Poll: Did Darlie Routier murder her children?

[Kitty5001]

That may be true, Enigma, but it makes you wonder why Darin hasn't visited Darlie since December, 2005.

I doubt that it's due to distance, because Gatesville is only about 17 miles further from Lubbock than Dallas is (unless my calculations are incorrect). Darin's failure to visit Darlie for so long is a little...uhhhh....hinky.

Maybe the 'defend Darlie to the death' attitude finally wore off and he started to look at things objectively (there's a lot out there for him to read) and he finally came to the realization that she did it. Heck maybe he read through all of our theory's on this forum and something clicked and he went 'oh crap maybe just maybe' . With all that distance and time between them the defense novelty could have very well worn off.

 

[cami]

:doh: Perhaps reading Diane Fanning's book on Tommy Lynn Sells (THROUGH THE WINDOW, 2003) might give you a different perspective; it certainly did for me. Especially when I noted in Ch. 17, and then 19, that an innocent mother was imprisoned for a crime that TLS admitted to and knew information about. Serial killers don't need a motive; they just kill! Lots of folks have wondered if TLS killed Darlie's children, but he was in prison at that time.

I don't believe he killed Joel Harper either despite what he admitted to. I believe Fanning fed him the information.

Darlie killed her children, the evidence all points to her noone else.

MOO

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Tommy Lynn Sells' murders were sexually motivated. He killed adults as well as children, often because they were witnesses.

Not all of them were.

 

[Dean]

Interesting to read what is being said about Darlie Routier. Personally, having read about Tommy Lynn Sells (Diane Fanning's book: THROUGH THE WINDOW) I am persuaded that Darlie is innocent. TLS is not the only serial-killer-of-that-ilk out there, and Darlie's situation fits the pattern closely: others in the house not murdered, slept through the event (in TLS cases people stayed asleep even in small trailers, let alone on the 2nd floor of a large house), knife taken from kitchen, evidence found outside (but ignored by investigators!!), and the list goes on. The recent March 07 20/20 interview of TLS shows him saying that a weapon is not essential either. TLS could not have killed Darlie's boys as he was in prison at the time, but someone like him did, not their mother. Incidentally, I read that even the author who wrote about Darlie's being guilty changed her mind, as did at least one of the jurors. From what I've read, I think Darlie was convicted by a prosecution team who simply used character-assassination, not the facts, many of which were carefully ignored and never presented to the jury. Sadly, the jury fell for it. My opinion, of course, but what if YOU were in Darlie's place, would you want folks to be so quick to judge guilty? She definitely deserves another trial!

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Interesting to read what is being said about Darlie Routier. Personally, having read about Tommy Lynn Sells (Diane Fanning's book: THROUGH THE WINDOW) I am persuaded that Darlie is innocent. TLS is not the only serial-killer-of-that-ilk out there, and Darlie's situation fits the pattern closely: others in the house not murdered, slept through the event (in TLS cases people stayed asleep even in small trailers, let alone on the 2nd floor of a large house), knife taken from kitchen, evidence found outside (but ignored by investigators!!), and the list goes on. The recent March 07 20/20 interview of TLS shows him saying that a weapon is not essential either. TLS could not have killed Darlie's boys as he was in prison at the time, but someone like him did, not their mother. Incidentally, I read that even the author who wrote about Darlie's being guilty changed her mind, as did at least one of the jurors. From what I've read, I think Darlie was convicted by a prosecution team who simply used character-assassination, not the facts, many of which were carefully ignored and never presented to the jury. Sadly, the jury fell for it. My opinion, of course, but what if YOU were in Darlie's place, would you want folks to be so quick to judge guilty? She definitely deserves another trial!

No. 1, Darlie changed her story over 15 times.
No. 2, the juror said that he changed his mind because he didn't see photographs introduced into evidence that Darlie's own defense team says WERE introduced into evidence.
No. 3, the so-called "author" has too many personal problems to list, so her opinion on the guilt or innocence of Darlie is not credible.

