Motive

[Jeana (DP)]

Since this will appear under Jeana's name because I am not allowed to post directly, I think I should reintroduce myself as the person who wrote the "General Overview," which was Section One, Section Two (History of the Intruder), Section Three (Mixed Motive Crimes), and Section Four (What the Wounds Tell Us). I am writing what
I think will be my final installment and in this section I will focus solely on motive. I know I mentioned what I believe to be the motive in passing, but I will try and focus on it as the sole topic here.
Before I discuss motive, I think it is necessary to discuss how to determine the motive. One mistake I think a lot of people are making in this case is that they are trying to figure out logically why Darlie would have stabbed the boys. As a result, most people say that this crime is a killing for money. Some people say that the killing involves her getting rid of the two children because they were interfering with her lifestyle. We also know that the defense says there was an intruder. However, I don't think it was any of these things. The problem with using logic is that if you tell Darlie that the evidence is "X," she will say no, the evidence is "Y." If you tell her there was no intruder, she will say there was an intruder. If you tell her that she just stood there doing nothing after the boys were stabbed, she will tell you that she was a whirlwind of activity, wetting paper towels and hauling them over to the boys. In short, it is too easy to manipulate logic. We have to use some other approach and I suggest that approach should involve "memory."
In my native state of Illinois, four people were shot to death and a fifth, a husband was shot through the left wrist and in the thigh, and, thus, was wounded. This case is known as the Christopher Vaughn case and is not an "intruder" case but is helpful to consider. The husband said that the family was taking a short day trip, he stopped to check the luggage rack on their vehicle, and when he got back in the car, his wife pulled out a gun and started shooting him and the three kids in the back seat. The Chicago Sun Times contacted two experts who wrote the book on parent killers back in 2001. One of them said, "I've seen thousands of these case. After you have seen several they all start to look alike. The husband's story does not match what I have seen. I know by the third sentence of a report I hear on these types of crimes what category these kinds of crimes fall into (mother did it, father did it, neither did it), and the mother here is not likely to be the killer, as the father has indicated." Although the case is in the preliminary stages, the State's test on the mother's hands showed very little gunshot residue, and, especially, not consistent with someone who has shot five people. The husband has been charged with four counts of murder. In a similar vein is a passage I read in a book by John Douglas, the former FBI profiler. He was called to the scene of what looked to be a hate crime. The alleged victim sobbed about how his parents had raised him not to be hateful and how someone came into his house and drew a swastika on the wall as well as other indications of a hate crime. John Douglas looked the scene over for 30 minutes and had the guy arrested. Although the guy protested at first, he later admitted he had staged a hate crime scene. He then asked John Douglas how he knew, and Douglas responded, "When you have seen 3,000 crime scenes like I have, you know what a real hate crime scene looks like and this does not look like that."
In Darlie's case, I think most people don't know what happened so they review all the evidence and try to make an educated guess using logic. However, what I noticed first were the stab wounds inflicted on the boys. To me, the multiple thrusts of the knife into both boys indicates rage. Someone was pretty angry with them. We see this type of rage in the Jeffrey MacDonald case and the other case being discussed, the Julie Harper case. I am not sure exactly who the assailant is by this point, but one other thing I know from a lot of these cases is that a knife is "personal." As a result, I believe the assailant is very angry at them and has a personal reason for stabbing them. I then look at whether the attack is sustained or not. In both the MacDonald and Harper cases, I think the stabbing is sustained and, thus, is a homicidal rage in each case. Here, the boys were stabbed only a total of 10 times and neither victim had more than six stab wounds. What we appear to be looking at here is a rage that is more transient than sustained--in other words, the rage wore off. The only other type of rage that I know of is a "jealous" rage and that is what I believe this is. The rage trigger would not be around them and as a result, I believe that the rage had to have come from the argument that Darlie and Darin had that evening/early morning. This crime is not a killing for money because those crimes tend to be more "matter of fact" and far less violent than what we see here. Examples of killings for money include the Charles Stuart case in 1989 (wife shot once in the head), the George Revelle case in 1994 (wife shot in the head), and the Frances Newton case (husband shot in the head and their two children were also shot to death). In killings for money, the assailant appears only to want to move the victim aside to get something and, thus, there is a low level of violence.
However, what people say when I mention the jealous rage theory is, okay, I can see plunging the knife into them as rage, but why would she jealous of them? You have to remember that she came from an impoverished background and was only able to leave it once Darin came flying by. Even then, for the first few years after they were married in 1988, she and Darin weren't living large, as it would later be termed. It wasn't until 1992, when Darin's business took off, that they started living well. Eventually, Darlie fixed up the house so that it was "Nintendo House," the happening place for the kids to be. My understanding is that Darlie came from the bottom of the socioeconmic ladder growing up. After she was with Darin for a time, they had pretty much climbed to near the top of the socioeconmic ladder, assuming Darin's alleged statement is true that near the time of the murders, he and Darlie had made it into the top two percent of wage earners for their age group. I think Darlie had a considerable fear of ever going back to that impoverished background, as evidenced by her statement in her "suicidal thoughts" letter one month before the murders, "I have been fighting my whole life and feel like I just can't fight anymore." What has she been fighting her whole life? I think this is the most important statement in the whole case. I think the "just can't fight anymore" is a nod to the fact that they are running out of money, but what is this "whole life" thing? In any event, I believe that she had been pestering Darin for at least of week for money and continued to do so. Darin could not come across with the money because he did not have it. Finally, that evening or early the next morning, Darlie used the atomic bomb in her arsenal of manipulation, the statement that always did the trick, "I think we need to separate." This statement is what I like to refer to as "the gasoline" because Darin saw his way out of his no money predicament by telling her "good, and don't come back" to get her off his back for awhile. Darin's response is what I like to refer to as "the match" because I think he acted quite serious in his response and I think Darlie took him seriously. I then believe Darlie was very stressed because she had no problem-solving skills and the only place she could turn to would be back with her mother and that impoverished childhood once again. I think she then became angry at the two children not for anything they did, but for having permanent residence at "Nintendo House," while she was being forced back to the poverty of her childhood. I believe that the thought of the long fall down that socioeconomic ladder, which the two boys did not have to endure," was too painful for her and resulted in the crime that occurred in June of 1996. There is your jealousy. Too, I think once the rage dissipated and Darlie saw what she had done, she and Darin quickly came up with a plan to cover it up, and that they are working their plan even 11 years later, their plan being to walk away from what happened. All of the above is what I think memory tells us--it was not money, but the one ugly consequence of running out of money and the pain it brought Darlie, that resulted in what happened that night/early morning.

[White Rain]

Interesting...I never really thought about this until awhile back...someone (may have been you) posted something like this, about the fight and all.
I don't know if you plan to respond on here, but if you don't then I will just ask these general questions/statements to anyone...I am basing this on your motive theory:

If she knew they were having money problems, why would she assume that Darrin would be able to come up with the money to keep paying the mortgage?

If Darrin really told her to leave after the argument what would make her think he'd stand by her if she did something like killing the boys?

If Darrin was so stressed and wanted out from underneath it all, Darlie would have provided him a perfect way...she killed two of his sons and she went to jail...all he would have left to take care of would be him & Drake...why would he keep standing by her? Why would he lose custody of Drake just to keep defending her? And in the case of him helping her cover up or whatever, why bother doing that?


I had to go back and re-read your post just now cause I couldn't remember all you wrote...but also if she and Darrin were to seperate why would she think she wouldn't get a modest amt of child support? Here in GA 3 kids would get 25-27% of the non-custodial parents pay check. I am assuming she would try to get custody b/c if not then SHE would be liable for the support payments.

[Jeana (DP)]

Interesting...I never really thought about this until awhile back...someone (may have been you) posted something like this, about the fight and all.
I don't know if you plan to respond on here, but if you don't then I will just ask these general questions/statements to anyone...I am basing this on your motive theory:




Yes, please feel free to post any questions. I'll post the answers that I receive from the writer.

[White Rain]

Yes, please feel free to post any questions. I'll post the answers that I receive from the writer.

Ok, Jeana, thanks.

[sharkeyes]

... I believe that the rage had to have come from the argument that Darlie and Darin had that evening/early morning.

I then believe Darlie was very stressed because she had no problem-solving skills and the only place she could turn to would be back with her mother and that impoverished childhood once again. I think she then became angry at the two children not for anything they did, but for having permanent residence at "Nintendo House," while she was being forced back to the poverty of her childhood. I believe that the thought of the long fall down that socioeconomic ladder, which the two boys did not have to endure," was too painful for her and resulted in the crime that occurred in June of 1996.

Very interesting post. I have a couple of questions:

1. Regarding the rage coming from the argument - do you think Darlie decided at that point to kill Devon and Damon, i.e.: Do you think the murders were premeditated - and that Darlie made a conscious decision to kill them after that argument - OR - Did she sit and stew about it, becoming more and more angry and then snap?

2. What kind of relationship do you think Darlie had with her mother while she was growing up - AND - what kind of relationship do you think she has now?

Thanks!

[White Rain]

Interesting...I never really thought about this until awhile back...someone (may have been you) posted something like this, about the fight and all.
I don't know if you plan to respond on here, but if you don't then I will just ask these general questions/statements to anyone...I am basing this on your motive theory:


I couldn't go back and edit my post but on the 1st question I meant to say if Darrin did tell her to leave, then what would make her think he'd be able to keep coming up/ the mortgage money?

[Jeana (DP)]

White Rain and sharkeyes have posed some good questions regarding motive. Let me just clarify two things, and that is that

I don't think that Darlie and Darin literally meant what they said the evening/morning of the murders. When Darlie said, "we need to separate," I believe she meant that as a threat to get Darin to hand over the money she was seeking and I don't believe that she actually was threatening to separate. She had used that manipulative trick before. Unfortunately, I believe that Darin was so overjoyed at her offering the solution to the problem of her pestering him for money that he said, "Good, leave and don't ever come back" when he really meant, "please just give me some breathing room for awhile." Also, I unfortunately don't think that I can capture how heated the argument became, but I think it did get pretty heated.



Now, on to White Rain's first question, which appears to be if Darlie left, how did Darlie think Darin was going to be able to continue paying the mortgage. Maybe someone can clarify this, but I don't think that Darlie was independently contributing to things like paying the mortgage. She appeared to be raising the children and helping keep the books for Darin's business, but I don't believe she was contributing anything financially. In any event, I think Darin said what he said in the heat of the moment since Darlie was pressing him with that "bull-in-the-china-shop" approach and I don't know if he was thinking about what he might lose if she left for awhile. White Rain's next question is why he would stand by her after the killings if he had told her to leave. I believe in that regard that Darin had to make a snap decision once he saw the carnage and you have to remember that Darlie is very manipulative, so she probably told him, "Look what you made me do" and Darin concluded it had something to do with their recent heated argument, which meant he was partly responsible. I have heard a lot of people say, "I wouldn't stand by my spouse after something like that," but the Routiers don't appear to think about long-term consequences; rather, they seem to live in the moment and so I believe that Darin quickly decided to cover up the matter. Too, as I have indicated, he may have said that he wanted her to leave for ever, because he was stressed at the moment he said that, but I believe that he really wanted her off of his back for awhile so that he could obtain some more money. I should add, White Rain, that I did post some other material in regard to motive last year, but in the essay I just wrote, I tried to sharpen things up just a bit by focusing solely on motive, explaining why it is better to use memory than logic, and explaining why the killings were not for money even though money as a motive is a very common assumption.



Now, on to some questions posed by sharkeyes. The first question is whether Darlie decided right after the argument to kill the boys or whether she thought it over and then committed the killings. I think the argument was quite heated, Darlie and Darin said what they said, and Darlie sat and stewed about it, and what it meant, for awhile and became more and more angry at the boys because she was going back to her impoverished childhood while they got to be permanent residents of Nintendo House, which she helped create. I don't think it was a long time, but I think maybe it was 30 minutes to an hour. I think she started to panic when she thought about how she was not going back to the land of $12,000 drapes, $5,000 breast implants, $900 bird baths, and then thought about the boys getting to stay at the house. The second question is about Darlie's relationship with her mother. I think Darlie's mother loved Darlie growing up and Darlie loved her mother, and I think they have the same relationship now. Too, I don't want to suggest that Darlie was angry with her mother because Darlie would have to return to live with her mother. I think the glaring difference between Darlie and the two boys is the socioeconomic circumstances under which the childhoods occurred. Part of what makes me say that is that I have known three or four people who have grown up in rough financial circumstances and would talk about it, and I have always noticed a fierce determination never to return to those circumstances. Darlie did not have a choice because she relied largely on Darin to pull her out of those circumstances and I just don't think she was prepared for returning to them; indeed, I don't think she thought she would ever return. But, I do think they still love each other despite all that has happened.

[sharkeyes]

I think the glaring difference between Darlie and the two boys is the socioeconomic circumstances under which the childhoods occurred...

Would it be a fair statement that Darlie's mindset was "there's no way you spoiled brats are living in luxury while I struggle" -and- that she was envious of Devon and Damon?

[Jeana (DP)]

Sharkeyes has asked whether it would be a fair statement to say that Darlie's mindset at the time of the killings
was that there was no way that the two boys were going to live in luxury while she struggled and that she was
envious of Devon and Damon. I believe that is part of it, although I don't know that I would use the word "envy" so
much as I would use the word "jealous." However, I think what really got Darlie mad was the fact that she was, in
effect, the co-creator of Nintendo House, so she hardly could have thought it was fair that she would have to leave
to return to her childhood, which involved much tougher financial circumstances and more turmoil. I also believe what
made her mad was that the two boys were getting to stay at Nintendo House without having to face a decision about
whether that is where they wanted to live while she was being forced out, which was a decision over which she had
no control because she offered to separate from Darin, if only to get him to fork over money, and he took her up on the

offer. I think that their getting to live in perceived luxury, the perceived unfairness of them getting to stay there, and the

fact that she had little control over her ouster led to the brief, but unfortunately, effective attack that resulted on them.

[White Rain]

Ok, let me see if I can make my question a little clearer, and I don't mean this is a rude way.

You seem as if you think that Darlie was thinking she may have to leave, and go back to her old not-so-wealthy lifestyle, while Darrin and the boys remained in the home.
Ok, I know Darlie did not contribute financially to the household...
BUT apparently they were under extreme financial troubles...the house the boat, the jag. Most accounts put them as being behind on two mortgage payments. Ok, say she moves out...what would make her think Darrin would find the money to keep himself and the boys in the house? What would make her think that they too wouldn't have to find a smaller house/apt. to live in?
Also with property of married people being 50/50 she could have just as easily stayed in the house with the boys and asked Darrin to leave. She could have divorced him and got a HUGE chunk in child support for 3 kids.

[Jeana (DP)]

She could have divorced him and got a HUGE chunk in child support for 3 kids.


Just my two cents in here, but from what rock was Darin supposed to get the "chunk" he would have been giving Darlie? THERE WAS NO MONEY.

[CyberLaw]

Not only are assets shared equally in divorce, but the debts as well.

There is no way that Darlie could have stayed in the house and Darin move out to another premises and still support Darlie and the boys by paying all the house and living expenses. They were broke. Flat broke.

Darlie would have no income, Darin's income was not substantial enough to support them while living in the house, let alone all of them living in different locations.

So Darlie would have to get a job(yeah right, with a baby) or move in with relatives. Hardly the lifestyle that she thought she deserved.

So here she is, no job skills, no job, no source of income, and three kids to provide for, because she cannot count on Darin for child support, he of course should pay child support if he is so inclined and has the money.

Darlie would have to scrape, fend for herself, with three kids to take care of, no home of her own.

Remember money and appearances are the end all and be all of her life.

