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.

[RobertStJames]

[QUOTE]
I don't think so. Darin was photographed in the hospital and he had no injuries to his body.
According to whom, Darin? Has anyone ever seen these photos? LE certainly took some, but they would not have been introduced as evidence at Darlie's trial. Nor would they have been released to the public. Nor do we have any notes as to the substance of Darin's interrogation. Those notes *do* exist, but of course would not be part of the trial either.

What is this claim based on? Do you have a cite?


RstJ

[dasgal]

According to whom, Darin? Has anyone ever seen these photos? LE certainly took some, but they would not have been introduced as evidence at Darlie's trial. Nor would they have been released to the public. Nor do we have any notes as to the substance of Darin's interrogation. Those notes *do* exist, but of course would not be part of the trial either.

What is this claim based on? Do you have a cite?


RstJ
No, actually it was according to one of the officers I spoke to. Believe me, they WANTED to bring Darin into this. It's obvious to everyone in that department that he has some culpibility in this.....but truth is, there was nothing to pin on him, and unfortunately still not enough to pin on him, although with Darlie's tiretracks over the top of him, there is more than before. But is she lying? Again? Trying to bail out? Last ditch effort on her part? That is what is in the backs of LE's mind. Neither one of them make a very good witness with all the lies they constantly get caught in. But Darlie is still busy trying to bury Darin. It's not like she has a whole lot of options left.

[cami]

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

Well why don't you post the top five pieces of evidence that clear Darlie?

"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")"

Are you saying the doctors lied then? Under oath? On penalty of perjury?Why?

[cami]

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

How does this testimony clear Darlie? she very well could have wrapped that sock around her hand as she stabbed the boys staining it with their blood and leaving her dna, via skincells, in the toe. Darlie did open the front door to scream for Karen did she not? She could have bled on the reeboks then. Weren't they there in the front of the house. I'm trying to remember the testimony. Have to go do a search I guess.

[Jeana (DP)]

RobertStJames, if you'll look at the crime scene photographs, you'll see those sneakers by the front door. High top sneakers laced all the way up. Since you've got three pair, try to remove them from your feet while they're still laced all the way up. :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:

[cami]

RobertStJames, if you'll look at the crime scene photographs, you'll see those sneakers by the front door. High top sneakers laced all the way up. Since you've got three pair, try to remove them from your feet while they're still laced all the way up. :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:

thanks DP, now I don't have to search the transcripts.

[RobertStJames]

No, actually it was according to one of the officers I spoke to. Believe me, they WANTED to bring Darin into this. It's obvious to everyone in that department that he has some culpibility in this.....but truth is, there was nothing to pin on him, and unfortunately still not enough to pin on him, although with Darlie's tiretracks over the top of him, there is more than before. But is she lying? Again? Trying to bail out? Last ditch effort on her part? That is what is in the backs of LE's mind. Neither one of them make a very good witness with all the lies they constantly get caught in. But Darlie is still busy trying to bury Darin. It's not like she has a whole lot of options left.

True. But until she drops that "intruder" nonsense, her appeals aren't going to go anywhere. And her lying is a major problem. Even if she came out and said "he did it! I saw him!" who's going to believe her now, almost ten years later?
I think there is evidence against Darin in the form of those jeans, but if Darlie is going to take the stand and start babbling about 300lb intruders, black cars, and mysterious phone calls, how can a case be made?

I know that my thesis relies on Darlie being so totally brainwashed that she'd lie to protect Darin even though he'd killed her "babies." Yet, if she wasn't 100% sure, do we think she'd make that kind of accusation? At least, at the time? If she'd said "I don't know if it was him or not" then the DA most likely goes after Darin. But with her saying "It absolutely positively could not have been him" the DA really had no choice.

Thanks for the insight into LE thinking. Am I right in saying that the investigation into the death of Devon Routier is considered to be an open case?

I think Darlie could get a new trial based on:
a) making a full, written statement covering not only the night
of the murder, but the days/weeks leading up to it.
b) taking an FBI-administered polygraph to verify that statement
c) agreeing to testify against Darin, if not as an eyewitness, then to
the events leading up to the murders
d) pleading guilty to accessory after the fact for having lied to protect him.

RstJ

[cami]

I think Darlie could get a new trial based on:
a) making a full, written statement covering not only the night
of the murder, but the days/weeks leading up to it.
b) taking an FBI-administered polygraph to verify that statement
c) agreeing to testify against Darin, if not as an eyewitness, then to
the events leading up to the murders
d) pleading guilty to accessory after the fact for having lied to protect him.

RstJ

She'll never get a new trial on Damon's murder. If she should somehow win an appeal, she'll be re arrested on Devon's murder.

d. Never happen, she's guilty of the murders not Darin. He's the accessory after the fact.

[RobertStJames]

She'll never get a new trial on Damon's murder. If she should somehow win an appeal, she'll be re arrested on Devon's murder.

d. Never happen, she's guilty of the murders not Darin. He's the accessory after the fact.

Any lawyer would destroy that case in a week on double jeopardy. Since there's no reason to believe the murders were two separate crimes, but part of the same attack. I've never bought the official line that they were going to re-try Darlie on Devon's murder if they couldn't get a conviction on Damon's. Can you think of any other case that's ever worked that way?
And if the evidence was so strong that she's guilty, why did the DA only file on *one* of the murders?

She's not guilty of the murder(s) plural. She was only tried, and convicted, on one of them. Doesn't that strike anyone as extremely odd? Especially since the evidence was "overwhelming"?

She drops this intruder nonsense, and finally tells the truth, then I think she gets a new trial. And I think that if we could see *all* the evidence, we'd rapidly change our minds on this case. Don't you think there's a reason Dari's jeans are still in an evidence locker, ten years later?


RstJ

[Jeana (DP)]

And if the evidence was so strong that she's guilty, why did the DA only file on *one* of the murders?



Why did the prosecutor in the sniper case only file on a portion of those killings? Because its STANDARD proceedure.

[RobertStJames]

Why did the prosecutor in the sniper case only file on a portion of those killings? Because its STANDARD proceedure.

These were murders committed at the *same time* not like the sniper killings at all, committed over multiple days with no clear indication who was actually pulling the trigger. Are you saying there's any doubt whose hand was on the knife in both killings?

You do not get two shots at a person for the same crime by playing games like this. Talk to a lawyer. Ask him if Darlie Routier could have been retried on Devon's murder had the DA failed to obtain a conviction on Damon's. If he tells you they can, then have him cite a case where that has happened.


RstJ

[Jules]

Did the same thing with Bundy, Andrea Yates, numerous others. And, yes, they can be tried on the ones they weren't originally charged with. While it doesn't happen very often, it does happen.

[RobertStJames]

Did the same thing with Bundy, Andrea Yates, numerous others. And, yes, they can be tried on the ones they weren't originally charged with. While it doesn't happen very often, it does happen.

Fair enough, although Yates actually confessed.

"
Yates faces one count of capital murder for the June drowning deaths of her two oldest children, Noah, 7, and John, 5. A grand jury indicted her last week on a second charge of capital murder for the death of 6-month-old daughter Mary.

Yates also has admitted killing sons Paul, 3, and Luke, 2, police said. In Texas, prosecutors typically forgo multiple capital murder charges since only one conviction is generally needed for the maximum penalty.
"


But your point is taken--it does happen. I just wonder what would happen when the DA went back for the second bite after having missed the first time around.



RstJ

[Jules]

RstJ - You beat me to it. I was looking for that info. Andrea's case came to mind immediately - as did Bundy. I know he wasn't tried in all his cases either - though his were commited over many months and many states - so not exactly the same situation.

I also thought of Susan Smith, but she was tried for both Michael and Alex.

So, yes, it does happen - just not often.

I have no idea what would have happened if the DA would have went back for the "second bite." I'm trying to find a case where that has actually happened.

Jules

[Jeana (DP)]

You do not get two shots at a person for the same crime by playing games like this. Talk to a lawyer. Ask him if Darlie Routier could have been retried on Devon's murder had the DA failed to obtain a conviction on Damon's. If he tells you they can, then have him cite a case where that has happened.


Let's see . . . where can I find a lawyer . . . :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:

[RobertStJames]

Let's see . . . where can I find a lawyer . . . :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:


Acutally, now you've gotten me curious. Have you heard of a case where the DA failed to get a conviction on one murder victim, then went back and got a conviction on a different victim from the same crime scene?



RstJ

[Jeana (DP)]

Acutally, now you've gotten me curious. Have you heard of a case where the DA failed to get a conviction on one murder victim, then went back and got a conviction on a different victim from the same crime scene?
RstJ

See, you go spouting off at the mouth and then ask the questions!!! LOL When time permits, I'll do some reading up. Its certainly not uncommon for a D.A. to only bring charges on one victim. Its a good question though.

[RobertStJames]

See, you go spouting off at the mouth and then ask the questions!!! LOL When time permits, I'll do some reading up. Its certainly not uncommon for a D.A. to only bring charges on one victim. Its a good question though.

Heh. Mouth-spouting is alas, a besetting sin of mine. I'm curious as to whether DAs are doing this for expedience, strength of case, or in order to have another shot.

RstJ

[Yellowrose]

Any lawyer would destroy that case in a week on double jeopardy. Since there's no reason to believe the murders were two separate crimes, but part of the same attack. I've never bought the official line that they were going to re-try Darlie on Devon's murder if they couldn't get a conviction on Damon's. Can you think of any other case that's ever worked that way?
And if the evidence was so strong that she's guilty, why did the DA only file on *one* of the murders?

She's not guilty of the murder(s) plural. She was only tried, and convicted, on one of them. Doesn't that strike anyone as extremely odd? Especially since the evidence was "overwhelming"?

She drops this intruder nonsense, and finally tells the truth, then I think she gets a new trial. And I think that if we could see *all* the evidence, we'd rapidly change our minds on this case. Don't you think there's a reason Dari's jeans are still in an evidence locker, ten years later?


RstJYes I have to agree, extremely odd being tried for "one" murder. Especially in a case such as this. Let's face it we have to "assume" she killed Devon. She should of been tried for both murders simultaniously. Always been one of my pet peeves. Although, I disagree that if in fact it was Darin he did "NOT" want Darlie dead. I'm beginning to think they were both in on it.

[RobertStJames]

Yes I have to agree, extremely odd being tried for "one" murder. Especially in a case such as this. Let's face it we have to "assume" she killed Devon. She should of been tried for both murders simultaniously. Always been one of my pet peeves. Although, I disagree that if in fact it was Darin he did "NOT" want Darlie dead. I'm beginning to think they were both in on it.Jeana is right on this one--DAs do only charge some murders and not others even in cases (Yates) where the murders were carried out as part of the same series of criminal acts. And there was a strong reason only to charge on Damon: his age made Darlie eligible for the DP. And, of course, her fingerprints were on the knife that killed him.

Darin certainly fits the pattern of a family annihalator--controlling, financially in hot water, and, well, just creepy. I don't see what problem two dead kids solves for the two of them. I can definitely see how a dead wife with a 250k insurance policy solves many of Darin's problems.

What would very much help in this case is what was going on before the murders. Why did Darin need $5000 so badly that he tried, twice, to get a loan for that amount? Just how badly was he stretched? He'd been doing business with that bank for years, he had collateral, yet they told him "sorry, only if you put up CDs." If he had CDs, why not just use those? Unless, perhaps, he couldn't sign for them himself. It's still not clear Darlie knew he was trying to get that loan. The official reason was "vacation." This is hard to believe, especially with a baby in the house that there is no evidence Darlie was neglecting. Then Darin tried to say it was for a truck for Dana. This makes even less sense as Darlie herself didn't have the use of a vehicle. So what was the real reason?

Likewise, what was going on with the whole Dana thing? She'd been staying there for two weeks. So what was so important that she had to go home at 9pm that night? Especially seeing as how, as far as I can tell, she and Darin were going to be working the next day. Why didn't she simply stay that night? No one ever gives a reason why she needed to go to a "home" she obviously was not staying at. It's always presented in such a casual way, as if Dana were just stopping in for a visit. She wasn't. She was living there. Effectively, she already *was* home.

Then there's the interviews. I've never read who interviewed Dana or when, much less what she said. We know nothing about the interview at the hospital with Darin other than LE wanted to know where he'd gotten that hole in his jeans from. He says "fixing the fence." But the fence was pretty clearly not fixed.

Lots of holes. The DA would not have presented evidence that pointed at Darin (for obvious reasons) and the defense was being financed by Darin (and nobody pays a lawyer to make themselves look guilty). And, of course, one of the primary sources for info for the books is Darin. He's always interviewed. He always says the same things.

There's a whole 'nother side to this that we have not seen, and, if Darlie continues to insist on mystery intruders who do not exist, we never *will* see it.


RstJ

[Yellowrose]

See, you go spouting off at the mouth and then ask the questions!!! LOL When time permits, I'll do some reading up. Its certainly not uncommon for a D.A. to only bring charges on one victim. Its a good question though. In this particular case it definitely is. It's not like Devon was found in the neighbor's backyard. Those children were killed together, in the same room and in the same house. It's highly unlikely not to be tried for both killings. It was the "KNIFE" they had insufficient proof that the same "KNIFE" killed Devon. I'm sorry but this case reeks of suspicion, I don't believe it was fully solved properly. Let Robert spout, he's entitled to his opinions, he's not doing any harm. :snooty:

[Jeana (DP)]

In this particular case it definitely is. It's not like Devon was found in the neighbor's backyard. Those children were killed together, in the same room and in the same house. It's highly unlikely not to be tried for both killings. It was the "KNIFE" they had insufficient proof that the same "KNIFE" killed Devon. I'm sorry but this case reeks of suspicion, I don't believe it was fully solved properly. Let Robert spout, he's entitled to his opinions, he's not doing any harm. :snooty:


Robert's more intelligent than 95% of the other posters who have shown up here trying to support Darlie, so believe me darlin, he doesn't need you to stick up for him. :)

You didn't say that you are an attorney, so I'd like to know what makes you think that its "highly unlikely" not to be tried for both killings. Its categorically not true. I'm not sure if you know how to research on the internet, but give it a try. I'm sure you'll find plenty of examples of this happening.

[Jeana (DP)]

Heh. Mouth-spouting is alas, a besetting sin of mine. I'm curious as to whether DAs are doing this for expedience, strength of case, or in order to have another shot.

RstJ


Mouth-spouting is what we all do best. How do you think we all ended up here!! LOL I know one of the attorneys who prosecuted this case, but I can't speak for him. Its my opinion, however, that in this particular case, it was "insurance" in case one of the jurors had a problem convicting a "mother" in this grissly of a murder.

[RobertStJames]

Mouth-spouting is what we all do best. How do you think we all ended up here!! LOL I know one of the attorneys who prosecuted this case, but I can't speak for him. Its my opinion, however, that in this particular case, it was "insurance" in case one of the jurors had a problem convicting a "mother" in this grissly of a murder.

Yet if only one juror held out, it would only hang the jury. They could retry Darlie on the same charge. Well, all theory anyway. They got the conviction.

If you run into him again, it would be interesting to hear about Darin's hospital interview. That seemed to raise a whole lotta red flags.


RstJ

[Jeana (DP)]

Yet if only one juror held out, it would only hang the jury. They could retry Darlie on the same charge. Well, all theory anyway. They got the conviction.

If you run into him again, it would be interesting to hear about Darin's hospital interview. That seemed to raise a whole lotta red flags.


RstJ

I wouldn't post anything about this case that I've heard from anyone involved. (Except when Darlie's mother told me something and then called me a liar). :rolleyes: :angel: :angel: :angel:

[RobertStJames]

In this particular case it definitely is. It's not like Devon was found in the neighbor's backyard. Those children were killed together, in the same room and in the same house. It's highly unlikely not to be tried for both killings. It was the "KNIFE" they had insufficient proof that the same "KNIFE" killed Devon.

That knife has always confused me. In Darlie's original statement, it appears she took it off the "floor" and there's the outlines of a bloody knife on the floor in the Roman room, on the carpet. Makes sense. Later, for some reason, it's interpreted as her picking it up off the utility room floor, where there's no indication a knife was dropped. Ok, so Darlie fights with some guy on the couch, gets hacked and stabbed up, then sliced open. Guy drops knife and splits. Simple enough. Except she kept changing the story, dropping the struggling part, changing the location of the knife, etc.

You have to wonder, though, if she did all this "staging" she was supposed to have done, why she'd leave a knife with her blood, Damon's blood, and her fingerprints on it, right on the counter. Not exactly a criminal mastermind, is she?


RstJ

[Jeana (DP)]

You have to wonder, though, if she did all this "staging" she was supposed to have done, why she'd leave a knife with her blood, Damon's blood, and her fingerprints on it, right on the counter. Not exactly a criminal mastermind, is she?

RstJ

What do you think she should have done with it?

[RobertStJames]

What do you think she should have done with it?

Left it on the living room floor.


RstJ

[cami]

That knife has always confused me. In Darlie's original statement, it appears she took it off the "floor" and there's the outlines of a bloody knife on the floor in the Roman room, on the carpet. Makes sense. Later, for some reason, it's interpreted as her picking it up off the utility room floor, where there's no indication a knife was dropped. Ok, so Darlie fights with some guy on the couch, gets hacked and stabbed up, then sliced open. Guy drops knife and splits. Simple enough. Except she kept changing the story, dropping the struggling part, changing the location of the knife, etc.

In Darlie's voluntary statement here (http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/Voluntary/Darlie.pdf) she says "I ran back towards the Utility Room and realized there was a 'big, white handled knife lying on the floor....and I grabbed the knife thinking he was in the garage.... I looked over and saw the door shut to the garage"

Sounds pretty clear to me she is talking about picking the knife up from the floor in front of the Utility Room not the carpet in the Roman Room. She also says in her 911 call that the intruder "ran out to the garage.....threw the knife down......"

She changes her story because she doesn't know that the knife handle is not conducive to finger prints and she has to explain how her's and not an unknown intruder's would have gotten on the knife. The sock's out in the alley most likely by this time and Damon needed those two more stab wounds to finish him off after he moved to where he was found.

[Jeana (DP)]

Left it on the living room floor.


RstJ


Yeah, but how would she explain the fingerprints if she doesn't pick it up???

By the way, a website that contains photographs of actual defense wounds:

(CAUTION - GRAPHIC PHOTOGRAPHS)
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/autopsy_photos.html

[RobertStJames]

Yeah, but how would she explain the fingerprints if she doesn't pick it up???

By the way, a website that contains photographs of actual defense wounds:

(CAUTION - GRAPHIC PHOTOGRAPHS)
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/autopsy_photos.html

Graphic all right. And illustrative of what *fake* wounds look like. Unless you think Macdonald was attacked by "hippies."

Anyway, Darlie wouldn't be the one explaining fingerprints on the knife if she hadn't picked it up. Someone else's would have been there. You know, the guy who's hair was found on the knife, and the guy who didn't have a knife wound.

Bet he got scratched, though. LE is supposed to have photographed him. You ever hear what the photos showed, or see them yourself?



RstJ

[dasgal]

True. But until she drops that "intruder" nonsense, her appeals aren't going to go anywhere. And her lying is a major problem. Even if she came out and said "he did it! I saw him!" who's going to believe her now, almost ten years later?
I think there is evidence against Darin in the form of those jeans, but if Darlie is going to take the stand and start babbling about 300lb intruders, black cars, and mysterious phone calls, how can a case be made?

I know that my thesis relies on Darlie being so totally brainwashed that she'd lie to protect Darin even though he'd killed her "babies." Yet, if she wasn't 100% sure, do we think she'd make that kind of accusation? At least, at the time? If she'd said "I don't know if it was him or not" then the DA most likely goes after Darin. But with her saying "It absolutely positively could not have been him" the DA really had no choice.

Thanks for the insight into LE thinking. Am I right in saying that the investigation into the death of Devon Routier is considered to be an open case?

I think Darlie could get a new trial based on:
a) making a full, written statement covering not only the night
of the murder, but the days/weeks leading up to it.
b) taking an FBI-administered polygraph to verify that statement
c) agreeing to testify against Darin, if not as an eyewitness, then to
the events leading up to the murders
d) pleading guilty to accessory after the fact for having lied to protect him.

RstJ
I think you are trying to be thoughful about this, so consider this.....what possible motive would they both be caught in a web of lies. There is only one thing that holds them together. Both Darlie and Darin have moved on years ago, yet they stay married. In front of the cameras they "kinda" support each other. Behind each other's backs they fillet each other....within reason.
What is the logical reason for this behavior? I can only think of one. Darlie did it (due to the evidence at the scene) and Darin plays a big part in it although not physically. They can't bust each other without giving the bust to themselves.
Take care.

