Okay the other day i was watching the Darlie Routier (SP???) case on UM as the last appeal. She was the mom on death row in Texas for supposedly killing her two oldest sons while they slept. She said she woke to an intruder standing over her and the guy slashed her but really killed those two boys. After watching the murder and the sock that was found a few blocks away I really felt she might be innocent and was shocked to think those cops being so cocky saying they have the murderer of those two boys. So i decided to do some research and after reading ALL the evidence she is guilty i believe and i was thinking that UM seems to do these Last Appeals sometimes keeping out other evidence out.

In one article i read that they brought in a luminole specialist to check for washed away blood. Well the cops were perplexed why the entire kitchen was full of blood but the kitchen sink was clean. When the guy used his light he found the entire sink had blood in it but was washed away. This would make NO SENSE for a perpitrator to do when he just killed a family. They also found a child handprint in blood on the couch washed away.

Also the screen where the person had come in had been split in half...however neither side was pushed in or out for a body to get through. I think the UM said something about the dust being undisturbed but nothign about the slit...i saw a picture on one website and it literally is a cut in a screen...no way a man came through that.

Finally and most telling with the exception of the sock, not one trace of blood was found outside the home, but in the home everything was a mess with blood...would not make sense with someone.....

So i am a little agitated with UM. If you want to do a final appeal that is all good...there are many good cases that UM got the person off. But how can you present a case so one sided to the person. They should of presented all of the facts and let the audience decide. I know i thought how could they think this woman is so guilty.....until i dug a little further in research.

Anyone else notice this???

Jeffery MacDonald

Said a similar thing happened to him and his family and although he is not on death row will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars because he too is jailed for the murder of his family - The point being UM did a segment on his story too and presented it much the same way the Routier case was presented. Jeff Macdonald comes off like a saint in his UM segment although a book written on the subject (the name escapes me at the moment) really portrays him as a stone cold killer. I personally am still on the fence about the guilt of both Routier and Macdonald but UM (since they were probably petitioned to run these segments intially by loved ones) seem to make the accused look "pretty innocent" in these final appeal segments.

Btw the only appeal case that I definatley thought the guy was guilty of his crime 100% is Stuart Heaton.
Later.

I don't know about him. I know DNA recently may have further implicated him, but why do you think he is definitely guilty?

Yes the MacDonald case is the other one i was thinking of. UM preesented it as he got a raw deal. Well like three weeks later i saw on A & E and they presented a ton of other evidence that says he did it. The most telling part was what an FBI analyst did on a "blood map". He showed all the blood types in each room and then his whole reasoning of how it each got there. It all came together and the most tellign sign was the there was no blood type of MacDonalds in the living room where he said he was attacked but a ton of his in the bathroom where they believed he stabbed himself....so i think he is very guilty too....

Makes me wonder if in other Last Appeals if UM hid facts that might of showed the person to be guilty.

It's pretty obvious from her prison interviews that Darlee absolutely loves the attention she's gotten from her supposed martyrdom.

I personally went back and forth on this case for years but have finally decided that I believe she had a bad case of post partum(sp?) depression and did the killings. I also became convinced by things she DIDNT say in her interviews; just natural things that as a mother I felt she left out. And where was her anger? Wouldnt murdered children, being falsely accused and a death sentence make a person angry? She seemed melancholy at best.

after discussing the case with several members of this board, re-watching the UM broadcast on vhs and researching a bit online - I feel 100% Heaton is guilty - my opinion and I'm sticking to it ;)

The Heaton case....can someone tell me what this is about...i don't recall.

The Heaton case....can someone tell me what this is about...i don't recall.

Stuart Heaton is the Illinois man who is serving a life sentence for the 1991 murder of Krystal Nabb. Although he was linked to the crime by DNA, he maintains his innocence. (UM did a segment on the case in December of 1994.)

You should be able to find something on the case, via Google. Go to google.com, and type "Stuart Heaton" and/or "Crystal Nabb."

bump

I watched this story on TrueCSI last night and found it quite fascinating. They had you thinking it was the Mother that did it for like 3 quarters of the story then all of a sudden they make you think it was the father who set it up and he even failed the lie detector test quite badly!

But one thing about this case was the mothers response when they asked her whether she killed her children. 'no not that i remember anyway.' what kind of response is that? Seems quite odd if you ask me.

Plus she threw a party for her kids at their grave yard a week after their death for one of her son's birthday. She seemed kinda happy in a sick way.

Any news on this case?

-Ben

Okay the other day i was watching the Darlie Routier (SP???) case on UM as the last appeal. She was the mom on death row in Texas for supposedly killing her two oldest sons while they slept. She said she woke to an intruder standing over her and the guy slashed her but really killed those two boys. After watching the murder and the sock that was found a few blocks away I really felt she might be innocent and was shocked to think those cops being so cocky saying they have the murderer of those two boys. So i decided to do some research and after reading ALL the evidence she is guilty i believe and i was thinking that UM seems to do these Last Appeals sometimes keeping out other evidence out.

In one article i read that they brought in a luminole specialist to check for washed away blood. Well the cops were perplexed why the entire kitchen was full of blood but the kitchen sink was clean. When the guy used his light he found the entire sink had blood in it but was washed away. This would make NO SENSE for a perpitrator to do when he just killed a family. They also found a child handprint in blood on the couch washed away.

Also the screen where the person had come in had been split in half...however neither side was pushed in or out for a body to get through. I think the UM said something about the dust being undisturbed but nothign about the slit...i saw a picture on one website and it literally is a cut in a screen...no way a man came through that.

Finally and most telling with the exception of the sock, not one trace of blood was found outside the home, but in the home everything was a mess with blood...would not make sense with someone.....

So i am a little agitated with UM. If you want to do a final appeal that is all good...there are many good cases that UM got the person off. But how can you present a case so one sided to the person. They should of presented all of the facts and let the audience decide. I know i thought how could they think this woman is so guilty.....until i dug a little further in research.

Anyone else notice this???


Maybe you would change your opinion from guilty back to innocent like you originally thought if you had done research on the internet and read information about Darlie's case on these websites.

http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/HerProof/CourtTV.html

http://www.victimsofthestate.org/CC/IMM.htm

Julie Rea Harper was arrested a couple of years after her son Joel Kirkpatrick's murder and given a new trial and acquitted. She is just like Darlie always claiming that an intruder killed her son. Serial Killer Tommy Lynn Sells confessed to killing the Routier boys and confessed to killing Joel after seeing Joel's story on 20/20. I am not sure if Sells killed the Routier boys like he confessed because he could have been in prison in June 1996, but I have other people on my list of suspects such as Chad Patterson,Barry Fife, and Ben Claybour. The FBI considers Sells a suspect in the Routier case but he has not been charged with the Routier boys. I am not totally sure who killed those precious boys and committed such a heinous crime but I believe with all my heart and soul that Darlie is 100% innocent. Crimewriter Barbara Davis thought Darlie did it too but she saw photos of Darlie's wounds that she claims were not seen at trial. Charlie Stamford a juror at Darlie's trial said he didn't see the photos either and now says he made a mistake in sending Darlie to death row and saying guilty. Routier is a very forgiving person and forgave Charlie for saying guilty in her 97 trial. Barbara Davis who told the world Darlie was guilty in her book Precious Angels now feels Darlie is innocent and believes in Darlie's innocence so much that she has become friends with the family and donates all proceeds from the book to Darlie's defense fund.

DDelta I think your teddy bear icon is cute.

It's pretty obvious from her prison interviews that Darlee absolutely loves the attention she's gotten from her supposed martyrdom.

I know this post is years old, but I tend to agree. I have no idea if the woman is guilty or not, but that much is apparent to me for sure.

I have a lot of questions on this case that I just havent had the time to really look into. Most of my posts on the board these days are done on breaks at work using my droid to post. So in depth research is not easily done from there. But anyway, the main question I have, and I do feel that she is likely guilty, but my question is how do you explain the sock? To me as a juror, that is the one bit of evidence that would make me doubt her being guilty. I just cannot come up with an explaination that fits the known facts and still manages to get that sock to where it was found in the time alotted.

As far as UM only presenting the final appeals in the manner they do, I would have to guess they do them a bit more one sided because as far as the case is concerned the person has already been found guilty. They are not having a trial in the UM segment. They are simply pointing out the evidence that was either overlooked, or not presented correctly at the trial of these people. UM made Jeff MacDonald appear like a saint, I agree. I think he never would have ended up where he is if he hadn't started bad mouthing the MPs on TV. At that point I think they railroaded him. In that case, no matter what else you believe, you have a man that told his story of being attacked, described at least one attacker, someone else admitted to being there and watched the crimes being commited and this person fit the description MacDonald gave, and there was even physical evidence found at the seen that backs up both stories. Yet MacDonald is still in prison. I feel that if there were video of the crime showing that MacDonald didn't do it, he would somehow still be where he is today.