So, we don't know what went though Darlie's disturbed mind. What she thought she would benefit from the death of the boys. I have come to the well founded conclusion(especially the parent of a teenage boy) that what a person does, their justification, their rationalization, their emotional disturbance what ever is going on in their mind, they rationalize it.

We can only speculate, but the the killing of the two boys was done in intense anger. Probably a combination of many things, but in the end Darlie choose to take out her anger at her perceived "lifestyle" change on the two boys as they were the most vulnerable and she could easily blame them, instead of blaming herself and her hubby for the "lifestyle" change.

It is easier to blame others for the problems in your life then to accept responsibility that you played a strong factor through your actions that lead to where you are. In Darlie's mind, the boys were to blame, it was all of their fault.

[White Rain]

Just my two cents in here, but from what rock was Darin supposed to get the "chunk" he would have been giving Darlie? THERE WAS NO MONEY.

Yeah but from any other job he may have gotten...I don't mean "chunk" as in one lump payment but a good bit from any money he made working would go towards child support. I think here in Ga for 3 kids it's 27-30% or something like that.
What I meant was a "chunk" of any future paychecks.
My ex-husband made $2000.00 a week when we split, and he was ordered to pay me $500.00 a week child support. Now I know kids get more exspensive as they get older, but at that time that was MORE than enough to support my 2 kids and then some.
If we can say nothing else good about him, Darrin seemed to have a sensible BUSINESS head on his shoulders...whether he lost that business or not he had enough knowledge/skills to go out and find a good paying job.
I know $500 a week child support wouldn't mean crap to Darlie, but like I said, child support goes both ways...Darlie could have just as easily been made to pay child support based on whatever meager wage she'd make.

[White Rain]

Not only are assets shared equally in divorce, but the debts as well.

There is no way that Darlie could have stayed in the house and Darin move out to another premises and still support Darlie and the boys by paying all the house and living expenses. They were broke. Flat broke.

Darlie would have no income, Darin's income was not substantial enough to support them while living in the house, let alone all of them living in different locations.

So Darlie would have to get a job(yeah right, with a baby) or move in with relatives. Hardly the lifestyle that she thought she deserved.

So here she is, no job skills, no job, no source of income, and three kids to provide for, because she cannot count on Darin for child support, he of course should pay child support if he is so inclined and has the money.

Darlie would have to scrape, fend for herself, with three kids to take care of, no home of her own.

Remember money and appearances are the end all and be all of her life.

So, we don't know what went though Darlie's disturbed mind. What she thought she would benefit from the death of the boys. I have come to the well founded conclusion(especially the parent of a teenage boy) that what a person does, their justification, their rationalization, their emotional disturbance what ever is going on in their mind, they rationalize it.

We can only speculate, but the the killing of the two boys was done in intense anger. Probably a combination of many things, but in the end Darlie choose to take out her anger at her perceived "lifestyle" change on the two boys as they were the most vulnerable and she could easily blame them, instead of blaming herself and her hubby for the "lifestyle" change.

It is easier to blame others for the problems in your life then to accept responsibility that you played a strong factor through your actions that lead to where you are. In Darlie's mind, the boys were to blame, it was all of their fault.

Well to the answer the first part of your quote that is the question I was asking of the person writing up under Jeana's name. I was asking her that if she assumed Darlie thought she may have to move, they were already having trouble paying the bills...so why would Darlie assume that if she moved out Darrin would all of a sudden find the money to keep himself and the boys in the house?
Also you mentioned about Darlie not being able to count on child support from Darrin, that works two ways. If she left the boys with him, she could have eventually ended up paying child support herself.

[CyberLaw]

It is great to have a court order for spousal support(which of course Darlie would want, in the US you call it Alimony)and child support, but if one does not have the money, a job, or is making a low wage, then it won't be that much.

Remember Darlie and Darin liked to spend money, like it was never going to end. They pretty well spent every penny on appearance items.

I doubt Darlie would give Darin custody of the boys, as again it is all about appearances and Darlie would get next to nothing in spousal support and would have to pay Darin. I can't see Darlie getting a job much better then low wage. So again it is back to struggling. Darlie would want custody of the boys only for the money that Darin would have to give her, and of course it would not be enough to "live a lifestyle" that the boys and her have been accustomed to.

[Jeana (DP)]

Well to the answer the first part of your quote that is the question I was asking of the person writing up under Jeana's name. I was asking her that if she assumed Darlie thought she may have to move, they were already having trouble paying the bills...so why would Darlie assume that if she moved out Darrin would all of a sudden find the money to keep himself and the boys in the house?
Also you mentioned about Darlie not being able to count on child support from Darrin, that works two ways. If she left the boys with him, she could have eventually ended up paying child support herself.

Thanks for clarifying your question, White Rain. White Rain essentially asked how Darlie thought Darin was going to keep making the payments for

Nintendo House--weren't Darin and the boys going to have to move out of it themselves pretty soon if Darin couldn't keep up the payments? I think

there are probably two schools of thought on this. I think many of us think that the Routiers were having severe financial problems and were down to

little or no money, and so, yes, he would lose the house and she wouldn't be that angry because she knew that they would soon have to leave it

themselves. The other school of thought, which maybe Darlie was thinking, was that Darin's financial setbacks were just temporary and the money

would soon come flowing in again and solve their problems. The defense has tried to indicate that Darin was a small business owner who was just

having some temporary problems with receivables. I think Darlie must have thought that because she was pressing him for money and must have thought

he would give it up if she used her, "we have to separate" trick. In that case, Darlie would have been very angry because she perceived that she was

getting thrown from the "gravy train," and Darin and the boys were getting to stay at Nintendo House while they worked through their financial problems and

got everything back on track. It really depends on your point of view, but I have never believed that they were having some minimal troubles with the

finances, as the defense and Darin have portrayed the situation. Rather, I think they were headed towards bankruptcy. But, I think Darlie only perceived

their troubles as temporary and that is what made her so angry about getting tossed from Nintendo House.

[mollymalone]

Darlie may not have planned this ahead of time, but the possibility exists that she might have thought about it on occasion when things didn't go her way and that night it gelled in her mind as a decision.

Darlie's reasoning for the killings IMO go beyond the arguments about money with Darin, and his inability to give her what she wanted (vacations, money etc..) on demand.

Darrin by all accounts loved those two boys. In separation/divorce cases the world over, when spouses/significant others are have relationship difficulties, things are said, or done, to deliberately hurt the other. I've read of situations where one in the relationship had a beloved a pet, and the other killed it out of jealousy, anger, rage, whatever you would want to call it. Simply because attention was lavished on the pet, and the partner wanted ALL the attention. Some have done nasty things to step-children for the same reasons.

After being angry at Darrin, beyond angry perhaps into a smoldering rage, how better for Darlie, in her mind, to hurt Darrin than to take away two children he loved as a punishment for not giving her what she wanted.

Darlie seemed to be incapable of, or let's put it this way, REFUSED to believe that her own spending habits, as well as Darrin's were responsible for their financial situation.

[White Rain]

Well, while I don't believe the first poster's motive theory was the sole reason Darlie murdered the boys, I believe that, plus the money situation, plus the boys being a bit harder to handle all rolled together that night and exploded in that terrible act of violence.
It's nice to have something new to talk about though.

[dasgal]

Darlie may not have planned this ahead of time, but the possibility exists that she might have thought about it on occasion when things didn't go her way and that night it gelled in her mind as a decision.

Darlie's reasoning for the killings IMO go beyond the arguments about money with Darin, and his inability to give her what she wanted (vacations, money etc..) on demand.

Darrin by all accounts loved those two boys. In separation/divorce cases the world over, when spouses/significant others are have relationship difficulties, things are said, or done, to deliberately hurt the other. I've read of situations where one in the relationship had a beloved a pet, and the other killed it out of jealousy, anger, rage, whatever you would want to call it. Simply because attention was lavished on the pet, and the partner wanted ALL the attention. Some have done nasty things to step-children for the same reasons.

After being angry at Darrin, beyond angry perhaps into a smoldering rage, how better for Darlie, in her mind, to hurt Darrin than to take away two children he loved as a punishment for not giving her what she wanted.

Darlie seemed to be incapable of, or let's put it this way, REFUSED to believe that her own spending habits, as well as Darrin's were responsible for their financial situation.

I disagree. Her diary would seem to suggest that she considered suicide. Her actions did in fact suggest suicide on at least one occassion. However I agree with you that the children was a big F you to Darin, or at very least a selfish desire. I honestly think this was supposed to be a murder suicide. I think Darlie's injuries, while not life threatening, were real attempts by her to off herself. Even though she spent some time, an hour, a few minutes, to think about this, I don't feel like it's premeditated. It feels like an emotional response to me. I think it was a combination of her distress and her medication. But never for a moment do I think this was anything as "rational" as monetary motives at all. I know this was the prosecutions assertions, but IMO, that is a really bad stretch of the imagination.....a grasp for a motive.

[whitywendy]

I disagree. Her diary would seem to suggest that she considered suicide. Her actions did in fact suggest suicide on at least one occassion. However I agree with you that the children was a big F you to Darin, or at very least a selfish desire. I honestly think this was supposed to be a murder suicide. I think Darlie's injuries, while not life threatening, were real attempts by her to off herself. Even though she spent some time, an hour, a few minutes, to think about this, I don't feel like it's premeditated. It feels like an emotional response to me. I think it was a combination of her distress and her medication. But never for a moment do I think this was anything as "rational" as monetary motives at all. I know this was the prosecutions assertions, but IMO, that is a really bad stretch of the imagination.....a grasp for a motive.

I have always thought that the motive of money was just wrong. I did not see it. Yes, people do some crazy things for/over money, however, I just did not believe that Darlie killed her boys for the Life Insurance money.

[dasgal]

Well heck no. The amount of money was not even enough to bury them. The whole killings were a very emotional act, very personal. If you look at the boys, almost all their wounds are in "kill areas". She is trying to kill them quickly so they don't suffer. The only "bad shots" occur when she switches hands on the second attack after dumping the sock. She even stabs her own arm on accident.
This is definately NOT a thought out action. I totally disagree with the prosecution (sorry Jeanna) about the mode and manner of the murders. These were not bloodlust, these were not greedy killings. These were killings made to hurt her husband, to be with them in death....in heaven, to end what she thought was her family's universal suffering, a big f you to Darin and her sister, and a general end to her medicated/non medicated depression. This is an emotional response, and not a well thought out one. I believe she is really freaking sorry.

[workingmom]

Hi everyone. I've been lurking here for several years now but have never really had the desire to post until now. I have spent hours and hours trying to figure out "why" she did it. For me, I believe it was a combination of factors:

1. Darlie was still more or less a self-centered teenager when she had Devon and Damon came shortly after. I don't think she ever really matured after that. You know how it is with teenagers, everything's all life and death drama all the time.

2. I think Darlie was very aware of their dire financial situation and how bad it was spiralling out of control; however she was somewhat of a "control freak" so I think it really got to her that this was something she thought she had no control over. I have a cousin that has been living the high life in Dallas for years. They have a million dollar home, take all kinds of vacations, etc... He grew up in a working class household and he has said on MORE than one occasion that he would commit suicide if he ever had to give up his lifestyle. Seems very similar to Darlie's mindset to me.

3. She was depressed after having third child. Even though she liked babies, I don't think she ever wanted that third child. IMO if she had never had Drake, who knows? Maybe Devon and Damon would still be here.

4. Little boys can be very difficult, especially at that age. I have a 6 y.o. myself and sometimes it takes every ounce of self-restraint I have to keep my temper with him. It's about this age that they start not minding you, making lots of messes, talking back, arguing, etc..It can be very draining.

5. Diet pills - I have taken phen/fen before and yes, they will turn you from 0 to B***H in about 2 seconds. My personal experience with them is you don't sleep well, every little thing can set you off. Your kid spilling a drink on the floor can send you into a 30 minute fit of anger. It might not be this way for everyone, but was for me when I was on them.

6. After 8 years of marriage, Darlie and Darin's wasn't so exciting anymore, especially since they coulnd't spend, spend, spend.

7. DArlie is suspicous of Darin messing around, maybe even with her sister.

If you take all these things and wrap them up into someone like Darlie and it's a volatile mix. I think either one of two things happened. Either something set her off and she snapped or it was a murder-suicide gone wrong. Again, just my opinion.:o

[dasgal]

I very much agree. It's a very sad situation. I think if she could go back, this never would have happened.

[whitywendy]

Well heck no. The amount of money was not even enough to bury them. The whole killings were a very emotional act, very personal. If you look at the boys, almost all their wounds are in "kill areas". She is trying to kill them quickly so they don't suffer. The only "bad shots" occur when she switches hands on the second attack after dumping the sock. She even stabs her own arm on accident.
This is definately NOT a thought out action. I totally disagree with the prosecution (sorry Jeanna) about the mode and manner of the murders. These were not bloodlust, these were not greedy killings. These were killings made to hurt her husband, to be with them in death....in heaven, to end what she thought was her family's universal suffering, a big f you to Darin and her sister, and a general end to her medicated/non medicated depression. This is an emotional response, and not a well thought out one. I believe she is really freaking sorry.

Thank you! This has been my line of thinking too. I think she just freaking lost it that night with everything closing in on her, she just could not handle it. I also believe she is sorry, however, I do not feel sorry for her because she could of prevented her landing on DR but owing up to her loss of sanity at the time.

Now, Andrea Yates and few others, yes I feel sorry for them. They knew something wasn't right and wanted/sought help.

[dasgal]

Thank you! This has been my line of thinking too. I think she just freaking lost it that night with everything closing in on her, she just could not handle it. I also believe she is sorry, however, I do not feel sorry for her because she could of prevented her landing on DR but owing up to her loss of sanity at the time.

Now, Andrea Yates and few others, yes I feel sorry for them. They knew something wasn't right and wanted/sought help.


Due to the meds, personally I think she was as out of it as Yates. But if you read my posts about Yates, you will know it's not my contention that she didn't somewhat plan this in her poor dark mind.

[White Rain]

I disagree. Her diary would seem to suggest that she considered suicide. Her actions did in fact suggest suicide on at least one occassion. However I agree with you that the children was a big F you to Darin, or at very least a selfish desire. I honestly think this was supposed to be a murder suicide. I think Darlie's injuries, while not life threatening, were real attempts by her to off herself. Even though she spent some time, an hour, a few minutes, to think about this, I don't feel like it's premeditated. It feels like an emotional response to me. I think it was a combination of her distress and her medication. But never for a moment do I think this was anything as "rational" as monetary motives at all. I know this was the prosecutions assertions, but IMO, that is a really bad stretch of the imagination.....a grasp for a motive.

If this was to be a murder/suicide why not kill Drake too? She could have easily slept upstairs that night and gotten Drake up on the premise of feeding him, killed him, Damon, and Devon, and then herself. Why would she leave Drake behind?
I hope my questions on here don't sound rude...they aren't meant to be.

[White Rain]

Well heck no. The amount of money was not even enough to bury them. The whole killings were a very emotional act, very personal. If you look at the boys, almost all their wounds are in "kill areas". She is trying to kill them quickly so they don't suffer. The only "bad shots" occur when she switches hands on the second attack after dumping the sock. She even stabs her own arm on accident.
This is definately NOT a thought out action. I totally disagree with the prosecution (sorry Jeanna) about the mode and manner of the murders. These were not bloodlust, these were not greedy killings. These were killings made to hurt her husband, to be with them in death....in heaven, to end what she thought was her family's universal suffering, a big f you to Darin and her sister, and a general end to her medicated/non medicated depression. This is an emotional response, and not a well thought out one. I believe she is really freaking sorry.