[Yellowrose]

I think you are trying to be thoughful about this, so consider this.....what possible motive would they both be caught in a web of lies. There is only one thing that holds them together. Both Darlie and Darin have moved on years ago, yet they stay married. In front of the cameras they "kinda" support each other. Behind each other's backs they fillet each other....within reason.
What is the logical reason for this behavior? I can only think of one. Darlie did it (due to the evidence at the scene) and Darin plays a big part in it although not physically. They can't bust each other without giving the bust to themselves.
Take care. Dasgal, you are so RIGHT! :clap:

[RobertStJames]

I think you are trying to be thoughful about this, so consider this.....what possible motive would they both be caught in a web of lies. There is only one thing that holds them together. Both Darlie and Darin have moved on years ago, yet they stay married. In front of the cameras they "kinda" support each other. Behind each other's backs they fillet each other....within reason.
What is the logical reason for this behavior? I can only think of one. Darlie did it (due to the evidence at the scene) and Darin plays a big part in it although not physically. They can't bust each other without giving the bust to themselves.
Take care.
I'm not sure just how much more "busted" Darlie Routier can get. She's on death row! I'm not really sure where you think Darlie can move on to. Her options are kinda limited.

Darin, on the other hand, has every reason in the world to stay loyal. Darlie'd have to be insane not to suspect him, but suspicion is not proof. Had those prints been Darin's on the knife, they would have arrested him no matter what his wife had said. As it was, they had circumstantial evidence pointing at both of them, with one (Darlie) alibing Darin. So the DA made the case they had. I'm sure they had many a night wondering just what was going on. They also had two dead children and only two possible perps.

I really don't know. It's not logical. If she's guilty, why not just confess and remove any shadow of suspicion over Darin? If she thinks he did it, why not focus her appeals on that? Instead, she clutters up her appeals with mystery perps who do not exist. As long as that continues, she'll stay in prison.


RstJ

[Jeana (DP)]

Graphic all right. And illustrative of what *fake* wounds look like. Unless you think Macdonald was attacked by "hippies."

Anyway, Darlie wouldn't be the one explaining fingerprints on the knife if she hadn't picked it up. Someone else's would have been there. You know, the guy who's hair was found on the knife, and the guy who didn't have a knife wound.

Bet he got scratched, though. LE is supposed to have photographed him. You ever hear what the photos showed, or see them yourself?

RstJ


I was talking about the wife's (McDonald's) injuries, not his.

Anyway, since Darlie committed the murders not knowing the material on the handle of the knife was not conducive to prints, she had to explain them away - you know that.

I can't remember seeing any photos of Darin. (Maybe someone else reading can help us out on that). But, as I've opined before, I think the cops hated him and WANTED to be able to charge him. Why wouldn't they if he had any signs of being involved?

[tezi]

Is it me, or does Darin have the DUH look?

Between the two of them, they might have one functioning brain cell, and for the life of me, I don't understand why they are still married....

[dasgal]

I'm not sure just how much more "busted" Darlie Routier can get. She's on death row! I'm not really sure where you think Darlie can move on to. Her options are kinda limited.

Darin, on the other hand, has every reason in the world to stay loyal. Darlie'd have to be insane not to suspect him, but suspicion is not proof. Had those prints been Darin's on the knife, they would have arrested him no matter what his wife had said. As it was, they had circumstantial evidence pointing at both of them, with one (Darlie) alibing Darin. So the DA made the case they had. I'm sure they had many a night wondering just what was going on. They also had two dead children and only two possible perps.

I really don't know. It's not logical. If she's guilty, why not just confess and remove any shadow of suspicion over Darin? If she thinks he did it, why not focus her appeals on that? Instead, she clutters up her appeals with mystery perps who do not exist. As long as that continues, she'll stay in prison.


RstJ
You don't understand. Darlie is on death row WITH supporters. If she were to admit to any part of the murders, she would still be on death row, but WITHOUT supporters. She knows she can't roll too far on Darin without Darin rolling back. She will go to the death chamber saying she didn't do it.

[Jules]

Yep, Tez, I think their cheese slid off their crackers long ago. :D

[tezi]

Yep, Tez, I think their cheese slid off their crackers long ago. :D

Both are a taco shy of a combo plate too! :D

[Jules]

Lights are on but nobody's home...... :D ;)

[tezi]

The wheel's turning, but the hamster's dead?

[Jeana (DP)]

Is it me, or does Darin have the DUH look?

Between the two of them, they might have one functioning brain cell, and for the life of me, I don't understand why they are still married....


Personally, I think that its a divided we fall type of situation. I think Darlie has something on Darin that could possibly get him locked up. Likewise, I think he could also come out with info that would all but stop her appeals dead in their tracks and assure her the injection.

[Jules]

Yep - that too! :slap: :angel:

[dasgal]

Another thing Robert, you are assuming that Darlie and Darin don't share culpablility. That's probably your biggest mistake in your reasoning. Quite frankly it's the only way this whole case adds up.

Also, there IS something worse than being on death row as a convicted child murderer....there is being on death row as a CONFESSED child murderer.

[tezi]

Personally, I think that its a divided we fall type of situation. I think Darlie has something on Darin that could possibly get him locked up. Likewise, I think he could also come out with info that would all but stop her appeals dead in their tracks and assure her the injection.


To me, that's the only thing that makes sense. There would be no way Mr. Tez would stand behind me if I murdered our kids. Or the dog for that matter! Same way for me, he'd be in jail if he hurt a hair on any of the kids' heads.

It's pretty obvious she's not going to get a new trial or even get an appeal to go through, so why is she staying quiet? Personally, I think he needs to be sitting right beside her on DR.

[cami]

Graphic all right. And illustrative of what *fake* wounds look like. Unless you think Macdonald was attacked by "hippies."

Anyway, Darlie wouldn't be the one explaining fingerprints on the knife if she hadn't picked it up. Someone else's would have been there. You know, the guy who's hair was found on the knife, and the guy who didn't have a knife wound.

Bet he got scratched, though. LE is supposed to have photographed him. You ever hear what the photos showed, or see them yourself?



RstJ

Yeah but she lies about where she picked the knife up from. It wasn't thrown on the floor by any intruder leaving through the garage. She laid it on the carpet in the murder room for some reason.

This is one of the reasons the authorities suspected her from the beginning. Her story doesn't jive with the physical evidence. You can't drop or throw a bloody knife on tiled kitchen floor and not have it leave some blood evidence that it was there can you? Wouldn't some of the blood transfer to the floor or splatter onto the wall if near one?

So, if Darin did it, she's covering for him already on the 911 call. Somehow I don't see Darlie sitting on DR for Darin.

[cami]

I was talking about the wife's (McDonald's) injuries, not his.

Colette fought hard for her own life and to protect her two daughters. Both arms broken as she held them over her head in an effort to protect herself. Six head injuries, her skull crushed, her face beaten to a pulp. Darlie's little scratches hardly compare. and just like Darlie, the evidence against him is overwhelming. If Darin had taken after Darlie she'd be as dead as those boys.


How's this for irony. MacDonald's parole hearing is scheduled for May 10th--Colette's birthday.

[Jeana (DP)]

Colette fought hard for her own life and to protect her two daughters. Both arms broken as she held them over her head in an effort to protect herself. Six head injuries, her skull crushed, her face beaten to a pulp. Darlie's little scratches hardly compare. and just like Darlie, the evidence against him is overwhelming. If Darin had taken after Darlie she'd be as dead as those boys.


How's this for irony. MacDonald's parole hearing is scheduled for May 10th--Colette's birthday.


Thank you!!! What you explained in your post defined true DEFENSIVE wounds - EXACTLY the wounds one would expect if someone WERE fighting for the lives of their two children and themself. Moreover, as in the McDonald case, had someone wanted the mother in this case (Darlie) killed, she'd have been so.

[Dani_T]

Hi guys,

Computer had to be admitted to ICU earlier this week so am only checking in infrequently for the moment. Couple of comments:

That knife has always confused me. In Darlie's original statement, it appears she took it off the "floor" and there's the outlines of a bloody knife on the floor in the Roman room, on the carpet. Makes sense. Later, for some reason, it's interpreted as her picking it up off the utility room floor, where there's no indication a knife was dropped. Ok, so Darlie fights with some guy on the couch, gets hacked and stabbed up, then sliced open. Guy drops knife and splits. Simple enough. Except she kept changing the story, dropping the struggling part, changing the location of the knife, etc.

The only reason the knife is confusing you is because you don't believe Darlie is guilty. She clearly says over and over again that the knife was located in/just past the doorway into the U-room from the kitchen... nowhere NEAR the impression in the living room. There is absolutely no way you can intepret her claims about where she found the knife (in either her vol statement, her testimony or her later 'In Her Own Words') as being from the carpet in the Roman room.

And perhaps this is the evidence which should convince you that Darlie didn't simply invent an elaborate lie to cover for Darin. She said that the intruder threw the knife down. There is absolutely no evidence of a bloody knife being thrown anywhere on that floor. What there is, however, is a blood impression of the knife on the carpet and expert testimony has shown that for the impression to have been formed the way it did (with heavy amounts of blood on the tip of the impression) the person who was holding it had to be actively bleeding (and bleeding fairly profusely). Darin was not. Darlie was. The knife was IN HER HAND in the Roman room at some point after she had been cut somewhere.

Darlie'd have to be insane not to suspect him, but suspicion is not proof. Not if she did it she wouldn't.

Had those prints been Darin's on the knife, they would have arrested him no matter what his wife had said.
Well there were no prints on the knife. However, if there were prints on the knife they would have had to have been in blood to convict Darin I suspect considering it was his knife from his house.

As it was, they had circumstantial evidence pointing at both of them, with one (Darlie) alibing Darin.
See my point above about the knife impression

I really don't know. It's not logical. If she's guilty, why not just confess and remove any shadow of suspicion over Darin?
Huh? No way! Why on earth would she confess and send herself to the death chamber. She has everything to lose by confessing! Nothing to gain (except to clear her own conscience... but I'm not sure she has one). Why would she want to remove any suspicion over Darin? especially at cost to herself?

If she thinks he did it, why not focus her appeals on that? Instead, she clutters up her appeals with mystery perps who do not exist.
Because she KNOWS he didn't do it. She knows the evidence, including her own story if it can be called evidence, doesn't implicate him and in fact clears him. If she is going to prove she is innocent she has to keep with the story she has maintained all along. It won't work of course- but she's got no hope claiming that she was completely innocent and that Darin did it because the stories and the evidence just don't gel. Of course that hasn't stopped her from occassionally casting a little doubt on Darin and maybe she will bite the bullet as her time draws nearer in a last ditch effort.

[cami]

Thank you!!! What you explained in your post defined true DEFENSIVE wounds - EXACTLY the wounds one would expect if someone WERE fighting for the lives of their two children and themself. Moreover, as in the McDonald case, had someone wanted the mother in this case (Darlie) killed, she'd have been so.

Look at Colette's head and face in this photo (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/autopsy_photos.html) . Warning very graphic.

That's a woman who fought hard to protect her children. She died trying, at the hands of her husband.

If Darin was in a homicidal rage--enough to brutally kill Devon and Damon, there's no way Darlie would escape a similar fate to Mrs. MacDonald. Who does she think she's kidding, you can still hear the rage in her voice on that 911 call. I need to stop for a while, I am getting really really really angry at Darlie again.

[jessie harris]

Have been reading and catching up, I find it odd that people think she would be believed if she ever decided to say now I remember it was my husband all along, if there was evidence of him doing anything at the time any defence atty worth his salt would have said flip him, tell LE what he did, but once she said difinitively no it was not him, and kept saying it, she lost her chance to ever say it, she has to stick with the intruder theory even though it does not seem to be doing much for her chances of appeal,

[accordn2me]

Hey to all the posters from long ago: Jenna, Mary, dasgal, cami...

Whatever became of the bloody fingerprint on the sofa table? At one time I heard that one expert, relatively new to the case, said it belonged to no one who was known to be in the house that night. If I remember correctly, the state's expert refuted this and said it might belong to Darlie.

Also, what about the allegation that came out about Darin hiring someone to ransack/rob the house so he could file a false insurance claim? I know it's extreme that it would have turned into murder, but when you deal with scum, you just never can tell what will happen!

It's good to see y'all again. :)

[Jeana (DP)]

Hey to all the posters from long ago: Jenna, Mary, dasgal, cami...

Whatever became of the bloody fingerprint on the sofa table? At one time I heard that one expert, relatively new to the case, said it belonged to no one who was known to be in the house that night. If I remember correctly, the state's expert refuted this and said it might belong to Darlie.

Also, what about the allegation that came out about Darin hiring someone to ransack/rob the house so he could file a false insurance claim? I know it's extreme that it would have turned into murder, but when you deal with scum, you just never can tell what will happen!

It's good to see y'all again. :)


Hi, I think mine was one of the names you typed "Jenna"???? (close enough) :o Anywa, defense experts claim there are not enough "points" for a "match," but that it was a child's (or small adult's) print.

Darin did admit in his affidavit that he had considered and even spoke to others that he was contemplating doing somethink that this, but never went through with it.

Anyway, good to see you too and hope to see more of your posts.

[lauriej]

Look at Colette's head and face in this photo (http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/autopsy_photos.html) . Warning very graphic.

That's a woman who fought hard to protect her children. She died trying, at the hands of her husband.

If Darin was in a homicidal rage--enough to brutally kill Devon and Damon, there's no way Darlie would escape a similar fate to Mrs. MacDonald. Who does she think she's kidding, you can still hear the rage in her voice on that 911 call. I need to stop for a while, I am getting really really really angry at Darlie again.
........off topic, ( darlie ) i know, but thank you for the JM pics...

...totally insane that a pic pointer is required to TRY TO point out JM's cry baby injuries..........

...back On topic, i totally agree with the previous poster.........................follow the blood !

..JM...DR......the blood tells the story..............

[cami]

Hey to all the posters from long ago: Jenna, Mary, dasgal, cami...

Whatever became of the bloody fingerprint on the sofa table? At one time I heard that one expert, relatively new to the case, said it belonged to no one who was known to be in the house that night. If I remember correctly, the state's expert refuted this and said it might belong to Darlie.

Also, what about the allegation that came out about Darin hiring someone to ransack/rob the house so he could file a false insurance claim? I know it's extreme that it would have turned into murder, but when you deal with scum, you just never can tell what will happen!

It's good to see y'all again. :)

Hey atme, how's it going.

[RobertStJames]

You don't understand. Darlie is on death row WITH supporters. If she were to admit to any part of the murders, she would still be on death row, but WITHOUT supporters. She knows she can't roll too far on Darin without Darin rolling back. She will go to the death chamber saying she didn't do it.
How does Darin rolling back remove her supporters? This is really why I started the thread--do Darlie's supporters also support Darin?

Anybody?


RstJ

[RobertStJames]

[QUOTE=Dani_T] <...>
Because she KNOWS he didn't do it. She knows the evidence, including her own story if it can be called evidence, doesn't implicate him and in fact clears him. If she is going to prove she is innocent she has to keep with the story she has maintained all along. It won't work of course- but she's got no hope claiming that she was completely innocent and that Darin did it because the stories and the evidence just don't gel. Of course that hasn't stopped her from occassionally casting a little doubt on Darin and maybe she will bite the bullet as her time draws nearer in a last ditch effort.[/b]

She doesn't know he didn't do it. She claims amnesia. Yet her first description of her attacker matched Darin. Darin has blood on his pants. Whose? There is blood on his Reeboks, fibers of which are matched to that sock. When did he put them on to get blood on them?

Follow the blood. It leads to Darin, not to Darlie.


RstJ

[cami]

How does Darin rolling back remove her supporters? This is really why I started the thread--do Darlie's supporters also support Darin?

Anybody?


RstJ

Once her supporters learn that she is indeed guilty of this crime, they will scatter. They are supporting a supposedly innocent woman on death row. If Darlie should implicate Darin, after blaming an intruder--two intruders now--well I don't think she will keep those supporters. They will feel they've been conned. I know I would.

[RobertStJames]

Once her supporters learn that she is indeed guilty of this crime, they will scatter. They are supporting a supposedly innocent woman on death row. If Darlie should implicate Darin, after blaming an intruder--two intruders now--well I don't think she will keep those supporters. They will feel they've been conned. I know I would.

Why are you assuming that pointing the finger at Darin necessarily implies admitting any guilt on her part? What if she maintains her innocence, but also stops insisting that it just couldn't have been Darin?

Would you still feel conned? If Darlie presented a defense which was based on her husband as the alternate suspect? That's what her lawyers (the PDs) were orginally planning on doing.


RstJ

[IrishMist]

She saw the intruder at the foot of the couch. (Well, at least in ONE of her stories.)
She supposedly fought with this guy!! You don't think she'd recognize her own husband?
She has said all along that it was not Darin. It's been awhile since I've read the transcripts, but she may have even testified to that...
Does anyone know, to save this lazy Irish girl from having to look?

[Goody]

She saw the intruder at the foot of the couch. (Well, at least in ONE of her stories.)
She supposedly fought with this guy!! You don't think she'd recognize her own husband?
She has said all along that it was not Darin. It's been awhile since I've read the transcripts, but she may have even testified to that...
Does anyone know, to save this lazy Irish girl from having to look?
Yes, Darlie did testify to that. I am too lazy to look it up though.

Say, Irish, I did try to send that report to you but your addy didn't work.

[Goody]

Why are you assuming that pointing the finger at Darin necessarily implies admitting any guilt on her part? What if she maintains her innocence, but also stops insisting that it just couldn't have been Darin?


RstJ
Darlie would have had to have lied about a lot of things if Darin were the attacker. There is no way she can paint herself as an innocent victim of his, starting with him being upstairs when the attacks happened and including lies to cover up his participation. At the very least she had to have known all along that he did and conspired with him to cover it up.

If he had been trying to kill her, why on earth would she help him cover up that attack and the murders of her children, whom she supposedly was devoted to? About the only thing she could say would be that she was unconscious and didn't know Darin was the attacker, in which case she couldn't very well point fingers at him now. Then what does she do with the hypnotic session where she claims to have remembered fighting with two dark skinned men on the sofa, the memory of which she supposed blocked out?

I am afraid Darlie's goose is cooked as far as her stories go. If she is going to talk, she had better connect all the dots and stop lying altogether, and even that probably won't save her from the gallows. It will just insure that she doesn't swing at the end of that needle alone, which if he was involved is proabably the right thing to do if there is any real chance for justice for those kids.

[Goody]

Personally, I think that its a divided we fall type of situation. I think Darlie has something on Darin that could possibly get him locked up. Likewise, I think he could also come out with info that would all but stop her appeals dead in their tracks and assure her the injection.
Me thinks you are right, Jeana. Otherwise he'd have ridden off into the sunset years ago and been applauded for it.

[Goody]

[QUOTE=RobertStJames
She doesn't know he didn't do it. She claims amnesia. Yet her first description of her attacker matched Darin. Darin has blood on his pants. Whose? There is blood on his Reeboks, fibers of which are matched to that sock. When did he put them on to get blood on them?

Follow the blood. It leads to Darin, not to Darlie.


RstJ[/QUOTE]
O, puh-leeze. She claims amnesia alright, but traumatic amnesia without brain damage is not permanent! Most people regain it within a few months. She is going on 9 years now. Not only that but she isn't even trying to remember what happened. One hypnotic session in nine years and when she supposedly remembers something, she drops it like a hot potato. No sense is trying again, she might actually be able to come up with a facial composite of the guy(s) to help police. Can't have that.

Sorry but Darlie is about as innocent as my dog after a garbage run.

O, and that blood trail does not lead to Darin. He wore no shirt that night and no photos were taken before he was excused to go to the hospital. He cleaned up before he was interviewed by police. And his skin cells were not on the sock. Darlie's were. Plus he had no injuries, which if he had been wielding a knife and attacking three people, he should have had cuts on himself, too.

The blood on his pants, I believe, is at the waist, and that can probably be easily explained by his CPR efforts on Devon. Now if it turns out to be Damon's blood, not so easy to explain but even that wouldn't be a smoking gun against him.

The shoes... Darlie could have worn them as easily as he could have.

