720 users online (74 members and 646 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 28 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 412
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    362

    Darlie Supporters and Darin Routier

    Hey, everybody. I followed the Chet Lynch case on this board, especially Tybee's excellent posts. You guys seem to have some good ideas, so I wondered if any Routier case experts could help me figure out the following:

    If Darlie is innocent (and I believe she is) then someone else is guilty. The most obvious alternate suspect is Darin Routier. Yet Darlie supporters seem very reluctant to point the finger that direction. Does anyone know why?


    RstJ

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,657
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertStJames
    Hey, everybody. I followed the Chet Lynch case on this board, especially Tybee's excellent posts. You guys seem to have some good ideas, so I wondered if any Routier case experts could help me figure out the following:

    If Darlie is innocent (and I believe she is) then someone else is guilty. The most obvious alternate suspect is Darin Routier. Yet Darlie supporters seem very reluctant to point the finger that direction. Does anyone know why?


    RstJ
    I'm not a Darlie supporter so I can't answer. I don't believe Darlie is innocent.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    577
    Robert,

    Follow the blood trails and let me know if you still think she is innocent.
    Jon Galt/ Dasgal

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertStJames
    Hey, everybody. I followed the Chet Lynch case on this board, especially Tybee's excellent posts. You guys seem to have some good ideas, so I wondered if any Routier case experts could help me figure out the following:

    If Darlie is innocent (and I believe she is) then someone else is guilty. The most obvious alternate suspect is Darin Routier. Yet Darlie supporters seem very reluctant to point the finger that direction. Does anyone know why?


    RstJ
    Quick answer is probably because it implicates Darlie too. Oh, perhaps not for murder- but it certainly doesn't add to the miss squeaky clean image they like to uphold for her. If Darin did it then Darlie's in trouble
    a) because she has proclaimed over and over again since the begining that he didn't.
    b) the story she has told repeatedly doesn't allow the possibility that it was darin
    c) She's now implying there were TWO intruders

    All up it makes her look like a conspirator to the crime.

    However, the ultimate answer is that they haven't pointed the finger at darin because there is no evidence to suggest he did it. Of course there have been little hints recently that Darin may cease to enjoy the peace... they have been a few little fingers pointing in his direction lately. Of course that doesn't change the evidence... or lack thereof in terms of him having done it.

    I'd be interested to hear what it is that has convinced you of Darlie's innocence?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by Dani_T
    Quick answer is probably because it implicates Darlie too. Oh, perhaps not for murder- but it certainly doesn't add to the miss squeaky clean image they like to uphold for her. If Darin did it then Darlie's in trouble
    a) because she has proclaimed over and over again since the begining that he didn't.
    b) the story she has told repeatedly doesn't allow the possibility that it was darin
    c) She's now implying there were TWO intruders

    All up it makes her look like a conspirator to the crime.

    However, the ultimate answer is that they haven't pointed the finger at darin because there is no evidence to suggest he did it. Of course there have been little hints recently that Darin may cease to enjoy the peace... they have been a few little fingers pointing in his direction lately. Of course that doesn't change the evidence... or lack thereof in terms of him having done it.

    I'd be interested to hear what it is that has convinced you of Darlie's innocence?
    I guess I don't see how Darlie could be in any more trouble than she's already in. Nor why, if she's 100% behind Darin's innocence, her lawyers continue to nibble at the idea of his guilt. Well, I guess if the only eyewitness to the crime is going to steadfastly maintain that the only other possible suspect didn't do it, there's not really much for the DA to go on. Just to clarify, I do not believe there was any intruder.

    What convinces me of her innocence is that there's too much pointing to Darin's guilt.
    1) He had blood all over him including splatter on two places on the jeans he was wearing.
    2) One of his hairs was found on the murder weapon
    3) That was his sock in the alley, with blood from both boys, and Darlie's saliva. This fits with something being put in her mouth. And Darin is the only person we know was outside that night.
    4) Motive: Darin was in trouble financially. He had a 250k policy on Darlie.
    5) Opportunity: he was home, everyone was asleep downstairs
    6) Means: the knife used came from inside the house.
    7) Darlie's description of the "intruder" black hat, long hair, tall, jeans. That describes Darin, the black hat was found, he was wearing jeans.
    8) Darin's extremely odd behavior, noted in his affadavit. He fled across the street when LE showed up. He then went *back* across the street again after the bodies had been taken out. 30mins after the ambulances left, Darin is still there. What is he doing?
    9) It's not Darlie's story about what he was wearing that changed--it's his. He says he came down w/o jeans. Then he changed it to wearing jeans.
    10) He flopped a polygraph and I don't believe his story about how he was manipulated into taking it, or how it was "rigged." And his story makes it clear he did not take an early polygraph.


    So, that's the point of my original post: I believe in Darlie's innocence, yes. But that belief does not extend to any intruder stories. What I can't understand is why I seem to be the only one to believe that Darlie is innocent because her husband did it, acting alone.


    RstJ

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    577
    Have you looked at the blood evidence at all? Particularly whos was where?
    Jon Galt/ Dasgal

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertStJames
    I guess I don't see how Darlie could be in any more trouble than she's already in. Nor why, if she's 100% behind Darin's innocence, her lawyers continue to nibble at the idea of his guilt. Well, I guess if the only eyewitness to the crime is going to steadfastly maintain that the only other possible suspect didn't do it, there's not really much for the DA to go on. Just to clarify, I do not believe there was any intruder.

    What convinces me of her innocence is that there's too much pointing to Darin's guilt.
    1) He had blood all over him including splatter on two places on the jeans he was wearing.
    2) One of his hairs was found on the murder weapon
    3) That was his sock in the alley, with blood from both boys, and Darlie's saliva. This fits with something being put in her mouth. And Darin is the only person we know was outside that night.
    4) Motive: Darin was in trouble financially. He had a 250k policy on Darlie.
    5) Opportunity: he was home, everyone was asleep downstairs
    6) Means: the knife used came from inside the house.
    7) Darlie's description of the "intruder" black hat, long hair, tall, jeans. That describes Darin, the black hat was found, he was wearing jeans.
    8) Darin's extremely odd behavior, noted in his affadavit. He fled across the street when LE showed up. He then went *back* across the street again after the bodies had been taken out. 30mins after the ambulances left, Darin is still there. What is he doing?
    9) It's not Darlie's story about what he was wearing that changed--it's his. He says he came down w/o jeans. Then he changed it to wearing jeans.
    10) He flopped a polygraph and I don't believe his story about how he was manipulated into taking it, or how it was "rigged." And his story makes it clear he did not take an early polygraph.


    So, that's the point of my original post: I believe in Darlie's innocence, yes. But that belief does not extend to any intruder stories. What I can't understand is why I seem to be the only one to believe that Darlie is innocent because her husband did it, acting alone.


    RstJ
    I think you have an excellent valid opinion. Very well put and thought out. "Follow the blood.......the CSI's have spoken!"

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Southcentral Pennsylvania
    Posts
    549

    RstJ

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertStJames
    I guess I don't see how Darlie could be in any more trouble than she's already in. Nor why, if she's 100% behind Darin's innocence, her lawyers continue to nibble at the idea of his guilt. Well, I guess if the only eyewitness to the crime is going to steadfastly maintain that the only other possible suspect didn't do it, there's not really much for the DA to go on. Just to clarify, I do not believe there was any intruder.

    What convinces me of her innocence is that there's too much pointing to Darin's guilt.
    1) He had blood all over him including splatter on two places on the jeans he was wearing.
    2) One of his hairs was found on the murder weapon
    3) That was his sock in the alley, with blood from both boys, and Darlie's saliva. This fits with something being put in her mouth. And Darin is the only person we know was outside that night.
    4) Motive: Darin was in trouble financially. He had a 250k policy on Darlie.
    5) Opportunity: he was home, everyone was asleep downstairs
    6) Means: the knife used came from inside the house.
    7) Darlie's description of the "intruder" black hat, long hair, tall, jeans. That describes Darin, the black hat was found, he was wearing jeans.
    8) Darin's extremely odd behavior, noted in his affadavit. He fled across the street when LE showed up. He then went *back* across the street again after the bodies had been taken out. 30mins after the ambulances left, Darin is still there. What is he doing?
    9) It's not Darlie's story about what he was wearing that changed--it's his. He says he came down w/o jeans. Then he changed it to wearing jeans.
    10) He flopped a polygraph and I don't believe his story about how he was manipulated into taking it, or how it was "rigged." And his story makes it clear he did not take an early polygraph.


    So, that's the point of my original post: I believe in Darlie's innocence, yes. But that belief does not extend to any intruder stories. What I can't understand is why I seem to be the only one to believe that Darlie is innocent because her husband did it, acting alone.


    RstJ
    I'd like to address some of your points if that's ok.

    1. Darin had blood all over him because he gave CPR to Devon. When that didn't work, he blew into the wounds themselves. It's not surprising that he had blood on him: he was down on his hands and knees trying to help his sons. Just curious, where did you get the information that his jeans had two blood spatters on them? His jeans weren't entered into evidence.

    2. Darin lived in the house, so it's not unusual that one of his hairs would be found on the knife or anywhere else. It's no more indicative of Darin being the murderer than a neighbor kid or anyone else who visited the house preceding the murders.

    3. The sock had Darlie's DNA, which could have come from her handling it. There was no testimony by nurses or doctors that would indicate she had a sock stuffed in her mouth.

    4. If Darin was interested in insurance money, he would have made sure Darlie was dead by inflicting the same wounds found on the boys. And why on earth would he want to kill his boys? The insurance on them didn't even cover the cost of their funeral.

    5. Opportunity: Same as Darin.

    6. Means: Yes, the knife used came from inside the house, where Darlie and Darin both resided.

    7. Darlie was emphatic that the intruder was not Darin. Besides, she said the intruder left the house through the garage. Darin couldn't have gotten back upstairs without her seeing him (at least, not according to her story).

    8. Darin didn't flee across the street. He exited the house and met Officer Waddell in the front yard by the fountain & they went back inside together. It wasn't until later that he went across the street to summon Karen Neal, who was a nurse. He then sat on the curb until Terry Neal took him to the hospital.

    9. Actually, their stories differed on this point. Darlie said he had jeans on and no glasses. Darin said he grabbed his glasses, but makes no mention of jeans in his initial statement. I don't think this inconsistency is of any importance. The fact is, he had jeans on when he met Waddell by the fountain in the front yard.

    10. Yes, he admitted that he failed a polygraph. The reason he failed, imo, is because he knows that Darlie murdered their sons & although it's inconceiveable to the rest of us, he was trying to cover for her.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,576
    What convinces me of her GUILT is that there's too much pointing to DARLIE'S GUILT.

    1) Darlie had a lot of blood all over her, not just her own, but that of her two boys. Blood that she could have gotten only if a)she was the perp b) she was holding the children to her c)attempting to save their lives.

    Darlie laid a towel on a Damon's back, told him to hang in there. Later she puts another towel beside him. She walked back and forth to the kitchen, she stood by the kitchen bar, she held a towel to her neck. She didn't once help Darrin try to save either boy. She got towels wet and then put a towel on him. What was that supposed to achieve? So where and how did she get the boy's blood on her? Osmosis?

    2) Darrin lived there. Hair transferrence from was entirely possible. From her testimony they were sitting together, kissing prior to the event.

    3) The sock in the alley. Darlie could have placed there with the intent to make LE think it belonged to the intruder, or to point subtly at Darrin. If it had her saliva on it, there's nothing to suggest that she didn't place the sock into her own mouth before depositing it where it was found.

    Darrin wasn't the only one who was outside that night. Darrin went across the street to get the neighbor's help that night. Darlie said in her testimony SHE also was outside that night screaming for the neighbor who was a nurse.

    4) Motive: Darrin was in trouble financially. Scuse me, but it was THEIR financial problem, not just Darrin's. One of the reasons they were in financial problems was Darlie "forgot" to pay some bills (per her testimony.) The feeble excuse was that she was used to paying them from their work place, but not from home.

    Q. And were you one month behind because you all had been real short on money?
    A. No, actually we were one month behind because I completely forgot. I had just started paying bills at home, when I was used to paying them at the
    shop.
    Q. So you had just forgotten to make that payment?
    A. Well, there was actually a couple of bills that I had forgotten to make.

    5) Opportunity: She was home. SHE was downstairs with the children. Darrin was upstairs as was Drake. DARRIN asked Darlie if she wanted him to stay downstairs. She said NO. If Darrin had stayed downstairs to sleep, she couldn't follow thru with her plan.

    6) Means: the knife used came from inside the house. Darlie knew exactly where those knives were kept as well as Darrin. An intruder who wasn't familiar with the house probably would not have any idea where they were kept and would spend time finding them. Time during which someone could have heard them.

    7) Darlie's description of the "intruder" black hat, long hair, tall, jeans.That description could describe thousands of men or women in this country, same with the clothing.

    Darlie later described the intruder as a neighbor, "Glen Mize". Darlie also tried to lay the blame on a "Gary Austin." Now she's hinting that it was "Darrin."

    8) Darin's extremely odd behavior, noted in his affadavit. He fled across the street when LE showed up. He then went *back* across the street again after the bodies had been taken out. 30mins after the ambulances left, Darin is still there. What is he doing?

    Darrin stated in that affadavit that he "ran to get help." How is that suspicious or odd? He was concerned that someone should take care of Drake while all of this was going on. Darrin tried to go into the ambulance with Darlie but was told to stay there by the paramedics. He checked on Drake at the neighbors, showered, put on clean clothes and went to the hospital.

    9) It's not Darlie's story about what he was wearing that changed--it's his. He says he came down w/o jeans. Then he changed it to wearing jeans.

    In his initial statement Darrin said that he put on his glasses and went downstairs. He also stated that he ran upstairs and checked on DRAKE, put his jeans on, came downstairs and ran across the street to "get help."
    Anything he may have changed about that later was an attempt IMO to bolster Darlie's version of events.

    10) He flopped a polygraph and I don't believe his story about how he was manipulated into taking it, or how it was "rigged." And his story makes it clear he did not take an early polygraph.

    IMO unless we know what questions he flopped on, it's all speculation. Darrin has been in denial for years about his wife's involvement in killing his two sons. Once he admits that she did it, he has to face the fact that she took the lives of their sons. If he was asked do you think your wife did this or some version of that question, and he answered no, when in reality he thinks she did, of course he'd flunk it.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    407
    Good response Mary... I was going to respond to Robert's post but no need


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Dani_T
    Good response Mary... I was going to respond to Robert's post but no need

    I agree Dani, both you and Mary and Goody know this case so well. Too bad Mary wouldn't come around more. Did you fix those pop ups Mary?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,657
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertStJames
    I guess I don't see how Darlie could be in any more trouble than she's already in. Nor why, if she's 100% behind Darin's innocence, her lawyers continue to nibble at the idea of his guilt. Well, I guess if the only eyewitness to the crime is going to steadfastly maintain that the only other possible suspect didn't do it, there's not really much for the DA to go on. Just to clarify, I do not believe there was any intruder.

    What convinces me of her innocence is that there's too much pointing to Darin's guilt.
    1) He had blood all over him including splatter on two places on the jeans he was wearing.
    2) One of his hairs was found on the murder weapon
    3) That was his sock in the alley, with blood from both boys, and Darlie's saliva. This fits with something being put in her mouth. And Darin is the only person we know was outside that night.
    4) Motive: Darin was in trouble financially. He had a 250k policy on Darlie.
    5) Opportunity: he was home, everyone was asleep downstairs
    6) Means: the knife used came from inside the house.
    7) Darlie's description of the "intruder" black hat, long hair, tall, jeans. That describes Darin, the black hat was found, he was wearing jeans.
    8) Darin's extremely odd behavior, noted in his affadavit. He fled across the street when LE showed up. He then went *back* across the street again after the bodies had been taken out. 30mins after the ambulances left, Darin is still there. What is he doing?
    9) It's not Darlie's story about what he was wearing that changed--it's his. He says he came down w/o jeans. Then he changed it to wearing jeans.
    10) He flopped a polygraph and I don't believe his story about how he was manipulated into taking it, or how it was "rigged." And his story makes it clear he did not take an early polygraph.


    So, that's the point of my original post: I believe in Darlie's innocence, yes. But that belief does not extend to any intruder stories. What I can't understand is why I seem to be the only one to believe that Darlie is innocent because her husband did it, acting alone.


    RstJ
    maybe you need to open yourself up to the evidence a little more.

    for instance there's never been any testimony that Darlie's saliva was found on the sock in the alley. Her dna was found in the sock. It's not necessarily saliva, could have been skin cells from her fingers as she folded the socks with the laundry or as she wrapped it around that knife. We only have Darlie's say so that her mouth was 'raw"

    Darlie says she followed the intruder to the utility room door. Surely she would recognize her own husband if it was him she was following. And her story does not give Darin time to be the intruder, get out, plant the sock, get rid of his shirt and hat and get back in the house in time to be running downstairs when Darlie starts to holler. Since there is no intruder, Darlie described what she is familiar with--Darin. Damon was wearing all black clothes that night hence the intruder was dressed in black.

    Darin had no motive to murder the children unless he did it for Darlie. Those children were deliberately targeted.

    Just my opinions and nothing more. But I to reiterate--follow the blood.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,576
    Quote Originally Posted by cami
    maybe you need to open yourself up to the evidence a little more.

    for instance there's never been any testimony that Darlie's saliva was found on the sock in the alley. Her dna was found in the sock. It's not necessarily saliva, could have been skin cells from her fingers as she folded the socks with the laundry or as she wrapped it around that knife. We only have Darlie's say so that her mouth was 'raw"

    Darlie says she followed the intruder to the utility room door. Surely she would recognize her own husband if it was him she was following. And her story does not give Darin time to be the intruder, get out, plant the sock, get rid of his shirt and hat and get back in the house in time to be running downstairs when Darlie starts to holler. Since there is no intruder, Darlie described what she is familiar with--Darin. Damon was wearing all black clothes that night hence the intruder was dressed in black.

    Darin had no motive to murder the children unless he did it for Darlie. Those children were deliberately targeted.

    Just my opinions and nothing more. But I to reiterate--follow the blood.
    Good point about the sock and her description. I agree, the children were targeted. If Darlie had been truly targeted, she'd be dead.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by Mary456
    I'd like to address some of your points if that's ok.
    Of course. It wouldn't be interesting on this board if everyone agreed.

    1. Darin had blood all over him because he gave CPR to Devon. When that didn't work, he blew into the wounds themselves. It's not surprising that he had blood on him: he was down on his hands and knees trying to help his sons. Just curious, where did you get the information that his jeans had two blood spatters on them? His jeans weren't entered into evidence.
    Hard to get any answers on those jeans. They are in an evidence locker, but I don't believe they were entered into evidence at the trial as there would be no reason for that evidence to be introduced.. I've heard they had two blood spatters on them, but I don't know where that comes from as the quote was not attributed. However, the appeals frequently refer to these jeans.

    2. Darin lived in the house, so it's not unusual that one of his hairs would be found on the knife or anywhere else. It's no more indicative of Darin being the murderer than a neighbor kid or anyone else who visited the house preceding the murders.
    But it certainly does not point at Darlie as the murderer. Not sure what you're trying to say about a neighborhood kid or how it relates to this knife. Nowhere does Darin say he touched that knife. And he wasn't attacked. So how, of all places, does one of his hairs end up on the knife that killed at least one of the boys?


    3. The sock had Darlie's DNA, which could have come from her handling it. There was no testimony by nurses or doctors that would indicate she had a sock stuffed in her mouth.
    But there is evidence of her having cuts in her mouth consistent with an object being placed there. The DNA is from her saliva. Unless she washed Darin's socks in her mouth, there is no good explanation for that being there. This was addressed, in depth, at trial. Floyd's opinion:
    A. Well, based on my experience, it's
    17 takes more than just a light contact such as picking up a
    18 sock.


    So, it wasn't from her handling it. Blood from both boys, and her on that sock. But none of her blood.


    4. If Darin was interested in insurance money, he would have made sure Darlie was dead by inflicting the same wounds found on the boys. And why on earth would he want to kill his boys? The insurance on them didn't even cover the cost of their funeral.
    They were witnesses. And a throat slash certainly qualifies as trying to kill someone. He didn't succeed because that gold necklace stopped the blade just short of the carotid.

    5. Opportunity: Same as Darin.
    Actually, different. Very different. If she'd wanted to kill her sons and say an intruder did it, why not do it while *he wasn't home*? Have you ever heard of a case where a mother kills her children while her husband (or anyone else) is in the same house? But if Darlie was the target, then late at night with only the family home certainly qualifies as opportunity.


    6. Means: Yes, the knife used came from inside the house, where Darlie and Darin both resided.
    Which blows up the intruder idea. I don't know why Darlie's supporters continue to chase that illusion. But as long as this mystery intruder is a part of the appeals, Darlie has no chance of another trial.

    7. Darlie was emphatic that the intruder was not Darin. Besides, she said the intruder left the house through the garage. Darin couldn't have gotten back upstairs without her seeing him (at least, not according to her story).
    No, if, in fact, he was upstairs. But you raised the main point: Darlie will not say it was him. But why, since her accusers don't believe much of anything else she says, do they believe her here? And, if she can't give anything beyond hat, jeans, long hair, how does she know it *wasn't* him? Seems to me her opinion is given tremendous weight in this area, but none at all in others.


    8. Darin didn't flee across the street. He exited the house and met Officer Waddell in the front yard by the fountain & they went back inside together. It wasn't until later that he went across the street to summon Karen Neal, who was a nurse. He then sat on the curb until Terry Neal took him to the hospital.
    His own voluntary statement has him fleeing the scene.This is where the "mystery man" nonsense came from. And in his statement, he makes it quite clear that he went across the street *twice* not once. This is the relevant part:
    "I noticed my wallet hitting the floor and all I could think to do was go to --(blanked out)-- for help. I went downstairs and....ran across the street." Darin then goes back into the house, sees the knife, goes into the garage to see the window, and then goes *back* across the street again!

    And people talk about Darlie's odd behavior?

    9. Actually, their stories differed on this point. Darlie said he had jeans on and no glasses. Darin said he grabbed his glasses, but makes no mention of jeans in his initial statement. I don't think this inconsistency is of any importance. The fact is, he had jeans on when he met Waddell by the fountain in the front yard.
    You don't find the clothes he was wearing to be significant? Boy, people sure saw Darlie's nightshirt as being significant! But not Darin's jeans. They had blood on them. It was never established *whose* blood. By testing. The same kind of testing applied extensively to Darlie's nightshirt.

    Darin mentions jeans in his intial statement. He says he went back upstairs to put his pants on. He'd hardly need to do that if he had them on when he came downstairs.

    10. Yes, he admitted that he failed a polygraph. The reason he failed, imo, is because he knows that Darlie murdered their sons & although it's inconceiveable to the rest of us, he was trying to cover for her.
    No.


    The polygraph examiner determined that Mr. Routier lied in answering each of 4 questions about the crime: when he denied planning a crime at his home, stabbing his wife, knowing who left a bloody sock in the alley and knowing the identity of his sons' killer.


    That's not covering for his wife. That's "he did it."


    RstJ

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    8,860
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertStJames
    But it certainly does not point at Darlie as the murderer. Not sure what you're trying to say about a neighborhood kid or how it relates to this knife. Nowhere does Darin say he touched that knife. And he wasn't attacked. So how, of all places, does one of his hairs end up on the knife that killed at least one of the boys?
    I think what Mary meant on this is that Darin's hair would be all over the house as he lived there. Same goes for a neighbor kid that came over to play - the hair could have fell out as the boys were playing on the floor, etc. I'm not as familiar with this case as some of you, but if the knife had been laid down on the carpet or the counter, there could have been hair there and it stuck to the knife then. I have lots of tile in my house and I know when I sweep I am always amazed at how much hair there is. (I am a neat freak and clean my house daily, btw).

    Transfers of hair, fibers, etc., happen all the time.

    JMO - Jules

    BTW - some AWESOME debates going on here. Y'all are full of info! Thanks so much for posting all you know. This is a case that truly breaks my heart.

Page 1 of 28 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 217
    Last Post: 10-13-2017, 12:04 PM
  2. Any poster here know Darlie before she married Darin?
    By SeekingJana in forum Darlie Routier
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 03-31-2017, 02:14 PM
  3. Why does Darin defend Darlie?
    By Sherloch in forum Darlie Routier
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 02:16 PM
  4. Darin Routier files for divorce
    By Cassata11 in forum Darlie Routier
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-07-2011, 11:10 AM

Tags for this Thread