Case Against Darin? [Archive] - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Goody

06-11-2005, 08:18 PM

I know she's just grasping at straws, what I want to know is what she's claiming he did. Anybody know?
Darlie has never made any statements about Darin's involvement in the case as far as I know. I think it is her defense team coming up with the claims now. They got Darin to sign an affidavit stating he had put the word out to have someone burglarize his home as an insurance scam. The implication is that these intruders might have been hired by Darin and just screwed up. Darlie's stepfather supports that with another affidavit, saying Darin asked him if he knew anyone who would do it. Darin also says Darlie asked for a separation that night.

I think the strategy is make it look like he had a motive, not prove he actually did it. They just need enough to get Darlie a new trial, using him as the scapegoat but not enough that it could be used against him later on. That is really hard to do and I doubt if they will be successful. It would have been a better strategy for the first trial.

beesy

06-12-2005, 02:59 AM

sassy_texasbelle2

06-12-2005, 05:38 PM

When a man has two dead children and comments on his wife's boob job that pretty well tells me all I need to know on his character. :loser: Nothing he did or has done would shock me.

Goody

06-13-2005, 12:12 AM

Thank you! I'd heard something like that, but didn't know the details. Are they still married? I look at him and just see "doofus"...hee
I don't think he is as dumb as he acts. He has been smart enough so far to keep himself out of jail. As far as I know they are still married. If he is dating, he has been able to keep it very quiet. I find that very unusual.

Goody

06-13-2005, 12:15 AM

When a man has two dead children and comments on his wife's boob job that pretty well tells me all I need to know on his character. :loser: Nothing he did or has done would shock me.
Me either. But how does he keep his love life soooooo underground that the media doesn't pick up on it? You'd think that an old girlfriend would run to the tabloids. Surely he hasn't been celibant all this time.

Jeana (DP)

06-13-2005, 11:20 AM

Not trying to be a smarta$$ just asking.....where are you getting your information on Darin? :woohoo:

Interviews with him and Darlie's mother in television news programs, her website, etc.

enigma

06-14-2005, 09:55 AM

Interviews with him and Darlie's mother in television news programs, her website, etc.Thanks, I hadn't heard anymore concerning him since he made the "Waiting for a Miracle" video. Are these interviews very current?

Jeana (DP)

06-14-2005, 01:59 PM

Thanks, I hadn't heard anymore concerning him since he made the "Waiting for a Miracle" video. Are these interviews very current?

Well, to be honest, I've got more important dates to try and keep my brain surrounded by, so I can't answer for sure. All I can say is that her website is kept current and there hasn't been any allegations made there.

WindChime

06-15-2005, 10:50 PM

enigma, my best advice if you are wanting dates and times would be to go to darlie's website and read up on on the info.

enigma

06-16-2005, 10:40 AM

enigma, my best advice if you are wanting dates and times would be to go to darlie's website and read up on on the info.Thanks, I will. By the way, I love your kitty, is she (or he) yours?

beesy

06-17-2005, 08:42 PM

I don't think he is as dumb as he acts. He has been smart enough so far to keep himself out of jail. As far as I know they are still married. If he is dating, he has been able to keep it very quiet. I find that very unusual.

I think he looks like a doofus...he's very wiley, keeping to the story after all this
time. Good on him

Goody

06-17-2005, 09:08 PM

I think he looks like a doofus...he's very wiley, keeping to the story after all this
time. Good on him
He is a little goofy, but I think he also uses it to his advantage.

beesy

06-18-2005, 12:51 AM

He is a little goofy, but I think he also uses it to his advantage.
good call :D

RobertStJames

06-22-2005, 05:34 PM

Darlie has never made any statements about Darin's involvement in the case as far as I know. I think it is her defense team coming up with the claims now. They got Darin to sign an affidavit stating he had put the word out to have someone burglarize his home as an insurance scam. The implication is that these intruders might have been hired by Darin and just screwed up. Darlie's stepfather supports that with another affidavit, saying Darin asked him if he knew anyone who would do it. Darin also says Darlie asked for a separation that night.

I think the strategy is make it look like he had a motive, not prove he actually did it. They just need enough to get Darlie a new trial, using him as the scapegoat but not enough that it could be used against him later on. That is really hard to do and I doubt if they will be successful. It would have been a better strategy for the first trial.
Doesn't anyone else find it very odd Darin didn't admit this during the initial investigation? Wonder if he's lying, but what would be the point there? Saying Darlie asked for a separation hardly supports any "intruder" theory. And I do not see Darin running the risk of finding himself on trial in order to free his wife. If he'd been that devoted to her, he'd have done this a long time ago.

This gets to the core of the question I was asking a while ago, which I'll reword slightly: Does supporting Darlie's innocence automatically mean supporting Darin's innocence?

RstJ

Mary456

06-23-2005, 01:17 AM

This gets to the core of the question I was asking a while ago, which I'll reword slightly: Does supporting Darlie's innocence automatically mean supporting Darin's innocence?

RstJ

Yes, it does, according to the supporters I've encountered over the last 6 years. Regardless of what their agenda is (anti-death penalty, anti-Texas, family, friends, etc.), they will viciously attack anyone who suggests Darin was involved in any way, shape or form.

They took a stand in the beginning that Darlie and Darin were completely innocent of this crime, and it's sticking to them like glue. A few years ago a staunch supporter had the audacity to suggest that Darin might be involved, and they practically lynched him on the spot. They love Darlie, they love Darin, and their only goal is to find the "real killer" :crazy:

Cowgirl

06-23-2005, 10:33 AM

Yes, it does, according to the supporters I've encountered over the last 6 years. Regardless of what their agenda is (anti-death penalty, anti-Texas, family, friends, etc.), they will viciously attack anyone who suggests Darin was involved in any way, shape or form.

They took a stand in the beginning that Darlie and Darin were completely innocent of this crime, and it's sticking to them like glue. A few years ago a staunch supporter had the audacity to suggest that Darin might be involved, and they practically lynched him on the spot. They love Darlie, they love Darin, and their only goal is to find the "real killer" :crazy:And that is their biggest problem. The real killer is on death row, Darin goes to visit her and her boob job, and that is the way it will stay, apparently. He raises their remaining child.

Her mother said that it was love at first sight for Darin at The Sizzler where they met. So that tells you right there what he fell for -- certainly not for the person inside.

One of the times she was coming up for appeal I asked a question about the cut screen on her website and instead of a straight answer, I got a response about "it will all be explained at the appeal hearing" and so I responded that without a more direct answer than that, they would never, ever convince anyone that she is not the guilty party.

The part I will never understand is why. Post partum mania? They had very little insurance on the kids and if you look at her gaudy taste in that house, she was all about material things. She must just have wanted out, I guess. She must just be evil. And whether he knows she is evil or not, he knows no one broke in that house. He has to. They are a very strange pair.

accordn2me

06-23-2005, 11:52 AM

Doesn't anyone else find it very odd Darin didn't admit this during the initial investigation? Wonder if he's lying, but what would be the point there? Saying Darlie asked for a separation hardly supports any "intruder" theory. And I do not see Darin running the risk of finding himself on trial in order to free his wife. If he'd been that devoted to her, he'd have done this a long time ago.

This gets to the core of the question I was asking a while ago, which I'll reword slightly: Does supporting Darlie's innocence automatically mean supporting Darin's innocence?

RstJ
I do find it very odd that Darin didn't bring this up immediately. And you are right, he had more motive for killing than she did. However, if Darlie were privy to this bright idea, it's more odd that she didn't bring it up. Although it wouldn't be the oddest thing she did.:doh:

While I don't consider myself "supporting Darlie's innocence" - my problem is that her attorney didn't address the evidence against her - if I found out that Darin did it, I wouldn't feel nearly so badly that Darlie is on death row. I don't believe she could have given the description that she did and not know it was Darin. Why in tarnation would she protect him? If she knows and is lying for him, she deserves the same punishment that he should have gotten.

Goody

07-05-2005, 03:10 PM

While I don't consider myself "supporting Darlie's innocence" - my problem is that her attorney didn't address the evidence against her - if I found out that Darin did it, I wouldn't feel nearly so badly that Darlie is on death row. I don't believe she could have given the description that she did and not know it was Darin. Why in tarnation would she protect him? If she knows and is lying for him, she deserves the same punishment that he should have gotten.
Because they were in on it together, and as another poster at another board said, he just didn't have the guts to do the dirty work. It was not very well planned, but then nothing they did seemed to involve much planning...or research. They tended to jump into things with both feet and ask questions later. At least that is my take on them. Who knows if the murders started with a moment of rage that ended with one child injured/dead or if the argument they had that night that supposedly included a separation request was the trigger. (I think he acknowledged that a sep request was asked for that night in the aff so the defense could use it to point fingers at Darin without Darin having to admit any participation in the actual murders.)

I am suspicious of the suicide attempt in May and how it might have been the foundation for the initial formation of a haphazard plan. I am also suspicious of the hiring of a maid just two days before the murders and then the murders happening before the house could get messed up again. I am suspicious about the timing of the jewelry being left on the counter, of Darlie asking a maid she'd just hired to look at her jewelry because she was thinking about selling it to raise $10,000. (Obvously the maid couldn't buy it.) Why mention a figure like that, esp when it matches to the penny the death benefit on the boys? Add that to the papers/policies being left out in the family room and it gets more suspicious.

Then look at their actions after the crime. All the ordinary oddities aside, what about them signing a contract to shop their story only two days after Darlie's arrest? What were they so happy about the morning of her arrest when they were dancing around the front yard and tossing the toys off the dying wreaths around like they were basketballs? Had they just found an agent for their story maybe and were in the process of receiving a contract from him?

And then there is the trial and all of Darin's odd behavior. He goes to the house on Bond Street to look at the screens, apparently to see if any of them are cut? That was in December just before the January trial began. While there, he tells the current resident that Darlie could make the alley run in 30 seconds (or some such figure), that the intruder was a 300 pound man, and a couple of other odd things that seemed to lean toward incriminating this wife he is supposedly so loyal to. Getting cold feet maybe?

