I'll have to do research on it and see what I can find.

But even if they weren't used, that could still point to an outside intruder. I mean, if you were going to commit a crime using a weapon, would you use something in their house, or bring your own weapon(s) that could be traced back to you one day?

Another point I want to make is if Darlie used the knife in her own to stab her boys, why wouldn't she get rid of the knife? If she successfully got rid of her own panties, then surely she could hide the knife? She left it in the house so they could find it and it would point to her?
i always look back to the silly string video. Didn't the court allow that to viewed by the jury?

i always look back to the silly string video. Didn't the court allow that to viewed by the jury?

Yeah. The jury asked to re-watch it, which they did, many times over. They didn't show the part where she was grieving, which was the entire rest of the video.

I'll have to do research on it and see what I can find.

But even if they weren't used, that could still point to an outside intruder. I mean, if you were going to commit a crime using a weapon, would you use something in their house, or bring your own weapon(s) that could be traced back to you one day?

Another point I want to make is if Darlie used the knife in her own to stab her boys, why wouldn't she get rid of the knife? If she successfully got rid of her own panties, then surely she could hide the knife? She left it in the house so they could find it and it would point to her?

If my intention was to kill then I would be bringing my own knife-how difficult would it be to get evidence off & dispose of it at your leisure? She didn't think it would point to her because her DNA would be all over it as she would have used it probably daily & just happened to accidentally pick up the knife afterwards making the job of finding the perps prints highly unlikely.

Some questions for the community:

1) What is a possible explanation for the bloody fingerprint found in the house that does not match any of the Routiers, the police and the EMT's? It should also be noted that there were 2 unidentified palm prints found on the window that was tampered with.

2) If Darlie's intent was to kill (overkill) Damon and Devon, why did she let Damon live long enough to possibly identify his attacker to the police officer who had arrived? Damon was still alive at that point and looking around the room.

3) Considering that an expert testified that Damon could not have lived longer than 9 minutes with his injuries (and probably no longer than 6 minutes), and considering that Darlie's phone call to the police was 5 minutes and 45 seconds, do you think it's possible that in that very, very short timeframe (at the very most, 3 minutes and 15 seconds), Darlie could have inflicted grave injuries on 2 children, stage a crime scene, exit the house, plant the bloody sock (barefoot and with minimal clothing on), return to the house, hide her panties in such a place they've never been found, slash her throat (adding in extra time for the supposed hesitation wounds), inflict herself with assorted bruises and cuts, clean up some of the blood mess with towels, shout for Darin, and call 911? All in 3 minutes, 15 seconds tops, and in as little as 15 seconds?

Yeah. The jury asked to re-watch it, which they did, many times over. They didn't show the part where she was grieving, which was the entire rest of the video.
This may be a good question for our resident lawyers and I don't pretend to be one. But I always thought it was wrong of the court to show that video. I understand why a detective would use it. But to have a jury watching it to me is wrong. I've argued with people that felt the other way 100%. So I could be wrong

1) What is a possible explanation for the bloody fingerprint found in the house that does not match any of the Routiers, the police and the EMT's? It should also be noted that there were 2 unidentified palm prints found on the window that was tampered with.

http://www.routiertranscripts.com/pdf/Jantz-Affidavit.pdf

The prints most likely came from an adult female according to this report. And one of the prosecution experts said that Darlie cannot be excluded from the print. As for the palm prints on the door, they did not exclude the paramedics, police, etc. in that test. Here is the testimony offered by a fingerprint expert at Darlie's trial:

"The latent print in exhibit 85-J was analyzed and compared to the known fingerprints of Rodney James McGaffey, Simon Nicholas Johnson, Darin Eugene Routier, Darlie Lynn Routier, Thomas Dean Ward, Katherine Long, Charles Arlan Linch, David W. Waddell, Larry Wayne Byford, Todd Sullivan Higgins, Rick Coleman, Michael Steven Youngblood, Dennis Ray Vrana, Brian Leland Koschak, Jack Lloyd Kolbye, Eric Jon Zimmerman, Duane Thomas Beddingfield, Charles David Hamilton, Bobby Ray Clark, Lamar D. Evans, Chris W. Frosch, J. Patterson, David R. Mayne, Charles Hamilton, David Waddell, David Nabors, James Matthew Walling, and Dana Stahl. All of the fingers of the above named people were excluded as the source of the latent print except the right ringer finger of Darlie Lynn Routier. The latent could be neither excluded nor identified to that finger and the comparison was deemed inconclusive."

2) If Darlie's intent was to kill (overkill) Damon and Devon, why did she let Damon live long enough to possibly identify his attacker to the police officer who had arrived? Damon was still alive at that point and looking around the room.

Why are we trying to rationalize an emotionally unstable murderer's rationality in killing her two small children?


3) Considering that an expert testified that Damon could not have lived longer than 9 minutes with his injuries (and probably no longer than 6 minutes), and considering that Darlie's phone call to the police was 5 minutes and 45 seconds, do you think it's possible that in that very, very short timeframe (at the very most, 3 minutes and 15 seconds), Darlie could have inflicted grave injuries on 2 children, stage a crime scene, exit the house, plant the bloody sock (barefoot and with minimal clothing on), return to the house, hide her panties in such a place they've never been found, slash her throat (adding in extra time for the supposed hesitation wounds), inflict herself with assorted bruises and cuts, clean up some of the blood mess with towels, shout for Darin, and call 911? All in 3 minutes, 15 seconds tops, and in as little as 15 seconds?

She could have stabbed Damon initially thinking he was dead, ran around staging the scene, cutting herself, etc. and then noticing Damon is still alive crawling towards the door, goes over and starts stabbing him again. Then she could call 911. She had plenty of time to do everything before calling 911.

But I'll pose this question for Darlie supporters: why did Darlie initially tell Darin that she woke up after Damon starting tugging on her shoulder saying, "mommy, mommy, mommy!"? And why did she tell police that she couldn't remember if the intruder was white or black? Why did she tell investigators that she fought with the intruder near the kitchen bar after waking up and realizing there was a burglar in the house?

Don't believe me? This is Darlie, "In Her Own Words":

The boys were asleep on the floor with their pillows and blankets. Darin brought me a pillow and blanket from upstairs. Around 1:00 a.m. Darin and I decided to go to sleep. Darin turned off all the lights but the T.V. was on. Darin told me that he loved me and would see me in the morning and I told him I loved him too. I asked him to make sure the door was locked on his way upstairs -- he said he already checked it and it was -- five minutes later I fell asleep. Next thing I remember -- Damon runs into my right shoulder and says "mommy." I sat straight up and saw a "blur" of a man between my couch and kitchen bar. I stood up and Damon walked behind me. I heard glass breaking. When I got to the entrance of the kitchen, I saw man going into my utility room. I took a couple of steps and remembered lights were off went back and turned lights on, I started to walk through kitchen and noticed blood on my nightgown, about to my chest, halfway across the kitchen I saw knife laying on utility room floor, instinctively I went over and picked up knife, doesn't seem like there was much blood on the knife, I went back through the kitchen and put knife on kitchen bar. Damon was still standing by living room wall. I walked into living room and saw Devon's eyes open and wounds on his chest, Devon wasn't moving and I started screaming, I went to Damon and began checking him and saw stab wounds through his shirt, I was hysterical but I was trying to think. I told Damon to lay on his belly and I told him to hang on and be strong -- Damon said "O-K mommy." I ran into hallway to our entrance, turned on the lights and kept screaming. Darin, my husband, came out of our bedroom -- he only had his pants and glasses on. Darin ran down the stairs and we ran together into the hallway. Darin went to the left, into family room and over to Devon, the table by Devon was completely knocked over. I went to the right to kitchen and grabbed phone to call 911.

2) If Darlie's intent was to kill (overkill) Damon and Devon, why did she let Damon live long enough to possibly identify his attacker to the police officer who had arrived? Damon was still alive at that point and looking around the room.

Susan Smith. Her Daughter lived and identified her. However not right away. She was terrified. I doubt a 5 year old like Damon given his extreme wounds, terror, confusion and trauma, even if he could speak, would readily identify his mother as the killer at the scene to paramedics before he died. Killers like Darlie or Susan Smith don't think rational. I said it before trying to make logical out of how people like that think is pointless.

The human body is incredibly resilient and will fight as hard as it can to stay alive. Damon was barely alive. Meanwhile Darlie, the adult in the room, never stopped talking and was up walking around the whole time. I had the unfortunate experience of googling the case years ago and accidently clicking on images instead of web. The crime scene photos are online of those two precious boys, it was absolutely horrific. It was overkill and even though Damon was technically still alive when paramedics arrived he was in no capacity to tell paramedics what happened. He had no chance of surviving those wounds. He just held on longer than his brother.

Great post & yes my thought was possibly smudged prints being hard to get anything worthwhile out of-the fact that of all those people the only one who might have matched it was her & no trace of anybody else-speaks volumes.

Her story is impossible to believe-cannot remember even the colour of her attacker she supposedly fought with, or is she also saying she didn't fight him-she just woke up & saw him running away & why would he run away? If he was fighting with her wouldn't she have defensive wounds & possibly DNA of the attacker-most women have long nails & will scratch.

When you look at it the evidence against her is overwhelming, she has changed her story so many times & none of them stand up to scrutiny so she has zero credibility & then you throw in her cold/uncaring/arrogant demeanour & the bizarre tape with the silly string & it is no wonder she was convicted.

I wish people would stop with the silly string video being used as proof that the jury was biased and that was what got her convicted. The judge ruled that if the prosecution were allowed to admit the silly string video into evidence, that the defense would then be allowed to admit the surveillance video that captured Darlie crying and grieving. For reasons unknown, her defense did not introduce the video as a way to counter the silly string video. But even if they did, let's assume the jury would consider that a wash. There's a little known incident that people don't talk much about, but a neighbor testified about it at Darlie's sentencing.

"There were many funeral wreaths, there were stuffed animals, flags, signs that people had placed around the fountain. Darin would take a stuffed animal off of one of the wreaths and toss it over to Darlie and she would jump up and catch it, and then she would toss it back to him and he would chuck it toward the vehicle. The back end of the vehicle was open, and if he threw it in, she would jump up and cheer. Either catch it, or if she didn't catch it, she would pick it up and toss it back to him."

This was two days after the murder of her boys.

Yep, I firmly believe she was ultimately convicted on the evidence that pointed to her, the lack of evidence that would point towards somebody else & her changing stories. However juries are also going to look at somebody & form opinions on them & she did herself no favours with the way she acted.

She made two big mistakes-one was not working a deal for insanity due to diminished responsibility & the other was taking the stand.

Susan Smith. Her Daughter lived and identified her. However not right away. She was terrified. I doubt a 5 year old like Damon given his extreme wounds, terror, confusion and trauma, even if he could speak, would readily identify his mother as the killer at the scene to paramedics before he died. Killers like Darlie or Susan Smith don't think rational. I said it before trying to make logical out of how people like that think is pointless.



I think you mean Diane Downs. Susan Smith was the one who drove her sons into a pond and drowned them.

Yes I did thank you!

I had the unfortunate experience of googling the case years ago and accidently clicking on images instead of web. The crime scene photos are online of those two precious boys, it was absolutely horrific. It was overkill.

I will agree with you on that. I had a similar experience a while back, which I talked about here.

She had plenty of time to do everything before calling 911.

Oh my.

I wish people would stop with the silly string video being used as proof that the jury was biased and that was what got her convicted.

You can wish all you want but it won't happen because it's the truth. I'm not saying it's the only thing that got her convicted, but it was a large part. The jury saw it during the trial, asked to see it again during deliberations, and watched it many times over. Don't believe me, watch the AJ episode on it. Or do a search on this thread and see how many hits you find.

"There were many funeral wreaths, there were stuffed animals, flags, signs that people had placed around the fountain. Darin would take a stuffed animal off of one of the wreaths and toss it over to Darlie and she would jump up and catch it, and then she would toss it back to him and he would chuck it toward the vehicle. The back end of the vehicle was open, and if he threw it in, she would jump up and cheer. Either catch it, or if she didn't catch it, she would pick it up and toss it back to him."


Well they certainly won't win any awards for that, but it doesn't indicate guilt. If it did, it would implicate Darin as much as Darlie. Yet you are entirely convinced of her guilt and his innocence, for whatever reason.

It was one moment in time. Take Julie Patz for example. Ever since Etan disappeared, she turned into a sad, depressed version of her former self. And then, about six months after his disappearance, she had a fun moment with her son Ari, who was about 3 at the time. He came up and playfully kissed her and she had a huge smile on her face. Her husband Stan, a photographer, captured the moment. The photo got spread around and people thought she wasn't grieving properly. In reality, grieving was pretty much all she was doing.

I admit the silly string video is excruciating to look at. I don't enjoy watching her laugh and chew gum and shoot the silly string at her son's graves. But there's a whole lot more to the story than that. From what I understand, she didn't even bring the silly string. Rather, a relative brought it. She used it because she thought that's what her sons wanted. As I said, misconceptions rule this case.

Why are we trying to rationalize an emotionally unstable murderer's rationality in killing her two small children?

She has no history of mental illness.


The prints most likely came from an adult female according to this report. And one of the prosecution experts said that Darlie cannot be excluded from the print. As for the palm prints on the door, they did not exclude the paramedics, police, etc. in that test.

Well of course the prosecution would put forth an "expert". But it remains unproven the print you're talking about was hers or even females.

There are two bloody fingerprints in question, one found on a living room coffee table, the other on a door.

There was also a pubic hair found, I believe near the couch. Someone made the argument that people could have come in and out of the house constantly and leave DNA, but how do you explain an unknown pubic hair? That would suggest an attempted rape. You dismissed that scenario earlier, but as I reported earlier, Darlie never stated she was raped. She did say she felt pressure down there, when combined with the pubic hair, her injuries and her missing panties, and the black car various people saw stalking her house, all suggest someone went there to rape her.

I'm pretty sure I've said this before, but I'll say it again. I'm in a weird spot in this case. I think Darlie was wrongly convicted, in part because of the silly string video, AND I think she is guilty.


Although, I must admit, I wanted a documentary the other day about how badly Todd Willingham got railroaded and I do have to wonder about Texas justice. That opened the door a teeny crack into doubting her guilt.

How do you explain pubic hair? People walking round naked-the kids may well have been naked or changed clothes there. Maybe the she & her husband had sex there or sat around nude on the furniture. I do it myself sometimes & I expect if a crime scene team came in they could probably find a stray pubic hair or two in my front room.

Would being on medication for anxiety & depression not qualify as mental illness/disorder?

I'm pretty sure I've said this before, but I'll say it again. I'm in a weird spot in this case. I think Darlie was wrongly convicted, in part because of the silly string video, AND I think she is guilty.


Although, I must admit, I wanted a documentary the other day about how badly Todd Willingham got railroaded and I do have to wonder about Texas justice. That opened the door a teeny crack into doubting her guilt.

Her trial was a farce. Tens of thousands of errors. Inept defense laywering. Stuff that pointed to her innocence was left out. The contaminated crime scene.

Oh my.

Said the spider to the fly?

You can wish all you want but it won't happen because it's the truth. I'm not saying it's the only thing that got her convicted, but it was a large part. The jury saw it during the trial, asked to see it again during deliberations, and watched it many times over. Don't believe me, watch the AJ episode on it. Or do a search on this thread and see how many hits you find.

Who cares if the jury asked to see it over and over?! It was admitted into evidence! And as stated previously, her defense could have rebutted the video by admitting their own video (the police surveillance tape that showed Darlie grieving "appropriately") but for reasons unknown, they did not. My point being, had the defense entered the video into evidence, it would have been a wash, IMO. One video would have shown the grieving Darlie and the other would have shown the silly string incident. Have you read the trial transcripts? I assure you that if you read them with an open mind, you might not be so inclined to believe that Darlie was innocent and it was the silly string that got her convicted.

Well they certainly won't win any awards for that, but it doesn't indicate guilt. If it did, it would implicate Darin as much as Darlie. Yet you are entirely convinced of her guilt and his innocence, for whatever reason.

I've always felt that Darin Routier is a scumbag. However, Darlie says an unknown man attacked her while Darin was asleep upstairs with Drake. I don't see how that leaves any room for Darin's involvement.

It was one moment in time. Take Julie Patz for example. Ever since Etan disappeared, she turned into a sad, depressed version of her former self. And then, about six months after his disappearance, she had a fun moment with her son Ari, who was about 3 at the time. He came up and playfully kissed her and she had a huge smile on her face. Her husband Stan, a photographer, captured the moment. The photo got spread around and people thought she wasn't grieving properly. In reality, grieving was pretty much all she was doing.

That example is flawed. Julie Patz's experience happened six months after the fact. This was two days after an "attacker" tried to murder Darlie and succeeded in murdering her two small children. What mother would want to be chucking around stuffed animals left by people as a makeshift memorial 2 days after they lost their child? Not to mention murdered children.

I admit the silly string video is excruciating to look at. I don't enjoy watching her laugh and chew gum and shoot the silly string at her son's graves. But there's a whole lot more to the story than that. From what I understand, she didn't even bring the silly string. Rather, a relative brought it. She used it because she thought that's what her sons wanted. As I said, misconceptions rule this case.

I don't think it matters who brought it, honestly. She could've easily said, "I don't think it's appropriate to do that right now." Look at how uncomfortable Darin looks on the silly string video. Does he look like he's enjoying the moment as a "tribute" to his boys?

She has no history of mental illness.

She was depressed at the time. She discussed suicide. She was taking medication. She was suffering from PPSD after having Drake.

Well of course the prosecution would put forth an "expert". But it remains unproven the print you're talking about was hers or even females.

That report was done by a defense expert. He concluded it was more likely the print of an adult female. Just because the print match was "inconclusive" does not mean that it was left by an "intruder". See: Jeffrey MacDonald's long standing claim on the hair found clutched in his wife's hand.

There was also a pubic hair found, I believe near the couch. Someone made the argument that people could have come in and out of the house constantly and leave DNA, but how do you explain an unknown pubic hair? That would suggest an attempted rape. You dismissed that scenario earlier, but as I reported earlier, Darlie never stated she was raped. She did say she felt pressure down there, when combined with the pubic hair, her injuries and her missing panties, and the black car various people saw stalking her house, all suggest someone went there to rape her.

Makes perfect sense. Right before this rapist attempts to rape his intended victim, he decides to murder her two small children with a weapon from the house he's just broken into, AND use a sock from said house in an attempt to conceal his fingerprints, BUT does not think twice about the possibility of leaving seminal fluid or other incriminating things behind. Don't you find it odd that this guy was more concerned about concealing his fingerprints (by using the sock) if his intended motive was rape?

And how did Damon magically keep saying, "mommy" over and over if he were near death?

i have zero doubt she is guilty.

some people are just crazy. you cannot try and figure out what is going through their heads because they themselves have no idea whats goin on in their heads.

That example is flawed. Julie Patz's experience happened six months after the fact. This was two days after an "attacker" tried to murder Darlie and succeeded in murdering her two small children. What mother would want to be chucking around stuffed animals left by people as a makeshift memorial 2 days after they lost their child? Not to mention murdered children.

Except that it wasn't. Darlie was still in the hospital at that point. It was 12 days afterward.

http://injusticeanywhereforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=199&t=1638&start=500

See what I mean about misconceptions ruling this case? Here's another one:

It's commonly reported that the attack happened on the one night that Darlie and her sons were sleeping downstairs and not in their beds as usual, and how that made Darlie look suspicious.

Except that isn't true. The boys had been sleeping downstairs since school had then-recently let out. Darlie slept with them to watch over them as she was concerned about them. Darin had also just installed a t.v. in the family room, and the boys had fallen asleep enjoying the new t.v.

I think a lot of the evidence that I have looked at(if it is correct) points toward her being guilty. But the silly string video is wrong and this idea that well the defense can refute it is just stating the obvious. Of corse they could have argued against it by showing her grief but it doesn't mean the video should have been shown. Honestly take the video out of the equation and I have no complaints. IF the prosecution felt like they had to have the video then they must have lacked
Confidence. But I don't think that was the case. i think she could have been convicted without the tape and both sides could have done a better job.

The silly string thing should be a non-issue.

You cannot imagine the crazy things my family does during funerals/hospice care. Some people just laugh through tears to stay sane.

She could have stabbed Damon initially thinking he was dead, ran around staging the scene, cutting herself, etc. and then noticing Damon is still alive crawling towards the door, goes over and starts stabbing him again. Then she could call 911. She had plenty of time to do everything before calling 911.

If her plan was to kill Damon, wouldn't she have assured he was dead before summoning help? For all she knew, they could have saved him. Sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

And she would have had to figure Darin would have went next door to the neighbor nurse, which in fact he did do.

Darlie could have very easily died herself, and instead of tending to her own injuries (2 millimeters from carotid artery) she is trying to help her boys. How do you explain that?

Who cares if the jury asked to see it over and over?! It was admitted into evidence! And as stated previously, her defense could have rebutted the video by admitting their own video (the police surveillance tape that showed Darlie grieving "appropriately") but for reasons unknown, they did not. My point being, had the defense entered the video into evidence, it would have been a wash, IMO. One video would have shown the grieving Darlie and the other would have shown the silly string incident. Have you read the trial transcripts? I assure you that if you read them with an open mind, you might not be so inclined to believe that Darlie was innocent and it was the silly string that got her convicted.

Who cares? I care. Considering that the jury took less than 4 hours to deliver a verdict (?!), and much of that time was spent going over and over (and over and over) the silly string incident, your bizarre assumption that it wasn't the key factor in her guilty verdict really falls flat on its face.

Except that it wasn't. Darlie was still in the hospital at that point. It was 12 days afterward.

You are correct. My mistake.

See what I mean about misconceptions ruling this case? Here's another one:

It's commonly reported that the attack happened on the one night that Darlie and her sons were sleeping downstairs and not in their beds as usual, and how that made Darlie look suspicious.

Except that isn't true. The boys had been sleeping downstairs since school had then-recently let out. Darlie slept with them to watch over them as she was concerned about them. Darin had also just installed a t.v. in the family room, and the boys had fallen asleep enjoying the new t.v.

This has always been a non-issue to me.

If her plan was to kill Damon, wouldn't she have assured he was dead before summoning help? For all she knew, they could have saved him. Sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

And she would have had to figure Darin would have went next door to the neighbor nurse, which in fact he did do.

Darlie could have very easily died herself, and instead of tending to her own injuries (2 millimeters from carotid artery) she is trying to help her boys. How do you explain that?

Again, we're trying to rationalize an emotionally unstable murderer's mindset...it's pointless. She was crazy enough to stab her two sons, so IMO, it's not much of a stretch to say she wasn't thinking analytically at the time. And I think she knew the deed was done and that Damon was going to die.

Darlie's injuries were NOT life threatening. And she NEVER tried to help her boys. Officer Waddell (first responding officer) testified at her trial:

State: Was there anything on Damon's back, such as a towel, a rag, anything besides the clothes he was wearing?
Waddell: No. I told the defendant to get some towels and put them on the child's back to try to stop his bleeding.
State: Where is the defendant when you come back from the kitchen area?
Waddell: In the same position.
State: She's not over here with Damon?
Waddell: No.
State: And what did she do?
Waddell: Nothing. She kept telling me that when she chased the suspect across the kitchen, that he'd dropped the knife and she'd picked up the knife and brought it back and set it on the counter. And she told me she thought she'd messed up the fingerprints.

Jack Kolbye, one of the two first paramedics to arrive, also testified at Darlie's trial.

State: Where was Darlie when you came into the room?
Kolbye: She was standing next to Officer Waddell on the family room side of the bar, holding a towel to her neck.
State: Was there a rag or towel or anything else on top of Damon?
Kolbye: No, there was not.
State: Are you sure about that?
Kolbye: I'm absolutely sure about that.

Who cares? I care. Considering that the jury took less than 4 hours to deliver a verdict (?!), and much of that time was spent going over and over (and over and over) the silly string incident, your bizarre assumption that it wasn't the key factor in her guilty verdict really falls flat on its face.