Back on topic though, Darlie Routier may well have commited the crime. But there are questions that have not been answered that in my opinion, at least would have given her reasonable doubt.

What did Susan Smith (mother convicted of murdering her children) say initially after her children went missing? A black man hijacked her car and kidnapped her children. The whole "intruder" scenario is such a joke. If someone can come up with a logical motive as to why an unknown assailant would enter a house and murder two little boys then please bring it forth...I just don't see how there is one. Smiling and shooting silly string just days after your kids were MURDERED? Joke. I could see if a child died from natural causes or some disease maybe, but viciously murdered? :rolleyes:

I understand that the sillystring looks bad, but I think it is blown out of proportion. Not to sound cliche, but you never know how people are going to react in a given situation. I can see how they would want to celebrate the boy's b-day even after his death. I admit it seems strange after a murder, but people deal in different ways.

What folks these days don't seem to realize is that way back when, cemeteries were treated more like parks in many parts of the country. Families would often take a picnic to a loved one's grave. I am sure that b-days were included in this practice. To most people these days this would come off as disrespectful.

While I am not trying to explain away anything in this case, I am just trying to look at it from a different angle. I know that situations I have been in where most people are crying and acting sad, I have found myself often making jokes and trying to get people to laugh and lighten the mood. This is not to say that I do not feel bad, it is just how I deal with things differently around other people than when by myself. Privately, I am much more solemn and "normal" in how I act.

While I do think it is likely that the woman is guilty, I still think there is room for doubt. If I ever hear a reasonable explanation as to how that sock got where it did without going all conspiracy theory, because I don't think a conspiracy is the case here, then I will say she is definitely guilty. Right now I still say probably guilty though.

I understand that the sillystring looks bad, but I think it is blown out of proportion. Not to sound cliche, but you never know how people are going to react in a given situation. I can see how they would want to celebrate the boy's b-day even after his death. I admit it seems strange after a murder, but people deal in different ways.

I definitely agree with this as well. I do think Routier is an absolute glutton for attention and her innocence is questionable, but I've never understood those who hang her on that one event. If there's anything not to be trusted, it's usually the so-called court of public opinion: it's often based on colloquial moralism and expectation that doesn't always align with--or belong in--a court of law.

The silly string itself is not blown out of proportion but her lack of emotion caught on tape. Not one single tear is shed just eight days after both of your children were murdered and you were allegedly almost killed as well? Darrin isn't shown smiling and laughing around he looks more somber and grieving in the video than Darlie. And why invite a local reporter to film the whole event? Publicity? What for?

I think the reason why Darlie was not crying at the gravesite birthday is pretty much explained in the Unsolved Mysteries segment by her mother Darlie Kee. Darlie Kee said in her Unsolved Mysteries interview that all the children in the neighborhood that were invited to Devon's birthday party came to the graveside birthday party and Darlie's mother explained that Darlie didn't want to cry and boo hoo because it would scare all the children who were probably all sad that they lost their friend. Just because I can't come up with a motive as to why an intruder would kill 2 children an attack a mother doesn't mean I am wrong about Darlie's innocence. I believe Devon and Damon's true killer knows everything that happened on that night in the house and knows the motive as to why he was in there. I can rule off robbery as the motive because expensive jewelry in the house was not taken and was in plain site. I don't think the luminol test at the sink prooves that Darlie was standing by the sink when she slit her own throat or that the killer stood by the sink and wiped the knives used to stab the children clean because why would a killer take time to wash murder weapons off, killers are usually in a big hurry to exit the house so they do not get caught by the police. Darlie could have been washing blood off that she got on the sink from her own wound and that was the blood seen from the luminol test. I heard Darlie say in a prison interview on one of her media shows say why was our family a target?Why were we attacked, if she were the killer, she would know all those answers. Julie Rea Harper was in prison for killing her 10 year old son Joel in 1997 and always claimed an intruder killed her son. Serial killer Tommy Lynn Sells saw the 20/20 segment on Joel and confessed to killing him. I don't think Tommy Lynn Sells killed the Routier boys even though he confessed to doing it because he might have been in jail in 96 when the Routier boys were murdered. I believe the intruder that does exist that was in the Routier house drove a black sedan that was reported seen by the Routier house in June 1996. Police person Jimmy Patterson had a son named Chad Patterson that lived a block away from the Routier's and was convicted in a drive by shooting and released. Why haven't they done dna testing to see if his dna can be found in the Routier house and why was he never considered a suspect. Why would the Rowlett police want to protect a policemans son, if he was a criminal he should be punnished and it shouldn't matter if his father is with the Rowlett police. If Chad Patterson is the Routier boys killer, you would have to go ask him why he killed the 2 boys and tried to kill Darlie. Devon and Damon's real killer has all the answers not me and not Darlie.

You know Rowlett Police had surveilance at the boys gravesite and they showed footage of a funeral service with priests and Darlie was sobbing but the gravesite surveilance video was never shown to the jury only the gravesite birthday party known as the silly string birthday party video. It wasn't even Darlie's idea to have the silly string at the gravesite, it was Darlie's sister, the boys aunt.

You know Rowlett Police had surveilance at the boys gravesite and they showed footage of a funeral service with priests and Darlie was sobbing but the gravesite surveilance video was never shown to the jury only the gravesite birthday party known as the silly string birthday party video. It wasn't even Darlie's idea to have the silly string at the gravesite, it was Darlie's sister, the boys aunt.


Ok, seriously, who are you? It's obvious you are a friend or relative of the Routier family. You can just come out and say who you are.

Ok, seriously, who are you? It's obvious you are a friend or relative of the Routier family. You can just come out and say who you are.

I'm not sure she's connected to the case, but it would be interesting to know. All the info she's posting that seems like inside information is available on the For Darlie sites.

I am not a friend or relative of the family but I did write Darlie a letter last week telling her how I believed in her innocence. I get my information about possible suspects from Darlie Routier support sites.

I am not a friend or relative of the family but I did write Darlie a letter last week telling her how I believed in her innocence. I get my information about possible suspects from Darlie Routier support sites.

And those sites don't have anything about how at Darlie's trial several paramedics, police officers, and crime scene officials all testified that on the night of the murder Darlie never ONCE inquired about the well being of her boys? If an intruder was coming to their house to kill Darlie's boys as some sort of contract/collection hit (I think I've read that on one of those websites) why wasn't this person armed? If you're coming to kill someone usually you bring an implement to do it with! And why wasn't this person wearing gloves to conceal fingerprints? Why would this person break in and then look around the Routier house until he finds one of THEIR socks to use to conceal his fingerprints on THEIR knife that he decides to use to kill the children? And just how did this intruder slash the screen door to enter the Routier house if he didn't have the knife from the Routier kitchen beforehand? If he had another knife why not just use that one to kill the boys with? So because this guy Chad Patterson was convicted of a drive by shooting he's automatically the person who brutally stabbed two children to death? Why would they even DNA test this man, he has no relation to this case as far as I can tell.

Their was a rapist in the Dallas area that wore a sock over his hand to avoid leaving finger prints and attacked victims using knives from their kitchen so the intruder could have used knives from the Routier kitchen. I did hear that Darlie did not ask how her boys were at the hospital but I believe its because she already knew that they were dead.

From what I recall, that's right. She already knew both boys were dead so there was no need to inquire about their condition. When she called 911, she told the operator that one of the boys was dead and the other was almost dead.

I always hated Darlie and couldn't believe what a cold hearted b**** she was, dancing on her kids graves. Then I saw the other video, the one that was not permitted in court, because the cops had obtained the footage illegally.

At that point, I started having some doubts about her guilt. IMO, she was crying and upset in the secretly taped video, and was putting on a brave face for the kids when the 2nd video was filmed.

I also remember the authorities saying that she came away from the attack with almost no wounds. They said it was basically one of those cases where the perp inflicts some kind of superficial wound to make it appear that they were victimized along with the dead people. But the photos on the For Darlie site convinced me that those were no superficial wounds. She had very extensive and deep bruising in addition to the knife wounds.

