1317 users online (238 members and 1079 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Oh Canada....
    Posts
    1,996

    My thoughts

    Hi, I'm pretty new to the site. Have read the transcripts of the court case and watched the Leeza show. I have been left with some questions.

    Did emotion lead the jury to find Darlie guilty? Did the media and the public opinion in Texas sway the jury to find this woman guilty to close the case? To get a resolution?

    I honestly entered into the transcripts with an open mind. I live in the UK. I hadn't heard of the case before I found this site. I had no feelings one way or the other. But I don't feel that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Darlie Routier killed the children.

    Their motives were all supposition. From money worries to depression to being a self-centred mercenary, all these were alleged, none were ever conclusively proved.

    I don't get the murder/suicide thing. If she wanted to kill herself why cut her own throat? Why not hang herself once the children were dead. Darin says he woke when the glass was smashed. So she could have left the house and jumped off a bridge or something if she wanted to die. And if she wasn't intending to die then she was very lucky she didn't cut that extra millimetre or so into her carotid artery.

    The prosecution haven't answered how the sock got in the alleyway. If Damon could live about 8 minutes with the injuries he sustained then how did Darlie get that sock out there, get back, phone 911 and have the paramedic there when he saw the light go out in Damon's eyes? It's a very tight timescale.

    Did the LE focus on Darlie and Darren from the word go? Did they just plough on, looking for any evidence they could to try and show Darlie did it?

    I can't feel comfortable with Darlie sitting on Death Row when there is, for me, reasonable doubt. The only expert witness who spoke with any certainty about the injuries to Darlie Routier being self-inflicted or not was a defence witness saying they weren't.

    I'd love to know more about this case and am going to read more. But my initial feelings are that IF Darlie Routier is guilty of the murders then the prosecution hasn't proved it beyond reasonable doubt for me.

  2. #2
    Thank you,I completely agree.I don't believe Darlie would have cut her own throat and the sock in the alley IS reasonable doubt to me.
    The blood splatter on the back of her night gown to me could have gotten there if Darlie was behind the assailant ,Darin's statements are inconsistent and do not make sense IMO

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,646
    Quote Originally Posted by blefuscu View Post
    Hi, I'm pretty new to the site. Have read the transcripts of the court case and watched the Leeza show. I have been left with some questions.

    Did emotion lead the jury to find Darlie guilty? Did the media and the public opinion in Texas sway the jury to find this woman guilty to close the case? To get a resolution?

    I honestly entered into the transcripts with an open mind. I live in the UK. I hadn't heard of the case before I found this site. I had no feelings one way or the other. But I don't feel that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Darlie Routier killed the children.

    Their motives were all supposition. From money worries to depression to being a self-centred mercenary, all these were alleged, none were ever conclusively proved.

    I don't get the murder/suicide thing. If she wanted to kill herself why cut her own throat? Why not hang herself once the children were dead. Darin says he woke when the glass was smashed. So she could have left the house and jumped off a bridge or something if she wanted to die. And if she wasn't intending to die then she was very lucky she didn't cut that extra millimetre or so into her carotid artery.

    The prosecution haven't answered how the sock got in the alleyway. If Damon could live about 8 minutes with the injuries he sustained then how did Darlie get that sock out there, get back, phone 911 and have the paramedic there when he saw the light go out in Damon's eyes? It's a very tight timescale.

    Did the LE focus on Darlie and Darren from the word go? Did they just plough on, looking for any evidence they could to try and show Darlie did it?

    I can't feel comfortable with Darlie sitting on Death Row when there is, for me, reasonable doubt. The only expert witness who spoke with any certainty about the injuries to Darlie Routier being self-inflicted or not was a defence witness saying they weren't.

    I'd love to know more about this case and am going to read more. But my initial feelings are that IF Darlie Routier is guilty of the murders then the prosecution hasn't proved it beyond reasonable doubt for me.
    Their motives were all supposition. From money worries to depression to being a self-centred mercenary, all these were alleged, none were ever conclusively proved.
    The state has no burden to prove a motive. They don't know why Darlie killed her kids any more than we do. They follow where the evidence leads.

