1195 users online (230 members and 965 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 49
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    886

    HOwdy! My thoughts.

    Hi everyone. I just wanted to make myself known here in the Darlie forum. I will now share my thoughts and confusions on this case with you. To start with, I'd have to say that right now I'm about 75% convinced of Darlie's innocence in this crime. But I do have many many questions for both sides. My background in this case is as follows: I was living in Texas in 1995, so I heard about it on the news. Then, I later saw one of the forensic shows (you know, Forensic Files, The New Detectives, or some such) that featured this case. At the time, I was convinced of her guilt from the blood evidence that was portrayed on the show. Later, I read one book, I beleive it was "Hush Little Babies" that was written by a woman originally against Darlie who changed her mind. This book was written from the point of view that Darlie was innocent. I have to say, I found many of the defense spin arguments compelling and then changed my mind. However, as I stated before, I am not 100% convinced.

    Okay, now for some questions I have.

    1. What exactly is the significance of the sock in the alley? From either perspective please. Did it have only one child's blood on it, both children's blood, or some combination of children's blood and Darlie's blood?

    2. What about the "unexplained" bloody fingerprint found on the coffee table. Is this real or spin? Where could it have come from if not from the "intruder"?

    3. Were the huge black bruises on Darlie's arms visible to paramedics or did they not show up until later that night or next day? To me this would help to establish when the injury was inflicted.

    4. For those that say Darlie's slit throat was "superficial", why do you say that? Is it because she didn't actually die of it? According to the book I read, the cut came within a few millimeters of her jugular vein or her carotic artery, which would have been a fata cut. How can you go from superficial to fatal in just a few millimeters? I would argue that it was serious, but not life threatening, simply because it missed teh major blood vessels.

    5. As to Darlie's injuries not being overkill as the boys injuries were overkill, I am not sure what to think about this. I have not read her 16 different explanations of what happened yet, so I don't know how to interpret what went on. But, I would think it was simply because she managed to fight off her attacker better than the boys did.

    Now for things that I don't understand if Darlie is indeed innocent.
    1. Didn't the boys scream for help? How could she sleep through that? How could Darin. If one of the boys was able to move around as evidenced by his blood in more than one place in the room, he must have been able to call for help.

    2. The screen in the garage being cut with a knife from within the house. I believe it was also determined that the cut was made from the inside. I don't get this, unless it was done prior to that night in order for the intrduer to gain access.

    That is all I can think of right now. There are other things that I also wonder about. The mysterious black car seen in the neighborhood is one.

    I welcome any and all comments on this thread. I'm slowly reading through the things that have already been posted. It is quite possible that some of the answers are already there in some of the other threads. If so, jsut point me to them.

    Thanks everyone!

    By the way, I'm going to post a really wacky wild way out theory in the near future. I don't really believe it and it isn't extremely probable, but its is something I've thought about and can't quite get it out of my head. How is that for a teaser?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Arielle
    Hi everyone. I just wanted to make myself known here in the Darlie forum. I will now share my thoughts and confusions on this case with you. To start with, I'd have to say that right now I'm about 75% convinced of Darlie's innocence in this crime. But I do have many many questions for both sides. My background in this case is as follows: I was living in Texas in 1995, so I heard about it on the news. Then, I later saw one of the forensic shows (you know, Forensic Files, The New Detectives, or some such) that featured this case. At the time, I was convinced of her guilt from the blood evidence that was portrayed on the show. Later, I read one book, I beleive it was "Hush Little Babies" that was written by a woman originally against Darlie who changed her mind. This book was written from the point of view that Darlie was innocent. I have to say, I found many of the defense spin arguments compelling and then changed my mind. However, as I stated before, I am not 100% convinced.

    Okay, now for some questions I have.

    1. What exactly is the significance of the sock in the alley? From either perspective please. Did it have only one child's blood on it, both children's blood, or some combination of children's blood and Darlie's blood?

    2. What about the "unexplained" bloody fingerprint found on the coffee table. Is this real or spin? Where could it have come from if not from the "intruder"?

    3. Were the huge black bruises on Darlie's arms visible to paramedics or did they not show up until later that night or next day? To me this would help to establish when the injury was inflicted.

    4. For those that say Darlie's slit throat was "superficial", why do you say that? Is it because she didn't actually die of it? According to the book I read, the cut came within a few millimeters of her jugular vein or her carotic artery, which would have been a fata cut. How can you go from superficial to fatal in just a few millimeters? I would argue that it was serious, but not life threatening, simply because it missed teh major blood vessels.

