Darlie Supporters and Darin Routier

[RobertStJames]

Hey, everybody. I followed the Chet Lynch case on this board, especially Tybee's excellent posts. You guys seem to have some good ideas, so I wondered if any Routier case experts could help me figure out the following:

If Darlie is innocent (and I believe she is) then someone else is guilty. The most obvious alternate suspect is Darin Routier. Yet Darlie supporters seem very reluctant to point the finger that direction. Does anyone know why?


RstJ

[cami]

Hey, everybody. I followed the Chet Lynch case on this board, especially Tybee's excellent posts. You guys seem to have some good ideas, so I wondered if any Routier case experts could help me figure out the following:

If Darlie is innocent (and I believe she is) then someone else is guilty. The most obvious alternate suspect is Darin Routier. Yet Darlie supporters seem very reluctant to point the finger that direction. Does anyone know why?


RstJ

I'm not a Darlie supporter so I can't answer. I don't believe Darlie is innocent.

[dasgal]

Robert,

Follow the blood trails and let me know if you still think she is innocent.:crazy:

[Dani_T]

Hey, everybody. I followed the Chet Lynch case on this board, especially Tybee's excellent posts. You guys seem to have some good ideas, so I wondered if any Routier case experts could help me figure out the following:

If Darlie is innocent (and I believe she is) then someone else is guilty. The most obvious alternate suspect is Darin Routier. Yet Darlie supporters seem very reluctant to point the finger that direction. Does anyone know why?


RstJ

Quick answer is probably because it implicates Darlie too. Oh, perhaps not for murder- but it certainly doesn't add to the miss squeaky clean image they like to uphold for her. If Darin did it then Darlie's in trouble
a) because she has proclaimed over and over again since the begining that he didn't.
b) the story she has told repeatedly doesn't allow the possibility that it was darin
c) She's now implying there were TWO intruders

All up it makes her look like a conspirator to the crime.

However, the ultimate answer is that they haven't pointed the finger at darin because there is no evidence to suggest he did it. Of course there have been little hints recently that Darin may cease to enjoy the peace... they have been a few little fingers pointing in his direction lately. Of course that doesn't change the evidence... or lack thereof in terms of him having done it.

I'd be interested to hear what it is that has convinced you of Darlie's innocence?

[RobertStJames]

Quick answer is probably because it implicates Darlie too. Oh, perhaps not for murder- but it certainly doesn't add to the miss squeaky clean image they like to uphold for her. If Darin did it then Darlie's in trouble
a) because she has proclaimed over and over again since the begining that he didn't.
b) the story she has told repeatedly doesn't allow the possibility that it was darin
c) She's now implying there were TWO intruders

All up it makes her look like a conspirator to the crime.

However, the ultimate answer is that they haven't pointed the finger at darin because there is no evidence to suggest he did it. Of course there have been little hints recently that Darin may cease to enjoy the peace... they have been a few little fingers pointing in his direction lately. Of course that doesn't change the evidence... or lack thereof in terms of him having done it.

I'd be interested to hear what it is that has convinced you of Darlie's innocence?

I guess I don't see how Darlie could be in any more trouble than she's already in. Nor why, if she's 100% behind Darin's innocence, her lawyers continue to nibble at the idea of his guilt. Well, I guess if the only eyewitness to the crime is going to steadfastly maintain that the only other possible suspect didn't do it, there's not really much for the DA to go on. Just to clarify, I do not believe there was any intruder.

What convinces me of her innocence is that there's too much pointing to Darin's guilt.
1) He had blood all over him including splatter on two places on the jeans he was wearing.
2) One of his hairs was found on the murder weapon
3) That was his sock in the alley, with blood from both boys, and Darlie's saliva. This fits with something being put in her mouth. And Darin is the only person we know was outside that night.
4) Motive: Darin was in trouble financially. He had a 250k policy on Darlie.
5) Opportunity: he was home, everyone was asleep downstairs
6) Means: the knife used came from inside the house.
7) Darlie's description of the "intruder" black hat, long hair, tall, jeans. That describes Darin, the black hat was found, he was wearing jeans.
8) Darin's extremely odd behavior, noted in his affadavit. He fled across the street when LE showed up. He then went *back* across the street again after the bodies had been taken out. 30mins after the ambulances left, Darin is still there. What is he doing?
9) It's not Darlie's story about what he was wearing that changed--it's his. He says he came down w/o jeans. Then he changed it to wearing jeans.
10) He flopped a polygraph and I don't believe his story about how he was manipulated into taking it, or how it was "rigged." And his story makes it clear he did not take an early polygraph.


So, that's the point of my original post: I believe in Darlie's innocence, yes. But that belief does not extend to any intruder stories. What I can't understand is why I seem to be the only one to believe that Darlie is innocent because her husband did it, acting alone.


RstJ

[dasgal]

Have you looked at the blood evidence at all? Particularly whos was where?

[Yellowrose]

I guess I don't see how Darlie could be in any more trouble than she's already in. Nor why, if she's 100% behind Darin's innocence, her lawyers continue to nibble at the idea of his guilt. Well, I guess if the only eyewitness to the crime is going to steadfastly maintain that the only other possible suspect didn't do it, there's not really much for the DA to go on. Just to clarify, I do not believe there was any intruder.

What convinces me of her innocence is that there's too much pointing to Darin's guilt.
1) He had blood all over him including splatter on two places on the jeans he was wearing.
2) One of his hairs was found on the murder weapon
3) That was his sock in the alley, with blood from both boys, and Darlie's saliva. This fits with something being put in her mouth. And Darin is the only person we know was outside that night.
4) Motive: Darin was in trouble financially. He had a 250k policy on Darlie.
5) Opportunity: he was home, everyone was asleep downstairs
6) Means: the knife used came from inside the house.
7) Darlie's description of the "intruder" black hat, long hair, tall, jeans. That describes Darin, the black hat was found, he was wearing jeans.
8) Darin's extremely odd behavior, noted in his affadavit. He fled across the street when LE showed up. He then went *back* across the street again after the bodies had been taken out. 30mins after the ambulances left, Darin is still there. What is he doing?
9) It's not Darlie's story about what he was wearing that changed--it's his. He says he came down w/o jeans. Then he changed it to wearing jeans.
10) He flopped a polygraph and I don't believe his story about how he was manipulated into taking it, or how it was "rigged." And his story makes it clear he did not take an early polygraph.


So, that's the point of my original post: I believe in Darlie's innocence, yes. But that belief does not extend to any intruder stories. What I can't understand is why I seem to be the only one to believe that Darlie is innocent because her husband did it, acting alone.


RstJI think you have an excellent valid opinion. Very well put and thought out. "Follow the blood.......the CSI's have spoken!" :rolleyes:

[Mary456]

I guess I don't see how Darlie could be in any more trouble than she's already in. Nor why, if she's 100% behind Darin's innocence, her lawyers continue to nibble at the idea of his guilt. Well, I guess if the only eyewitness to the crime is going to steadfastly maintain that the only other possible suspect didn't do it, there's not really much for the DA to go on. Just to clarify, I do not believe there was any intruder.

What convinces me of her innocence is that there's too much pointing to Darin's guilt.
1) He had blood all over him including splatter on two places on the jeans he was wearing.
2) One of his hairs was found on the murder weapon
3) That was his sock in the alley, with blood from both boys, and Darlie's saliva. This fits with something being put in her mouth. And Darin is the only person we know was outside that night.
4) Motive: Darin was in trouble financially. He had a 250k policy on Darlie.
5) Opportunity: he was home, everyone was asleep downstairs
6) Means: the knife used came from inside the house.
7) Darlie's description of the "intruder" black hat, long hair, tall, jeans. That describes Darin, the black hat was found, he was wearing jeans.
8) Darin's extremely odd behavior, noted in his affadavit. He fled across the street when LE showed up. He then went *back* across the street again after the bodies had been taken out. 30mins after the ambulances left, Darin is still there. What is he doing?
9) It's not Darlie's story about what he was wearing that changed--it's his. He says he came down w/o jeans. Then he changed it to wearing jeans.
10) He flopped a polygraph and I don't believe his story about how he was manipulated into taking it, or how it was "rigged." And his story makes it clear he did not take an early polygraph.


So, that's the point of my original post: I believe in Darlie's innocence, yes. But that belief does not extend to any intruder stories. What I can't understand is why I seem to be the only one to believe that Darlie is innocent because her husband did it, acting alone.


RstJ

I'd like to address some of your points if that's ok.

1. Darin had blood all over him because he gave CPR to Devon. When that didn't work, he blew into the wounds themselves. It's not surprising that he had blood on him: he was down on his hands and knees trying to help his sons. Just curious, where did you get the information that his jeans had two blood spatters on them? His jeans weren't entered into evidence.

2. Darin lived in the house, so it's not unusual that one of his hairs would be found on the knife or anywhere else. It's no more indicative of Darin being the murderer than a neighbor kid or anyone else who visited the house preceding the murders.

3. The sock had Darlie's DNA, which could have come from her handling it. There was no testimony by nurses or doctors that would indicate she had a sock stuffed in her mouth.

4. If Darin was interested in insurance money, he would have made sure Darlie was dead by inflicting the same wounds found on the boys. And why on earth would he want to kill his boys? The insurance on them didn't even cover the cost of their funeral.

5. Opportunity: Same as Darin.

6. Means: Yes, the knife used came from inside the house, where Darlie and Darin both resided.

7. Darlie was emphatic that the intruder was not Darin. Besides, she said the intruder left the house through the garage. Darin couldn't have gotten back upstairs without her seeing him (at least, not according to her story).

8. Darin didn't flee across the street. He exited the house and met Officer Waddell in the front yard by the fountain & they went back inside together. It wasn't until later that he went across the street to summon Karen Neal, who was a nurse. He then sat on the curb until Terry Neal took him to the hospital.

9. Actually, their stories differed on this point. Darlie said he had jeans on and no glasses. Darin said he grabbed his glasses, but makes no mention of jeans in his initial statement. I don't think this inconsistency is of any importance. The fact is, he had jeans on when he met Waddell by the fountain in the front yard.

10. Yes, he admitted that he failed a polygraph. The reason he failed, imo, is because he knows that Darlie murdered their sons & although it's inconceiveable to the rest of us, he was trying to cover for her.

[mollymalone]

What convinces me of her GUILT is that there's too much pointing to DARLIE'S GUILT.

1) Darlie had a lot of blood all over her, not just her own, but that of her two boys. Blood that she could have gotten only if a)she was the perp b) she was holding the children to her c)attempting to save their lives.

Darlie laid a towel on a Damon's back, told him to hang in there. Later she puts another towel beside him. She walked back and forth to the kitchen, she stood by the kitchen bar, she held a towel to her neck. She didn't once help Darrin try to save either boy. She got towels wet and then put a towel on him. What was that supposed to achieve? So where and how did she get the boy's blood on her? Osmosis?

2) Darrin lived there. Hair transferrence from was entirely possible. From her testimony they were sitting together, kissing prior to the event.

3) The sock in the alley. Darlie could have placed there with the intent to make LE think it belonged to the intruder, or to point subtly at Darrin. If it had her saliva on it, there's nothing to suggest that she didn't place the sock into her own mouth before depositing it where it was found.

Darrin wasn't the only one who was outside that night. Darrin went across the street to get the neighbor's help that night. Darlie said in her testimony SHE also was outside that night screaming for the neighbor who was a nurse.

