Darlie Routier A Miscarriage Of Justice?

[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?

[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 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 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? 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?

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

[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

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!

[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!

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!

[AMS80]

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

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

[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!

[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 )

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/acro...yStatement.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/acro...yStatement.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

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.