There's another thread here where we're all arguing, pretty heatedly, over Darlie's guilt or innocence. I've got a lot more comments there. I believe that's where another poster said that the photos on the For Darlie site are photoshopped to make her wounds look worse than they were. I have a hard time believing that because there was at least one juror who was shown the originals of those photos. He said that it made him change his mind on Darlie's guilt.

Whether she's guilty or not, I don't think she got a fair trial. Not all of the photos were shown to the jury, even though they were admitted into evidence, and some of those photos are doozies. Her dunderheaded attorneys asked for a change of venue, even though she was already in a highly populated area from which they could draw jurors. Because of their request, she ended up in a very small town in Texas, where an overspending bleach blonde social climber with fake boobs who's accused of killing her babies for money would definitely get the death penalty.

I definitely don't agree when people claim Darlie's wounds were "superficial". Just one look through the photos of her in the hospital and you can see that they're very severe, especially the knife wound to her neck. I just think they were all self inflicted. Obviously an amateur wouldn't know where your carotid artery is at, and the odds that an attacker would slash someone's neck at a 45 degree angle is slim to none. A woman evil enough to murder her kids most certainly isn't playing with a full deck which is why I could see how Darlie could have inflicted her wounds on herself out of desperation.

One more little oddity in Darlie's behavior on the night of the murders, I guess it's plausible that she knew her kids were already dead which is why she didn't inquire about them, but in her call to 911 at least one of the boys was still alive and towards the end of the call she makes an off hand remark about "picking up the knife" and if she wouldn't have picked it up they "could've gotten prints maybe"...wouldn't you be more concerned with getting your child to a hospital instead of fingerprints? You could say she may have broken into hysterics at this point but it was only after the 911 operator repeatedly told her to not touch anything that she brought up picking up the knife, which yes, I could see if Darlie is innocent why she would have made that comment. Yet maybe it's just me but the line about the prints just casts doubt on Darlie IMO.

I just visited a pro-Darlie Routier website where they offer these seven reasons for why they think Darlie Routier was convicted of murdering her two sons:

1) Overwhelming political, media, and community pressure to solve the crime and close the case.

2) City council wanted arrest made so that upcoming fair would not be haunted.

3) City Mayor (who was previously charged with federal crimes) was selling high priced houses and preferred arrest to be within family rather than create stigma that this is a crime area for intruders.

4) First cop to arrive at scene immediately got sick at the sight of the victims and was indisposed for some time in the bathroom. He tried to hide this by changing story of what happened.

5) Cops, investigators and prosecutors made numerous errors (which are documented), needed to ensure conviction to avoid embarrassment of arresting wrong person or acquittal based on mistakes.

6) Chief Investigator looking out to avoid suspicion against his own son who was arrested and later convicted of a drug related drive by shooting along with other accomplices.

7) Since the real killer is unknown, there may be other reasons for this crime that were not yet considered.

Ok? Got all of that? Now here is my rebuttal to these seven reasons:

1) Darlie Routier was arrested eleven days after the murders. That's hardly enough time to have community "pressure" imposed upon the Rowlett PD.

2) So the city wanted to wrongfully send a housewife and mother to DEATH because they wanted all of the little kiddies to ride the ferris wheel. :rolleyes:

3) And after they got off that ferris wheel the mayor wanted to sell the parents houses so they could sleep sounder at night knowing that a vicious murderer wasn't out stalking their neighborhoods.

4) I have no idea how this is prudent to Darlie's defense. It's obvious that the officer who arrived was shaken up at the sight of two dead children. Any sane person would need some time to collect themselves after seeing that.

5) While I do think it's possible in some instances that prosecutors will refuse to admit any error they or law enforcement may have made, I don't see how the prosecution, the Rowlett PD, and a jury of Darlie's peers would have any reason to convict a woman to cover up a few "errors" made by investigators.

6) I've brought this up before, I don't see how a man who was convicted of a drive by shooting could be seen as a possible suspect in the Routier murder case. If there was more information pointing the finger at this person then it would be plastered all over the website. But no, the only reason we have to believe that this person brutally stabbed two children to death was that years after the fact he was convicted of a drive by shooting.

7) Well this is probably the one that makes sense the most. If Darlie is innocent, don't you think her defense would have brought up some possible motives for someone else to murder her kids at her trial? Well they didn't and that's because IMO the only person who had a motive (not to mention the means) to kill her children was Darlie Routier herself.

I did hear that Darlie did not ask how her boys were at the hospital but I believe its because she already knew that they were dead.

That's both true and untrue. Its true because she killed them and knew they were dead but its untrue because first responder Officer David Waddell asked Routier repeatedly to apply pressure to her son Damon's back and to tend to him, but received no response from her. However, she continued to apply pressure to her own neck wounds.

That's both true and untrue. Its true because she killed them and knew they were dead but its untrue because first responder Officer David Waddell asked Routier repeatedly to apply pressure to her son Damon's back and to tend to him, but received no response from her. However, she continued to apply pressure to her own neck wounds.

Not to mention she slept through a man repeatedly stabbing not only her but her two children just inches away.

Not to mention she slept through a man repeatedly stabbing not only her but her two children just inches away.

Absolutely. Plus, if you've ever been around young kids, they scream and holler about nothing. Imagine when a stranger is trying to kill them, they would scream like crazy, yet Darlie claims to have slept through it.

Not to mention she slept through a man repeatedly stabbing not only her but her two children just inches away.


I was watching The Routier case on American Justice and Darlie's husband was being interviewed and he was saying that he believed that Darlie fought with the intruder and was knocked unconscious and she just refers to it as waking up when she chased the intruder as he was leaving. Being stabbed is very painful, so I don't believe I could sleep through being stabbed. Darlie must not have been a heavy sleeper because the baby had kept her up the night before, so when the intruder started attacking her children, the cries and the screams would have woken her up. I am sure Darlie had a mothers instinct that something was wrong because all mother's get it. Just because I make these points doesn't mean that I think she is the killer, I still believe she is innocent. These are just valid points that make since.

I am sure Darlie had a mothers instinct that something was wrong because all mother's get it.

That's simply not scientifically verifiable. No one has been able to prove a mother's unique ability to remotely sense when her children are endangered.


Well this is probably the one that makes sense the most. If Darlie is innocent, don't you think her defense would have brought up some possible motives for someone else to murder her kids at her trial? Well they didn't and that's because IMO the only person who had a motive (not to mention the means) to kill her children was Darlie Routier herself.

That basically sums it up for me. Like I've said, I don't know if she's innocent or not. But there sure as hell is a lot of evidence to suggest Darlie is the guilty party. All other theories require something of a stretch of the imagination. Yes, they may be plausible. Are they nearly as likely as Darlie committing the crimes herself? Absolutely not.

I really don't see how she has any supporters at all. This always seemed like an open and shut case. As for her husband Darin, I think it's possible that he may have been involved as well. Not necessarily involved in the murders per se, but maybe in the coverup. He may have been the one that placed the sock in the alleyway...he definitely doesn't come off as that much of a grieving parent when he talks about giving his son mouth to mouth and having blood spurt out of his wounds.

I always hated Darlie and couldn't believe what a cold hearted b**** she was, dancing on her kids graves. Then I saw the other video, the one that was not permitted in court, because the cops had obtained the footage illegally.

Where did you see the tape??

IMO, she was crying and upset in the secretly taped video, and was putting on a brave face for the kids when the 2nd video was filmed.

She is an incredible actress. To possibly, maybe, keep yourself from going into hysterics in front of the attending children is one thing. To be downright blissful is another.


Whether she's guilty or not, I don't think she got a fair trial. Not all of the photos were shown to the jury, even though they were admitted into evidence, and some of those photos are doozies.

Really?
http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/TrialExhib.html

The fact that Darlie Routier isn't dead or wasn't even severely injured while two of her children lying next to her were brutally killed pretty much states that she killed them.

The rest is just window dressing, IMHO.

I have always believed Darlie to be guilty, and still do. I read the book several years ago.
However, the one thing that sheds the least bit of doubt onto her guilt would have to be the bruises on her arms that were not seen in photos at trial. I think it would have to be pretty hard to bruise yourself in that way unless you have help. And then that might cast suspicion on Darrin.

I have always believed Darlie to be guilty, and still do. I read the book several years ago.
However, the one thing that sheds the least bit of doubt onto her guilt would have to be the bruises on her arms that were not seen in photos at trial. I think it would have to be pretty hard to bruise yourself in that way unless you have help. And then that might cast suspicion on Darrin.

I tend to think Darrin at least helped in some way to cover up the murders. Maybe he was the one who dumped the bloody sock in the alley behind the Routier home?

