Thank you I had found it also! Transmission $3 hose. Car broke down the day before the crime. Doesn't say what shop the car was in or how it got there.
Last edited:
Abc Viola Davis Reviewing Darlie's Case.....
- Thread starter cami
- Start date
nannymo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
- Reaction score
- 8,409
I work with a lady who watched the latest show on Darlie and she is convinced she is innocent just because of the evidence presented on the show. I look at television now like I look at the internet. Anyone can put any information out there any way they want to and we still aren't sure if the info is correct or not. The television stations report what they want to report.....I think they all report their own biased reporting. It's up to the public to really look at all aspects of something and come to a decision. JMO
I do not believe you!
cami
Keep your fork......
Yes that's true, he would not let the Chief in.
cami
Keep your fork......
That's fine you don't have to believe me. The overwhelming physical evidence proves she did it. DNA in 2015 excludes a unknown male intruder. She has no place left to go but the DNA on those limb hairs found on the sock and the partial print being run through AFIS. Since the print was Y-STR tested in 2015 and no male DNA was found, she can't be excluded. AFIS will match it to her.
cami
Keep your fork......
All of those shows have glaring mistakes, they go for ratings and dollars and not the truth. It's more sensational if you can claim Darlie was wrongfully convicted. They sure picked a bad case. The proof of her guilt is overwhelming. They should have found a case where the defendant was actually wrongfully convicted. I see them as just DP advocates. I don't believe in the DP either.
Cooper explaining Darlie's anthropologist Dr. Jantz proved the bloody print on the table was made by an adult and not one of the boys. But the show didn't tell you that Dr. Jantz's report states according to his calculations, the print was left by a FEMALE adult. That's how these shows operate, they don't fact check at all.
Kathy Cruz claims none of the cars were in the driveway so the robbers thought no one was home. But Darlie's car was parked outside the front of the house so their surveillance failed. She also went on about the sock, once that sock was found Cron should have shut down the investigation. The sock was found long before Cron even arrived at the CS. She's another kook who thinks they should just give Darlie a new trial because she doesn't like the outcome of the first trial. Darlie is not getting a new trial ever unless it's to be tried on Devon's murder.
cami
Keep your fork......
The evidence is there for anyone to find it if they choose. And now with Darin confirming that insurance scam was a lie and he only signed the affidavit to help Darlie, I'm even more sure. Robbie Kee signed an affidavit as well. Darlie Kee told us the discussion was held at her home and Darlie stormed out with Drake in her arms. That means they all knew about it prior to Darlie's arrest and trial and none of them said a word. Then all of a sudden in 2002 there is this affidavit just in time for Darlie's appeal.
Given the unwavering support Darlie Kee has advocated for her daughter are you really going to believe that she wouldn't have hauled Darin right straight to the cops when the boys were murdered or when Darlie was arrested? The insurance scam was just a scam tried on the court that failed.
cami, I appreciate your response. I would like to respond to everything ASAP but have to work. But you made my point exactly, neither LE, the prosecution or defense knew about this until after the fact. Darin also talked about this to others.
I get your point about Darlie Kee hauling him in and I find it very disturbing that Moulder was not to go after Darin at all in her defense, if it lead to the truth.
Last edited:
I was like that after I watched Making a Murderer. If I'd just watched that series and not looked more in to the case, I'd still be thinking he was innocent.
The Last Defense was interesting and certainty biased but not as manipulative as MaM.
cami
Keep your fork......
Tina, you're very welcome. Thank you for reading my posts..
What others? What are their names and why didn't any of them come forward when the boys were murdered?
Darlie was adamant from the very first day that Darin was not the intruder she saw and that's what she told the jury and why Mulder didn't go after him. Why would Darlie be sitting on DR if Darin is involved or if he committed the murders? I think they could have made a case for accessory after the fact or perjury at the very least on Darin but chose not to since they had their killer.
cami
Keep your fork......
Not me for some reason, I came away believing Avery was guilty. but you have to dig deeper that's for sure.
Cami, your question is one that Darin damn well needs to answer and why hasn't he? And why on earth would others come forward and implicate themselves?
You know a lot about this case. I only wish that you could for a moment consider that there must be a lot more to this horrific crime that what is known from the trial.
Last edited:
cami
Keep your fork......
Unlike you, I don't believe Darin had a hand in this crime. It's as simple as that. Not one word about this so called insurance scam was even mentioned until 2002 and just in time for Darlie's direct appeal.