I'm not so sure I think Darlie is sorry. Here she is now trying to blame it on Darrin somehow. If she was sorry she'd quit looking for a way out, and accept her sentence. Darlie seemed to believe in God...if she does, wouldn't she want to make things right and clear her conscience here on Earth before she goes before the Lord to be judged?

[White Rain]

Thank you! This has been my line of thinking too. I think she just freaking lost it that night with everything closing in on her, she just could not handle it. I also believe she is sorry, however, I do not feel sorry for her because she could of prevented her landing on DR but owing up to her loss of sanity at the time.

Now, Andrea Yates and few others, yes I feel sorry for them. They knew something wasn't right and wanted/sought help.

Hey Wendy, what makes you think Darlie is now sorry for what she did?

[whitywendy]

Hey Wendy, what makes you think Darlie is now sorry for what she did?

I just don't believe that she did this on purpose. Just because she doesn't want to die by the hands of the State of Texas doesn't mean she isn't sorry for what she did. Just because she hasn't admitted to the public, doesn't mean in her mind that God hasn't forgiven her. I think allot of people who are sitting in prison claiming to be innocent, actually deep down feel sorry/bad for whatever crime brought them there. Esp. 1st time offenders. Some people with their faith, believe it is a personally one that as long as they are faithful and truthful to their GOD and forgiveness is given, then who cares about what the "others" think or know.

Basically what I am trying to say is that I believe allot of people do things that they regret but will never admit they actual did it.

[White Rain]

I just don't believe that she did this on purpose. Just because she doesn't want to die by the hands of the State of Texas doesn't mean she isn't sorry for what she did. Just because she hasn't admitted to the public, doesn't mean in her mind that God hasn't forgiven her. I think allot of people who are sitting in prison claiming to be innocent, actually deep down feel sorry/bad for whatever crime brought them there. Esp. 1st time offenders. Some people with their faith, believe it is a personally one that as long as they are faithful and truthful to their GOD and forgiveness is given, then who cares about what the "others" think or know.

Basically what I am trying to say is that I believe allot of people do things that they regret but will never admit they actual did it.


Ok I can buy that maybe...but if you feel you have made your peace with the Lord then why continue to blame other people? Ok, just say like you thought she regretted it but will never admit it...that's not really being truthful to the Lord in my eyes....this is just my opinion but I don't think you can say "ok Lord, I confess my guilt to You, but as far as everyone else I will continue to deny guilt." I agree that our opinons don't much matter compared to the Lord, but still...
Why not make her peace with the Lord and shut the H*ll up if she feels guilty? She doesn't have to go on and on and provide scenario after scenario as to what happened...you can just shut up and not plead guilt or innocence if you are really sorry...there are so many murders these days...if you shut up and said nothing else the public would eventually forget about you...and I seriously doubt any newspaper would come up with something like "Darlie has not pleaded her innocence in a year or more, so therefore she MUST be guilty."
The Lord is the judge of ALL...not just murderers, molesters, etc...so if you make peace with the Lord you should not care what anyone else thought and shouldn't have to continue to proclaim your innocence...you should trust in the Lord to make it ok...
You can feel guilty and express your guilt to the Lord all you want...but as long as you are still denying it you have not taken 100% cause of it you have not take the full guilt of it and you are NOT 100% admitting your guilt, IMO.
If she trusts in the Lord and has made right with him, she should NOT care about what any of the rest of us thinks, therefore the lies should NOT continue...just imo...you know I love ya chic, but this we have to agree to disagree on. Darlie, imo, has shown NO sign of regret for what she has done. The only regret I know of is her getting caught.

[Jeana (DP)]

I just don't believe that she did this on purpose. Just because she doesn't want to die by the hands of the State of Texas doesn't mean she isn't sorry for what she did. Just because she hasn't admitted to the public, doesn't mean in her mind that God hasn't forgiven her. I think allot of people who are sitting in prison claiming to be innocent, actually deep down feel sorry/bad for whatever crime brought them there. Esp. 1st time offenders. Some people with their faith, believe it is a personally one that as long as they are faithful and truthful to their GOD and forgiveness is given, then who cares about what the "others" think or know.

Basically what I am trying to say is that I believe allot of people do things that they regret but will never admit they actual did it.

I think she regrets the murders now. That doesn't mean that she should be excused. She still needs to be executed.

[mollymalone]

I disagree. Her diary would seem to suggest that she considered suicide. Her actions did in fact suggest suicide on at least one occassion. However I agree with you that the children was a big F you to Darin, or at very least a selfish desire. I honestly think this was supposed to be a murder suicide. I think Darlie's injuries, while not life threatening, were real attempts by her to off herself. Even though she spent some time, an hour, a few minutes, to think about this, I don't feel like it's premeditated. It feels like an emotional response to me. I think it was a combination of her distress and her medication. But never for a moment do I think this was anything as "rational" as monetary motives at all. I know this was the prosecutions assertions, but IMO, that is a really bad stretch of the imagination.....a grasp for a motive.
Darlie is driven by her emotions true. But anyone can write anything in a diary whether true or not. Especially IF Darlie believed Darrin or someone else might get to see it and beg her not to take such an action. Which could have been Darlie's whole point in writing it. Especially if her hope was that if Darrin were to read it the expected action would be to be "oh baby don't do it I can't live without you" etc..

As a teen I wrote wicked stuff in my diary simply because my mother and brother used to read mine and I hoped to provoke a specific reaction so I could call them on the fact that I wasn't doing anything wrong or inappropriate, but they sure were by reading something that was essentially private thoughts.

IF, and that's a big IF for me, Darlie was writing about suicide because she really felt that way, I could see where a murder suicide would be premeditated, but that brings up the question of why just those two boys? Why not the entire family? Or all of her children? I believe that the wounds she suffered were self inflicted, but as a means of covering up her crime. To protect herself as a "victim."

I do agree that it wasn't a rational decision by any means. However, Darlie being one who (IMO only) was engaging in an emotional response out of anger, rage or simply FU, distress or whatever, had ample opportunity to not pick up the knife. Even after picking it up she had ample opportunity to put it down without using it.

[mollymalone]

Well heck no. The amount of money was not even enough to bury them. The whole killings were a very emotional act, very personal. If you look at the boys, almost all their wounds are in "kill areas". She is trying to kill them quickly so they don't suffer. The only "bad shots" occur when she switches hands on the second attack after dumping the sock. She even stabs her own arm on accident.
This is definately NOT a thought out action. I totally disagree with the prosecution (sorry Jeanna) about the mode and manner of the murders. These were not bloodlust, these were not greedy killings. These were killings made to hurt her husband, to be with them in death....in heaven, to end what she thought was her family's universal suffering, a big f you to Darin and her sister, and a general end to her medicated/non medicated depression. This is an emotional response, and not a well thought out one. I believe she is really freaking sorry.
I don't believe it had to do with money either. The wounds on the boys, (I'm by no means an expert on wounds) I thought the wounds as described, the length etc seemed to me to be deep wounds for the most part. Some experts have said that killing with a knife is an up close and personal way of killing someone. Repeated stabbing with a knife denotes a very deep and personal emotion. Kill them quickly? By repeatedly stabbing, and if one child actually was alive for a period of time after that? How horrible, painful and tortuous that would be for them. That's not mercy to keep them from suffering IMO.

Again, if this was to join them in death, to end the suffering of her family, what about Drake? Do you feel she wasn't as attached to him as she was the other two childreN?

[mollymalone]

If this was to be a murder/suicide why not kill Drake too? She could have easily slept upstairs that night and gotten Drake up on the premise of feeding him, killed him, Damon, and Devon, and then herself. Why would she leave Drake behind?
I hope my questions on here don't sound rude...they aren't meant to be.Same here, I'm not trying to be or sound rude. I have the same question.

Darlie is sorry Darlie got caught. I agree, if she's found such peace, why continue to change her story time and again.

[whitywendy]

Ok I can buy that maybe...but if you feel you have made your peace with the Lord then why continue to blame other people? Ok, just say like you thought she regretted it but will never admit it...that's not really being truthful to the Lord in my eyes....this is just my opinion but I don't think you can say "ok Lord, I confess my guilt to You, but as far as everyone else I will continue to deny guilt." I agree that our opinons don't much matter compared to the Lord, but still...
Why not make her peace with the Lord and shut the H*ll up if she feels guilty? She doesn't have to go on and on and provide scenario after scenario as to what happened...you can just shut up and not plead guilt or innocence if you are really sorry...there are so many murders these days...if you shut up and said nothing else the public would eventually forget about you...and I seriously doubt any newspaper would come up with something like "Darlie has not pleaded her innocence in a year or more, so therefore she MUST be guilty."
The Lord is the judge of ALL...not just murderers, molesters, etc...so if you make peace with the Lord you should not care what anyone else thought and shouldn't have to continue to proclaim your innocence...you should trust in the Lord to make it ok...
You can feel guilty and express your guilt to the Lord all you want...but as long as you are still denying it you have not taken 100% cause of it you have not take the full guilt of it and you are NOT 100% admitting your guilt, IMO.
If she trusts in the Lord and has made right with him, she should NOT care about what any of the rest of us thinks, therefore the lies should NOT continue...just imo...you know I love ya chic, but this we have to agree to disagree on. Darlie, imo, has shown NO sign of regret for what she has done. The only regret I know of is her getting caught.

:slap:I love what you said and agree with you 100% when it comes to people who's thinking pattern isn't distubed. However, Darlie def. doesn't have a NORMAL personality as we have all come to the conclusion of so therefore you can't class her in with society's normal way of thinking. I hope I worded that right. ;)

[whitywendy]

Darlie is driven by her emotions true. But anyone can write anything in a diary whether true or not. Especially IF Darlie believed Darrin or someone else might get to see it and beg her not to take such an action. Which could have been Darlie's whole point in writing it. Especially if her hope was that if Darrin were to read it the expected action would be to be "oh baby don't do it I can't live without you" etc..

As a teen I wrote wicked stuff in my diary simply because my mother and brother used to read mine and I hoped to provoke a specific reaction so I could call them on the fact that I wasn't doing anything wrong or inappropriate, but they sure were by reading something that was essentially private thoughts.

IF, and that's a big IF for me, Darlie was writing about suicide because she really felt that way, I could see where a murder suicide would be premeditated, but that brings up the question of why just those two boys? Why not the entire family? Or all of her children? I believe that the wounds she suffered were self inflicted, but as a means of covering up her crime. To protect herself as a "victim."

I do agree that it wasn't a rational decision by any means. However, Darlie being one who (IMO only) was engaging in an emotional response out of anger, rage or simply FU, distress or whatever, had ample opportunity to not pick up the knife. Even after picking it up she had ample opportunity to put it down without using it.

I understand what you are saying but Darlie wasn't the type to write in a diary everyday. She decided to start putting her thoughts down after her grandmother passed away.

I am not one for keeping a diary. However, when I get depressed I tend to turn to the paper to get it out. I can count on my hands how many times I have done this. Some people are just like that. We have been taught to put our feelings down on paper. Some don't do it until sadness consumes them. So I do believe that she was depressed (PPD) and wrote her thoughts down. I do believe that after she wrote her thoughts down, that she realized what she actually thinking and that was why she called Darin. She needed help.

[whitywendy]

I don't believe it had to do with money either. The wounds on the boys, (I'm by no means an expert on wounds) I thought the wounds as described, the length etc seemed to me to be deep wounds for the most part. Some experts have said that killing with a knife is an up close and personal way of killing someone. Repeated stabbing with a knife denotes a very deep and personal emotion. Kill them quickly? By repeatedly stabbing, and if one child actually was alive for a period of time after that? How horrible, painful and tortuous that would be for them. That's not mercy to keep them from suffering IMO.

Again, if this was to join them in death, to end the suffering of her family, what about Drake? Do you feel she wasn't as attached to him as she was the other two childreN?

Molly - I know you were not asking me, but I would like to put 2 cents in. I believe that Darlie was suffering from PPD. Back in 96 PPD wasn't really discussed or treated as it is today. I don't think that she had bonded with him. I have to admit that I had this after the birth of my son. I loved my son by words, but I didn't bond at first. I really can't explain the thoughts and emotions I was feeling. NOW, I never once thought of hurting him. I just didn't play and bond like you normally do. It got so bad that I was placed on medication to get ME back to normal. It took several months before I finally felt the love that I should of normally felt. I felt like such a terrible mother and human being. I love kids. All of them. Always have and for me not to feel close to my old child almost killed me.

So I just don't think she loved him the way she loved Devon and Damon at the time.

[White Rain]

I think she regrets the murders now. That doesn't mean that she should be excused. She still needs to be executed.

Jeana, do you think she regrets them only because what she is now facing, or do you think her regret is for what she did to those boys?

[White Rain]

Molly - I know you were not asking me, but I would like to put 2 cents in. I believe that Darlie was suffering from PPD. Back in 96 PPD wasn't really discussed or treated as it is today. I don't think that she had bonded with him. I have to admit that I had this after the birth of my son. I loved my son by words, but I didn't bond at first. I really can't explain the thoughts and emotions I was feeling. NOW, I never once thought of hurting him. I just didn't play and bond like you normally do. It got so bad that I was placed on medication to get ME back to normal. It took several months before I finally felt the love that I should of normally felt. I felt like such a terrible mother and human being. I love kids. All of them. Always have and for me not to feel close to my old child almost killed me.

So I just don't think she loved him the way she loved Devon and Damon at the time.


She probably didn't..but that should have made it all the more easier for her to kill Drake is she really was considering murder/suicide.

[whitywendy]

She probably didn't..but that should have made it all the more easier for her to kill Drake is she really was considering murder/suicide.

Yea, I know what you are saying. I guess that is what keeps us all talking about it.

[Jeana (DP)]

Jeana, do you think she regrets them only because what she is now facing, or do you think her regret is for what she did to those boys?

I think she regrets the murders. I think she was under a tremendous amount of stress and now that she's got no "day-to-day" type of stress (I hope that makes sense), I think she's had time to realize that there were a million different things she could have done to better her situation. I don't believe she hated the boys and unless she did, she can't be happy she did what she did. (Sorry, its early and I'm not making much sense).:confused:

[CyberLaw]

Often people regret the murders they committed, in hindsight especially when they are sitting on death row or are in prison for life. Too bad, that no one can go back and bring the dead back to life.

Darlie may regret what she did, only because a)she got caught b)she is in prison and c)that she was sentenced to death and d) now she may realize that she could have made different choices.

That is why we tell our kids: Make good choices, one choice can ruin or alter your life forever. Think about what you do. When you choose to behave in a certain way, you choose the consequences of that choice.

If Darlie did regret truly what she did. She would not still be lying and trying to get out of prison. She hopefully would admit the truth and take responsibility for it. But no she still has this "blame" another person mentality.

[whitywendy]

Often people regret the murders they committed, in hindsight especially when they are sitting on death row or are in prison for life. Too bad, that no one can go back and bring the dead back to life.

Darlie may regret what she did, only because a)she got caught b)she is in prison and c)that she was sentenced to death and d) now she may realize that she could have made different choices.

That is why we tell our kids: Make good choices, one choice can ruin or alter your life forever. Think about what you do. When you choose to behave in a certain way, you choose the consequences of that choice.

If Darlie did regret truly what she did. She would not still be lying and trying to get out of prison. She hopefully would admit the truth and take responsibility for it. But no she still has this "blame" another person mentality.

Yea, she continues to blame others for her actions. Just as my cousin does to this very day as he sits in prison. He has never ever done any of the crimes that show up on his extensive record. I don't understand how he can sit there and still deny, deny, deny and expect me to believe every word he says. It just goes to show, imo, that something isn't working right in both of their brains.

[White Rain]

Often people regret the murders they committed, in hindsight especially when they are sitting on death row or are in prison for life. Too bad, that no one can go back and bring the dead back to life.

