Mary456 said:
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
