Planned?

[beesy]

You're not making things up... his name is Allen Gore. And boy did Candy go into overkill... put the axe in Betty's body 41 times. And thanks for refreshing my memory... it wasn't "shut up", it was "shhhhhhhh". But Candy was a pretty odd duck, IMO. I remember so distinctly an article in a magazine where she was truly appalled that anyone still held the crime against her because she was found "innocent". Well, true, she was... but IMO it's okay for me to think she overdid it "a bit" by hitting Betty 41 times with an axe. In my eyes, she was not totally innocent, whether the jury found her so or not. And no, I've never seen the movie on this but I did read a book on it ("Evidence of Love"?).

Somebody needs to remind Candy that that there is no "innocent", just "not guilty" or "guilty".
Candy was a very odd duck. Betty wasn't very normal either though. Makes you wonder what "normal" is. They appeared to be, although Betty wasn't very social and tended to be needy. Neither seemed like anybody who would take an axe to a person. Alan was more worried about Betty offing herself than anything else. She was depressed, had a young baby and thought she was pregnant again. Candy was one of those women who volunteers for everything. Bible School teacher, and all kinds of things. It gives me the shivers thinking about that "shhhh" I don't know why, but it's so creepy. The book is called Evidence of Love and the movie is Murder in a Small Town. I found it on Netflix.

 

[Mary456]

Well, true, she was... but IMO it's okay for me to think she overdid it "a bit" by hitting Betty 41 times with an axe. In my eyes, she was not totally innocent, whether the jury found her so or not.

Hi, Heart of Texas! What this case really came down to, imo, was self defense. Betty was in a rage even before Candy got there, and every time Candy thought Betty was finally going to stop, Betty got up and attacked her again with the axe. I can understand how someone, in a fight for her life, would "overkill" when the attacker keeps coming back again and again, like a horror flick, lol!

James Cron (of Darlie Routier fame) was the guy who identified Candy's bloody fingerprint on the refrigerator in the laundry room, which led to her confession.

 

[beesy]

Hi, Heart of Texas! What this case really came down to, imo, was self defense. Betty was in a rage even before Candy got there, and every time Candy thought Betty was finally going to stop, Betty got up and attacked her again with the axe. I can understand how someone, in a fight for her life, would "overkill" when the attacker keeps coming back again and again, like a horror flick, lol!

James Cron (of Darlie Routier fame) was the guy who identified Candy's bloody fingerprint on the refrigerator in the laundry room, which led to her confession.

Betty was not in a rage, or if she was, she didn't show it at that point. Chit-chatting about giving a little girl peppermints if she put her face in the water is not a rage. Even after Betty got the ax, she just put it down by the kitchen door, probably feeling like a dope for getting it. The chit chat actually continued for a few mins. longer. It was all very controlled until that dang "shhhh".... and self-defense is fine if you don't hack the other person into hamburger! I sort of picture Betty acting like The Terminator LOL She wouldn't stop, but still she had way stopped when Candy went nuts on her. I remember Candy felt that Betty had ruined her life. She didn't seem to feel too terribly bad. I mean she did kill a person, no matter who started it or continued it.
What really bothers me is that Candy just went on back to the church, the church for BEEP sake! And she left Betty and Alan's young baby, not quite 2 maybe, in the house by herself. Alan was out of town so the baby was by herself for a long time. And Mary you can't overlook the fact that she showered in Betty's house. She didn't try to clean up the crime scene, but she did shower and she also had Betty's older daughter at her house. That girl's mother was dead and Candy was just going on like nothing was wrong!

 

[HeartofTexas]

I hope we don't get in trouble for talking about this case on the Darlie board... so I apologize in advance if that's a no-no. I agree with you, Beesy. Everything Candy did was self-serving... from having an affair with Betty's husband, to feeling like Betty "ruined her life", to showering in Betty's home, to leaving tBetty's young child alone in her crib until something like 11:00 that night, and then just going back to the church like nothing had happened. Again, much like with the Darlie case, it's all about them. It's never about the victims. They seem to lead normal lives, acting like they are good citizens, but then something snaps I guess... and when push comes to shove, they lie about what happened, try to sweep it under the rug, etc. Was Candy just a walking time-bomb, or was this something that could have only happened under a very precise set of circumstances? I don't know the answer to that and doubt I ever will... but I don't think I'll ever agree that her going free was proper justice for the loss of Betty's life. If Candy had accidentally killed her in an automobile accident, I can see where she would not be guilty (especially if she didn't flee the scene)... but the very fact that she did flee the scene in this case to me shows guilt, or culpability.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I am wondering about a few things. Why do you think she did it? Killing the boys wouldn't solve the cash flow problems they were having, at least not immediately. The funeral expenses were more than the insurance payout. If she did it for the "MOM" burn out factor,
that doesn't make sense either because she still had the baby to take care of. That only leaves the "attention" sympathy factor, or getting even with Darin. If it was to get even with Darin, WHY is he protecting her!?!? I had heard that she may be covering for some dirty business deals he made. Even still, I am just wondering WHAT her point was! What did she have to gain?