During the trial he gets a big tatoo on his arm of Darlie and the boys and sports it in a tabloidish way outside the courthouse and jail as Darlie looks down thru a second story window. He also holds up a photo for her to see as if he is posing for the press. The family wears Free Darlie tshirts and sing gospel songs outside the court house, creating a carnival effect. One author has Darin's mother holding up a cross as if to curse those who think Darlie guilty as the evidence comes out. He tells his tatoo artist (per one author) that their case is going to be really big and they are going to make a lot of money before it is over. He tells others that Darlie is going to write a book and cut out the middlemen (book authors) so they will make more money for themselves.

There are just many, many little things like this that haunt this case. Each alone doesn't mean much but if you put them all together, most of the time they spell M-O-N-E-Y. Darin's words on that first radio show/tv interview come back to haunt. He said they had gotten in the habit of living large and didn't realize until after the murders what was important. I can't remember his exact words but I recall thinking he was almost saying that they didn't know how important the children were until after they gone and underestimated what it would be like without them. Then there is that detached distant look in their eyes that day after the silly string party when they were interviewed for TV. Are their thoughts drifting to regret or are they just trying to avoid the camera picking up on the emotional confrontation within their own souls for what they have done?

cami

07-05-2005, 04:01 PM

I do find it very odd that Darin didn't bring this up immediately. And you are right, he had more motive for killing than she did. However, if Darlie were privy to this bright idea, it's more odd that she didn't bring it up. Although it wouldn't be the oddest thing she did.:doh:

While I don't consider myself "supporting Darlie's innocence" - my problem is that her attorney didn't address the evidence against her - if I found out that Darin did it, I wouldn't feel nearly so badly that Darlie is on death row. I don't believe she could have given the description that she did and not know it was Darin. Why in tarnation would she protect him? If she knows and is lying for him, she deserves the same punishment that he should have gotten.

Yes I believe Darin is lying about this alleged insurance scam. He's buying into the State's motive with this story. He must really be that stupid that he can't see he was set up. Probably by DK.

Mary456

07-06-2005, 01:28 AM

Yes I believe Darin is lying about this alleged insurance scam. He must really be that stupid that he can't see he was set up. Probably by DK.

I think you're right, Cami. I can see DK saying, "Look Darin, if you sign an affidavit that you'd arranged to have the house burglarized, it might get Darlie a new trial, and you'll probably only get a slap on the wrist. Do it!"

They're more than a little dense. Don't they know you have to name names? Good grief, you can't just throw out a crazy story like that without anyone to back it up.

Goody

07-06-2005, 05:10 PM

Yes I believe Darin is lying about this alleged insurance scam. He's buying into the State's motive with this story. He must really be that stupid that he can't see he was set up. Probably by DK.
I don't think it is a set up, Cami. They needed something to support the intruder theory to avoid pointing fingers at either of them. At the same time, i am sure the defense wanted a little amunition to fire at Darin, not to convict him but to use to get her off. His admission that he hired guys to burglarize his house doesn't hold a lot of water for several reasons, but it can create a weak case of reasonable doubt, give those appellate attys something to argue.

Darin's second statement on the affidavit is more interesting. It actually gives Darin motive. But in the end, both admissions are too little too late unless they can be supported by other testimony and evidence, which I do not believe they can.

Did Darlie Kee trick him into it? I don't think so. I think he had to offer up something in order to help Darlie. The parents who don't know the truth would not understand why he wouldn't be willing to help her and at the same time Darlie was probably looking at him thru squinted eyes. The big threat for him is always going to be when Darlie loses hope will she confess and expose his role in it.

I am sure there were plenty of assurances that the affidavit could not result in charges being filed against him. At the end of the day, I am sure Darin knew all he would have to do is say he lied to help his wife or throw out some other lame, mealy mouthed explanation like those he peppered all thru his trial testimony.

Goody

07-06-2005, 05:18 PM

They're more than a little dense. Don't they know you have to name names? Good grief, you can't just throw out a crazy story like that without anyone to back it up.
Only if they are going to prove actual innocence. If the appellate attys can show that she was not given a zealous representation at trial because Darin was not pursued as another who had motive and opportunity equal to Darlie's, maybe they can get her a new trial. We haven't heard from the federal courts yet. In fact, they haven't even filed her federal appeal yet, have they?

beesy

07-06-2005, 05:28 PM

Only if they are going to prove actual innocence. If the appellate attys can show that she was not given a zealous representation at trial because Darin was not pursued as another who had motive and opportunity equal to Darlie's, maybe they can get her a new trial. We haven't heard from the federal courts yet. In fact, they haven't even filed her federal appeal yet, have they? Hey Goody, I've figured it out! You've got a crush on Darin! :blowkiss: Hee, I know you're just playing Devil's Advocate, but I and lots of others, don't think there's much more than what we see and that he is a ..... fill in the blank for me. Just teasing ya Goody

beesy

07-06-2005, 05:32 PM

[QUOTE=Cowgirl]And that is their biggest problem. The real killer is on death row, Darin goes to visit her and her boob job, and that is the way it will stay, apparently. He raises their remaining child.

His parents have permanent custody of Drake, well I know they did at 1 time, anybody know? Do you think they'll let Darin keep her boob job? He can frame them!

Goody

07-06-2005, 05:42 PM

Hey Goody, I've figured it out! You've got a crush on Darin! :blowkiss:

O, yes, O, yes! He's got my heart going pitter patter ....or is that my bladder going splatter-splatter? O, darn....my new shoes. And they were suede, too! I really have to practice controlling my urges. Sorry, big boy, but that little tryst will have to wait. <swish, swish, swish....Goody's footprints as she heads for the john>

Goody

07-06-2005, 05:43 PM

[QUOTE]

His parents have permanent custody of Drake, well I know they did at 1 time, anybody know? Do you think they'll let Darin keep her boob job? He can frame them!
The last I heard the grandparents still have legal custody but Drake lives with his father most of the time.

Mary456

07-08-2005, 01:06 AM

Hey Goody, I've figured it out! You've got a crush on Darin! :blowkiss: ;)

Naw, Goody just feels sorry for Snaggletooth. She wants to hook him up with a good orthodontist ;)

Mary456

07-08-2005, 01:32 AM

We haven't heard from the federal courts yet. In fact, they haven't even filed her federal appeal yet, have they?

They're probably in the process of filing it. Darlie lost her last state appeal (Habeas Corpus) on 12/1/04, so it now goes to the Federal habeas corpus appeal. If it's denied by the District Court, it moves to the U.S. Circuit Court. If that appeal is denied, it goes to the Supreme Court. And if that's denied, an execution date is set.

I read somewhere that, barring a miracle or a judge with a weakness for 36 triple Ds, she'll probably be executed in 2007 or 2008.

accordn2me

07-08-2005, 12:15 PM

Who knows if the murders started with a moment of rage that ended with one child injured/dead or if the argument they had that night that supposedly included a separation request was the trigger. (I think he acknowledged that a sep request was asked for that night in the aff so the defense could use it to point fingers at Darin without Darin having to admit any participation in the actual murders.)

Now I see why they hired Mulder. They thought the public defenders were going to pursue a defense of her-husband-did-it. I didn't realize those attorneys didn't believe there was an intruder.

As far as how the murders started, those tiny cuts on Damon's back haunt me. The ones that look like that one on Darlie's forearm...

Also, the cut on Devon's behind....

I don't know what to think. :sick:

I am suspicious about the timing of the jewelry being left on the counter, of Darlie asking a maid she'd just hired to look at her jewelry because she was thinking about selling it to raise $10,000. (Obvously the maid couldn't buy it.) Why mention a figure like that, esp when it matches to the penny the death benefit on the boys? Add that to the papers/policies being left out in the family room and it gets more suspicious.

I can't believe that jewelry was ever worth $10,000. Didn't most of it come from pawn shops?

Then look at their actions after the crime. All the ordinary oddities aside, what about them signing a contract to shop their story only two days after Darlie's arrest? What were they so happy about the morning of her arrest when they were dancing around the front yard and tossing the toys off the dying wreaths around like they were basketballs? Had they just found an agent for their story maybe and were in the process of receiving a contract from him?

This along with Darin's comment to the cop or whoever about this being the biggest scene Rowlett's ever had makes it seem like Darin was seeing $$ by the time Darlie started wetting towels.

Whatever happened to that contract?

And then there is the trial and all of Darin's odd behavior. He goes to the house on Bond Street to look at the screens, apparently to see if any of them are cut? That was in December just before the January trial began. While there, he tells the current resident that Darlie could make the alley run in 30 seconds (or some such figure), that the intruder was a 300 pound man, and a couple of other odd things that seemed to lean toward incriminating this wife he is supposedly so loyal to. Getting cold feet maybe?
The trip to the house on Bond Street makes me wonder about that screen and if it had anything at all to do with this crime. When I first heard about it I wondered if the boys hadn't cut it for some reason. I think someone in another thread here mentioned that maybe one reason Dana didn't testify was that she knew the screen had been cut earlier. If that is true, I believe her testimony would have helped Darlie immensely because of the bread knife testimony.

What do y'all think about Cron's initial position (or was it Linch's idea) was that the screen had been cut from the inside? I know in Linch's testimony he said something to the effect of, "there was one indication that the cutting was done from the outside." Wasn't it Brantly who argued the cut was done from outside and then the investigator changed his position?

I think it's very possible the screen had nothing to do with this crime. If the Routiers knew it didn't but didn't say anything because they mistakenly believed it supported their intruder story, they should have learned that withholding truth can come back to stab you! This alone should have made one or both of them "remember" the insurance scam plan and immediately tell on themselves.

beesy

07-09-2005, 03:59 AM

[ QUOTE=accordn2me]

Now I see why they hired Mulder. They thought the public defenders were going to pursue a defense of her-husband-did-it. I didn't realize those attorneys didn't believe there was an intruder.
I didn't know that either. I thought they hired Mulder because of his rep and being able to afford an attorney showed(they thought) that they were well off. No money was one of the DA's possible motive.

As far as how the murders started, those tiny cuts on Damon's back haunt me. The ones that look like that one on Darlie's forearm...

Also, the cut on Devon's behind....