Darlie may regret what she did, only because a)she got caught b)she is in prison and c)that she was sentenced to death and d) now she may realize that she could have made different choices.

That is why we tell our kids: Make good choices, one choice can ruin or alter your life forever. Think about what you do. When you choose to behave in a certain way, you choose the consequences of that choice.

If Darlie did regret truly what she did. She would not still be lying and trying to get out of prison. She hopefully would admit the truth and take responsibility for it. But no she still has this "blame" another person mentality.


Thats what I think too.

[mollymalone]

Often people regret the murders they committed, in hindsight especially when they are sitting on death row or are in prison for life. Too bad, that no one can go back and bring the dead back to life.

Darlie may regret what she did, only because a)she got caught b)she is in prison and c)that she was sentenced to death and d) now she may realize that she could have made different choices.

That is why we tell our kids: Make good choices, one choice can ruin or alter your life forever. Think about what you do. When you choose to behave in a certain way, you choose the consequences of that choice.

If Darlie did regret truly what she did. She would not still be lying and trying to get out of prison. She hopefully would admit the truth and take responsibility for it. But no she still has this "blame" another person mentality.I agree. So many stories, and always someone else to take the blame.

[mollymalone]

Molly - I know you were not asking me, but I would like to put 2 cents in. I believe that Darlie was suffering from PPD. Back in 96 PPD wasn't really discussed or treated as it is today. I don't think that she had bonded with him. I have to admit that I had this after the birth of my son. I loved my son by words, but I didn't bond at first. I really can't explain the thoughts and emotions I was feeling. NOW, I never once thought of hurting him. I just didn't play and bond like you normally do. It got so bad that I was placed on medication to get ME back to normal. It took several months before I finally felt the love that I should of normally felt. I felt like such a terrible mother and human being. I love kids. All of them. Always have and for me not to feel close to my old child almost killed me.

So I just don't think she loved him the way she loved Devon and Damon at the time.That may well be true that she felt a lack of a bond with him.

[mollymalone]

Thank you Workingmom, you've expressed what I've been trying to put my finger on for some time. Both Darlie and Darrin do come across as teenagers, adults who didn't quite mature. Darrin's obsession with her boob size, and Darlie's obsession with possessing "pretty things" that she equated with class and money.

[mollymalone]

Darrin's support of Darlie might possibly stem from feeling guilty about something he may have said during their arguing. IF Darlie had threatened to leave Darrin and said she was taking the children with her, and he responded angrily that she wasn't having the children and said some nasty things about her mothering style, those comments on top of everything else that Darlie was thinking or being emotional about could have been just one more thing that piled into her emotional outburst and set her off.

It's just one more theory, and it's just a what if.

It's possible she was experiencing problems emotionally after the birth of the baby, but from what she and everyone else has said, and her own actions both before and after the killings, I question whether she really was experiencing anything other than "What Darlie wants, Darlie Gets and since she wasn't getting she was angry."

[HarleyGuy]

Well I have been lurking here for some time but thought I would make a comment here.

Not sure I even believe what I am about to propose but thought I would put it out for the experts here to analyze.

What if Darlie really did have some sort of short term rage as most in this thread are suggesting and murder the children. BUT when she comes out of the rage she is so shocked at seeing what she has done that her brain blocks it out. Blocks the memory. Like when someone in a car accident cannot remember anything about the accident......

Its far fetched but it does explain two things. One it fits Darlies memory loss story that she stuck to in various forms. And it also explains he insistance in her innocence. As many have said she is not really very mature. I can see in a childlike mind being able to feel very indignant and justified when you really don't remember doing it. I mean a falsely accused the world is persecuting me, everything is all about me mode is really classic Darlie. I think that somewhat explains why she is more focused on her suffering than that of the children......

Well I hope it was not too crazy for a first post.......

[CW]

Wecome to WS HarleyGuy. I'm watching a movie on Life Time Move Channel regarding a true case where a mother "Diane Downs" shot three of her precious children. I don't think we'll ever get into the minds of these evil woman that murder their precious children.

[CyberLaw]

Darlie gave 16 different version of the same story. She changed her story to fit the evidence. The cops were onto her very quickly as her story did not match the crime scene. She manipulates and lies. It is very generous for some one to say that she blocked out the bad memories. But at the crimes scene she took an active part in ensuring that the one child who was hanging on by a thread, was not going to be helped by her to live.

Darlie sees the world from only what Darlie wants and needs. She is the most important person in the world. No one else matters.

Don't be fooled by the "writings" of Darlie, because the premise is: If I killed my two little boys, I would not write such wonderful poems that I miss them so much. You see a mother who killed her little boys, would not write poems for them and mine are from my heart as a grieving mother unjustly convicted of killing my boys. I loved them so much I write poems in their memories.

Nothing Darlie does is for anyone except Darlie and only Darlie, only for the benefit of Darlie. She just expects the rest of the world to be manipulated and conned.

In one interview she said: The boys lived a full life. Now to us that is strange and weird. But to Darlie that is perfectly normal.

[mollymalone]

Wecome to WS HarleyGuy. I'm watching a movie on Life Time Move Channel regarding a true case where a mother "Diane Downs" shot three of her precious children. I don't think we'll ever get into the minds of these evil woman that murder their precious children.I've read about that case too. Amazing that the prosecutor and his wife ended up adopting the two surviving children. But it gave them better lives than they had with a freaky mother who's only concern was herself.

That's how I see Darlie. Her only concerns are for herself. That's why she's so willing to blame anyone or anything else for her predicament.

[Jeana (DP)]

There is one other thing that I would like to look at related to motive. I have always believed that even though the argument

that evening/early morning was the immediate cause of the two boys being stabbed, the incident would not have
happened without the involvement of a long-standing, not recent, emotional problem. I believe evidence of that
long-standing problem is found in that "suicidal thoughts" entry in Darlie's diary a little more than one month before
the murders. I went out and found the exact quote, set forth in Skip Hollandsworth's article in the magazine Texas Monthly,

"Maybe Darlie Didn't Do It" (July 2002): "My life has been such a hard fight for a long time, and I just can't find the strength

to keep fighting anymore." What I hope you readers will do is determine what it was she was referring to; I would have to

agree that she doesn't say it directly, but rather cryptically references some long-standing problem. I believe the second part,

"and I just can't find the strength to keep fighting anymore" is a nod to the Routiers' money problems, so I am really only

interested in what "My life has been such a hard fight for a long time," means. In typical Darlie fashion, her writing refers

to a long-standing problem, but when asked about what she had written, she said that she had a fertility problem for about

one year, so what she wrote and her explanation don't match.

[CW]

Jeana could she possibly of meant from "My life has been such a hard fight for a long time," that she has struggled with her weight and looks for a long-time that she had taken diet pills knowing what they can do causing mood swings and sleepless nights and she had finally got down to her "perfect" weight and she finally felt good about her looks as well and then she gets pregnant with Drake I believe her last baby boy and she felt that she had to start all over loosing weight one again and getting her body back in shape. Darlie IMO is a self centered person and I'm sure her weight and looks was her number one concern and then add money problems on top of that as well. And if she where back on the diet pills I can see those two factors finally pushing her over the edge and striking out and murdering her precious boys. But of course this is jmo.

[mollymalone]

There is one other thing that I would like to look at related to motive. I have always believed that even though the argument

that evening/early morning was the immediate cause of the two boys being stabbed, the incident would not have
happened without the involvement of a long-standing, not recent, emotional problem. I believe evidence of that
long-standing problem is found in that "suicidal thoughts" entry in Darlie's diary a little more than one month before
the murders. I went out and found the exact quote, set forth in Skip Hollandsworth's article in the magazine Texas Monthly,

"Maybe Darlie Didn't Do It" (July 2002): "My life has been such a hard fight for a long time, and I just can't find the strength

to keep fighting anymore." What I hope you readers will do is determine what it was she was referring to; I would have to

agree that she doesn't say it directly, but rather cryptically references some long-standing problem. I believe the second part,

"and I just can't find the strength to keep fighting anymore" is a nod to the Routiers' money problems, so I am really only

interested in what "My life has been such a hard fight for a long time," means. In typical Darlie fashion, her writing refers

to a long-standing problem, but when asked about what she had written, she said that she had a fertility problem for about

one year, so what she wrote and her explanation don't match.I too believe that even if the argument was instrumental in what happened, it would not have happened if there hadn't been some preceding, underlying problem with Darlie's character (or lack thereof.)

Perhaps she meant "her life had been such a hard fight for a long time" to mean that she fought hard to not always be "poor?" Or perhaps it was a veiled reference to fighting with Darrin a lot?

[mollymalone]

Jeana could she possibly of meant from "My life has been such a hard fight for a long time," that she has struggled with her weight and looks for a long-time that she had taken diet pills knowing what they can do causing mood swings and sleepless nights and she had finally got down to her "perfect" weight and she finally felt good about her looks as well and then she gets pregnant with Drake I believe her last baby boy and she felt that she had to start all over loosing weight one again and getting her body back in shape. Darlie IMO is a self centered person and I'm sure her weight and looks was her number one concern and then add money problems on top of that as well. And if she where back on the diet pills I can see those two factors finally pushing her over the edge and striking out and murdering her precious boys. But of course this is jmo.Yes, and being self-centered, the reference to "fight" could mean that she had been fighting with Darrin over some of these issues for a long time. Taking diet pills, obsessing about getting down to a specific weight probably made her very irritable, singleminded about it all.

[CyberLaw]

In Darlie's mind, if the whole world did not revolve around her, if her life did not go "perfectly" scripted as per her expectations. If she could not go on vacations, buy what ever she wanted. Then of course she "feels" that life is a fight.

Raising two boys is a fight, struggling financially after living the high life is a fight. Being a mom is a fight.

Remember Darlie has "certain" expectations of how her life should be and want she wanted in material items.

[whitywendy]

Honestly, IMO I think that when Darlie wrote in her diary: "My life has been such a hard fight for a long time, and I just can't find the strength to keep fighting anymore", that she was just depressed more so than normal due to PPD and she was having a seriously sad day. I think she was dwelling in her "misery" at the time and took to paper to let it out.

I think that Darin and Darlie had most likely been having major relationship issues for several months prior to her getting pregnant with Drake. It makes me wonder if she thought that by having another child that it would bring back the love that was possibly missing from their relationship. The money problems didn't surface until the beginning of 96 and Drake was born in 95.

I have a question: WHY were they planning on "renewing" their wedding vows in 98? IMO it seems a little strange considering how young they were and how long they had actually been married. I always thought that couples renewed their vows after 25 or so years or because they want to erase something bad that has occurred to the marriage and "start over" with a clean slate.

I think the tables had turned on Darlie. I think that Darin was playing off of the emotions Darlie was experiencing. And for once felt like the one in control of the relationship and where it was going. I think the loss of control in the marriage was Darlie's breaking point.

[White Rain]

Honestly, IMO I think that when Darlie wrote in her diary: "My life has been such a hard fight for a long time, and I just can't find the strength to keep fighting anymore", that she was just depressed more so than normal due to PPD and she was having a seriously sad day. I think she was dwelling in her "misery" at the time and took to paper to let it out.

I think that Darin and Darlie had most likely been having major relationship issues for several months prior to her getting pregnant with Drake. It makes me wonder if she thought that by having another child that it would bring back the love that was possibly missing from their relationship. The money problems didn't surface until the beginning of 96 and Drake was born in 95.

I have a question: WHY were they planning on "renewing" their wedding vows in 98? IMO it seems a little strange considering how young they were and how long they had actually been married. I always thought that couples renewed their vows after 25 or so years or because they want to erase something bad that has occurred to the marriage and "start over" with a clean slate.

I think the tables had turned on Darlie. I think that Darin was playing off of the emotions Darlie was experiencing. And for once felt like the one in control of the relationship and where it was going. I think the loss of control in the marriage was Darlie's breaking point.

I don't think Darlie really wanted Drake. The books mentioned she went to bed and didn't get up for 3 days. So she was obviously NOT wanting a baby. Then she cheers up thinking she was gonna have a girl, and when the sonogram showed it was a boy she then went to bed for 3 weeks.

[sandraladeda]

I am new to this case, after watching an A and E Bill Kurtis special (American Justice?) about DR, so I apologize if I bring up old speculation.

My take on DR is that it is possible that she was seeking attention by killing her sons. If her marriage was a bit rocky, or the finances were growing scarce after a time of great prosperity, and she was not getting "fed" by the high of spending lavishly, maybe she had a need to get a new high from all the attention of being a victim of a terrible attack, in which she is seriously hurt and loses 2 of her children. This would also explain why she did not kill the baby - she kept one for herself.

I can't help but think of Diane Downs (of "Small Sacrifices" fame), I wonder if the M.O. is not similar? Kill the children, then wound self grievously enough to appear to have survived a terrible assault.

imo

[Jeana (DP)]

I am new to this case, after watching an A and E Bill Kurtis special (American Justice?) about DR, so I apologize if I bring up old speculation.

My take on DR is that it is possible that she was seeking attention by killing her sons. If her marriage was a bit rocky, or the finances were growing scarce after a time of great prosperity, and she was not getting "fed" by the high of spending lavishly, maybe she had a need to get a new high from all the attention of being a victim of a terrible attack, in which she is seriously hurt and loses 2 of her children. This would also explain why she did not kill the baby - she kept one for herself.

I can't help but think of Diane Downs (of "Small Sacrifices" fame), I wonder if the M.O. is not similar? Kill the children, then wound self grievously enough to appear to have survived a terrible assault.

imo


Its entirely possible. Unfortunately, her life was so out of control, any number of things could have set her off.

[CyberLaw]

Darlie never, in a million years thought that she would be arrested for the crime. In her simple mind, tell a story, feel sorry for me because my two boys were murdered and I was injured. Remember Darin and Darlie thought that this was "the biggest" thing to hit Rowlett, so they would be in the papers, have photo ops, interviews, etc.

She even invited the press to her "birthday" celebration at the boys graves. She was a media junkie. She craved and craves attention, from the breasts, the clothes, the hair, the jewellery, the parties, the material possessions.

But she could not control the police, or the CSI, or DA. They looked at the "substance" and not the "sham" and did the only thing possible, arrested and convicted Darlie.

I do believe that Darlie has one or more personality disorders.

[whitywendy]

Darlie never, in a million years thought that she would be arrested for the crime. In her simple mind, tell a story, feel sorry for me because my two boys were murdered and I was injured. Remember Darin and Darlie thought that this was "the biggest" thing to hit Rowlett, so they would be in the papers, have photo ops, interviews, etc.

She even invited the press to her "birthday" celebration at the boys graves. She was a media junkie. She craved and craves attention, from the breasts, the clothes, the hair, the jewellery, the parties, the material possessions.

But she could not control the police, or the CSI, or DA. They looked at the "substance" and not the "sham" and did the only thing possible, arrested and convicted Darlie.

I do believe that Darlie has one or more personality disorders.

QUESTION: Why would any mother (or person for that matter) invite the media to their son's graves just a week after they were brutally attacked? Why do something like that....because you were trying to prove that you loved your boys and didn't put them in their graves. UGUGUGUGUG

This past Saturday they had a show on called AGAINST THE LAW. And guess who they were doing their show on... Darlie Routier . Same old story nothing new, with the same ending line...why does Darlie Routier still claim some 11 years later that she did not kill her kids. Apparently according to this show, this statement is the only thing Ms. Darlie has not changed since that fateful night of June 6, 1996.

One last thing.... I am sorry but how can anyone watch that video from the graves and not see how happy she was. Not devastated as any other YOUNG mother would be. Happy... Happy...Happy... So weird because it took me several years after the death of my mom to actually feel and LOOK happy. MOO

[wasapi]

I believe that this crime was so evil, so unnatural to everything most people can even begin to grasp, and conjours horror even thinking about it, there is a huge need to understand how and why a person could commit murders of such magnitude.

