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?

Crystaldawn also sent me a copy of this, still in the mail and thanks, now I can't wait!! :lol:

I have seen The New Detectives (that typically goes into greater detail than UM) version of this case many years ago and based on that I agreed that Darlene should be put to death and is guilty here.

I guess I'll see what I think next week sometime. What do you think by the way?

I think Darlie Routier is guilty as hell. While I note there are several somewhat creepy similarities in the Routier case and the case of Jeffrey MacDonald, I feel the Routier case does not hold up nearly as well as Dr. MacDonald's claims of innocence.

I feel in this case there is enough evidence to get a guilty verdict and to have that verdict hold up on appeal. I just don't see strong enough evidence here to compel me to believe in Routier's innocence.

What do you think by the way?

I didn't want to express my thoughts this early in the thread, but I guess I will. After watching the segment again today (because my girlfriend wanted to see it) there is little doubt in my mind that Darlie Routier is guilty.

I'm nagged by a couple things, but the most obvious is this: why would someone walk into a house in the middle of the night and stab three people, two of them children, for no apparent reason? There was a history of sexual assault/robbery in the area. Fair enough. But neither happened here. Nothing was taken from the home. No one was sexually assaulted to my knowledge. Also, why would someone walk in to a house intent on committing a sex crime or a robbery totally unarmed? I suppose we could say it is reasonable to assume that most houses have a kitchen, and therefore most houses have a kitchen knife. A kitchen knife could be used as a weapon. But, committing a robbery or sexual assault assumes that there will be a confrontation between the victim and the offender. Therefore, I think it is fair to postulate that brining a weapon of some type would be not only be high on an offender's list of priorities, but just plain common sense. Aside from this, I think we must look at the big picture here. When you factor everything together such as the unlikely robbery/rape scenario, the suspect crime scene evidence, and the mother's mental state at the time, does her story really make sense?

I think the problem is that a certain part of our own psyche NEEDS to believe that Darlie Routier is innocent despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is easy to believe she is innocent, for not believing is accepting and admitting to ourselves the sad and tragic reality that yes, some parents do commit horrific crimes such as killing their children. Diane Downs, Susan Smith and Andrea Yates are proof of this.

I think it's also easy to ask questions like "why did she do it" or "what was the motive" but the sad truth is that there may not necessarily be one for us to comprehend. Only Darlie Routier could answer that.

I didn't want to express my thoughts this early in the thread, but I guess I will.

Oh no you gotta get it out there early sir!! Then Kadrmas can try and take you to task on everything, clinging to a small piece of doubt that'll be enough to set them free :p ... I hope he gets a chuckle ;)

On a more serious note, what you said makes alot of sense to me. Again, can't wait to my DVD arrives~~

I think she's guilty. But admittedly I have almost zero interest in this case and only know the basic details. justin probably made great points in his posts but the subject won't even allow me to do more than skim them. It's like DarkDante in another case, saying it may be popular but for whatever reason he barely cares about it.

Stupid reasoning, but most likely it's because I never cared for ditsy buxom blondes. If Darlie looked like Phoebe Cates or Janine Turner or Dorothy Hamill, or a 21st century version of any of them, I'd probably have great attention span and perhaps even scramble for a reason to pretend she's innocent.

What about a ditzy buxom brunette who bears a striking resemblance to Christina Ricci?

Oh, wait. We've had this discussion. :cheers:


As for the Routier case... I agree with DarkDante, who mentioned that Darlie's alibi doesn't hold up as well as MacDonald's. I'm still on the fence, but I'm swaying towards guilty, mainly because there is a lack of evidence that could acquit her. I feel that in MacDonald's case there is a question of fact. In Darlie's case, the same type of questions are lacking.

I saw this on a show in Australia called TrueCSI. Don't know if it's got a different name over there but they said that her husband was given a lie detecter test and he failed it horribly. He was asked if he set the whole thing up for some reason or another.

Did anybody know this?

-Ben

What about a ditzy buxom brunette who bears a striking resemblance to Christina Ricci?

I'll take two of those, please. :D

On topic, I am completely split 50/50 on this case. Always have been.

i am convinced Darlie Routier is 100% guilty of killing her boys. The fornsic evidence points to her and she wanted her kids dead since she was giggling when she sprayed Sillystring all over her boy's grave. They should execute her. Heck with her appeals!

My DVD arrived the other day and I was finally able to catch up with this case. If I hadn't seen The New Detectives cover this case in greater detail I may have leaned towards Darlie being innocent but I still think she is guilty and she might not have acted alone.

I can see Darlie's knife wounds as being classed "self-inflicited", in the video of her at the grave she didnt seem bothered by the cuts, nor where they bandaged nor even look stitched up but what about the pics of Darlie's bruises? How did they get there? Even Darlie herself didn't exactly say how the bruises got there. Did she repeatedly smash her arms on some furniture? My thought was their must have been a second person involved, whether it was the unknown man she claimed she woke up as he was standing over her or her husband in on the crime too?

The other thing I can't quite explain is the tube sock, how did it get there because there wasn't enough time for Darlie to commit the crime, stage the scene, cut herself and place the sock a couple of blocks away..or could it have been placed there some time earlier, before the murderers and from some other injury her boys might have had? The doctors stated that one of her boys could only survive 9 minutes tops after receiving those knife injuries.

But from what I remember about TND version, the blood spatter evidence proves that Darlie's sons blood on the back of her shirt came from the cast off from the knife as Darlie was stabbing them.

Darlie's lake of emotion seemingly dancing and spraying silly string over her sons graves. I'm not a parent but I would think it would be unimagineable for a parent to be in such a joyious mood only days after two of her sons have been stabbed to death?

There was no real phyical evidence of an intruder in the house. A glass that was found broken in the kitchen was proven to be broken after Darlie (by her own admission) travelled through the kitchen.

Hi
They did not show Darlie crying at her sons funeral in the video.They need to look at her husband Darin.I read this story a little bit.Darin was outside when the police arrived?Who's blood was on Darins jeans and a good reason why it was there?Darin's hair was on a murder weapon?they say the knife used in the death of Devon was not the same one used on Damon and Darlie and none of his blood was found on the weapon used. According to the defense, this second knife was never recovered. The experts for the prosecution, including the medical examiner for the county, refute this claim by the defense saying that the knife presented could have easily made the wounds to all three involved and did not eliminate this knife as the murder weapon for either boys.
I say One of her son's blood was not on the murder weapon?I feel very strongly his blood would have been on the knife.why two knives?she was accused of killing only one of her sons.who killed her other son?this is what they need to go back and find out.I don't think the prosecution had a good case.she needs a new trial.Is she getting a new trial?

suzanne

This case is going to premeire on the Court TV show The Investigators tonight. I thought she was innocent until I saw the case featured on Forensic Files or The New Detectives. I forget which, but the physical evidence (where the blood was found and where items in the kitchen were knocked over) suggests that she did it.

Thought people might be interested in this:

http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/

:)

www.justicefordarlie.net

Hi
I am reading this case and am I right to assume they convicted Darlie on her own words she touched the knife.There were no prints on the knife?Darlies prints were not on the knife?I really do not see where there is a case here against her.

suzanne

Another over zealous prosecuter getting there face on the news for a high profile case and climbing the political ladder on the back on innocent defendants. What reason would she want to kill her children.

I believe Darlie is guilty and that Darin had to be involved. How could Darin not hear Darlie fighting with the intruder and Devon and Damon being stabed but he woke up when he heard a wineglass break? When the paramedics came he asked them what they thought of Darlie's breast implants. He also made a comment about this being the biggest thing to ever happen in Rowlett. Darlie and Darin are both guilty in my mind.

I think she was definitely involved, theres no way she isn't i'm sure. She just seems insincere saying shes innocent and something about her makes me want to throw up. I'm sure her husband was involved as well. Messed up people. They seem like the type of people to get sick of having children.

I believe Darlie is guilty and that Darin had to be involved. How could Darin not hear Darlie fighting with the intruder and Devon and Damon being stabed but he woke up when he heard a wineglass break? When the paramedics came he asked them what they thought of Darlie's breast implants. He also made a comment about this being the biggest thing to ever happen in Rowlett. Darlie and Darin are both guilty in my mind.

That's an interesting theory i never really thought they could have sorted the murder out together. You are probably right.

-Ben

www.justicefordarlie.net

Being a new Texan, not to mention living 3 min from Rowlett, I can't help but be curious about this story.
Firstly, why the hell would this woman allow photos on the site above of her slaughtered children! I was not expecting that, very graphic and disturbing!
I have always felt Darlie and her husband were involved, but then after checking the other pro-Darlie website, I read about some fingerprints that were found in the victims blood that doesn't match anyone in the house....I find it hard to believe that the couple could find another soul that was willing to help them kill thier children, but it does make me question some sort of guilt on their part....I'm torn!
Any new developments????

Yes, I am torn on this one too. While I like to defend the innocent, on this one, I lean towards guilt although I do not know that they are for sure guilty, but I do think if Darlie did this that her husband was involved too.

I think the prosecutor has always felt Darin was involved but there was never enough evidence against him and Darin has never been charged. Now, doesnt Darin to this day have custody of the youngest son, the only one that wasnt killed? I thought they had three sons, am I wrong?

Now I believe what the prosecutor said was the motive, was money. The Routier's had been prosperous at one time but I believe they were in debt and living well beyond their means. They needed a way out and probably figured they would knock off the kids to get the insurance money.

Something I have never figured out is, for as viciously as these kids were attacked, Darlie wasnt really hurt much. Also, if this mysterious intruder were to murder these kids in such a brutal fashion, why wouldnt he do the same to Darlie?

I actually think Darlie was the one that cast suscpicion on herself. Just with the way she acted and going to her kids graves and like running around playing with silly string and stuff. I mean I get people grieve in different ways and while that in itself doesnt prove murder it just doesnt look good.

I actually think Darlie would have been acquitted had the trial been held in Dallas County. But her public defender before she got a private lawyer had succeeded in getting the trial moved to a neighboring county that was more rural and in that county, if you are accused of killing kids especially, you are done for. It was a more rural, un educated jury and Darlie didnt have a chance.

Actually, there is some compelling evidence of her innocence. I think on A&E they had a show on her case and they said the video of her laughing and spraying silly string on her son's graves is mostly what got her convicted. BUT the jury didn't see other parts of the video where she was very morose and teary eyed and it did look genuine and sincere. Plus there was the fingerpring or whatever they found in the house that wasn't hers or Darrin's.

Also, Darlie was hurt pretty bad and they said that some of her wounds could NOT have been self-inflicted so that's more reason for a new trial.

The tone of that show on A&E was leaning towards her innocence and they portrayed her in a pretty good manner. She should get a new trial to sort the issues out but in Texas that's easier said than done.

But then again I'm not an expert on the case so if someone can expound on what I've said and add to it then I may have to re-evaluate.

I'm divided on this one. My first thought was guilty, but then I heard about the sexual assaults and home invasions going on. Yes, nothing was taken, no one was raped - but that doesn't mean an intruder didn't have that intent.
And Darlie could've been knocked out by the assailant. That's a possibility why she didn't see her sons being murdered.

As to why someone would do this - Maybe the intent was rape or robbery and Darlie put more resistance than he was expecting. Maybe he stabbed the two boys in a frenzy and Darlie's wounds were less severe because she fought so hard. Maybe her fighting drove him off.

Or maybe she killed them.

I couldn't have voted to convict if I were on the jury.

Yes, I am torn on this one too. While I like to defend the innocent, on this one, I lean towards guilt although I do not know that they are for sure guilty, but I do think if Darlie did this that her husband was involved too.

I think the prosecutor has always felt Darin was involved but there was never enough evidence against him and Darin has never been charged. Now, doesnt Darin to this day have custody of the youngest son, the only one that wasnt killed? I thought they had three sons, am I wrong?

Now I believe what the prosecutor said was the motive, was money. The Routier's had been prosperous at one time but I believe they were in debt and living well beyond their means. They needed a way out and probably figured they would knock off the kids to get the insurance money.

Something I have never figured out is, for as viciously as these kids were attacked, Darlie wasnt really hurt much. Also, if this mysterious intruder were to murder these kids in such a brutal fashion, why wouldnt he do the same to Darlie?

I actually think Darlie was the one that cast suscpicion on herself. Just with the way she acted and going to her kids graves and like running around playing with silly string and stuff. I mean I get people grieve in different ways and while that in itself doesnt prove murder it just doesnt look good.

I actually think Darlie would have been acquitted had the trial been held in Dallas County. But her public defender before she got a private lawyer had succeeded in getting the trial moved to a neighboring county that was more rural and in that county, if you are accused of killing kids especially, you are done for. It was a more rural, un educated jury and Darlie didnt have a chance.

Another thing that is absolutely beserk, is the fact that while his children are being wheeled out on stretchers, Darin was asking the paramedics what they thought of Darlie's new breasts (implants). This, I believe, I read on crimelibrary. Very bizarre.
I lean towards the fact that Darin and Darlie were in on this together; surely the boys were screaming as they were being butchered or Darlie would have been while she watched. Broken furniture, broken glass----Darin slept through this all? No way! The only way I could even remotely buy this, is if there were multiple perps, which I suppose there could have been, but doubtful.

Now I believe what the prosecutor said was the motive, was money. The Routier's had been prosperous at one time but I believe they were in debt and living well beyond their means. They needed a way out and probably figured they would knock off the kids to get the insurance money.

Something I have never figured out is, for as viciously as these kids were attacked, Darlie wasnt really hurt much. Also, if this mysterious intruder were to murder these kids in such a brutal fashion, why wouldnt he do the same to Darlie?

I'll have to disagree there. I saw the pictures of her and it looked like she had been beat to hell. and having a slash wound come within 1/16 of an inch of your corroded (sp?) artery is extremely serious. Granted, she could have been trying to commit suicide, but that would throw the 'kill the boys for the insurance money' out the window.

as far as the kill the boys for the money scenario, it was $5,000 versus $13,000 it cost to bury them. 13k would be about average for 2 funerals these days. Plus, her husband had 800k worth of insurance on him, why would she just not kill the husband?

I'm nagged by a couple things, but the most obvious is this: why would someone walk into a house in the middle of the night and stab three people, two of them children, for no apparent reason? There was a history of sexual assault/robbery in the area. Fair enough. But neither happened here. Nothing was taken from the home. No one was sexually assaulted to my knowledge. Also, why would someone walk in to a house intent on committing a sex crime or a robbery totally unarmed? I suppose we could say it is reasonable to assume that most houses have a kitchen, and therefore most houses have a kitchen knife. A kitchen knife could be used as a weapon. But, committing a robbery or sexual assault assumes that there will be a confrontation between the victim and the offender. Therefore, I think it is fair to postulate that brining a weapon of some type would be not only be high on an offender's list of priorities, but just plain common sense. Aside from this, I think we must look at the big picture here. When you factor everything together such as the unlikely robbery/rape scenario, the suspect crime scene evidence, and the mother's mental state at the time, does her story really make sense?

I wouldn't call the robbery/rape scenario unlikely. as another poster mentioned, the possible perpretator may have had that intent, but did not have enough time or whatever to pull all of his original plans off.

this is alot like the Ramsey case, IMO, where there have been a string of similar crimes in the area, yet the police zero in on the family.

As for why the boys were killed, it was probably because the perpetrator wanted to eliminate witnesses, and/or not run the risk of one of them calling 911 or something.

Interestingly, the husband and the youngest son are not attacked: is that because they were upstairs and the perpetrator didn't even know they were in the house? very possible.

regarding the knife thing, the person that had commited the other crimes I believe was strangling/choking his victims, so a knife wouldn't not have fit his m.o., which is why he probably didn't bring one. if Darlie put up more resitance than his other victims, which seems the case to me, then he would have had to resort to using a knife.

wow, I must say i'm a bit surprised so many of you are firmly beliving Darlie is 100% guilty. while I'm not 1000% convinced of her innocence, I would say I'm about 75/25, and leaning towards her innocence. It takes a particularly heinous person to do this to their own children, and when the accused has serious wounds herself, it makes the scenario that she did all the more unlikekly.

but I do welcome the debate: it's been awhile since we've had some good, and good-natured debates on here, so fire away.

to answer some more questions,

I don't find it necessarily suspcious that the husband didn't hear anything. One time, after I took 2 sleeping pills (I work at night, sleep during the day), I slept through someone working on our furnace, which was described as being much louder than someone playing the drums. and we have a drummer and drum set in the house, so I can tell you that that would have been pretty loud.

Darlie's house being targeted for robbery isn't an unlikely scenario: this was an affluent neighborhood after all, and these type of homes are more likely to be targeted, just like fancier cars have a higher theft rate.

the tiny blood spatter on the back of Darlie's shirt: blood was everywhere in the house, so I don't think this is of the highest significance.

the silly string thing, again, no real significance. Darlie's call to 911 was so frantic, that the operator had to tell her to calm down because she couldnt' understand what she was saying. I highly doubt Darlie would act this non-chalant when she knew other people were watching.

I know I'm carrying on here with 4 consecutive posts, but with most everybody on the Darlie is guilty side, I though the other side needed some more representation.

p.s. this case has EERIE similarities to the Ramseys.

I thought the string video was a bit pointless to be honest and proved nothing, she looks and acts like she has mental health problems and there is zero evidence to suggest anybody else but her did this. Why was there no signs of a sexual assault if it was this guy who been doing these sex attacks was able to get into her house and find her asleep?

I thought the string video was a bit pointless to be honest and proved nothing, she looks and acts like she has mental health problems and there is zero evidence to suggest anybody else but her did this. Why was there no signs of a sexual assault if it was this guy who been doing these sex attacks was able to get into her house and find her asleep?

not sure I would call an unidentified fingerprint 'zero evidence'. also, no explanation has ever been given as to why the tube sock was found at the neighbor's house.

earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that the husband should have heard the window breaking, etc. Assuming that argument is true, wouldn't he have also heard his wives' cry for help? And, given the circumstances, it is very likely she did scream for help, since she had someone close by that she knew would assist her.

as for why there were no signs of sexual assault, in order for him to get away with this, he has to not only do the act, but take care of 4 witnesses: which is quite difficult to pull off. I would imagine he figured Darlie was home alone, but in reality, 4 other people were in the house, a significant number, thus making his plans a lot harder to carry out.

I am not overly convinced by fingerprints in houses- it could be a friend, a relative, a workman or anybody who had been in that house at some point for a totally legitimate reason, it seems they probably think she planted the sock there and I think she also used the reports of the attacker in the media to make it look like him.

Looking at her Wikipedia entry it says the smeared print was later determined to be that of a child so it was most likely one of the kids in the neighbourhood who had been in the house playing at some point. In fact the defense case looks incredibly weak and everything points to her, just a shame her family especially her mother would rather go on blind faith rather than the evidence- I am amazed she did not claim insanity as her defence.


not sure I would call an unidentified fingerprint 'zero evidence'. also, no explanation has ever been given as to why the tube sock was found at the neighbor's house.

earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that the husband should have heard the window breaking, etc. Assuming that argument is true, wouldn't he have also heard his wives' cry for help? And, given the circumstances, it is very likely she did scream for help, since she had someone close by that she knew would assist her.

as for why there were no signs of sexual assault, in order for him to get away with this, he has to not only do the act, but take care of 4 witnesses: which is quite difficult to pull off. I would imagine he figured Darlie was home alone, but in reality, 4 other people were in the house, a significant number, thus making his plans a lot harder to carry out.

the two possible explanation they gave for as to why Darlie might have killed her sons were insurance money and post portem depression.

i've already talked about the insurance money

For the post portem depression to be true, it would have been much more likely that she would have killed the youngest, as he was the one that would have caused the depression. Darlie's relative pointed this out, and I think it was a valid point.

Yes I certainly think the insurance reason is crazy- for that sum of money there would have been no reason or motive for her to do that. My thought having listened to her and watched her is she does have mental problems and just could not cope- her diary showed her a month before this as being suicidal and not of a sound mind, it could well be that she only intended to kill one child but the other awoke and forced her hand or maybe she did want both dead, although I feel Death Row is probably not where she should be and she should be in a mental institution instead. I would hate to see her released back into society epsecially as she is still young enough to have another child or children with her husband or just vanish and star a new family with somebody else.


the two possible explanation they gave for as to why Darlie might have killed her sons were insurance money and post portem depression.

i've already talked about the insurance money

For the post portem depression to be true, it would have been much more likely that she would have killed the youngest, as he was the one that would have caused the depression. Darlie's relative pointed this out, and I think it was a valid point.

I finally had the chance to watch this seggie from volume 12.
I had to watch it several times because I just cannot get over the silly strings video. I think this behavior really tipped the scale for Darlie's case because it is such a whacked-out thing to do. I'm not saying that this proves her guilt or not, but let's just say it's hard to watch and feel empathy for her.

And it is just me, but Darin Routier seemed almost nonchalant, for someone who's wife been wrongful accused of murdering her two boys.

Any thoughts?

I finally had the chance to watch this seggie from volume 12.
I had to watch it several times because I just cannot get over the silly strings video. I think this behavior really tipped the scale for Darlie's case because it is such a whacked-out thing to do. I'm not saying that this proves her guilt or not, but let's just say it's hard to watch and feel empathy for her.

And it is just me, but Darin Routier seemed almost nonchalant, for someone who's wife been wrongful accused of murdering her two boys.

Any thoughts?

you are correct in that the silly string video probably is what swayed the jurors to produce a guilty verdict. well that, and that it was moved to a conservative district. Darlie's explanation of this makes sense: that she wanted to celebrate her son's birthday even under the circumstances. I think it was her way of saying that she was going to celebrate it and not let the murderer ruin it for them.

But on the flip side, Darlie does express a lot of emotion. for example, the very frantic 911 phone call she placed: so frantic, that the operator had to tell her to calm down because she couldn't understand what she was saying.

you are correct in that the silly string video probably is what swayed the jurors to produce a guilty verdict. well that, and that it was moved to a conservative district. Darlie's explanation of this makes sense: that she wanted to celebrate her son's birthday even under the circumstances. I think it was her way of saying that she was going to celebrate it and not let the murderer ruin it for them.

But on the flip side, Darlie does express a lot of emotion. for example, the very frantic 911 phone call she placed: so frantic, that the operator had to tell her to calm down because she couldn't understand what she was saying.

Valid points, yet I'm still ambivalent about this case. Not just in regards to Darlie, but with Darin as well...

I cannot believe that string video was allowed as evidence, I believe she is guilty but when Stack said watch this video I was expecting something huge not that, it proves nothing to my mind.

I'll have to disagree there. I saw the pictures of her and it looked like she had been beat to hell. and having a slash wound come within 1/16 of an inch of your corroded (sp?) artery is extremely serious. Granted, she could have been trying to commit suicide, but that would throw the 'kill the boys for the insurance money' out the window.

Her two sons where killed by thrusting stab wounds, the wound on her neck was more of a cut..

Her two sons where killed by thrusting stab wounds, the wound on her neck was more of a cut..

perhaps the person who did it to Darlie, whoever it was, was going for a slit throat, which would be a left ro right or vice versa motion, as opposed to using an up or down manner, as what apparently happened to the boys. it is possible.

perhaps the person who did it to Darlie, whoever it was, was going for a slit throat, which would be a left ro right or vice versa motion, as opposed to using an up or down manner, as what apparently happened to the boys. it is possible.

Perhaps that same person also made the cast off blood stains on Darlie's shirt too?

You know SI, I know you have a hard time believing this, but sometimes people are wrongfully convicted. Now is Darlie Routier for sure innocent? No. Is she for sure guilty? But again SI, it just seems you are rather consistent in being either unable or unwilling to grasp the concept that people actually do get wrongly convicted sometimes, it happens, the system is far from perfect.

If Darlie did it than she is where she needs to be, if she didnt do it, than a gross miscarriage of justice has been done and it needs to be corrected before she is wrongly "executed" rather murdered by the state of Texas. Yes it is murder, if you look at a death row inmate's death certificate the cause of death is listed as "homicide."

Again the answer is no. I do agree with Wiseguy, the big things that sunk Darlie were that video of her at her son's grave with the silly string and the fact the trial was in a rural county where pretty much anyone accused of killing a kid is going down regardless if there is evidence to convict them or not because the jurors were mostly rural rather ignorant, uneducated people.

Darlie's court appointed lawyer made a HUGE mistake when he fought successfully to have the trial moved out of Dallas County to a neighboring rural county.

I really do think that had this trial been held in Dallas that Darlie would have been acquitted or at least a mis-trial would have happened, her chances certainly would have been much better than they were in that rural county where her ticket to death row was stamped as soon as it was announced that the trial was being moved there.

Now, they were able to get rid of that incompetant public defender and get a rather high profile criminal defense attorney on the case, I believe he took on the case pro bono actually or he took it on for a reduced fee so Darlie's family could afford to pay.

Now, I do not believe Darlie should have been convicted based on the evidence or lack of it at trial but that does not mean I believe 100 percent she is innocent. The main thing is, her break in theory, if someone was breaking in the house, why not take anything? If Darlie did do it, than I believe her husband was also involved, I dont think she did it alone if she did in fact do it. Again though, just my opinion.

Perhaps that same person also made the cast off blood stains on Darlie's shirt too?

a speck of blood on Darlie's shirt hardly proves her guilt, especially when the segment shows her on top of her boys to see what they're condition is. I would say that their blood was bound to show up on Darlie's shirt.

like I said, I'm not 100% convinced of Darlie's innocence, but there is enough questions and uncertainty in this case to warrant a stay of execution. It's interesting to note that, IMO, there is a lack of even one piece of concrete evidence that proves Darlie's guilt. in other words, it's not an open and shut case.

It is interesting to note that Darlie gets relatively little interview time in the segment, especially compared to other final appealants. I would like to see her answer some of the questions. While I don't base my opinions entirely on their interview style, if they give a particularly cold interview (like Glen Consagra), I would probably be less apt to belive them.

But I think the one thing that all of the final appeal segments have in common is that there is alot of questions in the case, otherwise I don't think they would have went ahead and produced the segments. These type of segments tend to have strong arguments on both sides.

My best friend theorized that Darlie, maybe during a psychosis, stabbed her kids and then attempted to commit suicide. That's an interesting theory that hasn't been discussed yet. What do you guys think?

I'm not so convinced, I feel there's a strong possibility she's innocent but whether she is or not, she deserves a new trial.

I think it was probably due to her not being a very good interview subject and her mother got a fair amount of time instead and while I do not agree with most of what she said she comes across a lot better than her daughter, has there ever been a proper mental evaluation of her? as I really feel she and her team should have claimed what we would term here as manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility rather than pleading not guilty.


It is interesting to note that Darlie gets relatively little interview time in the segment, especially compared to other final appealants. I would like to see her answer some of the questions. While I don't base my opinions entirely on their interview style, if they give a particularly cold interview (like Glen Consagra), I would probably be less apt to belive them.

But I think the one thing that all of the final appeal segments have in common is that there is alot of questions in the case, otherwise I don't think they would have went ahead and produced the segments. These type of segments tend to have strong arguments on both sides.

It is interesting to note that Darlie gets relatively little interview time in the segment, especially compared to other final appealants. I would like to see her answer some of the questions. While I don't base my opinions entirely on their interview style, if they give a particularly cold interview (like Glen Consagra), I would probably be less apt to belive them.

You know who I believed without a doubt largely from watching the interview? Patricia Stallings. Those were real tears. I'm not saying that Routier is guilty because she didn't put on a good interview, but contrast her interview to that of Patricia Stallings - another mother accused of murdering her children who we now know WAS wrongly convicted, and there is a huge difference. Routier's behavior just doesn't invoke a whole lot of sympathy and I think this may have been a huge deciding factor for the jury. Yeah, yeah, we know the jury is supposed to be a trier of FACT but anyone who thinks that emotions are not part of the equation is kidding themselves. The silly string tape packed the punch the prosecution was hoping for.

My best friend theorized that Darlie, maybe during a psychosis, stabbed her kids and then attempted to commit suicide. That's an interesting theory that hasn't been discussed yet. What do you guys think?

Could be. It would explain the cut on her neck. It's also not uncommon for those hell bent on committing suicide to have last minute hesitation and to then get on the phone to 911 in time to save themselves. I once knew someone who swallowed a whole bottle of sleeping pills in an attempt to kill herself and then had such an epiphany after she swallowed the pills. Her life was saved but her liver is shot.

On the other hand, this doesn't explain the bruising to her arms, and from the look of the pictures, there was a lot of it. Maybe her boys put up a fight? Or perhaps Derrin did?

You know who I believed without a doubt largely from watching the interview? Patricia Stallings. Those were real tears. I'm not saying that Routier is guilty because she didn't put on a good interview, but contrast her interview to that of Patricia Stallings - another mother accused of murdering her children who we now know WAS wrongly convicted, and there is a huge difference. Routier's behavior just doesn't invoke a whole lot of sympathy and I think this may have been a huge deciding factor for the jury. Yeah, yeah, we know the jury is supposed to be a trier of FACT but anyone who thinks that emotions are not part of the equation is kidding themselves. The silly string tape packed the punch the prosecution was hoping for.


Exactly. I mean what sort of mother goes prancing around her dead sons graves only days after the murders? What else are the jury suppose to make of that.

Exactly. I mean what sort of mother goes prancing around her dead sons graves only days after the murders? What else are the jury suppose to make of that.

the silly string video is hardly proof that Darlie is guilty. I can't imagine Darlie or anyone for that matter being stupid enough to celebrate her son's death, particularly with the cameras rolling. The silly string video is weak evidence. In just about any other courtroom they'd laugh it right out of the courtroom. here it's enough to get her a sentence on death row. meanwhile, other criminals are proven to be 100% guilty of murder, spend a couple years in prison, then get released. How fair is our justice system? But the video doesn't prove or disprove anything.

I agree Wiseguy, the silly string video of course didnt look good, it wasnt politically correct, but that doesnt prove or disprove Darlie is the killer of her sons. Also, why am I not surprised that SI basically thinks it is acceptable to convict someone based off a silly string video and get them suited up for a lethal injection compliments of the state of Texas, off no real evidence?

Dont confuse this for me saying Darlie is for sure innocent, I am not saying she is, but she was convicted with no real evidence, the silly string video was basically what brought her down. In hang em high rural Texas that was enough for them. That is what a largely ignorant and uneducated jury pool will get you.

Also SI, you seem not to grasp that you arent supposed to convict someone just because your gut says they did it. There is supposed to meet evidence, the prosecution, not the defense, is supposed to meet the burden of proof, I am sorry, but even a pro prosecution person should be able to admit the prosecution didnt meet the burden of proof here. A silly string video being your case's linchpin is not what I call meeting the burden of proof.

I think, had this trial been held in Dallas County that the results of this trial would have been very different, other than a very weak circumstancial case, the prosecution had no real evidence, hence why they had to rely on a silly string video. But Darlie's public defender screwed up big time moving the trial out of an urban area into a rural area where anyone accused of killing a kid is going down, evidence or not.

Lets not turn this into an argument. Everyone is entitled to their opinion without criticism. I'm still on the fence if she is guilty or not, its hard to fathom that she could be capable of it. As far as the silly string, I think everyone agrees it was strange but I always figured she was heavily medicated at the time and wasn't thinking clearly.

the silly string video is hardly proof that Darlie is guilty. I can't imagine Darlie or anyone for that matter being stupid enough to celebrate her son's death, particularly with the cameras rolling. The silly string video is weak evidence. In just about any other courtroom they'd laugh it right out of the courtroom. here it's enough to get her a sentence on death row. meanwhile, other criminals are proven to be 100% guilty of murder, spend a couple years in prison, then get released. How fair is our justice system? But the video doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Well, I can't speak for SI, but I never meant to imply that the video was proof of anything. Of course, it does not prove she did it. But, it's part of an overall package and history of behavior that the jury was asked to evaluate. In a perfect world, the video would have been deemed inadmissible and the jury would have to stick to the facts, but that most likely didn't happen here.

Also, why am I not surprised that SI basically thinks it is acceptable to convict someone based off a silly string video and get them suited up for a lethal injection compliments of the state of Texas, off no real evidence?

Also SI, you seem not to grasp that you arent supposed to convict someone just because your gut says they did it. There is supposed to meet evidence, the prosecution, not the defense, is supposed to meet the burden of proof, I am sorry, but even a pro prosecution person should be able to admit the prosecution didnt meet the burden of proof here. A silly string video being your case's linchpin is not what I call meeting the burden of proof.

And just where do I say it's ok to convict her on the silly string video alone and what's this BS I think it's the "linchpin" of her case? I can speak for myself and I don't need you putting words into my mouth thank you.

the silly string video is hardly proof that Darlie is guilty. I can't imagine Darlie or anyone for that matter being stupid enough to celebrate her son's death, particularly with the cameras rolling. The silly string video is weak evidence. In just about any other courtroom they'd laugh it right out of the courtroom. here it's enough to get her a sentence on death row. meanwhile, other criminals are proven to be 100% guilty of murder, spend a couple years in prison, then get released. How fair is our justice system? But the video doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Wait wait wait...I'm not saying that video is proof or anything, but I think if anyone is off their rocker enough to kill someone - especially their own kids, what makes them sane enough to not go prancing around the cemetary and celebrating?

Wait wait wait...I'm not saying that video is proof or anything, but I think if anyone is off their rocker enough to kill someone - especially their own kids, what makes them sane enough to not go prancing around the cemetary and celebrating?


The explanation that was given by Darlie's mother was this: she was not celebrating his death, she was celebrating his birthday. She had already bought presents, etc. before the murders. This seems like a feasible explanation to me. It's like Darlie saying to the killer "you've tried to destroy our lives, and as much as it hurts, we will go on living." I think by not celebrating his birthday, it would be like letting the killer make your whole remaining life not worth while. It's like letting the killer win.

The insinuation that is made by some is that Darlie is not in a state of grievance over her son's death by playing with the silly string: This couldnt' be further from the truth. I am sure he was in tremendous grief over her son's death: we just didn't see it. Keep in mind the silly string video I think was shot many days after the deaths. Also, I know I've mentioned it before, but it's relevant: the 911 call. The tone in Darlie's voice was not a celebration tone by any means, it was a "Oh my God!, somebody killed my babies!" tone. Very distinct difference there.

And if Darlie had planned to do this, why would she spend the money on the birthday presents. Some of the aspects on the 'she did it' side just don't add up for me.

But also keep in mind that Darlie's every move, facial epression, action is going to be scrunitized to the fullest degree after the deaths as she is a suspect, and perhaps the main suspect. I've mention the eerie similarities to this case and the Jon Benet Ramsey case. I did read the book the Ramseys put out, and they did talk about being scrunitized to the extreme. When they were at the funeral, I think Patsy whispered something into John's ear, which was considered suspcious by investigators. I thought that wasn't necessarily so: funerals are a private affair and they probably just didn't want outside people in on a very private matter.

Also, I know I've mentioned it before, but it's relevant: the 911 call. The tone in Darlie's voice was not a celebration tone by any means, it was a "Oh my God!, somebody killed my babies!" tone. Very distinct difference there.

It's called acting.

It's called acting.

well if that's true, she deserves an Emmy.

"Mother on Death Row"
46 A&E
Fri Dec 7 2007 4:00pm 1:00 hr.
Record on my TiVo ® DVR


A report on the case of Darlie Routier, who is on death row for the murder of her two sons in 1996. Host: Bill Kurtis.

So was it any good? Anything new presented? Too bad I missed it!!!!

The explanation that was given by Darlie's mother was this: she was not celebrating his death, she was celebrating his birthday. She had already bought presents, etc. before the murders. This seems like a feasible explanation to me. It's like Darlie saying to the killer "you've tried to destroy our lives, and as much as it hurts, we will go on living." I think by not celebrating his birthday, it would be like letting the killer make your whole remaining life not worth while. It's like letting the killer win.

The insinuation that is made by some is that Darlie is not in a state of grievance over her son's death by playing with the silly string: This couldnt' be further from the truth. I am sure he was in tremendous grief over her son's death: we just didn't see it. Keep in mind the silly string video I think was shot many days after the deaths. Also, I know I've mentioned it before, but it's relevant: the 911 call. The tone in Darlie's voice was not a celebration tone by any means, it was a "Oh my God!, somebody killed my babies!" tone. Very distinct difference there.

And if Darlie had planned to do this, why would she spend the money on the birthday presents. Some of the aspects on the 'she did it' side just don't add up for me.

But also keep in mind that Darlie's every move, facial epression, action is going to be scrunitized to the fullest degree after the deaths as she is a suspect, and perhaps the main suspect. I've mention the eerie similarities to this case and the Jon Benet Ramsey case. I did read the book the Ramseys put out, and they did talk about being scrunitized to the extreme. When they were at the funeral, I think Patsy whispered something into John's ear, which was considered suspcious by investigators. I thought that wasn't necessarily so: funerals are a private affair and they probably just didn't want outside people in on a very private matter.


I still don't understand your point - I'm well aware of the explanation given for the silly string. And of course she would buy the presents id she was planning on murdering the kids - if she hadn't, that would seem highly suspicious. I didn't say that this was proof of her guilt, I just don't see how anyone can argue that she would be really stupid to go prancing around the cemetery like that if she was guilty. If she was guilty of killing her children, she clearly would have enough mental instability to go do something like that.

All I'm saying is that I don't see that video anymore as proof of innocence than you do as proof of her guilt.

All I'm saying is that I don't see that video as proof of innocence anymore
than you do as proof of her guilt.

Good shot, spark.

It's called acting.

COULDN'T AGREE MORE

Darlie's explanation of this makes sense: that she wanted to celebrate her son's birthday even under the circumstances. I think it was her way of saying that she was going to celebrate it and not let the murderer ruin it for them.



Do you have children?

That may make sense to you, but as a mother of three, it makes no sense at all to me. I would be sickeningly grief-stricken, God forbid, if something like this ever happened to my child/children. And I sure wouldn't be dancing on their graves or giving a double damn about a birthday party for my slaughtered child being ruined for other children. Here's how you do it...
"My children are dead. Party cancelled." Period. Return the presents, tell the parents and let them handle it. There are lots more horrible things in life than a cancelled party. Like two slaughtered children.

I know that people grieve differently. But THAT differently??? I don't believe it. Please don't tell me how medicated she was... she didn't seem too doped up to me.

I hardly think that ruining a party for other children justifies her actions.

She killed her children in Texas and now she has to play by Texas rules. I hate that that means the death penalty, but she should've thought about that before she slaughtered her children.

Guilty.

HI Suzannec4444 :wave:

I hesitated to comment ion this because the comment was made so long ago. Maybe you know more about the case now than you did then. But even though this was posted a long time ago, I would like to comment for those who may be new to this and have unanswered questions. Not that I "know it all", but I have been following this for a few years and want to leave answers for some who may still be interested. I'm just going to answer your post point by point:

"They did not show Darlie crying at her sons funeral in the video.They need to look at her husband Darin.I read this story a little bit.Darin was outside when the police arrived?Who's blood was on Darins jeans and a good reason why it was there?"

There has been speculation about a man standing in the front yard as the police arrived. Some say this was the "intruder", others say it was Darin. I personally don't understand why an intruder would run, being chased by Darlie, escape through the garage window (Darlies testimony), leave the back yard the only way possible which was either over the 6' privacy fence or through the gate and then then run around the house to the front yard to just stand there and hang around while police are arriving. Also, Darin was said to be in the house attending to the children when the paramedics arrived. So, not being there myself, who knows who it was? But the "killer" or Darin doesn't seem plausible.

As far as the blood on Darins pants, Darin did everything he could to save the boys when he found them. When he tried to perform CPR on one of his sons, as he blew air in, blood sprayed out through the gaping holes in the boys chest. Darin was covered in blood. This was, of course, investigated and the explanation was acceptable.

"Darin's hair was on a murder weapon?"

In all the things I've read and seen, I've never heard that. I'm not saying you are wrong, I've just never heard that.

"they say the knife used in the death of Devon was not the same one used on Damon and Darlie and none of his blood was found on the weapon used. According to the defense, this second knife was never recovered. The experts for the prosecution, including the medical examiner for the county, refute this claim by the defense saying that the knife presented could have easily made the wounds to all three involved and did not eliminate this knife as the murder weapon for either boys.
I say One of her son's blood was not on the murder weapon?I feel very strongly his blood would have been on the knife"

In my opinion, and this is only my opinion, the knife was used to stab both boys, each twice. She went to the sink for an attempted clean up, as well as what she knew she had to do to herself, the youngest boy was able to make it to the kitchen doorway where darlie saw him and had to stab him again and then cut herself. They will never find another knife because there never was another knife. And there WAS a clean up. That kitchen sink glowed like a beacon in the night when they sprayed it with luminol. ANY seasoned investigator will tell you that anytime you see a clean-up at a crime scene, a family member was involved and or commited the crime.

"she was accused of killing only one of her sons.who killed her other son?this is what they need to go back and find out.I don't think the prosecution had a good case.she needs a new trial.Is she getting a new trial?"

Darlie killed both of her sons.
The State of Texas only charged Darlie with one murder in the event that she was aquitted of the first one. There is no statute of limitation on murder, so if by some chance she beat the first charge they would then charge her with the second murder. They chose to prosecute her for Damons murder first, because any murder in the state of Texas of a child under the age of 6 is automatically considered a capitol murder case.

The prosecutions case was fine. It was the defense who had nothing to work with.

She is currently trying to get a new trial. A new document came down from the supreme court recently saying basically that they have been waiting for YEARS for all of this "brand new evidence" the defense claims will clear Routier and they are tired of waiting. They wanted some kind of answers within 30 days. It's been at least that long now. I'll try to find the link and post it for you or anyone looking for mor information on this subject.

Pam


Hi
They did not show Darlie crying at her sons funeral in the video.They need to look at her husband Darin.I read this story a little bit.Darin was outside when the police arrived?Who's blood was on Darins jeans and a good reason why it was there?Darin's hair was on a murder weapon?they say the knife used in the death of Devon was not the same one used on Damon and Darlie and none of his blood was found on the weapon used. According to the defense, this second knife was never recovered. The experts for the prosecution, including the medical examiner for the county, refute this claim by the defense saying that the knife presented could have easily made the wounds to all three involved and did not eliminate this knife as the murder weapon for either boys.
I say One of her son's blood was not on the murder weapon?I feel very strongly his blood would have been on the knife.why two knives?she was accused of killing only one of her sons.who killed her other son?this is what they need to go back and find out.I don't think the prosecution had a good case.she needs a new trial.Is she getting a new trial?

suzanne

No, you are wrong, suzanne. Darlies prints were the only prints on the knife. And she makes a point of mentioning that several times on the 911 tape. For some reason she felt the need to explain why her prints would be the only ones they'd find.

