Did Darlie Routier murder her precious sons? Part 2

[nicola]

Whitywendy, is it ok to send you PM? Got2 go get my daughter now but i'll be back 2mo, as usual!!! P.S. where is lexington, I know its in America but what state?

 

[whitywendy]

Whitywendy, is it ok to send you PM? Got2 go get my daughter now but i'll be back 2mo, as usual!!! P.S. where is lexington, I know its in America but what state?

Yes definately. Looking forward to it. Lexington North Carolina, HOME OF THE BBQ. SMALL TOWN in between Charlotte and Greensboro.

Wales, uh that must be pretty cool place to live.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I guess just the thought that Darlie, a mother, a woman, a so-called normal person living a normal life, with the same pressures we all have to some degree could do this. I know you believe she is innocent, which you have that right, as such I believe she is guilty. And it freaks me out because even my own mother had some major problems (worse than Darlie's, that I am aware of) and she let me and my brothers live. It's kind of hard to put it into words why. IF mental personalities are inherited (passed down from generation to generation) does it mean that one night I just might "snap" and harm my babies. LORD WILLING I DONT THINK SO. But when "we" lump it into mental disorders that's were it starts freakin me out. Sorry if I confused you.

There was nothing normal about her before the murders either.

 

[whitywendy]

There was nothing normal about her before the murders either.

Well that should make me feel better.... :innocent: thanks.

 

[White Rain]

Darlie's mother lies. Sorry, but there's no nice way to say it.

Blood evidence - whose blood and where it was located on the couch - was definitely taken from the sofa, because there was extensive testimony about it during the trial. An outline of a pillow in blood? Nope, no such thing existed. In fact, there was NO blood at all where Darlie said her head was resting on the sofa, where she said she was attacked.

When both the prosecution and the defense were finished testing and documenting evidence on the sofa, it was given back to the family. SOP.

You're right, Darlie Kee DOES lie. I especially liked the part on the Leeza show where the family was asked about the polygraph and Barbara Davis said she failed and Darlie Kee said No, she didn't fail. BUT Darlie K also never went as far on there as to say she passed, and if she had of passed that would have been one of the first things out of the family's mouth!

 

[cami]

Hi whitywendy you'll be pleased to know ive found the show on web where it is stated about the blood on sofa. Watching parts of it again I was mistaken in saying that it was just Darlies mom that said bout sofa - Barbara Davies & darlie mom state bout it so does a member of the police. Its on the http://www.justicefordarlie.net site go into the media part on left & choose the Leeza show then watch part 4.

Do you see/hear anyone from the state's side on that show? You're listening to only one side and they are lying their heads off. Darin and Mama Darlie.

Time and time again, you've been told they only way to learn this case is to read the trial transcripts. I think you're afraid to face that Darlie is actually guilty. I know none of us want to face the fact that a mother could brutally murder her own children but in this case the blood and fibre evidence prove she did it.

 

[southcitymom]

The reason I am convinced that Darlie murdered her son is the fact that the intruder story from her own mouth makes absolutely no sense. There is no way an intruder would have gone after two young boys first and a grown adult next.

I also find the blood splatter evidence to be absolutely damning.

Of course, there is a gob of other evidence, but it all goes back to that intruder story for me. It doesn't make a lick of sense unless I believe that murderous lunatics roam the night and enter strange houses and kill children in cold blood for no reason - and I don't believe that.

This case haunts me like no other - possibly because I have never been able to really "get" why she did it. I've read and come up with endless theories, but they all leave me confused. Additionally, I am usually able to feel some amount of human compassion for people who do terrible things, but I struggle with that in this case.

The whole thing is evil and that's not a word I toss around loosely.

 

[whitywendy]

This case haunts me like no other - possibly because I have never been able to really "get" why she did it. I've read and come up with endless theories, but they all leave me confused. Additionally, I am usually able to feel some amount of human compassion for people who do terrible things, but I struggle with that in this case.

The whole thing is evil and that's not a word I toss around loosely.

I completely agree.

 

[nicola]

Do you see/hear anyone from the state's side on that show? You're listening to only one side and they are lying their heads off.
I think you're afraid to face that Darlie is actually guilty. I know none of us want to face the fact that a mother could brutally murder her own children but in this case the blood and fibre evidence prove she did it.