I tend to think Darrin at least helped in some way to cover up the murders. Maybe he was the one who dumped the bloody sock in the alley behind the Routier home?

I agree with this and believe it be true as well. I personally think that he was the one who put the bloody sock there and not Darlie. If it were Darlie, there would have been blood spatters somewhere on the way to the place where the sock was found.

I never have understood how only Darlie was tried and convicted and how Darrin was let off scott-free and not charged with anything.

I don't know why all the people on the forum agree with the prosecuter Greg Davis that Darlie killed her children. Greg Davis was indicted in December 2010 for tampering with Government records. He is a criminal. Not very often do district attorney's and detectives and people putting an accused killer behind bars actually get in trouble with the law.


Serious Doubts

There is also serious doubt about the integrity of the investigation and trial of Ms. Routier. Claims of incompetence, bias, witness tampering, tainted evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and perjury have gained a rapid momentum as many Texans begin to reexamine the case that has held their attention for three long years. Ms. Routier, now awaiting a lethal injection, continues steadfast in her claim of innocence. Newly discovered evidence and recently released crime scene photos seem to support her. At the time of trial, the defense was only allowed 400 of the 1000 photos taken. When viewed in context, the additional 600 photos reveal the full depth of police incompetence and a severely compromised crime scene. Evidence is moved, blood is trampled on, blankets are folded and unfolded (disturbing the blood-spatter pattern), key DNA evidence is placed in paper bags from a local grocery store, and several bloody boot prints not belonging to any police officer are clearly revealed as well as two bloody finger prints, one on the alleged point of exit by the intruder. The "new" photos also contradict and impeach key testimony given by various investigators on behalf of the state. Additionally, a neighbor has now come forward saying that on the night of the murders she saw two men near the Routier home. This supports testimony by Angela Rickles who came forward after Ms. Routier's arrest and told police that two men tried to break into her home on the night of the murders. L.D. Middleton also states that on March 22, 1996 an intruder slashed a few of his window screens before finding an unlocked window over the kitchen sink. The intruder rifled through the kitchen drawers and police told Mr.Middleton, "He was probably getting a large knife in case you woke up." The Middletons live five minutes from the Routier home. They now state, "Obviously, we didn't wake up or we would both be either dead or worse, one of us might be on Death Row."

Aside from new evidence, the old evidence remains problematic. The prosecution presented a time frame that is simply not feasible and the murders could not have occurred as they theorized. There is also the blood-stained sock found 75 yards from the Routier home. The sock contains both of the boys' blood and Darlie's DNA, most likely from saliva. How it got there is something the prosecution could not answer. They didn't need to answer. They had pure emotion on their side and a nation still feeling the sting of betrayal from Susan Smith, the South Carolina woman who claimed on national television that her two young boys were abducted by a black man. Ten days later, she confessed to killing them.

I don't know why all the people on the forum agree with the prosecuter Greg Davis that Darlie killed her children. Greg Davis was indicted in December 2010 for tampering with Government records. He is a criminal. Not very often do district attorney's and detectives and people putting an accused killer behind bars actually get in trouble with the law.


Serious Doubts

There is also serious doubt about the integrity of the investigation and trial of Ms. Routier. Claims of incompetence, bias, witness tampering, tainted evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and perjury have gained a rapid momentum as many Texans begin to reexamine the case that has held their attention for three long years. Ms. Routier, now awaiting a lethal injection, continues steadfast in her claim of innocence. Newly discovered evidence and recently released crime scene photos seem to support her. At the time of trial, the defense was only allowed 400 of the 1000 photos taken. When viewed in context, the additional 600 photos reveal the full depth of police incompetence and a severely compromised crime scene. Evidence is moved, blood is trampled on, blankets are folded and unfolded (disturbing the blood-spatter pattern), key DNA evidence is placed in paper bags from a local grocery store, and several bloody boot prints not belonging to any police officer are clearly revealed as well as two bloody finger prints, one on the alleged point of exit by the intruder. The "new" photos also contradict and impeach key testimony given by various investigators on behalf of the state. Additionally, a neighbor has now come forward saying that on the night of the murders she saw two men near the Routier home. This supports testimony by Angela Rickles who came forward after Ms. Routier's arrest and told police that two men tried to break into her home on the night of the murders. L.D. Middleton also states that on March 22, 1996 an intruder slashed a few of his window screens before finding an unlocked window over the kitchen sink. The intruder rifled through the kitchen drawers and police told Mr.Middleton, "He was probably getting a large knife in case you woke up." The Middletons live five minutes from the Routier home. They now state, "Obviously, we didn't wake up or we would both be either dead or worse, one of us might be on Death Row."

Aside from new evidence, the old evidence remains problematic. The prosecution presented a time frame that is simply not feasible and the murders could not have occurred as they theorized. There is also the blood-stained sock found 75 yards from the Routier home. The sock contains both of the boys' blood and Darlie's DNA, most likely from saliva. How it got there is something the prosecution could not answer. They didn't need to answer. They had pure emotion on their side and a nation still feeling the sting of betrayal from Susan Smith, the South Carolina woman who claimed on national television that her two young boys were abducted by a black man. Ten days later, she confessed to killing them.

Davis' guilt in another criminal matter in no way obviates Darlie Routier's guilt in her own case.

Darlie Routier told an implausible tale that wasn't supported by the preponderance of evidence at the crime scene. A jury of her peers found that the evidence the prosecution presented proved her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

There has also been no other rational story told nor any suspects found since that time to make a appeals court overturn Mrs. Routier's conviction.She's been found guilty and she received what appears to have been an appropriate sentence for that guilt.

I don't know why all the people on the forum agree with the prosecuter Greg Davis that Darlie killed her children. Greg Davis was indicted in December 2010 for tampering with Government records. He is a criminal. Not very often do district attorney's and detectives and people putting an accused killer behind bars actually get in trouble with the law.


Serious Doubts

There is also serious doubt about the integrity of the investigation and trial of Ms. Routier. Claims of incompetence, bias, witness tampering, tainted evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and perjury have gained a rapid momentum as many Texans begin to reexamine the case that has held their attention for three long years. Ms. Routier, now awaiting a lethal injection, continues steadfast in her claim of innocence. Newly discovered evidence and recently released crime scene photos seem to support her. At the time of trial, the defense was only allowed 400 of the 1000 photos taken. When viewed in context, the additional 600 photos reveal the full depth of police incompetence and a severely compromised crime scene. Evidence is moved, blood is trampled on, blankets are folded and unfolded (disturbing the blood-spatter pattern), key DNA evidence is placed in paper bags from a local grocery store, and several bloody boot prints not belonging to any police officer are clearly revealed as well as two bloody finger prints, one on the alleged point of exit by the intruder. The "new" photos also contradict and impeach key testimony given by various investigators on behalf of the state. Additionally, a neighbor has now come forward saying that on the night of the murders she saw two men near the Routier home. This supports testimony by Angela Rickles who came forward after Ms. Routier's arrest and told police that two men tried to break into her home on the night of the murders. L.D. Middleton also states that on March 22, 1996 an intruder slashed a few of his window screens before finding an unlocked window over the kitchen sink. The intruder rifled through the kitchen drawers and police told Mr.Middleton, "He was probably getting a large knife in case you woke up." The Middletons live five minutes from the Routier home. They now state, "Obviously, we didn't wake up or we would both be either dead or worse, one of us might be on Death Row."

Aside from new evidence, the old evidence remains problematic. The prosecution presented a time frame that is simply not feasible and the murders could not have occurred as they theorized. There is also the blood-stained sock found 75 yards from the Routier home. The sock contains both of the boys' blood and Darlie's DNA, most likely from saliva. How it got there is something the prosecution could not answer. They didn't need to answer. They had pure emotion on their side and a nation still feeling the sting of betrayal from Susan Smith, the South Carolina woman who claimed on national television that her two young boys were abducted by a black man. Ten days later, she confessed to killing them.

Blah blah blah.

You say the same story everytime someone disagrees with you. We get it. Darlie is obviously a friend/family member of yours and you beleive she is innocent. You don't have to continue to write the same thing over and over and over.

Not very often do district attorney's and detectives and people putting an accused killer behind bars actually get in trouble with the law.

That statement simply isn't verifable. Nor necessarily true, as many D.A.s, law enforcement officers, and other individuals involved in the justice process have been reprimanded, punished, and corrected when they have been found to have committed illegal or unjust acts. Indeed, is Attorney Davis' indictment not "trouble with the law"?


Davis' guilt in another criminal matter in no way obviates Darlie Routier's guilt in her own case.