Darlie was convicted because the evidence pointed in one direction and one direction only and that was to her. So you are incorrect in assuming that she was convicted "on her own words that she touched the knife". That is ludicrous. Some of the most damning evidence was the fact that there was no blood trail beyond the utility room. No blood in the garage, no blood on the screen the intruder would have to have squeezed through, and no blood on the 6' white privacy fence that surrounded the back yard, and no blood on a gate that was hard to open and close. The gate was closed, by the way. Most killers do not take the time to close doors, gates or windows behind themselves as they are being chased by a victim from a crime scene.

Pam :wave:



Hi
I am reading this case and am I right to assume they convicted Darlie on her own words she touched the knife.There were no prints on the knife?Darlies prints were not on the knife?I really do not see where there is a case here against her.

suzanne

Do you have children?

That may make sense to you, but as a mother of three, it makes no sense at all to me. I would be sickeningly grief-stricken, God forbid, if something like this ever happened to my child/children. And I sure wouldn't be dancing on their graves or giving a double damn about a birthday party for my slaughtered child being ruined for other children. Here's how you do it...
"My children are dead. Party cancelled." Period. Return the presents, tell the parents and let them handle it. There are lots more horrible things in life than a cancelled party. Like two slaughtered children.

I know that people grieve differently. But THAT differently??? I don't believe it. Please don't tell me how medicated she was... she didn't seem too doped up to me.

I hardly think that ruining a party for other children justifies her actions.

She killed her children in Texas and now she has to play by Texas rules. I hate that that means the death penalty, but she should've thought about that before she slaughtered her children.

Guilty.
:thumbsup:

So agree with your post. As a mother, the thought of losing any of my three children is a nightmare I'd rather not think about. I lost a nephew in a car accident in 1985. Let me tell you, the grief that took over me was overwhelming. The thought of just laughing was too much for me. I was sick and depressed. I was in mourning for the longest time. I couldn't eat, I couldn't do anything. I wanted to die. I never want to feel like that again.
If I ever lost my child because someone took their life, I would be so depressed and angry, I may have to be locked up because I would want to kill someone. I'd want that bastard's blood. There is no way in hell I'd be celebrating my child's birthday after losing them. That would be the last thing I'd be doing. :mad:

Diane Downs, Andrea Yates or Susan Smith bring any memories to mind??? Do you remember their REASONS for killing their children??? Susan Smith strapped her children into their car seats and rolled them into a lake and allowed them to die a horrible, myserable death. Do you know what her reason was??? She was in a bad marriage, was having an affair that had ended and she was horribly depressed. BOO HOO. Diane Downs was having an affair with a man who told her her did not want to be a daddy so she took her kids down a dark road and shot them. Too bad her oldest daughter lived to testify against her. Good morning, nightbird. It happens all the time

Pam



Another over zealous prosecuter getting there face on the news for a high profile case and climbing the political ladder on the back on innocent defendants. What reason would she want to kill her children.

An even bigger question in my mind is how could Darlie lay only a few feet from her children and sleep through THEIR attacks? I very much believe that Darlie is guilty but for some reason Darin has never seemed suspect to me. Not to say it's not possible, I just never felt he had a part in it. Him commenting on her breast implants was quite tacky, to say the LEAST. And when you read their written statements, they don't really coincide with each other. Maybe you are very right and he was involved somehow, who knows? But I don't believe her for a moment.





I believe Darlie is guilty and that Darin had to be involved. How could Darin not hear Darlie fighting with the intruder and Devon and Damon being stabed but he woke up when he heard a wineglass break? When the paramedics came he asked them what they thought of Darlie's breast implants. He also made a comment about this being the biggest thing to ever happen in Rowlett. Darlie and Darin are both guilty in my mind.

HI Wiseguy,

You and I have debated this case before, but on a much more recent thread. I just found this one so if you remember me at all, I'm gonna blast away. I, like you, enjoy a good debate. Just sorry it is over something so tragic.

As we who know quite a bit about the case by now know, the "unidentified print" was found to probably have been from Darlies right ring finger. As far as the tube sock goes, we also know by this time that there were a few drops of blood from the sock from each of the boys and darlies skin cells found inside the sock. The sock found 75 yards from the Routier house was a clear sign of staging.

What "window breaking" should Darin have heard? If you are talking about the garage window, that window was left open, remember? The only broken glass was from the one and only wine glass that was knocked of the wine rack by the intruder on his way out as darlie chased him through the kitchen, yet not one cut on her feet. Tons of bloody footprints all over that kitchen floor, all hers, but no cuts on her feet...

And PLEASE tell me why if someone came in to rape this woman, WHY would they BRUTALLY SLAUGHTER her chidren? Why not tell her to cooperate, or else he'd hurt or even kill her children.

The killings don't make sense whoever did it, no doubt. But these reasons I am seeing for her innocence are incomprehensible.



not sure I would call an unidentified fingerprint 'zero evidence'. also, no explanation has ever been given as to why the tube sock was found at the neighbor's house.

earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that the husband should have heard the window breaking, etc. Assuming that argument is true, wouldn't he have also heard his wives' cry for help? And, given the circumstances, it is very likely she did scream for help, since she had someone close by that she knew would assist her.

as for why there were no signs of sexual assault, in order for him to get away with this, he has to not only do the act, but take care of 4 witnesses: which is quite difficult to pull off. I would imagine he figured Darlie was home alone, but in reality, 4 other people were in the house, a significant number, thus making his plans a lot harder to carry out.

Also a point that has been argued from the beginning.

"Darlie was left for dead" "she almost severed her carotid artery"

I personally believe that Darlies carotid artery was the last thing on her mind. She was trying to save her a** from a Texas death chamber and she knew her wounds would have to be bad in comparison to the children. And she made them as bad as she could stand to make them.

As for the reasoning, who knows? I haven't heard a good reason for a mother murdering her children yet. They all have reasons, just none that make an ounce of sense to any of us.



I'll have to disagree there. I saw the pictures of her and it looked like she had been beat to hell. and having a slash wound come within 1/16 of an inch of your corroded (sp?) artery is extremely serious. Granted, she could have been trying to commit suicide, but that would throw the 'kill the boys for the insurance money' out the window.

as far as the kill the boys for the money scenario, it was $5,000 versus $13,000 it cost to bury them. 13k would be about average for 2 funerals these days. Plus, her husband had 800k worth of insurance on him, why would she just not kill the husband?

[QUOTE=wiseguy182]this is alot like the Ramsey case, IMO, where there have been a string of similar crimes in the area, yet the police zero in on the family. Most anyone who is familiar with crime scene investigation shows, etc, the facts ars that when a child or children are murdered it is USUALLY a family member or someone close to the family. For the family to be zeroed in on first is common practice and if that is where the evidence points, what other direction should be taken. You KNOW that a two line investigation is done and you have to follow the evidence. That is common practice because the very sad truth of the matter is, it usually always involves a family member


As for why the boys were killed, it was probably because the perpetrator wanted to eliminate witnesses, and/or not run the risk of one of them calling 911 or something. Oh wiseguy... if this person was trying to eliminate witnesses or take someone out that could trip the alarm or call 911, doesn't it make more sense to take out the BIGGEST threat there? (since this theory involves you saying maybe the "perp" didn't know anyone else was there and thats why Darin and Drake were unharmed?) That would be Darlie. Not two little kids sound asleep on the floor in front of the TV...c'mon!




QUOTE]

Also, Darlie was hurt pretty bad and they said that some of her wounds could NOT have been self-inflicted so that's more reason for a new trial.

Who testified that her wounds could NOT have been self-inflicted?

But then again I'm not an expert on the case so if someone can expound on what I've said and add to it then I may have to re-evaluate.

wow, what sound reasoning. :rolleyes:


Gotta agree with you there, wiseguy. :rolleyes:

you are correct in that the silly string video probably is what swayed the jurors to produce a guilty verdict. well that, and that it was moved to a conservative district. Darlie's explanation of this makes sense: that she wanted to celebrate her son's birthday even under the circumstances. I think it was her way of saying that she was going to celebrate it and not let the murderer ruin it for them.

But on the flip side, Darlie does express a lot of emotion. for example, the very frantic 911 phone call she placed: so frantic, that the operator had to tell her to calm down because she couldn't understand what she was saying.

Does ANYONE know about the blood evidence, or the lack there of, I should say???

For the post portem depression to be true, it would have been much more likely that she would have killed the youngest, as he was the one that would have caused the depression. Darlie's relative pointed this out, and I think it was a valid point.


Well if Darlies relative pointed that out, then it must be true. :rolleyes:
What happened was crazy, we don't know why it happened. Alot of things happen in life that we just cant conceive.But just because we cannot imagine doing it ourselves doesn't make it untrue.

One of the most sensible things I've read here tonight...

I am not overly convinced by fingerprints in houses- it could be a friend, a relative, a workman or anybody who had been in that house at some point for a totally legitimate reason, it seems they probably think she planted the sock there and I think she also used the reports of the attacker in the media to make it look like him.

Looking at her Wikipedia entry it says the smeared print was later determined to be that of a child so it was most likely one of the kids in the neighbourhood who had been in the house playing at some point. In fact the defense case looks incredibly weak and everything points to her, just a shame her family especially her mother would rather go on blind faith rather than the evidence- I am amazed she did not claim insanity as her defence.

perhaps the person who did it to Darlie, whoever it was, was going for a slit throat, which would be a left ro right or vice versa motion, as opposed to using an up or down manner, as what apparently happened to the boys. it is possible.


It's ludicrous.

Perhaps that same person also made the cast off blood stains on Darlie's shirt too?



BRAVO!!!!!!!;)

a speck of blood on Darlie's shirt hardly proves her guilt, especially when the segment shows her on top of her boys to see what they're condition is. I would say that their blood was bound to show up on Darlie's shirt.


NOt a SPECK of blood, wiseguy... CAST-OFF blood. BIG difference

Her two sons where killed by thrusting stab wounds, the wound on her neck was more of a cut..



Another excellent point

Wait wait wait...I'm not saying that video is proof or anything, but I think if anyone is off their rocker enough to kill someone - especially their own kids, what makes them sane enough to not go prancing around the cemetary and celebrating?


EXACTLY!!!!!!!

Diane Downs, Andrea Yates or Susan Smith bring any memories to mind??? Do you remember their REASONS for killing their children??? Susan Smith strapped her children into their car seats and rolled them into a lake and allowed them to die a horrible, myserable death. Do you know what her reason was??? She was in a bad marriage, was having an affair that had ended and she was horribly depressed. BOO HOO. Diane Downs was having an affair with a man who told her her did not want to be a daddy so she took her kids down a dark road and shot them. Too bad her oldest daughter lived to testify against her. Good morning, nightbird. It happens all the time

Pam

In both the Diane Downs and Susan Smith cases, the boyfriend chose to end the relationship by saying he didn't want a readymade family--*assuming* a mother would choose her children over any man--showing their ignorance of the workings of some women! :angryfire

No one could stab anyone that much and not leave some of their own blood at the scene. Yet it seems no blood has ever turned up besides that of the three people who were stabbed.

In both the Diane Downs and Susan Smith cases, the boyfriend chose to end the relationship by saying he didn't want a readymade family--*assuming* a mother would choose her children over any man--showing their ignorance of the workings of some women! :angryfire


Very, very true, Cori. Thats what I mean when I say that women who do these types of things have reasonings that we just don't understand. I've had my heart broken a few times in life, but I sure wouldn't kill my kids over it!

Pam :wave:

No one could stab anyone that much and not leave some of their own blood at the scene. Yet it seems no blood has ever turned up besides that of the three people who were stabbed.


Right again, Cori. Thats why I keep asking Darlie defenders if they have ANY knowledge of the blood evidence. No other blood at that crime scene, just hers and the boys. No bloody footprints in that kitchen, just Darlies. No blood trail from the house... not on the fence or on the gate, etc. And lets not forget about that motion detector light that was off when the police arrived and tested to find that the light would stay on for 20 minute intervals.That means if the light was off when they got there, it had to have been at LEAST 20 minutes since someone had been through that back yard. Anyone that believes her is following their hearts, not their heads and common sense. No
one wants to believe a parent, especially a mother, could do this to their children, but it happens.

Pam :wave:

As far as either post-partum, or Darin being in on it...in both cases, the question is, why was Drake spared? Did they have life insurance policies on the two murdered boys? Anyone collect?

As far as either post-partum, or Darin being in on it...in both cases, the question is, why was Drake spared? Did they have life insurance policies on the two murdered boys? Anyone collect?


Hi Cori
I guess it's another one of those things we'll never know. It could be that Darin wasn't in on it at all and he would have been a little too much for her to handle, so she just took on the the boys. But why??? for 10,000 dollars?
Was it just in her mind that they would get a 10,000 dollar check and that would help dig them out of the hole???? As far in debt as they were, that doesn't make sense either. Who knows, Cori, none of it makes sense. If it weren't for the blood evidence, I wouldn't know what to believe.

Pam :wave:

It doesn't make sense to anyone with a passably normal mind. Certainly Darlie was messed up. Perhaps she had Attachment Disorder or some form of sociopathy so she was unaffected by things most people wouldn't contemplate.

It doesn't make sense to anyone with a passably normal mind. Certainly Darlie was messed up. Perhaps she had Attachment Disorder or some form of sociopathy so she was unaffected by things most people wouldn't contemplate.


Exactly. The first thing any sane person wants to know is "why?" When the crime is so insane, how can anyone expect sane reasoning?

Pam

Latest court documents lifting stay and abeyance
http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Legal/Habeas/080721.pdf

Now for some more from the federal government:

http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Legal/Habeas/081105.pdf

And especially read the last paragraph on page 16 about the judge's opinion of the prosecution's case against Darlie. He obviously sees fault too with the information, trial, and the ideas presented by the prosecution.
Also, on a previous paragraph, the judge states that the wounds to Darlie's neck were perilously close to being fatal and NOT superficial like I have been telling too many who want to say the neck wounds were superficial injuries. The fact is they were NOT.

Thank God for the federal government. Here's another case of Texas ignoring scientific facts, and a letter from someone who says this man is inocent. Just maybe Texas should do a better job of investigating murder scenes and getting their DA to look at evidence rather than sending someone to death because he thinks he/she did it, And ,he can make some sort of case against them. Even if it is totally bull****, made up case. Larry Swearingen was set to be executed until the Feds stepped in. And, the worst part is, is there is evidence that the man was in custody in the state of TEXAS of all things, at the time of the murder. I think Texas will claim they let him out on good behavior so he could go out and kill someone. That way they could have another execution on the books. Texas has 10 of this years 25 scheduled executions., ..that 40%. Something is wrong with this number. There should be some correlation between the number of executions and the populations of the states who impose them. Texas is way out of wack.

LMAO, lucchesicourt, Texas is the 2nd highest populated state in this nation. And by a fairly large margin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population

Good one, though.

The way I first found about about Darlie and her murdered children was the Silly String video on the evening news. She was dancing around and smiling and spraying all that silly string over her dead kids.... It infuriated me. I was so convinced of her guilt that I wanted to carry out her death sentence personally.

But then, over the years, I read as many details about her case as I could find. I watched the other programs that covered this story. I now think that she's innocent.

IMO, it's possible that Darin hired someone to rob the house to collect the insurance money, but then things got out of hand. (Or maybe he even hired a hitman. I wonder how much insurance he had on Darlie. Someone in this thread states there was $800,000 on Darin.) Anyway, I've read that set-up robbery theory in detail somewhere. I think it's on the fordarlieroutier.org site.

Everything went wrong in her case. It would have been heard in a populated county in Dallas, but one of the first things her lawyer did was ask for a change of venue, which got her case moved to some little podunk town where a fake breasted bleach blonde had no hope of getting a fair trial.

And the other poster is right about her neck wound. It was very nearly fatal. It was not a pricking wound or a hesitation-like wound, or even a superficial slice. Just a couple more millimeters to one side and she would have bled to death right there in the family room.

Have a look at this picture of one of Darlie's wounds, which was used in the state's evidence AGAINST her: http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/TrialExhibits/state_52-E.jpg

If she had killed her kids on purpose, why call 911 while they were still alive?

Five seconds into the call, she says, "They just stabbed me and my children". Eleven seconds into the call, she says, "My little boy is dying". At one minute four seconds, she says, "Oh my god, my baby's dead". Three seconds later she says, "Damon, hold on honey."

The operater keeps telling her to slow down so she can understand, and Darlie tells her (1:52) "I'm talking to my babies, they're dying."

3:23 "Oh my god, oh my god, he's dead. 3:29 "Oh god, Devon no, oh my god."

At 4:24, Darlie says, "They're barely breathing, if they don't get it (the ambulance) here, they're gonna be dead."

In her statement to the police, she said that when she realized someone was in the house and she ran after him, she screamed twice for Darin to come down the stairs. When he came down to see what she was yelling about, he was dressed in jeans. This was the middle of the night, yet he gets dressed before coming downstairs. I find that a bit suspicious.

I remember another case where a man had set fire to his house and killed his kids or wife (something like that, it was a big crime) and when the police/ambulance/firemen arrived at 2:00am, the guy was dressed in a shirt, slacks, belt, shoes, everything, like he was going to work. He was not in his night clothes, as if he just escaped a burning building, like he said. He was found guilty and it sure reminds me of Darin's behavior during this emergency.

At my house, when ever any of my family members yelled for me to come help them in the middle of the night, I never stopped to get dressed in street clothes. I just went to see what in the world the big fuss was all about.

There's a lot of weird stuff in this case that hasn't been thoroughly investigated.

Spark, I live in CA and I am sure CA+ the rest of the states who have capital punishment easily surpass the state of Texas in population by more than triple. So, Texas execution rate is still too high compared all these other states. So, good try Spark, but Texas' population still is not enough to warrant 40% of the executions. Let's face it Texas doesn't want the truth only someone to blame for crimes they cannot solve. The execution of Larry Swearingen at this point would amount to murder by the state of Texas. Texas, like in the movie, is afraid of the truth because it will make them look bad. Executing an innocent person will make them look worse. I am sure all states have innocent people in jail. But, when it comes to executions you had better be RIGHT 100% of the time. 99% just doesn't cut it. Like it has been said, "It is better to be wrong and let a guilty man go free then to execute one inncent person".

Census.gov 2008 population estimates. Prodeathpenalty.com DP stats.

California: 36,756,666

Executions 1930-1976: 294

Executions since 1977: 5


Texas: 24,326,974

Executions 1930-1976: 368

Executions since 1977:155

I just watched a show called "Notorious" on the Biography channel, hosted by Bill Kurtis. It was on Darlie Routier. The jury convicted her on the videotape of the silly string at the grave? Really? There was a juror saying, "She was not acting the right way." Oh. My. Stars. "She was all chewing gum and smilin' and grinnin'." So after you bury someone you can't shew gum. Or smile. The state of Texas might put a needle in her arm over a VIDEOTAPE? I am not saying she is not guilty nor am I saying she is guilty but the woman certainly deserves a new trial.

And wasn't there a bloody thiumb/fingerprint that did not match anyone in the house?

Yes, there is a fingerprint, in blood, that does not match any of the Routiers.

I don't know if they checked it against the cops and paramedics to see if one of them left it, but even in the 90s, paramedics would have been wearing exam gloves to protect themselves (and the patient) when dealing with stabbing victims, and blood everywhere.

And best I can remember, the jury only saw the Silly String clip of that video. There's tons more on that video of the whole family praying, crying, hugging, and grieving, including Darlie. And it doesn't look like she's acting, imo.

After they had a little family memorial type thing there for the boys, they then celebrated the birthday. The birthday celebration (silly string incident) didn't last nearly as long as the memorial/grieving portion of the video.

The reason Darlie gave for using silly string was that her boys loved playing with it. I think they even brought the wrapped presents to the cemetery because the whole party had already been planned (while they were alive) and presents had already been purchased.

Also, IIRC, the cops put serveillance on the boys grave site, monitored with audio at the graves, and video several feet away. The cops were hoping to hear Darlie talking to the dead children and confessing, by saying something like "Mommy's sorry she did this to you" or some other incriminating statement.

The only thing they got on tape was Darlie and the family crying and grieving.

From http://www.justicefordarlie.net/op/op-014.php Regarding the silly string and videos.

The significance of "The Silly String Tape" cannot be overlooked. The jurors viewed it eight times during deliberations. Most jurors said it was this tape that convinced them of her guilt.

Ironically, they were not allowed to see the entire tape shot that day. The Rowlett Police Department had wired and taped the boy's burial site, hoping for a graveside confession. Unfortunately, they did so without following proper procedure. A judge ruled that the illegal tape would not be admissible in court. This tape shows a grieving mother, confused and in pain.

A local news crew, not bound by procedure, filmed the spraying of the "silly string." This fifteen-second tape was shown to the jury.

The entire graveside memorial was approximately two hours long and it included a solemn and tearful religious service. It was Devon's 7th birthday and his playmates were all present at the time the silly string was introduced. These children were having a difficult time understanding their little friend's death. Darlie and Darin both wanted to create an image for these children of Devon and Damon being happy in heaven. Darlie had to be told "to pull herself together."

Darlie's sixteen-year-old sister, Dana, brought the silly string. Darlie knew nothing about it in advance. Devon loved silly string and was looking forward to having it at his birthday party. Motivated by love, Dana thought this would be a nice tribute. It was -- until Greg Davis fastened on it and distorted it for his own purpose.
----------

So, the cops had two hours on video of the whole birthday, grieving, silly string event, but it was not allowed to be shown in court. Only the sensationalized news media video clip was allowed to be shown.

If the whole 2 hour police survellance tape had been allowed, the jury would have seen that out of a two hour service, only a few SECONDS were spent with silly string and the birthday party.

Another bit from the same site listed above: (underlining is mine)

The timeline is problematic. The state's own expert testified that Damon, who was still alive when the paramedics arrived, could not have lived any longer than 9 minutes.

The 911 call lasts for 5 minutes and 44 seconds. Darlie is on the phone the entire time. The paramedics were held up for two minutes by police officers who were inspecting the house before allowing them in.

This gives Darlie approximately 1 minute and 16 seconds to inflict her wounds, stage a crime scene, and plant the bloody sock 75 yards from the Routier home.

-----------
Notice that the Prosecution's expert witness (against Darlie) testified that Damon was still alive when paramedics arrived, and from the time of the stabbing until death would have been about 9 minutes.

If your motive was to KILL your children, wouldn't you wait until they were good and dead before calling 911?

Yet Darlie called 911 immediately, apparently while both boys were still alive. Devon died before the EMTs arrived, but Damon was alive when they got there and the cops and paramedics all knew it.

I highly recommend reading this site, quoted above

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/op/op-014.php

It's one page long and lists 20 major reasons that Darlie is an innocent woman on death row.

I've always thought she was innocent. I thought for sure she would have won her appeal several years ago.

People grieve in different ways. I have a friend whose mother passed away last year. Her mom was 50 and it was unexpected. Well she called me the next day to tell me and she was at the salon getting a full makeover. I thought it was a little odd but to each their own.

I've always believed Darlie was innocent. I've never been 100% sure about her husband, though. The thing that most convinces me with Darlie is that wound to her neck. The state portrayed it as "superficial" because that is how it was described in the medical documents. But, "superficial" is a term that is used when no major blood vessel or organ is affected. In Darlie's case, that was true, but it was just milimeters from either her carotid artery or her jugular vein (I can't remember which), and so a few milimeters difference and she would be dead.

She was royally screwed by the investigators who decided she did it right from the beginning, and was further screwed by her defense attorney. He should have played the entire videotape from the graveside. He should never have moved for a change of venue. He should have had an expert on trauma and grief who could have explained her flat affect while at the hospital, etc. Her defense attorney, by the way, is the same person who prosecuted, convicted, and sent to death row Randall Dale Adams for a murder he did not commit, the case where the documentary The Thin Blue Line had a hand in setting the wrongfully convicted man free.

I highly recommend reading this site, quoted above

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/op/op-014.php

It's one page long and lists 20 major reasons that Darlie is an innocent woman on death row.


Very interesting read. She definately deserves a new trial. The sad thing is I don't think she will ever get a new trial. It just baffles me how the ones who think she is guilty can overlook all these mistakes that LE etc have made.

I've always believed Darlie was innocent. I've never been 100% sure about her husband, though. The thing that most convinces me with Darlie is that wound to her neck. The state portrayed it as "superficial" because that is how it was described in the medical documents. But, "superficial" is a term that is used when no major blood vessel or organ is affected. In Darlie's case, that was true, but it was just milimeters from either her carotid artery or her jugular vein (I can't remember which), and so a few milimeters difference and she would be dead.

She was royally screwed by the investigators who decided she did it right from the beginning, and was further screwed by her defense attorney. He should have played the entire videotape from the graveside. He should never have moved for a change of venue. He should have had an expert on trauma and grief who could have explained her flat affect while at the hospital, etc. Her defense attorney, by the way, is the same person who prosecuted, convicted, and sent to death row Randall Dale Adams for a murder he did not commit, the case where the documentary The Thin Blue Line had a hand in setting the wrongfully convicted man free.

First off, are you the same yuppielawyer from TWoP? If so...yay! Anyway.... I agree with your whole post. Her defense attorney, on the show I watched on A&E Sunday night, said he didn't think to play the entire tape to the jury of the graveside activities. The Silly String was brought by Darlie's sister! I bet she is kicking her self for that little "favor."

And yes she shoukld have had a trauma expert on her behalf. As a parent I am sure she was in shock. I mean, really. That knife wound to her neck was a very serious wound.

The juror who said she was "chewin' gum and just a grinnin'" made me ill.

I do believe her husband when he said that the state of Texas would rather execute Darlie than give her a new trial. And I believe him.

:yeahthat

First off, are you the same yuppielawyer from TWoP? If so...yay!
Yep, I am. Thanks for the welcome!

Yep, I am. Thanks for the welcome!

I am affirmed and nutgoodie over there.

Again, Welcome!

The whole "How People Grieve" discussion may be fun for gossip but it has zero place ina court of law. My aunt went to see "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" the night before my uncle's funeral. Frankly, she had cared for him, alone, at home and he was no peach all the time. She got married eight months later but no one accused her of murder. (My uncle died of complications of diabetes) and ya know what? Good for her. I am sure she needed a funny movie at that time.

I have heard of other people doing "odd" things right after a funeral, like a hot air balloon ride or something, and so what? People grieve in different ways. To have not one but two kids killed in such a fashion....I would have been on heavy medication. Seriously.

Do you realize that the DA ,did in fact, see the tape recorded by police where she was grieving, and still used the TV tape in court KNOWING that she grieved at the gravesite earlier? The fact the DA used the TV film as evidence, shows exactly how low this DA stooped to win a conviction. He knew she was grieving moments before and demonstrates his will to convict anyone he can make a case against, even if he has NO evidence to support his stance. If she is executed, and is later to be proven innocent, I would be all for trying him and Judge Francis-for involuntary manslaughter at the least, all the way to murder I. Why murder one- It is a premeditated and planned murder (call it an execution-but executions are for the guilty),and he has had plenty of time to do further investigation in the case.
I cannot believe the DA is anything but a dishonest person that will do anything to make his life more successful. He even will use state supported MURDER to make himself more successful. I guess some lawyers are really not the best of people. (this is a generalization, I know, as I am sure there are many good people who are lawyers). But, too many would rather make $$$ for winning, rather than get to the truth. There is nothing wrong with admitting mistakes, but you will NEVER see a lawyer do this. If Darlie does get another trial and is aquitted, you will hear the DA say that the jurrors made a mistake.

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's guilty. All the blood evidence points to her. No doubt in my mind, I've researched the case for years.

Do you realize that the DA ,did in fact, see the tape recorded by police where she was grieving, and still used the TV tape in court KNOWING that she grieved at the gravesite earlier? The fact the DA used the TV film as evidence, shows exactly how low this DA stooped to win a conviction. He knew she was grieving moments before and demonstrates his will to convict anyone he can make a case against, even if he has NO evidence to support his stance. If she is executed, and is later to be proven innocent, I would be all for trying him and Judge Francis-for involuntary manslaughter at the least, all the way to murder I. Why murder one- It is a premeditated and planned murder (call it an execution-but executions are for the guilty),and he has had plenty of time to do further investigation in the case.
I cannot believe the DA is anything but a dishonest person that will do anything to make his life more successful. He even will use state supported MURDER to make himself more successful. I guess some lawyers are really not the best of people. (this is a generalization, I know, as I am sure there are many good people who are lawyers). But, too many would rather make $$$ for winning, rather than get to the truth. There is nothing wrong with admitting mistakes, but you will NEVER see a lawyer do this. If Darlie does get another trial and is aquitted, you will hear the DA say that the jurrors made a mistake.

It's circumstantial evidence of her guilt. It's up to the judge whether to not to allow it. It wasn't deemed prejudicial. The surveillance tape was never offered into evidence. As well the defence was offered the tape but they chose not to show it to the jury to impeach the ss tape. Why do you suppose they did that?

The DA had the right to show the jury that Darlie's actions that day are not those of a greiving mother. She looks more like she's playing to the tv cameras. If she had been greiving hours before, where's the flushed face from all the tears she cried?

What do you mean no evidence to support his stance? The blood evidence proves Darlie committed this crime. Blood does not lie, it has no stake in this case at all.

I suggest the only greiving Darlie did during that prayer service was fake. She's really showing her true colours during the ss tape, the source of her stress is gone, the two boys, and she's celebrating. Her burden has been lifted.

What about a ditzy buxom brunette who bears a striking resemblance to Christina Ricci?

Oh, wait. We've had this discussion. :cheers:


As for the Routier case... I agree with DarkDante, who mentioned that Darlie's alibi doesn't hold up as well as MacDonald's. I'm still on the fence, but I'm swaying towards guilty, mainly because there is a lack of evidence that could acquit her. I feel that in MacDonald's case there is a question of fact. In Darlie's case, the same type of questions are lacking.

You've got to be kidding. You honestly believe that Ice pick baby killer MacDonald is innocent and has a strong alibi, LOL. What alibi, he was asleep when the hippies slaughtered his family? Oh so was Darlie asleep when her two boys were slaughtered. Yah like hell she was.

My DVD arrived the other day and I was finally able to catch up with this case. If I hadn't seen The New Detectives cover this case in greater detail I may have leaned towards Darlie being innocent but I still think she is guilty and she might not have acted alone.

I can see Darlie's knife wounds as being classed "self-inflicited", in the video of her at the grave she didnt seem bothered by the cuts, nor where they bandaged nor even look stitched up but what about the pics of Darlie's bruises? How did they get there? Even Darlie herself didn't exactly say how the bruises got there. Did she repeatedly smash her arms on some furniture? My thought was their must have been a second person involved, whether it was the unknown man she claimed she woke up as he was standing over her or her husband in on the crime too?

The other thing I can't quite explain is the tube sock, how did it get there because there wasn't enough time for Darlie to commit the crime, stage the scene, cut herself and place the sock a couple of blocks away..or could it have been placed there some time earlier, before the murderers and from some other injury her boys might have had? The doctors stated that one of her boys could only survive 9 minutes tops after receiving those knife injuries.

But from what I remember about TND version, the blood spatter evidence proves that Darlie's sons blood on the back of her shirt came from the cast off from the knife as Darlie was stabbing them.

Darlie's lake of emotion seemingly dancing and spraying silly string over her sons graves. I'm not a parent but I would think it would be unimagineable for a parent to be in such a joyious mood only days after two of her sons have been stabbed to death?

There was no real phyical evidence of an intruder in the house. A glass that was found broken in the kitchen was proven to be broken after Darlie (by her own admission) travelled through the kitchen.

Darlie had lots of time to stage this crime. It's true that Damon lived for 9 minutes but Damon was stabbed at two separate times and in two separate areas of the room as his blood trail proves. The 9 minutes is the second group of stab wounds he received, the fatal ones. Darlie could very easily have run down the alley with that sock. Damon's blood is over her's on the back of her nightshirt.

You've got to be kidding. You honestly believe that Ice pick baby killer MacDonald is innocent and has a strong alibi, LOL. What alibi, he was asleep when the hippies slaughtered his family? Oh so was Darlie asleep when her two boys were slaughtered. Yah like hell she was.

I don't want to get off topic here, but there's actually a TON of forensic evidence to support Dr. MacDonald's innocence.

I think Darlie Routier's guilty. But I don't understand the rash emotionalism that runs rampant throughout this entire thread when someone doesn't agree with that position. This thread is a lions' den for anyone of a different stance.

I believe she murdered her children, yes. I also think she is held to a much higher standard in the "court of public opinion" because she is a woman and a mother. Surely, a father who kills his kids is despicable---but a mother? She deserves the worst possible fate humankind can conjure. You'll find this double standard runs rampant throughout North America with a little research into the many sociologic studies that have been done on it. She deserves to be punished because she committed a crime. Period, end of story. The fact that those she murdered were her own children is irrelevant, but I honestly think that's what "fuels the fire", as it were, around here.

The DA did everything to show the jurrors that Darlie was cheerful and happy at the gravesite, even though he KNEW that this was NOT the TRUTH. Just because a judge allows something into evidence, doesn't mean it should be ignored,especially when the DA knew Darlie was showing grief. He sure did his best to hide this fact. Didn't he? If you ignore the FACTS that YOU know to be the truth,as the DA DID, and use only the evidence allowed, then all you are doing is trying to get a conviction and not trying to solve the crime. The real killer, if it is not Darlie, is still out there.

Meg you say you THINK she is guilty. She may be. I am unsure at this point. But, I do know the DA tried to present Darlie as a cheerful person at the gravesite, when he had evidence that this was just not the case. He did not bring this up in court, because it was not admissable, because the judge said so. The DA presented a position that he KNEW wasn't the truth. He knew that Darlie was grieving at the gravesite, but somehow he felt it best not to bring it up during the trial. What solid concrete evidence is there that Darlie is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I didn't say all doubt. I only say in order to execute someone it has to be beyond ALL doubt. Since, you think she may be guilty, would you still think execution is the right penalty?
The police broke the law in an attempt to get a confession, the crime scene wasn't protected, DA and police said there were no prints, but there were prints, judge refused to allow DNA analysis, the DA's expert now claims he was not qualified to testify as an expert at the trial, but the DA presented him as such,they took over 1000 photos, gave the defense only 400, said Darlie's wounds were superficial-an out and out lie etc. etc. Does this sound like an honest group trying to find the truth? I say once a liar always a liar. The police and DA are PROVEN LIARS, PERIOD. So, would you execute her based on such a group's opinion?
If darlie is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, I think a new trial with honest and fair judges, lawyers, and police officers, they would get the same result.

Since, you think she may be guilty, would you still think execution is the right penalty?

I'm not a proponent of the death penalty, so I never think it's the right sentence. As a matter of fact, I think cases like this are a prime example of why having one in place is so dangerous.

Meg, I can't say I am 100% against the death penalty, as some prisoners have escaped to kill again. But, I think you MUST be 100% sure you have the right person. E.g. Sirhan Sirhan was caught during the act so any doubt has pretty much been eliminated in situations like this. But, circumstantial evidence, does NOT warrant a death penalty conviction in ANY state, IMO.
I know it is wrong to kill, but sometimes by not executing someone who is a known killer, leaves the possibility that they can continue to kill. A life sentence without parole, doesn't stop the killer from killing. Though if it did, I would feel that such a sentence would be more than adequate to stop killers from any future murders.

Another bit from the same site listed above: (underlining is mine)

The timeline is problematic. The state's own expert testified that Damon, who was still alive when the paramedics arrived, could not have lived any longer than 9 minutes.

The 911 call lasts for 5 minutes and 44 seconds. Darlie is on the phone the entire time. The paramedics were held up for two minutes by police officers who were inspecting the house before allowing them in.

This gives Darlie approximately 1 minute and 16 seconds to inflict her wounds, stage a crime scene, and plant the bloody sock 75 yards from the Routier home.

-----------
Notice that the Prosecution's expert witness (against Darlie) testified that Damon was still alive when paramedics arrived, and from the time of the stabbing until death would have been about 9 minutes.

If your motive was to KILL your children, wouldn't you wait until they were good and dead before calling 911?

Yet Darlie called 911 immediately, apparently while both boys were still alive. Devon died before the EMTs arrived, but Damon was alive when they got there and the cops and paramedics all knew it.

Damon was stabbed at two different times and in two different areas of the room, so it's the second group of stabbings, the fatal group, that starts the 9:00 minute timeline so Darlie had lots of time to stage the crime scene prior to placing the 911 call.

When the paramedics arrived Damon was almost dead and in fact died in the paramedics arms, a traumatized child gasping for air is not likely to shout "Mommy did it" when the cops arrived.

Why did Darlie ignore the cop's advice to put something on Damon's back to help stop the bleeding? She just stood there holding a rag on her own neck wound.

I know I am new here. However, I firmly believe in Darlie's guilt. I didn't at one time, but once I became interested in her case, I didn't stop until I had read everything on this case..including all the court documents.

I know I am new here. However, I firmly believe in Darlie's guilt. I didn't at one time, but once I became interested in her case, I didn't stop until I had read everything on this case..including all the court documents.

It's interesting to me that I started out believing that she was so guilty, I wanted to execute her myself, but later, decided she was innocent. And you started out believing in her innocence, then learned more about the case, and decided that she was guilty.

I think you're in the majority. From what I can tell, most folks on this board believe she's guilty.

The DA did everything to show the jurrors that Darlie was cheerful and happy at the gravesite, even though he KNEW that this was NOT the TRUTH. Just because a judge allows something into evidence, doesn't mean it should be ignored,especially when the DA knew Darlie was showing grief. He sure did his best to hide this fact. Didn't he? If you ignore the FACTS that YOU know to be the truth,as the DA DID, and use only the evidence allowed, then all you are doing is trying to get a conviction and not trying to solve the crime. The real killer, if it is not Darlie, is still out there.

The SS tape is circumstantial evidence. It goes to Darlie's state of mind. The DA has every right to show it to the jury. After all, Darlie invited that news crew there to the graves to the bday party, not to the prayer service.

Darlie claimed she was a victim, a greiving mother, claimed a stranger, an intruder killed her boys, the DA has every right to show the jury that within just 8 days she was out dancing, smacking gum and laughing on their graves. It's rebuttal evidence after all.

Contrary the tape of the prayer service is not hours long and does not show Darlie greiving, all it shows is family and friends from the back, no audio, nothing. Oh it does show Darlie sitting down on the grass with the baby, Drake.

There is more than enough evidence, blood evidence, physical evidence that proves Darlie committed this crime. The tape is only one small piece of it.

It's interesting to me that I started out believing that she was so guilty, I wanted to execute her myself, but later, decided she was innocent. And you started out believing in her innocence, then learned more about the case, and decided that she was guilty.

I think you're in the majority. From what I can tell, most folks on this board believe she's guilty.

the first I ever saw of Darlie was the Leeza show and her mil was doing most of the talking and defending her. That impressed me..usually you're mother in law would stick up for her child. Anyway, I then read a book about this case and still thought her innocent, HOWEVER, (oops), her story niggled at me, it didn't ring true. How do you sleep through the brutal stabbing of your two boys, who are sleeping practically at her feet, yet the baby's moving in it's crib wakes you up..that didn't ring true to me so I started to research.

The trial transcripts were the first...once I read those, I knew she was guilty...if you're innocent you don't lie and lie and lie you're head off during testimony. Once you learn the blood evidence, it's very hard to give her an out.

I don't think she should be executed, I don't believe in the DP, she should remain in prison though and never be released.

I don't want to get off topic here, but there's actually a TON of forensic evidence to support Dr. MacDonald's innocence.

I think Darlie Routier's guilty. But I don't understand the rash emotionalism that runs rampant throughout this entire thread when someone doesn't agree with that position. This thread is a lions' den for anyone of a different stance.

I believe she murdered her children, yes. I also think she is held to a much higher standard in the "court of public opinion" because she is a woman and a mother. Surely, a father who kills his kids is despicable---but a mother? She deserves the worst possible fate humankind can conjure. You'll find this double standard runs rampant throughout North America with a little research into the many sociologic studies that have been done on it. She deserves to be punished because she committed a crime. Period, end of story. The fact that those she murdered were her own children is irrelevant, but I honestly think that's what "fuels the fire", as it were, around here.

Her case does bring out a lot of emotion in people...sometimes the worst kind.

And I don't want to get off topic either but there is not a ton of evidence of MacDonald's innocence at all, in fact all the blood evidence and fibre evidence points to him as the guilty party. His case I have also researched for years. There are lab documents on line now as are all the court documents.

I'll agree to disagree until there's a thread on Mac that we can discuss.

The trial transcripts were the first...once I read those, I knew she was guilty...if you're innocent you don't lie and lie and lie you're head off during testimony. Once you learn the blood evidence, it's very hard to give her an out.
Of course, the trial transcripts were totally botched by the court reporter who was apparently having a nervous breakdown during the trial and when she was supposed to be preparing the record. She did such a poor job, she was actually thrown in jail for contempt.

Of course, the trial transcripts were totally botched by the court reporter who was apparently having a nervous breakdown during the trial and when she was supposed to be preparing the record. She did such a poor job, she was actually thrown in jail for contempt.

The mistakes are typos and spelling errors. The transcripts were rebuilt and certified by another court reporter and accepted by the court.

you can read the decision at www.justicefordarlie.net/evidence (www.justicefordarlie.net./evidence)

No, they were not just typos and spelling errors. There were entire chunks of testimony missing from her records. Another court reporter had to come in to put it back together but there were huge portions of testimony where the original reporter's back-up audio tapes were completely missing, so it's not at all clear that the record eventually produced is accurate.