I don't know what to think. :sick:

They haunt me as well. I think Devon picked up his legs to kick at her which exposed his buttocks enough to get that cut. The cut on his arm happened then I believe. I, and some others feel Darlie was cut at some point during this struggle. I think she wasn't prepared for a battle because they were asleep. Which wounds on Damon haunt you, besides that a 5 yr old shouldn't have stab wounds in his back? The cuts I see that are smaller are either hestitation cuts or just poorly aimed. Tell me which cuts and I'll look at them again.

accordn2me

07-09-2005, 12:17 PM

beesy

07-09-2005, 03:55 PM

I've only seen the one picture on the darlie site. It's those small, circled in red cuts. Why do you suppose they circled those? Maybe it's standard procedure for all I know. 2me it seems like a strange thing to do - like someone wanted to call attention to those particular cuts. Why?:confused: Ok, from what I can tell, they circled those wounds to show they were a different type of wound. There is nothing said about a different knife used on Damon. On page 470 of your yet-to-be shipped book, the wounds are numbered in white, in the order they occured. The little circled ones are the first 3 stabs. If that is correct, then those little wounds are either hesitation wounds or just not struck hard enough. Did she have to up her nerve to stab Damon? If Devon had struggled with her, she might have been afraid to start with Damon. Those cuts would have awoken him, if they were the first 3, as Chris says. Perhaps this is where he said "Mommy". She always included Damon saying that in every story. Maybe because he really did say it.

Mary456

07-10-2005, 01:18 AM

Mary456

07-10-2005, 01:29 AM

accordn2me

07-10-2005, 02:17 AM

beesy

07-10-2005, 02:34 AM

"Now I see why they hired Mulder. They thought the public defenders were going to pursue a defense of her-husband-did- it I didn't think that was true either Mary, but I was waiting for backup

Her public defenders were going to do no such thing. How could they? Darlie insisted from day one that her husband was not the intruder and she has stuck with that conviction to this day, eight years later. More importantly, there wasn't a shred of physical evidence to tie Darin to this crime.

Her family hired Mulder for a very simple reason. They knew Darlie was guilty, and they needed a top gun to defend her. Mulder is/was the top gun in Dallas.
I'd like to add that hiring Mulder showed they didn't have money problems.

"I think someone in another thread here mentioned that maybe one reason Dana didn't testify was that she knew the screen had been cut earlier."

Gosh, that's a tough one to figure out: "I THINK...SOMEONE...in ANOTHER THREAD here mentioned that MAYBE one reason....
:laugh: Mary..Mary That's a lot of wiggle room, lol! Could you divulge your source...or the thread? Just curious, if ya know what I mean ;) [/QUOTE]

accordn2me

07-10-2005, 02:37 AM

"Now I see why they hired Mulder. They thought the public defenders were going to pursue a defense of her-husband-did-it."

Her public defenders were going to do no such thing. How could they? Darlie insisted from day one that her husband was not the intruder and she has stuck with that conviction to this day, eight years later. More importantly, there wasn't a shred of physical evidence to tie Darin to this crime.

Her family hired Mulder for a very simple reason. They knew Darlie was guilty, and they needed a top gun to defend her. Mulder is/was the top gun in Dallas.

No? Gee, it must be more propaganda from the fordarlie site. No wonder I'm so confused. They keep misleading me and I just keep on fallin' for it.:doh:

At least I'll never fall for the "Mulder is/was the top gun in Dallas" fallacy.:hand:

AFFIDAVIT OF DOUGLAS H. PARKS

3. On June 28, 1996, I was appointed counsel for the defendant Darlie Lynn Routier in the case of Texas v. Routier, No. F-96-39973-J and A96-253 (Kerr County), in which Ms. Routier was alleged to have caused the death of her son, Damon Routier. I continued to serve in that capacity until the substitution of counsel on October 21, 1996. 4. It is my professional opinion - and was at the time that I represented Ms. Routier - that a zealous defense of Ms. Routier necessarily involves implicating her husband, Darin Eugene Routier, in the death of Damon. At the time I represented Ms. Routier, I fully intended to introduce evidence that would implicate Darin Routier at trial, such as, for example, a pair of Mr. Routier's undergarments stained with blood on the elastic waistband.

7. I communicated my concern orally to Mr. Mulder several weeks before his employment on October 21, 1996. I explained to Mr. Mulder that Darin Routier was a viable suspect in the murder of Damon and that Darlie Routier had not waived any conflict of interest between herself and her husband. Mr. Mulder indicated that he did not believe that Darin was involved in Damon's death, despite the fact that Mr. Mulder had not, at that time, had an opportunity to review the results of defense counsel's investigation.

http://justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/affidavits/affidavit-11.php

Gosh, that's a tough one to figure out: "I THINK...SOMEONE...in ANOTHER THREAD here mentioned that MAYBE one reason....

That's a lot of wiggle room, lol! Could you divulge your source...or the thread? Just curious, if ya know what I mean ;)
Lemme think....:rolleyes:, OK, I'll accuse Dani_T of making the comment, here on Websleuths, in one of those threads started by Robert St. James. But it just as well could have been Goody in one of the threads started by beesy.... Why you wanna know?

accordn2me

07-10-2005, 02:50 AM

...On page 470 of your yet-to-be shipped book, the wounds are numbered in white, in the order they occured. The little circled ones are the first 3 stabs...
:eek: REALLY!? How do they know the order of the stabs? Man, what was I doing while they were developing that technology....:waitasec: I totally didn't know they could tell the order of the wounds. I would almost believe Mulder is/was the top gun defense lawyer in Dallas before I would think that a doctor, or a psychic even, could look at a dead person and tell the order of the wounds. That's AMAZING!

Mary456

07-10-2005, 02:58 AM

Autopsy says "evidence of treatment" but describes red circles on chest, not back... http://justicefordarlie.net/acrobat_files/DamonRoutier_autopsy.pdf

When I look at the picture of Damon, gallery 05, I see 4 red circles, among other things, on his back. What do you see?

My point is that it doesn't matter what procedures were done during the autopsy. Lots of things are done during an autopsy that we lay people aren't privy to.

What matters is the evidence presented at trial, and that consisted of numbers placed beside each of Damon's wounds on a photograph. That was done to help the jury identify each injury; no big deal, it's done every day in every courtroom in this country.

Btw, what's your point?

accordn2me

07-10-2005, 03:00 AM

Do they know they order of Darlie's wounds too? Boy, that would answer a question or two....

Mary456

07-10-2005, 03:11 AM

it I'd like to add that hiring Mulder showed they didn't have money problems. [/color][/QUOTE]

Oooh, how right you are, Miss Beesy. I never thought of that. Yep, Darlie and Darin were all about "living large". Darin was caught in so many lies because he just couldn't get over his over-inflated ego, and the money he deserved.

Did you notice in his testimony how many times he said, "the money I deserved"? Like it was a divine right. What a loser.

Mary456

07-10-2005, 03:33 AM

Mary456

07-10-2005, 03:55 AM

[color=RoyalBlue]Lemme think....:rolleyes:, OK, I'll accuse Dani_T of making the comment, here on Websleuths, in one of those threads started by Robert St. James. But it just as well could have been Goody in one of the threads started by beesy.... Why you wanna know?

Well, I'll tell ya why I wanna know :) You said, "I think someone in another thread here mentioned that maybe one reason Dana didn't testify was that she knew the screen had been cut earlier."

You suggested that Dani or Goody made those comments. Well, let me tell you, ACME, those two women know this case like the back of their hands. They would never make such a comment about Dana.

It sounds like something made up out of thin air! To be fair, why don't you ask Dani or Goody if they made that comment?

Mary456

07-10-2005, 04:08 AM

Do they know they order of Darlie's wounds too? Boy, that would answer a question or two....

How could they determine the order of Darlie's wounds when they couldn't determine the order of the boys' wounds? Or the order of any other knifing victim's wounds, for that matter.

Is she a special babe, deserving of more medical expertise than her little boys?

accordn2me

07-10-2005, 04:14 AM

Well, I'll tell ya why I wanna know :) You said, "I think someone in another thread here mentioned that maybe one reason Dana didn't testify was that she knew the screen had been cut earlier."
And my point was: it's very possible that the screen was cut earlier and had nothing at all to do with the murders.

You suggested that Dani or Goody made those comments. Well, let me tell you, ACME, those two women know this case like the back of their hands. They would never make such a comment about Dana.
Why not? What's so bad about saying that? Someone wrote it. I don't remember who. It doesn't matter. If you want to know so badly, no matter how irrelevant it is, look it up.

It sounds like something made up out of thin air! To be fair, why don't you ask Dani or Goody if they made that comment?
Yeah...you saw how I made that up about Darlie's appointed attorney's defense strategy was to implicate Darin. It just gives me a charge to do stuff like that. :bang:

accordn2me

07-10-2005, 04:17 AM

Oooh, how right you are, Miss Beesy. I never thought of that. Yep, Darlie and Darin were all about "living large". Darin was caught in so many lies because he just couldn't get over his over-inflated ego, and the money he deserved.

Did you notice in his testimony how many times he said, "the money I deserved"? Like it was a divine right. What a loser. OH, so they didn't have money problems. Gosh, I wonder why they killed the boys. :waitasec:

Dani_T

07-10-2005, 04:28 AM

Lemme think....:rolleyes:, OK, I'll accuse Dani_T of making the comment, here on Websleuths, in one of those threads started by Robert St. James. But it just as well could have been Goody in one of the threads started by beesy.... Why you wanna know?

Not me.

I do think Dana not testifying was mighty odd though and can only suspect the reason the defense did not put her on the stand was because she would incriminate Darlie. Don't know why the State didn't call her.

Mary456

07-10-2005, 04:44 AM

Why not? What's so bad about saying that? Someone wrote it. I don't remember who. It doesn't matter. If you want to know so badly, no matter how irrelevant it is, look it up.

I didn't accuse Dani or Goody of making that comment. You did. So please don't tell me to look it up. That is your responsibility if you want to be taken seriously.

Otherwise, people might think you're making things up. You're not making things up, are you?

accordn2me

07-10-2005, 04:51 AM

I didn't accuse Dani or Goody of making that comment. You did. So please don't tell me to look it up. That is your responsibility if you want to be taken seriously.