4) Motive: Darrin was in trouble financially. Scuse me, but it was THEIR financial problem, not just Darrin's. One of the reasons they were in financial problems was Darlie "forgot" to pay some bills (per her testimony.) The feeble excuse was that she was used to paying them from their work place, but not from home.

Q. And were you one month behind because you all had been real short on money?
A. No, actually we were one month behind because I completely forgot. I had just started paying bills at home, when I was used to paying them at the
shop.
Q. So you had just forgotten to make that payment?
A. Well, there was actually a couple of bills that I had forgotten to make.

5) Opportunity: She was home. SHE was downstairs with the children. Darrin was upstairs as was Drake. DARRIN asked Darlie if she wanted him to stay downstairs. She said NO. If Darrin had stayed downstairs to sleep, she couldn't follow thru with her plan.

6) Means: the knife used came from inside the house. Darlie knew exactly where those knives were kept as well as Darrin. An intruder who wasn't familiar with the house probably would not have any idea where they were kept and would spend time finding them. Time during which someone could have heard them.

7) Darlie's description of the "intruder" black hat, long hair, tall, jeans.That description could describe thousands of men or women in this country, same with the clothing.

Darlie later described the intruder as a neighbor, "Glen Mize". Darlie also tried to lay the blame on a "Gary Austin." Now she's hinting that it was "Darrin."

8) Darin's extremely odd behavior, noted in his affadavit. He fled across the street when LE showed up. He then went *back* across the street again after the bodies had been taken out. 30mins after the ambulances left, Darin is still there. What is he doing?

Darrin stated in that affadavit that he "ran to get help." How is that suspicious or odd? He was concerned that someone should take care of Drake while all of this was going on. Darrin tried to go into the ambulance with Darlie but was told to stay there by the paramedics. He checked on Drake at the neighbors, showered, put on clean clothes and went to the hospital.

9) It's not Darlie's story about what he was wearing that changed--it's his. He says he came down w/o jeans. Then he changed it to wearing jeans.

In his initial statement Darrin said that he put on his glasses and went downstairs. He also stated that he ran upstairs and checked on DRAKE, put his jeans on, came downstairs and ran across the street to "get help."
Anything he may have changed about that later was an attempt IMO to bolster Darlie's version of events.

10) He flopped a polygraph and I don't believe his story about how he was manipulated into taking it, or how it was "rigged." And his story makes it clear he did not take an early polygraph.

IMO unless we know what questions he flopped on, it's all speculation. Darrin has been in denial for years about his wife's involvement in killing his two sons. Once he admits that she did it, he has to face the fact that she took the lives of their sons. If he was asked do you think your wife did this or some version of that question, and he answered no, when in reality he thinks she did, of course he'd flunk it.

[Dani_T]

Good response Mary... I was going to respond to Robert's post but no need :)

[cami]

Good response Mary... I was going to respond to Robert's post but no need :)


I agree Dani, both you and Mary and Goody know this case so well. Too bad Mary wouldn't come around more. Did you fix those pop ups Mary?

[cami]

I guess I don't see how Darlie could be in any more trouble than she's already in. Nor why, if she's 100% behind Darin's innocence, her lawyers continue to nibble at the idea of his guilt. Well, I guess if the only eyewitness to the crime is going to steadfastly maintain that the only other possible suspect didn't do it, there's not really much for the DA to go on. Just to clarify, I do not believe there was any intruder.

What convinces me of her innocence is that there's too much pointing to Darin's guilt.
1) He had blood all over him including splatter on two places on the jeans he was wearing.
2) One of his hairs was found on the murder weapon
3) That was his sock in the alley, with blood from both boys, and Darlie's saliva. This fits with something being put in her mouth. And Darin is the only person we know was outside that night.
4) Motive: Darin was in trouble financially. He had a 250k policy on Darlie.
5) Opportunity: he was home, everyone was asleep downstairs
6) Means: the knife used came from inside the house.
7) Darlie's description of the "intruder" black hat, long hair, tall, jeans. That describes Darin, the black hat was found, he was wearing jeans.
8) Darin's extremely odd behavior, noted in his affadavit. He fled across the street when LE showed up. He then went *back* across the street again after the bodies had been taken out. 30mins after the ambulances left, Darin is still there. What is he doing?
9) It's not Darlie's story about what he was wearing that changed--it's his. He says he came down w/o jeans. Then he changed it to wearing jeans.
10) He flopped a polygraph and I don't believe his story about how he was manipulated into taking it, or how it was "rigged." And his story makes it clear he did not take an early polygraph.


So, that's the point of my original post: I believe in Darlie's innocence, yes. But that belief does not extend to any intruder stories. What I can't understand is why I seem to be the only one to believe that Darlie is innocent because her husband did it, acting alone.


RstJ

maybe you need to open yourself up to the evidence a little more.

for instance there's never been any testimony that Darlie's saliva was found on the sock in the alley. Her dna was found in the sock. It's not necessarily saliva, could have been skin cells from her fingers as she folded the socks with the laundry or as she wrapped it around that knife. We only have Darlie's say so that her mouth was 'raw"

Darlie says she followed the intruder to the utility room door. Surely she would recognize her own husband if it was him she was following. And her story does not give Darin time to be the intruder, get out, plant the sock, get rid of his shirt and hat and get back in the house in time to be running downstairs when Darlie starts to holler. Since there is no intruder, Darlie described what she is familiar with--Darin. Damon was wearing all black clothes that night hence the intruder was dressed in black.

Darin had no motive to murder the children unless he did it for Darlie. Those children were deliberately targeted.

Just my opinions and nothing more. But I to reiterate--follow the blood.

[mollymalone]

maybe you need to open yourself up to the evidence a little more.

for instance there's never been any testimony that Darlie's saliva was found on the sock in the alley. Her dna was found in the sock. It's not necessarily saliva, could have been skin cells from her fingers as she folded the socks with the laundry or as she wrapped it around that knife. We only have Darlie's say so that her mouth was 'raw"

Darlie says she followed the intruder to the utility room door. Surely she would recognize her own husband if it was him she was following. And her story does not give Darin time to be the intruder, get out, plant the sock, get rid of his shirt and hat and get back in the house in time to be running downstairs when Darlie starts to holler. Since there is no intruder, Darlie described what she is familiar with--Darin. Damon was wearing all black clothes that night hence the intruder was dressed in black.

Darin had no motive to murder the children unless he did it for Darlie. Those children were deliberately targeted.

Just my opinions and nothing more. But I to reiterate--follow the blood. Good point about the sock and her description. I agree, the children were targeted. If Darlie had been truly targeted, she'd be dead.

[RobertStJames]

I'd like to address some of your points if that's ok.


Of course. It wouldn't be interesting on this board if everyone agreed.


1. Darin had blood all over him because he gave CPR to Devon. When that didn't work, he blew into the wounds themselves. It's not surprising that he had blood on him: he was down on his hands and knees trying to help his sons. Just curious, where did you get the information that his jeans had two blood spatters on them? His jeans weren't entered into evidence.


Hard to get any answers on those jeans. They are in an evidence locker, but I don't believe they were entered into evidence at the trial as there would be no reason for that evidence to be introduced.. I've heard they had two blood spatters on them, but I don't know where that comes from as the quote was not attributed. However, the appeals frequently refer to these jeans.


2. Darin lived in the house, so it's not unusual that one of his hairs would be found on the knife or anywhere else. It's no more indicative of Darin being the murderer than a neighbor kid or anyone else who visited the house preceding the murders.


But it certainly does not point at Darlie as the murderer. Not sure what you're trying to say about a neighborhood kid or how it relates to this knife. Nowhere does Darin say he touched that knife. And he wasn't attacked. So how, of all places, does one of his hairs end up on the knife that killed at least one of the boys?



3. The sock had Darlie's DNA, which could have come from her handling it. There was no testimony by nurses or doctors that would indicate she had a sock stuffed in her mouth.


But there is evidence of her having cuts in her mouth consistent with an object being placed there. The DNA is from her saliva. Unless she washed Darin's socks in her mouth, there is no good explanation for that being there. This was addressed, in depth, at trial. Floyd's opinion:
A. Well, based on my experience, it's
17 takes more than just a light contact such as picking up a
18 sock.


So, it wasn't from her handling it. Blood from both boys, and her on that sock. But none of her blood.



4. If Darin was interested in insurance money, he would have made sure Darlie was dead by inflicting the same wounds found on the boys. And why on earth would he want to kill his boys? The insurance on them didn't even cover the cost of their funeral.


They were witnesses. And a throat slash certainly qualifies as trying to kill someone. He didn't succeed because that gold necklace stopped the blade just short of the carotid.


5. Opportunity: Same as Darin.


Actually, different. Very different. If she'd wanted to kill her sons and say an intruder did it, why not do it while *he wasn't home*? Have you ever heard of a case where a mother kills her children while her husband (or anyone else) is in the same house? But if Darlie was the target, then late at night with only the family home certainly qualifies as opportunity.



6. Means: Yes, the knife used came from inside the house, where Darlie and Darin both resided.


Which blows up the intruder idea. I don't know why Darlie's supporters continue to chase that illusion. But as long as this mystery intruder is a part of the appeals, Darlie has no chance of another trial.


7. Darlie was emphatic that the intruder was not Darin. Besides, she said the intruder left the house through the garage. Darin couldn't have gotten back upstairs without her seeing him (at least, not according to her story).


No, if, in fact, he was upstairs. But you raised the main point: Darlie will not say it was him. But why, since her accusers don't believe much of anything else she says, do they believe her here? And, if she can't give anything beyond hat, jeans, long hair, how does she know it *wasn't* him? Seems to me her opinion is given tremendous weight in this area, but none at all in others.



8. Darin didn't flee across the street. He exited the house and met Officer Waddell in the front yard by the fountain & they went back inside together. It wasn't until later that he went across the street to summon Karen Neal, who was a nurse. He then sat on the curb until Terry Neal took him to the hospital.


His own voluntary statement has him fleeing the scene.This is where the "mystery man" nonsense came from. And in his statement, he makes it quite clear that he went across the street *twice* not once. This is the relevant part:
"I noticed my wallet hitting the floor and all I could think to do was go to --(blanked out)-- for help. I went downstairs and....ran across the street." Darin then goes back into the house, sees the knife, goes into the garage to see the window, and then goes *back* across the street again!

And people talk about Darlie's odd behavior?


9. Actually, their stories differed on this point. Darlie said he had jeans on and no glasses. Darin said he grabbed his glasses, but makes no mention of jeans in his initial statement. I don't think this inconsistency is of any importance. The fact is, he had jeans on when he met Waddell by the fountain in the front yard.


You don't find the clothes he was wearing to be significant? Boy, people sure saw Darlie's nightshirt as being significant! But not Darin's jeans. They had blood on them. It was never established *whose* blood. By testing. The same kind of testing applied extensively to Darlie's nightshirt.

Darin mentions jeans in his intial statement. He says he went back upstairs to put his pants on. He'd hardly need to do that if he had them on when he came downstairs.


10. Yes, he admitted that he failed a polygraph. The reason he failed, imo, is because he knows that Darlie murdered their sons & although it's inconceiveable to the rest of us, he was trying to cover for her.

No.


The polygraph examiner determined that Mr. Routier lied in answering each of 4 questions about the crime: when he denied planning a crime at his home, stabbing his wife, knowing who left a bloody sock in the alley and knowing the identity of his sons' killer.


