PDA

View Full Version : HOwdy! My thoughts.



Arielle
10-26-2004, 11:23 AM
Hi everyone. I just wanted to make myself known here in the Darlie forum. I will now share my thoughts and confusions on this case with you. To start with, I'd have to say that right now I'm about 75% convinced of Darlie's innocence in this crime. But I do have many many questions for both sides. My background in this case is as follows: I was living in Texas in 1995, so I heard about it on the news. Then, I later saw one of the forensic shows (you know, Forensic Files, The New Detectives, or some such) that featured this case. At the time, I was convinced of her guilt from the blood evidence that was portrayed on the show. Later, I read one book, I beleive it was "Hush Little Babies" that was written by a woman originally against Darlie who changed her mind. This book was written from the point of view that Darlie was innocent. I have to say, I found many of the defense spin arguments compelling and then changed my mind. However, as I stated before, I am not 100% convinced.

Okay, now for some questions I have.

1. What exactly is the significance of the sock in the alley? From either perspective please. Did it have only one child's blood on it, both children's blood, or some combination of children's blood and Darlie's blood?

2. What about the "unexplained" bloody fingerprint found on the coffee table. Is this real or spin? Where could it have come from if not from the "intruder"?

3. Were the huge black bruises on Darlie's arms visible to paramedics or did they not show up until later that night or next day? To me this would help to establish when the injury was inflicted.

4. For those that say Darlie's slit throat was "superficial", why do you say that? Is it because she didn't actually die of it? According to the book I read, the cut came within a few millimeters of her jugular vein or her carotic artery, which would have been a fata cut. How can you go from superficial to fatal in just a few millimeters? I would argue that it was serious, but not life threatening, simply because it missed teh major blood vessels.

5. As to Darlie's injuries not being overkill as the boys injuries were overkill, I am not sure what to think about this. I have not read her 16 different explanations of what happened yet, so I don't know how to interpret what went on. But, I would think it was simply because she managed to fight off her attacker better than the boys did.

Now for things that I don't understand if Darlie is indeed innocent.
1. Didn't the boys scream for help? How could she sleep through that? How could Darin. If one of the boys was able to move around as evidenced by his blood in more than one place in the room, he must have been able to call for help.

2. The screen in the garage being cut with a knife from within the house. I believe it was also determined that the cut was made from the inside. I don't get this, unless it was done prior to that night in order for the intrduer to gain access.

That is all I can think of right now. There are other things that I also wonder about. The mysterious black car seen in the neighborhood is one.

I welcome any and all comments on this thread. I'm slowly reading through the things that have already been posted. It is quite possible that some of the answers are already there in some of the other threads. If so, jsut point me to them.

Thanks everyone!

By the way, I'm going to post a really wacky wild way out theory in the near future. I don't really believe it and it isn't extremely probable, but its is something I've thought about and can't quite get it out of my head. How is that for a teaser? :D

cami
10-26-2004, 12:37 PM
Hi everyone. I just wanted to make myself known here in the Darlie forum. I will now share my thoughts and confusions on this case with you. To start with, I'd have to say that right now I'm about 75% convinced of Darlie's innocence in this crime. But I do have many many questions for both sides. My background in this case is as follows: I was living in Texas in 1995, so I heard about it on the news. Then, I later saw one of the forensic shows (you know, Forensic Files, The New Detectives, or some such) that featured this case. At the time, I was convinced of her guilt from the blood evidence that was portrayed on the show. Later, I read one book, I beleive it was "Hush Little Babies" that was written by a woman originally against Darlie who changed her mind. This book was written from the point of view that Darlie was innocent. I have to say, I found many of the defense spin arguments compelling and then changed my mind. However, as I stated before, I am not 100% convinced.

Okay, now for some questions I have.

1. What exactly is the significance of the sock in the alley? From either perspective please. Did it have only one child's blood on it, both children's blood, or some combination of children's blood and Darlie's blood?

2. What about the "unexplained" bloody fingerprint found on the coffee table. Is this real or spin? Where could it have come from if not from the "intruder"?

3. Were the huge black bruises on Darlie's arms visible to paramedics or did they not show up until later that night or next day? To me this would help to establish when the injury was inflicted.

4. For those that say Darlie's slit throat was "superficial", why do you say that? Is it because she didn't actually die of it? According to the book I read, the cut came within a few millimeters of her jugular vein or her carotic artery, which would have been a fata cut. How can you go from superficial to fatal in just a few millimeters? I would argue that it was serious, but not life threatening, simply because it missed teh major blood vessels.

5. As to Darlie's injuries not being overkill as the boys injuries were overkill, I am not sure what to think about this. I have not read her 16 different explanations of what happened yet, so I don't know how to interpret what went on. But, I would think it was simply because she managed to fight off her attacker better than the boys did.