I speculated for a long time, searching "why?" and "how?" Now, in my opinion, it doesn't seem that Darlie was a complicated person. I believe that one act of horror was brought on by something simple in Darlie's world. Her "babies" cast a shadow on a spotlight she felt should be entirely on her. She needed to eliminate the shadow so she could once again shine, for all to see. And once again the world would revolve around the beautiful planet of Darlie.

Julia

[CyberLaw]

Gee do you know how many convicted criminals "who are sitting" in prison, and even death row, deny any involvement in the crime for which they have been convicted. How about almost all. Even when there is sufficient evidence to convict them, noooo, they are just so innocent.

Do you really think after all of this time. Darlie is going to take any type of responsibility for her crime. No, because the whole world would know she has been lying for the last 11 years, she would lose her "fan club" and the cult of Darlie.

Just like a kid, who has their hand in the cookie jar, denies that he/she was taking a cookie, just seeing if there was cookies in the jar, or counting them, but nooo they have no intention of taking one.

Please......Darlie may have been consistent in denying any involvement in the crime, but her story has changed many many times.

Darlie was in cut off shorts, chewing gum, happy as can be, when she was filmed for the media. Funny, how we "missed" the solemn ceremony in which she grieved the boys, and it did not make the media. But the party she planned did.

I cannot ignore all of the evidence pointing to her guilt. Like the "neat" stranger, who cleaned up the blood from the scene before fleeing.

[Jeana (DP)]

Gee do you know how many convicted criminals "who are sitting" in prison, and even death row, deny any involvement in the crime for which they have been convicted. How about almost all. Even when there is sufficient evidence to convict them, noooo, they are just so innocent.

Do you really think after all of this time. Darlie is going to take any type of responsibility for her crime. No, because the whole world would know she has been lying for the last 11 years, she would lose her "fan club" and the cult of Darlie.

Just like a kid, who has their hand in the cookie jar, denies that he/she was taking a cookie, just seeing if there was cookies in the jar, or counting them, but nooo they have no intention of taking one.

Please......Darlie may have been consistent in denying any involvement in the crime, but her story has changed many many times.

Darlie was in cut off shorts, chewing gum, happy as can be, when she was filmed for the media. Funny, how we "missed" the solemn ceremony in which she grieved the boys, and it did not make the media. But the party she planned did.

I cannot ignore all of the evidence pointing to her guilt. Like the "neat" stranger, who cleaned up the blood from the scene before fleeing.


Your "hand in the cookie jar" theory is exactly why Darlie didn't have the amount of blood on her one would expect to find after a mother tried desperately to save her childrens' lives. She didn't want to be able to put put anywhere near them so she didn't ever get close enough to do anything to help them.

[nicola]

QUESTION: Why would any mother (or person for that matter) invite the media to their son's graves just a week after they were brutally attacked? Why do something like that....because you were trying to prove that you loved your boys and didn't put them in their graves. UGUGUGUGUG


One last thing.... I am sorry but how can anyone watch that video from the graves and not see how happy she was. Not devastated as any other YOUNG mother would be. Happy... Happy...Happy... So weird because it took me several years after the death of my mom to actually feel and LOOK happy. MOO

The invitation to the media IMO could be for one of two reasons.

1. The media payed for her family and friends to attend, (to stop over in hotels etc) in return for the right to film ceremony.

2. Darlie wanted media to film ceremony to keep the crime in the public spotlight. So people would not forget about crime. She wanted police to find intruder and didnt want people forgetting about it.

[Jeana (DP)]

The invitation to the media IMO could be for one of two reasons.

1. The media payed for her family and friends to attend, (to stop over in hotels etc) in return for the right to film ceremony.

2. Darlie wanted media to film ceremony to keep the crime in the public spotlight. So people would not forget about crime. She wanted police to find intruder and didnt want people forgetting about it.

I'll go with Door No. 1 Bob.:cool:

[cami]

I'm not so sure I think Darlie is sorry. Here she is now trying to blame it on Darrin somehow. If she was sorry she'd quit looking for a way out, and accept her sentence. Darlie seemed to believe in God...if she does, wouldn't she want to make things right and clear her conscience here on Earth before she goes before the Lord to be judged?

I agree I don't think she's one bit sorry. Sorry she was convicted..sorry for herself. She's celebrating her burden in life being lifted at the ss party.

I believe if she's found God, she needs to atone for what she's done and the first thing is to admit you did it and ask forgiveness.

[cami]

QUESTION: Why would any mother (or person for that matter) invite the media to their son's graves just a week after they were brutally attacked? Why do something like that....because you were trying to prove that you loved your boys and didn't put them in their graves. UGUGUGUGUG

This past Saturday they had a show on called AGAINST THE LAW. And guess who they were doing their show on... Darlie Routier . Same old story nothing new, with the same ending line...why does Darlie Routier still claim some 11 years later that she did not kill her kids. Apparently according to this show, this statement is the only thing Ms. Darlie has not changed since that fateful night of June 6, 1996.

One last thing.... I am sorry but how can anyone watch that video from the graves and not see how happy she was. Not devastated as any other YOUNG mother would be. Happy... Happy...Happy... So weird because it took me several years after the death of my mom to actually feel and LOOK happy. MOO

Me too. I still go to the phone to call my mum and then it hits me. I wonder why Darlie didn't invite that news crew to film the solemn prayer service prior to the party?

[whitywendy]

I agree I don't think she's one bit sorry. Sorry she was convicted..sorry for herself. She's celebrating her burden in life being lifted at the ss party.

I believe if she's found God, she needs to atone for what she's done and the first thing is to admit you did it and ask forgiveness.

Hey Cami - where you been? Good to hear from ya! Anyhow, in regards to Darlie - I have to disagree with you and White Rain. IMO In Darlie's mind, she has already been forgiven by GOD. We have to remember that Darlie's thoughts centered around Darlie and what she believed to be true. So therefore, as long as she has asked God for forgiveness for what she has done, then she is forgiven and doesn't feel that in order to receive forgiveness that she must tell the world what she did. As long as she "owns up" her actions to GOD then she is good to go. I hope this made some sense. :o

[whitywendy]

Me too. I still go to the phone to call my mum and then it hits me. I wonder why Darlie didn't invite that news crew to film the solemn prayer service prior to the party?

I wonder if they were there and witnessed the event but just wasn't "allowed" to film it or stand in the area at the time. IF this be true then the same people who filmed the silly string stupidity would be able to validate her claims of crying etc during the "service".

[cami]

Hey Cami - where you been? Good to hear from ya! Anyhow, in regards to Darlie - I have to disagree with you and White Rain. IMO In Darlie's mind, she has already been forgiven by GOD. We have to remember that Darlie's thoughts centered around Darlie and what she believed to be true. So therefore, as long as she has asked God for forgiveness for what she has done, then she is forgiven and doesn't feel that in order to receive forgiveness that she must tell the world what she did. As long as she "owns up" her actions to GOD then she is good to go. I hope this made some sense. :o

Oh definitely makes sense...it's what Goody thought as well. I guess I am stuck on the take responsibility for your actions mode.

Oh I've been around...I've not really posted much anywhere this summer, don't post much anymore.

[Jeana (DP)]

Hey Cami - where you been? Good to hear from ya! Anyhow, in regards to Darlie - I have to disagree with you and White Rain. IMO In Darlie's mind, she has already been forgiven by GOD. We have to remember that Darlie's thoughts centered around Darlie and what she believed to be true. So therefore, as long as she has asked God for forgiveness for what she has done, then she is forgiven and doesn't feel that in order to receive forgiveness that she must tell the world what she did. As long as she "owns up" her actions to GOD then she is good to go. I hope this made some sense. :o



Just for my own knowledge, can you admit to God that you've done something that you're denying to the rest of the world? Wouldn't he like know what you're up to?:innocent: :innocent:

[whitywendy]

Oh definitely makes sense...it's what Goody thought as well. I guess I am stuck on the take responsibility for your actions mode.

Oh I've been around...I've not really posted much anywhere this summer, don't post much anymore.

Oh thanks for the compliment. To be told that I am thinking along the lines of Goody, makes me feel a little bit smarter...:blushing:..

[whitywendy]

Just for my own knowledge, can you admit to God that you've done something that you're denying to the rest of the world? Wouldn't he like know what you're up to?:innocent: :innocent:

Jeana that is a difficult question to answer. I personally believe you can. There are many things that I have "confessed" to GOD that I will never "confess" to the world. Depending on the church and "their bible" , I guess the rule of thumb is you must make amends with the person and GOD. Make it right. However, like in Darlie's case, she can't speak personally to Damon and Devon to ask for forgiveness so she (in her mind) only needs to make right with GOD. I hope that made sense.

Was that what you were asking me?

[Jeana (DP)]

Jeana that is a difficult question to answer. I personally believe you can. There are many things that I have "confessed" to GOD that I will never "confess" to the world. Depending on the church and "their bible" , I guess the rule of thumb is you must make amends with the person and GOD. Make it right. However, like in Darlie's case, she can't speak personally to Damon and Devon to ask for forgiveness so she (in her mind) only needs to make right with GOD. I hope that made sense.

Was that what you were asking me?

Close! If you've already confessed to God and THEN continue to deny it to everyone else, aren't you really just trying to fake it to the Almighty? I mean he knew the truth from the very beginning, but they say you can't ask for forgiveness for a sin and keep sinning the same sin, right? If she confesses to God that she killed her kids, yet sins by lying to the world about the crime, she's committing a sin to cover up another sin. It would seem to negate the confession and the asking to be forgiven by God. How could the person make amends if she doesn't confess to the world? How many others have been victimized by Darlie by her continued refusal to tell the truth? Do I have you completely confused yet? LOL

[mollymalone]

I wonder if they were there and witnessed the event but just wasn't "allowed" to film it or stand in the area at the time. IF this be true then the same people who filmed the silly string stupidity would be able to validate her claims of crying etc during the "service".
I don't know about the "service" but there were claims she was crying a the gravesite as well.

I remember seeing a documentary about the case, (can't remember which one) and recall seeing a clip of Darlie and the family at the gravesite just before the silly string started flying. I'm not sure if the camera was being wielded by LE or not.

This cameraman was filming the group at the gravesite from quite a bit further back. Everyone seems to have seen the clip where Darlie sprayed the silly string and commented and that was shown as well.

I can't recall if Darlie was in tears but I remember her being hugged and I remember Darin appeared stunned throughout as did several other family members. But remember, many perps have "cried" at services and at gravesites and put on a good act when they were in fact guilty.

Regardless whether she was crying at the gravesite or not, the silly string and her "fun" spraying it and her comments about the boys that day struck me as totally weird and not something most people do when their children have been murdered by a stranger.

Whatever her perceived motive was, it wasn't worth two children's lives.

[nicola]

I dont think that anyones actions after a horrific event, such as this, could be seen as 'normal' anyway. Everyone deals with grief differently you cant pigeon hole people and say, 'well, they didnt act right, they didnt cry in the right place or they could have been filmed throughout'.

I wonder what some of you would make of a video of a Chinese Wake? As they celebrate the life of the deceased, throw money into the grave, and yes they are sometimes smiling whilst doing it. Although even this depends on the individual. The point im trying to make is everyone (no matter where they come from) is different and it is unfair to demonise someone because thier behaviour doesnt appear to be 'normal'. After all what is normal in this circumstance?

[Jeana (DP)]

I dont think that anyones actions after a horrific event, such as this, could be seen as 'normal' anyway. Everyone deals with grief differently you cant pigeon hole people and say, 'well, they didnt act right, they didnt cry in the right place or they could have been filmed throughout'.

I wonder what some of you would make of a video of a Chinese Wake? As they celebrate the life of the deceased, throw money into the grave, and yes they are sometimes smiling whilst doing it. Although even this depends on the individual. The point im trying to make is everyone (no matter where they come from) is different and it is unfair to demonise someone because thier behaviour doesnt appear to be 'normal'. After all what is normal in this circumstance?

With all due respect, that's crap. There are some normal ways to show grief and there are some normal ways not to. If a woman's husband dies and she starts spending the insurance money like its going out of style, people are going to talk. If a woman dies and the man suddenly marries his 21 year old secretary, people are going to wonder. If a woman's two children are murdered and the woman dances around their graves wearing stripper clothes and chewing gum and laughing, people are going to wonder what the hell is going on.

[nicola]

There is no such thing as normal when it comes to dealing with grief. How can you say that thats crap? Everyone is different if you like it or not. Not everyone has the same opinions and not everyone behaves or reacts the same way.
With all due respect who are you to decide what is normal and what is not? Other peoples opinions are the last thing on peoples minds when they have just lost someone close! Therefore it is really unfair to pass judgement on something of this nature.

[White Rain]

There is no such thing as normal when it comes to dealing with grief. How can you say that thats crap? Everyone is different if you like it or not. Not everyone has the same opinions and not everyone behaves or reacts the same way.
With all due respect who are you to decide what is normal and what is not? Other peoples opinions are the last thing on peoples minds when they have just lost someone close! Therefore it is really unfair to pass judgement on something of this nature.


Nicola, I am sure you have seen this video...did you see ANY evidence that Darlie had been crying just minutes before at the "serious" graveside memorial? There is no way people can sob and break down as they say Darlie did and then just a few minutes later have no blood shot eyes or a red nose.

[Jeana (DP)]

There is no such thing as normal when it comes to dealing with grief. How can you say that thats crap? Everyone is different if you like it or not. Not everyone has the same opinions and not everyone behaves or reacts the same way.
With all due respect who are you to decide what is normal and what is not? Other peoples opinions are the last thing on peoples minds when they have just lost someone close! Therefore it is really unfair to pass judgement on something of this nature.

I don't think I'm the one who decides. I think that society decides.

[Crow_Ascending]

A Chinese wake is a cultural ritual. It would be considered abnormal not to do those things in China. Darlie's behavior at the graveside was culturally abnormal for the US. (Especially considering that her children were murdered 8 days before.)

[mollymalone]

I dont think that anyones actions after a horrific event, such as this, could be seen as 'normal' anyway. Everyone deals with grief differently you cant pigeon hole people and say, 'well, they didnt act right, they didnt cry in the right place or they could have been filmed throughout'.

I wonder what some of you would make of a video of a Chinese Wake? As they celebrate the life of the deceased, throw money into the grave, and yes they are sometimes smiling whilst doing it. Although even this depends on the individual. The point im trying to make is everyone (no matter where they come from) is different and it is unfair to demonise someone because thier behaviour doesnt appear to be 'normal'. After all what is normal in this circumstance?I'm familiar with other culture's celebration of life after death. Heck, in New Orleans it's done all the time with jazz bands. In not one culture that I'm familiar with have I ever seen a silly string demonstration over a child's grave. Toys, favorite clothing etc..perhaps.

Silly string aside, even if there hadn't been silly string there, Darlie's demeanor at the time of their death, at their gravesite and in court as well as evidence pointing solely to her is what convinced a lot of people including LE and myself that she accomplished the murders.

[nicola]

I can see why you all believe that she murdered her children and the other points you all make surrounding the whole issue are well thought out and make sense. Although in my own mind I cannot 100% believe that she committed this crime - there are still issues that need to be resolved before anyone, IMO, can say that she is *100% guilty. As far as im concerned the whole 'graveside thing' can be explained by individual personality - concerning both Darlie and the way she is percieved by others. The fact is that this crime needs to be investigated more fully. IMO Darlies defence team need access to the evidence so they can test it fully. Only then would the process be fair, in my mind, afterall the proection has had thier testing and had a chance to present the outcomes of this testing. I believe that there may well be evidence to support Darlies claim of what happened that night. It is in the interest of justice that she be allowed to defend herself fairly after all her life is on the line. As someone else hear mentioned not long ago, it would be a crime if it was discovered that she was innocent only after she has been executed.
If, after all answers are satisfied, she is proved to be *100% guilty then I would be first in the queue to send her to her death.