Absolutely.

I have always believed Darlie to be guilty, and still do. I read the book several years ago.
However, the one thing that sheds the least bit of doubt onto her guilt would have to be the bruises on her arms that were not seen in photos at trial. I think it would have to be pretty hard to bruise yourself in that way unless you have help. And then that might cast suspicion on Darrin.


You know if you read the book Precious Angels by Barbara Davis it would make you believe Darlie was guilty because that is the way Davis wrote the book and she had been at Darlie's trials. Davis saw photos that she did not see at the trial so she now believes Darlie is innocent and has befriended Darlie and uses all the profit from her book towards Darlie's defense fund.Charlie Stanford saw photos that he didn't see at trial too and he believed Darlie to be innocent at trial but the prosecuters and other jurors kept playing the silly string birthday party video and so he voted Darlie guilty and condemned her to death. Routier is no monster and a very forgiving person because she forgave Charlie the juror who sentenced to death. It couldn't have been easy for Darlie to forgive. If somebody sentenced me to death it would be hard for me to forgive them. Who said forgiveness was easy and a lot of people forgive even when it is not easy.

You know if you read the book Precious Angels by Barbara Davis it would make you believe Darlie was guilty because that is the way Davis wrote the book and she had been at Darlie's trials. Davis saw photos that she did not see at the trial so she now believes Darlie is innocent and has befriended Darlie and uses all the profit from her book towards Darlie's defense fund.Charlie Stanford saw photos that he didn't see at trial too and he believed Darlie to be innocent at trial but the prosecuters and other jurors kept playing the silly string birthday party video and so he voted Darlie guilty and condemned her to death. Routier is no monster and a very forgiving person because she forgave Charlie the juror who sentenced to death. It couldn't have been easy for Darlie to forgive. If somebody sentenced me to death it would be hard for me to forgive them. Who said forgiveness was easy and a lot of people forgive even when it is not easy.

Let's try this: Even if you are to believe that Mrs. Routier is NOT guilty, then why has no one been able to locate credible evidence or a credible motive that someone else besides her (or her husband) would murder her two children lying next her and not her as well? Or everyone else in the house? Using a knife from their kitchen rather using a weapon that assailant brought themselves? And get completely away w/ only a vague "description" of how they looked?

The implausibility of Mrs. Routier's story, the paucity of evidence to support it and the odds against things occurring in the manner that she said they did, makes it as close to 100% as you can get that the juror's verdict was correct.

Those charges against Greg Davis might have been unrelated to the Routier case but I think a prosecuter that is corrupt enough to tamper with government records would be corrupt enough to tamper with evidence in a murder case.No I am not a family friend of Darlie Routier. I just have a brain unlike most of the people on this forum that think Darlie is guilty.

Let's try this: Even if you are to believe that Mrs. Routier is NOT guilty, then why has no one been able to locate credible evidence or a credible motive that someone else besides her (or her husband) would murder her two children lying next her and not her as well? Or everyone else in the house? Using a knife from their kitchen rather using a weapon that assailant brought themselves? And get completely away w/ only a vague "description" of how they looked?

The implausibility of Mrs. Routier's story, the paucity of evidence to support it and the odds against things occurring in the manner that she said they did, makes it as close to 100% as you can get that the juror's verdict was correct.

Of course the real killer of the Routier boys will not come forward and give the motive for murdering the boys because the man or men might not be in prison and don't want to go to prison for their crime.Limited Dna testing has been done but the family does not have enough money to do more dna testing that was not available at the time of the murders. Just because nobody has come forward and matched someone seen at the Routier house doesn't mean that the real killer won't be found. Look at the Sherry Iberly case featured on Unsolved Mysteries. A psychic was talking to their prime suspect in the case Darryl but he was never arrested because he killed himself at his house. The real killer Scott wasn't convicted until after the year 2000. It is on this sitcom online board somewhere the real killers name.

Of course the real killer of the Routier boys will not come forward and give the motive for murdering the boys because the man or men might not be in prison and don't want to go to prison for their crime.Limited Dna testing has been done but the family does not have enough money to do more dna testing that was not available at the time of the murders. Just because nobody has come forward and matched someone seen at the Routier house doesn't mean that the real killer won't be found. Look at the Sherry Iberly case featured on Unsolved Mysteries. A psychic was talking to their prime suspect in the case Darryl but he was never arrested because he killed himself at his house. The real killer Scott wasn't convicted until after the year 2000. It is on this sitcom online board somewhere the real killers name.

That's completely different. There is a huge amount of evidence against Darlie, not just some hunch of a psychic.

Of course the real killer of the Routier boys will not come forward and give the motive for murdering the boys because the man or men might not be in prison and don't want to go to prison for their crime.Limited Dna testing has been done but the family does not have enough money to do more dna testing that was not available at the time of the murders. Just because nobody has come forward and matched someone seen at the Routier house doesn't mean that the real killer won't be found. Look at the Sherry Iberly case featured on Unsolved Mysteries. A psychic was talking to their prime suspect in the case Darryl but he was never arrested because he killed himself at his house. The real killer Scott wasn't convicted until after the year 2000. It is on this sitcom online board somewhere the real killers name.

Ok...let's try another tack: Why wasn't Routier's defense ever able to prove that another party was in the home at the time of the killing? Or develop a motive for a crime that benefited no one but Darlie Routier?

Look, even if people were to believe that some type of criminal "conspiracy" was involved in killing the Routier's children, wouldn't this same conspiracy have simply killed the Routier's themselves? Especially now that one is in prison?

Or if it was a serial killer, why hasn't this "insane child killer" struck again? This individual clearly has the ability to sneak in and out of homes undetected and not get caught. Why haven't there been other similar killings?

The correct person is in jail for these crimes.

Limited Dna testing has been done but the family does not have enough money to do more dna testing that was not available at the time of the murders.

That right there proves that you are either a Routier family member or friend. How would you know about there financial situations unless you directly knew them? And don't say your guessing either. Look, we understand that you think Darlie Routier is innocent for some crazy reason, but that does not mean that the rest of us don't have brains as you put it. Your stories of conspiracy theories and lawyers framing the Routiers have about as much chance of being true as a one legged man in an a$$ kicking contest.

Actually saw the Darlie Routier case for the first time. My initial thought? Guilty.

Now look, this isn't the first or the last time a mother will do this to her own children. Can anybody say Andrea Yates? But the common denominator is that all of these women were depressed. Darlie's own mother admits that she had post pardum depression after the third child was born even though she felt it went away. One person that for sure would not know if it went away would be Darin. He'd have lived with her and would know it.

I agree that this is eerily similar to Jeffrey MacDonald. The only problem is while there are legions of people who believe MacDonald is guilty, there is also tons of evidence that suggest he is innocent. There was an accurate description of one of the perpetrators, there was a confession from a suspect, there was a witness who claimed to see the suspect in the area and there was ample motive for the "hippies" to kill a guy in his position who was in the anti-drug movement. There is also about a 50/50 split of people on here who believe or do not believe him. This isn't the case with Darlie.

The silly string thing is also bizarre. Okay I won't hold it totally against her, but your two boys have just been murdered. You almost got killed and you might be the chief suspect at that time. How in the world are you not still balling your eyes out? Besides, there didn't seem to be too many if any children at that party was there? I think I'd keep my kids away from there if I were a parent.

Also what is the motive for the intrusion? Money? Loan sharks? If that's the case Darlie would have come forward and admitted that she had some shady dealings with some people and they were "paying her back". Hey look having strange bedfellows might not make you endearing to the public - and it might cause a lot of them to blame you for the deaths - but at least there would be a motive for a killer.

Plus there was nothing stolen. Darin, by the looks of it was a pretty decent size guy. Do you run the risk of murdering a mother and her two boys while her husband is sleeping upstairs? Do you run the risk of the baby waking up? I don't think I would.

Lastly if there was someone after Darlie why would they kill her in her home and go through all that trouble? Why off the kids too? There would surely be ample time when she is running an errand or is at home alone rather than breaking into her house and killing her wouldn't there be? And Darin didn't hear a thing until she is screaming on the phone? Hmmm. He was either in on the whole thing - which I don't believe - or he never heard any screaming while the killings were going on because there were no screams.

Plus does anyone else believe she placed the sock there BEFORE making the phone calls?

^^^^

Actually, in Jeffrey MacDonald's case the preponderance of the evidence points towards his guilt. If that crazed and drug-addled woman hadn't come forward w/ her bizarre and ever-changing testimony, this case would be almost as clear-cut as most cases tend to be.