I don't know why she did it. Think back to every case we've heard about where a parent murdered their children. Do any of the "motives" make any sense? She wet her pants. She ate too much. She cried too much. My boyfriend didn't want to be a daddy. Do any of these reasons make any sense? I don't believe that money was a motive for Darlie in the sense that she thought she could make money off of their deaths. I think that money problems in general were a factor in making her snap the way she did. And, let's face it; funerals only cost what one is willing to spend. Suppose Darlie was starting to think that she could be a suspect and their small life insurance policy could be a motive??? Wouldn't she want to do away with that motive by spending more on their funeral than she got in life insurance? Even if it wasn't a factor, Darlie always spent more than they had. Nothing new there. I think that a combination of everything that was going wrong in her life at the time was enough to make her snap.

 

[cami]

Most importantly he talks about these children's brutal deaths, often smiling and without any semblance of negative emotion. It is like he is describing what the Empire State Building looks like on a sunny spring day. Something has sure desensitized him to the brutality of it all. I've seen people describe their pet's death more seriously than he talks about his own sons' vicious wounds. And he has never made any effort at all to even find the real killer. He's been out and about all these years. If he truly believed Darlie to be innocent, you'd think he would be investigating himself or trying to raise money to pay for a private investigation. We get none of this from Darin.

He does certainly appear to be quite stoic when he talks about the murders and the children Goody, I agree.

 

[cami]

Actually, I tend to agree with you guys on this one. You almost have to accept his word for it or believe it was just another lie, and there is enough contradicting evidence to weigh against on this.
[/color][/b]




Watch him on Leeza and the other talk shows. Sometimes he appears serious, but esp on the Leeza Show he talks about it as if he is not related to the victims. He can go over and up and down the evidence without a tremble or a stutter. The more comfortable he gets, the less he tries to project what he thinks people want to see. He just reacts. I don't see a man who is troubled by the loss of his kids. I see a man caught up in trying to free his wife,and he is not even that involved in that, other than going on TV and talking about it. He sure isn't out there looking for the one-armed man.

He does on the American Justice program as well. I can't get over him on this program, he lies about their money problems, he acts like the murder of his two boys was miniscule, just another day in his life.

 

[beesy]

I may be wrong on Doug Mulder defending Candy Montgomery because all I can find is some attorney named Don Crowder (who committed suicide in the late 90's) defending her. I guess my memory is not what it used to be! Aaacccckkkk! I could have sworn Mulder represented her. My apologies. The small town could have been either Wylie, Texas or Lucas, Texas, as I've found both in my searches. Both are pretty much between Plano and McKinney, Texas, although Wylie may be a little bit to the west.

All of those towns were involved somehow in the story. LOL..Candy drove the kids to Bible School in Lucas, needed to go to Allen for gas, then to Plano to shop at Wal-Mart and to Wylie to go to Betty's house. On her way out there, she passed thru or near McKinney.She also needed to go to another friend's house in Fairview!
Source: Evidence of Love, by John Bloom and Jim Atkinson, page 3

 

[beesy]

If Candy had accidentally killed her in an automobile accident, I can see where she would not be guilty (especially if she didn't flee the scene)... but the very fact that she did flee the scene in this case to me shows guilt, or culpability.

I'm going to quote part of the description of Betty Gore's body: "Much of the blood was....black or ......mixed with some other fluid......The elbow had a cut so wide it appeared to be severed. The inside of the cut had turned into something black and shiny..........her lips were parted, showing her front teeth......And Betty's left eye was wide open......As to her right eye, she appeared not to have one. The entire right half of her face appeared to be gone." Self-defense? You decide
Source: Evidence of Love, by John Bloom and Jim Atkinson, page 73

 

[britgirl]

Wow...fascinating posts, so much information to think about. What a complex case.