That's not covering for his wife. That's "he did it."


RstJ

[Jules]

But it certainly does not point at Darlie as the murderer. Not sure what you're trying to say about a neighborhood kid or how it relates to this knife. Nowhere does Darin say he touched that knife. And he wasn't attacked. So how, of all places, does one of his hairs end up on the knife that killed at least one of the boys?

I think what Mary meant on this is that Darin's hair would be all over the house as he lived there. Same goes for a neighbor kid that came over to play - the hair could have fell out as the boys were playing on the floor, etc. I'm not as familiar with this case as some of you, but if the knife had been laid down on the carpet or the counter, there could have been hair there and it stuck to the knife then. I have lots of tile in my house and I know when I sweep I am always amazed at how much hair there is. (I am a neat freak and clean my house daily, btw).

Transfers of hair, fibers, etc., happen all the time.

JMO - Jules

BTW - some AWESOME debates going on here. Y'all are full of info! Thanks so much for posting all you know. This is a case that truly breaks my heart.

[RobertStJames]

What convinces me of her GUILT is that there's too much pointing to DARLIE'S GUILT.

1) Darlie had a lot of blood all over her, not just her own, but that of her two boys. Blood that she could have gotten only if a)she was the perp b) she was holding the children to her c)attempting to save their lives.


d) She'd been stabbed by the same knife used to kill her sons.

How much blood was found on that nightshirt? Four drops? So I've got blood *all over* Darin, but all of four drops of blood belonging to someone other than Darlie on her nightshirt. If you have a cite showing more blood than that, then I'd like to see it.


Darlie laid a towel on a Damon's back, told him to hang in there. Later she puts another towel beside him. She walked back and forth to the kitchen, she stood by the kitchen bar, she held a towel to her neck. She didn't once help Darrin try to save either boy. She got towels wet and then put a towel on him. What was that supposed to achieve? So where and how did she get the boy's blood on her? Osmosis?


What was giving CPR to a dead kid while the living one struggled for air supposed to achieve? And if she was carrying towels to the scene, why wouldn't she have got some of the boy's blood on her then? Nobody ever mentions that possibility. They prefer to go with four blood drops, one of them found *on top* of her own blood.


2) Darrin lived there. Hair transferrence from was entirely possible. From her testimony they were sitting together, kissing prior to the event.


This reminds me of some of the strange explanations for how Laci's hair ended up in those pliers. Darin did not touch the knife. He was not stabbed with it. Why is his hair on that knife?

You don't find it more plausible that the hair is there because he caught some of it there while he was stabbing his victims?



3) The sock in the alley. Darlie could have placed there with the intent to make LE think it belonged to the intruder, or to point subtly at Darrin. If it had her saliva on it, there's nothing to suggest that she didn't place the sock into her own mouth before depositing it where it was found.

Darrin wasn't the only one who was outside that night. Darrin went across the street to get the neighbor's help that night. Darlie said in her testimony SHE also was outside that night screaming for the neighbor who was a nurse.


She placed the sock into her own mouth? Darin was the only one outside that night with motive and opportunity to do the plant. I don't know if Darlie added the going outside screaming part to her later story (is it in the 16 points?) but everything I've read makes it clear she was in the house until LE arrived, then the paramedics took her to the ambulance. There was no opportunity to plant the sock. Darin had at least 30mins, most of which we don't really know where he was.





4) Motive: Darrin was in trouble financially. Scuse me, but it was THEIR financial problem, not just Darrin's. One of the reasons they were in financial problems was Darlie "forgot" to pay some bills (per her testimony.) The feeble excuse was that she was used to paying them from their work place, but not from home.

Q. And were you one month behind because you all had been real short on money?
A. No, actually we were one month behind because I completely forgot. I had just started paying bills at home, when I was used to paying them at the
shop.
Q. So you had just forgotten to make that payment?
A. Well, there was actually a couple of bills that I had forgotten to make.


She forgot to pay 12k in credit card bills. I don't find her stories on anything financial to be remotely credible either. But I also don't see how two dead kids was going to fix any of this. They (Darin, really, as the business owner) needed money *now* not to cut their expenses down the road. A dead wife and a 250K insurance policy--that solves a lot of problems.





5) Opportunity: She was home. SHE was downstairs with the children. Darrin was upstairs as was Drake. DARRIN asked Darlie if she wanted him to stay downstairs. She said NO. If Darrin had stayed downstairs to sleep, she couldn't follow thru with her plan.


You don't find it strange that she'd been sleeping for several nights downstairs well prior to the murders? Or that she'd choose such a lousy opportunity when she had so many other ones where Darin *was not home*? What was the point of doing it while he was home?


6) Means: the knife used came from inside the house. Darlie knew exactly where those knives were kept as well as Darrin. An intruder who wasn't familiar with the house probably would not have any idea where they were kept and would spend time finding them. Time during which someone could have heard them.


I agree. There was no intruder. As long as Darlie's appeals are based on this, they aren't going to go anywhere. But this means test applies equally well to Darlie or Darin.


7) Darlie's description of the "intruder" black hat, long hair, tall, jeans.That description could describe thousands of men or women in this country, same with the clothing.

Darlie later described the intruder as a neighbor, "Glen Mize". Darlie also tried to lay the blame on a "Gary Austin." Now she's hinting that it was "Darrin."


Not when a black hat with one of Darin's hairs in it is found in the utility room and he was wearing jeans that night. And thousands of people did not have motive.

How much of what we hear comes from Darlie herself? Is Mize and Austin directly from her?




Darrin stated in that affadavit that he "ran to get help." How is that suspicious or odd? He was concerned that someone should take care of Drake while all of this was going on. Darrin tried to go into the ambulance with Darlie but was told to stay there by the paramedics. He checked on Drake at the neighbors, showered, put on clean clothes and went to the hospital.


It's suspicious and odd because help *was already there.* Why did he leave a severely injured wife, a still-breathing son, to go get "help" instead of staying right there where "help" already was?? (paramedics) He's giving CPR and then flees the scene when medical personnel show up? You don't find this odd or suspicious? He fled because he was afraid Damon was going to be able to talk. And what on earth is he doing showering and changing into clean clothes before going to the hospital? Would you do something like that, would anyone? There were police and friends and any number of people who were telling him that they'd give him a ride to the hospital, but he didn't go. No, he has to shower first.

If you don't find that suspicious...




In his initial statement Darrin said that he put on his glasses and went downstairs. He also stated that he ran upstairs and checked on DRAKE, put his jeans on, came downstairs and ran across the street to "get help."
Anything he may have changed about that later was an attempt IMO to bolster Darlie's version of events.


And escape the gallows. Why did he need to check on Drake, btw, since he'd just come from that room? And, since people are so inclined to jump on Darlie for the slightest inconsistency, why does Darin get a pass here when he can't even remember a critical detail like whether he was wearing pants or not?




IMO unless we know what questions he flopped on, it's all speculation. Darrin has been in denial for years about his wife's involvement in killing his two sons. Once he admits that she did it, he has to face the fact that she took the lives of their sons. If he was asked do you think your wife did this or some version of that question, and he answered no, when in reality he thinks she did, of course he'd flunk it.

But, as you can see in my other post, that wasn't the question he was asked.


RstJ

[RobertStJames]

<...>
Darin had no motive to murder the children unless he did it for Darlie. Those children were deliberately targeted.

Just my opinions and nothing more. But I to reiterate--follow the blood.

Indeed. Good advice. I've followed it to a pair of blue jeans that Darin Routier was wearing that night. The trail stops right there.

The kids were killed for the same reason Longo (and about 50 other guys per year) kill their kids--to get rid of witnesses. Which profile do you think fits best: family annhilator, or killer mommy?


RstJ



RstJ

[RobertStJames]

I think what Mary meant on this is that Darin's hair would be all over the house as he lived there. Same goes for a neighbor kid that came over to play - the hair could have fell out as the boys were playing on the floor, etc. I'm not as familiar with this case as some of you, but if the knife had been laid down on the carpet or the counter, there could have been hair there and it stuck to the knife then. I have lots of tile in my house and I know when I sweep I am always amazed at how much hair there is. (I am a neat freak and clean my house daily, btw).

Transfers of hair, fibers, etc., happen all the time.

JMO - Jules

BTW - some AWESOME debates going on here. Y'all are full of info! Thanks so much for posting all you know. This is a case that truly breaks my heart.

It's a very interesting case. And my argument has a big hole in it, of course, which is why wouldn't Darlie just roll on the guy? But then again, many people believe Darin is covering for *her* so why not vice-versa. I really believe that if Darlie's appeal focuses on the evidence pointing at Darin (and there's a lot of it) then she'll be granted a new trial. One of the conditions, however, will likely be that she tell the truth, the *whole* truth about the days/weeks leading up to the murder. And that she drop all this "intruder" stuff because there' s just no evidence at all for that.

Anyway, back to the hair. I don't buy the "transfer" idea because it sounds too desperate, too unlikely. Especially when there's a much simpler explanation for it, that Darin got the knife tangled in his long hair while he was stabbing/slashing three people.


RstJ

[Jules]

Personally I think Darin knows more than he's saying, possibly Darlie too, but I'm not sure Darin did the actual killing. I have always leaned toward Darlie. But, in all honesty, I haven't read everything there is to read on it so my opinion may be biased by what I HAVE read.

Anyway, that is something I have always wondered too - if one or the other knows something - why not fess up? In my opinion, it is Darin who knows something but doesn't want to end up in prison like Darlie. I can't imagine Darlie knowing things that point to Darin's guilt and her doing the time for him. Why would she do that?

So many questions....

As for the hair, I think it is more than very possible it attached itself to the knife as it was laid down on the carpet at some point. I'm just not at the point that Darin did it yet. Perhaps with more reading, and your continued posts, that will change.

Jules

[Jeana (DP)]

Hi RobertStJames and welcome.

I'm too busy right now to get detailed, but my only question this minute is that if Darin killed the boys, and wanted Darlie dead, why not just plunge the knife into her chest? Its obvious whomever wanted the boys dead knew what they were doing, so why not just take her out that way? If she was the intented target of her husband of all people and he could quietly have walked up to her as she slept and just plunged 7 inches of a butcher's knife right into her heart, thus, accomplishing the job, taking out any adult witness, etc., why didn't he?

[RobertStJames]

Personally I think Darin knows more than he's saying, possibly Darlie too, but I'm not sure Darin did the actual killing. I have always leaned toward Darlie. But, in all honesty, I haven't read everything there is to read on it so my opinion may be biased by what I HAVE read.

Anyway, that is something I have always wondered too - if one or the other knows something - why not fess up? In my opinion, it is Darin who knows something but doesn't want to end up in prison like Darlie. I can't imagine Darlie knowing things that point to Darin's guilt and her doing the time for him. Why would she do that?


Why do so many women refuse to testify against their husbands/boyfriends when in domestic violence cases?

I really don't know. I don't think she got a good enough look to be absolutely sure, and that's not an accusation anyone's going to make without being positive. And, from what we know of her and the marriage, it's not something she'd even *want* to believe. It's a mystery, and I really don't have a good answer for this other than she just will not believe it could be true, or she's intentionally covering for him. The first makes her pretty naive, the second would still have her behind bars on accessory after the fact. But if she didn't know who it was, how could she be sure who it wasn't?

Of course, as soon as she does start saying it was him, he's going to stop supporting her. And, as sad as it sounds, that might be more important to her than anything else.


