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.


View Poll Results: Should Darlie Routier be given a new trial?
Yes. 131 34.11%
No. 214 55.73%
Not Sure. 39 10.16%
Voters: 384. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-24-2007, 08:24 PM
accordn2me accordn2me is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: LSU
Posts: 1,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by cami View Post
Yeah maybe he did. Would that lead you to believe that Darin is the killer if he did?

Darlie though had loads of time to put it there too before she was injured so we'll never know unless they tell us.

You have to read Linch's testimony. I think..I know it's Linch though ...to find the answer to your question.
I have a hard time believing Darlie was the only one that "generated" the evidence. If she is guilty.....I think Darin is as well. Like in a bank robbery, the driver of the get away car is just as guilty as the robber/killers.....I think if Darlie killed and Darin participated in any way including the cover up, he should be on DR the same as she is.

Personally, there are too many things about the evidence presented, and the evidence that was not presented, that are so questionable, I don't feel comfortable with Darlie's death sentence (not that it matters how I feel one whit).

The points made by the debaters in this case are all good ones....from both "sides." I put that word in quotes because I don't consider myself to be on the Routier's side per se. It's just that with so many unanswered questions and things that were never addressed by her defense, I'm alarmed by her conviction. Equally alarming is that if she is guilty, and he is too, he's not on DR!
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-24-2007, 08:26 PM
accordn2me accordn2me is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: LSU
Posts: 1,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by cami View Post
Laber didn't find any spatter on the jeans and that's what they would have relied on as evidence on the jeans as it would indicate Darin was present during the stabbings. He would have had a lot of transferred blood on the jeans from working on Devon and checking Damon and being with Darlie. Laber found nothing to indicate from the jeans that Darin was present during the stabbings. So given as he's Darlie's expert, I think it is safe to say the jeans didn't help either side.

I don't think Mulder did that at all. I believe he relied on Laber's opinion of the jeans.

Do you have some proof he kept the jury from hearing evidence?
The jury heard evidence all right! They didn't hear any defense of the evidence.

ETA: They didn't hear any evidence that implicated Darin.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-24-2007, 08:32 PM
accordn2me accordn2me is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: LSU
Posts: 1,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by cami View Post
The jeans have been tested. Just out of curiousity, what would you expect to find on Darin's jean? There is very little of the boys' blood on Darlie's shirt but it's the back of her shirt and it's the way it's cast-off that leads to the knife being in her hand. If Darin stabbed the boys wouldn't it make sense that the cast-off blood would be on his back and not his jeans?

It's like the black car, what would you expect to find in a black car when the murder weapon was left at the scene, there is not a speck of blood outside that house and not a thing stolen despite the money, gold and wallet lying there. Oh besides the sock that is, and why would the intruder run down that alley if there was a get away car outside?
I don't know what to expect! Good point about "the back." Was the back of Darin's clothes tested?

....."there is not a speck of blood outside that house....." I would say there is not a speck of blood outside that house that was discovered. IMO discovering blood outside the house, especially after the rain storm, would have been nearly impossible.

Maybe the intruder would have ran down the alley if the get away car was back there?

As for the murder weapon.....they found one.....maybe it wasn't the only one....
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-24-2007, 08:40 PM
accordn2me accordn2me is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: LSU
Posts: 1,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary456 View Post
You're welcome, accordn2me.



That’s because all the items tested pointed to Darlie as the killer. If Laber and Epstein (or any other expert) could have refuted the blood & fiber evidence, Mulder would have had them on the stand in a New York minute. As we’ve said before, Dougie-boy had precious little to work with.




I assume you’re getting that information from the Darlie camp. First of all, there WAS no evidence to tie Darin to the actual murders, and there still isn't to this day. Secondly, Darlie was adamant, from day one, that she saw the intruder and it was not Darin. Absolutely, positively was not her husband.

What was Mulder supposed to do? Call his client a liar
Mulder wouldn't have had experts that refuted evidence that also implicated Darin. We don't know what Laber and Epstein were going to say since Mulder dismissed them early on (one of the first things he did). Will we ever know if he sought other experts? I haven't even heard a claim that he did.