In regards to the state, yes there was people from the state, and also other people who believed she was guilty. It wasnt all from the opinion of people who believe shes innocent.
Im reading transcripts in between posting, the reason I aint read them all before is that as there is so much to get through, I have limited access to computer and the fact I simply didnt have time - down to juiggling college / kids etc. Since ive now finished college work Im getting 'stuck in' to transcripts.

When I get through transcripts I'll let you all know if my opinion has changed or not. If I think she's guilty (after reading transcripts) i'll say as Im not too proud to admit that I was wrong (if that is the case).

Its not that im afraid to 'face the facts' that Darlies guilty - its just that I have a different opinion to you.

 

[Mountaineer]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, it's very hard to have an accurately informed opinion without reading the transcripts. Keep in mind - everything else you might see/read/watch/or hear about this case on tv, in books, on websites, or whatever - may not be the truth. Darlie's family and supporters will and do lie to make her look innocent, just as people who believe she's guilty might also lie to make her look more guilty (although there is really no need for that). You can't even rely on Darlie's statements about what happened that night for the truth - as she changed her statement each time. There is a sticky at the top of this forum that takes you through each one of her statements - and how they are all different. Which one is the truth? Are any of them 100% truthful?

The most truth you will ever find on this case is in the transcripts. These people were under oath when they testified. That is typically when the truth comes out. Plus - that is where you will find the blood evidence - and it does not lie. The blood evidence alone is very damning. I would say the majority of people who take the time to read through the transcripts objectively, walk away believing she is where she belongs.

If you have limited computer time - take a look at the top of this forum. Some have gone through great lengths to put together a lot of the information in stickys there. Open those sticky threads - and print them off....then you can read them anytime. There is a wealth of information consolidated there for easy reading. I would highly recommend this!

 

[whitywendy]

The most truth you will ever find on this case is in the transcripts. These people were under oath when they testified. That is typically when the truth comes out. Plus - that is where you will find the blood evidence - and it does not lie. The blood evidence alone is very damning. I would say the majority of people who take the time to read through the transcripts objectively, walk away believing she is where she belongs.

Yep, completely agree, it happened with me.

 

[whitywendy]

Nicola - hello my friend, just some more facts to help you along your way:
Link: http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php

691. Furthermore, the Court finds, and the record demonstrates, that Brantley’s opinion that the instant crime scene was staged and that the boys were killed by someone they knew was based on many factors, including:

• The absence of similar crimes in the area (RR.40: 3662-63);
• The area was generally a low-crime area (RR.40: 3663);
• The crime scene was “high risk” for a criminal because other houses were nearby, lights were on, a car would be visible in front of the house, and the house was on a cul- de-sac (RR.40: 3663-66);
• The alleged point of entry—the window—was intimidating because of the animal cage immediately inside the garage (RR.40: 3667-70);
• Window screens are normally removed rather than cut during crimes (RR.40: 3671-72);
• The route through the garage was risky in the dark (RR.40: 3672);
• The initial focus on the children was unusual and risky given the presence of an adult (RR.40: 3673);
• The children’s wounds were dramatically different in type and severity from Applicant’s wounds (RR.40: 3673; 3678);
• Applicant’s statement that she chased the intruder out was inconsistent with typical violent crimes due to the disparity in her size and the described size of the alleged intruder (RR.40: 3673-74);
• Dropping a weapon while fleeing is risky and inconsistent with most reported crimes (RR.40: 3674);
• The location of the sock was inconsistent with a real crime because it was in the opposite direction of the exit from the cul-de-sac (RR.40: 3675);
• The children were low risk victims due to their ages and place in society, yet appeared to be the object of the attack, thus suggesting a personal motive for the attack (RR.40: 3676-77);
• The attack appeared to be a personal assault because there were no indications of theft or robbery (RR.40: 3676);
• The maximum damage to the children but minimum damage to property inside the home suggested a proprietary interest in the contents of the home (RR.40: 3679);
• The minimal damage in the living room or “Roman Room” was inconsistent with a struggle between two adults (RR.40: 3680-81; 3682-86);
• The position of the vacuum cleaner on top of blood stains suggested deliberate placement (RR.40: 3681-82; 3688);
• The absence of blood in the garage escape route (RR.40: 3682; 3690);
• The presence of window screen debris on a knife from inside the house (RR.40: 3690-91);
• The use of two knives from the same knife block inside the house in committing the offense was inconsistent because most offenders carry weapons with them to crime scenes (RR.40: 3691-93);
• The placement of one of the knives back into the knife block suggests a proprietary interest (RR.40: 3691-93);
• Jewelry was in plain view in the house but left undisturbed (RR.40: 3694-95);
• The killing of the children was inconsistent with a sexual assault attack because children are usually used as leverage to control the object of the sexual assault (RR.40: 3695-97).