So many questions....

As for the hair, I think it is more than very possible it attached itself to the knife as it was laid down on the carpet at some point. I'm just not at the point that Darin did it yet. Perhaps with more reading, and your continued posts, that will change.

Jules

I'm pretty much fighting the tide on this one. It's not at all impossible Darlie did it, and if the DA was presented with evidence from his investigators saying that there was no intruder, and that Darlie stated categorically it could not have been her husband, he really doesn't have much choice. He would prosecute on what he had, which was enough evidence to convince 12 people that she did it. They probably got a slanted version of the case, but that's what the prosecutor is supposed to do--present evidence that she's guilty. It's the responsibility of the defense to refute that evidence. Darlie had a very good lawyer. Unfortunately, Darin Routier was paying that lawyer. It's a sticky situation indeed when one suspect is paying for the other suspect's legal defense. Obviously, Darin's not paying Mulder 100k in order to convince the world that Darin did it. Darlie was only charged with *one* death. The DA was completely free to file on the other one. And, in fact, one day he might very well do that.


RstJ

[Jeana (DP)]

Unfortunately for Darlie, at this point, she can say that Darin did it, exactly the order the entire thing was carried out, what he was wearing when he did it and every word that came out of his mouth, in the exact order they were said, and it wouldn't mean squat right now. Its long been my opinion that they each have something on the other and if anyone starts talking, Darlie's appeal process goes into the toilet without question and Darin risks incarceration himself. If Darin did anything that night, its too late for Darlie to say anything. It can't help her now. Its also long been my opinion that the police and prosecutor's office hate Darin Routier and wouldn't have had problem one in being able to make a case against him. Its foolish to believe that they never tried to add him to the defendant's table. As much as the "supporters" of Darlie Routier would like you to belive otherwise, there was a damn good investigation in this case and I believe if there was evidence against Darin Routier in murdering his boys, either alone, or in conjunction with Darlie, he'd be on death row today too.

[RobertStJames]

Hi RobertStJames and welcome.

I'm too busy right now to get detailed, but my only question this minute is that if Darin killed the boys, and wanted Darlie dead, why not just plunge the knife into her chest? Its obvious whomever wanted the boys dead knew what they were doing, so why not just take her out that way? If she was the intented target of her husband of all people and he could quietly have walked up to her as she slept and just plunged 7 inches of a butcher's knife right into her heart, thus, accomplishing the job, taking out any adult witness, etc., why didn't he?

My guess is he was trying to do exactly that. Darlie had a deep (3 inches and into the bone) defense wound on her right arm. She had numerous other cuts and bruises in textbook locations on her arms indicating she'd struggled. The perp had to get that knife past her arms and that might not have been easy to do. So he had to restrain her, meaning he would be very close to her while doing so. At that point, he doesn't have a lot of stabbing room, so a slash to the throat makes the most sense. That was a savage neck slash she received, far more consistent with someone trying to kill her than with her faking an injury. For faked injurines, see Diane Downs shooting herself in the wrist.


And he obviously didn't do a very good job on Damon as it's clear Damon was able to move after the first assault. But he went after him *again* and finally stabbed him dead. That's one very determined perp. If it was Darlie, why did she stop attacking Damon long enough for him to move? Ok, to make the 911 call, right? But Darin is clearly heard on that call from the very beginning. So did she finish stabbing Damon while he was downstairs?

This is what I think happened: the perp went after Darlie first. That makes sense, she was the adult. He struggled with her on the couch (overturned table), stabbed her twice, and finally slashed her throat open. Damon woke up and went over to her, possibly even during the assault. His handprint was on that couch, but I'd bet anything it wasn't his blood.

He was knifed next. He fell, and the perp went after Devon, probably *also* awake. He pinned him on the floor and stabbed him to death on the spot. Then Damon, who'd been able to move this time, significantly toward the door, was attacked *again*. Two little kids wouldn't have been able to do much to defend themselves. He then started leaving the scene, but Darlie regained conciousness and went after him. And the only way *that* makes sense is if she knew him.

The last part of the 911 call is interesting. I swear it sounds like Darlie is blaming Darin for what happened.


RstJ

[Jules]

Hi RobertStJames and welcome.

I'm too busy right now to get detailed, but my only question this minute is that if Darin killed the boys, and wanted Darlie dead, why not just plunge the knife into her chest? Its obvious whomever wanted the boys dead knew what they were doing, so why not just take her out that way? If she was the intented target of her husband of all people and he could quietly have walked up to her as she slept and just plunged 7 inches of a butcher's knife right into her heart, thus, accomplishing the job, taking out any adult witness, etc., why didn't he?

That's the part I can't get past either Jeana. He was a big guy - much larger than Darlie. If she was to be his intended victim, she would be dead.

Jules

[Jeana (DP)]

My guess is he was trying to do exactly that. Darlie had a deep (3 inches and into the bone) defense wound on her right arm. She had numerous other cuts and bruises in textbook locations on her arms indicating she'd struggled. The perp had to get that knife past her arms and that might not have been easy to do. So he had to restrain her, meaning he would be very close to her while doing so. At that point, he doesn't have a lot of stabbing room, so a slash to the throat makes the most sense. That was a savage neck slash she received, far more consistent with someone trying to kill her than with her faking an injury. For faked injurines, see Diane Downs shooting herself in the wrist.




Completely disagree. She was asleep on the couch. Absolutely NO need whatsoever for any type of struggle. All he had to do was walk up to the couch and put the knife into her chest. Why would he have had to restrain her? She never would have even known what hit her. Even more remarkable was the fact that IF someone other than Darlie did this, the person left KNOWING that Darlie saw him. Don't you think she would have been able to identify her own husband? Believe me, Darin Routier isn't smart enough to even think about any sort of "traumatic amnesia," so there's no way he was counting on that. And, as you said, there was motive if he had been the one. Nothing will get you on death row faster in Texas than to butcher your sleeping family in order to try and get out of debt via life insurance proceeds. I don't disagree that getting rid of her and the boys would have solved a LOT of his problems. What I disagree with is that it would have been difficult for him to do. There was a great deal of overkill in that room, but it certainly didn't involve Darlie's injuries. She would have been released the very next morning had the "circumstances" of the attacks been different. No tiny gold chain is going to stop someone hell bent on murdering his wife by slashing her neck. What makes no sense is that there was any "slashing" wounds on Darlie whatever. As for Darlie's "defense" wounds, pardon me, but that silly. If someone is attacking someone with a large butcher knife and the woman is NOT ONLY fighting for her own life, but the lives of her two small boys in the same room, a defense wound would be more equal to her almost (or maybe even actually) having fingers cut almost completely off. There are pictures of actual real defense wounds fitting this description on the internet should you be inclined to search for them. As for the wound on Darlie's forearm, it makes a hell of a lot more sense that the knife was wet from blood and it slipped or while trying to restrain one of the boys, she accidentally hit her own arm.

[Mary456]

Good response Mary... I was going to respond to Robert's post but no need :)

Thanks, Dani. We hardly ever discuss Darlie anymore at Guilty as Charged, probably because we've discussed it to death. But I don't want to get rusty. Gotta keep up on the details until this is over, ha ha!

[Mary456]

I think what Mary meant on this is that Darin's hair would be all over the house as he lived there. Same goes for a neighbor kid that came over to play - the hair could have fell out as the boys were playing on the floor, etc. I'm not as familiar with this case as some of you, but if the knife had been laid down on the carpet or the counter, there could have been hair there and it stuck to the knife then. I have lots of tile in my house and I know when I sweep I am always amazed at how much hair there is. (I am a neat freak and clean my house daily, btw).

Transfers of hair, fibers, etc., happen all the time.

JMO - Jules

BTW - some AWESOME debates going on here. Y'all are full of info! Thanks so much for posting all you know. This is a case that truly breaks my heart.

Hi Jules. Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Darlie did lay the knife down on the carpet and on the kitchen counter. The knife could have easily picked up Darin's hair (or Darlie's or anyone else's who visited the house) on either of those surfaces. I believe it's called "artifact evidence".

[RobertStJames]

Completely disagree. She was asleep on the couch. Absolutely NO need whatsoever for any type of struggle. All he had to do was walk up to the couch and put the knife into her chest. Why would he have had to restrain her? She never would have even known what hit her. Even more remarkable was the fact that IF someone other than Darlie did this, the person left KNOWING that Darlie saw him. Don't you think she would have been able to identify her own husband? Believe me, Darin Routier isn't smart enough to even think about any sort of "traumatic amnesia," so there's no way he was counting on that. And, as you said, there was motive if he had been the one. Nothing will get you on death row faster in Texas than to butcher your sleeping family in order to try and get out of debt via life insurance proceeds. I don't disagree that getting rid of her and the boys would have solved a LOT of his problems. What I disagree with is that it would have been difficult for him to do. There was a great deal of overkill in that room, but it certainly didn't involve Darlie's injuries. She would have been released the very next morning had the "circumstances" of the attacks been different. No tiny gold chain is going to stop someone hell bent on murdering his wife by slashing her neck. What makes no sense is that there was any "slashing" wounds on Darlie whatever. As for Darlie's "defense" wounds, pardon me, but that silly. If someone is attacking someone with a large butcher knife and the woman is NOT ONLY fighting for her own life, but the lives of her two small boys in the same room, a defense wound would be more equal to her almost (or maybe even actually) having fingers cut almost completely off. There are pictures of actual real defense wounds fitting this description on the internet should you be inclined to search for them. As for the wound on Darlie's forearm, it makes a hell of a lot more sense that the knife was wet from blood and it slipped or while trying to restrain one of the boys, she accidentally hit her own arm.
And sunk the knife into her *bone*? No way. And she's right handed. Are you saying she was stabbing the boys with her left hand? Because that defensive wound was on her right forearm.

Basically, her description matches her husband. And no, I don't think she knew it was him because the lights were off and he was wearing a black hat. Or maybe she did know it was him and just didn't believe it. Darin himself basically fled the scene when LE showed up. It's very clearly stated in the Bond Hearing transcripts. LE arrives, Darin runs across the street. It's impossible to tell exactly when he comes back, but by the time he does, there's a second cop there that he didn't see arrive.

So what's he doing sprinting across the street?

As for slashing wounds, I'm looking at a case right now in California where a victim died of very similiar injuries and she was in all likelihood, the perp's primary victim (two women found at the scene, the other with several deep stab wounds to the abdomen).

And you hit the biggest problem of all: what problem does two dead kids solve for Darlie Routier? And does any explanation you can come up with sound as plausible as a guy with a struggling business and bills that were going to ruin him, trying to snake his way out of it with a life insurance murder? As you pointed out, that gets you the Row in Texas, and obviously we know that because there are many people on the Row for exactly this kind of crime.

Look at the profile for the Family Annihalator. Compare it to Darin. Look at the profile for Killer Mommy. Compare it to Darlie.

Which fits better?


RstJ



RstJ

[Mary456]

"Darlie had a deep (3 inches and into the bone) defense wound on her right arm. She had numerous other cuts and bruises in textbook locations on her arms indicating she'd struggled."

The wound in her right arm was only about an inch deep and didn't penetrate the bone. That was the only injury she had on her arms while hospitalized (other than the slight bruises from the I.Vs.) The massive, purple bruises on her right arm didn't show up until 6/10 when she was photographed at the police station. Darlie inflicted the bruises sometime after she left the hospital.

"That was a savage neck slash she received, far more consistent with someone trying to kill her than with her faking an injury."

I guess it depends on what you call savage. Her neck wound was only about 1/4" deep, whereas the boys' wounds went several inches into their bodies & damaged vital organs.

"If it was Darlie, why did she stop attacking Damon long enough for him to move? Ok, to make the 911 call, right?"

She probably thought he was dead & ran the sock to the alley. When she returned, she saw that he was still alive and had crawled across the family room. Darlie stabbed him again and then called 911.

"This is what I think happened: the perp went after Darlie first."

But then how do you explain her many stories, none of which had a perp attacking the boys after she was attacked?

"He then started leaving the scene, but Darlie regained conciousness and went after him."

Darlie never lost consciousness; she was quite clear about that when questioned in the hospital.

"The last part of the 911 call is interesting. I swear it sounds like Darlie is blaming Darin for what happened."

It's certainly subject to interpretation. To me, it sounds like she's trying to convince Darin and the 911 operator that there was an intruder.

[Dani_T]

Finally some discussion :)

But it certainly does not point at Darlie as the murderer. Not sure what you're trying to say about a neighborhood kid or how it relates to this knife. Nowhere does Darin say he touched that knife. And he wasn't attacked. So how, of all places, does one of his hairs end up on the knife that killed at least one of the boys?

Well I can come up with 3 ways straight off-

1) When the knife was placed on the carpet (which we know it was) it could have picked up one of his hairs
2) When the knife was placed on the countertop it could have picked up one of his hairs
3) Darlie could have transferred it to the knife herself (remembering they were meant to have been 'snuggling' that night)

If you take a look at experiments done when it comes to fibre and hair transferance you'll see that it is not at all unusual that a Darin's hair was found on a knife that was in their own house and was moved about a fair amount during and perhaps after the commission of the crime.

Honestly, his hair on the knife proves nothing... except that a single piece of his hair was on the knife.

But there is evidence of her having cuts in her mouth consistent with an object being placed there.

There is? Where abouts?

The DNA is from her saliva

I don't believe there was every any testimony which ascertained that the DNA on it was certainly from her salvia.

So, it wasn't from her handling it. Blood from both boys, and her on that sock. But none of her blood.

Which is somewhat unusual isn't it considering that
a) she was the one who was moving around the most and bleeding the most
b) if the sock was used in her mouth how exactly did the boys blood end up on it?
c) if the boys blood was on the sock and it was then shoved in her mouth how come we don't have any other blood smudges from where the sock was folded up against itself?

They were witnesses. And a throat slash certainly qualifies as trying to kill someone. He didn't succeed because that gold necklace stopped the blade just short of the carotid.

The fact that her throat was cut can be used just as easily and convincingly by those who believe she was guilty. I've seen it done over and over again. In and of itself it proves nothing and the fact remains that it was a superifical cut which was completely different to the vicious and deep stab wounds which the boys received.

Actually, different. Very different. If she'd wanted to kill her sons and say an intruder did it, why not do it while *he wasn't home*?

Because the story of someone breaking into the house in the middle of the day when her husband wasn't home and killing two children and leaving her alive (for some reason) and then exiting the house and managing to get away without being seen would have been even more implausible than the story she came up with.

No, if, in fact, he was upstairs. But you raised the main point: Darlie will not say it was him.

According to Darlie she waited at the bottom of the stairs and watched him come down them. So, if he wasn't upstairs then Darlie's lying. Why is she lying? She has consistently claimed it was not Darin, the timeline disallows Darin from having attacked the boys and Darlie, walked out knowingly leaving TWO of them alive, walked through the U-room, into the garage, out the window then somehow get back into the house, upstairs and then come back downstairs all in less than a minute. It simply doesn't work.

Seems to me her opinion is given tremendous weight in this area, but none at all in others.
Her opinion is not the only, or even main reason, that Darin can be discounted. I just showed above why it simply doesn't work.

And here is another one- if Darlie saw he was wearing his jeans when he came down the stairs do you think she just missed the fact that according to your theory they were liberally covered with blood?


His own voluntary statement has him fleeing the scene.This is where the "mystery man" nonsense came from. And in his statement, he makes it quite clear that he went across the street *twice* not once. This is the relevant part:
"I noticed my wallet hitting the floor and all I could think to do was go to --(blanked out)-- for help. I went downstairs and....ran across the street." Darin then goes back into the house, sees the knife, goes into the garage to see the window, and then goes *back* across the street again!

He didn't 'flee the scene'- he went across to the neigbours for help. Furthermore when he went back into the house it was after Darlie had been put on the stretcher- not in the middle of it all.

Don't me wrong- lots of what Darin has to say doesn't add up at all. His vol statement contradicts his testimony in numerous instances, and a lot of what he says in both the vol statement and testimony contradicts other testimony (from Darlie and the police/paramedics etc). His timelines is screwed up all over the place and it is hard to to know what he says he did when. But that doesn't simply mean that we can't contruct what he did when and where from other testimony and evidence.

You don't find the clothes he was wearing to be significant? Boy, people sure saw Darlie's nightshirt as being significant! But not Darin's jeans. They had blood on them. It was never established *whose* blood. By testing. The same kind of testing applied extensively to Darlie's nightshirt.

Of course they had blood on them- he was giving CPR to Devon and at least went and stopped by Damon. Whereas Darlie went nowhere NEAR Devon and there is no evidence (beyond her word) that she helped Damon and yet both of their blood is on her!

If you are suggesting that his jeans were liberally covered in blood from killing the boys and attacking Darlie then where is the rest of the blood when he went out through the garage and then back into the house and upstairs? There is none of it. How did he manage not to track blood through the rest of the house?

Darin mentions jeans in his intial statement. He says he went back upstairs to put his pants on. He'd hardly need to do that if he had them on when he came downstairs.
Darin's jeans are a sticking point- he says he wasn't wearing them in his vol statement and then that he WAS wearing them in his testimony, Darlie says he was wearing them. The 911 call (listening to Darin on it) gives almost no time for Darin to disappear upstairs to put them on before running out and meeting Waddell in the front yard and yet he mentions specifics about going upstairs to check Damon, his wallet hitting the floor which makes me think there is some truth in it.


The polygraph examiner determined that Mr. Routier lied in answering each of 4 questions about the crime: when he denied planning a crime at his home, stabbing his wife, knowing who left a bloody sock in the alley and knowing the identity of his sons' killer.

That's not covering for his wife. That's "he did it."

How can you say that? You don't even know what his answers were! A bit of proof to support your claim would go a long way.

How much blood was found on that nightshirt? Four drops? So I've got blood *all over* Darin, but all of four drops of blood belonging to someone other than Darlie on her nightshirt

Exactly- why was there so little of the boys blood on Darlie? Have a think about that.

What was giving CPR to a dead kid while the living one struggled for air supposed to achieve?
Because Darlie was meant to be helping Damon and because Darin claims not have have seen Damon straight up but went straight to Devon.

And if she was carrying towels to the scene, why wouldn't she have got some of the boy's blood on her then? Nobody ever mentions that possibility. They prefer to go with four blood drops, one of them found *on top* of her own blood.

Exactly- another thing for you to have a think about.

You don't find it more plausible that the hair is there because he caught some of it there while he was stabbing his victims?
No- because there is so much evidence which rules Darin out as the one who stabbed them and before we start thinking about the possibility that maybe that's how the hair got there we need to deal with that evidence and explain it.

She placed the sock into her own mouth? Darin was the only one outside that night with motive and opportunity to do the plant.
How do you know Darin was the only one outside that night? How do you know Darlie wasn't there and that she didn't have the motive to do the plant? The times when Darin went outside he was on the street IN front of the house, not behind it.

but everything I've read makes it clear she was in the house until LE arrived, then the paramedics took her to the ambulance. There was no opportunity to plant the sock. Darin had at least 30mins, most of which we don't really know where he was.

Darlie had plenty of time and opportunity to plant the sock- before the police arrived. Darin was NOT MIA for most of 30 mins at all - in fact he was in people's presence almost the entire time: either Darlies, the paramedics, the police of the Neals.

It's suspicious and odd because help *was already there.* Why did he leave a severely injured wife, a still-breathing son, to go get "help" instead of staying right there where "help" already was?? (paramedics) He's giving CPR and then flees the scene when medical personnel show up? You don't find this odd or suspicious?

He went and got help because the Neals were their good friends, Karen was a nurse and the boys and Darlie were being attended to by medical professionals. Everyone excuses Darlie because she was in a state of shock- well how about Darin? Doesn't the same apply to him?

He fled because he was afraid Damon was going to be able to talk. And what on earth is he doing showering and changing into clean clothes before going to the hospital? Would you do something like that, would anyone? There were police and friends and any number of people who were telling him that they'd give him a ride to the hospital, but he didn't go. No, he has to shower first.

That makes no sense- if he was afraid Damon was going to talk why wasn't he over at Damons side ensuring he never talked again? In fact why did he even allow the situation where he had two live witnesses to the attack anyway?

Furthermore he didn't showed- he washed the blood off his face and his chest (when he was in the bathroom feeling like he was going to throw up) and then put on a clean shirt belonging to the Neals so they could go to the hospital. He didn't shower- so before you make generalisations it's best to check the testimony.

And where did you get this thing that everyone was offering his rides to the hospital? The Neals were taking him to the hopsital.

why does Darin get a pass here when he can't even remember a critical detail like whether he was wearing pants or not?

He doesn't get a free pass on it- it doesn't make sense (like a lot of his testimony). To me it is clear that he is covering for Darlie in some way (possibly subconcisouly)- but the evidence just doesn't allow for it to be him.

I've followed it to a pair of blue jeans that Darin Routier was wearing that night. The trail stops right there.

Again- there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why Darin had so much blood on his jeans. There is NO reasonable explanation which bypasses all the evidence which disallows Darin from the one holding the knife.

Especially when there's a much simpler explanation for it, that Darin got the knife tangled in his long hair while he was stabbing/slashing three people.

You think it is likely that Darin somehow got a butcher's knife tangled in his hair in the middle of a stabbing frenzy???

That was a savage neck slash she received, far more consistent with someone trying to kill her than with her faking an injury.

No it's not actually. When someone is killed by a slash to the throat their throats are normally sliced from ear to ear and at a much greater depth than a 'superificial' wound. You said it was easier to slash her neck than stab her but that doesn't make sense. It takes much more room to move to angle your arm at the elbow and run a knife along a neck area than to make quick and hard stab at the upper torso. If you look at throat slashes it is normally done from behind- not fron the front.

If it was Darlie, why did she stop attacking Damon long enough for him to move? Ok, to make the 911 call, right? But Darin is clearly heard on that call from the very beginning. So did she finish stabbing Damon while he was downstairs?
No, that's not necessarily the case. In my theory (which I share with others) she stabbed Damon, staged the scene (including going out to the alley) came back into the living room and saw that Damon had moved and was not alive and then stabbed him again before making the 911 call.

The last part of the 911 call is interesting. I swear it sounds like Darlie is blaming Darin for what happened.
Or trying to cover her own ass.

[Dani_T]

Mary,

Hahaha :) Great minds and all that.

I'm still checking in at GAC but don't have much time these days :) If discussion ever gets going over there again (after they finally break this new evidence we keep hearing about maybe... uh huh) I'll poke my head up :)

[RobertStJames]

<...>
She probably thought he was dead & ran the sock to the alley. When she returned, she saw that he was still alive and had crawled across the family room. Darlie stabbed him again and then called 911.


Leaving him still alive? I mean audibly gasping for breath? Remember, he was *still* alive when the paramedics got there. People are speculating that Darin could have easily killed Darlie if he'd wanted to. But why couldn't Darlie have finished the job on Damon, a wounded kid? Why didn't she? Hell, why call 911 at all? Why not just call Darin? Make *him* call 911?


But then how do you explain her many stories, none of which had a perp attacking the boys after she was attacked?

She lied. I think at the beginning she was telling something closer to the truth. By the time she got on the stand at her trial, she was lying. Lying for the same reason DV victims stand right there with a split lip and bruised face and lie to the police while their husbands/boyfriends stand right there agreeing "she slipped and fell."

Yeah, I know. It sounds crazy. Why on earth lie to protect a guy who'd just killed your kids? The best reason I can come up with is that she just didn't know who'd attacked her, and then Darin helped her "remember" things. Probably told her that if she told her story the way she originally had it, the police would arrest *him.* And Darlie swore, repeatedly, he just didn't have anything to do w/it. You can see it on the transcripts. It almost feels like the DA is hoping he can get her to confess that her husband did it. It sounds like the DA actually *believes* the guy did it. But, no dice. Faced with evidence that could certainly be interpreted as pointing to her guilt (fingerprints on the murder weapon is pretty powerful) and a woman who was transparently lying ("I can't remember!") on the stand, who has a kid with several knife holes in his back standing around talking, the jury reached the only conclusion that made any sense--she did it.

Speaking of her testimony, how could an experienced trial lawyer like Mulder let Darlie Routier take the stand? That's just not a mistake he's likely to have made. I've heard Darlie "insisted" but why pay a lawyer 100k and then not take his advice? Weird, but there you have it.



It's certainly subject to interpretation. To me, it sounds like she's trying to convince Darin and the 911 operator that there was an intruder.
I dunno. She sounds angry at him. What was it, "they did this intentionally?" Bizarre. I wonder if that had anything to do with all her jewelry being right out there in the open. I've never understood that either. If you're looking to do some staging, why not make all that vanish? Burglars did it.


RstJ

[RobertStJames]

Finally some discussion :)



Well I can come up with 3 ways straight off-
[quote]
Which is somewhat unusual isn't it considering that
a) she was the one who was moving around the most and bleeding the most
b) if the sock was used in her mouth how exactly did the boys blood end up on it?
c) if the boys blood was on the sock and it was then shoved in her mouth how come we don't have any other blood smudges from where the sock was folded up against itself?

The blood got on there when someone picked it up. Someone who had to go back in the house to get it. Someone who'd been giving CPR to one victim.

Darin's hands had to have been bloody. CPR involved putting pressure on the chest, covered in blood in Devon's case.




Because the story of someone breaking into the house in the middle of the day when her husband wasn't home and killing two children and leaving her alive (for some reason) and then exiting the house and managing to get away without being seen would have been even more implausible than the story she came up with.

But 9:00-10:00pm is not the middle of the day. Darin had left to take Dana home. And Darlie naturally knew how long that would take. But she waits until he comes home to actually do the murders?



According to Darlie she waited at the bottom of the stairs and watched him come down them. So, if he wasn't upstairs then Darlie's lying. Why is she lying?

But that wasn't in her original statement. That had her turning on a light at the "entrance" (I can't tell what entrance). She claims to have seen him coming out of the bedroom, obviously impossible to see that from the ground floor. And she says nothing about seeing him come down the steps.

As for why she's lying later, she's covering for him. Stupidly, but she'd hardly be the first person to do that.
And she wouldn't need to know it was him for certain. Remember, she was only charged in *one* death (which is utterly bizarre when you think about it). The DA could easily put Devon's death on Darin, especially since both of them were lying and probably making the DA wonder if it wasn't both of them involved.



She has consistently claimed it was not Darin, the timeline disallows Darin from having attacked the boys and Darlie, walked out knowingly leaving TWO of them alive, walked through the U-room, into the garage, out the window then somehow get back into the house, upstairs and then come back downstairs all in less than a minute. It simply doesn't work.

This isn't Buckingham Palace. How long do you think it would take to get out that window, around the side of the house, and walk in the sliding glass doors? 15secs, 30? As for blood trails, between paramedics, first responders, Darin himself stating that he went back in the house and went into the garage, you'd no more be able to find a clear blood trail than you'd be able to find the proverbial needle in the haystack. Seriously, how long do you think it would take to get outside the house and back in? And no, he didn't plant the sock then. He had another 30mins at the scene to do that after the paramedics left.




And here is another one- if Darlie saw he was wearing his jeans when he came down the stairs do you think she just missed the fact that according to your theory they were liberally covered with blood?

Seeing as how Darin missed the fact his wife was covered in blood from her neck wound, yes. That's because I don't think he came down those stairs. For one thing, after all that CPR and blood flying everywhere out those knife holes (utterly ludicrious, but there you have it) and Darin going back *up* the stairs to check on Drake, there would be blood on those stairs, wouldn't there? Darin was soaked in it.


He didn't 'flee the scene'- he went across to the neigbours for help. Furthermore when he went back into the house it was after Darlie had been put on the stretcher- not in the middle of it all.

He went back twice. And he *ran* across the street, as is clear from Waddell's testimony. So he's giving CPR, not bothering to go running for help then, but when LE shows up, he's outta there like a flash. That's fleeing the scene.



Don't me wrong- lots of what Darin has to say doesn't add up at all. His vol statement contradicts his testimony in numerous instances, and a lot of what he says in both the vol statement and testimony contradicts other testimony (from Darlie and the police/paramedics etc). His timelines is screwed up all over the place and it is hard to to know what he says he did when. But that doesn't simply mean that we can't contruct what he did when and where from other testimony and evidence.

His testimony is extremely slippery. What I'd really like to see is an analysis of the blood on his pants. I'm guessing most of it will be Darlie's.





Darin's jeans are a sticking point- he says he wasn't wearing them in his vol statement and then that he WAS wearing them in his testimony, Darlie says he was wearing them. The 911 call (listening to Darin on it) gives almost no time for Darin to disappear upstairs to put them on before running out and meeting Waddell in the front yard and yet he mentions specifics about going upstairs to check Damon, his wallet hitting the floor which makes me think there is some truth in it.

I think Truth and Darin are two totally different animals.




How can you say that? You don't even know what his answers were! A bit of proof to support your claim would go a long way.

Huh? What could his answer possibly have been to "did you stab your wife?" Surely you don't think he said yes, do you?


No- because there is so much evidence which rules Darin out as the one who stabbed them and before we start thinking about the possibility that maybe that's how the hair got there we need to deal with that evidence and explain it.

You haven't given any evidence to rule him out. There is no way to rule him out, and never has been. Darlie's word (which no one takes seriously) and your reconstruction which doesn't take into account the very short distance from garage to house are not evidence.




How do you know Darin was the only one outside that night? How do you know Darlie wasn't there and that she didn't have the motive to do the plant? The times when Darin went outside he was on the street IN front of the house, not behind it.

We don't really know where he was most of the time. At the neighbors, inside his house, on the curb. But nobody seems to have talked to him except the neighbors and we don't even know what they said. He had 30mins. There's not much about what he was doing for that long. An officer had to *tell* him to go to the hospital.



Darlie had plenty of time and opportunity to plant the sock- before the police arrived. Darin was NOT MIA for most of 30 mins at all - in fact he was in people's presence almost the entire time: either Darlies, the paramedics, the police of the Neals.

So how did Darlie manage to not get her own blood on the sock? Or leave a trail of her blood? She planted it after killing the boys? Leaving one of them still alive? Darlie left in an ambulance. Darin was still there. The paramedics left with her. Darin was still there. A cop and his neighbors offered to give him a ride to the hospital. Cop checks again, he's on the curb.

What's he doing?





He went and got help because the Neals were their good friends, Karen was a nurse and the boys and Darlie were being attended to by medical professionals. Everyone excuses Darlie because she was in a state of shock- well how about Darin? Doesn't the same apply to him?

State of shock? Pretty clear-headed state of shock to change his clothes, shower, and then go to the hospital. Too bad the Neals didn't have a pair of pants for him.




That makes no sense- if he was afraid Damon was going to talk why wasn't he over at Damons side ensuring he never talked again? In fact why did he even allow the situation where he had two live witnesses to the attack anyway?

Because he was interrupted. Seriously, this happens in cases all the time. You could just as easily ask why Darlie didn't manage to kill a 5yr old when she attacked him twice.



Furthermore he didn't showed- he washed the blood off his face and his chest (when he was in the bathroom feeling like he was going to throw up) and then put on a clean shirt belonging to the Neals so they could go to the hospital. He didn't shower- so before you make generalisations it's best to check the testimony.

Darin's? The guy who can't remember if he was wearing pants or not?



And where did you get this thing that everyone was offering his rides to the hospital? The Neals were taking him to the hopsital.

Even Darin himself feels the need to explain the delay by saying he didn't know what hospital to go to. Interesting excuse.



He doesn't get a free pass on it- it doesn't make sense (like a lot of his testimony). To me it is clear that he is covering for Darlie in some way (possibly subconcisouly)- but the evidence just doesn't allow for it to be him.

But we don't really know what all the evidence is other than the case we saw against Darlie. Obviously, the DA would not introduce evidence of Darin's guilt when trying his wife. And certainly the defense isn't going to raise the issue (although the public defender certainly would have). You haven't cited any real evidence ruling him out. And you can't because it's impossible to do so, just as Darlie can never be ruled out. My point is the case against Darin is a lot stronger than that against Darlie, but never got off the ground because Darlie, the sole eyewitness, is never going to say it was him.

She says it wasn't. How does she know this?




You think it is likely that Darin somehow got a butcher's knife tangled in his hair in the middle of a stabbing frenzy???

Yes. He had long hair, long enough to ponytail.



No it's not actually. When someone is killed by a slash to the throat their throats are normally sliced from ear to ear

Where do you get this from? You just have to cut a main artery and they're gone. You don't have to Jack the Ripper them.




No, that's not necessarily the case. In my theory (which I share with others) she stabbed Damon, staged the scene (including going out to the alley) came back into the living room and saw that Damon had moved and was not alive and then stabbed him again before making the 911 call.

Well, your theory is never going to be disproven. And Darlie's in prison, so the DA sold it. I don't believe she did it, but I'm not one of those "Free Darlie" people who want to believe in an intruder either. In fact, other than Pardo, I seem to be the only one who thinks Darin did this solo for the insurance money. In fact, I'm pretty sure that jewelry was going to vanish too. I'm surprised Darin didn't just buy a .22 and make certain, but then again, he's not too bright. Neither was Darlie, really. Loyal, but just not very smart.



RstJ

[Dani_T]

Leaving him still alive? I mean audibly gasping for breath? Remember, he was *still* alive when the paramedics got there. People are speculating that Darin could have easily killed Darlie if he'd wanted to. But why couldn't Darlie have finished the job on Damon, a wounded kid? Why didn't she? Hell, why call 911 at all? Why not just call Darin? Make *him* call 911?

It is unlikely she would have left Damon alive. I suspect she thought he was dead (remember he was stabbed in the back so she wasn't even looking at his faith) and he managed to drag himself across to where he was later found whilst she was out of the room. How do you know he was audibly gasping for breath? People can be dying and struggling to breath and not make a sound at all.