Cami-no one except the prosecution team has seen the tape that was made before the silly string event because it was an ILLEGAL act by the POLICE and DA who approved this action in an attempt to get a confession. A criminal act by the police and DA that's why it was not allowed. Were any of the parties involved in this crime charged with it? I think not. From what I have read, Darlie did cry before the SS tape at the memorial service. Let's face one pertinent fact- if you see someone in pain and agony, many times someone will tell you to try to maintain a calm demeaner so you do not upset people at the seen,, in this case other children. And, if someone is severely hurt, many times the doctor will tell you to remain calm so you do not upset the victim. It could be Darlie was doing her best not to upset the children that were present for the short time they were there.
The facts are the judge made the SS tape available, and DENIED Darlie's defense many other requests for testing of evidence (which have subsequently have been overrulled by the federal appeals court- thank God). I think anyone on trial has the RIGHT to an HONEST and FAIR trial. Darlie did not get one, IMO. If she had, she may have been convicted anyway. But, many facts provided by the prosecution at the trial have NOW been proven to be false. They said there were no prints, that the screen was cut from the inside, that there was screen material on the kitchen knife (now it may be fingerprint dust), etc. etc. The prosecution falsely presented someone as an expert, and the so called expert himself says he was NOT QUALIFIED to be considered an expert. Give me ONE solid piece of evidence that CANNOT be disputed as to her guilt, without conjecture. A smoking gun if you will. You also say Damon was stabbed at two different times. so she had lots of time to start the clock before the second, mortal stabbing. May I ask you Cami, did she stab him while on the phone during her 911 call (5 minutes and 44 seconds) and the two minutes that passed before the police officer allowed paramedics into the house. That's almost 8 minutes right there. Also, if you did the crime, why would you not wait for the victim to die before calling for help? After they are dead, they cannot identify you, but Darlie called while they were still alive. Now, in a serious injury of any type there are people who PANIC and fail to act. This is NOT uncommon. It could be Darlie did exactly that, and that would not be unusual.
Also, this hesitation wound business, is all conjecture without fact of how this happened. The prosecution is trying to say Darlie did it because of this. I'll suggest that next time Darlie should not defend herself so the intruder (if there was one) could make a clean slice. Me, I would try to hold the knife from cutting my neck, maybe just as Darlie did. This would explain possible hesitation wounds as the prosecution contends. There is just too ,uch garbage mixed in with facts, and therein is where I have a problem. The prosecution in this case did not present an honest case, if he had, he wuld haveturned overALL evidence he had to the defense, and he would not have called sneone an expert who obviously wasn't, and he would not have attempted to MISLEAD the jurrors as to the severity of Darlie's injuries. I'd say he did a good job of lying, cheating, and stealing. Just what you want in a DA. Good luck if something happens to you and he's the DA. He is one person I do not trust in the whole trial. He is the one responsible for getting the FACTS together to present a case. Not conjecture, misleading acts, lying, etc.etc.

No, they were not just typos and spelling errors. There were entire chunks of testimony missing from her records. Another court reporter had to come in to put it back together but there were huge portions of testimony where the original reporter's back-up audio tapes were completely missing, so it's not at all clear that the record eventually produced is accurate.

Have you read the court decision? There were not whole chunks of the testimony missing. There were some court exhibits that were missing but they were eventually found.

Q. (By Mr. Knapp) Are the documents that
8 you're looking at the redlined copy of the
9 reporter's record that you prepared in the Routier
10 case?
11 A. Yes, they are.
12 Q. Let me start by asking you: How many
13 notations of mistakes did you make -- could you take
14 an estimate -- in the record that you reviewed,
15 large and small and what have you?
16 A. Well, there were 6,000 pages that I
17 reviewed. And there were over 18,000 corrections
18 that I -- I wrote in. And that's a conservative
19 estimate.
20 Q. Could you tell the Board about some of the
21 major problems that you found with this record?
22 A. Typos, misidentification of speakers.
23 Like we would have, "THE WITNESS: I overrule that
24 objection," where obviously, it should have been the
25 Court. Left out words. Words that sounded close

CHAPMAN COURT REPORTING SERVICE
(512) 452-4072


1 but weren't the words that the participants had been
2 using. Just all kinds of errors.
3 Q. What about the index? Did you see what's
4 been described as a growing index in there?
5 A. When I got the record, the index was not
6 in there.
7 Q. What had happened to the index?
8 A. I -- I don't know. The copy that was -- I
9 was given did not have a growing index.
10 Q. Could you select one or two volumes of the
11 reporter's record and tell the Court specifically
12 some of the problems that you see at those
13 particular areas of the record?
14 A. Well. this is just an example. There were
15 just words left out. They just weren't in the
16 record. Like right here, it says, "THE WITNESS: I
17 do." And the witness actually said, "Yes, Your
18 Honor."
19 Q. What page and volume of the record is
20 that?
21 A. This is Volume 5, Page 444. Like I said,
22 lots and lots of misspellings.
23 MR. GORANSON: May I see that,
24 please?
25 THE WITNESS: Sure.

CHAPMAN COURT REPORTING SERVICE
(512) 452-4072


1 A. Especially, I noticed in the medical
2 testimony where the doctors testified, the medical
3 terminology was not correct at all. They -- what
4 was in the record is what it sounded like, not
5 necessarily what the term the doctor had actually
6 used.
7 Q. (By Mr. Knapp) Should a court reporter,
8 one way or another, find out exactly what the
9 correct terminology is --
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. -- in that situation?
12 A. Yes.

This is testimony from the disciplinary hearing. I don't read anywhere where there are whole blocks of testimony missing. Can you post it please?

3 Q. Okay. Is there any place in the record
4 that you can show this Board that has affected any
5 of the substantive rights of Darley Routier in her
6 appeal?
7 A. To me, that's a legal question. I mean,
8 I've marked all of this --
9 Q. Let me ask this way: You've told
10 Judge Francis that in your professional opinion this
11 record is certifiable for appellate purposes, have
12 you not?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And is that telling him, Judge, I have
15 done this, I've done my professional best in doing
16 it, I think it's -- will meet the standards of being
17 certifiable for an appellate record?
18 A. Yes.

I've read about a few very important cases, with defendents facing execution, where the court records were seriously a mess. Is there a good reason why important or very complicated cases wouldn't have two court reporters transcribing the testimony simultaneously?

I mean, why not have two court reporters in the court at the same time recording the same testimony? Seems like it would really help cut down on the errors, which could maybe save time and money, and maybe even someone's life, down the line.

[QUOTE=lucchesicourt]Cami-no one except the prosecution team has seen the tape that was made before the silly string event because it was an ILLEGAL act by the POLICE and DA who approved this action in an attempt to get a confession. A criminal act by the police and DA that's why it was not allowed.

This tape was offered to the defence to show to the jury as the trial transcripts prove. If this tape shows Darlie crying and sobbing, her family and her defense attornies would have this tape shown on every newscast and have it there on the site for us to see. The fact that it's nowhere leads me to believe this tape has no evidentiary value...iow Darlie is not sobbing and crying on this tape as her family alleges.

There have been many hearings on the admissiblilty of this tape and the alleged misconduct on the part of the police. The bottom line is the cops did nothing wrong......the Routiers had no expectation of privacy at the prayer service.

The SS tape will stick like glue to Darlie for the rest of her life. She cannot prove there is a tape of the prayer service that shows her sobbing and crying. She made a huge mistake in what she did at the grave that day but this tape is only one small piece of evidence.

The facts are the judge made the SS tape available, and DENIED Darlie's defense many other requests for testing of evidence (which have subsequently have been overrulled by the federal appeals court- thank God). I think anyone on trial has the RIGHT to an HONEST and FAIR trial. Darlie did not get one, IMO. If she had, she may have been convicted anyway.

The judge did not deny the defense the right to test the evidence. Yes he did not strike the ss tape as it's an important piece of evidence but it's only one piece of the evidence and I don't think it has anything to do with Darlie's guilt...well it does show that she jumped right to "acceptance"--I always thought was the last stage of grief. Once Darlie changed lawyers from PD's to Mulder, no further testing was ordered by her defense attorneys. Darlie's trial was fair..if it hadn't been she would have won one of those appeals by now. And I do agree with post-conviction testing...test everything.

But, many facts provided by the prosecution at the trial have NOW been proven to be false. They said there were no prints, that the screen was cut from the inside, that there was screen material on the kitchen knife (now it may be fingerprint dust), etc. etc. The prosecution falsely presented someone as an expert, and the so called expert himself says he was NOT QUALIFIED to be considered an expert.

On the contrary...the prosecution did not say there were no prints...as the trial testimony proves:

1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. How long have you been with the
3 Rowlett Police Department?
4 A. Over two years.
5 Q. All right. What are your duties at
6 the present time?
7 A. I am a patrolman and a crime scene
8 officer.
9 Q. How long have you been a crime scene
10 officer, in addition to being a patrol officer?
11 A. Approximately 21 months.
12 Q. All right. Let me direct your
13 attention back to June the 6th, 1996. Were you on duty
14 that day?
15 A. Yes -- no, I was not on duty that day.
16 Q. Okay. Did you get a call to go up to
17 5801 Eagle Drive?
18 A. Correct. I received a call-out from
19 dispatch at my house.
20 Q. All right. And, did you go up there
21 sometime during the morning then to Eagle Drive?
22 A. Yes. I arrived on Eagle shortly
23 before 9 a.m.
24 Q. Okay. Let me ask you, I want to go to
25 what you did out there. Let me ask you: If at some time
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
1980

1 that morning after arriving at the scene, were you
2 instructed to process that house for possible
3 fingerprints?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Okay. And, you have heard the term
6 "latent fingerprints"; is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What is a latent fingerprint?
9 A. The skin on the inside of human hands
10 and fingers is composed of what they call friction
11 ridges. Also, the skin has pores through which sweat and
12 other body oils -- other body oils are secreted.
13 Sometimes when the human finger or
14 palm touches a surface, an impression will be left. All
15 of those friction ridges are called latent or hidden
16 prints. Not really visible to the human eye necessarily.
17 Q. All right. So, for instance, this
18 morning if I touch the counsel table here in front of me
19 with my fingers, lift up, is there a possibility that I
20 may have left my latent fingerprints on this table?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Okay. Were those the types of things
23 that you were looking for out there that morning at Eagle
24 Drive?
25 A. That is in fact what I was looking
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
1981

1 for.
2 Q. How much experience have you had in
3 trying to collect latent fingerprints?
4 A. Approximately five years.
5 Q. All right. And what sort of training
6 did you undergo for that sort of duty?

1 BY MR. GREG DAVIS:
2 Q. Okay. Officer, if you would, let's
3 look at State's Exhibit 85-F first. Can you tell the
4 members of the jury where you retrieved that latent
5 fingerprint from?
6 A. Yes. This latent was recovered from
7 the inside of the door that this gentlemen mentioned, the
8 door between the wash room and the garage, inside surface
9 of the door, approximately four inches above the door
10 handle on this surface of the door itself.
11 Q. Okay. If we could, let's please look
12 at State's Exhibit 85-G. Please tell us where you
13 recovered those or that one.
14 A. This latent was recovered about two
15 inches above the other latent, also inside of the door,
16 on the surface of the door, about 6 inches above the door
17 handle. This was a dried, apparently bloody latent.
18 Q. Okay. So you have got 85-F, being the
19 inside portion; is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Four inches above the door handle?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And 85-G is going to be, in blood, six
24 inches above the door handle, right?
25 A. Yes.Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2006

1 Q. Okay. Are those the only parts of
2 that door that you tried to process for latent
3 fingerprints?
4 A. I processed the inside and outside of
5 the door.
6 Q. Okay. Well, what parts of the outside
7 of the door did you try to process?
8 A. Well, I don't specifically remember
9 every square inch, but I processed the door thoroughly.

You can also read Cron's testimony on the fingerprints.


The debris on the kitchen knife is not fingerprint dust, it is rubbery greyish dust consistant with the window screen. There was two pieces of evidence found on the bread knife that are consistant with the window screen. One is a fibreglass rod and the other is the rubbery dust. the fibreglass rod was compared to a section of cut window screen and both are consistant.

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-37.php#1

Q. Okay. Did you obtain a fingerprint
13 brush from Rowlett?
14 A. Officer Hamilton left his fingerprint
15 brush at my laboratory over Saturday.
16 Q. All right. Did you compare the
17 fiberglass that made up his fingerprint brush with
18 fiberglass that you found on the knife blade and the
19 screen also?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. All right. What were your findings
22 when you looked at his fingerprint brush and fiberglass
23 that made it up?
24 A. The fiberglass rods that make up these
25 fingerprint brushes are almost twice as thick as the
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
3038
1 fiberglass in the screen. So they are very, very
2 different. The fingerprint brush rods are much larger.
3 Q. Let me ask you, when you looked at the
4 butcher block and the eight knives were still in the
5 block, correct?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. When you looked at it? Did you ever
8 find any black fingerprint powder inside the butcher
9 block?
10 A. Not inside. The only fingerprint
11 powder I observed was on the knives on either side of the
12 open slot. None of the other knives had been printed.
13 Q. Okay. The Number 4 knife that you
14 tested where you found the fiberglass and the rubbery
15 material, was there any fingerprint powder on that knife?
16 A. No, sir.
17 Q. Let's talk about fiberglass on the
18 other knives inside the butcher block. Besides Number 4,
19 the knife where you found the fiberglass and the rubber
20 material, did you look at the other seven knives to
21 determine whether or not you could find any fiberglass or
22 rubbery material on them?
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 Q. Okay. What was the result?
25 A. Didn't find any fiberglass on any of
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
3039
1 the other knives in the block.
2 Q. Okay. So the only knife in the
3 butcher block where you did find this fiberglass was on
4 Number 4; is that right?
5 A. That's right.

Who was falsely presented at trial as an expert? Can you point that out please. Can you post a link or something to verify it came from this person. Thanks

Give me ONE solid piece of evidence that CANNOT be disputed as to her guilt, without conjecture. A smoking gun if you will. You also say Damon was stabbed at two different times.

Easy, here's two. The cast-off blood on the back of her nightshirt and the bloody imprint of the knife in the carpet.

You also say Damon was stabbed at two different times. so she had lots of time to start the clock before the second, mortal stabbing. May I ask you Cami, did she stab him while on the phone during her 911 call (5 minutes and 44 seconds) and the two minutes that passed before the police officer allowed paramedics into the house. That's almost 8 minutes right there. Also, if you did the crime, why would you not wait for the victim to die before calling for help? After they are dead, they cannot identify you, but Darlie called while they were still alive. Now, in a serious injury of any type there are people who PANIC and fail to act. This is NOT uncommon. It could be Darlie did exactly that, and that would not be unusual.

It's a fact of this case....not opinion. Damon's bloody handprint was found on the carpet and on the sofa and the blood trail proves he moved from in front of the sofa to the wall leading to the entryway. His blood and Darlie's blood found on the wall there prove he was there and that he was stabbed again there. That's where he was found. The varying depths of his injuries as well. The timeline starts with that 911 call. Well I can tell you this. IMO Darlie placed that 911 call for herself, she went a little too deep with that knife when she cut her own neck and she bled like a pig. No, I wouldn't expect a traumatized 5 year-old stabbed in the back into his lungs to yell "Mummy did it" when the cops arrived. He was obviously frightened. Devon was clearly dead prior to the cops responding. Did she stab Damon whilst on the 911 call? I don't know if she did but there are some who think she did. There's a point in the 911 call where she hisses "damon, damon, damon" in a pissed-off voice to Darin. Of course she could have panicked and not helped Damon.

Also, this hesitation wound business, is all conjecture without fact of how this happened. The prosecution is trying to say Darlie did it because of this. I'll suggest that next time Darlie should not defend herself so the intruder (if there was one) could make a clean slice. Me, I would try to hold the knife from cutting my neck, maybe just as Darlie did. This would explain possible hesitation wounds as the prosecution contends.

You can see the hesitation wounds...especially the one on her arm and the medical staff testified to the same. Call me crazy but I prefer to believe someone qualified to judge. Do you think the state just offers this up at trial without qualified experts to back them up? If you held the knife you'd have big cuts on your fingers. Darlie doesn't have cuts on her fingers, she has no defense wounds at all.

There is just too ,uch garbage mixed in with facts, and therein is where I have a problem. The

???? Perhaps it's due to the fact that you're only reading on side....Darlie's side.

The prosecution in this case did not present an honest case, if he had, he wuld haveturned overALL evidence he had to the defense, and he would not have called sneone an expert who obviously wasn't

What evidence wasn't turned over to the defence?

and he would not have called sneone an expert who obviously wasn't, and he would not have attempted to MISLEAD the jurrors as to the severity of Darlie's injuries. I'd say he did a good job of lying, cheating, and stealing. Just what you want in a DA. Good luck if something happens to you and he's the DA. He is one person I do not trust in the whole trial. He is the one responsible for getting the FACTS together to present a case. Not conjecture, misleading acts, lying, etc.etc.

Okay I will wait for you to prove to me who this so-called expert that wasn't an expert testified for the state. How could the DA attempt to mislead the jurors on Darlie's injuries? The doctors and nurses that attended her all testified as to her condition. The doctor who performed the exploratory surgery on her neck testified as to that injury. Are we not to believe him then? If Darlie almost died why was she released from hospital 2 days later? Darlie had serious but non-life threatening wounds. I'd say you would need to prove the DA did a good job of lying, cheating and stealing, etc. The only two people lying that I can see are Darlie and Darin Routier. Since you've only listened to one side of the case how would you know there was conjecture, misleading acts and lying?

Darlie killed those two boys and Darin knows it and quickly covered for her.

Here's the medical testimony on Darlie's wounds. I don't see any leading or misleading the jury on the severity of her wounds.


4 Q. Were these deep penetrating wounds?
5 A. Yes, very deep.
6 Q. Okay. After you had pronounced the
7 child dead when he got there, there wasn't anything you
8 could do for him; is that correct, Doctor?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. After you pronounced him dead, did you
11 go and see about the other stabbing victim?
12 A. Well, actually, before I left the room
13 the other resident that was in with the adult patient
14 came in and said, "She needs to go to the operating
15 room." So, after I pronounced the child dead, I left the
16 room and went to the other room to see the adult patient.
17 Q. And what was going on when you went
18 into that room?
19 A. There was a lot of people in the room,
20 there was a lot of commotion going on, but I got a chance
21 to see her. She had a laceration to the neck, with a lot
22 of blood on her chest and her body. And I agreed with
23 the surgery resident, that in view of those injuries we
24 needed to take her to the operating room to explore the
25 wounds.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
719

1 Q. Okay. Now, did you later come to know
2 this patient that you saw in there as Darlie Routier?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. Do you see her in the courtroom
5 today?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Could you point her out, please.
8 A. Yes, she's over there at the defense
9 table.
10 Q. Okay. The woman here sitting with the
11 coat draped around her?
12 A. Yes.
13
14 MR. TOBY L. SHOOK: Your Honor, could
15 the record reflect that the witness has identified the
16 defendant here in open court.
17 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
18
19 BY MR. TOBY L. SHOOK:
20 Q. Now, you go in there, you see a --
21 describe the wound you saw to her neck.
22 A. When I walked in the room, she had a
23 slash wound, or a laceration to the neck, kind of
24 tangentially going from the right side to the left, or
25 left side to the right, across here, across this area,
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter

720

1 across her neck. And as I said, she had a lot of blood
2 on her. Because the residents had already examined her,
3 and based on my quick evaluation at the time, I felt it
4 would best be managed up in the operating room.
5 Q. [B]Okay. Tell the jurors why it's best to
6 go immediately to the operating room with that type of
7 wound?
8 A. You don't want to take any chances
9 with any type of neck wounds. There are a lot of vital
10 structures in the neck. The vessels that feed blood to
11 your brain and vessels that bring the blood back to your
12 heart. As well as your trachea, the voice box. All
13 those kind of injuries can be very devastating if they're
14 not taken care of right away. So it's usually better to
15 go examine those in the operating room and get better
16 control in case you get into trouble.
17 Q. All right. You do a rather quick
18 assessment down there in the emergency room; is that
19 correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. And do you have certain terms,
22 or what you call zones for areas of the neck?
23 A. Yes. The neck area, as far as
24 injuries are concerned, is divided into 3 zones. Zone 1
25 is just kind of the lower area where your collar bone and
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
721

1 clavicle are down. Zone 2 is from above the clavicle, up
2 to about where the Adam's apple is in the man, about this
3 area. And then zone 3 is from about where the angle of
4 the mandible is here on up. And that's how we describe
5 the injuries to the neck, zone 1, zone 2, zone 3.
6 Q. This particular injury, was it in the
7 zone 2 area?
8 A. Yes, it was.
9 Q. Okay. Any time you get any type of
10 injury, any cut to the zone 2 area, do you take the
11 patient to the operating room?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And you do what is called exploratory
14 surgery?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. What about if it was down in the zone
17 1, in the clavicle area?
18 A. Then you have to think about doing
19 some studies. If the patient is stable enough and have
20 injuries done to zone 1, then you worry about the large
21 blood vessels coming out of the heart. That's a
22 different approach, a different type of surgery. And if
23 the patient is stable enough, you wait and do some X-ray
24 studies and figure out what you need to do.
25 Q. See any significant cut here at all, a
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
722

1 cut to the neck in zone 2, you take them to the operating
2 room; is that correct?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. And is that what you did with Ms.
5 Routier?
6 A. Yes, we did.
7 Q. All right. Were you in there and
8 helping in the performance of the surgery?
9 A. Yes, I was.
10 Q. Okay. Describe for the jurors what
11 type of surgery was performed.
12 A. Well, it's call exploratory surgery
13 again because we're looking for injuries. We don't know
14 what's injured yet. We took her up to the operating
15 room, gave her general anesthetic, where she was out.
16 We washed the wounds, cleaned this all
17 out, and were able to look at it. Once we had her up in
18 the operating room, under the anesthetic, with everything
19 cleaned and prepped, there was very little bleeding at
20 this time.
21 So, we explored the wound and found
22 that most of the bleeding had come from the veins that
23 are located underneath the skin, in kind of, in what's
24 called subcu, or the fat tissue that's underneath your
25 skin.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
723

1 There's a bunch of veins here in the
2 neck area. Some of those were injured. We repaired
3 those by either using the electrocautery, which is an
4 electric type of current that coagulates the vessels, or
5 we put some stitches in the small vessels. We washed out
6 the rest of the wound.
7 We noted that the wound went down to
8 what is called the platysma, which is the muscle that
9 kind of covers your neck here. When you do that, you can
10 see it flexing. Her wound went down to the platysma, had
11 a little nick in it, but did not go beyond it. So,
12 having found that extent of the injury, we washed that
13 out and closed the neck wound.
14 Q. Okay. So you took her in and, I
15 guess, she was put to sleep?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And then you take a look at this wound
18 you have on the neck?
19 A. Right.
20 Q. About -- was it just one wound to the
21 neck?
22 A. There was one wound to the neck, there
23 was another separate wound to the left shoulder, and a
24 separate wound to the right forearm.
25 Q. Which wound were you primarily
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
724

1 concerned with?
2 A. With the neck injury.
3 Q. And could you tell the jurors how long
4 this wound in the neck was?
5 A. We didn't measure it, but we estimated
6 it was approximately 9 centimeters long.
7 Q. You say it came across partly on the
8 right side?
9 A. It went from the right to the left. I
10 can't tell you where it started, but it extended from the
11 one side to the other, just passed the midline on the
12 left side.
13 Q. Now, you say that it went to the --
14 what's called the platysma; is that right?
15 A. Platysma, yes.
16 Q. And did you measure how deep the wound
17 was?
18 A. No. We usually don't measure wounds
19 because it doesn't matter, the depth of the injury. What
20 matters is in relationship to the other structures, like
21 the platysma. In the neck, that's kind of a defining
22 boundary. If it goes past the platysma, it's considered
23 a deep wound.
24 In that case, we may have to do
25 further exploration and open up the wound more. If it
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
725

1 goes to the platysma, then is called superficial wound.
2 Q. Okay. So, in laymen's terms, this
3 wound cut through, I guess, the skin and fat; is that
4 right?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Okay. And the little veins that are
7 contained in the skin and the fat?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. But didn't penetrate the muscle that's
10 below the skin and fat?
11 A. Correct, did not.
12 Q. And in your terms, you call that a
13 superficial wound; is that right?
14 A. Yes, sir. The medical description,
15 that's a superficial wound.
16 Q. And you can't tell that there in the
17 emergency room; is that right?
18 A. Right. And you don't need to take the
19 time in the emergency room to do that. With a wound to
20 the neck at zone 2, the best thing to do is take them to
21 surgery and explore them there.
22 Q. Okay. And that's what you did in this
23 case?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And once you get in there, you find
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
726

1 it's -- all it did is cut through the fat and cut the
2 veins and the fat and went down to the, what you call the
3 platysma; is that right?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. So, what did you do to repair that
6 wound?
7 A. As I said, we washed it out and made
8 sure that the bleeding was controlled, and then put some
9 sutures in there to close the wound completely and put a
10 dressing on that.
11 Q. Okay. So, you made sure the bleeding
12 was controlled from these veins that were cut?
13 A. Um-hum. (Witness nodding head
14 affirmatively).
15 Q. And then just sewed -- did you sew
16 Mrs. Routier up?
17 A. Yes. We put what is called a
18 subcuticular stitch underneath the skin, but we closed
19 the wound up completely.
20 Q. Okay. Now, could you tell the jurors
21 about the other injuries that you looked at?
22 A. Yes. She also had a separate
23 laceration or wound to the left shoulder, and another one
24 to the right forearm. Those were not actively bleeding.
25 Those were not our main priority when we got into
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
727

1 surgery.
2 Once we determined that the neck wound
3 was under control, we finished and we closed that, then
4 we turned our attention to the other two wounds, and
5 washed them out, determined that there was no foreign
6 body left in there, like a piece of glass, or piece of
7 metal from the knife, whatever had caused the injury.
8 We determined that there was no active
9 bleeding. Again, cleaned them out, washed them out, and
10 then closed both of those wounds.
11 Q. Could you tell how deep this wound was
12 here on the clavicle?
13 A. The one -- the clavicle is really the
14 shoulder bone, this was a little bit lower than that, it
15 went through the skin into the fat, and right to the
16 muscle and stopped there. And again, no active bleeding,
17 so that's also considered a superficial wound.
18 The one on her forearm down here also
19 went down through the skin, through the fat and into the
20 muscle. But by the time we got her up in surgery, and
21 looked at it, there was no active bleeding, so we just
22 washed that out and closed that as well.
23 Q. Okay. If she just had this wound
24 here, this smaller wound here on the clavicle and the
25 wound to the arm, would you have taken her and operated
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
728

1 on her at all?
2 A. No. Those would be wounds that could
3 be examined and probably closed in the emergency room and
4 sent home.
5 Q. Just sewed up and sent home?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Okay. Did you see any other major
8 cuts on her that needed to be tended to?
9 A. No. We examined her when we had her
10 up in the operating room, since she was under an
11 anesthetic, and we didn't want to cause any discomfort.
12 We examined all three of these wounds
13 that I've talked about. We repaired those. We looked to
14 make sure she had no other stab wounds to her back or
15 anywhere else. We did not find any other injury.
16 Q. You looked pretty close for any
17 injuries; is that right?
18 A. Yes, sir.
19



I'm afraid I don't see where the DA is leading the witness. And there's no objections by the defence.

Okay, I feel Routier is innocent. The physical evidence for starters does not link up. Of course, not surprisingly, the pro prosecutuon hacks already have started their agenda. It is entirely possible that an intruder killed the two boys and slashed Darlie. I mean, to slash my own throat, even if I wanted to cover up a murder I committed I would be pretty nuts. Fact of the matter is, this did not happen. Darlie was attacked, two out of three of her sons were killed, they were smaller and easier to kill. If she wanted to get her kids out of her life, why not kill all three? Call me crazy, but I do not think it would make you look better to have 'only' two out of three of your kids dead than all three. Naw, she was attacked and the folks and police threw her under the bus because it was easier to do that than defend a woman accused of murdering her children. Innocent! [QUOTE]

This tape was offered to the defence to show to the jury as the trial transcripts prove. If this tape shows Darlie crying and sobbing, her family and her defense attornies would have this tape shown on every newscast and have it there on the site for us to see. The fact that it's nowhere leads me to believe this tape has no evidentiary value...iow Darlie is not sobbing and crying on this tape as her family alleges.

There have been many hearings on the admissiblilty of this tape and the alleged misconduct on the part of the police. The bottom line is the cops did nothing wrong......the Routiers had no expectation of privacy at the prayer service.

The SS tape will stick like glue to Darlie for the rest of her life. She cannot prove there is a tape of the prayer service that shows her sobbing and crying. She made a huge mistake in what she did at the grave that day but this tape is only one small piece of evidence.



The judge did not deny the defense the right to test the evidence. Yes he did not strike the ss tape as it's an important piece of evidence but it's only one piece of the evidence and I don't think it has anything to do with Darlie's guilt...well it does show that she jumped right to "acceptance"--I always thought was the last stage of grief. Once Darlie changed lawyers from PD's to Mulder, no further testing was ordered by her defense attorneys. Darlie's trial was fair..if it hadn't been she would have won one of those appeals by now. And I do agree with post-conviction testing...test everything.



On the contrary...the prosecution did not say there were no prints...as the trial testimony proves:

1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. How long have you been with the
3 Rowlett Police Department?
4 A. Over two years.
5 Q. All right. What are your duties at
6 the present time?
7 A. I am a patrolman and a crime scene
8 officer.
9 Q. How long have you been a crime scene
10 officer, in addition to being a patrol officer?
11 A. Approximately 21 months.
12 Q. All right. Let me direct your
13 attention back to June the 6th, 1996. Were you on duty
14 that day?
15 A. Yes -- no, I was not on duty that day.
16 Q. Okay. Did you get a call to go up to
17 5801 Eagle Drive?
18 A. Correct. I received a call-out from
19 dispatch at my house.
20 Q. All right. And, did you go up there
21 sometime during the morning then to Eagle Drive?
22 A. Yes. I arrived on Eagle shortly
23 before 9 a.m.
24 Q. Okay. Let me ask you, I want to go to
25 what you did out there. Let me ask you: If at some time
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
1980

1 that morning after arriving at the scene, were you
2 instructed to process that house for possible
3 fingerprints?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Okay. And, you have heard the term
6 "latent fingerprints"; is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What is a latent fingerprint?
9 A. The skin on the inside of human hands
10 and fingers is composed of what they call friction
11 ridges. Also, the skin has pores through which sweat and
12 other body oils -- other body oils are secreted.
13 Sometimes when the human finger or
14 palm touches a surface, an impression will be left. All
15 of those friction ridges are called latent or hidden
16 prints. Not really visible to the human eye necessarily.
17 Q. All right. So, for instance, this
18 morning if I touch the counsel table here in front of me
19 with my fingers, lift up, is there a possibility that I
20 may have left my latent fingerprints on this table?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Okay. Were those the types of things
23 that you were looking for out there that morning at Eagle
24 Drive?
25 A. That is in fact what I was looking
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
1981

1 for.
2 Q. How much experience have you had in
3 trying to collect latent fingerprints?
4 A. Approximately five years.
5 Q. All right. And what sort of training
6 did you undergo for that sort of duty?

1 BY MR. GREG DAVIS:
2 Q. Okay. Officer, if you would, let's
3 look at State's Exhibit 85-F first. Can you tell the
4 members of the jury where you retrieved that latent
5 fingerprint from?
6 A. Yes. This latent was recovered from
7 the inside of the door that this gentlemen mentioned, the
8 door between the wash room and the garage, inside surface
9 of the door, approximately four inches above the door
10 handle on this surface of the door itself.
11 Q. Okay. If we could, let's please look
12 at State's Exhibit 85-G. Please tell us where you
13 recovered those or that one.
14 A. This latent was recovered about two
15 inches above the other latent, also inside of the door,
16 on the surface of the door, about 6 inches above the door
17 handle. This was a dried, apparently bloody latent.
18 Q. Okay. So you have got 85-F, being the
19 inside portion; is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Four inches above the door handle?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And 85-G is going to be, in blood, six
24 inches above the door handle, right?
25 A. Yes.Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2006

1 Q. Okay. Are those the only parts of
2 that door that you tried to process for latent
3 fingerprints?
4 A. I processed the inside and outside of
5 the door.
6 Q. Okay. Well, what parts of the outside
7 of the door did you try to process?
8 A. Well, I don't specifically remember
9 every square inch, but I processed the door thoroughly.

You can also read Cron's testimony on the fingerprints.


The debris on the kitchen knife is not fingerprint dust, it is rubbery greyish dust consistant with the window screen. There was two pieces of evidence found on the bread knife that are consistant with the window screen. One is a fibreglass rod and the other is the rubbery dust. the fibreglass rod was compared to a section of cut window screen and both are consistant.

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-37.php#1

Q. Okay. Did you obtain a fingerprint
13 brush from Rowlett?
14 A. Officer Hamilton left his fingerprint
15 brush at my laboratory over Saturday.
16 Q. All right. Did you compare the
17 fiberglass that made up his fingerprint brush with
18 fiberglass that you found on the knife blade and the
19 screen also?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. All right. What were your findings
22 when you looked at his fingerprint brush and fiberglass
23 that made it up?
24 A. The fiberglass rods that make up these
25 fingerprint brushes are almost twice as thick as the
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
3038
1 fiberglass in the screen. So they are very, very
2 different. The fingerprint brush rods are much larger.
3 Q. Let me ask you, when you looked at the
4 butcher block and the eight knives were still in the
5 block, correct?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. When you looked at it? Did you ever
8 find any black fingerprint powder inside the butcher
9 block?
10 A. Not inside. The only fingerprint
11 powder I observed was on the knives on either side of the
12 open slot. None of the other knives had been printed.
13 Q. Okay. The Number 4 knife that you
14 tested where you found the fiberglass and the rubbery
15 material, was there any fingerprint powder on that knife?
16 A. No, sir.
17 Q. Let's talk about fiberglass on the
18 other knives inside the butcher block. Besides Number 4,
19 the knife where you found the fiberglass and the rubber
20 material, did you look at the other seven knives to
21 determine whether or not you could find any fiberglass or
22 rubbery material on them?
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 Q. Okay. What was the result?
25 A. Didn't find any fiberglass on any of
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
3039
1 the other knives in the block.
2 Q. Okay. So the only knife in the
3 butcher block where you did find this fiberglass was on
4 Number 4; is that right?
5 A. That's right.

Who was falsely presented at trial as an expert? Can you point that out please. Can you post a link or something to verify it came from this person. Thanks



Easy, here's two. The cast-off blood on the back of her nightshirt and the bloody imprint of the knife in the carpet.



It's a fact of this case....not opinion. Damon's bloody handprint was found on the carpet and on the sofa and the blood trail proves he moved from in front of the sofa to the wall leading to the entryway. His blood and Darlie's blood found on the wall there prove he was there and that he was stabbed again there. That's where he was found. The varying depths of his injuries as well. The timeline starts with that 911 call. Well I can tell you this. IMO Darlie placed that 911 call for herself, she went a little too deep with that knife when she cut her own neck and she bled like a pig. No, I wouldn't expect a traumatized 5 year-old stabbed in the back into his lungs to yell "Mummy did it" when the cops arrived. He was obviously frightened. Devon was clearly dead prior to the cops responding. Did she stab Damon whilst on the 911 call? I don't know if she did but there are some who think she did. There's a point in the 911 call where she hisses "damon, damon, damon" in a pissed-off voice to Darin. Of course she could have panicked and not helped Damon.



You can see the hesitation wounds...especially the one on her arm and the medical staff testified to the same. Call me crazy but I prefer to believe someone qualified to judge. Do you think the state just offers this up at trial without qualified experts to back them up? If you held the knife you'd have big cuts on your fingers. Darlie doesn't have cuts on her fingers, she has no defense wounds at all.



???? Perhaps it's due to the fact that you're only reading on side....Darlie's side.



What evidence wasn't turned over to the defence?



Okay I will wait for you to prove to me who this so-called expert that wasn't an expert testified for the state. How could the DA attempt to mislead the jurors on Darlie's injuries? The doctors and nurses that attended her all testified as to her condition. The doctor who performed the exploratory surgery on her neck testified as to that injury. Are we not to believe him then? If Darlie almost died why was she released from hospital 2 days later? Darlie had serious but non-life threatening wounds. I'd say you would need to prove the DA did a good job of lying, cheating and stealing, etc. The only two people lying that I can see are Darlie and Darin Routier. Since you've only listened to one side of the case how would you know there was conjecture, misleading acts and lying?

Darlie killed those two boys and Darin knows it and quickly covered for her.

Here's the medical testimony on Darlie's wounds. I don't see any leading or misleading the jury on the severity of her wounds.


4 Q. Were these deep penetrating wounds?
5 A. Yes, very deep.
6 Q. Okay. After you had pronounced the
7 child dead when he got there, there wasn't anything you
8 could do for him; is that correct, Doctor?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. After you pronounced him dead, did you
11 go and see about the other stabbing victim?
12 A. Well, actually, before I left the room
13 the other resident that was in with the adult patient
14 came in and said, "She needs to go to the operating
15 room." So, after I pronounced the child dead, I left the
16 room and went to the other room to see the adult patient.
17 Q. And what was going on when you went
18 into that room?
19 A. There was a lot of people in the room,
20 there was a lot of commotion going on, but I got a chance
21 to see her. She had a laceration to the neck, with a lot
22 of blood on her chest and her body. And I agreed with
23 the surgery resident, that in view of those injuries we
24 needed to take her to the operating room to explore the
25 wounds.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
719

1 Q. Okay. Now, did you later come to know
2 this patient that you saw in there as Darlie Routier?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. Do you see her in the courtroom
5 today?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Could you point her out, please.
8 A. Yes, she's over there at the defense
9 table.
10 Q. Okay. The woman here sitting with the
11 coat draped around her?
12 A. Yes.
13
14 MR. TOBY L. SHOOK: Your Honor, could
15 the record reflect that the witness has identified the
16 defendant here in open court.
17 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
18
19 BY MR. TOBY L. SHOOK:
20 Q. Now, you go in there, you see a --
21 describe the wound you saw to her neck.
22 A. When I walked in the room, she had a
23 slash wound, or a laceration to the neck, kind of
24 tangentially going from the right side to the left, or
25 left side to the right, across here, across this area,
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter

720

1 across her neck. And as I said, she had a lot of blood
2 on her. Because the residents had already examined her,
3 and based on my quick evaluation at the time, I felt it
4 would best be managed up in the operating room.
5 Q. [B]Okay. Tell the jurors why it's best to
6 go immediately to the operating room with that type of
7 wound?
8 A. You don't want to take any chances
9 with any type of neck wounds. There are a lot of vital
10 structures in the neck. The vessels that feed blood to
11 your brain and vessels that bring the blood back to your
12 heart. As well as your trachea, the voice box. All
13 those kind of injuries can be very devastating if they're
14 not taken care of right away. So it's usually better to
15 go examine those in the operating room and get better
16 control in case you get into trouble.
17 Q. All right. You do a rather quick
18 assessment down there in the emergency room; is that
19 correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. And do you have certain terms,
22 or what you call zones for areas of the neck?
23 A. Yes. The neck area, as far as
24 injuries are concerned, is divided into 3 zones. Zone 1
25 is just kind of the lower area where your collar bone and
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
721

1 clavicle are down. Zone 2 is from above the clavicle, up
2 to about where the Adam's apple is in the man, about this
3 area. And then zone 3 is from about where the angle of
4 the mandible is here on up. And that's how we describe
5 the injuries to the neck, zone 1, zone 2, zone 3.
6 Q. This particular injury, was it in the
7 zone 2 area?
8 A. Yes, it was.
9 Q. Okay. Any time you get any type of
10 injury, any cut to the zone 2 area, do you take the
11 patient to the operating room?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And you do what is called exploratory
14 surgery?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. What about if it was down in the zone
17 1, in the clavicle area?
18 A. Then you have to think about doing
19 some studies. If the patient is stable enough and have
20 injuries done to zone 1, then you worry about the large
21 blood vessels coming out of the heart. That's a
22 different approach, a different type of surgery. And if
23 the patient is stable enough, you wait and do some X-ray
24 studies and figure out what you need to do.
25 Q. See any significant cut here at all, a
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
722

1 cut to the neck in zone 2, you take them to the operating
2 room; is that correct?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. And is that what you did with Ms.
5 Routier?
6 A. Yes, we did.
7 Q. All right. Were you in there and
8 helping in the performance of the surgery?
9 A. Yes, I was.
10 Q. Okay. Describe for the jurors what
11 type of surgery was performed.
12 A. Well, it's call exploratory surgery
13 again because we're looking for injuries. We don't know
14 what's injured yet. We took her up to the operating
15 room, gave her general anesthetic, where she was out.
16 We washed the wounds, cleaned this all
17 out, and were able to look at it. Once we had her up in
18 the operating room, under the anesthetic, with everything
19 cleaned and prepped, there was very little bleeding at
20 this time.
21 So, we explored the wound and found
22 that most of the bleeding had come from the veins that
23 are located underneath the skin, in kind of, in what's
24 called subcu, or the fat tissue that's underneath your
25 skin.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
723

1 There's a bunch of veins here in the
2 neck area. Some of those were injured. We repaired
3 those by either using the electrocautery, which is an
4 electric type of current that coagulates the vessels, or
5 we put some stitches in the small vessels. We washed out
6 the rest of the wound.
7 We noted that the wound went down to
8 what is called the platysma, which is the muscle that
9 kind of covers your neck here. When you do that, you can
10 see it flexing. Her wound went down to the platysma, had
11 a little nick in it, but did not go beyond it. So,
12 having found that extent of the injury, we washed that
13 out and closed the neck wound.
14 Q. Okay. So you took her in and, I
15 guess, she was put to sleep?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And then you take a look at this wound
18 you have on the neck?
19 A. Right.
20 Q. About -- was it just one wound to the
21 neck?
22 A. There was one wound to the neck, there
23 was another separate wound to the left shoulder, and a
24 separate wound to the right forearm.
25 Q. Which wound were you primarily
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
724

1 concerned with?
2 A. With the neck injury.
3 Q. And could you tell the jurors how long
4 this wound in the neck was?
5 A. We didn't measure it, but we estimated
6 it was approximately 9 centimeters long.
7 Q. You say it came across partly on the
8 right side?
9 A. It went from the right to the left. I
10 can't tell you where it started, but it extended from the
11 one side to the other, just passed the midline on the
12 left side.
13 Q. Now, you say that it went to the --
14 what's called the platysma; is that right?
15 A. Platysma, yes.
16 Q. And did you measure how deep the wound
17 was?
18 A. No. We usually don't measure wounds
19 because it doesn't matter, the depth of the injury. What
20 matters is in relationship to the other structures, like
21 the platysma. In the neck, that's kind of a defining
22 boundary. If it goes past the platysma, it's considered
23 a deep wound.
24 In that case, we may have to do
25 further exploration and open up the wound more. If it
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
725

1 goes to the platysma, then is called superficial wound.
2 Q. Okay. So, in laymen's terms, this
3 wound cut through, I guess, the skin and fat; is that
4 right?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Okay. And the little veins that are
7 contained in the skin and the fat?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. But didn't penetrate the muscle that's
10 below the skin and fat?
11 A. Correct, did not.
12 Q. And in your terms, you call that a
13 superficial wound; is that right?
14 A. Yes, sir. The medical description,
15 that's a superficial wound.
16 Q. And you can't tell that there in the
17 emergency room; is that right?
18 A. Right. And you don't need to take the
19 time in the emergency room to do that. With a wound to
20 the neck at zone 2, the best thing to do is take them to
21 surgery and explore them there.
22 Q. Okay. And that's what you did in this
23 case?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And once you get in there, you find
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
726

1 it's -- all it did is cut through the fat and cut the
2 veins and the fat and went down to the, what you call the
3 platysma; is that right?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. So, what did you do to repair that
6 wound?
7 A. As I said, we washed it out and made
8 sure that the bleeding was controlled, and then put some
9 sutures in there to close the wound completely and put a
10 dressing on that.
11 Q. Okay. So, you made sure the bleeding
12 was controlled from these veins that were cut?
13 A. Um-hum. (Witness nodding head
14 affirmatively).
15 Q. And then just sewed -- did you sew
16 Mrs. Routier up?
17 A. Yes. We put what is called a
18 subcuticular stitch underneath the skin, but we closed
19 the wound up completely.
20 Q. Okay. Now, could you tell the jurors
21 about the other injuries that you looked at?
22 A. Yes. She also had a separate
23 laceration or wound to the left shoulder, and another one
24 to the right forearm. Those were not actively bleeding.
25 Those were not our main priority when we got into
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
727

1 surgery.
2 Once we determined that the neck wound
3 was under control, we finished and we closed that, then
4 we turned our attention to the other two wounds, and
5 washed them out, determined that there was no foreign
6 body left in there, like a piece of glass, or piece of
7 metal from the knife, whatever had caused the injury.
8 We determined that there was no active
9 bleeding. Again, cleaned them out, washed them out, and
10 then closed both of those wounds.
11 Q. Could you tell how deep this wound was
12 here on the clavicle?
13 A. The one -- the clavicle is really the
14 shoulder bone, this was a little bit lower than that, it
15 went through the skin into the fat, and right to the
16 muscle and stopped there. And again, no active bleeding,
17 so that's also considered a superficial wound.
18 The one on her forearm down here also
19 went down through the skin, through the fat and into the
20 muscle. But by the time we got her up in surgery, and
21 looked at it, there was no active bleeding, so we just
22 washed that out and closed that as well.
23 Q. Okay. If she just had this wound
24 here, this smaller wound here on the clavicle and the
25 wound to the arm, would you have taken her and operated
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
728

1 on her at all?
2 A. No. Those would be wounds that could
3 be examined and probably closed in the emergency room and
4 sent home.
5 Q. Just sewed up and sent home?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Okay. Did you see any other major
8 cuts on her that needed to be tended to?
9 A. No. We examined her when we had her
10 up in the operating room, since she was under an
11 anesthetic, and we didn't want to cause any discomfort.
12 We examined all three of these wounds
13 that I've talked about. We repaired those. We looked to
14 make sure she had no other stab wounds to her back or
15 anywhere else. We did not find any other injury.
16 Q. You looked pretty close for any
17 injuries; is that right?
18 A. Yes, sir.
19



I'm afraid I don't see where the DA is leading the witness. And there's no objections by the defence.

Okay, I feel Routier is innocent. The physical evidence for starters does not link up. Of course, not surprisingly, the pro prosecutuon hacks already have started their agenda. It is entirely possible that an intruder killed the two boys and slashed Darlie. I mean, to slash my own throat, even if I wanted to cover up a murder I committed I would be pretty nuts. Fact of the matter is, this did not happen. Darlie was attacked, two out of three of her sons were killed, they were smaller and easier to kill. If she wanted to get her kids out of her life, why not kill all three? Call me crazy, but I do not think it would make you look better to have 'only' two out of three of your kids dead than all three. Naw, she was attacked and the folks and police threw her under the bus because it was easier to do that than defend a woman accused of murdering her children. Innocent! [QUOTE=cami]

She'd have some heavy duty explaining to do if the baby had been killed. How and why would the intruder go upstairs to the MB and murder Drake yet leave Darlie alive downstairs.

No one but Darlie threw herself under the bus..when she testified she lied her head off. Jurors aren't stupid, they know when someone is lying. Homicide investigators go where the evidence leads them and in this case it all led back inside that house and to Darlie.

Guilty

my question got lost in all those long posts so I'm trying it again here:

I've read about a few very important cases, with defendents facing execution, where the court records were seriously a mess. Is there a good reason why important or very complicated cases wouldn't have two court reporters transcribing the testimony simultaneously?

I mean, why not have two court reporters in the court at the same time recording the same testimony? Seems like it would really help cut down on the errors, which could maybe save time and money, and maybe even someone's life, down the line.

Jurors get things wrong, it happens. They have thought people are telling the truth when they were lying and they have thought someone was lying when they were telling the truth. They are not perfect, it goes with being a human being, sometimes human beings get things wrong and make mistakes. Well ideally homicide detectives follow the evidence. That simply was not what happened in this case. In pretty much every wrongful conviction it is the same old pattern. Homicide detectives getting it into their heads that a certain individual did it and then building a case around them and twist the evidence and distort facts to fit their theory. Wrongful convictions happen.

kad, do you know if the police followed the scientific method in trying to solve crimes, that there would be fewer errors. It's simple, if the prosecution makes an hypothesis that Joe Blow is the guilty party, and then use their efforts to PROVE that their hypothesis is wrong, the proper way to approach the problem, then we would get fewer wrongful convictions. Instead the prosecution makes a hypothesis, and then tries to prove they are right- TOTALLY UNSCIENTIFIC!!! And when data doesn't help the case, they tend to ignore it because it won't help in a conviction.

kad, do you know if the police followed the scientific method in trying to solve crimes, that there would be fewer errors. It's simple, if the prosecution makes an hypothesis that Joe Blow is the guilty party, and then use their efforts to PROVE that their hypothesis is wrong, the proper way to approach the problem, then we would get fewer wrongful convictions. Instead the prosecution makes a hypothesis, and then tries to prove they are right- TOTALLY UNSCIENTIFIC!!! And when data doesn't help the case, they tend to ignore it because it won't help in a conviction.

This case is going to premeire on the Court TV show The Investigators tonight. I thought she was innocent until I saw the case featured on Forensic Files or The New Detectives. I forget which, but the physical evidence (where the blood was found and where items in the kitchen were knocked over) suggests that she did it.

Where in the world are all of you coming from? How in the heck can she be guilty? Did you NOT see the pictures of the massive bruises that covered her arms from shoulders to wrists? Easily placed there by a large man holding her down with his weight on her arms as he tries to kill her!
As for her emotions, I gather non of you have had many surgeries, let alone even one?? I am positive that she would have been on very strong opiates just to keep the pain at bay and that medication dries up your body like a new sponge in a bucket of water!! She wouldn't have been able to releiase any tears if she was crying because there is no saliva in your mouth, your eyes are so dry that they actually feel scratchy when you blink because all of the moisture in your eyes is dried up by the medication, also. And please don't suggest that she could take a drink of water and replenish herself because that is impossible, too! Even after you are no longer taking the meds for pain, your body will need another 3 to 4 weeks to return to regular working condition so she still would not be able to produce any tears.
Darlie's husband admitted in year 2007 or 2008 that he had hired someone to break into their home to perform a 'burglary' so that he could do an insurance fraud claim to get more money into his pockets as his and Darlies' business was beginning to fold under. He also admitted to and passed a lie detector about this and the fact that Darlie knew nothing about it but the state of Texas still refuses to overturn her verdict. The entire jury said that none of the pictures that were given to them to look at had any pictures of Darlies' wounds in them. Darlies' defense attorney also admitted that he did not give them the picture either because there were literally thousands of pictures taken at the crime, thus there were too many for him to realize what he had given them and what had not been in the group of pictures for the jury to see.
The prosecuter's office deliberately witheld those pictures in order to wrap up the case and call it neatly and swiftly solved by such an accomplished team of police that they need not do thorough investigations!, in fact, if you look at their record you will see where they conveniently NEVER retry someone once they have labeled them because they don't want any of their mistakes to be seen and known within the public! They deliberately only showed the second half of the video taken at the cemetary in which there was an appropriate funeral held just minutes before the silly string birthday party which was held afterwards in honor of her boys who loved silly string, and Darlie thought that it would help the other kids who attended the funeral that day to deal with the horror of what had happened to their two friends. This was an admirable stand to take and very considerate of the well-beings and emotions of the frightened kids.
Please don't be so hasty to judge Darlie or anyone else who may be sitting on death row innocent of guilt and yet easily killed by the state which tends to make one set of rules for its government officials and nothing but a big joke for the citizens. Beware lest someone in uniform arrests you and trumps up the charges against you just so they can get promotions and more money in their paycheck each week while families lose their loved ones quickly and swiftly, too, if the courts thought that they could get away with it!

Thanks for reading. Best wishes to all.

Sincerely,
Tina
routina

kad, do you know if the police followed the scientific method in trying to solve crimes, that there would be fewer errors. It's simple, if the prosecution makes an hypothesis that Joe Blow is the guilty party, and then use their efforts to PROVE that their hypothesis is wrong, the proper way to approach the problem, then we would get fewer wrongful convictions. Instead the prosecution makes a hypothesis, and then tries to prove they are right- TOTALLY UNSCIENTIFIC!!! And when data doesn't help the case, they tend to ignore it because it won't help in a conviction.

Hi again,

All I can say is "Hear, Hear What is being said cuz this roomy knows what he/she is talking about!!

Sincerely,
routina

"At trial, the State’s fingerprint witness testified that the
fingerprint could not be identified, but that it was “small” and “consistent with having been left
by a five or six year old child.” C.R.R. Vol. 35, pp. 2269:24-2270:5. In state habeas
proceedings, both the state’s fingerprint expert and independent fingerprint experts established
that this bloody fingerprint is not that of a child and is not that of anyone within Routier
household or any of the emergency or law enforcement personnel at the crime scene."

This was from a motion on 8/20/08 on behalf of Darlie

Below is my opinion

It seems that LT. Cron wanted to convict Darlie even if she was innocent. How is it other experts do NOT corroberate Cron's statement, and yet Cron is not in prison for one of two things. He either lied about being a fingerprint expert or he knew it was not the print of a child and lied on the stand and said it was. Which do you think it was? Did he lie about being a fingerprint expert or did he lie and say it was a child's print, and being an expert, he knew it was most likely the print of an adult? Well, if he was a fingerprint expert, my guess is the latter. If he was not an expert, everything he said should not have been admissable in court. In other words his testimony should be considered worthless.

This is a perfect example of the police and their forensic team building a case someone. A few small lies and VOILA!!!
I am sure this did as much damage to her (or more) than the silly string videotape.

Where in the world are all of you coming from? How in the heck can she be guilty? Did you NOT see the pictures of the massive bruises that covered her arms from shoulders to wrists? Easily placed there by a large man holding her down with his weight on her arms as he tries to kill her!
As for her emotions, I gather non of you have had many surgeries, let alone even one?? I am positive that she would have been on very strong opiates just to keep the pain at bay and that medication dries up your body like a new sponge in a bucket of water!! She wouldn't have been able to releiase any tears if she was crying because there is no saliva in your mouth, your eyes are so dry that they actually feel scratchy when you blink because all of the moisture in your eyes is dried up by the medication, also. And please don't suggest that she could take a drink of water and replenish herself because that is impossible, too! Even after you are no longer taking the meds for pain, your body will need another 3 to 4 weeks to return to regular working condition so she still would not be able to produce any tears.
Darlie's husband admitted in year 2007 or 2008 that he had hired someone to break into their home to perform a 'burglary' so that he could do an insurance fraud claim to get more money into his pockets as his and Darlies' business was beginning to fold under. He also admitted to and passed a lie detector about this and the fact that Darlie knew nothing about it but the state of Texas still refuses to overturn her verdict. The entire jury said that none of the pictures that were given to them to look at had any pictures of Darlies' wounds in them. Darlies' defense attorney also admitted that he did not give them the picture either because there were literally thousands of pictures taken at the crime, thus there were too many for him to realize what he had given them and what had not been in the group of pictures for the jury to see.
The prosecuter's office deliberately witheld those pictures in order to wrap up the case and call it neatly and swiftly solved by such an accomplished team of police that they need not do thorough investigations!, in fact, if you look at their record you will see where they conveniently NEVER retry someone once they have labeled them because they don't want any of their mistakes to be seen and known within the public! They deliberately only showed the second half of the video taken at the cemetary in which there was an appropriate funeral held just minutes before the silly string birthday party which was held afterwards in honor of her boys who loved silly string, and Darlie thought that it would help the other kids who attended the funeral that day to deal with the horror of what had happened to their two friends. This was an admirable stand to take and very considerate of the well-beings and emotions of the frightened kids.
Please don't be so hasty to judge Darlie or anyone else who may be sitting on death row innocent of guilt and yet easily killed by the state which tends to make one set of rules for its government officials and nothing but a big joke for the citizens. Beware lest someone in uniform arrests you and trumps up the charges against you just so they can get promotions and more money in their paycheck each week while families lose their loved ones quickly and swiftly, too, if the courts thought that they could get away with it!

Thanks for reading. Best wishes to all.

Sincerely,
Tina
routina

Well Tina, you do have a lot of things incorrect. It's best to read the trial transcripts. Which will prove the jury was shown the photos of Darlie's arm bruise..only one arm was bruised. The bruises were testified to by the medical staff that treated Darlie. The entire jury did not say they did not see the photos of the bruises....the jury members have discussed those bruises on television programs...the Leeza show to be exact.

There was only one video, taken at the graves by a news team, not the prosecution.

Darin did not take and pass a lie detector alleging he was trying to have the house robbed.

How exactly do you know this Cami? I imagine checking out the anti-Darlie websites? Might want to look at both sides in your 'research' before making such an accusation. A 'lie detector' test? The fact that you seriously believe in those makes me wonder how credible you really are. First off, a 'lie detector' test does not detect lies. It detects physical reactions to questions. It is basically a game of chance. So you believe what people say on a talk show, but only if they are for the prosecution of course? I'm not sure if Darlie did it or not, what I do know is the evidence was not strong enough to convict her. You seem to be under the mistaken impression it is up to her to prove her innocence. That is not how we do things in America. The prosecution needs to prove their case and in the case they didnt. They used speculation and innuendo, favorite tools of prosecutors to stir up emotions in people that make them more likely to convict someone because they dislike the defendant.

"At trial, the State’s fingerprint witness testified that the
fingerprint could not be identified, but that it was “small” and “consistent with having been left
by a five or six year old child.” C.R.R. Vol. 35, pp. 2269:24-2270:5. In state habeas
proceedings, both the state’s fingerprint expert and independent fingerprint experts established
that this bloody fingerprint is not that of a child and is not that of anyone within Routier
household or any of the emergency or law enforcement personnel at the crime scene."

This was from a motion on 8/20/08 on behalf of Darlie

Below is my opinion

It seems that LT. Cron wanted to convict Darlie even if she was innocent. How is it other experts do NOT corroberate Cron's statement, and yet Cron is not in prison for one of two things. He either lied about being a fingerprint expert or he knew it was not the print of a child and lied on the stand and said it was. Which do you think it was? Did he lie about being a fingerprint expert or did he lie and say it was a child's print, and being an expert, he knew it was most likely the print of an adult? Well, if he was a fingerprint expert, my guess is the latter. If he was not an expert, everything he said should not have been admissable in court. In other words his testimony should be considered worthless.

This is a perfect example of the police and their forensic team building a case someone. A few small lies and VOILA!!!
I am sure this did as much damage to her (or more) than the silly string videotape.

Cron did not testify that it was a child's print. The print cannot be identified, it doesn't have enough points of identification. And how can you lie about your expertise on the stand? The man has documents to back up his training. He was passed by both prosecution and defense.

Here read for yourself his credentials.

Q. Okay. Can you give us a brief
19 overview of the training, either through universities or
20 the like or other police agencies that you have received
21 in crime scene reconstruction, fingerprints, the area
22 that you are now a consultant in?
23 A. Yes. In addition to my 39 years
24 beginning in '58 at the Police Department in Dallas and
25 the Sheriff's Department in the consulting business, I
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2145

1 have attended numerous schools, dealing with physical
2 evidence and latent print subjects.
3 Some of them being at the FBI Academy
4 in Quantico, Virginia, Burlington County College in New
5 Jersey, Toronto, Canada Police Department, regional
6 police academies and sheriff's departments academies in
7 the State of Texas, Council of Government in Arlington,
8 Texas, which is a North Central Texas area training
9 academy.
10 I have attended courses put on by the
11 Northwestern University out of Illinois, the National Law
12 Enforcement Institute. And, well, that is the primary
13 courses.
14 And I did mention, I believe, that
15 these courses involved crime scene search procedures,
16 latent print development and comparison, photography and
17 matching of physical evidence.
18 I now teach in the subject of crime
19 scene search, latent print development and comparison,
20 and crime scene search procedures in general.
21 Some of the places I have taught or
22 still teach at are SMU, Texas A & M, Dallas Baptist
23 University, Texas Women's University in Denton, Dallas
24 County Community College District, local sheriff's
25 departments, in the Dallas, I mean in Texas, and police
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter

2146

1 departments. I have taught at Tacoma, Washington,
2 Denver, Colorado Police Department, and, just -- Navarro
3 County Junior College in those areas.
4 I have had material written, or
5 published that I have written on the subject of evidence,
6 photography, laser usage in law enforcement, and ethics
7 of law enforcement consultants.
8 These have been published in technical
9 journals, some of them being the Fingerprint
10 Identification magazine, the Journal for Forensic
11 Identification.
12 I have received, approximately, 150
13 awards and commendations through my career. And when I
14 retired I received the Governor's Law Enforcement
15 Achievement Award for excellence in my field of law
16 enforcement.
17 I am now chairman of -- well, not
18 chairman, I am a member of the Committee for Crime Scene
19 Certification in Texas. I have been Chairman of the
20 Latent Prints Certification Committee. I was on that
21 committee for three years in Texas.
22 Q. Okay. You talked about your
23 certification in crime scene search, and also in latent
24 fingerprint identification. Are there certain
25 certificates that you now hold in your specialties?
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2147

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. What certificates do you
3 presently hold?
4 A. I am a certified latent print examiner
5 and a certified senior crime scene analyst.
6 Q. Okay. With regards to the latent
7 fingerprint identification, what sort of requirements do
8 you have to meet to become certified, as you are?
9 A. On latent prints?
10 Q. Yes, sir.
11 A. On the latent print when there is --
12 it's a several part test, some of it is involving
13 comparing unknown prints with known prints. There's very
14 little margin for error. They have changed the test
15 somewhat now. I believe you can miss two out of ten,
16 there is a written test, an oral exam, and a mock trial.
17 And a background check, too, of the committee to see if
18 the people are qualified, and their other schooling fits
19 our criteria.
20 Q. What other certifications do you hold?
21 A. The senior crime scene analyst.
22 Q. Okay. Is there any level higher than
23 a senior crime scene analyst in that particular field?
24 A. No. Not from the International
25 Association of Identification which issues the
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2148

1 certification?
2 Q. Mr. Cron, in your 39 years, have you
3 had occasion to go out and investigate crime scenes and
4 process crime scenes?
5 A. Yes.

And on the latent fingerprint:

3 Q. Where did they come from?
4 A. Off of the glass table top in the
5 family room. And one of them, well, both of them, that's
6 right, both of them are off the glass-topped table.
7 Q. Okay. What were you able to determine
8 by looking at those two latents?
9 A. That there is ridge detail, a few
10 points of comparison, but I can't -- couldn't make any
11 identification.
12 Q. Okay. Same thing as you had with the
13 other sets that I have just shown you?
14 A. Yes. These are better prints but
15 still lacked sufficient points of identification.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. Actually, they're the same. Let's
18 see, that is -- oh, yes, that is, they're double lifts of
19 the same print.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. He attempted -- the man that lifted it
22 tried to get it clear, make it clear by the second lift
23 and it didn't work.
24 Q. Okay. How would you classify the size
25 of these two latents?
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2269

1 A. Small.
2 Q. Okay. What do you mean by small?
3 What would that be consistent with?
4 A. A juvenile, it could be. It fits the
5 criteria to be a younger person's prints.
6 Q. Okay. What are those criteria?
7 A. Small ridges.
8 Q. Let me just ask you: The two prints
9 here, 85-I and J, would they be consistent with having
10 been left by a five or six year old child?

11 A. It's possible, yes, sir.

Cron did nothing on the stand to Darlie but tell the truth. Each state sets it on criteria on how many points of identication they will look for, and run the print through AFIS. Because these prints were smudged, they lack enough points of identification to run through AFIS.

These are actually the court's findings on the fingerprints and not what you have quoted. What you have quoted comes from Darlie's website..hardly impartial.

Fingerprint Evidence


The Jantz Report, the Wertheim Report, and the Jantz Affidavit

6. Applicant claims that new fingerprint evidence demonstrates that a previously unidentified bloody fingerprint found on the coffee table belonged to an adult. (Application at 17-18).

7. Two lifts of this print were admitted into evidence at trial. (SX. 845I & 85J; RR.34: 2030).

8. Based on the testimony of James Cron, and the writ evidence of Dr. Richard Jantz and Pat Wertheim, the court finds that the fingerprint lacks sufficient points of comparison to make a comparison and that the fingerprint most likely was deposited by a child or adult female.

9. The Court finds that Jantz’s method is not a sound or accepted basis to identify or exclude an individual as having deposited a smudged, bloody fingerprint such as that in the instant case.

10. The Court finds that Cron’s trial testimony about the fingerprint was accurate. .

11. The Court finds that the technique Jantz used to prepare his report is not typically used by forensic anthropologists.

12. The Court finds that Wertheim’s critique of Jantz’s report is credible and persuasive.

13. The Court concludes that Applicant has failed to demonstrate that Jantz’s technique is valid, or that Jantz properly applied the technique in examining the fingerprint evidence in this case.

14. The Court concludes that Jantz’s report would be inadmissible under Texas Rule of Evidence 702.

15. The Court further finds that Applicant has always claimed that an unknown adult male was the real perpetrator of the murders. (See, e.g., RR.34: 2564-65; 2568; RR.44: 4468).

16. The Court finds that the tables in Jantz’s report each state that the most likely depositor of the print was an adult female. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibit 4, Table 2, Table 5, Table 8).

17. The Court finds that Jantz’s report therefore undermines Applicant’s claim that an unknown adult male murdered her children.

18. The Court finds that Wertheim compared the latent print, State’s Exhibit 85I and 85J, to the print cards of all the paramedics, police, forensic technicians, and others who were in the crime scene from the time the murder was reported until the officer who collected the print left the crime scene. Of all those people, the only finger of a person that could not be excluded as contributing the print was Applicant’s right ring finger. (State’s Writ Exhibit 2 at 3).

19. The Court finds that Jantz’s report does not exclude the possibility that Applicant deposited the unidentified print.

20. The Court finds Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Jantz’s report is affirmative evidence of Applicant’s innocence.

Fingerprint Evidence
Affidavit of Glenn M. Langenburg and Report of Robert C. Lohnes
21. The Court has reviewed the Affidavit from Glenn M. Langenburg, dated July 24, 2003, and the Report from Robert C. Lohnes, dated June 3, 2003, attached to Applicant’s Second Renewed Request for Access to State’s Evidence, filed July 29, 2003.

22. The Court finds that the source of the bloody fingerprint located on a door from the crime scene cannot be individualized due to insufficient characteristics. (Langenburg Affidavit at 7).

23. The Court notes that multiple persons were present in the crime scene after the report of the crime and prior to the collection of evidence in this case.

24. The Court finds that Langenburg’s Affidavit does not account for the possibility that one of the other persons known to be in the crime scene deposited the bloody print in question.

25. The Court finds that Lohnes’s Report states that he examined a latent print developed with black powder “left on a portion of a door.” (Lohnes Report 6/3/03).

26. The Court finds the Lohnes’s Report states that he identified the print as belonging to Darin Routier, specifically the second joint of Darin Routier’s left middle finger. (Lohnes Report 6/3/03).

27. The Court finds that the record demonstrates that Darin Routier lived in the home and was present in the home at the time of the murders. (See, e.g., RR.28: 311-12; RR.44: 4872-73).

28. The Court finds that the presence of Darin Routier’s fingerprint inside his own home is not to be unexpected.

29. The Court finds that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Langenburg’s Affidavit and Lohnes’s Report establish that any adult in addition to Applicant or Darin Routier were present in the home at the time of the offense.

30. The Court finds that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, even if an unknown person deposited the print in question, that fact is affirmative evidence of Applicant’s innocence.

31. The Court finds that Langenburg’s Affidavit and Lohnes’s Report are not affirmative evidence of

Applicant’s innocence.
Fingerprint Evidence
Reports No. 1 and No. 2 of Glenn Langenburg
32. Applicant has attached Glenn Langenburg’s Report No. 1, dated May 5, 2002, and Report No. 2, dated December 14, 2003, to her Renewed Motion for Testing of Physical and Biological Evidence and Request for an Evidentiary Hearing filed on January 23, 2004.

33. The Court finds that Langenburg’s Report No. 1 states that he examined a bloody fingerprint from a door. The report states that the fingerprint had insufficient quantity and quality of ridge detail to identify the source, but had sufficient quantity and quality of ridge detail to exclude Applicant as the source of the print. (Langenburg Report No. 1).

34. The Court finds that Langenburg’s Report No. 1 relates to the same fingerprint discussed in Langenburg’s Affidavit and reaches the same conclusion stated in the Affidavit. (Compare Langenburg Report No. 1 with Langenburg Affidavit).

35. The Court finds that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Langenburg’s Report establishes that any adult in addition to Applicant or Darin Routier were present in the home at the time of the offense.

36. The Court finds that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, even if an unknown person deposited the print in question, that that fact would be affirmative evidence of Applicant’s innocence.

37. The Court finds that Langenburg’s Report is not affirmative evidence of Applicant’s innocence.

38. The Court finds Applicant has failed to plead and prove facts, which if true, entitle her to relief. Ex parte Chappell, 959 S.W.2d 627, 628 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (citing Ex parte Maldonando, 688 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)).

39. In the alternative, the Court makes the following findings, assuming arguendo that Langenburg’s Report No. 1 refers to a different fingerprint than that referred to in Langenburg’s Affidavit.

40. The Court finds that Langenburg’s Report No. 1 does not account for the possibility that one of the other persons known to be in the crime scene deposited the bloody print in question.

41. The Court finds that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Langenburg’s Report No. 1 establishes that an intruder was present in the home at the time of the offense in addition to Applicant and Darin Routier.

42. The Court finds that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, even if an unknown person deposited the print in question, that fact would exonerate Applicant.

43. The Court finds that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Langenburg’s Report No. 1 is affirmative evidence of Applicant’s innocence.

44. Langenburg’s Report No. 2 states that he examined another fingerprint, a latent fingerprint developed with black powder, located beneath the bloody fingerprint examined in Report No. 1. (Langenburg Report No. 2).

45. Langengburg states that this print is either a palm or finger joint print that is suitable for comparison. (Langenburg Report No. 2).

46. The Court finds that Langenbug’s Report No. 2 does not account for the possibility that persons known to be in the house prior to the crime could have deposited the latent print in question.

47. The Court finds that, as the latent print in question is not bloody, it cannot be connected to the crime.

48. The Court finds that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Langenburg’s Report No. 2 establishes that an intruder was present in the home at the time of the offense.

49. The Court finds that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, even if an unknown person deposited the print examined in Langenburg’s Report No. 2, it would constitute affirmative evidence of Applicant’s innocence.

50. The Court finds that Langenburg’s Report Report No. 2 is not affirmative evidence of Applicant’s innocence.

"At trial, the State’s fingerprint witness testified that the
fingerprint could not be identified, but that it was “small” and “consistent with having been left
by a five or six year old child.” C.R.R. Vol. 35, pp. 2269:24-2270:5.

Cami, notice the quotes. This is not somethig I said. It is taken from a LEGAL motion on behalf of Darlie. That means it is a legal FACT placed on a legal document. The information, C.R.R. Vol. 35, pp. 2269:24-2270:5. is where this came from. So do not challege me on this. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, and it does not matter if it is not in the transcript section you picked out.

As to Lt. Cron being such an expert. He is ONLY an expert for the prosecution, he NEVER testifies on behalf of a defense. Hence, his expertise is under question. He favors the prosecution with his opinions. Now education, sure Cron has taken courses and worked in the field for a number of years, but his opinions are biased. It's something cops can't help being. Do you really believe cops do not lie, cheat, steal, etc. They do. They are human. My problem with Cron is he is part of the group (the prosecution team that broke the law by ILLEGALLY miking the gravesite). That in itself shows bias towards the prosecution. Now, I suppose when it suits you, you will say MD's have more credibility than I, because I only have a BS and 20+ years of experience. But, it suits you to say that Cron is more qualified than Dr. Jantz, that's right DOCTOR, because Cron has experience and education in the field. Dr. Jantz is only a professor of forensic anthropology (which means he teaches university courses to people like Lt. Cron) So, which is it, Doctor or experience that is more important. You seem to pick and choose what you want as far as a persn's credibility.

24 Q. Okay. How would you classify the size
25 of these two latents?
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2269

1 A. Small.
2 Q. Okay. What do you mean by small?
3 What would that be consistent with?
4 A. A juvenile, it could be. It fits the
5 criteria to be a younger person's prints.
6 Q. Okay. What are those criteria?
7 A. Small ridges.
8 Q. Let me just ask you: The two prints
9 here, 85-I and J, would they be consistent with having
10 been left by a five or six year old child?

11 A. It's possible, yes, sir.

This shows he really wasn't sure, but he wanted to side with the prosecution so he left it in a situation where it is implied to be prints of a child, even though I believe he being an expert KNEW they were NOT. Or he was not such a good expert. Especially when the STATES own fingerprint expert says that in HIS opinion that the prints are those of an adult. Dr. Jantz's conclusions just happen to be the SAME as the STATE's conclusion.
So, Cron is WRONG in his assessment according to two other experts opinions. One being an expert for the state. Oh wait, Cron is more qualified that these two, RIGHT?!!!
Sorry, if you believe this then you are baised in your opinion too. Cron is NOT as qualified as D. Jantz on ANY level. Ask yourself why the STATE'S expert disagrees with Cron also? Maybe Cron is trying to manipulate the jury, the same as the prosecution did with the word superficial. Instead he uses the words could be, small, consistent with that of a juvenile, etc.It is all word games the prosecution used to get a conviction. WHERE ARE THEIR FACTS?
You trust people who break the law? The police and prosecutio broke the law, yet you trust them to be telling the truth at trial. My God, if they were on the up and up, they would have followed the LETTER of the LAW.

It's best to read the trial transcripts. Which will prove the jury was shown the photos of Darlie's arm bruise..only one arm was bruised. The bruises were testified to by the medical staff that treated Darlie. The entire jury did not say they did not see the photos of the bruises....the jury members have discussed those bruises on television programs...the Leeza show to be exact.

Even the prosecution against Darlie agrees that both of her arms were severely bruised, and not just one arm, as you stated.

In the state's evidence against her, these photos were submitted.

Bruising to the left arm: http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/TrialExhibits/state_52-M.jpg

Bruising to the right arm: http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/TrialExhibits/state_52-E.jpg

Among her defense photos, this one was submitted, showing bruising to the backs of both of her wrists: http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/TrialExhibits/def_88.jpg

Darlie took the stand against the advice of her counsel. They asked her why she told different versions of the story to different policemen. They asked about her dog, which barks at strangers but didn't bark when the intruder entered her home. They asked about her why her kitchen was cleaned but under testing showed remnants of blood all over. To most of the questions, Darlie answered that she didn't remember or didn't know.



vs

bloody fingerprint was found on the living room table. Who does it belong to?

There was a bloody fingerprint on the door of the garage. Who does it belong to?
A pubic hair was found in the Routier living room. Who does it belong to?



Darin Routier has admitted to trying to arrange an insurance scam, which included someone breaking into their home. He has admitted that he had begun the initial steps to arrange a break-in, but that it was to be done when no one was at home. No jury has heard this admission.

When the paramedics arrived at the scene they said that Darin Routier was outside, but Darin was inside trying to save his children. Who was the man outside?

Upon watching forenstic files on the case last night, the washed blood by the sink, along with a few other inconsistences has me now saying GUILTY.

The officer interviewed last night claimed Darin didn't ask him about how his wife or boys were doing (This was minutes after the attack) but was talking about "What a big rack, 36 DD my wife has" . I found that IMPOSSIBLE to believe.

I wish I would have known they were showing that episode again. Dangit.

Arnold, do you mean that you can't believe Darin was so stupid as to say something like that? Or that you don't believe Darin said that about his wife's breasts and that the officer is lying?

I can't believe Darin would be so stupid (If he is covering for his wifes murders or if that was all he could think about while in shock or whatever)

How exactly do you know this Cami? I imagine checking out the anti-Darlie websites? Might want to look at both sides in your 'research' before making such an accusation. A 'lie detector' test? The fact that you seriously believe in those makes me wonder how credible you really are. First off, a 'lie detector' test does not detect lies. It detects physical reactions to questions. It is basically a game of chance. So you believe what people say on a talk show, but only if they are for the prosecution of course? I'm not sure if Darlie did it or not, what I do know is the evidence was not strong enough to convict her. You seem to be under the mistaken impression it is up to her to prove her innocence. That is not how we do things in America. The prosecution needs to prove their case and in the case they didnt. They used speculation and innuendo, favorite tools of prosecutors to stir up emotions in people that make them more likely to convict someone because they dislike the defendant.

Because I've researched this case for years that's how I know. I didn't know there was any "anti-Darlie" websites. I know of two websites, one is run by her mother, the other is by a supporter.

I am under no impression it is up to Darlie to prove her innocence. Once she gets to trial, she's innocent until proven guilty, and unfortunately for her and you supporters, the state proved to the jury she was guilty..the blood evidence alone is enough to prove to me she did it...and her ever changing stories once she learned evidence against her.

There has been no evidence presented that either Darlie or Darin took fbi polys and either failed or passed. I know they are not used in court, they are an investigative technique that's all.

Uh the person on a the talk show was a juror who adjudicated this crime. I would tend to believe that person yes, they sat through the trial and heard all the evidence presented.

Darlie was not tried with speculation and innuendo. Try reading her trial transcripts like I have..the only true record of this case.

The prosecution proved their case to the satisfaction of the jury who convicted. Obviously, the defense was unable to poke any reasonable doubt holes in the state's trial and all appeals so far confirm the conviction.

kad, do you know if the police followed the scientific method in trying to solve crimes, that there would be fewer errors. It's simple, if the prosecution makes an hypothesis that Joe Blow is the guilty party, and then use their efforts to PROVE that their hypothesis is wrong, the proper way to approach the problem, then we would get fewer wrongful convictions. Instead the prosecution makes a hypothesis, and then tries to prove they are right- TOTALLY UNSCIENTIFIC!!! And when data doesn't help the case, they tend to ignore it because it won't help in a conviction.

What's the "scientific method." I've never heard of that. I thought they used the 5 W's. As a matter of fact, the investigators go where the evidence leads and in Darlie's case it all lead back inside the house to a staged crime scene.

"At trial, the State’s fingerprint witness testified that the
fingerprint could not be identified, but that it was “small” and “consistent with having been left
by a five or six year old child.” C.R.R. Vol. 35, pp. 2269:24-2270:5. In state habeas
proceedings, both the state’s fingerprint expert and independent fingerprint experts established
that this bloody fingerprint is not that of a child and is not that of anyone within Routier
household or any of the emergency or law enforcement personnel at the crime scene."

This was from a motion on 8/20/08 on behalf of Darlie

Below is my opinion

It seems that LT. Cron wanted to convict Darlie even if she was innocent. How is it other experts do NOT corroberate Cron's statement, and yet Cron is not in prison for one of two things. He either lied about being a fingerprint expert or he knew it was not the print of a child and lied on the stand and said it was. Which do you think it was? Did he lie about being a fingerprint expert or did he lie and say it was a child's print, and being an expert, he knew it was most likely the print of an adult? Well, if he was a fingerprint expert, my guess is the latter. If he was not an expert, everything he said should not have been admissable in court. In other words his testimony should be considered worthless.

This is a perfect example of the police and their forensic team building a case someone. A few small lies and VOILA!!!
I am sure this did as much damage to her (or more) than the silly string videotape.

Oh for God's sake, here she goes again. You need to stop spreading misinformation. I've proven to you over and over and over again that Cron did not identify this print as a child's during his trial testimony. Cron's credentials were presented in court so how could he lie to the jury about being an expert? Why do you do this, you deliberately misstate trial testimony and expert witnesses. You don't know much about the law, trials and evidence and what's admissable do you?

Where in the world are all of you coming from? How in the heck can she be guilty? Did you NOT see the pictures of the massive bruises that covered her arms from shoulders to wrists? Easily placed there by a large man holding her down with his weight on her arms as he tries to kill her!
As for her emotions, I gather non of you have had many surgeries, let alone even one?? I am positive that she would have been on very strong opiates just to keep the pain at bay and that medication dries up your body like a new sponge in a bucket of water!! She wouldn't have been able to releiase any tears if she was crying because there is no saliva in your mouth, your eyes are so dry that they actually feel scratchy when you blink because all of the moisture in your eyes is dried up by the medication, also. And please don't suggest that she could take a drink of water and replenish herself because that is impossible, too! Even after you are no longer taking the meds for pain, your body will need another 3 to 4 weeks to return to regular working condition so she still would not be able to produce any tears.
Darlie's husband admitted in year 2007 or 2008 that he had hired someone to break into their home to perform a 'burglary' so that he could do an insurance fraud claim to get more money into his pockets as his and Darlies' business was beginning to fold under. He also admitted to and passed a lie detector about this and the fact that Darlie knew nothing about it but the state of Texas still refuses to overturn her verdict. The entire jury said that none of the pictures that were given to them to look at had any pictures of Darlies' wounds in them. Darlies' defense attorney also admitted that he did not give them the picture either because there were literally thousands of pictures taken at the crime, thus there were too many for him to realize what he had given them and what had not been in the group of pictures for the jury to see.
The prosecuter's office deliberately witheld those pictures in order to wrap up the case and call it neatly and swiftly solved by such an accomplished team of police that they need not do thorough investigations!, in fact, if you look at their record you will see where they conveniently NEVER retry someone once they have labeled them because they don't want any of their mistakes to be seen and known within the public! They deliberately only showed the second half of the video taken at the cemetary in which there was an appropriate funeral held just minutes before the silly string birthday party which was held afterwards in honor of her boys who loved silly string, and Darlie thought that it would help the other kids who attended the funeral that day to deal with the horror of what had happened to their two friends. This was an admirable stand to take and very considerate of the well-beings and emotions of the frightened kids.
Please don't be so hasty to judge Darlie or anyone else who may be sitting on death row innocent of guilt and yet easily killed by the state which tends to make one set of rules for its government officials and nothing but a big joke for the citizens. Beware lest someone in uniform arrests you and trumps up the charges against you just so they can get promotions and more money in their paycheck each week while families lose their loved ones quickly and swiftly, too, if the courts thought that they could get away with it!

Thanks for reading. Best wishes to all.

Sincerely,
Tina
routina

1 Q. Looking at State's Exhibits 52-F and
2 52-G, can you tell that there's no IV line on the right
3 arm?
4 A. Yes, I see there is no line in the
5 IV -- IV line in her arm at that time.
6 Q. And those are more photographs of her
7 in the ICU unit; is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Specifically photographs of her right
10 arm?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Okay. Now, let me go to these other
13 photographs for a moment. State's Exhibits 52-E, D, C,
14 B, A, and I. Do these appear to be photographs of Darlie
15 Routier?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. And is there a date present
18 here in the bottom right-hand corner of these
19 photographs?
20 A. It says 6-10-96.
21 Q. Okay. So, we can assume, at least if
22 that's correct, they were taken on the 10th day of June,
23 1996?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Okay. Now, let's look at 52-A. Do
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
765

1 you see a wound here to the right arm, or evidence of an
2 injury to the right arm?
3 A. There's a large amount of bruising to
4 the right arm, but I don't see any -- actually by
5 laceration, there's none. But there is evidence of
6 bruising to the arm.
7 Q. Okay. And that's a pretty large
8 bruise, isn't it?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Where does it extend from?
11 A. It appears to go from her wrist to
12 right below where her hand is, past her elbow, up toward,
13 almost into her armpit.
14 Q. Okay. And then 52-E, that's an even
15 more close-up photograph of that bruise?
16 A. Yes, correct.
17 Q. If you could take these two
18 photographs and go along the jury rail so all the jurors
19 can see.
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. Now, Dr. Santos, tell the jurors what
22 caused this type of bruising.
23 A. Some type of trauma. Some kind of
24 blunt trauma, being hit, a car wreck, anything like that.
25 Some kind of a force to the arm.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
766

1 Q. What is blunt trauma?
2 A. Blunt trauma, as opposed to none
3 penetrating. Penetrating is usually stab wound or
4 gunshot wound. Blunt trauma is -- again, in a car wreck,
5 falling and hitting your arm, being hit with a baseball
6 bat or something like that.
7 Q. Being struck by an object very hard?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Doesn't break the skin?
10 A. Does not penetrate.
11 Q. But causes these deep bruises?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. Is this pretty severe blunt
14 trauma that we're looking at?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. Now, by looking at these photographs,
17 can you tell anything about the age of this bruise?
18 A. Just by looking at this photograph, I
19 would say that that injury is about 24 to 48 hours old.
20 Q. 24 to 48 hours old?
21 A. Correct.


http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-30.php#3

Try again Tina.

Even the prosecution against Darlie agrees that both of her arms were severely bruised, and not just one arm, as you stated.

In the state's evidence against her, these photos were submitted.

Bruising to the left arm: http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/TrialExhibits/state_52-M.jpg

Bruising to the right arm: http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/TrialExhibits/state_52-E.jpg

Among her defense photos, this one was submitted, showing bruising to the backs of both of her wrists: http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/TrialExhibits/def_88.jpg

Read the trial transcripts, not Darlie's website. Their only interest is getting Darlie out of jail by any means possible. One arm was bruised from wrist to armpit, not both arms. I've posted the transcript in another post to prove to Tina she's wrong.

"At trial, the State’s fingerprint witness testified that the
fingerprint could not be identified, but that it was “small” and “consistent with having been left
by a five or six year old child.” C.R.R. Vol. 35, pp. 2269:24-2270:5.

Cami, notice the quotes. This is not somethig I said. It is taken from a LEGAL motion on behalf of Darlie. That means it is a legal FACT placed on a legal document. The information, C.R.R. Vol. 35, pp. 2269:24-2270:5. is where this came from. So do not challege me on this. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, and it does not matter if it is not in the transcript section you picked out.

Yes, I will challenge you.....Cron did not testify that the print was a child's. Look we've been over and over and over this, Luc. Obviously, that portion of the motion is missing the complete transcript of Cron's testimony. The trial transcript proves that. And it's an old defence ploy.

That information you posted "CRR Volume 35" is the trial transcript to Cron's testimony, LOL. Have you bothered to read it?

Read the trial transcripts, not Darlie's website. Their only interest is getting Darlie out of jail by any means possible. One arm was bruised from wrist to armpit, not both arms. I've posted the transcript in another post to prove to Tina she's wrong.

Cami, I read the transcript that you provided for Tina. They are discussing one bruised arm. I still can't get passed the fact that the photographs show two brusied arms and two bruised wrists. The photographs prove the bruising. No matter if it was brought up in the trial, to be recorded in the transcripts, or not. The pictures clearly show the truth. I'm sorry, we just disagree on this case. It's nothing personal.

Cami, I read the transcript that you provided for Tina. They are discussing one bruised arm. I still can't get passed the fact that the photographs show two brusied arms and two bruised wrists. The photographs prove the bruising. No matter if it was brought up in the trial, to be recorded in the transcripts, or not. The pictures clearly show the truth. I'm sorry, we just disagree on this case. It's nothing personal.

Yes, I'll agree to disagree because those links you provided are to Darlie's website and that site is not to be trusted. Those photos on those links are touched up or can't the red hue be seen? They have also been rephotographed.

You can read the trial transcript on the bruises....I left a link. They are discussing only one bruised arm because there was only one arm bruised from wrist to armpit. Yes, I know the wrists and hands were bruised but like the rest of the bruises...no medical staff saw any sign of any bruises whilst Darlie was under their care..no redness, no swelling, nothing.

Yep, I completely understand your point about the doctoring of the photographs on the pro darlie site to make them look completely different than they did as they were displayed in court. It's definitely a possibility.

Yep, I completely understand your point about the doctoring of the photographs on the pro darlie site to make them look completely different than they did as they were displayed in court. It's definitely a possibility.

When you see Def. 89, and I own MTJD so I've got the CS photos, you can see a small bruise in the elbow of the left arm, as well as the bruise on the wrist, perfectly consistant with an iv in the hand and an iv, possibly a blood transfusion or where blood was taken, in the elbow area of the left arm.

I am sure the first thing done at the hospital was to take Darlie's blood before she was put under and since she lost a lot of blood a transfusion is possible. I think they gave her a couple but it's been so long since I read the testimony I forget.

Sometimes I get thoroughly sick of Darlie's case.

Cami, I read the transcript that you provided for Tina. They are discussing one bruised arm. I still can't get passed the fact that the photographs show two brusied arms and two bruised wrists. The photographs prove the bruising. No matter if it was brought up in the trial, to be recorded in the transcripts, or not. The pictures clearly show the truth. I'm sorry, we just disagree on this case. It's nothing personal.

I can't get past the fact that the bruised arms could convince ANYONE of Routiers innocence. Show me something she could not have POSSIBLY done to herself and I will believe in her innocence again. Self-preservation. I've said it before and I'll say it again, people underestimate the power of self-preservation. Do those of you who believe those bruises prove her innocence find it odd that there weren't bruises anywhere else on her body?

Pam

Pam,

Besides the arm brusing, both her wrists were bruised as if someone had held her wrists tightly in their hands while she struggled against him. IMO, that's not difficult to fake, but it will take some doing... Most women who kill their children don't think to go to that level of detail in making themselves look like the victim.

That stupid Susan Smith who drowned both her boys in the car comes to mind. She gave tearless tv interviews about a "black" guy in the rural south carjacking her big city style, and stealing the car with the kids inside. IIRC, the woman didn't have a defensive wound on her, so she didn't fight the carjacker or even pound on the car with her fists as he was taking it over from her control.

Anyway, it's not *just* the arm bruises that make me think Darlie is innocent. The fact that the stab wound to her neck was 2 mm from killing her by cutting her jugular/corotid artery is another reason. Guilty people who are trying to make themselves look like victims do superficial scrapes and tiny cuts that aren't very painful. They don't nearly kill themselves in attempt to look like a victim.

There's more... But I probably already said it all in previous posts in this thread.

I don't think many of us would disagree that Darlie was vain and superficial, and that she and her husband were living beyond their means to keep up with the Joneses, or try to impress people, or whatever. As a person, she's not very likeable, but that doesn't make her guilty of killing her kids.

Pam,

Besides the arm brusing, both her wrists were bruised as if someone had held her wrists tightly in their hands while she struggled against him. IMO, that's not difficult to fake, but it will take some doing... Most women who kill their children don't think to go to that level of detail in making themselves look like the victim.

That stupid Susan Smith who drowned both her boys in the car comes to mind. She gave tearless tv interviews about a "black" guy in the rural south carjacking her big city style, and stealing the car with the kids inside. IIRC, the woman didn't have a defensive wound on her, so she didn't fight the carjacker or even pound on the car with her fists as he was taking it over from her control.

Anyway, it's not *just* the arm bruises that make me think Darlie is innocent. The fact that the stab wound to her neck was 2 mm from killing her by cutting her jugular/corotid artery is another reason. Guilty people who are trying to make themselves look like victims do superficial scrapes and tiny cuts that aren't very painful. They don't nearly kill themselves in attempt to look like a victim.

There's more... But I probably already said it all in previous posts in this thread.

I don't think many of us would disagree that Darlie was vain and superficial, and that she and her husband were living beyond their means to keep up with the Joneses, or try to impress people, or whatever. As a person, she's not very likeable, but that doesn't make her guilty of killing her kids.

Hi TracyLynnS,

No, you are right. Her being vain and superficial don't make her a murderer, but I'm going on alot more than that. For one, don't you find the blood evidence compelling?


Pam

I think there's enough conflicting information on the blood evidence to convince people of either Darlie's guilt or innocence.

There's an unidentified fingerprint, in blood, that hasn't been explained.

Darlie's blood and one of the boy's was found on a knife at the scene. The murder weapon used to kill the other child hasn't been recovered. She wasn't charged with his murder.

If she killed both kids and stabbed herself to make herself look like a victim, all 3 people's blood would be on the one knife, or else the one murder weapon (or both weapons) would be missing from the scene altogether.

But instead, we have one murder weapon there at the scene and one missing. That doesn't make sense when trying to make yourself look like a victim, but it does make sense if there's another person involved, who lost control of the victims, dropped a knife at the scene, and fled while gripping the other knife.

According to Anne Good's article, I was wrong about one fingerprint in blood being unaccounted for, there were apparently, two:

There are two unidentified bloody fingerprints found at the crime scene. Records indicate that the chain of custody was broken on this evidence for 2 months. Where were these prints for two months?

A significant but downplayed issue is that Darlie was never charged with Devon's death because the murder weapon was never recovered. The only weapon in existence is the knife from the Routier kitchen that contains Darlie and Damon's blood. There had to have been a second weapon. Where did this second weapon go? The prosecution never had to answer this question. This is consistent with Greg Davis' style -- if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, get rid of it.

Dr. Janice Townsend-Parchman and Dr. Joni McClain, who performed the autopsies on Devon and Damon, testified that the large butcher knife found "could have" inflicted the wounds on both boys. They never mentioned that Devon's blood was not found on this knife.

The police said there was no blood on the couch where Darlie claimed she was attacked. This is completely untrue and reveals the incredible level of incompetence of the RPD. Crime scene photos clearly reveal blood dripping down the side of the couch and an outline of where Darlie's pillow was located. The photos also show that pillow was moved all over the place after the police and paramedics arrived. There was blood on her pillow as well.

Oddly enough, the police released the couch back to the family and it was cleaned up and sold at a garage sale to raise money for Darlie's defense. The family had no idea this was a key piece of evidence. No other evidence was released back to the family. I have come to believe that any evidence that did not back up the prosecution theory was dispensed with and labeled "unimportant."

Darlie's nightshirt is a confusing piece of evidence. My research has revealed that there is a standard procedure to handle bloody clothing: the nightshirt should have been carefully cut off of Darlie and then hung up to air dry. This would preserve the integrity of any blood spatters. This was not done.

Instead, her nightshirt was rolled up and placed in a bag with several other pieces of bloody clothing. The state first sent the nightshirt to the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences in Dallas. In an eight-page report it was stated that NONE of the boys' blood was found on her nightshirt. When this report was released to the press, the prosecution said that "... just because she stabbed the boys does not mean she would have blood on her nightshirt."

This statement is mind-boggling. One of the key reasons they believed there was no intruder was because there was no trail of blood. If Darlie could kill her boys without getting any blood on herself, why couldn't an intruder do the same?

By the time the trial took place, another lab had tested the nightshirt and found 4 small drops of the boys' blood, which the prosecution claims is consistent with blood dripping off the knife as she repeatedly raised it over her head to stab them. Mysteriously, Damon's blood is on top of Darlie's blood. Are we supposed to believe that anyone is capable of slitting her own throat and then muster the sustained energy required to stab two people to death? This defies all logic and known medical fact.

Why did they have the nightshirt retested when a lab the state uses extensively already tested it? Could it be because the results from the first lab were not what they needed? Again, this seems consistent with a certain style: if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, get rid of it.

Rowlett Police Officer David Maynes admitted he placed multiple bloody items in the same evidence bag instead of using separate bags. He also admitted it was sloppy police work.

Darlie suffered two major wounds: one slash across her throat in which her gold rope chain necklace became imbedded in her neck and had to be removed by a surgeon, and one stab wound to her right arm approximately 3 inches below the elbow. The knife wound on the arm went clear to the bone.

Dr. Santos, the treating physician at Baylor Hospital, told Darlie's mother that this was a defensive wound and that Darlie almost died from her injuries. By the time he testified in court he called the wounds "superficial."

And finally, the article states that the police accuse Darlie of using a round edged bread knife to "stage the scene" by slicing the window screen, because they found one tiny piece of fiberglass screen-like material on the bread knife. But they then accuse her of using a pointed edge butcher knife to commit the murders. Why would she use two separate knives? One to slit the screen and one to kill the kids?

Because the fingerprint tech used the same brush to first dust the window for prints, then to dust the bread knife, likely transferring the one piece of fiberglass to the knife. It was so tiny, that after the first test, there wasn't any of it left. If she had used the bread knife to slit the window screen, there would definitely be more than one tiny piece of fiberglass left on the knife. I believe it was a transfer, contaminated by the tech.


Edited to make it more clear as to which words are mine and which are quoted from another source. Words in BLACK are mine, words in BLUE are quoted from an article by Anne Good.

I think there's enough conflicting information on the blood evidence to convince people of either Darlie's guilt or innocence.

There's an unidentified fingerprint, in blood, that hasn't been explained.

Darlie's blood and one of the boy's was found on a knife at the scene. The murder weapon used to kill the other child hasn't been recovered. She wasn't charged with his murder.

If she killed both kids and stabbed herself to make herself look like a victim, all 3 people's blood would be on the one knife, or else the one murder weapon (or both weapons) would be missing from the scene altogether.


Do you think it's possible that she could have stabbed both boys, left the house to plant the sock, started the clean up (including washing the knife) and either inflicted her own wounds and then had to restab the living child or vice versa? I say that because coincidentally, it was her blood and the blood of the restabbed child found on the knife.

Pam

According to Anne Good's article, I was wrong about one fingerprint in blood being unaccounted for, there were apparently, two:

There are two unidentified bloody fingerprints found at the crime scene. Records indicate that the chain of custody was broken on this evidence for 2 months. Where were these prints for two months?
Lots of questions to be answered, for sure.

I pray that the new DNA testing can answer the questions about the fingerprints (and anything else) because it is a pure sin for anyone to be locked up all this time, especially on death row, and be innocent.
A significant but downplayed issue is that Darlie was never charged with Devon's death because the murder weapon was never recovered. The only weapon in existence is the knife from the Routier kitchen that contains Darlie and Damon's blood. There had to have been a second weapon. Where did this second weapon go? The prosecution never had to answer this question. This is consistent with Greg Davis' style -- if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, get rid of it.


I simply do not believe that there was a second murder weapon used. I firmly believe the scenario that I laid out earlier.

Dr. Janice Townsend-Parchman and Dr. Joni McClain, who performed the autopsies on Devon and Damon, testified that the large butcher knife found "could have" inflicted the wounds on both boys. They never mentioned that Devon's blood was not found on this knife.


I believe that both boys were stabbed, then the sock was planted, she had to restab the surviving child and then inflict her own injuries.

The police said there was no blood on the couch where Darlie claimed she was attacked. This is completely untrue and reveals the incredible level of incompetence of the RPD. Crime scene photos clearly reveal blood dripping down the side of the couch and an outline of where Darlie's pillow was located. The photos also show that pillow was moved all over the place after the police and paramedics arrived. There was blood on her pillow as well.


Oddly enough, the police released the couch back to the family and it was cleaned up and sold at a garage sale to raise money for Darlie's defense. The family had no idea this was a key piece of evidence. No other evidence was released back to the family. I have come to believe that any evidence that did not back up the prosecution theory was dispensed with and labeled "unimportant."


I have to admit the couch being released was odd. Just out of curiosity, can you tell me where you have seen crime scene photos of the couch showing the blood dripping down? The only ones I have seen are on Darlies website which doesn't show the couch clearly enough to show that. I would sure like to see that.

Darlie's nightshirt is a confusing piece of evidence. My research has revealed that there is a standard procedure to handle bloody clothing: the nightshirt should have been carefully cut off of Darlie and then hung up to air dry. This would preserve the integrity of any blood spatters. This was not done.


In the pictures I've seen of the nightshirt, it appears that the shirt was cut up the front. Am I wrong about that? Also, the flow of her blood on the front of the nightshirt troubles me, as it seems the blood would have run down on each side of the shirt if she were stabbed laying down instead of down the front as it did.

Instead, her nightshirt was rolled up and placed in a bag with several other pieces of bloody clothing. The state first sent the nightshirt to the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences in Dallas. In an eight-page report it was stated that NONE of the boys' blood was found on her nightshirt. When this report was released to the press, the prosecution said that "... just because she stabbed the boys does not mean she would have blood on her nightshirt."


This statement is mind-boggling. One of the key reasons they believed there was no intruder was because there was no trail of blood. If Darlie could kill her boys without getting any blood on herself, why couldn't an intruder do the same?

The trail of blood is troubling to me too, but for different reasons. The lack of a blood trail outside the house bothers me. Darlie says the intruder left through the garage, but no blood trail.

By the time the trial took place, another lab had tested the nightshirt and found 4 small drops of the boys' blood, which the prosecution claims is consistent with blood dripping off the knife as she repeatedly raised it over her head to stab them. Mysteriously, Damon's blood is on top of Darlie's blood. Are we supposed to believe that anyone is capable of slitting her own throat and then muster the sustained energy required to stab two people to death? This defies all logic and known medical fact.


Good point, again, I hope new testing can answer this.

Why did they have the nightshirt retested when a lab the state uses extensively already tested it? Could it be because the results from the first lab were not what they needed? Again, this seems consistent with a certain style: if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, get rid of it.

Rowlett Police Officer David Maynes admitted he placed multiple bloody items in the same evidence bag instead of using separate bags. He also admitted it was sloppy police work.

Darlie suffered two major wounds: one slash across her throat in which her gold rope chain necklace became imbedded in her neck and had to be removed by a surgeon, and one stab wound to her right arm approximately 3 inches below the elbow. The knife wound on the arm went clear to the bone.

Dr. Santos, the treating physician at Baylor Hospital, told Darlie's mother that this was a defensive wound and that Darlie almost died from her injuries. By the time he testified in court he called the wounds "superficial."

The wounds were described as superficial to the carotid artery. That's different than saying the wound was superficial.

And finally, the article states that the police accuse Darlie of using a round edged bread knife to "stage the scene" by slicing the window screen, because they found one tiny piece of fiberglass screen-like material on the bread knife. But they then accuse her of using a pointed edge butcher knife to commit the murders. Why would she use two separate knives? One to slit the screen and one to kill the kids?


Good question and one I can't answer.

Because the fingerprint tech used the same brush to first dust the window for prints, then to dust the bread knife, likely transferring the one piece of fiberglass to the knife. It was so tiny, that after the first test, there wasn't any of it left. If she had used the bread knife to slit the window screen, there would definitely be more than one tiny piece of fiberglass left on the knife. I believe it was a transfer, contaminated by the tech.

There are plenty of questions on both sides. I hope this new testing will give much needed answers. I believed in Darlie at first but I don't anymore. I honestly hope new testing proves me wrong.

Pam

Pam,

Everything after the first sentence and before the last two paragraphs that start with the words "and finally" are quoted from Anne Goode's article. They aren't my words. I just quoted her findings on the blood evidence so I haven't seen the Routier's couch. I don't know what the blood spatter looked like on the couch, but it is disturbing that the authorities returned it to the family as if it was useless, and was not a piece of evidence that could be used one way or the other in the case.

Regarding the two knives theory, police testified that they saw a knife and a screw driver within ten feet of the bloody sock. They decided those items had nothing to do with the case, and left them untouched. They weren't brought back with the sock to be tested for fingerprints or blood. The cops saw them, knowing that they had a triple stabbing/homicide, and just picked up the sock. So, even if only one knife was used to kill the boys, it's still weird that the investigators would see two instruments which could be used to stab someone near a bloody sock, yet they wouldn't think to check if those things were connected.

Even if she really did kill them, there are still so many other things wrong with this case. She's on death row, and what got her there involved bad police work, cover ups, lies, perjury, professional misconduct. At the very least, she deserves a new trial.

Several nurses testimony completely contradicted the medical notes they wrote in Darlie's file at the time she was in the hospital. They testified that Darlie's behavior was not typical for a grieving mother, but that's not what their hospital notes said.

The prosecution held a meeting with the medical staff the day before they testified. Nurses testified that Darlie showed very little emotion. One even said she was "whining," however, their hospital notes indicate that she showed plenty of emotion.

The stab to Darlie's forearm sliced into the bone, splintering it.

The inside of Darlie's mouth had been cut by her teeth, in such a way as it is suspected that someone tightly held their hand over her mouth.

Police testified to moving evidence for the crime scene photos. They moved bloody blankets, disturbing the blood pattern evidence. They moved many other items around and photographed them. Those photographs were then used to prove that Darlie staged the scene, yet she wasn't the one who was moving the items around, it was the cops. They also took about 1,000 pictures and did not number the rolls of film.

There were a lot of papers at the foot of the couch that included tax records, medical records, loan papers, canceled checks, bank records, and insurance policies. The police removed a will and an insurance policy, moved the rest of the papers out of the way, placed the will and insurance policy by the bodies and photographed them. Then police released a statement claiming these two papers alone were found within two feet of the bodies.

In an effort to keep Darlie from getting her bond reduced, the police said that there was a blonde hair on the window screen, the screen they accuse her of slicing. Later testing confirmed that the blonde hair belonged to one of their own female police officers who shouldn't have had her head poking around in that screen. They also said that the mulch under that window was not disturbed, proving that it was a staged scene. Photos later proved that there had never been mulch under that window. It was a poured cement slab.

Two pubic hairs, one facial hair, and either an arm or leg hair were found at the scene and haven't been identified.

The prosecutor was giving interviews to the press and talking about the case and the evidence right in front of a juror. He didn't stop talking about the case in front of the juror until the 5th time he was told that a juror was hearing what he was saying and that he needed to shut up.

Another odd thing is that Chadwick Ray Patterson, who is the son of lead detective Jimmy Patterson, had a long criminal record and drove a black car that fits the description of the car seen in front of the Routier home several times in the weeks leading up to the murders.

He lived a few blocks from Darlie's house. An eyewitness testified that he saw the black car on the night of the murders and believed it to be a black Cutlass, the same type of car Chad Patterson drove. The car was pointed out to the police. Several different people in the neighborhood saw this car.

The black car has never been fully investigated by the police department. They probably didn't look into it partly because Darlie was targeted as the only suspect within 20 minutes of the police arrival (they testified to that in court).

Even if this guy Chad Patterson was not involved at all, he had a criminal record and the fear that he could possibly be involved may have been a reason for his dad, the lead investigator, to not to follow up on that lead.

Also, a neighbor came 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 Darlie was arrested, 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 (a couple months before the murders) 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 Routiers.

Wether you think Darlie is guilty or not, I dont know how anyone can say the police did there job in this case. She deserves a new trial.

Pam,

Everything after the first sentence and before the last two paragraphs that start with the words "and finally" are quoted from Anne Goode's article. They aren't my words. I just quoted her findings on the blood evidence so I haven't seen the Routier's couch. I don't know what the blood spatter looked like on the couch, but it is disturbing that the authorities returned it to the family as if it was useless, and was not a piece of evidence that could be used one way or the other in the case.

Regarding the two knives theory, police testified that they saw a knife and a screw driver within ten feet of the bloody sock. They decided those items had nothing to do with the case, and left them untouched. They weren't brought back with the sock to be tested for fingerprints or blood. The cops saw them, knowing that they had a triple stabbing/homicide, and just picked up the sock. So, even if only one knife was used to kill the boys, it's still weird that the investigators would see two instruments which could be used to stab someone near a bloody sock, yet they wouldn't think to check if those things were connected.

Even if she really did kill them, there are still so many other things wrong with this case. She's on death row, and what got her there involved bad police work, cover ups, lies, perjury, professional misconduct. At the very least, she deserves a new trial.

Several nurses testimony completely contradicted the medical notes they wrote in Darlie's file at the time she was in the hospital. They testified that Darlie's behavior was not typical for a grieving mother, but that's not what their hospital notes said.

The prosecution held a meeting with the medical staff the day before they testified. Nurses testified that Darlie showed very little emotion. One even said she was "whining," however, their hospital notes indicate that she showed plenty of emotion.

The stab to Darlie's forearm sliced into the bone, splintering it.

The inside of Darlie's mouth had been cut by her teeth, in such a way as it is suspected that someone tightly held their hand over her mouth.

Police testified to moving evidence for the crime scene photos. They moved bloody blankets, disturbing the blood pattern evidence. They moved many other items around and photographed them. Those photographs were then used to prove that Darlie staged the scene, yet she wasn't the one who was moving the items around, it was the cops. They also took about 1,000 pictures and did not number the rolls of film.

There were a lot of papers at the foot of the couch that included tax records, medical records, loan papers, canceled checks, bank records, and insurance policies. The police removed a will and an insurance policy, moved the rest of the papers out of the way, placed the will and insurance policy by the bodies and photographed them. Then police released a statement claiming these two papers alone were found within two feet of the bodies.

In an effort to keep Darlie from getting her bond reduced, the police said that there was a blonde hair on the window screen, the screen they accuse her of slicing. Later testing confirmed that the blonde hair belonged to one of their own female police officers who shouldn't have had her head poking around in that screen. They also said that the mulch under that window was not disturbed, proving that it was a staged scene. Photos later proved that there had never been mulch under that window. It was a poured cement slab.

Two pubic hairs, one facial hair, and either an arm or leg hair were found at the scene and haven't been identified.

The prosecutor was giving interviews to the press and talking about the case and the evidence right in front of a juror. He didn't stop talking about the case in front of the juror until the 5th time he was told that a juror was hearing what he was saying and that he needed to shut up.

Another odd thing is that Chadwick Ray Patterson, who is the son of lead detective Jimmy Patterson, had a long criminal record and drove a black car that fits the description of the car seen in front of the Routier home several times in the weeks leading up to the murders.

He lived a few blocks from Darlie's house. An eyewitness testified that he saw the black car on the night of the murders and believed it to be a black Cutlass, the same type of car Chad Patterson drove. The car was pointed out to the police. Several different people in the neighborhood saw this car.

The black car has never been fully investigated by the police department. They probably didn't look into it partly because Darlie was targeted as the only suspect within 20 minutes of the police arrival (they testified to that in court).

Even if this guy Chad Patterson was not involved at all, he had a criminal record and the fear that he could possibly be involved may have been a reason for his dad, the lead investigator, to not to follow up on that lead.

Also, a neighbor came 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 Darlie was arrested, 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 (a couple months before the murders) 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 Routiers.

TracyLynnS:

Excellent post. In all honesty, I just wish they would grant the woman a new trial. I cannot say that I have been totally swayed, but you have sure given a well thought out, thought provoking post.

I'm glad you didn't take offense to my question about seeing pictures of that couch. I just thought you had a website or something with those pictures. I have to say that I still lean to guilt, but I still would like to see everything. I would truely like to find out this woman did not commit these crimes. Like I said before, when I started following this case years ago, I believed her.

Tomorrow morning I would like to post some questions that I would like your opinion on.

Pam

Tomorrow morning I would like to post some questions that I would like your opinion on.

Oh no!

I'm no expert. I wanted to fry her myself when they reported that she had killed her kids and then showed that hideous tape of her spraying silly string over their graves, as if she was celebrating the fact that her burdens were gone.

It took years of me reading bits here and there, and seeing different "true crime" shows to decide that she needed a new trial. And then, only in the last couple years, did I start to think that she was actually railroaded by officials who had decided she did it before they even had a grip on the evidence.

Oh no!

I'm no expert. I wanted to fry her myself when they reported that she had killed her kids and then showed that hideous tape of her spraying silly string over their graves, as if she was celebrating the fact that her burdens were gone.

It took years of me reading bits here and there, and seeing different "true crime" shows to decide that she needed a new trial. And then, only in the last couple years, did I start to think that she was actually railroaded by officials who had decided she did it before they even had a grip on the evidence.

Hi TracyLynnS,

Well, I am just the opposite, I started out strongly believing her and because of things I've seen and read, my mind has changed drastically. In all honesty, I was debating here on another thread about this very subject and was told by the moderator that I was being too harsh and she ended up locking the thread which ruined it for everyone else. I don't want that to happen again so I want to make sure I conduct myself perfectly. I am so drawn to this case and have been for years since I first heard about it and I do like discussing it. But not to the point of ruining it for everyone else. You are the first person I have spoken to that believes in her that actually makes sense and speaking out of logic instead of like they are just speaking out of anger and making no actual sense. That's the only reason I said I wanted to post some questions for you and get your opinion. I think this case haunts me like it does because I would really like to know that she didn't do this but I just don't believe her and to me, the evidence points to her. I think that's why I keep digging. But if you are not up for questions, I understand. I just wanted to be totally honest about the previous thread I was on and discuss the case with someone with logic instead of anger.

Take care,
Pam

Well, I don't mind questions, of course. I'm as nosey as the next guy! lol

I just didn't want you to get the impression that I might actually give an answer worth listening to. After all, we're talking about a woman who is a convicted murderer. I'm just some nut on the internet who thinks that she didn't do it. :crazy:

And I'm definitely in the minority.

If you read any of my other posts, you'll usually find me screaming that they're all guilty. I'm a shoot first, ask questions later kind of person. Me and kadrmas are always disagreeing, since I want everyone to get the death penalty ASAP, and he's trying to get them all appeals and new trials... but I think we have fun with it.

Hopefully, we'll all just do the same thing here, we'll disagree on the subject while sharing interesting information.

Well, I don't mind questions, of course. I'm as nosey as the next guy! lol

I just didn't want you to get the impression that I might actually give an answer worth listening to. After all, we're talking about a woman who is a convicted murderer. I'm just some nut on the internet who thinks that she didn't do it. :crazy:

And I'm definitely in the minority.

If you read any of my other posts, you'll usually find me screaming that they're all guilty. I'm a shoot first, ask questions later kind of person. Me and kadrmas are always disagreeing, since I want everyone to get the death penalty ASAP, and he's trying to get them all appeals and new trials... but I think we have fun with it.

Hopefully, we'll all just do the same thing here, we'll disagree on the subject while sharing interesting information.


Sure your answers are worth listening to! You seem very level headed in the information in your post. Very well thought out and put together.

OK, TLS thanks... Well, I guess one of my biggest problems is with the blood trail. It stops in the utility room. Darlie said that the intruder went out through the utility room through the garage. The only apparent way out was the cut screen. No door leading out, no other screens cut or missing. No blood on the screen. The garage was packed with garage sales items (according to Darrin) and the area at the window is very close quarters. The area looks undisturbed except for the cut screen. Darlie describes the man as about 6', 200 lbs. Seems hard to believe that this man would go out through that area, thinking he was being chased, and leave everything so undisturbed.

Six foot privacy fence in the back yard. The only way out was over the fence or through the gate, which was hard to open and close. The fact that the gate was closed bothered me too. With the gate being difficult to open, I find it hard to believe that an intruder would struggle to get it open (knowing that Darlie was up and after him) and then struggle to get it closed. IMO, if the killer had to struggle to get the gate open, they would not take the time to close it. If they did go out the gate, they would just run. If Darlie hadn't said that the intruder went out through the garage, if perhaps she'd said he went out through the front door, I would have an easier time believing her now. But she is the one who said the man left through the garage. The gate scenario makes it very hard for me to believe her story. If the intruder didn't leave through the gate, that means he went over the fence and it was six feet tall. Also hard for me to believe that someone running from a murder scene, supposedly knowing they were being chased, could scale that fence and not leave a sign of some sort of going over. I realize that the boys wounds were not spurting wounds. They were seeping wounds. But there is a supposed struggle between Darlie and this intruder. Her bleeding seems to be profuse, but no blood on that gate/fence. Also, the sock being found down the alley with each of the boys blood, no blood from Darlie, but skin cells of Darlies found inside the sock. Seems to me that if that sock had been used on the killers hand, that if there was blood from the boys there would SURELY be blood from Darlie on it. Her wounds were the bloodiest of the three. Yet none of her blood is on the sock. Just doesn't seem to fit.

Also the vast difference in the boys wounds as compared to Darlies. The boys had deep, thrusting stab wounds to the torso. Darlie's wounds were shallow in comparison and slashing. As a rule, if there are two, three or six people attacked, their attacks will be similar. Also, why would the boys be attacked first? Why not the biggest threat, which would be the only adult in the room. Huge factor for me.

Darlie also said that she was sleeping downstairs because she was a light sleeper and the baby turning over in his crib at night would wake her up, yet she slept through both boys being stabbed so violently only a few feet away from her. As a mother, I find that unthinkable.

Those are the biggest things I can think of for now. I am curious what you think.

Take care,
Pam

The blood trail through the house is one aspect of the case I haven't read about in detail. Is it Darlie's position that she chased the intruder through the family room, kitchen, utility room and then the guy ran out through the garage, climbing out through the same open window that he entered through? Were there any doors in the garage that he could leave through?

I was under the impression that she chased him out a door. Climbing out through a window while being chased sounds odd. I definitely need more info on that.

The backyard fence, with the gate being shut is considered to be a matter of debate. The cops said it was shut when they found it, then they said it wasn't shut, but that it was wide open when they arrived to inspect the scene.

This is a quote from author Don Davis:

>>>>Of equal importance was the way that police notes either were updated, vanished, or were never made at all. Law enforcement agencies around the country usually insist on clear notes and, in many places, the use of tape recorders to assure valid statements in court. That is not the case in Rowlett.

Had they kept adequate notes, however, they might have been in the same awkward position as Baylor hospital staff members, whose comments on the stand directly contradicted what they had written about Darlie's condition months before, when they thought she was the victim of an attack.

Police efficiency was a sometime thing, from Sergeant Tom Dean Ward saying an alley gate was closed and locked when it actually stood open, to evidence collection specialist David Mayne not logging the pictures he shot and then choosing, seemingly at random, which documents and rags to collect and how to preserve them.<<<<

Regarding the bloody sock, I think it's possible for both boys blood to be on it and none of darlies, if the guy used it to hold over Darlie's mouth, just getting skin and/or saliva cells on the sock (or in some other scenario). The boys didn't have less blood on them than Darlie. One of them was covered from the face down to his thighs. Literally, just completely covered in blood, face, chest, arms, everything, all except for his lower legs. I don't know about the other boy.

I also think that it's weird that she said that the baby scooching around in his crib woke her up, yet she didn't awaken while the boys were being stabbed. If all that is true, I can only imagine that she was rendered unconcious by the attaker.

I found this on a "darlie did it" website:

>>>>DARLIE: "I think I screamed twice, and he (Darin) ran out of the bedroom with his jeans on, and no glasses, and..."

DARIN: "I woke up quickly grabbed my glasses on the nightstand and ran downstairs"and (later in the statement) after the police arrived "I ran upstairs to put my pants on..."<<<<

I wonder which one is true. I had never heard Darin's version before. If he had anything to do with this, then I'd have to believe Darlie. I always thought it was weird that he came downstairs in street clothes while she was screaming for her life. Maybe he was waiting on his hired guys to finish the job.

But if Darin's version is the truth, then the only reason I can think of for Darlie to say what she did (that he came downstairs dressed, but without his glasses) was so she could cast some suspicion off herself. Or if she and Darin were in on it together, then she said it so that there would be an explaination for why Darin didn't see the intruder. He was taking a minute to get his pants on, then came downstairs without glasses, so he wouldn't be able to give cops a good description of the bad guy, in case Darin's hired buddy was still in the house when he came downstairs.

Darin had $800,000 worth of life insurance on himself. I've never found out how much was on Darlie. (Each boy had $5,000 of coverage.) Since they owned a business together, it wouldn't be unusual at all for each of them to have the same amount of life insurance coverage. IMO, knowing how much money Darlie was worth dead, would give us a good idea of who's involved.

Imagine if Darin planned it without Darlie's knowledge, and he was supposed to come downstairs and find his family dead, (and himself nearly a million dollars richer) but Darlie was able to fight back enough that the guy/guys couldn't finish the job.

One more thing... Darlie did have a deep stab wound on her arm that the doctor supposedly told her mother was a "defensive wound". That was the wound that went through the flesh, to the bone, and splintered part of the bone.

This deep stab wound is on her right arm, and yet Darlie is right handed. So that means if she did it herself, she had to use her left hand and a considerable amount of force to stab into the bone.

Her slicing injury was the one to her neck. If she did that one to herself, she would also have to have used her left hand, judging by the angle of the slice. It went from the side of her neck all the way across and down, in front of her shoulder, above the breast.

She had cuts on the fingers of her left hand, as if she had grabbed the blade of the knife. If she were stabbing the kids, and the knife slipped, causing those cuts, she should have cuts on the right hand, since she's right handed.

I ran across this info from a court reporter's website:

>>>>Fast forward another year or a few months or something. I'm at another court reporters seminar in Fort Worth. This time the presenter or speech-giver or whatever you want to call it was Darlie Routier's appeal attorney Stephen Cooper. His main focus was all the errors in the original trial transcript - 33,000 errors to be exact. We're not talking about all little, tiny, minor errors. We're talking about where a yes should have been a no. I remember one of the questions was: Was the door to the garage locked? The trial transcript answer said, Yes. In actuality the person had said, No. That's a pretty big mistake, especially when someone's life is on the line.<<<<

I wish she would have given more info on the garage door. If it was unlocked, then the guy could have left through the door, rather than awkwardly through the window, when darlie was chasing him.

This court reporter also said that she was at another seminar where the speaker was giving a presentation. She didn't realize until later that the speaker was the court reporter in the Routier case.

>>>>I can't remember the year this happened, but I went to a Tarrant County Court Reporters Association meeting where Sandra Halsey, the court reporter for the entire Darlie Routier trial gave a presentation. She brought in blown-up, poster-sized pictures which had been marked as evidence in the trial. For some reason, the only picture that really stands out in my mind is the picture of the alleged murder weapon - the knife.

I remember this court reporter, who later lost her license because of all the errors she made in the transcript and was actually jailed for a while because she didn't have the transcript ready in time, I remember her talking about how the Leeza Gibbons show had contacted her and wanted her to be on the Leeza show. I remember Ms. Halsey saying that Darlie Routier was definitely guilty. It wasn't until later on that I realized during the time this court reporter was out giving presentations about the Darlie Routier murder trial, she had not finished the transcript. Darlie Routier received the death penalty. When someone receives the death penalty in Texas, and maybe, in fact, anywhere, the court reporter knows that they'll have to produce the transcript of the trial. Why was this lady out giving speeches when she should have been working on the transcript?<<<<

[QUOTE=TracyLynnS]The blood trail through the house is one aspect of the case I haven't read about in detail. Is it Darlie's position that she chased the intruder through the family room, kitchen, utility room and then the guy ran out through the garage, climbing out through the same open window that he entered through? Were there any doors in the garage that he could leave through?

Yes, that was according to Darlies testimony and her written statement soon after the murders. It was the blood evidence that was the biggest part of me changing my mind. Darlie's version of events has changed several times. But she has always said that the intruder ran out through the family room, kitchen, utility room, and then out through the garage. The blood trail stops in the utility room with the exception of the sock in the alley. She also claims that the intruder knocked a wine glass off the rack in her kitchen and that she chased in there after him. Her footprints are all over the kitchen in blood (her blood and prints only). James Cron said there was glass all over the floor in the area that she claims to have ran through (doorway between family room and kitchen) and he had them check her feet at the hospital with the theory that if she had ran after an intruder over broken glass, there would be cuts on her feet. No injuries to her feet were found. Also, the blood was found under the glass, which is indicative of the blood being there first, then the glass being thrown on top. It couldn't be that way if the what she said was true. That is indicidive of staging as is the clean up at the kitchen sink. Darlie never said anything about wetting the towels that she brought to Darin until the house was released to them and she found they had taken her kitchen sink. Not even in her written statement. According to the layout of the house on www.fordarlieroutier.org (scroll down towards the bottom of the page. The link for the diagram of the house is listed under the link "Click Here For Diagram of Crime Scene PDF" ) and testimony, there were no other doors out of the garage except the garage doors and Darrin testified that the garage was 'cram packed full' of items they were putting together for a garage sale. So much so that they didn't even have either one of their vehicles parked in the garage and they had the doors closed.

I was under the impression that she chased him out a door. Climbing out through a window while being chased sounds odd. I definitely need more info on that.

Yes. That seemed odd to me too. But that came from Darlie herself. By the way, have you been to both of her supporting websites?
( www.justicefordarlie.net and www.fordarlieroutier.org )There are many programs listed on the first link that you can watch like American Justice, 20/20, 48 Hours Hard Evidence, etc. all on this case that give alot of info about the evidence. On The Leeza Show, Darrin, Darlie's mother, a couple of jury members and Barbara Davis (among others) are on this show being interviewed. Barbara Davis eventually ended up changing her mind and now defends Darlie, but what she says on The Leeza Show is still very interesting. Especially in regards to the blood on the sock.


The backyard fence, with the gate being shut is considered to be a matter of debate. The cops said it was shut when they found it, then they said it wasn't shut, but that it was wide open when they arrived to inspect the scene.

I don't know about that. In everything that I have ever seen and read, they say that the gate in the back yard was closed. As a matter of fact, you are the first person I have ever heard say that it wasn't closed. Not that I am doubting what you are saying or saying that was coming from you, just saying that is the first time I have ever heard that. In everything I have ever read, it talks about detectives being struck by the fact that the gate was so hard to open. It was even brought up at trial and in the trial transcripts, Darrin testifies that he had actually worked on the gate THAT DAY himself. By the way, did you ever read the transcripts? Good reading. I think Darins testimony starts at volume 44 and Darlie's follows.

This is a quote from author Don Davis:

>>>>Of equal importance was the way that police notes either were updated, vanished, or were never made at all. Law enforcement agencies around the country usually insist on clear notes and, in many places, the use of tape recorders to assure valid statements in court. That is not the case in Rowlett.

Had they kept adequate notes, however, they might have been in the same awkward position as Baylor hospital staff members, whose comments on the stand directly contradicted what they had written about Darlie's condition months before, when they thought she was the victim of an attack.

Police efficiency was a sometime thing, from Sergeant Tom Dean Ward saying an alley gate was closed and locked when it actually stood open, to evidence collection specialist David Mayne not logging the pictures he shot and then choosing, seemingly at random, which documents and rags to collect and how to preserve them.<<<<

I read the same things about the nurses notes as compared to their testimony as well as the thing about the police notes. Not good work, agreed.

Regarding the bloody sock, I think it's possible for both boys blood to be on it and none of darlies, if the guy used it to hold over Darlie's mouth, just getting skin and/or saliva cells on the sock (or in some other scenario). The boys didn't have less blood on them than Darlie. One of them was covered from the face down to his thighs. Literally, just completely covered in blood, face, chest, arms, everything, all except for his lower legs. I don't know about the other boy.

I guess that is up to each persons opinion, of course. It just seemed strange to me that there could be blood from the boys and none of hers. The boy that was covered in blood was Devon, the child that died at the scene and that is the child that Darin administered CPR to and Darin said when he blew into Devons mouth, blood and air sprayed from the boys chest.


I also think that it's weird that she said that the baby scooching around in his crib woke her up, yet she didn't awaken while the boys were being stabbed. If all that is true, I can only imagine that she was rendered unconcious by the attaker.

Again, a matter of opinion. I believe that she commited the murders, so my belief is different than yours here. Since I believe that she is the killer, I do not believe that she was rendered unconcious.

I found this on a "darlie did it" website:

>>>>DARLIE: "I think I screamed twice, and he (Darin) ran out of the bedroom with his jeans on, and no glasses, and..."

DARIN: "I woke up quickly grabbed my glasses on the nightstand and ran downstairs"and (later in the statement) after the police arrived "I ran upstairs to put my pants on..."<<<<

I wonder which one is true. I had never heard Darin's version before. If he had anything to do with this, then I'd have to believe Darlie. I always thought it was weird that he came downstairs in street clothes while she was screaming for her life. Maybe he was waiting on his hired guys to finish the job.

But if Darin's version is the truth, then the only reason I can think of for Darlie to say what she did (that he came downstairs dressed, but without his glasses) was so she could cast some suspicion off herself. Or if she and Darin were in on it together, then she said it so that there would be an explaination for why Darin didn't see the intruder. He was taking a minute to get his pants on, then came downstairs without glasses, so he wouldn't be able to give cops a good description of the bad guy, in case Darin's hired buddy was still in the house when he came downstairs.

In interviews that I have seen (and you can see them too on the American Justice segment) Darlie says that she didn't scream for Darin until after she chased the intruder out through the kitchen, turned around to turn the kitchin light on and then saw that the boys were hurt and started screaming for Darin. That's why Darin didn't see the intruder. If you believe there was an intruder, that is. I personally believe that he didn't see an intruder because there wasn't one. IMO.


Darin had $800,000 worth of life insurance on himself. I've never found out how much was on Darlie. (Each boy had $5,000 of coverage.) Since they owned a business together, it wouldn't be unusual at all for each of them to have the same amount of life insurance coverage. IMO, knowing how much money Darlie was worth dead, would give us a good idea of who's involved.

Darlies insurance policy was for $200,000.00

Imagine if Darin planned it without Darlie's knowledge, and he was supposed to come downstairs and find his family dead, (and himself nearly a million dollars richer) but Darlie was able to fight back enough that the guy/guys couldn't finish the job.

We differ here as well, as that is all the more reason that killing those boys at all, much less first, makes no sense. Again, if this was a plan of Darins to collect on life insurance, it seems to me that Darlie would be the first to go and with the same deep thrusting wounds as the boys had. If there was anyone to ram a knife through, it would be her since she was the biggest threat and her policy was worth alot more than both boys combined.


OK... wow. That took me a long time between running back and forth with dinner and all the posting. Hope you don't take anything I said where my opinion was different from yours as offensive. Just telling you what I believe in each case. Of course we will believe different things since I believe in her guilt and you believe in her innocence.

Take care,
Pam

One more thing... Darlie did have a deep stab wound on her arm that the doctor supposedly told her mother was a "defensive wound". That was the wound that went through the flesh, to the bone, and splintered part of the bone.

This deep stab wound is on her right arm, and yet Darlie is right handed. So that means if she did it herself, she had to use her left hand and a considerable amount of force to stab into the bone.

Her slicing injury was the one to her neck. If she did that one to herself, she would also have to have used her left hand, judging by the angle of the slice. It went from the side of her neck all the way across and down, in front of her shoulder, above the breast.

It wouldn't be hard to do, angle wise, that is. I am right handed and if you hold your right arm up and use that stabbing motion with your left hand, no problem. The same with her neck injury. It's not as precise as say writing would be. Most people know that police will make note of you being right or left handed and I personally believe she took this into consideration while staging the crime, IMO. As far as the cut to her arm, I always thought that was an awfully clean cut to be a defensive wound. It seemed more to me like the scenario I described above than one that would be received in a brutal attack while defending yourself.



She had cuts on the fingers of her left hand, as if she had grabbed the blade of the knife. If she were stabbing the kids, and the knife slipped, causing those cuts, she should have cuts on the right hand, since she's right handed.

I also considered this as part of the staging and it was one clean sweep across the top lines of the hand. I also thought that was pretty clean to be a defensive wound, IMO.

I ran across this info from a court reporter's website:

>>>>Fast forward another year or a few months or something. I'm at another court reporters seminar in Fort Worth. This time the presenter or speech-giver or whatever you want to call it was Darlie Routier's appeal attorney Stephen Cooper. His main focus was all the errors in the original trial transcript - 33,000 errors to be exact. We're not talking about all little, tiny, minor errors. We're talking about where a yes should have been a no. I remember one of the questions was: Was the door to the garage locked? The trial transcript answer said, Yes. In actuality the person had said, No. That's a pretty big mistake, especially when someone's life is on the line.<<<<

I wish she would have given more info on the garage door. If it was unlocked, then the guy could have left through the door, rather than awkwardly through the window, when darlie was chasing him.

This court reporter also said that she was at another seminar where the speaker was giving a presentation. She didn't realize until later that the speaker was the court reporter in the Routier case.

>>>>I can't remember the year this happened, but I went to a Tarrant County Court Reporters Association meeting where Sandra Halsey, the court reporter for the entire Darlie Routier trial gave a presentation. She brought in blown-up, poster-sized pictures which had been marked as evidence in the trial. For some reason, the only picture that really stands out in my mind is the picture of the alleged murder weapon - the knife.

I remember this court reporter, who later lost her license because of all the errors she made in the transcript and was actually jailed for a while because she didn't have the transcript ready in time, I remember her talking about how the Leeza Gibbons show had contacted her and wanted her to be on the Leeza show. I remember Ms. Halsey saying that Darlie Routier was definitely guilty. It wasn't until later on that I realized during the time this court reporter was out giving presentations about the Darlie Routier murder trial, she had not finished the transcript. Darlie Routier received the death penalty. When someone receives the death penalty in Texas, and maybe, in fact, anywhere, the court reporter knows that they'll have to produce the transcript of the trial. Why was this lady out giving speeches when she should have been working on the transcript?<<<<

I have never heard anything about this aside from Sandra Halsey and the 33,000 errors and her eventual arrest. The transcripts were later corrected through tapes, etc and certified complete and able to be used on appeal. The rest of that Ive never heard about. Interesting.

Pam

Yep, I’ve been to those two darlie support sites that you mentioned, and I tried to find some good “darlie did it” sites. I didn’t find any that helped me with the details of guilt that I was looking for. They were mostly emotionally based rather than fact based.

One of the sites that contends that she is the sole guilty party keeps giving links that go back to the family’s support darlie site. I’d rather the site owner didn’t do that, and actually gave good evidence against darlie so I could read all the info, pro and con, and try to come up with a decision that I feel fits the evidence.

Unfortunately, I can’t watch any of the video clips. My computer’s speakers are kinda fancy, with a subwoofer and surround sound. The computer is a few years old, and in the last couple months, the speakers got so full of loud static that it overpowers the audio and I can’t hear a darn thing! It sucks! No more youtube, local news videos, nothing. I hate not having speakers, but it’s gonna be a while before I can afford to have them fixed. They’re not just the simple “plug into any audio jack” type of speakers.

Regarding the fence/gate controversy, I got that info from Don Davis, an author of a book on Darlie. Now obviously, he is trying to make a buck off of his book, but I try to get my info from people outside the Routier family. I feel that it has a less chance of being biased or tainted, but of course, it’s not immune to someone promoting their own agenda. I just think it’s a bit safer than relying on distraught family members.

On those police notes… I managed a medical clinic for a while. Medical notes had to be entered into the patient’s file immediately after (sometimes during) the patient’s appointment. Everything was fresh in the medical provider’s mind, and mistakes were less likely to occur. I can’t believe that a police station would be so irresponsible about taking, keeping, and losing vital notes pertaining to a major crime that included a double homicide. That’s just beyond sloppy police work. Accurate notes have to be taken and paperwork has to be done, even though they might not like that part of the job.

Oooh Wow! Darlie was insured for $200,000. Holy crap! That was a lot of money back in the mid 90s. Thanks for that info. I had been looking for it forever.

And nope, I don’t take any of your comments as offensive at all. I think you have interesting and valid opinions. After all, I’m not trying to persuade anyone that she’s innocent. I’m just stating the reasons why I think she is innocent. If someone can come along and enlighten me, show me where I might be wrong, well, this is kinda what this site is all about. We want justice!

If that means justice for Darlie, who may be an innocent woman on death row, or if that means justice for Devon and Damon, to make sure that their killer stays behind bars, that’s all I’m looking for. I want justice for those who were wronged and I want the guilty to pay for their crimes, whether it’s life in prison, or in this case, lethal injection. I just want to be 100% sure that’s she’s guilty before she’s executed.

I've never found a website that's on the side of guilt. The only real websites I've found are the ones we have talked about that are for Darlie. I guess the creator of the website that was against Darlie that kept going back to the support site was being a smart a** and that doesn't do much to uphold their view. I mean I guess what they were trying to do was say the Darlie support site was it's own enemy. Too bad, when you have my point of view, that no one takes it seriously enough to pull a good website together. I wish I were able to do it, I would. But aside from not having the slightest idea of how to do it, I imagine it's very time consuming. Unfortunately I don't have the time.

Well, I guess we'll all have to wait untill the DNA testing is done and see what happens. I'm so curious, but who knows how long that will take. I guess in the mean time we can discuss and learn here and on other sites.

Take care,
Pam

Well, I think you and I are actually putting together a pretty good "website" on Darlie right in this thread! lol We've already got good pro and con info posted... no need to buy web space. :)

I have read some of the transcripts from the case, but I was only able to find copies of those on the pro-darlie sites.

And reading trial transcripts makes me crazy(er). It doesn't take long for my eyes to glaze over and my mind to start wandering. I like it a lot better if a decent journalist has read the transcripts, then condensed the info down into a readable article.

And reading trial transcripts makes me crazy(er). It doesn't take long for my eyes to glaze over and my mind to start wandering. I like it a lot better if a decent journalist has read the transcripts, then condensed the info down into a readable article.


Oh my gosh I know... The testimony from Darin and Darlie were fairly easier to read, but the other stuff was work. I've always said I was eventually going to cut and paste to WordPad and clean it up to make it easier to read... a little more like a book. I would like to read it all again with a lot more ease. Maybe one day...

The blood trail through the house is one aspect of the case I haven't read about in detail. Is it Darlie's position that she chased the intruder through the family room, kitchen, utility room and then the guy ran out through the garage, climbing out through the same open window that he entered through? Were there any doors in the garage that he could leave through?

I was under the impression that she chased him out a door. Climbing out through a window while being chased sounds odd. I definitely need more info on that.

The backyard fence, with the gate being shut is considered to be a matter of debate. The cops said it was shut when they found it, then they said it wasn't shut, but that it was wide open when they arrived to inspect the scene.

This is a quote from author Don Davis:

>>>>Of equal importance was the way that police notes either were updated, vanished, or were never made at all. Law enforcement agencies around the country usually insist on clear notes and, in many places, the use of tape recorders to assure valid statements in court. That is not the case in Rowlett.

Had they kept adequate notes, however, they might have been in the same awkward position as Baylor hospital staff members, whose comments on the stand directly contradicted what they had written about Darlie's condition months before, when they thought she was the victim of an attack.

Police efficiency was a sometime thing, from Sergeant Tom Dean Ward saying an alley gate was closed and locked when it actually stood open, to evidence collection specialist David Mayne not logging the pictures he shot and then choosing, seemingly at random, which documents and rags to collect and how to preserve them.<<<<

Regarding the bloody sock, I think it's possible for both boys blood to be on it and none of darlies, if the guy used it to hold over Darlie's mouth, just getting skin and/or saliva cells on the sock (or in some other scenario). The boys didn't have less blood on them than Darlie. One of them was covered from the face down to his thighs. Literally, just completely covered in blood, face, chest, arms, everything, all except for his lower legs. I don't know about the other boy.

I also think that it's weird that she said that the baby scooching around in his crib woke her up, yet she didn't awaken while the boys were being stabbed. If all that is true, I can only imagine that she was rendered unconcious by the attaker.

I found this on a "darlie did it" website:

>>>>DARLIE: "I think I screamed twice, and he (Darin) ran out of the bedroom with his jeans on, and no glasses, and..."

DARIN: "I woke up quickly grabbed my glasses on the nightstand and ran downstairs"and (later in the statement) after the police arrived "I ran upstairs to put my pants on..."<<<<

I wonder which one is true. I had never heard Darin's version before. If he had anything to do with this, then I'd have to believe Darlie. I always thought it was weird that he came downstairs in street clothes while she was screaming for her life. Maybe he was waiting on his hired guys to finish the job.

But if Darin's version is the truth, then the only reason I can think of for Darlie to say what she did (that he came downstairs dressed, but without his glasses) was so she could cast some suspicion off herself. Or if she and Darin were in on it together, then she said it so that there would be an explaination for why Darin didn't see the intruder. He was taking a minute to get his pants on, then came downstairs without glasses, so he wouldn't be able to give cops a good description of the bad guy, in case Darin's hired buddy was still in the house when he came downstairs.

Darin had $800,000 worth of life insurance on himself. I've never found out how much was on Darlie. (Each boy had $5,000 of coverage.) Since they owned a business together, it wouldn't be unusual at all for each of them to have the same amount of life insurance coverage. IMO, knowing how much money Darlie was worth dead, would give us a good idea of who's involved.

Imagine if Darin planned it without Darlie's knowledge, and he was supposed to come downstairs and find his family dead, (and himself nearly a million dollars richer) but Darlie was able to fight back enough that the guy/guys couldn't finish the job.


See the misinformation when only the family is consulted. Don Davis is wrong..the gate was shut firmly...the gate dragged on the ground so for an intruder to have opened it and then closed it would have taken some time. he could have just jumped over the fence....but no evidence to show anyone did.

NO Darlie was not rendered unconcious. It's all in the trial transcripts..the only true record of this case.

OH and Darlie lies big time.. Considering Darin was covered in blood and there was no blood found upstairs anywhere, it's my opinion Darin came downstairs wearing his jeans.

Yep, I’ve been to those two darlie support sites that you mentioned, and I tried to find some good “darlie did it” sites. I didn’t find any that helped me with the details of guilt that I was looking for. They were mostly emotionally based rather than fact based.

One of the sites that contends that she is the sole guilty party keeps giving links that go back to the family’s support darlie site. I’d rather the site owner didn’t do that, and actually gave good evidence against darlie so I could read all the info, pro and con, and try to come up with a decision that I feel fits the evidence.

Unfortunately, I can’t watch any of the video clips. My computer’s speakers are kinda fancy, with a subwoofer and surround sound. The computer is a few years old, and in the last couple months, the speakers got so full of loud static that it overpowers the audio and I can’t hear a darn thing! It sucks! No more youtube, local news videos, nothing. I hate not having speakers, but it’s gonna be a while before I can afford to have them fixed. They’re not just the simple “plug into any audio jack” type of speakers.

Regarding the fence/gate controversy, I got that info from Don Davis, an author of a book on Darlie. Now obviously, he is trying to make a buck off of his book, but I try to get my info from people outside the Routier family. I feel that it has a less chance of being biased or tainted, but of course, it’s not immune to someone promoting their own agenda. I just think it’s a bit safer than relying on distraught family members.

On those police notes… I managed a medical clinic for a while. Medical notes had to be entered into the patient’s file immediately after (sometimes during) the patient’s appointment. Everything was fresh in the medical provider’s mind, and mistakes were less likely to occur. I can’t believe that a police station would be so irresponsible about taking, keeping, and losing vital notes pertaining to a major crime that included a double homicide. That’s just beyond sloppy police work. Accurate notes have to be taken and paperwork has to be done, even though they might not like that part of the job.

Oooh Wow! Darlie was insured for $200,000. Holy crap! That was a lot of money back in the mid 90s. Thanks for that info. I had been looking for it forever.

And nope, I don’t take any of your comments as offensive at all. I think you have interesting and valid opinions. After all, I’m not trying to persuade anyone that she’s innocent. I’m just stating the reasons why I think she is innocent. If someone can come along and enlighten me, show me where I might be wrong, well, this is kinda what this site is all about. We want justice!

If that means justice for Darlie, who may be an innocent woman on death row, or if that means justice for Devon and Damon, to make sure that their killer stays behind bars, that’s all I’m looking for. I want justice for those who were wronged and I want the guilty to pay for their crimes, whether it’s life in prison, or in this case, lethal injection. I just want to be 100% sure that’s she’s guilty before she’s executed.


Sure there's lots of evidence that proves her guilt. That's what the detectives do, they follow the evidence. As for their notes, they too turned them into reports at the station.

Hmmm let's see:

Clean up at the kitchen sink
cast-off blood of both boys on the back of her nightshirt
screen firbre and debris found on a kitchen knife in the butcher block
bloody imprint of murder weapon in the carpet in the family room.
bloody footprints cleaned from the kitchen floor, bloody footprints found under broken blass (Darlie clamins intruder broke on way out)
Damon stabbed twice and in two different areas of the room

No blood, fibres, hair or otherwise any evidence of an intruder.

I think there's enough conflicting information on the blood evidence to convince people of either Darlie's guilt or innocence.

There's an unidentified fingerprint, in blood, that hasn't been explained.

Darlie's blood and one of the boy's was found on a knife at the scene. The murder weapon used to kill the other child hasn't been recovered. She wasn't charged with his murder.

If she killed both kids and stabbed herself to make herself look like a victim, all 3 people's blood would be on the one knife, or else the one murder weapon (or both weapons) would be missing from the scene altogether.

But instead, we have one murder weapon there at the scene and one missing. That doesn't make sense when trying to make yourself look like a victim, but it does make sense if there's another person involved, who lost control of the victims, dropped a knife at the scene, and fled while gripping the other knife.


It has neveer ever been proven there was another knife from the CS. Only four blood spots were tested. Devon's blood could very well be on that knife untested or washed down the sink or under the handle....if it's removed they might find Devon's blood. But both pathologists and the tool expert testified one knife could have made the injuries on the boys.

There is another knife that contains a fibre and dust from the cut screen so tere's a puzzle to answer. How did the intruder get in, take the Routier's knife and then go back out and slash the screen.

All of this is in the trail transcripts. The trial transcripts have been certified and accepted by the appellate court. Darlie is not going to win an appeal on the transcripts.

Here's a link to the Halsey Discipline Hearing regarind the transcripts.

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/halsey-00.php

Actually, what you need to do is take "her proof" and compare it against the trial transcripts. You will see that Darlie lies whenever her mouth opens. Sixteen different stories of what happened that night.

Darlie does deserve the DP as her punishment for this crime she committed

RE: the screen fibre being on the bread knife...

It's been a while now since I read about it, but I believe they confirmed that the evidence tech dusted the point of entry window, where the screen was slashed, for fingerprints. Then, they used the same brush to dust the bread knife for fingerprints.

IMO, if that knife was used to cut the screen, there would be more than one miniscule fibre on it. And it was so small that the tests comparing it to the window screen used up the whole sample.

I just think that there would have been lots and lots of screen fibres on that knife, if it had been used to cut the screen open. AND, it's kinda weird that a bread knife was said to be used to cut the screen and a different knife (or knives) were used to kill the victims. Why not just use the same knife for all the activities requiring a bladed instrument?

That's another reason that I think the screen fibre on the bread knife was a contamination transfer. If Darlie killed the kids, why would she use the rounded tip bread knife to cut the screen and a different one to kill the kids? Why not just grab the butcher knife, cut the screen, then go kill the kids with the same knife? It makes more sense to use the same weapon throughout the entire crime, imo. I really don't think that bread knife was used in the crime. The evidence people did such a sloppy job on so many important things, I think that they just goofed this one up, too, and accidentally transfered the tiny piece of screen material onto the knife when they were dusting it for prints.

You mentioned the clean up at the kitchen sink. IMO, after looking at the sink photos, it doesn't look like a cleaned up scene to me. The blood is in all the places where you would expect to see it if Darlie was bloody from her own wounds and from touching the boys, who were stabbed and bloodied, and then going to the sink to soak towels to put on the boys' wounds.

The cast-off blood of both boys on the back of her nightshirt, is also debated. The first lab that examined the nightshirt did not find the boys' blood on it. The prosecution had to send it out to a second lab to get the test results they were looking for. Plus, the police admitted in court to folding up multiple bloody items and placing them in the same evidence bags, thus cross contaminating different objects.

I don't know much about the bloody imprint of murder weapon in the carpet in the family room, bloody footprints cleaned from the kitchen floor, bloody footprints found under broken blass (Darlie clamins intruder broke on way out), or Damon stabbed twice and in two different areas of the room.

However, they did find at least one arm or leg hair (they called it a "limb hair") at the scene that they haven't been able to match to anyone with any reason to be in the house.

RE: the screen fibre being on the bread knife...

It's been a while now since I read about it, but I believe they confirmed that the evidence tech dusted the point of entry window, where the screen was slashed, for fingerprints. Then, they used the same brush to dust the bread knife for fingerprints.


I don't know where you got that information but it's completely false. The tech did not use the same brush, the knives were printed back in the lab. And there were two pieces of evidence from the screen on the bread knife. Hard to believe he'd transfer two pieces of evidence separately.[/COLOR]

IMO, if that knife was used to cut the screen, there would be more than one miniscule fibre on it. And it was so small that the tests comparing it to the window screen used up the whole sample.

I just think that there would have been lots and lots of screen fibres on that knife, if it had been used to cut the screen open. AND, it's kinda weird that a bread knife was said to be used to cut the screen and a different knife (or knives) were used to kill the victims. Why not just use the same knife for all the activities requiring a bladed instrument?

Well wild speculation such as you are doing is not allowed in the courtroom, they stick to facts. That's a really good question, if the bread knife wasn't used for the screen, why not use the knife he brought with him.

That's another reason that I think the screen fibre on the bread knife was a contamination transfer. If Darlie killed the kids, why would she use the rounded tip bread knife to cut the screen and a different one to kill the kids? Why not just grab the butcher knife, cut the screen, then go kill the kids with the same knife? It makes more sense to use the same weapon throughout the entire crime, imo. I really don't think that bread knife was used in the crime. The evidence people did such a sloppy job on so many important things, I think that they just goofed this one up, too, and accidentally transfered the tiny piece of screen material onto the knife when they were dusting it for prints.

We can't know what was in Darlie's mind, what makes sense to her doesn't make sense to us but obviously she wasn't thinking clearly. The crime scene was not contaminiated. Don't believe what Darlie's family and friends have put out there. I've studied this case for a long time. Nobody goofed. If you read the trial transcripts, you'd understand.

You mentioned the clean up at the kitchen sink. IMO, after looking at the sink photos, it doesn't look like a cleaned up scene to me. The blood is in all the places where you would expect to see it if Darlie was bloody from her own wounds and from touching the boys, who were stabbed and bloodied, and then going to the sink to soak towels to put on the boys' wounds.


Luminol proves the sink and the surrounding counters were wiped up and cleaned. LOL, you never put wet towels on stabbing victims, you want to stop the flow of blood and have the towel absorb it. Besides that, there were no wet towels found where she says they were, there were only towels wet with blood that she used to clean the sink counters.

The cast-off blood of both boys on the back of her nightshirt, is also debated. The first lab that examined the nightshirt did not find the boys' blood on it. The prosecution had to send it out to a second lab to get the test results they were looking for. Plus, the police admitted in court to folding up multiple bloody items and placing them in the same evidence bags, thus cross contaminating different objects.

Because the first lab didn't have the proper facilities. No big consipiracy on the part of the prosecution. As well it was two towels that were together at the CS not mulitple bloody items, show me that in the trial transcript. They dried together. The evidence collector collected them as one piece of evidence since they were stuck together at the crime scene.No the police did not admit in court that they placed multiple bloody items in the same evidence bag. Lastly, you cannot transfer cast-off blood, you'd have transfer stains..not cast-off.

I don't know much about the bloody imprint of murder weapon in the carpet in the family room, bloody footprints cleaned from the kitchen floor, bloody footprints found under broken blass (Darlie clamins intruder broke on way out), or Damon stabbed twice and in two different areas of the room.

However, they did find at least one arm or leg hair (they called it a "limb hair") at the scene that they haven't been able to match to anyone with any reason to be in the house.

If the intruder broke the glass on the way out, how did Darlie's bloody footprint get underneath it? She was following him.

Yes, that's because we all drop hair and we all transfer hair daily. IMO, it's a waste of time and money to dna these hairs. What I'm talking about is real evidence of an intruder. Darllie can't describe him, she didn't hear his voice, she didn't grab any hair from his head, she didn't try and scratch him to get tissue or tear his clothes, etc. She did nothing.

As for the limb hair, they could have come in on someone's foot. You don't know much about this case at all IMO. Still your entitled to your opinion but you did ask for someone to show you proof of Darlie's guilt and I did. I showed what was in evidence at trial, plus there's tons more, that convicted her. The blood evidence alone speaks for itself and it doesn't lie. Someone bleeding from the forearm put that knife on the carpet, thereby making a perfect bloody imprint of the knife. Since there was no blood found outside the home and no unsourced dna within the home, and Darlie is bleeding from the stab wound in the forearm, I can come to only one conclusion, Darlie laid the bloody knife on the carpet in the family room. Once I learned the blood evidence inside the home (there's none outside), it's not a big leap to believing someone inside the house committed the crime. Like the bloody fingerprints, they can scream until doomsday that it's not Darlie's print...but once I looked all around this print, it's easy to see it's Darlie's and not an intruders. There's a lack of blood where there should be blood and blood where there should be no blood.

Damon's blood trail proves he moved his position, his bloody handprint was found, with luminol, on the sofa so someone cleaned it off. His bloody handprint was found in the carpet in front of the sofa where he fell asleep and where he was stabbed the first time. The blood trail and his position where he was found by paramedics proves he dragged himself at least 20 feet away from the sofa when he was stabbed again.

Darlie was found guilty because she is guilty. She killed her boys.

I don't think she will get executed, I think they will commute her sentence.

Take care
:wave:

I've never found a website that's on the side of guilt. The only real websites I've found are the ones we have talked about that are for Darlie. I guess the creator of the website that was against Darlie that kept going back to the support site was being a smart a** and that doesn't do much to uphold their view. I mean I guess what they were trying to do was say the Darlie support site was it's own enemy. Too bad, when you have my point of view, that no one takes it seriously enough to pull a good website together. I wish I were able to do it, I would. But aside from not having the slightest idea of how to do it, I imagine it's very time consuming. Unfortunately I don't have the time.

Well, I guess we'll all have to wait untill the DNA testing is done and see what happens. I'm so curious, but who knows how long that will take. I guess in the mean time we can discuss and learn here and on other sites.

Take care,
Pam


Actually, there is one, it's a Delphi Forum, titled "Darlie Routier, Guilty as Charged. But I can tell you there's very little activity on it right now, however you can read back all the threads in archives and read why people consider her guilty as charged. There were extremely good debates on this forum for guilt and innocence, they should be in the archives...really good, I remember them well. Some of the explanations for the evidence were really funny. There's actually several forums out there and the concesus on most is she's guilty.

Pam,

Besides the arm brusing, both her wrists were bruised as if someone had held her wrists tightly in their hands while she struggled against him. IMO, that's not difficult to fake, but it will take some doing... Most women who kill their children don't think to go to that level of detail in making themselves look like the victim.

That stupid Susan Smith who drowned both her boys in the car comes to mind. She gave tearless tv interviews about a "black" guy in the rural south carjacking her big city style, and stealing the car with the kids inside. IIRC, the woman didn't have a defensive wound on her, so she didn't fight the carjacker or even pound on the car with her fists as he was taking it over from her control.

Anyway, it's not *just* the arm bruises that make me think Darlie is innocent. The fact that the stab wound to her neck was 2 mm from killing her by cutting her jugular/corotid artery is another reason. Guilty people who are trying to make themselves look like victims do superficial scrapes and tiny cuts that aren't very painful. They don't nearly kill themselves in attempt to look like a victim.

There's more... But I probably already said it all in previous posts in this thread.

I don't think many of us would disagree that Darlie was vain and superficial, and that she and her husband were living beyond their means to keep up with the Joneses, or try to impress people, or whatever. As a person, she's not very likeable, but that doesn't make her guilty of killing her kids.

Those bruises are from blunt force trauma and how did she get the right arm bruised up to the armpit if someone was holding her wrists? HOw did she get that BFT without a broken bone? I'll never understand that. If the medical staff had seen them, they could have tried to get dna or fingerprints from that area. I don't think she got any of the bruising the night of the murders. Afterall, none of the photos were taken whilst Darlie was in hospital but after she was home for a few days.

Darlie came close to her carotied artery yes but purely by accident and they're did appear to be hesitation wounds both on the neck and on the arm beside the arm wound. The doctor who attented her at Baylor testified in normal circumstances he would have sent Darlie home that day..but considering the circumstances they thought she would need emotional support so they kept her in ICU. Also, Darlie's armbone was not cracked or even touched by the knife. The knife went "to the bone" not touched it. The bone is only an inch below the skin anyway so it's a very minor wound and there's a hesitation mark beside it.

I'm afraid you'll have to wipe the blackboard clean and start again. Darlie was not badly hurt, she had serious but non-life threatening wounds. I wonder too why the so-called intruder didn't just knife her as she lay there asleep like he did the boys? She offered no resistance, she was cough cough asleep on the couch.

RE: the screen fibre being on the bread knife...

It's been a while now since I read about it, but I believe they confirmed that the evidence tech dusted the point of entry window, where the screen was slashed, for fingerprints. Then, they used the same brush to dust the bread knife for fingerprints.

IMO, if that knife was used to cut the screen, there would be more than one miniscule fibre on it. And it was so small that the tests comparing it to the window screen used up the whole sample.

I just think that there would have been lots and lots of screen fibres on that knife, if it had been used to cut the screen open. AND, it's kinda weird that a bread knife was said to be used to cut the screen and a different knife (or knives) were used to kill the victims. Why not just use the same knife for all the activities requiring a bladed instrument?

That's another reason that I think the screen fibre on the bread knife was a contamination transfer. If Darlie killed the kids, why would she use the rounded tip bread knife to cut the screen and a different one to kill the kids? Why not just grab the butcher knife, cut the screen, then go kill the kids with the same knife? It makes more sense to use the same weapon throughout the entire crime, imo. I really don't think that bread knife was used in the crime. The evidence people did such a sloppy job on so many important things, I think that they just goofed this one up, too, and accidentally transfered the tiny piece of screen material onto the knife when they were dusting it for prints.

You mentioned the clean up at the kitchen sink. IMO, after looking at the sink photos, it doesn't look like a cleaned up scene to me. The blood is in all the places where you would expect to see it if Darlie was bloody from her own wounds and from touching the boys, who were stabbed and bloodied, and then going to the sink to soak towels to put on the boys' wounds.

The cast-off blood of both boys on the back of her nightshirt, is also debated. The first lab that examined the nightshirt did not find the boys' blood on it. The prosecution had to send it out to a second lab to get the test results they were looking for. Plus, the police admitted in court to folding up multiple bloody items and placing them in the same evidence bags, thus cross contaminating different objects.

I don't know much about the bloody imprint of murder weapon in the carpet in the family room, bloody footprints cleaned from the kitchen floor, bloody footprints found under broken blass (Darlie clamins intruder broke on way out), or Damon stabbed twice and in two different areas of the room.

However, they did find at least one arm or leg hair (they called it a "limb hair") at the scene that they haven't been able to match to anyone with any reason to be in the house.


I also forgot to tell you that both Darlie and Damon were transported to Baylor still wearing their bloody clothes and Devon was wearing only underwear so there is no way they're blood was transferred to Darlie's shirt.

I always hesitate to jump into this thread, but this tangential to the Darlie Routier case, so here goes. I grew up in Dallas, and regularly check in with the news there, but I totally missed this one. My apologies if it has been discussed.

The daughter of the judge who presided over Routier's case murdered her two children and then committed suicide last year. In the weeks leading up to the murders/suicide, JeanMarie Geis claimed that she was being stalked and repeatedly attacked. She claimed that the assailants said it was in retaliation for her father's actions in the Darlie Routier case. It's now pretty apparent that the attacks were phony. Her husband isn't talking to the press. Not only is it amazing that she used the Darlie Routier case as part of her ruse, but it's also amazing how similar the Geis case is to Routier's case (if you are inclined to believe that Routier is guilty). You have to wonder if one had a direct effect on the other.

http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/2009/05/01/What_Drove_Jeanmarie_Geis_to_Murder.aspx

24 Q. Okay. How would you classify the size
25 of these two latents?
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2269

1 A. Small.
2 Q. Okay. What do you mean by small?
3 What would that be consistent with?
4 A. A juvenile, it could be. It fits the
5 criteria to be a younger person's prints.
6 Q. Okay. What are those criteria?
7 A. Small ridges.
8 Q. Let me just ask you: The two prints
9 here, 85-I and J, would they be consistent with having
10 been left by a five or six year old child?

11 A. It's possible, yes, sir.

This shows he really wasn't sure, but he wanted to side with the prosecution so he left it in a situation where it is implied to be prints of a child, even though I believe he being an expert KNEW they were NOT. Or he was not such a good expert. Especially when the STATES own fingerprint expert says that in HIS opinion that the prints are those of an adult. Dr. Jantz's conclusions just happen to be the SAME as the STATE's conclusion.
So, Cron is WRONG in his assessment according to two other experts opinions. One being an expert for the state. Oh wait, Cron is more qualified that these two, RIGHT?!!!
Sorry, if you believe this then you are baised in your opinion too. Cron is NOT as qualified as D. Jantz on ANY level. Ask yourself why the STATE'S expert disagrees with Cron also? Maybe Cron is trying to manipulate the jury, the same as the prosecution did with the word superficial. Instead he uses the words could be, small, consistent with that of a juvenile, etc.It is all word games the prosecution used to get a conviction. WHERE ARE THEIR FACTS?
You trust people who break the law? The police and prosecutio broke the law, yet you trust them to be telling the truth at trial. My God, if they were on the up and up, they would have followed the LETTER of the LAW.



Wait now, that' s your opinion on his testimony, nothing more. What state fingerprint expert are you referring to? Dr. Jantz? Dr. Jantz was hired by the DEFENCE AS DARLIE'S EXPERT. And he is an antropologist, nothing more, he is not more qualified than Cron because the disciplines are not the same. And those prints are PARTIALS and likely to remain unidentified.

Cron did no break the law..don't cherry pick testimony, read it all.

You make me laugh, we've been through all this before....perhaps you can make someone on this forum believe you.

I asked you a question on the other forum but rather than answer me, you don't bother to come back but run over here and try your nonsense on another forum.

So, I'll ask you again. Please in your scientific opinion why is there no blood trail between the two bloody fingerprints? Can you give me the scientific data on that please?

If you think I believe in Darlie's guilt because of two lousy fingerprints, you're nuts.

Why don't you read the transcripts in their entirety and stop cherry picking words like "superficial" If you did you would realize that the doctor who treated Darlie was the first to mention the word superficial in relation to her neck wound and what it means when he explained it to the prosecutor and the jury whilst testifying.

it's kinda weird that a bread knife was said to be used to cut the screen and a different knife (or knives) were used to kill the victims. Why not just use the same knife for all the activities requiring a bladed instrument?




Think about that... That's true. Why not use the same knife for the screen AND the murders?? IMO that's exactly what she did. I believe a thousand percent that the butcher knife was used for both deeds. But whether the bread knife was used for the screen and the butcher knife for the murders OR if the butcher knife was used for both... the fact remains that both knives came from inside the house. So if it was an outside intruder, how did he get a knife that was already inside the house to cut the screen with?

Pam

Think about that... That's true. Why not use the same knife for the screen AND the murders?? IMO that's exactly what she did. I believe a thousand percent that the butcher knife was used for both deeds. But whether the bread knife was used for the screen and the butcher knife for the murders OR if the butcher knife was used for both... the fact remains that both knives came from inside the house. So if it was an outside intruder, how did he get a knife that was already inside the house to cut the screen with?

Pam


Exactly, take the bread knife out altogether. Okay that gives the intruder his own knife to cut the screen with. Why then would he go into the Routier's kitchen and get a big butcher knife to kill the kids with? Why not use his own knife?

I always hesitate to jump into this thread, but this tangential to the Darlie Routier case, so here goes. I grew up in Dallas, and regularly check in with the news there, but I totally missed this one. My apologies if it has been discussed.

The daughter of the judge who presided over Routier's case murdered her two children and then committed suicide last year. In the weeks leading up to the murders/suicide, JeanMarie Geis claimed that she was being stalked and repeatedly attacked. She claimed that the assailants said it was in retaliation for her father's actions in the Darlie Routier case. It's now pretty apparent that the attacks were phony. Her husband isn't talking to the press. Not only is it amazing that she used the Darlie Routier case as part of her ruse, but it's also amazing how similar the Geis case is to Routier's case (if you are inclined to believe that Routier is guilty). You have to wonder if one had a direct effect on the other.

http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/2009/05/01/What_Drove_Jeanmarie_Geis_to_Murder.aspx

I think Geis copcated the Routier case, there is no connection other than her father presided over Routier's trial. Well other than both of them made up the story of their attacks. I think Geis was mentall ill.

I think Geis copcated the Routier case, there is no connection other than her father presided over Routier's trial. Well other than both of them made up the story of their attacks. I think Geis was mentall ill.

This post is for TracyLynn. I stand corrected. On review of the transcripts today, I found the testimony on the bruises on Darlie's left arm.

I also found the testimony where the photos were shown to the jury, both right and left arms.

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-30.php#3

What the .org site does is they take a little truth and mix it up with a lot of lies and present it as fact.

I wish I would have known they were showing that episode again. Dangit.

Arnold, do you mean that you can't believe Darin was so stupid as to say something like that? Or that you don't believe Darin said that about his wife's breasts and that the officer is lying?


No, the officer is not lying. Darin said that and a few other strange things leading Patterson to consider him a suspect...before Darlie.....once Darin was investigated they found his statements consistant as to his movements and Darlie's not.

According to Anne Good's article, I was wrong about one fingerprint in blood being unaccounted for, there were apparently, two:

There are two unidentified bloody fingerprints found at the crime scene. Records indicate that the chain of custody was broken on this evidence for 2 months. Where were these prints for two months?

A significant but downplayed issue is that Darlie was never charged with Devon's death because the murder weapon was never recovered. The only weapon in existence is the knife from the Routier kitchen that contains Darlie and Damon's blood. There had to have been a second weapon. Where did this second weapon go? The prosecution never had to answer this question. This is consistent with Greg Davis' style -- if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, get rid of it.

Dr. Janice Townsend-Parchman and Dr. Joni McClain, who performed the autopsies on Devon and Damon, testified that the large butcher knife found "could have" inflicted the wounds on both boys. They never mentioned that Devon's blood was not found on this knife.

The police said there was no blood on the couch where Darlie claimed she was attacked. This is completely untrue and reveals the incredible level of incompetence of the RPD. Crime scene photos clearly reveal blood dripping down the side of the couch and an outline of where Darlie's pillow was located. The photos also show that pillow was moved all over the place after the police and paramedics arrived. There was blood on her pillow as well.

Oddly enough, the police released the couch back to the family and it was cleaned up and sold at a garage sale to raise money for Darlie's defense. The family had no idea this was a key piece of evidence. No other evidence was released back to the family. I have come to believe that any evidence that did not back up the prosecution theory was dispensed with and labeled "unimportant."

Darlie's nightshirt is a confusing piece of evidence. My research has revealed that there is a standard procedure to handle bloody clothing: the nightshirt should have been carefully cut off of Darlie and then hung up to air dry. This would preserve the integrity of any blood spatters. This was not done.

Instead, her nightshirt was rolled up and placed in a bag with several other pieces of bloody clothing. The state first sent the nightshirt to the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences in Dallas. In an eight-page report it was stated that NONE of the boys' blood was found on her nightshirt. When this report was released to the press, the prosecution said that "... just because she stabbed the boys does not mean she would have blood on her nightshirt."

This statement is mind-boggling. One of the key reasons they believed there was no intruder was because there was no trail of blood. If Darlie could kill her boys without getting any blood on herself, why couldn't an intruder do the same?

By the time the trial took place, another lab had tested the nightshirt and found 4 small drops of the boys' blood, which the prosecution claims is consistent with blood dripping off the knife as she repeatedly raised it over her head to stab them. Mysteriously, Damon's blood is on top of Darlie's blood. Are we supposed to believe that anyone is capable of slitting her own throat and then muster the sustained energy required to stab two people to death? This defies all logic and known medical fact.

Why did they have the nightshirt retested when a lab the state uses extensively already tested it? Could it be because the results from the first lab were not what they needed? Again, this seems consistent with a certain style: if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, get rid of it.

Rowlett Police Officer David Maynes admitted he placed multiple bloody items in the same evidence bag instead of using separate bags. He also admitted it was sloppy police work.

Darlie suffered two major wounds: one slash across her throat in which her gold rope chain necklace became imbedded in her neck and had to be removed by a surgeon, and one stab wound to her right arm approximately 3 inches below the elbow. The knife wound on the arm went clear to the bone.

Dr. Santos, the treating physician at Baylor Hospital, told Darlie's mother that this was a defensive wound and that Darlie almost died from her injuries. By the time he testified in court he called the wounds "superficial."

And finally, the article states that the police accuse Darlie of using a round edged bread knife to "stage the scene" by slicing the window screen, because they found one tiny piece of fiberglass screen-like material on the bread knife. But they then accuse her of using a pointed edge butcher knife to commit the murders. Why would she use two separate knives? One to slit the screen and one to kill the kids?

Because the fingerprint tech used the same brush to first dust the window for prints, then to dust the bread knife, likely transferring the one piece of fiberglass to the knife. It was so tiny, that after the first test, there wasn't any of it left. If she had used the bread knife to slit the window screen, there would definitely be more than one tiny piece of fiberglass left on the knife. I believe it was a transfer, contaminated by the tech.


Anne Good did not investigate this crime and she has many many things incorrect. For instance, the fibre and the dust on the bread knife are microscopically smaller than the dust brush. As well, the technician started printing at the alleged entrance window and dusted all the way through the garage, the utility room and then to the kitchen. Are you willing to believe he only dropped this fibre into the serrations of the knife after dusting three rooms?

There was also two separate pieces of evidence on that knife. The fibre and rubber dust.

Just as I said, they take a bit of the truth and mix it up with lies and present it as fact. Everything in Anne Good's article can be refuted. Just compare it with the trial transcripts.

Exactly, take the bread knife out altogether. Okay that gives the intruder his own knife to cut the screen with. Why then would he go into the Routier's kitchen and get a big butcher knife to kill the kids with? Why not use his own knife?


Yep. All you have to do is follow the evidence (blood evidence is crucial), read the transcripts and use an open mind. If an intruder brought their own knife (as most murderers do) why would they need either knife from inside the house? The fact that the window was such a long, low to the ground window contributes as well. It would have been much easier just to lift the screen out and step in. The bottom of the window was only about 3 to 4 inches from the ground.

But as I said, the blood evidence is crucial. If a murderer did come in and stab only the children, it WOULD be possible for them to be stabbed and the killer not have any of their blood. But NONE of Darlies? The boy's wounds were deep, seeping wounds. They would not have spurted blood. But Darlie's blood was all over the place and she was supposedly in this vicious battle for her life, yet no blood leading out of the house. The sock? The sock was planted by Darlie IMO. She stabbed the boys and then ran to drop the sock. Came back to clean up what she thought would be incriminating. It was probably then that she discovered that the one child was not yet dead and had actually moved. She stabbed him again and then cut herself. That, IMO, is why it was only her blood and only one of the boys blood was found on that knife. She had already started her clean-up when she realized she had more work to do. NONE of her blood was found on that sock because she had not been cut yet.

Also, there is NO need for clean-up if you are innocent. That sink lit up like a beacon in the night with the Luminol. Darlie never once said anything about wetting towels until she found the police had taken the sink out of her house. And I've said this before, but why would you consider wetting towels for gaping lung wounds?? Or for any stab wound? Isn't the purpose of the towel to help stop and absorb the blood?

Pam

Yep. All you have to do is follow the evidence (blood evidence is crucial), read the transcripts and use an open mind. If an intruder brought their own knife (as most murderers do) why would they need either knife from inside the house? The fact that the window was such a long, low to the ground window contributes as well. It would have been much easier just to lift the screen out and step in. The bottom of the window was only about 3 to 4 inches from the ground.

But as I said, the blood evidence is crucial. If a murderer did come in and stab only the children, it WOULD be possible for them to be stabbed and the killer not have any of their blood. But NONE of Darlies? The boy's wounds were deep, seeping wounds. They would not have spurted blood. But Darlie's blood was all over the place and she was supposedly in this vicious battle for her life, yet no blood leading out of the house. The sock? The sock was planted by Darlie IMO. She stabbed the boys and then ran to drop the sock. Came back to clean up what she thought would be incriminating. It was probably then that she discovered that the one child was not yet dead and had actually moved. She stabbed him again and then cut herself. That, IMO, is why it was only her blood and only one of the boys blood was found on that knife. She had already started her clean-up when she realized she had more work to do. NONE of her blood was found on that sock because she had not been cut yet.

Also, there is NO need for clean-up if you are innocent. That sink lit up like a beacon in the night with the Luminol. Darlie never once said anything about wetting towels until she found the police had taken the sink out of her house. And I've said this before, but why would you consider wetting towels for gaping lung wounds?? Or for any stab wound? Isn't the purpose of the towel to help stop and absorb the blood?

Pam


That's my mantra....follow the blood. The blood does not lie, it has no stake in this case..it is what is and it all points to Darlie as the killer. There' s so much blood evidence that is incriminating, and some of it didn't even come in at trial.

IMO, that knife was rinsed at the kitchen sink prior to her using it to inflict her own wounds. Both boys' blood mixed with hers was found on the backsplash. However, I believe she had already inflicted her own injury when she stabbed Damon again. Her blood and his was found on the wall where he was laying.

Her dna in the toe of the sock from shed skin cells and the boys blood on the sock tells me she threw that sock in the alley too. And that's her blood in the utility room on the appliances even though she lied and said she didn't go in that room. She went in there to get that sock from the dirty laundry and she went back in again once she was bleeding to get the vacuum cleaner. All strictly speculation on my part...but her blood is dripped in there...on the floor and the appliances.

I was watching a show on the ID network today regarding the false conviction of Clarence Elkins. I decided to do an internet search on the real killer/rapist, Earl Eugene Mann. That search led me to this website: http://www.victimsofthestate.org/CC/IMM.htm

I found info on other people convicted of crimes they didn't commit or it's suspected that they didn't commit. While reading through them, I didn't expect to see Darlie's case, since she's still in prison.

You have to scroll down a few cases to the one about Julie Rea in Lawrence County Illinois. It says that Tommy Lynn Sells confessed to killing her 10 year old son. The child was stabbed to death in a "bloodbath" scene, but the mother had few injuries and nothing really connecting her to the murder of her son.

Tommy Lynn Sells has been convicted of attacking and killing children before. He says that he decided to start concentrating on killing children, after attacking adults and ending up injured, in the hospital, and sentenced to five years in jail.

This info says that Tommy Lynn Sells also confessed to killing Devon and Damon, and that his confession has too much correct information to be totally ignored.

Now, I can't remember if I'd read anything about Sells being involved in the Routier case before, but Julie Rea's case is almost identical to Darlie's case. I thought it was an interesting bit of news. Here's a quote from the site (a little farther down on the same page there's a small blurb about Darlie's case):

After the [Julie Rea] case was featured on "20/20," serial killer Tommy Lynn Sells confessed to the murder. Sells was a cautious killer who liked to kill but learned to avoid danger to himself. He would often kill sleeping victims, as awake victims were more dangerous. After a would-be adult victim sent him to the hospital for a week and to prison for five years, he stuck exclusively to killing children. Sells is also a suspect in the Texas intruder murders of Devon and Damon Routier. Their mother, Darlie Routier, has been sentenced to death for the murders. The state denied Sells confession, but the confession is reportedly too accurate to be dismissed as coincidence. In 2004, Julie's conviction was overturned because her prosecutor did not have the legal authority to try her. She was acquitted on retrial in 2006.

I was watching a show on the ID network today regarding the false conviction of Clarence Elkins. I decided to do an internet search on the real killer/rapist, Earl Eugene Mann. That search led me to this website: http://www.victimsofthestate.org/CC/IMM.htm

I found info on other people convicted of crimes they didn't commit or it's suspected that they didn't commit. While reading through them, I didn't expect to see Darlie's case, since she's still in prison.

You have to scroll down a few cases to the one about Julie Rea in Lawrence County Illinois. It says that Tommy Lynn Sells confessed to killing her 10 year old son. The child was stabbed to death in a "bloodbath" scene, but the mother had few injuries and nothing really connecting her to the murder of her son.

Tommy Lynn Sells has been convicted of attacking and killing children before. He says that he decided to start concentrating on killing children, after attacking adults and ending up injured, in the hospital, and sentenced to five years in jail.

This info says that Tommy Lynn Sells also confessed to killing Devon and Damon, and that his confession has too much correct information to be totally ignored.

Now, I can't remember if I'd read anything about Sells being involved in the Routier case before, but Julie Rea's case is almost identical to Darlie's case. I thought it was an interesting bit of news. Here's a quote from the site (a little farther down on the same page there's a small blurb about Darlie's case):

After the [Julie Rea] case was featured on "20/20," serial killer Tommy Lynn Sells confessed to the murder. Sells was a cautious killer who liked to kill but learned to avoid danger to himself. He would often kill sleeping victims, as awake victims were more dangerous. After a would-be adult victim sent him to the hospital for a week and to prison for five years, he stuck exclusively to killing children. Sells is also a suspect in the Texas intruder murders of Devon and Damon Routier. Their mother, Darlie Routier, has been sentenced to death for the murders. The state denied Sells confession, but the confession is reportedly too accurate to be dismissed as coincidence. In 2004, Julie's conviction was overturned because her prosecutor did not have the legal authority to try her. She was acquitted on retrial in 2006.

Tommy Lynn Sells was in prison when Devon and Damon were murdered eliminating him as a suspect. As well no one takes his confession to Joel's murder very seriously. He got his information from a book author who was writing his life story. Her last name is Fanning I do believe. He's never been charged with the murder.

I know Julie received a new trial due to a technicality. Different and better defence attorneys and change in witness testimony (due to time), lost witnesses, etc. I believe are the reason for the not guilty verdict. Her attorneys were able to introduce reasonable doubt. Although, I have only read on her website which I believe to be biased so before I commit to her guilt or innocence, I'd like to read the lab documents and the court documents.

There will always be a lingering doubt to any conviction.

Darlie murdered her children. There's no way around it.

You didn't answer my question regarding the dusting of the Routier home and the bread knife. Do you still think it is possible the screen fibre and debris were transferred to the knife after the garage, utility room and kitchen were dusted?

You didn't answer my question regarding the dusting of the Routier home and the bread knife. Do you still think it is possible the screen fibre and debris were transferred to the knife after the garage, utility room and kitchen were dusted?

Yes, I still believe the evidence was a transfer contamination. I didn't answer your previous question regarding the knife and screen fibre because I'm really not interested in continuing to argue Darlie's case right now.

The details of what went on in that case are lengthy, confusing, and sometimes contradictory. I'm just tired of reading about, talking about it, studying it, and so on.

My lease is up in three weeks and I'm in the middle of moving, during which time my husband has had an upper respiratory infection that turned into pneumonia about two weeks ago. He's on his third course of antibiotics and continues to get worse.

My daughter is already living at the new location, leaving me with one less person to rely on for help. Worrying about what's going on in Darlie's life is taking too much of my energy. I'm trying to focus on less stressful topics right now, and using my time on the computer as a brief "escape" from what's happening here at home.

The only reason I posted the info I unexpectedly ran across while reading something totally unrelated, was because I hadn't heard it before. I thought I'd share it here in the Routier thread.

Yes, I still believe the evidence was a transfer contamination. I didn't answer your previous question regarding the knife and screen fibre because I'm really not interested in continuing to argue Darlie's case right now.

The details of what went on in that case are lengthy, confusing, and sometimes contradictory. I'm just tired of reading about, talking about it, studying it, and so on.

My lease is up in three weeks and I'm in the middle of moving, during which time my husband has had an upper respiratory infection that turned into pneumonia about two weeks ago. He's on his third course of antibiotics and continues to get worse.

My daughter is already living at the new location, leaving me with one less person to rely on for help. Worrying about what's going on in Darlie's life is taking too much of my energy. I'm trying to focus on less stressful topics right now, and using my time on the computer as a brief "escape" from what's happening here at home.

The only reason I posted the info I unexpectedly ran across while reading something totally unrelated, was because I hadn't heard it before. I thought I'd share it here in the Routier thread.


I'm sorry to hear about your husband. I know what it's like. I lost my own precious man to COPD this past winter. His heart couldn't take any more. My prayers he gets well quickly and you get your move over with. Isn't it hot to be moving?

Thanks, Cami, I appreciate it. :)

I'm very worried about my husband because this is the fourth time in 6 months that he's come down with this and he has a lifelong history of COPD symptoms.

Thanks, Cami, I appreciate it. :)

I'm very worried about my husband because this is the fourth time in 6 months that he's come down with this and he has a lifelong history of COPD symptoms.

Hang in there. I know it's not easy.

Yes, I still believe the evidence was a transfer contamination. I didn't answer your previous question regarding the knife and screen fibre because I'm really not interested in continuing to argue Darlie's case right now.

The details of what went on in that case are lengthy, confusing, and sometimes contradictory. I'm just tired of reading about, talking about it, studying it, and so on.

My lease is up in three weeks and I'm in the middle of moving, during which time my husband has had an upper respiratory infection that turned into pneumonia about two weeks ago. He's on his third course of antibiotics and continues to get worse.

My daughter is already living at the new location, leaving me with one less person to rely on for help. Worrying about what's going on in Darlie's life is taking too much of my energy. I'm trying to focus on less stressful topics right now, and using my time on the computer as a brief "escape" from what's happening here at home.

The only reason I posted the info I unexpectedly ran across while reading something totally unrelated, was because I hadn't heard it before. I thought I'd share it here in the Routier thread.


Well now I have to tell you that the knives were not dusted at the crime scene so that blows any transfer theory out of the water.

Yes, I still believe the evidence was a transfer contamination. I didn't answer your previous question regarding the knife and screen fibre because I'm really not interested in continuing to argue Darlie's case right now.

The details of what went on in that case are lengthy, confusing, and sometimes contradictory. I'm just tired of reading about, talking about it, studying it, and so on.



No they're not. You just think they are because Darlie's family and friends keep lying to the public.

An old lawman once told me to use the KISS philosphy...Keep It Simple Sunny.


It is simple, Darlie flipped out and murdered her two boys, there was no intruder, there was only one knife, and Darin is not involved in the murders.

No they're not. You just think they are because Darlie's family and friends keep lying to the public.

An old lawman once told me to use the KISS philosphy...Keep It Simple Sunny.


It is simple, Darlie flipped out and murdered her two boys, there was no intruder, there was only one knife, and Darin is not involved in the murders.


You are right, Cami. If you read the transcripts and look into the blood evidence, it's hard to see it any other way. People who believe Darlie is innocent say that the silly string tape convicted her. While it was disgusting, it's not enough for a conviction. But the blood evidence is. Anyone who has formed an opinion on this case without looking into/studying the blood evidence and reading the trial transcripts is not making an informed decision. They are going with their heart thinking that a mother just couldn't do this. I know because I used to be one of them. Once you really look, there is no way around it. I am not an advocate of the death penalty, so if they commuted her sentence to a life sentence I would be fine with that. But I honestly believe she is where she should be.

Pam

This case has truly intringued me for several years. I follow up on the case every few months, mainly to see if there has been any news regarding the approval of new evidence testing. Has any one heard where that stands? Its been 15 months since the judge gave the go ahead.

The things that stand out to me:

1. Why on Earth, if you were to murder your children, would you call 911 with one of them still alive? How was Darlie to know that Damon would not survive? She had no way of being sure that the paramedics would not arrive and save his life. IMO, if she did this, she would not of called until he was already dead.

2. The mishandling of evidence is just sick, and this fact alone should allow for a new trial. There is hardly anything that was done correctly. I see that a lot of people on this sight find her guilty BECAUSE of the blood evidence, but IMO it is unreliable. The sink, for example. If Darlie inflicted her injuries over the sink, then why is there no splatter anywhere? Not on the window sill, the plants, the dishes, etc. Only against the part of the sink where her shirt rubbed (as she was getting towels wet) will you find blood. The luminol testing on the sink was just silly. First of all, the blood was visible to the naked eye. Why did they not test for a blood trail outside leading to the sock? No tests were done out of the home. This shows they were convicting her at the start of the investigation.

3. The time line does not add up. Darlie's blood on her shirt was under the boys' blood. Therefore, she was injured, atleast somewhat, prior to them. For her to inflict her own injuries, kill her boys, stage the scene, place the sock, and then call 911, while Damon was still alive, seems impossible. Would she not be worried that he would call 911 himself, since she reported he was standing up. He could of waken Darin, or ran outside. Plus there was no blood outside, so she could not of planted the sock. The boys blood was on the sock, so it had to have been placed after they were stabbed. If I were commiting this crime, I would not leave my alive victim alone to tell on me, while I planted a sock 75 yards away.

4. Barbara Davis, the author of Precious Angels, fully recanted her book. This was damaging to her reputation and her career. She was at the trial EVERY DAY, and was fully convinced of Darlie's guilt. However, upon the release of Media Tried, Justice Denied, and her discussions with Chris Brown, she has come to the conclusion that Darlie is innocent. She appeared on Leeza Gibbon's show proclaiming Darlie's guilt, and then later appeared recanting all of what she said in her book and on the previous show. This does not happen often. When she say all of the "withheld" evidence, she changed her mind completely.

5. The 10,000 life insurance (5K each) is hardly a motive. They could of sold a boat or their home and recieved more money. The funeral had to cost more than that alone. Also, the medical bills for Darlie, etc. There was no financial gain here. And if she was miserable and wanted to do away with her kids, why only two? None of the other famous mothers who have killed their kids leave one child living. (Susan Smith, Andrea Yates)

6. One of the juror's on the case has gone public in stating that he would not of voted to convict Darlie had all of the evidence been shown. We have no way to know what the other juror's feel, as they have remained silent. However, the doubt of one juror is enough for mistrial. Why is this not being taken more seriously?

7. Darlie's injuries were horrific. I am so tired of the whole "superficial" thing. This word is medical terminology meaning ABOVE rather than below. There are directional words (superior, posterior, dorsal, supine, etc) that physicians, nurses, etc use to show the location of an injury. The public takes this word to mean mimimal, or not servere, when it actually means "above the carotid artery". This is an injury that would have killed Darlie in seconds had in been just a hair deeper.

8. Darlie's necklace was embedded in her neck. Who would think to smash their necklace into a wound with a knife for the effect of it looking real? Or to switch hands, or to cut her finger tips, and bruise her arms, and not to mention all the other scrapes, abbrasions, etc that she sustained. There were way to many injuries for her to have done all of them. Her forearm was stabbed to the bone. She surely would have been in so much pain and light headed that she could not of kept ravaging herself after the first injury. Why did they not check her fingernails or the boys for defensive scrappings? Why did they not fingerprint the boys either?

9. There are unidentified finger and palm prints and hairs (pubic and limb) from the crime scene that have never been tested. Why not test them? If she is so guilty then no one should object to the testing.

10. The missing murder weapon really bugs me. If the same knife was used, why no blood from Devon on it. Surely there would have been a drop. It was suggested that two knives were used. The stab wounds were of different types on the two boys, yet a knife stuck in the ground next to the bloody sock was disregarded by cops as unimportant. Yet, they went to retrieve it 5 months later, and of course, all useful evidence was gone. Since the knife was still in the same spot 5 months later, it was obviously one that no one wanted or was using. Seems likely to me it was used in the crime. The perp most likely took this knife, used it on Devon, realized it was not effective as the boy fought back, and decided to grab a larger knife from Darlie's block on the counter. When fleeing the scene, he was sure to take his knife, so he would not leave evidence behind. He most likely discarded the knife and sock while running down the alley to escape.

11. There were several reports of a black car in the neighborhood and even in the Routier's driveway. It had been reported by two different neighbors prior to the murders. Yet police never looked into it. It was also reported that a nearby drive by shooting possibly involving one of the detective's sons was perpetrated in a black car. The case supposedly remains open, but happened the same week less than a mile away.

12. In photos of the scene, various items appear moved from place to place and room to room. The pillow that was under Darlie's head had been moved from the couch to the floor, the vacuum cleaner was moved, etc. This is a major issue, as the prosecution used the same vacuum as evidence that Darlie staged the scene, yet the police were moving it around?

13. The police officer first on the scene stated that Darin was outside, but he wasn't. So who was outside the house? If it were the killer, and he saw police coming to the front, he would of turned around and ran to the back and down the alley.

14. It is my personal opinion that the silly string incicent is not that weird. I know a family who has a birthday party every year for their child, and it is a celebration. I also think that since they used that tape, it should have been shown in its entirety, not just the party portion. The silly string was not even Darlie's, her sister brought in becuase she knew her nephews would love it. But they had no objection to convicting Darlie, and I think this video had a huge part. I heard they played it over and over again, like 9 times. Why so much interest in the video and not so much the rest of the bothced evidence?

I firmly feel that Darlie has been the victim of the Texas system. They are infamous in this country for putting people to death left and right. I think this needs to come to an end. We are seeing more and more cases of false imprisonment, and I think Darlie is one of the most obvious. I sincerely hope that something comes of this new testing, and I am anxious to read the thoughts of others. Thanks for allowing me to post!

This case has truly intringued me for several years. I follow up on the case every few months, mainly to see if there has been any news regarding the approval of new evidence testing. Has any one heard where that stands? Its been 15 months since the judge gave the go ahead.

The things that stand out to me:

1. Why on Earth, if you were to murder your children, would you call 911 with one of them still alive? How was Darlie to know that Damon would not survive? She had no way of being sure that the paramedics would not arrive and save his life. IMO, if she did this, she would not of called until he was already dead.

2. The mishandling of evidence is just sick, and this fact alone should allow for a new trial. There is hardly anything that was done correctly. I see that a lot of people on this sight find her guilty BECAUSE of the blood evidence, but IMO it is unreliable. The sink, for example. If Darlie inflicted her injuries over the sink, then why is there no splatter anywhere? Not on the window sill, the plants, the dishes, etc. Only against the part of the sink where her shirt rubbed (as she was getting towels wet) will you find blood. The luminol testing on the sink was just silly. First of all, the blood was visible to the naked eye. Why did they not test for a blood trail outside leading to the sock? No tests were done out of the home. This shows they were convicting her at the start of the investigation.

3. The time line does not add up. Darlie's blood on her shirt was under the boys' blood. Therefore, she was injured, atleast somewhat, prior to them. For her to inflict her own injuries, kill her boys, stage the scene, place the sock, and then call 911, while Damon was still alive, seems impossible. Would she not be worried that he would call 911 himself, since she reported he was standing up. He could of waken Darin, or ran outside. Plus there was no blood outside, so she could not of planted the sock. The boys blood was on the sock, so it had to have been placed after they were stabbed. If I were commiting this crime, I would not leave my alive victim alone to tell on me, while I planted a sock 75 yards away.

4. Barbara Davis, the author of Precious Angels, fully recanted her book. This was damaging to her reputation and her career. She was at the trial EVERY DAY, and was fully convinced of Darlie's guilt. However, upon the release of Media Tried, Justice Denied, and her discussions with Chris Brown, she has come to the conclusion that Darlie is innocent. She appeared on Leeza Gibbon's show proclaiming Darlie's guilt, and then later appeared recanting all of what she said in her book and on the previous show. This does not happen often. When she say all of the "withheld" evidence, she changed her mind completely.

5. The 10,000 life insurance (5K each) is hardly a motive. They could of sold a boat or their home and recieved more money. The funeral had to cost more than that alone. Also, the medical bills for Darlie, etc. There was no financial gain here. And if she was miserable and wanted to do away with her kids, why only two? None of the other famous mothers who have killed their kids leave one child living. (Susan Smith, Andrea Yates)

6. One of the juror's on the case has gone public in stating that he would not of voted to convict Darlie had all of the evidence been shown. We have no way to know what the other juror's feel, as they have remained silent. However, the doubt of one juror is enough for mistrial. Why is this not being taken more seriously?

7. Darlie's injuries were horrific. I am so tired of the whole "superficial" thing. This word is medical terminology meaning ABOVE rather than below. There are directional words (superior, posterior, dorsal, supine, etc) that physicians, nurses, etc use to show the location of an injury. The public takes this word to mean mimimal, or not servere, when it actually means "above the carotid artery". This is an injury that would have killed Darlie in seconds had in been just a hair deeper.

8. Darlie's necklace was embedded in her neck. Who would think to smash their necklace into a wound with a knife for the effect of it looking real? Or to switch hands, or to cut her finger tips, and bruise her arms, and not to mention all the other scrapes, abbrasions, etc that she sustained. There were way to many injuries for her to have done all of them. Her forearm was stabbed to the bone. She surely would have been in so much pain and light headed that she could not of kept ravaging herself after the first injury. Why did they not check her fingernails or the boys for defensive scrappings? Why did they not fingerprint the boys either?

9. There are unidentified finger and palm prints and hairs (pubic and limb) from the crime scene that have never been tested. Why not test them? If she is so guilty then no one should object to the testing.

10. The missing murder weapon really bugs me. If the same knife was used, why no blood from Devon on it. Surely there would have been a drop. It was suggested that two knives were used. The stab wounds were of different types on the two boys, yet a knife stuck in the ground next to the bloody sock was disregarded by cops as unimportant. Yet, they went to retrieve it 5 months later, and of course, all useful evidence was gone. Since the knife was still in the same spot 5 months later, it was obviously one that no one wanted or was using. Seems likely to me it was used in the crime. The perp most likely took this knife, used it on Devon, realized it was not effective as the boy fought back, and decided to grab a larger knife from Darlie's block on the counter. When fleeing the scene, he was sure to take his knife, so he would not leave evidence behind. He most likely discarded the knife and sock while running down the alley to escape.

11. There were several reports of a black car in the neighborhood and even in the Routier's driveway. It had been reported by two different neighbors prior to the murders. Yet police never looked into it. It was also reported that a nearby drive by shooting possibly involving one of the detective's sons was perpetrated in a black car. The case supposedly remains open, but happened the same week less than a mile away.

12. In photos of the scene, various items appear moved from place to place and room to room. The pillow that was under Darlie's head had been moved from the couch to the floor, the vacuum cleaner was moved, etc. This is a major issue, as the prosecution used the same vacuum as evidence that Darlie staged the scene, yet the police were moving it around?

13. The police officer first on the scene stated that Darin was outside, but he wasn't. So who was outside the house? If it were the killer, and he saw police coming to the front, he would of turned around and ran to the back and down the alley.

14. It is my personal opinion that the silly string incicent is not that weird. I know a family who has a birthday party every year for their child, and it is a celebration. I also think that since they used that tape, it should have been shown in its entirety, not just the party portion. The silly string was not even Darlie's, her sister brought in becuase she knew her nephews would love it. But they had no objection to convicting Darlie, and I think this video had a huge part. I heard they played it over and over again, like 9 times. Why so much interest in the video and not so much the rest of the bothced evidence?

I firmly feel that Darlie has been the victim of the Texas system. They are infamous in this country for putting people to death left and right. I think this needs to come to an end. We are seeing more and more cases of false imprisonment, and I think Darlie is one of the most obvious. I sincerely hope that something comes of this new testing, and I am anxious to read the thoughts of others. Thanks for allowing me to post!

Very well said :) Great post... :)

This case has truly intringued me for several years. I follow up on the case every few months, mainly to see if there has been any news regarding the approval of new evidence testing. Has any one heard where that stands? Its been 15 months since the judge gave the go ahead.

The things that stand out to me:

1. Why on Earth, if you were to murder your children, would you call 911 with one of them still alive? How was Darlie to know that Damon would not survive? She had no way of being sure that the paramedics would not arrive and save his life. IMO, if she did this, she would not of called until he was already dead.

2. The mishandling of evidence is just sick, and this fact alone should allow for a new trial. There is hardly anything that was done correctly. I see that a lot of people on this sight find her guilty BECAUSE of the blood evidence, but IMO it is unreliable. The sink, for example. If Darlie inflicted her injuries over the sink, then why is there no splatter anywhere? Not on the window sill, the plants, the dishes, etc. Only against the part of the sink where her shirt rubbed (as she was getting towels wet) will you find blood. The luminol testing on the sink was just silly. First of all, the blood was visible to the naked eye. Why did they not test for a blood trail outside leading to the sock? No tests were done out of the home. This shows they were convicting her at the start of the investigation.

3. The time line does not add up. Darlie's blood on her shirt was under the boys' blood. Therefore, she was injured, atleast somewhat, prior to them. For her to inflict her own injuries, kill her boys, stage the scene, place the sock, and then call 911, while Damon was still alive, seems impossible. Would she not be worried that he would call 911 himself, since she reported he was standing up. He could of waken Darin, or ran outside. Plus there was no blood outside, so she could not of planted the sock. The boys blood was on the sock, so it had to have been placed after they were stabbed. If I were commiting this crime, I would not leave my alive victim alone to tell on me, while I planted a sock 75 yards away.

4. Barbara Davis, the author of Precious Angels, fully recanted her book. This was damaging to her reputation and her career. She was at the trial EVERY DAY, and was fully convinced of Darlie's guilt. However, upon the release of Media Tried, Justice Denied, and her discussions with Chris Brown, she has come to the conclusion that Darlie is innocent. She appeared on Leeza Gibbon's show proclaiming Darlie's guilt, and then later appeared recanting all of what she said in her book and on the previous show. This does not happen often. When she say all of the "withheld" evidence, she changed her mind completely.

5. The 10,000 life insurance (5K each) is hardly a motive. They could of sold a boat or their home and recieved more money. The funeral had to cost more than that alone. Also, the medical bills for Darlie, etc. There was no financial gain here. And if she was miserable and wanted to do away with her kids, why only two? None of the other famous mothers who have killed their kids leave one child living. (Susan Smith, Andrea Yates)

6. One of the juror's on the case has gone public in stating that he would not of voted to convict Darlie had all of the evidence been shown. We have no way to know what the other juror's feel, as they have remained silent. However, the doubt of one juror is enough for mistrial. Why is this not being taken more seriously?

7. Darlie's injuries were horrific. I am so tired of the whole "superficial" thing. This word is medical terminology meaning ABOVE rather than below. There are directional words (superior, posterior, dorsal, supine, etc) that physicians, nurses, etc use to show the location of an injury. The public takes this word to mean mimimal, or not servere, when it actually means "above the carotid artery". This is an injury that would have killed Darlie in seconds had in been just a hair deeper.

8. Darlie's necklace was embedded in her neck. Who would think to smash their necklace into a wound with a knife for the effect of it looking real? Or to switch hands, or to cut her finger tips, and bruise her arms, and not to mention all the other scrapes, abbrasions, etc that she sustained. There were way to many injuries for her to have done all of them. Her forearm was stabbed to the bone. She surely would have been in so much pain and light headed that she could not of kept ravaging herself after the first injury. Why did they not check her fingernails or the boys for defensive scrappings? Why did they not fingerprint the boys either?

9. There are unidentified finger and palm prints and hairs (pubic and limb) from the crime scene that have never been tested. Why not test them? If she is so guilty then no one should object to the testing.

10. The missing murder weapon really bugs me. If the same knife was used, why no blood from Devon on it. Surely there would have been a drop. It was suggested that two knives were used. The stab wounds were of different types on the two boys, yet a knife stuck in the ground next to the bloody sock was disregarded by cops as unimportant. Yet, they went to retrieve it 5 months later, and of course, all useful evidence was gone. Since the knife was still in the same spot 5 months later, it was obviously one that no one wanted or was using. Seems likely to me it was used in the crime. The perp most likely took this knife, used it on Devon, realized it was not effective as the boy fought back, and decided to grab a larger knife from Darlie's block on the counter. When fleeing the scene, he was sure to take his knife, so he would not leave evidence behind. He most likely discarded the knife and sock while running down the alley to escape.

11. There were several reports of a black car in the neighborhood and even in the Routier's driveway. It had been reported by two different neighbors prior to the murders. Yet police never looked into it. It was also reported that a nearby drive by shooting possibly involving one of the detective's sons was perpetrated in a black car. The case supposedly remains open, but happened the same week less than a mile away.

12. In photos of the scene, various items appear moved from place to place and room to room. The pillow that was under Darlie's head had been moved from the couch to the floor, the vacuum cleaner was moved, etc. This is a major issue, as the prosecution used the same vacuum as evidence that Darlie staged the scene, yet the police were moving it around?

13. The police officer first on the scene stated that Darin was outside, but he wasn't. So who was outside the house? If it were the killer, and he saw police coming to the front, he would of turned around and ran to the back and down the alley.

14. It is my personal opinion that the silly string incicent is not that weird. I know a family who has a birthday party every year for their child, and it is a celebration. I also think that since they used that tape, it should have been shown in its entirety, not just the party portion. The silly string was not even Darlie's, her sister brought in becuase she knew her nephews would love it. But they had no objection to convicting Darlie, and I think this video had a huge part. I heard they played it over and over again, like 9 times. Why so much interest in the video and not so much the rest of the bothced evidence?

I firmly feel that Darlie has been the victim of the Texas system. They are infamous in this country for putting people to death left and right. I think this needs to come to an end. We are seeing more and more cases of false imprisonment, and I think Darlie is one of the most obvious. I sincerely hope that something comes of this new testing, and I am anxious to read the thoughts of others. Thanks for allowing me to post!

BRAVO, JmB. Well-said. It is so refreshing to see this bumped and not find the same thoroughly repeated statements and opinion.

There is no 100% proof that she did it

1. Fingerprints that were found were left un identified why?

2. Blood that was found matches nobody named in the case

3. A pubic hair that was found matches nobody

4. Blond hair that was thought to be Darlies was tested and tests say the hair is not from her

5. Police never investigated threats Darlie reported months or days before the murder

6. Darlies Husband had a friend with a criminal background who suddenly left Texas soon after the murders

7. There is some people in Texas that claim that the Chief of police son committed the murders and the police were told to cover it up by any means.

Bleedingheart states "Blond hair that was thought to be Darlies was tested and tests say the hair is not from her"

Another fantastic point!

This hair was actually found to belong to one of the Rowlett Policewomen. What is more disturbing, is that this hair (found of the screen that was cut on the patio) belongs to a Rowlett police woman WHO WAS NOT ON THE SCENE that night! How on Earth does this happen? Can we say set-up? It's highly unlikely that another officer who was on the scene that night had one of her hairs on his uniform, and then somehow rubbed the hair off onto the screen in question. Way too coincidental, IMO. :p

This case has truly intringued me for several years. I follow up on the case every few months, mainly to see if there has been any news regarding the approval of new evidence testing. Has any one heard where that stands? Its been 15 months since the judge gave the go ahead.

The things that stand out to me:

1. Why on Earth, if you were to murder your children, would you call 911 with one of them still alive? How was Darlie to know that Damon would not survive? She had no way of being sure that the paramedics would not arrive and save his life. IMO, if she did this, she would not of called until he was already dead.

2. The mishandling of evidence is just sick, and this fact alone should allow for a new trial. There is hardly anything that was done correctly. I see that a lot of people on this sight find her guilty BECAUSE of the blood evidence, but IMO it is unreliable. The sink, for example. If Darlie inflicted her injuries over the sink, then why is there no splatter anywhere? Not on the window sill, the plants, the dishes, etc. Only against the part of the sink where her shirt rubbed (as she was getting towels wet) will you find blood. The luminol testing on the sink was just silly. First of all, the blood was visible to the naked eye. Why did they not test for a blood trail outside leading to the sock? No tests were done out of the home. This shows they were convicting her at the start of the investigation.

3. The time line does not add up. Darlie's blood on her shirt was under the boys' blood. Therefore, she was injured, atleast somewhat, prior to them. For her to inflict her own injuries, kill her boys, stage the scene, place the sock, and then call 911, while Damon was still alive, seems impossible. Would she not be worried that he would call 911 himself, since she reported he was standing up. He could of waken Darin, or ran outside. Plus there was no blood outside, so she could not of planted the sock. The boys blood was on the sock, so it had to have been placed after they were stabbed. If I were commiting this crime, I would not leave my alive victim alone to tell on me, while I planted a sock 75 yards away.

4. Barbara Davis, the author of Precious Angels, fully recanted her book. This was damaging to her reputation and her career. She was at the trial EVERY DAY, and was fully convinced of Darlie's guilt. However, upon the release of Media Tried, Justice Denied, and her discussions with Chris Brown, she has come to the conclusion that Darlie is innocent. She appeared on Leeza Gibbon's show proclaiming Darlie's guilt, and then later appeared recanting all of what she said in her book and on the previous show. This does not happen often. When she say all of the "withheld" evidence, she changed her mind completely.

5. The 10,000 life insurance (5K each) is hardly a motive. They could of sold a boat or their home and recieved more money. The funeral had to cost more than that alone. Also, the medical bills for Darlie, etc. There was no financial gain here. And if she was miserable and wanted to do away with her kids, why only two? None of the other famous mothers who have killed their kids leave one child living. (Susan Smith, Andrea Yates)

6. One of the juror's on the case has gone public in stating that he would not of voted to convict Darlie had all of the evidence been shown. We have no way to know what the other juror's feel, as they have remained silent. However, the doubt of one juror is enough for mistrial. Why is this not being taken more seriously?

7. Darlie's injuries were horrific. I am so tired of the whole "superficial" thing. This word is medical terminology meaning ABOVE rather than below. There are directional words (superior, posterior, dorsal, supine, etc) that physicians, nurses, etc use to show the location of an injury. The public takes this word to mean mimimal, or not servere, when it actually means "above the carotid artery". This is an injury that would have killed Darlie in seconds had in been just a hair deeper.

8. Darlie's necklace was embedded in her neck. Who would think to smash their necklace into a wound with a knife for the effect of it looking real? Or to switch hands, or to cut her finger tips, and bruise her arms, and not to mention all the other scrapes, abbrasions, etc that she sustained. There were way to many injuries for her to have done all of them. Her forearm was stabbed to the bone. She surely would have been in so much pain and light headed that she could not of kept ravaging herself after the first injury. Why did they not check her fingernails or the boys for defensive scrappings? Why did they not fingerprint the boys either?

9. There are unidentified finger and palm prints and hairs (pubic and limb) from the crime scene that have never been tested. Why not test them? If she is so guilty then no one should object to the testing.

10. The missing murder weapon really bugs me. If the same knife was used, why no blood from Devon on it. Surely there would have been a drop. It was suggested that two knives were used. The stab wounds were of different types on the two boys, yet a knife stuck in the ground next to the bloody sock was disregarded by cops as unimportant. Yet, they went to retrieve it 5 months later, and of course, all useful evidence was gone. Since the knife was still in the same spot 5 months later, it was obviously one that no one wanted or was using. Seems likely to me it was used in the crime. The perp most likely took this knife, used it on Devon, realized it was not effective as the boy fought back, and decided to grab a larger knife from Darlie's block on the counter. When fleeing the scene, he was sure to take his knife, so he would not leave evidence behind. He most likely discarded the knife and sock while running down the alley to escape.

11. There were several reports of a black car in the neighborhood and even in the Routier's driveway. It had been reported by two different neighbors prior to the murders. Yet police never looked into it. It was also reported that a nearby drive by shooting possibly involving one of the detective's sons was perpetrated in a black car. The case supposedly remains open, but happened the same week less than a mile away.

12. In photos of the scene, various items appear moved from place to place and room to room. The pillow that was under Darlie's head had been moved from the couch to the floor, the vacuum cleaner was moved, etc. This is a major issue, as the prosecution used the same vacuum as evidence that Darlie staged the scene, yet the police were moving it around?

13. The police officer first on the scene stated that Darin was outside, but he wasn't. So who was outside the house? If it were the killer, and he saw police coming to the front, he would of turned around and ran to the back and down the alley.

14. It is my personal opinion that the silly string incicent is not that weird. I know a family who has a birthday party every year for their child, and it is a celebration. I also think that since they used that tape, it should have been shown in its entirety, not just the party portion. The silly string was not even Darlie's, her sister brought in becuase she knew her nephews would love it. But they had no objection to convicting Darlie, and I think this video had a huge part. I heard they played it over and over again, like 9 times. Why so much interest in the video and not so much the rest of the bothced evidence?

I firmly feel that Darlie has been the victim of the Texas system. They are infamous in this country for putting people to death left and right. I think this needs to come to an end. We are seeing more and more cases of false imprisonment, and I think Darlie is one of the most obvious. I sincerely hope that something comes of this new testing, and I am anxious to read the thoughts of others. Thanks for allowing me to post!

I also wanted to chime in here and say, wonderful post!!:) Like you, I have been haunted by this case for years, and have read everything on it. This is one of the toughest cases, which is why it seems to get so much attention. The points you make, above, are completely valid, particularly the time line issue, and the sock issue, which I think is often overlooked. I think your points about evidence not being shown at the trial are a little weak; the "new" evidence that people keep referring to WAS shown at trial (her bruise photos of her arm)... they were in with all the photos of her injuries on the night of the murders. I remember the juror who said he would not have convicted if he had seen those photos, and it was proven that he had, in fact, had access to those photos, as did all the jurors.

Obviously www dot justicefordarlie dot net is THE place for info, and even though the name suggests that it is biased, it does contain incredible crime scene photos, and the COMPLETE trial transcripts.

I really want to believe she is innocent, because I logically can't understand how she could snap like that, murder her boys in such a cold and calculating way, and I see no motive. Let's face it though, we UM fans know that people can do really screwed up things and it's difficult to see their actions in a rational way. However, after reading the trial transcripts, it's hard not to think she's guilty.

Let's not even discuss the factual evidence that has been discussed ad naseum (blood patterns, knife FROM the house, screen cutting, the 911 call about "prints on the knife", etc)... Specifically, I'm thinking about what occurred in the penalty phase, during which one gets a better sense that Darlie perhaps had some serious narcissistic issues going on; or, at the very least, was unstable. The prosecution brought in witnesses (people who had attended various neighborhood parties at Darlie's house) that remembered seeing Darlie, on several occassions angrily shoving food in her child's face and laughing about it while everyone stood around horrified. One example I remember was when she slammed a piece of cake into her son's face, and then laughed while she was trying to shove the food in his mouth... he ran away crying and she called him a weak loser, or something to that effect. There were examples of her publicly humiliating her kids and seeming to enjoy it, while others were disgusted. And I remember the testimony that a 14 year old babysitter was often paid with alcohol or cigarettes.

I completely agree with the previous poster who said if you haven't read the entire trial transcripts, you are not coming to the discussion fully informed.

Don't get me wrong, none of the above examples means she's guilty, but they remind me that she's not the sweet, soft-spoken "victim" that she appears to be in all her interviews after being found guilty.

God, to be a fly on the wall in that house that night!!!!! That's all I've gotta say:confused:

This case has truly intringued me for several years. I follow up on the case every few months, mainly to see if there has been any news regarding the approval of new evidence testing. Has any one heard where that stands? Its been 15 months since the judge gave the go ahead.

The things that stand out to me:

1. Why on Earth, if you were to murder your children, would you call 911 with one of them still alive? How was Darlie to know that Damon would not survive? She had no way of being sure that the paramedics would not arrive and save his life. IMO, if she did this, she would not of called until he was already dead.


2. The mishandling of evidence is just sick, and this fact alone should allow for a new trial. There is hardly anything that was done correctly. I see that a lot of people on this sight find her guilty BECAUSE of the blood evidence, but IMO it is unreliable. The sink, for example. If Darlie inflicted her injuries over the sink, then why is there no splatter anywhere? Not on the window sill, the plants, the dishes, etc. Only against the part of the sink where her shirt rubbed (as she was getting towels wet) will you find blood. The luminol testing on the sink was just silly. First of all, the blood was visible to the naked eye. Why did they not test for a blood trail outside leading to the sock? No tests were done out of the home. This shows they were convicting her at the start of the investigation.

3. The time line does not add up. Darlie's blood on her shirt was under the boys' blood. Therefore, she was injured, atleast somewhat, prior to them. For her to inflict her own injuries, kill her boys, stage the scene, place the sock, and then call 911, while Damon was still alive, seems impossible. Would she not be worried that he would call 911 himself, since she reported he was standing up. He could of waken Darin, or ran outside. Plus there was no blood outside, so she could not of planted the sock. The boys blood was on the sock, so it had to have been placed after they were stabbed. If I were commiting this crime, I would not leave my alive victim alone to tell on me, while I planted a sock 75 yards away.

4. Barbara Davis, the author of Precious Angels, fully recanted her book. This was damaging to her reputation and her career. She was at the trial EVERY DAY, and was fully convinced of Darlie's guilt. However, upon the release of Media Tried, Justice Denied, and her discussions with Chris Brown, she has come to the conclusion that Darlie is innocent. She appeared on Leeza Gibbon's show proclaiming Darlie's guilt, and then later appeared recanting all of what she said in her book and on the previous show. This does not happen often. When she say all of the "withheld" evidence, she changed her mind completely.

5. The 10,000 life insurance (5K each) is hardly a motive. They could of sold a boat or their home and recieved more money. The funeral had to cost more than that alone. Also, the medical bills for Darlie, etc. There was no financial gain here. And if she was miserable and wanted to do away with her kids, why only two? None of the other famous mothers who have killed their kids leave one child living. (Susan Smith, Andrea Yates)

6. One of the juror's on the case has gone public in stating that he would not of voted to convict Darlie had all of the evidence been shown. We have no way to know what the other juror's feel, as they have remained silent. However, the doubt of one juror is enough for mistrial. Why is this not being taken more seriously?

7. Darlie's injuries were horrific. I am so tired of the whole "superficial" thing. This word is medical terminology meaning ABOVE rather than below. There are directional words (superior, posterior, dorsal, supine, etc) that physicians, nurses, etc use to show the location of an injury. The public takes this word to mean mimimal, or not servere, when it actually means "above the carotid artery". This is an injury that would have killed Darlie in seconds had in been just a hair deeper.

8. Darlie's necklace was embedded in her neck. Who would think to smash their necklace into a wound with a knife for the effect of it looking real? Or to switch hands, or to cut her finger tips, and bruise her arms, and not to mention all the other scrapes, abbrasions, etc that she sustained. There were way to many injuries for her to have done all of them. Her forearm was stabbed to the bone. She surely would have been in so much pain and light headed that she could not of kept ravaging herself after the first injury. Why did they not check her fingernails or the boys for defensive scrappings? Why did they not fingerprint the boys either?

9. There are unidentified finger and palm prints and hairs (pubic and limb) from the crime scene that have never been tested. Why not test them? If she is so guilty then no one should object to the testing.

10. The missing murder weapon really bugs me. If the same knife was used, why no blood from Devon on it. Surely there would have been a drop. It was suggested that two knives were used. The stab wounds were of different types on the two boys, yet a knife stuck in the ground next to the bloody sock was disregarded by cops as unimportant. Yet, they went to retrieve it 5 months later, and of course, all useful evidence was gone. Since the knife was still in the same spot 5 months later, it was obviously one that no one wanted or was using. Seems likely to me it was used in the crime. The perp most likely took this knife, used it on Devon, realized it was not effective as the boy fought back, and decided to grab a larger knife from Darlie's block on the counter. When fleeing the scene, he was sure to take his knife, so he would not leave evidence behind. He most likely discarded the knife and sock while running down the alley to escape.

11. There were several reports of a black car in the neighborhood and even in the Routier's driveway. It had been reported by two different neighbors prior to the murders. Yet police never looked into it. It was also reported that a nearby drive by shooting possibly involving one of the detective's sons was perpetrated in a black car. The case supposedly remains open, but happened the same week less than a mile away.

12. In photos of the scene, various items appear moved from place to place and room to room. The pillow that was under Darlie's head had been moved from the couch to the floor, the vacuum cleaner was moved, etc. This is a major issue, as the prosecution used the same vacuum as evidence that Darlie staged the scene, yet the police were moving it around?

13. The police officer first on the scene stated that Darin was outside, but he wasn't. So who was outside the house? If it were the killer, and he saw police coming to the front, he would of turned around and ran to the back and down the alley.

14. It is my personal opinion that the silly string incicent is not that weird. I know a family who has a birthday party every year for their child, and it is a celebration. I also think that since they used that tape, it should have been shown in its entirety, not just the party portion. The silly string was not even Darlie's, her sister brought in becuase she knew her nephews would love it. But they had no objection to convicting Darlie, and I think this video had a huge part. I heard they played it over and over again, like 9 times. Why so much interest in the video and not so much the rest of the bothced evidence?

I firmly feel that Darlie has been the victim of the Texas system. They are infamous in this country for putting people to death left and right. I think this needs to come to an end. We are seeing more and more cases of false imprisonment, and I think Darlie is one of the most obvious. I sincerely hope that something comes of this new testing, and I am anxious to read the thoughts of others. Thanks for allowing me to post!

1. Why on Earth, if you were to murder your children, would you call 911 with one of them still alive? How was Darlie to know that Damon would not survive? She had no way of being sure that the paramedics would not arrive and save his life. IMO, if she did this, she would not of called until he was already dead.

If you had just cut your own neck and were bleeding a bit too much you would wouldn't you? And Damon a traumatized child, gasping for breath, sure isn't going to holler out to the paramedics or cops "mommy did it" He was alive when the first officer arrived on the scene yet he didn't speak, he was unable to speak given the damage to his lungs

2. The mishandling of evidence is just sick, and this fact alone should allow for a new trial. There is hardly anything that was done correctly. I see that a lot of people on this sight find her guilty BECAUSE of the blood evidence, but IMO it is unreliable. The sink, for example. If Darlie inflicted her injuries over the sink, then why is there no splatter anywhere? Not on the window sill, the plants, the dishes, etc. Only against the part of the sink where her shirt rubbed (as she was getting towels wet) will you find blood. The luminol testing on the sink was just silly. First of all, the blood was visible to the naked eye. Why did they not test for a blood trail outside leading to the sock? No tests were done out of the home. This shows they were convicting her at the start of the investigation.

There is blood on the backsplash, Darlie's blood mixed with both boys. They won't show that on her website, since they are geared to her innocence. There was no mishandling of evidence. That's just sour grapes from the defence. What about the cast-off blood of both boys on the back of her nightshirt? What about the bloody imprint of the murder weapon in the carpet in the family room? What about the bloody footprints that were cleaned from the floor? What about the lack of blood where she says the alleged intruder threw the knife down? What about the trail of blood in the kitchen that shows she was walking and not running after an intruder? What about the blood under the broken glass? Where's the evidence she was wetting towels? No water on the floor or the surrounding counters, no blood diluted by water..no wet towels, wet with blood yes but not water. What about her blood dripped inside the cupboard where the cleaning supplies were? NO the luminol tests were not silly, they showed an awful lot of blood flowed at the kitchen sink..Darlie's blood, was wiped up with the towels. Blood drops on top of blood drops in front of the sink.

Why would they need to test outside the home? Would the intruder have cleaned up the blood outside the home? They could clearly see no blood whatsoever past the utility room, nothing in the garage, nothing on the alleged exit window, nothing on the white fence. No trail of blood on the pavement. And no indication anyone went over that fence. The gate was firmly shut and it dragged on the ground. NO one running from a murder scene is going to politely shut the gate.

3. The time line does not add up. Darlie's blood on her shirt was under the boys' blood. Therefore, she was injured, atleast somewhat, prior to them. For her to inflict her own injuries, kill her boys, stage the scene, place the sock, and then call 911, while Damon was still alive, seems impossible. Would she not be worried that he would call 911 himself, since she reported he was standing up. He could of waken Darin, or ran outside. Plus there was no blood outside, so she could not of planted the sock. The boys blood was on the sock, so it had to have been placed after they were stabbed. If I were commiting this crime, I would not leave my alive victim alone to tell on me, while I planted a sock 75 yards away.

The time line starts when Darlie picked up the phone to call 911. She had plenty of time to kill the boys and stage the crime scene. Damon was not standing up, nor walking nor talking..with stab wounds deep into his lungs and other organs? Darlie lied about this in case there was blood evidence she needed to explain. Damon's blood trail indicates he was stabbed in his original place in front of the sofa, yet he was found laying over by the bathroom in the entry hall. His blood on the wall indicates he was stabbed again in this location, fatally stabbed. Only Damon's blood was found over Darlie's on the back of her nightshirt......

4. Barbara Davis, the author of Precious Angels, fully recanted her book. This was damaging to her reputation and her career. She was at the trial EVERY DAY, and was fully convinced of Darlie's guilt. However, upon the release of Media Tried, Justice Denied, and her discussions with Chris Brown, she has come to the conclusion that Darlie is innocent. She appeared on Leeza Gibbon's show proclaiming Darlie's guilt, and then later appeared recanting all of what she said in her book and on the previous show. This does not happen often. When she say all of the "withheld" evidence, she changed her mind completely.

So what. She's missing a few screws if she let Chris Brown convince her of anything. He's not a police officer, not a homicide detective, not a crime scene analyst, he's a nothing. As well, B Davis has never publicly stated what all that "misheld evidence" is. If you are going to make accusations such as she has, it would be wise for her to offer some proof. Otherwise who is going to take her seriously?

5. The 10,000 life insurance (5K each) is hardly a motive. They could of sold a boat or their home and recieved more money. The funeral had to cost more than that alone. Also, the medical bills for Darlie, etc. There was no financial gain here. And if she was miserable and wanted to do away with her kids, why only two? None of the other famous mothers who have killed their kids leave one child living. (Susan Smith, Andrea Yates)

No one has ever stated, certainly not the authorities that the life insurance was a motive. They don't know what the motive is. After all they, like us, have no idea why a mother would kill her own children, why anyone would kill. They let the evidence lead them and in this case, it's overwhelming. Well I guess she could hardly explain why an intruder would go upstairs and murder the baby and leave Darin alive and her alive downstairs.

6. One of the juror's on the case has gone public in stating that he would not of voted to convict Darlie had all of the evidence been shown. We have no way to know what the other juror's feel, as they have remained silent. However, the doubt of one juror is enough for mistrial. Why is this not being taken more seriously?

No one knows why that juror has changed his mind. Could be juror remorse. Even the defence attorney, Doug Mulder, agrees all the photos of Darlie's bruises were admitted into evidence and shown to the jury and the trial transcripts prove it. No, it's not enough to get her another trial because the juror is mistaken, perhaps he wasn't paying attention when the bruises were discussed with the doctors and shown to the jury.

7. Darlie's injuries were horrific. I am so tired of the whole "superficial" thing. This word is medical terminology meaning ABOVE rather than below. There are directional words (superior, posterior, dorsal, supine, etc) that physicians, nurses, etc use to show the location of an injury. The public takes this word to mean mimimal, or not servere, when it actually means "above the carotid artery". This is an injury that would have killed Darlie in seconds had in been just a hair deeper.

Darlie's wounds were serious but not life threatening. The doctors who treated her testified as to the injuries. Had she been any other patient, she would have been released from the hospital that very day. Yes, the neck wound came close to the carotid artery. I am quite sure none of us know or knew where our carotid artery is and neither did Darlie, she went a little too deep with the knife. The neck wound was closed with steritape, didn't even need stitches.

8. Darlie's necklace was embedded in her neck. Who would think to smash their necklace into a wound with a knife for the effect of it looking real? Or to switch hands, or to cut her finger tips, and bruise her arms, and not to mention all the other scrapes, abbrasions, etc that she sustained. There were way to many injuries for her to have done all of them. Her forearm was stabbed to the bone. She surely would have been in so much pain and light headed that she could not of kept ravaging herself after the first injury. Why did they not check her fingernails or the boys for defensive scrappings? Why did they not fingerprint the boys either?

The necklace was stuck in the wound and fell out when the bandage was removed from her neck at the hospital. She probably pushed it into the wound when she was holding that towel to her neck. Darlie's little booboos were not horrific. She had what appeared to be paper cuts on her fingers, they were already scabbed over. The bone on the forearm is right below the skin so they're trying to make it appear as if it were a horrific injury..not so, and there's a nice little hesitation wound right beside it. They did check her fingernails..they were too short to ascertain if any tissue was underneath them. Of course they checked the boys fingernails.....their hands were bagged. The boys not being fingerprinted at autopsy was just a mistake.

9. There are unidentified finger and palm prints and hairs (pubic and limb) from the crime scene that have never been tested. Why not test them? If she is so guilty then no one should object to the testing.

What do you mean haven't been tested? The fingerprint expert testified at trial that the two bloody prints are partial prints and are likely to remain unidentified. They don't have enough points of comparison to run through AFIS. As well any fingerprint expert will tell you that you will find many, many unidentified fingerprints at a crime scene. Considering the lack of any evidence of an intruder, these prints don't mean much. Where's the prints on the window where this alleged intruder entered and exited?

One pubic hair has been found and it was tested for trial with no results. Don't get caught up on hair, we all lose hair daily, we all transfer hair daily. The pubic hair could have come from anywhere, could have been in the house for years, could have come in on someone's foot, same with the limb hair.

HOwever, DArlie has now been given the right to test those hairs with the updated dna testing and the prints have been sent to the FBI for analysis.

11. There were several reports of a black car in the neighborhood and even in the Routier's driveway. It had been reported by two different neighbors prior to the murders. Yet police never looked into it. It was also reported that a nearby drive by shooting possibly involving one of the detective's sons was perpetrated in a black car. The case supposedly remains open, but happened the same week less than a mile away.

No make, no model number, no license plate number, no description of occupants. The Routiers were never told by neighbours there was a black car watching their house, no cops were called, etc. What pray tell should the cops do? Stop every black car in Texas? And what do you expect to find in a black car? No blood outside the home, nothing stolen from the home. The black car is just another red herring. As a matter of fact, a black car was stopped that very night and the occupants made to lie on the ground whilst the car was searched.

A drive by shooting has nothing to do with the Routier case. The Routier case was an alleged home invasion and a knife was used.

12. In photos of the scene, various items appear moved from place to place and room to room. The pillow that was under Darlie's head had been moved from the couch to the floor, the vacuum cleaner was moved, etc. This is a major issue, as the prosecution used the same vacuum as evidence that Darlie staged the scene, yet the police were moving it around?

Yes, police always move the items around so they can look for evidence. The initial crime scene is videoed and photographed, and then they start to look for evidence by moving things...looking under things.That's how they found Damon's bloody handprint in the carpet, it was under a blanket. The pillow was moved so they could see what was under it.....and there was nothing, none of Darlie's blood where the alleged intruder allegedly slashed her neck.

No, it's not a major issue as the CS had already been videotaped and photographed before any evidence was moved.

13. The police officer first on the scene stated that Darin was outside, but he wasn't. So who was outside the house? If it were the killer, and he saw police coming to the front, he would of turned around and ran to the back and down the alley.

Darin was outside the house as confirmed by the neighbour across the street who saw him and the police officer who pulled his gun on him.

14. It is my personal opinion that the silly string incicent is not that weird. I know a family who has a birthday party every year for their child, and it is a celebration. I also think that since they used that tape, it should have been shown in its entirety, not just the party portion. The silly string was not even Darlie's, her sister brought in becuase she knew her nephews would love it. But they had no objection to convicting Darlie, and I think this video had a huge part. I heard they played it over and over again, like 9 times. Why so much interest in the video and not so much the rest of the bothced evidence.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, however the truth of the matter is the SS tape is circumstantial evidence. Darlie and Darin invited that news crew to film the bday party celebration. Once you open up your private life to the public, then you are opening yourself up to be judged. The prosecution had a perfect right to show that tape to the jury to impeach Darlie's contention she was a greiving mother.

So what if Dana brought the SS to the grave. Did she force Darlie to use it?Darlie's not shedding any tears when she gave her interview, she claims the boys would have been happy and want her to be happy and she's smiling and laughing when she says it. Sick. Darin is the one not enjoying or joining in this party. His shoulders are slumped, his hand in his pockets, and he's backing away from this display as if he wants nothing to do with it...looking uncomfortable and embarrassed.

There is no "other part to the tape" This tape was filmed by a news crew, not the state. The DA saw it on the news like everyone else did. And you don't understand evidence. Had there been another part of the tape, the defence would have entered it into evidence to impeach the silly string tape.

I firmly feel that Darlie has been the victim of the Texas system. They are infamous in this country for putting people to death left and right. I think this needs to come to an end. We are seeing more and more cases of false imprisonment, and I think Darlie is one of the most obvious. I sincerely hope that something comes of this new testing, and I am anxious to read the thoughts of others. Thanks for allowing me to post.

That's your perogative of course, but you should learn a little about this case independently. Try taking your 14 points and comparing them with the trial transcripts. Well you have my thoughts, and they are based on extensive research on this case. IMO, Darlie is guilty as charged. I don't think anything will come of the new testing..IMO, they will only reinforce DArlie's guilt.

Take care:wave:

There is no 100% proof that she did it

1. Fingerprints that were found were left un identified why?

2. Blood that was found matches nobody named in the case

3. A pubic hair that was found matches nobody

4. Blond hair that was thought to be Darlies was tested and tests say the hair is not from her

5. Police never investigated threats Darlie reported months or days before the murder

6. Darlies Husband had a friend with a criminal background who suddenly left Texas soon after the murders

7. There is some people in Texas that claim that the Chief of police son committed the murders and the police were told to cover it up by any means.


NO 3 and No. 4 on your list are the only two that pertain to Darlie. The rest is false. There was no uk blood found at the crime scene, Darlie never reported threats months or days before the murder. Darlie's husband did not have a friend who left town after the murders. The COP did not have a son who committed the murders. The lead detective's son was accused of being in a car when there was a drive by shooting...big difference.

Bleedingheart states "Blond hair that was thought to be Darlies was tested and tests say the hair is not from her"

Another fantastic point!

This hair was actually found to belong to one of the Rowlett Policewomen. What is more disturbing, is that this hair (found of the screen that was cut on the patio) belongs to a Rowlett police woman WHO WAS NOT ON THE SCENE that night! How on Earth does this happen? Can we say set-up? It's highly unlikely that another officer who was on the scene that night had one of her hairs on his uniform, and then somehow rubbed the hair off onto the screen in question. Way too coincidental, IMO. :p

Yes, it's hair transfer. We all transfer hair daily and we all drop hair daily. This hair did not convict Darlie.

Let's not even discuss the factual evidence that has been discussed ad naseum (blood patterns, knife FROM the house, screen cutting, the 911 call about "prints on the knife", etc)... Specifically, I'm thinking about what occurred in the penalty phase, during which one gets a better sense that Darlie perhaps had some serious narcissistic issues going on; or, at the very least, was unstable. The prosecution brought in witnesses (people who had attended various neighborhood parties at Darlie's house) that remembered seeing Darlie, on several occassions angrily shoving food in her child's face and laughing about it while everyone stood around horrified. One example I remember was when she slammed a piece of cake into her son's face, and then laughed while she was trying to shove the food in his mouth... he ran away crying and she called him a weak loser, or something to that effect. There were examples of her publicly humiliating her kids and seeming to enjoy it, while others were disgusted. And I remember the testimony that a 14 year old babysitter was often paid with alcohol or cigarettes.



Oh oh Sorry everyone. I guess I did what none of you wanted. Well just pointing out how Darlie's site operates. They take a piece of the truth, mix it up with rumour, lies and inneundo and present it as fact.

I believe based on what I've read and the testimony of neighbours, that Darlie had emotionally detached from her children. She didn't care where Devon and Damon were as long as they were not inside bugging her. No longer were they allowed in the house during the day...no longer were they allowed to bring their friends in to the game room upstairs or in at all. She screamed at them and called them filthy names.They rode their bikes unsupervised throughout the neighbourhood, etc.

One more thing... Darlie did have a deep stab wound on her arm that the doctor supposedly told her mother was a "defensive wound". That was the wound that went through the flesh, to the bone, and splintered part of the bone.



Hi folks,

This case arouses a lot of passion on both sides. I'll try to keep my points as subjective as possible.

Darlie did have a deep stab wound on her arm that the doctor supposedly told her mother was a "defensive wound". That was the wound that went through the flesh, to the bone, and splintered part of the bone.

Darlie's arm wound was an incised wound, not a stab wound. In other words, it was longer (1 3/4") than it was deep (less than an inch). It didn't splinter the bone.

Dr. Janice Parchman:

"If you look at that portion of your forearm, you realize the bone is less than an inch away, so that doesn't mean that it's a particularly deep wound. Based on that, combined with the appearance on the surface of the skin, it would appear to be an incised wound, not a stab wound."

Two important points here:

1. Feel your own arm in the area of Darlie's wound. Dr. Parchman is right...the bone is very close to the surface of the skin. So even if it did touch the bone (very debatable), it was a very shallow cut, certainly not the result of being stabbed.

2. Look at the dimensions of the butcher knife. A wound that is 1 3/4" long on the skin surface would require that knife to be thrust in to the hilt, or close to it. The blade would have gone clear through her arm, exiting the other side. The tip of that knife, going in less than an inch, wouldn't result in such a long surface cut.

Logical conclusion? Darlie "sliced" her own arm to make it look like a defensive wound. She had no idea what an actual defensive wound looks like on a victim who's trying to ward off a knife attack.

Bleedingheart states "Blond hair that was thought to be Darlies was tested and tests say the hair is not from her"

Another fantastic point!

This hair was actually found to belong to one of the Rowlett Policewomen. What is more disturbing, is that this hair (found of the screen that was cut on the patio) belongs to a Rowlett police woman WHO WAS NOT ON THE SCENE that night! How on Earth does this happen?



Secondary transfer. In a perfect world, a perfectly sterile world, it wouldn't happen. But we don't have that, and never will.

Keep in mind that this hair was on the cut screen. It was collected as possible evidence, as it should have been.

The prosecution collected it, tested it for DNA, and determined that it was not Darlie's. It belonged to Sarah Jones, a Rowlett police officer.

The prosecution did not attempt, in any way, to admit this into evidence as belonging to Darlie Routier. When questioned by the defense, Charles Linch testified, truthfully, that the hair in the screen was not Darlie's.

The blood trail through the house is one aspect of the case I haven't read about in detail.


The blood evidence is one of the most, if not THE most, compelling aspects of this case. It is crucial. You are not making a truely informed decision and seem to be following your heart instead of your head.

Pam

It is thoroughly perplexing to me that it seems there are members of this forum who literally sit and wait for this thread to be bumped. They never post on any of the other cases, and are so completely transfixed and emotionally captivated by this one, singular segment that they don't even realize they're being moderately obnoxious to blatantly offensive when they reply to other posters. It's pretty nutty, quite frankly.

It is thoroughly perplexing to me that it seems there are members of this forum who literally sit and wait for this thread to be bumped. They never post on any of the other cases, and are so completely transfixed and emotionally captivated by this one, singular segment that they don't even realize they're being moderately obnoxious to blatantly offensive when they reply to other posters. It's pretty nutty, quite frankly.


What does it matter if the other cases are not posted on? Is it so unusual that someone who is interested in this case alone would seek out forums that discuss it? I mean, is it a rule that you must be interested in more than one case to post here? Not that it matters, but I have posted on other cases here. Quite frankly, I think it's pretty nutty that you care who posts here or how many posts they've posted somewhere else. There was a comment made, it is a discussion forum, and people have the right to reply or comment whether they agree with the comment or not. What's the problem?

What does it matter if the other cases are not posted on? Is it so unusual that someone who is interested in this case alone would seek out forums that discuss it? I mean, is it a rule that you must be interested in more than one case to post here? Not that it matters, but I have posted on other cases here. Quite frankly, I think it's pretty nutty that you care who posts here or how many posts they've posted somewhere else. There was a comment made, it is a discussion forum, and people have the right to reply or comment whether they agree with the comment or not. What's the problem?

:rolleyes: I believe my point has now been sufficiently illustrated.

:rolleyes: I believe my point has now been sufficiently illustrated.

Is it against the rules to bump a thread here?

I just joined this board a couple of days ago, and haven't had time to post on other threads yet, although I've read quite a few.

The reason I chimed in is because there's a tremendous amount of misinformation that has surrounded this case since day one. The tv shows are interesting, but really have to be taken with a big grain of salt. Their main objective is to increase ratings. One of the best ways to accomplish that is to create controversy.

I'm the first to admit that reading the trial transcript is not an easy task. It took me months to get through it all, but that is where the facts can be found. Not on Darlie's website. Not on a tv show. Not in a book (although Barbara Davis's was the most accurate, even she threw in a few zingers that weren't supported by trial testimony, lol!)

All people in this world that believe Darlie killed her children don't have common sense because the police believe that Darlie killed her children because of Darrin's business being in financial trouble and Darlie feared loosing her wealthy lifestyle and they also say she was tired of the responsibility of mother hood. Perhaps I would buy the polices theory of motive if Darlie had went upstairs and stabbed the infant in the crib and stabbed the two boys to death downstairs and maybe if she stabbed her husband to death and killed him, the polices theory would make since. Then after butchering her entire family, stab herself but just do it enough so the police buy the intruder story, don't do it so severe that Darlie dies.The boys were both insured for $10,000 dollars total, Darlie's surgery was $12,000 and burying the boys cost money too.Darin was insured for $800,000 a whole lot more than the boys. Usually selfish people that have no regard for other human's life and kill for insurance money, will kill for large amounts. If the police believed the intruder story and Darlie was living at home for a couple of years before arrested, she would still have motherhood responsibility because she would have had to change Baby Drake's diapers several times a day and feed him because he was only 7 months old about to be 8 months old when his brother's were murdered. Another thing author Barbara Davis wrote the book Precious Angels and told anyone that read that book that Darlie was guilty and attended her trials.After her book was published Mrs.Davis saw photos of Darlie's injuries that she swore she did not see at the trial.They were defense wounds and wounds in areas where Darlie could not reach. Juror Charlie Stamford saw the same photos Mrs.Davis saw after the trial and now says Darlie is innocent and if he had seen the photos at trial she would be home with her family. The Rowlett police and the Dallas DA Greg Davis claim all the photos were seen at trial.Someone is lying and I don't think it is Barbara Davis the true crime book writer or the juror Charlie Stamford.I think Greg Davis and the Rowlett police railroaded Darlie and hid evidence that proved Darlie's innocent. I agree with people that say why would an intruder come in and stab 2 children fatally and leave a victim alive that could identify him. I think it is possible that the intruder or intruders in the Routier home that night stabbed the 2 children and Darlie and made her wounds serious and thought that she would die so their would be no witness to identify him, but Darlie lived which the intruder or intruders did not expect. I am not sure if Tommy Lynn Sells the serial killer on death row killed the Routier boys because even though he confessed to doing it, if he was in jail at the time of the murders, then he could not be the Routier boys killer.The FBI are looking at Sells as a suspect, if they were 100% sure that Darlie was the killer then why look for other suspects.Look at the George Trepal murder case where George Trepal was put on death row for murdering Peggy Carr and attempting to murder the rest of the Carr family by putting thalium in the coca cola. At first police thought of Pye, Peggy's husband as a suspect but they thought since Pye had ingested some of the poison himself and so had his son Travis.The police thought why would he poison his own son who he loved dearly and himself just to poison Peggy his wife.The insurance policy on Peggy wasn't big, so Pye wouldn't do it for insurance money.The police laid off Pye and started focusing on George because Polk County sheriffs Department because the detectives were interviewing neighbors in the neighborhood asking why would anyone want to poison the Car family.Most people said something along the lines of We don't know they were a lovely family. George's reply was to make them move out. Susan Goreck polk county sheriffs detective went undercover and befriended George to bring him to justice. I certainly think that George does not belong in our society because he could poison other families and hurt other people if he were out of prison. I don't think George should have gotten the death penalty and Peggy Cars daughter doesn't feel that way either but I feel he should have been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. I am not a big fan of the death penalty and if I were a judge, I would hardly ever sentence people convicted of murder to death, but I would if they were convicted of heinous crimes or were a serial killer. If I believed Routier was guilty, I would sentence her to life in prison without the possibility of parole because she does have another child alive Drake and at least if his mother is in prison, he can go see her.Since I believe in Darlie's innocence, free Darlie,give her another trial and exonerate her of the murders. Go to this website http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/HerProof/CourtTV.html read about Darlie's husband's car being stolen 3 years before the murder and the threats the family received, maybe one of those men or all of the men were intruders in the Routier home and attacked the family. Maybe Darlie claimed to have never went in the utility room but her mind was not aware that she was because she was panicky about her and her children being attacked. I think Greg Davis needs to go on trial and other Rowlett police members need to go on trial for hiding evidence at Darlie's trial and they should be convicted and sent to prison. If Greg Davis is such a nice man, concerned about the 2 murdered children and wanting justice for them and he really feels for the murdered boys, then why doesn't he ever leave messages for the murdered boys Devon and Damon at their find a grave site memorial. Greg Davis is an evil District Attorney and so are the other members of those police departments.

People that find it hard to believe that Darlie could sleep through being stabbed and her children being stabbed are right. Darin said on American Justice that he believed Darlie did not sleep through the entire thing but was knocked unconscious during the fight with the intruder. A lot of days I go to http://www.justicefordarlie.net/media.php and one day I watched Routier's family on the Leeza show and an audience member said that she would do the same thing with silly string and presents at a gravesite if she lost her nephew. I would do the same thing if I was a mother and my son had his 7th birthday 8 days later, have a party for him at a gravesite and have all the neighborhood kids invited to my sons party bring presents to his gravesite. If I were the dead son, I would be smiling up in heaven.

How often does an unknown intruder enter a house, murder two young children, attack their mother and attempt to murder her, then leave without taking anything from the said house or attempting any sort of sexual deviancy? NEVER. I suppose one could theorize that an unknown intruder would enter a house with intent on sexually assaulting Darlie and was startled by her children being in the same room. But why on Earth would this person stay around and risk being caught/indentified? Why not just run away? What's the point in killing her children but leaving her still alive? Well because that would never happen. There's only one person who could have gotten that close to her two children without either of them becoming distressed and screaming for their father/help...Darlie. She's guilty.

How often does an unknown intruder enter a house, murder two young children, attack their mother and attempt to murder her, then leave without taking anything from the said house or attempting any sort of sexual deviancy? NEVER. I suppose one could theorize that an unknown intruder would enter a house with intent on sexually assaulting Darlie and was startled by her children being in the same room. But why on Earth would this person stay around and risk being caught/indentified? Why not just run away? What's the point in killing her children but leaving her still alive? Well because that would never happen. There's only one person who could have gotten that close to her two children without either of them becoming distressed and screaming for their father/help...Darlie. She's guilty.


Not guilty, You don't know what happened in that house, you can only theorize it and your theories are stupid and I hope you are never on a jury because you don't believe in people being wrongfully convicted or railroaded by police. I hope if I go to court, you are not a juror member because you would probably vote guilty and convict me and you never believe people on death row can be innocent. The Rowlett and Dallas police brainwashed you with the Routier case Cars.

Not guilty, You don't know what happened in that house, you can only theorize it and your theories are stupid and I hope you are never on a jury because you don't believe in people being wrongfully convicted or railroaded by police. I hope if I go to court, you are not a juror member because you would probably vote guilty and convict me and you never believe people on death row can be innocent. The Rowlett and Dallas police brainwashed you with the Routier case Cars.

Why would law enforcement conspire to pin two murders of children on a unassuming middle class houswife who was the mother of the children murdered? And to think my theory is stupid...:lol:

And I do think Tommy Zeigler, Stuart Heaton, and Michael Scott Martin (who's not on death row, but in jail) are all innocent to name a few people on death row.

I don't think I have ever seen this one. I can't seem to find it online. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Also the forensic files version to would be awesome anyone knows where to find them...

Not guilty, You don't know what happened in that house, you can only theorize it and your theories are stupid and I hope you are never on a jury because you don't believe in people being wrongfully convicted or railroaded by police. I hope if I go to court, you are not a juror member because you would probably vote guilty and convict me and you never believe people on death row can be innocent. The Rowlett and Dallas police brainwashed you with the Routier case Cars.

This is the dumbest response to someone's opinion that I have ever seen. God forbid someone disagree with you.

I agree with TheCars. Darlie Routier is guilty. There is too much pointing in ehr way. If it looks like a rat, smells like a rat and acts like a rat, then guess what....ITS A RAT! Darlie killed these poor little boys. The only question I have is the sock that was found a block away but even that is not enough reasonable doubt for me.

I don't think I have ever seen this one. I can't seem to find it online. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Also the forensic files version to would be awesome anyone knows where to find them...


http://www.justicefordarlie.net/media.php
Guardian, you can see the mugshots Routier segment, 48 hour mystery segment,American Justice,Unsolved Mysteries.The only segment at that site that they do not have is the forensic files segment.

There is such thing as over zealous prosecutions, I have heard many cases where police have bullied and pressured people into making false confessions for crimes they did not commit at police stations. That is why a lot of police departments have started video taping an audio taping interrogations at the police station. I recently mailed a letter to Darlie Routier saying how much I believe in her innocence and gave her a list of possible suspects of who killed her sons and described a motive. I have company in believing in Darlie's innocence such as freelance crime writer Barbara Davis that used to think Darlie was guilty and changed her mind about Darlie's guilt and juror Charlie Stamford voted guilty at trial, now believes with all his heart that Darlie is innocent.I am not saying that Darlie was pressured into confessing by the police because their is no confession in the Routier case but after the murders happened and Darlie was questioned by police, she gave Ben and his friend Barry Fife as men listed as suspects and police never looked into that. Also a reported black sedan in the area on the night of the murders police never looked into that. I believe that a police officer's son Patterson who owned a black sedan and lived a block or so from Darlie and her husband could be the boys killer.He was convicted in a drive by shooting so he is a criminal. Darlie Routier has never feared dna testing, if she had killed her boys she would fear dna testing.Darlie needs a new trial.

Why would law enforcement conspire to pin two murders of children on a unassuming middle class houswife who was the mother of the children murdered? And to think my theory is stupid...:lol:


Jimmy Patterson would pin the murders on a middle class house wife to protect his criminal son Chad who was convicted in a drive by shooting and drove a black sedan like the one reported in the area on the night of the murders from going to jail or death row.

Just saw the full segment on UM a few minutes ago. Funny I was finally reminded of this case because I had seen a special on it on CourtTV like 10 years ago or something like that with my brother and although we'd long forgotten the names, we never forgot the case. After watching that program, I think we could conclude she did it, but now after watching the UM segment, I don't know if I can. Funny, because I'm NEVER EVER on the fence when it comes to innocence and guilt. This is perhaps the most intriguing case I have ever encountered.

What gets me is the tube sock. How do the prosecutors explain it, and the fact that a perpatrator around that area (and around the same time) had been using them as gloves to commit his assaults? Not only that, but both boys' DNA was found on that sock.

And her bruises....they look far too severe to be self-inflicted. Now I'm not saying its not possible for them to have been self-inflicted, but they look an awful lot like defense wounds.

If I had to choose guilty or innocent, I think I'd choose guilty. That's not to say I'm entirely convinced she is. My theory is that she was very close to suicide one night and decided just to end it all right then and there, but not before taking her two beloved boys with her. I think this theory helps explain why only two of the boys were killed, as she would have woken her husband up had she taken Drake to the afterlife too. It also explains how she was 1/16th of an inch away from severing an artery.

As stated earlier in this thread, she started having second thoughts about it. An epiphany of sorts. I can only imagine this is what was going through her head at that time she's slashing up her kids:

Perhaps death isn't the answer.

Perhaps I can still live after this.





Maybe I can even get away with it.

I just wish the Rowlett PD had not come to a conclusion before an investigation even began. Had they not convinced themselves that Routier was the sole perpatrator of this crime from the very start, I think we would have reached a definitive conclusion by now. The least they could have done was investigated some of the leads.

Have seen this case a few times on several different shows. Haven't read through this whole thread--so if I am saying stuff that has already been said, sorry--but overall I don't think she is guilty, UNLESS she had help inflicting the injuries on herself and staging the scene. That points to her husband being in on it IMHO--with that being the reason he didn't want to talk to police. Otherwise, what man would stand by a woman who had killed his SONS? He wouldn't, I don't think, if he didn't also have something to hide, like his involvement in the murders and/or the staging, or even just the "break-in" that set this all in motion.

I could more easily buy this last option, the intruder idea, possibly still with her husband being involved--a staged break-in for insurance purposes with the "thief" not expecting to find anyone downstairs and panicking. (There was an incident before, wasn't there, that looked like such, which the husband admitted setting up?) Which would then explain why the husband and youngest child survived--the "thief" didn't know they were upstairs or didn't want to take the time to check after having committed the assault and murders. This last point could also be explained if the police chief's son was involved--he would have had no way of knowing there were any other people in the house. And Darlie was not killed because she was able to fight. The boys were too small to do so....:(

Bottom line for me is, if Darlie wanted to be free of her family responsibilities, why only kill two members of the family? Because the baby was more defenseless than the older boys (would someone so depressed and crazed that she could kill her own kids be tenderhearted toward even the smallest, who could be considered the biggest burden under that mindset?) and her husband would be able to fight her off? Still doesn't make sense to me.

Have seen this case a few times on several different shows. Haven't read through this whole thread--so if I am saying stuff that has already been said, sorry--but overall I don't think she is guilty, UNLESS she had help inflicting the injuries on herself and staging the scene. That points to her husband being in on it IMHO--with that being the reason he didn't want to talk to police. Otherwise, what man would stand by a woman who had killed his SONS? He wouldn't, I don't think, if he didn't also have something to hide, like his involvement in the murders and/or the staging, or even just the "break-in" that set this all in motion.

I could more easily buy this last option, the intruder idea, possibly still with her husband being involved--a staged break-in for insurance purposes with the "thief" not expecting to find anyone downstairs and panicking. (There was an incident before, wasn't there, that looked like such, which the husband admitted setting up?) Which would then explain why the husband and youngest child survived--the "thief" didn't know they were upstairs or didn't want to take the time to check after having committed the assault and murders. This last point could also be explained if the police chief's son was involved--he would have had no way of knowing there were any other people in the house. And Darlie was not killed because she was able to fight. The boys were too small to do so....:(

Bottom line for me is, if Darlie wanted to be free of her family responsibilities, why only kill two members of the family? Because the baby was more defenseless than the older boys (would someone so depressed and crazed that she could kill her own kids be tenderhearted toward even the smallest, who could be considered the biggest burden under that mindset?) and her husband would be able to fight her off? Still doesn't make sense to me.

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. There has never been any credible motive presented as to why an unknown intruder would break into the Routier home simply to murder the two young boys, without taking anything. If this man was in the process of robbing the home, why did he grab a knife from their kitchen and use their tube sock to conceal his prints? And if Darlie awoke and startled this guy, why didn't he just flee? Why go into a rampage and slaughter Darlie's too young children all over an attempted robbery?

Points taken. Was there no insurance on the baby or the husband (assuming he was not in on the killing, assaulting, and staging), though? And if this was all the result of some amateur that her husband hired only to stage a break-in, that could be why items from the house were used--the "thief" panicked like I said, but only killed those he stumbled upon downstairs then fled without stealing stuff they could have claimed on homeowner's insurance. People having the intent (on their own) to merely rob a house have killed occupants they found inside unexpectedly.

Then again, someone could have had the "motive" of being compensated by Darlie's husband after the life insurance came through--therefore meaning Darlie is covering for him and the "thief" had been instructed not to harm the baby(?). The facts that the baby was not harmed at all and Darlie was not killed still make me wonder. And if it was for both of the Routiers to benefit from life insurance, why such overkill, and why not move the boys to their rooms and kill them there, so Darlie didn't have to be injured at all--let alone so severely?

While people have been killed in robbery attempts before, what threat could two small boys pose to an adult male? By sticking around murdering the occupants of the home they have a greater risk of being caught or possibly killed themselves. I'm sure Darrin (Darlie's husband) had some sort of life insurance policy, although I'm not sure about the baby. I guess Darrin wasn't murdered because he was either in on the planning (this seems less likely to me), or because Darlie figured he could easily over power her. I would also assume this is why the baby was spared in the massacre, since he was asleep with Darrin upstairs. Darlie probably figured she had the perfect opportunity since she was isolated with her two sons downstairs without any threat of Darrin preventing her from murdering her sons.

Again I can see your points. But has it been established that only Darlie was concerned with their debt? And could she have planned this and carried it out by herself? She doesn't strike me as that intelligent, methodical, or capable of turning off feelings under horrible circumstances. Darrin (I never used his name because I knew what it was but was too lazy to look back in this thread to see how to spell it LOL) doesn't either--but he must have been the one to injure her, at the very least, and probably plant the sock and the knife and cut the screen if there was no "thief" hired by him. As someone else said, Darlie's bruises were too extensive IMHO to be self-inflicted. And I don't care how desperate I was for money, I couldn't cut my own throat! I would be too afraid of going deep enough to end up dead. Nor do they seem like people willing to sacrifice their children to their own greed. Darlie's grief seemed genuine--interviews with her and the portion of the "Silly String" video that the jury apparently didn't see bear that out for me. (Can you tell I am a mom?)

If it was all Darlie, I can't recall a mother of her own volition killing her little kids for money. What I do remember are moms like Susan Smith and the one who was played by Farrah Fawcett in a TV movie, Small Sacrifices--they killed to be with a man who didn't want children.

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. There has never been any credible motive presented as to why an unknown intruder would break into the Routier home simply to murder the two young boys, without taking anything. If this man was in the process of robbing the home, why did he grab a knife from their kitchen and use their tube sock to conceal his prints? And if Darlie awoke and startled this guy, why didn't he just flee? Why go into a rampage and slaughter Darlie's too young children all over an attempted robbery?

The insurance policy on her kids might have been a reason for her decision, but not a motive. Again, as stated 10,000 times, the insurance on those two kids total only amounted to $10,000 and it took $13,000 to bury them. If Darlie Routier really wanted some money, then she would have killed her husband, who had a $800,000 policy on his head.

I think she was just manic depressive and wanted to kill herself one day, but had second thoughts after she made the regretful decision of taking her two kids along with her.

A fact that a lot of people don't know is that the mysterious fingerprint that couldn't be identified wasn't any ordinary fingerprint, but a bloody one. Just putting that out there. I've read through this thread very thoroughly and people believe it was merely an average fingerprint.

I was aware that it was bloody, which would of course mean it was from the actual time of the murders and attack and could have evidentiary value. But the point you made about the amount of life insurance, I was not clear on that, even if it has been stated on here so many times--gives her even less reason to do this IMHO. And if they were so much in debt but paid funeral expenses in excess of the life insurance, that sounds to me (as a mom) like people not thinking clearly in their grief. (Yeah, I know, I know--maybe consciousness of guilt, too!)

A fact that a lot of people don't know is that the mysterious fingerprint that couldn't be identified wasn't any ordinary fingerprint, but a bloody one. Just putting that out there. I've read through this thread very thoroughly and people believe it was merely an average fingerprint.

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.