Otherwise, people might think you're making things up. You're not making things up, are you?
It depends if they had a chance to scream or not. They were both supposedly asleep when they were attacked and so it may have been a fairly silent attack.

Highly doubtful that the screen cut had nothing to do with it. In fact impossible to believe considering it was the entry and exit point. No way did an intruder just happen to stumble across a cut screen.

But, yes she could have cut the screen earlier. I think her sister Dana said she had left the window open that day so presumably she would have noticed a cut screen on the window at that point but it could be that
a) Darlie cut it later that night and before the attacks
b) Dana DID notice the cut screen and maybe that is why she has never testified? Pure speculation and unlikely... but...
http://websleuths.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=620803

Are you happy now?

Mary456

07-10-2005, 04:53 AM

OH, so they didn't have money problems. Gosh, I wonder why they killed the boys. :waitasec:

They had big money problems, but you already know that. Slip, slide, two-step, ignore, blame, convolute...

Come on, baby, let's do the twist...and DON'T step on my blue suede shoes.

accordn2me

07-10-2005, 04:55 AM

accordn2me

07-10-2005, 04:59 AM

They had big money problems, but you already know that. Slip, slide, two-step, ignore, blame, convolute...

Come on, baby, let's do the twist...and DON'T step on my blue suede shoes.
YA MOMMA DON'T DANCE AND YA DADDY DON'T ROCK-N-ROLL! :dance::dance::dance:

Dani_T

07-10-2005, 08:28 AM

Lol. Ok. Looks like it was me ;)

Notice all my qualifications on it though :)

accordn2me

07-10-2005, 10:16 AM

qualifications: You had at least as many as I did when I mentioned that "someone" mentioned it.

:truce:

OK, DT, you really know a lot about that screen. Since this important question was overlooked, I'll direct it directly to you rather than everyone:

What do y'all think about Cron's initial position (or was it Linch's idea) that the screen had been cut from the inside? I know in Linch's testimony he said something to the effect of, "there was one indication that the cutting was done from the outside." Wasn't it Brantly who argued the cut was done from outside and then the investigator changed his position?

Dani_T

07-10-2005, 10:50 AM

What do y'all think about Cron's initial position (or was it Linch's idea) that the screen had been cut from the inside? I know in Linch's testimony he said something to the effect of, "there was one indication that the cutting was done from the outside." Wasn't it Brantly who argued the cut was done from outside and then the investigator changed his position?

If you have a point of reference for Cron's testimony about the screen could you give me the URL as a quick skim didn't turn it up.

Linch's opinion from the start was that it was cut from the outside-

Linch - http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-37.php#1

23 A. The initial request was to try to
24 determine which way it's cut and how it's cut. Examining
25 it microscopically, it was my opinion that the cut
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2897
1 started, if cut from the outside, started on the right
2 side and went toward the left. The reason for that
3 conclusion was the -- like the photograph in the center
4 top of the poster, it shows that the rubber material is
5 denuded in the direction of knife flow.

10 Q. Okay. Did you ever form an opinion as
11 to whether or not you thought this cut had been made from
12 the outside looking in or from the inside of the garage
13 looking out?
14 A. There is one microscopic finding that
15 is more suggestive of it being punched from the outside.
16 The scanning electron micrograph in the top right of this
17 exhibit is a view of the back side, that would be the
18 view from inside the garage of the screen cross strands.
19 Now, the first cut occurs on that strand coming down,
20 right where you are indicating.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. Now, the strand to the right of that,
23 indicates a stress puncture. If the knife goes in and
24 that is the first strand that is cut, the strand next to
25 it is experiencing the force, in my opinion, going inward
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2904

Brantley concurrs about it being cut from the outside- but I would speculate that he was primarily reliant upon the scientific testing and results from Linch since he did not examine the screen himself

2 Why would an offender break into a
3 home, or gain access to this home, and then take that
4 knife and then go back outside and cut the screen, to
5 come back in?

15 Q. Did you examine that screen?
16 A. Did I examine the screen itself?
17 Q. Um-hum. (Attorney nodding head
18 affirmatively.)
19 A. No, sir.
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-40.php#1

So, no, Linch didn't change his mind as a result of Brantley. Linch's testimony always was that he thought it was cut from the outside and Brantley in his testimony took that on board.

beesy

07-10-2005, 07:18 PM

:eek: REALLY!? How do they know the order of the stabs? Man, what was I doing while they were developing that technology....:waitasec: I totally didn't know they could tell the order of the wounds. I would almost believe Mulder is/was the top gun defense lawyer in Dallas before I would think that a doctor, or a psychic even, could look at a dead person and tell the order of the wounds. That's AMAZING! First of all you asked for help, then you go attacking my intelligence with your bloody sarcasm?
Secondly as much as I appreciate Mary taking up for me, what I wrote came out of Chris' book, not the trial testimony and not the coroner. Page 470 from Media Tried Justice Denied
"The white numbers show the possible sequence Damon was stabbed"
I was using Chris' book as a reference because the pix you saw on the Darlie site are from his book, and you have been asking questions pertaining to MTJD while waiting for it's arrival! I was doing what I thought you wanted me to do, interpreting the small wounds. Why should I look thru transpricts to answer your question? Chris' book is full of bull***** but that's what it said, so that's what I wrote. And it is possible for forensics to make an educated guess about the order of stab or bullet wounds. I'm not saying Chris did that, but it is possible to estimate, through blood spatter patterns, cast off blood, footprints, Luminol, etc!! Not in this case, but in many others they can if they have the body at the crime scene

beesy

07-10-2005, 07:26 PM

Ok, from what I can tell, they circled those wounds to show they were a different type of wound. There is nothing said about a different knife used on Damon. On page 470 of your yet-to-be shipped book, the wounds are numbered in white, in the order they occured. The little circled ones are the first 3 stabs. If that is correct, then those little wounds are either hesitation wounds or just not struck hard enough. Did she have to up her nerve to stab Damon? If Devon had struggled with her, she might have been afraid to start with Damon. Those cuts would have awoken him, if they were the first 3, as Chris says. Perhaps this is where he said "Mommy". She always included Damon saying that in every story. Maybe because he really did say it. My original post in case you forget to read it again. Also please note that I said "IF this is correct"

beesy

07-10-2005, 07:40 PM

Hey, beesy, I understand ya, darlin! You get back to basics. That's where it all begins and ends, right?
What the hell does that mean? I should get back to basics like A,B,Cs and 1,2,3s????? They can estimate order of wounds by blood spatter, and other forensics. I'm not saying on Darlie's case, but in general they can. Ever watch CourtTV or A&E!!! Back to basics? How demeaning!!!

beesy

07-10-2005, 07:48 PM

OH, so they didn't have money problems. Gosh, I wonder why they killed the boys. :waitasec: Yes, they did have money problems! I said hiring a top attorney made it look like they had money even though the didn't. Darin begged and borrowed and sold for that money. No way would they have let Darlie be represented by a public defender because that right there says you don't have enough money to hire one. And it was important to the Routiers for everybody to think they were loaded!
It's very doubtful that money was the reason Darlie killed her boys. There was something else at the heart of the whole thing.

beesy

07-10-2005, 09:47 PM

Lol. Ok. Looks like it was me ;)

Notice all my qualifications on it though :) You, Goody and I have discussed why Dana was not called and why she stormed off the Leeza show in a huff, even brought up the rumor of Darin having an affair with Dana

Mary456

07-10-2005, 10:38 PM

What the hell does that mean? I should get back to basics like A,B,Cs and 1,2,3s????? They can estimate order of wounds by blood spatter, and other forensics. I'm not saying on Darlie's case, but in general they can. Ever watch CourtTV or A&E!!! Back to basics? How demeaning!!!

I meant that as a compliment, meaning you know the bottom line, the basics. I was trying to stand up for you, because Accordn2me was making a joke of your comment about the chronological order of the wounds. Sorry about that...as they say, no good deed goes unpunished.

The ME couldn't determine which wound was made first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or whatever...and blood spatter, CourtTV and A&E didn't factor into the conclusion. I was just relaying Dr. Janice Towensend-Parchman's testimony, since she conducted Damon's autopsy. If you disagree with her findings, that's ok by me.

accordn2me

07-10-2005, 10:42 PM

My original post in case you forget to read it again. Also please note that I said "IF this is correct"
Beesy,

I did have a little fun at your expense - but only after you sided with Mary about the statement I made about the reason Mulder was hired. You brought it on yourself, indirectly. However, I will contritely ask for your forgiveness.
:truce:

And thank you for your help. I didn't expect you to read the transcript to answer the question. I'm pretty sure the answer won't be found in the transcript. I do hope you, and at least one other particular person, comes to the realization that just because something is or is not in the transcript, does not mean that it did or did not happen.

beesy

07-11-2005, 01:55 AM

The ME couldn't determine which wound was made first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or whatever...and blood spatter, CourtTV and A&E didn't factor into the conclusion. I was just relaying Dr. Janice Towensend-Parchman's testimony, since she conducted Damon's autopsy. If you disagree with her findings, that's ok by me.I said this in my original post, but I repeat, NOT in Darlie's case, but in many they can estimate the order of the wounds. NOT in Darlie's case. In general, NOT in Darlie's case. Court TV and A&E programs do figure in on this in some cases NOT in Darlie's
Let's do a murder scene. You find a body in a bedroom, but there's blood in the kitchen and down the hall. The attack didn't begin there. Perhaps the victim was caught in the middle of something in the kitchen, a pot was left on the open burner. Forensics already knows where the wounds on the body are since by then she'd been removed from the house and autopsied They say well since she was interrupted in the kitchen she must have been standing at the stove, (the burner was left on) and spilled some blood, first attack. Then from the angle of blood spatter, maybe footprints or bullet holes, casings, they can say "this one to the shoulder was the 1st stab or shot". The victim was not incapacitated here and this wound would not have been the one to do it. The amount of blood spilt in certain areas is key too. So follow the bloody trail down the hall. Is there a puddle of blood which shows the victim fell down at this point? Struggling, maybe stabbed again. Then crawls to the bedroom where the last and fatal stab occured. You know forensics can ID the fatal wound. Of course when you have over kill as in The Tate or Mac murders, they could tell where the attacks occured, and where they ended, but not much else. An attack which stayed pretty much in the same area and was started and completed without much movement from the victim, it's hard to discern in those circumstances also. And my little story could easily have been on an A&E program, in some cases it works. Again, listen carefully: IT DOES WORK NOT WITH ALL CASES, INCLUDING DARIE'S AND I NEVER SAID IT DID

Dani_T

07-11-2005, 02:00 AM

You, Goody and I have discussed why Dana was not called and why she stormed off the Leeza show in a huff, even brought up the rumor of Darin having an affair with Dana

Hey Beesy,

Yes I know we have discussed it (although I don't think she 'stormed' off Leeza in a 'huff'. If anything she looked pretty upset and overwhelmed).