In terms of why she called 911 right then- well very possibly because she freaked out at the way her neck was bleeding. Or perhaps because she thought the second attack on Damon had finished him (which it did... just 9 minutes later).

She lied. I think at the beginning she was telling something closer to the truth. By the time she got on the stand at her trial, she was lying. Lying for the same reason DV victims stand right there with a split lip and bruised face and lie to the police while their husbands/boyfriends stand right there agreeing "she slipped and fell."

Yeah, I know. It sounds crazy. Why on earth lie to protect a guy who'd just killed your kids? The best reason I can come up with is that she just didn't know who'd attacked her, and then Darin helped her "remember" things. Probably told her that if she told her story the way she originally had it, the police would arrest *him.* And Darlie swore, repeatedly, he just didn't have anything to do w/it. You can see it on the transcripts. It almost feels like the DA is hoping he can get her to confess that her husband did it. It sounds like the DA actually *believes* the guy did it. But, no dice. Faced with evidence that could certainly be interpreted as pointing to her guilt (fingerprints on the murder weapon is pretty powerful) and a woman who was transparently lying ("I can't remember!") on the stand, who has a kid with several knife holes in his back standing around talking, the jury reached the only conclusion that made any sense--she did it.

Robert, putting aside all this speculation what is the evidence from the scene which tells you that Darin was the perp (keep in mind everything we have said about the jeans)? We agree that it was an inside job but you need to account for how you overcome all the evidence which clears Darin from being the murderer. Is his testimony suspect in some way? I think so... as I mentioned above he is all over the place. But that is not enough to take the knife out of Darlie's hand and put it in his.

Speaking of her testimony, how could an experienced trial lawyer like Mulder let Darlie Routier take the stand? That's just not a mistake he's likely to have made. I've heard Darlie "insisted" but why pay a lawyer 100k and then not take his advice? Weird, but there you have it.

Defendants go against their lawyers advice all the time by taking the stand... all the time. They think that if they just get up in that chair he jury will see why they couldn't have possibly done it. Darlie is narcisstic enough to think exactly that and thats why she broke down on the stand during cross- because she realised she was being shot down in flames. If a client insists on taking the stand against her lawyers advice he can't stop her. And maybe, just maybe, he thought the same thing. She'd been sitting in the courtroom for weeks showing very little emotion whilst the jury heard witness after witness talk about what a cold fish she was. Maybe Mulder was willing to risk what happened for the sake of hoping the jury would see a grief stricken, and most importantly, innocent mother.

I dunno. She sounds angry at him. What was it, "they did this intentionally?" Bizarre.
Yeah she does sound angry... she's telling him exactly what happened. It sounds like he was straying from the agreed upon story or casting doubt on what she had said and he is putting it right. Dont' forget that Waddell was there at that stage and no doubt Darin was speaking to him when she snapped at him.

Darin's hands had to have been bloody. CPR involved putting pressure on the chest, covered in blood in Devon's case.

If Darin had been giving CPR to Devon his hands would have been pretty much covered in blood. If he then picked up the sock he would have transferred far more than a tiny spot of blood onto it.

But beyond that I'm really confused about what you are saying happened. Are you saying he took the sock outside AFTER Darlie had called 911? So what, Darlie just doesn't see him pick up the sock and take it out to the back alley? He doesn't track blood out to the back alley depite the fact that he is now bloody from the boys? Why would he do that?? Why not do it when he exited the house after the attacks??

But 9:00-10:00pm is not the middle of the day. Darin had left to take Dana home. And Darlie naturally knew how long that would take. But she waits until he comes home to actually do the murders?
And 9 to 10pm is still early enough for people to be out and about- much more than at 2am. It's also an unlikely time for someone to break in because people are still awake within the house. Furthermore having Darin in the house actually was meant to give her an alibi as such ... it would raise the exact question you are asking now.

And anyway who ultimately knows... perhaps both Drake and Darin were to be targets that night as well. She may have aborted in panic because of her own wounds or because she thought twice. Unlikely I know- but possible.

But that wasn't in her original statement. That had her turning on a light at the "entrance" (I can't tell what entrance). She claims to have seen him coming out of the bedroom, obviously impossible to see that from the ground floor. And she says nothing about seeing him come down the steps.


She says he ran out of the bedroom and she saw what he was wearing as he came running - that she was talking (yelling) at him as he was coming and that he ran down the stairs and into the room. In conjunction with all her other testimony and statements I think it is fair enough to say she saw him coming down the stairs, or that at the very least he came from upstairs. In 'In Her Own Words' she says that they ran together into the hallway. It's clear she saw/met him at the bottom of the stairs.

This isn't Buckingham Palace. How long do you think it would take to get out that window, around the side of the house, and walk in the sliding glass doors? 15secs, 30?
Which sliding glass doors? The one in the room where the crime occurred? the room where Darlie was?? And then how does he get back UP the stairs?

It's great that you are exploring all possibility Robert but this is beyond stretching... it just could not have happened if you want to believe Darlie's story.

As for blood trails, between paramedics, first responders, Darin himself stating that he went back in the house and went into the garage, you'd no more be able to find a clear blood trail than you'd be able to find the proverbial needle in the haystack.

Actually not it wouldn't be- there is very little blood beyond the room of the crime... very little in the U-room, none in the garage and none in the living room (which I seem to remember Darin walked through in order to get to the U-room when he came back into the house... but I would have to check).

And no, he didn't plant the sock then. He had another 30mins at the scene to do that after the paramedics left.
I think you need to go back and look at Darin's actions after the arrival of Waddell and then Walling and the paramedics. I doubt you wil find he was unaccompanied or at least out of sight nearly long enough to go back into the house, retrieve an article from the crime scene (which raises the question of WHY?) then go out to the back alley, run down the street, plant it and then come back. Yes, he goes out of the house ... once he ran into Waddell in the front yard, was brought back inside and remained inside to the paramedics came into the house at which point he ran out the front door and across the street. Even if you want to argue that he didn't run straight across the street and that no one actually saw him detour to the back alley how do you think he managed to pick up the sock from the middle of the scene when there are by this stage at least 2 paramedics and one police officer right there in the room with him?

Seeing as how Darin missed the fact his wife was covered in blood from her neck wound, yes. That's because I don't think he came down those stairs.

Well in that you are going against all the testimony. I can't debate the evidence with you in that case.

For one thing, after all that CPR and blood flying everywhere out those knife holes (utterly ludicrious, but there you have it) and Darin going back *up* the stairs to check on Drake, there would be blood on those stairs, wouldn't there? Darin was soaked in it.
There wasn't blood flying everywhere. Testimony shows that the wounds bled sluggishly rather than something like an arterial spray.

However, I do agree with you about the trip back upstairs- I have argued quite extensively in the past that there should have been SOME blood tracked back upstairs if he went up to check on Drake as he said he did. I don't think he was soaked in blood but I would expect him to at least have it on his hands and probably at least a little bit on his feet (although we need to remember that there probably was not as much blood spread around the room at that stage.

Huh? What could his answer possibly have been to "did you stab your wife?" Surely you don't think he said yes, do you?


What I meant by that is that we don't know the exact details of what was asked and what was said. There is also good reason why a polygraph test is not admittable as evidence. Furthermore, if you look closely at the questions below you can actually see that he could have lied in all of them and still not have killed his sons. In fact, that raises an interesting question: how come one of the questions that was not detected to be a lie was not "when he denied stabbing his children"???

The polygraph examiner determined that Mr. Routier lied in answering each of 4 questions about the crime: when he denied planning a crime at his home, stabbing his wife, knowing who left a bloody sock in the alley and knowing the identity of his sons' killer.

ou haven't given any evidence to rule him out. There is no way to rule him out, and never has been. Darlie's word (which no one takes seriously) and your reconstruction which doesn't take into account the very short distance from garage to house are not evidence.

Darlie has denied over and over again it was him. Her own statements exclude him from being the perp. There is no direct evidence which ties him to the knife (no the hair fibre doesn't count since it could have been transferred in any number of ways). The timelines disallows him from having been the one.

Now granted, if Darlie was lying through her teeth for Darin even to the extent that she would go to her death to protect him then sure it could have been him I guess. But there is no evidence that she is doing that. It is pure speculation and highly doubtful speculation at that. With the evidence and the statements and the testimony we have it all points to Darlie... not Darin. From everything that happened at the scene and after the crime Darlie is the one who comes out looking dirty- not Darin (BTW- Did you know Darlie took a polygraph as well but no details were ever released.... just that she came out of the room crying and embracing her mother).

Also, as for not believeing anything Darlie says- I don't think that is quite right. Most criminals have an element of truth running through their stories as it makes it more believable and easier to stick to. The smarter ones actually stick to the truth as much as possible. Whilst I don't think Darlie is necessarily a smart crim I do think that she sticks as closely to what happened after the crime as possible.

We don't really know where he was most of the time. At the neighbors, inside his house, on the curb. But nobody seems to have talked to him except the neighbors and we don't even know what they said. He had 30mins. There's not much about what he was doing for that long. An officer had to *tell* him to go to the hospital.
Again I think you need to go back and construct a timeline for Darin not just from his own testimony but from that of Waddell, Walling, the paramedics, Darlie and the Neals

[Dani_T]

So how did Darlie manage to not get her own blood on the sock? Or leave a trail of her blood? She planted it after killing the boys? Leaving one of them still alive?

In my timeline Darlie was not wounded yet... or at least not seriously wounded when she ran the sock. The testimony showed that the wounds to the boys would not have sprayed a lot of blood and she certainly would not have been dripping with it at that point.

Cop checks again, he's on the curb.

What's he doing?


Probably, regardless of any role he played in the crime, wondering what the hell just happened to his life.

State of shock? Pretty clear-headed state of shock to change his clothes, shower, and then go to the hospital. Too bad the Neals didn't have a pair of pants for him.

How clear headed do you have to be to be in the bathroom wanting to throw up, look at yourself in the mirror, see your body covered in the blood of your dead boys and want to get it off?? And once again he didn't shower and he didn't change clothes.

ll I had on was a pair of pants,
4 that's all the clothes I had on. My glasses and a pair
5 of pants, and I was cold.
6 Q. All right. What did do you in the
7 Neal's house?
8 A. Terry, he went and got me a T-shirt,
9 and, I went into the bathroom, and I thought I was going
10 to throw up.
11 Q. Why is that?
12 A. I guess, just nerves, I guess, I don't
13 know.
14 Q. Once you were in the bathroom, did you
15 get cleaned up?
16 A. Yes, sir, I did. I washed all of the
17 blood off of my face, off of my hands and off of my
18 mouth, and I had this real iron -- real dry taste in my
19 mouth.
20 Q. Okay. And you got a towel or a
21 washcloth?
22 A. Yeah, I got a towel and I washed it
23 off, and I even had some on my back, and on my shoulder,
24 and on my chest.
25 Q. Okay. In your hair?
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
4312
1 A. In my hair. On my glasses, and on my
2 face.
3 Q. You put on his T-shirt?
4 A. Yes, sir.

Darin's? The guy who can't remember if he was wearing pants or not?
I think perhaps he may have remembered the different between using a towel to wash off blood and then putting on a T-shirt that Terry got for him and and stepping into and having a shower and then changing clothes.