Now for things that I don't understand if Darlie is indeed innocent.
1. Didn't the boys scream for help? How could she sleep through that? How could Darin. If one of the boys was able to move around as evidenced by his blood in more than one place in the room, he must have been able to call for help.

2. The screen in the garage being cut with a knife from within the house. I believe it was also determined that the cut was made from the inside. I don't get this, unless it was done prior to that night in order for the intrduer to gain access.

That is all I can think of right now. There are other things that I also wonder about. The mysterious black car seen in the neighborhood is one.

I welcome any and all comments on this thread. I'm slowly reading through the things that have already been posted. It is quite possible that some of the answers are already there in some of the other threads. If so, jsut point me to them.

Thanks everyone!

By the way, I'm going to post a really wacky wild way out theory in the near future. I don't really believe it and it isn't extremely probable, but its is something I've thought about and can't quite get it out of my head. How is that for a teaser? :D

Actually Hush Little Babies was written by Don Davis, a man. You are thinking of Barbara Davis (no relation) who wrote Precious Angels or something like that. She was first on the guilty side but she has since changed her mind to Darlie's innocence.

1. The sock in the alley contained a few drops of both boys blood and Darlie's dna, either from saliva or skin cells, in the toe of the sock. The prosecution's theory is the sock was left in the alley in attempt at staging the way the intruder left the scene. Supporters allege it was used to gag Darlie, hence her dna in the toe, and then was mistakenly dropped by the intruder where it was found.

2. There was a smudged print in blood on a glass table. The prosecution fingerprint experts have been unable to exclude Darlie from this print. The defense fingerprint experts have. So it's expert against expert. You would really have to read the writ and affidavits on this to try and understand it. It's a smudged print in blood, likely to remain unidentifiable. The print does not match the over 6ft intruder that Darlie alleges attacked her, it's from someone with a small hand, like a female. Dr. Jantz's findings were not accepted by the court.

3. No, the bruises were not visible until days after the attack so no the paramedics did not see the bruises. None of the hospital staff saw the bruises. The doctor's testimony at trial was that bruises would take 24-48 hours after the incident to show up.

4. It's considered superficial because it was a surface cut. Unlike the two boys who had deep penetrating stab wounds into their organs, veins and muscles. Yes, it's serious but non-life threatening. I didn't know where my carotid artery was before this crime and I am sure that neither did Darlie. How would the intruder have known where the carotid artery is and been able to stop in time is the question I ask.

5. There's no indication that Darlie fought with anyone. There's no blood on the sofa where she recieved the alleged cuts, no nicks or cuts from a knife in the sofa, no cast-off blood in the room indicating she was fighting with a knife weilding intruder. She had no head injuries, no broken bones, no facial injuries, no cuts on her hands, palms, fingers, no cuts on the underside of her arms indicating she threw her arms up. And the major--she's alive and the boys were destroyed. If someone was after her she'd be dead.

1.(again). If the boys screamed for help then no one but Darin and Darlie heard them. It was the middle of the night so I am assuming the rest of the neighbourhood was asleep, although the neighbour across the street did briefly waken to a noise before the whole neighbourhood was awakened by Darin and the cops so maybe he heard something, screaming etc.

How could Darlie sleep through that? Good question. She woke up when her baby rolled over in his sleep but not when her two eldest are being brutalized!!!! She didn't--imoo, she's lying. By the time of trial, she gave up her claim that she was asleep and now claims Traumatic Amnesia. I don't think that a traumatized child gasping for breath would have been able to scream. Damon was bleeding into his lungs, that's what killed him.

2. No, the screen was cut from the outside but it was cut with a knife from the Routier home. Impossible for an intruder to have done that on the night in question and there is no evidence that the screen was cut prior to that night.

The alleged black car. No make, no model number, no license plate number, no description of the driver or passengers. Routiers lived on a corner, had an ornamental fountain in the front yard that sight seeers would slow down and look at before they rounded the corner. Black car stopped on the night in question, occupants made to get out and occupants and car searched by police.

I suggest and I am sure that DP and Camilla would, that you read the transcripts, including the Bond hearing, the appeals, the affidavits and the writ.

Arielle
10-26-2004, 03:13 PM
4. It's considered superficial because it was a surface cut. Unlike the two boys who had deep penetrating stab wounds into their organs, veins and muscles. Yes, it's serious but non-life threatening. I didn't know where my carotid artery was before this crime and I am sure that neither did Darlie. How would the intruder have known where the carotid artery is and been able to stop in time is the question I ask.