    The prosecution haven't answered how the sock got in the alleyway. If Damon could live about 8 minutes with the injuries he sustained then how did Darlie get that sock out there, get back, phone 911 and have the paramedic there when he saw the light go out in Damon's eyes? It's a very tight timescale.
    Absolutely not, it's only the defence that is stuck with a time line. Damon was stabbed two separate times and stabbed in two separate areas of the room and it is the second group of stabbings he received over by the wall where the paramedic treated him that starts the 9:00 minute time line. The sock was already in the alley by that time.

    I can't feel comfortable with Darlie sitting on Death Row when there is, for me, reasonable doubt. The only expert witness who spoke with any certainty about the injuries to Darlie Routier being self-inflicted or not was a defence witness saying they weren't.
    Have you read the expert's cross by the State? And he was not the only expert witness. He was a paid defence witness, paid for his testimony. He is a coroner, he's not even a blood expert. You need to read the trial transcripts and not rely on Darlie's website. As the state noted, the doctors who treated Darlie are in a better position to assess the injuries and whether they appear self-inflicted or not. Certainly her wounds were no where near fatal like the boys were. Oh I know everyone goes on about the knife almost hitting her carotid artery, but it didn't so instead of focusing on what the knife didn't hit we should focus on what it did and it missed all the vital organs, just cutting the bleeder veins and into the fat under the skin.


    Q. Doctor, that is not the question I
    3 asked you. They were there, weren't they?
    4 A. Right, yes, sir, they were.
    5 Q. Okay. They performed the surgery on
    6 her neck, didn't they, Dr. DiMaio?
    7 A. Yes, sir. And I'm basing my opinion
    8 on their description of it.
    9 Q. They saw the wound opened and operated
    10 on it?
    11 A. Yes, sir.
    12 Q. So wouldn't they be the better judge
    13 of just how serious that injury was?
    14 A. Yes, sir.
    15 Q. Okay. Now, as far as your opinion
    16 about the defendant self-inflicting these wounds, are you
    17 saying that it is impossible, that it couldn't have
    18 happened?
    19 A. No. What I'm saying is, that based
    20 upon their location and their path, and the nature of the
    21 wounds, it is more probable, the term I used, that it's
    22 inflicted by someone else. Anything is possible, but I
    23 am saying in this case, it's not probable.
    24 Q. Okay. And as far as the neck wound,
    25 you were talking about -- well, how would you describe

    1 the neck wound? Is it -- it's a pretty long wound, I
    2 guess, wouldn't you say?
    3 A. It looks to be about three inches or
    4 so, the primary wound.
    5 Q. Okay. Have you actually gotten to
    6 examine her scar?


    Dr Vincent DiMaio

    2 Q. Now, defensive wounds, you said that
    3 you usually see those on the palms of the hand, don't
    4 you?

    5 A. No, I said the original description of
    6 them is on the palms of the hand, but you will get them
    7 on the palms of the hands, and on the back of the
    8 forearms, even on the back of the other arms. We have
    9 had people lying on the ground who have put their legs up
    10 and have gotten them actually in their legs.
    11 All that a defense wound means, is
    12 that it is a wound incurred, in an extremity, in an
    13 attempt to ward off an attacker.
    14 Q. And it's just natural to put your
    15 hands up and that kind of thing, to block off blows,
    16 knife or blunt trauma?
    17 A. Yes, sir.
    18 Q. And you will often see, for instance,
    19 in a knife attack, wounds to the palms of the hand?
    20 A. Well, the fingers and palms, yes, sir.
    21 Q. And they can be quite deep?
    22 A. They can be deep, yes, sir.
    23 Q. Cut to the bone often, don't they?
    24 A. They can be, yes, sir.
    25 Q. Now, this particular wound to Mrs.