As for judging quickly, I think you're mistaken. Most of us have been following this case since day one, have seen all of the evidence out there and have read the transcripts and other materials available. I'd hardly call that quick.

I agree that she should get a second trial, but only because of the problems with the court transcript. Everyone deserves to take their appeals as far as possible, Darlie included.

Last, but not least, you don't know the prosecutors, so for you to judge them so quickly is exactly what you're accusing us of.

 

[Mary456]

No. 1, Darlie changed her story over 15 times.
No. 2, the juror said that he changed his mind because he didn't see photographs introduced into evidence that Darlie's own defense team says WERE introduced into evidence.
No. 3, the so-called "author" has too many personal problems to list, so her opinion on the guilt or innocence of Darlie is not credible.

As for judging quickly, I think you're mistaken. Most of us have been following this case since day one, have seen all of the evidence out there and have read the transcripts and other materials available. I'd hardly call that quick.

I agree that she should get a second trial, but only because of the problems with the court transcript. Everyone deserves to take their appeals as far as possible, Darlie included.

Last, but not least, you don't know the prosecutors, so for you to judge them so quickly is exactly what you're accusing us of.

Well said, Jeana. I'm convinced that Barbara Davis, perhaps in conjunction with Chris Brown, was planning another book...this one proclaiming Darlie's innocence. Not because she believed Darlie to be innocent, but because it would have made her a pretty penny. An author changing her mind about a woman on death row would suck in a lot of naive people.

She either didn't know - or forgot - that the transcript was posted online. So when she commented that the jury never saw photos of Darlie's bruises, she was caught in her lie. Not only did the jury see the photos, but Barbara described Darlie's bruises in Precious Angels!

Her credibility suffered a serious blow, so serious that I don't think we'll be seeing a "Precious Darlie" book from Barbara Davis.

 

[nicola]

No. 1, Darlie changed her story over 15 times.
No. 2, the juror said that he changed his mind because he didn't see photographs introduced into evidence that Darlie's own defense team says WERE introduced into evidence.
No. 3, the so-called "author" has too many personal problems to list, so her opinion on the guilt or innocence of Darlie is not credible.

As for judging quickly, I think you're mistaken. Most of us have been following this case since day one, have seen all of the evidence out there and have read the transcripts and other materials available. I'd hardly call that quick.

I agree that she should get a second trial, but only because of the problems with the court transcript. Everyone deserves to take their appeals as far as possible, Darlie included.

Last, but not least, you don't know the prosecutors, so for you to judge them so quickly is exactly what you're accusing us of.

They may not know the prosecuters but you do not know Darlie, everyone is entitled to thier opinion. I also believe she is innocent, look at the evidence. I cant get my head round the fact that a sock soaked in blood was found outside the home. Why was a knife, that was found close to sock, not 'tagged and bagged' straight away. The investigiation was a 'shambles'.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

They may not know the prosecuters but you do not know Darlie, everyone is entitled to thier opinion. I also believe she is innocent, look at the evidence. I cant get my head round the fact that a sock soaked in blood was found outside the home. Why was a knife, that was found close to sock, not 'tagged and bagged' straight away. The investigiation was a 'shambles'.

Of course I LOOKED at the evidence! :slap:

 

[2sisters]

The only peice of eveidence I need is she slept through a break in, then slept throght a brutal attack on her boys. Only waking when hesitant, superficial woulds were inflicted on her.

 

[nicola]

Of course I LOOKED at the evidence! :slap:

obviously you didnt look closley enough, cause im seeing something completly different to you. If you could clear up the issues surrounding sock etc I would be grateful as no one who believes her guilt has given any explanation for this.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

obviously you didnt look closley enough, cause im seeing something completly different to you. If you could clear up the issues surrounding sock etc I would be grateful as no one who believes her guilt has given any explanation for this.

Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I didn't look closely enough. Perhaps you didn't look closely enough. For starters, how about explaining her 16 different stories.

