Did Darlie Routier murder her precious sons? Part 2

Did Darlie Routier Murder Her Precious Sons ?

  • Yes ~ I believe she is right where she belongs on death row.

    Votes: 449 55.9%

  • I believe Darin played a role in their childrens death one way or another.

    Votes: 96 12.0%

  • No ~ I believe Darlie Routier is Innocent.

    Votes: 73 9.1%

  • N ~ There was a intruder.

    Votes: 32 4.0%

  • I just don't know.

    Votes: 153 19.1%
  • Total voters
    803

New Posts

The article shows the problem with Wikis...anyone can edit them and use words like "incredibly" and I love the phrase "accidentally convicted."

Darlie supporters will have you believe the photos were the only pieces of evidence introduced at trial.
 
<<but it was impossible for Darlie to have left it there>>

snipped

You have got to be kidding me, right? I have a pretty good theory as to how that sock got where it was found and why it had the boys blood and Darlies saliva on it.
 
MomofBoys said:
The article shows the problem with Wikis...anyone can edit them and use words like "incredibly" and I love the phrase "accidentally convicted."

Darlie supporters will have you believe the photos were the only pieces of evidence introduced at trial.
Click to expand...


If that article is any indication, that's not the only problem with Wikis... lol
 
The problem I have with the Darlie Routier case is the same problem I have with the Jon Benet case. The police tunnel-visioned on Darlie and never looked for anyone else. If anything, that poor woman was crucified by the public and wasn't even allowed a life sentence. It took several years and all the Ramsey's money to prove they were not culpable in their daughter's murder, and the result, the evidence that might have found the killer is now lost. We'll never know who killed Jon Benet anymore than we'll learned who killed Andrew and Emma Borden or the identity of Jack the Ripper. Bottom line, there are unanswered questions in the Routier case involving how the sock got where it was, the extra DNA in the house and the investigation process in general.
 
Thor2000 said:
The problem I have with the Darlie Routier case is the same problem I have with the Jon Benet case. The police tunnel-visioned on Darlie and never looked for anyone else. If anything, that poor woman was crucified by the public and wasn't even allowed a life sentence. It took several years and all the Ramsey's money to prove they were not culpable in their daughter's murder, and the result, the evidence that might have found the killer is now lost. We'll never know who killed Jon Benet anymore than we'll learned who killed Andrew and Emma Borden or the identity of Jack the Ripper. Bottom line, there are unanswered questions in the Routier case involving how the sock got where it was, the extra DNA in the house and the investigation process in general.
Click to expand...


Extra DNA in the house? Huh? Never heard that one before. My theory on how the sock got there goes like this .... Darlie put the sock on her hand and stabbed both boys. This is why her saliva (she pulled the sock up using her teeth) was found on the sock along with a small amount of both boys blood. Remember, these were deep seeping wounds, not spurting. She then ran out the back of the house, down the alley and deposited the murder weapon in the storm drain, accidentally dropping the sock on the ground. She meant for the sock to go down the storm drain with the knife. She runs back to the house, sees that one child is crawling toward the door trying to escape, goes back for a second knife and finishes the job. There was no tunnel vision in this case. Her story didn't add up from the beginning.
 
Thor2000 said:
The problem I have with the Darlie Routier case is the same problem I have with the Jon Benet case. The police tunnel-visioned on Darlie and never looked for anyone else. If anything, that poor woman was crucified by the public and wasn't even allowed a life sentence. It took several years and all the Ramsey's money to prove they were not culpable in their daughter's murder, and the result, the evidence that might have found the killer is now lost. We'll never know who killed Jon Benet anymore than we'll learned who killed Andrew and Emma Borden or the identity of Jack the Ripper. Bottom line, there are unanswered questions in the Routier case involving how the sock got where it was, the extra DNA in the house and the investigation process in general.
Click to expand...


There really aren't any unanswered questions in the Routier case. I agree with your take on the Ramsey case, I don't believe they were involved. Lizzie Borden killed her father and step mother for the money, no question. I read a book by a criminal investigator, can't remember her name off hand but I'll check around, that had some very compeling evidence as to Jack's identity. I believe the person she named in her book was in fact Jack the Ripper. In my opinion, if you look at Darlie's history, at what was happening in the family at the time these crimes occurred and take an honest, thorough look at the physical evidence at the scene, it becomes apparent that Darlie did commit these murders.
 
weasel said:
<<but it was impossible for Darlie to have left it there>>

snipped

You have got to be kidding me, right? I have a pretty good theory as to how that sock got where it was found and why it had the boys blood and Darlies saliva on it.
Click to expand...

It's never been proven that Darlie's saliva was on the sock. Her dna was in the toe from shed skin cells.
 
Thor2000 said:
The problem I have with the Darlie Routier case is the same problem I have with the Jon Benet case. The police tunnel-visioned on Darlie and never looked for anyone else. If anything, that poor woman was crucified by the public and wasn't even allowed a life sentence. It took several years and all the Ramsey's money to prove they were not culpable in their daughter's murder, and the result, the evidence that might have found the killer is now lost. We'll never know who killed Jon Benet anymore than we'll learned who killed Andrew and Emma Borden or the identity of Jack the Ripper. Bottom line, there are unanswered questions in the Routier case involving how the sock got where it was, the extra DNA in the house and the investigation process in general.
Click to expand...

Extra dna??? Never heard of it. Also, there are many of us who believe the Ramseys culpable in their daughter's death despite Mary Lacy. I for one believe the Ramseys are culpable.

Wasn't allowed a life sentence. In Texas it's a capital murder offence to murder a child under 6 years old. You need to read the trial transcripts, the only accurate source of this case.
 
Thor2000 said:
The problem I have with the Darlie Routier case is the same problem I have with the Jon Benet case. The police tunnel-visioned on Darlie and never looked for anyone else. If anything, that poor woman was crucified by the public and wasn't even allowed a life sentence. It took several years and all the Ramsey's money to prove they were not culpable in their daughter's murder, and the result, the evidence that might have found the killer is now lost. We'll never know who killed Jon Benet anymore than we'll learned who killed Andrew and Emma Borden or the identity of Jack the Ripper. Bottom line, there are unanswered questions in the Routier case involving how the sock got where it was, the extra DNA in the house and the investigation process in general.
Click to expand...


The police go where the evidence leads them and all of it led back in that house. They did not tunnel vision Darlie. If you're going to post here, it would serve you well to learn something about her case.
 
I have got three words for those who feel she is innocent. cast off blood there isn't any way that the blood got on the back of her shirt. This is actually one of the main reasons I feel she is guilty. I know the lab has been blamed for cross contamination. There is no proof of this. I also want to warn everyone to please be careful with your opinions, and watch what you say on other sites. She means a lot to someone here. I went to Darlie's site. I did not follow a link from this site and I have visited her site many times before I was ever on here. I left my honest opinion and you all know how i feel. I got a nasty e mail back from them and than was restricted on this site. WTF?? What i do on my time is my business I never mentioned this site but who ever wrote the nasty e mail sure did. Every one is entitled to their own opinion. Yes I know there are those who are sure she is innocent. That's great!! with out both sides there would be no discussion.
It is clear that someone followed my IP addy. That scares me. So everyone who feels shes guilty, you should watch what you say about her, you might get restricted too or followed too.
Just wanted to share.
 
Thor2000 said:
The problem I have with the Darlie Routier case is the same problem I have with the Jon Benet case. The police tunnel-visioned on Darlie and never looked for anyone else. If anything, that poor woman was crucified by the public and wasn't even allowed a life sentence. It took several years and all the Ramsey's money to prove they were not culpable in their daughter's murder, and the result, the evidence that might have found the killer is now lost. We'll never know who killed Jon Benet anymore than we'll learned who killed Andrew and Emma Borden or the identity of Jack the Ripper. Bottom line, there are unanswered questions in the Routier case involving how the sock got where it was, the extra DNA in the house and the investigation process in general.
Click to expand...

I do agree about the tunnel vision. It happens a lot.
 
Tunnel vision. Please.

DR gave the Police a story, she was the only "witness" to the crime of her two boys slaughtered less then a few feet from her.

She tells them a story. The trained and very experienced investigators "thought" something does not add up here. The crime scene does not "even come close to the "story" of the witness.

So of course since Darlie was the only witness and alive and her story does not add up and there is no evidence at all that her story is "even remotely" true, then guess what, LE suspects the mother.

Just like the Dad who killed his wife and kids and blamed it on a stranger. Well guess what the Dad's story did not fit with the crime scene and evidence. Not tunnel vision, but suspecting the only person alive at a crime and lying their face off.

LE concentrates on the criminals and often the "witness" to a crime is actually the criminal.

No tunnel vision. Just logic, evidence, fact, and conviction.

Good thing too.....can you imagine if LE just accepted every story of every person even in the event that the evidence contradicts the story. Should they just "believe" everything that "self serving" criminals say to "get off" of the crime they committed.

Criminals like Darlie would never be brought to justice. Nor anyone else who kills......especially if they have a "good" story that the criminals fully knows that LE will believe without any investigation, crime scene analysis, evidence.

That would be a scary world.........
I guess LE would be "listening to the story" and let the person go free.
 
mrshuie said:
I do agree about the tunnel vision. It happens a lot.
Click to expand...


You're right; it does. But does that mean it's just Darlie's bad luck that so much crucial, damning evidence points right at her? I mean, is the tunnel vision because of the evidence? Because I'd say that's justified. I truly do not believe the evidence is because of the tunnel vision. The blood on the back of the shirt. The knife imprint. The staging. More than that, though, is that an outside motive has yet to be established. People can argue that the evidence was planted (how?) and that cops staged the scene (why?) but you can't create a LACK of motive.

Two boys ravaged with the adults in the home alive, and at the time of the attack, not incapacitated. No robbery. No rape.
 
Something that has never made sense to me is Darlie and Darin both said she was sleeping downstairs because the baby's breathing kept her awake. Yet she doesn't hear a stranger enter their home and brutally stabbing her two sons just feet away from her? That is one stealth intruder.
 
cami said:
Extra dna??? Never heard of it. Also, there are many of us who believe the Ramseys culpable in their daughter's death despite Mary Lacy. I for one believe the Ramseys are culpable.

Wasn't allowed a life sentence. In Texas it's a capital murder offence to murder a child under 6 years old. You need to read the trial transcripts, the only accurate source of this case.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said, including the part about the Ramseys. So many things don't add up in Darlie's stories. As far as her slice across the throat, Darlie got lucky. I truly believe she intended to kill her children and then herself, but got cold feet when it came to herself.

As to her injuries, my goodness, she healed really fast. You can't even see them in the video 8-9 days later when she is dancing on her sons graves. NO normal mother could do that if their sons had been brutally murdered. Where the he!! is the trauma? None, zip, nada. There is, at the very least, a baseline to grief and she was totally off the scale.
 
I want to add that this is the case that brought me to WS. This case has always bothered me. I'm from Texas and I know Darlie's time has got to be running out. Once here, I was able to review a lot of the transcripts from the trial as well as the evidence. I thought she might be guilty, but I was not convinced until I was able to delve into all the documents. Now I'm convinced Darlie did kill those two precious boys. I do not think Darin had anything to do with the murder. If anything, he probably feels guilty about the fight the night before and that is why he is standing by Darlie.
 
mrshuie said:
I have got three words for those who feel she is innocent. cast off blood there isn't any way that the blood got on the back of her shirt. This is actually one of the main reasons I feel she is guilty. I know the lab has been blamed for cross contamination. There is no proof of this. I also want to warn everyone to please be careful with your opinions, and watch what you say on other sites. She means a lot to someone here. I went to Darlie's site. I did not follow a link from this site and I have visited her site many times before I was ever on here. I left my honest opinion and you all know how i feel. I got a nasty e mail back from them and than was restricted on this site. WTF?? What i do on my time is my business I never mentioned this site but who ever wrote the nasty e mail sure did. Every one is entitled to their own opinion. Yes I know there are those who are sure she is innocent. That's great!! with out both sides there would be no discussion.
It is clear that someone followed my IP addy. That scares me. So everyone who feels shes guilty, you should watch what you say about her, you might get restricted too or followed too.
Just wanted to share.
Click to expand...

Yes we know her mother calls us "websluts" They are nasty aren't they? And they want us to believe they are "loving" parents. They love themselves not much more.

I don't understand why you would be restricted here. Websleuths has nothing to do with her website. Weird
 
SoSueMe said:
I agree with everything you said, including the part about the Ramseys. So many things don't add up in Darlie's stories. As far as her slice across the throat, Darlie got lucky. I truly believe she intended to kill her children and then herself, but got cold feet when it came to herself.

As to her injuries, my goodness, she healed really fast. You can't even see them in the video 8-9 days later when she is dancing on her sons graves. NO normal mother could do that if their sons had been brutally murdered. Where the he!! is the trauma? None, zip, nada. There is, at the very least, a baseline to grief and she was totally off the scale.
Click to expand...

I agree and I think we all accept there is a baseline to what we expect as far as grief goes. If not, why would we ever question abherrant behaviour. Why the need for psychiatry if we accept "everyone grieves" differently. I notice this card is always handed round when the person fails to show any grief or remorse.
 
I would love all of you to convince me of exactly why you came to this conclusion, because I have always believed the exact opposite that she was innocent??? Please help me understand. Long time since I have visited this case and I would have thought she would have been put to death by now after all these years????
 
annkitty0630 said:
I would love all of you to convince me of exactly why you came to this conclusion, because I have always believed the exact opposite that she was innocent??? Please help me understand. Long time since I have visited this case and I would have thought she would have been put to death by now after all these years????
Click to expand...

Speaking for myself, I came to my conclusion by studying the evidence..the physical evidence found at the CS, in particular the blood evidence. Evidence does not lie and it all points to Darlie as the killer.

No one can convince you. You have to read for yourself and then decide. You have to weigh both sides and then come to your own conclusions.

A good place to start is reading the trial transcripts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 187 more.
Total: 3,639 (members: 188, guests: 3,451)

Online statistics

Members online
188
Guests online
3,451
Total visitors
3,639
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,135
Messages
17,963,760
Members
228,692
Latest member
giulian.57
Back
Top