    1 Routier's hand, that is not a very deep wound, is it?
    2 A. No, it's a very superficial -- there's
    3 actually three of them, but I think it's probably one
    4 swipe, but they're very superficial.
    5 Q. Extremely superficial?
    6 A. Yes, sir.

    http://​www.routiertranscripts.com/​...3;vol-43.php#4


    Did emotion lead the jury to find Darlie guilty? Did the media and the public opinion in Texas sway the jury to find this woman guilty to close the case? To get a resolution?
    Isn't that what people like to believe when they think someone is not guilty? If you're read the transcripts, the you must have read the voir dire and the death penalty qualifiers. Why do you just assume the jury was swayed by public opinion? The state did a good job putting this case together for the jury. The jury sat through all the evidence, heard all the witnesses including Ms. Routier. Darlie was a terrible witness in her own defence.She got caught in her web of lies in the witness box. So did her husand Darin. The jury heard all that and they don't like to be lied to. Would you if you were a juror?

    I don't believe Darlie should have received the DP either, life in prison would be just fine. But then again, I don't live in the US either and it's not my call to make.

    It doesn't matter if any of us believe there is reasonable doubt. The jury didn't and the appellate courts have upheld the conviction. I don't see any in this case at all but it's because I know the blood evidence and it all points at Darlie. Intruders don't usually clean up before they leave and there was a clean up. Anyway we are way beyond the trial now. Because she claims innocence, Darlie must prove with clear and convincing evidence there was an intruder in her home that night.

    Why isn't any of her blood on the sock? Why is only her dna in the toe section of the sock from skin cells? It was Darin's sock, he claimed it as his. Where is the intruder's dna on the sock?

    Why is the boys' blood on the front and back shoulders of her nightgown? If she was tending her boys, wouldn't we expect blood on the lower quadrants of the nightshirt?

    She has now been granted the rights to further testing on some of the evidence. That's what we are waiting for..the new dna tests. If they don't give her relief, she will be executed. I hope that doesn't happen and that her sentence is commuted but she will have to admit what she did for that to happen.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,646
    Quote Originally Posted by claudicici View Post
    Thank you,I completely agree.I don't believe Darlie would have cut her own throat and the sock in the alley IS reasonable doubt to me.
    The blood splatter on the back of her night gown to me could have gotten there if Darlie was behind the assailant ,Darin's statements are inconsistent and do not make sense IMO
    Darlie has never said anything about the intruder being behind her. In fact her statements are she followed him from the couch to the utility room door, where she says he threw the knife down and she picked it up. He took a sock but leaves the murder weapon behind?

    You'd cut your own throat if you want to make it look like you're a victim. Diane Downs shot herself in the arm, Susan Eubanks shot herself in the stomach, Jeff MacDonald stuck a scalpel in his chest deflating his lung a little bit, Charles Stuart shot himself...all in an attempt to make it appear they were victims of the so called killers...so the argument Darlie could not have cut her own neck is not very strong valid point.

    You'd cut your own neck if you wanted to cover up the blood on your nightshirt.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,646
    Quote Originally Posted by blefuscu View Post
    Hi, I'm pretty new to the site. Have read the transcripts of the court case and watched the Leeza show. I have been left with some questions.

    Did emotion lead the jury to find Darlie guilty? Did the media and the public opinion in Texas sway the jury to find this woman guilty to close the case? To get a resolution?

    I honestly entered into the transcripts with an open mind. I live in the UK. I hadn't heard of the case before I found this site. I had no feelings one way or the other. But I don't feel that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Darlie Routier killed the children.

    Their motives were all supposition. From money worries to depression to being a self-centred mercenary, all these were alleged, none were ever conclusively proved.

    I don't get the murder/suicide thing. If she wanted to kill herself why cut her own throat? Why not hang herself once the children were dead. Darin says he woke when the glass was smashed. So she could have left the house and jumped off a bridge or something if she wanted to die. And if she wasn't intending to die then she was very lucky she didn't cut that extra millimetre or so into her carotid artery.

    The prosecution haven't answered how the sock got in the alleyway. If Damon could live about 8 minutes with the injuries he sustained then how did Darlie get that sock out there, get back, phone 911 and have the paramedic there when he saw the light go out in Damon's eyes? It's a very tight timescale.