* guilty beyond reasonale doubt.

[mollymalone]

The fact remains that her defense team DID in fact have access to the same evidence that the prosecution had. They had the ability to test it. They also were able to exhume those two children in order to have their prints taken to see if they matched with the "unknown" print, that ultimately was determined if I recall correctly to be that of an adult. Darlie's had her chances, and within her appeals process that's ongoing to be able to bring in "new" evidence in order to obtain a new trial. IMO there is none, and that's why she's not been granted a new trial. IMO if there was a new trial, with all of the evidence that exists, even without the silly string incident, that she'd be convicted once again.

[whitywendy]

I can see why you all believe that she murdered her children and the other points you all make surrounding the whole issue are well thought out and make sense. Although in my own mind I cannot 100% believe that she committed this crime - there are still issues that need to be resolved before anyone, IMO, can say that she is *100% guilty. As far as im concerned the whole 'graveside thing' can be explained by individual personality - concerning both Darlie and the way she is percieved by others. The fact is that this crime needs to be investigated more fully. IMO Darlies defence team need access to the evidence so they can test it fully. Only then would the process be fair, in my mind, afterall the proection has had thier testing and had a chance to present the outcomes of this testing. I believe that there may well be evidence to support Darlies claim of what happened that night. It is in the interest of justice that she be allowed to defend herself fairly after all her life is on the line. As someone else hear mentioned not long ago, it would be a crime if it was discovered that she was innocent only after she has been executed.
If, after all answers are satisfied, she is proved to be *100% guilty then I would be first in the queue to send her to her death.

* guilty beyond reasonale doubt.

Nicola - What evidence are you talking about? What evidence hasn't been tested? I believe and I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, that the evidence that Darlie keeps bringing up has been tested. The unidentified fingerprint(s) has been tested and retested. The only person that wasn't ruled out was Darlie. The pubic hair...please that hair has NOTHING to do with this crime. The blood - well the only blood found in that home was Devon, Damon and Darlie - not Darin nor anyone else.

So Nicola what evidence are your referring to?

In regards to Darlie grieving, may I ask, have you ever lost anyone close to you, like immed. family? I just can't understand how you can defend her actions that day as grieving. In fact I have never been to one funeral were a child has passed and ANYONE in attendance act like Darlie did.

[whitywendy]

Close! If you've already confessed to God and THEN continue to deny it to everyone else, aren't you really just trying to fake it to the Almighty? I mean he knew the truth from the very beginning, but they say you can't ask for forgiveness for a sin and keep sinning the same sin, right? If she confesses to God that she killed her kids, yet sins by lying to the world about the crime, she's committing a sin to cover up another sin. It would seem to negate the confession and the asking to be forgiven by God. How could the person make amends if she doesn't confess to the world? How many others have been victimized by Darlie by her continued refusal to tell the truth? Do I have you completely confused yet? LOL

I agree with you when it comes to NORMAL people, however we all know that Darlie was no where near normal. Darlie's thinking (OCIMO) was that she wasn't committing the sin over by claiming innocence to the world. To her the sin was the actual killing and since she has already asked for and received forgiveness in her mind who cares about the rest of the world and what they think, besides lying is just a lie (a tiny sin as felt by some). I know it doesn't make any sense but we all know that Darlie thought she was above many.

[snvoigt]

I am not saying she didn't do it. I feel %100 sure she did. But my dad died 10 days before I got married. I was 20, and had been planning this for a full year. He died of a massive heart attack, and was gone even before he got to the hospital. I still got married 10 days later, and there is video and pictures showing me laughing and smiling. But in defense of myself, my dr had me so drugged I don't remember much of the actual wedding and only parts of the reception, and I was a mess for at least 1 year after. Maybe she was drugged up, and that is why she was able to "laugh and joke" at the graves.


I dont think that anyones actions after a horrific event, such as this, could be seen as 'normal' anyway. Everyone deals with grief differently you cant pigeon hole people and say, 'well, they didnt act right, they didnt cry in the right place or they could have been filmed throughout'.

I wonder what some of you would make of a video of a Chinese Wake? As they celebrate the life of the deceased, throw money into the grave, and yes they are sometimes smiling whilst doing it. Although even this depends on the individual. The point im trying to make is everyone (no matter where they come from) is different and it is unfair to demonise someone because thier behaviour doesnt appear to be 'normal'. After all what is normal in this circumstance?

[Jeana (DP)]

I am not saying she didn't do it. I feel %100 sure she did. But my dad died 10 days before I got married. I was 20, and had been planning this for a full year. He died of a massive heart attack, and was gone even before he got to the hospital. I still got married 10 days later, and there is video and pictures showing me laughing and smiling. But in defense of myself, my dr had me so drugged I don't remember much of the actual wedding and only parts of the reception, and I was a mess for at least 1 year after. Maybe she was drugged up, and that is why she was able to "laugh and joke" at the graves.

Who different spectrum of emotions there, IMO. I lost both of my parents a month apart. It was difficult and I was a wreck. However, losing both of YOUR CHILDREN in a brutal murder that you walked away from cannot be compared.

By the way, my condolences on the loss of your father. Its very difficult.

[DebC]

I am not saying she didn't do it. I feel %100 sure she did. But my dad died 10 days before I got married. I was 20, and had been planning this for a full year. He died of a massive heart attack, and was gone even before he got to the hospital. I still got married 10 days later, and there is video and pictures showing me laughing and smiling. But in defense of myself, my dr had me so drugged I don't remember much of the actual wedding and only parts of the reception, and I was a mess for at least 1 year after. Maybe she was drugged up, and that is why she was able to "laugh and joke" at the graves.

sn, I think there is a world world of difference between you losing your father to a sudden but explainable death, and Darlie having her children brutally murdered. Plus, YOUR wedding would have been a joyous occasion, celebrated by you and your loved ones, friends, etc. The graveside gathering was to remember the dead boy's birthday. Not a cause for celebration I would have thought.

[whitywendy]

sn, I think there is a world world of difference between you losing your father to a sudden but explainable death, and Darlie having her children brutally murdered. Plus, YOUR wedding would have been a joyous occasion, celebrated by you and your loved ones, friends, etc. The graveside gathering was to remember the dead boy's birthday. Not a cause for celebration I would have thought.

Yours and Jeana's comments are so true. You can't compare the two. Supporters try and try to tell people that "you don't know how you would react to the that situation" so how can people judge Darlie on this particular "scene". These same supporters seem to forget (or maybe they didn't see the footage) the hysterical breakdown Darlie had when they finally arrested her. Her face is blotchy, red, smeared, her eyes are red and it is very obvious that she was/had been crying pretty hard. Now this was just a couple of days after the graveyard service so logically she would still be DRUGGED and out of it during her arrest. WHY THE EXTREME DIFFERENCE IN EMOTION? I would go to jail any day than rather loose my babies OFMO:waitasec:

[cami]

There is no such thing as normal when it comes to dealing with grief. How can you say that thats crap? Everyone is different if you like it or not. Not everyone has the same opinions and not everyone behaves or reacts the same way.
With all due respect who are you to decide what is normal and what is not? Other peoples opinions are the last thing on peoples minds when they have just lost someone close! Therefore it is really unfair to pass judgement on something of this nature.

Yes that's true and we've all seen Darlie's grief. Just look at her mugshot, her pasty white face with tears running down her cheeks. There's the grief Nic, for herself.

[CyberLaw]

The extreme difference in emotion in my oinion is, at the graveside services, Darlie "thought" she had rid herself of "her poblem in her mind, by the murder of her two boys, who knows what thoughts were going through her head at the gravesite. DArlie of course seemed happy, she felt she was "fre" and had gotten away with murder, which somehow improved her life in her mind. When she was arrested for the murder, she then knew that "the gig" was up, she was not believed, she was investigated, no one beleived "her story" and she was going to be "tried" for the crime that she committed. She was going to held accountable and responsible and everyone will "think" that she killed her kids, which of course in my opinion she did. The "facade" was ending, the "superficial" would now see the light of day and it would be made public.

Darlie only felt "sorry" for herself, because she was now arrested and would stand trial in a very public forum. Tried and convicted.

[cami]

I am not saying she didn't do it. I feel %100 sure she did. But my dad died 10 days before I got married. I was 20, and had been planning this for a full year. He died of a massive heart attack, and was gone even before he got to the hospital. I still got married 10 days later, and there is video and pictures showing me laughing and smiling. But in defense of myself, my dr had me so drugged I don't remember much of the actual wedding and only parts of the reception, and I was a mess for at least 1 year after. Maybe she was drugged up, and that is why she was able to "laugh and joke" at the graves.

My father died the day my brother got married. Yes we all went to the reception and laughed and cried and danced, etc. You cope, it's what you do.

The news video at the graves is not what convicted Darlie. It is circumstantial evidence and the prosecution had every right to show it to the jury and enter it into evidence. Had Darlie been sobbing and crying at a graveside party prior to, her defence would have entered that tape to impeach the prosecution. Obviously, they had nothing...obvious to me anyway.

Darlie's arrogance is what convicted her along with hard evidence of her guilt. She practically left a roadmap of what she did that night. Blood doesn't lie.

[accordn2me]

<snipped>Had Darlie been sobbing and crying at a graveside party prior to, her defence would have entered that tape to impeach the prosecution. <snipped>One would think a "top-notch defense attorney" like Mulder supposedly was would have shown the other tape in its entirety. One would think "one of the best defense attorneys" money could buy would have made a big deal out of the fact that two of the lead detectives had to plead the Fifth amendment to keep from incriminating themselves on the stand concerning this tape that wasn't shown. But Mulder didn't do either one. Go figure. :loser:is what comes to my mind when I think of Mulder.

[mollymalone]

One would think a "top-notch defense attorney" like Mulder supposedly was would have shown the other tape in its entirety. One would think "one of the best defense attorneys" money could buy would have made a big deal out of the fact that two of the lead detectives had to plead the Fifth amendment to keep from incriminating themselves on the stand concerning this tape that wasn't shown. But Mulder didn't do either one. Go figure. :loser:is what comes to my mind when I think of Mulder.Her appeals attorneys weren't/aren't Mulder, and even they are arguing technicalities and not that she was innocent or that new evidence exists. SO if anything like a tape of Darlie crying before the gravesite events were able to be presented, it's likely they'd have presented it before now, but in the totality of the evidence, it wasn't the silly string that convicted her, it was blood evidence.

[accordn2me]

<snipped> SO if anything like a tape of Darlie crying before the gravesite events were able to be presented, it's likely they'd have presented it before now, <snipped>There is a tape...a police tape. I believe it was obtained illegally. IIRC, that's why those detectives pleaded the 5th.

[mollymalone]

There is a tape...a police tape. I believe it was obtained illegally. IIRC, that's why those detectives pleaded the 5th.I recall seeing on one of the documentaries I've seen about the case, which showed the few minutes before, during and after the silly string incident. In the beginning portion, some family members were hugging, and I believe some had tears, but there was no Darlie bawling her eyes out. After they hugged, they gathered around the grave and at that point the string incident occurred.

Regardless of whether it was made by LE or other media, if it was a crucial part of her appeal it would have been presented, and possibly has. However, it's clear that in all the appeals up to now, the tape isn't as crucial as some would like to think towards Darlie's innocence.

Any tape of her crying over the gravesite or elsewhere has no real bearing on the case IMO. It's the blood evidence, it's the 16 different stories Darlie made up and told LE, on the stand, and even after incarcerated. That's why the appeals were/are focused on testing of evidence, not video tapes.

[Jeana (DP)]

One would think a "top-notch defense attorney" like Mulder supposedly was would have shown the other tape in its entirety. One would think "one of the best defense attorneys" money could buy would have made a big deal out of the fact that two of the lead detectives had to plead the Fifth amendment to keep from incriminating themselves on the stand concerning this tape that wasn't shown. But Mulder didn't do either one. Go figure. :loser:is what comes to my mind when I think of Mulder.

Excuse me, but the cops were being sued. That's why they took the 5th. If the family wanted everything to come out in court, they could have waited to file their suit against the cops. But they didn't. Wonder why? Its so this issue COULD NOT come up. The cops prevailed in that suit by the way.

[accordn2me]

:laugh:Excuse me, but the cops were being sued. That's why they took the 5th. If the family wanted everything to come out in court, they could have waited to file their suit against the cops. But they didn't. Wonder why? Its so this issue COULD NOT come up. The cops prevailed in that suit by the way.You're excused. :innocent:

Let's see.....family suing cops....that's civil isn't it? Why plead the 5th (remain silent as not to incriminate oneself....) in Darlie's trial?

Was LE's taping of the private graveside service legal? Do you know why there was no tap (sound) as well as video?

[Jeana (DP)]

:laugh:You're excused. :innocent:

Let's see.....family suing cops....that's civil isn't it? Why plead the 5th (remain silent as not to incriminate oneself....) in Darlie's trial?

Was LE's taping of the private graveside service legal? Do you know why there was no tap (sound) as well as video?

You don't know much about civil litigation, do you? :doh: :doh: The family lost, so I guess that pretty much answers your last question, no?

[accordn2me]

You don't know much about civil litigation, do you? :doh: :doh: The family lost, so I guess that pretty much answers your last question, no?No.

I'm not a lawyer, if you can believe that! I don't know the answers to the questions I ask. :blowkiss:

[Jeana (DP)]

No.

I'm not a lawyer, if you can believe that! I don't know the answers to the questions I ask. :blowkiss:

You should be more careful about those questions!!! LOL

The attorneys were being sued civally by the Routiers. Anything they said about the bugging of the grave during the criminal trial could have been used against them in the civil trial. Since there was nothing that was on the tape that the state needed to use against the Routiers at the criminal trial, there was no need for the officers to even speak about it. So, why on God's green earth would they answer questions that were unnecessary? You already know that if there was anything on that tape that could have helped Darlie, it would have been shown at every opportunity during the trial and at every media event and interview after the trial.

Do you honestly think that bringing the fact that the police officers took the fifth in this instance into the conversation now only to be shown the truth helps Darlie at this point or hurts her further? You may think that you can help her by trying to throw these little tidbits out there, but when you can't come up with anything substantitive after you throw them out, you honestly remind me of Darlie on the witness stand when Toby was questioning her and she had to break down because she had no answers to the hard questions.

[DebC]

However, it's clear that in all the appeals up to now, the tape isn't as crucial as some would like to think towards Darlie's innocence.

Any tape of her crying over the gravesite or elsewhere has no real bearing on the case IMO. It's the blood evidence, it's the 16 different stories Darlie made up and told LE, on the stand, and even after incarcerated. That's why the appeals were/are focused on testing of evidence, not video tapes.

I agree. The blood evidence and her 16 versions of the night's events. That's what made the jury convict her.

[whitywendy]

You should be more careful about those questions!!! LOL

The attorneys were being sued civally by the Routiers. Anything they said about the bugging of the grave during the criminal trial could have been used against them in the civil trial. Since there was nothing that was on the tape that the state needed to use against the Routiers at the criminal trial, there was no need for the officers to even speak about it. So, why on God's green earth would they answer questions that were unnecessary? You already know that if there was anything on that tape that could have helped Darlie, it would have been shown at every opportunity during the trial and at every media event and interview after the trial.