692. The Court finds, and the record reveals, the absence of crime in the area and the area being a low crime area were just two of the twenty-two factors that Brantley considered in concluding that the crime scene was staged.


I always wondered about that sock. Why is it still referred to as the "bloody sock" when only 2 tiny drops of both her kids were found on it. Thats not a "bloody sock" IMO.

 

[nicola]

I always wondered about that sock. Why is it still referred to as the "bloody sock" when only 2 tiny drops of both her kids were found on it. Thats not a "bloody sock" IMO.

I know, that confused me also as I was under impression that there was alot more blood on sock than there actually was - untill I was informed:waitasec: otherwise.

 

[Dena]

I always wondered about that sock. Why is it still referred to as the "bloody sock" when only 2 tiny drops of both her kids were found on it. Thats not a "bloody sock" IMO.

For the same reason Darlie was "left for dead".

 

[cami]

SNIP

I always wondered about that sock. Why is it still referred to as the "bloody sock" when only 2 tiny drops of both her kids were found on it. Thats not a "bloody sock" IMO.

Darlie had to get rid of that sock for some reason else she would have just thrown it in her yard if she wanted to plant it..I think she wrapped around the knife handle, got rid of it and then when she realized Damon was still alive she had to use the knife again and the sock was outside....

"I touched it, I picked it up" "we could have gotten the prints maybe"

statements she made whilst on the 911 call.

 

[whitywendy]

SNIP




Darlie had to get rid of that sock for some reason else she would have just thrown it in her yard if she wanted to plant it..I think she wrapped around the knife handle, got rid of it and then when she realized Damon was still alive she had to use the knife again and the sock was outside....

"I touched it, I picked it up" "we could have gotten the prints maybe"

statements she made whilst on the 911 call.

Oh my thoughts too Cami, that was the only "reasonable" explanation I could come up with. I just didn't believe that Daren planted the sock, I think that was why he was so shocked about the sock discovery. Question; Why didn't the sock had more blood on it considering stabbing motions? Where did you find the info as to blood locations and whose blood it was? I am interested in checking it out because it helps in piecing it together.

 

[Turnadot]

I wanted her to be innocent, but after reading the transcripts....the blood spatter evidence was absolutely damning, along with the fact that the blood was contained inside the home. And the bread knife, which is the proverbial smoking gun, in my opinion.

 

[cami]

Oh my thoughts too Cami, that was the only "reasonable" explanation I could come up with. I just didn't believe that Daren planted the sock, I think that was why he was so shocked about the sock discovery. Question; Why didn't the sock had more blood on it considering stabbing motions? Where did you find the info as to blood locations and whose blood it was? I am interested in checking it out because it helps in piecing it together.

I don't know where the blood spots are located on the sock actually. I believe in the transcripts there is testimony that it contained the boys blood only and Darlie's dna in the toe.

Yes, here it is.....

13 BY MR. GREG DAVIS:
14 Q. Is one of them a mixture then?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. And finally, the sock, SWIFS item No.
17 27, what were your results?
18 A. I had six stains from the sock. One
19 stain typed as Damon Routier -- I'm sorry. Two of those
20 stains typed as Damon Routier.
21 Two typed as Devon Routier -- three
22 typed as Devon Routier. So two typed as Damon, three

23 typed as Devon Routier. The very last stain did not
24 type.
25 Q. Okay. What does that mean for the
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
3127

1 last sample? What does that mean?
2 A. I would just simply issue no result,
3 indicating that the first attempt to obtain results from
4 that one were unsuccessful.
5 Q. So five of the six you got results?
6 A. Right. That's correct.
7 Q. And on the sock, again, did you find
8 any samples that matched the blood of Darlie Routier?