    Did the LE focus on Darlie and Darren from the word go? Did they just plough on, looking for any evidence they could to try and show Darlie did it?

    I can't feel comfortable with Darlie sitting on Death Row when there is, for me, reasonable doubt. The only expert witness who spoke with any certainty about the injuries to Darlie Routier being self-inflicted or not was a defence witness saying they weren't.

    I'd love to know more about this case and am going to read more. But my initial feelings are that IF Darlie Routier is guilty of the murders then the prosecution hasn't proved it beyond reasonable doubt for me.
    Actually the money worries were conclusively proved as evidenced in the trial transcripts. Darin's business was failing, the mortgage was past due on the home, they owed money to the IRS, nasty letters from the credit card companies, Darin desperately trying to borrow $5000 days before the murders and turned down by the bank twice.

  6. #6
    IMO I just can't see Darlie killing the boys in such a "messy" way.IMO IF she wanted to kill the boys to hurt Darin or just be rid of the responsibility she could have suffocated the babies.I also don't think she would have cut her own throat,leaving a big UGLY scar.Darlie,no way!Someone was RAGING.I don't think there was an intruder either.
    The only person with a reason to rage was Darin if Darlie told him she was leaving him.
    JMO

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Oh Canada....
    Posts
    1,996
    Hi there.

    I'm not saying Darlie didn't kill the children. I'm saying I don't know. I'm left with questions. Therefore I have reasonable doubts.

    I did read the transcripts, from start to finish. They were hard to read, the evidence given was harrowing. But I am struggling to be convinced 100%. I haven't read Darlie's website apart from a brief look, mainly because I want to try and get as much evidence as possible before I make my decision.

    Thanks for the update on the timeline. That is helpful.

    I can accept money problems but why kill the boys for $5000 each and then spend that amount on a funeral? That doesn't give them any money, and if she is heartless enough to kill her sons then why not kill Darin who was insured for substantially more?

    She went to lengths to stage a crime scene, so why screw it up by acting so coldly. Could she be suffering from shock. The responding officer went into shock when he arrived. I'm trying to think why a woman who was trying to convince everyone that there was an intruder would not go out of her way to play the devoted mother to everyone, especially when she didn't seem to have any trouble playing the devoted mother for the previous 7 years.

    I wonder how much Darin is actually involved in this? She said a man with shoulder length hair and a large build attacked her. So how surprised was I when I saw the Leeza show and saw Darin who fits that build and has long hair.

    I acknowledge that Darlie Routier is the most likely person to have killed the boys, and I'm going to go back and re-read Bevel's evidence. By the way was he paid to testify in the case or not?

    It's a fascinating case, obviously it has raised many discussions in the past 16 years.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    76
    What I believe is Darlie didnt do it for a gain in money. I believe there was a build up and it exploded that night. They couldnt live the lifestyle anymore that Darlie was accustomed too, she suffered some depression before and after Drake was born, she was wanting a girl. She was upset about her weight gain. She might have seemed like a good mom, but witnesses talked about the boys basically being kicked out of the home to play outside all day, where they were not supervised at all, they had made a mess playing in the hot tub, Darlies sister had been staying with them and working at the office. She rode with Daren to work, and it took them longer that day to get home than usual. Darlie asked Darin to take her sister home that night. They both admited that Darlie asked for a seperation that night.

    She was a drama queen for attention. Normally when she would pull something like this, Darin would bow down to her. I guarantee you this time he was like "fine" and probably (just my opnion on this) told her that he was taking the kids.

    There is no proof of an intruder. For the most part, Darins statements about what he did that night have always stayed the same and were consistant with the scene. Darlies statements have changed, especially after they came back to the house and she noticed the sink was gone. She has tried to change her story to fit with the scene. She wrote letters from jail telling people she knew who did it. It wasnt ever the same person.

    I believe she never went to sleep, that she sat there fuming and getting madder and madder.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,646
    Quote Originally Posted by blefuscu View Post
    Hi there.

    I'm not saying Darlie didn't kill the children. I'm saying I don't know. I'm left with questions. Therefore I have reasonable doubts.

    I did read the transcripts, from start to finish. They were hard to read, the evidence given was harrowing. But I am struggling to be convinced 100%. I haven't read Darlie's website apart from a brief look, mainly because I want to try and get as much evidence as possible before I make my decision.

    Thanks for the update on the timeline. That is helpful.

    I can accept money problems but why kill the boys for $5000 each and then spend that amount on a funeral? That doesn't give them any money, and if she is heartless enough to kill her sons then why not kill Darin who was insured for substantially more?

    She went to lengths to stage a crime scene, so why screw it up by acting so coldly. Could she be suffering from shock. The responding officer went into shock when he arrived. I'm trying to think why a woman who was trying to convince everyone that there was an intruder would not go out of her way to play the devoted mother to everyone, especially when she didn't seem to have any trouble playing the devoted mother for the previous 7 years.

    I wonder how much Darin is actually involved in this? She said a man with shoulder length hair and a large build attacked her. So how surprised was I when I saw the Leeza show and saw Darin who fits that build and has long hair.

    I acknowledge that Darlie Routier is the most likely person to have killed the boys, and I'm going to go back and re-read Bevel's evidence. By the way was he paid to testify in the case or not?

    It's a fascinating case, obviously it has raised many discussions in the past 16 years.
    I can accept money problems but why kill the boys for $5000 each and then spend that amount on a funeral? That doesn't give them any money, and if she is heartless enough to kill her sons then why not kill Darin who was insured for substantially more?
    Who has ever said she killed them for the $5000 life insurance? Not me, not the state.

    She went to lengths to stage a crime scene, so why screw it up by acting so coldly. Could she be suffering from shock. The responding officer went into shock when he arrived. I'm trying to think why a woman who was trying to convince everyone that there was an intruder would not go out of her way to play the devoted mother to everyone, especially when she didn't seem to have any trouble playing the devoted mother for the previous 7 years.
    There was a table top against the base of the table and a lamp shade askew and a cut screen. That's the extent of the staging.

    I don't remember the officer testifying he went into shock when he first arrived at the scene. He was stunned I'm sure but his training kicked in. Darin and Darlie have said he went into shock but you can't believe anything they say. This is SOP for the police, secure the crime scene first. Darlie told them there was a man in the garage with a knife, that officer's duty was to protect Darin and Darlie and himself from threat.

    The devoted mother bit stopped long before the murders. She didn't care where Damon and Devon were as long as they were not around bugging her. They were seen riding their bikes in the street, playing blocks away from home, playing at a construction site, all with no supervision. Screaming at them and calling them names. All of this was heard by the neighbours.

    I'm not saying she wasn't a devoted mother at one time but all that stopped on June 6, 1996.

    This is a fillicide, there is no motive that any of us can define, it lies in the family dynamics. But Darlie and Darin have lied so much, built up this mythical family that was actually teetering on the brink. The marriage was in the toilet, Darin and Darlie had been fighting for months and they had a huge row that night. Darin went to bed at 1:00 am according to his statement, 911 was called at 2:31 a.m. Darlie had lots of time to stage a crime scene.

    I wonder how much Darin is actually involved in this? She said a man with shoulder length hair and a large build attacked her. So how surprised was I when I saw the Leeza show and saw Darin who fits that build and has long hair.
    Of course she described someone she knew....Darin. She doesn't remember the man attacking her, all she remembers is the man leaving and she followed him, at least that's what she testified to and she adamantly denied Darin was the intruder, her court appointed lawyers wanted to go after Darin but she refused to allow them to even name him as a suspect.

    Darin was investigated by the cops. He was their first suspect. There is no physical evidence Darin is involved in actual murders, unlike Darlie. She's the one with the boys' cast off blood on her nightshirt, she's the one who told so many stories it would make your head spin.Every time they challenged her with a piece of evidence her story changed to match that evidence. Funny how she can remember everything after the murders but nothing prior to.

    I acknowledge that Darlie Routier is the most likely person to have killed the boys, and I'm going to go back and re-read Bevel's evidence. By the way was he paid to testify in the case or not?
    She is the killer, no doubt in my mind.

    Was he paid? It's in his testimony. But one thing about that......why didn't Mulder use Terry Laber to refute Bevel if he could? Terry Laber's work in other cases is sterling. Why hasn't Laber released his blood findings in this case? He spent hours in the lab looking at the evidence, in particular the nightshirt. If I could suggest something, I would also read the cross examination of Dr. DiMaio as well as Bevel's. Some of DR. DiMaio's explanations for the cast off blood are ridiculous in my opinion...However, I'm sure a lot of this went over the jury's heads, like dna testimony by Barry Scheck, it's expert against expert, they tend to cancel each other out.

    Take care.

    Oh everyone, not just this poster, here's a funny little exchange between DiMaio, Shook and Mulder re the knife.

    10 Q. Well, I don't want to use this knife
    11 on myself, obviously. Let's try to measure it up here.
    12 But there is nothing --
    13 A. It would settle the problem, how fast
    14 the bleeding was, you know.
    15 Q. Yeah. All right. Well, I don't think
    16 I will be demonstrating it. Maybe Mr. Mulder could come
    17 up here and do that.
    18
    19 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: Hand me the
    20 knife, I'll do it.
    21
    22 BY MR. TOBY L. SHOOK:
    23 Q. But there is nothing -- nothing that
    24 would prevent her from taking that knife, if she wanted
    25 to, and cutting across here?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,646
    ‎"My opinion is that in this particular case, and this particular crime scene, that this crime scene had been staged, and in all likelihood whoever killed both Devon and Damon, was someone that they knew, and someone that they knew very well."

    Alan Brantley--FBI


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Oh Canada....
    Posts
    1,996
    Cami, I appreciate your help in trying to help me understand this case. As I said earlier I am from the UK, where this case doesn't really have a profile at all. I'm not sure that many people would know of it.

    I am trying to understand it as much as I can. I have no reason to be for or against Darlie Routier. I just started looking at the case after I found this site and it's fascinated me. I felt that the trial transcripts were the best place to try and start to get the facts of the case. But I'm just starting at the beginning, I guess I have a lot of reading to do.

    I don't know if you have any sources you can recommend to me to help me further understand this case.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by cami View Post
    Darlie has never said anything about the intruder being behind her. In fact her statements are she followed him from the couch to the utility room door, where she says he threw the knife down and she picked it up. He took a sock but leaves the murder weapon behind?

    You'd cut your own throat if you want to make it look like you're a victim. Diane Downs shot herself in the arm, Susan Eubanks shot herself in the stomach, Jeff MacDonald stuck a scalpel in his chest deflating his lung a little bit, Charles Stuart shot himself...all in an attempt to make it appear they were victims of the so called killers...so the argument Darlie could not have cut her own neck is not very strong valid point.

    You'd cut your own neck if you wanted to cover up the blood on your nightshirt.
    Another great post by Cami who I think should have been on the prosecution team!!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    27
    As far as "screwing it up" by acting so coldly....my husband asked me this and I reminded him that a true psychopath lacks the ability to pick up on normal social cues (think about Scott Peterson and the Menendez brothers with their stupid "give them away" behavior). Not all psychopaths commit murder and not all murderers are psychpaths. For example, if I killed someone I'd be smart enough to pretend to grieve and act as I'm expected but a psychopath struggles with this social aspect. This is why the Memendez boys went out and bought Rolex watches, this is why Scott P cracked jokes that were grossly inappropriate, etc. Just my opinion.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    27
    andmight i add casey anthony also acted like a total conscience-less psycho

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Oh Canada....
    Posts
    1,996
    I still haven't made up my mind. I'm busy reading to try and work things out. I was just left with questions.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. My thoughts
    By LINative13 in forum Long Island Serial Killer
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 03-30-2013, 12:18 PM