My guess is that stopping just short of the carotid artery was not anyone's goal here. If there was an intruder, he was trying to slit her throat and kill her. He meant to slice right through that artery and only Darlie fighting him kept it from happening. If there was no intruder and Darlie did it herself or had help from Darin, it was a lucky accident that her injury was not fatal.

cami
10-26-2004, 03:20 PM
My guess is that stopping just short of the carotid artery was not anyone's goal here. If there was an intruder, he was trying to slit her throat and kill her. He meant to slice right through that artery and only Darlie fighting him kept it from happening. If there was no intruder and Darlie did it herself or had help from Darin, it was a lucky accident that her injury was not fatal.


Too true, it is a lucky accident that her injury was not fatal and why I believe the 911 call was placed when it was.

Jeana (DP)
10-26-2004, 04:06 PM
My guess is that stopping just short of the carotid artery was not anyone's goal here. If there was an intruder, he was trying to slit her throat and kill her. He meant to slice right through that artery and only Darlie fighting him kept it from happening. If there was no intruder and Darlie did it herself or had help from Darin, it was a lucky accident that her injury was not fatal.


Yup, and according to her (depending on who she was talking to at the time), there were TWO intruders. There's no way if she was attacked first that she would have survived.

VespaElf
10-26-2004, 04:41 PM
My guess is that stopping just short of the carotid artery was not anyone's goal here. If there was an intruder, he was trying to slit her throat and kill her. He meant to slice right through that artery and only Darlie fighting him kept it from happening. If there was no intruder and Darlie did it herself or had help from Darin, it was a lucky accident that her injury was not fatal.


I think Darin cut Darlie's throat as I dont think she wouldve been able to do it to herself deep enough to be"convincing"(I dont doubt she couldve stabbed the boys though).Imagine slitting your own throat! *BUT* if someone else did it,esp. someone you trusted not to "really" hurt you...........its plausible then isnt it?


Im not sure who stabbed the boys but Im sure Darin cut Darlie,placed the sock and helped with the other staging(cut the screen etc)

londonPI
10-26-2004, 04:56 PM
i'm sorry, but i just don't believe the father did any such thing. if he knew that his wife had brutally murdered his sons, why would he cover for her by slitting her throat? just doesn't add up. i've seen or heard no evidence that the father was suspected in this. if i'm wrong, please source this for me.
and please, don't blast me as in other forums .... i'm just trying to contribute

Jeana (DP)
10-26-2004, 05:21 PM
i'm sorry, but i just don't believe the father did any such thing. if he knew that his wife had brutally murdered his sons, why would he cover for her by slitting her throat? just doesn't add up. i've seen or heard no evidence that the father was suspected in this. if i'm wrong, please source this for me.
and please, don't blast me as in other forums .... i'm just trying to contribute


No one is going to be "blasted" on this forum, so no worries!!

There is a good reason why Darin failed two lie detector tests. Exactly what those reasons are is anyone's guess. I don't believe that he cut Darlie's neck or took the sock outside, but I do think he knows that Darlie murdered the boys.

dasgal
10-26-2004, 05:34 PM
Perhaps he felt some degree of culpability regardless of whether or not he actually participated in the stabbings.

londonPI
10-26-2004, 06:24 PM
are they still married???

dasgal
10-26-2004, 06:30 PM
Only in name. Remember, a husband can not be compelled to testify against his wife/or vice versa.

Arielle
10-26-2004, 08:24 PM
No one is going to be "blasted" on this forum, so no worries!!

There is a good reason why Darin failed two lie detector tests. Exactly what those reasons are is anyone's guess. I don't believe that he cut Darlie's neck or took the sock outside, but I do think he knows that Darlie murdered the boys.

Do we know what the questions were that he was asked in these lie detector tests and which of them he was not being truthful?

CW
10-27-2004, 03:49 AM
I was reading a news artical "DallasNews" Aug.17, 2004 that Darin and Darlie are still married and that he is raising their 8 year old son.
But I totaly agree with dasgal that that their marriage is in name only so that neither one can testifiy against one another.

Routier lawyers assail judge, ruling
They demand access to trial evidence for new analysis in slaying case


10:04 PM CDT on Tuesday, August 17, 2004

By ROBERT THARP / The Dallas Morning News


Two weeks after a state district judge rejected convicted child killer Darlie Routier's second appeal, the former Rowlett homemaker's attorneys gathered at the courthouse steps to criticize the ruling and demand access to trial evidence.

Attorney Richard Burr said Judge Robert Francis and prosecutors have an obligation to turn over evidence for new analysis that could get Ms. Routier off death row.


Darlie Routier

Also Online: Video "Any reasonable person who cares about the truth ... would say we've got to do some exploring," Mr. Burr said. "He did nothing as a judge that any of us would expect a judge to do."