Because Darlie WAS adamant, from day one, that the intruder was not Darin, maybe that's why the police and later the prosecution didn't pursue that notion. I don't know....
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-24-2007, 09:54 PM
White Rain's Avatar
White Rain White Rain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: heaven bound
Posts: 4,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by accordn2me View Post
The jury heard evidence all right! They didn't hear any defense of the evidence.

ETA: They didn't hear any evidence that implicated Darin.

you have said yourself: Darlie's lawyer was hired on the premise that he not pursue or bring up any evidence against Darin....(at least I think, I am out of date on all the lastest news of the case) but anyway...if so then WHY would you expect anyone to introduce any evidence pertaining to him, IF there was any?
This was Darlie's choice in the beginning, she didn't HAVE to agree to these terms, or ask her lawyer to agree to them. hey if I were innocent I'd say "do whatever you can" even IF at the time I thought my hubby were 100% innocent....if evidence COULD be brought up against anyone, FIND IT, I wouldn't care WHO or what family member/friend, etc. it could be.
Darlie ok'd this never thinking she'd be found guilty, but now that she has, throw anyone under the bus in order to gain a possible delay in the death sentence.
Darin did NOT have ANYTHING to do with the murders, IMO, although I do think he MAY have helped cover them up. Darlie and her crew are just grasping at ANY straw they can think of.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-24-2007, 11:30 PM
Mary456 Mary456 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southcentral Pennsylvania
Posts: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by accordn2me View Post
I would say there is not a speck of blood outside that house [color=Red]that was discovered.[color=Black] IMO discovering blood outside the house, especially after the rain storm, would have been nearly impossible.
If there was a rainstorm, it didn't occur until the night of 6/7. By that time, police and detectives had two full days (June 6th and June 7th), from sunup to sundown, to search for blood outside. If it was there, they would have found it.

The thunderstorm was a red herring thrown out by Richard Mosty. From the trial transcript:

Mosty: "There was a large thunderstorm on the night of the 7th, wasn't there?"

Linch: "I don't know."

Mosty: "Do you recollect that there was a rainstorm on the 7th?

Linch: "No."

My point is that it doesn't matter if there was a rainstorm on the evening of June 7th. The yard, the gate, and the alley had been searched for blood long before the pitter patter of possible raindrops.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-24-2007, 11:59 PM
SadieMae SadieMae is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 4,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Rain View Post
you have said yourself: Darlie's lawyer was hired on the premise that he not pursue or bring up any evidence against Darin....(at least I think, I am out of date on all the lastest news of the case) but anyway...if so then WHY would you expect anyone to introduce any evidence pertaining to him, IF there was any?
This was Darlie's choice in the beginning, she didn't HAVE to agree to these terms, or ask her lawyer to agree to them. hey if I were innocent I'd say "do whatever you can" even IF at the time I thought my hubby were 100% innocent....if evidence COULD be brought up against anyone, FIND IT, I wouldn't care WHO or what family member/friend, etc. it could be.
Darlie ok'd this never thinking she'd be found guilty, but now that she has, throw anyone under the bus in order to gain a possible delay in the death sentence.
Darin did NOT have ANYTHING to do with the murders, IMO, although I do think he MAY have helped cover them up. Darlie and her crew are just grasping at ANY straw they can think of.
I don't think Darin had anything to do with the murders either. It was all Darllie and I don't he did any coverup. I believe he knows Darlie killed the boys.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-25-2007, 08:57 AM
whitywendy whitywendy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: NC - home of BBQ
Posts: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by accordn2me View Post
I don't know what to expect! Good point about "the back." Was the back of Darin's clothes tested?

....."there is not a speck of blood outside that house....." I would say there is not a speck of blood outside that house that was discovered. IMO discovering blood outside the house, especially after the rain storm, would have been nearly impossible.

Maybe the intruder would have ran down the alley if the get away car was back there?

As for the murder weapon.....they found one.....maybe it wasn't the only one....
What rain storm? It didn't rain that night/early morning.