If facts contradicting that arise (which they haven't in almost 40 years) then I can see revisiting the issue. If and/or until then. the jury made the correct decision and the right person was prosecuted.

In Darlie Routier's, the lack of a external entity's motive, the fact that she's still alive, the murder weapon coming from the home and her frankly bizarre behavior in the aftermath of the killings make her the killer. A jury thought so when presented w/ the evidence...and so do I.

=cocytus

In Darlie Routier's, the lack of a external entity's motive, the fact that she's still alive, the murder weapon coming from the home and her frankly bizarre behavior in the aftermath of the killings make her the killer. A jury thought so when presented w/ the evidence...and so do I.

Yes I found that very poorly planned as well. Why would a murderer enter a house and use a weapon within the house? The only possibility is that it is a friend or family member who is familiar with the kitchen. What if that rattling of dishes wakes someone up? There is just too much of a chance of the break in going wrong. Let's not forget either, there is absolutely no motive for a "killer" to do this.

Also, it is awfully coincidental that her two boys die but she lives. Even if you think in Hollywood movies this is exactly how it is going to be planned out. The killer murders someone then shoots/stabs themselves to make it look like they too are a victim. But that person lives. Fishy? A little bit.

And is it not a fantastic coincidence that the killer breaks into the house the exact night that Darlie and her two boys fall "asleep" in the living room. Awfully convenient, no? I truly wish her youngest boy had let out some final words once the paramedics arrived, something that would have incriminated her. Or on the flip side, had a dying boy claimed a "man" did this to him I would consider that to be accurate. Kids are honest, brutally honest, while a young boy is dying he would be unlikely to get coached and actually remember it. But there wasn't even that. There is nothing that lets Darlie off the hook at all.

Yes I found that very poorly planned as well. Why would a murderer enter a house and use a weapon within the house? The only possibility is that it is a friend or family member who is familiar with the kitchen. What if that rattling of dishes wakes someone up? There is just too much of a chance of the break in going wrong. Let's not forget either, there is absolutely no motive for a "killer" to do this.

Also, it is awfully coincidental that her two boys die but she lives. Even if you think in Hollywood movies this is exactly how it is going to be planned out. The killer murders someone then shoots/stabs themselves to make it look like they too are a victim. But that person lives. Fishy? A little bit.

And is it not a fantastic coincidence that the killer breaks into the house the exact night that Darlie and her two boys fall "asleep" in the living room. Awfully convenient, no? I truly wish her youngest boy had let out some final words once the paramedics arrived, something that would have incriminated her. Or on the flip side, had a dying boy claimed a "man" did this to him I would consider that to be accurate. Kids are honest, brutally honest, while a young boy is dying he would be unlikely to get coached and actually remember it. But there wasn't even that. There is nothing that lets Darlie off the hook at all.

There really is no evidence in favor of Darlie's innocence that's ever been presented. No one can explain the blonde hair being found in the slashed screen. No one can explain why there was blood all over the kitchen but the sink itself was spotless. No one can explain why some man would enter a house, unarmed, search the said house for a suitable weapon and an article of clothing to hide his prints, and then brutally murder two young boys and attempt to kill their mother for no apparent reason. If this intruder was hoping to sexually assault Darlie in some way but was caught off guard by the presence of her children, why not just flee? Why stab two young children to death? And no one can explain how Darlie would be able to sleep through her two children being stabbed to death inches away.

There really is no evidence in favor of Darlie's innocence that's ever been presented. No one can explain the blonde hair being found in the slashed screen. No one can explain why there was blood all over the kitchen but the sink itself was spotless. No one can explain why some man would enter a house, unarmed, search the said house for a suitable weapon and an article of clothing to hide his prints, and then brutally murder two young boys and attempt to kill their mother for no apparent reason. If this intruder was hoping to sexually assault Darlie in some way but was caught off guard by the presence of her children, why not just flee? Why stab two young children to death? And no one can explain how Darlie would be able to sleep through her two children being stabbed to death inches away.

Not to mention I know her mother claimed she had been depressed after the baby was born. Look, I know all too well about how depression can affect a person. An ex-girlfriend of mine was depressed. This pre-dated me, but when the going got tough in our relationship she tried to jump from a moving car, she grabbed a kitchen knife (more than one occasion) and nearly cut herself and she actually once smashed the rearview mirror in my car took a large chunk of glass and cut her wrist - not deep enough, but it drew enough blood. So can I imagine a depressed person getting so low on their life that they can murder in a snap judgement? Yes I can.

Also keep in mind there have been parents - good parents and good people - who have been charged with "shaken baby syndrome". I think at the end of the day while it is terrible to do to a baby you can eventually forgive the person for doing this. Darlie would have taken it one step further. She hit a boiling point yes, but this was also planned out.

Lastly, I know it is purely circumstantial but she looked far too happy in the "birthday" celebration. That is just so utterly hard to ignore. This didn't look like a "fake" kind of happy either in my mind where she was trying to just grin and bear it but was heartbroken inside. I mean come on, your kids just got slaughtered! I know the typical party line of looking at the glass half full and looking at the positive spin but it was only 8 days later! Act human, grieve! Cry. Sob. Don't put on an act. It's almost like a relieved expression that she had. Call it restrained jubilation if you want to.

Also keep in mind there have been parents - good parents and good people - who have been charged with "shaken baby syndrome". I think at the end of the day while it is terrible to do to a baby you can eventually forgive the person for doing this.

I don't think I would ever forgive someone for doing that to a defenseless baby.

I don't think I would ever forgive someone for doing that to a defenseless baby.

Perhaps, but keep in mind many people who do this are mentally ill. Diseases and disorders of the mind often compel their sufferers to commit irrational and/or harmful acts. That's why mental health assessments are conducted and sanity and competency hearings are held.

Perhaps, but keep in mind many people who do this are mentally ill. Diseases and disorders of the mind often compel their sufferers to commit irrational and/or harmful acts. That's why mental health assessments are conducted and sanity and competency hearings are held.

I was referring to a good parent who was frustrated after a long day who would actually shake their baby.

Unfortunately, as we have seen in the media recently, most people attempt to ignore mental health issues until they become a problem for OTHERS, not just the sufferers of the illnesses.

I don't think I would ever forgive someone for doing that to a defenseless baby.

It would be difficult no doubt and I'm sure it would divide families. That being said it's happened to seemingly good parents when a child won't stop crying and the stress of parenthood rears it's ugly head. It is NOT anything I condone, but it is far less worse than the premeditated crime that Darlie seemed to have pulled off.

The Routier Sillystring incident was absolutely blown out of proportion. Every time I watch a tv show about this case it pisses me off when they insinuate that this is some how proof of anything. Is she strange? Yes. Is she guilty, probably. But, in no way, shape or form is this evidence of guilt. If doing it helped her or the other family members thru the pain then good.

The Routier Sillystring incident was absolutely blown out of proportion. Every time I watch a tv show about this case it pisses me off when they insinuate that this is some how proof of anything.

Glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. I had a smile on my face when I lost my first child (stillborn) but I was (and still am) very saddened by it, more than anyone will ever know, especially since we lost our second as well. In my case, I was trying to be strong for my family and put a brave face on. How do we know she didn't bawl her eyes out before or after the video? Then again, maybe she was too depressed to even cry. My point is that the video is proof of NOTHING and should never have been entered into evidence. People all grieve differently and "not grieving right" does NOT make one a murderer.

If I had to guess, she suffered an episode of postpartum psychosis. That would explain why she is sincere in her innocence and why the evidence of an intruder doesn't add up. I do find this case fascinating in that both sides are equally sure about Darlie's innocence or guilt.

It is hard for me to get pasted her wounds. I mean they where not small wounds, damned near killed her. she had bruising, I lean more to innocence here

The Routier Sillystring incident was absolutely blown out of proportion. Every time I watch a tv show about this case it pisses me off when they insinuate that this is some how proof of anything. Is she strange? Yes. Is she guilty, probably. But, in no way, shape or form is this evidence of guilt. If doing it helped her or the other family members thru the pain then good.


I agree, you cant not say guilty because someone dose not greve the way you want them to.

Also let me add, how did the husband sleep threw the murders. I am sure the boys screamed. How could there mother, maybe she was knocked out? IDK, None of this is cut and dry.

Absolutely. Plus, if you've ever been around young kids, they scream and holler about nothing. Imagine when a stranger is trying to kill them, they would scream like crazy, yet Darlie claims to have slept through it.

I’m with you. I freely admit to being a hard sleeper, but there’s a difference between sleeping through the band kids’ early morning practice across the street from you and sleeping through your screaming children’s brutal murders. Plus wasn’t there something about how Darlie had gone out to sleep in the living room because the baby, Drake, was in bed with Darin and she wouldn’t be able to sleep with him in there? So Darlie is predominately a light sleeper, except for the night her children are murdered. How convenient. :rolleyes:

Though like with Jeffrey MacDonald, it’s the discrepancy between injuries I keep coming back to. We’re expected to believe that a guy broke into a house, killed two sleeping elementary-aged kids with several deep, thrusting chest wounds, yet when it came to the adult female who posed the most physical threat, he inexplicably changes tactics and gives her a meandering slash along her neck.

Though I have to say, I too, wonder how much involvement Darin had in all this. It’s the tube sock that really makes me wonder. Because in the timeframe between the murder and the phone call, I’m wondering if Darlie would have had the time to run several blocks in the dark and dump a tube sock. But if Darin helped with the staging, I imagine there would be more physical evidence pointing towards him. Also, wouldn’t he have likely cracked by now?

Is there any chance that the tube sock could have been hidden away and dumped in that alley some weeks later in a clumsy effort to further bolster Darlie’s story?

Yep, the silly string was way overblown. Guilty or not, the woman was in shock. I do think she is guilty, not because of silly string but because of her superficial wounds and the other evidence. It irks me to no end when people say "Well she looked (fill in the blanks)" - like what the hell? When my former father in law died, my mother in law did. not. cry. She was (and still is) just a strong and stoic woman. No doubt she loved him, crying was not her thing, at least in public.

So watched this one again,

The Husband explaining the sock. He said something like.

I think they put the sock over there hand and placed their had over her face until she passed out. So when she "work up" she was waking up from the suffocation.

I would not have thought that but it is possible and would explain if try how she would have sleep threw the killing of her children.
But the way he told his theory made me think he did it. Anyone else catch this part?

So watched this one again,

The Husband explaining the sock. He said something like.

I think they put the sock over there hand and placed their had over her face until she passed out. So when she "work up" she was waking up from the suffocation.

I would not have thought that but it is possible and would explain if try how she would have sleep threw the killing of her children.
But the way he told his theory made me think he did it. Anyone else catch this part?
I saw that and I was thinking that putting a sock over someone's mouth wouldn't make them pass out I wouldn't think unless there is something on there to make the person pass out. It doesn't make sense to me. I get the feeling the husband knew more than he was letting on. The evidence just reeks of Darlie's guilt although UM presented it in a way to make the viewer think it wasn't open and shut. The Forensic Files episode makes it clear that the evidence is overwhelming and damning against Darlie.

I've never gotten a good vibe off of Darin and I can't shake the possibility that he was involved somehow. From setting up the insurance scam that led to his house being burglarized, the comment about Darlie's breast implants, and his smiling at being told he was involved, the guy is just weird. I think it's possible it was a combination of Darin and people he hired and that Darlie really could be innocent.

I saw that and I was thinking that putting a sock over someone's mouth wouldn't make them pass out I wouldn't think unless there is something on there to make the person pass out.

Yes -- unless there is something on the sock, it actually makes a worse air seal than just a hand. Unless you jammed an entire sock in someone's mouth, this does nothing to cut off their air. It wouldn't even muffle noise that well.

I put this case in the Tim McClure/Jeffrey MacDonald/JonBenet Ramsey category in my head. There is a lot of strong evidence that a stranger broke in and did this. Yet there are disturbing facts which don't line up and the behavior of those involved (both Darlie and Darin) is odd at best. Behavior doesn't make them guilty but it sure makes you want to look in that direction.

I find it funny that both in this people claim to be sleeping through violent, horrific knife attacks on other members of the family. Even "sound sleepers" aren't going to not notice that.

There is a lot of strong evidence that a stranger broke in and did this.

Eh?

It’s pretty cut and dry to me that Darlie is 100% guilty. The only sign of any sort of break in was the window screen that was cut with a knife... a knife that was found in the Routier’s own knife block on their kitchen counter. It still had fibers from the window screen on it. Please explain how that happened?

The murder weapon also came from inside the house and originated from, you guessed it, the very same knife block on the Routier’s kitchen counter. Then there’s the blood evidence and it is absolutely overwhelming to say the least. The smoking gun to me was the couple of blood spatter spots on the back shoulder area of Darlie’s shirt that contained one of her son’s blood. There’s no way for his blood to end up on that spot and in that type of pattern on her shirt unless she was thrusting down with the knife herself.

This is just about as much of an open and shut case as UM has ever profiled. They attempted to slant the case in her favor for entertainment purposes, but once you look at all the evidence it is a slam dunk.

Eh?

It’s pretty cut and dry to me that Darlie is 100% guilty. The only sign of any sort of break in was the window screen that was cut with a knife... a knife that was found in the Routier’s own knife block on their kitchen counter. It still had fibers from the window screen on it. Please explain how that happened?

The murder weapon also came from inside the house and originated from, you guessed it, the very same knife block on the Routier’s kitchen counter. Then there’s the blood evidence and it is absolutely overwhelming to say the least. The smoking gun to me was the couple of blood spatter spots on the back shoulder area of Darlie’s shirt that contained one of her son’s blood. There’s no way for his blood to end up on that spot and in that type of pattern on her shirt unless she was thrusting down with the knife herself.

This is just about as much of an open and shut case as UM has ever profiled. They attempted to slant the case in her favor for entertainment purposes, but once you look at all the evidence it is a slam dunk.
I agree it's a strong case. Their odd behavior is one thing, but it's really the forensics that seals Darlie's guilt in my opinion. It's a strong case for sure, but of all the ones UM has presented, I think the case against Donny Hansen is even stronger. Much stronger. Other than the OJ Simpson murder trial, I can't think of another case where the guilt was so overwhelming other than cases where the perpetrator was apprehended during the commission of the crime.

I was on the fence on this one until I saw the Forensic Files episode which showed the mountain of forensic evidence against Darlie. It’s definitely worth a watch if you have access to Netflix...

I was on the fence on this one until I saw the Forensic Files episode which showed the mountain of forensic evidence against Darlie. It’s definitely worth a watch if you have access to Netflix...


I do, how would I find this?

What about her wounds, they said they where deep and almost too deep. I dont think she could have done that her self. They kinda of gets me thinking if she was in on it she was not working alone

I do, how would I find this?

Go to Forensic Files, then look under Collection 3, and the episode is "Invisible Intruder."

I was on the fence on this one until I saw the Forensic Files episode which showed the mountain of forensic evidence against Darlie. It’s definitely worth a watch if you have access to Netflix...

Holy ****... Thank you for posting this. I just watched this episode. Yikes. Darin slept through the entire attack, didn't wake up until after the attack was over, and when the police got there the first words out of his mouth were "Isn't she beautiful and doesn't she have gorgeous breasts?" Seriously -- WTF??? :confused:


Eh?

It’s pretty cut and dry to me that Darlie is 100% guilty. The only sign of any sort of break in was the window screen that was cut with a knife... a knife that was found in the Routier’s own knife block on their kitchen counter. It still had fibers from the window screen on it. Please explain how that happened?

Ok -- I stand corrected. I was basing the "strong evidence" of the intruder off of UM and a few other articles I read (which must have been pro-Darlie). After viewing the Forensic Files episode that CRicci mentioned, it is now crystal clear.

I had never heard about the fiberglass fibers before and that can't be explained any other way. I always thought the evidence pointed more towards her doing it, and now I'm convinced.

The only question in my mind is how much Darin knew about this. He sure seemed to have his s*** together for a guy whose kids were just killed and wife was nearly killed. I'm sure part of that was psychological shock, but would anyone really say to the police "Doesn't she have gorgeous breasts?" Wowza.

As for the silly string incident, I do not think that makes her guilty. However, I do think it goes to her state of mind. Everyone grieves differently but look at her reactions in the video (actual silly string aside). She is happy and relieved. She is not putting on a brave face or simply numb. We can debate about whether or not that should have been entered as evidence, but I certainly think it shows her accurate state of mind. This was weeks after the deaths of her two children, not months or years.

My own non-expert legal opinion as a prosecutor? The "silly string" video never should have been allowed into evidence. (Suck on that, Awsi! ;) ) I understand this offense happened at a different time, when we weren't doing forensic analysis on everything, but the prosecution should have focused completely on the evidence it had-- the blood spatter, etc. There was no reason to fall down the rabbit hole with the silly string. I think it actually weakens the prosecution's case and makes it look like they're grasping at strings. Silly strings. ;)

I'm not completely in one camp or the other, but knowing the silly string video is largely what got her convicted makes me ill. What some people don't understand is that it's quite common (not to mention perfectly normal) for people to still celebrate loved one's birthdays after they're gone. Look at Marlene Santana's mom. They still did a birthday cake for her and everything for years on end after she disappeared.