Judge Francis declined to comment, saying only that his ruling speaks for itself.

The defense team has filed a new court motion asking an outside judge to order the release of the evidence they seek. A separate motion for new DNA testing is also pending. The state Court of Criminal Appeals is now considering the writ of habeas corpus that could allow for a new trial. Judge Francis rejected that appeal this month.

Assistant District Attorney John Rolater, an appellate specialist, said defense attorneys have not taken advantage of numerous opportunities to examine evidence they now seek. In September 2002, the district attorney's office offered to have evidence tested by an agreed-upon expert, but the defense did not accept, he said.

And in October 2002, the court granted an order giving the defense access to evidence, but Mr. Rolater said the defense never followed up.

"I don't think their claims have any merit," he said.

Attorney J. Stephen Cooper said the October order amounted only to looking at the evidence, not testing it. He called the prosecution assertion "an absolute lie."

Mr. Rolater said dozens of DNA tests have been performed since Ms. Routier's 1996 arrest and 1997 conviction, and each analysis pointed to Ms. Routier or the children as the source of the DNA material.

"Everything points at her," he said. "She's the only one with the opportunity and the motive and the animus toward the children."

Ms. Routier was sentenced to death for killing her 5-year-old son, Damon. She was also accused of killing her 6-year-old son, Devon, but was not tried for his death. She continues to maintain that she's innocent and that an intruder broke into the house and killed the boys and attacked her. She suffered knife wounds to her arms and neck that prosecutors contend were self-inflicted and staged to support the intruder theory.

Ms. Routier's mother attended the news conference. Ms. Routier's husband, Darin Routier, lives in Lubbock with their surviving son, now 8, and did not attend.

The appellate attorneys say one of the main issues are bloody fingerprints found on a table and door of the Routier home.

Two fingerprint experts for the state concluded that the prints could exclude everyone in the household except Ms. Routier.

Police investigators did not preserve the two boys' fingerprints for future reference. Their bodies were later exhumed, and the defense team used a forensic anthropologist to try to reconstruct their fingerprints.

A defense fingerprint analyst later ruled the prints were not consistent with Ms. Routier or the children and support Ms. Routier's claim of an intruder.

In his ruling on the appeal, Judge Francis sided with the prosecution and said the defense expert used procedures that were "not sound." Attorney Michael Flanagan said the judge should allow for more analysis.

"We believe the enhanced testing might show the source of it," he said.

E-mail rtharp@dallasnews.com

cami
10-27-2004, 08:45 AM
i'm sorry, but i just don't believe the father did any such thing. if he knew that his wife had brutally murdered his sons, why would he cover for her by slitting her throat? just doesn't add up. i've seen or heard no evidence that the father was suspected in this. if i'm wrong, please source this for me.
and please, don't blast me as in other forums .... i'm just trying to contribute

I don't think Darin cut Darlie either. She would have had enough adrenaline flowing so as not to really hurt herself when she made that cut. Besides that, if you want to get yourself out of a jam, you'll do anything. She's not the first to try and make it look as if she was a victim in this as well. Diane Downs, Charles Stewart and Jeff Macdonald all spring to mind.

Darin's insensitive and ridiculous remarks about Darlie and her beauty/breasts is what led me to believe he helped her. He chose her over the boys.

Jeana (DP)
10-27-2004, 09:02 AM
Do we know what the questions were that he was asked in these lie detector tests and which of them he was not being truthful?

I can't remember the specific questions (and not even sure if we heard all of them ever), but if my memory serves me correctly, the only question he got right was his name.

Jeana (DP)
10-27-2004, 09:03 AM
But I totaly agree with dasgal that that their marriage is in name only so that neither one can testifiy against one another.


Its not that they "can't," just that they don't have to.

dasgal
10-27-2004, 09:07 AM
How does adrenaline keep you from hurting yourself? If anything, the more rapid heartbeat would induce an increase of strength to muscle movement. Further, it would greatly increase blood flow and speed up blood loss.Darlie meant to kill herself, plain and simple. She just chickened out.

cami
10-27-2004, 09:17 AM
How does adrenaline keep you from hurting yourself? If anything, the more rapid heartbeat would induce an increase of strength to muscle movement. Further, it would greatly increase blood flow and speed up blood loss.Darlie meant to kill herself, plain and simple. She just chickened out.

I don't know but it's well known that it stops you from feeling some pain. That's what I meant, she didn't feel that much pain when she cut her own neck.