As for Darrin - I don't agree that he should be on DR with Darlie. Why should he be punished for her act of violence toward their kids? I honestly believe that Darin was stunned to say the least when he came downstairs that early morning. Yea, he said some of the most stupids things toward the cops that are questionable but imo not in the sense of him being involved with the actually murders.

I do believe however that he did cover up for her. But that does not qualify for the death penalty. You nor I know how we would react to that type of situation. Some people will do anything to protect the ones they love. Lie/Deny. We all know from everything that has been said and read that Darrin loved Darlie.

In regards to the knife. They also can't prove that there was another knife involved.
__________________
WhityWendy - Carolina Girl

Truth is the cry of all, but the game of few - George Bishop Berkeley

Last edited by whitywendy; 10-25-2007 at 09:11 AM. Reason: missing word
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-25-2007, 07:45 PM
accordn2me accordn2me is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: LSU
Posts: 1,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary456 View Post
If there was a rainstorm, it didn't occur until the night of 6/7. By that time, police and detectives had two full days (June 6th and June 7th), from sunup to sundown, to search for blood outside. If it was there, they would have found it.

The thunderstorm was a red herring thrown out by Richard Mosty. From the trial transcript:

Mosty: "There was a large thunderstorm on the night of the 7th, wasn't there?"

Linch: "I don't know."

Mosty: "Do you recollect that there was a rainstorm on the 7th?

Linch: "No."

My point is that it doesn't matter if there was a rainstorm on the evening of June 7th. The yard, the gate, and the alley had been searched for blood long before the pitter patter of possible raindrops.
I think there was enough INSIDE the house to keep everyone busy for a lot longer than "two full days." Given the fact that a veteran detective.....possibly the most respected detective on the scene....declared virtually immediately that "this was an inside job" I don't think much evidence was searched for on the outside.

I don't remember....how was the sock discovered?
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-25-2007, 07:52 PM
accordn2me accordn2me is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: LSU
Posts: 1,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Rain View Post
you have said yourself: Darlie's lawyer was hired on the premise that he not pursue or bring up any evidence against Darin....(at least I think, I am out of date on all the lastest news of the case) but anyway...if so then WHY would you expect anyone to introduce any evidence pertaining to him, IF there was any?
This was Darlie's choice in the beginning, she didn't HAVE to agree to these terms, or ask her lawyer to agree to them. hey if I were innocent I'd say "do whatever you can" even IF at the time I thought my hubby were 100% innocent....if evidence COULD be brought up against anyone, FIND IT, I wouldn't care WHO or what family member/friend, etc. it could be.
Darlie ok'd this never thinking she'd be found guilty, but now that she has, throw anyone under the bus in order to gain a possible delay in the death sentence.
Darin did NOT have ANYTHING to do with the murders, IMO, although I do think he MAY have helped cover them up. Darlie and her crew are just grasping at ANY straw they can think of.
I wouldn't expect Mulder to introduce any evidence pertaining to Darin. That would violate his "contract." If I were innocent, I too would say "do whatever you can" but not at the expense of my husband if I truly believed him to be innocent, or any other family members. That's just me. Likewise, I think if Darin....or any family member participated in a cover up....they too deserve the DP. Again, purely me. I don't expect others to feel the same.

I would expect any attorney, including one with whom I had a "contract" about not implicating my husband, to vigorously defend the contested evidence in my case. Mulder did not do that.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 10-25-2007, 08:36 PM
Jeana (DP) Jeana (DP) is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 27,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by accordn2me View Post
The jury heard evidence all right! They didn't hear any defense of the evidence.

ETA: They didn't hear any evidence that implicated Darin.
They can't hear what isn't there.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 10-25-2007, 10:18 PM
Mary456 Mary456 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southcentral Pennsylvania
Posts: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by accordn2me View Post
I think there was enough INSIDE the house to keep everyone busy for a lot longer than "two full days." ... I don't think much evidence was searched for on the outside.
Well, I guess you can "think" whatever you want. I "think" somebody needs to read the trial transcript
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 10-26-2007, 12:46 AM
mollymalone mollymalone is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by accordn2me View Post
Because Darlie WAS adamant, from day one, that the intruder was not Darin, maybe that's why the police and later the prosecution didn't pursue that notion. I don't know....
I don't think so. After LE determined there was no intruder, they were looking at both of them, trying to determine whether both or one of them were responsible.