    5. As to Darlie's injuries not being overkill as the boys injuries were overkill, I am not sure what to think about this. I have not read her 16 different explanations of what happened yet, so I don't know how to interpret what went on. But, I would think it was simply because she managed to fight off her attacker better than the boys did.

    Now for things that I don't understand if Darlie is indeed innocent.
    1. Didn't the boys scream for help? How could she sleep through that? How could Darin. If one of the boys was able to move around as evidenced by his blood in more than one place in the room, he must have been able to call for help.

    2. The screen in the garage being cut with a knife from within the house. I believe it was also determined that the cut was made from the inside. I don't get this, unless it was done prior to that night in order for the intrduer to gain access.

    That is all I can think of right now. There are other things that I also wonder about. The mysterious black car seen in the neighborhood is one.

    I welcome any and all comments on this thread. I'm slowly reading through the things that have already been posted. It is quite possible that some of the answers are already there in some of the other threads. If so, jsut point me to them.

    Thanks everyone!

    By the way, I'm going to post a really wacky wild way out theory in the near future. I don't really believe it and it isn't extremely probable, but its is something I've thought about and can't quite get it out of my head. How is that for a teaser?
    Actually Hush Little Babies was written by Don Davis, a man. You are thinking of Barbara Davis (no relation) who wrote Precious Angels or something like that. She was first on the guilty side but she has since changed her mind to Darlie's innocence.

    1. The sock in the alley contained a few drops of both boys blood and Darlie's dna, either from saliva or skin cells, in the toe of the sock. The prosecution's theory is the sock was left in the alley in attempt at staging the way the intruder left the scene. Supporters allege it was used to gag Darlie, hence her dna in the toe, and then was mistakenly dropped by the intruder where it was found.

    2. There was a smudged print in blood on a glass table. The prosecution fingerprint experts have been unable to exclude Darlie from this print. The defense fingerprint experts have. So it's expert against expert. You would really have to read the writ and affidavits on this to try and understand it. It's a smudged print in blood, likely to remain unidentifiable. The print does not match the over 6ft intruder that Darlie alleges attacked her, it's from someone with a small hand, like a female. Dr. Jantz's findings were not accepted by the court.

    3. No, the bruises were not visible until days after the attack so no the paramedics did not see the bruises. None of the hospital staff saw the bruises. The doctor's testimony at trial was that bruises would take 24-48 hours after the incident to show up.

    4. It's considered superficial because it was a surface cut. Unlike the two boys who had deep penetrating stab wounds into their organs, veins and muscles. Yes, it's serious but non-life threatening. I didn't know where my carotid artery was before this crime and I am sure that neither did Darlie. How would the intruder have known where the carotid artery is and been able to stop in time is the question I ask.

    5. There's no indication that Darlie fought with anyone. There's no blood on the sofa where she recieved the alleged cuts, no nicks or cuts from a knife in the sofa, no cast-off blood in the room indicating she was fighting with a knife weilding intruder. She had no head injuries, no broken bones, no facial injuries, no cuts on her hands, palms, fingers, no cuts on the underside of her arms indicating she threw her arms up. And the major--she's alive and the boys were destroyed. If someone was after her she'd be dead.

    1.(again). If the boys screamed for help then no one but Darin and Darlie heard them. It was the middle of the night so I am assuming the rest of the neighbourhood was asleep, although the neighbour across the street did briefly waken to a noise before the whole neighbourhood was awakened by Darin and the cops so maybe he heard something, screaming etc.

    How could Darlie sleep through that? Good question. She woke up when her baby rolled over in his sleep but not when her two eldest are being brutalized!!!! She didn't--imoo, she's lying. By the time of trial, she gave up her claim that she was asleep and now claims Traumatic Amnesia. I don't think that a traumatized child gasping for breath would have been able to scream. Damon was bleeding into his lungs, that's what killed him.

    2. No, the screen was cut from the outside but it was cut with a knife from the Routier home. Impossible for an intruder to have done that on the night in question and there is no evidence that the screen was cut prior to that night.

    The alleged black car. No make, no model number, no license plate number, no description of the driver or passengers. Routiers lived on a corner, had an ornamental fountain in the front yard that sight seeers would slow down and look at before they rounded the corner. Black car stopped on the night in question, occupants made to get out and occupants and car searched by police.

