PDA

View Full Version : Case Against Darin?



Pages : [1] 2

beesy
06-09-2005, 10:56 PM
Does anybody know what Darlie's supposed case against Darin involves? Is she saying he was the actual killer or that he hired someone or what?

Jeana (DP)
06-10-2005, 09:39 AM
There isn't one. All she's done is made hints that he may have been involved.

Rachael
06-10-2005, 10:19 AM
I hope their isn't one. At this point Darlie will do anything she can to get out of jail.

Jeana (DP)
06-10-2005, 10:53 AM
There's nothing she can say or do that will improve her situation. She waited too long. Anything she says now will just look like a desperate attempt to spare her life.

Rachael
06-10-2005, 01:34 PM
There's nothing she can say or do that will improve her situation. She waited too long. Anything she says now will just look like a desperate attempt to spare her life.

I agree 100%. Darlie is desperate now so she is turning on Darin. That is her last attempt to save her butt and it's a little too late IMO. I really do not believe Darin had anything to do with the murderers.

Jules
06-10-2005, 02:09 PM
There's nothing she can say or do that will improve her situation. She waited too long. Anything she says now will just look like a desperate attempt to spare her life.

Jeana - a bit off-topic, but where does Darin stand now as far as supporting Darlie? Does he or has he moved on with his life? Do you know if he still visits her? Just curious - haven't read anything about that in a long time.

TIA - Jules

Jeana (DP)
06-10-2005, 04:38 PM
Jeana - a bit off-topic, but where does Darin stand now as far as supporting Darlie? Does he or has he moved on with his life? Do you know if he still visits her? Just curious - haven't read anything about that in a long time.

TIA - Jules


From what I understand, he still supports her, still visits her, etc. Of course, he's said he's not willing to change places with her, so if she comes right out and accuses him, you can bet his tune will change in a New York minute. ;)

Jules
06-10-2005, 04:52 PM
Thanks Jeana - that's pretty much what I thought. It will be interesting to see what happens as her time nears an end.

beesy
06-11-2005, 12:56 AM
I know she's just grasping at straws, what I want to know is what she's claiming he did. Anybody know?

enigma
06-11-2005, 02:02 PM
From what I understand, he still supports her, still visits her, etc. ;)
Not trying to be a smarta$$ just asking.....where are you getting your information on Darin? :woohoo:

Goody
06-11-2005, 07:18 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, 01:59 AM
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. 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

sassy_texasbelle2
06-12-2005, 04:38 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
06-12-2005, 11:12 PM
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
06-12-2005, 11:15 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.
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, 10:20 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, 08:55 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, 12:59 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.

CW
06-15-2005, 09:50 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, 09:40 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, 07:42 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, 08:08 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
06-17-2005, 11:51 PM
He is a little goofy, but I think he also uses it to his advantage.
good call :D

RobertStJames
06-22-2005, 04:34 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, 12:17 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, 09:33 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, 10:52 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, 02:10 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, 03:01 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, 12:28 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, 04:10 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, 04:18 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, 04:28 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, 04:32 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, 04:42 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, 04:43 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, 12:06 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, 12:32 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, 11:15 AM
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, 02:59 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, 11:17 AM
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:

beesy
07-09-2005, 02:55 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, 12:18 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.

"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....

That's a lot of wiggle room, lol! Could you divulge your source...or the thread? Just curious, if ya know what I mean ;)

Mary456
07-10-2005, 12:29 AM
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:

What is on Darlie's website has no correlation to the testimony in her trial. If you've read Dr. Townsend-Parchman's testimony, I'm sure you'd agree. There were no circles near the wounds, on the wounds, or over the wounds.

accordn2me
07-10-2005, 01:17 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?

beesy
07-10-2005, 01:34 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, 01:37 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, 01:50 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, 01:58 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, 02:00 AM
Do they know they order of Darlie's wounds too? Boy, that would answer a question or two....

Mary456
07-10-2005, 02:11 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, 02:33 AM
: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!

Don't blame Beesy, because that's an easy mistake to make. I did the same thing with the xs in CWBs book and, boy, was I raked over the coals for that mistake!

The numbers by the wounds don't denote chronological order. The ME couldn't possibly determine which wound happened in which order. They were numbered for identification purposes only, when the photos were presented to the jury.

Btw, what's you point?

P.S. Hey, beesy, I understand ya, darlin! You get back to basics. That's where it all begins and ends, right?

Mary456
07-10-2005, 02:55 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, 03:08 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, 03:14 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, 03:17 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, 03:28 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, 03:44 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, 03:51 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, 03:53 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, 03:55 AM
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.
:laugh:NOT YOU! Now Mary's gonna say I infiltrated Websleuths and fabricated your post.

:cool: I'm good!

accordn2me
07-10-2005, 03:59 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, 07:28 AM
Lol. Ok. Looks like it was me ;)

Notice all my qualifications on it though :)

accordn2me
07-10-2005, 09:16 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, 09:50 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, 06:18 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, 06:26 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, 06:40 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, 06:48 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, 08:47 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, 09:38 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, 09:42 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, 12:55 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, 01:00 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, 01:37 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, 01:57 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 *****ed 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, 02:04 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, 02:46 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, 02:49 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, 02:53 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, 02:55 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, 02:57 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, 03:01 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, 03:02 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, 03:09 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, 03:12 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, 03:14 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, 03:44 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, 04:16 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, 05:32 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, 05:37 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, 05:40 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, 05:40 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, 05:44 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, 05:46 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, 05:51 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, 05:51 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, 05:55 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, 05:55 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, 05:57 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, 05:57 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, 06:02 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, 06:05 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, 06:07 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, 06:14 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, 06:19 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, 06:29 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, 06:32 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, 06:49 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, 07:19 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, 07:30 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, 07:44 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, 07:50 PM
If it ain't there, then it can't be
YES, IT, CAN!!! :slap:

beesy
07-12-2005, 11:09 PM
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
07-12-2005, 11:30 PM
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
07-12-2005, 11:47 PM
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
07-12-2005, 11:59 PM
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, 12:44 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, 12:57 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, 01:02 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, 01:04 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, 08:08 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, 09:21 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, 09:24 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, 09:57 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, 09:58 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, 01:15 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, 01:20 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, 01:22 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, 01:27 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, 01:29 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, 01:31 PM
Mary wears many hats. :D


What does that mean?

Goody
07-13-2005, 01:48 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 accounts for his sudden presence in the yard when Waddell arrived, which they later denied and claimed Waddell just walked into the house without announcing himself and without a gun drawn. It makes more sense to me that Darin went out the front door to discard the items in the alley, only one of which was later found, and apparently surprised them because they complained about not being told of the discovery right away. It always made me feel that they were upset because not knowing about the discovery of the sock could have caused them to trip themselves up as they tried to match their stories to the evidence. Otherwise, why be so indignant? Everyone knows the police keep some evidence to themselves to help them trap the killer.

It makes sense that he cut his timing a little short and had to make it appear that he was coming out the front door and not from around the house to greet Waddell. But again I don't know how that flies with the timing on the 911 call when Darlie hollers out for him or Karen, whichever it was. Someday I will have to take the time to test that theory out.

Goody
07-13-2005, 01:57 PM
: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.
A lot of people have damaged or imperfect screens on their houses. LOL! The position of that window was not on the street side of the house. I don't think they cared that much. Look at the gate. They had it jerryrigged with strings and such, not exactly the example of obsessive perfectionist attitudes. I think they cared about what the public could see. What couldn't been seen was easily put off.

And I disagree that a six year old would think that damaging his parents' property with a big cut would be a good thing to do over just bending it a little. Kids know that broken means trouble, esp those kids. You're just trying to rationalize a weak theory that has no supporting information to back it up. Sorry but I am afraid that theory of the kids cutting the screen to get popsickles is just a glimmer in your eye. hahahahahahah! Like the old Wendy's commercial, you got no beef in it. :-)

accordn2me
07-13-2005, 02:59 PM
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.
I did not say that, Goody! I said one investigator looked at the screen and believed the screen was cut by someone from inside the garage. Then, another investigator looked at the screen and said that the screen was cut by someone from outside. The first investigator then changed his position that the screen was cut from inside and agreed with the second investigator that the screen was cut from outside. I do not know if this is a true story. I do know that Linch said there was one indication that the screen was cut from outside and IF it was cut from outside then...

I also said there is no test to show when the screen was cut. Even assuming Darlie cut then screen, there is no way to tell when.


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.

You are right, I didn't even consider how old the boys might have been at the time. Just tell me what the rules for throwing theories out are and I'll try to be sure and abide by them next time.

So, why was Darin on Bond Street looking for cut screens? Is that even true that he was?


There is no evidence that the sock was ever shoved in Darlie's mouth.
Oooooo, it sounds like it's time for my mantra! Just because there is no evidence or testimony does not mean that it did or did not happen.


A kid did not cut that screen.

How do you know?


Another thing about the screen, if the kids did cut it, it would give the parents even more motive to kill them.

Goody! Come on now! This is as farfetched as I've ever seen you get. Please don't call me on my blind theories if you are going to say something like this. I mean, maybe I could understand killing them right there on the spot, but not hours after the fact. :rolleyes:


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?
I wholeheartedly agree with you here. Darlie and Darin were exactly who I was talking about. When you made the comment that even they didn't "make a self-serving comment" about the screen already being cut. I agreed then too.

If Darlie knows Darin did this, she is right where she needs to be. It's a travesty they didn't get him too.

accordn2me
07-13-2005, 03:00 PM
What does that mean? a2me---->:chicken:

accordn2me
07-13-2005, 03:20 PM
Sorry, girls, but you are both wrong.
Not me! I was asking.:innocent: Beesy's always wrong. :slap: j/k bees ;)


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.
Calling out the garage door certainly would explain the blood there. Since my book is still not here :boohoo:I can't see where Karen's house is in relation to Darlie's garage and front door.

If her blood was on the front door but not the lock, maybe Darin had already gone across the street to Karen's. Did Darin make it to Karen's before Waddell arrived?


Darin being out the front door though accounts for his sudden presence in the yard when Waddell arrived, which they later denied and claimed Waddell just walked into the house without announcing himself and without a gun drawn. It makes more sense to me that Darin went out the front door to discard the items in the alley,
The neighbor supports the PO that Darin met Waddell on the front lawn. Was Darin on his way to Karen's, or on his way back from Karen's when they met?