I don't believe he did the murders but by Darlie's actions and her protestations that he began to know or even believe she'd done it, but for the sake of Drake, he's standing by her. If there'd been any evidence other than being stupid to stick to Darrin, he'd have been charged and sitting on DR too.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 10-26-2007, 09:07 AM
whitywendy whitywendy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: NC - home of BBQ
Posts: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary456 View Post
Well, I guess you can "think" whatever you want. I "think" somebody needs to read the trial transcript
Yes, I think that you in order to make a fair and correct conclusion, you must "weigh" everything accordingly which would imply that ONE must READ THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT. NOT bits and pieces here and there. Try reading a novel/book that way.., now how in the world are you going to know the plot if you don't read it from beginning to end?
__________________
WhityWendy - Carolina Girl

Truth is the cry of all, but the game of few - George Bishop Berkeley
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 10-26-2007, 07:52 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 accordn2me View Post
The jury heard evidence all right! They didn't hear any defense of the evidence.

ETA: They didn't hear any evidence that implicated Darin.

That's because they're isn't any.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 10-26-2007, 08:06 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 accordn2me View Post
I don't know what to expect! Good point about "the back." Was the back of Darin's clothes tested?

....."there is not a speck of blood outside that house....." I would say there is not a speck of blood outside that house that was discovered. IMO discovering blood outside the house, especially after the rain storm, would have been nearly impossible.

Maybe the intruder would have ran down the alley if the get away car was back there?

As for the murder weapon.....they found one.....maybe it wasn't the only one....
Darin was bare chested....no the alleged getaway car was seen in front of the routiers house...only one knife presented to the jury, all testimony included that knife. Now you're suggesting there were two intruders, two murder weapons? There's no evidence of one let alone two. And no evidence two knives were used.

There was no blood found outside that house...if there's no blood found immediately around the crime scene, i.e.the point of exit....window ledge, the fence, how can there be "undiscovered blood" somewhere else in the neighbourhood? If you want to continue to accuse the prosecution and the Mulder that's your perrogative....it doesn't make Darlie innocent. There is more than enough evidence, properly gathered, non contaminated that proves she committed this crime. Is Darin complicite too? Find some evidence he is and the state will be happy to prosecute him.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 10-26-2007, 08:10 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 accordn2me View Post
The jury heard evidence all right! They didn't hear any defense of the evidence.

ETA: They didn't hear any evidence that implicated Darin.
tsk tsk...Laber is Darlie's expert and he would not have allowed that trial to continue had he found any evidence that implicated Darin...it's right there in his affidavit that there is no blood on the jeans that suggests Darin was present during the stabbings so now you're refuting Darlie's own expert?
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 10-26-2007, 08:14 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 accordn2me View Post
I think there was enough INSIDE the house to keep everyone busy for a lot longer than "two full days." Given the fact that a veteran detective.....possibly the most respected detective on the scene....declared virtually immediately that "this was an inside job" I don't think much evidence was searched for on the outside.

I don't remember....how was the sock discovered?
You need to get your facts straight According....no one declared immediately it was an inside job...stop listening to the Darlie camp and research on your own.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to cami For This Useful Post:
  #69  
Old 10-26-2007, 08:31 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 accordn2me View Post
Mulder wouldn't have had experts that refuted evidence that also implicated Darin. We don't know what Laber and Epstein were going to say since Mulder dismissed them early on (one of the first things he did). Will we ever know if he sought other experts? I haven't even heard a claim that he did.

Because Darlie WAS adamant, from day one, that the intruder was not Darin, maybe that's why the police and later the prosecution didn't pursue that notion. I don't know....
Actually Darin was the first suspect. Homicide detectives don't work that way According, everyone in that house was a suspect. Darlie is not that powerful that she could stop the cops or the prosecution from pursuing Darin.

