05-26-2006, 01:24 PM #1Former Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
Jeana--here is installment number three regarding the Darlie Routier case. This part involves staged crime scenes. I have to preface my remarks here by saying that I feel a lot of sympathy for the people at the justicefordarlie.com website who have signed that petition stating that they believe she is innocent and should be set free. I would think that, too, if this was the only case like this I had ever seen, but, unfortunately, it is not.
I suppose the best place to start here is with that Charles Stuart case, which, again, is the one in October of 1989 where he shot his wife to death and claimed that a robber had done it. Almost everyone in that case was fooled, as I certainly was, because Charles Stuart merely switched the real motive, an economic motive, for the murder, the insurance money on his wife, to someone else's economic motive for the murder, a robbery ending in the fatal shooting of the wife and the non-fatal shooting of Charles Stuart. This case would not have been cracked, and Stuart would not have committed suicide in January of 1990 had someone who assisted Stuart not have gotten disgusted and gone to police and told them what happened.
The next case I have considered is Susan Smith in October of 1994. She said a black man with a knit cap had carjacked her and her two little boys, an apparent economic motive, when, in fact, she had strapped them in her car and driven them off a boat ramp in order to be with someone else, a personal motive. Both the Stuart and Smith cases involve staging because the assailants told us one thing had happened and we found out that, in reality, another thing had happened. After Susan Smith, I started to get the idea that the true crime often involves one motive and the staged crime often involves another motive. Stuart did a good job of almost getting away with murder because he swapped one economic motive for another economic motive. In Susan Smith's case, police were on to her pretty quickly.
I think in my section on "phantom killers" or "intruders," the next two murders I discussed were the shooting of the bank vice-president's wife in Lake-of-the-Ozarks, Missouri and a separate shooting of a man's wife at a campground. Since I have not been able to find those cases on the Web, I am not going to rely on them heavily. I only want to mention here that in both cases, the victim was shot in the head once. That is what a killing for money often looks like: the assailant is not interested in having the victim suffer, so he shoots her once in the head and claims that the "intruder" showed up and did it. In the case of the bank vice-president, he claimed that a burglar came in their house and for no reason at all, shot the wife in the head and left without taking anything. The bank vice-president was convicted and given a life sentence. What I distill from these cases is that a killing for money typically does not involve someone trying to inflict pain, but, instead, someone who wants to get things over quickly and is willing to use the old, "interrupted burglary" story. In other words, the killing itself has a personal motive and the staging has an economic motive.
The amazing thing about the next case, the Dr. Sam Shepard case from July of 1954, is that the killing of his wife involves her being stabbed 35 times in the face, which indicates a personal motive, but there are two staged motives in the case. The staged motives in the case are her pajama top being thrown over her head, which a good crime scene analyst will recognize as a personal motive and a common staging technique to lead an investigator to believe that a sexual assault has occurred, and drawers being pulled out of a dresser and their contents being messed with, which is a classic staging technique to get someone to believe a burglary (i.e. economic motive) was in progress.
In the Valerie Percy case from September of 1966, two reporters from the Chicago Sun Times won Pulitzer Prizes a few years later for investigating whether a burglar had hit Valerie in the head two to four times with a hammer, had stabbed her 10 to 12 times (some sources say up to 14 times) around her body with a knife, and had thrown her nightgown up around her shoulders. Unfortunately, the nature of the wounds suggests a personal motive, while the conduct with the nightgown suggests a staged motive of sexual assault and the interrupted burglary theory suggests an economic motive even though nothing was taken. As I have indicated, that crime has never been solved, but it looks like the true motive was a personal matter and not an "interrupted burglary."
I could probably go through many more of these cases where there are "mixed motives" present, but I think the only other one that should be mentioned at this point is the David Hendricks case from November of 1983 in central Illinois. Mr. Hendricks was fortunate not to be at his house but on a sales call in Wisconsin when somebody entered the house, and brutally murdered his wife and three children (ages 5, 7, and 9) with an ax and a knife, apparently as they slept. I believe a responding police officer said it was the most brutal crime scene he had seen in his 24 years on the job. The wounds indicate a personal motive, but there were dressers drawers pulled out, which is a classic staging technique to indicate a burglar had come in the house, an economic motive. Hendricks was initially convicted, but his conviction was overturned and he was acquitted at a retrial. The important thing about the Hendricks case is that the real motive, a personal one, and the staged economic motive, the drawers being pulled out, are pretty far apart, which indicates more than likely that one of the motives is real and the other is not.
