What if...

[Goody]

I have wondered if Darin and Dana might have been "seeing" each other on the sly, and that Darlie perhaps either suspected it or knew about it. Knowing Darlie, and the fact that she was molested during her younger years, her rage would be directed at Darin (and possibly men/boys) and not Dana. What if during their "fight" that night, when Darlie said she wanted a separation, Darin agreed and even went so far as to say, "suits me, I'll just start seeing your sister" (as sort of a strike back at Darlie, to let her know he still appealed to other women)... which perhaps was enough to push Darlie over the edge. A conversation along those lines could be enough for Darin to feel like he "caused" the events of that night... and even more so if he was actually "seeing" Dana.

.

The biggest problem I see is that Dana was engaged. She was only 17 and apparently dropped out of school, though I can't say that for sure. I suppose she could have been engaged and just waited to graduate before marrying, although I thought she got married not long after these killings. Or was supposed to maybe. Whatever, the girl apparently lived with her boyfriend because I recall her saying somewhere that she didn't want him to come home to an empty apartment and that is why she went home (Leeza Show maybe). That struck me as odd because she gives a totally different reason for going home that night than Darlie gives.

I think Dana and Darin flirted about but that was as far as it went. I doubt if Darlie was jealous but we don't know enough about their lives to make a real quality judgement there. I wonder if Dana will ever write a book if Darlie is executed.

 

[HeartofTexas]

Somehow I don't think anyone in that family will ever tell the truth. As you said, we don't know enough about some things and it's hard to make a quality judgment... and so much is just pure speculation. I don't get the feeling that telling the truth is a priority on that (Darlie's) side of the family (and nor with Darin, although I don't know enough about his entire side of the family to comment on). I think there are too many "family secrets" for any one of them to start spilling the beans.

 

[Goody]

Well, there could be a third question... did he do anything to cover it up... which I think he did. I truly do not think he had anything to do with the murders, and nor do I think he knew they were going to happen, and nor do I think he did anything to stop them because I don't think he saw them taking place.

Certainly possible. But doesn't it bother you that both Darin and Darlie have exactly the same "alibi"? They were both supposedly sleeping when the murders took place, in the same house but in different rooms. They were both awakened by someone else. Darin by Darlie, and Darlie by Damon. Neither of them woke up, neither heard the kids screaming, the cat screeching, or the dog barking, yet Darin claims to have heard the wine glass break even though tests proved he would not have been able to hear anything from his bedroom with the door closed.

I don't know about you, but I don't feel real comfortable believing him.

 

[Cowgirl]

Her motive couldn't have been money - at least not insurance money. With Darlie dead, Darin stood to collect a significant amount of money by some standards. Unless they were banking on book deals, movies, magazine interviews and such, money couldn't have been it.

Have you seen the photo of Damon's back on the justicefordarlie site? Those small cuts that are circled in red freak me out. What in tarnation could those be? I can't imagine! They sort of lend credence to the flipped out explanation.

You say if the crime scene was legit you could believe her. For the sake of argument, forget the screen for now, what is it about the blood that doesn't add up for you?

Her attempt to clean it up, for one thing. Who would be thinking about wiping blood up around the kitchen with murdered babies? And an intruder not taking her jewelry? So what did he want? To murder a couple little boys and injure their mother? Not buying.

 

[Goody]

Somehow I don't think anyone in that family will ever tell the truth. As you said, we don't know enough about some things and it's hard to make a quality judgment... and so much is just pure speculation. I don't get the feeling that telling the truth is a priority on that (Darlie's) side of the family (and nor with Darin, although I don't know enough about his entire side of the family to comment on). I think there are too many "family secrets" for any one of them to start spilling the beans.

That last statement of yours is probably closer to the truth than you know. I suspect Sarilda Routier supports Darlie in order to protect her son.....from what exactly I am not sure. But it seems strange to me that Darlie would be afraid that Sarilda would take her children away from her if she and Darin split up but when she is accused of murdering those children,the woman is completely devoted to her.

 

[Goody]

Her attempt to clean it up, for one thing. Who would be thinking about wiping blood up around the kitchen with murdered babies? And an intruder not taking her jewelry? So what did he want? To murder a couple little boys and injure their mother? Not buying.

What about the bloody partial fingerprint that Darlie claims belongs to the intruder but is small like a woman's and has a whorl pattern in it like Darlie's ring finger?

What about the blood on the UR door that Darlie claims she did not put there, the blood drops on the floor, and the drips on the dryer? That blood came from a BLEEDING person, not from someone transferring it. Why would she insist she didn't put it there when she is the only one who could have put it there?

 

[HeartofTexas]

Was it proven thru testing/DNA that it was definitely Darlie's blood on the UR door and the dryer and the floor? And yet she still denied it?

 

[Goody]

Was it proven thru testing/DNA that it was definitely Darlie's blood on the UR door and the dryer and the floor? And yet she still denied it?