I think a lot of the evidence in this case is overestimated. Blood splatter evidence? Meh. Not an exact science, plus the clothes were compromised when they were folded and put in the paper bag. Fiberglass? Feh.

I think the more important things here are the ones that don't get talked about as much. Like the difference in the boys injuries. Devon was essentially hacked to death and was dead by the time the first responders arrived. Damon suffered less stab wounds, but obviously they were too much for the poor boy to take.

I don't understand how anyone could kill two children like that, but Devon's injuries suggest somebody was extremely angry at him. And that is what doesn't bode well for Darlie because how could any stranger take out that much aggression on a child they didn't know? I can't fathom it. It does make you wonder if she was sick of parenting and that was the result. Damon was a quieter child, so maybe she wasn't as annoyed with him, but he saw too much.

I really don't know.

I am watching it now,

I am all about the husband is in on this. He awoke to glass breaking, not to his kids screaming.
Then his comments to the police?
Now why would she protect him, to save her own skin I would guess. As long as she does not point the finger at him it is not pointing at her.

I am watching it now,

I am all about the husband is in on this. He awoke to glass breaking, not to his kids screaming.
Then his comments to the police?
Now why would she protect him, to save her own skin I would guess. As long as she does not point the finger at him it is not pointing at her.

I was just thinking about this and this is where I get hung up on. They were still married for many years after the incident and only semi-recently divorced. If Darlie was for sure guilty and Darin knew it, why would he remain married to her for all those years, knowing she killed two of his children? I do wonder if there was collusion on their parts.

This is off her website: Just some of HER points

** The police say there was no evidence of an intruder but: **

1) There were bloody finger/palm prints at the scene that do not match any family member. Also hairs (facial and limb) were found and were not matched with any known person in the house.

2) Two Murder weapons were used, only one was found. Two weapons because some of the deep wounds were too narrow to be made by the knife that was found. Also blood from the 7 year old was not on the knife that was found.

3) Witnesses of the intruders not taken seriously by officers, and not checked out - including sighting of a man fitting the description given earlier by Darlie.
See testimony of Officer Jimmy Patterson prior to taking the fifth.

4) Blood pattern on Darlie's clothes (w/ DNA map) is not consistent with her as the murderer.

5) The police contaminated the evidence by putting many of the bloody items in one bag before the blood was dry.

6) Contradicting statements within the four corners of the affidavit made by officer Jimmy Ray Patterson and used to swear out a warrant.

7) Mistakes in facts in the affidavit used to swear out a warrant.

8) Blood found in the garage and seen in exhibits, despite police statements to the contrary.

9) No mulch under window with slit screen, despite police statements.

10) Screen was proven in court to be cut from the outside despite early police press releases and sworn statements to the contrary.

11) There was a bloody sock found 75 yards from the house which could not have been left by Darlie or Darin because of the time line (See Mosty's explanation in closing arguments)

Article (http://starlocalmedia.com/rowlettlakeshoretimes/proven-guilty-twenty-years-later-darlie-routier-awaits-execution-for/article_fd097bc8-3330-11e6-89b4-d7bc324ef601.html) about the case from last year.

Routier told police a man was in the house and she chased him out. But the evidence told police a different story, according to Nabors.

There was T-shaped cut in the screen of a patio window in the backyard.

A bread knife was used to cut the screen and came from a knife block in the Routier family’s kitchen. There was also a butcher knife that was used to commit the murders that was also taken from the knife block in the kitchen, according to police.

The bread knife had fiberglass and PVC rubber coating on it that was consistent with the window screen hat was cut.

“One thing that didn’t add up, if the bread knife was used to cut the screen somebody had to come in, get the bread knife, cut the screen, put it back in the knife block and then get another knife to commit the murders,” Nabors said.

Another piece of damning evidence for Routier, according to Nabors, was the blood on her night gown she was wearing the night of the murders. There was cast off on the backside, right side and left side of her night gown which only meant one thing: She was holding the knife.

Damon’s and Devon’s blood was found on her night shirt.

“She’s laying on the couch and gets her throat cut, there’s no cast off on the couch where she said she was cut,” Nabors said. “None, not even blood drops.”

Investigators found out that the kitchen sink was the site of a cleanup and found blood around the sink and in it. Luminal was used in the testing. Nabors explained that sometimes there can be false positives but it was tested multiple times for clarification.

Darin, Routier’s husband, told investigators that Routier was a light sleeper. He said she often could hear the baby move around in his crib. Nabors and other investigators took issue with that statement.

“One of the problems we had was one of the children was at the foot of the couch where she was sleeping,” Nabors said, “The other one was perpendicular to that within 3 feet of her but somebody came in the house stabbed both children and then attacked her but she slept through it, that was another inconsistency in her story.”

Blood stain patterns at the scene also proved to be a deciding factor in Routier's guilt, according to Nabors. The blood stains on the floor at the scene were passive, not falling with any hasty action like running or chasing.

Nabors said the blood drops proved she was walking through the scene.

I just read that, Really if they are doing new DNA test I would love to see the out come. I would like to be 100% sure. With the sock a few houses down and no blood trail makes me think there is a whole lot more going on here.

More from her site
**Violations in due process, flawed logic, flawed procedure**


1) Key state investigators take the 5'th during cross examination by defense denying defense to challenge accuser

2) Investigator Jimmy Patterson should not have been assigned to case because his son was a potential suspect. He owns a car matching neighbors description and was a defendant in a drug related drive by shooting in which he was convicted. Another murder was committed in the same neighborhood in the same week but this information was not given to the media and the case was sealed until recently and is still unsolved.

3) Investigator concluded in first 30 minutes that Darlie was the murderer, the investigation was in the mode of building a case against Routier rather than investigating and seeing where the evidence leads. She was targeted at the expense of following up on other leads.

4) First cop testified seeing the husband in the front yard when he arrived. The 911 tape shows that the husband was in the house the entire time till paramedics showed up. Who was the man that fooled the officer?

5) Many poor investigation techniques. Crime scene video being used as training tape for other police departments on how NOT to handle crime scenes, according to the author of the book "Media Tried Justice Denied"

6) No motive and convicted for only one of two deaths.

7) Darlie called 911 while Damon is still alive. You can hear Darlie tell him to hang on.

8) Darlie and husband tried to save kids despite statements by police and investigators - listen to 911 tape.

9) State manipulated hospital personnel's attitude towards Darlie through mock trials, coercion, and abuse of authority.

10) Witnesses providing exculpatory evidence, were instructed by prosecutors under color of authority not to talk to defense attorneys.

11) At the scene, Paramedics were restricted by police, care delayed to child still alive (Damon), the very child that Darlie was convicted of killing. She was not convicted for the death of the other child (Devon) who was dead before first cop arrived. Damon died after the paramedics got to him.

12) Entire trial process was based on character assassination, not merits, I.E.: Grave video, "Trailer trash" and similar prejudicial false statements by prosecutors, witness tampering through mock trials which caused witnesses to change testimony (nurses)

13) Bugging of grave without warrant.

14) Denial of defendant to cross examine accusers. Denial of defendant to show video recordings in full context because of investigators taking the fifth.

15) Detectable incompetence of police covered up by false and manipulated testimony.

16) No follow up with Eye witnesses (the neighbors who saw the getaway car and a man fitting the description)

17) Press release say that the husband slept through the whole thing but the 911 tape shows that the husband was assisting Darlie in helping the kids until paramedics showed up.

18) Darlie waives Fifth amendment to cooperate with police in effort to find killer. Investigators take the fifth under cross examination. Who is the one that has something to hide?

19) Credibility of expert witnesses were totally discredited after trial and reported in the media. The problems included: Incompetence, Goal was to convict rather than analyze evidence (see grievance hearing filed by Officer Lynch)

20) Improper read back to the jury by the court reporter. Court reporter admits filling a falsified record for the purpose of hiding her mistake. There were tens of thousands of reported errors in the transcript (other than typos). There was other misconduct by the court reporter. Prosecutor refused to prosecute her for perjury dispite the fact that the state paid $30,000 for the transcript and she sold several copies to the media. Her conduct delayed the appeal for 2 years and resulted in 6 hearings that would have otherwise been unnecessary.