Okay Eagle, here you go. I have only read a little bit about the Routier case myself, and it was after I got involved in the Ramsey case, so maybe I was already predisposed to think in a certain way. Also, much of what I have read about the Routier case has been biased in favor of Darlie being innocent, so that has also helped me to come to my decision.
The basics of the case are as follows: The family was a "self made" rich family that started by building some sort of electronic widgets in their garage. Over time, they were quite sucessful at this business and to all outside eyes, were quite well off. Darlie was extremely attractive, in an overblown, "Texas babe" sort of way. (I feel like I can say this without being considered discriminatory being from Texas myself). Any how, apparently there were some problems in the marriage that weren't known to anyone. I am not sure about whether or not either had had an affair, but there were some tough issues to be faced. Also they seemed to be having some financial trouble (perceived by the prosecution as the motive).
The night of the murders, Darlie and her two older sons (7 and 5 I think) were watching TV on the first floor in the living room. Her husband and infant son were upstairs in bed asleep. Darlie claims that an intruder gained access to the house through the garage and she woke up to find him hovering over her with a knife. She fought him off, sustaining what were called "superficial" injuries. One of these superficial injuries was a cut to her neck that came within a fraction of an inch of severing her carotid artery.
She chased him through the kitchen and fought with him more. He left through the garage. Both children had been savagely attacked with a knife. One was dead and the other was barely alive. Darlie called 911 hysterical and called up to her husband for help.
There were several issues dealing with blood spatter on her shirt, wiped up blood in the kitchen and in the sink, that were used against her in her trial. I think that there are reasonable explainations for these inconsistencies, but I'm in the minority. The screen in the garage through which the "intruder gained access" was found to have been cut from the inside, with a knife from the kitchen (it had screen fibers inbedded in it). The boys were also killed with a knife from the kitchen. One piece of evidence strongly in her favor, is that there was a bloody sock found 2 blocks away that had the blood of one of the boys on it. According to her lawyers, she would not have had time to plant it.
That is the story in a nutshell.
The things that have always struck me as similar to the Ramsey case are as follows:
1) Both were rich families to all outward appearances.
2) Both men had made their money by starting their own technology business in their garage with their wives as helpers.
3) Both mothers were very close to their own families.
4) Both crimes used items found within the house for the crime.
5) There were overt signs of staging in both crime scenes.
6) The overt staging seemed to implicate the mother in both cases.
7) There did not seem to be a good motive for either mother to suddenly snap and kill her children.
8) The parents in both cases have stuck together throughout it all providing a united front of innocence.
The major differences in the two cases:
1) Darlie and Damon cooperated fully with police; now Darlie is on death row.
2) The amount of violence in the Routier case was significantly greater than that in the Ramsey case.
RGHC agreed with me in that the two family backgrounds seemed to be similar in respect to the homegrown electronics business. He beleived that Pachaly targeted men who were sucessful in a technological field where he was unable to succeed for whatever reason. So in that respect, he thought that Pachaly may have committed both crimes for that reason. I"m not sure which holiday, July 4 maybe, that the Routier crime would fit to go along with his theory. I personally don't believe in his Pachaly as master criminal theory. But I see so many things that are similar between the two crimes that I would be willing to believe that there could be a person or group out there targeting the children and wives of men who were successful in a particular industry for some reason.
For some people, killing the man would not be good enough. Getting to him through those people closest to him, his children and his wife, would be far better. Especially if this was aboout control rather than about revenge. Why do we protect the spouse and offspring of the President? So that no one can get to him through his family. So why couldn't the same be true in these two cases? Just becuase Damon Routier and John Ramsey seem to be very non essential people, doesn't mean that they aren't useful to someone.
However, this is only one of the many theories on these two cases I have floating around in my head. These thoughts are subject to change at any time.
Eagle1, I would really like to hear a little bit more detail about what you think is going on. I can only figure out about half of what you are saying. Something about cults and religion being the root cause, but I'm not sure how it applies.