 

[nicola]

Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I didn't look closely enough. Perhaps you didn't look closely enough. For starters, how about explaining her 16 different stories.

Could you answer my question bout sock etc please? As for the 16 different stories, this womans children had just been murdered shes bound to be confused, after all the human brain/memory is a complex thing. Since she just woke up during the attack she would initially remember very little and as time went on things would have come back to her. Some times when people are recalling an event they sometimes remember things differently. After a tradgic event such as this it would be quite common to be confused and quite wrong to expect a person to be spot on with certain facts and time scales.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Could you answer my question bout sock etc please? As for the 16 different stories, this womans children had just been murdered shes bound to be confused, after all the human brain/memory is a complex thing. Since she just woke up during the attack she would initially remember very little and as time went on things would have come back to her. Some times when people are recalling an event they sometimes remember things differently. After a tradgic event such as this it would be quite common to be confused and quite wrong to expect a person to be spot on with certain facts and time scales.

She had plenty of time to plant the sock. Moreover, how do you know she just woke up? Can you give me some evidence? These "stories" were given over a period of time. Still to this day, she cannot seem to recall how many "intruders" there were. If they were on her, if they fought her, etc. I would think that by now she would have a story that would remain consistent. Its not.

 

[cami]

Could you answer my question bout sock etc please? As for the 16 different stories, this womans children had just been murdered shes bound to be confused, after all the human brain/memory is a complex thing. Since she just woke up during the attack she would initially remember very little and as time went on things would have come back to her. Some times when people are recalling an event they sometimes remember things differently. After a tradgic event such as this it would be quite common to be confused and quite wrong to expect a person to be spot on with certain facts and time scales.

Or they could be the changes to her story every time she learned some incriminating evidence against her.

If things have come back to her, why can't she remember what the perp looks like? She was up close and fighting with him, why can't she remember? She remembered enough to tell the 911 operator and the cops when they arrived.

 

[2sisters]

Since she just woke up during the attack she would initially remember very little and as time went on things would have come back to her.

See, that's my main problem with this. She slept through a break in, slept through her boys being horribly brutalized. I do not see how a mother can sleep through that commotion. I wake up if my kids cough. i have also slept with my kids the same way they did that night and woke up constantly when they shifted, etc.

 

[Kitty5001]

obviously you didnt look closley enough, cause im seeing something completly different to you. If you could clear up the issues surrounding sock etc I would be grateful as no one who believes her guilt has given any explanation for this.

Why is it so hard to beleive that the sock (NOT drenched in blood-only some spots) was planted to make it look like an intruder? By the way, the knife you are speaking of was not found 'near' the sock, it was found in someone's backyard where there had been evidence that they had been doing some gardening work. It doesn't sound like you read all of the transcripts or reviewed evidence very much. I know there is a lot out there and I had the same view as you did until I did take the time to read it all, view all of the interviews, read all of the books and then only then put it all together-Once you do, it's a terribly sinking feeling that there is no other way but for her to have done this. If you take the emotion out of it and just look at the bare facts you will see how it all fits together like a puzzle. I would start at justicefordarelie site where all of the transcripts are listed there to read from-that will get you started.

 

[Mary456]

I cant get my head round the fact that a sock soaked in blood was found outside the home.

Nicola, the sock wasn't soaked in blood; it just had a small spot of the boys' blood on it, about the size of a nickel. What's strange about the sock is what it didn't have on it...Darlie's blood. If an intruder stabbed all three of them, you would expect her blood to be on it also.

Remember how concerned Darlie was with possible fingerprints on the knife? Well, the prosecution believed (and I agree) that Darlie used the sock to cover the knife handle when she stabbed her sons. The location of the stain on the bottom of the tube sock fits that scenario. She then removed it from the crime scene, perhaps fearing that the sock would give up incriminating evidence, which it did, in a way. Her DNA was found in the toe end of the sock.

Why was a knife, that was found close to sock, not 'tagged and bagged' straight away.