In Darlie's case, we see mixed motives as well. Anyone looking at this crime should draw a big, imaginary circle around the boys being stabbed because that is the true crime here and that indicates a personal motive. The whole business about the "phantom" or "intruder" is an attempt to introduce an economic motive into the crime ("somebody came in here and tried to steal our things!"). This is simply another case of someone trying to claim an interrupted burglary and it is fairly common even though the economic motive parts are staged. That is, the overturned vacuum, the smashed wine glass, and the sock in the alley are all there to try and make people believe this crime had an economic motive when it is fairly clear that the real crime, the stabbing of the boys, had a personal motive.
In this case, the importance of the intruder is obvious: to show that someone else committed the crime or that there is at least reasonable doubt about who do it. However, the more important reason for suggesting an intruder is to introduce a second motive for the crime, the all-too-common "interrupted burglary," an economic motive. In other words, if someone had entered the house just after Darlie had finished stabbing the children, she would not be able to explain away the stab wounds on the children, a personal motive. The staging suggests an economic motive, and many of those people who believe she is innocent do so because they can't separate the genuine motive, the stabbing, from the staged motive, the economic one.
Too, Darlie and her family have tried very hard to sell the staged motive, the economic one. On the 911 call, as we know, Darlie suggests that an intruder, not she, committed the crime because she says that if she hadn't touched the knife, maybe police could have gotten some prints off of it (translation--it was somebody else who committed the crime, not Darlie). Later in the 911 call, she says that she and Darin "have to find the person who did this" once again suggesting that an intruder did it. Finally, she also adds in the call the question of "who could have done this" which is once again a sorry attempt to suggest that someone else, not Darlie, committed this crime. There is, of course, the other staging I have mentioned and my belief is that it was Darlie who smashed the wine glass, overturned the vacuum, and cut the screen while it was Darin (by process of elimination, the only person who would have had the time to do it), who placed the sock in the alley to suggest that an intruder had broken in their house. The 911 call is what I like to refer to as the first sorry attempt to create the intruder and the sock in the alley, etc, is the second sorry attempt to create the intruder. The third sorry attempt to create the intruder is when Bob Kee, Darlie's stepfather, files an affidavit two years after the trial that says Darin talked to him about a fake burglary scheme a few nights before the murder. I believe this is simply a clever trap. A reporter approached Darin and asked about whether Darin talked about a faked burglary scheme with his stepfather-in-law. Darin initially denied it, but the reporter went and got the affidavit that Bob Kee had filed and confronted Darin about it. Although Darin has been described as "headstrong," he meekly caves in and says that yes, he had talked about a faked burglary scheme with Bob Kee, and someone may have overheard it and acted upon it. In my opinion, Darin meekly caved in to try and introduce the intruder in this case, an economic motive. He also added that he told someone years earlier that he wouldn’t mind if his Jaguar got stolen, and it was; in my opinion, he is simply trying to bolster his street credentials as someone who would do this sort of thing all in an attempt to create the thought that yes, it is possible that there was an intruder in this case. Notice how Darin is utterly defiant when it is pointed out to him that he could not get the loan he was seeking shortly before the murders and when people bring up his failures on the lie detector test, yet he meekly caves in when people suggest he is a little bit shady and someone could have broken in his house at his suggestion to further a burglary scheme. The fourth sad attempt to create the economic motive is the defense effort to try and get items DNA tested to show that the intruder was involved. I believe the defense should do that, but I am not holding my breath that we are going to find the intruder that her family is desperately trying to create because the true motive, in my opinion, was the personal one of stabbing the two children in a jealous rage
05-26-2006, 03:45 PM #2
Why do you think Darin has stuck by her? I would have a hard time protecting or helping my husband if he killed our children.. do you think he loves her that much?"Justice may be blind, but she has very sophisticated listening devices." ~Edgar Argo
05-26-2006, 04:03 PM #3Country Girl
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
my feeling is that it was either both of them, or neither of them.
from what i have read, they were never really devoted to one another.
either he knows she didnt do it, and has some sense of decency, or he helped her, and must put on this big show of devotion, since she took the fall alone.
just my feeling, i really dont know.
05-26-2006, 04:10 PM #4Former Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
I have always thought Darin helped in the 'staging' after the fact. I do believe he placed the sock in the alley. I fully believe he knows there was no intruder and that Darlie commited the murders.
I also believe that they fought that night and that he told Darlie it was over. She killed the boys and he felt guilty and, I believe, blamed himself for their deaths. I believe he has stuck my her because he feels guilty.
Hope that makes sense...
05-26-2006, 04:11 PM #5
This case drives me mad. I dont know and I have been on the fence and I think if she did it he had to of helped, and there is no way in hell I would ever cover for someone who committed this time of crime let alone my own babies....I also have such a hard time thinking if she did do it why didnt he hear anything??? Arghhhh, it makes me mad.....