Personally, I suspect that they were in on it together and that Darin didn't have the guts to do the dirty work so his job was to do the staging, i.e. screen cutting, sock planting, etc. I think the motive had everything to do with money, but not insurance money. I think they truly believed they could pull it off and be perceived as victims to the world, which would open doors to the big time, book deals, film rights, etc. I think they viewed children as easily replacable objects and truly believed that the boys would understand and forgive them, after all it was for the betterment of the family as a whole. In short, the kids were sacrificed for the greater good, which was basically the good life for Mom and Dad and baby brother.

Now how it all came about is another thing. Things did not go smoothly. I am not sure that night was even planned much ahead of time, but I do think they had danced around the subject before, maybe even engaged in a little late night fantasy about how it could be pulled off without having any real plan in action. Something happened to escalate things that particular night, and that something was probably some kind of argument or specific event that spun out of control and left them with little choice.

I believe that Darlie suffered from depression and probably anxiety, and possibly PPD. That the diet pills she was taking beyond recommended periods were aggravating factors and contributed to the PPD and may have even caused her to snap that night, which left them with a dead child. How could they explain an intruder killing one child but not the other? Somewhere between need and past fantasies, they whipped up the plan to escape punishment and become the victims they needed to be to pull it all off. It just didn't work for Darlie.

I don't think it is any accident that Darin came out smelling like a rose and everything pointed to Darlie, but since she didn't tell the truth, she is now stuck with the outcome. I think her life could have been spared if they had just told the truth about how one child had been killed and spared Damon, if they had exposed her true mental state, medications, etc. and not bothered with a cover up. And they might have been able to do that if they had not already been playing with the idea of becoming the movie of the week.

Sounds out there, I know, but they were already writing stories about Texas being a hotbed for TV movies on true crime so I think the theory might hit closer to home than we know. It is speculation though as are most of our how it happened Routier theories are. They have managed to keep a dark cloak over what really happened that night, which contributes to our need to connect dots that just won't be connected.

However, just remember some of Darin's statements about how they were going to write a book and knock the middleman out by having Darlie do all the writing, how they were said to have signed contracts to sell their story only two days after she was arrested which was only 2 weeks after the murders. How Darin supposedly said to his tatoo artist that their story was going to the biggest thing to hit in a long time, etc. And don't forget him saying on the stand that they felt they deserved to make the big bucks, that they should be able to go on vacation anywhere they wanted and not be limited by a budget (or however he qualified it). So it is not totally out there, and it explains why they both seemed to be disassociated with both the children and the murders, which should have just totally blown them away emotionally.

[Goody]

d. Never happen, she's guilty of the murders not Darin. He's the accessory after the fact.
Maybe after the fact on Devon's murder. I am not so sure about Damon's. Remember he too shows some lack of emotional grief after the murders. Unlike David Smith and Mark Lunsford, whose faces show every ounce of their grief. In my opinion, Darin just doesn't measure up as an innocent victim who stumbled into a horrific scene and turned on a dime to support his guilty wife. No evidence against him regarding the murders, but in the days and months that followed, there sure are a lot of questions.

[IrishMist]

Yes, Darlie did testify to that. I am too lazy to look it up though.

Say, Irish, I did try to send that report to you but your addy didn't work.
I was pretty sure she did. Thanks for verifying.

I pm'd my email to you. Not sure what happened the first time?

[Goody]

Any lawyer would destroy that case in a week on double jeopardy. Since there's no reason to believe the murders were two separate crimes, but part of the same attack. I've never bought the official line that they were going to re-try Darlie on Devon's murder if they couldn't get a conviction on Damon's. Can you think of any other case that's ever worked that way?
Doesn't matter when the victims were killed. They were two separate people and there is no law that I am aware of that says they have to be tried together.

And if the evidence was so strong that she's guilty, why did the DA only file on *one* of the murders?
He only filed on Damon because Damon was under 6 years old and his murder fell under Texas death penalty rules. Also, his blood was not found on the murder weapon. The defense could argue that he was not killed by that knife and that the attacker took the real murder weapon with him. Weak, I know, but I am sure they didn't want it to interfere with Damon's case, which was pretty solid against Darlie.


She drops this intruder nonsense, and finally tells the truth, then I think she gets a new trial. And I think that if we could see *all* the evidence, we'd rapidly change our minds on this case. Don't you think there's a reason Dari's jeans are still in an evidence locker, ten years later?

RstJ
You don't honestly see her as a martyr sacrificing herself for her cad of a husband, do you?

Yes, there is a reason Darin's jeans are still in the evidence locker. They are required to keep evidence relating to cases like this in case ever needed. Shoot, you can go into some police jurisdictions and find evidence dating back to the 1800's.

[RobertStJames]

O, and that blood trail does not lead to Darin. He wore no shirt that night and no photos were taken before he was excused to go to the hospital. He cleaned up before he was interviewed by police. And his skin cells were not on the sock. Darlie's were. Plus he had no injuries, which if he had been wielding a knife and attacking three people, he should have had cuts on himself, too.

The blood on his pants, I believe, is at the waist, and that can probably be easily explained by his CPR efforts on Devon. Now if it turns out to be Damon's blood, not so easy to explain but even that wouldn't be a smoking gun against him.

The shoes... Darlie could have worn them as easily as he could have.


Oh come on. Those are Darin's shoes. Fibers from the shoes were found *on that sock*! Blood, both boys, and DNA from Darlie, probably saliva. And how do you know Darin didn't have any cuts? He was interviewed at length at the hospital. Probably photographed there. We don't have any of that information.

Blood *spatter* has been reported in two places on Darin's jeans. Not consistent at all with CPR. Very consistent with a throat slash. And we don't know whose blood that is. I wouldn't be surprised if no small part of it is Darlie's. And how did the jeans get ripped? Fixing that fence that there's no evidence Darin ever worked on?

Blood:

Darin's Reeboks
Darin's Sock
Darin's Jeans
Darin's face, hands, stomach, knee

I don't believe all this got on him just giving CPR to someone who
was already dead.


RstJ

[RobertStJames]

You don't honestly see her as a martyr sacrificing herself for her cad of a husband, do you?

Yes, there is a reason Darin's jeans are still in the evidence locker. They are required to keep evidence relating to cases like this in case ever needed. Shoot, you can go into some police jurisdictions and find evidence dating back to the 1800's.

Women lie to cover for their husbands/boyfriends all the time. I mean *all* the time. How many women end up in ICU swearing to heaven that their SO didn't hurt them when their SO is the only possible suspect? How many obvious DV cases never go anywhere because the victim refuses to testify? There is nothing at all extraordinary about Darlie lying to cover for her husband. She was totally, 100% dependent on him.

She testified that it wasn't him who attacked her, but since she can't provide any kind of description of the assailant (except her earliest description, which matches Darin very closely) then how can she testify as to who it wasn't? That's contradictory, but then again, a lot of her testimony is like that. Why would Mulder allow her to take the stand? He's not a fool, and I just don't see Darlie going against his advice which must have been *not* to testify.

Unless, of course, her husband put her up to it.

I see no reason why Darin's jeans would still be in evidence in a case against his wife. How do the jeans prove her guilt?

Follow the blood: it's all over Darin. Darlie had a total of four drops of Damon's blood. Four drops, and believe me, that nightshirt was examined thoroughly. Is that all they could find? Four drops, one of them clearly on top of her own blood?

Reeboks, sock, jeans, body, his mysterious washing up across the street.


btw, who saw Darin giving CPR to Devon? Waddell's statement is very clear that he saw Darin already *outside*. Does anyone have a cite where any police officer, or any paramedic saw Darin giving any kind of CPR, mouth to mouth?


Now look at this statement, from coverage of the trial:


''When I (tried to give Devon CPR), blood splattered all over my face. I tried to blow into his chest and blood came out of his mouth.''

He said that Mrs. Routier was ''right on top of him trying to hold his chest together.''


So why wasn't Devon's blood found all over Darlie? Darin got spattered. Darlie was right on top of Devon. So where is Devon's blood?


And does anyone believe that he was blowing into Devon's chest (huh?) and blood came spattering out of Devon's mouth? This sounds completely, and totally, false.

There are only two sources for the "CPR" story: Darin and Darlie. And Darin can't keep his story straight:


Darin Routier made suspiciously inconsistent statements about his blue jeans. At the hospital early after the attacks, the police noticed blood on his blue jeans and a tear just below the right knee. When asked about the tear, he said he got it while working on the back yard gate just the day before. According to the police report, he didn't explain how blood got on his jeans because he said he came down the stairs naked and got blood on his stomach and bare knees while trying to give CPR to Devon. HR.6: 488; Defendant's Exhibit No. 5, p. 3. In his written statement, Darin told the police that he went to sleep naked, rushed downstairs nude when he heard Appellant scream, and then went back upstairs to put his pants on after he gave first aid to the children. HR.6: 488; Defendant's Exhibit No. 3, p. 3. At the bond hearing, Darin claimed that he went to sleep nude and took the time to put his jeans on before he rushed downstairs to find out why Appellant was screaming. RR.4: 124.



RstJ

[Jeana (DP)]

Defendant's Exhibit No. 51
and
Defendant's Exhibit No. 52

are photographs of the shoes by the front door. They are LACED up.
Once again, let me ask you how its possible that Darin removed those shoes while they were laced up?

[RobertStJames]

Defendant's Exhibit No. 51
and
Defendant's Exhibit No. 52

are photographs of the shoes by the front door. They are LACED up.
Once again, let me ask you how its possible that Darin removed those shoes while they were laced up?

Why would Darin lace up his own shoes no matter what the circumstances? Obviously, he wore them on a regular basis. So why would he lace them up at all? Or are you trying to say that those shoes just happened to be down there laced up for no reason?

More to the point, how did any blood get on them? None of the victims were known to have been anywhere near those shoes!

You don't see any connection between blood on Darin's sock, fibers from Darin's shoe being *on* that sock, and blood also being on Darin's Reeboks?



RstJ

[IrishMist]

OK, RST, let's just say this is all true. (Doesn't mean I agree, BTW.)

But if she knew Darin did it, and she didn't turn him in for killing her children, then the B**** is still exactly where she needs to be.

[Jeana (DP)]

Why would Darin lace up his own shoes no matter what the circumstances? Obviously, he wore them on a regular basis. So why would he lace them up at all? Or are you trying to say that those shoes just happened to be down there laced up for no reason?

More to the point, how did any blood get on them? None of the victims were known to have been anywhere near those shoes!

You don't see any connection between blood on Darin's sock, fibers from Darin's shoe being *on* that sock, and blood also being on Darin's Reeboks?



RstJ


Darlie wore them.

[RobertStJames]

OK, RST, let's just say this is all true. (Doesn't mean I agree, BTW.)

But if she knew Darin did it, and she didn't turn him in for killing her children, then the B**** is still exactly where she needs to be.

Because I don't think she knew. Put yourself in her position (grisly, yeah, but just for POV). You wake up in the middle of the night slashed up, trying to defend yourself from someone who's trying to do you in. It's dark, only the light from the TV. Looks like it could be your husband, but you don't know for certain. You fight him off and he splits out the garage. Then you follow, which is an interesting point, seeing as how the blood drips in the utility room support the idea that Darlie was going that direction while still bleeding. Pretty crazy to follow an unknown perp. So you scream for your husband. He shows up...from where? Darlie claims to have seen him come out of the bedroom, but that doesn't sound possible as she was downstairs. He claims to have heard glass breaking, although acoustic tests make it clear that would be impossible. Anyway, he shows up. Darlie says he had pants on. He tells police he didn't. Which is true?

So, if she isn't absolutely sure, what's she going to do? Point the finger at him?

And for those of you who think she's a cold-blooded monster, why *not* point the finger at her husband? If she's just killed two kids and doesn't want to cop to it, wouldn't trying to blame it on her husband be a viable way to wriggle out of the murders?


RstJ

[Jeana (DP)]

There's NO WAY Darin exited out of the garage and then several seconds later appears from upstairs with NO PANTS and/or NO GLASSES on.

[RobertStJames]

Darlie wore them.


What? What evidence do you have to support that? She never says anything about wearing Reeboks, it would make no sense at all to be wearing them that night since she was sleeping, in fact, no one ever mentions anyone wearing those Reeboks that I can see. So where do you get that Darlie was wearing them?


He said he found Caucasian limb hairs from either a leg or arm; hair from an animal in the deer family, such as deer, elk or antelope; and synthetic fiber that he later identified as microscopically similar to Reebok tennis shoes inside the utility room.



Inside the utility room?


RstJ

[cami]

More to the point, how did any blood get on them? None of the victims were known to have been anywhere near those shoes!
RstJ

Darlie was at the front door bleeding. She opened the door to call for Karen. She left by the front door. It's her blood on the Reeboks. Why do you ignore this?

[Jeana (DP)]

What? What evidence do you have to support that? She never says anything about wearing Reeboks, it would make no sense at all to be wearing them that night since she was sleeping, in fact, no one ever mentions anyone wearing those Reeboks that I can see. So where do you get that Darlie was wearing them?


He said he found Caucasian limb hairs from either a leg or arm; hair from an animal in the deer family, such as deer, elk or antelope; and synthetic fiber that he later identified as microscopically similar to Reebok tennis shoes inside the utility room.



Inside the utility room?


RstJ


She NEVER said that she and Darin argued that night and that she asked him for a separation either. The problem with Darlie and what is "said" is that she changed her story SIXTEEN times and then came out with something totally different on the witness stand - and then came out with something totally different FROM PRISON.

I think its been established that anytime Darlie opens her mouth a lie comes out, so why on earth would you be waiting for her to say anything before you believed it?

[Jeana (DP)]

Darlie was at the front door bleeding. She opened the door to call for Karen. She left by the front door. It's her blood on the Reeboks. Why do you ignore this?


There's a wooden chest like thing by the front door. If you picture Darlie sitting there removing those sneakers, it would explain why they're laced up and it would explain how the blood drops by the front door are perfectly round - which means she was still when she bled those drops.

[RobertStJames]

She NEVER said that she and Darin argued that night and that she asked him for a separation either. The problem with Darlie and what is "said" is that she changed her story SIXTEEN times and then came out with something totally different on the witness stand - and then came out with something totally different FROM PRISON.

I think its been established that anytime Darlie opens her mouth a lie comes out, so why on earth would you be waiting for her to say anything before you believed it?

Why would I be putting words into her mouth and claiming that she wore the Reeboks when she never even mentions them? They aren't her shoes. Why should I think she wore them that night?


RstJ

[cami]

Because I don't think she knew. Put yourself in her position (grisly, yeah, but just for POV). You wake up in the middle of the night slashed up, trying to defend yourself from someone who's trying to do you in. It's dark, only the light from the TV. Looks like it could be your husband, but you don't know for certain. You fight him off and he splits out the garage. Then you follow, which is an interesting point, seeing as how the blood drips in the utility room support the idea that Darlie was going that direction while still bleeding.
RstJ


Only problem is there's no evidence that Darlie fought with anyone in that living room, there's only a bit of staging. There's a lamp shade down on the lamp but the lamp's position on the carpet remained intact.There's no blood where she claims she lay sleeping. There's not a cut or a nick in the sofa from the knife being deflected during a fight. The glass top of the table is down on it's side as if it were placed there, not knocked over.

Darlie claims she did not enter the utility room but her blood is in there. Yet that's where the blood stops.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would not recognize their own husband in the dark or not. I don't believe Darlie ever went to sleep that night.

[Jeana (DP)]

Why would I be putting words into her mouth and claiming that she wore the Reeboks when she never even mentions them? They aren't her shoes. Why should I think she wore them that night?


RstJ


What it comes down to is that we can't trust one word that she said, either that night or since. She's lied so many times that we just can't believe her. So, regardless of what you believe, or what she say's, she'll remain where she is.

You're willing to put these words into her mouth:

"You wake up in the middle of the night slashed up, trying to defend yourself from someone who's trying to do you in. It's dark, only the light from the TV. Looks like it could be your husband, but you don't know for certain."

Which of the 16 versions did you get this from? She can't even decide how many people she supposedly fought off. How did it now become her husband??????

Your problem is that you want it to be anyone but Darlie, but the evidence keeps coming back to her.

[RobertStJames]

Darlie was at the front door bleeding. She opened the door to call for Karen. She left by the front door. It's her blood on the Reeboks. Why do you ignore this?

Because there's more than one explanation for how her blood got on those shoes and the explanation you're offering isn't a very convincing one. Darin's hair jumps onto the knife, Darlie just happens to bleed on Darin's shoes which are, strangely, right by the front door, laced up, and just happen to correspond directly to a sock that was found with the boy's blood on it found away from the house. I mean, come on, how many things do we have to explain away like this?




RstJ

[RobertStJames]

What it comes down to is that we can't trust one word that she said, either that night or since. She's lied so many times that we just can't believe her. So, regardless of what you believe, or what she say's, she'll remain where she is.

You're willing to put these words into her mouth:

"You wake up in the middle of the night slashed up, trying to defend yourself from someone who's trying to do you in. It's dark, only the light from the TV. Looks like it could be your husband, but you don't know for certain."

Which of the 16 versions did you get this from? She can't even decide how many people she supposedly fought off. How did it now become her husband??????

Your problem is that you want it to be anyone but Darlie, but the evidence keeps coming back to her.

I'm not claiming she said any such thing. It's a scenario. That's not the same thing as putting words into her mouth, nor is it the same thing for claiming objective facts like she wore those Reeboks when there is not a single bit of evidence to support that contention. The evidence doesn't keep coming back to her at all. How does her blood on Darin's tennis shoes support the idea that she killed her kids?


RstJ

[Mary456]

She claims (in the original statement) 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.
RstJ

Ohhh, but that's not true. Darlie stated, "I remember saying he cut them, he tried to kill me, my neck, he (Darin) ran down the stairs and into the room where the boys were."

[dasgal]

Not that you will answer this post or anything like that, but you can hear Darin coming down the stairs in the 911 call.
Don't bother checking it out. It would take way too much effort and blow your theory. But again, it wouldn't do a thing to change your mind. You are waaaay too busy thinking of things in tiny segments Unfortunatly, that is a common and binding trend with supporters.

[Mary456]

[QUOTE=dasgal]Not that you will answer this post or anything like that

Well, if he doesn't, I will. How ya doin, JG?

[Dani_T]

Sorry if these have been responded to already- been away for a few days and am catching up:

Oh come on. Those are Darin's shoes. Fibers from the shoes were found *on that sock*!
And that's odd because...? If the sock belonged to Darin (which is highly likely) and it had been worn and then put either in the shoe or in the dirty laundry then the fibre on it (if it WAS from the reebok) can be explained without the shoes even being linked to the crime scene in that respect.

And how do you know Darin didn't have any cuts? He was interviewed at length at the hospital. Probably photographed there. We don't have any of that information.
What we do have though is testimony from at least 6 people who saw him and spoke to him that night and following that night and no one mentions any cuts or wounds to Darin. I think there is at least one photo in MTJD with Darin in it at the hospital but don't have it with me.

Blood *spatter* has been reported in two places on Darin's jeans. Not consistent at all with CPR. Very consistent with a throat slash.
Could you provide some transcript or affidavit evidence for this?

Blood 'spatter' from a throat is caused when a major artery is cut. Darlie's wasn't. If she was lying down or leaning backwards and someone ran a greta big butcher's knife along her throat in such a way to make a shallow cut (which it was) then I'm not sure where you think this blood 'spatter' (which should actually be 'spray' from a servered artery) would have come from.

And how did the jeans get ripped? Fixing that fence that there's no evidence Darin ever worked on?
Are you saying that you don't have a pair of jeans or trousers or even a shirt lying around home which you lounge around in which aren't ripped or torn somewhere?


Blood

Darin's Reeboks - Darlie, who was bleeding. stood at the open door at least once during the 911 call not to mention when she passed by them again on her way out of the house
Darin's Sock- Two small spots of blood on a sock which has not been postively identifed as Darin's on record

Darin's Jeans
Darin's face, hands, stomach, knee

I don't believe all this got on him just giving CPR to someone who
was already dead.
Althought I have no problem accepting that Darin would have gotten well and truly bloody if he was trying to breath air back into his son's mouth and chest cavity I'd also expect some of it probably came from the fact that he wouldn't have simply been handling his boys clinically as you seem to expect.

There is nothing at all extraordinary about Darlie lying to cover for her husband. She was totally, 100% dependent on him. I guess that slipped her mind when she asked for a separation earlier that night. Or is that another Darin lie? It all get's very confusing...

Four drops, one of them clearly on top of her own blood?
If you read the transcripts you'll see the wounds to the boys did not spray or spatter blood around. They were weeping wounds. Darlie wouldn't have had liberal amounts of the boys blood on her and in any case who knows how much had been on her hands/arms? Of course the absence of significant amounts of their blood only goes to show that this mother didn't go near the boys during the 911 call, try to comfort them by pulling them into her arms or tending to their wounds.

More to the point, how did any blood get on them? None of the victims were known to have been anywhere near those shoes!Incorrect. Two of the bleeding victims went right past the shoes. One of those did so twice.

Because there's more than one explanation for how her blood got on those shoes and the explanation you're offering isn't a very convincing one. Darin's hair jumps onto the knife, Darlie just happens to bleed on Darin's shoes which are, strangely, right by the front door, laced up, and just happen to correspond directly to a sock that was found with the boy's blood on it found away from the house. I mean, come on, how many things do we have to explain away like this?
Oh for goodness sake.

Darin lived in the house- his hair would have been everywhere. Go look up some studies on the nature of hair and fibre transference. If the knife was placed on the carpet (which we know it was- and might I remind you this is a point you have consistently ignored) it would have picked up any number of fibres and hairs. The knife was placed on the counter which also would have had any number of fibres/hairs on it. His hair doesn't jump onto the knife. If it was a sterile crime scene and one which should not have contained any of Darin's hair them it is a different story. But it wasn't... and it's not. But instead you want to argue that the knife he was wielding and furiously stabbing and attacking with got caught in his hair as he fought with Darlie on the couch??? And that's presuming that the hair in question was head hair.

I've already explained how the sock and the shoes could have logically been linked together with nothing to do with the crime.

Darlie stood at the front door at least once and yelled for Karen. The shoes are right by the front door. But whoever it was who bled on the shoes was dripping blood themselves (rather than just having it smeared on them) and standing still whilst they did it. No blood on the laces and no smears of blood on the shoe showing someone with bloody hands had tugged them on.

But talking about how many things do we have to come up with an incredulous explanation for perhaps you might now give us your account for how the bloody knife mark came to appear on the carpet and how the bloody knife that was 'thrown down' in the U-room left no spatter if Darin did it?

How does her blood on Darin's tennis shoes support the idea that she killed her kids?How does it support the idea that she didn't and that Darin did? What are you trying to get at with the shoes?

[RobertStJames]

Ohhh, but that's not true. Darlie stated, "I remember saying he cut them, he tried to kill me, my neck, he (Darin) ran down the stairs and into the room where the boys were."

Where was she when this was happening? Because unless she was right near the stairs (or heard him, of course) then how does she really know where he came from?


RstJ

[RobertStJames]

Not that you will answer this post or anything like that, but you can hear Darin coming down the stairs in the 911 call.
Don't bother checking it out. It would take way too much effort and blow your theory. But again, it wouldn't do a thing to change your mind. You are waaaay too busy thinking of things in tiny segments Unfortunatly, that is a common and binding trend with supporters.

At what time on the 911 tape can you hear this?


RstJ

[RobertStJames]

Sorry if these have been responded to already- been away for a few days and am catching up:


And that's odd because...? If the sock belonged to Darin (which is highly likely) and it had been worn and then put either in the shoe or in the dirty laundry then the fibre on it (if it WAS from the reebok) can be explained without the shoes even being linked to the crime scene in that respect.


Sure. If you want to bend over backwards and exclude the shoe and the sock (both with victim's blood on them).



What we do have though is testimony from at least 6 people who saw him and spoke to him that night and following that night and no one mentions any cuts or wounds to Darin. I think there is at least one photo in MTJD with Darin in it at the hospital but don't have it with me.


Darin should have at least on cut on his knee. Unless he managed to tear his pants there and not touch skin.



Could you provide some transcript or affidavit evidence for this?


Affadavit for what? The absence of any description of Darin's body during a lengthy interview at the hospital? There should be notes from the detectives who talked to him. Where are they?


Blood 'spatter' from a throat is caused when a major artery is cut. Darlie's wasn't. If she was lying down or leaning backwards and someone ran a greta big butcher's knife along her throat in such a way to make a shallow cut (which it was) then I'm not sure where you think this blood 'spatter' (which should actually be 'spray' from a servered artery) would have come from.


I'm quoting the Habeus Corpus. Since I can't find any analysis of Darin's jeans, that's all I have to go by.



Are you saying that you don't have a pair of jeans or trousers or even a shirt lying around home which you lounge around in which aren't ripped or torn somewhere?


Irrelevant. Darin's jeans have a tear in them that he claims to have been the result of working on a fence the previous day. There is no evidence that fence was worked on, in fact, quite the opposite.



Althought I have no problem accepting that Darin would have gotten well and truly bloody if he was trying to breath air back into his son's mouth and chest cavity I'd also expect some of it probably came from the fact that he wouldn't have simply been handling his boys clinically as you seem to expect.


Unless you have something to back up Darin's extremely dubious story of his mouth to mouth/CPR of Devon turning the kid into a blood-spewing fountain, I'm going to continue to regard this story as extremely suspect, and then question why it is that Darin runs across the street for "help" at the exact moment help (in the form of a police officer) arrives.






I guess that slipped her mind when she asked for a separation earlier that night. Or is that another Darin lie? It all get's very confusing...


Darin waited how many years to reveal this little tidbit...?



If you read the transcripts you'll see the wounds to the boys did not spray or spatter blood around. They were weeping wounds. Darlie wouldn't have had liberal amounts of the boys blood on her and in any case who knows how much had been on her hands/arms? Of course the absence of significant amounts of their blood only goes to show that this mother didn't go near the boys during the 911 call, try to comfort them by pulling them into her arms or tending to their wounds.


You're misreading the description. Darin claims that Darlie was *right there on top of Devon* when all the blood was sparying around that got on Darin. How did so much blood only manage to get on one of *two* people who were right there *during the CPR*?

So, again, how is it that no blood is on Darlie, but there's blood all over Darin?



Incorrect. Two of the bleeding victims went right past the shoes. One of those did so twice.


Two bleeding victims went right past those shoes but only Darlie's blood on them. Blood that just happens to get on one of the Reeboks which are, inexplicably by any explanation (except the obvious one) are by the door.

It's like nobody around here has ever seen a pair of sneakers laced up loosely so they can be slipped on. Fits with the whole "Gangsta" thing that Darin was obviously a big fan of, unless you think his two extremely young sons decided to become gangster rap fans on their own.




Darin lived in the house- his hair would have been everywhere.


Darlie and the boys were right there in the murder room, two sleeping on their floor. Where are *their* hairs? Why is it, of all people, Darin's hair that shows up on that knife?


Go look up some studies on the nature of hair and fibre transference.


Go look up cases where the perp's hair gets tangled in the weapon used.


If the knife was placed on the carpet (which we know it was- and might I remind you this is a point you have consistently ignored) it would have picked up any number of fibres and hairs.


Only Darin's was found. So "any number" is just theory, not fact.


The knife was placed on the counter which also would have had any number of fibres/hairs on it. His hair doesn't jump onto the knife. If it was a sterile crime scene and one which should not have contained any of Darin's hair them it is a different story. But it wasn't... and it's not. But instead you want to argue that the knife he was wielding and furiously stabbing and attacking with got caught in his hair as he fought with Darlie on the couch??? And that's presuming that the hair in question was head hair.


And this is an impossible scenario...why? He had long hair. He would have been stabbing overhead. Had to be to inflict such deep wounds. And you think this is somehow impossible?

Wanna know where else hair was found, again Darin's? In that black hat in the utility room.



I've already explained how the sock and the shoes could have logically been linked together with nothing to do with the crime.


I don't accept your logic.



Darlie stood at the front door at least once and yelled for Karen. The shoes are right by the front door. But whoever it was who bled on the shoes was dripping blood themselves (rather than just having it smeared on them) and standing still whilst they did it. No blood on the laces and no smears of blood on the shoe showing someone with bloody hands had tugged them on.

But talking about how many things do we have to come up with an incredulous explanation for perhaps you might now give us your account for how the bloody knife mark came to appear on the carpet and how the bloody knife that was 'thrown down' in the U-room left no spatter if Darin did it?


Given Darlie's early description of fighting with the assailant on the couch, the first part should be obvious. There was never any knife in the utility room, nor did Darlie's first account say where she found the knife. You can misinterpret her statement all you please, but the known facts of the case show the knife was on the floor in the Roman Room, no matter what Darlie later said.




How does it support the idea that she didn't and that Darin did? What are you trying to get at with the shoes?

Only the obvious. Darin was wearing them. Just as he was wearing that sock.

It would be useful to look at Waddell's statement, and anything the neighbors are known to have said, and see if Darin was wearing any shoes when he sprinted past the police and across the street.

RstJ

[Jeana (DP)]

Where was she when this was happening? Because unless she was right near the stairs (or heard him, of course) then how does she really know where he came from?


RstJ


What difference does it make?

[cami]

Because there's more than one explanation for how her blood got on those shoes and the explanation you're offering isn't a very convincing one. Darin's hair jumps onto the knife, Darlie just happens to bleed on Darin's shoes which are, strangely, right by the front door, laced up, and just happen to correspond directly to a sock that was found with the boy's blood on it found away from the house. I mean, come on, how many things do we have to explain away like this?




RstJ

sorry but neither is yours. Darin lived in the house, his hair should be all over the place. The knife was laid on the carpet in the den, presto hair transference. Darlie's dna is on the sock, not Darin's. Darlie's blood is on the reeboks, not Darin's and not the boys. It all comes back to Darlie.

[RobertStJames]

What difference does it make?

It makes all the difference in the world. If Darin was not, in fact, upstairs, then where was he? (look at the relationship of the sliding glass door to the garage and the original position of the vaccum cleaner and the fact that Darin supposedly sprints right past his blood-soaked wife without noticing and goes immediately to the Roman Room. How did he know his kids had been stabbed?).

Darin was wearing his jeans. I think most people can agree on that given that he later conformed his story. Which means, with his wife screaming her head off downstairs, Darin must have stopped to put them on upstairs, right? Unless he sleeps in them, which is doubtful.

So what's up with his story of going back upstairs to put his jeans on? Because if already had them on, and he was soaked in blood, and went back upstairs for anything, why wasn't any blood found upstairs?

RstJ

[Jeana (DP)]

It makes all the difference in the world. If Darin was not, in fact, upstairs, then where was he? (look at the relationship of the sliding glass door to the garage and the original position of the vaccum cleaner and the fact that Darin supposedly sprints right past his blood-soaked wife without noticing and goes immediately to the Roman Room. How did he know his kids had been stabbed?).

Darin was wearing his jeans. I think most people can agree on that given that he later conformed his story. Which means, with his wife screaming her head off downstairs, Darin must have stopped to put them on upstairs, right? Unless he sleeps in them, which is doubtful.

So what's up with his story of going back upstairs to put his jeans on? Because if already had them on, and he was soaked in blood, and went back upstairs for anything, why wasn't any blood found upstairs?

RstJ

See! This is what happens when a defendant tells 16 DIFFERENT stories and then goes on to not only LIE on the witness stand, but CONTINUES to lie from prison. We do NOT and WILL NOT ever know what happend that night because Darlie Routier is a liar and Darin Routier is a liar. So, she is where she is and she'll remain there until the State of Texas executes her. So, what possible difference does it make? In order to get me to care, these people are going to have to start telling the truth.

[RobertStJames]

See! This is what happens when a defendant tells 16 DIFFERENT stories and then goes on to not only LIE on the witness stand, but CONTINUES to lie from prison. We do NOT and WILL NOT ever know what happend that night because Darlie Routier is a liar and Darin Routier is a liar. So, she is where she is and she'll remain there until the State of Texas executes her. So, what possible difference does it make? In order to get me to care, these people are going to have to start telling the truth.

I very much agree with you. And do not confuse me with those Darlie Supporters who think she's telling the truth, because there is no question in my mind that she has lied, repeatedly, about key points. In particular, that "fighting" to "frightening" thing, which was incomprehensible seeing as how the essence of her defense was that an "intruder" had attacked her. There was no intruder, so any defense based on conjuring one of them out of thin air (or two or however many she's up to now) is doomed.

Darin's lying is harder to understand, as the things he lies about don't help Darlie, they only help *him*. It's hard to figure out why he was lying about his jeans. Whether he had them on or not in no way clears Darlie, unless it's to show he was the perp.


RstJ

[RobertStJames]

sorry but neither is yours. Darin lived in the house, his hair should be all over the place. The knife was laid on the carpet in the den, presto hair transference. Darlie's dna is on the sock, not Darin's. Darlie's blood is on the reeboks, not Darin's and not the boys. It all comes back to Darlie.

Well, to whatever was put in Darlie's mouth, sure.

Presto, transference? Pretty sticky blood that keeps one of his hairs attached to the knife that long. Blood does not become sticky until it begins to dry, btw.

Let's follow the blood:

Darlie: Her blood all over her nightshirt and in various places in the house.
Four drops of Damon's blood on her nightshirt.

Darin: Blood (unknown) on his jeans, knees, stomach, face. Blood (Darlie) on shoes, blood (both children) on sock.

At first glance, your automatic response to this crime would be what?


RstJ

[Jeana (DP)]

At first glance, your automatic response to this crime would be what?



Well, since you asked. :rolleyes:

Being the mother of three children myself, my first response is why on earth didn't she have any of their blood on them????? Why didn't she try and comfort her children who she KNEW were bleeding to death in front of her??? How could she just STAND THERE after being told numerous times to HELP THEM??

And don't try and tell me she was in "shock" either because her emotions haven't gotten any better in all these years. She cries for herself - she never cried for those boys.

[RobertStJames]

Well, since you asked. :rolleyes:

Being the mother of three children myself, my first response is why on earth didn't she have any of their blood on them????? Why didn't she try and comfort her children who she KNEW were bleeding to death in front of her??? How could she just STAND THERE after being told numerous times to HELP THEM??

And don't try and tell me she was in "shock" either because her emotions haven't gotten any better in all these years. She cries for herself - she never cried for those boys.

Being told by whom? No police officer would say anything like that. Darin, you mean? Strange, I don't hear him saying anything like that on the 911 call. The dispatcher, then? But she doesn't say that either.

Who was telling Darlie to help the boys? Why wasn't someone helping Darlie, with blood pouring out of her neck?


RstJ

[Jeana (DP)]

Being told by whom? No police officer would say anything like that. Darin, you mean? Strange, I don't hear him saying anything like that on the 911 call. The dispatcher, then? But she doesn't say that either.

Who was telling Darlie to help the boys? Why wasn't someone helping Darlie, with blood pouring out of her neck?


RstJ


Bull. The cop told her to help the kids. She stood there HELPING herself. There was no blood pouring out of her neck. She was NEVER in any danger of losing much blood from that scratch.

[RobertStJames]

Bull. The cop told her to help the kids. She stood there HELPING herself. There was no blood pouring out of her neck. She was NEVER in any danger of losing much blood from that scratch.

Then how did Darlie's blood get all over the kitchen (you know, "cleaned up") all over the carpet, dripping in the utility room, dripping on Darin's Reeboks...



RstJ

[Jeana (DP)]

Then how did Darlie's blood get all over the kitchen (you know, "cleaned up") all over the carpet, dripping in the utility room, dripping on Darin's Reeboks...



RstJ

I didn't say she didn't bleed. However, if she had blood "pouring" out of her neck, I doubt the paramedics would just pass her by, don't you? by the way, Why did she clean up that blood????? I think that was her undoing - don't you? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[RobertStJames]

I didn't say she didn't bleed. However, if she had blood "pouring" out of her neck, I doubt the paramedics would just pass her by, don't you? by the way, Why did she clean up that blood????? I think that was her undoing - don't you? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

She didn't clean up anything. She was running water in the sink to wet down those towels, just as she said she was, and she *was* helping take care of her sons. She didn't cut herself over the sink, like the absurd theories suggest. And she didn't get blood all over herself like Darin with his completely bogus "CPR/mouth to mouth" story which, despite the audible breathing of Damon, Darin chose to perform on Devon, who was quite obviously already dead.

Nobody had to ask her to help, but I bet they *did* ask her just where the hell her husband had gone in such a big hurry. You want suspicious behavior? Try Darin's fleeing the scene, not unsubstantiated and manifestly untrue stories that Darlie did not try to help her sons, even though she herself was badly injured.



RstJ

[Jeana (DP)]

Wrong once again. But I don't care too mcuh. She's where she belongs.

[RobertStJames]

Wrong once again. But I don't care too mcuh. She's where she belongs.

I'm more interested in seeing *all* the case, not just what the DA put on, since of course that was presented in such a way to convince a jury of her guilt. Which they succeeded in doing, although I think if she'd stayed off the stand, and her lawyer had presented evidence pointing away from Darlie, she would have been acquitted. Given that he'd been hired by the only other alternative suspect, it's not surprise such evidence was not presented.

I want to see:
a) an analysis of the blood on Darin Routier's jeans
b) a detailed forensic accounting of Testinec
c) testimony from Dana Stahl
d) testimony from the Neals that doesn't deal with "black car" nonsense
and instead focuses just what Darin Routier was doing over there.

e) And I want to know, why, when his wife is serious injured and his two kids dead, Darin Routier is spending the better part of 30mins going back and forth between his house and the Neals. And no, "getting help" doesn't cut it because the paramedics are *already there*:

Q. The paramedics came in, and they are
2 in a hurry?
3 A. Everybody is in a hurry.
4 Q. A lot of people there?
5 A. But it seemed like everybody was
6 moving in slow motion.
7 Q. Did you have occasion to go across the
8 street to the Neal's house?
9 A. Yes, sir, I did.
10 Q. What was your purpose in going to the
11 Neal's house?
12 A. To get help.



This is the kind of stuff I want to know about, not wound theories, and not psychology, but actual case fact.


RstJ

[IrishMist]

I haven't read anything about Darin being away for the better part of 30 minutes... can you tell me where you found this info?
Thanks!

[Dani_T]

Sure. If you want to bend over backwards and exclude the shoe and the sock (both with victim's blood on them).
Are you serious? Surely you can't be?

You think it is bending over backward to say that if Darin had worn the sock with those shoes it would have been reasonable to expect that a fibre from the shoes might transfer to the sock?

I never said you could exclude the sock and the shoe from the crimescene. I said you could exclude them from being linked to the crime scene in that respect (ie. your theory that Darin was wearing the shoes with the socks during the commission of the crime). Obviously the shoe and sock are tied to the crime because they have blood on them. But they are not necessarily tied to the crime together.

So whilst we are on your theory of Darin having worn the socks and the shoes could you explain:
1) Why suddenly one of the socks ended up in the alley? Did he decide just to take his shoes and socks off out there for some reason? Then dump one sock? What happened to the other sock? Did he put the shoes back on or did he just carry them back to the house? And why was he wearing them in the first place??

2) How did the blood end up on the sock?

Darin should have at least on cut on his knee. Unless he managed to tear his pants there and not touch skin.
Rubbish. I have torn clothing plenty of time without a single scratch to myself.

Affadavit for what? The absence of any description of Darin's body during a lengthy interview at the hospital? There should be notes from the detectives who talked to him. Where are they?


Blood 'spatter' from a throat is caused when a major artery is cut. Darlie's wasn't. If she was lying down or leaning backwards and someone ran a greta big butcher's knife along her throat in such a way to make a shallow cut (which it was) then I'm not sure where you think this blood 'spatter' (which should actually be 'spray' from a servered artery) would have come from.


I'm quoting the Habeus Corpus. Since I can't find any analysis of Darin's jeans, that's all I have to go by.
Of course that is all you have to go by- because you are happy to blithely accept what the defense has to say without looking at what the transcripts say regarding the evidence. Although perhaps you should be a little careful in what you claim (ie. that the staining on the jeans was not consistent with Darin giving the boys CPR since the Writ clearly says that at least some of it was consistent with contact staining).

Oh and then we have the normal defense trick (which they have used a few times now) of referring to an affidavit to back up their claims in the writ and then when you go a look at the affidavit- hey presto! Not there! In this instance we have them telling us to go look at Labers affidavit to see that Darin's wounds had blood spatter on them. Of course nowhere in his affidavit does Laber mention anything about the type of blood staining on Darin's jeans.

So I'll ask again - where do you have evidence from the experts who have examined Darlie's wound and the jeans to back up your claim that
1) there is blood spatter on the jeans
2) that Darlie's throat wound would have spattered blood anywhere rather than seeping and oozing blood from the shallow cut?