Because it had nothing to do with the crime. It was covered in mud & was obviously being used to edge a garden bed. The police questioned the owner, Gustavo Guzman, and he confirmed it. He also had an iron-clad alibi.

 

[nicola]

Why is it so hard to beleive that the sock (NOT drenched in blood-only some spots) was planted to make it look like an intruder? By the way, the knife you are speaking of was not found 'near' the sock, it was found in someone's backyard where there had been evidence that they had been doing some gardening work. It doesn't sound like you read all of the transcripts or reviewed evidence very much. I know there is a lot out there and I had the same view as you did until I did take the time to read it all, view all of the interviews, read all of the books and then only then put it all together-Once you do, it's a terribly sinking feeling that there is no other way but for her to have done this. If you take the emotion out of it and just look at the bare facts you will see how it all fits together like a puzzle. I would start at justicefordarelie site where all of the transcripts are listed there to read from-that will get you started.

Thank you for that info as I have not read any where abot it being found in someones garden. Although I still am finding it hard to see how this woman is guilty. I cant see her having enough time, after 'stabbing her kidsw', to plant the sock.I remeber reading a Drs statement that one of the boys would have had approx (cant remember exact time off top of my head) 9-11mins to live after being stabbed. Therefore, as Darlie was on phone to the 911 operator for nearly 6mins that leaves her bout 3-5mins to plant sock and viciously attack herself, and judging by the extent of her bruises/knife wounds it looks to me that there would be no way she could have done this as quickly as implied. Another thing that bothers me is the bruising/knife wounds themselves, I cant understand how a right handed person can injure thier right forarm as servere as that themselves (the wound went right to te bone). Her neck wound came within 2mm of severing her carriod artery and her necklace was embedded in the wound, if she did cut her own neck and was hesitant in doing so why wouldnt she 'go round' her necklace. The bruising on both her arms looks like she was defending herself from an attack. Since Darlie is right handed, if she did attack herself, why is the more serious wound on her right arm as I would expect it to be on her left? I really dont think she did this, after all if she did kill her kids why not wait untill they were dead to call ambulance and claim that she had been hit unconcious, why did she call an ambulance to try and save them?

 

[nicola]

See, that's my main problem with this. She slept through a break in, slept through her boys being horribly brutalized. I do not see how a mother can sleep through that commotion. I wake up if my kids cough. i have also slept with my kids the same way they did that night and woke up constantly when they shifted, etc.

There could be reasons for the fact that she didnt wake, I can only speculate. Maybe she was real tired and in a deep sleep, maybe the boys were sleeping also when they were stabbed and didnt have time to cry out. If a child is sleeping and the first 'blow' from the knife goes straight through the lungs then thier cryus would not be very loud as they would be gasping for air, another reason for them not crying out could be that the attacker may have firstly put his hand over thier mouths before stabbing them. However it happened I can say with a bit more certainty that the children would have been real scared, maybe the shock of the situation stopped them from making noise.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

There could be reasons for the fact that she didnt wake, I can only speculate. Maybe she was real tired and in a deep sleep, maybe the boys were sleeping also when they were stabbed and didnt have time to cry out. If a child is sleeping and the first 'blow' from the knife goes straight through the lungs then thier cryus would not be very loud as they would be gasping for air, another reason for them not crying out could be that the attacker may have firstly put his hand over thier mouths before stabbing them. However it happened I can say with a bit more certainty that the children would have been real scared, maybe the shock of the situation stopped them from making noise.

Her alibi for sleeping on the couch was that she was a light sleeper and the baby kept her awake all night, so saying she was in a "deep sleep" doesn't wash. Moreover, she said that one of the boys woke her up and spoke to her, so there goes another theory of your's. Nothing she says makes sense. Of course they were scared because they say their own mother attack them with a butcher knife. So, either they made noise, woke her up or not. She cannot even make up her mind after all this time. Read the transcripts. Read all 16 statements. You can't have it to suit you. The evidence speaks for itself. She lied on the witness stand and so did her husband.