    I suggest and I am sure that DP and Camilla would, that you read the transcripts, including the Bond hearing, the appeals, the affidavits and the writ.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    886
    Quote Originally Posted by cami


    4. It's considered superficial because it was a surface cut. Unlike the two boys who had deep penetrating stab wounds into their organs, veins and muscles. Yes, it's serious but non-life threatening. I didn't know where my carotid artery was before this crime and I am sure that neither did Darlie. How would the intruder have known where the carotid artery is and been able to stop in time is the question I ask.
    My guess is that stopping just short of the carotid artery was not anyone's goal here. If there was an intruder, he was trying to slit her throat and kill her. He meant to slice right through that artery and only Darlie fighting him kept it from happening. If there was no intruder and Darlie did it herself or had help from Darin, it was a lucky accident that her injury was not fatal.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Arielle
    My guess is that stopping just short of the carotid artery was not anyone's goal here. If there was an intruder, he was trying to slit her throat and kill her. He meant to slice right through that artery and only Darlie fighting him kept it from happening. If there was no intruder and Darlie did it herself or had help from Darin, it was a lucky accident that her injury was not fatal.

    Too true, it is a lucky accident that her injury was not fatal and why I believe the 911 call was placed when it was.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    26,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Arielle
    My guess is that stopping just short of the carotid artery was not anyone's goal here. If there was an intruder, he was trying to slit her throat and kill her. He meant to slice right through that artery and only Darlie fighting him kept it from happening. If there was no intruder and Darlie did it herself or had help from Darin, it was a lucky accident that her injury was not fatal.

    Yup, and according to her (depending on who she was talking to at the time), there were TWO intruders. There's no way if she was attacked first that she would have survived.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Arielle
    My guess is that stopping just short of the carotid artery was not anyone's goal here. If there was an intruder, he was trying to slit her throat and kill her. He meant to slice right through that artery and only Darlie fighting him kept it from happening. If there was no intruder and Darlie did it herself or had help from Darin, it was a lucky accident that her injury was not fatal.

    I think Darin cut Darlie's throat as I dont think she wouldve been able to do it to herself deep enough to be"convincing"(I dont doubt she couldve stabbed the boys though).Imagine slitting your own throat! *BUT* if someone else did it,esp. someone you trusted not to "really" hurt you...........its plausible then isnt it?


    Im not sure who stabbed the boys but Im sure Darin cut Darlie,placed the sock and helped with the other staging(cut the screen etc)
    The saints are the sinners who keep trying...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    240
    i'm sorry, but i just don't believe the father did any such thing. if he knew that his wife had brutally murdered his sons, why would he cover for her by slitting her throat? just doesn't add up. i've seen or heard no evidence that the father was suspected in this. if i'm wrong, please source this for me.
    and please, don't blast me as in other forums .... i'm just trying to contribute

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    26,910
    Quote Originally Posted by londonPI
    i'm sorry, but i just don't believe the father did any such thing. if he knew that his wife had brutally murdered his sons, why would he cover for her by slitting her throat? just doesn't add up. i've seen or heard no evidence that the father was suspected in this. if i'm wrong, please source this for me.
    and please, don't blast me as in other forums .... i'm just trying to contribute

    No one is going to be "blasted" on this forum, so no worries!!

    There is a good reason why Darin failed two lie detector tests. Exactly what those reasons are is anyone's guess. I don't believe that he cut Darlie's neck or took the sock outside, but I do think he knows that Darlie murdered the boys.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    577

    Darin

    Perhaps he felt some degree of culpability regardless of whether or not he actually participated in the stabbings.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    240
    are they still married???


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    577
    Only in name. Remember, a husband can not be compelled to testify against his wife/or vice versa.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    886
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeana (DP)
    No one is going to be "blasted" on this forum, so no worries!!

    There is a good reason why Darin failed two lie detector tests. Exactly what those reasons are is anyone's guess. I don't believe that he cut Darlie's neck or took the sock outside, but I do think he knows that Darlie murdered the boys.
    Do we know what the questions were that he was asked in these lie detector tests and which of them he was not being truthful?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    6,206

    londonPI

    I was reading a news artical "DallasNews" Aug.17, 2004 that Darin and Darlie are still married and that he is raising their 8 year old son.
    But I totaly agree with dasgal that that their marriage is in name only so that neither one can testifiy against one another.