Now, assuming that Darin discarded some items in the alley, why do you think he would have used the front door instead of the back? Also, what items do you think he discarded that were not found?

accordn2me
07-13-2005, 03:31 PM
A lot of people have damaged or imperfect screens on their houses. LOL!
Yes they do. Damaged or imperfect screens are not totally useless, but they are just a tiny step away from it. Mosquitos and flies have an amazing ability to find the smallest of openings to gain access through.That being said, I probably wouldn't rush to replace a garage screen either.

But you are right. My theory is weak with no supporting information. Forget I mentioned it.

beesy
07-13-2005, 05:07 PM
[QUOTE=accordn2me]Not me! I was asking.:innocent: Beesy's always wrong. :slap: j/k bees ;)
Ok, I am not always wrong. I even quoted from MTJD to prove to you and Mary that Chris said the wounds were numbered in the order they were received, not me, Chris. Therefore, I was not wrong, Chris was.
And yes, I should have said "I don't believe Darlie said..blah blah". You are not supposed to personally insult anybody on here and qualifying "Beesy's always wrong, slap slap" with j/k does not take away the insult.


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....
That's not a question, that's a statement

beesy
07-13-2005, 06:55 PM
[QUOTE]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. Do not lump me together with her when addressing me


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.
It does seem to fit. The first time Darin is heard on the tape is at about 30 seconds. Darlie screams "Karen/Darin" about 2 mins. later. The 1st time the PO is heard is at about 3:45 mins. Easily fits your theory. Darlie could have hollered out the utility room door to Darin. Right after she screams for whoever, the OP asks her if anybody else is in the house with her, besides her children and her husband. Darlie first says "no" real quick, then adds that her husband just ran downstairs and he's helping her. He had actually been downstairs over 2 mins. by then. Looking at it from the point of view that Darlie is screaming "Darin" makes the "he's helping me" seem creepy, doesn't it? Is he running around getting rid of things, cutting screens, is that how he's helping her?

Darin being out the front door though accounts for his sudden presence in the yard when Waddell arrived, which they later denied and claimed Waddell just walked into the house without announcing himself and without a gun drawn. It makes more sense to me that Darin went out the front door to discard the items in the alley, only one of which was later found, and apparently surprised them because they complained about not being told of the discovery right away. It always made me feel that they were upset because not knowing about the discovery of the sock could have caused them to trip themselves up as they tried to match their stories to the evidence. Otherwise, why be so indignant? Everyone knows the police keep some evidence to themselves to help them trap the killer. That's right, they said they felt betrayed by LE when they weren't told about the sock. Source: Flesh and Blood by Patricia Springer. They were probably thinking "crap, what else did Darin screw up"


It makes sense that he cut his timing a little short and had to make it appear that he was coming out the front door and not from around the house to greet Waddell. But again I don't know how that flies with the timing on the 911 call when Darlie hollers out for him or Karen, whichever it was. Someday I will have to take the time to test that theory out. Darlie doesn't say on the tape that she's hollering for a neighbor to help her and now that I've listened to it again and again, it was on a loop, LOL her screaming "Karen" sounds like it came out of the middle of nowhere. Patricia Springer says that Darin went to get the Neals after LE and the paramedics had arrived. Springer does not say Darin claims to have gotten the Neals to have friends with him, but because Karen was a nurse. Later, Terry Neal drove Darin to the hospital and Karen took care of Domaine and Drake. Another thing about the tape, I downloaded it and I can hear things much better than just playing it from the website. I'll have to watch the the mins. again, but I swear at one point, I can hear utensils clattering. Hmmmmmm

beesy
07-13-2005, 07:12 PM
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. Actually what I meant is that I misunderstood Mary's comment and took it as an insult. I wasn't talking about my knowledge of true crime.

beesy
07-13-2005, 07:14 PM
To Beesy from Beesy....are you arguing with yourself these days, girl? Not with myself, making sure it was understood. Funny question coming from someone who refers to herself in the 3rd person, huh Goody?

beesy
07-13-2005, 07:22 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.

Of course less blood flow means the heart has stopped beating, blah blah..... No way you have ever heard of means that naturally I am wrong? It's so simple, and you're making it so hard. I've done more research about if it's possible to determine the order of the wounds in SOME cases, and it is possible. You both seem to miss the fact that I keep saying SOME cases. If a victim runs from the attacker after an initial wound, and one could tell that by looking at blood on the floor and blood spatter, cast off, etc! Obviously then that first stab was a wound which did not immediatly kill the victim. An ME would know if the victim would have bled out from the wound or needed to be stabbed again in order to die. I don't understand why you can't see that. It's so simple. You are setting up much more difficult scenerios than I am. I said before: in overkill situations of course they can't tell the order. That's ridiculous and that's not what I said. Ask Dr. Henry Lee if in some cases you can give an educated guess at the order of the wounds and get back with me on that.

Dani_T
07-13-2005, 11:46 PM
DID NOT!!! :innocent:

Dani_T started it!


What the?

Dani_T
07-13-2005, 11:48 PM
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.

And lets not forget that Hamilton's testimony has absolutely NOTHING about brushing the knife block or the knives. Great detail about every other little itsy bitsy thing he brushed but no knife block

beesy
07-14-2005, 12:11 AM
[QUOTE]
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.

Wow Goody, that's a big statement to make without listing your source. I've got all 4 books and I don't remember reading that in any of them. Was it Babs? She has some easily checked facts wrong in her book. For instance, she said Darlie and Darin had sex on the sofa that night, but tests showed Darlie had no semen anywhere on her. I'd like to read more about that neighbor's statement, would you please find the author's name or the book or article for me?
And you're right, neither can decide who was really mad about the hot tub thing. Frankly, they both should have been pissed. I mean jeez how did those boys splash nearly all of the water out?! Of course, there's a big difference between pissed and killing pissed.

Jeana (DP)
07-14-2005, 08:59 AM
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?


Sure!

http://on.starblvd.net/meet/sammie

Jeana (DP)
07-14-2005, 09:02 AM
O, Jeana, I don't know why but I always picture you with dark hair.


Well my roots do need to be done. ;)

accordn2me
07-14-2005, 09:15 AM
I did some homework. *insert pat my back emoticon*

Devon was 4 when they moved from Bond to Eagle. But I doubt he was a screen cutter then.

17 A. Devon was born June the 14th, 1989.
18 Q. Okay. And, y'all continued to live at
19 the house on Bond Street?
20 A. Yes, we did.

20 Q. Okay. How long was it before y'all
21 moved over on Eagle Drive?
22 A. We moved to our new home on Eagle
23 Drive in 1993.
http://justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-44.php#2

However, I've been thinking about what you said about those aliens...Goody, I just don't think they were violent. They may have cut the screen but there's no evidence or testimony to support them killing the kids. :crazy:

beesy
07-14-2005, 11:19 AM
I did some homework. *insert pat my back emoticon*

Devon was 4 when they moved from Bond to Eagle. But I doubt he was a screen cutter then.

17 A. Devon was born June the 14th, 1989.
18 Q. Okay. And, y'all continued to live at
19 the house on Bond Street?
20 A. Yes, we did.

20 Q. Okay. How long was it before y'all
21 moved over on Eagle Drive?
22 A. We moved to our new home on Eagle
23 Drive in 1993.
http://justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-44.php#2

However, I've been thinking about what you said about those aliens...Goody, I just don't think they were violent. They may have cut the screen but there's no evidence or testimony to support them killing the kids. :crazy: Ha, good one! We can always go with the cliche of the Routier house being built over an old Indian burial ground. Would that work? Those dang poltergeists

Jeana (DP)
07-14-2005, 11:46 AM
Ha, good one! We can always go with the cliche of the Routier house being built over an old Indian burial ground. Would that work? Those dang poltergeists


Nope. It was Santa. How else do you explain the deer hair? Had to have been Santa, but instead of his sleigh, he was driving a little black car. :D

cami
07-14-2005, 12:06 PM
YA MOMMA DON'T DANCE AND YA DADDY DON'T ROCK-N-ROLL! :dance::dance::dance:

LOL, you two are a riot. Mary it's sarcasm baby.

cami
07-14-2005, 12:14 PM
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?

Maybe the state felt they had enough without calling Dana to testify. The defense wouldn't call her as that would have opened her up to cross examination.

oops, note to self, read the whole thread before posting. I see Goody said the same thing. :confused:

cami
07-14-2005, 01:14 PM
Hey, I just work here. Speaking of anything goes, have you been to Starkman's forum lately? LOL :D :D

LOL, I have aaahahahahahahahahahahaha

cami
07-14-2005, 01:22 PM
Well, I know that now. Maybe I should go back and learn ABC's though so I can interpret messages better?

Nah Beesy you just don't know Mary that well as yet. We've been posting together for years Mary, Goody, Jeana and Dani with A2m coming around a bit so we get to know each other's style and can almost read each other's minds. Mary has a quirky sense of humour but she would never demean you, that's not her style--more mine, LOL.

Jeana (DP)
07-14-2005, 01:37 PM
LOL, I have aaahahahahahahahahahahaha


I almost responded to the woman who said it wasn't "rocket science." I'm wondering how on God's green earth she could possibly try to fool anyone into believing that she knew the first thing about rocket science. :waitasec: :waitasec: If memory serves, she couldn't even spell. :rolleyes:

Goody
07-14-2005, 01:56 PM
Nope. It was Santa. How else do you explain the deer hair? Had to have been Santa, but instead of his sleigh, he was driving a little black car. :D
I just don't get why no one saw the red wheels or heard the bells? Absolutely mystifying.

Goody
07-14-2005, 01:57 PM
Maybe the state felt they had enough without calling Dana to testify. The defense wouldn't call her as that would have opened her up to cross examination.

oops, note to self, read the whole thread before posting. I see Goody said the same thing. :confused:
Just shows that great minds think alike. Or maybe we've just been listening to lawyers too long. hahahahahaha

Goody
07-14-2005, 01:58 PM
LOL, I have aaahahahahahahahahahahaha
I went over there but didn't find anything too outrageous. Direct me, old friend.

Goody
07-14-2005, 02:00 PM
I almost responded to the woman who said it wasn't "rocket science." I'm wondering how on God's green earth she could possibly try to fool anyone into believing that she knew the first thing about rocket science. :waitasec: :waitasec: If memory serves, she couldn't even spell. :rolleyes:
I remember that post....part of it anyway. I would have to go look again though to comment. Dern,this old brain!!!

cami
07-14-2005, 02:16 PM
[/size][/size]

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



[size=2][color=#000000]
[size=3][color=blue]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.


LOL, some of the darlies want Darin to have attacked a motherboard with the bread knife and Darlie cutting up chicken in the sink that day hence the fibre and the blood.

cami
07-14-2005, 02:22 PM
How would that tell you when the screen was cut?


Is this a test? :confused: I have no clue. They may not have even been born then for all I know! :blushing:



How often? Was it as often as the intruder who stuffed socks in the victim's mouths?


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 that certainly wouldn't be a first in this case!

A2M, are you suggesting that Devon or Damon got that bread knife and cut that screen down the middle and across? A five and a six/seven year old? Darlie wasn't watching them? How did they get that knife and get it back I wonder without her seeing them.

Jeana (DP)
07-14-2005, 02:36 PM
A2M, are you suggesting that Devon or Damon got that bread knife and cut that screen down the middle and across? A five and a six/seven year old? Darlie wasn't watching them? How did they get that knife and get it back I wonder without her seeing them.


And then it just so happened that Darlie didn't use it or wash it in the period between the time (whenever that might have been) that the boy(s) cut the screen and the night of the murders?

That would just have to be one more amazing thing that would need to be miraculously true for Darlie to be innocent.

cami
07-14-2005, 02:38 PM
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 accounts for his sudden presence in the yard when Waddell arrived, which they later denied and claimed Waddell just walked into the house without announcing himself and without a gun drawn. It makes more sense to me that Darin went out the front door to discard the items in the alley, only one of which was later found, and apparently surprised them because they complained about not being told of the discovery right away. It always made me feel that they were upset because not knowing about the discovery of the sock could have caused them to trip themselves up as they tried to match their stories to the evidence. Otherwise, why be so indignant? Everyone knows the police keep some evidence to themselves to help them trap the killer.

It makes sense that he cut his timing a little short and had to make it appear that he was coming out the front door and not from around the house to greet Waddell. But again I don't know how that flies with the timing on the 911 call when Darlie hollers out for him or Karen, whichever it was. Someday I will have to take the time to test that theory out.

I'm fairly certain Goody that she does holler Karen. And I believe it's in response to Darin's "get something, get somebody"

cami
07-14-2005, 02:42 PM
Even assuming Darlie cut then screen, there is no way to tell when.

there is a way, the weathering on the screen. If the cut was made days or weeks prior it would have been subject to "weathering" rain, wind, snow (LOL) and sun.

cami
07-14-2005, 03:14 PM
I went over there but didn't find anything too outrageous. Direct me, old friend.

No, what makes me laugh is they just bust on to the site and go aboard knowlegable posters with their outrageous theories and the reply he/she received cracked me up. Just because Darlie is a "mother" she's exempt from killing her kids. that's their defense. Then there's Richard and he cracks me up. Everything cracks me up lately, I must be manic. I had so much trouble with the utility companies on my latest move that I had to just laugh and laugh finally on how badly they screwed up. Suffice it to say, I moved in with no power. Just got my phone service yesterday, LOL.

cami
07-14-2005, 03:16 PM
Do not lump me together with her when addressing me
.[/b][/color]

Hey Beese did you get my pm on C&J? I am making your tape this weekend.

beesy
07-14-2005, 05:26 PM
Hey Beese did you get my pm on C&J? I am making your tape this weekend. Hey, yes I did! Thanks Miss Cami! Did you get my email about the Narcon? That is such a small, but seemingly important clue, don't you think?

beesy
07-14-2005, 05:29 PM
A2M, are you suggesting that Devon or Damon got that bread knife and cut that screen down the middle and across? A five and a six/seven year old? Darlie wasn't watching them? How did they get that knife and get it back I wonder without her seeing them. All that trouble for a couple of popcicles!:waitasec:

Jeana (DP)
07-14-2005, 05:33 PM
A2M, are you suggesting that Devon or Damon got that bread knife and cut that screen down the middle and across? A five and a six/seven year old? Darlie wasn't watching them? How did they get that knife and get it back I wonder without her seeing them.


What are you TALKING ABOUT????? You know there were plenty of times Darlie wasn't watching those kids. All the neighbors said they were allowed out for hours alone. They never saw Darlie out there. How would she know what they were up to? They were allowed in the freaking hot tub alone? What kind of mother allows that? I don't believe that the boys did cut the screen, but I believe if they had wanted to, there would have been plenty of opportunities for them to have done so.

beesy
07-14-2005, 05:35 PM
I'm fairly certain Goody that she does holler Karen. And I believe it's in response to Darin's "get something, get somebody" oooh...but it's much more fun to believe she is saying "Darin" Isn't it? I do have a question, even if she was screaming out the front door for Karen would Karen have heard her? Where do you think Karen was when Darlie screamed for her?

accordn2me
07-14-2005, 05:56 PM
And then it just so happened that Darlie didn't use it or wash it in the period between the time (whenever that might have been) that the boy(s) cut the screen and the night of the murders?

That would just have to be one more amazing thing that would need to be miraculously true for Darlie to be innocent.
Well, she hadn't washed it at least 6 months. Don't you remember Mulder said it had lettuce on it that could be 6 months old? :waitasec:

accordn2me
07-14-2005, 06:04 PM
A2M, are you suggesting that Devon or Damon got that bread knife and cut that screen down the middle and across? A five and a six/seven year old? Darlie wasn't watching them? How did they get that knife and get it back I wonder without her seeing them.
Nope! :snooty: I main't tellin ya now.

But I have a question for you, or Goody, or anybody that could help me understand....Goody said the screen was cut in an upside down T. I just can't picture that. :confused: How did the sides fold down if the horizontal cut ran along the bottom of the screen?

UGH! I think I'm confused again.:confused:

Jeana (DP)
07-15-2005, 09:20 AM
Well, she hadn't washed it at least 6 months. Don't you remember Mulder said it had lettuce on it that could be 6 months old? :waitasec:


Sooooooo, now all of a sudden Mulder is someone YOU trust? LOL He's a good attorney, but he was her defense attorney. He said a lot of stuff that turned out not to be true, remember? All of her family said she was a "clean freak." I seriously doubt that this clean freak had a knife in her butcher's block that hadn't been either used nor washed for 6 months. :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

cami
07-15-2005, 10:59 AM
oooh...but it's much more fun to believe she is saying "Darin" Isn't it? I do have a question, even if she was screaming out the front door for Karen would Karen have heard her? Where do you think Karen was when Darlie screamed for her?

LOL yeah right. karen was sound asleep in bed. That's where I think she was.

Gorsuch should have heard her if she was hollering out the front door for Karen.

cami
07-15-2005, 11:12 AM
What are you TALKING ABOUT????? You know there were plenty of times Darlie wasn't watching those kids. All the neighbors said they were allowed out for hours alone. They never saw Darlie out there. How would she know what they were up to? They were allowed in the freaking hot tub alone? What kind of mother allows that? I don't believe that the boys did cut the screen, but I believe if they had wanted to, there would have been plenty of opportunities for them to have done so.

Yeah I actually kind of remembered that but I was just wondering what a2m's answer was going to be.

Jeana (DP)
07-15-2005, 11:14 AM
Yeah I actually kind of remembered that but I was just wondering what a2m's answer was going to be.


Sorry, that's one subject that chaps my hide!!!!! Anytime I see little kids out alone, I go insane. :bang:

accordn2me
07-15-2005, 11:34 AM
Sooooooo, now all of a sudden Mulder is someone YOU trust? LOL You are kidding, right....maybe I should have used a different emoticon.:hand:


He's a good attorney, but he was her defense attorney. He said a lot of stuff that turned out not to be true, remember? Believe me, I remember!

cami
07-15-2005, 11:36 AM
Nope! :snooty: I main't tellin ya now.

But I have a question for you, or Goody, or anybody that could help me understand....Goody said the screen was cut in an upside down T. I just can't picture that. :confused: How did the sides fold down if the horizontal cut ran along the bottom of the screen?

UGH! I think I'm confused again.:confused:

I believe Goody was incorrect. Here's is an exerpt from Linch's testimony regarding the screen

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

11 Q. All right. Now, the window screen

12 itself, can you describe the appearance of the screen
13 when it first came to you?
14 A. It had -- it's a rectangular object
15 and it had what I termed a T-shaped defect in it. By

16 that I mean, there is a cut going horizontal and in about
17 the center of that cut, there is a cut straight down that
18 is the vertical component.
19 Q. How about the frame? What did you
20 notice about the frame, if anything?
21 A. At the bottom of the frame there was a
22 bend towards the bottom.
23 Q. Okay. As you started to look at this
24 window screen, did you take certain photographs of the
25 screen?
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2892

1 A. Yes, sir.
2 Q. All right. And did you also do
3 certain other inspections and examinations of the screen

accordn2me
07-15-2005, 11:43 AM
Sorry, that's one subject that chaps my hide!!!!! Anytime I see little kids out alone, I go insane. :bang:
Not even in your own back yard - with a 6' privacy fence? Hmmm, maybe I'm a bad mommy....

When my daughter was 5 years old, she could swim like a fish. I wouldn't have left her alone around the pool, but a hot tub....well, we didn't have one so I really don't know. Just guessing myself, if she could stand up and her head would be above water I'd say I wouldn't watch her 24/7 around it.

Goody
07-15-2005, 11:45 AM
LOL, some of the darlies want Darin to have attacked a motherboard with the bread knife and Darlie cutting up chicken in the sink that day hence the fibre and the blood.
Well, unfortunately the chicken would have had to have Devon's and Damon's DNA. Wait....I know.....she wiped up the floor with that bloody chicken and that accounts for the cleaning efforts they found on the floor. Let this be a lesson to all....never eat dinner at Darlie's!!! hahahahahahah!

Seriously though, don't you think she probably used canned chicken or leftover chicken to make the soup? She has never addressed that. The only thing I would use a whole chicken for would be chicken and dumplins or roasted chicken. If she used raw chicken pieces, she wouldn't have to cut anything. She'd just boil the meat off the bone. Of course, that is what I would do to a whole chicken, too. Why create a lot of work if you don't have to?

Now that motherboard thing....that was so far out in left field it doesn't even deserve honorable mention! LOL!

Jeana (DP)
07-15-2005, 11:48 AM
Not even in your own back yard - with a 6' privacy fence? Hmmm, maybe I'm a bad mommy....

When my daughter was 5 years old, she could swim like a fish. I wouldn't have left her alone around the pool, but a hot tub....well, we didn't have one so I really don't know. Just guessing myself, if she could stand up and her head would be above water I'd say I wouldn't watch her 24/7 around it.



I think in a backyard with a 6' privacy fence is fine. I was talking about children, as the Routier boys, who are allowed to venture away from their own yards unaccompanied.

I wouldn't have left any of my children in any body of water when they were five years old. In fact, now that my youngest is 10 years old, I still won't. Guess I'm overprotective, but they'll just have to live with that. :blushing:

Jeana (DP)
07-15-2005, 11:49 AM
Well, unfortunately the chicken would have had to have Devon's and Damon's DNA. Wait....I know.....she wiped up the floor with that bloody chicken and that accounts for the cleaning efforts they found on the floor. Let this be a lesson to all....never eat dinner at Darlie's!!! hahahahahahah!

Seriously though, don't you think she probably used canned chicken or leftover chicken to make the soup? She has never addressed that. The only thing I would use a whole chicken for would be chicken and dumplins or roasted chicken. If she used raw chicken pieces, she wouldn't have to cut anything. She'd just boil the meat off the bone. Of course, that is what I would do to a whole chicken, too. Why create a lot of work if you don't have to?

Now that motherboard thing....that was so far out in left field it doesn't even deserve honorable mention! LOL!


I'm sorry Goody. Did you say "canned chicken." :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Goody
07-15-2005, 11:50 AM
I'm fairly certain Goody that she does holler Karen. And I believe it's in response to Darin's "get something, get somebody"
I will have to go back and listen to the tape again. I really have forgotten the detail there. But if you are right, then Darin could not have been outside when she hollered it.

Goody
07-15-2005, 11:59 AM
there is a way, the weathering on the screen. If the cut was made days or weeks prior it would have been subject to "weathering" rain, wind, snow (LOL) and sun.
If it frayed, they could tell that it was not cut that night. You are right about that, but I don't know how long it might take a nylon screen to fray after the initial cut. It seems it would be weeks to me, and I can't see how no adult who knew the Routiers would have noticed it. People were in and out of that house all of the time. They were very social people. Someone would have noticed.

Now if the screen had only been cut for a couple of days, I am not sure experts would find fraying or any particular weathering from sun, etc. Nonetheless, the cut itself is not the handiwork of kids trying to steal popsickles. An adult made that cut. I think that point is obvious.

cami
07-15-2005, 12:02 PM
Sorry, that's one subject that chaps my hide!!!!! Anytime I see little kids out alone, I go insane. :bang:

Oh I know that's one of your pet peeves. We are fairly lucky that snatching kids from yards doesn't happen here at least not often. I think it happened once that I know of back in the late 70's. Traffic is the big problem but you see kids out playing all over our neighbourhoods. Some of them only go in to eat and use the bathroom. Then again the neighbours look out for each other's children for the most part.

I don't know any body that would allow their children to use a hot tub without parental supervision.

cami
07-15-2005, 12:08 PM
If it frayed, they could tell that it was not cut that night. You are right about that, but I don't know how long it might take a nylon screen to fray after the initial cut. It seems it would be weeks to me, and I can't see how no adult who knew the Routiers would have noticed it. People were in and out of that house all of the time. They were very social people. Someone would have noticed.

Now if the screen had only been cut for a couple of days, I am not sure experts would find fraying or any particular weathering from sun, etc. Nonetheless, the cut itself is not the handiwork of kids trying to steal popsickles. An adult made that cut. I think that point is obvious.


ITA, that cut was not made by the kids, it was made that night. It's obvious by the testimony, the cut was fresh, not old. Didn't it have the debris on it from a fresh cut. Wouldn't the kids have knocked that off going in and out if it had been cut earlier in the week or weeks prior?

Goody
07-15-2005, 12:20 PM
No, what makes me laugh is they just bust on to the site and go aboard knowlegable posters with their outrageous theories and the reply he/she received cracked me up. Just because Darlie is a "mother" she's exempt from killing her kids. that's their defense. Then there's Richard and he cracks me up. Everything cracks me up lately, I must be manic. I had so much trouble with the utility companies on my latest move that I had to just laugh and laugh finally on how badly they screwed up. Suffice it to say, I moved in with no power. Just got my phone service yesterday, LOL.
And the beat goes on........LOL! Poor Cami. Sometimes all you can do is laugh.

Yes, that mothers don't kill their kids excuse is pretty lame, but I gotta admit it had me going for awhile. When I first heard about it on the news locally here, I just dismissed it as an inside job as soon as I heard the guy supposedly came in through a window. There was not much coverage though. No pictures of the family or Darlie, just a quick shot of the house, I think.

I saw one of the Leeza shows and it didn't impress me either. As I recall, I didn't have a real opinion one way or the other. Then years later we started discussing it at A&E, and since I like to play devil's advocate, which is really just me looking at both sides, I found myself looking for alternative solutions. After I read the transcripts, I was really convinced a devoted mother could not do this crime, even though I know logically that devoted mothers do commit horrendous crimes against their children sometimes. So do not so devoted mothers.

It took me learning how to interpret the forensics and a second trip to the transcripts to realize how wrong I was. It helps to know the facts of the case before you hit the transcripts cold because information that appears minute and unimportant can be extremely important, hence our need for opening statements, I suppose. I think I skipped those or maybe I didn't have access to them. Can't remember now.

On my first read, Darlie seemed like a frightened child. On my second read, after understanding the evidence against her and the facts of the case in greater detail, she appeared to be making every effort to stay as neutral as she could to avoid being caught in a lie. It suddenly hit me that for her, the safety zone was not in denial but in not having any answer at all for sticky spots. That way she could not be trapped and the responsibility for figuring it all out was left on the others, court officials and the jury. I think she honestly believed that she could not be convicted if she had no hand in telling people what happened, that they would have to believe her confusion and ignorance if they couldn't prove her knowledge. I would bet that this was her M.O. all thru high school too. It was how she got out tight spots. She would feign sweet innocence and claim ignorance. That tactic might work on unimportant things, but when you find yourself in court on a murder charge.....well, I don't have to tell you. LOL!

Goody
07-15-2005, 12:23 PM
What are you TALKING ABOUT????? You know there were plenty of times Darlie wasn't watching those kids. All the neighbors said they were allowed out for hours alone. They never saw Darlie out there. How would she know what they were up to? They were allowed in the freaking hot tub alone? What kind of mother allows that? I don't believe that the boys did cut the screen, but I believe if they had wanted to, there would have been plenty of opportunities for them to have done so.
I agree. But I do think Darlie would have missed the bread knife and there would have been h to pay if she caught them with it. Shoot, if she called them dirty names for dumping out the hot tub, can you imagine what she would have done if they had cut that screeen?

accordn2me
07-15-2005, 12:28 PM
I think the point of not having metal screens is that synthetic materials won't "weather."

But your point is well taken, Cami. I never would have thought of that.

Long ago reading about the screen, I wondered why no one suggested that maybe the boys cut the screen. Recently, reading the testimony, I realized that someone had indeed thought of it because Davis attempts to put it aside by asking Linch if he thought a child could have managed the cut. Mosty (not sure I'm spelling it correctly) objected and Davis withdrew the question.

By the way, apparently there are some zigzags toward the bottom of the vertical cut - not that suggests it was one of the boys cutting. Just that the cut wasn't "perfect." Also, it appeared to Linch that the cutter was going to make the vertical cut down the left side but for some reason decided the middle was better.

When Dani_T made the highly qualified;) suggestion that maybe Dana didn't testify because she knew the screen was cut earlier, I decided to revisit my hunch here. Boy did I ever get rewarded for it! :o

Goody
07-15-2005, 12:29 PM
oooh...but it's much more fun to believe she is saying "Darin" Isn't it? I do have a question, even if she was screaming out the front door for Karen would Karen have heard her? Where do you think Karen was when Darlie screamed for her?
There is no way Karen would have heard her. Her house was sort of kitty korner from Darlie's and across the street. It was a hot night and the air conditioning would have been on with windows shut. The people right straight across the street from Darlie were different. They didn't like air conditioning and would often sleep with windows open as they did that night, which is why they saw and heard so much.

As for where Karen was....she was sound asleep in her bed with her husband. That is supported by even Darin's testimony about him waking them up AFTER paramedics entered the Routier house and he was free to go after them. That was long after Darlie hollered K(D)arin. It made no sense why he went after them at that point, but they came to the door in their nightwear and had to get dressed before going to the Routiers.

Goody
07-15-2005, 12:31 PM
Well, she hadn't washed it at least 6 months. Don't you remember Mulder said it had lettuce on it that could be 6 months old? :waitasec:
No, I don't! Please post that section of transcript.

accordn2me
07-15-2005, 12:57 PM
No, I don't! Please post that section of transcript. NOOOOOO! Don't make me do it!:bang:

BTW, I was just being a smartypants about the 6 month old lettuce.:rolleyes:

accordn2me
07-15-2005, 01:01 PM
from Vol. 37

Mulder/Linch

22 Q. Okay. Now, you would agree with me,
23 for instance, the cellulose that you found on -- was that
24 on this knife?
25 A. That hasn't been testified to, but
1 there was a microscopic fragment of cellulosic material
2 on this bread knife.
3 Q. Okay. That could have been cutting
4 lettuce six months or nine months before, couldn't it, or
5 from the butcher block itself?
6 A. Yeah, could have.
7 Q. And of all this stuff, cellulose,
8 rubber, fiberglass, you have absolutely no way of telling
9 anybody how long that has been on that knife, do you?
10 A. No.
11 Q. And for instance, if it's cellulose --
12 were there hairs on this knife, on the Number 4 knife?
13 A. I think there was a very, very thin
14 hair.
15 Q. Okay. So even if it had been through
16 the dishwasher, in all likelihood, would still have some
17 kind of particle on it?
18 A. It could, sure

Goody
07-15-2005, 01:01 PM
I did not say that, Goody! I said one investigator looked at the screen and believed the screen was cut by someone from inside the garage. Then, another investigator looked at the screen and said that the screen was cut by someone from outside. The first investigator then changed his position that the screen was cut from inside and agreed with the second investigator that the screen was cut from outside. I do not know if this is a true story. I do know that Linch said there was one indication that the screen was cut from outside and IF it was cut from outside then...

I also said there is no test to show when the screen was cut. Even assuming Darlie cut then screen, there is no way to tell when. .
I don't remember it that way, but fine...if we are on the same page now, we'll just move on.




You are right, I didn't even consider how old the boys might have been at the time. Just tell me what the rules for throwing theories out are and I'll try to be sure and abide by them next time..

Well, most of us try to present theories that are logical according to the facts and evidence. It would be illogical to present a theory that a child who was an infant could cut a screen in his previous home, for example. (I see you have posted evidence that he was about 4 years old when they moved out of the Bond Street house....still a long shot that he could cut a screen with two straight lines without screwing it up.)

As for the rules, the longer you post the more that will become clear to you. Just imagine you are in speech class or a journalism course where accuracy is a focus. Some get a little carried away, but most of us make an effort to present as factually as possible. As irritating as it might seem, discussing the case is more fun when the theories are probable, or at least a degree better than just barely possible. None of us are perfect though and we all stumble once in awhile, so don't take it personally. We are just commenting to your posts, not to you, the person.


So, why was Darin on Bond Street looking for cut screens? Is that even true that he was?..
No one knows why Darin was at Bond Street looking at screens. It is in his testimony though as well as unresponded to statements by the DA about some of the things he supposedly told the current resident. One of those statements was that he said Darlie could make the alley run in 27 seconds or some such number. It sounded like they had timed the run at some point. The question is when, before or after the killings?



Oooooo, it sounds like it's time for my mantra! Just because there is no evidence or testimony does not mean that it did or did not happen...

Well, anything could happen, including a mini invasion from another planet. Don't expect us to take seriously a theory that does not utilize the evidence we do know exists. If you have a theory, that does not incorporate the evidence or some likelihood of occuring based on some outside bit of information, what good is it?

Jeana (DP)
07-15-2005, 01:17 PM
I agree. But I do think Darlie would have missed the bread knife and there would have been h to pay if she caught them with it. Shoot, if she called them dirty names for dumping out the hot tub, can you imagine what she would have done if they had cut that screeen?


You're right about that.

accordn2me
07-15-2005, 01:21 PM
None of us are perfect though
I know, but I'm awfully close. ;)


and we all stumble once in awhile, so don't take it personally. We are just commenting to your posts, not to you, the person.

I appreciate the kind words, my friend. But I was blessed with skin like a duck's back...THICK! :D



No one knows why Darin was at Bond Street looking at screens. It is in his testimony though as well as unresponded to statements by the DA about some of the things he supposedly told the current resident. One of those statements was that he said Darlie could make the alley run in 27 seconds or some such number. It sounded like they had timed the run at some point. The question is when, before or after the killings?
Oh, all the hearsay that Mulder didn't object to. :furious:

Speaking of 27 seconds...I did a detailed analysis of the 911 tape years ago. I've never been into music or sound systems so my speakers were the bottom of the line that came with my computer in 2000. One of the things I was paying particular attention to was the times I could hear Darin. Note: there is one place he is identified as being Darlie. I noted the time between every time he could be heard because I was trying to figure out exactly when he could have gone to Karen's. Going on a very faulty memory here, I believe there are a couple of periods of more than 40 seconds you don't hear him. I have no idea how long it would take to run to Karen's and get help, - or run to the back alley and plant a sock....

Goody
07-15-2005, 01:27 PM
Originally Posted by Goody
A kid did not cut that screen.



How do you know?.

You can look at it and tell that much. How coordinated do you think a 6 year old is? As a mother of boys, I can tell you that mine certainly could not have done it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Goody
Another thing about the screen, if the kids did cut it, it would give the parents even more motive to kill them.



Goody! Come on now! This is as farfetched as I've ever seen you get. Please don't call me on my blind theories if you are going to say something like this. I mean, maybe I could understand killing them right there on the spot, but not hours after the fact. :rolleyes: ?.
What I meant is that this particular fact (if it were a fact) would go to motive, not exoneration. Esp if you have two parents who don't want authorities to know the kids cut the screen before that night.

Why would they be lying about who cut the screen and when if they didn't want to use it to prove an intruder came in? If they did that, it becomes obvious there was no intruder, only two angry parents tired of the destructive natures of their out of control kids?

I don't for one minute believe that these kids were capable of cutting that screen the way it was cut, but if they were, it hurts Darlie a whole lot more than it helps her. In fact, I don't think it would help her at all.


Originally Posted by Goody
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?


I wholeheartedly agree with you here. Darlie and Darin were exactly who I was talking about. When you made the comment that even they didn't "make a self-serving comment" about the screen already being cut. I agreed then too..
I guess I wasn't looking at it as deeply as I should have because, as I said above, the kids cutting the screen would prove there was no intruder....or at least it would take away the only possible evidence of the guy's existence, short that bloody fingerprint that anyone with half a brain can figure out is Darlie's.



If Darlie knows Darin did this, she is right where she needs to be. It's a travesty they didn't get him too.
On this note, I totally agree. I just don't see how you can think Darlie might not have participated in the actual murders. All the physical evidence points to her. None of it points to him. Personally, I am inclined to believe he was involved beyond just the cover up, but I don't think he actually picked up a knife and stabbed the kids. I don't think he had the guts to do that. Darlie, on the other hand, seems to be the most aggressive of the two and the one most likely to brave the horror and do what she had to do.

Maybe she did just fly off the handle, but that suicide episode only a month earlier is a big red flag and it keeps waving in my face, telling me that the seeds were planted that day. What transpired from that day in May to June 6th is the mystery. If we knew that, we would know exactly what happened and probably who did what that night.

Jeana (DP)
07-15-2005, 01:33 PM
Maybe she did just fly off the handle, but that suicide episode only a month earlier is a big red flag and it keeps waving in my face, telling me that the seeds were planted that day. What transpired from that day in May to June 6th is the mystery. If we knew that, we would know exactly what happened and probably who did what that night.



Exactly. They haven't said the truth about ONE thing, big or small, since the murders. We'll never know what happened. Darlie is the one who will pay the price. If Darin should be in prison too, its her fault that he's not.

Goody
07-15-2005, 02:08 PM
Calling out the garage door certainly would explain the blood there. Since my book is still not here :boohoo:I can't see where Karen's house is in relation to Darlie's garage and front door.
Darlie's home was on a corner. Darlie's front door faced the Gorsuch house straight across the street. Gorsuch's was on a curve sort of as the side street did not go through on his side of the cross street, which was in front of both of their houses. Karen's house was right next door to the Gorsuch house, to Darlie's right.

Darlie's garage door was on the side street side of her house, which would have been to Darlie's left if standing on her front porch and back from the corner a little ways.

There was no back door. There were only three entrances to the house from outside. The front door, the glass sliding doors in the family room, and the big garage door. There was no walk-through to the outside door in the garage. And the only entrance to the house from the garage was through the utility room off the kitchen. There was a privacy fence around the backyard, where the sliding doors let out into.

The glass sliding doors were just a couple of steps from the garage window that had the cut screen and was supposedly the intruder's point of entry. It would have taken only seconds to step outside, cut the screen,and return to the family room.

One other point, in the front yard there was a two or three tier water fountain that had three flood lights on it. That was lit up that night. There was a street light next to Gorsuch's house on that curve and another streetlight near the alley entrance, which was close to the Routier driveway on the side of the house. Then there was a motion detector in the backyard that would turn on yet another flood light over the back yard. Now you tell me what thief would pick this, one of the first houses in the subdivision, that was lit up like the Rockefeller Christmas tree, to break into?





If her blood was on the front door but not the lock, maybe Darin had already gone across the street to Karen's. Did Darin make it to Karen's before Waddell arrived?.
According to trial testimony, Darin did not go across the street until after paramedics arrived, which was long after Waddell arrived. He was seen coming out of the shadows near the front door, but no one could really say he came out of the house at that point. It was just assumed he did. That led one poster to think maybe he was coming back from dropping the sock and whatever else he might have gotten rid of when he realized that the police had arrived. Too late to go back inside, he decided to go greet them, which he later denied. It struck me that neither Darlie or Darin wanted to claim opening the front door for the first time. That made me think there was something about the front door that scared them.





The neighbor supports the PO that Darin met Waddell on the front lawn. Was Darin on his way to Karen's, or on his way back from Karen's when they met?.
Darin denies meeting Waddell in the front yard. No one knows what he was doing. He was screaming that his wife and kids had been stabbed, but at trial he said he didn't know she had been injured at that point. If he went after paramedics arrived, why would he be yelling and screaming? He didn't do that in the house. He didn't do that on the 911 tape. It makes no sense for him to go after help after help arrived, and it makes no sense for him to be yelling and screaming in the front yard after help arrived. The only thing that does make sense is that if he had just come back from getting rid of evidence and was afraid he would be questioned about why he was outside, he might position himself to make it look like he was just coming out of the house (rather than just returning) and start yelling and screaming to convince police he was a grieving parent, not a perp. Later he didn't want to be the one who opened that front door first (that sock run haunting him?) so he is brazen enough to pit his word against the young cop's, probably not realizing that his neighbor has witnessed the whole thing.






Now, assuming that Darin discarded some items in the alley, why do you think he would have used the front door instead of the back? Also, what items do you think he discarded that were not found?
It was easier to make the run from the front door. He would have gone around the house under the street lights to get to the alley, which is the same side of the house Waddell parked on. So Darin must have escaped detection by the skin of his teeth if he did this.

If he had gone through the backyard, he would have had to avoid the motion detector, which is possible but also a good reason not to go that way, and he would have had to fool with that heavy broken gate. I think the gate would have shown signs of someone hurriedly trying to shut it behind them. Since it didn't and there is not one drop of evidence anywhere in the back yard, there just isn't anything to support that as the route anyone taking the sock for whatever reason might have taken.

For some reason, I am left with the impression that they were in the habit of coming and going out of the front door. Be interesting to hear from family and friends on that one.