Do you honestly think that bringing the fact that the police officers took the fifth in this instance into the conversation now only to be shown the truth helps Darlie at this point or hurts her further? You may think that you can help her by trying to throw these little tidbits out there, but when you can't come up with anything substantitive after you throw them out, you honestly remind me of Darlie on the witness stand when Toby was questioning her and she had to break down because she had no answers to the hard questions.

Jeana - :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::c lap::clap::clap::clap:....enough said...:silenced:

[CyberLaw]

Fact: Darlie "invited" the media to the portion of the tape that "had the silly" string event recorded. That means it was "anticipated" consent to, expected to be made public.

Fact: LE DID not have "legal permission to "bug" the grave site. This would and is illegal. Therefore when the police "pleaded" the 5th, they were not going to implicate themselves in illegal and criminal conduct that would result in criminal charges. Hence "incriminate" yourself. No one is required to give testimony that would "provide" evidence against them.

That is why the "silly" string video was played for the jury and made public but the "alleged" graveside "mourning" was not. One is legal, the other is not. Sorry to disagree, but Mulder could not use "illegally" obtained evidence in defence of his client.

I feel it is "odd" that Darlie wanted the "party" made public, but not the mourning. But again, that is the weird and warped mind of Darlie in play. You would think that she would want to play up the "grieving" mother who was "victimized" and her two boys brutally murdered just feet from her, a horiffic crime, and her "mouring" the death of her two boys. But no, she wanted the whole world to "know" that she was throwing a "death" birthday party for the boys, dressed in cut off shorts chomping on gum.

A week after the boys deaths, she came across to the jury as a mother who was not "bothered" in the least that her two boys were stabbed to death and are buried. No she seemed happy............at the death of her two boys and that is what the jury saw.

[Ashley]

That is what most of us saw and still remember til this day. Everything she did at the silly string party was an affront, with no decency in rememberance of the boys. Chomping on that gum was one of the worst, not to mention the spraying of the silly string. When she said "IF you knew Devon and Damon you would know they are up in heaven having the biggest old birthday party" was an insult to the boys and everyone who heard it. Yet how can one counter such a statement? She opens her mouth and anything and everything tumbles out. She is her own worst enemy. And I, for one, am happy about that. ashley

[mollymalone]

That is what most of us saw and still remember til this day. Everything she did at the silly string party was an affront, with no decency in rememberance of the boys. Chomping on that gum was one of the worst, not to mention the spraying of the silly string. When she said "IF you knew Devon and Damon you would know they are up in heaven having the biggest old birthday party" was an insult to the boys and everyone who heard it. Yet how can one counter such a statement? She opens her mouth and anything and everything tumbles out. She is her own worst enemy. And I, for one, am happy about that. ashleyI thought that was an abominable and appalling thing to say, especially in light of their being murdered, and saying this just days after their murders.

[accordn2me]

You should be more careful about those questions!!! LOL

The attorneys were being sued civally by the Routiers. Anything they said about the bugging of the grave during the criminal trial could have been used against them in the civil trial. Since there was nothing that was on the tape that the state needed to use against the Routiers at the criminal trial, there was no need for the officers to even speak about it. So, why on God's green earth would they answer questions that were unnecessary? You already know that if there was anything on that tape that could have helped Darlie, it would have been shown at every opportunity during the trial and at every media event and interview after the trial.

Do you honestly think that bringing the fact that the police officers took the fifth in this instance into the conversation now only to be shown the truth helps Darlie at this point or hurts her further? You may think that you can help her by trying to throw these little tidbits out there, but when you can't come up with anything substantitive after you throw them out, you honestly remind me of Darlie on the witness stand when Toby was questioning her and she had to break down because she had no answers to the hard questions.(my bold) Honestly, I don't understand the question!

Honestly, I'm not "trying to help Darlie." I'm trying to understand what happened here. The entire thing baffles me. The thing that disturbs me, almost more than Mulder's sorry no-defense, is that her court-appointed public defenders were going with the defense of "Darin did it." Like I said before, as far as I'm concerned, if one of them did it, the other one is guilty and they should both be on death row.

You can blame it on ignorance, I'm blonde, I'm slow, whatever, but at this point, I'm still at the place where I believe there could have been an outside intruder. Given the latest (years ago) revelation that Darin sought out someone to "hit" the house so he could collect insurance money....if that were true, he'd still be guilty in my book. However, like much in this case, that is still pure speculation as far as I can see.

Mulder didn't do a damn thing to help Darlie in her trial. So I definitely disagree with your statement that I highlighted in red. Given the fact that Mulder presented no defense, I think Darlie should have a new trial.

[cami]

I thought that was an abominable and appalling thing to say, especially in light of their being murdered, and saying this just days after their murders.

I couldn't agree more with both you and Ashley. Darlie opens mouth and inserts both feet. I thought is was a despicable thing for her to say, my mouth fell open when I heard it...LOL. it's always open anyway I'm told...

[cami]

(my bold) Honestly, I don't understand the question!

Honestly, I'm not "trying to help Darlie." I'm trying to understand what happened here. The entire thing baffles me. The thing that disturbs me, almost more than Mulder's sorry no-defense, is that her court-appointed public defenders were going with the defense of "Darin did it." Like I said before, as far as I'm concerned, if one of them did it, the other one is guilty and they should both be on death row.

You can blame it on ignorance, I'm blonde, I'm slow, whatever, but at this point, I'm still at the place where I believe there could have been an outside intruder. Given the latest (years ago) revelation that Darin sought out someone to "hit" the house so he could collect insurance money....if that were true, he'd still be guilty in my book. However, like much in this case, that is still pure speculation as far as I can see.

Mulder didn't do a damn thing to help Darlie in her trial. So I definitely disagree with your statement that I highlighted in red. Given the fact that Mulder presented no defense, I think Darlie should have a new trial.

Mulder had a guilty client who wouldn't keep her mouth shut...a nightmare for an attorney. He had little to no defense to present.

[Jeana (DP)]

(my bold) Honestly, I don't understand the question!

Honestly, I'm not "trying to help Darlie." I'm trying to understand what happened here. The entire thing baffles me. The thing that disturbs me, almost more than Mulder's sorry no-defense, is that her court-appointed public defenders were going with the defense of "Darin did it." Like I said before, as far as I'm concerned, if one of them did it, the other one is guilty and they should both be on death row.



Okay. Let's begin with the bolded part of your post, ok? What does this tell us? It tells us that even her defense attorneys KNOW that there's pretty good evidence (okay, damn good evidence) that there was NO ONE ELSE in the house that night. What I believe, and what most people believe, is that they're not actually trying to say that Darin did it. What they trying to do is show that there's a chance, albeit a slim chance, that Darlie didn't do it and Darin did. All this will is supposed to do is get the idea of reasonable doubt into one juror's mind. If they can do that, then she's not guilty. However, in order to do that, they have to go one step further and show some evidence that Darin did it. In my opinion, they cannot do so. So, what they're left with is (a) someone in that house killed those boys; and (b) it wasn't Darin. While I tend to agree with you that Darin knows more than he's ever said in public, the police cannot prove that he had anything to do with it. All they've got are the same ideas that we've got that he's involved. There is, however, plenty of evidence to prove that Darlie had something to do with it and that's why she's where she is today.

[Jeana (DP)]

You can blame it on ignorance, I'm blonde, I'm slow, whatever, but at this point, I'm still at the place where I believe there could have been an outside intruder. Given the latest (years ago) revelation that Darin sought out someone to "hit" the house so he could collect insurance money....if that were true, he'd still be guilty in my book. However, like much in this case, that is still pure speculation as far as I can see.

Mulder didn't do a damn thing to help Darlie in her trial. So I definitely disagree with your statement that I highlighted in red. Given the fact that Mulder presented no defense, I think Darlie should have a new trial.


If Darin hired someone to come in and kill Darlie, why isn't she dead? There was still plenty of time to kill her after the boys died. And, while I don't think there is any harm in you speculating that Darin did hire someone, there needs to be proof of it and there is none.

I don't believe ineffective counsel is mentioned in the appellate briefs, but I may be wrong. I think they'll have a damn hard time proving ineffective counsel, considering they see what the rest of the death row population has had to deal with in terms of defense attorneys, but you're entitled to your opinion on this. I still am trying to get you to understand that a defense attorney is only as good as his client will allow him to be and all of that pretty much went out the window when Darlie and Darin decided to get on the witness stand. By the time they were done testifying, the dam had broken and there was no getting the floodgates of lies closed after that.

[CyberLaw]

The choice that the jury had was a)did an intruder "murder" the boys and what is the evidence that supports that and b)did Darlie murder the boys and what evidence is there to support that.

If you have no evidence that an intruder entered the house and murdered the boys, then you have no choice but to outright reject that "defense". If you find that there is ample evidence that Darlie murdered the boys then she is conivcted.

How could Mulder "provide" evidence of an intruder when there is none. Nothing. Zip. Nada. But the DA had ample evidence shown at trial that Darlie did murder the two boys. So you can present a "defence" but if you have nothing to convince the jury, then they have nothing to go on.

Some Lawyers can come up "with creative" defenses because it their obligation to "defend" their client, that does not mean that the defense will be believed or the defence is credible, but it is after all a a defence.

So to say that "Mulder" offered no defense is just not accurate, he tried to refute the evidence against Darlie, he tried the "intruder" card, he tried and tried, but again no evidence to support his defence "theory" of an intruder.

Many, many "convicted" people are in prison because they testified on the stand. They somehow "think" that they are smarter and "more" convincing then they are given credit for. But they fail to see how they "come off" when testifying, they are subject to cross, questions they could not prepare for, stories that are not credible, with "I can't remember" I don't know. A lawyers "worst nightmare" is having a client testify. It is as if, all the hard work a lawyer has done is "undone" by his client wanting to "give evidence" on the stand.

All a person can do is sit back and "cringe". But if the client against advice gives evidence, then the lawyer cannot prevent them from doing so. After all they are the "client" and the person with the law degree and experience is "just the lawyer". The client "directs" the lawyer and the lawyer "advises" the client, if the client heeds the advice of the lawyer is a whole different story.

[mollymalone]

The choice that the jury had was a)did an intruder "murder" the boys and what is the evidence that supports that and b)did Darlie murder the boys and what evidence is there to support that.

If you have no evidence that an intruder entered the house and murdered the boys, then you have no choice but to outright reject that "defense". If you find that there is ample evidence that Darlie murdered the boys then she is conivcted.

How could Mulder "provide" evidence of an intruder when there is none. Nothing. Zip. Nada. But the DA had ample evidence shown at trial that Darlie did murder the two boys. So you can present a "defence" but if you have nothing to convince the jury, then they have nothing to go on.

Some Lawyers can come up "with creative" defenses because it their obligation to "defend" their client, that does not mean that the defense will be believed or the defence is credible, but it is after all a a defence.

So to say that "Mulder" offered no defense is just not accurate, he tried to refute the evidence against Darlie, he tried the "intruder" card, he tried and tried, but again no evidence to support his defence "theory" of an intruder.

Many, many "convicted" people are in prison because they testified on the stand. They somehow "think" that they are smarter and "more" convincing then they are given credit for. But they fail to see how they "come off" when testifying, they are subject to cross, questions they could not prepare for, stories that are not credible, with "I can't remember" I don't know. A lawyers "worst nightmare" is having a client testify. It is as if, all the hard work a lawyer has done is "undone" by his client wanting to "give evidence" on the stand.

All a person can do is sit back and "cringe". But if the client against advice gives evidence, then the lawyer cannot prevent them from doing so. After all they are the "client" and the person with the law degree and experience is "just the lawyer". The client "directs" the lawyer and the lawyer "advises" the client, if the client heeds the advice of the lawyer is a whole different story.Absolutely. Also, didn't Mulder want to bring up the "Darin could have done it" defense at first in order to show that Darlie wasn't the only one who could have done it, and Darlie refused?

[mollymalone]

I couldn't agree more with both you and Ashley. Darlie opens mouth and inserts both feet. I thought is was a despicable thing for her to say, my mouth fell open when I heard it...LOL. it's always open anyway I'm told...:angel: :D Whoever said that is exaggerating!

It was an unusual thing to say at the least, but then, so were the 16 different stories of what occurred too.

[accordn2me]

If Darin hired someone to come in and kill Darlie, why isn't she dead? There was still plenty of time to kill her after the boys died. And, while I don't think there is any harm in you speculating that Darin did hire someone, there needs to be proof of it and there is none.

I don't believe ineffective counsel is mentioned in the appellate briefs, but I may be wrong. I think they'll have a damn hard time proving ineffective counsel, considering they see what the rest of the death row population has had to deal with in terms of defense attorneys, but you're entitled to your opinion on this. I still am trying to get you to understand that a defense attorney is only as good as his client will allow him to be and all of that pretty much went out the window when Darlie and Darin decided to get on the witness stand. By the time they were done testifying, the dam had broken and there was no getting the floodgates of lies closed after that.I don't believe Darin hired someone to "come in and kill Darlie." I believe Darin might have hired someone to rob the house.

Instead of robbing the house, they got into a stuggle w/ Darlie, the kids woke up, were murdered.....etc. Pure speculation on my part. However, it makes as much sense to me as Darlie or Darin murdering them.

[White Rain]

I don't believe Darin hired someone to "come in and kill Darlie." I believe Darin might have hired someone to rob the house.

Instead of robbing the house, they got into a stuggle w/ Darlie, the kids woke up, were murdered.....etc. Pure speculation on my part. However, it makes as much sense to me as Darlie or Darin murdering them.

LMAO....not being rude, but am really LMAO here....
If Darin "hired" someone to rob the house why not tell Darlie? Seems like she cared more about money than he did. And why "hire" someone to rob the house when they'd all be home? Why not when they were all away, like in the next week or so when they were going to Pennsylvania?
Also, WHY murder the kids? HOW much of a description could they give honestly?

[Jeana (DP)]

I don't believe Darin hired someone to "come in and kill Darlie." I believe Darin might have hired someone to rob the house.

Instead of robbing the house, they got into a stuggle w/ Darlie, the kids woke up, were murdered.....etc. Pure speculation on my part. However, it makes as much sense to me as Darlie or Darin murdering them.

Well we know that isn't possible.

[Ashley]

I don't believe Darin hired someone to "come in and kill Darlie." I believe Darin might have hired someone to rob the house.

Instead of robbing the house, they got into a stuggle w/ Darlie, the kids woke up, were murdered.....etc. Pure speculation on my part. However, it makes as much sense to me as Darlie or Darin murdering them.

I personally don't see it. If he was struggling with Darlie, the only adult in the room, when he saw the children waking up, so he left off attacking Darlie, the adult, to go stab the children? That scenario doesn't seem correct somehow. I'm sorry. I just can't see it.

Also, the blood of the boys on the back of her nightshirt wasn't put there by an intruder. It got there when the knife in her hand was drawn back over her shoulder again and again depositing flying blood on her back as she was stabbing the bodies of her babies. That's the way I see it anyway. ashley

[accordn2me]

Jeana, Cyber, cami, WhiteRain, molly, ashley...... :truce:

:bang:I can't explain it! I know it doesn't make sense. Just as Darlie "snapping" or doing it for attention or whatever reasons some believe she did it, doesn't make sense to me. Murder rarely makes sense.

I've been reading posts by the first 3 of you for a few years now. You are all top-notch, respected sleuthers in my book. I agree with each of you probably 98% of the time.

To the last 3 whom I don't know that well, let me say I don't consider myself to be a "Darlie supporter." I don't know her, her family, or anyone involved with the case in any way. When the Routier children were murdered, I was going through a horrible ordeal with my mother having been murdered just a couple weeks before. That's the only direct experience I have with our justice system. I am a staunch death penalty supporter and tend to lean heavily on the side of the prosecution.

