes., or

B) She truly does not know who the person was who committed the crimes.

You are closer to the truth than you know. The insurance scam plays a role.
You just have to connect it with all the remaining facts of this case.

(btw your A) is the correct answer)

[watson]

Hi all, glad to see there is still some activity here (I had recieved word the whole site was to be inactive, glad to see not). I think this is a fascinating case for armchair detectives to discuss, there's a mountain of evidence, it's all availiable, there's good suspects etc., and there's other great discussion cases out there too, but their not very well known, it seems like certain cases get all the publicity and attention. This case struck me and I started the thread because I could see no proof that the mother who was quickly convicted and sentenced to death did it. It seemed to me to be a domestic cause homicide that one of the parents was in the process of staging as a burglary/home invasion (a distant 2nd possibility was an intruder). The question was of course WHICH parent did it (like other more famous cases).
In reviewing the thread I think posters have made good arguments that the mother 'COULD' have done it, 'MIGHT'VE' done it. To which I say, sure she could've done it, maybe did do it, she's one of only two possible suspects (unless you believe in an intruder), but where's the absolute evidence proof beyond any doubt required for conviction that she's the parent that did it and not the father?
The more I've thought about the case, although I didn't start so, the more I think what evidence there is points strongly IMO to the father as prime suspect, and indicates the mother should've been eliminated.
Looking at the father....we have a man in deep money and marital problems. Only bread winner for the family, he's self employed his business losing, not making money, the family in debt to the eyeballs. Marital problems bad enough the couple does not sleep together, and the wife recently told him she intended to take the kids and file for legal seperation (which would leave him the debt, no family, and child support on top of that). While the wife had no criminal history the father had a past history of staging crime scenes and insurance fraud (the same type of behavior in question). There was no insurance on the life of the kids to speak of, but a good policy on the parents, if mother had been killed, Darin would've reaped a big payday, taken care of his money woes, and was going to lose the wife and kids anyway.
The father was the most physically powerful and potentially most violent person at the scene but the only one (but an infant) untouched, and uninvolved. By the evidence Darin was the only one unaccounted for. We know where Darlie was, but have no idea where Darin was between 12 midnight when he says he went upstairs to sleep, and the crime at 1:30am because no one else was upstairs with him.
Then there's the details.......when LE arrived Darlie was in her sleeping clothes covered with blood as you'd expect, Darin however was in his street clothes from the waist down, and had no blood on his shirt because he was bare from waist up. When LE arrived they found him outdoors in the front of the home. Since Darlie made the 911 call and stayed on it the whole time till LE arrived we know exactley what she was doing, Darin however doesn't appear on the audio till 33 seconds after the call starts, and if Darlie were telling the truth, it'd be a couple of minutes before she made the call, so Darin would be missing for at least 2 min. 33 sec. right after the so called killer ran from the house.
Last is the critical fingerprint in the boy victims blood made by the killer on the garage door jamb noted within minutes of the crime by LE, on what the mother said was the killers excape route, that doesn't match her.
This would be enough to me to have a doubt (I think a reasonable one) that she did it, just about none of it was presented to the jury that convicted.
Anyway the thread is really about whether there's sufficent evidence to prove Darlie did it. I'm a little rusty since last Fall, but should be able to refer to the evidence, give quotes etc. if I brush, up and would love to discuss this interesting case more.

[lane99]

I took an interest in this case after catching the news regarding the recent legal rulings about it.

And I must say I like your style, Watson. One point: did I read earlier in this thread that you believe Mr. Routier's fingerprint found on the door was a "bloody" fingerprint? I stand to be corrected, but I think this is mistaken. My understanding is that it was a latent fingerprint, and it was not deposited in blood.

I think the two bloody fingerprints are the key to the truth in this case. And I'm quite curious about, precisely, what can be said with assurance about them.

If it can be proven they don't belong to any of the Routiers, then I believe that alone would establish reasonable doubt about Darlie Routier's guilt.

If it can be proven that they don't belong to any of the Routiers, or any of the authorities who are known to have been in the house legitimately that night, I believe that would virtually prove, beyond all doubt, her innocence.

[debbyuk2008]

I would love to see a documentary on this as I find it difficult to put everything into perspective. I checked out You Tube but could not see anything posted.

I initially found it hard to believe a mother can brutally stab her own children. Stabbing is a very messy crime. She would have to be quite evil or bordering on psychotic to do that.
Yet, evidence points to the fact she is probably guilty?
I just feel if I could watch an objective documentary I would understand the case more!
I have read quite a lot on the case. However, the more I read the more confused I become!!!

[forensic_nxgr]

Debbyuk, its your lucky day!
You can watch all the darlie-documentaries online at darlie's site (justicefordarlie,net) in the media section. Happy viewing!:beer:

Just keep in mind that most of the programs have one or more facts wrong and that that the best way to learn about this case after watching the shows is to read the trial transcripts.