To believe in it then you must also believe Darlie's mother DK and her step-father Rob Kee were involved in the planning since neither of them said one word about it until 2002 and both knew. And Darlie like the lamb to the slaughter goes to trial and is found guilty when she knows her husband was setting up their house for an insurance scam at the time of the murders. I cry foul, no way would she keep her mouth shut.
There is no physical evidence anyone but Darlie committed these murders.
Well I agree to disagree! And I do not believe that DK and RK were involved in the planning, RK declined.
While I can find no explanation for her and Darin's behavior, I still do not believe she attacked her kids.
I will say this, if I had gone to my parents with a request like that 'you know anybody that can burglarize our house' they would have slapped me silly!
Last edited:
cami
Keep your fork......
Well that's your parents, it's not Darlie Kee and her husband. She's the one who relayed this story to Kathy Cruz and advised that Darlie was in the room as well.
The one little draw back in this whole story was Darin never had his car stolen. He never reported it stolen, he never collected any insurance on it and he was still driving it when Darlie killed the boys. It was the fact that some Buffoon overheard a stupid comment and took his car, told Darin what he did, and Darin had him, return the car. End of story, until 6 or 7 years later, when they are all trying to think up something to help get Darlie a pass, anything will do, and so someone (Darlie Kee) remembers this stupid fiasco, and bingo! Darin is now a criminal genius who is just waiting to scam some more insurance. I have searched and searched and I can find no arrest record for Darin Routier. No one can find any of these people he supposedly "talked to." No one can find any drug dealing on his part.
I have absolutely no doubt Darlie murdered her children and Darin helped her after the fact. The 2015 DNA tests rule out an unknown male intruder. There is no unknown male DNA on her shirt, on the murder weapon, in the smudged print blood and on the baseball cap or the sock found in the alley. Darin is excluded from the ball cap, the bloody print, her nightshirt and the sock, none of his DNA was found.
Last edited:
Oh Cami how I wish we were close friends and could sit down and have a private conversation. Right there is no paper trail to follow, no links to share, no record of criminal history. I do not want to break any rules, so I'm trying to be very careful here. There are career criminals with no known criminal history, I was surprised too, until some years ago I was quite naive about such things.
My opinion about this case did not come from anybody in the DR family or any website or DR supporter. It all started for me when I had a car with mechanical problems.
ETA: my hands are shaking
Last edited:
dreamer1985
Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2018
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 67
I know that I am late to this party here but her goes.
She says that she was in shock when they told her that she had done this. "I was totally blind sided". Funny in her arrest video she doesn't appear to be in shock or bewildered. Her deamenor is of "oh *advertiser censored* the jig is up!". It is a pure walk of shame and defeat. No wildly looking around like "this can't be happening! "
The way they quote mined that juror is atrocious. That infamous 44 second paragraph floating around in YouTube is a cut and paste job. You can see the little time jumps in between some of the sentences. The true context of those sentences are not shown. For example when when she says "how she lived doesn't make her a killer but it does raise suspicion..." She may have been talking about the way the kids were told to get their asses outside and stay out all day. Or maybe the shop till she drops spending habits made her suspicious of her priorities.
You also don't have to like the way the defendant looks in order to be a fair juror. You just have to know how to set aside your differences. I have had jury duty and tons of us in the venire were familiar with some of the witnesses and we were asked if we can still be impartial.
Just my two cents.
She says that she was in shock when they told her that she had done this. "I was totally blind sided". Funny in her arrest video she doesn't appear to be in shock or bewildered. Her deamenor is of "oh *advertiser censored* the jig is up!". It is a pure walk of shame and defeat. No wildly looking around like "this can't be happening! "
The way they quote mined that juror is atrocious. That infamous 44 second paragraph floating around in YouTube is a cut and paste job. You can see the little time jumps in between some of the sentences. The true context of those sentences are not shown. For example when when she says "how she lived doesn't make her a killer but it does raise suspicion..." She may have been talking about the way the kids were told to get their asses outside and stay out all day. Or maybe the shop till she drops spending habits made her suspicious of her priorities.
You also don't have to like the way the defendant looks in order to be a fair juror. You just have to know how to set aside your differences. I have had jury duty and tons of us in the venire were familiar with some of the witnesses and we were asked if we can still be impartial.
Just my two cents.
fridaybaker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,839
- Reaction score
- 8,761
And yet, "how she looked/looks" was so integral to who Darlie and Darin were as people. Integral to their lives and lifestyle. Darin, and Darlie, in effect, want you to notice her looks. They are all about her looks -how "sexy" she was, how appealing.
I think the transcripts of the trial are a great place to go to for evidence, but to "flesh out" the whole picture, to fully understand it, Darin's and Darlie's obsession with her looks just contributes to that.