Hmmm interesting, I've thought off and on that she might have wanted to commit suicide that night. But then there's those strategically placed cuts to her forearms to account for, they don't look like part of a suicide bid and it appears as if they were made before the neck cut.

dasgal
10-27-2004, 09:26 AM
There is really no way to tell, but I would suspect that they were. My theory has always been that some occurred during the murders, and the others were hesitation cuts before she got the courage to slice her throat.

cami
10-29-2004, 07:19 AM
There is really no way to tell, but I would suspect that they were. My theory has always been that some occurred during the murders, and the others were hesitation cuts before she got the courage to slice her throat.

Oh I know there's no way to tell, it's just a guess. Yeah I would imagine that you would have to practice a little, ew it gives me the creeps just thinking about it.

TressaRing28
10-31-2004, 07:16 PM
Hey Arille I live 85 miles west of the crime... Thanks for your input.

Edited by DP to remove huge quote.

TressaRing28
10-31-2004, 07:19 PM
:confused: 1) There was a deer hair on the sock ! Whats that all about?

cami
11-01-2004, 01:07 PM
:confused: 1) There was a deer hair on the sock ! Whats that all about?

The sock was found outside, on the ground. It could have been contaminated by anything that was on the ground at that time. At least that's what I think anyway. Strictly my opinion only and not a fact.

Jeana (DP)
11-01-2004, 01:28 PM
The sock was found outside, on the ground. It could have been contaminated by anything that was on the ground at that time. At least that's what I think anyway. Strictly my opinion only and not a fact.


Yup!! If you drive east for about five minutes, you're in BFE. So, its not surprising that a deer hair would be in Rowlett.

Peake
11-06-2004, 08:36 PM
I think she attacked the boys, then tried to kill herself then when she failed, chickened out and tried to salvage what she could of the situation. Mainly because of the throat-cutting. There is no way I'd trust anyone to cut my throat but don't kill me. Or cut my own to fake an attack - I'm no medical expert, but it doesn't seem like there is a lot of room for error in a throat cut, and I was under the impression that Darlie's throat wound, while it missed anything vital, was not just a little scratch either.

Cheers,
Pea

cami
11-08-2004, 09:59 AM
I think she attacked the boys, then tried to kill herself then when she failed, chickened out and tried to salvage what she could of the situation. Mainly because of the throat-cutting. There is no way I'd trust anyone to cut my throat but don't kill me. Or cut my own to fake an attack - I'm no medical expert, but it doesn't seem like there is a lot of room for error in a throat cut, and I was under the impression that Darlie's throat wound, while it missed anything vital, was not just a little scratch either.

Cheers,
Pea

It was serious but non life threatening.

Ghostwheel
11-10-2004, 04:18 AM
This might seem dumb, but when we wash our kids socks, then fold them, we put our hand inside the sock, and turn it right side out (because they are always inside out). In addition, we still have to adjust the toes of our 8 year old's socks, because she can't stand the seams, so my DNA would be all over the toes of her socks.

txsvicki
11-10-2004, 06:22 AM
I live here in Texas, too and occasionally see Sarilda around town. I wasn't convinced of Darlie's guilt but after coming here and reading I am pretty much now convinced. I have a few thoughts about Darlie's behavior that night which also made me question her innocence. I find it very hard to believe that she would wake up, knowing her children were in the room with her, and try to follow after the intruder into the kitchen and utility area. I'd think that she would he getting to a phone first thing, going the opposite direction, gathering the boys up, and or getting Daring down there to help. As for picking up the knife, I can't imagine her picking it up and not taking it back to the other room with her for protection or in case the intruder came back. Finally, Darlie kept saying to the 911 operator that her babies were dying. How did she even know how many, how deep or serious their wounds were. Hers weren't that deep. It looks as if she knew that the knife was plunged into the lungs and how many times.

Jeana (DP)
11-10-2004, 11:56 AM
This might seem dumb, but when we wash our kids socks, then fold them, we put our hand inside the sock, and turn it right side out (because they are always inside out). In addition, we still have to adjust the toes of our 8 year old's socks, because she can't stand the seams, so my DNA would be all over the toes of her socks.


Ghostwheel, in this case, the sock belonged to Darin (Darlie's husband). It was not a clean sock, but one presumably taken from the laundry room. It also contained blood from both of the murdered boys as well as Darlie's DNA.

Ghostwheel
11-11-2004, 01:16 AM
Ghostwheel, in this case, the sock belonged to Darin (Darlie's husband). It was not a clean sock, but one presumably taken from the laundry room. It also contained blood from both of the murdered boys as well as Darlie's DNA.I'm reading as fast as I can, BTW, but I'm still not getting the sock thing. If Darlie had used the sock to try to keep her fingerprints off the knife (which might make sense), then it would have been stupid to put her hands all over the knife, so that's probably out. Why leave the sock in the alley unless you were trying to prove that the assailant had tried to use it to cover up his own fingerprints (because why else would anyone pick up a SOCK), and if you were doing that, you'd leave more blood on the sock, not just spot it a bit.