05-26-2006, 05:08 PM #6
I think Darin stood by Darlie because he had some involvement or some kind of knowledge (planted the sock, assisted in staging, maybe Darlie had made threats to him at some point in the past that she would kill the kids and then herself.....) I don't know, I've always thought of Darin as being kind of "goofy" (maybe "immature" is a better word) - he strikes me as someone who is not quite able to think for himself and rather whipped when it came to Darlie. When he finally got the nerve to stand up for himself and tell her he wanted out - she pulled the ultimate attention-getter; but my guts tell me there is something Darlie has on him....can't quite put my finger on it.....and whatever it is, it keeps him from spilling his guts.
"When you take your chances, you take your chances." Truman Capote
05-26-2006, 08:53 PM #7Former Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
Addition to Section Three:
One late-breaking development: By a stroke of luck, I located the case from Missouri that I was talking about where the banker and his wife were in their house and an "intruder" showed up with a gun that went off, with the bullet hitting the wife in the head and fatally injuring her. The incident occurred in September of 1994. The defendant was a guy named George Revelle. I now learn that Revelle's conviction was reversed on appeal. A second trial ended in a mistrial. In the third trial, some jurors thought Revelle was guilty and some did not, but the jurors all eventually voted not guilty because they felt the State had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I did not rely heavily on this case for my analysis because this case has a different look to it: defendant, hopelessly in debt, had applied for life insurance on his wife in May of 1994 and it was approved in July of 1994 in the amount of $500,000 with a double indemnity clause, with defendant as the sole beneficiary. According to State v. Revelle, 957 S.W. 2nd 428, 1997 Mo. App. Lexis 1997 (Nov. 12, 1997), the case where his conviction was reversed, defendant was embezzling funds from his employer, Ozark Bank, and stealing money from the City of Fremont Hills while acting as its mayor. The "intruder" showed up in the early morning hours of September 28, 1994 and the intruder's gun went off accidentally when he pointed it at the wife. I also learned that the insurance money was paid out to Revelle's two children and not Revelle himself.
I only add this case to show what a typical killing for money looks like. I recall reading that in the Charles Stuart case that occurred in October of 1989, Charles Stuart had a $250,000 life insurance policy on his wife at the time she was fatally shot by in the head by an alleged robber. In my opinion, the two small policies on the two Routier children, $5,000 each, was not the reason they were attacked; at the very least, the killing of the two children in the Routier case was not for the money--although that is a somewhat common assumption--but, instead, for the reasons I have indicated, has much more of the look of a jealous rage.
05-26-2006, 10:51 PM #8
Definitely not 'for the money'....
I agree. Darlie did not murder her children for any type of monetary gain. To me it resembles "misdirected rage", every stab was meant for Darin. There is NO WAY an intruder would just come into a home, butcher two children, not take anything, and leave her sorry a** with a few superficial cuts - I use the term 'superficial' because in comparison to the wounds on those poor kids, Darlie's wounds are mere 'paper cuts'.
"I bear the chain I forged in life, I made it of my own free will and of my own free will I wear it....." Jacob Marley
05-26-2006, 10:57 PM #9
I wonder why if darin was involved darlie hasnt turned him in? I mean I realize that she may think she will get out by some chance but she cant be that dumb you know most people strike a deal or something. They are fiercly loyal to one another. I just dont understand...
05-28-2006, 06:07 PM #10Originally Posted by michelle
05-30-2006, 09:08 AM #11Originally Posted by Jeana (DP)
I agree too that the children were not murdered for monetary gain. Nor do I think Darin was involved in the actual murders of the children. I think he figured out pretty quickly it was Darlie and chose to help her.
06-04-2006, 08:14 AM #12Registered User
Originally Posted by Jeana (DP)Originally Posted by Jeana (DP)
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
What do you do with the fact that Darlie brought all of her jewelry downstairs that day to show her new housekeeper, an immigrant from Poland who apparently knew a lot about fine jewelry? She told Halina she needed to raise $10,000, the exact amount of the boys' life insurance policies. Someone used to juggling their bills, borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, might just think they could use the insurance money for cash needs and make payments to the funeral home.
i think money is at the very core of this crime but it is also laced with personal issues, not the least of which could have been a love/hate relationship with the older boys, esp Devon who was described as Daddy's boy and apparently a little defiant with Darlie. remember she warned him not to try to get even with her later for her smearing birthday cake on his face for disobeying her.
"The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy__________________This is the humble opinion of Goody Trugritt.
06-04-2006, 08:24 PM #13Former Member
Originally Posted by michelle
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
06-05-2006, 02:44 AM #14Originally Posted by deandaniellwsBeesy Was Here
So I held my head up high
Hiding hate that burns inside
Which only fuels their selfish pride
We're all held captive
Out from the sun
A sun that shines on only some
We the meek are all in oneCreedMy Own Prison
06-05-2006, 03:36 PM #15Former Member
Originally Posted by beesy
- Join Date
- Jul 2005