However, whenever I have discussed Dana I've always done so as speculation (and have tried to be pretty sensitive to the fact that there are a lot of rumours about her that are pure speculation). Ultimately I think it is just downright suspicious that she wasn't called to testify by the defense as she was the last adult to see both Darin and Darlie that night, could testify to Darlie's (and Darin's) state of mind, could confirm what a wonderful loving mother Darlie said she was and could also confirm that Darlie and Darin were just fine with each other that night when she left home. But they didn't call her. There has to be a reason why. Without knowing the specifics I can only speculate that it was because she either knew something they didn't want said at trial or they knew she would make a bad witness.

But then again the state didn't call her either (as a hostile witness)- why not?

beesy

07-11-2005, 02:37 AM

[QUOTE=Dani_T]Hey Beesy,

Yes I know we have discussed it (although I don't think she 'stormed' off Leeza in a 'huff'. If anything she looked pretty upset and overwhelmed).

However, whenever I have discussed Dana I've always done so as speculation (and have tried to be pretty sensitive to the fact that there are a lot of rumours about her that are pure speculation). Ultimately I think it is just downright suspicious that she wasn't called to testify by the defense as she was the last adult to see both Darin and Darlie that night, could testify to Darlie's (and Darin's) state of mind, could confirm what a wonderful loving mother Darlie said she was and could also confirm that Darlie and Darin were just fine with each other that night when she left home. But they didn't call her. There has to be a reason why. Without knowing the specifics I can only speculate that it was because she either knew something they didn't want said at trial or they knew she would make a bad witness.

I know we used speculation about Dana, that's what we all do here and were careful talking about cetain things. I have never seen that part of the Leeza show. Goody seemed to think she stormed off.

beesy

07-11-2005, 02:57 AM

accordn2me]Beesy,

I did have a little fun at your expense - but only after you sided with Mary about the statement I made about the reason Mulder was hired. You brought it on yourself, indirectly. However, I will contritely ask for your forgiveness.

Not much of an apology there, kinda backhanded. I did not side with Mary, I simply agreed with her. How did that bring your sarcasm upon myself? It's not worth holding a grudge though so I forgive you

And thank you for your help. I didn't expect you to read the transcript to answer the question. I'm pretty sure the answer won't be found in the transcript. I do hope you, and at least one other particular person, comes to the realization that just because something is or is not in the transcript, does not mean that it did or did not happen. I've said this several times already. I did not use any transcripts or reports for my answer. I used Chris' book, mainly because you are so anxious to get it. Thought you might like a preview.
Your little game also made me upset with Mary. I misunderstood something she said about me in one of her posts to you and bitched at her. Now I'm sure she hates me, so thanks for the big fun. Don't know when I've had so much fun!

beesy

07-11-2005, 03:04 AM

[QUOTE=Mary456]I meant that as a compliment, meaning you know the bottom line, the basics. I was trying to stand up for you, because Accordn2me was making a joke of your comment about the chronological order of the wounds. Sorry about that...as they say, no good deed goes unpunished.

That was a compliment? It came across as I need to stay with the simple things and try not delve into such difficult topics such as reading from a moron's book. No matter the meaning, it hurt my feelings alot, especially after reading HER post.

Goody

07-12-2005, 03:46 PM

And my point was: it's very possible that the screen was cut earlier and had nothing at all to do with the murders.

There is absolutely no evidence, not even a self serving statement from the Routiers to support your theory here. The screen was cut that night and was definitely part of the crime. The only question is who cut it.

Jeana (DP)

07-12-2005, 03:49 PM

[QUOTE]

That was a compliment? It came across as I need to stay with the simple things and try not delve into such difficult topics such as reading from a moron's book. No matter the meaning, it hurt my feelings alot, especially after reading HER post.

Come on guys - give me a break. I don't want to have to start editing/deleting.

Goody

07-12-2005, 03:53 PM

Not me.

I do think Dana not testifying was mighty odd though and can only suspect the reason the defense did not put her on the stand was because she would incriminate Darlie. Don't know why the State didn't call her.

Not me either, Dani. I have never even considered that the cut screen was not a part of the crime.

I agree with you that Dani should have testified. I can see why the state didn't call her though. She would not tell them what she knew so they would want to cross-examine her, not question her on direct. They can get a lot more challenging on cross. On direct they basically have to use kid gloves and wouldn't be able to bring anything out that she didn't want to give.

I can also see why the defense didn't call her. They sure wouldn't have wanted the state to cross examine her. Talk about loose cannons! LOL!

Poor Dana. You just have to feel sorry for her. I think this crime has been absolutely devastating for her. I just wish she would tell us what she knows, but I guess she will never be able to bring herself to do that. What a horrible position to be in.

Goody

07-12-2005, 03:55 PM

[QUOTE]

That was a compliment? It came across as I need to stay with the simple things and try not delve into such difficult topics such as reading from a moron's book. No matter the meaning, it hurt my feelings alot, especially after reading HER post.
I think Mary was talking about crime detection when she said getting back to basics. It is a good thing to do when trying to solve a mystery.

Goody

07-12-2005, 03:57 PM

Come on guys - give me a break. I don't want to have to start editing/deleting.
Yes, this is the be-nice-at-all-times forum, not like GAC where anything goes. Easy to forget sometimes.

Jeana (DP)

07-12-2005, 04:01 PM

Yes, this is the be-nice-at-all-times forum, not like GAC where anything goes. Easy to forget sometimes.

Hey, I just work here. Speaking of anything goes, have you been to Starkman's forum lately? LOL :D :D

Goody

07-12-2005, 04:02 PM

qualifications: You had at least as many as I did when I mentioned that "someone" mentioned it.?
Well, you did add that maybe it was not part of the crime scene. I don't think anyone has said that before.

:truce:

OK, DT, you really know a lot about that screen. Since this important question was overlooked, I'll direct it directly to you rather than everyone:

What do y'all think about Cron's initial position (or was it Linch's idea) that the screen had been cut from the inside? I know in Linch's testimony he said something to the effect of, "there was one indication that the cutting was done from the outside." Wasn't it Brantly who argued the cut was done from outside and then the investigator changed his position?
I have never heard this either.

Goody

07-12-2005, 04:09 PM

And it is possible for forensics to make an educated guess about the order of stab or bullet wounds. I'm not saying Chris did that, but it is possible to estimate, through blood spatter patterns, cast off blood, footprints, Luminol, etc!! Not in this case, but in many others they can if they have the body at the crime scene
The only way to tell the sequence of wounds, and this is very limited, is based on how much blood flowed from the wound. No blood indicates the wound was created after the heart stopped beating. Less blood indicates it was not the first wound unless the blood letting was internal. There is no way that I have ever heard of that can tell the actual sequence of wounds.

There are some ballistics tests in gun shot wounds that maybe a little more helpful, but I don't follow many gunshot cases. It seems so impersonal. I like the cases that involve emotion between killer and victim with a little mystery thrown in. It ups mental challenges.

Goody

07-12-2005, 04:12 PM

But then again the state didn't call her either (as a hostile witness)- why not?
They would have to know for sure she knew something to do that. They can't call someone, even as a hostile witness, just because they suspect she knows something she isn't telling. I think they would need at least another witness' claims that she knew something.

Goody

07-12-2005, 04:14 PM

[QUOTE]
I know we used speculation about Dana, that's what we all do here and were careful talking about cetain things. I have never seen that part of the Leeza show. Goody seemed to think she stormed off.
As I recall, Dana ran off the stage in tears. Haven't seen it for a long time though. Mary probably remembers it better than I do.

accordn2me

07-12-2005, 04:44 PM

There is absolutely no evidence, not even a self serving statement from the Routiers to support your theory here. The screen was cut that night and was definitely part of the crime. The only question is who cut it.
How do you know that?

Jeana (DP)

07-12-2005, 05:16 PM

How do you know that?

I'm thinking that she came to that opinion after reading all the evidence and trial testimony.

It does make me wonder though. . . can anyone think of any other reason someone would cut their own screen and put the knife containing the fibers back in the butcher's block during the same time period that their two boys were murdered if it DIDN'T have anything to do with the crime???

beesy

07-12-2005, 06:32 PM

I'm thinking that she came to that opinion after reading all the evidence and trial testimony.

It does make me wonder though. . . can anyone think of any other reason someone would cut their own screen and put the knife containing the fibers back in the butcher's block during the same time period that their two boys were murdered if it DIDN'T have anything to do with the crime??? She forgot her sunscreen? Locked herself out of the house? Oh yeah, but she would have told us that, wouldn't she? Unless it was while he/she was dumping the sock.
Aren't the Darlies contesting the fact that the fiber was from the screen or that there was even a fiber at all? :rolleyes:

beesy

07-12-2005, 06:37 PM

Come on guys - give me a break. I don't want to have to start editing/deleting.Warning the following is incredibly immature:

accordn2me.....she started it she started it :razz: and she's got cooties too! LOL

Jeana (DP)

07-12-2005, 06:40 PM

She forgot her sunscreen?

I must be having a blonde moment. . . i don't get it. :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:

Jeana (DP)

07-12-2005, 06:40 PM

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Warning the following is incredibly immature:

accordn2me.....she started it she started it :razz: and she's got cooties too! LOL

LOL
I can deal with it.

beesy

07-12-2005, 06:44 PM

I must be having a blonde moment. . . i don't get it. :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec: I was just being silly...I've added more now..

beesy

07-12-2005, 06:46 PM

I think Mary was talking about crime detection when she said getting back to basics. It is a good thing to do when trying to solve a mystery. Well, I know that now. Maybe I should go back and learn ABC's though so I can interpret messages better?