I'll read some more. I haven't gotten to the original articles about when it first happened yet. Seem to be going backwards, and I wished I'd started at the beginning.

Dani_T
11-11-2004, 01:52 AM
I'm reading as fast as I can, BTW, but I'm still not getting the sock thing. If Darlie had used the sock to try to keep her fingerprints off the knife (which might make sense), then it would have been stupid to put her hands all over the knife, so that's probably out. Why leave the sock in the alley unless you were trying to prove that the assailant had tried to use it to cover up his own fingerprints (because why else would anyone pick up a SOCK), and if you were doing that, you'd leave more blood on the sock, not just spot it a bit.

I'll read some more. I haven't gotten to the original articles about when it first happened yet. Seem to be going backwards, and I wished I'd started at the beginning.

The sock is an bit of an anomaly- well it is unless we know exactly what happened that night.

If she did use the sock as a glove to not put her prints on the knife (and I am not sure I think she did as I think I would expect more blood on the sock) and disposed of it outside and came back inside only to either
a) find Damon still alive
b) realise she needed to injure herself to make it look more believable

then she would have had to pick the knife up again to either attack Damon again or use it on herself. If that was the case then ultimately the sock was for nothing in the end (and so she invents the 'he dropped the knife and I picked it up). She could even have used the sock as a glove, put the knife AND the sock down (maybe not even thinking to get rid of it at that time), gone out the back to cut through the screen, come back in and either
a) seen Damon still alive
b) decided to cut herself
c) picked the knife up without thinking

and realised she had blown it by not putting the sock back on again so got rid of it.

However, as I said I am not convinced it was used as a glove. Which leaves
a) the possibility that she may have used it to stage the intruder's escape route.
b) it was part of a staged or accidental drop which included other incriminating items never recovered

b) seems unlikely because the police should have found any other items (and brought it up at trial). But we haven't heard of anything else from either the prosecution of defense on that.

In terms of a)... it just doesn't sit right with me. I would have expected her to leave a far more obvious clue if she was staging it. There should have been more blood, or it should have been her panties or something directly linked to what happened in that living room rather than some random piece of laundry. Furthermore I would have expected her to have put her blood on it... which leads me to something I have been considering recently - that wounding herself was not part of the original plan but a fall-back plan that she came up with as she surveyed the carnage she had inflicted. Certainly she wouldn't have wanted to wound herself badly and then run down the alley (for a couple of reasons) but if she had been planning on playing the attacked victim and wanted to stage the sock it would have been more convincing with her blood on it and all she would have needed to do is make a small cut on her finger or something to put a blood drop on it, run outside, leave the sock, come back inside and really go at herself with the knife. But she didn't do that. It's clear that she only wounded herself after she had come back in from inside. And I'm beginning to think she had to do that because Damon was still alive when she came back in and she needed to cover her tracks because she couldn't have explained how Damon could have been up around and moving, probably crying etc and her sleeping soundly on the couch whilst the child killer escaped without her notice.

Sorry that was a bit of a ramble!

cami
11-23-2004, 01:38 PM
I'm reading as fast as I can, BTW, but I'm still not getting the sock thing. If Darlie had used the sock to try to keep her fingerprints off the knife (which might make sense), then it would have been stupid to put her hands all over the knife, so that's probably out. Why leave the sock in the alley unless you were trying to prove that the assailant had tried to use it to cover up his own fingerprints (because why else would anyone pick up a SOCK), and if you were doing that, you'd leave more blood on the sock, not just spot it a bit.

I'll read some more. I haven't gotten to the original articles about when it first happened yet. Seem to be going backwards, and I wished I'd started at the beginning.

I don't think any of us gets the sock thing, Ghostwheel. Unless Darlie tells us why it was in the alley, we will never know. I don't think anyway. :(

cami
11-23-2004, 01:40 PM
Goody had an interesting theory of the sock maybe being planted where it was. I can't remember too much of it so if she sees this hopefully she will respond.

smellsarat
11-24-2004, 01:50 AM
Like Cami mentioned of others who wounded themselves to hide their complicity....especially Chuck Stuart who very nearly killed himself by shooting himself in the gut.....he ended up with a colostomy...(something I think he never bet on!!! ) and probably contributed to his suicide when he was found out!!!

So the seriousness of Darlies' wounds do not affect me so much....she probably figured the worse the better.......unfortunately the state didn't buy it!!!

smalltowngal
02-01-2007, 05:24 AM
Has it ever been thought of by anyone that Darlie killed her boy's then tried to kill herself and failed at it so Darlie had to make up a cover story. JMO

Jeana (DP)
02-01-2007, 10:46 AM
Has it ever been thought of by anyone that Darlie killed her boy's then tried to kill herself and failed at it so Darlie had to make up a cover story. JMO

Yes. Quite a few people believe that.