    Routier lawyers assail judge, ruling
    They demand access to trial evidence for new analysis in slaying case


    10:04 PM CDT on Tuesday, August 17, 2004

    By ROBERT THARP / The Dallas Morning News


    Two weeks after a state district judge rejected convicted child killer Darlie Routier's second appeal, the former Rowlett homemaker's attorneys gathered at the courthouse steps to criticize the ruling and demand access to trial evidence.

    Attorney Richard Burr said Judge Robert Francis and prosecutors have an obligation to turn over evidence for new analysis that could get Ms. Routier off death row.


    Darlie Routier

    Also Online: Video "Any reasonable person who cares about the truth ... would say we've got to do some exploring," Mr. Burr said. "He did nothing as a judge that any of us would expect a judge to do."

    Judge Francis declined to comment, saying only that his ruling speaks for itself.

    The defense team has filed a new court motion asking an outside judge to order the release of the evidence they seek. A separate motion for new DNA testing is also pending. The state Court of Criminal Appeals is now considering the writ of habeas corpus that could allow for a new trial. Judge Francis rejected that appeal this month.

    Assistant District Attorney John Rolater, an appellate specialist, said defense attorneys have not taken advantage of numerous opportunities to examine evidence they now seek. In September 2002, the district attorney's office offered to have evidence tested by an agreed-upon expert, but the defense did not accept, he said.

    And in October 2002, the court granted an order giving the defense access to evidence, but Mr. Rolater said the defense never followed up.

    "I don't think their claims have any merit," he said.

    Attorney J. Stephen Cooper said the October order amounted only to looking at the evidence, not testing it. He called the prosecution assertion "an absolute lie."

    Mr. Rolater said dozens of DNA tests have been performed since Ms. Routier's 1996 arrest and 1997 conviction, and each analysis pointed to Ms. Routier or the children as the source of the DNA material.

    "Everything points at her," he said. "She's the only one with the opportunity and the motive and the animus toward the children."

    Ms. Routier was sentenced to death for killing her 5-year-old son, Damon. She was also accused of killing her 6-year-old son, Devon, but was not tried for his death. She continues to maintain that she's innocent and that an intruder broke into the house and killed the boys and attacked her. She suffered knife wounds to her arms and neck that prosecutors contend were self-inflicted and staged to support the intruder theory.

    Ms. Routier's mother attended the news conference. Ms. Routier's husband, Darin Routier, lives in Lubbock with their surviving son, now 8, and did not attend.

    The appellate attorneys say one of the main issues are bloody fingerprints found on a table and door of the Routier home.

    Two fingerprint experts for the state concluded that the prints could exclude everyone in the household except Ms. Routier.

    Police investigators did not preserve the two boys' fingerprints for future reference. Their bodies were later exhumed, and the defense team used a forensic anthropologist to try to reconstruct their fingerprints.

    A defense fingerprint analyst later ruled the prints were not consistent with Ms. Routier or the children and support Ms. Routier's claim of an intruder.

    In his ruling on the appeal, Judge Francis sided with the prosecution and said the defense expert used procedures that were "not sound." Attorney Michael Flanagan said the judge should allow for more analysis.

    "We believe the enhanced testing might show the source of it," he said.

    E-mail rtharp@dallasnews.com

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,646
    Quote Originally Posted by londonPI
    i'm sorry, but i just don't believe the father did any such thing. if he knew that his wife had brutally murdered his sons, why would he cover for her by slitting her throat? just doesn't add up. i've seen or heard no evidence that the father was suspected in this. if i'm wrong, please source this for me.
    and please, don't blast me as in other forums .... i'm just trying to contribute
    I don't think Darin cut Darlie either. She would have had enough adrenaline flowing so as not to really hurt herself when she made that cut. Besides that, if you want to get yourself out of a jam, you'll do anything. She's not the first to try and make it look as if she was a victim in this as well. Diane Downs, Charles Stewart and Jeff Macdonald all spring to mind.

    Darin's insensitive and ridiculous remarks about Darlie and her beauty/breasts is what led me to believe he helped her. He chose her over the boys.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    26,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Arielle
    Do we know what the questions were that he was asked in these lie detector tests and which of them he was not being truthful?
    I can't remember the specific questions (and not even sure if we heard all of them ever), but if my memory serves me correctly, the only question he got right was his name.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast