Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Crimes and Trials > Darlie Routier

Notices

Darlie Routier Darlie Routier is on death row, convicted of murdering her two sons. Darlie claims that an intruder attacked her and the boys and is responsible. Many feel Darlie deserves a new trial. Discuss it here.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-25-2006, 12:00 PM
Jeana (DP) Jeana (DP) is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 27,155
Section Two

here is my second installment on the Darlie Routier case. As you will recall, the first installment was a general overview of my idea about how the crime occurred. The second installment will address the topic of "Phantom Killers" or, as they are sometimes known, "the intruder." Let me just preface my remarks by saying that I think the Websleuths members have done a great job in concluding that there was no intruder or phantom in the Darlie Routier case. I should also add that for the people who have signed the petition on Darlie's behalf at the justicefordarlie website, I have a great deal of sympathy because I, like a lot of them, would believe that an intruder struck if this was the only case of the intruder I had ever seen or remembered. Unfortunately, the "intruder" has quite a history of showing up when he needs to, which is always in time to bail out the chief suspect.

I'm sure one has to wonder how I got to looking at the history of the "phantom" or the "intruder." To make a long story short, I majored in journalism in college and got in the habit of reading the paper every day. Then, I obtained a law degree. I had just started as an associate at a law firm in east central Illinois in 1989 when I read the story of Charles Stuart. Although people don't tend to remember the story today, he called police on his cell phone and told them that a black gunman had stopped Stuart and his wife as they left a hospital birthing class in Boston, and that the gunman had shot his wife in the head and Stuart in the abdomen. I was pretty disgusted; indeed, I wanted to go up to Boston and look for the gunman myself. Only later did I find out that Stuart had staged the whole crime, and had shot his wife in the head and himself in the abdomen in order to make the crime look like a robbery. Instead, Stuart had shot his wife in the head because he wanted the insurance money from a policy that was on her life. That crime occurred on October 23, 1989 and investigators got a tip that Stuart had staged the crime from somebody who assisted him. As police closed in, Stuart committed suicide in early January 2000 by jumping off a bridge. However, in the time between the crime and his suicide, Stuart fooled almost everybody.

The next crime involving the "phantom" or the "intruder" that I read about was Susan Smith. You may recall that on October 25, 1994, a little over five years after the Stuart killing, Susan Smith strapped her two children into her car and rolled them into a lake in South Carolina. She then reported that she had been carjacked by a black man wearing a knit cap. Once again, I would have liked to have been on the scene, looking for the car, because I thought Susan Smith was telling the truth. I did recall the Stuart case, but I thought that was just some sort of oddity. However, I soon learned that Susan Smith made up the whole story about the "phantom" because she wanted to be with another man, a wealthy man, who did not want the kids.

Thereafter, a third story came to my attention, once again involving the "intruder." I have not been able to find this story on the web, but I believe that I saw it on ABC's 20/20. The story was about a couple in Lake-of-the-Ozarks, Missouri, a resort area, who came home from an evening out. They found that there home had been broken into and called 911. The husband, while on the phone with 911, informs the dispatcher that he has just seen the intruder and, at that moment, the wife is shot in the head. Later, the evidence indicated that he was a bank vice-president whose bank was having serious trouble and he saw himself losing his job and in need of money. I believe he got life in prison and is probably serving time in a Missouri state correctional facility. I also believe that the killing happened during the early 1990s. During the program, the show also asked viewers what they thought of a man who I believe was in the Northeast, who brought his wife into a hospital with a gunshot wounded to the head and a tale of a black male who came up and shot his wife while they were at a campsite. It was about this time that I started seeing a pattern to these cases; people with tales of an intruder or phantom who harmed one person for no reason at all while leaving another person alive who could identified the assailant. The assailant is often described as a young, black male wearing a knit cap (in other words, the assailant could be any one of thousands of people because the description is so generic). I started being very skeptical because the crimes did not seem random to me and I started to think that the "intruder" had been made up by the person who would naturally be the chief suspect were it not for the "intruder."

At this point, you are starting to think, great, but what does this have to do with Darlie Routier? My answer is that I started to go back in history to consider these cases and that is where I saw a pattern start to develop. I did not want to go too far back, so I am not really including the Lizzie Borden case in 1892, but that probably could be called a "phantom killer" case, too. I started with Dr. Sam Sheppard and the killing of his wife Marilyn in July of 1954. Dr. Sam Sheppard claimed that he struggled twice with an intruder (and he had some lesser injuries to show for it) known as the "Bushy-Haired Stranger" but said the intruder got away. The funny thing, aside from the intruder always getting away, is that Dr. Sam Sheppard was chasing his secretary around the desk and would have had a motive to do away with his wife, who had been stabbed 35 times in the face.

The Valerie Percy family in September of 1966 had similar bad luck in catching the intruder. Her father was campaigning for U.S. Senator from Illinois. Her stepmother heard a commotion around 5:00 am and went to look; allegedly her stepmother saw a burglar ("economic motive") in Valerie's room. The burglar rushed out past the stepmother and fled. The stepmother then turned on the light and found 21-year-old Valerie in her bed soaked in blood from having been hit in the head two to four times with a hammer and having been stabbed 10 to 12 times (some sources say 14 times) in the body (indicating a "personal motive"). The crime has never been solved.

Also, other people who could not catch the "intruder" were Jeffrey MacDonald in February of 1970 (wife and two children bludgeoned many times, MacDonald lightly injured), Cullen Davis in August of 1976 (he was not at the mansion when his estranged wife confronted an intruder wearing a black ski mask and black clothing at their mansion who shot to death two other people and shot and seriously wounded the wife, Priscilla Davis, conveniently around the time Cullen Davis was going through a divorce with her that would have given Priscilla half of his considerable estate). David Hendricks was lucky to be on the road in Wisconsin making a sales call for his company when his wife and three children were brutally murdered in the couple's Bloomington, Illinois home in November of 1983; the four people were killed with a knife and an ax, and David Hendricks was lucky because not only was he not killed, but he was free to start the new life he wanted to start since his back brace company had recently become very successful. Frances Newton, who was executed in September of 2005, was not so lucky because the State of Texas did not believe that the intruder shot and killed her estranged husband and two young children in 1987; rather, the State of Texas concluded that she shot them for the insurance money on policies that had just been recently obtained on them, and that Frances was most likely the shooter since a gun traced to her was the gun used to do the shootings.

I could go on in this vain for several hours, but only a couple other "intruder cases" really bear mentioning at the moment. One, of course, is Scott Peterson, who had the luck of having his wife go missing via the phantom just as he was wooing some other woman. Julie Harper was unlucky in October of 1997 because the intruder entered her home in downstate Illinois, where murder is fairly rare, and stabbed her 10-year old son approximately 13 times for no reason at all; people tend to wonder whether the killing, which is still being prosecuted, had something to do with the knock down, drag out custody battle that Julie had with her ex-husband over the child. Julie allegedly confronted the killer, who inflicted considerably lighter wounds on her, before the intruder got away (don't they always?) Finally, two non-murder phantoms are worth mentioning: the Audrey Seiler abduction from the campus of the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 2004, which was later revealed to be a hoax stemming from a relationship breakup and the Jennifer Wilbanks "runaway bride" from Georgia caper that was recently in the news, where the phantom abductors were described as a Hispanic male (the race card is used fairly commonly, but not always, in phantom cases) and a white woman.

The point of talking about all these "phantom" cases--and there are several more, I guarantee you--is that you can see a pattern in these cases and I think it will help us identify the reason that the "phantom" showed up in Darlie's case. The phantom only shows up under three circumstances that I can see and I have probably looked at 20 to 25 such cases. What that indicates to me is that such crimes are not random, as people tend to think, but the phantom is created to throw suspicion off of the chief suspect. The phantom shows up in the following circumstances: (1) the chief suspect is financially troubled (for example, Charles Stuart, mentioned above, who killed his wife for the insurance money; (2) the chief suspect is emotionally conflicted (in other words, the chief suspect kills to be with someone else, as in the case of Susan Smith); or the chief suspect is emotionally troubled, which is a broader category and would be someone like Julie Harper, who was apparently upset at seeing her ex-husband win a fierce custody battle over their only child.

Now, if Darlie fits into one of those three categories, I think you can stop looking for the phantom or intruder. The easiest category to reject is the emotionally-conflicted category since there is no argument in this case that she killed the two boys to be with someone else. Most people tend to pop her into the financially troubled category because they were having money problems, but to me, the killing is much more violent than the usual killings for money we have seen. That leaves the invention of the phantom being the result of the chief suspect being emotionally troubled, and I believe that Darlie pops quite easily into that category. As I have indicated, I think this killing is the result of the jealous rage that Darlie flew into when she found out that she would have to return to that miserable childhood and the two children were getting to stay at "Nintendo House" after Darin told her that he was walking out on her when she pressed him for money and found that he did not have any and could not get any more.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-25-2006, 02:35 PM
sharpar's Avatar
sharpar sharpar is offline
If dogs dont go to heaven I want to go where they are
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Home of the Alamo
Posts: 1,249
Yes, the bushy haired stranger certainly gets around and has been quite busy.

Another infamous one is Diana Downs, one child was shot and murdered, one in a wheelchair and the third had extensive injuries from gunshot wounds.
The intruder shot the kids and her in the arm ( superficial wound ) after she stopped on a dark lightly traveled road to render aid . Diana was having an affair with a man who had no interest in parenting.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-25-2006, 04:03 PM
Mira Mira is offline
Country Girl
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 931
i am a bit confused as to why the Percy case was included here. are you implying that her stepmother was the murderer and made up the intruder?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-25-2006, 04:35 PM
Jeana (DP) Jeana (DP) is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 27,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mira
i am a bit confused as to why the Percy case was included here. are you implying that her stepmother was the murderer and made up the intruder?

That's the impression that I got.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-25-2006, 04:43 PM
deanws deanws is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 11,409
Good post JDP. But Dr. Sheppard shouldn't be listed as one. New evidence shows he wasn't guilty.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9803/05/sheppard.case/
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-25-2006, 05:07 PM
sharkeyes's Avatar
sharkeyes sharkeyes is offline
Queen of Swords and Cups
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Central Valley, CA
Posts: 272
I also believe this was a "rage killing" (the rage being at Darin) and that the "intruder" exists only in Darlie's lies. To me it looks like an "I'll show you, you SOB!", as well as a desperate cry for attention, validation, the utmost extreme form of an adult psycho-tantrum "See! See what I'm capable of!!"

I have a family member (married into the family - no DNA shared!) who conveniently conjurs up "intruders" and "phantoms"; she's claimed to have been mugged (though no police report or witnesses); harassed by a "stalker" who sends her flowers when her husband is away; burglarized while sleeping where she allegedly woke and "struggled" with the [note the similarity] "black man in a knit cap"; and - the icing on the cake, are the pregnancies she fakes, and I'm talking full on pretending to be pregnant right down to her belly growing (padding) and then she "loses" these unborn infants while her husband is out of town at work (the first time she claimed she "fell down and hemorrhaged", the second time she claims she was told by "specialists" that the babies [she was "carrying twins"] had died in utero at 36 weeks and had to be extracted - OF COURSE all of this takes place with no witnesses, no family being called, her husband is always on the road...etc. and YOU BET I have requested medical records and none exist) - the stories she weaves are incredible complete with medical terminology - I could go on and on about this - the story is interesting when told in its entirety - and when she is confronted (which is what my sister and I did after her second "miscarriage") she goes into a RAGE - it was actually scary watching her turn into this 'creature'.

I have concluded that people who display this type of behavior are combination narcissitic/sociopathic (I'm no shrink, just my opinion), and that Darlie saw her world shattering with the threat of Darin leaving her, she DID NOT snap - she made a plan and carried it out figuring that this would "make him stay" - (Note - my family member's "tragedies" and "pregnancies" have always conveniently occurred at times when her marriage has been on the verge of collapsing).

Darlie is a very sick woman, and there are definitely parallels to the Shepard and McDonald cases - as well as the case where the husband shot the wife in the campground; I know I saw a tv-movie about that case.

Have you ever considered writing a book about your theory?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-25-2006, 05:21 PM
Jeana (DP) Jeana (DP) is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 27,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by deandaniellws
Good post JDP. But Dr. Sheppard shouldn't be listed as one. New evidence shows he wasn't guilty.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9803/05/sheppard.case/

Hey, remember, I'm just posting for the guy who wrote those. I've got two more parts to add in the coming days. He'll see the comments here and hopefully email me his responses for me to post.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-25-2006, 05:23 PM
deanws deanws is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 11,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeana (DP)
Hey, remember, I'm just posting for the guy who wrote those. I've got two more parts to add in the coming days. He'll see the comments here and hopefully email me his responses for me to post.
Good. I am enjoying the read.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-25-2006, 05:38 PM
Jeana (DP) Jeana (DP) is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 27,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by deandaniellws
Good. I am enjoying the read.

Makes for some interesting campfire reading, huh? LOL
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-25-2006, 09:58 PM
Mary456 Mary456 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southcentral Pennsylvania
Posts: 552
Sam Sheppard

Quote:
Originally Posted by deandaniellws
Good post JDP. But Dr. Sheppard shouldn't be listed as one. New evidence shows he wasn't guilty.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9803/05/sheppard.case/
Danielle, the jury found Sam Sheppard guilty again six years ago, after only three hours of deliberation.

The blood evidence pointing to Eberling was completely discredited. Remember Bart Epstein, the blood expert who initially worked on Darlie's defense? Well, he testified in the 2000 Sheppard trial & ended up with egg on his face. He didn't even know Eberling's blood type, and had to admit that he couldn't have left the blood on the closet door. Sheesh!

This case has been a favorite of mine since I was a teenager. For a short time, I thought he might be innocent, but I know now there was no bushy-haired stranger. There was just Dr. Sam, whose wife had threatened to divorce him, ruin him financially, and "to drag his name through the mud". Sam was no longer in control, and Marilyn paid the price.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-25-2006, 10:59 PM
Mary456 Mary456 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southcentral Pennsylvania
Posts: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkeyes
Darlie saw her world shattering with the threat of Darin leaving her, she DID NOT snap - she made a plan and carried it out figuring that this would "make him stay"
I agree completely, sharkeyes. It's less "painful" to believe that Darlie just snapped & went temporarily nutso, but the evidence shows that she planned it, however briefly.

1. Rage killings usually result in a lot more wounds than what the boys sustained.

2. Devon and Damon were asleep when she attacked them, making it unlikely that they did anything to provoke her into a sudden rage.

3. In all probability, she cut the screen before stabbing the boys (no blood in the garage, around the window, on the screen, etc.). Again, it suggests premeditation, not a sudden rage.

4. Darlie's old "rape" incident from years ago shows that she knew how to get attention through whatever means she could dream up.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-25-2006, 11:50 PM
deanws deanws is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 11,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary456
Danielle, the jury found Sam Sheppard guilty again six years ago, after only three hours of deliberation.

The blood evidence pointing to Eberling was completely discredited. Remember Bart Epstein, the blood expert who initially worked on Darlie's defense? Well, he testified in the 2000 Sheppard trial & ended up with egg on his face. He didn't even know Eberling's blood type, and had to admit that he couldn't have left the blood on the closet door. Sheesh!

This case has been a favorite of mine since I was a teenager. For a short time, I thought he might be innocent, but I know now there was no bushy-haired stranger. There was just Dr. Sam, whose wife had threatened to divorce him, ruin him financially, and "to drag his name through the mud". Sam was no longer in control, and Marilyn paid the price.
Thanks for the info Mary. I thought it had been settled the other way.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-26-2006, 12:46 AM
KrazyKollector KrazyKollector is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary456
Danielle, the jury found Sam Sheppard guilty again six years ago, after only three hours of deliberation.

The blood evidence pointing to Eberling was completely discredited. Remember Bart Epstein, the blood expert who initially worked on Darlie's defense? Well, he testified in the 2000 Sheppard trial & ended up with egg on his face. He didn't even know Eberling's blood type, and had to admit that he couldn't have left the blood on the closet door. Sheesh!

This case has been a favorite of mine since I was a teenager. For a short time, I thought he might be innocent, but I know now there was no bushy-haired stranger. There was just Dr. Sam, whose wife had threatened to divorce him, ruin him financially, and "to drag his name through the mud". Sam was no longer in control, and Marilyn paid the price.
I thought the jury was unable to find him "innocent" (which is harder to do than "not guilty").

I grew up a few miles from the Sheppard home. My parents always thought he did it, and I did at first, but changed my mind. As sleezy as Eberling was, it wouldn't surprise me at all if it was him. Town gossip always seemed to point towards a prominent political leader. There was also some ex-serviceman that had gone on a killing spree too and might have been passing through.

If the jury had found him "innocent", it would have really set the stage for a wrongful imprisonment suit against the state and bolstered it's chances.

He was convicted long before the trial ever happened. The Cleveland Press, the coroner, the police, all behaved very inappropriately.

If it wasn't Sheppard's blood and not Marilyn's blood, then whose blood was it?

I wish the whole case had been handled correctly from the get-go, so the truth would be more evident.
__________________
Suzi


Reputation is what you are in the light.
Character is what you are in the dark.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-26-2006, 02:09 AM
Mary456 Mary456 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southcentral Pennsylvania
Posts: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrazyKollector
I thought the jury was unable to find him "innocent" (which is harder to do than "not guilty").
This case can be really confusing, because it started in 1954 and has been through the wringer a zillion times. In a nutshell, Sheppard was found guilty of murdering his wife, spent 10 years in prison, and then good old F. Lee Bailey came along & got him a new trial - not for lack of evidence, but by claiming that pretrial publicity had denied him a fair trial. (However, the jurors from the first trial said the media did not influence their decision, and I believe they were telling the truth. The evidence was there, and they followed it to its natural conclusion).

In 1966, Sam was tried again, but this time the jury didn't hear a word about his infidelity, or the forensic evidence that convicted him in the first place. The general consensus is that the State wasn't really prepared for a retrial and Bailey knew it...he put his spin on it and convinced them of reasonable doubt.

In 2000 his son, Samuel Reese Sheppard, brought suit against the state of Ohio for the wrongful imprisonment of his father. He stood to make millions of dollars if he won, but the jury found that his father had, indeed, murdered his wife.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KrazyKollector
If it wasn't Sheppard's blood and not Marilyn's blood, then whose blood was it?
The blood on the closet door was type O, Marilyn's blood type. It gets so convoluted, but an excellent book to figure it out is "The Unknown Darkness" by Gregg O. McCrary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KrazyKollector
I wish the whole case had been handled correctly from the get-go, so the truth would be more evident.
Unfortunately, the 60s television series, "The Fugitive" influenced many people to believe that poor Sam Sheppard was framed, and was just a good, honest guy trying to track down the "real killer" on a golf course or wherever. It got him a lot of sympathy, but it was just the media playing it to the hilt. No basis in reality.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-26-2006, 09:57 AM
Dani_T Dani_T is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 409
A very interesting hypothesis, and one which has a great deal of truth behind it I think. As a side note I think the Diane Downs case has a great deal of similarity with Darlies (beyond simply the superifical).

However, I'm not so sure I agree with this statement

Quote:
Now, if Darlie fits into one of those three categories, I think you can stop looking for the phantom or intruder.
Whilst the Routier case may be consistent with your theory, I think it is a bit of a leap to say that Darlie's guilt (or at the very least the non-existence of the intruder) is proven by your theory. The reality is that intruders do enter homes and do attack people and some do get away. Someone could assemble a theory, using past cases as you do, to support Darlie's innocence in this way.

Really we can stop looking for an intruder when we examine the actual evidence of the case. Whilst looking at the background and the pyschological issues at stake are a helpful thing and can lead us towards tentative (though telling) conclusions, it is the evidence which actually shows there was no intruder. Whilst I think your theory is a good one and is well supported I don't think it is enough to show that there is no intruder (and there is no way it would convict anyone in a court of law). In hidndsight, after examining the evidence of the case, it makes sense and fits.... but I don't think it should come before the evidence.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-28-2006, 05:55 PM
cami's Avatar
cami cami is offline
Keep your fork......
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In the Atlantic
Posts: 2,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary456
This case can be really confusing, because it started in 1954 and has been through the wringer a zillion times. In a nutshell, Sheppard was found guilty of murdering his wife, spent 10 years in prison, and then good old F. Lee Bailey came along & got him a new trial - not for lack of evidence, but by claiming that pretrial publicity had denied him a fair trial. (However, the jurors from the first trial said the media did not influence their decision, and I believe they were telling the truth. The evidence was there, and they followed it to its natural conclusion).

In 1966, Sam was tried again, but this time the jury didn't hear a word about his infidelity, or the forensic evidence that convicted him in the first place. The general consensus is that the State wasn't really prepared for a retrial and Bailey knew it...he put his spin on it and convinced them of reasonable doubt.

In 2000 his son, Samuel Reese Sheppard, brought suit against the state of Ohio for the wrongful imprisonment of his father. He stood to make millions of dollars if he won, but the jury found that his father had, indeed, murdered his wife.



The blood on the closet door was type O, Marilyn's blood type. It gets so convoluted, but an excellent book to figure it out is "The Unknown Darkness" by Gregg O. McCrary.



Unfortunately, the 60s television series, "The Fugitive" influenced many people to believe that poor Sam Sheppard was framed, and was just a good, honest guy trying to track down the "real killer" on a golf course or wherever. It got him a lot of sympathy, but it was just the media playing it to the hilt. No basis in reality.
McCrary's profile based on the blood evidence was an eye opener wasn't it Mary? Did you think so? It made me have doubts about Sam's innocence after all... I'm going to look for that book.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-31-2006, 11:18 PM
beesy's Avatar
beesy beesy is offline
myspace.com/beesy_boo
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: small town, VA
Posts: 1,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpar
Yes, the bushy haired stranger certainly gets around and has been quite busy.

Another infamous one is Diana Downs, one child was shot and murdered, one in a wheelchair and the third had extensive injuries from gunshot wounds.
The intruder shot the kids and her in the arm ( superficial wound ) after she stopped on a dark lightly traveled road to render aid . Diana was having an affair with a man who had no interest in parenting.
It takes alot of nerve to shoot yourself no matter where. I think that shows us how determined she was to get rid of her children.
__________________
Beesy 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 one
Creed
My Own Prison

Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-02-2006, 08:46 PM
Mary456 Mary456 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southcentral Pennsylvania
Posts: 552
Dr. Sam

Quote:
Originally Posted by cami
McCrary's profile based on the blood evidence was an eye opener wasn't it Mary? Did you think so? It made me have doubts about Sam's innocence after all... I'm going to look for that book.
You'll love it, Cami. There's a section on Karla & Paul, as well as Jack Unterweger, a serial killer who fooled everyone for years. That guy was a monumental piece of work.

I think the world of Greg McCrary, because he doesn't seem to have the huge ego that some other profilers have. He recognizes the important role profiling plays in solving crimes, but also admits that sometimes a profile can be way off base. He's common sense and down to earth.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-03-2006, 12:10 PM
sharpar's Avatar
sharpar sharpar is offline
If dogs dont go to heaven I want to go where they are
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Home of the Alamo
Posts: 1,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by beesy
It takes alot of nerve to shoot yourself no matter where. I think that shows us how determined she was to get rid of her children.
So True . Its is hard to fathom someone acting on that thought but they do more and more all the time.
Severe selfishness! I will eliminate these expensive time consuming obstacles so I can have the life that I want . I am so clever no know will
know.

What haunts me is there are more Darlies out there who havent done it
yet but will.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-03-2006, 08:57 PM
Goody Goody is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 3,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeana (DP)
.............
The point of talking about all these "phantom" cases--and there are several more, I guarantee you--is that you can see a pattern in these cases and I think it will help us identify the reason that the "phantom" showed up in Darlie's case. The phantom only shows up under three circumstances that I can see and I have probably looked at 20 to 25 such cases. What that indicates to me is that such crimes are not random, as people tend to think, but the phantom is created to throw suspicion off of the chief suspect. The phantom shows up in the following circumstances: (1) the chief suspect is financially troubled (for example, Charles Stuart, mentioned above, who killed his wife for the insurance money; (2) the chief suspect is emotionally conflicted (in other words, the chief suspect kills to be with someone else, as in the case of Susan Smith); or the chief suspect is emotionally troubled, which is a broader category and would be someone like Julie Harper, who was apparently upset at seeing her ex-husband win a fierce custody battle over their only child.

Now, if Darlie fits into one of those three categories, I think you can stop looking for the phantom or intruder. The easiest category to reject is the emotionally-conflicted category since there is no argument in this case that she killed the two boys to be with someone else. Most people tend to pop her into the financially troubled category because they were having money problems, but to me, the killing is much more violent than the usual killings for money we have seen. That leaves the invention of the phantom being the result of the chief suspect being emotionally troubled, and I believe that Darlie pops quite easily into that category. As I have indicated, I think this killing is the result of the jealous rage that Darlie flew into when she found out that she would have to return to that miserable childhood and the two children were getting to stay at "Nintendo House" after Darin told her that he was walking out on her when she pressed him for money and found that he did not have any and could not get any more.
The phantom intruder also shows up when the killer cannot move the body from an incriminating location. How else can they cover their butts but to invent an outsider to take the blame? The Routiers obviously did some planning in how to hide their guilt, but it was not well planned. They made a lot of mistakes too. Personally I think some time elapsed between Devon's murder and Damon's, that originally her first reaction to clean up the crime scene, but her arm was bleeding on top of everything she tried to wipe away. It soon became futile. Then something happened to change her direction. Police detectives have said a change in direction is very common at these scenes. I would guess this is maybe when Darin arrives on the scene and the real cover up effort begins. They didn't have any choice but to invent a phantom intruder.

But there is a big long list of reasons that no intruder worth his salt would have randomly selected their house out of every other house in the subdivision. It was too close to the subdivision entrance and extremely well lit. A street light right outside the gate they had to sneak into. Another street light on the corner sort of kitty-korner from the front of the house and three flood lights in the front yard. No cover of darkness.

Then you have a bloodied up intruder leaving blood all over the utility room but not a drop beyond it, not on his exit point, thru the back yard, not on the gate, nothing at all until 75 feet down the alley where a sock is found with two little droplets on it. Where did all the dripping blood go from the time he held onto the utility room door until he entered the getaway car? It sure wasn't on the sock.

I am like you on the intruder stories though. 9 out of 10 times there is no intruder, esp when the descriptions are so vague that the police can't even develop a suspect witin a couple of days. Here we are 10 years later and not a soul has ever talked about this crime or stepped forward to say my cousin, my ex, my husband's friend told us he killed those kids because...... There is not a shred of evidence that any intruder ever existed and no matter how many times she tries to give more detail, no one is going to believe her. She just sounds like someone trying to invent more details to match the known evidence.
__________________

"The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy
__________________
This is the humble opinion of Goody Trugritt.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-03-2006, 09:02 PM
Goody Goody is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 3,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeana (DP)
............
I'm sure one has to wonder how I got to looking at the history of the "phantom" or the "intruder." To make a long story short, I majored in journalism in college and got in the habit of reading the paper every day. Then, I obtained a law degree. I had just started as an associate at a law firm in east central Illinois in 1989 when I read the story of Charles Stuart....... .
Ah, another lawyer. Great. We can use all the legal minds we can get. Hope you stick around even if vicariously thru Jeana.
__________________

"The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy
__________________
This is the humble opinion of Goody Trugritt.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-03-2006, 09:09 PM
Goody Goody is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 3,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mira
i am a bit confused as to why the Percy case was included here. are you implying that her stepmother was the murderer and made up the intruder?
I was living only about 60 miles away when the percy killing happened and I remember it well. Not everyone believed the intruder story. Not saying the stepmother did it, but someone was really, really angry at the girl...I mean, several blows to the head PLUS 17 stab wounds??????? Hard to believe that some nut just wandered into the house and wandered back out again without getting caught. I think they eventually did name a suspect but as I recall no one was ever tried for the crime. Not everyone believed them. And the Percys never pushed for a conviction that I am aware of. It always had a an off sense about it.
__________________

"The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy
__________________
This is the humble opinion of Goody Trugritt.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-03-2006, 09:15 PM
Goody Goody is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 3,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkeyes
I have concluded that people who display this type of behavior are combination narcissitic/sociopathic (I'm no shrink, just my opinion), and that Darlie saw her world shattering with the threat of Darin leaving her, she DID NOT snap - she made a plan and carried it out figuring that this would "make him stay" - (Note - my family member's "tragedies" and "pregnancies" have always conveniently occurred at times when her marriage has been on the verge of collapsing).
Question: Why does a man who has decided to leave his wife walk into a room and find his children slaughtered and then in a matter of minutes or less decide to cover up for her rather than spill his guts to the cops?
__________________

"The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy
__________________
This is the humble opinion of Goody Trugritt.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-05-2006, 10:59 AM
Hbgchick Hbgchick is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Corpus Christi, TX
Posts: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dani_T
A very interesting hypothesis, and one which has a great deal of truth behind it I think. As a side note I think the Diane Downs case has a great deal of similarity with Darlies (beyond simply the superifical).
For the record...ME TOO. I mentioned that on another thread a while back and nobody seemed too interested, but I think the similarities between these two women are very striking.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-05-2006, 11:19 AM
Jeana (DP) Jeana (DP) is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 27,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hbgchick
For the record...ME TOO. I mentioned that on another thread a while back and nobody seemed too interested, but I think the similarities between these two women are very striking.

I agree(d) with you!!!!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:50 PM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!