My point is that you can turn the testimony any which way you want and believe me that we have all seen supporters do it over and over again. But the words say what the words say and they don't say he had a shower and changed his clothes. Nor do they say that Darin somehow materialised in the hallway after Darlie yelled for him.

Even Darin himself feels the need to explain the delay by saying he didn't know what hospital to go to. Interesting excuse.

Why is that an interesting excuse? There was more than one hospital they could have gone to and without being told which one Darlie and Damon had been taken to I think Darin not knowing is to be expected.

24 Q. Okay. How long did you stay there at
25 the house before you left for the hospital?
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
4314
1 A. I don't know, it seemed like time
2 stands still when you are in a situation like that. I
3 just know that we were waiting for somebody to tell us
4 which hospital to go to. One paramedic said that they
5 were taking Damon to Baylor Hospital in Garland, and that
6 they were taking Darlie to Baylor Hospital in Dallas,
7 which I couldn't understand, because that is 45 minutes
8 away.
9 Q. Okay.

My point is the case against Darin is a lot stronger than that against Darlie, but never got off the ground because Darlie, the sole eyewitness, is never going to say it was him.

If the case against Darin was a lot stronger than that against Darlie then it would have been him in the witness box. There is no case against Darin. Maybe someone else on here has the energy to elaborate a bit more because after two long posts today I dont' :)

Yes. He had long hair, long enough to ponytail.

I don't have my book here at the moment but I don't remember Darin having a long ponytail at the time. But even if he did the idea of a knife being used to stab someone getting tangled up in his ponytail??? especially when you claim that he was having to perform near acrobatics to restrain Darlie and kill her at the same time? Far more unlikely than the knife picking up one of the thousands of his hairs which would have been lying around that house.

Where do you get this from? You just have to cut a main artery and they're gone. You don't have to Jack the Ripper them.


Yes, all you need to do is cut a main artery but most murderers when they kill by slashing a throat (which is very few particularly in a home invasion situation) do so from behind and there is a large degree of force which goes into it (creating a deep and gaping wound), not a light slash across the neck which has such little force that a thin gold chain manages to halt it in it's track.

[Jeana (DP)]

But why couldn't Darlie have finished the job on Damon, a wounded kid?

RstJ

On on God's green earth can you say Darlie didn't finish him off. I think she did a wonderful job. After all, he is dead. :doh: :doh:

[cami]

Indeed. Good advice. I've followed it to a pair of blue jeans that Darin Routier was wearing that night. The trail stops right there.

The kids were killed for the same reason Longo (and about 50 other guys per year) kill their kids--to get rid of witnesses. Which profile do you think fits best: family annhilator, or killer mommy?


RstJ



RstJ

Killer mommy. She did it.

the drops of blood on the back of Darlie's nightshirt are cast-off. Cast-off from the weapon as she pulled it out of a body. The tails point upwards to the source of the blood--the bloody knife. There's also cast-off blood on the front shoulder of the night shirt.

She would have had to have been piggy back on Darin's back if he's the killer for that blood to have landed there any other way.

No cast-off blood in the living room indicating a fight with a bloody knife weilding intruder. No cast off blood or any indication that the bloody knife was thrown to the floor in front of the utility room as per Darlie's own words--no transfer stains.

The bloody knife imprint on the carpet indicates that a source of blood was feeding. IOW, someone bleeding from the forearm held that knife in their hands and laid it on the carpet in the living room. There's only one person with a wound to the forearm--Darlie.

Darin's hair is easily explained on the murder weapon.

The knife was laid on the carpet in a bloody condition. Darin lived there and unless that carpet was sanitized immediately before the murder, then his hair is no surprise on the murder weapon.

[cami]

[/color]

Leaving him still alive? I mean audibly gasping for breath? Remember, he was *still* alive when the paramedics got there. People are speculating that Darin could have easily killed Darlie if he'd wanted to. But why couldn't Darlie have finished the job on Damon, a wounded kid? Why didn't she? Hell, why call 911 at all? Why not just call Darin? Make *him* call 911?


She lied. I think at the beginning she was telling something closer to the truth. By the time she got on the stand at her trial, she was lying. Lying for the same reason DV victims stand right there with a split lip and bruised face and lie to the police while their husbands/boyfriends stand right there agreeing "she slipped and fell."

Yeah, I know. It sounds crazy. Why on earth lie to protect a guy who'd just killed your kids? The best reason I can come up with is that she just didn't know who'd attacked her, and then Darin helped her "remember" things. Probably told her that if she told her story the way she originally had it, the police would arrest *him.* And Darlie swore, repeatedly, he just didn't have anything to do w/it. You can see it on the transcripts. It almost feels like the DA is hoping he can get her to confess that her husband did it. It sounds like the DA actually *believes* the guy did it. But, no dice. Faced with evidence that could certainly be interpreted as pointing to her guilt (fingerprints on the murder weapon is pretty powerful) and a woman who was transparently lying ("I can't remember!") on the stand, who has a kid with several knife holes in his back standing around talking, the jury reached the only conclusion that made any sense--she did it.

Speaking of her testimony, how could an experienced trial lawyer like Mulder let Darlie Routier take the stand? That's just not a mistake he's likely to have made. I've heard Darlie "insisted" but why pay a lawyer 100k and then not take his advice? Weird, but there you have it.



I dunno. She sounds angry at him. What was it, "they did this intentionally?" Bizarre. I wonder if that had anything to do with all her jewelry being right out there in the open. I've never understood that either. If you're looking to do some staging, why not make all that vanish? Burglars did it.


RstJ

I guess it's all in how you interpret the testimony.

the paramedic testified that Damon expelled a breath and then died when he picked him up. I don't think Damon could have spoken, a traumatized child, gasping for breath, I don't think he could have said "mummy or daddy did it"

Yes, that's another thing. Darlie switches from "hysteria" to "anger" in nanoseconds on that 911 call. She sounds very angry to me throughout the whole call. And she lies "I woke up, I was fighting him" yet she can't remember what he looks like and whether or not he said anything. Her TA is very suspicious. She was supposedly passed out or asleep, slashed and bruised yet she wakes up or whatever oriented as to place and time and doesn't scream the instant she sees a man walking away from her, she just follows him to the back of the house.

she's sporting bruises under one arm yet she has no injuries to her palms, fingers, underside of her forearms, wrists, face, or head indicating she was holding her arms in front of her to ward off blows.

Just out of curiosity, RJ, what do you think of Darlie's hypnosis session where she describes two intruders--one huge and one small, both black.

[wcpacific]

Hello everyone,

I've not really followed this case to a T as some of you have. I'd like to ask a question if I may, something that I haven't noticed here. I think Darin had something to do with covering for her. I'm wondering if it could have been possible that Darin planted that sock in the alley to try to cover up for his wife and make it look like an outside intruder. It seems more plausible that he had the time to plant some evidence for the police than as did darlie.

From what I have read I believe darlie is the murderer of her children. She is definately a narcissist(sp?) from what I can gather reading her website, etc...sure seems like she loves posing for the camera even in her white dress on death row.

I don't believe if darlie thought at all that her husband had something to do with it she wouldn't have said so before or during the trial. She was on trial with a death sentence involved. Don't you think, RSJ that if she truly thought her husband had anything to do with it she would have confided that much earlier? If I was in her shoes, and I was innocent I sure as hell wouldn't hold back any information on my husband that may have seemed odd to me. JMHO:waitasec:

[Dani_T]

Hello everyone,

I've not really followed this case to a T as some of you have. I'd like to ask a question if I may, something that I haven't noticed here. I think Darin had something to do with covering for her. I'm wondering if it could have been possible that Darin planted that sock in the alley to try to cover up for his wife and make it look like an outside intruder. It seems more plausible that he had the time to plant some evidence for the police than as did darlie.

Hey :)

Yes, it is certainly possible that Darin took part in some of the staging. His testimony about what happened in the 5-7 minutes immediately after he came downstairs is all over the shop and he changes a number of details by the time he gets to trial. I completely disagree with RStJ that he would have had time to plant the sock AFTER the police arrived (and sincerely doubt he could have done it after the 911 call was placed)- but he could have done it before the 911 call... which means everything he and Darlie says about what happened before the police arrived is completely suspect.

I'm always torn between Darin being involved in the staging to cover up for Darlie and between him just being a complete doofus. I just can't understand WHY he would agree to cover for Darlie so quickly after finding his two kids dead by her hand... we may never know the full story I suspect.

[RobertStJames]

I still haven't heard anything that clears Darin. What are the top five pieces of evidence that do that?

When three people are found in one part of a house, two dead from knife wounds and one put in the ICU (and doctors did not put her there for "nerves") while two people in another part of the house (including an adult male) aren't even scratched, that points to the adult male, not his injured wife. 1/4 deeper on that knife slash and Darin'd be on death row and none of us would have heard of the Routiers. He'd have been arrested on the spot. The jeans would have gone into evidence in the case against him, and we would have had a much better understanding of motive, which is all but certainly financial. A 250K prize dangling in front of a guy who was heading into bankruptcy is one huge motive.

And I've got a pair of Reeboks:
10 Q. The Reeboks, SWIFS item No. 1O3, could
11 you give us the results of your analysis, please?
12 A. I worked with two stains from the
13 Reeboks. Both of those came back as matching Darlie.
14 Q. Okay. Two stains both matched Darlie
15 Routier, correct?

Darin stop to put on his shoes too? Those Reeboks are the source of the fibers found on the sock found in the alley


4 Q. Okay. Now, you had also mentioned
5 that you found certain fibers; is that right?
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. And, did you have occasion to receive
8 two Reebok tennis shoes from the Rowlett Police
9 Department?
10 A. Yes, I did.
11 Q. And, did you have occasion to examine
12 them for fiber materials?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. Okay. What types of fiber materials
15 do you find inside those two Reeboks that you got from
16 the Rowlett Police Department?
17 A. Inside these two black Reebok shoes,
18 matching pair, there were a large number of Caucasian
19 limb hairs in the shoe. The insole, the white insole of
20 the shoe was the same fiber type as the fiber type found
21 on the sock.

So'd Darlie wear Darin's Reeboks to commit the murder?

(had to trim the rest. Post is too long)


RstJ

[RobertStJames]

Hello everyone,

<..> Don't you think, RSJ that if she truly thought her husband had anything to do with it she would have confided that much earlier? If I was in her shoes, and I was innocent I sure as hell wouldn't hold back any information on my husband that may have seemed odd to me. JMHO:waitasec:
I really don't know. Like I've said, some women will cover for some pretty violent behavior. Up to and including husbands killing children?

It's not an accusation she'd make lightly. If she wasn't 100% positive it was him (and was desperately trying to avoid facing that possibility) she might avoid saying anything that might make him look guilty.

But I'm at a total loss to explain why she'd change things like "fighting" to the nonsensical "frightening." Huh?
"stabbed me ...I woke up ...I was fighting"

Why change this part to the ludicrous "I was frightening" when it basically removes the struggle from her narrative leaving her no way to explain where she got those wounds? That's (metaphorically) cutting your own throat.

Why couldn't she say she struggled with the attacker? Is it because Darin had injuries that he couldn't explain?


RstJ

[Mary456]

"Why couldn't she say she struggled with the attacker?"

Darlie had to avoid that at all cost. Struggling with an attacker would have left many defensive wounds to her hands, arms, face, etc. as well as a lot more damage in the family room.

"Is it because Darin had injuries that he couldn't explain?"

I don't think so. Darin was photographed in the hospital and he had no injuries to his body.