Goody
07-15-2005, 02:32 PM
It does seem to fit. The first time Darin is heard on the tape is at about 30 seconds. Darlie screams "Karen/Darin" about 2 mins. later. The 1st time the PO is heard is at about 3:45 mins. Easily fits your theory. Darlie could have hollered out the utility room door to Darin. Right after she screams for whoever, the OP asks her if anybody else is in the house with her, besides her children and her husband. Darlie first says "no" real quick, then adds that her husband just ran downstairs and he's helping her. He had actually been downstairs over 2 mins. by then. Looking at it from the point of view that Darlie is screaming "Darin" makes the "he's helping me" seem creepy, doesn't it? Is he running around getting rid of things, cutting screens, is that how he's helping her?
I am definitely going have to make an effort to listen to that again. Sure would be interesting if we could prove she was hollering for Darin while he was out on the sock run. Sew up a few holes anyway.



That's right, they said they felt betrayed by LE when they weren't told about the sock. Source: Flesh and Blood by Patricia Springer. They were probably thinking "crap, what else did Darin screw up"

I believe Darin said something about it at trial, too.


Darlie doesn't say on the tape that she's hollering for a neighbor to help her and now that I've listened to it again and again, it was on a loop, LOL her screaming "Karen" sounds like it came out of the middle of nowhere. Patricia Springer says that Darin went to get the Neals after LE and the paramedics had arrived. Springer does not say Darin claims to have gotten the Neals to have friends with him, but because Karen was a nurse. Later, Terry Neal drove Darin to the hospital and Karen took care of Domaine and Drake. Another thing about the tape, I downloaded it and I can hear things much better than just playing it from the website. I'll have to watch the the mins. again, but I swear at one point, I can hear utensils clattering. Hmmmmmm
That is what I remember....that she said it out of nowhere. Springer is right on most of it, but I believe Karen Neal testified that she went to the hospital, too. I can't be certain though. The old memory is rebelling again. But it seems to me that she left the baby with Mrs. Gorsuch and went to the hospital with Terry and Darin.

Goody
07-15-2005, 02:33 PM
Not with myself, making sure it was understood. Funny question coming from someone who refers to herself in the 3rd person, huh Goody?

aaahahahahahahahhahah! How long you been reading Goody, girl????

Goody
07-15-2005, 02:36 PM
Actually what I meant is that I misunderstood Mary's comment and took it as an insult. I wasn't talking about my knowledge of true crime.
I am going to start calling you Piney, short for porcupine. Everytime we joke around with you, you fire off a needle. Easy does it, girl. We're harmless.

Jeana (DP)
07-15-2005, 02:41 PM
We're harmless.


I still say you should have gone to law school. Those defendants wouldn't stand a chance against you!!!!

Goody
07-15-2005, 02:43 PM
Of course less blood flow means the heart has stopped beating, blah blah..... No way you have ever heard of means that naturally I am wrong? It's so simple, and you're making it so hard. I've done more research about if it's possible to determine the order of the wounds in SOME cases, and it is possible. You both seem to miss the fact that I keep saying SOME cases. If a victim runs from the attacker after an initial wound, and one could tell that by looking at blood on the floor and blood spatter, cast off, etc! Obviously then that first stab was a wound which did not immediatly kill the victim. An ME would know if the victim would have bled out from the wound or needed to be stabbed again in order to die. I don't understand why you can't see that. It's so simple. You are setting up much more difficult scenerios than I am. I said before: in overkill situations of course they can't tell the order. That's ridiculous and that's not what I said. Ask Dr. Henry Lee if in some cases you can give an educated guess at the order of the wounds and get back with me on that.
Well, of course, an ME can give an educated guess in some cases. In some, through forensics, he might even do better than that. But that doesn't happen in most cases. However, we were talking about the Routier boys in particular, weren't we? The ME clearly stated that they could not tell in what order the wounds were made. In fact, both the ME's did. They couldn't even tell which child was attacked first, and they had no official time of death for Devon..

Goody
07-15-2005, 02:46 PM
And lets not forget that Hamilton's testimony has absolutely NOTHING about brushing the knife block or the knives. Great detail about every other little itsy bitsy thing he brushed but no knife block
You mean no one asked him?

Goody
07-15-2005, 02:51 PM
[/color]
Wow Goody, that's a big statement to make without listing your source. I've got all 4 books and I don't remember reading that in any of them. Was it Babs? She has some easily checked facts wrong in her book. For instance, she said Darlie and Darin had sex on the sofa that night, but tests showed Darlie had no semen anywhere on her. I'd like to read more about that neighbor's statement, would you please find the author's name or the book or article for me?
And you're right, neither can decide who was really mad about the hot tub thing. Frankly, they both should have been pissed. I mean jeez how did those boys splash nearly all of the water out?! Of course, there's a big difference between pissed and killing pissed.
I don't remember which book it was in. Probably Springer or B. Davis, but even D. Davis threw in comments from family and friends so I can't be sure. I do know though it was NOT in Brown's because I never read his jibberish. I tried but he sounded like a family member trying to veto every speck of evidence against their loved one, no matter how farfetched the argument was.

Now will I look it up? Hmm.....I will see what I can do. No promises though.

Goody
07-15-2005, 02:53 PM
Well my roots do need to be done. ;)
Aha!! I must be psychic!!! Watch out y'all!!! LOL!

Goody
07-15-2005, 03:01 PM
I did some homework. *insert pat my back emoticon*

Devon was 4 when they moved from Bond to Eagle. But I doubt he was a screen cutter then.

17 A. Devon was born June the 14th, 1989.
18 Q. Okay. And, y'all continued to live at
19 the house on Bond Street?
20 A. Yes, we did.

20 Q. Okay. How long was it before y'all
21 moved over on Eagle Drive?
22 A. We moved to our new home on Eagle
23 Drive in 1993.
http://justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-44.php#2

However, I've been thinking about what you said about those aliens...Goody, I just don't think they were violent. They may have cut the screen but there's no evidence or testimony to support them killing the kids. :crazy:
O, don't tempt me, A@M (A@M). I am having a hard enough time behaving myself here. If you want to banter openly, meet me at GAC.

http://login.prospero.com/dir-login/index.asp?webtag=guiltyascharged&lgnDST=http%3A%2F%2Fforums%2Edelphiforums%2Ecom%2F guiltyascharged%2Fstart

Goody
07-15-2005, 03:07 PM
Nope! :snooty: I main't tellin ya now.

But I have a question for you, or Goody, or anybody that could help me understand....Goody said the screen was cut in an upside down T. I just can't picture that. :confused: How did the sides fold down if the horizontal cut ran along the bottom of the screen?

UGH! I think I'm confused again.:confused:
Well, you are right, so it must be the other way around. We have argued so much about that stupid screen, I thought I was wrong about the Tshape and switched it. You can see it in the pictures when your book comes in.

Goody
07-15-2005, 03:10 PM
Not even in your own back yard - with a 6' privacy fence? Hmmm, maybe I'm a bad mommy....

When my daughter was 5 years old, she could swim like a fish. I wouldn't have left her alone around the pool, but a hot tub....well, we didn't have one so I really don't know. Just guessing myself, if she could stand up and her head would be above water I'd say I wouldn't watch her 24/7 around it.
Kids can drown in a bucket of water. It is never safe to leave a young child alone with any standing water, shallow or not.

cami
07-15-2005, 03:12 PM
[QUOTE=accordn2me]I know, but I'm awfully close. ;)

QUOTE]


ROFL, you crack me up girl. See what did I tell you, manic.

Goody
07-15-2005, 03:17 PM
I think in a backyard with a 6' privacy fence is fine. I was talking about children, as the Routier boys, who are allowed to venture away from their own yards unaccompanied.
I read that there was a new construction site in the subdivision that the kids liked to frequent. Like any construction site, it was full of tools and things that kids could get hurt on. Yet no one ever saw them being supervised there or anywhere else in teh subdivision. I think Darlie was probably a lazy mother. She let the kids run the neighborhood like parents did back in the 40s and 50s. There were even some claims that she locked them out when she didn't want them coming in to bother her or wake the baby. My stepmother used to do me that way when I was their age. She didn't want me to wake her napping babies either. So it is not unheard of, but definitely not appropriate today. Actually, it wasn't back then either. My grandmother used to raise cain with her over it even back then, and we lived on a farm. Darlie was definitely lax in her parenting skills.


I wouldn't have left any of my children in any body of water when they were five years old. In fact, now that my youngest is 10 years old, I still won't. Guess I'm overprotective, but they'll just have to live with that. :blushing:
Better to be safe than sorry.

Goody
07-15-2005, 03:20 PM
I'm sorry Goody. Did you say "canned chicken." :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Why, yes. Haven't you ever tried it? It is good. My dogs love it!!

beesy
07-15-2005, 03:23 PM
Well, of course, an ME can give an educated guess in some cases. In some, through forensics, he might even do better than that. But that doesn't happen in most cases. However, we were talking about the Routier boys in particular, weren't we? The ME clearly stated that they could not tell in what order the wounds were made. In fact, both the ME's did. They couldn't even tell which child was attacked first, and they had no official time of death for Devon.. Hey you're using my color! Yeah, we started off with this case remember? Stupid Chris said the white numbers were the most likely order for Damon and then we were off! Never talked about Devon, but....nah. Anyway, then we meandered off to cases in general, or at least I did

beesy
07-15-2005, 03:26 PM
I am going to start calling you Piney, short for porcupine. Everytime we joke around with you, you fire off a needle. Easy does it, girl. We're harmless. Stingers, not needles.:D

Jeana (DP)
07-15-2005, 03:36 PM
I read that there was a new construction site in the subdivision that the kids liked to frequent. Like any construction site, it was full of tools and things that kids could get hurt on. Yet no one ever saw them being supervised there or anywhere else in teh subdivision. I think Darlie was probably a lazy mother. She let the kids run the neighborhood like parents did back in the 40s and 50s. There were even some claims that she locked them out when she didn't want them coming in to bother her or wake the baby. My stepmother used to do me that way when I was their age. She didn't want me to wake her napping babies either. So it is not unheard of, but definitely not appropriate today. Actually, it wasn't back then either. My grandmother used to raise cain with her over it even back then, and we lived on a farm. Darlie was definitely lax in her parenting skills.


Better to be safe than sorry.