[forensic_nxgr]

I took an interest in this case after catching the news regarding the recent legal rulings about it.

And I must say I like your style, Watson. One point: did I read earlier in this thread that you believe Mr. Routier's fingerprint found on the door was a "bloody" fingerprint? I stand to be corrected, but I think this is mistaken. My understanding is that it was a latent fingerprint, and it was not deposited in blood.

I think the two bloody fingerprints are the key to the truth in this case. And I'm quite curious about, precisely, what can be said with assurance about them.

If it can be proven they don't belong to any of the Routiers, then I believe that alone would establish reasonable doubt about Darlie Routier's guilt.

If it can be proven that they don't belong to any of the Routiers, or any of the authorities who are known to have been in the house legitimately that night, I believe that would virtually prove, beyond all doubt, her innocence.

Lane, you are correct, the there were two latent fingerprints on the door to the garage, and they don't match Darin's or Darlie's. Since they are latent they don't necessarily relate to the crime and they could have been there a long time before that night. Ergo; irrelevant.

[forensic_nxgr]

Watson, what is your theory on why Darlie would lie to cover Darin?
And if she did, why would she still keep covering for him on death row?

I see no reason for that, especially since Darin signed the affidavit that Darlie asked him for a seperation only hours before the murders and also since he has stated from day one that he would do anything to prove Darlies innocence except for taking her place on death row...

[debbyuk2008]

Debbyuk, its your lucky day!
You can watch all the darlie-documentaries online at darlie's site (justicefordarlie,net) in the media section. Happy viewing!:beer:

Just keep in mind that most of the programs have one or more facts wrong and that that the best way to learn about this case after watching the shows is to read the trial transcripts.

Thanx for that! I will try and watch at the weekend.

I have a feeling I might have watched a documentary a couple of years ago but I was busy with the kids. Therefore, I didn't concentrate.

[crowamongdoves]

Hi I am new to the MB but I've been reading alot about this case, I keep going back and forth on this one. I still think that Darin had something to do with this especially after the insurance fraud and admitting that he wanted somebody to rob the place for money. Since it was said that Darlie had been sleeping downstairs for a few weeks and she wanted out of the marriage what if Darin wanted her out permanently, thus solving his money problems, but the boys happened to be there and awoke. Just a thought, I feel Darin is involved..how involved is anybody's guess.

[lane99]

The two bloody fingerprints I refer to come, one from the utility room door leading to the garage, and one from the coffee table in the family room.

On the utility room door, in addition to the BLOODY fingerprint (that doesn't belong to Mr. or Ms. Routier), there was a latent (invisible) print found. Although originally purported to be Mr. Routier's (as per Watson's post), its now suggested there is a consensus that it belongs to neither he, nor Ms. Routier.

[Wandering]

The two bloody fingerprints I refer to come, one from the utility room door leading to the garage, and one from the coffee table in the family room.

On the utility room door, in addition to the BLOODY fingerprint (that doesn't belong to Mr. or Ms. Routier), there was a latent (invisible) print found. Although originally purported to be Mr. Routier's (as per Watson's post), its now suggested there is a consensus that it belongs to neither he, nor Ms. Routier.In order to think that print had something to do with the crime, one would have to believe the Routiers never had company, nor anyone in the house at any time. I don't think that latent print has anything to do with this case. As for the bloody print, that could belong to one of the crime investigators. I believe Darlie is right where she belongs. Who would attack sleeping children and leave her alive? I do think her husband was involved, but no evidence to prove that. Darlie killed her children, and tried to cover it up. My opinion.

[debbyuk2008]

It was a frenzied attack on the children. So logically you would think the person who inflicted such a vicious attack on children would do the same to Darlie.


Having said that I would have assumed someone wanting to eliminate their children would do it in a less vicious form. I am not saying shooting is less vicious but knife wounds must inflict a certain amount of pain?

Problem is...where I get suspicious is the aftermath. According to "Hush little Babies" Darlie didn't ask about the children when she was transferred to hospital. Surely, you would be hysterical?

[forensic_nxgr]

Having said that I would have assumed someone wanting to eliminate their children would do it in a less vicious form. I am not saying shooting is less vicious but knife wounds must inflict a certain amount of pain?



Exactly.
That tells me that the murders were not premeditated in the sense that Darlie planned to get rid of her kids (and only two of them) and chose stabbing as the best MO. What, Darlie the neat-freak ruining her whole house?
This tragic crime was something that happened as a result of desperation. After the argument with Darin she must have felt that there was no reason for her to try anymore, to keep it together, to keep going.

When people tell me that they think Darlie planned this out days (weeks, months) in advance I relpy: wouldnt it have been so much easier losing her boys in a boating (drowning) 'accident'? Or to drug them and drive them to another location at night, kill them and bury them so the boys could be reported missing or kidnapped and Darlie could get tons of attention as a bonus? + a pristine house with only good memories in it.

[AMS80]

Hi all, glad to see there is still some activity here (I had recieved word the whole site was to be inactive, glad to see not). I think this is a fascinating case for armchair detectives to discuss, there's a mountain of evidence, it's all availiable, there's good suspects etc., and there's other great discussion cases out there too, but their not very well known, it seems like certain cases get all the publicity and attention. This case struck me and I started the thread because I could see no proof that the mother who was quickly convicted and sentenced to death did it. It seemed to me to be a domestic cause homicide that one of the parents was in the process of staging as a burglary/home invasion (a distant 2nd possibility was an intruder). The question was of course WHICH parent did it (like other more famous cases).
In reviewing the thread I think posters have made good arguments that the mother 'COULD' have done it, 'MIGHT'VE' done it. To which I say, sure she could've done it, maybe did do it, she's one of only two possible suspects (unless you believe in an intruder), but where's the absolute evidence proof beyond any doubt required for conviction that she's the parent that did it and not the father?
The more I've thought about the case, although I didn't start so, the more I think what evidence there is points strongly IMO to the father as prime suspect, and indicates the mother should've been eliminated.
Looking at the father....we have a man in deep money and marital problems. Only bread winner for the family, he's self employed his business losing, not making money, the family in debt to the eyeballs. Marital problems bad enough the couple does not sleep together, and the wife recently told him she intended to take the kids and file for legal seperation (which would leave him the debt, no family, and child support on top of that). While the wife had no criminal history the father had a past history of staging crime scenes and insurance fraud (the same type of behavior in question). There was no insurance on the life of the kids to speak of, but a good policy on the parents, if mother had been killed, Darin would've reaped a big payday, taken care of his money woes, and was going to lose the wife and kids anyway.
The father was the most physically powerful and potentially most violent person at the scene but the only one (but an infant) untouched, and uninvolved. By the evidence Darin was the only one unaccounted for. We know where Darlie was, but have no idea where Darin was between 12 midnight when he says he went upstairs to sleep, and the crime at 1:30am because no one else was upstairs with him.
Then there's the details.......when LE arrived Darlie was in her sleeping clothes covered with blood as you'd expect, Darin however was in his street clothes from the waist down, and had no blood on his shirt because he was bare from waist up. When LE arrived they found him outdoors in the front of the home. Since Darlie made the 911 call and stayed on it the whole time till LE arrived we know exactley what she was doing, Darin however doesn't appear on the audio till 33 seconds after the call starts, and if Darlie were telling the truth, it'd be a couple of minutes before she made the call, so Darin would be missing for at least 2 min. 33 sec. right after the so called killer ran from the house.
Last is the critical fingerprint in the boy victims blood made by the killer on the garage door jamb noted within minutes of the crime by LE, on what the mother said was the killers excape route, that doesn't match her.
This would be enough to me to have a doubt (I think a reasonable one) that she did it, just about none of it was presented to the jury that convicted.
Anyway the thread is really about whether there's sufficent evidence to prove Darlie did it. I'm a little rusty since last Fall, but should be able to refer to the evidence, give quotes etc. if I brush, up and would love to discuss this interesting case more.

Hi, Watson! Nice to see you again!

Very interesting points you have there! As you know from my past posts I think Darlie is very guilty, but I have been reading up a little on the case again and have some new points/questions.

1) The bloody sock. This has always been the only thing that I couldn't explain in this whole case. I don't know when she planted it or why. It's a weird thing to choose to plant IMO. As for timing, I was thinking, in the trial it was stated that the screen was cut from the outside even though the knife used was found in the cutting block inside the kitchen. Did she throw the sock while she was cutting the screen? If so, this would have had to have been done after the murders unless the blood on the socks were so minute as to have been caused by something else. But if that's the case, then that must mean Damon was injured so severely as not to make enough noise for Darin to hear him while she was gone. I can believe that he was not able to make much noise or move a lot. Another thought...did Darlie throw the sock with the intentions of just getting rid of it? Did the boys have socks on that night. If so, did anyone check to see if the socks were new or worn? I think the boys (Devon at least b/c of the stab/cut wound on his leg) kicked her while she was stabbing them. Did Darlie think there was something on them to incriminate her? There wasn't, but did she think so?

Also, listened to the 911 tape again. There's a part where she says "oh, I thought he was dead" or something like that. Was she worried that he wasn't dead? Just something weird to say. If I thought my son was dead and all of a sudden thought he might be alive, I wouldn't be on the phone, I'd run over to see him.

All IMO :patriot:

O/T: Results!!! Where are you?

[Amy]

I think it would be impossible to tell exactly when the sock might have been left in the alley. Of course, it would have to have been recent, but not necessarily that night, @ the time of the murders.

Perhaps the boys had been in the alley earlier in the day--maybe playing, or maybe had gone w/Darlie or Darin as the trash was being taken to the dumpster (if that is where the dumpsters are in that neighborhood.) The boy (forgot which one the sock belonged to) could have stepped on a twig or stubbed his toe or whatever, and there could have been some bleeding from that. Maybe he took off the sock as he was examining his "owie" and left it there.

IMO, if something such as this was the case, Darlie or Darin wouldn't mention such, as the sock being in the alley has been used to point toward an intruder. I just don't think an intruder would be the only way it could get there. Besides, I can't see where the murderer is going to take the time to remove a sock from one of his victims before proceding to attack the mother. What would he want the sock for? It wasn't stuffed it in anyone's mouth to prevent screaming. Why would an intruder/murderer take the sock?

[forensic_nxgr]

I think it would be impossible to tell exactly when the sock might have been left in the alley. Of course, it would have to have been recent, but not necessarily that night, @ the time of the murders.

Perhaps the boys had been in the alley earlier in the day--maybe playing, or maybe had gone w/Darlie or Darin as the trash was being taken to the dumpster (if that is where the dumpsters are in that neighborhood.) The boy (forgot which one the sock belonged to) could have stepped on a twig or stubbed his toe or whatever, and there could have been some bleeding from that. Maybe he took off the sock as he was examining his "owie" and left it there.

IMO, if something such as this was the case, Darlie or Darin wouldn't mention such, as the sock being in the alley has been used to point toward an intruder. I just don't think an intruder would be the only way it could get there. Besides, I can't see where the murderer is going to take the time to remove a sock from one of his victims before proceding to attack the mother. What would he want the sock for? It wasn't stuffed it in anyone's mouth to prevent screaming. Why would an intruder/murderer take the sock?

Hello Amy

Since there were BOTH Damon's and Devon's blood on the sock + Darlies DNA I find it extremely improbable for there to be an 'innocent' explanation for it to be in that alley. It must have been related to the crime.

If Darlie (or Darin) just wanted to get rid of the sock they could have just flushed it down the toilet or even just washed it well. Why risk running outside way down the alley?
On the other hand, I remember that there was a storm drain close to the sock and I don't know if the police ever checked down there. What if there was MORE than just a sock being left in that alley, but we only know of the sock?

You mentioned that an intruder wouldn't have removed a sock from one of his victims, well the sock was not clean and could have been picked up in the wash room which was on the path the intruder would have taken on his way in (and out).
But hey, I do not believe there was any intruder there that night so that is just an argument for those who believe in Darlies innocence! :tongue:
So I won't even bother getting into why an intruder would take the sock with him...

[Its just me]

Hello Amy

Since there were BOTH Damon's and Devon's blood on the sock + Darlies DNA I find it extremely improbable for there to be an 'innocent' explanation for it to be in that alley. It must have been related to the crime.

If Darlie (or Darin) just wanted to get rid of the sock they could have just flushed it down the toilet or even just washed it well. Why risk running outside way down the alley?
On the other hand, I remember that there was a storm drain close to the sock and I don't know if the police ever checked down there. What if there was MORE than just a sock being left in that alley, but we only know of the sock?

You mentioned that an intruder wouldn't have removed a sock from one of his victims, well the sock was not clean and could have been picked up in the wash room which was on the path the intruder would have taken on his way in (and out).
But hey, I do not believe there was any intruder there that night so that is just an argument for those who believe in Darlies innocence! :tongue:
So I won't even bother getting into why an intruder would take the sock with him...

bumping last post to get beyond the sick porn.

[cami]

Debbyuk, its your lucky day!
You can watch all the darlie-documentaries online at darlie's site (justicefordarlie,net) in the media section. Happy viewing!:beer:

Just keep in mind that most of the programs have one or more facts wrong and that that the best way to learn about this case after watching the shows is to read the trial transcripts.

You won't see anything there that alludes to Darlie's guilt since it's a supporter forum. The Forensics Files program that lays out the evidence that convicted her is conveniently missing from that site. The only way to learn this case is to read the trial transcripts. Darlie killed her kids and then tried to stage a home invasion but since she didn't know how..she wasn't very successful.

[cami]

So I won't even bother getting into why an intruder would take the sock with him...

Yeah and leave the murder weapon behind with his prints on it. Silly intruder. :beer:

[cami]

I think it would be impossible to tell exactly when the sock might have been left in the alley. Of course, it would have to have been recent, but not necessarily that night, @ the time of the murders.

Perhaps the boys had been in the alley earlier in the day--maybe playing, or maybe had gone w/Darlie or Darin as the trash was being taken to the dumpster (if that is where the dumpsters are in that neighborhood.) The boy (forgot which one the sock belonged to) could have stepped on a twig or stubbed his toe or whatever, and there could have been some bleeding from that. Maybe he took off the sock as he was examining his "owie" and left it there.

IMO, if something such as this was the case, Darlie or Darin wouldn't mention such, as the sock being in the alley has been used to point toward an intruder. I just don't think an intruder would be the only way it could get there. Besides, I can't see where the murderer is going to take the time to remove a sock from one of his victims before proceding to attack the mother. What would he want the sock for? It wasn't stuffed it in anyone's mouth to prevent screaming. Why would an intruder/murderer take the sock?