Darlie had been on death row several years when I read about her case and found a couple of message boards that were discussing it. I was referred to the site with the transcripts. I didn't read them all, I skipped around reading certain parts I was interested in at the time. One thing stood out for me no matter what part I was reading, and that was Mulder's dismal attention to his client, her case, his courtroom demeanor (his effect on the judge)....it really blew my mind. Now, reading the opinions of other's here at Websleuths, it must just be me. Others still hold Mulder in the highest regard, which leaves me incredulous, but I have no other cases to reference his work to. Just this one, and I can't think of another case were the defense did such a sadly poor job.

There are too many unanswered questions, unexplored evidence, and IMO reasonable possibilities, that I don't see how this conviction stands.

[wasapi]

I personally don't see it. If he was struggling with Darlie, the only adult in the room, when he saw the children waking up, so he left off attacking Darlie, the adult, to go stab the children? That scenario doesn't seem correct somehow. I'm sorry. I just can't see it.

Also, the blood of the boys on the back of her nightshirt wasn't put there by an intruder. It got there when the knife in her hand was drawn back over her shoulder again and again depositing flying blood on her back as she was stabbing the bodies of her babies. That's the way I see it anyway. ashley

Good points. In addition, where is this person's DNA? Bloody foot prints? And, wouldn't have Darlies screams sent Darin downstairs and two adults would be trying to keep him from continuing to stab the children? But it still comes down to the blood evidence and the DNA. In an attack that violent, he would have left some things of his person - hair, fibers, prints, . . . something! AND, how did the boys blood come to be on the back of her shirt in the pattern it was discovered, and proven beyond a doubt to be, cast off blood from her hand being drawn back after stabbing? It would certainly be a shrewd person to have set her up like that and still leave nothing of his behind.

[Ashley]

To Accordn2me:

It seems you are on the fence about some things regarding Darlie. That is the sign of a "thinking" person, someone who is digging for the truth. I salute you. I once was there on several cases. Not this one though.

We agree on the death penalty. But what can I say? I'm from Texas. We champion the death penalty here, right or wrong. That said, I would be the first one on Darlie's bandwagon if I thought she was innocent.

I sort of agree with you on Mulder except that he wasn't given much to work with. In trial one must play the hand they are dealt. Mulder didn't get much to work with, in my opinion. In other words, Darlie nor Darin helped him out on the stand. They were too honed in on "telling our side of it", which the jury didn't believe.

I honestly believe the jury was fair-minded and wanted to give Darlie the benefit of the doubt. But after all was said and done they saw through her lies on the stand, and there was nothing Mulder could do about that but agitate the judge.

Wasapi gave a good post on this case a few posts back. I think she/he hit the nail on the head. There is no getting around the cast off blood on Darlie's night shirt. That is pretty much the smoking gun if there is one in this case. ashley

[mollymalone]

Absolutely. Darlie and her family CHOSE Mulder if I recall correctly. Mulder wanted to go with a scenario implicating Darin or at least suggesting that, in order to point out a SODDI defense. Darlie was adamant and said no. Mulder then was left with no other reasonable defense avenues because Darlie and the family were calling the shots. A Defense Attorney can only do so much with a case if the client is insisting on testifying, (in their belief that the jury will believe them); if the client insists on a specific defense, even against the advice of the attorney. All the attorney is left with is preserving the record for appeal in whatever manner they can given the circumstances.

And what attorney is going to be able to explain adequately the 16 different versions the client gave? I don't hold Mulder in high regard, but he's not the worst attorney that's ever defended a client such as Darlie. There are always irritations between Judges and defense attorneys and many times the public doesn't know that there is a history outside or inside the courtroom between them. (Some defense attorneys attitudes irritate the heck out of me - Specter case in particular!!!)

I think it would be difficult for any Defense Attorney to explain away forensics of the blood on Darlie.

[accordn2me]

A<snipped>
I think it would be difficult for any Defense Attorney to explain away forensics of the blood on Darlie.He should have hired experts to do that.

[mollymalone]

He should have hired experts to do that.True, but even in the use of experts for that, the Defense Attorney is still trying to explain it all away.

[accordn2me]

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/writ.php

Blood Spatter on Petitioner’s Victoria’s Secret Nightshirt:
Tom Bevel testified that blood spatter on the back of the Victoria’s Secret nightshirt that Petitioner wore on the morning of June 6, 1996 was consistent with “cast off” stains that would have been deposited when she brought the knife overhead in a stabbing motion:
Taking a knife that was the same diameter of the knife in question, I just simply, in this case I went down to my knee after placing a clean T-shirt on my body, put blood on the knife, on both sides, again, held it up and allowed it to just simply stop its dripping . . . . And then just simply did a motion such at this, I think on the first time I did it with two swings, if you would, without adding any additional blood, to see if in fact we get the blood that would be on the back that would be consistent in size, direction, location as the blood in question on the T-shirt [worn by Petitioner on the night of the attack].
C.R.R. Vol. 39, p. 37:10-38:1. He explained the significance of his findings to the jury as:
A. I was able, multiple times, to get bloodstains that were the same size, location, with the long axis up and down in that area and on other areas of the back of the [test] shirt.
C.R.R. Vol. 39, p. 38:3-6.


. . . .
[what is the explanation for the blood stains on the back of the nightshirt,] the most consistent way it could happen is when the stabbing motion comes up and the knife is over the shoulder . . . . That tells you that she was stabbing, and Devon’s blood winds up on her back. It’s not going to wind up there if she is laying on the couch as a man wrestles at her neck.
C.R.R. Vol. 47, pp. 37:25-38.23, Vol. 47, pp. 16-24, Vol. 46 pp. 10-16.
As the State pointed out to the jury, defense counsel presented no scientific evidence to rebut the physical indications of a staged crime scene:
You know, here is the bottom line on Tom Bevel. You know out there at SWIFS there is another expert, Terry Labor. He is the DNA blood spatter expert who went out there on behalf of the defendant also, along with Bart Epstein. And if they want to quarrel with Tom Bevel and tell you that he is wrong, and that he is a witch doctor of some sort, where is Terry Labor then? Where is their blood spatter expert? Don’t you know that if he had any criticism of the opinions rendered by Tom Bevel, that just like Bart Epstein, you would see them right up here, and he would be detailing for you what those criticisms are. But he is not here either, is he? And for a very good reason.
C.R.R. Vol. 46, pp. 151:17-152:4, 153:3-154:4. In fact, in October 1996 defense counsel was aware of contrary evidence. But the jury never heard that evidence either.


Credible Alternative Explanations for the Physical Evidence at the Crime Scene


The jury never heard from forensic experts Terry Laber and Barton Epstein, who were retained by Petitioner’s appointed counsel – both of whom were identified by name in the State’s closing arguments as witnesses the defense never called to rebut Linch and Bevel’s testimony. Laber and Epstein had reached conclusions contrary to the State’s experts before trial that could have been presented to the jury in Petitioner’s defense. Substitute defense counsel, who was conflicted because of an agreement not to implicate Darin Routier (see Routier Aff. ¶ 7) , decided not to use the exculpatory evidence or to conduct further scientific tests – at a time when he was not familiar with the facts of the case. At the time they were instructed to stop working on the case, Laber and Epstein had conducted a number of scientific tests on the physical evidence about which Linch and Bevel had testified at trial and had recommended additional testing on other physical evidence. Laber and Epstein’s conclusions in October 1996 were that the physical evidence did not suggest a staged crime scene, which directly contradicted the testimony of Linch and Bevel. See generally Terry L. Laber Affidavit (“Laber Aff.”).


Blood Spatter on Victoria’s Secret Nightshirt:
Laber and Epstein concluded that Petitioner’s nightshirt indicated only minimal areas of blood spatter and that the critical areas of spatter were never subjected to genetic testing. Bevel explained to the jury that one explanation for the absence of blood spatter was that Damon’s and Devon’s blood was covered by direct hits of Petitioner’s blood from her self-inflicted wounds. In Laber’s expert opinion, that interpretation requires an extremely unlikely sequence of events. Laber and Epstein recommended that the critical areas of blood staining be tested in October 1996. See Laber Aff. ¶ 6. Conflicted defense counsel, however, ignored that advice, and the jury never heard evidence from such testing.

[CyberLaw]

Not to rain on a person's parade, but this is called the "battle" of the experts. One expert has one opinion and the other another opinion.

You cannot go back and press the "undo" button, you can't go back and say: Well can we test this now, can we do this now when we did not do it then.

Unless you "contest" evidence at trial it is deemed to be accurate without challenge. As you note this is from 2002, that is five years ago. We are now I think at another stage of the appeals.

You don't "redo" trials because opps, I did not do this or that. Can you imagine..........

Now we are on to the DNA testing. By the way, lawyers don't discount "contrary" evidence unless there is a reason. They cannot ignore "evidence" that may prove their client innocent. Why would they want to do that, their job is to "defend" their client, to prove innocence, to win the freedom for a person "unjustly" on trial, especially in a death penalty case of this high profile.

So I am all for the "initial" fact finding in the original trial that was not disputed and was put into and on record as factual.

I really don't think, unless there is "new" evidence that is "newly" discovered that "could" not have been discovered at trial, that Darlie's appeals will hold value.

Any item from the "justicefordarlie" website is suspect. After all Darlie and her family are still looking for the "intruder", just like O.J. is "still looking" for the person who killed his ex wife and Ron Goldman. The only difference is that Darlie, unlike O.J. is where she belongs.

Neither one of them is "going" to find the real killer, but each morning they can look in the mirror to "look at the real killer".

The thing that I find most "interesting" about Darlie's story, is that little ole Darlie, "chased" after this big ole intruder dressed in black, with a knife in his hand and he ran(while he was armed) from little ole Darlie after he has just murdered two kids in cold blood. He must have been so scared of little ole Darlie that he "just happen" to drop the murder weapon where little ole Darlie could pick it up. Wow this intruder must have been a coward to run from a women, who was unarmed, especially after killing two kids. Please, only in the imagination of Darlie.

Plus, from the area where Darlie claimed the knife had been dropped, there were no "blood patterns" that indicated that the knife had been dropped and a pattern on the floor emerged. Blood patterns are VERY specific.

What about Darlie giving an interview saying that the two boys "lived" a full life. Sure all 5 and 6 years of their short life. I would say that a person who dies of old age lived a full life. Not children murdered while they slept, who were 5 an 6 years old.

You have to look at everything, all of the evidence from the dog to the blood to the stories to the affect of Darlie to get the whole picture, not just to look at bits and pieces that MAY prove what you want it to prove.

It is like you suspect your hubby of cheating, so you discount, the lipstick on the color, the smell of another women's perfume, the "late" nights at the office, the phone number and e-mails of another women on his cell phone, but hold on to the "one night" you phoned him at his office, and he was there and answered the phone, but the twenty times before that when he was "working" late you could not reach him.

Therefore you determine that he is and was not having an affair because you were able to reach him on the phone that one time, discounting all of the other evidence that points to a contrary conclusion.

You are not taking into evidence ALL of the facts, just facts that you want to support your conclusion. That would be akin to this 2002 appeal.

[accordn2me]

Not to rain on a person's parade, but this is called the "battle" of the experts. One expert has one opinion and the other another opinion.<snipped>There was only one side of experts at Darlie's trial...those on the side of the prosecution. Mulder "decided not to use the exculpatory evidence or to conduct further scientific tests – at a time when he was not familiar with the facts of the case."

[mollymalone]

[QUOTE=CyberLaw;1742778] snip
What about Darlie giving an interview saying that the two boys "lived" a full life. Sure all 5 and 6 years of their short life. I would say that a person who dies of old age lived a full life. Not children murdered while they slept, who were 5 an 6 years old.

SNIP
QUOTE]That statement was the other jaw dropper for me out of all the things she said. As you say, that phrase is normally attributed to someone who's lived a long life, not a child, and not someone who was murdered.

[wasapi]

[quote=CyberLaw;1742778] snip
What about Darlie giving an interview saying that the two boys "lived" a full life. Sure all 5 and 6 years of their short life. I would say that a person who dies of old age lived a full life. Not children murdered while they slept, who were 5 an 6 years old.

SNIP
QUOTE]That statement was the other jaw dropper for me out of all the things she said. As you say, that phrase is normally attributed to someone who's lived a long life, not a child, and not someone who was murdered.

Thanks, I had been trying to remember what it was she said on the tape - aside from the 'boy's biggest party in heaven' statement - that was so outrageous and so damning.

And not to nit-pick about words, but the boys really weren't "murdered while they slept." How much better it would have been if that were the case. Instead, they awoke to their mother stabbing them, and even now, thinking of their last moments of terror, pain, and confusion, is difficult to think about.

My God, she thought she had finished murdering one of her babies, but he wanted to live, he wanted to get away from her, but she caught up with him to make sure she REALLY finished him off!

Pure evil. Why is she still alive?!!!

[CyberLaw]

No kidding why is she still alive?

To think that the boys had a "fairly" good life, at least there were no reports of physical abuse, they had food, clothing, a nice home and parents who "seemed" to love them.

Then to wake up and realize the pain and terror of the person who is and was entrusted with your care is killing you and stabbing you.

I can't imagine the horror that they felt, the pain, the fear and confusion.

Especially the one boy who was trying desperatly tying to crawl to the door to save his life.

Then we have little ole Darlie and the cult of Darlie saying: She is innocent. That just ticks me off to no end. No miscarriage of justice here, but poor little ole Darlie has never, not ever, shown any empathy for the boys, only herself.

Poor widdle, ole Darlie. Not. At least when the state executes her it will be fairly humane, certainly not the choice she made for the boys.

[White Rain]

I will surely put on my shortest shorts, pop loads of bazooka joe gum in my mouth, buy up lots of silly string and go "celebrate" on top of her grave when they put this monster to death.

[Squishified]

I will surely put on my shortest shorts, pop loads of bazooka joe gum in my mouth, buy up lots of silly string and go "celebrate" on top of her grave when they put this monster to death.
Good idea!

[White Rain]

Good idea!

yeah, maybe all of us non-Darlies on here could do it...after all we aren't being rude...dying is a cause of celebration RIGHT?

[whitywendy]

yeah, maybe all of us non-Darlies on here could do it...after all we aren't being rude...dying is a cause of celebration RIGHT?

:eek::eek::eek::eek: yep according to Ms. Darlie.....

[White Rain]

I hope the day she dies God gives those boys some silly string up in heaven.

[cami]

Blood Spatter on Victoria’s Secret Nightshirt:
Laber and Epstein concluded that Petitioner’s nightshirt indicated only minimal areas of blood spatter and that the critical areas of spatter were never subjected to genetic testing. Bevel explained to the jury that one explanation for the absence of blood spatter was that Damon’s and Devon’s blood was covered by direct hits of Petitioner’s blood from her self-inflicted wounds. In Laber’s expert opinion, that interpretation requires an extremely unlikely sequence of events. Laber and Epstein recommended that the critical areas of blood staining be tested in October 1996. See Laber Aff. ¶ 6. Conflicted defense counsel, however, ignored that advice, and the jury never heard evidence from such testing.

Sounds like grasping at straws to me, although I thoroughly respect Laber I don't think he hit the mark this time. I don't think genetic testing would explain the naked to the eye cast-off blood we see on the back of Darlie's nightshirt. I think it would only reinforce her guilt and maybe Mulder knew that.

[cami]

There was only one side of experts at Darlie's trial...those on the side of the prosecution. Mulder "decided not to use the exculpatory evidence or to conduct further scientific tests – at a time when he was not familiar with the facts of the case."

What exculpatory evidence? Laber's tests? Hardly. Forget the shirt for a minute, there's more than enough damning blood evidence to prove Darlie committed this crime.

[cami]

:eek::eek::eek::eek: yep according to Ms. Darlie.....

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: