She killed her kids to collect on their life insurance policy. Apparently the Routier's were in debt and couldn't keep up with the lavish lifestyle they were living.
the only issue with that is it took more money to bury them then what the life insurance was, honestly, this is a case that's hard to prove and in my view the "evidence" isnt good enough to basically kill her (which she is in danger of). this is a case where i think the death penalty isnt great. while she was convicted and she could be guilty, there's a bit of doubt in my book to put her on death row.

while she was convicted and she could be guilty, there's a bit of doubt in my book to put her on death row.

I would agree with this, say 10 years ago, that there may be some doubt about her being guilty. But it's been almost 15 years since she was convicted and there has yet to be any new evidence that could be brought forth to show that this crime may have been committed by someone else. There has never been any other suspect brought forward, nor has there ever been any motive someone would have to do this other than Darlie. And becasue of that I think she's right where she belongs.

I would agree with this, say 10 years ago, that there may be some doubt about her being guilty. But it's been almost 15 years since she was convicted and there has yet to be any new evidence that could be brought forth to show that this crime may have been committed by someone else. There has never been any other suspect brought forward, nor has there ever been any motive someone would have to do this other than Darlie. And becasue of that I think she's right where she belongs.
i dont think she belongs on death row though, the evidence in my book was too shaky. the big reason she was convicted was a video that in MY opinion should NOT have been shown in court. As for any other suspect, the police really didnt try hard to look for others and focused on Darlie and when she does die and IF it's revealed she's innocent, then people will have some explaining to do, but in my book nothing will happen, IF Darlie is innocent, then the person who did this committed the perfect crime.

i dont think she belongs on death row though, the evidence in my book was too shaky. the big reason she was convicted was a video that in MY opinion should NOT have been shown in court. As for any other suspect, the police really didnt try hard to look for others and focused on Darlie and when she does die and IF it's revealed she's innocent, then people will have some explaining to do, but in my book nothing will happen, IF Darlie is innocent, then the person who did this committed the perfect crime.


i dont think she belongs on death row though, the evidence in my book was too shaky

Actually, the evidence of her guilt is pretty solid.

]the big reason she was convicted was a video that in MY opinion should NOT have been shown in court.


She was not convicted on a video, she was convicted on solid physical evidence....blood and fibre evidence. The SS tape is circumstantial evidence of her guilt and the State had every right to show it to the jury. Darlie portrayed herself as a greiving mother at the evidentiary hearing, the state impeached her with the SS tape.

As for any other suspect, the police really didnt try hard to look for others and focused on Darlie and when she does die and IF it's revealed she's innocent, then people will have some explaining to do, but in my book nothing will happen, IF Darlie is innocent, then the person who did this committed the perfect crime.



How do you know that and why should the cops try hard to look for alternate suspects when the CS is telling them there isn't one?

Seasoned, veteran homicide officers (Cron) know right away when they see a staged crime scene like this one was staged. It is they're jobs after all.

The hinky meter always rises when it's kids killed by intruders.

What damn intruder has a motive to kill a sleeping child when the mother is right there beside him. Why didn't he drive that knife into Darlie's torso like he did the boys'?

What damn intruder has a motive to kill a sleeping child when the mother is right there beside him. Why didn't he drive that knife into Darlie's torso like he did the boys'?

Not to mention, who breaks into a house (presumably to burglarize it, or some other nefarious motive) and when a potential eyewitness is awakened they decided to murder two young boys sleeping nearby? What threat did they pose? Why not just run away?

That point has always been misleading. While they couldn't identify the fingerprint actually belonged to conclusively, police said the fingerprint was from a smaller finger typical with a young child. In other words, it was one of the Routier boys' fingerprints on the table. I think the insurance was just an added bonus in her motive to kill the boys. I think the boys posed a threat (in her mind at least) to the lavish lifestyle she grew accustomed to, and since she was obviously manic depressive, decided to kill them.


Well that fingerprint didn't match any of the existing victims and suspects and they exhumed the two boys' body for the sole purpose of seeing if they could get a match from one of them, and they didn't...

was the house on a corner

Well that fingerprint didn't match any of the existing victims and suspects and they exhumed the two boys' body for the sole purpose of seeing if they could get a match from one of them, and they didn't...

Yet they didn't rule out the two boys either. They still said the print was consistent with a small child, not an adult male.

the aspect that made this case so tough was the publicity. while i'm all for public knowledge, it seemed like law enforcement and court systems were comprimised because of the public perceptions of the case. I guess this is the case with just about anything. it was definitely very disturbing.

Well that fingerprint didn't match any of the existing victims and suspects and they exhumed the two boys' body for the sole purpose of seeing if they could get a match from one of them, and they didn't...


Darlie has not been ruled out as the bearer of the prints, only be her defence team. The state still believes they are hers. So do I, in fact they couldn't be anyone's but Darlie's

That point has always been misleading. While they couldn't identify the fingerprint actually belonged to conclusively, police said the fingerprint was from a smaller finger typical with a young child. In other words, it was one of the Routier boys' fingerprints on the table. I think the insurance was just an added bonus in her motive to kill the boys. I think the boys posed a threat (in her mind at least) to the lavish lifestyle she grew accustomed to, and since she was obviously manic depressive, decided to kill them.


That's not quite true. James Cron testified the print was small. When asked if it was from a juvenile, Cron testified "it's possible." Anything is possible but we know it couldn't be the boys' print, Devon died where he lay and Damon who did not die right away, dragged himself to the hallway where he collapsed and was stabbed again..fatally.

What people need to understand about this bloody print and the blood running down the door is if the alleged intruder had that much blood on his hand why didn't he leave any on his exit route?

The blood tells no lies, it is what it is and all of points to Darlie as the killer....not Darin he wasn't involved...only Darlie.

I think it's appalling they exhumed those children.

I'll start this off by saying that I saw this story again for the first time in a long time (thanks to crystaldawn) and I was compelled to write down some of my thoughts. I was also inspired by the thread started by DarkDante some time ago that got the ball rolling on discussions about Glen Consagra's final appeal, and my hope is to fuel some discussion about this case to see if we can make some sense out of it. So, without further adieu, let's take a look at the final appeal of Darlie Routier. Here is a brief overview of the case and some of the pertinent facts...

At 2:30 on the morning of June 6th, 1996, Darlie Lynn Routier placed a frantic call to 911 from her home, where she lived with her husband Darin, in an upscale suburb of Dallas, Texas. She told the operator that she and her two sons had been stabbed. When the police and paramedics arrived they found that Darlie's two sons, six year old Devin, and five year old Damon, had been stabbed numerous times. Devin was already dead. Damon was in very critical condition and died en route to the hospital. Darlie had sustained serious cuts to her throat and arms. She required immediate surgery, but survived the attack. After she recovered, Darlie was arrested and charged with the stabbing deaths of her two sons. She was tried, convicted and sentenced to die via lethal injection. She remains on death row. From day one of the investigation, Darlie has proclaimed her innocence.

Darlie told investigators that she and her two sons had fallen asleep while watching TV in the downstairs family room when she suddenly awoke to see a man holding a knife in his hand standing over her. She chased the man through the kitchen and out the backdoor. She claims he dropped the murder weapon, a kitchen knife, just before leaving. She picked up the knife to defend herself in the event the man returned. It was only after this had occurred that Darlie realized she had been injured and began screaming for her husband, who was asleep upstairs with the couple's newborn baby Drake. Darlie's husband told investigators that he did not see the man, and Darlie herself was unable to give a description.

From the start, the police were skeptical of Darlie's account.

- It seemed unlikely that she would have slept through the attack and been unable to remember details of the suspect's appearance.

- The entry point was determined to be a window in the garage. The screen had been slashed and police found a single bleached blond hair on the screen. Although the hair was originally thought to belong to Darlie Routier, DNA testing proved it belonged to one of the investigating officers.

- There was a thick layer of dust on the sill underneath the window that had not been disturbed. It seemed unlikely that an intruder could have entered the window without touching the sill and disturbing the dust.

- Nothing had been stolen from the house.

- There was no blood trail along the route Darlie said the killer had traversed to exit the house.

- Three houses away from the Routier home, police found a single tube sock stained with the blood of the Routier children. Police thought it a red herring and evidence of an amateurish cover-up.

- Darlie Routier allegedly told an investigator that if she did commit the murders, she didn't remember.

- At the trial, a blood spatter expert hired by the prosecution testified that spots of blood found on the back of Darlie Routier's nightshirt were indicative of her stabbing the boys herself, as blood would have been dripping off the knife and onto her back/shoulder as she vigorously withdrew the knife from her son's bodies.

- Darlie Routier’s wounds appeared to be minor and superficial compared to the wounds sustained by the children. A medical expert testified that he believed Routier’s wounds were self inflicted and the crime scene staged.

Based on these and other facts, the prosecution built a story around the premise that Darlie was a vain and materialistic woman. She was stricken with postpartum depression following the birth of her son Drake and she murdered her two sons so that she and her husband could collect $10,000 in life insurance policies. The prosecution solidified their view that Darlie was cold hearted and uncaring by presenting a news video tape showing Darlie and her family having a party at the grave of her deceased sons and even spraying the tombstones with "silly string".

Darlie's defender's (mostly members of her family including her husband and mother as well as her defense counsel) continue to maintain that she was attacked by a unsub and is innocent.

- Darlie's mother maintains that the postpartum depression was short lived and lasted a few weeks. The murders occurred when Darlie's son Drake was eight months old.

- The insurance payouts on the two boys totaled around $10,000. Their burial costs alone were about $13,000.

- The window the intruder allegedly used to gain entrance to the house was a mere 10 inches off the ground. It seems likely that someone could have come in without touching the sill and disturbing the layer of dust.

- The police found two fingerprints at the crime scene along the killer's alleged escape route. Neither could be matched to Darlie or anyone else who was known to be in the house that night.

- Darlie's mother insists that Darlie did not make any incriminating statements to investigators at any time. Curiously, the interview in which Darlie allegedly told an investigator that she "didn't remember" killing her sons was not audio or video recorded.

- Darlie's mother also insists that the police were negligent in their collection of the crime scene evidence, and that the blood spots on the back of Darlie's nightshirt could have ended up there as a result of mishandling by the police.

- Darlie’s defenders pointed out that the injuries Darlie sustained were, in fact, very severe. A wound to her neck came close to splicing a major artery and killing her. One of the jurors later said that if had he been shown better pictures of Darlie’s wounds during the trial he would have voted to acquit her.

- Darlie and her family also point out the news footage (which became known as the “silly string tape”) was shown out of context. The murders occurred three days before Devin’s seventh birthday and Darlie insists that she and her family wanted to celebrate anyway as they had already purchased gifts and did not want to upset or scare the young friends of the two boys. The two children loved "silly string" and the Routiers thought it an appropriate way to celebrate.

- Finally, Darlie's supporters point out that there were a number of then unsolved home invasion robberies and sexual assaults committed around the same time as the attack. The perpetrator was known to wear tube socks on his hands and attack his victims with knives procured from the kitchen. The Rowlett police said they were unaware of this connection.

Darlie is still on death row today, her execution delayed by appeals. As an interesting postscript, more than 30,000 errors were found in the transcripts of Darlie’s trial. Her supporters hope that this will establish grounds for a new trial and the reversal of the verdict and death sentence.

So, what do you all think? Did Darlie murder her boys?


Yes, she did murder her two boys and self-inflicted her own cuts. Darlie's mother distorts everything and tries to spin things her way. You have to be very careful when listening to one of Darlie's team, they spin things to suit themselves or blame the police.

www.justicefordarlie.net


Be very careful of both these sites. One is run by Darlie's mother, the other a good friend of hers. They are hardly impartial and they spin whatever they can to make Darlie appear innocent...when she isn't. She's guilty as sin

my views on this case has been the same. i do NOT know if she's innocent or guilty, BUT based on the evidence at the trial, i would NOT convict her. she is suspicious, but the jury was swayed was a video. they didnt look at the evidence, it was the video. take the video out and i dont know if she gets convicted.

That's not quite true. James Cron testified the print was small. When asked if it was from a juvenile, Cron testified "it's possible." Anything is possible but we know it couldn't be the boys' print, Devon died where he lay and Damon who did not die right away, dragged himself to the hallway where he collapsed and was stabbed again..fatally.

What people need to understand about this bloody print and the blood running down the door is if the alleged intruder had that much blood on his hand why didn't he leave any on his exit route?

Regardless of what he said in his testimony, the bottom line was that it was ruled out that the print was left by an adult male. And that's who Darlie said attacked her and her boys.

Darlie has not been ruled out as the bearer of the prints, only be her defence team. The state still believes they are hers. So do I, in fact they couldn't be anyone's but Darlie's

Cami, I got way too stressed out trying to keep up with this thread (personal issues and other stuff) so I started avoiding it.

Please forgive me if this question's already been answered here, but I hope you might know the answer without having to do a bunch of research to get it. I think you've read all the transcripts and stuff, right?

Anyway, that small fingerprint.... Do you know if it was a good one, intact, not a partial print, able to be compared properly? I always thought it was weird discrepancy between both sides of the pro-Darlie/anti-Darlie groups.

Did the authorities show that it was Darlie's print, or most likely Darlie's print or something, and the pro-Darlie web sites are just denying it or trying to put doubt on that aspect of the case?

Also.... a question for anyone who knows about this stuff: Isn't it common practice for the autopsy of a murder victim to include finger printing the deceased for later use in a possible murder trial? Is it a judgement call on the part of the medical examiner or is it required by state law or anything?

I think it's a terrible shame that it wasn't done and those poor kids had to be exhumed to finally get the prints. I had forgotten about that part of the case until I read through some of the posts yesterday.

Does anyone know what's going on with the boy who survived? (Drake?) Darin divorced Darlie, right? Does he have custody of the youngest child? What's going on with that? He'd be about 15 years old now. Any info on what he thinks about his mom's guilt? Does he visit her in prison?

I just watched the Darlie Routier case on Cold Blood (ID channel) today. I think she is guilty, except:

1. In a sworn affidavit to police, Darin Routier admitted to trying hire someone to burgle their house for insurance money just weeks before the attacks.

2. Darin failed three lie detector tests. Each test consisted of four questions (plus the base-line questions, I assume). The test administrator worked with the Waco police. After the tests were completed he was so convinced Darin was guilty he tried to get him to confess (unsuccessfully).

3. Darin also admitted to police (in an affidavit) that on the night of the attack Darlie told him she wanted a separation.

4. Even though the boys only had $5,000 life insurance policies (each), Darlie's insurance policy was $200,000. Her injuries were severe. The stab in her forearm went all the way to the bone and the slash across her neck was less than a millimeter from her carotid artery.

Cold Blood suggests Darin hired someone to help him kill Darlie and the boys, for Darlie's insurance money. Only Darlie didn't die.

I was not too interested in this case until I saw the Cold Blood version. Watch this show if you get the chance.

I just watched the Darlie Routier case on Cold Blood (ID channel) today. I think she is guilty, except:

1. In a sworn affidavit to police, Darin Routier admitted to trying hire someone to burgle their house for insurance money just weeks before the attacks.

2. Darin failed three lie detector tests. Each test consisted of four questions (plus the base-line questions, I assume). The test administrator worked with the Waco police. After the tests were completed he was so convinced Darin was guilty he tried to get him to confess (unsuccessfully).

3. Darin also admitted to police (in an affidavit) that on the night of the attack Darlie told him she wanted a separation.

4. Even though the boys only had $5,000 life insurance policies (each), Darlie's insurance policy was $200,000. Her injuries were severe. The stab in her forearm went all the way to the bone and the slash across her neck was less than a millimeter from her carotid artery.

Cold Blood suggests Darin hired someone to help him kill Darlie and the boys, for Darlie's insurance money. Only Darlie didn't die.

I was not too interested in this case until I saw the Cold Blood version. Watch this show if you get the chance.

All of these issues involving Darin are the things that have made me question Darlie's guilt from the first time I heard about this case (not sure what show I first saw it on). Besides, wasn't there some sort of "deal" made that Darlie agreed to be questioned only if Darin was not? Why would anyone ask that of the police, and why would the police agree to such a thing? Unless she was willing to take a fall for him and the police didn't care as long as someone was tried and convicted? Or because she honestly didn't know he was involved and agreed to talk to police because she was the only witness and wanted sincerely to help find the killer of her children?

I am still bothered, under the above scenario of Darin being somehow responsible, as to why the youngest child was spared (no life insurance on him yet)? And I too wonder what has become of him.....

Cold Blood suggests Darin hired someone to help him kill Darlie and the boys, for Darlie's insurance money. Only Darlie didn't die.

Then how did this man Darin hired to kill his family get paid? Wouldn't that put Darin even further in debt if this were true?

Good point! Payment out of the life insurance maybe? Though that could take a long time to pay out even when the person trying to collect was not responsible for the deaths......

Then how did this man Darin hired to kill his family get paid? Wouldn't that put Darin even further in debt if this were true?

The fact that she didn't die was an accident (according to this theory). She was the main target.

The pictures they showed of her were pretty gruesome. I know she was "partying" at the graves just a few weeks later, but she appeared severely hurt the night of the attack. Her arms were black with bruises from elbow to wrist (of course that probably didn't show immediately), her stab wounds were vicious, and she lost a significant amount of blood.

All of these issues involving Darin are the things that have made me question Darlie's guilt from the first time I heard about this case (not sure what show I first saw it on). Besides, wasn't there some sort of "deal" made that Darlie agreed to be questioned only if Darin was not? Why would anyone ask that of the police, and why would the police agree to such a thing? Unless she was willing to take a fall for him and the police didn't care as long as someone was tried and convicted? Or because she honestly didn't know he was involved and agreed to talk to police because she was the only witness and wanted sincerely to help find the killer of her children?

I am still bothered, under the above scenario of Darin being somehow responsible, as to why the youngest child was spared (no life insurance on him yet)? And I too wonder what has become of him.....

I have not heard about any deal she made protecting Darin. If true, then it adds to the mystery. Even if she honestly did not not suspect him, why the need for the deal? Just let the police do their job. Odd..

I think the youngest child has a Facebook account. So at least he's alive. (And networking socially :-) )

my views on this case has been the same. i do NOT know if she's innocent or guilty, BUT based on the evidence at the trial, i would NOT convict her.


That's exactly what I was going to say. I'm amazed by how many people in this thread have said "well, I'm not sure if she's guilty or not, but I would vote to convict." How could you vote to put someone on death row if you're not SURE they are guilty? The state has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and I don't think that they did that in this case. And yes, I know "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not the same as "beyond all doubt." But I think there are some very reasonable doubts here.

For those who keep harping about how all the proof is in the court transcripts: is it possible that not all of the evidence was presented at the trial? Why is it so hard to believe that there could be things that weren't said in court that are still valid and need to be considered?

As for the few drops of cast off blood that are supposedly on the back of Darlie's shirt- couldn't they have come off of the knife while it was being used to stab the boys? I mean, while someone else was stabbing them, not her. Or could it have simply dripped off the knife while the killer was holding it? Has it been for sure established who was killed first, and what path the killer took through the house?

IMO "resonable doubt" is flaw with the legal system. Anytime someone commits a murder, yet claims that their innocent, and convinces some people based off of the way they manipulate and act is a cause for reasonable doubt. I'm sure there are people who would have had reasonable doubt (as a member of the jury) if all they did was see Darlie crying saying she didn't harm her children. The fact that the state was accusing a mother of slaughtering her own two young boys is enough cause for reasonable doubt. Does that mean she shouldn't go to prison? Absolutely not. The defense never brought up any potential suspects let alone motives for anyone else to commit this crime. Everything in this case points to Darlie, and I honestly think she's right where she belongs.

IMO "resonable doubt" is flaw with the legal system. Anytime someone commits a murder, yet claims that their innocent, and convinces some people based off of the way they manipulate and act is a cause for reasonable doubt. I'm sure there are people who would have had reasonable doubt (as a member of the jury) if all they did was see Darlie crying saying she didn't harm her children. The fact that the state was accusing a mother of slaughtering her own two young boys is enough cause for reasonable doubt. Does that mean she shouldn't go to prison? Absolutely not. The defense never brought up any potential suspects let alone motives for anyone else to commit this crime. Everything in this case points to Darlie, and I honestly think she's right where she belongs.

Reasonable doubt generally works fine; what you're describing sounds more like unreasonable doubt... someone like that either doesn't usually get on juries in the first place, is swayed by the other jurors, or causes a mistrial because of a deadlocked jury. Remember, in the U.S., criminal juries need to be unanimous. That generally helps to balance things out.

Reasonable doubt generally works fine; what you're describing sounds more like unreasonable doubt.


Exactly. Again, there is a difference between "reasonable" doubt and removing ALL doubt. Anyone could claim that body snatchers took them and committed a crime in their place, but that is not a reasonable doubt.

Just because the police didn't come up with another suspect doesn't automatically make Darlie guilty. Murders committed by random people are very rare, but they do happen. I also think the husband should have been investigated more than he was. I think he is actually a better suspect than Darlie is. He had more to gain from his family's deaths, and I think his story and some of his actions are a little shaky.

I've read this entire thread, but there is so much information flying back and forth, being put up and then contradicted, that I don't really know what to believe anymore. Again, I don't necessarily think Darlie is innocent, but I don't think I could have voted to convict based on the evidence presented.

don't know what to make of this case. Anyway you flush it though, the infamous silly string video is hard to explain. In a situation like that, a loving mother experiencing the birthday of recently murdered babies, its nearly impossible to imagine her doing anything but crying an ocean and being utterly distraught.

On the other hand, there are many things that don't add up to the scenario of her doing it.

Exactly. Again, there is a difference between "reasonable" doubt and removing ALL doubt. Anyone could claim that body snatchers took them and committed a crime in their place, but that is not a reasonable doubt.

Just because the police didn't come up with another suspect doesn't automatically make Darlie guilty. Murders committed by random people are very rare, but they do happen. I also think the husband should have been investigated more than he was. I think he is actually a better suspect than Darlie is. He had more to gain from his family's deaths, and I think his story and some of his actions are a little shaky.

I've read this entire thread, but there is so much information flying back and forth, being put up and then contradicted, that I don't really know what to believe anymore. Again, I don't necessarily think Darlie is innocent, but I don't think I could have voted to convict based on the evidence presented.

I'm not as familiar with this case as some of the others, but I find it interesting that the "evidence" that Darlie supporters keeps parroting seems to be the same "evidence" that they presented at trial and which failed to sway the jury. The police case certainly wasn't perfect, but it sounds like Darlie's defense team didn't do a great job either.

I'm not sure if I could justify reasonable doubt, to be honest. For the Darlie supporters, what are, in your opinions, the most serious pieces of exculpatory evidence? (no rhetoric please, just the facts)

Reasonable doubt generally works fine; what you're describing sounds more like unreasonable doubt... someone like that either doesn't usually get on juries in the first place, is swayed by the other jurors, or causes a mistrial because of a deadlocked jury. Remember, in the U.S., criminal juries need to be unanimous. That generally helps to balance things out.

The point I was trying to make was that the majority of people who have children would instantly say, "How could a mother do that to her own flesh and blood?" So right off the bat the jurors probably had some doubt in their mind that she committed this crime. Obviously after the evidence was brought forth it convinced them she was guilty, and that's why I'm positive she's guilty. It's just like the Jeffrey MacDonald case. At first everyone wants to believe they're innocent but when their presented with the cold hard facts their forced to accept the truth. And I still think a lot of Darlie's supporters just want to believe that a mother didn't do that to her two boys.

The point I was trying to make was that the majority of people who have children would instantly say, "How could a mother do that to her own flesh and blood?" So right off the bat the jurors probably had some doubt in their mind that she committed this crime. Obviously after the evidence was brought forth it convinced them she was guilty, and that's why I'm positive she's guilty. It's just like the Jeffrey MacDonald case. At first everyone wants to believe they're innocent but when their presented with the cold hard facts their forced to accept the truth. And I still think a lot of Darlie's supporters just want to believe that a mother didn't do that to her two boys.

Sure. I would hope all the jurors came to the pool with open-minds since innocence until proven guilty is THE central tenant of our legal system. That is, a juror should doubt the government's case until and unless proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Again, I ask Darlie supporters, what are the key pieces of exculpatory evidence?

Again, I ask Darlie supporters, what are the key pieces of exculpatory evidence?


Well, I'm not sure I'm a "Darlie supporter" (like I said, I'm not sure what to make of all this), but I'll give it a shot. For me, a big part is the massive bruising on her arms. How could that possibly be self-inflicted? Also, the neck wound. Most people who self-inflict themselves end up with shallow injuries that are nowhere near major organs and arteries. Like slashing their own arms or something. Who cuts their own neck?

There is also the bloody sock- how did it get so far away from the house? Would Darlie really have had time to put it there? People are saying that there is no way an intruder could have left the house without leaving a blood trail. But if Darlie did it, how could she have left the house to plant the sock without leaving a blood trail? Didn't the sock have one of the boys' blood on it? Or was it her blood?

Another question for me is motive. What did Darlie really have to gain by all this? If anything, her husband is the one who had a lot to gain. Wasn't there an $800k policy on Darlie's life? I think maybe he held her down and possibly drugged her (with the sock, as he suggested an intruder did), and tried to kill her by cutting her throat. When she was unconscious, he killed the boys. Darlie woke up and called 911, so he pretended he was awakened by her screams and helped her try to save the boys. Maybe he is the one who tried to clean up in the sink. Were his clothes ever tested for cast-off blood?

There are other things that make me doubt Darlie did it, but they've been pointed out and contradicted so many times that I don't know if they're even truth or not. Was Darin standing outside when the cops came, or inside? Did he fail a polygraph? Did the police really throw evidence in paper bags? Are there really pieces missing from the court transcripts? I've heard yes and I've heard no on all of these, so I have no idea what's truthful and what is just rumors.

I agree that there is no one piece of evidence that proves Darlie's innocence, but there is enough there to put reasonable doubt in my mind. Again, I'm not sure she's innocent, but I'm not sure I could have convicted her, either.

Well, I'm not sure I'm a "Darlie supporter" (like I said, I'm not sure what to make of all this), but I'll give it a shot. For me, a big part is the massive bruising on her arms. How could that possibly be self-inflicted? Also, the neck wound. Most people who self-inflict themselves end up with shallow injuries that are nowhere near major organs and arteries. Like slashing their own arms or something. Who cuts their own neck?

Someone who's very mentally unbalanced would be capable of doing this. Darlie was simply careless when inflicting the wounds upon herself, which is why she came close to the artery in her neck. The coroner in the case described Darlie's wounds as "hesitation wounds". And Darlie's nightgown was full of blood from her two boys. Had an intruder knocked her unconscious, attempted to rape her (while her two boys were sleeping mere feet away mind you), then killed her two boys when they awoke, there would not have been that amount of blood on Darlie's nightgown (since she was allegedly passed out on the couch at the time). It's just not possible.

There is also the bloody sock- how did it get so far away from the house? Would Darlie really have had time to put it there? People are saying that there is no way an intruder could have left the house without leaving a blood trail. But if Darlie did it, how could she have left the house to plant the sock without leaving a blood trail? Didn't the sock have one of the boys' blood on it? Or was it her blood?

Darlie, IMO, put the sock there. And yes I think she had time to put it there. And I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Darin was in on the whole thing. Remember he allegedly wanted to concoct an insurance scam involving hiring someone who would "break in" just to collect the insurance money. So I wouldn't put it past either of them to stage the crime scene. The abscence of blood anywhere outside the home, IMO, is proof enough that there was no intruder.

Another question for me is motive. What did Darlie really have to gain by all this? If anything, her husband is the one who had a lot to gain. Wasn't there an $800k policy on Darlie's life? I think maybe he held her down and possibly drugged her (with the sock, as he suggested an intruder did), and tried to kill her by cutting her throat. When she was unconscious, he killed the boys. Darlie woke up and called 911, so he pretended he was awakened by her screams and helped her try to save the boys. Maybe he is the one who tried to clean up in the sink. Were his clothes ever tested for cast-off blood?

That is an interesting theory, but Darlie herself said she chased an intruder from the house after she awoke to hearing her son screaming. If Darlie were innocent, and she had in fact awoken to Darin murdering her sons, why make up the entire intruder event? As for a motive, I still agree with the original prosecution's motive in that Darlie was a materialistic woman, who was about to have her lavish lifestyle taken away from her (due to massive amounts of debt), so she killed her sons to collect the insurance money. This case really seems pretty cut and dried when you look at the physical evidence. There was a blonde hair found in the screen that was slashed (whether it be from the outside or inside is a moot point, the blonde hair suggests it was Darlie who slashed it), there were blood splatters (from a slashing motion) found on Darlie's nightgown that contained her sons blood, and there was absolutely no blood found outside the premises of the house. To me, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Can you explain what you mean by "hesitation wounds?"

And Darlie's nightgown was full of blood from her two boys. Had an intruder knocked her unconscious, attempted to rape her (while her two boys were sleeping mere feet away mind you), then killed her two boys when they awoke, there would not have been that amount of blood on Darlie's nightgown (since she was allegedly passed out on the couch at the time).


Could the blood have come from her trying to do CPR or stop the boys' bleeding? At least one of them was still alive (and presumably still bleeding) when she called 911.

There was a blonde hair found in the screen that was slashed (whether it be from the outside or inside is a moot point, the blonde hair suggests it was Darlie who slashed it)


But wasn't the hair found NOT to be one of hers? I thought it came from one of the cops.

I agree that it looks more like an inside job than an intruder. I'm just not sure which of the 2 adults inside the house I think did it.

Can you explain what you mean by "hesitation wounds?"

I honestly don't know what the coroner meant by "hesitation wounds", but I would assume that he meant the wounds were self-inflicted. The boys had deep slash type wounds, yet Darlie's wounds were not even close to as bad as her sons.

Could the blood have come from her trying to do CPR or stop the boys' bleeding? At least one of them was still alive (and presumably still bleeding) when she called 911.

I'm not sure if Darlie ever said she administered CPR. On the 911 tape she kept saying she moved the knife, but makes no mention of CPR. I know Darin did attempt CPR on one of the boys, but I don't think Darlie did.

But wasn't the hair found NOT to be one of hers? I thought it came from one of the cops.

I agree that it looks more like an inside job than an intruder. I'm just not sure which of the 2 adults inside the house I think did it.

I don't recall if the hair that was found was proven not to be hers. I've read that her supporters now say the screen was slashed from the outside, thereby proving an intruder was in the house. But that really doesn't prove anything. Had Darlie (and/or Darin) planned these murders out they could have easily slashed the screen before the actual attack.

I honestly don't know what the coroner meant by "hesitation wounds", but I would assume that he meant the wounds were self-inflicted. The boys had deep slash type wounds, yet Darlie's wounds were not even close to as bad as her sons.

A hesitation wound is essentially that when someone slashes themselves with a knife, they hesitate, since we're generally conditioned not to harm ourselves. I believe the forensic evidence consists of one or more shallow cuts and or ***** marks before the main wound - the contrast is to a crazed killer, who usually just stabs and doesn't hesitate.

Well, I'm not sure I'm a "Darlie supporter" (like I said, I'm not sure what to make of all this), but I'll give it a shot.

Thank you. For each, let me just ask some questions they raise for me - I'm not necessarily saying I believe each, but I'm playing devil's advocate, if nothing else.

For me, a big part is the massive bruising on her arms. How could that possibly be self-inflicted? Also, the neck wound. Most people who self-inflict themselves end up with shallow injuries that are nowhere near major organs and arteries. Like slashing their own arms or something. Who cuts their own neck?

Someone trying to stage a crime certainly would. Bruising can be caused by many causes - she certainly could have hit herself with her hands or against the floor or furniture - were any impressions (of hands, etc.) that were visible in the wounds?

I am disturbed by the different scales of attack: the boys were stabbed repeatedly, her wounds while not minor, were just no-where near as bad.

There is also the bloody sock- how did it get so far away from the house? Would Darlie really have had time to put it there? People are saying that there is no way an intruder could have left the house without leaving a blood trail. But if Darlie did it, how could she have left the house to plant the sock without leaving a blood trail? Didn't the sock have one of the boys' blood on it? Or was it her blood?

How far was the sock? Were tests done to show how long it took to put/drop it there and get back to the house? In terms of the killer, who-ever it was, leaving a blood trail, that is a good point; I don't know how, or if, the state refutes that; however, if the answer is that the blood could have been washed away, etc., the sock doesn't really help either side.

Another question for me is motive. What did Darlie really have to gain by all this? If anything, her husband is the one who had a lot to gain. Wasn't there an $800k policy on Darlie's life? I think maybe he held her down and possibly drugged her (with the sock, as he suggested an intruder did), and tried to kill her by cutting her throat. When she was unconscious, he killed the boys. Darlie woke up and called 911, so he pretended he was awakened by her screams and helped her try to save the boys. Maybe he is the one who tried to clean up in the sink. Were his clothes ever tested for cast-off blood?

Money is a motive, even small amounts. Inconvience is also a factor - children are a lot of work and many vain and materialistic people just don't want to be bothered.

As for the Darin story - that's something her attorneys could have presented at court. Creating reasonable doubt by showing that someone else had the means, motive, and opportunity can be a strong defense, if not exactly as common as TV shows might have us believe. From a practical matter though, that's likely to end the marriage (and since darin's probably paying the attorneys, create a conflict of interest too).[/quote]

There are other things that make me doubt Darlie did it, but they've been pointed out and contradicted so many times that I don't know if they're even truth or not.

Was Darin standing outside when the cops came, or inside?[/quote]

Doesn't seem to matter one way or the other. How would this prove anything?

Did he fail a polygraph?

Not admissible, regardless. If he did, more investigation should have been done on him, depending on context, however.

Did the police really throw evidence in paper bags?

If true, this is far and away the most troublesome, since it could potentially taint all the blood evidence in the case.

Are there really pieces missing from the court transcripts?

What does this mean? Court transcripts are public records, so anyone could obtain it from the court reporter. If by "missing," you mean that certain side-bars, etc. may not have been transcribed, that's not unusual in the least.

I've heard yes and I've heard no on all of these, so I have no idea what's truthful and what is just rumors.

I agree that there is no one piece of evidence that proves Darlie's innocence, but there is enough there to put reasonable doubt in my mind. Again, I'm not sure she's innocent, but I'm not sure I could have convicted her, either.

Someone trying to stage a crime certainly would. Bruising can be caused by many causes - she certainly could have hit herself with her hands or against the floor or furniture - were any impressions (of hands, etc.) that were visible in the wounds?

One quick comment on the bruises - could they have been caused by a struggle with the boys as she stabbed them? Although the boys were smaller than Darlie, I would imagine they put up a struggle of some kind.

One quick comment on the bruises - could they have been caused by a struggle with the boys as she stabbed them? Although the boys were smaller than Darlie, I would imagine they put up a struggle of some kind.

I think any struggle could cause them, including one with the boys. I don't see Darlie's injuries as exculpatory for these reasons.

She was not convicted on a video, she was convicted on solid physical evidence....blood and fibre evidence. The SS tape is circumstantial evidence of her guilt and the State had every right to show it to the jury. Darlie portrayed herself as a greiving mother at the evidentiary hearing, the state impeached her with the SS tape.
you ask half of the jury in that case, they will all likely say that the video tape is why they convicted.

you ask half of the jury in that case, they will all likely say that the video tape is why they convicted.

Maybe so, but I have to agree with Cami. The tape is valid impeachment evidence - in fact, I'd suspect it was Darlie's own testimony that let the tape come in, since it doesn't without her testimony of grief, etc., etc.

Maybe so, but I have to agree with Cami. The tape is valid impeachment evidence - in fact, I'd suspect it was Darlie's own testimony that let the tape come in, since it doesn't without her testimony of grief, etc., etc.

Even though there was footage of her crying and mourning before and after the whole "silly string incident", I still find it extremely odd for any parent to have had their deceased children's friends around their gravesites, shooting silly string at each other, mere days after they were both slaughtered. Especially if she insists there was an intruder. Why celebrate the boys birthdays at their graves? Why not hold a press conference on the day pleading with people to come forward with information that would apprehend the killer? I don't think Darlie ever made it a point to publically say she was looking for her children's murderer.

Even though there was footage of her crying and mourning before and after the whole "silly string incident", I still find it extremely odd for any parent to have had their deceased children's friends around their gravesites, shooting silly string at each other, mere days after they were both slaughtered. Especially if she insists there was an intruder. Why celebrate the boys birthdays at their graves? Why not hold a press conference on the day pleading with people to come forward with information that would apprehend the killer? I don't think Darlie ever made it a point to publically say she was looking for her children's murderer.

And that's why it's such great impeachment evidence. Frankly, her attorneys should have probably introduced it themselves, with the footage beforehand and led Darlie through an explanation, etc. It's still bad, but that would have been one way to (somewhat) negate it's effect.

How anyone can defend Darlie Routier is beyond me. She is guilty. Plain and simple.

Maybe so, but I have to agree with Cami. The tape is valid impeachment evidence - in fact, I'd suspect it was Darlie's own testimony that let the tape come in, since it doesn't without her testimony of grief, etc., etc.
i am not a fan of letting a tape in when all it's more of a character type witness. and like i said, most people convicted her on the tape and not the evidence from what i heard, i am NOT saying she's innocent.

Someone trying to stage a crime certainly would. Bruising can be caused by many causes - she certainly could have hit herself with her hands or against the floor or furniture - were any impressions (of hands, etc.) that were visible in the wounds?

I couldn't tell. To me, her entire right arm looked like one big bruise. That's why I was kind of amazed that she (or anyone, really) could do that to themselves. I can't even fathom what would cause such bruises, unless it's something like being beaten with an iron pipe.

How far was the sock?

I'm not sure, but the number 2 comes to mind. I was thinking two blocks away, but maybe it was two houses down.


Was Darin standing outside when the cops came, or inside?

Doesn't seem to matter one way or the other. How would this prove anything?

I was trying to point out the amount of misinformation surrounding this case. I've heard it both ways. However, if he was already outside, it could be because he had just returned from planting the sock.

Are there really pieces missing from the court transcripts?

What does this mean? Court transcripts are public records, so anyone could obtain it from the court reporter. If by "missing," you mean that certain side-bars, etc. may not have been transcribed, that's not unusual in the least.

If you go back in the thread, someone was saying that huge chunks of what actually happened during the trial were never transcribed, and that the court reporter got in trouble for it. But others said that wasn't the case. Again, my point was just that I've heard so many things about this case that are later contradicted, I'm not sure how much of the information is true and how much is false.

i am not a fan of letting a tape in when all it's more of a character type witness. and like i said, most people convicted her on the tape and not the evidence from what i heard, i am NOT saying she's innocent.

Character evidence only comes in if Defendant opens the door, so she has no-one to blame but herself (well, her attorneys).

I couldn't tell. To me, her entire right arm looked like one big bruise. That's why I was kind of amazed that she (or anyone, really) could do that to themselves. I can't even fathom what would cause such bruises, unless it's something like being beaten with an iron pipe.

I presume it was addressed at trial; bruises are just so non-specific, the fact she was bruised just doesn't mean anything to me as to whether she self-inflicted or not.

I'm not sure, but the number 2 comes to mind. I was thinking two blocks away, but maybe it was two houses down.

2 houses down doesn't seem very far at all; 2 blocks could certainly be.

I was trying to point out the amount of misinformation surrounding this case. I've heard it both ways. However, if he was already outside, it could be because he had just returned from planting the sock.

If you go back in the thread, someone was saying that huge chunks of what actually happened during the trial were never transcribed, and that the court reporter got in trouble for it. But others said that wasn't the case. Again, my point was just that I've heard so many things about this case that are later contradicted, I'm not sure how much of the information is true and how much is false.

It seems one or both sides isn't being truthful. I'd like to see the actual evidence of any of these controversies, since the facts are what they are and if one side is just lying about things, that really undermines their credibility. It doesn't mean their underlying belief is wrong, but you have to wonder why the need to exaggerate the story.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7626298.html

DALLAS — After spending 12 1/2 years in a Texas prison for a murder he didn't commit, Randall Dale Adams spoke out against the system that wrongfully locked him up but found himself haunted by his conviction. Eventually, he moved to a small town where no one knew him and lived out the rest of his days in obscurity.

"He was just trying to earn a living, live a normal life," attorney Randy Schaffer said of the former client who drew national attention as the subject of the 1988 documentary "The Thin Blue Line."

Adams did such a good job of disappearing that his Oct. 30 death from a brain tumor didn't become widely known until Friday, when it was reported by the Dallas Morning News. Schaffer confirmed his former client's death after speaking to his family. Adams was 61.

Imprisoned for the November 1976 shooting death of Dallas police officer Robert Wood, Adams came within three days of execution in May 1979. The U.S. Supreme Court threw out his death sentence the following year because of jury selection problems at his trial. After the documentary came out, a Texas court overturned his conviction, saying prosecutors suppressed evidence and relied on testimony from witnesses who lied. He was freed in 1989.

Filmmaker Errol Morris said Adams' conviction was "a terrible miscarriage of justice in Texas" and his exoneration marked a turning point in American law and the beginning of "an awareness of all these problems in the justice system" that the Innocence Project and others now routinely highlight.

"We showed how the system can fail, in what way the system can fail," Morris said of his award-winning film. "And what is it failing? It's failing us, our principles of fair play, our sense of justice."

Adams, who had no previous criminal record, was one of the first Dallas residents exonerated and released from prison. Since then, dozens of men convicted in Texas have been cleared based on DNA evidence.

"Within the context of the modern criminal justice system as we know it, he was the first innocent man, the first death row inmate exonerated based on innocence, even though in the court's opinion he was exonerated on the state's use of false testimony," said Schaffer, who works in Houston.

He also said Adams helped paved the way for a 2009 Texas law that gives exonerees $80,000 for every year they spent in prison, although Adams received no payment himself. At the time, compensation was limited to $25,000 and available only with a governor's pardon, the attorney said.

After his release, Adams appeared on national talk shows and granted numerous interviews. He later told The Associated Press that he spoke out because "if anything, I'd like the public to realize this could happen to anybody, in any city, given the circumstances."

Adams had a falling out with Morris after suing to regain the right to tell his own life story in 1989. He then co-wrote a book about his case to help pay some bills.

Adams was still living in Texas and had a job refilling vending machines when his employer did a delayed background check, learned of his wrongful conviction and fired him in front of his colleagues and friends. Schaffer said that devastated Adams, who moved to New York and then to Ohio in an effort to "disappear."

"He was an ordinary guy placed into extraordinary circumstance," Schaffer said.

A relative said Adams was diagnosed last year with a brain tumor and told he had two months to live, the attorney said. The prediction was accurate. He died two months later in the city of Washington Court House.

"His family didn't want any publicity," Schaffer said.


Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7626298.html#ixzz1QG6NO000

As a long time Darlie poster, I can answer your questions. My answers are based on evidence and the trial transcripts. Everything I tell you can be backed up by the trial transcripts and I'll give you the link. Oh except my own thoughts of course.

For me, a big part is the massive bruising on her arms. How could that possibly be self-inflicted? Also, the neck wound. Most people who self-inflict themselves end up with shallow injuries that are nowhere near major organs and arteries. Like slashing their own arms or something. Who cuts their own neck?

Darlie did have massive bruising of her right arm. The left arm bruises were caused by the ivs. The right arm bruising is very strange, all the way to her armpit. The problem with the bruising is Darlie doesn't remember fighting with anyone to get those bruises so how did she get them? None of the medical staff saw any indication of bruising on the right arm in the 2 1/2 days she was in the hospital yet the photos taken 2 days later show the massive arm bruise. She had no head injuries or facial injuries, no broken arms, no reason for her not to remember what an intruder looked like.

As for the neck cut, I believe you'd do anything to make it look as if your a victim, like MacDonald did and Diane Downs and Charles Stuart. Plus there was a hesitation wound above the neck cut. The doctors call it superficial because it was only 3/4 s of an inch deep and didn't cut any major vessels like the voice box, etc. Very easy to self-inflict. The blood in the kitchen, cleaned up from the sink and the counter is a good indication someone stood there bleeding. Intruders don't clean up the blood.

The blood is what really convicts Darlie because it shows her movements that night.

There is also the bloody sock- how did it get so far away from the house? Would Darlie really have had time to put it there? People are saying that there is no way an intruder could have left the house without leaving a blood trail. But if Darlie did it, how could she have left the house to plant the sock without leaving a blood trail? Didn't the sock have one of the boys' blood on it? Or was it her blood?


The bloody sock was found three houses away in the alley that runs behind the houses. Yes, Darlie could have put that sock there very easily. She runs out the front door and down the alley. It would only take her about 75 seconds to run down and then back up the alley. She didn't have much blood on her at that point as the boys had seepage wounds and not spurting wounds...plus their blood is on her back from the knife, not on her front.

I believe, and I know others who do, that Darlie used that sock to cover her hand when she stabbed the boys. For some reason, she had to get rid of it, she wanted it far away from the house. The state believes she used the sock this way.

There were 5 tiny blood stains on the sock, 3 were pure Devon's and 2 were Devon/Damon mixed. None of Darlie's blood is on the sock, however, her dna from shed skin cells was found in the toe of the sock.

No one can prove Darlie put the sock there so trial testimony was restricted to the dna evidence. Fibres on the sock match fibres from Darin's reboks and Darin claimed the sock as his.

[QUOTE]Another question for me is motive. What did Darlie really have to gain by all this? If anything, her husband is the one who had a lot to gain. Wasn't there an $800k policy on Darlie's life? I think maybe he held her down and possibly drugged her (with the sock, as he suggested an intruder did), and tried to kill her by cutting her throat. When she was unconscious, he killed the boys. Darlie woke up and called 911, so he pretended he was awakened by her screams and helped her try to save the boys. Maybe he is the one who tried to clean up in the sink. Were his clothes ever tested for cast-off blood?

What motive would a stranger have to kill two sleeping boys? To just walk in that house, take nothing, kill two boys and slash Darlie up and leave. All Darlie's gold jewellry was lying there and her wallet with cash and cheques, and credit cards in it. NOthing taken but two young boys.

I don't get fixated on motive since no one knows why anyone kills. That's why the prosecutor is never burdened with a motive.

No, Darlie did not have 800K life insurance. She had $250,000., and no she was not drugged. Her tox screen showed only the amphetemines (diet pills) that Darlie was taking.

Yes, Darin was investigated thorougly, his clothes taken hours later and his nude body photographed at the hospital. Darin actually was the first suspect in this case until the crime scene analysists had a good look at the scene mached with Darlie's story. Darin's statements were always consistant with his movements. DArlie's changed everytime she needed to explain some incriminating evidence.

Well there wouldn't be any blood in the sink for Darin to clean up if Darlie was stabbed on the couch, it would be on the couch and on the floor in the murder room...it isn't. It' s in the sink and on the counters and the floor.

Darlie's whole life was falling apart a that juncture. The marriage was on the rocks, the business had failed, they were in debt up and over their heads and the creditors were knocking at the door. Darlie was depressed, suicidal and taking diet pills. That night she and Darin now admit they had a huge fight and Darlie wanted a separation.

There are other things that make me doubt Darlie did it, but they've been pointed out and contradicted so many times that I don't know if they're even truth or not. Was Darin standing outside when the cops came, or inside? Did he fail a polygraph? Did the police really throw evidence in paper bags? Are there really pieces missing from the court transcripts? I've heard yes and I've heard no on all of these, so I have no idea what's truthful and what is just rumors.

I agree that there is no one piece of evidence that proves Darlie's innocence, but there is enough there to put reasonable doubt in my mind. Again, I'm not sure she's innocent, but I'm not sure I could have convicted her, either.[/

It was Darin who was outside when the first police officer arrived. It's in his testimony and also the neighbour across the street, Gorsuch, who saw the police arrive.

4 A. I don't know what time that was. It
5 was sometime after I tried to go to sleep or after I did
6 go to sleep and it woke me. A short time thereafter, I
7 was awoken again though. And this time it was a full
8 awakening.
9 Q. Okay. And what woke you at that time?
10 A. What woke me at that time was Darin
11 Routier running from the front of the home, down the
12 sidewalk, yelling that, "someone has stabbed my children,"
13 or, "my kids and my wife".
14 Q. Okay. "Someone has stabbed my children
15 and my wife"?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Is that your best recollection of what
18 he was yelling?
19 A. That is my best recollection, yes.
20 Q. Okay. And tell the jurors how he was
21 yelling that. Was he --
22 A. Very loudly. Almost broadcasting it to
23 the neighborhood as a danger. You know, he wanted
24 somebody to hear him.
25 Q. Okay. And you had no trouble hearing
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
220

1 him?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Okay. When you heard that, what did
4 you do?
5 A. I immediately sat up in bed. And
6 naturally, when you hear something like that, you're going
7 to listen to see what's going on. I immediately sat up in
8 bed, and as I set up in bed, I have a waterbed that sits
9 up fairly high, I can look directly out the window,
10 directly down, and I saw Darin approximately even with the
11 fountain.
12 Q. Okay. Do you recall what he was
13 wearing?
14 A. I recall it was blue jeans, I believe,
15 only.
16 Q. Okay. Just blue jeans?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. And, he was standing near the
19 fountain?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. Well, he was running near the fountain,
23 he wasn't standing.
24 Q. Okay. Did you see anyone else out
25 there?
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
221

1 A. Yes, I did.
2 Q. Who did you see?
3 A. I saw a policeman coming up over the
4 bank. As I leaned up in bed, I could look out the window
5 and see a pretty good picture, or pretty good view of the
6 street. There's a police car sitting a little bit ahead
7 of where the car is there now.
8 Q. Okay. Let me get you -- if we could,
9 with the Court's permission, if we could have the jurors
10 step down for a moment.
11
12 THE COURT: All right. That's fine.
13 Maybe you can use the pointer, Mr. Shook.
14 MR. TOBY L. SHOOK: Okay.
15 THE COURT: If you will just wait a
16 minute for everyone to find a position around there.
17 Okay. Can the jury all see that?
18 Okay.
19
20 BY MR. TOBY L. SHOOK:
21 Q. Mr. Gorsuch, if you can step over here
22 to the side.
23 A. Okay.
24 Q. And again, on the photograph, point to
25 the area that you first saw Darin Routier.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
222

1 A. Okay. Darin Routier was approximately
2 in this area here. There was a police squad car parked
3 away from the curb, a little bit in this area, a little
4 bit ahead of the direct front line of the home.
5 Q. Which is --
6 A. -- parked close to the front. He was
7 actually parked around to the side, about in this area.
8 Q. Okay. And, which way was he pointed?
9 A. He was pointed west.
10 Q. Okay. Did you see a police officer out
11 in that area?
12 A. Yes, I did. He was approximately in
13 this area. There is a small bank here. It comes up from
14 the sidewalk into the yard. It runs approximately around
15 in about this area. He was already up over the side of
16 that bank and was coming up about in this area here, at
17 the corner of the house, whenever I sat up in bed.
18 Q. Okay. That's the first thing you see
19 when you look out?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Okay. What was the next thing that you
22 saw happen?
23 A. The next thing I saw happen was Darin
24 stopped about in this area, and he came around between the
25 fountain and the house, and met the police officer in this
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
223

1 area. They both came back between the house and the
2 fountain and then went into the house.
3 Q. Okay. Now, did you hear anything said
4 between Darin and the police officer at that time?
5 A. I heard something said, but I could not
6 understand what was said.
7 Q. Okay. And then they go into the house?



Darin did not take a police polygraph. Neither did Darlie. Both took private polys and both failed. Darlie's defence attorney would have been shouting to the rooftops that she passed a poly had she taken one.

Both Darlie and Damon were transported to the hospital still wearing their clothes and Devon, who was dead at the scene, was wearing only underwear so it's not possible their bloody clothes were thrown together in paper bags. What is true is that two towels that were touching each other, at the crime scene, were packed in one bag, the csi considering them one piece of evidence and collected them that way. Anyway you can't transfer cast-off blood, then you'd have blood transfer stains and not cast-off stains. Darlie clearly has cast-off blood on the back shoulder and right front shoulder of her nightshirt.

There are no pieces of the court transcript missing. The transcripts contained a lot of errors, spelling errors and typos. The reporter, who was having some kind of breakdown I think they said, lied about having the audio tapes to the transcripts. The tapes were obtained by the court and another reporter retyped the transcripts from the tapes and the first transcript. The court reporter was disciplined. The court accepted the new transcript once it was prepared. So did the appellate judge since this is grounds for an appeal.

There really is no reasonable doubt in this case. The blood in the house is very incriminating to Darlie. She richly deserves to be where she is.

If you want to verify my answers, here is the link to the transcripts, the appeals, the court reporter hearing, the bond reduction hearing is very informative.

http://www.routiertranscripts.com/transcripts.php

i am not a fan of letting a tape in when all it's more of a character type witness. and like i said, most people convicted her on the tape and not the evidence from what i heard, i am NOT saying she's innocent.


She very easily could have been convicted without the tape. It's only one piece of circumstantial evidence. If there's a tape of Darlie sobbing and crying at the prayer service, why didn't the defence enter it? It impeaches the SS tape and then that would have been it...neither tape would have been played to the jury.

The real smoking gun in this case is the polyglass fibre and the rubber dust found on the bread knife in the butcher block. They match the cut window screen. The CSI could find nothing else in the Routier home that matched the fibre and the dust. There is absolutely no explanation other than that knife was used to cut the window screen. Not in 15 years anyway.:wave:

I presume it was addressed at trial; bruises are just so non-specific, the fact she was bruised just doesn't mean anything to me as to whether she self-inflicted or not.



2 houses down doesn't seem very far at all; 2 blocks could certainly be.



It seems one or both sides isn't being truthful. I'd like to see the actual evidence of any of these controversies, since the facts are what they are and if one side is just lying about things, that really undermines their credibility. It doesn't mean their underlying belief is wrong, but you have to wonder why the need to exaggerate the story.


The only ones doing the lying are Darlie, her family and her supporters.

Darlie was destroyed on the stand by the prosecutor when she couldn't back up all the lies she told.

Yes, the bruises were addressed at trail. The sock was 3 houses away.

I think I read somewhere that Darlie and Darin are getting a divorce, is this true?

I think I read somewhere that Darlie and Darin are getting a divorce, is this true?

I heard that too. Darin had full custody of their son Drake who is now 13. Other than that I got nothing

I heard that too. Darin had full custody of their son Drake who is now 13. Other than that I got nothing


Yes, it's true, they are divorcing

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Darlie-Routiers-husband-files-for-divorce-124907959.html

Hope this link works, but all you have to do is google Darin and you'll find it.

LUBBOCK (AP) — The husband of death row inmate Darlie Routier said Friday that he and his wife are divorcing to move on from the "limbo" they've been in since her arrest and conviction for killing one of their sons.

Darin Routier told The Associated Press that the decision to divorce was mutual and "very difficult," and that he still believes his wife is innocent. His attorney filed the divorce papers Wednesday in Lubbock, where he lives with their youngest son, Drake, who is 15.

"It doesn't change the fact that we still believe what we believe," he said. "You have to separate the tragedy from the marriage. Do you know anyone who would have waited 15 years? So it doesn't change anything."

The sock was found three houses down from Darlie's. Not three blocks but three houses. That is easily enough time to place it there if it wasn't already there prior to her phone call to the police

Yes, it's true, they are divorcing

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Darlie-Routiers-husband-files-for-divorce-124907959.html

Hope this link works, but all you have to do is google Darin and you'll find it.

LUBBOCK (AP) — The husband of death row inmate Darlie Routier said Friday that he and his wife are divorcing to move on from the "limbo" they've been in since her arrest and conviction for killing one of their sons.

Darin Routier told The Associated Press that the decision to divorce was mutual and "very difficult," and that he still believes his wife is innocent. His attorney filed the divorce papers Wednesday in Lubbock, where he lives with their youngest son, Drake, who is 15.

"It doesn't change the fact that we still believe what we believe," he said. "You have to separate the tragedy from the marriage. Do you know anyone who would have waited 15 years? So it doesn't change anything."

Oh. Drake's 15-16 now. My mistake. But the link did work.

I compared the Ramsey Case to the Routier case because in both, public opinion seemed to be against the mothers. Over the years I've suspected different people of being JonBenet's killer, just like the Tabloids. I suspected Mitchell and Barzee thinking Barzee could have written the ransom note. Then I suspected Mr. Al-Turki. What was such a coincidence is this: After he became my prime suspect, I discovered that his attorney and John Ramsey's were the same man: Hal Hodden. Now isn't that something?!

I wondered if "a small foreign faction" could have been the Saudis in Boulder.