9 A. Originally, when I had the sock, I
10 typed the toe, which gave a very faint typing matching
11 the D1S80 type of Darlie Routier.

12 Q. Okay. Do you have an opinion as a DNA
13 analyst as to why that sample came back to Darlie Routier
14 from the toe area? Do you have an idea of what you were
15 actually seeing there?
16 A. When I was asked to test the sock,

17 there was an interest in who might have been the wearer
18 of the sock. I tested the toe area, the heel area and
19 the band of the sock. Which typically, is a site where
20 you might obtain cells from the person having worn a

21 sock. And that is the reason that I chose that area, and
22 it did not appear to have blood stains in that particular
23 area.
24 Since I did obtain a faint typing, and
25 quite often, if you're going to get the person who might
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
3128

1 have worn the sock, it's going to be fairly faint. And
2 that is a possibility.
3 Q. Okay. Well, if -- as I wear
4 something, do I actually lose skin cells as I wear
5 something?
6 A. Certainly. Especially to clothing
7 that may be closer to your body. For instance, around
8 the collar of your shirt, the cuff of your sleeve, the
9 binding area on your sock.
10 Q. Okay. From the socks I am wearing
11 today, would you expect that at the end of the day that

12 you would actually be able to find my skin cells on this
13 sock?
14 A. Yes, I would. The more stress you're
15 under, the more cells I'm likely to find.
16 Q. You would probably see a bunch of them
17 today then, right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Would the same be true if I put this
20 sock over my hand and wore it around all day and I am
21 stressed? Would you expect to see my skin cells from my
22 hand on that sock?
23 A. That is a possibility, yes.
24 Q. And from those skin cells left on my
25 sock either from wearing it on the foot or on the hand,
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
3129

1 could you then extract DNA from those skin cells?
2 A. Yes, if there was sufficient there to
3 give a typing, I could, definitely.
4 Q. Okay. From the items that you tested
5 that we have gone over: From the comforter, the Reeboks,
6 the knife and the sock, from the samples where you got
7 results that you could report out, were there any
8 unidentified samples?
9 A. No.



http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-38.php#2



This is only speculation on my part.....the boys had seepage wounds, not spurting wounds .... the blood pooled around their bodies...so if she did use the sock around the knife handle, it p/u blood at the wound site only. It's hard for me to explain what I mean without getting graphic.

 

[whitywendy]

Thank you Cami - I completely understand now.

 

[Missi]

The reason I am convinced that Darlie murdered her son is the fact that the intruder story from her own mouth makes absolutely no sense. There is no way an intruder would have gone after two young boys first and a grown adult next.

I also find the blood splatter evidence to be absolutely damning.

Of course, there is a gob of other evidence, but it all goes back to that intruder story for me. It doesn't make a lick of sense unless I believe that murderous lunatics roam the night and enter strange houses and kill children in cold blood for no reason - and I don't believe that.

This case haunts me like no other - possibly because I have never been able to really "get" why she did it. I've read and come up with endless theories, but they all leave me confused. Additionally, I am usually able to feel some amount of human compassion for people who do terrible things, but I struggle with that in this case.

The whole thing is evil and that's not a word I toss around loosely.

Seriously, NOT trying to be rude here, but are you telling me that you have never heard of any other child killer case or any killer where it didn't make sense? You truly believe that there are not lunatics that run around our streets and kill people? The Zodiac, BTK, whomever killed JonBenet, Ted Bundy,Jeffrey Dalmer, shall I go on? As far as children besides JonBenet, Paulie Klaas, Jessica Lundsford, who are these people that killed them? Are they not people that once roamed our streets and killed? For what reason? No reason makes sense. JonBenet was killed and her parents weren't. So I am sorry there is such a thing as pure evil and there is such a thing as people that break into houses and murder adults and children.....some to this day we have never caught. Of course everyone here by now knows that I do believe in Darlie's innocence, but the above statements are kinda off.