For the record, I wasn't directing the "who cares" comment at you, just in general because of the frustrating train of thought that the silly string video is what got her convicted. My assumption? The jurors themselves said she was guilty and the silly string video didn't change their minds. Like I've said, please read the trial transcripts and then tell me that the silly string is what got her convicted.

But I'll pose this question for Darlie supporters: why did Darlie initially tell Darin that she woke up after Damon starting tugging on her shoulder saying, "mommy, mommy, mommy!"? And why did she tell police that she couldn't remember if the intruder was white or black? Why did she tell investigators that she fought with the intruder near the kitchen bar after waking up and realizing there was a burglar in the house?

First of all, I've never known that part of her story to change. She said that a couple years later during a rare interview from prison filmed by a foreign company. Secondly, that fits with the known evidence. Now had she said Devon said that to her, I would find it harder to believe since Devon apparently never got up, but we know Damon did.

As I've stated before, she had trauma-related amnesia (an expert testified she believed Darlie had this), so that's probably why she couldn't remember the race.

There was a lot of blood at the kitchen bar, so it would make sense if she fought with him there.

State: And what did she do?
Waddell: Nothing. She kept telling me that when she chased the suspect across the kitchen

I'll have more to say on that in coming posts. But for starters, she was trying to alert to police where the attacker fled and was worried he might still be in the area. The police never set up road blocks or anything of that sort. There is evidence that Darlie stated in her hospital room that she was worried the attacker would come back and finish the job.

the frustrating train of thought that the silly string video is what got her convicted. My assumption? The jurors themselves said she was guilty and the silly string video didn't change their minds. Like I've said, please read the trial transcripts and then tell me that the silly string is what got her convicted.

I'm not going to read the lengthy trial transcripts in a futile attempt to get you to believe the truth. The American Justice episode directly stated that public opinion turned on Darlie immediately after the silly string video was shown. The trial was moved from Dallas to Kerrville, which was described as "cowboy country that didn't want a baby killer".

Darlie's injuries were NOT life threatening
WRONG!! Dr. Santos (the treating physician) told Darlie's mother that a stab wound on her right arm went clear to the bone, was a defensive wound, and she nearly died from her injuries. Like many of the nurses who wrote down that Darlie was grieving appropriately, then later claimed she had no emotions, Dr. Santos changed his tune by the time the trial arrived.

First of all, I've never known that part of her story to change. She said that a couple years later during a rare interview from prison filmed by a foreign company. Secondly, that fits with the known evidence. Now had she said Devon said that to her, I would find it harder to believe since Devon apparently never got up, but we know Damon did.

As I've stated before, she had trauma-related amnesia (an expert testified she believed Darlie had this), so that's probably why she couldn't remember the race.

There was a lot of blood at the kitchen bar, so it would make sense if she fought with him there.

I'll have more to say on that in coming posts. But for starters, she was trying to alert to police where the attacker fled and was worried he might still be in the area. The police never set up road blocks or anything of that sort. There is evidence that Darlie stated in her hospital room that she was worried the attacker would come back and finish the job.



I'm not going to read the lengthy trial transcripts in a futile attempt to get you to believe the truth. The American Justice episode directly stated that public opinion turned on Darlie immediately after the silly string video was shown. The trial was moved from Dallas to Kerrville, which was described as "cowboy country that didn't want a baby killer".


WRONG!! Dr. Santos (the treating physician) told Darlie's mother that a stab wound on her right arm went clear to the bone, was a defensive wound, and she nearly died from her injuries. Like many of the nurses who wrote down that Darlie was grieving appropriately, then later claimed she had no emotions, Dr. Santos changed his tune by the time the trial arrived.

If you are telling the truth then no part of your story should change.

Trauma related amnesia-how convenient.

Road blocks for what? There was no description of the person, no vehicle description & he was highly unlikely to be cruising around after stabbing three people. Sure police are going to be setting up road blocks stopping everybody when there was no sign this person even existed from the scene.

Yeah, according to her the guy ran away from an unarmed woman after he had stabbed her-sure he was likely to go back to the scene or track her down to a hospital with cops there.

Sure public opinion would be against her-she came across as cold, uncaring, obnoxious, interested only in herself etc. Doesn't mean she didn't get a fair trial-just that she ignored the advice of her counsel not to take the stand, kept changing her story & none of her stories matched the evidence.

So the cops fitted her up & so did the medical professionals? What reason would they have to do so?

Trauma related amnesia-how convenient.

That's what the doctor testified to.

Road blocks for what? There was no description of the person, no vehicle description & he was highly unlikely to be cruising around after stabbing three people. Sure police are going to be setting up road blocks stopping everybody when there was no sign this person even existed from the scene.

Wearing all black with a baseball cap (also observed by outside party). With blood all over himself. Black car which was observed by witnesses.

Yeah, according to her the guy ran away from an unarmed woman after he had stabbed her-sure he was likely to go back to the scene or track her down to a hospital with cops there.

How would he know cops were there?

Sure public opinion would be against her-she came across as cold, uncaring, obnoxious, interested only in herself etc. Doesn't mean she didn't get a fair trial-just that she ignored the advice of her counsel not to take the stand, kept changing her story & none of her stories matched the evidence.

Even people that believe in her guilt believe she didn't get a fair trial. As I stated before, she had inept defense lawyering, an unfavorable change of venue, tens of thousands of errors in the court transcripts, so-called forensic evidence which was blood-splattered clothing placed in bags with other blood-splattered clothing. You call that a fair trial?

So the cops fitted her up & so did the medical professionals? What reason would they have to do so?

Not sure what you mean by this.

Sure-what the doctor believes she might be suffering from. You could find another doctor who would come to exactly the opposite conclusion. A belief does not make something fact. There was a case on a crime show where a guy killed his partner & blamed it on sleepwalking & an expert said he could be telling the truth, however the evidence of the wounds pointed towards it being a deliberate act & he was found guilty.

I quote from another website n the car/baseball cap guy-

I'm not sure what you'd like to see done about the black car... the only description that was given to police was that it was black; no tag number, no make or model. A car was stopped that night in front of the Routier home, the 4 occupants were called out of the car at gunpoint, searched, car was searched. Nothing. The police followed leads on the car which lead nowhere.

51. Darlene Potter’s Affidavit states that she saw two “suspicious†men on near an “S†curve on Dalrock Road in Rowlett after 2:00 am on the night of the murders. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibit 14).

52. The Court finds that Potter executed her Affidavit on July 10, 2002, over six years after the offense. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibit 14).

53. The Court finds that Potter did not provide this information to the police at the time of the offense.

54. The Court finds that the men in question were walking in a direction that led away from the Routier home prior to the murders.

55. The Court finds that David Nabors’ Affidavit (State’s Writ Exhibit 3) identifies three possible locations matching that description of the areas where Potter saw the “suspicious†men: 7609 Dalrock Road, 8705 Dalrock Road, and 8900 Dalrock Road.

56. The Court finds that the aerial maps attached to Nabors’s Affidavit show that 7609 Dalrock Road is 5861 feet (1.1 miles) away from the Routier home at 5801 Eagle Drive, and 8705 Dalrock Road is 8505 feet (1.6 miles) away. (State’s Writ Exhibit 3, Map 1, Map 2).

57. The Court finds that the distances described in the previous finding are straight lines cutting through numerous houses, fences, streets, and parking lots. (State’s Writ Exhibit 3, Map 1, Map 2).

58. The Court finds that from the Routier home at 5801 Eagle Drive the driving distance was 2.3 miles to 8900 Dalrock Drive, approximately 2 miles to 8705 Dalrock Drive, and approximately 1.23 miles to 7609 Dalrock Drive. (State’s Writ Exhibit 3).

59. The Court finds that Potters delay in executing her affidavit and failure to report what she witnessed at the time cast doubt on the veracity of her allegations.

60. The Court finds that the affidavits demonstrate that the men had no connection to the instant offense.

61. The Court finds that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Potter’s affidavit proves that anyone other than Applicant was responsible for or involved in the murders.

62. The Court finds that Potter’s Affidavit in not affirmative evidence of Applicant’s innocence.

What do you mean he wouldn't know cops were there? Three people stabbed & the cops are just going to forget about them & have no presence at the hospital & aren't going to be swarming around her house?

Nope-she had no chance because she is a liar who makes up multiple stories & points the finger at anybody she can think of to save her own skin. She even ignored her teams instructions not to take the stand because she would just be digging herself deeper with her evidence-which she did & because she comes off so badly.

The venue made zero difference to anything-the evidence is still the same whether you held it in her hometown or in Botswana.

Why not let everybody out of jail who was convicted before CSI started airing & everybody became a forensics expert overnight? Most police forces did not have highly trained teams. Fact remains there is zero evidence of an intruder-only her & nothing she claims makes any sense.

I mean what possible reason could medical staff have to fit her up for it? What would they care? They were there to deal with her wounds & interpret what the evidence pointed to as being likely, not to point the finger at her.

First of all, I've never known that part of her story to change. She said that a couple years later during a rare interview from prison filmed by a foreign company. Secondly, that fits with the known evidence. Now had she said Devon said that to her, I would find it harder to believe since Devon apparently never got up, but we know Damon did.

It's changed. Quite a bit. First she said Damon woke her up, then it was pressure from the guy on top of her legs, then it was her son crying, then she saw the guy running away from her, etc. The laughable part about Damon waking her up was that the poor child was near death. He could barely breathe. He couldn't stand up. Do you think he had enough strength to get up and say, "mommy" over and over again and actually follow Darlie to the garage area before Darlie told him to go lay down? But then he dies on the way to the hospital? Does that make any sense to you? Because that's what Darlie said.

As I've stated before, she had trauma-related amnesia (an expert testified she believed Darlie had this), so that's probably why she couldn't remember the race.

Amnesia's fun. Especially when she starts writing to family members and friends from prison exclaiming, "I know who did it! I saw him!"

There was a lot of blood at the kitchen bar, so it would make sense if she fought with him there.

More sense in the fact that that's where she cut herself.

I'll have more to say on that in coming posts. But for starters, she was trying to alert to police where the attacker fled and was worried he might still be in the area. The police never set up road blocks or anything of that sort. There is evidence that Darlie stated in her hospital room that she was worried the attacker would come back and finish the job.

She was more concerned about getting to the hospital. Testimony at her trial from one of the paramedics said she was constantly asking questions like, "are we there yet", and "how much longer to the hospital". Nothing of concern about catching who "attacked" her family.

Are you not concerned with the following:

-No blood or scratch marks found on the fence. Darlie claims the "intruder" went through the screen window in the garage and into the backyard. When police arrived, this intruder really was a friendly fellow, the gate was closed and locked. And this was a gate that was difficult to open.
-Blood was found all over the floor near the door leading to the garage. No blood was found anywhere near the window this intruder allegedly went through.
-Debris from the screen window was found on the murder weapon.
-The dust on the windowsill was not disturbed.

See why police didn't set up road blocks? They knew it was BS from the moment they walked in on the scene. And this just scratches the surface of evidence that there was never any intruder.

I'm not going to read the lengthy trial transcripts in a futile attempt to get you to believe the truth.

Why not? Are you afraid that it might make you change your mind? You can't be that stubborn in your belief.

The American Justice episode directly stated that public opinion turned on Darlie immediately after the silly string video was shown. The trial was moved from Dallas to Kerrville, which was described as "cowboy country that didn't want a baby killer".

Yes! A TV show has finally convinced me that the silly string incident was what got her convicted.


WRONG!! Dr. Santos (the treating physician) told Darlie's mother that a stab wound on her right arm went clear to the bone, was a defensive wound, and she nearly died from her injuries. Like many of the nurses who wrote down that Darlie was grieving appropriately, then later claimed she had no emotions, Dr. Santos changed his tune by the time the trial arrived.

First of all, find me one instance of a nurse changing their story on the stand compared to their medical notes, and I'll become a Belieber. Because it didn't happen.

Where are you getting that information about Santos from? Darlie's mother!? Impartial?

Santos has always maintained that Darlie's wound did not go beyond her platysma, and during his testimony, he confirmed that Darlie's wound on her neck was not a deep wound. Guess what it's referred to when you get cut and it doesn't penetrate past the platysma? A superficial wound!

http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/12_dr-alejandro-santos.pdf

Amazing stuff that amnesia-all she could remember was picking up the weapon & probably destroying any other prints on it-a point she made sure of saying to the operator handling the 911 call & the cops when they turned up. Anybody would think she was making up a reason as to why nothing other than her DNA & prints would be found on it.

This is like watching a really good ping pong battle. *boing* *smack* *boing* *smack*

Amazing stuff that amnesia-all she could remember was picking up the weapon & probably destroying any other prints on it-a point she made sure of saying to the operator handling the 911 call & the cops when they turned up. Anybody would think she was making up a reason as to why nothing other than her DNA & prints would be found on it.

It reminds me of Jeff MacDonald's "I don't know why I washed my hands" tripe, or jerking the knife out of his wife's chest when he's a physician and should know better. Because he needed ready explanations. Only MacDonald didn't scream about it from the moment the police arrived, like Routier did. In fact, he led Kenneth Mica to believe he was unconscious and allowed Mica to perform resuscitation on him. Darlie didn't even put that much thought into it.

Amazing stuff that amnesia-all she could remember was picking up the weapon & probably destroying any other prints on it-a point she made sure of saying to the operator handling the 911 call & the cops when they turned up. Anybody would think she was making up a reason as to why nothing other than her DNA & prints would be found on it.

No. This is the direct quote from the 911 transcript.

911 operator: "Don't touch anything."
Darlie Routier: "I already touched it and picked it up."

She didn't go out of her way to mention it, the operator referred to it and Darlie responded.

I'm pressed for time right now and will look at the other posts from today on this subject later.

It's changed. Quite a bit. First she said Damon woke her up, then it was pressure from the guy on top of her legs, then it was her son crying, then she saw the guy running away from her, etc. The laughable part about Damon waking her up was that the poor child was near death. He could barely breathe. He couldn't stand up. Do you think he had enough strength to get up and say, "mommy" over and over again and actually follow Darlie to the garage area before Darlie told him to go lay down? But then he dies on the way to the hospital? Does that make any sense to you? Because that's what Darlie said.

The first responders testified that Damon was still moving about the room when they entered. Doesn't seem far-fetched he was standing near Darlie.

Yes, Darlie's story changed on some things. At some points she was in shock, at other points she was on heavy medication. The police officer's note-taking was non-existent in some cases. Notes mysteriously vanished. Their memory was hazy and forgetful.

Why not? Are you afraid that it might make you change your mind? You can't be that stubborn in your belief.

Yes! A TV show has finally convinced me that the silly string incident was what got her convicted.

American Justice by Bill Kurtis. A reputable program hosted by a reputable person. Here is a direct quote from the show:

"One piece of evidence drew the most attention...the tape was rewound and watched 8 times."

If that's not enough for you, many jurors themselves said the tape was what convinced them of her guilt. The police had bugged and wire-tapped the burial site hoping for a graveside confession, and had done so without the proper protocol. The judge ruled it couldn't be introduced as evidence. A local news crew not bound by the law also taped the service.
At various points, Darlie is grieving normally. The jurors saw 15 seconds of the 2 hour tape. To answer your previous question of why her defense lawyer didn't introduce that to the jury, he didn't think the silly string incident would have that big of effect on the jury. Which is understandable considering it's flimsy "evidence."

What's also on the tape? Somebody holding up a picture of Damon and Devon to Drake, Darlie stating: "Happy Birthday Devon, we love you so much." Trivia like that.

First of all, find me one instance of a nurse changing their story on the stand compared to their medical notes, and I'll become a Belieber. Because it didn't happen.

I can do a lot better than one. Here's a whole bunch of them.

http://darliefacts.com/the-nurses/

-The dust on the windowsill was not disturbed.

Lulz. The window was 12 inches off the ground. A child could step through that window and not disturb the dust.

The first responders testified that Damon was still moving about the room when they entered. Doesn't seem far-fetched he was standing near Darlie.

Except they also testified that the child was lying on the floor struggling to move and breathe and was barely clinging to life. It is far fetched to think he was up walking around and talking just seconds before the paramedics arrived. Damon was stabbed through the lungs and his liver. Highly doubtful that a five year old would be able to walk around and talk with such extreme injuries.

Yes, Darlie's story changed on some things. At some points she was in shock, at other points she was on heavy medication. The police officer's note-taking was non-existent in some cases. Notes mysteriously vanished. Their memory was hazy and forgetful.

So when she can't remember the race of the "attacker" it's "traumatic amnesia"? What do you call her sudden recollection in the letters sent to her friends and family proclaiming to know who did it?

"One piece of evidence drew the most attention...the tape was rewound and watched 8 times."

If that's not enough for you, many jurors themselves said the tape was what convinced them of her guilt. The police had bugged and wire-tapped the burial site hoping for a graveside confession, and had done so without the proper protocol. The judge ruled it couldn't be introduced as evidence. A local news crew not bound by the law also taped the service.
At various points, Darlie is grieving normally. The jurors saw 15 seconds of the 2 hour tape. To answer your previous question of why her defense lawyer didn't introduce that to the jury, he didn't think the silly string incident would have that big of effect on the jury. Which is understandable considering it's flimsy "evidence."

Ok. The defense screwed up by not introducing their own tape. I agree with that. However, that does not make the prosecution's tape some sort of manufactured evidence that was introduced solely to sway the jurors to vote guilty. It was just another piece of character evidence that they used. They'd be CRAZY not to introduce it as evidence. For one, the Routier's invited the news station to record the "ceremony" that day, so Darlie's actions are pretty damning considering she KNEW that there was a TV crew shooting the entire thing. It's a no brainer that the prosecution would want to introduce that. It's character evidence. Compare her reaction to Darin's when she starts shooting the silly string.

I can do a lot better than one. Here's a whole bunch of them.

http://darliefacts.com/the-nurses/

I was wondering when you were going to use that Darlie is innocent website as a rebuttal. Take that website with a grain of salt. They take quotes from the testimony of people, and report them out of context. Don't believe me? Here's each of the nurses testimony from the trial and how they actually compare to their notes:

http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/myth--12.html

The window was 12 inches off the ground. A child could step through that window and not disturb the dust.

Did you not see the part about the screen debris (from the slashed screen) being matched to the bread knife found in the Routier kitchen? Did this intruder bring a bread knife with him to commit his dastardly crimes?

Were you aware that there were two large animal cages outside in the backyard, and a large one sitting right inside the window that was slashed? What intruder is going to risk entering a residence where there is a potential threat of a dog either barking or attacking?

No blood was found near the window or anywhere in the backyard. How do you explain that?

It reminds me of Jeff MacDonald's "I don't know why I washed my hands" tripe, or jerking the knife out of his wife's chest when he's a physician and should know better. Because he needed ready explanations. Only MacDonald didn't scream about it from the moment the police arrived, like Routier did. In fact, he led Kenneth Mica to believe he was unconscious and allowed Mica to perform resuscitation on him. Darlie didn't even put that much thought into it.

Exactly!

There are a lot of "I don't know why I did this or that" in both MacDonald and Routier's stories. Not to mention both crime scenes featured:

-A nearly undisturbed crime scene. Minimal furniture displacement at both scenes.
-At MacDonald's the table was tipped over, and was determined to have been impossible to land that way if there was a struggle. With Routier, the wine rack glass fell off the wine rack. Problem with this is that the wine rack was designed in such a way to prevent the glass from falling from a bump, or tip of the rack. It had to have been removed by someone and thrown on the ground or dropped.
-Both murders were committed with a weapon from the residence.
-MacDonald's blood was found in the bathroom sink. Routier's was found in excessive amounts near the kitchen sink.
-A vacuum was overturned at the Routier crime scene. Glass and Darlie's bloody foot prints were found underneath the vacuum. Similar to MacDonald's bloody foot print found exiting one of his children's bedrooms. Both were staging the scene and didn't expect forensics to tell the real story.
-Besides one single solitary unidentified print, there has never been any evidence (forensic or circumstantial) that suggests there was an intruder at the Routier residence. Besides some unidentified fibers and claims from a mentally ill drug addict, there is no evidence to suggest that there were any intruders at the MacDonald residence.

As a student nurse myself, I can testify to the fact that there are very clear standards for charting--one of which is that the nurse does not inject opinions or personal judgments into documentation. You do not document "Pt sobbing, seems contrived" or "Demonstrating flat affect, this is suspicious". It's "Pt sobbing" and "Demonstrating flat affect". While those nurses may have had personal suspicions or thoughts about Darlie while providing her care, they certainly would not have been documented in the charts. You're there to provide nursing care, not keep a personal diary.

All of which is to say that just because it wasn't charted (as it, again, shouldn't and wouldn't have been) doesn't mean the nurses never felt the way they testified to feeling, or otherwise changed their stories.

ETA: There seems to be much contention over the term 'tearful' for some reason. It's an admittedly broad term, but one need not be sobbing or hysterical to be tearful.

However, that does not make the prosecution's tape some sort of manufactured evidence that was introduced solely to sway the jurors to vote guilty.

I never said it was manufactured evidence. What other reason would the prosecutors have for introducing the tape other than to get jurors to vote guilty?

The tape was 15 seconds out of hours of footage. One juror said that if he had seen the whole tape, he would have voted not guilty. Which means Darlie would be a free woman. That's pretty damn huge. And yet you sit here and constantly talk about how allegedly the silly string incident did not have that huge of effect on the case.

I was wondering when you were going to use that Darlie is innocent website as a rebuttal. Take that website with a grain of salt.

LOL! You yourself posted a link to a pro-Darlie website. Post #280 on this thread, if you'd care to look at it again.

I do take things with a grain of salt. This is a highly divisive, highly publicized case. Every website I've seen is either firmly pro-Darlie or anti-Darlie. There's nothing I can find in the way of facts coming from unbiased people. But I think it's a two-way street.

Were you aware that there were two large animal cages outside in the backyard, and a large one sitting right inside the window that was slashed? What intruder is going to risk entering a residence where there is a potential threat of a dog either barking or attacking?

I wasn't. But if the attacker was someone they knew, they probably would have known they didn't have any large animals, attack dogs or anything of that nature.

They did have one of those small toy dogs, which may nip at your heels, but don't pose nearly as much threat as, say, a pit bull.

As far as an attacker running the risk of it barking, well, those small yappy dogs bark all the time. ALL THE TIME!!! It's not like the neighbors would have summoned the police on the account of it barking.

No blood was found near the window or anywhere in the backyard. How do you explain that?

I don't have an explanation for it. Just as I have no explanation for how Darlie, if she stabbed Devon and Damon repeatedly, would have blood dripping from her, did not leave a trail of blood going to and coming from the bloody sock she allegedly planted down the street.

-Besides one single solitary unidentified print,
That's a nice attempt to downplay a huge piece of evidence.

I never said it was manufactured evidence. What other reason would the prosecutors have for introducing the tape other than to get jurors to vote guilty?

The tape was 15 seconds out of hours of footage. One juror said that if he had seen the whole tape, he would have voted not guilty. Which means Darlie would be a free woman. That's pretty damn huge. And yet you sit here and constantly talk about how allegedly the silly string incident did not have that huge of effect on the case.

That's a nice attempt to downplay a huge piece of evidence.

Wow, doesn't say much for that juror then does it? He disregards all the evidence pointing to her guilt in the case & would find her not guilty purely on a video tape. Or would that be fine?

How is it a huge piece of evidence? As said previously any number of people could have left a print in that house just by being in there for a visit. Unless you find a criminals print in the database it is worthless. I could probably find fingerprints of meter readers, electricians etc in my house but no murder has happened. Again the only possible match for it was her.

Isn't it a little convenient that the two people Darlie allegedly wanted to kill were downstairs, and the 2 people she doesn't want to kill are upstairs? Does she have any more motive for killing Devon and Damon than Darin and Drake?
It's interesting to note that in other cases of parents killing their children, they took out the whole lot. Andrea Yates killed 5 including her baby. That lady from Australia took out 8. But Darlie lets Drake live? What exactly is the motive here? If she murders Devon and Damon because she doesn't like being a parent, or they cost too much or whatever, she's in the same spot a few years later with Drake. It makes no sense. Money was unlikely the motive as the insurance didn't cover their burials.

If Darin believes Darlie is guilty, why hasn't he turned on her? They're divorced now, so he has no reason for keeping quiet about it any longer.

If Darlie is guilty, why does the 911 call last 5 minutes and 45 seconds? She would have had to know every second, every letter of every word of that tape would be analyzed and scrutinized to the nth degree (which it was). It seems like a guilty party would keep it short. If she slips up once, she knows it's over for her.

Darlie has been painted as a looks-obsessed, materialistic, bleached blonde and fake boob shopaholic. If that's the case, why would she inflict potentially disfiguring (especially the one by her head) injuries on herself and run the risk of obtaining lifelong scars?

But now, onto some perhaps bigger things: Remember I was talking about the trial transcript (the one Cars has repeatedly asked me to read) and the 33,000+ errors it contained? Well, this link has a lot more juicy information on that. The court reporter who typed that up, Sandra Halsey, has quite the questionable past. She lost her license due to her bungling of the Darlie Routier trial transcript, was in jail for a period of time, and was out giving speeches of how she was certain Darlie was guilty when she should have been preparing the transcript. And the errors on the transcript weren't trivial in nature, but were actually pretty damn huge. In one instance, when somebody was asked "Was the garage door locked?" Halsey wrote the person said "yes" when in actuality they said "no." Now I understand there's going to be some typos, but this is a case of deliberate tampering with the transcript.
http://shelleyssnippets.blogspot.com/2007/12/darlie-routier-youre-so-vain.html

I'm guessing nobody has still looked at those photos, so I'll post them. It should be noted over 600 photos of Darlie's injuries were not shown to the jurors.

Here's a few of them:

Wow, doesn't say much for that juror then does it? He disregards all the evidence pointing to her guilt in the case & would find her not guilty purely on a video tape. Or would that be fine?

How is it a huge piece of evidence? As said previously any number of people could have left a print in that house just by being in there for a visit. Unless you find a criminals print in the database it is worthless. I could probably find fingerprints of meter readers, electricians etc in my house but no murder has happened. Again the only possible match for it was her.

So you're fine with the jury convicting her on the silly string incident, but complain when it would be the other way around?

As I said before, we're talking about a BLOODY unidentified fingerprint. The meter-readers wouldn't have a bloody fingerprint now, would they? That isn't huge to you?

I never said it was manufactured evidence. What other reason would the prosecutors have for introducing the tape other than to get jurors to vote guilty?

The tape was 15 seconds out of hours of footage. One juror said that if he had seen the whole tape, he would have voted not guilty. Which means Darlie would be a free woman. That's pretty damn huge. And yet you sit here and constantly talk about how allegedly the silly string incident did not have that huge of effect on the case.

Not really. Jurors appear to "change their minds" after the fact all the time. Darlie's not the only case that has had a juror say they wouldn't have voted guilty after the fact. The reason could be a myriad of things. Pressure from the public who think Darlie's innocent, feelings of guilt for sentencing her to death, etc.

LOL! You yourself posted a link to a pro-Darlie website. Post #280 on this thread, if you'd care to look at it again.

I do take things with a grain of salt. This is a highly divisive, highly publicized case. Every website I've seen is either firmly pro-Darlie or anti-Darlie. There's nothing I can find in the way of facts coming from unbiased people. But I think it's a two-way street.

That was a link to the transcript of the testimony of Dr. Santos. I guess you didn't bother to click the link.

And yes, I agree that the pro-Darlie/anti-Darlie sites are slanted in ways more favorable to their viewpoints. But there are a ton of myths purported about this case from the pro-Darlie people, and the truth needs to come out. The link I've posted prior debunks the myths that the nurses and doctors changed their tunes at Darlie's trial.

I wasn't. But if the attacker was someone they knew, they probably would have known they didn't have any large animals, attack dogs or anything of that nature.

Ah...so now it's someone who knew the Routiers? Who didn't bring their own weapon, who brought a bread knife (from the Routier residence) to slash a screen, and who's motive was to murder the two boys but not Darlie!?

They did have one of those small toy dogs, which may nip at your heels, but don't pose nearly as much threat as, say, a pit bull.

Said dog was going ballistic when the cops and paramedics showed up. A neighbor had to be called in to go upstairs and calm it down. No way an intruder would have been inside that house without that dog going crazy.

As far as an attacker running the risk of it barking, well, those small yappy dogs bark all the time. ALL THE TIME!!! It's not like the neighbors would have summoned the police on the account of it barking.

No but it might have roused Darin out of his sleep. Or Darlie. Or anyone else for that matter.

I don't have an explanation for it. Just as I have no explanation for how Darlie, if she stabbed Devon and Damon repeatedly, would have blood dripping from her, did not leave a trail of blood going to and coming from the bloody sock she allegedly planted down the street.

Most of the gushing blood came from Darlie's neck wound. It's not that surprising that there wasn't that much blood considering she didn't slash her neck at that point.

That's a nice attempt to downplay a huge piece of evidence.

Did you not read the report where it said the print could not be excluded from Darlie Routier's right index finger?! It's meaningless.

So you're fine with the jury convicting her on the silly string incident, but complain when it would be the other way around?

As I said before, we're talking about a BLOODY unidentified fingerprint. The meter-readers wouldn't have a bloody fingerprint now, would they? That isn't huge to you?

The jury did not convict her on the silly string, they convicted her on the evidence presented & her multiple stories not making any sense. You have made a big thing about the string saying how awful it is that as you believe she was convicted on that alone, but now are saying that one of the jurors would have found her not guilty based on the tape as if that is a good thing-you cannot have it both ways.

Nope-the only possible match was hers so it points towards her but is not good enough evidence for anything. It is irrelevant & clutching at straws.

That is a lie that the jurors never saw the bruise pictures of Darlie. It's covered extensively during the testimony of Dr. Santos.

Dr. DiMaio was a witness for the defense, and he also testified to the bruises.

The photographs were shown in open court multiple times.

The jury did not convict her on the silly string, they convicted her on the evidence presented & her multiple stories not making any sense. You have made a big thing about the string saying how awful it is that as you believe she was convicted on that alone, but now are saying that one of the jurors would have found her not guilty based on the tape as if that is a good thing-you cannot have it both ways.

Nope-the only possible match was hers so it points towards her but is not good enough evidence for anything. It is irrelevant & clutching at straws.

what are you talking about? I am not trying to have it both ways. If you want to see where the juror himself said he wouldn't have convicted her if he'd seen the whole tape, PM me, and I will happily send you the link. I have never, and I repeat, NEVER, said the silly string was the only thing that got her convicted, I said it was a huge part in what got her convicted.

That is a lie that the jurors never saw the bruise pictures of Darlie. It's covered extensively during the testimony of Dr. Santos.

Who's lying? I said there were over 600 pictures not shown to the jury, I never said any one particular photo was not shown to the jury.

Isn't it a little convenient that the two people Darlie allegedly wanted to kill were downstairs, and the 2 people she doesn't want to kill are upstairs? Does she have any more motive for killing Devon and Damon than Darin and Drake?
It's interesting to note that in other cases of parents killing their children, they took out the whole lot. Andrea Yates killed 5 including her baby. That lady from Australia took out 8. But Darlie lets Drake live? What exactly is the motive here? If she murders Devon and Damon because she doesn't like being a parent, or they cost too much or whatever, she's in the same spot a few years later with Drake. It makes no sense. Money was unlikely the motive as the insurance didn't cover their burials.

If Darin believes Darlie is guilty, why hasn't he turned on her? They're divorced now, so he has no reason for keeping quiet about it any longer.

If Darlie is guilty, why does the 911 call last 5 minutes and 45 seconds? She would have had to know every second, every letter of every word of that tape would be analyzed and scrutinized to the nth degree (which it was). It seems like a guilty party would keep it short. If she slips up once, she knows it's over for her.

Darlie has been painted as a looks-obsessed, materialistic, bleached blonde and fake boob shopaholic. If that's the case, why would she inflict potentially disfiguring (especially the one by her head) injuries on herself and run the risk of obtaining lifelong scars?

But now, onto some perhaps bigger things: Remember I was talking about the trial transcript (the one Cars has repeatedly asked me to read) and the 33,000+ errors it contained? Well, this link has a lot more juicy information on that. The court reporter who typed that up, Sandra Halsey, has quite the questionable past. She lost her license due to her bungling of the Darlie Routier trial transcript, was in jail for a period of time, and was out giving speeches of how she was certain Darlie was guilty when she should have been preparing the transcript. And the errors on the transcript weren't trivial in nature, but were actually pretty damn huge. In one instance, when somebody was asked "Was the garage door locked?" Halsey wrote the person said "yes" when in actuality they said "no." Now I understand there's going to be some typos, but this is a case of deliberate tampering with the transcript.
http://shelleyssnippets.blogspot.com/2007/12/darlie-routier-youre-so-vain.html

I'm guessing nobody has still looked at those photos, so I'll post them. It should be noted over 600 photos of Darlie's injuries were not shown to the jurors.

Here's a few of them:

Well by the same token why would an intruder want to break into a house in a nice suburb & kill 2 children & a woman? Maybe because killing a grown man is not as easy as killing children, like he might overpower her & even kill her perhaps.

Not every parent does kill every child-how are we supposed to get inside the mind of a person who kills those she gave birth to?

Why do people believe in invisible beings? Why do women find the likes of Charles Manson & the Nightstalker attractive & want to marry them? Why do men & women keep going back to partners who physically assault them? People will often overlook evidence & common sense if it involves a loved one or a belief system they are locked into.

So now the transcriber is to blame? I don't think she had anything to do with the evidence presented in court that resulted in the conviction did she? Somebody else corrected her errors from the audio tapes & this was reported in 1999-one presumes this updated document would actually be the one that has been used since then?

http://lubbockonline.com/stories/060799/sta_060799013.shtml

what are you talking about? I am not trying to have it both ways. If you want to see where the juror himself said he wouldn't have convicted her if he'd seen the whole tape, PM me, and I will happily send you the link. I have never, and I repeat, NEVER, said the silly string was the only thing that got her convicted, I said it was a huge part in what got her convicted.

And others don't think it had any real bearing-other than adding to people's opinion of her from the way she behaved & her own testimony. Like it or not jurors are human & as hard as they try will form opinions about people, just like an employer will likely make an opinion on a prospective employee within 10-20 seconds of meeting them. If the evidence points to guilt it doesn't matter how well the person comes off like Ted Bundy did they will still be found guilty.

Who's lying? I said there were over 600 pictures not shown to the jury, I never said any one particular photo was not shown to the jury.

And then you followed that up with, "here's a few of them" and then put the pictures in the thread. The ones that were shown to the jury.

Who's lying? I said there were over 600 pictures not shown to the jury, I never said any one particular photo was not shown to the jury.

No, you said over 600 photos of Darlie's injuries were not shown to the jury, which is completely false. Every single photo of Darlie's injuries was shown to the jury and discussed with the medical team during the trial testimony. Trying to blame the trial reporter, which you once again, have posted incorrect information about is just another pathetic defence ploy, blame the jury, blame the prosecutor, blame the man in the moon but not the person whom all the evidence points to Darlie Routier.

I just rewatched the American Justice episode on this I recorded a while back.

-A neighbor reported that she saw two unidenitifed man lurking around the Routier house on the night of the murders, one of which matched Darlie's vague description of her attacker.

-The silly string video is what got her arrested and convicted. There is no question of that. What the public and the jury *DIDN'T* see was videotaped footage from the same birthday celebration that showed Darlie grieving. This was enough to cause a male juror to state publicly that if the jury saw that evidence, it would have got her acquitted. He was 100% certain of that.

-The statements that Darlie and Darin never grieved for their children are simply not factual. There was an interview with Darlie where she was crying - and not fake crying that doesn't produce actual tears, but real crying (as in mascara running). Darin has also seemed choked up on every interview I've ever seen him in.

-the transcript of the trial containing 30,000 errors is actually lowballing it. It's more than 33,000.

There is no motive for Darlie to commit these murders. Some have offered that she thought Devon and Damon were getting in the way of her pampered lifestyle, but if that's the case, then why would she leave Drake unharmed? It doesn't make sense.

The problem here is Unsolved Mysteries needs to do an updated programme with all the correct information and not this vague taking bits here and there and putting them together to seemingly make a valid programme.

For one thing, there was no neighbour who reported seeing two men fitting the description lurking near Darlie's house at all.

There was a sworn statement taken from a woman six years after the murders she saw two men walking on Dalrock Rd. one of whom was barefoot, near the time of the murders.

The silly string vidio did not get her arrested and it did not convict her. She was arrested as her story did not match the physical evidence found in the home. She was arrested because all the evidence in that home, primarily blood evidence, pointed to her and not away from her. The SS video was used at trial to impeach Darlie's claim she was a grieving mother too afraid to go to bathroom alone.

Not only did the defence have a copy of the surveillance tape taken at the prayer service, they were given the opportunity to show it in court even though it wasn't entered into evidence. The defence knows the prosecution's case, he knew that tape was going to be played for the jury in open court. If he has a tape impeaching the SS tape why oh why did he not show it for the jury? Because it doesn't exist that's why. Think of all the year's now and we have yet to see this tape showing a grieving, sobbing, prostrate on the ground Darlie. And frankly her face and eyes at the birthday party show no signs of having just been sobbing her eyes out, her eyes weren't red rimmed, her face isn't flushed.

As for Charlie Samford, the juror, I believe he has juror remorse. After all he swears the jury was not shown photos of Darlie's bruised arm, yet the trial transcript clearly shows they were not only discussed but taken down the jury rail for all the jurors to see. So if Charlie didn't see them, he wasn't paying attention. As well two other jurors have spoken publicly and neither of them claim they would have voted not guilty had they seen the surveillance tape.

As we are aware, most of the errors in the trial transcript were typos and space errors. The transcripts were corrected by Susan Simmons and accepted by the appeal court. There is no evidence anywhere that Halsley was ever put in jail because of the transcript, she wasn't. Yes she lost her licence but she lost it for lying under oath, not because she falsified transcript to make Darlie Routier appear guilty. Nor did she change anything or give incorrect read backs to the jury, there were no read backs. Most of the nonsense about the reporter Halsley is made up by the Darlie supporters.

No one ever has to provide a motive. No one knows why Darlie murdered her children, but the evidence proved she did. The prosecutor can only go with what he has. He can't tell the jury Darlie was a narcissistic, histrionic mess, who was suffering depression. They had the tox screen results so they also knew she was taking diet pills. She and Darin had a big huge fight that night and she asks for a separation. It's just my opinion but I believe the motive is revenge filicide. revenge on Darin.

Can a supporter of (Darlie) please explain to me why an innocent person would write letters claiming to grieving family members stating they knew who murdered their children but when confronted with the letters she wrote on the stand she had no logical explanation and admitted it wasn't those men. To this day, she now says she just has no clue who killed her children.

None of her supporters on any website will touch this issue because even though its circumstantial its pretty damning to most people. Innocent people don't make things up to grieving family members unless of course you're name is Casey Anthony.

Can a supporter of (Darlie) please explain to me why an innocent person would write letters claiming to grieving family members stating they knew who murdered their children but when confronted with the letters she wrote on the stand she had no logical explanation and admitted it wasn't those men. To this day, she now says she just has no clue who killed her children.

None of her supporters on any website will touch this issue because even though its circumstantial its pretty damning to most people. Innocent people don't make things up to grieving family members unless of course you're name is Casey Anthony.
And it also blows apart her apparent traumatic amnesia. She can't remember anything to tell the cops but she can remember enough to tell her friends and family "I saw him, I know who did it" Darlie was caught in a web of her own lies. She had no clue they were going to use those jail letters and use them against her.

I'm curious as to why Darlie has cast off blood on the shoulders and back of her night shirt. If she was down on the floor aiding those boys why isn't any of their blood on the bottom or the hem or anywhere else on her nightshirt?

No. This is the direct quote from the 911 transcript.

911 operator: "Don't touch anything."
Darlie Routier: "I already touched it and picked it up."

She didn't go out of her way to mention it, the operator referred to it and Darlie responded.

But Darlie DID go out of her way to mention fingerprints in the hours and days after the 911 call.

David Waddell, first officer of the scene, testified for the prosecution.
Davis: Does she volunteer information about picking up the knife?
Waddell: Yes.
Davis: Is it in response to anyone's question or direction?
Waddell: No...she told me she'd picked up the knife and thought she'd messed up the fingerprints.
(Vol. 29, David Waddell, Sec. 323, 415)

There has been speculation that Waddell simply overheard Darlie telling the 911 operator about the knife. Not so. She pointed to the counter as she told Waddell that "she'd picked it up and laid it on the counter and she told me that she probably should not have done that, because she messed up the fingerprints on the knife."
(Vol. 4, David Waddell, Sec. 52)

Christopher Wielgosz, Baylor Hospital nurse, testified that he did not ask Darlie any questions whatsoever. "At one point in time, she stated aloud that she'd picked up the knife after the attacker dropped it, and she was concerned that maybe her fingerprints had obscured the attacker's fingerprints."
Shook: When she made the statement, had you asked her anything about the incident?
Wielgosz: No, absolutely not.
(Vol. 31, Christopher Wielgosz, Sec. 916, 917)

Early the next morning, Darlie told Detectives Patterson and Frosch, "I picked up the knife. I shouldn't have picked up the knife, because I probably covered up the fingerprints. I shouldn't have picked up the knife."
(Vol. 31, Christopher Wielgosz, Sec. 923)

Darlie was still concerned enough about fingerprints, two days after the murders, that she mentioned it to Dr. Dillawn.
Shook: Did you check her over before she was released, discharged?
Dillawn: Yes, I did.
Shook: Ok, did she talk to you about anything that the police had asked her?
Dillawn: Yes, she did. I can't remember the specific details, but it concerned a knife which she was attempting to explain, I would assume, some piece of evidence that she had been confronted with. And she was trying to explain to me how she--this was--somehow she could explain the reason it had something on it. I don't remember the specific details, but it was about a knife.
(Vol. 31, Dr. Dillawn, Sec. 866-867)

Glad to see I'm not the only one who isn't fooled by Darlie's lies.

I have asked several times for a supporter of Darlies to explain to me about the letters and every time in this thread its not answered. I can understand why because it is hard to explain why on earth an innocent person would do that. This is something she wrote MONTHS after the murders as she was awaiting trial sitting in jail. She was shocked on the stand to be confronted with those letters. She had no logical explanation and she had had to admit it there was NO WAY it was the name she claimed in her letter.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who isn't fooled by Darlie's lies.

:wave:

I'm curious as to why Darlie has cast off blood on the shoulders and back of her night shirt.

You know why, Cami. Stop playing dumb ;)

As for Charlie Samford, the juror, I believe he has juror remorse. After all he swears the jury was not shown photos of Darlie's bruised arm...

Small but important distiniction: Charlie may mention at ever opportunity the nonsense of the photos, the one thing has never done is sworn to it--not even when the opportunity arose (the habeus corpus petition)

I'm no expert, but my B.A. in Psychology tells me that Darlie is a textbook histrionic personality. I'm actually curious why no one has mentioned Munchausen by proxy syndrome.

I appreciate the counter argument with regard to the court transcript. While I agree 33,000 errors are quite a few, it can be as simple as a typo. If a trial lasts weeks, as I anticipate this one did, there are going to be quite a few errors. Hell, I see typos in transcripts of 5 minute hearings. Lots of different things could affect it-- how fast everyone is talking, if everyone is talking at once, if there is heated argument and objections... None of it means the court reporter is unethical.

Also, I'm willing to bet the farm the jury didn't have the trial transcript back in the jury room with them. Transcripts take time to prepare, even with our advances in technology. I know there's been discussion of the length of time the jury deliberated. I think that speaks to the strength of the evidence. From personal experiences, I can have a full day trial and have a jury return a verdict in 15 to 20 minutes. Usually that happens when there is a "slam dunk" prosecution.

**slinking away now**

uh...wow. Just wow.

I think it's telling that Rowlett, Texas, which is described as a peaceful, practically crime-free town, certainly had a lot of suspicious persons, suspicious cars, and suspicious activity, at least around the time of the murders. Some happened within miles of the Routier home, some even on their street.

This post of mine from August of 2014 went completely ignored (much like my debunking of the persistent myth "But Darlie only had one minor injury") is completely ignored.

"On June 6, Sally Bingham reported to police that she was a neighbor of the Routier family. She described being awake at 1 to 1:30 a.m. the morning the murders took place. Bingham stated she “kept seeing car lights driving through the neighborhood”. Her bedroom had a bay window. The vehicle made several trips down the street before Bingham finally got up and looked outside to see a white vehicle. The only other description of the vehicle was “celebrity-type.”

-On June 7, Betty Jung reported that her son saw a suspicious looking man in the morning wearing blue jeans, a white t-shirt, and a black cap. He was also carrying a knapsack. A note on the memo states, “probably same person Officer Caillet questioned on 66 at Barretts”. The sighting took place at the Rowlett Vet Clinic, located about 3 miles west of the Routier home.
An additional lead sheet described a man fitting the same description, carrying a backpack, near I-30 and Dalrock. The tip was dated June 6, 1996, 4 p.m. It described the sighting as taking place at 5 a.m. I-30 was located south of the Routier home about 2 and a half miles away.

-Also on June 7, Jonathan Hartley called police to report that the Dallas Morning News mail carrier had threatened him. He stated the man’s name was Ray Clemons and suggested that police look into him. Hartley lived on 8301 Eagle Drive, approximately 285 feet from the Routier home.

-Kory Keith lived in the neighborhood and contacted police on June 7 to report an incident that occurred during the week before the murders. He described returning home at 2:30 to 3 a.m. and seeing an older style mini van driving slowly down Eagle Drive. He described the occupants of the van as “shining lights on houses”. The van left the area as Keith approached. He tried to turn around to get a better look at the van, but was unable to locate it once he did. The only other description of the van was that it was possible light tan in color. The driver appeared to be a white male in his 20s. No description was given for the passenger.

Julie Clark was another person who contacted the police the day after the murders. She described herself as a close friend of the Routiers when she testified at Darlie’s trial. She indicated that on the day of the murders, a woman who cleaned Darlie’s house saw a black vehicle.

The sighting of the black car was reported by the woman’s daughter, Barbara Jovell, as well. Jovell’s mother reportedly saw a black 2-door sports car driving slowly down the alley located behind the Routier home. The vehicle stopped in the alley and was described as having a dark complexion. When Jovell’s mom went into the garage the vehicle was driven away.

-On June 8, John Reed contacted police to report that the day of the murders he was in the front yard, cleaning up. His two grandchildren were with him and they saw a white male sitting in a “faded blue older model 4 door car.” He described the man as “suspicious”. The distance from the address indicated on the telephone memo and the Routier home is 0.4 miles.

-On June 9, Bill Knuth contacted police and gave information about seeing a vehicle “cruising his neighborhood the evening of the murders”. Knuth said the driver was a young white male who was acting suspiciously. The car apparently stopped near the Routier’s corner house around 7 to 8 p.m. He was unable to get a license plate number, saying only that the vehicle he observed was either a Geo Storm or a Dodge Neon. The vehicle had 2 doors, a hatchback, and was either blue or purple.

-On June 17th, Officer Needham described a report police received of a black Nissan with an identified Texas license plate was observed in the area of the Routier home. Officer Needham and Detective Latham also saw this vehicle. The lead sheet states, “Owner had been in the area after the murders – sight seeing.” No further information was given about the owner of the car or whether police established the individual had an alibi the night of the murders.

-Perhaps one of the stranger vehicle sightings was reported by Bob Salsey. He first called into the police department on June 8. He was a delivery person for the Daily Business News and delivered the paper across the street from the Routier home at 12:30 a.m. the night of the murders. In the first description it says, “did not see anything suspicious”. The following day, Detective Needham spoke to Salsey. He reiterated that he was in the area the evening of the murders at about 12 to 12:30 a.m. However, this time he said he saw a white car in the driveway of the Routier home. It was described as a suburban type.

-In 2002, Darlene Potter gave an affidavit describing an unusual sighting during the early morning hours of June 6. Potter was returning to her residence after visiting her daughter in Cleburne, Texas. Sometime after 2 a.m. she reported that she had reached Dalrock Road, north of Highway 66 “approaching the ‘S’ curve.” As she approached the curve she slowed considerably because she was pulling a trailer behind her van. She stated the following: “I suddenly saw a man walking on the edge of the left side of the roadway headed in the same direction I was going. He was about six feet tall, medium build, had shoulder length brownish hair which was messed up, wearing a black t-shirt. He was barefooted.”

Potter then observed a second man walking on the left edge of the road as well. She described the second man as wearing a light colored baseball cap, a white shirt, and blue jeans. She said he was tall and stocky, standing at about 5’8?.

In reference to the second man, Potter added, “As I approached this man, he stepped from the side of the road as if he were walking toward my vehicle. I was just starting to accelerate slowly from out of the curve at this time and when I saw the man stepping towards my car, he looked in the direction of the first man. I then looked in my mirror again and saw the first man shaking his head as if to say ‘no’ to the second man”.

The sighting stood out in her mind because one of the men was barefooted and also because it occurred so early in the morning. It made her uneasy because she lived in the area. She returned home and tried to sleep. About 45 minutes later she said she observed a small dark-colored car driving through the field next door to her home. She said it appeared as if it were riding its brakes. No address is given for Potter so it is difficult to determine which field she was referring to or how far she lived from the Routier home.

The sighting of the two men on foot happened approximately 0.6 of a mile from the Routier’s residence."

here's another one, again I copied and pasted from another website. This explains why the black car lead was never investigated.

Chadwick Ray Patterson, son of lead Detective Jimmy Patterson, has a long criminal record and a black car that fits the description of the car seen in front of the Routier residence several times in the weeks leading up to the murders. Patterson lived just a few blocks from the Routier home. 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. There was no need; Darlie was targeted as the only suspect within minutes. Karen Neal, a neighbor of the Routiers, also says she saw the black car and the police never asked her any further questions about it. While Chad Patterson's involvement seems unlikely, the fear of his involvement could have been a factor motivating his father's decision not to follow up on this promising lead.

Think Darlene Potter has already been covered by me recently. Didn't report anything to the cops despite all the publicity, just rocked up in 2002 & her testimony was dismissed as having zero bearing on the case.

What does all the rest prove? People thinking other people look suspicious. Probable joyriders/people cruising around at night. Somebody having some issue/argument with his paperboy or postman-cannot work out what he is supposed to be & what caused that?

And quite frankly Cami is a bit scary...:eek:

snort

uh...wow. Just wow.

Yes...every other poster on here is out of their minds because they think Darlie did it.

Wiseguy, doesn't Darlie's preoccupation with fingerprints on the knife strike you as a bit odd?

David Waddell, first officer of the scene, testified for the prosecution.
Davis: Does she volunteer information about picking up the knife?
Waddell: Yes.
Davis: Is it in response to anyone's question or direction?
Waddell: No...she told me she'd picked up the knife and thought she'd messed up the fingerprints.
(Vol. 29, David Waddell, Sec. 323, 415)

There has been speculation that Waddell simply overheard Darlie telling the 911 operator about the knife. Not so. She pointed to the counter as she told Waddell that "she'd picked it up and laid it on the counter and she told me that she probably should not have done that, because she messed up the fingerprints on the knife."
(Vol. 4, David Waddell, Sec. 52)

Christopher Wielgosz, Baylor Hospital nurse, testified that he did not ask Darlie any questions whatsoever. "At one point in time, she stated aloud that she'd picked up the knife after the attacker dropped it, and she was concerned that maybe her fingerprints had obscured the attacker's fingerprints."
Shook: When she made the statement, had you asked her anything about the incident?
Wielgosz: No, absolutely not.
(Vol. 31, Christopher Wielgosz, Sec. 916, 917)

Early the next morning, Darlie told Detectives Patterson and Frosch, "I picked up the knife. I shouldn't have picked up the knife, because I probably covered up the fingerprints. I shouldn't have picked up the knife."
(Vol. 31, Christopher Wielgosz, Sec. 923)

Darlie was still concerned enough about fingerprints, two days after the murders, that she mentioned it to Dr. Dillawn.
Shook: Did you check her over before she was released, discharged?
Dillawn: Yes, I did.
Shook: Ok, did she talk to you about anything that the police had asked her?
Dillawn: Yes, she did. I can't remember the specific details, but it concerned a knife which she was attempting to explain, I would assume, some piece of evidence that she had been confronted with. And she was trying to explain to me how she--this was--somehow she could explain the reason it had something on it. I don't remember the specific details, but it was about a knife.
(Vol. 31, Dr. Dillawn, Sec. 866-867)

"On June 6, Sally Bingham reported to police that she was a neighbor of the Routier family. She described being awake at 1 to 1:30 a.m. the morning the murders took place. Bingham stated she “kept seeing car lights driving through the neighborhood”. Her bedroom had a bay window. The vehicle made several trips down the street before Bingham finally got up and looked outside to see a white vehicle. The only other description of the vehicle was “celebrity-type.”

Too bad she described the vehicle as white. Not black. Why is this so meaningful?

On June 7, Betty Jung reported that her son saw a suspicious looking man in the morning wearing blue jeans, a white t-shirt, and a black cap. He was also carrying a knapsack. A note on the memo states, “probably same person Officer Caillet questioned on 66 at Barretts”. The sighting took place at the Rowlett Vet Clinic, located about 3 miles west of the Routier home.

So this shows that the police questioned this individual and let him go. Not to mention he was wearing a white t-shirt and blue jeans. And carrying a back pack. Not dark clothing with long hair in a ponytail. Not even close to the description of Darlie's "attacker". Why is this meaningful?

An additional lead sheet described a man fitting the same description, carrying a backpack, near I-30 and Dalrock. The tip was dated June 6, 1996, 4 p.m. It described the sighting as taking place at 5 a.m. I-30 was located south of the Routier home about 2 and a half miles away.

Ok? Same guy as reported by Betty Jung?

Also on June 7, Jonathan Hartley called police to report that the Dallas Morning News mail carrier had threatened him. He stated the man’s name was Ray Clemons and suggested that police look into him. Hartley lived on 8301 Eagle Drive, approximately 285 feet from the Routier home.

Too bad these guys were enemies, and had several run ins prior to the Routier murders. Hartley was trying to get back at Clemons.

Kory Keith lived in the neighborhood and contacted police on June 7 to report an incident that occurred during the week before the murders. He described returning home at 2:30 to 3 a.m. and seeing an older style mini van driving slowly down Eagle Drive. He described the occupants of the van as “shining lights on houses”. The van left the area as Keith approached. He tried to turn around to get a better look at the van, but was unable to locate it once he did. The only other description of the van was that it was possible light tan in color. The driver appeared to be a white male in his 20s. No description was given for the passenger.

Why are any of these significant? This was a week before the murders. The vehicle was a tan van, not a black car.

Julie Clark was another person who contacted the police the day after the murders. She described herself as a close friend of the Routiers when she testified at Darlie’s trial. She indicated that on the day of the murders, a woman who cleaned Darlie’s house saw a black vehicle.

Too bad that during the trial, her testimony was that the black vehicle was still there at 7:30 a.m. the morning after the murders.

The sighting of the black car was reported by the woman’s daughter, Barbara Jovell, as well. Jovell’s mother reportedly saw a black 2-door sports car driving slowly down the alley located behind the Routier home. The vehicle stopped in the alley and was described as having a dark complexion. When Jovell’s mom went into the garage the vehicle was driven away.

Sure are a lot of different black vehicles driving around the neighborhood, no? Does this not strike you as more of a bunch of neighbors trying to be sleuths, initially believing Darlie, scared that there was an intruder running around, trying to remember anything "suspicious" that they saw. To them, an unknown vehicle in the neighborhood was "suspicious". This is meaningless.

On June 8, John Reed contacted police to report that the day of the murders he was in the front yard, cleaning up. His two grandchildren were with him and they saw a white male sitting in a “faded blue older model 4 door car.” He described the man as “suspicious”. The distance from the address indicated on the telephone memo and the Routier home is 0.4 miles.

A blue car. Wow.

On June 9, Bill Knuth contacted police and gave information about seeing a vehicle “cruising his neighborhood the evening of the murders”. Knuth said the driver was a young white male who was acting suspiciously. The car apparently stopped near the Routier’s corner house around 7 to 8 p.m. He was unable to get a license plate number, saying only that the vehicle he observed was either a Geo Storm or a Dodge Neon. The vehicle had 2 doors, a hatchback, and was either blue or purple.

Another blue or purple vehicle in Darlie's neighborhood. Did these neighbors use bicycles? Because it seems like the mere sight of a car makes them think suspicious.

On June 17th, Officer Needham described a report police received of a black Nissan with an identified Texas license plate was observed in the area of the Routier home. Officer Needham and Detective Latham also saw this vehicle. The lead sheet states, “Owner had been in the area after the murders – sight seeing.” No further information was given about the owner of the car or whether police established the individual had an alibi the night of the murders.

So the sheet establishes that police had contacted this man and ruled him out. What's the big deal?

Perhaps one of the stranger vehicle sightings was reported by Bob Salsey. He first called into the police department on June 8. He was a delivery person for the Daily Business News and delivered the paper across the street from the Routier home at 12:30 a.m. the night of the murders. In the first description it says, “did not see anything suspicious”. The following day, Detective Needham spoke to Salsey. He reiterated that he was in the area the evening of the murders at about 12 to 12:30 a.m. However, this time he said he saw a white car in the driveway of the Routier home. It was described as a suburban type.

A white car. "Did not see anything suspicious".

In 2002, Darlene Potter gave an affidavit describing an unusual sighting during the early morning hours of June 6. Potter was returning to her residence after visiting her daughter in Cleburne, Texas. Sometime after 2 a.m. she reported that she had reached Dalrock Road, north of Highway 66 “approaching the ‘S’ curve.” As she approached the curve she slowed considerably because she was pulling a trailer behind her van. She stated the following: “I suddenly saw a man walking on the edge of the left side of the roadway headed in the same direction I was going. He was about six feet tall, medium build, had shoulder length brownish hair which was messed up, wearing a black t-shirt. He was barefooted.”

6 years after the murders. A van with a trailer. No blood noticed on this strange man.

Potter then observed a second man walking on the left edge of the road as well. She described the second man as wearing a light colored baseball cap, a white shirt, and blue jeans. She said he was tall and stocky, standing at about 5’8?.

In reference to the second man, Potter added, “As I approached this man, he stepped from the side of the road as if he were walking toward my vehicle. I was just starting to accelerate slowly from out of the curve at this time and when I saw the man stepping towards my car, he looked in the direction of the first man. I then looked in my mirror again and saw the first man shaking his head as if to say ‘no’ to the second man”.

The sighting stood out in her mind because one of the men was barefooted and also because it occurred so early in the morning. It made her uneasy because she lived in the area. She returned home and tried to sleep. About 45 minutes later she said she observed a small dark-colored car driving through the field next door to her home. She said it appeared as if it were riding its brakes. No address is given for Potter so it is difficult to determine which field she was referring to or how far she lived from the Routier home.

The sighting of the two men on foot happened approximately 0.6 of a mile from the Routier’s residence."

6 years after the murders is when this lady decided to come forward. How could she be so certain that this was on the same night as the murders? This is another meaningless claim.

Chadwick Ray Patterson, son of lead Detective Jimmy Patterson, has a long criminal record and a black car that fits the description of the car seen in front of the Routier residence several times in the weeks leading up to the murders. Patterson lived just a few blocks from the Routier home. 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. There was no need; Darlie was targeted as the only suspect within minutes. Karen Neal, a neighbor of the Routiers, also says she saw the black car and the police never asked her any further questions about it. While Chad Patterson's involvement seems unlikely, the fear of his involvement could have been a factor motivating his father's decision not to follow up on this promising lead.

How is this suspicious?! "Chad Patterson's involvement seems unlikely"...what am I missing? Darlie did not name him as her attacker. She named two men. Glenn Mize was named in a series of letters to friends and family as her "attacker". He was a customer/acquaintance of Darin Routier. In a series of letters dated after the Mize accusation, she names a neighbor, Gary Austen as her "attacker". When Darlie was on the stand at her trial, the prosecution actually brought in Glenn Mize in front of her. Remember, Darlie's description of the "attacker" was 6'3, 200 pounds, with long hair and a ponytail. Glenn Mize was a Hispanic man, short and stocky, and when he was brought into court Darlie admitted that he wasn't the guy. The prosecution then brought up Gary Austen, and got Darlie to admit that Austen's house was positioned in such a way that it would have been impossible for him to have been peering into the Routier residence. Darlie says that Austen would stand on his back porch and stare into the Routier house when she was home alone. Only problem: Gary Austen did not have a back porch.

I'm no expert, but my B.A. in Psychology tells me that Darlie is a textbook histrionic personality. I'm actually curious why no one has mentioned Munchausen by proxy syndrome.

I appreciate the counter argument with regard to the court transcript. While I agree 33,000 errors are quite a few, it can be as simple as a typo. If a trial lasts weeks, as I anticipate this one did, there are going to be quite a few errors. Hell, I see typos in transcripts of 5 minute hearings. Lots of different things could affect it-- how fast everyone is talking, if everyone is talking at once, if there is heated argument and objections... None of it means the court reporter is unethical.

Also, I'm willing to bet the farm the jury didn't have the trial transcript back in the jury room with them. Transcripts take time to prepare, even with our advances in technology. I know there's been discussion of the length of time the jury deliberated. I think that speaks to the strength of the evidence. From personal experiences, I can have a full day trial and have a jury return a verdict in 15 to 20 minutes. Usually that happens when there is a "slam dunk" prosecution.

**slinking away now**

ITA with the Histrionic Personality Disorder. Not too sure you could slot her into MBP though.

I agree the jury would not have had the trial transcript during deliberations, as well.

You know why, Cami. Stop playing dumb ;)

LOL, Oh Mary let me have my little delusions, LOL

snort

No scary than you are Michelle/Sinsaint. All you black car leads and sightings ere thoroughly checked out by the police. As for your black car, you go find it. No model, no license number, no descriptions of occupants, just a black car. Oh and don't forget the car that was stopped at the scene that night and the occupants removed and frisked.

here's another one, again I copied and pasted from another website. This explains why the black car lead was never investigated.

Chadwick Ray Patterson, son of lead Detective Jimmy Patterson, has a long criminal record and a black car that fits the description of the car seen in front of the Routier residence several times in the weeks leading up to the murders. Patterson lived just a few blocks from the Routier home. 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. There was no need; Darlie was targeted as the only suspect within minutes. Karen Neal, a neighbor of the Routiers, also says she saw the black car and the police never asked her any further questions about it. While Chad Patterson's involvement seems unlikely, the fear of his involvement could have been a factor motivating his father's decision not to follow up on this promising lead.

Not that tired old Chad Patterson claim again.

HOw do you follow up on a car when all you have is the colour and nothing else?

Darlie was not targeted as the only suspect within minutes. If that were true, she would have been arrested in the hospital.

Cron said he knew within a very short time of his walk through the home looked staged and the intruder scenario was unlikely. Cron is a veteran experienced crime scene analyst, he knew what he was talking about.

Wiseguy is Michele/Sinsaint? I should have known that when she posted about all the rapes and attempted murders - with socks! - somewhere in Texas within 6 years of the Routier murders ;)

Wiseguy is Michele/Sinsaint? I should have known that when she posted about all the rapes and attempted murders - with socks! - somewhere in Texas within 6 years of the Routier murders ;)

Wiseguy. Guy meaning male. I am not Michele or Sinsaint. Whatever the hell you're talking about.

Please stop posting inaccurate information on this forum.

Yes...every other poster on here is out of their minds because they think Darlie did it.

not at all what I said or meant, but nice job of speculating you did there.

But there are a ton of myths purported about this case from the pro-Darlie people, and the truth needs to come out.

Oh, LOL! That's a bold claim to make considering you stated Darlie was chucking stuffed animals a mere 2 days after the deaths, when in reality, she was still in the hospital, recovering from her damn injuries.

The purpose of my involvement in this thread was to clear up misconceptions coming from your side. Care to guess how many "but Darlie only had one minor injury" nonsense posts I've seen on here? Here's a hint: it's been lots.

Please stop posting inaccurate information on this forum.

That is pretty funny.

That is pretty funny.

why?

But Darlie DID go out of her way to mention fingerprints in the hours and days after the 911 call.

David Waddell, first officer of the scene, testified for the prosecution.
Davis: Does she volunteer information about picking up the knife?
Waddell: Yes.
Davis: Is it in response to anyone's question or direction?
Waddell: No...she told me she'd picked up the knife and thought she'd messed up the fingerprints.
(Vol. 29, David Waddell, Sec. 323, 415)

There has been speculation that Waddell simply overheard Darlie telling the 911 operator about the knife. Not so. She pointed to the counter as she told Waddell that "she'd picked it up and laid it on the counter and she told me that she probably should not have done that, because she messed up the fingerprints on the knife."
(Vol. 4, David Waddell, Sec. 52)

Christopher Wielgosz, Baylor Hospital nurse, testified that he did not ask Darlie any questions whatsoever. "At one point in time, she stated aloud that she'd picked up the knife after the attacker dropped it, and she was concerned that maybe her fingerprints had obscured the attacker's fingerprints."
Shook: When she made the statement, had you asked her anything about the incident?
Wielgosz: No, absolutely not.
(Vol. 31, Christopher Wielgosz, Sec. 916, 917)

Early the next morning, Darlie told Detectives Patterson and Frosch, "I picked up the knife. I shouldn't have picked up the knife, because I probably covered up the fingerprints. I shouldn't have picked up the knife."
(Vol. 31, Christopher Wielgosz, Sec. 923)

Darlie was still concerned enough about fingerprints, two days after the murders, that she mentioned it to Dr. Dillawn.
Shook: Did you check her over before she was released, discharged?
Dillawn: Yes, I did.
Shook: Ok, did she talk to you about anything that the police had asked her?
Dillawn: Yes, she did. I can't remember the specific details, but it concerned a knife which she was attempting to explain, I would assume, some piece of evidence that she had been confronted with. And she was trying to explain to me how she--this was--somehow she could explain the reason it had something on it. I don't remember the specific details, but it was about a knife.
(Vol. 31, Dr. Dillawn, Sec. 866-867)

That is simply not true. I have (on dvd) part of the actual recording of the 911 call, as I mentioned several days previous to your post.

911 operator: "Don't touch anything"
Darlie Routier: "I already touched it and picked it up"

So that blows Waddell's statements right out of the damn water, and personally I never found him to be all that believable in the first place, for different reasons. There was some reference to the knife in the 911 call, the 911 operator told her not to touch it, and Darlie told her she had, in response to her statement. Not going out of her way.

Oh, LOL! That's a bold claim to make considering you stated Darlie was chucking stuffed animals a mere 2 days after the deaths

You're correct. Darlie chucked the stuffed animals 12 days after her sons were butchered. She was over it by then :lol:

That is simply not true. I have (on dvd) part of the actual recording of the 911 call, as I mentioned several days previous to your post.


My post went way beyond the 911 call, as you well know. Are you telling us that Waddell, Wielgosz, and Dillawn lied when they testified that Darlie was concerned about fingerprints on the knife?

Are you telling us that Waddell lied when they testified that Darlie was concerned about fingerprints on the knife?

yep.

not at all what I said or meant, but nice job of speculating you did there.

Not hard to speculate when you're busy "snorting" at other posters.

Oh, LOL! That's a bold claim to make considering you stated Darlie was chucking stuffed animals a mere 2 days after the deaths, when in reality, she was still in the hospital, recovering from her damn injuries.

The purpose of my involvement in this thread was to clear up misconceptions coming from your side. Care to guess how many "but Darlie only had one minor injury" nonsense posts I've seen on here? Here's a hint: it's been lots.

Did I not say that I made a mistake about the stuffed animals?

Darlie had bruises that were not present in the hospital. And she had a superficial wound to her neck and a stab wound to the forearm. What am I missing?

That is simply not true. I have (on dvd) part of the actual recording of the 911 call, as I mentioned several days previous to your post.

911 operator: "Don't touch anything"
Darlie Routier: "I already touched it and picked it up"

So that blows Waddell's statements right out of the damn water, and personally I never found him to be all that believable in the first place, for different reasons. There was some reference to the knife in the 911 call, the 911 operator told her not to touch it, and Darlie told her she had, in response to her statement. Not going out of her way.

Do you just selectively skim over information that hurts the "Darlie is innocent" theory? The 911 transcript has her clearly say (5 minutes into the call right around the mark were Waddell would have entered):

"...his knife was already lying over there and I already picked it up. God...I bet if we could have gotten the prints maybe...maybe"

Not hard to speculate when you're busy "snorting" at other posters.

Oh come on, now you're just grasping at straws. Somebody made a comment, I said "snort" because I thought it was funny. Why don't you get on the case of the person that posted it instead of feeling obligated to respond to every single point of every single post I make. Obsessed much? Get over me already.

So you can read my mind, huh? The comment of "wow...just wow" was due to the volume of posts made in a single evening, my words being twisted around to the nth degree, the sheer repetitiveness of one person who keeps posting the same thing over and over again, and the outright untruths being reported by some people on your side here.

Did I not say that I made a mistake about the stuffed animals?

Yes, and it was a pretty major one too. You stated Darlie was effectively celebrating while her sons had been dead only two days and the reality was she was still in the hospital recovering from her injuries. Note the plural, which disproves your side's persistent claim of "but Darlie only had one minor injury." You are on here trying to be morally superior claiming you are clearing up lies from people that might think there's a chance she's innocent, when you can't even get your own facts straight.

Darlie had bruises that were not present in the hospital. And she had a superficial wound to her neck and a stab wound to the forearm. What am I missing?

Again, there are people on here claiming she had "one minor injury." She had more than that. I don't even know what you're talking about when you say the bruises were not present in the hospital. Apparently, you didn't see the pictures I posted where she is wearing her hospital gown and has bruises ALL OVER THE PLACE!!

They're a few posts back if you need a refresher.

Do you just selectively skim over information that hurts the "Darlie is innocent" theory? The 911 transcript has her clearly say (5 minutes into the call right around the mark were Waddell would have entered):

"...his knife was already lying over there and I already picked it up. God...I bet if we could have gotten the prints maybe...maybe"

Pardon me? Said quote happened AFTER the exchange I posted. Big deal. As I stated, the operator told her not to touch the knife, and it was then and only then Darlie mentioned she picked it up. For the THIRD time, here it is word for word.

04:05:02 Darlie Routier ...ya'll look out in the garage ...look out in the garage ...they left a knife laying on...
04:08:21 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
04:09:19 911 Operator #1 ...there's a knife ...don't touch anything...
04:11:18 Darlie Routier ...I already touched it and picked it up...

As you can see, that happens 4 minutes into the conversation, almost a full minute before the distinguished Waddell enters into the equation. You're trying to make it seem like Darlie went out of her way to report that she picked up the knife before anyone said anything about it. Not true. I've dispelled that, but go ahead and continue to stick your head in the sand.

Oh and by the by, did you also notice how Darlie was trying to encourage them to look into the garage? Because the police weren't bothering to search for an intruder. Even if they didn't believe there was one as you claim, they still should have looked around for one to, you know, run a thorough and competent investigation. Which this clearly was not.

Oh come on, now you're just grasping at straws. Somebody made a comment, I said "snort" because I thought it was funny. Why don't you get on the case of the person that posted it instead of feeling obligated to respond to every single point of every single post I make. Obsessed much? Get over me already.

Snort = :lol: ? :confused:

So you can read my mind, huh? The comment of "wow...just wow" was due to the volume of posts made in a single evening, my words being twisted around to the nth degree, the sheer repetitiveness of one person who keeps posting the same thing over and over again, and the outright untruths being reported by some people on your side here.

Notice how I didn't bring that up, but thanks for clarifying. The 'wow' comment was conveniently added after a number of people came on here to state their belief that Darlie was guilty. Eerily similar to your comment in the McClure thread after posters came and posted an opinion differing from yours.

Yes, and it was a pretty major one too. You stated Darlie was effectively celebrating while her sons had been dead only two days and the reality was she was still in the hospital recovering from her injuries. Note the plural, which disproves your side's persistent claim of "but Darlie only had one minor injury." You are on here trying to be morally superior claiming you are clearing up lies from people that might think there's a chance she's innocent, when you can't even get your own facts straight.

Now this is funny. The point still stands. 2 days...12 days...what's the difference? She's out playing football with stuffed animals from a makeshift memorial made for her two murdered children. I don't care if it was a year later...it's very unusual and disturbing behavior.

Again, there are people on here claiming she had "one minor injury." She had more than that. I don't even know what you're talking about when you say the bruises were not present in the hospital. Apparently, you didn't see the pictures I posted where she is wearing her hospital gown and has bruises ALL OVER THE PLACE!!

Relax. I'm not responsible for other posters on here making claims about one minor injury. But hey, what's the difference between one and two superficial injuries compared to what happened to her two boys?

Pardon me? Said quote happened AFTER the exchange I posted. Big deal. As I stated, the operator told her not to touch the knife, and it was then and only then Darlie mentioned she picked it up. For the THIRD time, here it is word for word.

I am aware of that. But you made the ridiculous claim that Waddell was lying when he testified at Darlie's trial. When in fact, Darlie does start to worry about prints at the exact time Waddell was already on the scene...meaning Waddell didn't lie while on the stand.

As you can see, that happens 4 minutes into the conversation, almost a full minute before the distinguished Waddell enters into the equation. You're trying to make it seem like Darlie went out of her way to report that she picked up the knife before anyone said anything about it. Not true. I've dispelled that, but go ahead and continue to stick your head in the sand.

I never said anything remotely close to what you just said. 911 operator told her not to touch anything, she said she already touched the knife. A full minute later, she was the one who decided to bring it back up and mention finger prints. But also bear in mind that her son was dying mere feet away from her, and the knife and the finger prints were at the forefront of her mind.

Oh and by the by, did you also notice how Darlie was trying to encourage them to look into the garage? Because the police weren't bothering to search for an intruder. Even if they didn't believe there was one as you claim, they still should have looked around for one to, you know, run a thorough and competent investigation. Which this clearly was not.

I've addressed this a few pages back. The police checked into every tip of a suspicious vehicle and/or person reported by people in Darlie's neighborhood or by people who witnessed something "suspicious" on the night of the murders. They found nothing.

Notice how I didn't bring that up, but thanks for clarifying. The 'wow' comment was conveniently added after a number of people came on here to state their belief that Darlie was guilty. Eerily similar to your comment in the McClure thread after posters came and posted an opinion differing from yours.

If you reach any further, your arms will pop out of their sockets. The McClure thing was all in jest. I made a joke, Necco replied with his own joke, and I admitted I got owned. I have no problem with people stating beliefs that are different from mine on this or any other case. Truth be told, I think you make some good points sometimes, but unfortunately your rolls eyes emoticons in this thread make your posts difficult to digest at times.

Relax. I'm not responsible for other posters on here making claims about one minor injury. But hey, what's the difference between one and two superficial injuries compared to what happened to her two boys?

Don't forget the bruising. Just exactly how did that happen, btw? Did she twist her own arms?

I am aware of that. But you made the ridiculous claim that Waddell was lying when he testified at Darlie's trial. When in fact, Darlie does start to worry about prints at the exact time Waddell was already on the scene...meaning Waddell didn't lie while on the stand.

I never said anything remotely close to what you just said. 911 operator told her not to touch anything, she said she already touched the knife. A full minute later, she was the one who decided to bring it back up and mention finger prints. But also bear in mind that her son was dying mere feet away from her, and the knife and the finger prints were at the forefront of her mind.

I think we're going around in circles here.

I've addressed this a few pages back. The police checked into every tip of a suspicious vehicle and/or person reported by people in Darlie's neighborhood or by people who witnessed something "suspicious" on the night of the murders. They found nothing.

Was every car involved? Almost certainly not. Is there a chance one of them could have been involved in some way? I think so. Especially considering Darin's admission he was attempting to get his house broken into. They had a fancy car, a boat, tons of jewelry and a large house full of goods. It would have been a burglar's paradise.

It would be nice to have more info about the reports. I wouldn't put it out of the question that some of the reports were exaggerated and reported by overly concerned citizens. But the fact that some of the reports stated there were vehicles going by shining lights on houses, driving slowly through the street and such, that just sounds...sketchy to me. Some of the cars could have been long gone at the point the police started investigating.

We don't know everything that went on in the house that night. I can't dismiss the possibility of more than one person being involved.

At least Jeffrey MacDonald had a name and a face of a "suspect". There is nothing with regards to Darlie.

Wiseguy, I apologize if you addressed this far back in the this thread but I didn't see it. Why did Darlie write to grieving family members while in jail she knew who her attacker was? Then back peddled at trial when her own letters were shown to her while on the stand? Now, to this day she claims she has no idea who the killer is.

To me those letters are quite damning if you read them and then read her testimony on the stand when confronted with them. Yes, I know the argument of "well, maybe she was confused ect" but if you actually read the letters and then her testimony while on the stand its nothing like that. Also, those letters were written quite awhile after the murders while she was sitting in jail. It looks like someone who was caught in a lie.

To this day, she never addresses that in any of her interviews and claims to have no clue who could've done this. Its bizarre. The only other person who was "innocent" who lied to her own family members about knowing who was responsible for their child's fate was Casey Anthony. Of course, my point is circumstantial and there are many more reasons why I believe Darlie is guilty but that never sat with me well.

Again if you read Darlies actual letters she wrote and then read her testimony it looks like a caught in a complete lie.

Especially considering Darin's admission he was attempting to get his house broken into.

An admission that came 6 years after Darlie's conviction, just in time for her appeal.

Why would Darin need the house burglarized when he claimed there were absolutely no money problems?

Don't forget the bruising. Just exactly how did that happen, btw? Did she twist her own arms?


Is possible that maybe, maybe, Darlie got those bruises from her kids kicking her as she stabbed them? :mad:

Plus again, you still haven't explained why the intruder would go out of his way to give two elementary school kids deep, thrusting chest wounds, yet when it came time to deal with the adult who posed the most threat to him, he went for the meandering slash along the neck? Was the intruder just tired and shagged out from stabbing two small kids? :rolleyes:

Also, you have yet to provide an explanation regarding those letters LilMissKryssy keeps bringing up.

She's guilty as charged shut it down lets go home.

Is possible that maybe, maybe, Darlie got those bruises from her kids kicking her as she stabbed them? :mad:

Plus again, you still haven't explained why the intruder would go out of his way to give two elementary school kids deep, thrusting chest wounds, yet when it came time to deal with the adult who posed the most threat to him, he went for the meandering slash along the neck? Was the intruder just tired and shagged out from stabbing two small kids? :rolleyes:

Also, you have yet to provide an explanation regarding those letters LilMissKryssy keeps bringing up.

Yes, the question about the letters has been asked many (many, many, many times). I don't have an immediate answer for it, but according to James T, who like you, believes in Darlie's guilt, if people were kept out of prison because there was unexplained items in their case, nobody would be in prison.

It should also be noted I'm working alone here. It would be a full-time job to respond to every point of every post of every poster on here who believes in her guilt.

An admission that came 6 years after Darlie's conviction, just in time for her appeal.

Why would Darin need the house burglarized when he claimed there were absolutely no money problems?

That's actually a good point and one of the reasons I think he's shady. on the AJ episode, he stated he kept making at least $100,000 more than the previous year and certainly suggested they didn't have money problems. But other evidence suggests they were having money issues.

I've just never got a good vibe off the guy.

She's guilty as charged shut it down lets go home.

I agree.

I very well understand letters alone cant convict somebody nor should they ever. However, that one of many things that convinced me she was guilty. It's also something any Darlie supporters stay clear from because there is no reasonable answer other than she lied. Lying alone doesn't prove murder but it also shows her as somebody that would lie to her own grieving family members about her children's murder with the only known motive as to help herself. So, that's why it also stuck out for me. Yes, I very well realize it cant alone convict someone but I cant imagine an innocent person doing that.

Yes, the question about the letters has been asked many (many, many, many times). I don't have an immediate answer for it, but according to James T, who like you, believes in Darlie's guilt, if people were kept out of prison because there was unexplained items in their case, nobody would be in prison.

It should also be noted I'm working alone here. It would be a full-time job to respond to every point of every post of every poster on here who believes in her guilt.

You may be alone here but that isn't the case elsewhere. I read up a bit on this case.

I find it interesting that Barbara Davis, author of Precious Angels, which damned Darlie Routier as guilty, eventually changed her mind about and added a chapter to her book disputing the prosecutor's case: "Now is the time for us to rise up and exert so much relentless and tremendous pressure on officials that they will have no other choice but to set Darlie Routier free. I'll probably never get this out of my system but I was WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! There are a lot of good, decent people who were in that boat with me and many still are. I know if you will open your minds and hearts and reexamine what really went on in Rowlett and Kerrville, Texas, you will want to join me in standing up for Darlie, now, as fervently as you and I once stood up against her. Please unite with me in the battle to put an end once and for all to this horrifying ordeal. After all, "justice" means protecting the innocent as much as punishing the guilty. God be with you."

Crazy stuff.

You may be alone here but that isn't the case elsewhere. I read up a bit on this case.

I find it interesting that Barbara Davis, author of Precious Angels, which damned Darlie Routier as guilty, eventually changed her mind about and added a chapter to her book disputing the prosecutor's case: "Now is the time for us to rise up and exert so much relentless and tremendous pressure on officials that they will have no other choice but to set Darlie Routier free. I'll probably never get this out of my system but I was WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! There are a lot of good, decent people who were in that boat with me and many still are. I know if you will open your minds and hearts and reexamine what really went on in Rowlett and Kerrville, Texas, you will want to join me in standing up for Darlie, now, as fervently as you and I once stood up against her. Please unite with me in the battle to put an end once and for all to this horrifying ordeal. After all, "justice" means protecting the innocent as much as punishing the guilty. God be with you."

Crazy stuff.

Yes, Darlie does have supporters as does a lot of high profile death penalty cases. One of the most ridiculous was Michael Perry who was the subject of Herzogs "Into The Abyss". He had confessed twice when first arrested, found his DNA on a cigarette under one of his victims bodies and much more. Yet he denied being involved and claimed total innocence instead blaming it all on his co-defendant. It was insane yet he had a HUGE backing of supporters. Jeffery MacDonald, whom I believe is guilty as sin, also has his supporters. It doesn't mean someone is innocent. The death penalty and/or being a high profile case has a lot to do with it. There was even a website devoted to Casey Anthony's innocence for years and her attorneys wrote a book claiming she was innocent after she was acquitted. It still doesn't mean she actually is innocent. A lot of authors and journalist can develop a relationship with their subject if they are interviewing them for an extensive time. Psychopaths can come across very sincere and genuine. When you develop a bond with someone if blurs your view. I have no idea if that's the case with this author but all im saying is just because someone has backing or has no backing makes no difference to me whether I think they are guilty or innocent

There is also quite a number of people freed by DNA with assistance from the innocence project that had no backing or support. To me it doesn't matter either way if someone has a group of backers or not.

Yes, Darlie does have supporters as does a lot of high profile death penalty cases. One of the most ridiculous was Michael Perry who was the subject of Herzogs "Into The Abyss". He had confessed twice when first arrested, found his DNA on a cigarette under one of his victims bodies and much more. Yet he denied being involved and claimed total innocence instead blaming it all on his co-defendant. It was insane yet he had a HUGE backing of supporters. Jeffery MacDonald, whom I believe is guilty as sin, also has his supporters. It doesn't mean someone is innocent. The death penalty and/or being a high profile case has a lot to do with it. There was even a website devoted to Casey Anthony's innocence for years and her attorneys wrote a book claiming she was innocent after she was acquitted. It still doesn't mean she actually is innocent. A lot of authors and journalist can develop a relationship with their subject if they are interviewing them for an extensive time. Psychopaths can come across very sincere and genuine. When you develop a bond with someone if blurs your view. I have no idea if that's the case with this author but all im saying is just because someone has backing or has no backing makes no difference to me whether I think they are guilty or innocent

Not sure if that's what has happened here, but it is possible. I just find the author's extreme "about-face" interesting.

At least Jeffrey MacDonald had a name and a face of a "suspect". There is nothing with regards to Darlie.

I'd actually believe in Jeff's guilt before Darlie's. At least he had the medical knowledge to know where to hurt himself and was living the high life for years. Darlie had neither of those luxuries.

I actually believe in Jeff's guilt and Darlie's.

Fixed.

Well-played.

I still can't believe that a mother would do that to her kids .. I just refuse to believe it .. maybe someone who's gone insane and just gone mentally .. but this lady seems like she's ok .. but then again you can't really tell from only watching interviews

I still can't believe that a mother would do that to her kids .. I just refuse to believe it .. maybe someone who's gone insane and just gone mentally .. but this lady seems like she's ok .. but then again you can't really tell from only watching interviews

Unfortunately, people are capable of doing horrible things and yes mothers too. That kind of thinking perpetrates that myth that women are solely nurturers/care givers and aren't capable of what a man could do. That mind set has let many woman back in the day get away with a lot murders. The concept was just to unbelievable back in the old days. There are plenty of examples of woman who have murdered their own offspring. Women are less likely to commit violent crimes then a man statically but none the less are very capable.

Someone who is "insane" as in doesn't know right from wrong, is delusional, not in reality ect is VERY different from someone with antisocial personality disorder (a sociopath or has sociopath tendencies). Technically, a personality disorder is classified as a mental disorder but is it very different than being insane or gone "crazy". Its an ingrained way of thinking and behavior that can cause significant problems in their personal or professional life. Its thought to be caused both by genetics and early childhood experiences. Basically, she's not crazy but yes there is something wrong with anyone that would kill. They can even come off as charming and very likable (Bundy).

Its just a huge misconception that all "bad people" are insane and are walking around with their tongues hanging out or hear voices ect.

I still can't believe that a mother would do that to her kids .. I just refuse to believe it .. maybe someone who's gone insane and just gone mentally .. but this lady seems like she's ok .. but then again you can't really tell from only watching interviews
That's what makes it hard. When you look at her she is very charming and sticks to her innocence. You want to believe her but she is guilty.

I find it interesting that Barbara Davis, author of Precious Angels, which damned Darlie Routier as guilty, eventually changed her mind

I find it interesting that Barbara Davis is quoted as follows:

Barbara Davis now:
"They chose to hide more than half of Darlie's injuries. I never saw photos of the bruises during the trial. I found the state's case to be immersed in cover-up, lies, false representations and evidence that was tampered with, tainted, and even created to suit particular purposes... I cried. I trembled. I became sick at my stomach to the point that when I got home, I threw up."

Barbara Davis in Precious Angels, pg. 306:
"But the horrible bruises covering every inch of Darlie's right arm were another matter.

Blunt trauma was responsible for solid and massive bruises covering the underside of Darlie's right arm extending from the wrist all the way to the armpit."

It may be interesting to some. It's nothing more than a lie, for personal gain, to me.

I find it interesting that Barbara Davis is quoted as follows:

Barbara Davis now:
"They chose to hide more than half of Darlie's injuries. I never saw photos of the bruises during the trial. I found the state's case to be immersed in cover-up, lies, false representations and evidence that was tampered with, tainted, and even created to suit particular purposes... I cried. I trembled. I became sick at my stomach to the point that when I got home, I threw up."

Barbara Davis in Precious Angels, pg. 306:
"But the horrible bruises covering every inch of Darlie's right arm were another matter.

Blunt trauma was responsible for solid and massive bruises covering the underside of Darlie's right arm extending from the wrist all the way to the armpit."

It may be interesting to some. It's nothing more than a lie, for personal gain, to me.

Did you see the photos I posted a little while back?

Barbara Davis described Darlie's injuries in graphic detail in her 1999 book, Precious Angels. Today, she claims she never saw them.

Yeah I know all about Barbara Davis. I wouldn't take her opinion to seriously

All good points.

Only if she was under anesthesia would she not have woken up to your children being butchered so brutally the knife penetrated the floor through them only a few feet away and herself being "attacked". The best part about this is that her excuse for sleeping downstairs is that she was such a light sleeper that the new baby was keeping her up so she choose that night to sleep downstairs. It doesn't get anymore ridiculous that than.

I honestly don't know what to think anymore, but I believe the husband may have been in on it as well

Last week, I attended a conference in Orlando for criminal justice researchers. I attended a seminar on wrongful convictions of women, and I about fell out of my seat when the guy started talking about the Routier case during his presentation. I hung around and chatted with him briefly after the presentation. He said he thought Darrin hired a hitman to kill Darlie but the guy killed the kids instead for some reason (which he couldn't really explain when I questioned his logic). Granted I'm not as well read on the case as some of the posters here, but I have never heard this theory at all. Was this even a possibility? To be sure, the presenter had an agenda (basically the police are out to frame women :rolleyes: ) and some of his ideas were pretty "out there," to be kind.

Wow interesting!

Last week, I attended a conference in Orlando for criminal justice researchers. I attended a seminar on wrongful convictions of women, and I about fell out of my seat when the guy started talking about the Routier case during his presentation. I hung around and chatted with him briefly after the presentation. He said he thought Darrin hired a hitman to kill Darlie but the guy killed the kids instead for some reason (which he couldn't really explain when I questioned his logic). Granted I'm not as well read on the case as some of the posters here, but I have never heard this theory at all. Was this even a possibility? To be sure, the presenter had an agenda (basically the police are out to frame women :rolleyes: ) and some of his ideas were pretty "out there," to be kind.

This "theory" was brought out well after Darlie's conviction. Apparently, Darin had talked to a guy about burglarizing (not murdering or attacking anyone) his house when no one was home in some sort of insurance scam. The Darlie supporters spun this as an alternate theory to what happened to the boys.

This "theory" was brought out well after Darlie's conviction. Apparently, Darin had talked to a guy about burglarizing (not murdering or attacking anyone) his house when no one was home in some sort of insurance scam. The Darlie supporters spun this as an alternate theory to what happened to the boys.

Interesting. The guy was saying that Darin hired someone to come to the house to kill Darlie so that he could collect life insurance. He also said that Darin had "police connections" and that is why the cops framed Darlie.

Interesting. The guy was saying that Darin hired someone to come to the house to kill Darlie so that he could collect life insurance. He also said that Darin had "police connections" and that is why the cops framed Darlie.

That's laughable. If Darin had police connections, why would they then frame his wife?! Especially considering Darin has maintained his belief that Darlie is innocent from day one. Why not pin it on a transient or someone else?

That's laughable. If Darin had police connections, why would they then frame his wife?! Especially considering Darin has maintained his belief that Darlie is innocent from day one. Why not pin it on a transient or someone else?

Yeah, I was genuinely curious, as I am certainly willing to hear and discuss viewpoints that aren't congruent with my own. Really, how else does one learn? However, it was obvious this guy had an agenda and he wasn't deviating even when presented with logical arguments.

I asked why the intruder attacked the boys at all. His response: "the guy was a psychopath, who knows?"

I then asked (as verification) if the murder weapon was the knife from the kitchen. He affirmed and asserted this was proof that the intruder had been in the house before.

I then asked if the intruder's intent was to murder Darlie, why didn't he bring a weapon of his own. Not surprisingly, he couldn't answer, but relented that it was a good point, but then he brought up the police connection thing and said she was "railroaded."

I also asked his opinion on Jeffrey MacDonald. His response: "framed by the government."

The guy was a crackpot.

This "theory" was brought out well after Darlie's conviction. Apparently, Darin had talked to a guy about burglarizing (not murdering or attacking anyone) his house when no one was home in some sort of insurance scam. The Darlie supporters spun this as an alternate theory to what happened to the boys.

Sounds plausible-the one time you are guaranteed everybody is going to be in the house is the time this happened.

Interesting. The guy was saying that Darin hired someone to come to the house to kill Darlie so that he could collect life insurance. He also said that Darin had "police connections" and that is why the cops framed Darlie.

Again doesn't make any sense-if he had life insurance on his wife then why would the hitman target the kids who would have none before her & leave her alive? How would he be able to influence an entire police force-even if somebody has connections how does those connections manage to not be challenged by the officers who gathered the evidence & interviewed her?

Again doesn't make any sense-if he had life insurance on his wife then why would the hitman target the kids who would have none before her & leave her alive? How would he be able to influence an entire police force-even if somebody has connections how does those connections manage to not be challenged by the officers who gathered the evidence & interviewed her?

Like I said, the guy was a crackpot with an agenda.

This "theory" was brought out well after Darlie's conviction. Apparently, Darin had talked to a guy about burglarizing (not murdering or attacking anyone) his house when no one was home in some sort of insurance scam. The Darlie supporters spun this as an alternate theory to what happened to the boys.

If nothing else, it sheds light on how sketchy Darin is. It's illegal activity. What if the plan got messed up and one or more of them walked in on burglars in their house? Doesn't exactly paint him in the best light.

If nothing else, it sheds light on how sketchy Darin is. It's illegal activity. What if the plan got messed up and one or more of them walked in on burglars in their house? Doesn't exactly paint him in the best light.

This is true. But an insurance scam leaping into murdering his two sons and attacking his wife seems like a huge stretch to me.

This is true. But an insurance scam leaping into murdering his two sons and attacking his wife seems like a huge stretch to me.

The so called insurance scam was just a scam by the Routiers.

Robbie Kee, Darlie's step father suddenly remembers two years after the murders Darin had asked him if he knew anyone who would burgle his home and remove items he could claim on the insurance.

Darin gives an affidavit to the appeals court six years after the murders that he asked his father in law if he knew anyone who could burgle his home.

Nothing was mentioned by either at the time of the murders or when Darlie was arrested. Why didn't her stepfather Robbie Kee remember at the time of the murders or at least when Darlie was arrested.

Darin argued vigorously with the prosecutor at Darlie's trial that he had no money problems, despite what his financial records showed.

Yeah, I was genuinely curious, as I am certainly willing to hear and discuss viewpoints that aren't congruent with my own. Really, how else does one learn? However, it was obvious this guy had an agenda and he wasn't deviating even when presented with logical arguments.

I asked why the intruder attacked the boys at all. His response: "the guy was a psychopath, who knows?"

I then asked (as verification) if the murder weapon was the knife from the kitchen. He affirmed and asserted this was proof that the intruder had been in the house before.

I then asked if the intruder's intent was to murder Darlie, why didn't he bring a weapon of his own. Not surprisingly, he couldn't answer, but relented that it was a good point, but then he brought up the police connection thing and said she was "railroaded."

I also asked his opinion on Jeffrey MacDonald. His response: "framed by the government."

The guy was a crackpot.

LOL, I agree with you the guy was a crackpot.

In light of the new DNA test results posted this week, it's not looking good for Darlie. No unknown male DNA was found. In particular, the bloody print on the sofa back table is female DNA.

LOL, I agree with you the guy was a crackpot.

In light of the new DNA test results posted this week, it's not looking good for Darlie. No unknown male DNA was found. In particular, the bloody print on the sofa back table is female DNA.

Wish I could say I was shocked, but I'm not.

I still can't believe that a mother would do that to her kids .. I just refuse to believe it .. maybe someone who's gone insane and just gone mentally .. but this lady seems like she's ok .. but then again you can't really tell from only watching interviews

No you can't. You have to learn the evidence and in this case it all points to her. She murdered her boys. I too refused to believe she would stab her own children but once I learned the evidence, especially the blood evidence, there is just no way to give her the out. She did it and she's paying for it.

There is not one scrap of evidence from an alleged intruder.

Wish I could say I was shocked, but I'm not.

Nope me neither. This should put the unknown bloody fingerprint claim to bed. Of course now her supporters will claim it was a woman intruder and not a male despite Darlie's many statements she followed the man to her back door.

The frequency of occurrence of these DNA markers at those positions is 1 in 2.5 sextillion Caucasions, 1 in 39 sextillion African Americans, and 1 in 21 sextillion Hispanics.

For a case that happened in Rowlett, Texas, that is so darn infamous, I can't believe how little I know about this case when compared to other people. This case was all over the local news when it happened and Darlie never appeared to be innocent from day one. Watching that silly string video on the local news was hard to watch. It seems like so many people have differing opinions. The one common thing I keep hearing is that the evidence all points to Darlie.

Nope me neither. This should put the unknown bloody fingerprint claim to bed. Of course now her supporters will claim it was a woman intruder and not a male despite Darlie's many statements she followed the man to her back door.

Well the unknown bloody fingerprint claim, IMO, should have never been given much credence to begin with. IIRC, they said that the print was similar in characteristics to a "small child" and ruled out the two Routier boys as the originator of the print, but also could not rule out Darlie as the source of the print. They also said that in many cases a female's print is not that dissimilar to a small child's.

In light of the new DNA test results posted this week, it's not looking good for Darlie. No unknown male DNA was found. In particular, the bloody print on the sofa back table is female DNA.

where did you get this info from?

where did you get this info from?

I was also interested in that.

where did you get this info from?

I got this info here: http://www.dallascounty.org/public_access.php


You have to choose "accept" then put Darlie's case number in.

Darlie's case no. is F9639973.

Miscellaneous order dated 6/25/15

Well the unknown bloody fingerprint claim, IMO, should have never been given much credence to begin with. IIRC, they said that the print was similar in characteristics to a "small child" and ruled out the two Routier boys as the originator of the print, but also could not rule out Darlie as the source of the print. They also said that in many cases a female's print is not that dissimilar to a small child's.

Yes it's been state expert against defence expert. The state cannot rule Darlie out as the bearer of the partial print, nor can the include her though. The state expert Pat Werthaim, the state expert, concluded Darlie's right ring finger left the print and he cannot exclude it.

Now with the DNA proving it's female, I'm convinced and have always been really, that it's Darlie's print.

Now with the DNA proving it's female, I'm convinced and have always been really, that it's Darlie's print.


It casts some shade on her "unknown male intruder" theory, for sure. And also shows that it probably wasn't Darin, either.

The most interesting thing I found on there is confirmation that this case will be profiled as the second season premiere of CNN's Death Row Stories, which will happen on July 12. Yesterday, I made mention that the show was getting ready to air its second season. What I didn't mention was that the title of the first episode was something like "Texas vs. Mother" which I figured was Darlie, but since I didn't know it was her case for a fact yet, I didn't mention it.

I guess I didn't see anything about results of the palm print on the table. What I found was DNA testing results from Darlie's shirt and the knife, both of which would have her DNA on it. There were some inconclusive results and some in which Darin couldn't be ruled out.

In any event, I highly doubt CNN would go ahead and air this story if there was recently confirmed proof of Darlie's guilt. Additionally, it seems like this would be all over the news if it were true. This case was one of the most infamous ones of the 90's.

This has confirmed what I've known all along. That print on the table came from Darlie and no "intruder".

The most interesting thing I found on there is confirmation that this case will be profiled as the second season premiere of CNN's Death Row Stories, which will happen on July 12. Yesterday, I made mention that the show was getting ready to air its second season. What I didn't mention was that the title of the first episode was something like "Texas vs. Mother" which I figured was Darlie, but since I didn't know it was her case for a fact yet, I didn't mention it.

I guess I didn't see anything about results of the palm print on the table. What I found was DNA testing results from Darlie's shirt and the knife, both of which would have her DNA on it. There were some inconclusive results and some in which Darin couldn't be ruled out.

In any event, I highly doubt CNN would go ahead and air this story if there was recently confirmed proof of Darlie's guilt. Additionally, it seems like this would be all over the news if it were true. This case was one of the most infamous ones of the 90's.

The print is not a palm print, it is a smudged, partial fingerprint. The blood was subjected to Y-STR testing, which is isolating the male chromosome Y from the DNA.

10-2589.5E - swab of fingerprint with possibly blood

Results and Conclusions

NO Y-STR results were obtained from 10-2589.5E.
IOW, no male DNA in the bloody partial print on the sofa back table.

The mixed blood stains on her nightshirt were also subjected to Y-Chromosome testing and the major component is Darlie. Darin and hence Devon and Damon, cannot be excluded from the minor component of the mixed stains.

There was no unknown male DNA found on these items.

Darlie's supporters and her appellate attorneys have claimed for years this partial bloody print is not Darlie's that it is the male intruder she saw in her home. This test proves there is no male DNA in that blood hence the print was not left by a male intruder.

I hear many of her supporters are now claiming it was a woman that attacked her rather than a man-pretty pathetic fandom.

Well it will be interesting to see if the show has any new info to provide, or if they will just rehash the same tired points like every other show that's covered this case.

They will always have an excuse. I've seen a few death penalty cases where the inmate insisted they were innocent and pushed for more DNA testing even which they claim will exonerate them even when it was painfully obvious they did it. I will state I'm all for testing all the DNA available.

However, its ALWAYS the same song and dance when it comes back and points directly to them. Its almost comical if it wasn't so tragic. Hank Skinner comes to mind who was featured on On Death Row. Hank claimed it would definitely exonerate him. Sure enough an independent lab came back and said the results concluded that the DNA was Hanks and only further implicated him. Again, I'm definitely all for more testing. Its just amusing when it implicates them to hear the same excuses and more wild theories that make little sense. Its almost like they all talk to each other on how to come up with new explanations lol. Darlie, like Hank Skinner and many others will always have their supporters and a long list of theories. I wouldn't be surprised if Darlie's new story is that an unknown super mysterious female rival for her husbands affections broke in , killed her children and in the process framed her.

Well it will be interesting to see if the show has any new info to provide, or if they will just rehash the same tired points like every other show that's covered this case.

They may have an afterword to the show so to speak. As that show was taped a long time ago so they would not have had access to the latest DNA tests.

Just like MacDonald, as the years go by, the case for Darlie's innocence continues to crumble around her.

where are you guys hearing her supporters now claim it was a female intruder?

where are you guys hearing her supporters now claim it was a female intruder?

Think it was Websleuths when I was looking for info.

Think it was Websleuths when I was looking for info.

I couldn't find anything. In fact, I couldn't find a single pro-Darlie post in any thread anywhere on that site. It's wall-to-wall anti-Darlie commenters.

Feel free to post a link if you see a specific comment from pro-Darlie people claiming a female intruder.

I just sampled some of the threads on websleuths. Talk about a marathon of simpletons. One example was the poster who made some absurd claim about how Damon "looks sad in every photo I have ever seen him in" and that must be proof that Darlie was a horrible mother to him and eventually led to her killing him.

Huh? What?

Except a trip to Google images straightened that whole mess out. Picture after picture (after picture) of Damon smiling. As in, more than a handful.

Everytime I come back to this case I always wonder why did she do this. Was she that miserable being home all day with her children? I guess that will never be answered for me. I also wonder if Darin still believes in her innocence. With this new testing it is almost impossible for me to believe she is. I want to believe she is but it is hard with the lack of evidence of a intruder.

There's a whole thread on Websleuths about how Darlie must be guilty because she never mentioned Drake during the 911 call, which is "proof" she must have known he was ok and she's the responsible party.

Good Lord.

It's not like she didn't have enough to deal with considering *three* people were stabbed, and for that matter, why didn't Darin mention Drake? Or perhaps Darlie figured Drake was ok since he was sleeping next to Darin and Darin would have said or done something had he been stabbed.

I just sampled some of the threads on websleuths. Talk about a marathon of simpletons. One example was the poster who made some absurd claim about how Damon "looks sad in every photo I have ever seen him in" and that must be proof that Darlie was a horrible mother to him and eventually led to her killing him.

Huh? What?

Except a trip to Google images straightened that whole mess out. Picture after picture (after picture) of Damon smiling. As in, more than a handful.

Totally irrelevant to her innocence/guilt either way.

Everytime I come back to this case I always wonder why did she do this. Was she that miserable being home all day with her children? I guess that will never be answered for me. I also wonder if Darin still believes in her innocence. With this new testing it is almost impossible for me to believe she is. I want to believe she is but it is hard with the lack of evidence of a intruder.

Infanticide dates back to the beginning of time-why? Depression, mental illness, a general lack of empathy for other humans, not wanting to take care of children, some people are sadists who like harming people who cannot protect themselves etc.

There's a whole thread on Websleuths about how Darlie must be guilty because she never mentioned Drake during the 911 call, which is "proof" she must have known he was ok and she's the responsible party.

Good Lord.

It's not like she didn't have enough to deal with considering *three* people were stabbed, and for that matter, why didn't Darin mention Drake? Or perhaps Darlie figured Drake was ok since he was sleeping next to Darin and Darin would have said or done something had he been stabbed.

There will always be conjecture-the proof is the criminal investigation with the evidence gleaned & the consistent inconsistencies in her story that doesn't tally.

The only reason anybody cares about this case is because she is a woman-who are still seen as delicate flowers that shouldn't be sentenced to death, which is why so few women end up on death row & very few actually end up being executed-despite their crimes being just as bad as the men that outnumber them by an insane amount who are.

Infanticide dates back to the beginning of time-why? Depression, mental illness, a general lack of empathy for other humans, not wanting to take care of children, some people are sadists who like harming people who cannot protect themselves etc.

I know all of this but it still doesn't make sense to me and it never will.
You have to be seriously sick in the head to kill your children. These boys were viciously killed with such force that the knife went through the carpet. I remember first seeing this case on 48 hours mysteries back in 2001 and I've been torn on her guilt since.

I don't dismiss the possibility that Darlie could be guilty. Where I have a problem is that most of the people that believe she is guilty don't base it on any real evidence, but instead base it on untruths, exaggerations, things taken out of context and things that simply don't mean anything one way or the other. There's a lot of that, and also a lot of people thinking she's guilty because of things like the silly string "evidence" and then molding the evidence to fit their preconceived notion of guilt.

The motive has never been satisfactorily answered for me and one of the main reasons why is because of Drake. She was suffering from post-portum depression and killed her 2 children, yet let another one live, the one that would have been the cause of the depression and her sleeplessness? Andrea Yates killed all 5 of her children right up to the oldest and didn't let any of them live.

The silly string is just something that looks bad. The overwhelming majority of people think she is guilty because that is the most logical conclusion based on the evidence-including the DNA tests that were supposed to exonerate her recently, but have only made it even more obvious.

Sadly we still know very little about the human brain & how it works-why do some serial killers let some people go? Why do kids who shoot up their school let certain people live?

The silly string is just something that looks bad. The overwhelming majority of people think she is guilty because that is the most logical conclusion based on the evidence-including the DNA tests that were supposed to exonerate her recently, but have only made it even more obvious.

No, that's not the case. The main piece of "evidence" the jury focused on was the silly string. There are tons of comments on here from people who think Darlie is guilty based on the silly string. Of course, what most people don't realize is that Darlie didn't even bring the string, nor did they see the entire video which showed a grieving Darlie.

I think one of the bigger pieces of evidence against her is a breadknife from the Routier kitchen (which was in the knife holder when police found it) was tested and found to have traces of the screen that was cut on it. Police tested every other screen in the house and none matched. Only the screen that was cut. Police believe Darlie cut this screen after she murdered the boys and in her haste, forgot to wash it off.

Darlie Routier is guilty as sin and is exactly where she belongs.

I still think the "silly string video" holds absolutely no value in this case. Over the years, I always read comments from people saying that the video is the "smoking gun" of the case. It's really not and never should have been brought up at trial.

While I believe the silly-string video doesn't really prove much of anything, I am convinced of her guilt for the same reason I'm convinced of Diane Downs's guilt: discrepancy in injuries. An intruder comes in and decides to brutally murder two elementary school boys who posed no threat to him, using deep thrusting stab wounds to the chest, but the adult in the room, who posed the most physical threat and would probably be best able to ID him, escapes with a meandering slash along the neck. None of her defenders have been able to explain why the intruder suddenly changed their M.O. from thrusting stab wounds to that slash. Unless we're expected to believe that some psycho crazy enough to break into a house and start stabbing people, would just be too tired and shagged out after stabbing two small children, to dispatch with the adult in the room, who, as I said before, would pose the most threat to him.

That and the whole part about how Darlie was supposedly sleeping in the living room was because her baby was in the room with her husband and she's a light sleeper. So why in the name of all that's holy, did she somehow sleep through her two children being stabbed to death?

My guess as to why she didn't kill Drake...my guess is the fact that he was sharing a bedroom with her husband and while she may be able to easily kill a baby, she'd have a lot harder time taking on a full-grown adult and she knew it.

Remember just because someone might be suffering from post-partum Depression, it doesn't mean they aren't capable of orchestrating and planning a crime.

Okay I'm totally looking at both sides of this case. People say she planted the sock and that is how her blood was in the utility room on the walls and appliances.

But if that is the case then she had cut herself already? How did she have the time? Plus if the blood is in the utility room why isn't there blood outside or on the front door...they said she had to go out the front door to plant it because remember that gate was shut?

Even if she planted the sock before cutting herself why isn't any of the boys blood in the yard?

While I believe the silly-string video doesn't really prove much of anything, I am convinced of her guilt for the same reason I'm convinced of Diane Downs's guilt: discrepancy in injuries. An intruder comes in and decides to brutally murder two elementary school boys who posed no threat to him, using deep thrusting stab wounds to the chest, but the adult in the room, who posed the most physical threat and would probably be best able to ID him, escapes with a meandering slash along the neck. None of her defenders have been able to explain why the intruder suddenly changed their M.O. from thrusting stab wounds to that slash. Unless we're expected to believe that some psycho crazy enough to break into a house and start stabbing people, would just be too tired and shagged out after stabbing two small children, to dispatch with the adult in the room, who, as I said before, would pose the most threat to him.

That and the whole part about how Darlie was supposedly sleeping in the living room was because her baby was in the room with her husband and she's a light sleeper. So why in the name of all that's holy, did she somehow sleep through her two children being stabbed to death?

I've alluded to this before, but I think a possible scenario was that someone entered the house attempting to rape Darlie (her panties were missing), but was unsuccessful. He then tried to kill her, but was unsuccessful in that too as she fought back, but he did manage to inflict injuries on her, to the point that she completely passes out. The boys wake up and he kills them. Realizing that things have not gone at all according to his plans, he bolts.

It would also explain the bruising on Darlie's arms.

Okay I'm totally looking at both sides of this case. People say she planted the sock and that is how her blood was in the utility room on the walls and appliances.

But if that is the case then she had cut herself already? How did she have the time? Plus if the blood is in the utility room why isn't there blood outside or on the front door...they said she had to go out the front door to plant it because remember that gate was shut?

Even if she planted the sock before cutting herself why isn't any of the boys blood in the yard?

Good point. I posed this question awhile back, nobody had an answer for it:

Considering that an expert testified that Damon could not have lived longer than 9 minutes with his injuries (and probably no longer than 6 minutes), and considering that Darlie's phone call to the police was 5 minutes and 45 seconds, do you think it's possible that in that very, very short timeframe (at the very most, 3 minutes and 15 seconds), Darlie could have inflicted grave injuries on 2 children, stage a crime scene, exit the house, plant the bloody sock (barefoot and with minimal clothing on), return to the house, hide her panties in such a place they've never been found, slash her throat (adding in extra time for the supposed hesitation wounds), inflict herself with assorted bruises and cuts, clean up some of the blood mess with towels, shout for Darin, and call 911? All in 3 minutes, 15 seconds tops, and in as little as 15 seconds?

The silly string video has been beaten to death.

And it had little to no bearing on the verdict in her trial. Anyone can read the trial transcripts. The silly string video is probably the most bizarre part of the trial. The officers who videotaped her testify, and when the defense questions the legality of them filming her without her consent, the officers plead the fifth amendment. The jury did see the video (which admittedly does look bad), but then got bogged down by the whole question of ethics about it. The overwhelming physical evidence pointed at Darlie. And that was brought out at the trial. You know, like the little pieces of evidence like the fact that her bloody footprints were found underneath the overturned vacuum cleaner and shards of broken glass. Just that one little piece of evidence. There is no innocent explanation for that. And that's just one of the several pieces of evidence that when put together, show how her story is a bunch of BS.

The police officers, first responders, and neighbors all testified to the same thing: her unusual concern about fingerprints on the knife, not helping her son while he lay on the floor dying, and her vague account were all met with skepticism. If you take the totality of everything (prior to the new DNA results), and weigh it accordingly, she's guilty as sin. And the new DNA test has proven that that "unknown print" found on the table was Darlie's all along. Interestingly enough, that print was what her supporters clung to all of these years, despite the fact that the initial testing had ruled out her children and husband but could not rule out Darlie as the source of the print. Yet they clung to that and believed it was left behind by an intruder. Now that the print has been proven to be Darlie's, there is absolutely ZERO physical evidence that an intruder ever existed.

RE: the sock.

The sock is a red herring in this case. There were 6 bloodstains found on the sock. And by bloodstains I mean drops of blood. All of the bloodstains came from the two boys. None from Darlie. Darie's skin cells were found inside the sock. An intruder ditching the sock would have had Darlie's blood on the sock not to mention the sock would have been soaked with blood (if an intruder did in fact use this as a way to conceal prints). I tend to think that while Darlie was out discarding evidence (prior to cutting herself and prior to returning to the house and finding Damon still alive and then stabbing him again), she dropped the sock accidentally, or planted it. Before returning to the house and finding Damon still alive, I think her initial story could have been that she chased the man through the house and into the alley where she saw him drop the sock before returning to call 911. There are endless possibilities as to how the sock got there and the reasons why, none of which involve an intruder dropping it as he was fleeing. Think about it: the evidence contained on the sock does not support the theory of an intruder, considering the only DNA found on the sock was that of Darlie and her two boys. Granted, there is no real evidence that Darlie planted the sock either. Which is why I contend that it's nothing more than a red herring in the case. There should be more "evidence" of an intruder outside of a sock found in an alley, but there's none.

If anyone wants to see the 48 Hours Mystery episode on this, it airs tomorrow night at 8 and 11 on ID. I believe this is the first time this particular episode has aired in about 14 years or so.

This is another one of those cases that's been profiled on multiple shows. (Forensic Files, American Justice, UM, Death Row Stories, 48 Hours...)

If anyone wants to see the 48 Hours Mystery episode on this, it airs tomorrow night at 8 and 11 on ID. I believe this is the first time this particular episode has aired in about 14 years or so.

This is another one of those cases that's been profiled on multiple shows. (Forensic Files, American Justice, UM, Death Row Stories, 48 Hours...)

Thanks this is one I can't find to watch on the forbidden site. I've seen it before but it has been years ago.

My personal best guess in terms of what order the 3 were stabbed would go 1) Darlie, 2) Devon, 3) Damon, though I'm not 100% certain of that of course.

It's an interesting point to bring up though. Anti-Darlie folks frequently like to bring up the point "Darlie would have woken up while her kids were being stabbed to death." But if that's true, then the following must also be true: Whichever of the boys was stabbed second must have woke up while the first was being stabbed. At that point, it would seem that this child would have either

1) ran
2) hid
3) if you believe Darlie is the perpetrator, tried to get his father (Darin's) assistance

Instead, the boy does none of those things and the Anti-Darlie folks are perfectly content with the wild scenario that one of the boys sits there and watches his mother violently kill his brother and wait for her to do the same to him. It's unbelievable. It's NOT believable.

And to that extent, what are the odds that Darlie would stab one of her children, knowing full well the possibility and likelihood of the other boy darting off to get Darin or what have you, and thus sabotaging all of her plans in the process?

At this point, it seems likely there were multiple assailants.

Not that hard to imagine a scenario where Darlie simultaneously stabs both of her children at the same time. Then, believing they are both dead, attempts her cover up. She tips things over, breaks glasses, cleans up in the kitchen area, slashes the screen, etc. I then think it's entirely possible that she then took the knife, the sock, and other items used in the cleanup outside (through the front, there was a pair of shoes found on the front porch, IIRC) and took them to a storm drain in the back alley. In a hurry, she ditches the items, the sock falls without her knowledge, and she makes it back to the house only to find that Damon is still alive. She stabs him again and then in a panic inflicts the wounds on herself before calling 911.

I think her original story was going to be that she woke up to find the "intruder" attacking her children before she chased him out into the back alley. The only thing she didn't plan on was having Damon still alive when she returned to the house. She may or may not have already planned on inflicting wounds to herself. But I think her wounds do show someone stabbing themselves in an act of desperation. Which is why she was so concerned about making it to the hospital that night, instead of the well being of her children.

And a 5 or 6 year old child is most likely going to freeze when they see their mother in a psychotic rage. They would run to get help if it were a stranger, but seeing their own mother (if they even did) is a different story. I can't even imagine it.

Not that hard to imagine a scenario where Darlie simultaneously stabs both of her children at the same time. Then, believing they are both dead, attempts her cover up. She tips things over, breaks glasses, cleans up in the kitchen area, slashes the screen, etc. I then think it's entirely possible that she then took the knife, the sock, and other items used in the cleanup outside (through the front, there was a pair of shoes found on the front porch, IIRC) and took them to a storm drain in the back alley. In a hurry, she ditches the items, the sock falls without her knowledge, and she makes it back to the house only to find that Damon is still alive. She stabs him again and then in a panic inflicts the wounds on herself before calling 911.

I think her original story was going to be that she woke up to find the "intruder" attacking her children before she chased him out into the back alley. The only thing she didn't plan on was having Damon still alive when she returned to the house. She may or may not have already planned on inflicting wounds to herself. But I think her wounds do show someone stabbing themselves in an act of desperation. Which is why she was so concerned about making it to the hospital that night, instead of the well being of her children.

And a 5 or 6 year old child is most likely going to freeze when they see their mother in a psychotic rage. They would run to get help if it were a stranger, but seeing their own mother (if they even did) is a different story. I can't even imagine it.

I remember reading somewhere where police had some sort of expert listen to the phone call she made and they somehow determined that she was running around the house due to her breath patterns or something. They believed that was when she started knocking things over or it could have been when she was planting the sock.

Also, I always found it odd how Darin mentioned to the cops how he could totally see why someone would want to rape Darlie because she had 38DD's. Seems like a completely odd thing to say.

I remember reading somewhere where police had some sort of expert listen to the phone call she made and they somehow determined that she was running around the house due to her breath patterns or something. They believed that was when she started knocking things over or it could have been when she was planting the sock.

Also, I always found it odd how Darin mentioned to the cops how he could totally see why someone would want to rape Darlie because she had 38DD's. Seems like a completely odd thing to say.

That "expert" is bogus. No way in Hell he can determine what room she was in. Of course she would be running around the house, who wouldn't in that situation?

Interestingly, Darlie said she remember getting a rape kit at the hospital, which was conveniently lost.

I just watched the 48 hours episode, here are some things I noticed.

-Darin stated that the investigators "smoked cigars and high-fived each other as they ruined my life." and Prosecutor Greg Davis could be seen smiling in the hallway of the courtroom. This was the same Prosecutor Greg Davis who stated Darlie "literally danced on her children's graves." Except that she didn't. Darlie was placed on suicide watch at the hospital.

-Darlie brought up a good point. Why would she travel outside and plant the bloody sock knowing she could be seen by any of her neighbors? And considering there was absolutely no shortage of neighbors looking out their window and noticing people, cars, etc that night, she would have stood a good chance of being caught.

-Barbara Davis, who literally wrote the book on Darlie's supposed guilt, changed her mind and believed she was innocent after looking at the photographs of Darlie's injuries. She raised the same question I did earlier on here, how could Darlie have inflicted all that bruising on herself?

-In the silly string video, Darlie can be clearly heard asking "Are we allowed to do this?", which shows she had some hesitation before doing it.

Wiseguy, I apologize if you addressed this far back in the this thread but I didn't see it. Why did Darlie write to grieving family members while in jail she knew who her attacker was? Then back peddled at trial when her own letters were shown to her while on the stand? Now, to this day she claims she has no idea who the killer is.

To me those letters are quite damning if you read them and then read her testimony on the stand when confronted with them. Yes, I know the argument of "well, maybe she was confused ect" but if you actually read the letters and then her testimony while on the stand its nothing like that. Also, those letters were written quite awhile after the murders while she was sitting in jail. It looks like someone who was caught in a lie.

To this day, she never addresses that in any of her interviews and claims to have no clue who could've done this. Its bizarre. The only other person who was "innocent" who lied to her own family members about knowing who was responsible for their child's fate was Casey Anthony. Of course, my point is circumstantial and there are many more reasons why I believe Darlie is guilty but that never sat with me well.

Again if you read Darlies actual letters she wrote and then read her testimony it looks like a caught in a complete lie.

My guess is Darlie was referring to Barry Fife as a possible suspect. Here's an interesting bit of info on him I gleaned from elsewhere on the net:

"3 years prior to the murder, Darlie was in Pennsylvania visiting relatives. When she returned to Dallas, Darin told her that his car was stolen. Being suspicious, Darlie confronted Darin. Darin fessed up to her and admitted that he when to Barry Fife to have the vehicle stolen. She got angry and Darin and Fife, did not approve of Fifes influence on Darin, and confronted Fife about what he did. She threatened to report him to the police. Fife (who used another party to steal the car) told her, "You do not know who you are dealing with. He would hurt your family and hurt your kids." Darlie eventually let it go because of the threat and the concern of getting her husband into big trouble. When the murders happened three years later, Darlie and Darin both named Barry Fife and Ben Claybour (Denton TX) as possible suspects. Claybour had once stolen Darin's credit cards and charged up $10,000. The Routiers reported this to the FBI, but they never charged Claybour despite the fact that he signed his own name on the charge slips. It was not till years after Darlie's conviction that Darin revealed that a short time before the murders, he had approached Fife to burglarize his house. Fife has a history of this kind of activity to defraud the insurance company. Fife's friend, Ben Claybour, left the state when police wanted to question him. The police did not do any further follow up on Fife or Claybour and arrested Darlie for the murder. They probably arrested her in hopes that she knew more and would rat out her husband rather than face capital murder charges. However, this plan failed because Darlie knew nothing and was not withholding any information from the DA. Unfortunately, after the DA's plan failed, they were now committed to following through her prosecution. They certainly could not release her after making such a public arrest, even though behind the scenes, it was intended to setup her husband. If Fife did arrange a burglary and he used the same person that stole the car, then that person would have a reason to kill Darlie since she would immediately suspect Fife's involvement."

Basically, that furthers my suspicion of Darin and the shady people he was associated with.

http://createyourownmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/double_facepalm.png

Regarding the bruising on Darlie's Arms: couldn't it have come from her sons kicking her as she stabbed them?

I don't think Darlie planted the sock. With the lack of blood outside someone else had to do it. Now that doesn't mean I think she is innocence.

I've seen that Darlie defense team paid for a lie detector test. But they never said the outcome for her test. Now of course lie detector tests aren't always accurate but I have to believe that if Darlie passed they would have been shouting that from the rooftops. Plus...

Darlie was supposed to undergo some recession therapy that her mother said she did in fact have done. What were the results? Surely if they were in her favor that would shout that from the rooftops too.

An expert testified that Damon probably could not have survived more than 6 minutes with his injuries. Considering Damon was still alive when the first police arrived and that they arrived 3:45 seconds into the 911 call, that leaves 2 minutes and 15 seconds between the time Darlie would have stabbed Damon and when she called 911.

If you assume Darlie is guilty and that the last thing she did before calling 911 was to inflict the injuries on Damon, in just 2 minutes and 15 seconds, Darlie would have had to accomplish all of the following:

-Go to the sink, slash her throat, stab herself repeatedly (adding in extra time for the supposed hesitation wounds) and then (since investigators allege she did this) clean up the majority of the blood mess.
-travel some distance from her house, plant the bloody sock, and return to the house.
-stage a crime scene, complete with tipped over vacuum cleaner and broken wine glass.
-shout for Darin

all in a little over 2 minutes?

I don't think Darlie planted the sock. With the lack of blood outside someone else had to do it. Now that doesn't mean I think she is innocence.

I think she cleaned up before going outside, thinking Damon was dead. When she ditched the items she returned, saw he was still alive, stabbed him again, and then inflicted the injuries on herself before calling 911.

If you watch the Forensic Files it states the blood dripped on the vacuum cleaner in a 80 degree angle. That meant the blood got there from a person standing up. That would mean that Darlie tipped over the vacuum after she cut herself.

I'd love to believe that she was bleeding on the vacuum and the intruder tipped it over but I don't see how that is possible.

Another question I'd like to pose is this: If Darlie planted the sock as people who believe she is guilty believe she did, why wouldn't she also open the gate at this time, since that would further point to an intruder? She was already outside at this point and in the area so she could have easily unlatched it. But she didn't.

If you assume Darlie is guilty and that the last thing she did before calling 911 was to inflict the injuries on Damon, in just 2 minutes and 15 seconds, Darlie would have had to accomplish all of the following:

-Go to the sink, slash her throat, stab herself repeatedly (adding in extra time for the supposed hesitation wounds) and then (since investigators allege she did this) clean up the majority of the blood mess.
-travel some distance from her house, plant the bloody sock, and return to the house.
-stage a crime scene, complete with tipped over vacuum cleaner and broken wine glass.
-shout for Darin

all in a little over 2 minutes?

She could have done some of that while she was waiting for the police to arrive. Or she could have done some of that before she made the call (like planting the sock).

Another question I'd like to pose is this: If Darlie planted the sock as people who believe she is guilty believe she did, why wouldn't she also open the gate at this time, since that would further point to an intruder? She was already outside at this point and in the area so she could have easily unlatched it. But she didn't.

It's almost as if she wasn't thinking rationally...

She could have done some of that while she was waiting for the police to arrive. Or she could have done some of that before she made the call (like planting the sock).

No, she couldn't have done any of those things while on the phone because it would be audible in the call.

Do you think it's possible she could have done all those things in just over 2 minutes?

I always figured this was almost a lock cinch against Darlie. Watching the CNN segment "Death Row Stories" that profiled this case I actually have second thoughts for the first time about it. I guess Darin didn't want an interview for this segment. Now I can understand that, he's moved on, he got remarried and such and probably doesn't want to talk about it. Yet Darlie did, Darin's aunt did, Darlie's mother did, and Darlies only surviving son did. Darin was painted poorly in this episode, and Darlie was made to look as if she was innocent and is a victim.

I am not tipping my hand to her innocence, but there are a couple things that make sense here.

- This was two years after Susan Smith. The image of a mother killing her children was fresh. It wasn't hard to believe they thought it was another case of this.

- The silly string video is damning, but why was the jury not allowed to see the clips from the Memorial? Or maybe not allowed, but why didn't they? When you take it from that context, it might make a little more sense how she can put on a happy face for a few minutes and spray silly string knowing the boys liked it.

- Darin's conversation he had with the detective in that segment. The video footage of the detective telling him he killed his sons and attacked his wife gave an unusual response from him. He's smiling back at him saying he didn't do it. A very weird thing to do, I'd be livid.

So the thing on CNN tonight was fresh and brought some recent questions. There was another bloody fingerprint. I mean, maybe it is from the boys but if not then it certainly coincides with the intruder story.

Now, it doesn't mean I think Darlie is off the hook. Her story changed a bit in the hours after she was arrested but for 20 years she has maintained her innocence. She hasn't bent on that. I can even see why her story may have changed in the beginning. She said an intruder woke her up and then said Devon (?) woke her up. It might not be hard to mix that up.

But I do have a couple of other concerns. Look, I am a heavy sleeper, I've slept through a fire alarm at a hotel (it was a false alarm, no real fire). Maybe a guy like me can sleep through some stabbings but I am extremely rare that way. If there is a word for someone who is anti-insomniac it is me. I have that rare ability to be out for 8 hours once my head hits the pillow. But I know that is unusual. I never heard them say Darlie being a heavy sleeper. Plus, these boys were 5 and 6. In my household my kids are in bed and aren't falling asleep the same time as me. I guess other households are different, but is it not strange that ALL three of them fell asleep?

I also have to say that if Darlie knew Darin was behind it she'd have said it by now. Obviously even if she thinks it there is no proof. All I know is that he didn't do it himself. There'd be blood all over him. Darlie's story of the attacker using their own kitchen knife doesn't make sense. Why break and enter and just hope you can find a weapon? There was no theft and for some reason a 5'2" Darlie scared off the intruder? Hmmm. This happens the night all three fall asleep in front of the TV?

But........................if Darin had hired someone to do this, it all makes sense. Or if Darin got someone ticked off at him it all makes sense too. Killing your wife and children will sting. Darlie comes to and he flees so that she doesn't recognize him. If Darin hires someone the hitman doesn't want to be recognized either. So I am very torn on this one. Very much so now.

these boys were 5 and 6. In my household my kids are in bed and aren't falling asleep the same time as me. I guess other households are different, but is it not strange that ALL three of them fell asleep?

The attacks happened around 2:30 a.m. Presumably, it was normal for everyone in the house to be asleep at that time.

Darlie's story of the attacker using their own kitchen knife doesn't make sense. Why break and enter and just hope you can find a weapon?

It is believed that two knives were used, one of which was in the Routier household, as you mentioned. There is not so much as a speck of Devon's blood on the knife that came from the Routier household, but it does have Damon and Darlie's blood on it.

I'm guessing there were 2 or more intruders and one of them used his knife on Devon while another one got one from the kitchen and used it on Damon and Darlie.

I'm also guessing the percentage of American households with a set of steak knives is very high, even moreso for homes in upscale neighborhoods such as this one.

This happens the night all three fall asleep in front of the TV?

Darin had then-recently installed a t.v. in that room of the house and the boys had been enjoying it.

- This was two years after Susan Smith. The image of a mother killing her children was fresh. It wasn't hard to believe they thought it was another case of this.

I agree with the statement that it would be more believable after Susan Smith for a mother to murder her own children, but I don't for a second think that's a reason why Darlie was convicted. The evidence in the case led to only one person: Darlie.

- The silly string video is damning, but why was the jury not allowed to see the clips from the Memorial? Or maybe not allowed, but why didn't they? When you take it from that context, it might make a little more sense how she can put on a happy face for a few minutes and spray silly string knowing the boys liked it.

Her supporters keep bringing this up like the judge didn't allow that video at the trial. For reasons unknown, Darlie's defense could have introduced that video as evidence, but did not. Her defense is at fault for that. But I don't think it would have mattered either way. The totality of the evidence has always been pretty damning.

- Darin's conversation he had with the detective in that segment. The video footage of the detective telling him he killed his sons and attacked his wife gave an unusual response from him. He's smiling back at him saying he didn't do it. A very weird thing to do, I'd be livid.

He's always struck me as someone who isn't playing with a full deck. An odd response has never given me reason to think someone is guilty or hiding something. He also said how nice Darlie's breasts looked like shortly after they arrived at the hospital.

So the thing on CNN tonight was fresh and brought some recent questions. There was another bloody fingerprint. I mean, maybe it is from the boys but if not then it certainly coincides with the intruder story.

In a recent DNA analysis, that fingerprint was "proven within a Scientific certainty" that the print found on the table was Darlie's. And the DNA tests done years prior never ruled her out as the source of that print. The "unknown print" bandied about by her supporters has never made sense to me. They ruled out the children and Darin, but couldn't rule out Darlie. Now, they have retested it and shown that it was Darlie's DNA. No unknown DNA was found at the crime scene.

But........................if Darin had hired someone to do this, it all makes sense. Or if Darin got someone ticked off at him it all makes sense too. Killing your wife and children will sting. Darlie comes to and he flees so that she doesn't recognize him. If Darin hires someone the hitman doesn't want to be recognized either. So I am very torn on this one. Very much so now.

Why would Darin hire a hitman to murder his two children?

Another question I'd like to pose is this: If Darlie planted the sock as people who believe she is guilty believe she did, why wouldn't she also open the gate at this time, since that would further point to an intruder? She was already outside at this point and in the area so she could have easily unlatched it. But she didn't.

Well as someone said was she thinking rationally in this moment. If you have killed your own children probably not. Did she have to go through that gate though??

Well as someone said was she thinking rationally in this moment. If you have killed your own children probably not. Did she have to go through that gate though??

The backyard gate was described as having been difficult to open, and that it would have taken some strength and work to get the latch to unhook from the fence. I tend to think that's the reason she went out the front door instead of going through the back.

The attacks happened around 2:30 a.m. Presumably, it was normal for everyone in the house to be asleep at that time.



It is believed that two knives were used, one of which was in the Routier household, as you mentioned. There is not so much as a speck of Devon's blood on the knife that came from the Routier household, but it does have Damon and Darlie's blood on it.

I'm guessing there were 2 or more intruders and one of them used his knife on Devon while another one got one from the kitchen and used it on Damon and Darlie.

I'm also guessing the percentage of American households with a set of steak knives is very high, even moreso for homes in upscale neighborhoods such as this one.



Darin had then-recently installed a t.v. in that room of the house and the boys had been enjoying it.

The thing with this case is that it screams from two different sides. For starters, one of three things happened. Darlie did it, Darin hired someone, or it was random.

I highly doubt it is the third one. That is a fantastic coincidence to break into a home and have three family members sleeping in the living room. Nothing was stolen, this burglar would apparently go a more sinister route than just theft and brutally stab two innocent young boys and then injure Darlie and then flee, leaving an eyewitness and of course the murder weapon on the ground with his bloody fingerprint. There was no proof to show that this happened.

Darin hiring someone makes more sense because it can be orchestrated from the inside. Darlie had a price tag on her from the life insurance policy. The only thing is, why kill your two boys if you just want to "off" your wife? That makes no sense at all. If it was a planned attack then Darlie's story can be corroborated.

That leaves what I still think is the most likely theory. Darlie did it. She had the opportunity to craft the scene how she saw fit. It may have been tricky with the bloody sock and with Darin in the home (assuming he was left in the dark on it) but for all we know she could have been trying to kill herself. Here is the problem with this one though. She had no motive. There was no monetary value for this. Of all the things talked about I never heard about a troubling marriage or Darlie being mentally ill or anything like that. So if it was her, why?

None of them make sense.

Her supporters keep bringing this up like the judge didn't allow that video at the trial. For reasons unknown, Darlie's defense could have introduced that video as evidence, but did not. Her defense is at fault for that. But I don't think it would have mattered either way. The totality of the evidence has always been pretty damning.


I'll say one thing, is it just me or did Darlie have some of the worst representation that I have ever seen in a murder trial? There are times when you think the lawyer could have done so much more for her. Maybe he did his best, maybe that's all that was left in the tank, but if you are getting paid $250,000 for a case you should craft a better defense than he did.

Darin may not have been put through the grinder enough.

Wow even dallas morning news is talking

http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2015/07/cnn-new-book-and-judges-order-shine-fresh-spotlight-on-convicted-child-killer-darlie-routier.html/

I'll say one thing, is it just me or did Darlie have some of the worst representation that I have ever seen in a murder trial? There are times when you think the lawyer could have done so much more for her. Maybe he did his best, maybe that's all that was left in the tank, but if you are getting paid $250,000 for a case you should craft a better defense than he did.

Darin may not have been put through the grinder enough.

The defense knew how strong the case was against Darlie. They used character witnesses to say how Darlie wasn't depressed (which was rebutted by the prosecution time and time again by the letter she wrote and by members of her own family), and how she was a good, loving mother. A ton of defense witnesses brought to the stand, including Darlie herself, were shredded by the prosecution. The highlight of the trial was when the prosecution had asked Darlie about two men she named as her "attacker" in letters she wrote from prison to her family members. The prosecution brought each man in and read Darlie's description of the "attacker" and both men looked nothing like it. It was laughable how bad the defense of Darlie Routier was. And it wasn't a lack of effort. There simply was zero evidence outside of, at the time, an unknown fingerprint (which couldn't rule out Darlie either).

That is why Darlie has many supporters. People simply can't come up with a reasonable motive to kill her own children.

Susan Smith & Diane Downs killed because of men/sex/hopes of a relationship.
Andrea Yates killed because she was mentally ill and had the worst husband who IMO didn't listen to the warnings of her illness.

Want did Darlie kill her children for? That may be a answer we will never know. All we can do is speculate.

I also believe in this case, or any case for that matter, that people can twist evidence to fit a theory. I had a rather heated argument this morning with someone who did just that. They twisted everything right back on me so they didn't have to address the issues that I thought to be fact.

I just find the blood evidence that I come back to in this case each time overwhelming. The cleaning up of the blood at the sink area in the home is something I never see addressed. I want to be a fence sitter because I don't want to believe she did it.

The cleaning up of the blood at the sink area in the home is something I never see addressed.

If Darlie intended to completely clean the sink area, she did a lousy job because there was still blood visible there. I posted a pic several pages back.

But if she cleaned up it before stabbing Damon the second time after washing the blood when she cut herself she wouldn't have had time to clean it again. Darin would have said "why are you cleaning that up".

What would have caused the blood to not appear without the luminol? Plus make it look like it was wiped away? That doesn't fit her story.

I saw the picture but I'd like to see it lit up with the luminol.

I'll say one thing, is it just me or did Darlie have some of the worst representation that I have ever seen in a murder trial? There are times when you think the lawyer could have done so much more for her. Maybe he did his best, maybe that's all that was left in the tank, but if you are getting paid $250,000 for a case you should craft a better defense than he did.

Darin may not have been put through the grinder enough.

Darlie was advised not to take the stand but she insisted. Her attorneys claim they didn't show the beginning of the tape at the cemetry because they didn't think they needed to then Darlie supporters say that it wasn't allowed in court. Someone is lying about that. She didn't do herself any favors writing those letters about knowing who committed the murders. Another bad move IMO was her original court appointed attorney having the case trial moved a rural town.

I don't get the thought process that somehow the Susan Smith case tainted the jury into believing that Darlie was the Texas version of Smith. Isn't it just as likely that Darlie got the idea of murdering her kids and blaming it on an intruder from the extensive media coverage of the Smith case?

To be fair, it's not like Susan Smith was the first person to use the "Stranger murdered my kids" defense either. It's a defense probably as old as crime itself. So I too, fail to see how bringing up Susan Smith caused the jury to view Darlie in an unfair fashion.

I love Darlie's explanation for going through with the silly string incident. I don't care if your son loved silly string. We are talking 8 days after his brutal murder (allegedly by an "intruder"), on his birthday of all days, to go to his grave and spray silly string around. Even if it's true (and it very well could be) that Darlie's sister was the one who bought and brought the silly string, couldn't a "I don't think that's very appropriate to do right now" have sufficed? Compare Darin's demeanor to Darlie's during that video. That's always been very telling to me.

I love Darlie's explanation for going through with the silly string incident. I don't care if your son loved silly string. We are talking 8 days after his brutal murder (allegedly by an "intruder"), on his birthday of all days, to go to his grave and spray silly string around. Even if it's true (and it very well could be) that Darlie's sister was the one who bought and brought the silly string, couldn't a "I don't think that's very appropriate to do right now" have sufficed? Compare Darin's demeanor to Darlie's during that video. That's always been very telling to me.

I've always felt that myself. He just looked totally uncomfortable - or at least uninterested - to be there. I don't care if you've been crying for a couple hours like they probably were during that memorial (although it would have been nice to have seen better and closer footage on it) if your son is dead and silly string was his favourite thing it would make you curl up into a ball thinking about that alone. Imagine reading him his favourite book at that moment. Who here wouldn't cry their eyes out while doing this?

I'm uncomfortable each time I watch the "silly string" video. Now I'm a mother and I can tell you that if my son was dead I'd go into a deep state of depression. I understand that Dana bought the silly string and that people may mourn in different ways but it is just the oddest thing. Does that mean that she is guilty just on that video only...NO.

One thing that has been disturbing for me is how the family keeps changing the "scapegoat" in this case.

First we have the sexual assault angle. Someone in the area, we now know to be a black man, was assaulting women in the area with tube socks and getting the weapon from the homes he broke into. Now that hasn't worked out.

Second we have the Darin hired someone to break in to stage a robbery.
Which brings this man Fife into the story.

Third we have the Darin hired someone to kill Darlie to get her $250,000 insurance policy.

Darin divorced Darlie in 2011 that is a fact. It would seem that since then Darin has become the "scapegoat" and has been thrown up the bus to fit a theory. Or maybe it was before 2011 because I know it has been stated that Darin stopped visting her in the early 2000's. But I find it odd that this family that loved/supported Darin as did he to Darlie and her family now believes he is this monster?

Darin's own mother and father offered a reward. I just find that to be a total slap in the families face to now say your son may have hired someone that in turn got Darlie injured and the boys murdered.

With the new evidence coming back as a woman's DNA I just don't see how much longer this can go on. How much testing can be done? As in the MacDonald case it is becoming harder and harder to believe in these theories.

Evidence doesn't lie but people do.

Oh and one more thing if Darin did hire someone to do this how would he have paid them? No money upfront as we all know he didn't have any means to pay anything before hand. Most people don't just say "sure pay me after the fact". Meaning the only way he could have paid someone was after the insurance payout.

Darin divorced Darlie in 2011 that is a fact. It would seem that since then Darin has become the "scapegoat" and has been thrown up the bus to fit a theory. Or maybe it was before 2011 because I know it has been stated that Darin stopped visting her in the early 2000's. But I find it odd that this family that loved/supported Darin as did he to Darlie and her family now believes he is this monster?

Darin's own mother and father offered a reward. I just find that to be a total slap in the families face to now say your son may have hired someone that in turn got Darlie injured and the boys murdered.


I remember an article when Darin re-married. 2011 sounds about right. He had no ill will towards Darlie but he wanted a divorce so he could marry his new wife, which is understandable. Even in that interview he still believed Darlie was innocent. That would be a good time to say "Yeah she did it, I see that now." Also, Darlie never said anything at that time, that I know. But on the CNN segment she started hinting at it. Even Darin's own aunt said in her heart she says no, but in her head she has questions about it.

Darlie's mother said she didn't believe Darin would hire someone, in the interview.

If you are Darin, and you are completely innocent in this case as it seems to appear, imagine the life you've lived since this happened. Your sons are brutally murdered by your wife, their mother, under your own nose. You marriage collapses. You have an infant son to raise. You probably have a heck of a time living a normal life since someone will always have an opinion about you. You might have needed a long time to find yet another woman that truly loved you other than just wanting to be with you for the rush of being with a possible villain.

IMO if Darin ever admits that he believes Darlie to be guilty he paints him in a bad light. Self preservation if you will. Same as if Darlie says Darin did anything wrong that night. That would be admitting her guilt. Just seems that he is the scapegoat now that he has moved on with his life.

IMO if Darin ever admits that he believes Darlie to be guilty he paints him in a bad light. Self preservation if you will. Same as if Darlie says Darin did anything wrong that night. That would be admitting her guilt. Just seems that he is the scapegoat now that he has moved on with his life.

Darin is mentioned as a scapegoat by the Darlie supporters and her family. No one outside of those two groups believe he had a role in these murders.

Think about this logically for a second:

If Darin hired someone to burglarize the house, and this person shows up and brutally murders his two young sons, why would Darin in turn then be completely ok with the fact that his wife was sitting in jail on death row, while the murderer was living freely among the public? This wasn't some clear cut hiring someone to kill your wife job, those two young boys were stabbed viciously and repeatedly. I can't imagine any father (even if he had a hand in hiring this guy, and I don't believe there's any truth to that) would just sit back and watch his wife take the fall for the murder of his own two sons.

It's just another case of the Darlie supporters throwing something to the wall and hoping it will stick. First it was a police officer's son, then it was someone Darin hired, then it's a woman, now it could be two intruders, etc. It just will never stop.

I just wanted to share this opinion since their has been some debate about motive. I think Darlie is guilty. I do not empathize with her. I dont think the primary motive was life insurance.

Darlie had written in her diary about being suicidal and depressed. In fact, I believe Darin had to come home at least once due to Darlies emotional state. If I remember correctly Darlie had written how her children would be better off without her.

After the birth of her third child, a neighbors account of her state just screams to me. The neighbor said darlie was on the sitting on the couch and seemed out of it. The neighbors daughter asked to see or hold the baby. Darlie was not responsive. The neighbor didn't notice the baby on Darlies lap because of the pile of laundry next to her. After asking Darlie where the baby was a few times without response, the neighbor noticed the baby practically covered in laundry on Darlies lap. The neighbor took the baby and offered to give Darlie a moment break as she was concerned for her and the baby.

Now, many many women suffer from post postpartum depression especially when you have multiple small children. Some women do really great with the radical hormone changes in their bodies and others become frazzled, depressed and overwhelmed. Even in the most severe cases, 99.99 percent of women will never kill or harm their children and it is NOT an excuse to do so. It isn't often that suicidal thoughts become homicidal either but in rare cases it does happen.

Even before the birth of her third child, Darlie had written about suicide and depression multiple times in her diary. I also think the financial hardships only added to this.

I'm not a psychologist and clearly it was something deeper then just postpartum depression but I think Darlie's emotional state wasn't well for years . I think having another child only added to whatever was already brewing.

She knew right from wrong and this took planning. So, she is 100 percent responsible for her own actions and it was callous and downright disgusting. I am simply saying that It has always been apparent to me that there were signs not all was well with her (although im sure nobody could have imagined this outcome).

I couldn't help but notice the date this happened on. 6-6-96. Take away the 9 in that number, and what does that leave you? Have to wonder if this was the work of Satanists, who might not have had a problem stabbing 2 kids to death.

This would also explain why nothing was stolen. That was probably a low-level crime to them.

The job of the prosecution is not to provide motive, just proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Darlie was the murderer. And if you read the trial transcripts, you will see that they did just that.

The bruising on Darlie's arms. I've mentioned this and asked what the possible cause of this could have been. Not surprisingly, the only answer I got was "the kids kicking Darlie's arms."

The same people say how unlikely it was in regards to Damon walking over to Darlie and waking her up because how could a boy with the injuries he suffered be even up moving at that time? And Devon never got up. Throw in the fact that the kids were sleeping at the time Darlie is alleged to have started stabbing them, they were both likely severely injured even before they knew what was going on.

So are we to believe that the kicks of little kids was enough to cause enough bruising to completely cover both arms of an adult? Keeping in mind the unlikelihood that either boy could have done much moving around at all after being stabbed severely and repeatedly, let alone the unlikelihood they could have caused all that bruising.

And for that matter, why wouldn't the kids have bit, scratched, clawed or hit Darlie?

https://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/hc-jan-9_97.pdf

The murders of Damon and Devon occurred on June 6th. Darlie was admitted to the hospital for roughly 2 days. The doctor examined her on her discharge date on June 8th and did not note bruising. The police photographed the bruises on June 10th. Bruises of that nature would not be "dormant" for 4 full days.

https://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/14_dr-patrick-dillawn.pdf

Not only the doctor, but the nurses also said they saw no bruising consistent with those that the police photographed. In other words, they are meaningless in the case. It's obvious she did it to herself after being discharged from the hospital. Not to mention the bruises in the police photo are still purple, meaning they are fairly fresh.

ETA (for those that are interested for more about the bruises): http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/statement--3.html

I couldn't help but notice the date this happened on. 6-6-96. Take away the 9 in that number, and what does that leave you? Have to wonder if this was the work of Satanists, who might not have had a problem stabbing 2 kids to death.

This would also explain why nothing was stolen. That was probably a low-level crime to them.

Creepy...............I'll give you that. But why kill the boys? I know, they are Satanists and pure evil and such but why them? Why not Darlie? Also, is it not a fantastic coincidence that they decide to do this the night Darlie and her two sons were sleeping in front of the TV? Darin seems like a big guy, or tall at that time (at least he looked it). I would think they'd not want to take their chances fighting the husband. So is this not just a fantastic coincidence? How do you know the mother and two kids are sleeping in front of the TV? If you want to kill the kids you would at least have to have running knowledge of the layout of the house.


Another thing, they talk about their money problems, I don't really believe that. They had a really nice house, if they were running into some financial problems wouldn't it have just made sense to borrow some money against the home? My guess is they would have had some equity in there.

So no one else finds it coincidental that on the night the boys were murdered Darin and Darlie had an argument where both argued about separating?

So no one else finds it coincidental that on the night the boys were murdered Darin and Darlie had an argument where both argued about separating?

I had no idea about that. Does this explain why she was sleeping on the couch? Or did she just casually fall asleep while watching TV? I fall asleep in front of the TV all the time before waking up and getting into my real bed with my wife. But I just always found it strange that Darlie and the two boys all did the same thing.

Does anyone know what the fight was about? Are you sure there was a fight? Who said this, Darin or Darlie?

We have a big family room downstairs and I have slept down there many times over the years. I believe my son has slept down there maybe twice with me.
He had gotten up in the middle of the night and I couldn't sleep so we watched some late night TV shows or something on the DVR together. Not that unusual especially since it was summer time.

In recent days I've seen some comments about the bruises on "other sites".
Some got me thinking. It must take some serious force to stab with such force to drive the knife through the body/carpet to the sub floor.

Each time you hit the person with the knife that would be a great deal of pressure on the arm. Now her arm was bruised from the IV. Which I've had multiple times in my life and I had severe bruises from them. I have a very low iron count so I bruise very easily. Just a theory.

I had no idea about that. Does this explain why she was sleeping on the couch? Or did she just casually fall asleep while watching TV? I fall asleep in front of the TV all the time before waking up and getting into my real bed with my wife. But I just always found it strange that Darlie and the two boys all did the same thing.

Does anyone know what the fight was about? Are you sure there was a fight? Who said this, Darin or Darlie?

She was suffering from PPSD after having Drake. Their finances weren't the best at this time, and her car was incapable of being driven at the time, so they didn't have the money to get it fixed. Both Darlie and Darin admitted (but tried to downplay) the argument they had that night. Darlie confronted Darin about being stuck at home with the kids all the time without a car, how stressful it was on her, needed alone time, etc. and that's where the fight started. And yes, there was a fight. Darin signed an affidavit saying that Darlie did ask for a separation on the night of the murders.

http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/WritAffidavits/darin.html

According to a pro-Darlie website, the kids had been sleeping in the family room since school had then-recently let out as Darin had recently installed a t.v. down there. Darlie had been sleeping down there that week as she was apparently a far lighter sleeper than Darin and the baby kept waking her up. That's from a pro-Darlie website, so perhaps take it with a grain of salt. But if it's true, all 3 of them had been sleeping down there for several nights preceding June 6th.

And since that will inevitably lead to the question "How could Darlie sleep through her boys being attacked?" My guess is she was attacked first and passed out quickly.

Wow, this is 2015, 3 years since the last post. Did you see the show "Death Row Stories" on CNN? Seems the prosecution in the case played some dirty tricks. I've always believed in the woman's innocence. Not only was Mrs. Routier's throat cut not a superficial wound but there was massive bruising on her arms in a picture they didn't show the jury. Her throat wound was so severe that her necklace lodged into her throat saving the aorta! Women so seldom hurt themselves to that extent. At the time, the Susan Smith case influenced opinions everywhere. I found it hard to get a job in Maryland having even arrived from South Carolina. I knew Smith was guilty because she wouldn't make eye contact and she almost chuckled once on camera. Susan Smith gave them the idea that a mother could be cruel. That would be a pretty cruel if not risky plan. Yes, Darlie Routier's throat was cut and she barely lived. I've never heard of a woman cutting her own head off.
That would hurt and certainly leave a scar. We know Routier was vain. She was vain and tacky. And she liked money. Know someone who doesn't? Of course she enjoyed having something in life! Another lady that was misunderstood was Patsy Ramsey. She was very tacky. But to her, her home was a castle and she shared it with others. Someone took the tour and knew the house way too well. Those two cases remind me of each other. They could have been solved but they were botched. Mrs. Ramsey's cancer came back and she may have gladly died to be with her daughter. If someone were cruel enough to kill children in that way; another joy of theirs had to be making the mother look responsible. Weren't both cases at Christmastime? New info has Darin committing insurance fraud to get money. He said a car was stolen once, did he not? Had Mrs. Routier not survived, wouldn't the police investigators looked at Darin? And that famous silly-string incident...that was only AFTER a long, moving service that was left out on purpose. The boys were turned on their stomachs so they wouldn't see their killer. So they wouldn't know it was Dad? Or did the killers want people to think it was Dad? And they cut the screen from the inside. That's a lot of planning. Somebody left that sock in the alley. I don't think anyone would do that for a woman they thought murdered her children! Maybe Darin owed some money and Darlie was supposed to die too. Then he'd be charged with murder and they'd have their revenge. Or maybe he paid someone. Has she ever been put under hypnosis to see what her attacker looked like?!

Another point: Darin is shown on tape smiling at investigators like ha! ha! can't catch me....saying no, he didn't do it and they can't prove it. Not the kind of reaction you'd expect out of an innocent father and husband. Could he have put the sock out there to draw attention away from himself...just in case he was accused? Yes, it could have been the work of satanists since it was on 6-6-96. I am especially conscious of the numbers since I gave birth to 3 children in June. On my mother's bracelet, I insert my own birth stone in between them. I'm glad one of you came up with that idea. I've speculated that either satanists or Muslim extremists may have killed JonBenet Ramsey because it was at Christmastime. Research on the computer shows that bin Laden had set up a telephone system for the US Army soldiers to call home. It was set up in Colorado. You might want to look that up yourself. And read about Mr. Al-Turki, the Saudi national in prison in Colorado. A Mr. Clements who was a prison official was murdered by a prisoner let out "by mistake." Mr. Clements denied Al-Turki a transfer.

Sorry Wiseguy for saying it had been three years since the last post. I am reading yours posted recently. Thanks.

But both her arms were bruised.

Has anyone made the observation that Darlie Routier never tried to point to her husband? If she had really been guilty, wouldn't she have tried to place blame on him? She must have really believed in him.

Oh, he did, did he? Darin signed an affidavit that Darlie had asked for a separation. I wonder if he had ever hit her. When an abused woman tries to leave that's when they are in the worst danger.

The attorney who represented the Ramseys and then Homaidan Al-Turki was Boulder attorney Hal Haddon. I probably spelled his name wrong before. Funny how I would suspect Al-Turki of being JonBenet's killer only to find he and the Ramseys ended up with the same attorney. Another suspect is a preacher in the area. 15 year old Eva DeBruhl of Rock Hill, SC disappeared in July 1977 from her home. She was described as very religious. My theory is some man picked her up for VBS (vacation bible school).

I'm going to check out that article about the preacher who may have killed JonBenet Ramsey. By the way, I still believe Darlie Routier is innocent and the reason she doesn't suspect Darin is that he raised their youngest son. That would be the icing on the cake of what she's had to deal with! Imagine what it would be like to be sitting on death row for the most horrible crimes, being falsely accused of killing your babies...only to have to admit their father killed them and then he raised their only living brother, your son. God help her! Texas ought to do something right and let her go free.

Homaidan Al-Turki came to the United States in 1995 and then went to college in Boulder, Colorado. His slave girl indicated he was especially fond of raping her in the basement. Isn't that where the intruder entered the Ramsey house and where he took JonBenet? Sorry to accuse him of murder but Mr. Clements was probably killed in a hit after he refused to transfer Al-Turki to Saudi Arabia...what a joke..so they could give him a medal for being a good Muslim?! Has anyone ever compared his and his wife's handwriting to the ransom note? It said he respected John's business but not his country and that they were "a small foreign faction." Do you suppose he bought the Barbie doll with his credit card and the underpants that Patsy said didn't belong to JonBenet were actually Sarah and Homaidan's daughter's?! I must have a fantastic imagination. But someone has to have one!

You should really do some research on Darlie and Darin. You are misinformed on many counts. Jon Benet is separate case that is totally unrelated to the Routier case.

Coneflower raises a good point I had thought of before. A lot of the insults hurled at Darlie are unfair. I've seen people attack her because she had big hair (what Texas woman in the 90's *didn't* have big hair?) and because she liked to live beyond her means (which is very common these days) and this and that. At the end of the day, these things don't add up to a hill of beans.

That's why I've always had doubts about Darlie's guilt. So much of the "evidence" against her is nothing more than perceptions, information coming from one sided sources, and things that are completely irrelevant. It's hardly damning. I'm sure that will be responded to like everything else, but I remain unconvinced. Texas will convict anyone. Her trial was a joke. Did you know that jurors discussed the case with the open public while on lunch breaks and such? That alone should have gotten the trial tossed. If others are so convinced Darlie is so guilty and the evidence against her is overwhelming then surely they wouldn't mind a new trial for her. Right?

And it's impossible not to notice there are a lot of similarities between this and JonBenet, as they were the two biggest cases of 96, both involved murdered kids, both involved parents that were suspected, both involved families living in big houses in affluent neighborhoods, etc.

A new trial for someone found guilty, who's obviously guilty, just because? Not how it works in America.

Until they find evidence of a intruder I seriously doubt she will get another trial. The new testing results don't look good for her at all.

According to a pro-Darlie website, the kids had been sleeping in the family room since school had then-recently let out as Darin had recently installed a t.v. down there. Darlie had been sleeping down there that week as she was apparently a far lighter sleeper than Darin and the baby kept waking her up. That's from a pro-Darlie website, so perhaps take it with a grain of salt. But if it's true, all 3 of them had been sleeping down there for several nights preceding June 6th.

And since that will inevitably lead to the question "How could Darlie sleep through her boys being attacked?" My guess is she was attacked first and passed out quickly.

Wouldn't a light sleeper hear someone approaching her? My wife is a light sleeper, I come to bed much later than her and she'll always react the second I open the door to our room. I could never sneak up on her.

Coneflower raises a good point I had thought of before. A lot of the insults hurled at Darlie are unfair. I've seen people attack her because she had big hair (what Texas woman in the 90's *didn't* have big hair?) and because she liked to live beyond her means (which is very common these days) and this and that. At the end of the day, these things don't add up to a hill of beans.

That's why I've always had doubts about Darlie's guilt. So much of the "evidence" against her is nothing more than perceptions, information coming from one sided sources, and things that are completely irrelevant. It's hardly damning. I'm sure that will be responded to like everything else, but I remain unconvinced. Texas will convict anyone. Her trial was a joke. Did you know that jurors discussed the case with the open public while on lunch breaks and such? That alone should have gotten the trial tossed. If others are so convinced Darlie is so guilty and the evidence against her is overwhelming then surely they wouldn't mind a new trial for her. Right?

And it's impossible not to notice there are a lot of similarities between this and JonBenet, as they were the two biggest cases of 96, both involved murdered kids, both involved parents that were suspected, both involved families living in big houses in affluent neighborhoods, etc.

I'm fine with her getting a new trial. I am fine with anyone getting a new one so long as there is something new to present that could be damning against someone else. Other than that, you can't waste the courts time with these things.

I am not sure why the JonBenet case gets brought up. Darlie's case was 6 months prior. No one had even heard of JonBenet at this time.

One of the biggest arguments for Darlie's guilt has been the so-called unlikelihood that some unknown intruder would break into a house in the middle of the night for reasons and motives unknown and stab 2 little kids to death with a knife from the home and leave a woman in the house with "minor injuries". Not only are such things not factual, they're also (like the silly string "evidence") not good barometers of Darlie's guilt or innocence. I certainly hope none of you are wrongfully accused of a murder and go on trial and have a Texas jury only take a few hours to determine your fate, and spend much of said time going over things that, in the grand scheme of things, don't add up to a hill of beans.

I was watching a 20/20 episode the other day that had a case strikingly similar to this one. A woman in Illinois named Julie Rea Harper had been accused of stabbing her 10 year old son Joel Kirkpatrick to death in the middle of the night at her home. She said an intruder broke into their home and used a knife on the property and she fought with him. You think Darlie only had "one minor injury"? In this case, Julie really did only suffer a few minor injuries, which included a cut by her eye. The so-called "evidence" against her mostly consisted of her ex-husband going on the stand to testify what a "horrible" woman she was.

Except that she really was innocent and someone else would go on to confess to the crime. Who was that person? None other than Tommy Lynn Sells, suspect in the Bible/Freeman and Stefanie Stroh cases, among many others. His reasoning for the brutal stabbing death of the precious young boy? He had encountered a woman at a convenience store earlier in the day who was supposedly rude to him and he wanted to get revenge.

Or how about the episode of Death Row Stories from a few weeks ago where some crazed man broke into a house in the middle of the night and stabbed everyone in the house, resulting in the deaths of the parents, the young daughter and the young boy visiting that night. Only the young son survived, but he too had been viciously stabbed.

I don't intend to sound rude, but let's please get over this absurd notion that there aren't whackos out there who wouldn't break into a house in the middle of the night and stab kids to death with a knife from the home for an unknown or completely stupid reason. It has happened. In case you haven't realized, there are a lot of truly sick, disgusting people out there.

Some of you may remember my posts from a while back where I talk about all of the suspicious people, cars and activity hanging around the upscale and usually crime-free town of Rowlett, TX just before and after the murders. Well, there's also this which I found elsewhere on the net:

"The earlier, similar crimes in Rowlett involved roughly half a dozen burglaries in which the intruders slashed a screen, then armed themselves with a knife found on the premises. In the earlier cases, no one was at home. In the Routier case, no one appeared to be home as both of the family cars were either in the shop or parked behind the house". (DaveMoff - poster in the forum) Another poster in a different forum, who said that he had worked with both Darin and Darlie in a previous job, said that Darin had actually been into that workplace the day before the break-in to discuss upcoming freelance work they were arranging, and he had left his car in their car park overnight, so it wasn't outside his house as usual that night when the crime took place in the early hours of the morning."

Now, does anyone care to still argue the point that someone wouldn't break into a house in the middle of the night and stab kids to death with a knife from the property? Here's something else I found on the net:

"Brownie Sherrill ... gave an affidavit at the trial that Darin did fix the fence the night before. It was broken again that morning so that proves someone went out the fence in a hurry and we know Darlie never left the crime scene". (Darlie's mother in response to an article in Dallas Morning News)

Now I suppose there's a small chance Darlie could have broken that while going out to plant the bloody sock, but that just gives her one more thing to do on top of the list of many things she had to accomplish in the 2 minute and 15 second timeline.

So what does that leave us? Blood evidence? If the only stab wounds Darlie received where ones she self-inflicted at the sink, then how come there is blood staining on her pillow, which was right on the couch where she was sleeping?

It also personally bothers me that both the 2 lead investigators on this case as well as the court reporter (who committed over 33,000 errors in the transcript, many of them serious mistakes) all plead the 5th on the stand.
If that doesn't scream fishiness, I don't know what does.

Then who is it? Darlie doesn't get a good look at the guy? He just decides to take off as soon as this little woman (5'2") wakes up? There was no DNA of another person in the house. No bloody footprints, there was smashed glass on TOP of the blood on the floor. Take that any way you'd like. There were no witnesses who saw this man leave. Okay, it was 2:30am, but was someone not startled by all of that noise, like a neighbour or something? Didn't anyone see someone flee? The cops never saw anyone suspicious in the area? No one saw a bloody man an hour later somewhere? Nothing?

It is just one of those cases where Darlie either did it, or she is the most unfortunate woman on the face of the earth because there isn't a trace of evidence saying anyone was even there.

After these new results were released, they can now conclusively say that nothing from that crime scene was left behind by an intruder. Everything can be tied back to the Routier's or the first responders.

Some contest that Darlie used a knife from the house to cut the screen, then placed the knife back in the butcher block, and that dusting of the knife "proved" it was used to cut the screen.

Not only is that evidence sketchy at best, but I'll pose this question: What possible reason would Darlie have for retrieving a knife from her kitchen, slashing the screen, putting it back, then grabbing a different knife, then use that to stab Damon and herself? Why would she not just use the same knife?

And more importantly, where is the knife that killed Devon? Because the only knife found with blood on it in the house just had Darlie and Damon's blood on it.

I never said she was innocent, but I never said she was guilty either. I just think as much as people hate her, she wasn't given a fair trial due to jury bias and leaving out key pieces of evidence like the unknown fingerprints. I think her being questioned while still sedated really wasn't cool and they should've waited until she wasn't so groggy to get the full story from her.

I don't normally "advocate" for people behind bars but her case I think deserves another look. There's just so many missing pieces to the puzzle that weren't presented forward. They never did find the weapon used to stab Devon. That right there is a bit peculiar.

How can she be neither innocent nor guilty? Either she killed them or she didn't.

Some contest that Darlie used a knife from the house to cut the screen, then placed the knife back in the butcher block, and that dusting of the knife "proved" it was used to cut the screen.

Not only is that evidence sketchy at best, but I'll pose this question: What possible reason would Darlie have for retrieving a knife from her kitchen, slashing the screen, putting it back, then grabbing a different knife, then use that to stab Damon and herself? Why would she not just use the same knife?

And more importantly, where is the knife that killed Devon? Because the only knife found with blood on it in the house just had Darlie and Damon's blood on it.

Using a bread knife to stab someone just isn't effective. Now I'll ask you what kind of intruder uses a bread knife to cut open a screen and then put it back in the block?

If Darlie washed the knife then Devon's blood was gone. Then she had to stab Damon again because he was still alive and then she cut herself.

I'd be very interested to know if Damon and Devon both had cuts that appeared to be made by the same knife.

If Darlie washed the knife then Devon's blood was gone. Then she had to stab Damon again because he was still alive and then she cut herself.

But there most likely would have been specks or drops of blood remaining. She would have likely had to use bleach to get rid of Devon's blood, and even that might not have completely done it.

Plus, it gives her yet one more thing on top of many to accomplish in the already ultra-tight timeline.

It's also interesting to note that not only did one of the jurors say they never saw the photos of Darlie's injuries, but also Precious Angels author Barbara Davis, who had a ringside seat for the trial, has also stated that they never saw the photos of Darlie's injuries, so that's not one, but TWO people claiming it.

I understand all of the photos (there were over 1,000) were "admitted into evidence", but that doesn't mean the jury saw all of them (and it would be unlikely they would be shown that volume of them anyways).

Stop the nonsense, the bruises were shown to the jury, while Babs Davis was sitting in the courtroom.

https://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/12_dr-alejandro-santos.pdf

Use CTRL+F and type "bruis", and you'll see the testimony of the doctor describing Darlie's bruises, all the while looking at pictures of them.

The transcript was interesting. Me, I assumed the bruises could be explained as "Her kids kicked her as she stabbed them" but the description of how fresh the injuries were, despite being allegedly four days old, I can agree that Darlie may have done them to herself, in order to add to her story. Makes me think of that book Ann Rule did on a horrible woman name Pat Taylor called "Everything She Ever Wanted." Pat's daughter, Susan, talked about as a kid, seeing her mother beat herself with pots and pans. After which, when their father came home, Pat talked tearfully about how a guy busted in and raped her.

But the bruises were black and covered both of her arms entirely. Not only would it take a monumental effort for Darlie to inflict them on herself, I doubt she could do it with any number of people in her hospital room at any given point and not give herself away.

She was discharged from the hospital the day prior to going to the police station. Somehow in that time frame, the bruises were inflicted on Darlie. And she's never claimed that Darin or anyone else did them to her, so logic would dictate that she inflicted them herself.

If Darlie did it, Darin being in the house makes no sense. She likely would have waited until she was alone with all 3 of them.

One would think the boys would be screaming and crying, the intruder and ensuing struggle would result in ridiculously loud noises. And this was 2am.

She had no way of knowing that Darin wouldn't wake up. And if he did, he would have seen his wife murdering his sons and would have presumably stepped in to either pull his sons to safety and run away, and call the cops, or to kill his wife to protect the kids.

She had no way of knowing Darin wouldn't rush down the stairs after hearing those sounds and see his wife on a killing spree.

Thats a BOLD move. Its also ridiculously risky.

Her staging evidence also raises the risk of Darin coming down the stairs all that more. She had no way of knowing if he would rush down the stairs and see this horrific scene, Darlie's gone, he goes outside and see's his wife with a bloody sock and the murder weapon.

And she also ran the real risk of Darin hearing a commotion downstairs, hearing the door shut, and then again, seeing Darlie outside hiding evidence. Darin could have come down the stairs at any moment. Yet she took the time to stage a cover up? really?

I read somewhere a little while ago that Darin had seen a dark figure in the house a few minutes after the attacks which he initially assumed was a police officer, but reflecting on it, he later thought it might be the intruder or one of the intruders.