Jeana (DP)

07-12-2005, 06:51 PM

She forgot her sunscreen? Locked herself out of the house? Oh yeah, but she would have told us that, wouldn't she? Unless it was while he/she was dumping the sock.
Aren't the Darlies contesting the fact that the fiber was from the screen or that there was even a fiber at all? :rolleyes:

The Darlies are contesting a lot of stuff . . . including stuff that came directly out of Darlie's own mouth. Don't make any dif if you ask me. ;) ;) ;)

Jeana (DP)

07-12-2005, 06:51 PM

Well, I know that now. Maybe I should go back and learn ABC's though so I can interpret messages better?

Just don't forgert your secret decoder ring next time!!!!! :slap:

beesy

07-12-2005, 06:55 PM

The only way to tell the sequence of wounds, and this is very limited, is based on how much blood flowed from the wound. No blood indicates the wound was created after the heart stopped beating. Less blood indicates it was not the first wound unless the blood letting was internal. There is no way that I have ever heard of that can tell the actual sequence of wounds.
Ok, I cry uncle

[QUOTE]There are some ballistics tests in gun shot wounds that maybe a little more helpful, but I don't follow many gunshot cases. It seems so impersonal. I like the cases that involve emotion between killer and victim with a little mystery thrown in. It ups mental challenges

Stabbings are definitely more personal. Surprisingly, many gun shot deaths can be personal too if the killer knows the victim. It's hard to hide rage

accordn2me

07-12-2005, 06:55 PM

I'm thinking that she came to that opinion after reading all the evidence and trial testimony.
I don't know. Most witnesses who testified about the screen did so from the assumption that it was a poor attempt to stage an inside crime. Even as I know how well Goody knows this case, I have to challenge her on her statement. Because of my position - just because it is or is not in the transcript, does not mean it did or did not happen - I can't ask her to "prove" it. I will state that being able to tell when the screen was cut is even more impossible (if that's possible :p ) than being able to tell the order of these victim's wounds.

The fact that Darin went back to their old house on Bond Street specifically to see if any screens were cut there makes me wonder if the boys didn't have a history of cutting screens. I wonder how high off the ground those windows on Bond Street were?

I know Darlie and Darin were not the smartest people in Texas, but cutting the screen to stage the crime doesn't make a lick of sense. I could see the kids thinking cutting a hole in the screen was a better idea than just removing the whole screen. Once cut, you would have a completely handsfree entry to the popcicles.

Just an idea.

Goody

07-12-2005, 06:57 PM

How do you know that?
Well, now this is silly. You can't use evidence that is not known to exist to support a theory that has no factual basis.

If you can produce some kind of proof that a statement exists, then produce it. But don't try to argue that anything goes just because there might be some remote possibility that it could exist. Shoot, aliens could exist but you wouldn't want to hear an argument suggesting that Darlie was an alien (and more prone to violent acts) just because you can't prove that she isn't, would you?

accordn2me

07-12-2005, 06:57 PM

I must be having a blonde moment. . . i don't get it. :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:
I resemble that remark! :crazy:

accordn2me

07-12-2005, 07:02 PM

:laugh:Well, now this is silly. You can't use evidence that is not known to exist to support a theory that has no factual basis.

If you can produce some kind of proof that a statement exists, then produce it. But don't try to argue that anything goes just because there might be some remote possibility that it could exist. Shoot, aliens could exist but you wouldn't want to hear an argument suggesting that Darlie was an alien (and more prone to violent acts) just because you can't prove that she isn't, would you?
Could you translate this please? I'm in full-blown blonde mode at the moment.:crazy:

accordn2me

07-12-2005, 07:05 PM

Warning the following is incredibly immature:

accordn2me.....she started it she started it :razz: and she's got cooties too! LOL
DID NOT!!! :innocent:

Dani_T started it!

Goody

07-12-2005, 07:07 PM

She forgot her sunscreen? Locked herself out of the house? Oh yeah, but she would have told us that, wouldn't she? Unless it was while he/she was dumping the sock.

Well, she must have been carrying that bread knife around with her because the screen fibers were in the butcher block with it.

Aren't the Darlies contesting the fact that the fiber was from the screen or that there was even a fiber at all? :rolleyes:
That is cute, the Darlies. Reminds me of the Darlins on the Andy Griffith Show. LOL!

But to answer your question, the Darlies want the fibers to be a bristle from the fingerprint brush. That didn't gain any traction since the two are not even the same size, so they then decided the mode of transportation the fibers took from the screen to the butcher block had to be the fingerprint brush. That way it could be screen fibers and still not prove she cut the screen. Of course, those screen fibers would have had to ride the bristles from the screen, which was the first thing they dusted, thru the garage, a couple of points in the utility room, and several points in the kitchen before the man even got to the butcher block. What are the chances that the fibers would not have fallen out sooner? What are the chances that the brush would not have carted more than one screen fiber around and dropped it along the way? Why were no other screen fibers found anywhere but in the butcher block? <sigh> You can't blame them for trying.

beesy

07-12-2005, 07:14 PM

:laugh:
Could you translate this please? I'm in full-blown blonde mode at the moment.:crazy: If it ain't there, then it can't be

Goody

07-12-2005, 07:19 PM

:laugh:
Could you translate this please? I'm in full-blown blonde mode at the moment.:crazy:
I think it was regarding your statement that Cron, I think, first said he believed the screen was cut from the inside. At least that is where we started. If you need more info than that, backtrack and see what you find.

Goody

07-12-2005, 07:29 PM

Hey, I just work here. Speaking of anything goes, have you been to Starkman's forum lately? LOL :D :D
No, but it sounds like I should check in. But I don't have the link anymore. I had to restore my hard drive a while back and haven't gotten those old links. Can you share?

Goody

07-12-2005, 07:32 PM

Well, I know that now. Maybe I should go back and learn ABC's though so I can interpret messages better?
No, you are doing fine. You will learn like we did, as you go. Probably the only way unless you become a cop or lawyer anyway, LOL Shoot, I learn something new everyday.

Goody

07-12-2005, 07:49 PM

I don't know. Most witnesses who testified about the screen did so from the assumption that it was a poor attempt to stage an inside crime. Even as I know how well Goody knows this case, I have to challenge her on her statement. Because of my position - just because it is or is not in the transcript, does not mean it did or did not happen - I can't ask her to "prove" it. I will state that being able to tell when the screen was cut is even more impossible (if that's possible :p ) than being able to tell the order of these victim's wounds. .
I disagree with that. There are tests that can be conducted to show how the screen material reacts to the penetration and cutting motion of a knife. There are no tests to show which bullet was fired first or in what succession, no tests to show the order in which a knife penetrates the body. No, it is not an exact science but it can be proved circumstantially, i.e. what is consistent with and what is not...the screen cuts, that is.

The fact that Darin went back to their old house on Bond Street specifically to see if any screens were cut there makes me wonder if the boys didn't have a history of cutting screens. I wonder how high off the ground those windows on Bond Street were?.
How old were the boys when they lived on Bond street? Devon was about 18 months old and Damon was just born, wasn't he? I am pretty sure they were just babies and not capable of cutting anything, let alone a screen on a window no matter how high or low it was.

I know Darlie and Darin were not the smartest people in Texas, but cutting the screen to stage the crime doesn't make a lick of sense..
Maybe not, but it happens quite often.

I could see the kids thinking cutting a hole in the screen was a better idea than just removing the whole screen. Once cut, you would have a completely handsfree entry to the popcicles.

Just an idea.
The screens popped right off. Even the boys knew that. I suspect that Darlie knew it, too, because the corner was bent a bit where the boys had been popping it off. The cut on the screen was definitely for show, not for access.

Another interesting thing about the screen cut is that the bottom of the upside down T shape that was made comes just to the point where the window was raised. Meaning that the open window was probably a guide used by the cutter. That means the window was up pretty high that night, raised from the inside. As I recall, there were no nicks or scratches on the plexiglas window either, another indication that the window was up. when the cut was made. That pretty much puts down any theory that the intruder found a partially opened window, cut the screen and reached in and pushed the window the rest of the way up. Whoever cut the screen raised the window up first, then went around to the other side and cut the screen. Either that or more than one person lied about the status of that window from day one. :liar:

Mary456

07-12-2005, 08:19 PM

What the hell does that mean? I should get back to basics like A,B,Cs and 1,2,3s????? They can estimate order of wounds by blood spatter, and other forensics. I'm not saying on Darlie's case, but in general they can. Ever watch CourtTV or A&E!!! Back to basics? How demeaning!!!

In rereading my post, I can understand why you interpreted it the way you did. When I said, "Beesy, you get back to basics", I wasn't telling you to get back to basics. I just meant that it seems like you approach the evidence with common-sense basics.

Which is refreshing in a case like this, where the Darlies come up with some of the most ridiculous explanations imaginable. I don't think you had the pleasure of discussing this case with Jeff, but he actually suggested that the fiberglass on the bread knife got there from Darin either cutting strapping tape or digging around in his circuit boards. I mean, it was absurd, and yet he'd argue with you until you were ready to slit your own throat, lol!

Anyway, there's certainly no hard feelings on my part, beesy. One of the hazards of a message board is that people can say something well-meaning, and it comes out the wrong way or gets interpreted the wrong way. Nature of the beast.

Mary456

07-12-2005, 08:30 PM

But then again the state didn't call her (Dana) either (as a hostile witness)- why not?

I think in most cases the State tries to avoid calling hostile witnesses, because if they're really hostile they can end up doing more damage than good.

Did you watch the O.J. Simpson trial? The State called Kato Kaelin & he was deliberately not telling what he knew. Marcia Clark finally had him declared a hostile witness, but not before she almost had a nervous breakdown.

The State had so much evidence against Darlie that they probably figured it wasn't worth the aggravation to call Dana if she was going to fudge the truth, which I'm sure she would have done.

accordn2me

07-12-2005, 08:44 PM

I think it was regarding your statement that Cron, I think, first said he believed the screen was cut from the inside. At least that is where we started. If you need more info than that, backtrack and see what you find.
OH, that, yes. Unfortunately, I don't have a speck of proof who said this - one of the initial investigators thought the screen was cut from the inside. It could be my memory playing tricks but I'm pretty sure there was heavy debate about it on another forum long ago. It may have been before you appeared on the scene.