The sock was Darin's sock. It had the boys' blood on it and Darlie's dna in the toe..shed skin cells, and it had fibres on it that matched Darin's reboks.

It's my opinion that Darlie used this sock to cover the handle of the knife when she stabbed her boys.

[cami]

I've always thought that Darlie Routier was innocent of the killings of her boys.

I've always thought that the killings occurred due to Darlie and Darren having someone come in to steal their stuff for insurance (she certainly had a HUGE pile of jewelry sitting on the counter, lol - or maybe I just don't wear that much).

If an intruder was there to steal, why didn't he take that jewellry and the wallet and cash that was laying beside it? Why did he immediately murder two sleeping boys?

[Jules100]

If an intruder was there to steal, why didn't he take that jewellry and the wallet and cash that was laying beside it? Why did he immediately murder two sleeping boys?


No one knows for definite what happened , there has been some sort of new motion regarding the DNA That has been given the go ahead apparently.
For a different look on the case, i would also recommend the book media tried, justice denied

[cami]

No one knows for definite what happened , there has been some sort of new motion regarding the DNA That has been given the go ahead apparently.
For a different look on the case, i would also recommend the book media tried, justice denied

Well I recommend the trial transcripts as the only true record of this crime. MTJD is a piece of trash actually and only confirms Darlie's guilt though I am sure that was not CWB's intention. It's only good purpose is the CS photos.

Well the blood and fibre evidence all point to Darlie. Then there's her 16 versions of what happened that night. She lied her head off on the witness stand and was caught. The jury saw the evidence and heard all the testimony and convicted so to say that no one knows for definite is a mistatement...the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. The boys were the target of this attack not Darlie.

Yes Darlie has been granted the right to some post-conviction dna testing. IMO it won't change anything but I agree she should have the right to test, test everything so there is no doubt when she is executed.

[cami]

Hi all, glad to see there is still some activity here (I had recieved word the whole site was to be inactive, glad to see not). I think this is a fascinating case for armchair detectives to discuss, there's a mountain of evidence, it's all availiable, there's good suspects etc., and there's other great discussion cases out there too, but their not very well known, it seems like certain cases get all the publicity and attention. This case struck me and I started the thread because I could see no proof that the mother who was quickly convicted and sentenced to death did it. It seemed to me to be a domestic cause homicide that one of the parents was in the process of staging as a burglary/home invasion (a distant 2nd possibility was an intruder). The question was of course WHICH parent did it (like other more famous cases).
In reviewing the thread I think posters have made good arguments that the mother 'COULD' have done it, 'MIGHT'VE' done it. To which I say, sure she could've done it, maybe did do it, she's one of only two possible suspects (unless you believe in an intruder), but where's the absolute evidence proof beyond any doubt required for conviction that she's the parent that did it and not the father?
The more I've thought about the case, although I didn't start so, the more I think what evidence there is points strongly IMO to the father as prime suspect, and indicates the mother should've been eliminated.
Looking at the father....we have a man in deep money and marital problems. Only bread winner for the family, he's self employed his business losing, not making money, the family in debt to the eyeballs. Marital problems bad enough the couple does not sleep together, and the wife recently told him she intended to take the kids and file for legal seperation (which would leave him the debt, no family, and child support on top of that). While the wife had no criminal history the father had a past history of staging crime scenes and insurance fraud (the same type of behavior in question). There was no insurance on the life of the kids to speak of, but a good policy on the parents, if mother had been killed, Darin would've reaped a big payday, taken care of his money woes, and was going to lose the wife and kids anyway.
The father was the most physically powerful and potentially most violent person at the scene but the only one (but an infant) untouched, and uninvolved. By the evidence Darin was the only one unaccounted for. We know where Darlie was, but have no idea where Darin was between 12 midnight when he says he went upstairs to sleep, and the crime at 1:30am because no one else was upstairs with him.
Then there's the details.......when LE arrived Darlie was in her sleeping clothes covered with blood as you'd expect, Darin however was in his street clothes from the waist down, and had no blood on his shirt because he was bare from waist up. When LE arrived they found him outdoors in the front of the home. Since Darlie made the 911 call and stayed on it the whole time till LE arrived we know exactley what she was doing, Darin however doesn't appear on the audio till 33 seconds after the call starts, and if Darlie were telling the truth, it'd be a couple of minutes before she made the call, so Darin would be missing for at least 2 min. 33 sec. right after the so called killer ran from the house.
Last is the critical fingerprint in the boy victims blood made by the killer on the garage door jamb noted within minutes of the crime by LE, on what the mother said was the killers excape route, that doesn't match her.
This would be enough to me to have a doubt (I think a reasonable one) that she did it, just about none of it was presented to the jury that convicted.
Anyway the thread is really about whether there's sufficent evidence to prove Darlie did it. I'm a little rusty since last Fall, but should be able to refer to the evidence, give quotes etc. if I brush, up and would love to discuss this interesting case more.