I don't think they tested the blood on the door. I am not sure about the drops on the floor. They knew it was not the boys because they would have left a trail to follow. Their positions were very limited. Darlie was the only one able to move around. Plus the defense never challenged it except to say the intruder left it.

She must have gone into the UR before she cut her throat. Only her arm would have left those drops on the floor and what was on the door, dryer, etc, and there are no bloody footprints leading up to or in the UR.

The throat wound would not have spurted. The blood would have seeped out of the wound and been absorbed by her shirt (which we can see happened) but as it continued to seep, the shirt would not have absorbed it all so some of it would have had to have streamed down her legs to her ankles and feet. As she walked, the blood flow would continue, giving her a constant blood source to leave footprints with. When you look a the crime scene, it makes sense.

The only thing that makes me pause is wondering why she went into the UR and what she was doing there so long that she had time to bleed everywhere.

 

[HeartofTexas]

Thanks for your detailed response. I don't know how you keep all of that info in your head at one time... your recall is extraordinary. Can I ask you yet another question? If her arm was bleeding to the point there were drops on the floor, were there blood marks on the two boys that were similar in droppings (as in, from her arm)... or was it proven so to speak that she cut her arm following the boys being stabbed. Not sure if I made my question clear enough as it's all a bit convoluted.

 

[HeartofTexas]

That last statement of yours is probably closer to the truth than you know. I suspect Sarilda Routier supports Darlie in order to protect her son.....from what exactly I am not sure. But it seems strange to me that Darlie would be afraid that Sarilda would take her children away from her if she and Darin split up but when she is accused of murdering those children,the woman is completely devoted to her.

I don't really know enough about Sarilda to be talking (just what I know from the books I read and I don't remember that much)... but many many women I talked to following the murders were of the mindset that a mother just simply could not do that. Sarilda seems to be a bit from the "old school" so maybe she is just adamant that any mother, including Darlie, could not have done that. OTOH, it could be just as you said... a family secret of sorts. She could easily be protecting her son at any cost, and for what reason I don't have a clue. It would be so helpful if anyone in that family finally just screamed out what happened that night, to clear up all of the questions in all of our minds!

 

[accordn2me]

The problem with Darin doing it is that Darlie was wearing the cast off blood from the knife. That points at her, not him. She was the one who raised the knife and stabbed the boys. The evidence proves that. The only question for Darin is: Did he know it was going to happen and did he do anything to stop it?

I disagree. Mulder did not address the state's interpretation of the evidence. The state put on an aggressive, impressive, well-planned case that Mulder did nothing to counter.

If Darlie were in a fight for her life and/or defending her sons from a knife-wielding assailant, what would you say the probability of her getting cast off blood somewhere on her would be?

My question for Darin is: Did he catch her doing it, nearly kill her, then decide to cover for her?

 

[accordn2me]

The throat wound would not have spurted. The blood would have seeped out of the wound and been absorbed by her shirt (which we can see happened)

If this is true, then why would one expect to see blood on the couch?

If Darlie was lying on the couch when her throat was cut, and this was a seeping-type wound, that explains why you would not see blood there.

 

[accordn2me]

I don't mind being attacked on the above... it's no doubt filled with holes... and it's all speculation.

:waitasec:

And it doesn't make any sense.

 

[accordn2me]

Her attempt to clean it up, for one thing. Who would be thinking about wiping blood up around the kitchen with murdered babies? And an intruder not taking her jewelry? So what did he want? To murder a couple little boys and injure their mother? Not buying.

What attempt to clean it up?

I still haven't 100% ruled out an intruder so I'm still open to there being one or more than one even. Given that, I'm thinking that if there was an intruder(s), they didn't come in to rob, change their minds and butcher two sleeping kids. Dead-of-the-night house buglars are usually not violent. I would say an intuder that would do something like this was a violent-type :laugh: (I shoulda been a detective, huh), he came for something violent - murder...maybe...what if...rape...here's where the sock and the knife come in. He stuffs a sock into her mouth, begins toying with her with the knife, unfortunately one of the kids wakes up...next thing we know is Darlie on 911.

:twocents:

 

[accordn2me]

What about the blood on the UR door that Darlie claims she did not put there, the blood drops on the floor, and the drips on the dryer? That blood came from a BLEEDING person, not from someone transferring it. Why would she insist she didn't put it there when she is the only one who could have put it there?

Could you give me a link to Darlie claiming this? I can't find anything she says about it...or anything the prosecution or defense says about it for that matter. :banghead:

 

[beesy]

What attempt to clean it up?

..
Someone, guess who, wiped blood out of the sink and off the counter top next to the sink. Luminol detected this as well as some wiped up blood on the sofa. They saw Damon's handprint which had been wiped off. Luminol is a chemical which causes blood invisible to the naked eye to glow in the dark. If blood shows up when Luminol is sprayed on it, it means it was wiped off. It shows patterns, prints, how much blood, etc. The blood was in a swirl pattern indictive of cleaning up, not bleeding.