JimPence
02-01-2007, 10:11 PM
Actually, I think that's one of the most plausible explanations. Of course, since Darlie maintains her innocence and we can't get inside her head to see the truth, we may never know.

I think it's the novelist in me that likes this explanation. Fiction writers prefer that loose ends be tied up and everything has an explanation that makes sense. Unfortunately, life isn't like that. Sometimes (often?) people do things irrationally.

In any case, this explanation seems to make sense of everything else.

JMHO.

Jim

Mary456
02-01-2007, 11:18 PM
There is a good reason why Darin failed two lie detector tests

I don't put much faith in Darin's polygraph, personally. It was administered by a guy hired by Brian Pardo, and Brian Pardo was hell-bent on blaming the murders on Darin...even though he had no evidence to implicate him. Pardo is an eccentric who probably never read a word of the transcript. It's not the first time he's tried to save a guilty person...he jumps on bandwagons for the attention. (When you're a multi-millionnaire, ya gotta find something to do with your time, lol!)

It was a bogus polygraph, imo. If you've seen the video of it, I think you'll agree that it was a set-up. At one point, the polygrapher got right in Darin's face & screamed that he was a liar. Credible, professional polygraphers don't pull that kind of shenanigans. Watching it, you get the impression that they were going to make sure Darin failed it. And remember, the test wasn't administered by an uninterested party like the FBI or LE...it was administered by Pardo's hand-picked polyperson.


I don't believe that he cut Darlie's neck or took the sock outside, but I do think he knows that Darlie murdered the boys.

Agree, agee, agree.

Mary456
02-01-2007, 11:36 PM
i've seen or heard no evidence that the father was suspected in this. if i'm wrong, please source this for me.

You're correct, london. The police initially did suspect Darin, which is only natural. However, after hearing Darlie's conflicting stories and especially the blood evidence that contradicted those stories, they focused more on her.

Darin's story - at least at first - was consistent. He heard Darlie screaming, ran down the stairs & saw Devon surrounded by blood. His first thought was that the coffee table had fallen on the boy. That sounds like the thought most of us would have under the same circumstances.

It wasn't until after Darin realized that Darlie was the killer that he started changing his story. And changing it and changing it. I think he knew fairly quickly that she had done it, but chose to stand by her...perhaps at the insistence of Mama Darlie and Sarilda. A united front, so to speak.

Mary456
02-02-2007, 12:00 AM
Has it ever been thought of by anyone that Darlie killed her boy's then tried to kill herself and failed at it so Darlie had to make up a cover story. JMO

I considered that for a long time, smalltowngal, but something kept niggling at me: the slit screen. If Darlie stabbed the boys, then herself (lots of blood), and then walked to the garage window to cut the screen for staging purposes, where's the blood? There wasn't any in the garage, or on the screen or around the window frame. Not even a smudge from bloody hands.

I finally concluded that she premeditated the murders. The prosecution also believed this.

smalltowngal
02-02-2007, 04:19 AM
Will you please tell me what you think the conclusion is? I have been on and off the fence for years about darlie. My hubby is the one who said to me about Darlie maybe failing to kill herself. I thought well maybe that could be. I feel their are to many things pointing to darlie doing this. If their was a struggle in the room. darlie fighting with a man. I feel more then 1 glass hanging from that rack would of got broke. Also she didn't have any cuts on her feet. Those bruises all the length of her whole arms. She did that by slamming her arms on the wall trying to make bruising. She wouldn't have the whole length of her arms bruised if she was fighting off someone. her knife cuts on her arms didn't look very severe to me. Also the room wasn't very messed up for a fight going on between 2 people. If I was fighting for my life the room would be a wreck from me throwing things doing whatever I could. Just some of my thoughts. I would very much like to hear yours. smalltowngal aka Mary

smalltowngal
02-03-2007, 08:57 PM
Hi, don't know if I am spelling that right but I think y'all know what I mean. Has an exacution date evey been set for Darlie? She has been on death row now going on 11 years. TY, Mary

Kellee
02-03-2007, 10:48 PM
Hi everyone.

I believe this is the first time that I have posted in this thread, though I have read ALL the archived posts. I firmly believe that Darlie is guilty. One thing that struck me as odd was the position of the knife on the kitchen counter. It's tip was pointing into the kitchen, as if the person holding it was coming from the Roman room into the kitchen and laid it down. Does anyone know where I can find a diagram of the home online? I find it odd that the knife tip would be pointing that direction, but I am unsure as to the exact location of the utility room in regard to the kitchen.