Darin was completely investigated by the police. There's no evidence that Darin committed this crime. The investigators go where the evidence leads and all the evidence points to Darlie..not Darin. Darin was consistant in his movements that night in his voluntary statement. It's Darlie that has offered 16 different versions of what happened that night. Both Darlie and Darin insisted and testified at the time of the crime that there were no money problems and their marriage was just fine. It wasn't until six years after the conviction that they admitted they fought that night and Darlie asked for a separation. And are you sure Darlie was taking the boys? Since the boys were the targets of the attack and not Darlie, perhaps Darin told her to "go but don't think you're taking my boys with you"

There is also no evidence, nor has any ever been found that Darin was trying to have his house robbed for insurance. Nor did Darin have any criminal history. This is a defense ploy to try and prove reasonable doubt.

But we have Darlie's words that the intruder left by the back door not the front. If the intruder is Darin how did he get back upstairs to be heard coming down on the 911 call and without Darlie seeing him? Why is Darin heard crying on the 911 call and Darlie isn't? Why was Darlie concerned about her fingerprints on the murder weapon that she mentions it to the 911 operator..twice?

Why is Darlie's blood all over the utility room yet she said she didn't go in there? If the killer had that much of her blood on him that it ran down the door and dripped in the room, why did it stop when he entered the garage--his exit. And why is there no blood outside? Darlie has only been exclued by her defense team from having left this print..not the state. This print as well as the one on the sofa table are unidentiable...but they can be used to exclude and Darlie has not been excluded.

Darin was on the lawn because the first officer on the scene told him to go and get his neigbour who was a nurse.

NO Darlie has the blood of both boys' cast-off on the back of her night gown. Darlie's blood was all over the kitchen sink and wiped up from the surrounding counter. Darlie's bloody footprints prove she was walking in between the kitchen and the murder room..not chasing some guy out of her house. Darlie committed this terrible crime and Darin knows she did and covered for her.

[cami]

I run a website on the Jeffrey MacDonald case and this case is similar in many respects. Granted, there is far more physical evidence in the MacDonald case than in the Routier case, but they are similar in terms of what was not present at the crime scene. If memory serves, there is not a shred of foreign DNA in the Routier household nor were there any unsourced fibers and/or head hairs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only concrete piece of debatable evidence in this case is a bloody fingerprint found on a table in the living room. Darlie Routier is not the first nor will she be the last cold-blooded killer to concoct a ridiculous scenario involving home invader(s) killing small children, while leaving the adult(s) very much alive.

JTF.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

Hey JTF, how's it going bud? How's the Mac crusade going? Anything on the Brit motion as yet?

Yes these crimes are very similar. Yes you're half right. There is a bloody fingerprint. Actually it's smudged in blood on a glass surface--it's unidentifiable but it can be used to exclude and Darlie is not excluded. Hmmm compare it to the hair in Colette's hand. It has a whorl pattern, so does Darlie but so does her son Devon. However, we know it's not Devon's print, he was printed at school and it doesn't match him and he never moved his position after being stabbed.

There's no doubt in my mind it's her print. There's a line of her blood drops across the sofa cushions leading to this print as if she walked on the sofa bleeding. Since one of her boys was stabbed in two separate attacks and in two separate areas of the room and there's blood indicating he was near this table, I believe she placed her hand or fingers on the table to steady herself as she went after him again.

[Jules100]

Darin was completely investigated by the police. There's no evidence that Darin committed this crime. The investigators go where the evidence leads and all the evidence points to Darlie..not Darin. Darin was consistant in his movements that night in his voluntary statement. It's Darlie that has offered 16 different versions of what happened that night. Both Darlie and Darin insisted and testified at the time of the crime that there were no money problems and their marriage was just fine. It wasn't until six years after the conviction that they admitted they fought that night and Darlie asked for a separation. And are you sure Darlie was taking the boys? Since the boys were the targets of the attack and not Darlie, perhaps Darin told her to "go but don't think you're taking my boys with you"

There is also no evidence, nor has any ever been found that Darin was trying to have his house robbed for insurance. Nor did Darin have any criminal history. This is a defense ploy to try and prove reasonable doubt.

But we have Darlie's words that the intruder left by the back door not the front. If the intruder is Darin how did he get back upstairs to be heard coming down on the 911 call and without Darlie seeing him? Why is Darin heard crying on the 911 call and Darlie isn't? Why was Darlie concerned about her fingerprints on the murder weapon that she mentions it to the 911 operator..twice?

Why is Darlie's blood all over the utility room yet she said she didn't go in there? If the killer had that much of her blood on him that it ran down the door and dripped in the room, why did it stop when he entered the garage--his exit. And why is there no blood outside? Darlie has only been exclued by her defense team from having left this print..not the state. This print as well as the one on the sofa table are unidentiable...but they can be used to exclude and Darlie has not been excluded.

Darin was on the lawn because the first officer on the scene told him to go and get his neigbour who was a nurse.

NO Darlie has the blood of both boys' cast-off on the back of her night gown. Darlie's blood was all over the kitchen sink and wiped up from the surrounding counter. Darlie's bloody footprints prove she was walking in between the kitchen and the murder room..not chasing some guy out of her house. Darlie committed this terrible crime and Darin knows she did and covered for her.


He didn't do a great job of covering for her when she is sat on DR

[Jules100]

He didn't do a great job of covering for her when she is sat on DR

Sorry, i pressed the wrong button b4 i finished what i was saying, i wanted to ask what you meant by he covered for her - it sounds like you know a lot about the case- all i know is what i have read in books, seen on the net and from Darlies mother so would be good to hear what you have to say

Jules

[lane99]

[QUOTE=cami;9123434]
...Darlie has only been exclued by her defense team from having left this print..not the state. This print as well as the one on the sofa table are unidentiable...but they can be used to exclude and Darlie has not been excluded...QUOTE]

My apologies if I've misunderstood you.

However, if by "this print" you are referring to the bloody fingerprint on the utility room door, then you are mistaken. Ms. Routier has indeed been excluded as the source of that print.

And there is no other single piece of evidence that as demonstrably shows the real possibility that Darlie Routier is a double victim in this case.

[Jules100]

Bump

[cami]

[quote=cami;9123434]
...Darlie has only been exclued by her defense team from having left this print..not the state. This print as well as the one on the sofa table are unidentiable...but they can be used to exclude and Darlie has not been excluded...QUOTE]

My apologies if I've misunderstood you.

However, if by "this print" you are referring to the bloody fingerprint on the utility room door, then you are mistaken. Ms. Routier has indeed been excluded as the source of that print.

And there is no other single piece of evidence that as demonstrably shows the real possibility that Darlie Routier is a double victim in this case.

Yes by her defense team, no one else. And yes it's not one single piece of evidence, it's the totality of the evidence that proves she's guilty.

[cami]

He didn't do a great job of covering for her when she is sat on DR

Yes, she's on DR because she murdered two of her children. Darin knows she did it and he's not telling all he knows..that's what I mean by covering for her.

[cami]

Sorry, i pressed the wrong button b4 i finished what i was saying, i wanted to ask what you meant by he covered for her - it sounds like you know a lot about the case- all i know is what i have read in books, seen on the net and from Darlies mother so would be good to hear what you have to say

Jules

Yes, I do know a lot about this case. I've studied the trial transcripts intensively. There's also the bond hearing transcripts I've studied as well.

I'm sorry but Darlie's mother is a woman who lost her two grandchildren and now her daughter is on DR. She's not an objective source of information.

I think Darin knew right away it was Darlie who killed the boys, in fact he may have caught her with the knife in her hand (those arm bruises).

[cami]

[quote=lane99;9123696]

Yes by her defense team, no one else. And yes it's not one single piece of evidence, it's the totality of the evidence that proves she's guilty.

p.s. I forgot. What I mean to say by her defense team is Darlie has not been excluded by a fingerprint expert.

[lane99]

The "totality" of the evidence INCLUDES that which is presented by the defense. An objective person would understand that. Those that are inclined to ignore half the story so their own preconceived notions can be conveniently reinforced, will not. It's a classic example of the confirmation bias.

The forensic evidence which is the most clearly unambiguous in this case suggests it could very well be someone other than Darlie.Routier that committed these crimes.

[cami]

The "totality" of the evidence INCLUDES that which is presented by the defense. An objective person would understand that. Those that are inclined to ignore half the story so their own preconceived notions can be conveniently reinforced, will not. It's a classic example of the confirmation bias.

The forensic evidence which is the most clearly unambiguous in this case suggests it could very well be someone other than Darlie.Routier that committed these crimes.

Well it's difficult when the defense has no evidence to present during it's CIC. I don't know what trial transcripts you read but the forensic evidence, the blood and fibre evidence is not clearly unambiguous. Cast-off blood on the back of Darlie's nightshirt is clearly not "unambiguous." The only way that blood got there was from the knife being plunged into her boys' bodies.

A staged crime scene and no evidence of an intruder is clearly not "unambiguous" suggests the crime was committed by someone inside the home who was close to the children. The children were deliberately stabbed with deep thrusts of the knife, they were the targets of the attack, not Darlie. Darlie's injuries were non-life threatening and were surface cuts, not deep stab wounds.

[lane99]

I would point out the circular logic inherent in your arguments. But your avatar, I believe, says it better than I could.

At any rate, perhaps you could enlighten us on how Darlie Routier was able to "stage" somebody else's bloody fingerprint on the utility room door (through which she said the attacker fled). That was a diabolically clever trick, you must admit.

[cami]

I would point out the circular logic inherent in your arguments. But your avatar, I believe, says it better than I could.

At any rate, perhaps you could enlighten us on how Darlie Routier was able to "stage" somebody else's bloody fingerprint on the utility room door (through which she said the attacker fled). That was a diabolically clever trick, you must admit.

LOL, it's her print. She would have been more clever to have left blood in the garage or outside, like on that big high fence that had no blood, nor scuff marks to prove someone went over it.

So logically, you would accept a smudged, bloody print that can't be identified over all the other evidence?

If an intruder had that much blood on him, how, logically, did he turn if off once he left the Utility Room. I await your logical and expert answer.

Below is the link to the court's findings.

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php

[cami]

I would love to see a documentary on this as I find it difficult to put everything into perspective. I checked out You Tube but could not see anything posted.

I initially found it hard to believe a mother can brutally stab her own children. Stabbing is a very messy crime. She would have to be quite evil or bordering on psychotic to do that.
Yet, evidence points to the fact she is probably guilty?
I just feel if I could watch an objective documentary I would understand the case more!
I have read quite a lot on the case. However, the more I read the more confused I become!!!

How do you put something on Utube? I've got a video of the forensic evidence.

[cami]

Wow, I guess I read different accounts of this tragedy. Think the entire investigative team had been recently transferred from Boulder. Not to mention the D.A.'s having been separated at birth. Darlie's neck injury was within 2 mm of her carotid artery resulting in damage to the carotid sheath. The larger of the 2 wounds to her right arm was deep enough to splinter the bone and resulted in leakage of marrow. Not to mention she is right handed. The photos of the bruising of her arms are horrible. What defies understanding is that nurses who cared for her at the time testified months later that she had no bruising or defensive wounds !!! HUH? More Rocky Mountain High. The children were probably sound asleep, and being so young could not fathom what was happening before being mortally wounded. Darlie on the other hand said she woke up with the man on top of her. She probably started to move around defensively and was trying to get up, which could account for her having fewer and less deep wounds. I think the guy was psychotic and killed the kids first just so they couldn't disturb him while he raped and killed their mother. Guess he didn't expect 1 of them to still be able to get to his mom. A grown women, however slight her build, is much more difficult to hold down than 5 or 6 year old children. I'm sure the profilers will say that rapists don't kill children. Unfortunately, that's not always the case. Profiling is a tremendous help to law enforcement, but it's more of an art than a science. Sociopaths, psychopaths do not follow the book. Their total lack of conscience, compassion and remorse are some of the things that make them so dangerous. I have to stop now, but I'll be back. Thanks to all of you who care enough to take the time for these discussions. I don't post often but this case is 1 that really scares me. Thanks, Kath

I just had to comment on this even though I know these posters are no longer reading. Are you aware that the bone in your forearm is only a inch below the surface of the skin? Darlie's little booboo on her arm was nothing compared to what those boys got. And there's a hesitation mark right beside it.

Did you know where your carotid artery was before this? Darlie cut her own neck, went a little deeper than she intended and then freaked out when it wouldn't stop bleeding. Look at her nightshirt..the blood all flows straight down. She was standing when that neck cut was made.

Only one arm was bruised right up to the armpit. And it was not bruised in the hospital. Darlie was released on the 8th....the photos showing the bruises were taken on the 10th. Yes, I do believe Devon kicked out at her, he has a cut on his tush.

How did she get blunt force trauma of the arm when the guy had a knife? Why didn't he just punch her in the face and knock her out and then finish her off? Why doesn't she have any broken bones, facial injuries, head injuries. Why isn't there any evidence of a fight? No cast-off blood nothing, just a staged scene with a table knocked over and a lamp shade down, the lamp wasn't even moved. Why did the intruder clean up the kitchen? Why did he hang around and wait until Damon moved and then stab him again in another area of the room? Why didn't he kill Darlie the same way he killed the kids? Why isn't there any evidence that someone came in or out the window with the cut screen? Why did the intruder use a knife from the Routier kitchen to cut the screen? Why did he use a knife from the Routier kitchen to murder the boys?


these are just a few things that need to be answered before you can cross Darlie off your lists.

Another thing, Darin has absolutely no criminal history. He was investigated. His signed affidavit about an insurance scam was designed to cause reasonable doubt with the appeals court. Absolutely no evidence was found that he asked anyone to rob his house.

[cami]

LOL, it's her print. She would have been more clever to have left blood in the garage or outside, like on that big high fence that had no blood, nor scuff marks to prove someone went over it.

So logically, you would accept a smudged, bloody print that can't be identified over all the other evidence?

If an intruder had that much blood on him, how, logically, did he turn if off once he left the Utility Room. I await your logical and expert answer.

Below is the link to the court's findings.

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php

Oh and p.s. I just like that little guy running around in the box. If you think you know me from my avatar, you're sadly mistaken.