I have no idea if it's true, just more speculation, propaganda, or outright lies. I wish one of the old timers could spread some light on this for us.

If I didn't know Mary would saw it off, I would go out on a limb and guess the story and players. I hate it when the limb falls in a pool of sharks so :snooty:

accordn2me

07-12-2005, 08:50 PM

If it ain't there, then it can't be
YES, IT, CAN!!! :slap:

beesy

07-13-2005, 12:09 AM

YES, IT, CAN!!! :slap:

No need to get your knickers all in a knot, it was said in jest, although most of the time it's true;) ....and you said you were gonna behave. sheese

Goody

07-13-2005, 12:30 AM

OH, that, yes. Unfortunately, I don't have a speck of proof who said this - one of the initial investigators thought the screen was cut from the inside. It could be my memory playing tricks but I'm pretty sure there was heavy debate about it on another forum long ago. It may have been before you appeared on the scene.

I have no idea if it's true, just more speculation, propaganda, or outright lies. I wish one of the old timers could spread some light on this for us.

If I didn't know Mary would saw it off, I would go out on a limb and guess the story and players. I hate it when the limb falls in a pool of sharks so :snooty:
Aww, Mary is a sweeheart.

I think I know what might have initiated your discussion at the other board though. When the screen was cut, the top of the T ran along the bottom and the middle line ran down the center of the screen and stopped at the lower cut. That caused one side of the cut screen to fold over. It flopped on the inside rather than the outside, and authorities thought it proved the direction of the entrance/exit. Since the flap was on the inside, they said it indicated only an entrance had been made, not an exit. That meant Darlie lied about the intruder leaving through the garage, back yard, back gate, etc. But one has to remember that those garage windows were low to the ground. They might even be considered oversized as it seems to me there was a lot of glass. Most importantly, one could step from the patio into the garage through the window very easily. No climbing would be necessary because the windows were just inches from the patio surface. So there never was a view that the screen was cut from the inside, only that the screen folded into the inside, thereby causing authorities to say the last movement through it was an entrance, not an exit. I hope this isn't too confusing.

accordn2me

07-13-2005, 12:47 AM

I disagree with that. There are tests that can be conducted to show how the screen material reacts to the penetration and cutting motion of a knife.
How would that tell you when the screen was cut?

How old were the boys when they lived on Bond street? Devon was about 18 months old and Damon was just born, wasn't he?
Is this a test? :confused: I have no clue. They may not have even been born then for all I know! :blushing:

Maybe not, but it happens quite often.
How often? Was it as often as the intruder who stuffed socks in the victim's mouths?

The screens popped right off. Even the boys knew that. I suspect that Darlie knew it, too, because the corner was bent a bit where the boys had been popping it off. The cut on the screen was definitely for show, not for access.
How do you know it was cut for show? Yes, the screen could be taken off. It wasn't so easy that it could be done without damaging the screen though. If you needed to gain access to the garage to get a popcicle, it would be a pain in the hiney to wrestle the screen off, get a popcicle, crawl out and get the screen back on without the popcicle melting in the Texas heat. That's waaaay more trouble than a nice slice in the screen. Plus, you wouldn't be disobeying anyone by taking the screen off if you had been in trouble previously for bending it.

Either that or more than one person lied about the status of that window from day one. :liar:
Well that certainly wouldn't be a first in this case!

accordn2me

07-13-2005, 12:59 AM

Aww, Mary is a sweeheart.
Mary wears many hats. :D

I think I know what might have initiated your discussion at the other board though. When the screen was cut, the top of the T ran along the bottom and the middle line ran down the center of the screen and stopped at the lower cut. That caused one side of the cut screen to fold over. It flopped on the inside rather than the outside, and authorities thought it proved the direction of the entrance/exit. Since the flap was on the inside, they said it indicated only an entrance had been made, not an exit. That meant Darlie lied about the intruder leaving through the garage, back yard, back gate, etc. But one has to remember that those garage windows were low to the ground. They might even be considered oversized as it seems to me there was a lot of glass. Most importantly, one could step from the patio into the garage through the window very easily. No climbing would be necessary because the windows were just inches from the patio surface. So there never was a view that the screen was cut from the inside, only that the screen folded into the inside, thereby causing authorities to say the last movement through it was an entrance, not an exit. I hope this isn't too confusing.
No, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for the clarification.

It's interesting 2me because when I started thinking maybe there was an intruder, my hunch was that he/they came through an unlocked door - either the front or sliding glass. I always though it odd that Darlie's blood was not on the front door even though we know she yelled for Karen. Certainly she opened the door first....

Yet, there is blood on the utility/garage door...do you think that was the door she yelled for Karen from?

beesy

07-13-2005, 01:44 AM

[QUOTE]
How do you know it was cut for show? Yes, the screen could be taken off. It wasn't so easy that it could be done without damaging the screen though. If you needed to gain access to the garage to get a popcicle, it would be a pain in the hiney to wrestle the screen off, get a popcicle, crawl out and get the screen back on without the popcicle melting in the Texas heat. That's waaaay more trouble than a nice slice in the screen. Plus, you wouldn't be disobeying anyone by taking the screen off if you had been in trouble previously for bending it.

I'm sorry, but that makes little to no sense. Cutting the screen to get popcicles might be easier, but don't you think they would have been in trouble for it? You said they wouldn't be disobeying by cutting the screen instead of popping it off. Ruining the screen wouldn't have pissed Ma and Pa off? Just a thought...

beesy

07-13-2005, 01:57 AM

It's interesting 2me because when I started thinking maybe there was an intruder, my hunch was that he/they came through an unlocked door - either the front or sliding glass. I always though it odd that Darlie's blood was not on the front door even though we know she yelled for Karen. Certainly she opened the door first....

Yet, there is blood on the utility/garage door...do you think that was the door she yelled for Karen from?
Darlie has never said anything about who opened the front door first. Her story is she followed the intruder thru the kitchen and he ran out thru the garage. Therefore she herself tells us why there is none of her blood on the front door. The "intruder" went out thru the garage, remember? That's why there's blood on that door. She told us that. Even if an intruder had exited by the front door, wouldn't he have left some sort of blood on the door? I don't quite understand what you're insinuating anyway. An intruder entered the front door, but Darlie forgot to tell everybody she found the door open as she chased the man thru the kitchen?
It is a good question though: who opened the front door first? Doesn't have anything to do with her guilt or innocence, it's just a curiosity.

beesy

07-13-2005, 02:02 AM

[/size][/size]

But to answer your question, the Darlies want the fibers to be a bristle from the fingerprint brush. That didn't gain any traction since the two are not even the same size, so they then decided the mode of transportation the fibers took from the screen to the butcher block had to be the fingerprint brush. That way it could be screen fibers and still not prove she cut the screen. Of course, those screen fibers would have had to ride the bristles from the screen, which was the first thing they dusted, thru the garage, a couple of points in the utility room, and several points in the kitchen before the man even got to the butcher block. What are the chances that the fibers would not have fallen out sooner? What are the chances that the brush would not have carted more than one screen fiber around and dropped it along the way? Why were no other screen fibers found anywhere but in the butcher block? <sigh> You can't blame them for trying.
Yep a great big E for Effort, but that's all they're getting

beesy

07-13-2005, 02:04 AM

[QUOTE=beesy]She forgot her sunscreen? Locked herself out of the house? Oh yeah, but she would have told us that, wouldn't she? Unless it was while he/she was dumping the sock.

In case you couldn't tell, this is sarcastic. I know she cut it to stage the scene

accordn2me

07-13-2005, 09:08 AM

:laugh:I'm sorry, but that makes little to no sense.
How old are you!? :p

Believe me, to a kid it would make sense. Besides, the screen was ruined anyway. Think about what screens do. If they have the least little bend around the frame, or tiniest of hole in the screen, their effectiveness drops drastically.

accordn2me

07-13-2005, 10:21 AM

Darlie has never said anything about who opened the front door first. Her story is she followed the intruder thru the kitchen and he ran out thru the garage. Therefore she herself tells us why there is none of her blood on the front door.
Darlie's account of the intruder leaving has nothing to do with the front door. If she unlocked and opened the front door to yell for Karen, her blood should have been there. I don't know if this was addressed by investigators.

The "intruder" went out thru the garage, remember? That's why there's blood on that door. She told us that.
Did she say the intruder left the blood on that door? You see, that drives me crazy. There is not enough testimony from anyone about the blood or prints on that door for me to understand whose it was or how it got there.

Darlie's story is that she followed the man into the kitchen, turned around to turn on the light, went back toward the garage, stopped and picked up the knife. Did she look out into the garage? That would certainly explain that blood on the door. WHY WASN'T THAT EXPLAINED? :banghead:

Even if an intruder had exited by the front door, wouldn't he have left some sort of blood on the door?
According to expert testimony about leaving blood in the garage, not necessarily. And let me clarify - my hunch was that the intruder(s) may have entered through an unlocked door.

I don't quite understand what you're insinuating anyway. An intruder entered the front door, but Darlie forgot to tell everybody she found the door open as she chased the man thru the kitchen?
I don't mean to insinuate anything. This is pure curiosity - probably questions that will remain unanswered forever. I'll say it again, the front door has nothing to do with Darlie's account of the intruder's exit.

The million dollar question is: was the front door open when she went to yell for Karen?

It is a good question though: who opened the front door first? Doesn't have anything to do with her guilt or innocence, it's just a curiosity.
Yes, it is. Had Darin already gone out the door to get Karen when we hear Darlie yell for her on the 911 tape?

Did Darin really lock the door before he went to bed? He surely had a lot on his mind at that time.

beesy

07-13-2005, 10:24 AM

:laugh:
How old are you!? :p

Believe me, to a kid it would make sense. Besides, the screen was ruined anyway. Think about what screens do. If they have the least little bend around the frame, or tiniest of hole in the screen, their effectiveness drops drastically. Well, apparently I'm old enough to see that makes no sense. Hopefully the Routier boys were brighter than you're giving them credit for. A cut screen would have been more easily spotted by ol' Ma and Pa Routier. A bent screen would still hide your dirty deed. And why are we talking about the boys breaking into their own house to get popcicles anyway? Maybe loving mother Darlie should have been more on the ball and given the kids popcicles. That's what I do. Mine don't have to pop out a screen, cut a screen, etc. Mom is here! By the way, how old are you?

beesy

07-13-2005, 10:57 AM

Darlie's account of the intruder leaving has nothing to do with the front door. If she unlocked and opened the front door to yell for Karen, her blood should have been there. I don't know if this was addressed by investigators.
I know her account said nothing about the front door. That's why I wrote that. Your question does not need to be addressed by investigators because Darlie never said anything about opening the front door or seeing it open. Personally I think Darin opened it and he says never went to Darlie until after LE and paramedics got there. So he would not had have her blood on him at that point

Did she say the intruder left the blood on that door? You see, that drives me crazy. There is not enough testimony from anyone about the blood or prints on that door for me to understand whose it was or how it got there

Well right there, you're leaving the door open(good pun) to conjecture that Darlie or Darin left the blood there. By Darlie's story, any blood found on the garage door was left by her intruder.

Darlie's story is that she followed the man into the kitchen, turned around to turn on the light, went back toward the garage, stopped and picked up the knife. Did she look out into the garage? That would certainly explain that blood on the door. WHY WASN'T THAT EXPLAINED? :banghead:
Darlie says she did not look out into the garage. There, it's explained.

According to expert testimony about leaving blood in the garage, not necessarily. And let me clarify - my hunch was that the intruder(s) may have entered through an unlocked door.

I don't mean to insinuate anything. This is pure curiosity - probably questions that will remain unanswered forever. I'll say it again, the front door has nothing to do with Darlie's account of the intruder's exit.

I realize that. I just can't understand what you're implying by saying Darlie's blood is not on the door. That has nothing to do with the investigation at all. Even you said you have a hunch someone entered thru that door. Are you saying he didn't close it behind himself? Have you looked for your answer in any transcripts or interviews? Perhaps Darin himself answers the question for you. I think I'll page thru my books later to see if I can find it.

The million dollar question is: was the front door open when she went to yell for Karen?

If I recall correctly Darlie was screaming FOR Karen, meaning for Darin to go get her.

Darlie yell for her on the 91tape?1 Yes, it is. Had Darin already gone out the door to get Karen when we hear

Well, when the PO arrived on the scene, he followed Darin into the house. So that might have been the 1st time Darin opened the door. Again, Darin can tell you, look for it. It's there somewhere.
The 911 Operator says the officer is there and then asks if the door is unlocked. Whiny responses from Darlie.
Did Darin really lock the door before he went to bed? He surely had a lot on his mind at that time. Doesn't matter because nobody came in and attacked Darlie and killed those boys. The killer was already in the house.

accordn2me

07-13-2005, 10:58 AM

Well, apparently I'm old enough to see that makes no sense.
Yes, you are old enough to see that! You are not 5 or 6 years old. Their sense is not the same as our sense. :twocents:

By the way, how old are you?
Now you're just being mean! :boohoo:
Hopefully the Routier boys were brighter than you're giving them credit for.
Well, there's always hope, but you can't forget who their parents were. ;)

A cut screen would have been more easily spotted by ol' Ma and Pa Routier. A bent screen would still hide your dirty deed.
This is too complicated for me to argue with. :bang:

And why are we talking about the boys breaking into their own house to get popcicles anyway? Maybe loving mother Darlie should have been more on the ball and given the kids popcicles. That's what I do. Mine don't have to pop out a screen, cut a screen, etc. Mom is here!
Whether they were ever in trouble about the screen will always be an unknown. I shouldn't have suggensted it.

As far as loving mother goes, if I buy the popcicles and put them in the freezer, I'm being loving. I'm certainly not going to stand there until they want one! Obviously, she put them in the freezer in the garage so the boys wouldn't be tracking in the house to get them. She was lovingly keeping the house clean.;)

Goody

07-13-2005, 02:15 PM

How would that tell you when the screen was cut?!
I was addressing your comments that it is impossible to for experts to tell if a screen has been cut from the inside or the outside. It is not impossible. They conduct tests that show them, usually using the actual tool if they have it.

As for when it was cut, there is not a single word of testimony about the screen being cut prior to the murders. Darlie and Darin say it was not. Their friends say it was not or that they never saw a cut on it. You can't just assume that the kids cut it beforehand without something to base your theory on. The fact that something MIGHT be possible does not make it PROBABLE. That is just you going off in left field. The evidence is supposed to LEAD you to the conclusion. You are just distracting yourself from the evidence with thoughts that have no supporting information to back them up.

Is this a test? :confused: I have no clue. They may not have even been born then for all I know! :blushing:?!
Well, you should know if you are going to throw a theory out there like you did. If the kids were too young to cut the screens on Bond Street, then you suggestion that maybe Darin was looking to see if they did is impossible.

How often? Was it as often as the intruder who stuffed socks in the victim's mouths??!
There is no evidence that the sock was ever shoved in Darlie's mouth. That was a claim that surfaced AFTER her DNA was found on the sock. Also, in the cases where a sock was shoved in someone's mouth in Rowlett, as I recall there were only one or two burglaries, both occurred after the Routier murders, and no one was murdered or even stabbed. Someone from Texas can correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure that is what I discovered in my research on it. My point is there is no M.O. connection to link these crimes to the Routier case. Plus there is reason to disbelieve Darlie's claim about it. Did she just suddenly remember it or did she hear about the other case(s) and add it to her story after she found out she would need to explain away how her DNA got on that sock and Darin's (whose sock it was) did not.

How do you know it was cut for show? Yes, the screen could be taken off. It wasn't so easy that it could be done without damaging the screen though. If you needed to gain access to the garage to get a popcicle, it would be a pain in the hiney to wrestle the screen off, get a popcicle, crawl out and get the screen back on without the popcicle melting in the Texas heat. That's waaaay more trouble than a nice slice in the screen. Plus, you wouldn't be disobeying anyone by taking the screen off if you had been in trouble previously for bending it.!
Well, the cut itself is too perfect to have been done by a six year old just for starters. The T lines were straight, not jagged...no hesitation marks.... no Zigzags. A kid did not cut that screen.

The screen was easy to remove. Maybe not as easy as popping a top on a can, but certainly not much more difficult. The kids knew all they had to do was pop it with a screw driver and that is what they used, I think.

I can't imagine any kid thinking it would be okay to cut a screen, esp these kids who had gotten into all kinds of trouble with both parents that evening for dumping out half the water in the hot tub. Interestingly enough, one author claims their next door neighbor heard Darlie through the fence screaming at them and calling them MF'rs and threatening them with punishment, like "you're really going to get it now." At trial though, Darlie said Darin was the one who was upset about it and Darin claimed it was Darlie who had gotten upset by it. So that seems to be a fact they both want to steer clear of....like who opened the front door first. Something about that also seems to be something neither wants to admit to.

Another thing about the screen, if the kids did cut it, it would give the parents even more motive to kill them. There were be two major screw ups that evening that were bound to create pure havoc in the house. If the parents lied and used the cut screen to prove an intruder killed them, then what do you have besides two guilty parents?

Personally, I don't think the kids cut the screen. I think one of the parents did. Not sure which one. Could have been either.

Well that certainly wouldn't be a first in this case!
You can put Darlie and Darin at the top of that list. Then tell me why you would think any parent could possibly be innocent if they are willing to lie about the deaths of their own children? And not just any death either. We're talking traumatic, brutal deaths. Who could lie about that and still be innocent?

Goody

07-13-2005, 02:20 PM

As far as loving mother goes, if I buy the popcicles and put them in the freezer, I'm being loving. I'm certainly not going to stand there until they want one! Obviously, she put them in the freezer in the garage so the boys wouldn't be tracking in the house to get them. She was lovingly keeping the house clean.;)

Obsessively might be a better word.

Goody

07-13-2005, 02:22 PM

I resemble that remark! :crazy:
O, Jeana, I don't know why but I always picture you with dark hair.

Goody

07-13-2005, 02:27 PM

How do you know it was cut for show? !
Forgot to answer this one.

I don't KNOW it was cut for show. It is my opinion that it was cut for show and that opinion is based on the evidence and what information I have gathered in the process of studying this case. I didn't just say one day, "Hmm, maybe it was cut for show," and come up with a theory that was not supported by a lot of facts. You should try it sometime. It is really invigorating. Great exercise for the brain. :-)

Goody

07-13-2005, 02:29 PM

[QUOTE]

In case you couldn't tell, this is sarcastic. I know she cut it to stage the scene
To Beesy from Beesy....are you arguing with yourself these days, girl?

Goody

07-13-2005, 02:31 PM

Mary wears many hats. :D

What does that mean?

Goody

07-13-2005, 02:48 PM

Darlie has never said anything about who opened the front door first. Her story is she followed the intruder thru the kitchen and he ran out thru the garage. Therefore she herself tells us why there is none of her blood on the front door. The "intruder" went out thru the garage, remember? That's why there's blood on that door. She told us that. Even if an intruder had exited by the front door, wouldn't he have left some sort of blood on the door? I don't quite understand what you're insinuating anyway. An intruder entered the front door, but Darlie forgot to tell everybody she found the door open as she chased the man thru the kitchen?
It is a good question though: who opened the front door first? Doesn't have anything to do with her guilt or innocence, it's just a curiosity.
Sorry, girls, but you are both wrong. Darlie did address the front door in her testimony. She had to because her blood was on the front door knob. It was not on the lock, which I think was a deadbolt. If Darin was correct when he said he locked the doors, she should have had to have unlocked the deadbolt before she could open the front door to yell out for Karen as she claimed.

Personally, I don't think she was yelling for Karen. It sounds more like Darin to me, but gets by as Karen. I think that Darin was down the alley dumping the sock and maybe a few other things and she was worried that he would not get back in time. But I haven't tried to synchronize it with the 911 call yet, so I am not glued to it. There is also the possibilty that she called out the garage door because she thought he was out there cutting the screen. That would at least count for the blood in the utility room.

Darin being out the front door though acc