I'm surprised no one ever said anything. When my second son was about 7 or 8, his pappa went to Home Depot and he couldn't go with him. My son was playing Leggos in his room and the next thing I know, he's at my front door with a cop. LOL Cop said he saw him down the street and KNEW that it was unusual to see him out alone. First of all, that's one hell of an observant cop. Secondly, my son is very tall for his age. The cop thought he was older than he actually was at first. It wasn't until he stopped to talk to him that he realized how young he was. I'll tell you what though - it scared the crap out of me and my son and I had a LOOONNNGGG talk about exactly what I was so worried about. He's much more aware now and even comes between me and my daughter when she's angry that I won't let her go with her girlfriend "on a walk." :)

Jeana (DP)
07-15-2005, 03:37 PM
Why, yes. Haven't you ever tried it? It is good. My dogs love it!!


Well, if I was a German Shepherd, I'd probably love it. Things being what they are, I think I'll just take mine the usual way. :slap: :slap:

Goody
07-15-2005, 03:38 PM
I still say you should have gone to law school. Those defendants wouldn't stand a chance against you!!!!
Shoot, Jeana. I didn't even know I COULD go to law school. I grew up in a family where girls were supposed to grow up lilly white pure and marry and have a houseful of kids and enjoy life after they were widowed and left a lot of money. Now, if you don't think Goody is a screw up, think again because she didn't do any of those things in the right order. But law school would have definitely been fun. And if I had, I would have definitely been a prosecutor.

I remember when I was young and waiting tables for a living, I hated the drunks who would come in after hours. I'd hold the empty coffee cup about two inches from the table and drop it so it would make a loud bang right next to the head that was laying on the table and stinking up the place. Jerk that sucker awake, it would! LOL! No, I wasn't cut out for waitressing and it didn't last long.


Gosh, I even remember cops coming in and lecturing me on staying faithful to my wayward young husband who sure wasn't being faithful to me nor was he putting any food on the table. It seemed that the mood in general back then was against women, no matter which way you shuffled the deck. Shoot, I didn't know until I became disabled that there were grants and school loans specifically designed to help students who aren't fresh out of high school go to school. If I had, I would have gone long, long before I did. Even worse when I was in California, college was free......and I didn't know it. It never occured to me that I could go to school without having thousands of dollars to pay for it.

Fortunately girls are more informed today. In fact, most of us in general are. We now that getting married and having kids is not the only thing we were born for. I am just happy that the couple of years I was able to attend were so fruitful. If I could say anything to any girl on this forum, it would be to GET YOUR EDUCATION! NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, CAN REPLACE A GOOD EDUCATION. We can't predict the future but we can be prepared for it.

Jeana (DP)
07-15-2005, 03:38 PM
Stingers, not needles.:D


They're actually "quills."

cami
07-15-2005, 03:39 PM
[QUOTE=Goody][color=royalblue][b]I am definitely going have to make an effort to listen to that again. Sure would be interesting if we could prove she was hollering for Darin while he was out on the sock run. Sew up a few holes anyway. QUOTE]

I'm playing it right now and I think I must revise my first opinion. Although I can't turn it up too loud I still think she says Karen.

I still can't get over that "somebody just walked in here......." That's what makes the rest of her hysteria on the rest of the call so phony in my opinion.


anyway, I am taking the cd home so I can listen on my cd player.

Goody
07-15-2005, 03:41 PM
Hey you're using my color! Yeah, we started off with this case remember? Stupid Chris said the white numbers were the most likely order for Damon and then we were off! Never talked about Devon, but....nah. Anyway, then we meandered off to cases in general, or at least I did
I guess we all went with you then. LOL! No biggie. I don't know where we were on Devon anyways. hahahahahahah!

Goody
07-15-2005, 03:47 PM
Well, if I was a German Shepherd, I'd probably love it. Things being what they are, I think I'll just take mine the usual way. :slap: :slap:
Well just remember, when in a pinch, a can or two on hand comes in handy, LOL!

I was spending a dollar a can for dog food that gave my dogs the trots...and when dogs get the trots...O, never mind......anyway, I started buying canned chicken and turkey for them, occassionally tuna, and it works great. I mix a couple of spoonfuls in their kibble, which is for dogs with allergies (not cheap) and they do fine. No trots and they get a good meal. Cheap dog food has too many fillers and is usually not good for dogs unless the dog has a strong stomach. Most of mine don't. In fact, one has so many allergies, he has constant ear infections. He is doing better now than he ever has.

beesy
07-15-2005, 03:47 PM
I will have to go back and listen to the tape again. I really have forgotten the detail there. But if you are right, then Darin could not have been outside when she hollered it.

02:16:11 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...
02:17:06 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...
02:17:29 911 Operator #1 ...what happened (unintelligible) dispatch 901...
02:20:15 Darlie Routier ...hold on honey ...hold on...
02:22:01 911 Operator #1 ...(unintelligible) who was on (unintelligible)...
02:22:26 911 Operator #2 ...it was (unintelligible) the white phone...
02:23:08 Darlie Routier ...hold on...
02:25:26 911 Operator #2 ...they were wondering when we need to dispatch ...so I sent a double team...
02:25:28 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...oh my God...
02:28:08 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...thanks...
02:28:21 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...
02:29:20 SOUND ...(unintelligible)...
02:30:01 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...
02:30:20 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am...
02:31:06 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
02:31:14 911 Operator #1 ...who's there with you...
02:32:15 Darlie Routier ...Karen ...(unintelligible)...
02:33:15 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am...
that's the last time Darin is sort of heard on the tape before the screaming of "Karen/Darin". He still had a good 15 seconds to disappear from her view enough for her to scream for him. The scream for "Karen" doesn't even fit in there anywhere. It's just out of the clear blue sky.

Goody
07-15-2005, 03:48 PM
Stingers, not needles.:D
I stand corrected. Now, your turn...have you ever tried to pet a porcupine?

beesy
07-15-2005, 03:50 PM
Well just remember, when in a pinch, a can or two on hand comes in handy, LOL!

I was spending a dollar a can for dog food that gave my dogs the trots...and when dogs get the trots...O, never mind......anyway, I started buying canned chicken and turkey for them, occassionally tuna, and it works great. I mix a couple of spoonfuls in their kibble, which is for dogs with allergies (not cheap) and they do fine. No trots and they get a good meal. Cheap dog food has too many fillers and is usually not good for dogs unless the dog has a strong stomach. Most of mine don't. In fact, one has so many allergies, he has constant ear infections. He is doing better now than he ever has. that canned chicken is good! It smells a bit like cat food though. My son is one of those picky eaters and chicken is on his list of "ok's" It even passes his inspection

Jeana (DP)
07-15-2005, 04:06 PM
that canned chicken is good! It smells a bit like cat food though. My son is one of those picky eaters and chicken is on his list of "ok's" It even passes his inspection


Ummm. Okay. None for me though. I can't eat anything that comes close to smelling like cat food. :cool: :cool:

beesy
07-15-2005, 04:17 PM
I stand corrected. Now, your turn...have you ever tried to pet a porcupine? Are you insinuating I'm not petable?:razz: I've never tried to pet either a porupine or a bee, but I allow a few people to pet me;)

beesy
07-15-2005, 04:33 PM
Kids can drown in a bucket of water. It is never safe to leave a young child alone with any standing water, shallow or not. Hell no, it's not! About hot tubs in general, there are usually warning signs posted that children under 12 and pregnant women should not get in a hot tub. Something about the intense heat raising their body temps, BP and pulse high enough to cause a heart attack, rare, I'm sure, but it can happen. Unless the Routiers didn't use the heat on the hot tub, anybody know? Remember Eddie Murphey doing James Brown, "it's hot, in the hot tub, owwww" hee

beesy
07-15-2005, 04:37 PM
They're actually "quills." I meant bees have stingers, so there's no need to call me Piney since I can already throw sharp body parts. Of course, don't bees die after using their stingers? :silenced:

beesy
07-15-2005, 04:49 PM
I'm surprised no one ever said anything. When my second son was about 7 or 8, his pappa went to Home Depot and he couldn't go with him. My son was playing Leggos in his room and the next thing I know, he's at my front door with a cop. LOL Cop said he saw him down the street and KNEW that it was unusual to see him out alone. First of all, that's one hell of an observant cop. Secondly, my son is very tall for his age. The cop thought he was older than he actually was at first. It wasn't until he stopped to talk to him that he realized how young he was. I'll tell you what though - it scared the crap out of me and my son and I had a LOOONNNGGG talk about exactly what I was so worried about. He's much more aware now and even comes between me and my daughter when she's angry that I won't let her go with her girlfriend "on a walk." :) Thank goodness for sharp-eyed coppers! How old is your son now? My son is nearly 9 and my daughter nearly 6. They aren't let out alone ever! But like your son, my daughter snuck out on me once. My friend was visiting and both of our kids are the same age. I looked out the kitchen window and saw my daughter and her son(at that time 4) wandering around in the back yard. Kelli and I freaked out. My daughter has never done that and either has he, when kiddies get together they get all kinds of ideas in their heads. Think of the Routier boys, always unsupervised, running around outside and the trouble they thought up. It's a wonder nothing happened to them before Darlie got ahold of them.

Goody
07-15-2005, 09:44 PM
that canned chicken is good! It smells a bit like cat food though. My son is one of those picky eaters and chicken is on his list of "ok's" It even passes his inspection
I like to keep it on hand for an impromptu dinner when I don't feel like getting too involved in cooking. Just whip up a soup or casserole or something easy on the spur of the moment. You are right. It is good. It is white meat and now you can even buy pure chicken breast. I prefer to cook it myself from a fresh cut of meat (if there is such a thing) but the canned does make a nice last minute alternative. My dogs wouldn't eat it if it were not good. Trust me, they don't put anything in their mouths that doesn't pass the sniff test first.

Goody
07-15-2005, 09:54 PM
I'm surprised no one ever said anything. When my second son was about 7 or 8, his pappa went to Home Depot and he couldn't go with him. My son was playing Leggos in his room and the next thing I know, he's at my front door with a cop. LOL Cop said he saw him down the street and KNEW that it was unusual to see him out alone. First of all, that's one hell of an observant cop. Secondly, my son is very tall for his age. The cop thought he was older than he actually was at first. It wasn't until he stopped to talk to him that he realized how young he was. I'll tell you what though - it scared the crap out of me and my son and I had a LOOONNNGGG talk about exactly what I was so worried about. He's much more aware now and even comes between me and my daughter when she's angry that I won't let her go with her girlfriend "on a walk." :)
We live in a different world today than past generations. You can never be too careful. I live in a very, very low crime area at the end of a dead end road about five miles long. Lots of houses but no quick exits to the main drag. One day my son was accosted by a man who wanted to give him a ride home. He was within a block of the house. I guess he was about 12. He said he grabbed the pocket knife his father had given him and held onto it, ready to fight the guy if he had to. The man eventually drove away. We're talking about maybe 14 years ago when it was even quieter around here.