Unless you have something to back up Darin's extremely dubious story of his mouth to mouth/CPR of Devon turning the kid into a blood-spewing fountain, I'm going to continue to regard this story as extremely suspect, and then question why it is that Darin runs across the street for "help" at the exact moment help (in the form of a police officer) arrives.
Why is it extremely dubious that a child who had his lung punctured in 2 places and his pulmonary artery severed would end up pushing blood up from his punctured lungs through his wounds if someone tried to give him CPR by breathing into his mouth? Seems like elementary physics to me.

Also Darin ran out of the house as Waddell arrived. He didn't leave when Waddell walked in the door. Waddell met him out the front and brought him back in with him. If my kids were lying on the floor seemingly dead and there was nothing I knew how to do for them and I knew my good friend across the street was a nurse then I'd be going out the front door too.


You're misreading the description. Darin claims that Darlie was *right there on top of Devon* when all the blood was sparying around that got on Darin. How did so much blood only manage to get on one of *two* people who were right there *during the CPR*?
I'm not misreading anything. Darin says the blood spattered on his face, not all over him. Secondly, Darlie never mentions being there when Devon was being given CPR- that is entirely Darin's story and there is nothing on the 911 call which indicates she was doing that. I might be wrong but from memory I don't remember her calling Devon's name at all on the call- only Damons. And thirdly you have a good point as a result of this- where WAS all the blood that should have been on Darlie if she was right over top of Devon? It's not there is it? Only a couple of little spots. Where did all the blood that should have been on her hands if she was closing his chest cavity go?

Bites both ways this one.

Two bleeding victims went right past those shoes but only Darlie's blood on them. Blood that just happens to get on one of the Reeboks which are, inexplicably by any explanation (except the obvious one) are by the door.
Yes, one cradled in the arms of a paramedic. We've already said that it is clear that whoever deposited the blood on the shoes was standing still or very close to it. You're so keen on the blood trail how about explaining how the blood got there if that person was Darin.

It's like nobody around here has ever seen a pair of sneakers laced up loosely so they can be slipped on. Fits with the whole "Gangsta" thing that Darin was obviously a big fan of, unless you think his two extremely young sons decided to become gangster rap fans on their own.
Not that it matters because the point is pretty silly anyway - but what evidence do you have that darin was into the 'gangsta' thing? Is this just more pure speculation or are you actually going to back it up with something beyond 'his kids like 'Gangsta's Paradise'?

Darlie and the boys were right there in the murder room, two sleeping on their floor. Where are *their* hairs? Why is it, of all people, Darin's hair that shows up on that knife?
Because it did.

Go look up cases where the perp's hair gets tangled in the weapon used.Show me one and I will read it in depth.

I'm also pretty sure that you are over exaggerating the length of Darin's hair at the time but don't have time to go back and look for the silly string video to confirm. Will check later. And also, again do you have evidence that it was a head hair?

I still regard that notion of him viciously stabbing his family and someone getting the knife tangled in his hair as absurd. So if you can find me any other cases where it has happened I'd love to see them.

Wanna know where else hair was found, again Darin's? In that black hat in the utility room.

Gee Whiz. That blows the case wide open then.

BTW- can you point me where you read that?

I don't accept your logic.Well we seem to be at an impasse there since the feeling is mutual.

Given Darlie's early description of fighting with the assailant on the couch, the first part should be obvious. There was never any knife in the utility room, nor did Darlie's first account say where she found the knife. You can misinterpret her statement all you please, but the known facts of the case show the knife was on the floor in the Roman Room, no matter what Darlie later said.
Oh my goodness. Are you kidding me??? You think we are misinterpreting her statement???

"I got halfway through the kitchen and turned back around to run and turn on the light. I ran back towards the utility room and realised there was a big white handled knife lying on the floor... I ran back through the kitchen and realised the entire living area had blood all over everything

Are you actually trying to say that Darlie ran halfway through the kitchen, turned back around to turn the lights on went back towards the U-room through the kitchen, saw a knife lying in the living room through the eyes in the back of her head, went back to the living room to pick it up, went back to the U-room and looked over to see the U-room garage door shutting, then went back through the kitchen to the living room again???

You're kidding yourself. Sorry. No way to be nice and polite about that. The knife was in the utility room. And that is one of the things she sticks to across the years

IN HER OWN WORDS- I took a couple of steps and remembered lights were off went back and turned lights on, I started to walk through kitchen and noticed blood on my nightgown, about to my chest, halfway across the kitchen I saw knife laying on utility room floor, instinctively I went over and picked up knife, doesn't seem like there was much blood on the knife, I went back through the kitchen and put knife on kitchen bar

TESTIMONY- 9 A. I got into the kitchen, and I got to
10 where the island is, there is an island in the middle of
11 the kitchen. I got to where the island was, and it was
12 at that moment that I realized that I had blood on me.
13 And I kept going, walking a little
14 bit, and I saw a knife laying in the utility room. The
15 knife wasn't completely the whole way in the utility
16 room, it was just like, a little bit into the doorway of
17 the utility room.
18 It was an instinct -- I picked up the
19 knife, it was an instinct to pick up the knife. I didn't
20 think about it. It was just an instinct. I picked up
21 the knife, I brought the knife back to the kitchen
22 counter, and set it up on the kitchen counter.
23 At that time, I started to walk into
24 the living room

You're sounding a lot like Jeff you know... "no matter what Darlie said later I know what really happened and she was wrong". Jeff even pulled that one on Darlie herself. Perhaps you are Jeff after all- just playing a bit ignorant to lull us into a false sense of security. Or then again perhaps the obvious fact that Darlie continues to claim the knife was in the U-room is one of the major sticking points for people who want to believe she is innocent.

It would be useful to look at Waddell's statement, and anything the neighbors are known to have said, and see if Darin was wearing any shoes when he sprinted past the police and across the street.
here you go-


OFFICE WADDELL
8 Q. All right. And as you came up here to
9 this location, Officer, is that when you saw the
10 individual that you now know to be Darin Routier?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. Can you please point where he was when
13 you first saw him?
14 A. He was coming out of the front door,
15 across the yard.
16 Q. All right. Do you recall how he was
17 dressed that morning?
18 A. He was wearing blue jeans, no shirt,
19 no shoes.

KAREN NEAL
25 And Darin was crying, and he had tears
1 running down his face.
2 Q. Was he loud?
3 A. Very loud. He was screaming.
4 Q. How was he dressed?
5 A. He had on a pair of blue jeans, no
6 shirt and he was barefoot.

Now, since you are such a big proponent for the blood evidence pointing right back at Darin could you please explain how
a) there was no blood to indicate a knife had ever been thrown down in the U-room
b) Why the knife imprint that is in the living room was made by someone who was actively bleeding enough that blood was running down their arm and cumilating on the tip of the knife?

[Rachael]

People can argue this case over and over again and the only thing it points to IMO is Darlie's guilt. Darin didn't hate his children Darlie hated them. JMO though.

[Mary456]

Where was she when this was happening? Because unless she was right near the stairs (or heard him, of course) then how does she really know where he came from?


RstJ

Well, you're the one who posted (message 33) that Darlie didn't mention seeing Darin come down the steps in her original statement.

I was simply pointing out that what you said is untrue. Darlie's original statement was "he (Darin) ran down the stairs and into the room where the boys were".

[accordn2me]

Dani, (or anyone who could help me with this one)

In your last post on this thread you wrote something about the knife imprint on the carpet being from someone who was bleeding so badly the blood was running down their arm and dripping off the end of the knife. Did I get that right?

Was that blood (knife imprint) tested?

Was both Darlie's and Damon's blood found on the blade of the knife, but not Devon's?

Do you think there was another knife that was not found? If not, what is your theory about Devon's blood not being on the knife?

Was the blood on the door from the house to the garage identified?

Sorry for questions I'm sure y'all have walked others through many times.

[Jaxie]

Hey there,

I don't post here a lot but I do know this case pretty well so I thought I would tell you what I know. :-)

Yes, you have it correct that the imprint of the knife on the floor strongly suggests that whomever was holding it was bleeding very badly down their arm. I didn't read anything that mentioned the blood on the carpet being tested but, it is my understanding that there were only 4 swabs of blood taken from the knife. I also want to say (my memory is a bit vague in some areas because it was 4 years ago that I read the transcripts) that the mixture of the blood made it difficult to find Devon's DNA, which could suggest he was stabbed first. Also it was found that Devon's wounds were consistent with that same knife.

Also, from what I remember the blood found on the door to the garage belonged to Darlie.

RobertStJames, I'm just curious. You are going on and on about Darin's jeans. What makes you so certain about the blood splatters on them? Have you seen pictures? Have you read this somewhere? What makes you so certain his jeans had blood splatters consistent with Darlie's cut on her throat?

[cami]

LOl, Oh no RSJ is not Jefe but he/she did hang out at C&J at the same time you and I did with Jeffieboy.

[Dani_T]

Dani, (or anyone who could help me with this one)

In your last post on this thread you wrote something about the knife imprint on the carpet being from someone who was bleeding so badly the blood was running down their arm and dripping off the end of the knife. Did I get that right?

Was that blood (knife imprint) tested?

Was both Darlie's and Damon's blood found on the blade of the knife, but not Devon's?

Do you think there was another knife that was not found? If not, what is your theory about Devon's blood not being on the knife?

Was the blood on the door from the house to the garage identified?

Sorry for questions I'm sure y'all have walked others through many times.
Jaxie has already responded to most of these so I won't go over them again. But just on the note of another knife- no apart from the butchers knife (murder weapon) and bread knife (to cut the screen) I don't believe there was another knife involved. As Jaxie mentioned not all the blood on the knife was tested so it is possible some of Devon's blood was on it. But there are a couple of other possibilities too:

If Devon was attacked first which is likely then his blood could have easily been removed (or most of it anyway) in the subsequent use of the knife on both Damon and Darlie.

Also, it is possible that Darlie washed the knife after attacking the boys and then used it on herself and also on Damon who she realised wasn't dead. My theory is that she wasn't intending to cut her neck at all until she realised she was backed into a corner and didn't have much of a choice (I can explain what I mean at more length later if you are interested).

Hope that helps,
Dani

PS. One other thing- we need to remember that the state held back evidence in the event that she needed to be retried for Devon's murder. So it is very possible that more things were tested than we know about (for example if they needed to retrial her for Devon then it would make sense to keep back evidence that his blood was on the knife).

[Goody]

Blood *spatter* has been reported in two places on Darin's jeans. Not consistent at all with CPR. Very consistent with a throat slash.

RstJ
Let me see. You think Darin sneaked up on Darlie as she slept and slashed her throat and blood spurted up and out at him but didn't get on the couch?

Then I guess he attacked the boys with deep plunging wounds while Darlie continued to sleep with her one little slash, less than an inch deep that hit nothing at all significant....no vocal cords, no wind pipe, not even that dastardly artery supporters keep harping on.

Then she sees Darin going out via the garage, out the window, I guess. Remember the screen was cut from the outside, not the inside, so when did he do that? And why would he choose to climb out a garage window when he could have just gone out the front door or slipped out the patio door in the family room? And why would he go thru the back yard knowing that darned motion detector was out there? Sure he would have known what path to take, but he also knew that stepping off the path could set it off, so why risk it when there was a much safer alternative right at his fingertips?

Then how did he get back upstairs to fool Darlie? Remember she thinks he is sleeping thru all this.

Why doesn't she recognize his walk? Not many wives would miss that. Shoot, I can recognize Elvis' walk on TV and I have never even met the man.

And after all the rest I am not even going into, how do you explain the hynosis she had done a couple years after the murders in which she claims to remember fighting with two intruders on the couch and goes into a bit of detail describing that, claiming that one is black and the other a small framed, dark skinned man? (How much you want to bet that he is supposed to be Hispanic?)

I think you are just grasping at anything you can to hold onto your belief that she is innocent. Bad investigative approach. You are supposed to follow the evidence, not try to fit the evidence to a preconceived conclusion. You can argue almost anything to create unanswered questions if you do the latter. That is why objective investigator's follow the evidence and let it lead them to the suspect.

The blood on Darin's pants may or may not be significant, depending on many things. It doesn't relieve Darlie of responsibility though. The only thing that can do that is a reasonable explanation for how the children's blood got on her shirt where it did.

BTW, only four drops of blood on her shirt is quite a bit. People have been convicted of murder with only one drop of blood pointing at them. It is where those droplets were and how they got there that points at her.

Darin might very well be involved in these murders, but so was Darlie, sad to say.

[Goody]

Where was she when this was happening? Because unless she was right near the stairs (or heard him, of course) then how does she really know where he came from?


RstJ
Darlie was standing at the bottom of the stairs waiting for Darin to come down. When he did, she showed him her cut neck which he does not remember. Then she went for the phone in the kitchen and he rushed past her to get to Devon,w whom he thought was the only child injured. He didn't see Damon even though he could have had to step over Damon to get to Devon. Darin thought the glass coffee table, which was overturned had hurt Devon. Darlie never went near Devon to see what happened to him, so it was never clear to me why she was screaming Devon, Devon, Devon! She supposedly saw Damon's injuries though and just ignored them. Makes no sense. Anyway, Darlie definitely saw her husband come down the stairs according to her's and his statements.

[Goody]

Who was telling Darlie to help the boys? Why wasn't someone helping Darlie, with blood pouring out of her neck?


RstJ
Darlie's blood was not spurting out. It was seeping down her chest and much of it was absorbed by her shirt. The rest ran down her body to her feet, hence the bloody footprints.

That is for starters. My question back to you is why wasn't Darlie helping the kids? She had a rag up to her own wound. She could have very easily have sat down next to Damon and held the little guy in her arms until help arrived. Instead she stayed in the kitchen on a portable phone and when police arrived, she sat her butt down on the floor several feet from the boy. What is up with that?

[Goody]

Then how did Darlie's blood get all over the kitchen (you know, "cleaned up") all over the carpet, dripping in the utility room, dripping on Darin's Reeboks...



RstJ
Most of the blood you are talking about came from her arm wound, not her neck wound.

[RobertStJames]

Darlie was standing at the bottom of the stairs waiting for Darin to come down. When he did, she showed him her cut neck which he does not remember. Then she went for the phone in the kitchen and he rushed past her to get to Devon,w whom he thought was the only child injured. He didn't see Damon even though he could have had to step over Damon to get to Devon. Darin thought the glass coffee table, which was overturned had hurt Devon. Darlie never went near Devon to see what happened to him, so it was never clear to me why she was screaming Devon, Devon, Devon! She supposedly saw Damon's injuries though and just ignored them. Makes no sense. Anyway, Darlie definitely saw her husband come down the stairs according to her's and his statements.

She never says anything about showing him her neck in her original statement. Nor does Darin say anything about this. He just magically appears. She did not say she saw him, or say she heard him. And from where she was, she would not have been able to see him come down the stairs. Darin is present from the very beginning of the 911 call.

When did he really show up? And why did he have his pants on?


RstJ

[RobertStJames]

Let me see. You think Darin sneaked up on Darlie as she slept and slashed her throat and blood spurted up and out at him but didn't get on the couch?

Then I guess he attacked the boys with deep plunging wounds while Darlie continued to sleep with her one little slash, less than an inch deep that hit nothing at all significant....no vocal cords, no wind pipe, not even that dastardly artery supporters keep harping on.

Then she sees Darin going out via the garage, out the window, I guess. Remember the screen was cut from the outside, not the inside, so when did he do that? And why would he choose to climb out a garage window when he could have just gone out the front door or slipped out the patio door in the family room? And why would he go thru the back yard knowing that darned motion detector was out there? Sure he would have known what path to take, but he also knew that stepping off the path could set it off, so why risk it when there was a much safer alternative right at his fingertips?

Then how did he get back upstairs to fool Darlie? Remember she thinks he is sleeping thru all this.

Why doesn't she recognize his walk? Not many wives would miss that. Shoot, I can recognize Elvis' walk on TV and I have never even met the man.

And after all the rest I am not even going into, how do you explain the hynosis she had done a couple years after the murders in which she claims to remember fighting with two intruders on the couch and goes into a bit of detail describing that, claiming that one is black and the other a small framed, dark skinned man? (How much you want to bet that he is supposed to be Hispanic?)

I think you are just grasping at anything you can to hold onto your belief that she is innocent. Bad investigative approach. You are supposed to follow the evidence, not try to fit the evidence to a preconceived conclusion. You can argue almost anything to create unanswered questions if you do the latter. That is why objective investigator's follow the evidence and let it lead them to the suspect.

The blood on Darin's pants may or may not be significant, depending on many things. It doesn't relieve Darlie of responsibility though. The only thing that can do that is a reasonable explanation for how the children's blood got on her shirt where it did.

BTW, only four drops of blood on her shirt is quite a bit. People have been convicted of murder with only one drop of blood pointing at them. It is where those droplets were and how they got there that points at her.

Darin might very well be involved in these murders, but so was Darlie, sad to say.

1) There was blood all over by the couch (remember the knife impression?)
2) He attacked the boys *afterwards*. First thing you do--kill the adult. Probably thought she *was* dead. And a throat slash is far more efficient than any stab wound could be. Has the advantage of making sure the vic can't scream.
3) When did Darin cut the screen. That's a tough one, seeing as how he was outside until 10:15 that night. And the path he took (back into the house) would not set off any motion detectors.
4) Who says he went back upstairs at all? There was a vacuum knocked over in the living room. It was the one Darlie used to clean up after the boys when they came in...the sliding glass door.
5) Why would she recognize his walk? She gives a description that fits Darin perfectly, then fudges on describing the face. Makes me wonder if maybe she did see him but just refuses to believe he had any part in the attack, that it must have been "intruders"
6) It's not "children's" blood. It's blood from *one* child. How'd she manage to stab up Devon but not get any blood on her?
7) Yes, it's where the droplets were. One of them was *on top* of her blood. So'd she cut herself up first then go after them? Should be her blood on the boys then, not the other way around.

An investigator would follow the blood. And they'd follow it right to Darin. In fact, he was asked about all the blood on his knees/stomach. That's when he claimed he wasn't wearing any pants. Problem was, LE found the pants he was wearing.


RstJ

[RobertStJames]

Hey there,

I don't post here a lot but I do know this case pretty well so I thought I would tell you what I know. :-)

Yes, you have it correct that the imprint of the knife on the floor strongly suggests that whomever was holding it was bleeding very badly down their arm. I didn't read anything that mentioned the blood on the carpet being tested but, it is my understanding that there were only 4 swabs of blood taken from the knife. I also want to say (my memory is a bit vague in some areas because it was 4 years ago that I read the transcripts) that the mixture of the blood made it difficult to find Devon's DNA, which could suggest he was stabbed first. Also it was found that Devon's wounds were consistent with that same knife.

Also, from what I remember the blood found on the door to the garage belonged to Darlie.

RobertStJames, I'm just curious. You are going on and on about Darin's jeans. What makes you so certain about the blood splatters on them? Have you seen pictures? Have you read this somewhere? What makes you so certain his jeans had blood splatters consistent with Darlie's cut on her throat?

Writ of Habeus Corpus:
(http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Legal/Habeas/Habeas.html)

The physical evidence in the case also suggested Darin Routier’s involvement. In addition to the evidence detailed supra, the blue jeans that he was wearing contained considerable blood staining that was consistent with contact type blood staining. See Laber Aff. ¶ 11. Two areas on the blue jeans also contained blood spatter which suggests that Darin Routier was present at the time of the stabbings. See Laber Aff. ¶ 11.


That's why Darin had to invent that stupid "blood spraying out of the wounds" story.

Jeans, sock, shoes, jockey shorts, face, stomach, knees. Darin had blood *all over him.* Which is consistent with him stabbing his wife and kids, not with any "CPR/Mouth to mouth" scenario.



RstJ

[IrishMist]

But if you read the Court's findings, it says:

323. The Court finds that Applicant has misstated her habeas evidence. In his Affidavit, Laber suggests that genetic testing be performed on blood stains on Darin’s Jeans. (Applicant Writ Exhibit 7 “12.f” p.6). Laber does not use the term blood spatter with reference to Darin’s jeans, although he uses that term elsewhere in his Affidavit. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibit 7 “12.a” p.5). This distinction is important because Laber’s use of the term “spatter” is a clear reference to blood cast off or separated during the stabbing. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibit 7 “12.a” p.5). Laber does not state in his Affidavit that any evidence suggests that Darin was present at the stabbings. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibit 7).

324. The Court finds that Applicant has adduced no evidence showing that the blood present on Darin’s jeans was inconsistent with his attempts to resuscitate Devon, an act witnessed by the Rowlett Police. (RR.29: 311-12; RR.44: 4872-73).

Bold emphasis mine.
Court record is from the Darlie website: http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php

[IrishMist]

1) There was blood all over by the couch (remember the knife impression?)No, there wasn't blood all over the couch. That's part of the problem with some of Darlie's stories.

2) He attacked the boys *afterwards*. First thing you do--kill the adult. Probably thought she *was* dead. And a throat slash is far more efficient than any stab wound could be. Has the advantage of making sure the vic can't scream.Maybe he *thought* she was dead, but she clearly wasn't!! In your theory, what do you propose Darlie was doing while Darin was stabbing the children?? And she was certainly screaming on the 911 call...

3) When did Darin cut the screen. That's a tough one, seeing as how he was outside until 10:15 that night. And the path he took (back into the house) would not set off any motion detectors.He'd have had to come in the house, get the knife out of the kitchen, go cut the screen, come back in the house, and put the knife back in the block. The motion detector question, I believe was about after the murders. If the intruder, or in your theory, Darin, escaped out the back, why weren't the motion lights on? (And why on Earth did they take the time to struggle with the gate in order to close it behind them??)

4) Who says he went back upstairs at all? There was a vacuum knocked over in the living room. It was the one Darlie used to clean up after the boys when they came in...the sliding glass door.In at least one of her stories, she sees Darin come down the stairs.

5) Why would she recognize his walk? She gives a description that fits Darin perfectly, then fudges on describing the face. Makes me wonder if maybe she did see him but just refuses to believe he had any part in the attack, that it must have been "intruders"Now, RSJ, don't you think that's a bit of a stretch??


6) It's not "children's" blood. It's blood from *one* child. How'd she manage to stab up Devon but not get any blood on her?This has been answered many many times on here, I'm not going there again!!

7) Yes, it's where the droplets were. One of them was *on top* of her blood. So'd she cut herself up first then go after them? Should be her blood on the boys then, not the other way around.Not if she thought it was over, sliced her throat, and then realized she had to go back and stab Damon again.

An investigator would follow the blood. And they'd follow it right to Darin. In fact, he was asked about all the blood on his knees/stomach. That's when he claimed he wasn't wearing any pants. Problem was, LE found the pants he was wearing.What the heck does this mean?? "LE found the pants he was wearing"
You make it sound like Darin hid them, and LE dug 'em up!!
He had them on! I believe it was Waddell that witnessed Darin giving the CPR, and the results of those attempts.


RstJ[/QUOTE]

[RobertStJames]

No, there wasn't blood all over the couch. That's part of the problem with some of Darlie's stories.

Maybe he *thought* she was dead, but she clearly wasn't!! In your theory, what do you propose Darlie was doing while Darin was stabbing the children?? And she was certainly screaming on the 911 call...

He'd have had to come in the house, get the knife out of the kitchen, go cut the screen, come back in the house,

Ok, stop right there. Why couldn't he have cut the screen earlier? He was outside for over an hour that night. What was he doing? It didn't take that long to take Dana home.



and put the knife back in the block. The motion detector question, I believe was about after the murders. If the intruder, or in your theory, Darin, escaped out the back, why weren't the motion lights on? (And why on Earth did they take the time to struggle with the gate in order to close it behind them??)

Nobody went out that gate.




Not if she thought it was over, sliced her throat, and then realized she had to go back and stab Damon again.

Please. You're saying she couldn't manage to kill a 6yr old at the first attempt? Oh, and about sleeping, how'd she manage to kill one of the kids while the other slept?



What the heck does this mean?? "LE found the pants he was wearing"
You make it sound like Darin hid them, and LE dug 'em up!!
He had them on! I believe it was Waddell that witnessed Darin giving the CPR, and the results of those attempts.

Well, you believe wrong, since Waddell saw Darin already outside when Waddell was approaching the house. Nobody saw Darin do any of this CPR except Darlie.

And if he had them on, why was he trying to claim he came downstairs w/no pants? That's in his statement. We don't know what pants Darin was wearing when he finally went to the hospital, and of course, LE would have searched his house. If had had pants on, why was he claiming that he didn't?

That's a pretty big variation. Shall we start counting the number of times Darin's changed his story?

Let's call that Version #1.



RstJ

[RobertStJames]

But if you read the Court's findings, it says:

323. The Court finds that Applicant has misstated her habeas evidence. In his Affidavit, Laber suggests that genetic testing be performed on blood stains on Darin’s Jeans. (Applicant Writ Exhibit 7 “12.f” p.6). Laber does not use the term blood spatter with reference to Darin’s jeans, although he uses that term elsewhere in his Affidavit. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibit 7 “12.a” p.5). This distinction is important because Laber’s use of the term “spatter” is a clear reference to blood cast off or separated during the stabbing. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibit 7 “12.a” p.5). Laber does not state in his Affidavit that any evidence suggests that Darin was present at the stabbings. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibit 7).

f. Genetic testing should have been conducted on several blood-stained areas of Darin Routier's blue jeans since they might have indicated that he was involved in the murder.


Laber seems pretty clear there.
http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/WritAffidavits/laber.html





324. The Court finds that Applicant has adduced no evidence showing that the blood present on Darin’s jeans was inconsistent with his attempts to resuscitate Devon, an act witnessed by the Rowlett Police. (RR.29: 311-12; RR.44: 4872-73).

Bold emphasis mine.
Court record is from the Darlie website: http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php
Since that wasn't his purpose, it's not surprising he didn't address the issue. And although it's clear that Laber saw the jeans, he obviously was not allowed to test them.


RstJ

[IrishMist]

Ok, stop right there. Why couldn't he have cut the screen earlier? He was outside for over an hour that night. What was he doing? It didn't take that long to take Dana home.



Nobody went out that gate.




Please. You're saying she couldn't manage to kill a 6yr old at the first attempt? Oh, and about sleeping, how'd she manage to kill one of the kids while the other slept?



Well, you believe wrong, since Waddell saw Darin already outside when Waddell was approaching the house. Nobody saw Darin do any of this CPR except Darlie.

And if he had them on, why was he trying to claim he came downstairs w/no pants? That's in his statement. We don't know what pants Darin was wearing when he finally went to the hospital, and of course, LE would have searched his house. If had had pants on, why was he claiming that he didn't?

That's a pretty big variation. Shall we start counting the number of times Darin's changed his story?

Let's call that Version #1.



RstJ
You never answered my question on what you think Darlie was doing while Darin was killing the children.

If you read Darlie's statement - "In Her Own Words" on her website, she says that she saw Darin come down the stairs wearing jeans and glasses.
This statement was written while in prison, so she wasn't on drugs, or in shock, etc. (We could actually start a whole thread just on this statement alone.)

Darin was outside when waddell saw him, they went inside, and Darin tried again to do CPR on Devon. Darin borrowed a clean T-shirt from the Neals, but wore the bloody jeans to the hospital.

[IrishMist]

f. Genetic testing should have been conducted on several blood-stained areas of Darin Routier's blue jeans since they might have indicated that he was involved in the murder.


Laber seems pretty clear there.
http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/WritAffidavits/laber.html





Since that wasn't his purpose, it's not surprising he didn't address the issue. And although it's clear that Laber saw the jeans, he obviously was not allowed to test them.


RstJ
<<Genetic testing should have been conducted on several blood-stained areas of Darin Routier's blue jeans since they might have indicated that he was involved in the murder.>>

So he recommended that they test the jeans, because the MIGHT have indicated... ?? Forgive me, I don't find that all that convincing.

As far as not being "allowed" to test them... you do realize it was the DEFENSE that he met with? And it wasn't the he wasn't "allowed", they just didn't hire him to do it.
Now, one could ask themselves... why wouldn't the defense want those jeans tested??

[Mary456]

"You (RstJ) never answered my question on what you think Darlie was doing while Darin was killing the children.

He's already answered that question, Irish: Darlie lied about Darin coming down the stairs. She was just trying to protect her SO like the women who stand up in court with a split lip and say, "I fell down the steps."

What RstJ doesn't make clear is why a loving mother would lie to protect a husband who has stabbed their two sons to death. Geez, I don't believe in the death penalty, but if I thought she'd lied to protect her murdering husband, I just might change my mind.

In some ways, that would be the ultimate betrayal of Devon and Damon. It would mean that two people considered them expendable, just a bothersome result of living large. Like a boat that doesn't work, and it's in your best interest to get rid of it.

[IrishMist]

You're right, I don't know what I was thinking.

So even if the RSJ theory is true, I still think Darlie is right where she belongs.

Heck, maybe even moreso...

[Jaxie]

RobertStJames,

Laber suggests in his habeus corpus that the blood spatter on Darin's jeans SHOULD have been tested because they did have blood spatters on them. However, he didn't conclude that the blood spatters were, in fact, cast off from stabbing someone. He just suggests them to be looked at more carefully. (like IrishMist posted) I think you've manipulated that just a bit in order to fit your theory.

Also, keep in mind, that Darlie's wound was a hesitation wound, not a clean slice. If Darin had sliced her throat and aimed to kill her as you suggested then it would have been a penetrating, clean slice.

And how could he have slit her throat and then, thinking she was dead, moved on to stab the children? Remember Darlie had bruises on her that "suggests" she put up a fight. If this was, in fact the case then where did her bruises come from? If he just sliced her neck in her sleep then how are you suggesting she got the bruises?

One other point I want to make is about how "difficult" it would be to kill a 6 year old boy. My son is only 3 years old and when he decides to put up a fight when I'm changing his pullup, he can cause bruises. Granted, I'm not a man but I think a kid fighting for his life would put up more of a fight then you think.

Darlie would NOT risk her precious reputation for Darin. Remember, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and Darlie had a past of being VERY concerned with her reputation/appearance. The idea of her being so victimized that she allows herself to be put on death row while her mother, family, and friends go through hell and back, JUST to cover for Darin is ludicrous!!

I'm sorry but I just don't understand what the big friggin deal is about whether Darin was wearing jeans when he came downstairs or not. Surely that isn't your prime focus when trying to accuse the man of murder.

The boys were the object of that attack. It was overkill and, IMO, the perpetrator is right where she belongs.

[Jeana (DP)]

Ok, stop right there. Why couldn't he have cut the screen earlier? He was outside for over an hour that night. What was he doing? It didn't take that long to take Dana home.

Nobody went out that gate.

Please. You're saying she couldn't manage to kill a 6yr old at the first attempt? Oh, and about sleeping, how'd she manage to kill one of the kids while the other slept?




1. Why couldn't Darlie have cut the screen earlier? SOMEONE went out that gate. Even if you believe Darlie - you're saying that Darin went out the garage into the backyard. What did he do, fly over the gate? and
2. You're saying that Darin couldn't have managed to kill a sleeping woman at the first attempt - and, more importantly, decided it was a good idea to leave her alive so that she could identify him.

[accordn2me]

Not that you will answer this post or anything like that, but you can hear Darin coming down the stairs in the 911 call.
I've heard that - thud, thud, thud - like Darin coming down the stairs in the 911 call. I thought this was Darin's second trip down the stairs. I don't know where I got that idea from. :confused:

Didn't he say he came downstairs with no pants on...but on the 911 call you hear what sounds like him coming down the stairs...If that's his first trip down the stairs, what took him so long? I figured he had gone back up to put his pants on because LE was on the way.

[Goody]

1) There was blood all over by the couch (remember the knife impression?)
2) He attacked the boys *afterwards*. First thing you do--kill the adult. Probably thought she *was* dead. And a throat slash is far more efficient than any stab wound could be. Has the advantage of making sure the vic can't scream.
3) When did Darin cut the screen. That's a tough one, seeing as how he was outside until 10:15 that night. And the path he took (back into the house) would not set off any motion detectors.
4) Who says he went back upstairs at all? There was a vacuum knocked over in the living room. It was the one Darlie used to clean up after the boys when they came in...the sliding glass door.
5) Why would she recognize his walk? She gives a description that fits Darin perfectly, then fudges on describing the face. Makes me wonder if maybe she did see him but just refuses to believe he had any part in the attack, that it must have been "intruders"
6) It's not "children's" blood. It's blood from *one* child. How'd she manage to stab up Devon but not get any blood on her?
7) Yes, it's where the droplets were. One of them was *on top* of her blood. So'd she cut herself up first then go after them? Should be her blood on the boys then, not the other way around.

An investigator would follow the blood. And they'd follow it right to Darin. In fact, he was asked about all the blood on his knees/stomach. That's when he claimed he wasn't wearing any pants. Problem was, LE found the pants he was wearing.


RstJ
The reason you have so many problems with the evidence is that you don't know it. You need to go back and read the transcripts again. Forget the books. The authors made tons of mistakes in them. The books are only good for photos and accounts of what the authors saw and heard that is not in the transcript.

To answer your comments above:

1. There was no knife impression on the couch. That was on the rug and it was not an impression. It was the bloody outline of the knife.

There was no blood on the couch. That is one of the main points that was used against her because there should have blood on the couch.

2. There is no evidence about when "he" attacked the boys, only theory.

3. Darin could have cut the screen anytime before or after the murders since he was not bleeding and would not leave bloody evidence behind, but there is no evidence that he cut the screen. I personally think he very well may have, but I don't think he went out through the garage window at any time nor do I think he walked through the back yard. Darlie also could have cut the screen, probably before the murders, before she was bloody.

4. The only vacuum knocked over was in the kitchen, not the living room, not the family room. There was a second vacuum in the formal living room, I think, but it was standing upright, and I don't believe it was used that evening. I think she used the one in the kitchen to clean up after the boys. Not that it matters. The one in the kitchen is the one in question and the only one that applies to the crime.

5. I won't argue anymore about whether she recognized his walk or not. I don't believe there was an intruder. You apparently do, though I don't know why.

6. Darlie's shirt had blood droplets from both boys are her shirt. If you don't believe me, go back to the transcripts and read Tom Bevel's testimony. He was the blood expert.

And, yes, they found Darin's pants alright.....on his body when he came to the hospital to see about Darlie. LOL! He hid them alright. Right out in plain sight. O, what a crafty fellow Darin was. hahahahaha!

[Dani_T]

Writ of Habeus Corpus:
(http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Legal/Habeas/Habeas.html)

The physical evidence in the case also suggested Darin Routier’s involvement. In addition to the evidence detailed supra, the blue jeans that he was wearing contained considerable blood staining that was consistent with contact type blood staining. See Laber Aff. ¶ 11. Two areas on the blue jeans also contained blood spatter which suggests that Darin Routier was present at the time of the stabbings. See Laber Aff. ¶ 11.


That's why Darin had to invent that stupid "blood spraying out of the wounds" story.

Please produce WHERE in the Laber Affidavit it says anything about blood spatter on Darin's jeans?

I'm not sure why I should have to repeat myself on this count so I made it clear a few posts about that I couldn't find anywhere in the affidavit which says what the defense claims it says.

You are really very selective in what you will and will not respond to.

Edit: Oh... I see you did respond to someone else's comment on it. Pity that you just completely skirted the issue. See response below

[Dani_T]

f. Genetic testing should have been conducted on several blood-stained areas of Darin Routier's blue jeans since they might have indicated that he was involved in the murder.


Laber seems pretty clear there.
http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/WritAffidavits/laber.html





Since that wasn't his purpose, it's not surprising he didn't address the issue. And although it's clear that Laber saw the jeans, he obviously was not allowed to test them.


RstJ
Oh for crying out loud.

Let's say it slowly together.

Laber says nothing about blood spatter on Darin's jeans.

And now that we have gotten over that hurdle let's go to the logical conclusion

The defense have produced no evidence that there was blood spatter on the jeans

There now. That wasn't so hard was it?

[CyberLaw]

This is to the Darlie Supporters:

Please answer this question: Why and to what benefit would an "intruder" stay and clean up the crime scene.

What benefit would it have to anyone except Darlie.???

A person who commits a crime, cleans up the scene and it sure is not "an unknown intruder".

Unless of course the "blood" points to the person who committed the crime.

Like saying an uknown person cut your throat, but in reality, you stood over the sink and cut it yourself.

then of course you would clean up the crime scene because the blood at the sink does not fit in with "your story".

[KatherineQ]

As I understand it, by reading, the EMT's told her to stand over the sink and fix a warm wet compress for one of her boys. Whichever one was still alive.

The EMT believed she was guilty, and stated as a point in fact that she wasn't being helpful - she was running around in shock and clueless, and he had to ask her several times to go get a warm compress for him. So, she did.

Could that be where the bloody footprints in front of the sink came from? Seems pretty obvious to me. All they have to do is look at the EMT's statement, and voila, there it is. He told her to do that.

[Jeana (DP)]

As I understand it, by reading, the EMT's told her to stand over the sink and fix a warm wet compress for one of her boys. Whichever one was still alive.

The EMT believed she was guilty, and stated as a point in fact that she wasn't being helpful - she was running around in shock and clueless, and he had to ask her several times to go get a warm compress for him. So, she did.

Could that be where the bloody footprints in front of the sink came from? Seems pretty obvious to me. All they have to do is look at the EMT's statement, and voila, there it is. He told her to do that.

I've never heard that, but you may be correct. However, you'll have to find it for me to believe it was ever said.

[dasgal]

Yeah, I'd like to know where that assertion came from too.

[Jeana (DP)]

Yeah, I'd like to know where that assertion came from too.


Could be a campfire story. :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:

[Jaxie]

I, too, would like to know where to find the assertion that Darlie fixed a "warm wet compress" for one of the boys???

Actually, what *really* happened is that Darlie was asked several times by Waddell, the first officer on the scene, to get a towel to cover Damon's wounds.....she never did.

The "wet towel" story came from Darlie when she was doing a "walk through" the house and she noticed the kitchen sink was missing and had been submitted into evidence. Only THEN did she mention ever getting wet towels for the boys. This was never proven. From what I understand, there were never any towels (let alone wet ones) placed on either Devon or Damon. The only towel Darlie ever got was for herself......and was probably the same towel she used to clean up after she committed the murders.

[Jeana (DP)]

I, too, would like to know where to find the assertion that Darlie fixed a "warm wet compress" for one of the boys???

Actually, what *really* happened is that Darlie was asked several times by Waddell, the first officer on the scene, to get a towel to cover Damon's wounds.....she never did.

The "wet towel" story came from Darlie when she was doing a "walk through" the house and she noticed the kitchen sink was missing and had been submitted into evidence. Only THEN did she mention ever getting wet towels for the boys. This was never proven. From what I understand, there were never any towels (let alone wet ones) placed on either Devon or Damon. The only towel Darlie ever got was for herself......and was probably the same towel she used to clean up after she committed the murders.


That's exactly how I remember it. Thanks.

[KatherineQ]

The story I read, she was instructed to get wet towels, and the EMT had to tell her several times to do it and calm down, and she did it.

This from Crime Library only briefly touches on what I'm saying, and doesn't mention "wet", but I swear that's what he said in an expanded version of this story mentioned.

I have not read her account of what happened, and this information was actually considered against Darlie, in that she was screaming and not helping. it wasn't in an article stating that's how the sink got bloody, I put that together in my own mind (although many others probably have too, but I haven't read that anywhere else, this putting together the wet towels with the bloody footprints).

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/routier/2.html?sect=1

[KatherineQ]

From CourtTV's crime library (which I don't believe is a pro-Darlie site), Darren's account of Darlie running around hysterically, applying wet towels to one of the boy's chests trying to keep it (the chest) together. While the first officer on the scene, David Waddell, who was the one who requested she get towels, was there.

There it is. She's applying soaked towels to the boy, after Waddell requested she get towels for him. Seems to me that's how the blood and footprints could have been in the kitchen sink. Because she was told to do it, by David Waddell.

It seems by David Waddell's own statements, he was in shock. And who blames him - but the thing is, if he orders her to go get wet towels, and she does, that could leave those ominous bloody footprints in front of the sink that have been used as evidence she cleaned up the crime scene.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/routier/8.html?sect=11

[Jeana (DP)]

Darlin, I don't have time to read that whole article. I remember hearing that his testimony was that he told her several times to assist her boys and she didn't. It was my understanding that she and Darin were doing the wet towel thing before his arrival. Regardless, I'd trust his (Waddell's) testimony before either of the Routiers or even this link you provided.

[Jaxie]

Katherine,

There wasn't just her bloody footprints by the sink, but her blood was all inside the cabinets underneath the sink where the cleaning supplies were kept as well.

Like I said, there is no actual evidence nor are there any witnesses of her wetting or applying towels to either of the kids. Like I said, this is something she mentions AFTER she saw the sink was missing from her house.

However, despite her claiming to have done this, every single witness there, including cops and paramedics, claim she did NOT. Not only that, but there was no evidence to suggest either kid had ever had a wet towel placed on them.

Also, keep in mind, the sink wasn't full of blood.....it was ONCE full of blood but had been cleaned up!!

[KatherineQ]

Darin said she had wet towels, and so did David Waddell but I can't find it this instant. She had wet towels.

And I saw some forensic show, the point of the show was to prove conclusively that Darlie was a murderer, and they showed that luminol outprint of her feet, at the kitchen sink. That was a big HUGE thing, because she had denied cleaning the crime scene and yet, here were her feet with an outline of blood at the kitchen sink. The photo was entered into evidence at the trial, her feet at the sink.

She may have been getting wet towels for David Waddell.

[Jeana (DP)]

Darin said she had wet towels, and so did David Waddell but I can't find it this instant. She had wet towels.

And I saw some forensic show, the point of the show was to prove conclusively that Darlie was a murderer, and they showed that luminol outprint of her feet, at the kitchen sink. That was a big HUGE thing, because she had denied cleaning the crime scene and yet, here were her feet with an outline of blood at the kitchen sink. The photo was entered into evidence at the trial, her feet at the sink.

She may have been getting wet towels for David Waddell.


Everyone said she wet towels. No one is disputing the fact that she wet some towels. However, running water for wetting a towel that she THREW to Darin as he helped the boys is NOT the same thing as helping her children. Waddell acknowledged that the towel he saw her with was being held to her own neck. I'll be happy to stipulate that when Darin was doing CPR on the child, she threw him a wet towel. Doesn't mean the sink should have been "cleaned" by her standing there wetting a towel.

[Jeana (DP)]

Darin said she had wet towels, and so did David Waddell but I can't find it this instant. She had wet towels..


by the way, just for the record, Darin also said they had a wonderful marriage and never had any financial problems either. But we know that he's a liar. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[dasgal]

Hi Katherine,
I have no doubt that there we towels there, damp towels, but the difference is, LE believes she used them to clean up while she maintains she was there at the sink to simply wet towels to put on the boys.
There are however a few damning items about this sink. Her blood is found inside the cabinet below where cleaning items were kept. Furthermore all three bloodtypes were found behind the sink near the splashgaurd. This is also the area that LE believes she cut her own throat.
There were over 20 towels found around the boys, so there was absolutely no reason to run back and forth wetting towels.

[Jaxie]

Waddell testified he did NOT actually see Darlie wet towels and place them on the boys. Like I said, there is no evidence of this. Neither of the boy's pajamas were wet, and the wounds weren't diluted. There is no evidence there were any wet towels placed on the boys.

Also, I would like to know when she allegedly placed these towels on the boys. She claims she immediately dialed 911 and she was on the call with the 911 dispatcher until Waddell got there. There was no water running in the background of the call so when did she wet the towels and place them on the boys?

[dasgal]

She claims she immediately dialed 911 and she was on the call with the 911 dispatcher until Waddell got there. There was no water running in the background of the call so when did she wet the towels and place them on the boys?
Well that sums up the core of the issue, that's for sure. There isn't any arguing that. (However for some reason the legend just goes on and on and on...."because Darlie or Darin said so"! :dance:

[KatherineQ]

Jaxie - she wet the towels AFTER Waddell arrived, because he told her to do it.

What's so hard to understand about that, really, it seems quite well documented that she had WET TOWELS and that Waddell requested her to fetch towels to help the kids.

Everything else is peripheral - whether she actually used the wet towels Waddell told her to get more for herself, whether she was good at using the wet towels to close the boy's chest, no matter.

He told her to get them, she got them, period.

The thing about this case, is, when you rehash something for years, daily, some stuff gets confused and actual facts get distorted and it no longer is possible to tell in a conversation like this what's made up and what's not.

I posted two articles, not in her favor, about the wet towels.

Read them or don't, I'm out of this forum because it seems pointless to have to keep proving what is fact.

[Jeana (DP)]

Jaxie - she wet the towels AFTER Waddell arrived, because he told her to do it.



Source please. He TOLD her to do it, but testified that she did not. What makes you think he's not telling the truth?

[Jaxie]

Katherine....you're not reading my posts. Okie? Please read carefully...

Waddell has testified that he did NOT see her wet the towels! Good Lord....lol....I feel like a broken record player.

There were towels at the scene. BUT BUT BUT nobody saw her wet them and nobody saw her place them on the boys. So you saying Waddell told her to get wet towels (which isn't even true, he told her to apply a towel to Damon, not necessarily a wet one) and she got them even though Waddell testifies saying he never witnessed this? You want to know MY source?? Go to fordarlieroutier and read Waddell's testimony in the transcripts.

Everything else ISN'T peripheral!! Her being at the sink and her blood being cleaned FROM the sink and her blood being INSIDE the cabinets under the sink and rather or not she was there getting towels for the boys or cutting herself to stage a crime scene is NOT peripheral! I believe the whole point to your bringing this up was to say that she wet towels to give to the boys and that's why her bloody prints were by the sink. I'm telling you that evidence suggests the reason she was by the sink was to cut herself in order to stage a crime scene and cleaned it all up.

Good Lord....lol....

[Goody]

From CourtTV's crime library (which I don't believe is a pro-Darlie site),
I think the actual trial transcripts are better. No offense, but the crime library is just a series of articles written by reporters on their interpretation of the evidence and the facts. I would prefer a legal document, only because it is the main source of information in any trial, and those testifying are under oath/

There it is. She's applying soaked towels to the boy, after Waddell requested she get towels for him. Seems to me that's how the blood and footprints could have been in the kitchen sink. Because she was told to do it, by David Waddell.
Waddell told her to get a "rag". It is in his testimony. He did not tell her to wet it and she did not go near the sink after he arrived on the scene. He simply told her to get something to hold against Damon's injuries and she showed him her neck wound, indicating that she couldn't help her son.

There is no evidence that she wet anything. Look at the crime scene photos. Do you see any watered down blood anywhere? I don't. Darlie would have us believe that she was a very neat hysteric woman and took the time to wring out those wet towels so they would not drip as she carried them to her children. Bull. The only thing she did at that sink was try to get rid of the blood after she rinsed the knife and cut her throat.

There was even some evidence of someone attempting to wipe up the kitchen floor. Probably an effort abandoned by her when she saw how futile it was. She would wipe it up, then bleed on it again. They found bloody footprints wiped up,then bled on again. Only Darlie would have had an interest in doing something like that.

[Goody]

Everyone said she wet towels. No one is disputing the fact that she wet some towels. .
I disagree, Jeana. I don't think she wet any towels. She just said that to explain why they found blood in the sink drain and to explain her bloody footprints, etc. No one but Darlie and Darin ever said a word about "wet" towels. And there is no supporting physical evidence in the family room or the kitchen to back it up. So I don't think she wet anything.

[Mary456]

No one but Darlie and Darin ever said a word about "wet" towels. And there is no supporting physical evidence in the family room or the kitchen to back it up. So I don't think she wet anything.

Well, she might have wet her pants, but we'll never know for sure because the intruder probably rinsed them out in the kitchen sink before he left. :crazy:

Seriously, that whole story of wetting towels in the sink is a lie, compliments of Darlie and Darin. Even a first-year forensic student would be able to detect watered down blood on clothing or carpeting. Mulder never even approached the subject with the forensic experts who testified. Supporters will say it's because he was incompetent, didn't dig hard enough, but I say...the man knew his limitations.

[Dani_T]

Darin said she had wet towels, and so did David Waddell but I can't find it this instant. She had wet towels.
Hi Katherine,

Officer Waddell never saw her put a towel on Damon let alone a wet towel. His testimony is clear on that fact. She didn't help Damon whilst in his sight.

Darin doesn't mention her putting a towel on Damon until his testimony (I think - would need to check that) which was after the 'wet towel' story had been concocted by Darlie after she saw her sink gone.

The ambulance officer who tended Damon did not see a towel on him.

The Crime Library story was where I first read about the case too. However, you need to be aware with those stories that they are a collaboration of information from various sources and they don't get them right all the time (in fact not even Barbara Davis who was in the courtroom wrote an error free book). Best thing to do is go to the transcripts and check them yourself.

There is no indepedent evidence about wet towels (except perhaps Darin but I would be reading what he said in the context of earlier statements).


She may have been getting wet towels for David Waddell.
She didn't get towels for Officer Waddell. Didn't happen. There is no transcript record of her ever doing this.

[Fritzy's Mom]

Robert:

I like reading your stuff... I don't agree with you about Darin, but you know this case soooooo well - you have some great insights and thoughts.

Question for you guys: did anyone ever find Darlie's underwear from the night of the attack?

[Jeana (DP)]

I disagree, Jeana. I don't think she wet any towels. She just said that to explain why they found blood in the sink drain and to explain her bloody footprints, etc. No one but Darlie and Darin ever said a word about "wet" towels. And there is no supporting physical evidence in the family room or the kitchen to back it up. So I don't think she wet anything.


I think the towel she held against her own neck was wet. I don't know when she did it, but I believe that it was. Can't speak to the others used on the boys. However, since everyone who knows about wounds said it was stupid to wet towels to apply to bleeding gaping wounds, nothing surprises me about what she may have done on that.

[Jeana (DP)]

Robert:

I like reading your stuff... I don't agree with you about Darin, but you know this case soooooo well - you have some great insights and thoughts.

Question for you guys: did anyone ever find Darlie's underwear from the night of the attack?


With all due respect to you and Robert, this is incorrect. Most of his "facts" are incorrect.

With regard to the "missing panties," the only source we have about panties at all are Darlie and Darin and we all know by now that they lied during the investigation, during the trial and after, so why believe them about this issue?

[Fritzy's Mom]

With all due respect to you and Robert, this is incorrect. Most of his "facts" are incorrect.

With regard to the "missing panties," the only source we have about panties at all are Darlie and Darin and we all know by now that they lied during the investigation, during the trial and after, so why believe them about this issue?Not quite sure what you mean by that...:waitasec:

I wouldn't so much say that his facts are "incorrect" as I would say he has a different interpretation of them...I like that. I don't agree with many of his theories, but I do like considering them. If I were Darlie, I would want someone like that on my jury - too many jurors just allow themselves to be spoon-fed the prosecution's story without doing much questioning...

As for Darlie's underwear, I'm just asking a simple "yes" or "no" question...were they ever found?

[Jaxie]

Hi Fritzy's Mom!

Nope, no underwear ever found. :)

[Jeana (DP)]

Not quite sure what you mean by that...:waitasec:

I wouldn't so much say that his facts are "incorrect" as I would say he has a different interpretation of them...I like that. I don't agree with many of his theories, but I do like considering them. If I were Darlie, I would want someone like that on my jury - too many jurors just allow themselves to be spoon-fed the prosecution's story without doing much questioning...

As for Darlie's underwear, I'm just asking a simple "yes" or "no" question...were they ever found?


Sweetie, there's no such thing as "interpretations" of the truth. :)

My feeling is the panties were placed into the basket of dirty laundry that she took the sock out of whilst staging the scene.

[IrishMist]

Not quite sure what you mean by that...:waitasec:

I wouldn't so much say that his facts are "incorrect" as I would say he has a different interpretation of them...I like that. I don't agree with many of his theories, but I do like considering them. If I were Darlie, I would want someone like that on my jury - too many jurors just allow themselves to be spoon-fed the prosecution's story without doing much questioning...

As for Darlie's underwear, I'm just asking a simple "yes" or "no" question...were they ever found?
Well, maybe not "incorrect." How about not according to testimony or crime scene analysis?

I'm with DP on where the panties ended up.

[Fritzy's Mom]

Sweetie, there's no such thing as "interpretations" of the truth. :)
LOL...well, yeah - but in this case, the "truth" is pretty elusive...

My feeling is the panties were placed into the basket of dirty laundry that she took the sock out of whilst staging the scene.
OR...the real killer took them. (I'm going to crawl under my desk and cover my head now...)

[cami]

Not quite sure what you mean by that...:waitasec:

I wouldn't so much say that his facts are "incorrect" as I would say he has a different interpretation of them...I like that. I don't agree with many of his theories, but I do like considering them. If I were Darlie, I would want someone like that on my jury - too many jurors just allow themselves to be spoon-fed the prosecution's story without doing much questioning...

As for Darlie's underwear, I'm just asking a simple "yes" or "no" question...were they ever found?

His interpretation of the medical testimony concerning Darlie's injuries is definitely incorrect. He insists she was badly injured full of defense wounds despite evidence to the contrary and testimony from the doctors who treated her.

The jury got to see and hear Darlie when she took the stand. I think they could probably judge her for themselves. She had an opportunity to un spoon feed the jury by answering the prosecutor's questions during cross examination. Because she's the killer she was only able to state she "didn't remember" No jury is going to fall for that.

[cami]

LOL...well, yeah - but in this case, the "truth" is pretty elusive...


OR...the real killer took them. (I'm going to crawl under my desk and cover my head now...)

Ah ha, FM has Darlie's missing panties. She's covering her head with them now.

Gosh we made so many jokes about these panties years ago didn't we ladies. The perp leaves the bloody knife behind but takes a sock and panties.

[Goody]

Gosh we made so many jokes about these panties years ago didn't we ladies. The perp leaves the bloody knife behind but takes a sock and panties.
He had his hands full and couldn't take the knife. Don't you know anything, Cami? hahahahah@

[Goody]

Seriously, that whole story of wetting towels in the sink is a lie, compliments of Darlie and Darin. Even a first-year forensic student would be able to detect watered down blood on clothing or carpeting. Mulder never even approached the subject with the forensic experts who testified. Supporters will say it's because he was incompetent, didn't dig hard enough, but I say...the man knew his limitations.
He also probably knew the answer to that one and it would not have been good for Darlie.

[cami]

He had his hands full and couldn't take the knife. Don't you know anything, Cami? hahahahah@

Aaaahahaha yeah maybe he had a handfull of those DD's

[Jeana (DP)]

LOL...well, yeah - but in this case, the "truth" is pretty elusive...


OR...the real killer took them. (I'm going to crawl under my desk and cover my head now...)


It certainly is elusive!!! LOL Some of us think that either aliens (the space ship variety) or Santa took them, but we just can't agree on that!

[Mary456]

Oh for crying out loud.

Let's say it slowly together.

Laber says nothing about blood spatter on Darin's jeans.

And now that we have gotten over that hurdle let's go to the logical conclusion

The defense have produced no evidence that there was blood spatter on the jeans

There now. That wasn't so hard was it?

Hehehehe.

Beautiful!

[Fritzy's Mom]

Ah ha, FM has Darlie's missing panties. She's covering her head with them now.
Oh, no - I don't do that anymore. Fritzy gets very upset when I wear underwear on my head. :(

[Goody]

Aaaahahaha yeah maybe he had a handfull of those DD's
Well, shoot, he had the darned sock and the panties. No wonder he dropped the knife! hahahaha! DD's eh? From the medical reports, didn't look like he even touched them!!

I mean, gosh, darn! With those two melons staring up at him, how on earth he missed her heart and found her neck while she was laying on that sofa is a mystery to me. The guy must have had tunnel vision!......on the wrong body part! hahahahah! Didn't Darin say something to that effect himself?

[Jeana (DP)]

Well, shoot, he had the darned sock and the panties. No wonder he dropped the knife! hahahaha! DD's eh? From the medical reports, didn't look like he even touched them!!



Oh, and don't forget that he had to escape out of garage door and then lift a broken gate, exit and then lift again to close it before.

[Goody]

Oh, and don't forget that he had to escape out of garage door and then lift a broken gate, exit and then lift again to close it before.
Yeah, he was worried about what the neighbors would think if they got up in the morning and saw that gate hanging open. A very PC killer, don't you think?

[Fritzy's Mom]

Jeana:

Somewhere I read a post where you said that you had spoken to Darlie's mom (I can't find it now)...How do you know her? How much did you discuss? Give us the dirt...

My problem with this case has always been the motive...there is no motive that most people can identify with (money, postpartum psychosis, discipline/abuse that got out of hand, whatever). So, it seems to me, the prosecutors just resorted to character assassination...we were told that Darlie was shallow, self-absorbed, vain, materialistic, ugly to the point of putting her lifestyle above the lives of her children. And, as evidence of such, we were told that she liked having a nice home, she liked having nice furniture, she was picky in the way she kept her home, she liked to wear make-up and jewelry and she liked to shop. Well, that's all well and good, except YOU JUST DESCRIBED ME!!!! And, probably half the other women in this country...

Nothing I have read about Darlie leads me to believe that she was so obsessed with appearances and lifestyle she would butcher her children. Nothing. And, in fact, in every interview I've ever seen with her, she seems like a normal woman (given her circumstances). Both in her diary writings and in her interviews she comes across as introspective, thoughtful and kind - not at all as she was described at trial. Granted, this woman is not exactly a rocket scientist, but I just have not seen anything that supports the party-girl narcissist image you so often read about.

Tell me what you know about her first-hand...Also, what is this rape story I keep reading about?

Re: the gate...I haven't gotten all through Darrin's testimony; I know that Darlie said he fixed it. What is Darrin's story?

[Jeana (DP)]

[QUOTE=Fritzy's Mom]Jeana:

Somewhere I read a post where you said that you had spoken to Darlie's mom (I can't find it now)...How do you know her? How much did you discuss? Give us the dirt...[QUOTE]

No, I don't know her. We emailed each other in the past. I don't have any "dirt." She's a mother fighting for the life of her child. I don't fault her for that.

[Fritzy's Mom]

LOL...Okaaaaaaaaaaaay...let me try this again...

Just general comments/questions for anyone who may have a thought...

1. I have not seen much of Darlie's mom; she's done a couple of talk shows where she pretty much sticks by Darlie's story, but that's about it. Apparently, she has corresponded with people via e-mail in the past. On one occassion, she indicated to someone that, contrary to trial testimony, Darlie actually asked Darrin for a seperation the night of the attacks. Has anyone else heard this? Do we know why Darlie wanted to seperate? Does anyone have a link to Darrin's affidavit re: same? Has anyone else corresponded with Darlie's mom and had a similar experience, whereby she indicated something contrary to trial testimony?

2. At trial, the nurses had some unkind things to say about Darlie. Also, Barbara Jovell, I think, indicated that Darlie and Dana may have been making fun of her mother. Aside from that testimony, I don't recall anything that was terribly damaging to Darlie's character... I have read on this board that Darlie put on a scene at a daycare center one day and that she was rumored to have gone to garage sales in a thong...Does anyone have any personal knowledge of her - either from first-hand experience or from correspondence with her mother? Like I said, she comes across well when interviewed, so I'm wondering if that's all just an act...

3. Another poster said something about Darlie making a false rape claim. I have not been able to find any mention of this anywhere...Does anyone know anything about it?

[Goody]

LOL...Okaaaaaaaaaaaay...let me try this again...

Just general comments/questions for anyone who may have a thought...

1. I have not seen much of Darlie's mom; she's done a couple of talk shows where she pretty much sticks by Darlie's story, but that's about it. Apparently, she has corresponded with people via e-mail in the past. On one occassion, she indicated to someone that, contrary to trial testimony, Darlie actually asked Darrin for a seperation the night of the attacks. Has anyone else heard this? Do we know why Darlie wanted to seperate? Does anyone have a link to Darrin's affidavit re: same? Has anyone else corresponded with Darlie's mom and had a similar experience, whereby she indicated something contrary to trial testimony?

2. At trial, the nurses had some unkind things to say about Darlie. Also, Barbara Jovell, I think, indicated that Darlie and Dana may have been making fun of her mother. Aside from that testimony, I don't recall anything that was terribly damaging to Darlie's character... I have read on this board that Darlie put on a scene at a daycare center one day and that she was rumored to have gone to garage sales in a thong...Does anyone have any personal knowledge of her - either from first-hand experience or from correspondence with her mother? Like I said, she comes across well when interviewed, so I'm wondering if that's all just an act...