 

[Mary456]

Hi everyone. I was just wondering, for those who believe Darlie is guilty- do you think she premeditated the murders, or was it spur of the moment? Did she decide to kill her boys- or did she just snap?

I don't think there's any doubt that she premediated it, if only for a short time. The screen was cut, and there was no human blood anywhere around the window, the frame, the screen, etc.

Considering the amount of blood shed in the family room and kitchen, an intruder could not have knifed three people & gotten out through that little opening in the screen without leaving a trace of blood evidence. Just doesn't happen unless...

Darlie cut the screen before she stabbed the boys. No muss, no fuss, no blood. That's the one piece of evidence that convinced me that she premeditated the murders.

 

[beesy]

James Cron (of Darlie Routier fame) was the guy who identified Candy's bloody fingerprint on the refrigerator in the laundry room, which led to her confession.

Mary, I just finished the book and all Dr. Cron did was testify that the print was Candy's, along with other experts. Dr. Irving Stone processed the scene. She confessed to her attorney first, Crowder, and they conjured up the self-defense thingy. LE better be glad she did! The scene was completely contaminated. Neighbors, friends, cops off duty all wandering around. Twice a rookie cop picked up 2 important pieces of evidence, showed it to the Det. then had to show him where he'd found it! That goes to show you that a botched crime scene does not make a person innocent DARLIE!

 

[gemini666]

How does anyone know that Darin and Darlie argued that night?

Surely neither of them would have admitted to having a row, when it could be used against them? Did someone hear it?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

How does anyone know that Darin and Darlie argued that night?

Surely neither of them would have admitted to having a row, when it could be used against them? Did someone hear it?

Darlie's mother told me via email that they argued and she asked for a separation. It later was affirmed in an affidavit signed by Darin in one of the appellate briefs.

 

[HeartofTexas]

Did Darlie's mom by chance tell you what Darin's reaction to the request for separation was? If he agreed to it, I can see where Darlier would flip out and try to "pay him back"... but if he cried and begged her to stay, it's more difficult to see why she would have done what she did . I guess, too, it depends on whether she was sincere in asking for the separation (that is, moving forward with her life) or whether she did it to in some way manipulate Darin.

 

[Goody]

How does anyone know that Darin and Darlie argued that night?

Surely neither of them would have admitted to having a row, when it could be used against them? Did someone hear it?

Darlie said they had words in her police statement. She also said she'd been depressed that night.

 

[gemini666]

Thanks; I've just read one of the books (the only one I could get), by Don Davis.

I've also seen the Forensic Files programme.
I think she is guilty, but like others here, I find it incomprehensible that any mother could do that to her children.
The case didn't make the news in England, I only found out about it from the FF prog. and from reading on here.
Really interested now. Does anyone know if she has an appeal planned?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Did Darlie's mom by chance tell you what Darin's reaction to the request for separation was? If he agreed to it, I can see where Darlier would flip out and try to "pay him back"... but if he cried and begged her to stay, it's more difficult to see why she would have done what she did . I guess, too, it depends on whether she was sincere in asking for the separation (that is, moving forward with her life) or whether she did it to in some way manipulate Darin.

All she said was that they had an argument and she asked for a separation. She then denied ever saying it and called me a liar for years and years. It was only when Darin's affidavit confirming it that people realized it was the Darlie's, not me, who was lying.

 

[HeartofTexas]

LOL! I guess lying runs in the family, doesn't it! When pressed against the wall, lie lie lie! Did this entire family meet at a Liars Convention?

Thanks, Jeana.

 

[beesy]

Thanks; I've just read one of the books (the only one I could get), by Don Davis.

I've also seen the Forensic Files programme.
I think she is guilty, but like others here, I find it incomprehensible that any mother could do that to her children.
The case didn't make the news in England, I only found out about it from the FF prog. and from reading on here.
Really interested now. Does anyone know if she has an appeal planned?

Darlie was convicted in 1997, and has been filing appeal after appeal, so far no new trial and she's used them all up! She's asking for some DNA testing to be done, which is something different than an appeal Either way, the tests will just show she's guilty..so go ahead and do them Darlie! I think there's another woman ahead of her, but TX will get Darlie, none too soon.
You need to turn off your MomDar with this case. It's hard to separate your emotions as a mother from hers, but you just have to. Mothers do kill their children, all the time. So-called "closet" abuse happens daily and verbal abuse is out there too.