He stuffs a sock into her mouth, begins toying with her with the knife, unfortunately one of the kids wakes up...next thing we know is Darlie on 911.

There was no salvia found on the sock, only some skin cells which were Darlie's. Oh, and a deer hair, can't leave that out.

 

[accordn2me]

..
Someone, guess who, wiped blood out of the sink and off the counter top next to the sink. Luminol detected this as well as some wiped up blood on the sofa. They saw Damon's handprint which had been wiped off. Luminol is a chemical which causes blood invisible to the naked eye to glow in the dark. If blood shows up when Luminol is sprayed on it, it means it was wiped off. It shows patterns, prints, how much blood, etc. The blood was in a swirl pattern indictive of cleaning up, not bleeding.

Hmmm :waitasec: I don't think so...what's your source? Please give me a link. If it's that dam book I'm never getting, forget it! I want real proof.

 

[beesy]

Hmmm :waitasec: I don't think so...what's your source? Please give me a link. If it's that dam book I'm never getting, forget it! I want real proof.

It's not in that book because Chris would do anything to protect Darlie. It's in Patricia Springer's Flesh and Blood, pages, 104-105. Wiped up footprints, the handprint, what appeared to be Damon's butt/back sliding down the sofa and the bloody smear from where Damon crawled across the floor also showed up. When Darlie was taken on a walk-thru with LE and noticed the kitchen sink had been removed, she suddenly recalled wetting towels for the boys. No witness but Darlie places Darlie at the sink.
It's also in Barbara Davis' book, Precious Angels, can't find the page because it's nearly 6 AM here. I've read Springer's book many times so I know right where that section is.
The cover of Davis' book even shows a bloody handprint on the sofa. Of course it's a drawing and the handprint is shown in red, but the point is that it was there in red at one time before it was wiped off. This is in the transcripts somewhere, I've read it there too. The blood found by Luminol is common knowledge, not obscure at all. No blood was detected by the chemical anywhere in the garage.

 

[Cowgirl]

What about the bloody partial fingerprint that Darlie claims belongs to the intruder but is small like a woman's and has a whorl pattern in it like Darlie's ring finger?

What about the blood on the UR door that Darlie claims she did not put there, the blood drops on the floor, and the drips on the dryer? That blood came from a BLEEDING person, not from someone transferring it. Why would she insist she didn't put it there when she is the only one who could have put it there?

Exactly. The "Blood Will Tell," as that book was titled for another murderer, and those were drops of blood cast off from a bleeder, not transfer. It was such a poorly staged crime scene that the cops smelled a rat just moments after looking at the scene because Darlie started lying. When there are two savagely attacked youngsters there to distract them, the fact that the evidence looks staged that fast tells you she did a lousy job of it. A legit crime scene would have evidence of another person being there and a tiny smudge of a fingerprint is not it. For someone to do what was done, there should have been hair and fibers, etc. It was obvious that the plan was not very good. The lone sock, the cut screen from a knife from inside the house--all of it stunk out loud and it didn't take a Dick Tracy to figure out that the pieces didn't add up to anything but Darlie.

Because Dallas is in the heart of the Bible belt, I always wonder if people like her are believers. I don't see how she could be. If she is, what does she tell her maker about this? I had the same thoughts about Walker Railey.

And as far as the blood clean up at the sink, accordn, are you new to this case? That was evidence reported very early on. I am not going to chase after links about basic evidence that went undisputed at trial. This is common knowledge.

 

[HeartofTexas]

Cowgirl, I agree re the blood evidence around the sink ... that one I can remember pretty easily!

And, Accordn, re this....

I still haven't 100% ruled out an intruder so I'm still open to there being one or more than one even. Given that, I'm thinking that if there was an intruder(s), they didn't come in to rob, change their minds and butcher two sleeping kids. Dead-of-the-night house buglars are usually not violent. I would say an intuder that would do something like this was a violent-type :laugh: (I shoulda been a detective, huh), he came for something violent - murder...maybe...what if...rape...here's where the sock and the knife come in. He stuffs a sock into her mouth, begins toying with her with the knife, unfortunately one of the kids wakes up...next thing we know is Darlie on 911.
:twocents:

... I will never believe in a million years that any kind of intruder was in that house for a minute. Forgetting all the obvious stuff, like lack of DNA, hairs, fingerprints, etc., just think about how ludicrous it is that an intruder, or more than one as you mention, would feel a need to all but obliterate the lives of two small boys but NOT kill or rape the mother. An intruder hell bent on having his way with Darlie would not have wasted precious time, or risked waking up the entire household, killing two small boys. It makes no sense for an intruder to have been in that house that night. None.