3. Another poster said something about Darlie making a false rape claim. I have not been able to find any mention of this anywhere...Does anyone know anything about it?
You need to read some of the books written about this case. There are three in addition to MTJD. Precious Angels by Barbara Davis, Flesh and Blood by Patricia Springer, and Hush Little Babies by Don Davis. Two of them are out of print but you might be able to buy a used copy. All three of these authors went to the trial everyday and got close to various friends, family members, and police, etc.

[texaslb218]

You need to read some of the books written about this case. There are three in addition to MTJD. Precious Angels by Barbara Davis, Flesh and Blood by Patricia Springer, and Hush Little Babies by Don Davis. Two of them are out of print but you might be able to buy a used copy. All three of these authors went to the trial everyday and got close to various friends, family members, and police, etc.
Which one would you pick for me to start? I have only read the papers, watched the tv reports when it was going on and now, luckily, found this forum. I have the summer---would you choose one for me, Goody?

[Mary456]

"Please answer this question: Why and to what benefit would an "intruder" stay and clean up the crime scene?"

He was a neat freak like Darlie. There's nothing worse than facing a bloody sink in the morning.

"What benefit would it have to anyone except Darlie.???"

The intruder felt bad enough about slaughtering her children; the least he could do was clean up some of the mess. Kitchens should be clean places.

"A person who commits a crime, cleans up the scene and it sure is not "an unknown intruder".

It sounds like you have some unresolved issues with cleanliness, perhaps dating back to your childhood. Intruders don't have a manual that tells them how to act after killing two children. They're all different, CyberLaw. Some run away after dropping the knife, while others hang around to tidy up.

I hope you know I'm just kidding around. Actually, I felt bad that no one has answered your posts, because they're right on the mark (or maybe someone did, and I just missed it). Anyway, I enjoy reading your messages :woohoo:

[Fritzy's Mom]

You need to read some of the books written about this case. There are three in addition to MTJD. Precious Angels by Barbara Davis, Flesh and Blood by Patricia Springer, and Hush Little Babies by Don Davis. Two of them are out of print but you might be able to buy a used copy. All three of these authors went to the trial everyday and got close to various friends, family members, and police, etc.
Yeah, you're right...I would like to read them, but from what I've seen on this board, most of them are pretty hard to come by (especially MTJD)...

No matter what is in the books, though, testimony at trial re: Darlie's character was just not, IMO, damaging enough to support the prosection's theory of why she did it. I know, I know - the prosecution doesn't have to prove motive - but Greg Davis described Darlie as a pretty ugly person in his opening remarks ("cold," "materialistic," "self-centered," etc.), so I think the jury had a duty to ask itself whether or not he provided evidence to support his statements...

Greg Davis suggested a motive, so as far as I'm concerned, it was fair territory for the jury to consider.

[cami]

Dani, (or anyone who could help me with this one)

In your last post on this thread you wrote something about the knife imprint on the carpet being from someone who was bleeding so badly the blood was running down their arm and dripping off the end of the knife. Did I get that right?

Was that blood (knife imprint) tested?

Darlie is the only person with cut forearms so I'll take a leap and say it's her blood. If it was from an alleged intruder, how did he get out of the house without leaving his blood on the exits/entrances, fence, etc. Darin has/had no cuts to his forearms.

[cami]

And how could he have slit her throat and then, thinking she was dead, moved on to stab the children? Remember Darlie had bruises on her that "suggests" she put up a fight. If this was, in fact the case then where did her bruises come from? If he just sliced her neck in her sleep then how are you suggesting she got the bruises?

And the slices to her forearms. When would Darin have inflicted those two wounds? As she lay there asleep? Was he trying to give her defense wounds before the fact?

[cami]

From CourtTV's crime library (which I don't believe is a pro-Darlie site), Darren's account of Darlie running around hysterically, applying wet towels to one of the boy's chests trying to keep it (the chest) together. While the first officer on the scene, David Waddell, who was the one who requested she get towels, was there.

There it is. She's applying soaked towels to the boy, after Waddell requested she get towels for him. Seems to me that's how the blood and footprints could have been in the kitchen sink. Because she was told to do it, by David Waddell.

It seems by David Waddell's own statements, he was in shock. And who blames him - but the thing is, if he orders her to go get wet towels, and she does, that could leave those ominous bloody footprints in front of the sink that have been used as evidence she cleaned up the crime scene.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/routier/8.html?sect=11

OMG, the CL is the least accurate source of information. We've all got our info from reading the trial transcripts, not the CL. There were no wet towels, there were no towels on the boys. Darlie ignored Waddell when he asked her to get a towel and place it on Damon.

[cami]

Darin said she had wet towels, and so did David Waddell but I can't find it this instant. She had wet towels.

And I saw some forensic show, the point of the show was to prove conclusively that Darlie was a murderer, and they showed that luminol outprint of her feet, at the kitchen sink. That was a big HUGE thing, because she had denied cleaning the crime scene and yet, here were her feet with an outline of blood at the kitchen sink. The photo was entered into evidence at the trial, her feet at the sink.

She may have been getting wet towels for David Waddell.

Maybe you should look at the CS photos of the blood on the floor in front of the sink. Doesn't appear to be diluted by water. It appears as if someone bleeding stood there not moving around for a time.

[cami]

Everyone said she wet towels. No one is disputing the fact that she wet some towels. However, running water for wetting a towel that she THREW to Darin as he helped the boys is NOT the same thing as helping her children. Waddell acknowledged that the towel he saw her with was being held to her own neck. I'll be happy to stipulate that when Darin was doing CPR on the child, she threw him a wet towel. Doesn't mean the sink should have been "cleaned" by her standing there wetting a towel.

and I believe it required Darlie to grow another arm. She's holding a towel to her neck, on the phone with 911 and wetting towels and wringing them out so they aren't dripping at the kitchen sink all at the same time. Now that's how you multi-task eh.

[accordn2me]

Darlie is the only person with cut forearms so I'll take a leap and say it's her blood. If it was from an alleged intruder, how did he get out of the house without leaving his blood on the exits/entrances, fence, etc. Darin has/had no cuts to his forearms. Did the prosecution take a leap and say the blood on the carpet was Darlie's, or did they test it?

If an alleged intruder didn't drop the sock on his way to the dark car, are you implying that Darin planted it?

Edited to add:

There was blood (and some undetermined prints) on the door from the kitchen to the garage. Whose blood was on that door?

Whose blood was the bloody print on the sofa table imprinted in?

[accordn2me]

And how could he have slit her throat and then, thinking she was dead, moved on to stab the children? Remember Darlie had bruises on her that "suggests" she put up a fight. If this was, in fact the case then where did her bruises come from? If he just sliced her neck in her sleep then how are you suggesting she got the bruises?
Maybe she was "frightening" so passionately that her mind put them there.:slap:


And the slices to her forearms. When would Darin have inflicted those two wounds? As she lay there asleep? Was he trying to give her defense wounds before the fact?
What slices? Sorry, hard week at work - brain overload. I can only think of the one cut - that some say penetrated bone - that does not look like a "slice" 2me.

[accordn2me]

OMG, the CL is the least accurate source of information. We've all got our info from reading the trial transcripts, not the CL. There were no wet towels, there were no towels on the boys. Darlie ignored Waddell when he asked her to get a towel and place it on Damon.
NO towels? Once again, it's been a long time since I read it, but I thought I remember a figure like twenty or more towels were bloody. Could have been a dream though. :waitasec:

[accordn2me]

Maybe you should look at the CS photos of the blood on the floor in front of the sink. Doesn't appear to be diluted by water. It appears as if someone bleeding stood there not moving around for a time.
What about the blood on the part of the counter directly in front of the sink - diluted, or not?

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by Jeana (DP)
Everyone said she wet towels. No one is disputing the fact that she wet some towels. However, running water for wetting a towel that she THREW to Darin as he helped the boys is NOT the same thing as helping her children. Waddell acknowledged that the towel he saw her with was being held to her own neck. I'll be happy to stipulate that when Darin was doing CPR on the child, she threw him a wet towel. Doesn't mean the sink should have been "cleaned" by her standing there wetting a towel.

So which claim is it:

Darlie cleaned the sink?

Or Darlie merely washed some blood down the sink as she was wetting a towel?

Or was it, Darlie cleaned the sink while she was wetting some towels?

Maybe she stood at the sink while wetting one towel at a time and throwing each one to Darin?

But then, how to explain Darlie's bloody foot prints.....

[accordn2me]

Sweetie, there's no such thing as "interpretations" of the truth. :) Oh, Jeana, but there most certainly are different interpretations of the truth. For the sake of discussion, let's pretend you and I go to the same place at the same time and experience the same event. Your reality, or interpretation, may not be my take on it at all.

My family and I have heated discussions about this all the time. Don't ask me for a specific example tonight :angel:, but they often say, "Well that's not in the Bible." Well, there are a lot of things that the Bible left out. That doesn't mean they are not true!

The same goes for "facts" that were not verified in Darlie's trial. Just because they were not verified, does not mean they didn't happen.

[Dani_T]

NO towels? Once again, it's been a long time since I read it, but I thought I remember a figure like twenty or more towels were bloody. Could have been a dream though. :waitasec:

Cami said there is no testimony about there being wet towels at the scene or towels on the boys (though there were some around Devon)

[accordn2me]

Cami said there is no testimony about there being wet towels at the scene or towels on the boys (though there were some around Devon)
Just because there was no testimony about wet towels, does not make it true that there were no wet towels.

Do you think maybe the EMT may have taken towels off the boys so they could check them out?

It's probably not possible that the police moved the towels - they were so careful not to compromise the scene.

I wonder whose blood was all over those dry towels?

[Dani_T]

Just because there was no testimony about wet towels, does not make it true that there were no wet towels.

There is no testimony about wet towels. Were some of the towels wet? Possibly. Were all of them wet? Highly unlikely since no one mentions finding any wet towels. Could wet towels have actually wiped away smears of blood in the sink, cleaner the counter and wiped off blood from the tap? Not a chance.

Do you think maybe the EMT may have taken towels off the boys so they could check them out?
Nope.

22 A. I walked over to the child and
23 examined his back side briefly for any injuries, and I
24 rolled him over.
25 Q. Do you recall how he was clothed?
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
1432

1 A. He had on a dark T-shirt and blue
2 jeans.
3 Q. You say then that you examined his
4 back. Let me ask you: Was there any kind of a rag or
5 towel or anything else on top of that child?
6 A. No, there was not.
7 Q. Are you sure about that?
8 A. I'm absolutely sure about that.

But of course if the paramedics were in on the 'big conspiracy' that means nothing.

It's probably not possible that the police moved the towels - they were so careful not to compromise the scene.

The paramedics were the first ones to touch the boys - apart from Darin who was aiding Devon. At trial Darin insists she brought him wet towels but interestingly from what I can see he never mentions using one of those towels to try and stem the flow. Of course it is only at trial that he says that she brought towels, let along wet towels, to Darin for Devon. Back in September he said that she only took them to Damon. Now suddenly she is taking them to Damon and Devon.

No doubt there were towels about the room- you can see them in the photos. However, 20 or so towels were collected and there were certiainly not 20+ towels lying in the living room floor. Nor were they all bloody if they were ones being collected from the kitchen

I wonder whose blood was all over those dry towels?
Well I suspect we would find Darlies over most of them. Doubtful you'd find any of Damon's blood on them since he was never aided with one.

[accordn2me]

Do you know where I can find an evidence collection log? I would like to see how many towels were collected. Were all of the towels collected, or just a sample of towels?

Where was each collected from?

Did the State speculate as to whose blood was on the towels, or did they test the towels to find out? It would look really bad for Darlie if the tests came back and none of the boys' blood were found on towels. Seeing how thorough Davis and his team were, I can't believe they would have let that get past the jury without mention.

If it were all Darlie's blood, and no one else's on the towels, how much blood do you think she lost?

Water and blood dry. Blood changes color and looks much different than when first collected. I wonder, at what point does a wet with blood towel that has dried, become indistinguishable from a towel that was first wet with water, then saturated in blood, and dried?

[RobertStJames]

Robert:

I like reading your stuff... I don't agree with you about Darin, but you know this case soooooo well - you have some great insights and thoughts.

Question for you guys: did anyone ever find Darlie's underwear from the night of the attack?
Despite Jeana and Cami's claims, there are a ton of facts that *nobody* has. Facts about Darin's jeans, facts about Dana Stahl, facts about their financial situation, facts about just why Darin needed $5000 so badly that he lied to his banker about what it was for. You can either focus on what's important in this case--those unknown facts, or you can take the opinions of people who think they're medical experts and insist that obvious defensive wounds in fact, aren't. Your choice. Personally, I prefer looking at this case from the angle of what we don't know, and why we don't know it rather than simply repeating the same questionable "facts" as can be found on any Darlie web site, and in any Darlie book.

As I said, and the reason I started this thread, Darlie supporters seem unable or unwilling to consider the only viable alternate suspect--Darin Routier. No one on this thread so far has been able to offer a coherent explanation of how he was "cleared" nor a convincing explanation as to why he cannot keep his story straight. In between self-proclaimed medical experts and people who try to imply they've worked homicides when they clearly haven't, that point got lost and the thread became merely another "wounds and towels" thread.

I want to know why Darlie supporters are automatic Darin supporters. And if there are people like me who believe she's innocent, because her husband is guilty.

RstJ

[RobertStJames]

Hey there,

I don't post here a lot but I do know this case pretty well so I thought I would tell you what I know. :-)

Yes, you have it correct that the imprint of the knife on the floor strongly suggests that whomever was holding it was bleeding very badly down their arm. I didn't read anything that mentioned the blood on the carpet being tested but, it is my understanding that there were only 4 swabs of blood taken from the knife. I also want to say (my memory is a bit vague in some areas because it was 4 years ago that I read the transcripts) that the mixture of the blood made it difficult to find Devon's DNA, which could suggest he was stabbed first. Also it was found that Devon's wounds were consistent with that same knife.

Also, from what I remember the blood found on the door to the garage belonged to Darlie.

RobertStJames, I'm just curious. You are going on and on about Darin's jeans. What makes you so certain about the blood splatters on them? Have you seen pictures? Have you read this somewhere? What makes you so certain his jeans had blood splatters consistent with Darlie's cut on her throat?
The Habeus Corpus refers to it, and there is no known study of it that spells out exactly what was found. Darin's story of giving mouth-to-mouth that caused blood-spray is absurd.

This is one of the facts of the case that we don't have. Whose blood is on Darin's jeans, where, and how did it get there?


RstJ

[RobertStJames]

<....>
I'm sorry but I just don't understand what the big friggin deal is about whether Darin was wearing jeans when he came downstairs or not. Surely that isn't your prime focus when trying to accuse the man of murder.


You're kidding. His pants aren't important? The pants that he changed his story about aren't important? The pants that support his version of events aren't important? The pants that, insanely, were *not* DNA tested are not important?

Endless testimony about Darlie's nightdress. Boy, *that* was important. So why aren't Darin's jeans equally important?

Test the jeans. That will be Darlie's blood on them in a spray pattern.

And people have got to stop insisting that Darin had no bruises cuts or scrapes because we do not know this. Nobody here has ever seen the photos of him from the hospital, and nobody has ever read a description of them.

One more "fact" that is key to any understanding of the case, and another fact we don't have.

RstJ

[RobertStJames]

Jaxie - she wet the towels AFTER Waddell arrived, because he told her to do it.

What's so hard to understand about that, really, it seems quite well documented that she had WET TOWELS and that Waddell requested her to fetch towels to help the kids.

Everything else is peripheral - whether she actually used the wet towels Waddell told her to get more for herself, whether she was good at using the wet towels to close the boy's chest, no matter.

He told her to get them, she got them, period.

The thing about this case, is, when you rehash something for years, daily, some stuff gets confused and actual facts get distorted and it no longer is possible to tell in a conversation like this what's made up and what's not.

I posted two articles, not in her favor, about the wet towels.

Read them or don't, I'm out of this forum because it seems pointless to have to keep proving what is fact.
Yes, it's a fact, and there's no reason to dispute it unless trying to bend the case to convict Darlie. Waddell is also the guy who saw Darin *outside* the house, sprinting across the street to get "help" when in fact help had just arrived. Of course, that part is rarely discussed since it doesn't point to Darlie's guilt. People keep accusing Darlie of not helping take care of the boys. How was Darin being across the street in any way "helping" them?

But here, it's just the same stuff that's featured on every malinformed web site. Few people want to discuss the interesting points of the case.


RstJ

[Dani_T]

Yes, it's a fact, and there's no reason to dispute it unless trying to bend the case to convict Darlie. Waddell is also the guy who saw Darin *outside* the house, sprinting across the street to get "help" when in fact help had just arrived. Of course, that part is rarely discussed since it doesn't point to Darlie's guilt. People keep accusing Darlie of not helping take care of the boys. How was Darin being across the street in any way "helping" them?

But here, it's just the same stuff that's featured on every malinformed web site. Few people want to discuss the interesting points of the case.
RstJ
Robert,

You might want to get your own facts straight before you go slagging off everyone else.

Darin was exiting the house as Waddell arrived... yes help had just arrived but Darin did not know that before he opened the front door and went outside. He was not'sprinting across the street' because Waddell stopped him in the front yard and they went back into the house together. He later went to sprint across the street to get Karen- something which I, who has no love lost for Darin, do not find unusual in the least. She was a nurse. His two kids were dying or dead and his wife was bleeding profusely and obviously severely hurt.

I agree with you- there are numerous malinformed websites around regarding this case. But I think you will find that most of us here are not arguing the case from the websites. We're arguing it from the transcripts and the physical evidence. One of the first things we all do when someone new comes along is try to correct them of some of the misinformation they have gotten from the websites.

You've had dozens of replies to your posts about where it could be Darin, or the blood on Darins jeans etc. There are a number of people who have been studying the case for years who have a far better grasp on the evidence than you do I suspect (Mary, Goody, DP, Cami etc) who have given you good reasons why your theory doesn't fit. You've chosen to ignore what they had to say- and so be it. You are entitled to your own opinion. But I don't see how you can then go around saying that nobody knows what they are talking about and nobody cares to discuss your theory.

[accordn2me]

Despite Jeana and Cami's claims, there are a ton of facts that *nobody* has. Facts about Darin's jeans, facts about Dana Stahl, facts about their financial situation, facts about just why Darin needed $5000 so badly that he lied to his banker about what it was for. You can either focus on what's important in this case--those unknown facts, or you can take the opinions of people who think they're medical experts and insist that obvious defensive wounds in fact, aren't. Your choice. Personally, I prefer looking at this case from the angle of what we don't know, and why we don't know it rather than simply repeating the same questionable "facts" as can be found on any Darlie web site, and in any Darlie book.

As I said, and the reason I started this thread, Darlie supporters seem unable or unwilling to consider the only viable alternate suspect--Darin Routier. No one on this thread so far has been able to offer a coherent explanation of how he was "cleared" nor a convincing explanation as to why he cannot keep his story straight. In between self-proclaimed medical experts and people who try to imply they've worked homicides when they clearly haven't, that point got lost and the thread became merely another "wounds and towels" thread.

I want to know why Darlie supporters are automatic Darin supporters. And if there are people like me who believe she's innocent, because her husband is guilty.

RstJ
Hey, RstJ,

You have an interesting point of view. Although it's not new, (Brian Pardo agrees with you) I'd like to hear more of your theory. My first question to you is: Why do you believe "the only viable alternate suspect [is]--Darin Routier"?

Same question, different words: Why couldn't there have been an intruder?

[Mary456]

Despite Jeana and Cami's claims, there are a ton of facts that *nobody* has... facts about just why Darin needed $5000 so badly that he lied to his banker about what it was for. RstJ

There is no evidence, no testimony whatsover, that Darin lied about his reason for applying for a loan. He told Okie Williams (loan officer) that the $5000 was for a vacation. That's what he told her, and that's what she wrote down on the loan application.

Where on earth are you getting your information? I'm assuming it's from Don Davis's book, but he was wrong. And, incidentally, so are you!

[RobertStJames]

There is no evidence, no testimony whatsover, that Darin lied about his reason for applying for a loan. He told Okie Williams (loan officer) that the $5000 was for a vacation. That's what he told her, and that's what she wrote down on the loan application.

Where on earth are you getting your information? I'm assuming it's from Don Davis's book, but he was wrong. And, incidentally, so are you!
From Darin Routier himself, who later tried to claim it was for a "truck loan" which is laughable too. What vacation? These people were teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. They weren't going to be taking any $5000 vacations.

He was wrong, huh? Well, I'm still waiting for *your* book, darlin.


RstJ