IrishMist
02-04-2007, 04:23 PM
Hi everyone.

I believe this is the first time that I have posted in this thread, though I have read ALL the archived posts. I firmly believe that Darlie is guilty. One thing that struck me as odd was the position of the knife on the kitchen counter. It's tip was pointing into the kitchen, as if the person holding it was coming from the Roman room into the kitchen and laid it down. Does anyone know where I can find a diagram of the home online? I find it odd that the knife tip would be pointing that direction, but I am unsure as to the exact location of the utility room in regard to the kitchen.

I noticed the same thing about the knife, Kellee. The utility room was off the back of the kitchen. If she picked up the knife and placed it on the bar, the handle would have been pointing the other way. I remember posting about that somewhere on here... I'll try to find the thread, if you're interested.

I do remember seeing a floor plan, at least of the main floor, but can't seem to find it. Someone on here will know where to see it if it's online anywhere.

Mary456
02-04-2007, 07:19 PM
If their was a struggle in the room. darlie fighting with a man. I feel more then 1 glass hanging from that rack would of got broke.


James Cron's testimony about that wine rack is a real eye opener. The glass didn't fall out - it couldn't - because of a safety bar built into the rack. Darlie grabbed one glass and threw it down to stage the scene.


Also she didn't have any cuts on her feet.


Amazing, isn't it? Glass all over the kitchen floor, Darlie running back and forth from the sink to the family room, at least 3 times (according to her and Darin), and not a single cut on her feet.


Those bruises all the length of her whole arms.

The huge purple bruises were really only on her right arm. Two small yellowish bruises on her left arm were from the IVs.


She did that by slamming her arms on the wall trying to make bruising. She wouldn't have the whole length of her arms bruised if she was fighting off someone.

That's what I think, too. And she did it after leaving the hospital, because they didn't show up until 6/10, four days after the murders.

You're on the fence, Mary? You could have fooled me, lol! Sounds like you have it pretty well nailed.

Mary456
02-04-2007, 10:05 PM
Hi, don't know if I am spelling that right but I think y'all know what I mean. Has an exacution date evey been set for Darlie? She has been on death row now going on 11 years. TY, Mary

It gets kind of confusing. Darlie has exhausted her state appeals, so she's now into her first federal appeal, habeas corpus. Her defense wants certain items retested for DNA, so the judge has put her appeal "on hold" until Texas state courts decide if further testing is feasible.

A decision has not been made yet, but it's buying Darlie some time. I wouldn't look for an execution date anytime soon, Mare.

santos1014
02-05-2007, 10:29 AM
Her lack of defense wounds is a red flag for me. I have seen many crime photos (used to be married to a police officer)- In almost every case I have seen or read about, a person that is stabbed, or slashed, in her case... will have deep defense wounds on their hands and arms. Mainly hands, as it is human nature to throw them up to protect our face when attacked. She had the one on her arm, and I most certainly don't consider that a defense wound. I think it was an accidental wound she receieved during the stabbing of the boys.

cami
02-05-2007, 03:33 PM
Hi everyone.

I believe this is the first time that I have posted in this thread, though I have read ALL the archived posts. I firmly believe that Darlie is guilty. One thing that struck me as odd was the position of the knife on the kitchen counter. It's tip was pointing into the kitchen, as if the person holding it was coming from the Roman room into the kitchen and laid it down. Does anyone know where I can find a diagram of the home online? I find it odd that the knife tip would be pointing that direction, but I am unsure as to the exact location of the utility room in regard to the kitchen.

Hi Kellee:

I find it odd as well. The utility room was on the opposite side of the house from the Roman room. It's in between the kitchen and the garage.

There should be some photos in the galleries at the .net site.

Here's a link to the galleries (http://www.justicefordarlie.net/galleries/galleries.php)

I don't think the knife was anywhere near the utility room. There's no blood to indicate the alleged intruder threw or dropped the knife in that area, there is however a bloody outline of the knife in the carpet in the Roman room.

Kitty5001
02-05-2007, 04:12 PM
Hi Kellee:

I find it odd as well. The utility room was on the opposite side of the house from the Roman room. It's in between the kitchen and the garage.

There should be some photos in the galleries at the .net site.

Here's a link to the galleries (http://www.justicefordarlie.net/galleries/galleries.php)

I don't think the knife was anywhere near the utility room. There's no blood to indicate the alleged intruder threw or dropped the knife in that area, there is however a bloody outline of the knife in the carpet in the Roman room.
Darlie claims that she picked up the knife on the ground just before the utility room after the alleged intruder dropped it. Therefore we all know that she placed the knife on the counter when making or just before making the 911 call so it would not matter how the knife was placed or the direction of the knife on the counter since it did not originate there.