Why don't you read the transcripts from beginning to end. Read the bond hearing, etc., the appeals. I learned a lot from the appeals that I hadn't known before. Read Judge Francis's final findings.

If Darin was the killer, then Darlie had to know and if she knows why hasn't she opened her mouth? Why is she sitting on DR serving his time?
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 10-27-2007, 10:45 AM
accordn2me accordn2me is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: LSU
Posts: 1,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by cami View Post
Darin was bare chested....no the alleged getaway car was seen in front of the routiers house...only one knife presented to the jury, all testimony included that knife. Now you're suggesting there were two intruders, two murder weapons? There's no evidence of one let alone two. And no evidence two knives were used.

There was no blood found outside that house...if there's no blood found immediately around the crime scene, i.e.the point of exit....window ledge, the fence, how can there be "undiscovered blood" somewhere else in the neighbourhood? If you want to continue to accuse the prosecution and the Mulder that's your perrogative....it doesn't make Darlie innocent. There is more than enough evidence, properly gathered, non contaminated that proves she committed this crime. Is Darin complicite too? Find some evidence he is and the state will be happy to prosecute him.
IIRC, Darin claims to have come downstairs (the first time) wearing only his eyeglasses. Didn't that claim change on the stand? If Darin did stab one or both of the boys...or inflicted Darlie's wounds....smart of him to not be wearing a shirt! No evidence found = no evidence, right?

That brings me to my next juvenile statement: just because someone didn't see a get away car in the alley, doesn't mean there wasn't one there.

Only one knife presented to the jury because that's the one that killed Damon, the only murder being prosecuted. Let me say again, I am impressed with the prosecution. They were practically flawless. I don't believe they tried to frame Darlie. I do think they overstepped professional ethical lines (apparently it was legal) when they did the mock trials (or whatever you want to call them) with all the witnesses present to hear what everyone else was going to testify to on the stand.

If only Mulder had been half as prepared or clever, Darlie may have had a fair defense.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 10-27-2007, 10:47 AM
accordn2me accordn2me is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: LSU
Posts: 1,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by cami View Post
tsk tsk...Laber is Darlie's expert and he would not have allowed that trial to continue had he found any evidence that implicated Darin...it's right there in his affidavit that there is no blood on the jeans that suggests Darin was present during the stabbings so now you're refuting Darlie's own expert?
Laber was Darlie's expert until Mulder promptly fired him.

I need to read his affidavit. I was under the impression Laber believes that Darlie did not kill her sons.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 10-27-2007, 10:49 AM
accordn2me accordn2me is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: LSU
Posts: 1,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by cami View Post
You need to get your facts straight According....no one declared immediately it was an inside job...stop listening to the Darlie camp and research on your own.
I saw this detective on TV. HE said he knew it was an inside job within in minutes....OK, maybe within an hour, 60 minutes, of arriving at the house.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 10-27-2007, 10:52 AM
accordn2me accordn2me is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: LSU
Posts: 1,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by cami View Post
............................
Why don't you read the transcripts from beginning to end. .......................
time.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by cami View Post
If Darin was the killer, then Darlie had to know and if she knows why hasn't she opened her mouth? Why is she sitting on DR serving his time?
IMO, if she knows, she's guilty too.....because she tried to cover it up. Same goes for him.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 10-27-2007, 12:26 PM
nicola's Avatar
nicola nicola is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wales UK
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by cami View Post
And no evidence two knives were used.
There is evidence that there may have been two knives. If both boys were stabbed by the same knife then blood from both boys wouldve been on the knife. Only one boys blood was found on the knife and it belonged to Damon - Devons blood was not found on the knife. If the same knife was used to kill both boys then why is'nt there at least traces of Devons blood on knife?

Last edited by nicola; 10-27-2007 at 12:27 PM. Reason: spelling/grammer
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 10-28-2007, 07:56 PM
Mary456 Mary456 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southcentral Pennsylvania
Posts: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by accordn2me View Post
Laber was Darlie's expert until Mulder promptly fired him.
Uhhh, excuse me, but Mulder couldn't fire Laber, because he didn't hire him. See how that works?
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 07:05 AM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!