No place is safe anymore. Even as quiet as it is here, every once in awhile we hear about someone exposing himself to kids or a rape in an apt laundry room or a peeping Tom. Once we even had a woman who would call around threatening to pull your hair. I was in a convenience market when the clerk got that call. She was eventually caught. O, and let's not forget our dog rapper. That guy was from Pennsylvania. He's still here, too. Every once in awhile I hear of someone who says they were at the court house when his case came up. The old judges around here get a good laugh out of him. They lock him up, he gets out, he reoffends, they lock him up. I hope one of these days he steals a pitbull who puts him in his place.

Goody
07-15-2005, 09:56 PM
Ummm. Okay. None for me though. I can't eat anything that comes close to smelling like cat food. :cool: :cool:
I don't think it smells like cat food. I think it smells like chicken broth.

Goody
07-15-2005, 09:59 PM
Thank goodness for sharp-eyed coppers! How old is your son now? My son is nearly 9 and my daughter nearly 6. They aren't let out alone ever! But like your son, my daughter snuck out on me once. My friend was visiting and both of our kids are the same age. I looked out the kitchen window and saw my daughter and her son(at that time 4) wandering around in the back yard. Kelli and I freaked out. My daughter has never done that and either has he, when kiddies get together they get all kinds of ideas in their heads. Think of the Routier boys, always unsupervised, running around outside and the trouble they thought up. It's a wonder nothing happened to them before Darlie got ahold of them.
Two of them are always twice the mischief. MY boys were only 18 months apart. One would think up the trouble and the other would try it out. They wouldn't have done half the stuff they did if there had only been one of them. I can't imagine anyone who is a perfectionist trying to raise two boys. It would drive them crazy.

Jeana (DP)
07-18-2005, 09:56 AM
Thank goodness for sharp-eyed coppers! How old is your son now? My son is nearly 9 and my daughter nearly 6. They aren't let out alone ever! But like your son, my daughter snuck out on me once. My friend was visiting and both of our kids are the same age. I looked out the kitchen window and saw my daughter and her son(at that time 4) wandering around in the back yard. Kelli and I freaked out. My daughter has never done that and either has he, when kiddies get together they get all kinds of ideas in their heads. Think of the Routier boys, always unsupervised, running around outside and the trouble they thought up. It's a wonder nothing happened to them before Darlie got ahold of them.


He's 12. :) :) :)

cami
07-18-2005, 10:02 AM
Shoot, Jeana. I didn't even know I COULD go to law school. I grew up in a family where girls were supposed to grow up lilly white pure and marry and have a houseful of kids and enjoy life after they were widowed and left a lot of money. Now, if you don't think Goody is a screw up, think again because she didn't do any of those things in the right order. But law school would have definitely been fun. And if I had, I would have definitely been a prosecutor.

I remember when I was young and waiting tables for a living, I hated the drunks who would come in after hours. I'd hold the empty coffee cup about two inches from the table and drop it so it would make a loud bang right next to the head that was laying on the table and stinking up the place. Jerk that sucker awake, it would! LOL! No, I wasn't cut out for waitressing and it didn't last long.


Gosh, I even remember cops coming in and lecturing me on staying faithful to my wayward young husband who sure wasn't being faithful to me nor was he putting any food on the table. It seemed that the mood in general back then was against women, no matter which way you shuffled the deck. Shoot, I didn't know until I became disabled that there were grants and school loans specifically designed to help students who aren't fresh out of high school go to school. If I had, I would have gone long, long before I did. Even worse when I was in California, college was free......and I didn't know it. It never occured to me that I could go to school without having thousands of dollars to pay for it.

Fortunately girls are more informed today. In fact, most of us in general are. We now that getting married and having kids is not the only thing we were born for. I am just happy that the couple of years I was able to attend were so fruitful. If I could say anything to any girl on this forum, it would be to GET YOUR EDUCATION! NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, CAN REPLACE A GOOD EDUCATION. We can't predict the future but we can be prepared for it.



Yes, we didn't have many choices in those day, not like the ladies of today. We had to either be secretaries, nurses or teachers. Or in my case with the strict Roman Catholicism, a nun!!! Anyway, there was no money in my family to allow us girls to go on to college but the boys went! How sad eh, my elder sister is a whiz, she graduated high school at age 15 and would have been able to handle any college matric I think. She got all the brains, I got the boobs, LOL.

cami
07-18-2005, 10:16 AM
I stand corrected. Now, your turn...have you ever tried to pet a porcupine?

Me too, it does sound more like Darin then Karen.

Goody
07-18-2005, 02:21 PM
He's 12. :) :) :)
Ohhhhhh, fasten your seatbelt, Jeana! The fun is about to begin.

Goody
07-18-2005, 02:25 PM
Yes, we didn't have many choices in those day, not like the ladies of today. We had to either be secretaries, nurses or teachers. Or in my case with the strict Roman Catholicism, a nun!!! Anyway, there was no money in my family to allow us girls to go on to college but the boys went! How sad eh, my elder sister is a whiz, she graduated high school at age 15 and would have been able to handle any college matric I think. She got all the brains, I got the boobs, LOL.
Kids had to work their way through college in the old days if their folks couldn't afford it. Not too many of us were in the position to do that. If you aren't on the mainstream of things, you aren't aware of changes as they occur so I really didn't know people ever could go to school unless they could save up thousands of dollars to do it with. I had a friend who blew off her chance to go to college and I thought she was nuts. I wanted to jump up in front of her parents, waving my hands and yelling, "Me! Me! I'll go in her place!!" LOL!

Jeana (DP)
07-18-2005, 02:29 PM
Ohhhhhh, fasten your seatbelt, Jeana! The fun is about to begin.


Been there. Done that. My oldest turned 25 in March!!!! ;)

Goody
07-18-2005, 02:29 PM
Me too, it does sound more like Darin then Karen.
It makes more sense for her to call out to Darin and I really think she did. I also think the plan might have been for Darin to go after the Neals but that got sidetracked because the police arrived so quickly. That might explain why Darin did go as soon as he could, even though their presence was not needed by then. He had a mindset to stick to the plan.

Goody
07-18-2005, 02:30 PM
Been there. Done that. My oldest turned 25 in March!!!! ;)
Well, you get to do it again! hahahahahahaha. Each one is more interesting.

Jeana (DP)
07-18-2005, 02:48 PM
Well, you get to do it again! hahahahahahaha. Each one is more interesting.


LOL I'm not even worried about my boys. They're both very calm, very sweet natured. ITS THE GIRL I'M WORRIED ABOUT. She's only 10 years old, but Saturday night I got a small taste of what I'm in for. She's the "curse" my mother put on me. I've always said that my mother, rest her soul, is probably smiling from ear to ear knowing that my precious little powder puff is going to show me first hand exactly what my sisters and I put our poor mother through. I'm not ready. I'm not nearly ready for this!!!!! Lord have mercy!!!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Goody
07-18-2005, 04:36 PM
LOL I'm not even worried about my boys. They're both very calm, very sweet natured. ITS THE GIRL I'M WORRIED ABOUT. She's only 10 years old, but Saturday night I got a small taste of what I'm in for. She's the "curse" my mother put on me. I've always said that my mother, rest her soul, is probably smiling from ear to ear knowing that my precious little powder puff is going to show me first hand exactly what my sisters and I put our poor mother through. I'm not ready. I'm not nearly ready for this!!!!! Lord have mercy!!!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Girls are more scary, but boys can turn your hair white, too. Hahahahahaha! Are you watching the Princes of Beverly Hills? Forget which channel it is, but the stepfather is a music producer who tells them to go out and make some of their own money. They keep him ticked off. I haven't been watching it because I have so many other shows going right now, but people with teens and preteens might find it interesting. hahahahahah!

Jeana (DP)
07-18-2005, 07:58 PM
Girls are more scary, but boys can turn your hair white, too. Hahahahahaha! Are you watching the Princes of Beverly Hills? Forget which channel it is, but the stepfather is a music producer who tells them to go out and make some of their own money. They keep him ticked off. I haven't been watching it because I have so many other shows going right now, but people with teens and preteens might find it interesting. hahahahahah!


No, I haven't seen that one.

beesy
07-20-2005, 02:01 AM
Me too, it does sound more like Darin then Karen. cami? where is this dang unidentified fingerprint that the creature on Court TV board is going on about? She won't answer me, wonder why? I think that's from the Darlies isn't it, or it wasn't bloody?

texaslb218
07-20-2005, 02:40 PM
cami? where is this dang unidentified fingerprint that the creature on Court TV board is going on about? She won't answer me, wonder why? I think that's from the Darlies isn't it, or it wasn't bloody?
I didn't even know that there was an active Darlie forum at CTV. Now YOU have caused me to stop and read the entire thread. Thank You! Other than the stubborn, unreachable poster over there, I was caught up once again in idiocy of Darlie. Someone asked here why she would do or say a certain thing. IMO--JMO She isn't/wasn't very smart to begin with. IMO The coverage here in the Dallas area was right on. Her story didn't make sense, her actions unforgivable. Again thanks for the great explanations "over there" to you and to Cami!

Goody
07-20-2005, 03:52 PM
I didn't even know that there was an active Darlie forum at CTV. Now YOU have caused me to stop and read the entire thread. Thank You! Other than the stubborn, unreachable poster over there, I was caught up once again in idiocy of Darlie. Someone asked here why she would do or say a certain thing. IMO--JMO She isn't/wasn't very smart to begin with. IMO The coverage here in the Dallas area was right on. Her story didn't make sense, her actions unforgivable. Again thanks for the great explanations "over there" to you and to Cami!
Me either, Texas. I will have to beatfeet over there.

beesy
07-20-2005, 04:45 PM
Me either, Texas. I will have to beatfeet over there. Yes, please do! My fingers are getting cramped! :dance: