even the staging of the crime scene alone, everything turned over, stuff on the floor, would have made a ton of noise. If she is guilty she's taking a hell of a chance that Darin would discover her. It seems to me unlikely she would do this with Darin in the house.

I'm assuming that the examiner ruled out someone's fists as the cause of the bruises. As I recall from the transcript, the guy said that if someone had grabbed her, they would leave fingermark bruises. But I imagine there would be a distinction between bruises inflicted by someone punching her and her, I don't know, banging her arms against the bed rails or something.

So I have to ask: how exactly do the supporters explain this? What weapon did Big Bad Burglar (BBB) use to inflict the bruises on Darlie?

Someone in this thread theorized, in an attempt to explain the discrepancy in injuries, that Darlie was attacked first, was rendered unconscious, and BBB went after her kids while she was out. But that still doesn't explain why BBB suddenly changed his M.O. from a meandering slash along the neck to deep-thrusting stab wounds.

IIRC, there was testimony from her trial that the bruises would have been sustained from a car accident, or taking your arms and repeatedly slamming something against it (a door).

I'm assuming that the examiner ruled out someone's fists as the cause of the bruises. As I recall from the transcript, the guy said that if someone had grabbed her, they would leave fingermark bruises. But I imagine there would be a distinction between bruises inflicted by someone punching her and her, I don't know, banging her arms against the bed rails or something.

So I have to ask: how exactly do the supporters explain this? What weapon did Big Bad Burglar (BBB) use to inflict the bruises on Darlie?

Someone in this thread theorized, in an attempt to explain the discrepancy in injuries, that Darlie was attacked first, was rendered unconscious, and BBB went after her kids while she was out. But that still doesn't explain why BBB suddenly changed his M.O. from a meandering slash along the neck to deep-thrusting stab wounds.

That was me. I can tell you, at least, that at least two different knives were used since one of them was never found. So being that there are two knives, that almost certainly means at least two intruders. In a lot of cases where there are multiple perps, usually the most violent is the "head honcho" and the other(s) are less violent, usually following the orders of the boss and in some cases can have a tinge of "sympathy" for lack of a better term for the victims. Think the Grocery Robbers or Opal Johnsons as a couple of examples.

Darlie was placed on suicide watch when she arrived at the hospital. This means that she was being monitored around the clock, and that's not even counting the family and friends that would have also been there. If she were banging her arms against the rails, that would have been noticed by people. And when you consider the bruises took up the entire length of both of her arms, that would have required a hell of a lot of banging. Certainly would have attracted attention.

I honestly don't know how the perp(s) inflicted the bruises on Darlie, nothing they did that night is within my comprehension.

That was me. I can tell you, at least, that at least two different knives were used since one of them was never found. So being that there are two knives, that almost certainly means at least two intruders. In a lot of cases where there are multiple perps, usually the most violent is the "head honcho" and the other(s) are less violent, usually following the orders of the boss and in some cases can have a tinge of "sympathy" for lack of a better term for the victims. Think the Grocery Robbers or Opal Johnsons as a couple of examples.

Darlie was placed on suicide watch when she arrived at the hospital. This means that she was being monitored around the clock, and that's not even counting the family and friends that would have also been there. If she were banging her arms against the rails, that would have been noticed by people. And when you consider the bruises took up the entire length of both of her arms, that would have required a hell of a lot of banging. Certainly would have attracted attention.

I honestly don't know how the perp(s) inflicted the bruises on Darlie, nothing they did that night is within my comprehension.

Which leads to the question...why was she put on suicide watch in the first place? Two intruders stab two children and Darlie but yet they fail to leave any evidence behind?

Which leads to the question...why was she put on suicide watch in the first place?

A possible reason was that she had attempted or thought about attempting suicide, the month before if I'm not mistaken. No doubt something like this could have sent her over the edge.

Two intruders stab two children and Darlie but yet they fail to leave any evidence behind?

What do you think about the bloody sock then?

So now there are two BBBs? Even though Darlie, in all her retellings, only mentioned one. I'm starting to think that when arguing with Darlie-supporters, you have to get used to attacking a moving target.

So now there are two BBBs? Even though Darlie, in all her retellings, only mentioned one. I'm starting to think that when arguing with Darlie-supporters, you have to get used to attacking a moving target.

I don't know who did it. I tend to believe she didn't do it. If she is innocent, then the case gets a lot more complex. How many people were involved? Who were they? What was their motive? I don't have the answers. That's why they call them "Unsolved Mysteries".

I don't know that Darlie ever stated she was certain there was only one intruder in the house. Heck, I don't know how she could have even known that considering she was out for most of it, it was dark, and she had enough to contend with.

Yes, I think Darlie might have possibly changed her version of events a bit that night. Considering she was on medication, significantly injured, and likely in shock and grieving, and suffered significant blood loss, it's not that hard to see why she might have struggled to remember things.

I've talked about how a different knife was used on Devon. I'm also bothered by the fact that Devon had the most severe injuries of anyone. That's not to say Damon's injuries weren't severe, obviously they were because he did, but Devon's was overkill. I honestly feel somebody attacked Devon and somebody else attacked Damon and Darlie.

It's also interesting to note that the police also accused Darin at one point. This was after the police told him he "utterly failed" the polygraph that was given to him. They told him he stabbed Darlie and killed his kids. Now that's throwing various things at the wall and seeing what sticks.

I also find Darin's behavior after being told he failed the polygraph suspicious in numerous ways:

1) he is smiling. I really can't fathom why someone would smile after being told they have failed the lie detector, suggesting that he stabbed his wife and killed his kids. As Coneflower noted, it was like he knew something they would never find out.
2) When the police told him he was involved, his reaction was: "In what way?" That's a very odd thing to say. First, it's not a flat out denial like most innocent people would do in that circumstance. Secondly, it was like he was trying to figure out what the police knew by asking an open-ended question. Since he may not have been the one to do the actual stabbing, he could have thrown back some proof at them to make them look stupid, yet he could have been involved in some other way.

I also believe that Darlie allegedly asking for a separation earlier in the night is yet another thing blown wildly out of proportion. Let's just say this one couple that's close to me, the woman threatens to divorce the husband all the time!! They're also approaching their 50th wedding anniversary. Not uncommon at all for somebody to say something like that in the heat of the moment. I bet after Darlie had a chance to cool down, she might have thought differently.

After the 33,000+ trial transcript mistakes were discovered, Darlie was made an offer: She could exchange her death sentence for a life sentence if she would admit to killing her kids. She refused.

The silly string incident is so blown out of proportion it can make your head spin. Yes, there was silly string there. You know what else was there? Gifts, cards, balloons, flowers, all in remembrance and in honor of the children. The videotape that was used of Darlie was from the t.v. station, indicating she knew she was being taped. When it was revealed the police had their own, 2-hour videotape they used to try to catch her in something suspicious, they came up completely empty. So are we to believe that the police surveillance tape, which Darlie didn't know about, turned up nothing suspicious, yet Darlie willingly and knowingly "danced on her kids graves" in front of a camera she knew was there? How in the world does that make sense?

Darlie's defense was lousy, to put it mildly, and on several counts. They didn't challenge prosecution "experts" with their own. They left things go unchallenged. They didn't drill home the extent of Darlie's injuries, etc. They fed her to the wolves.

One last important note: The night previous to the attacks, a friend of one of the kids was sleeping over that night. Thank God it wasn't the next night.

If Darlie Routier's innocent, I'm going to write a list of things I'd like to get for Christmas and put it on a small table with some milk and cookies on it next to the chimney on Christmas Eve. It will also be during this time, that I will create the first sustainable automobile that runs on water, and Miley Cyrus will wear a priest collar

If Darlie Routier's innocent, I'm going to write a list of things I'd like to get for Christmas and put it on a small table with some milk and cookies on it next to the chimney on Christmas Eve. It will also be during this time, that I will create the first sustainable automobile that runs on water, and Miley Cyrus will wear a priest collar

You never know. During my time here, I've wavered on cases I thought I would never waver on. There's always more to the story we don't know about it. That's why they call them Unsolved Mysteries.

Some people have seemingly inappropriate reactions to stress. (re: Darin smiling after failing the polygraph)

I tend to laugh when I'm upset, nervous or hurt. The stronger the emotion, the more inappropriate the reaction. It has gotten me in trouble more than once.

In addition, traces of the screen that the intruder supposedly cut were found on one of the knives in Routier's kitchen that had been placed back in the butcher block.

There were other details:


-Darlie told police that she believed the killer escaped through the garage. Investigators found a slit window screen in the garage, presumably the intruder's point of exit. However, upon closer inspection they found that the sliced screen showed no signs of being forced in or out (to allow to a body to pass through its slit netting). The screen was also easily removable; an intruder could've easily knocked the screen off its setting without having to cut his way out. Additionally, the ground beneath the window contained a wet mulch that was found undisturbed, making it impossible for someone to have exited through the window without leaving noticeable footprints.

-Spots of blood found on her clothing demonstrated she had, at the very least, been very close to her sons while they were stabbed. The blood from both sons was deposited in a projected bloodstain pattern on the back and shoulder of her nightdress, indicating blood cast off from the weapon.



We can just stop right there.

Admittedly she did a very good job of staging the murderers she committed, but these two pieces of evidence (one was a mistake she couldnt control, while the other was a fatal error in her execution of the staging) confirm she was in fact the killer. There isnt space to provide a logical counter argument to these facts.

We know the "intruder" couldnt have cut the screen to gain entry because the knife used was already in the house, and he couldnt have used the knife to exit the home because the knife was placed back into the butcher block. The screen fibers on the knife prove that the knife was used, but with the facts given it cannot support an outside intruder using that knife. Only the person inside the home. This is in conjunction with zero evidence supporting that there was any disturbance on the window sill, on the screen or the ground beneath the window that would have had to been present had a human being entered and/or exited that sensitive area.

And the spots of blood on her clothes (a mistake she couldnt control) is whats commonly referred to as high impact blood spatter. This is can only be produced by the knife motion of the killer (or someone standing right next to the killer) because the blood is coming at a velocity that produces a distinct pattern and stain.

So hard evidence can rule out an intruder entered and/or exited the home, and hard evidence places her over the bodies at the time they were killed.

I work with statistics, and I perform what is called a 'regression analysis' where in a case study we introduce a bunch of variables (in this instance it would be the evidence of the murder) into a computer program, and the category we're studying, in order to understand the probabilities associated with the case study, and/or whether or not a hypothesis can be supported or discarded. Basically for Darla's claim to stand you would have to somehow accept impossibilities and many near impossibilities. That cant be sustained reasonbly.

Yes, there are some inconsistencies that could point away from her, but they could also be argued back towards her as well. There isnt any piece of evidence available that points away from her with rock solid certainty. For her claim to be accepted, you would have to surmise that a man with no planning or preparation entered into the home (entry unproven) committed a highly unique and improbable crime that defies logic in almost every step of the way, didnt leave a trace of evidence, and exited without leaving evidence only to vanish into thin air.

Basically he would have had to have been a magician, or have supernatural powers. Is this possible? Sure...probable. Not in your life. The right person is behind bars, so people can rest easy.

We know the "intruder" couldnt have cut the screen to gain entry because the knife used was already in the house, and he couldnt have used the knife to exit the home because the knife was placed back into the butcher block. The screen fibers on the knife prove that the knife was used, but with the facts given it cannot support an outside intruder using that knife. Only the person inside the home. This is in conjunction with zero evidence supporting that there was any disturbance on the window sill, on the screen or the ground beneath the window that would have had to been present had a human being entered and/or exited that sensitive area.

The testing did not prove the knife was used to cut the screen, it stated that there was a fiber found on the knife that was consistent with fibers on the screen. For that matter, the fibers were also consistent with the brush used to test the knife. In fact, the fibers probably were from the brush. What reason would Darlie have for using a knife from the butcher block to cut the screen, replace it, and grab a different knife to stab her kids and herself? And considering that Devon had deeper wounds and none of his blood was found on the knife that was used on Darlie and Damon, then where is the knife that killed him?

I can't recall anyone ever suggesting an intruder left by the window. Darlie herself said she saw a man leave by exiting the garage/utility room.

In essence, Darlie would also have no known reason to slit the window herself. The Routier family kept a spare key underneath a ceramic frog on the front porch. She could have just said he must have found the key and came in that way. She wouldn't have needed to resort to all the trouble of slitting the window and the attention it would have brought on herself.

And the spots of blood on her clothes (a mistake she couldnt control) is whats commonly referred to as high impact blood spatter. This is can only be produced by the knife motion of the killer (or someone standing right next to the killer) because the blood is coming at a velocity that produces a distinct pattern and stain.

Contaminated evidence. Her bloody clothes were placed in a bag with other bloody clothes

I work with statistics, and I perform what is called a 'regression analysis' where in a case study we introduce a bunch of variables (in this instance it would be the evidence of the murder) into a computer program, and the category we're studying, in order to understand the probabilities associated with the case study, and/or whether or not a hypothesis can be supported or discarded. Basically for Darla's claim to stand you would have to somehow accept impossibilities and many near impossibilities. That cant be sustained reasonbly.

Yes, there are some inconsistencies that could point away from her, but they could also be argued back towards her as well. There isnt any piece of evidence available that points away from her with rock solid certainty. For her claim to be accepted, you would have to surmise that a man with no planning or preparation entered into the home (entry unproven) committed a highly unique and improbable crime that defies logic in almost every step of the way, didnt leave a trace of evidence, and exited without leaving evidence only to vanish into thin air.

Basically he would have had to have been a magician, or have supernatural powers. Is this possible? Sure...probable. Not in your life. The right person is behind bars, so people can rest easy.

This reminds me of Nate Silver, an extremely overrated political "guru" who creates and uses statistical models based on polling data to determine the outcome of elections. For that matter, on the morning of the elections in 2010, he stated there was an 86% chance Harry Reid would lose and a 75% chance Michael Bennet would lose. A couple years later, he said there was a greater than 90% chance of Heidi Heitkamp losing. They all won. These are just a few examples. Some models, but people continue to lick his boots.

I'm not sure what the impossibilities you speak of are, but perhaps you can enlighten me.

The testing did not prove the knife was used to cut the screen, it stated that there was a fiber found on the knife that was consistent with fibers on the screen. For that matter, the fibers were also consistent with the brush used to test the knife. In fact, the fibers probably were from the brush. What reason would Darlie have for using a knife from the butcher block to cut the screen, replace it, and grab a different knife to stab her kids and herself? And considering that Devon had deeper wounds and none of his blood was found on the knife that was used on Darlie and Damon, then where is the knife that killed him?


Fibers on the knife consistent with screen materials cut from the window is sufficient enough proof. Suggesting that the investigators and forensic examiners somehow mistook their own brushes for screen materials isnt a reasonable counter argument. Remember the court standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", and that piece of evidence eliminates the theory that an intruder cut the screen from outside. Blood was washed off the knife she used to murder her children, which is explained by the blood evidence washed down the drain.

If you want to advance the idea that the high impact blood spatter found on her shirt, and the screen fibers found on the knife were the result of investigator incompetence, malfeasance, or corruption that must be proven. If we accept the evidence as its presented, the murderer was in the house and Darla was either using the knife when the children were being stabbed, or was right next to the killer when he was doing so.

Fibers on the knife consistent with screen materials cut from the window is sufficient enough proof.

Blood was washed off the knife she used to murder her children, which is explained by the blood evidence washed down the drain.



No it isn't sufficient enough proof. Maybe it is for you.

Do you have an explanation as to why Darlie would use a different knife to the cut the screen than she used to stab her kids and herself? What possible reasoning would she have for doing that?

The theory that she washed Devon's blood entirely off the knife would have taken several minutes (if it was possible at all, which I doubt, since even tiny specks of blood could remain), added on to the already impossible timeline I have given in previous posts.

I'm not sure if you have seen my previous posts on this. An expert testified that Damon probably could not have survived longer than 6 minutes with the injuries he sustained, although curiously later changed this to 9 minutes. But even if you go with the maximum amount of 9 minutes and taking into account that Damon was still alive at the end of the 911 call and Darlie's phone call to 911 was 5 minutes and 45 seconds, that gives her a little over 3 minutes to accomplish all of the following: wash Devon's blood entirely off the knife, stab or finish stabbing Damon, stab herself repeatedly, inflict bruises on herself, stage a crime scene, exit the house, travel some distance from the house and deposit the bloody sock (without leaving a blood trail mind you), return to the house, shout for Darin and call 911. All in 3 minutes and 15 seconds tops?

But in addition to this, you also need to take into account that not only was Devon stabbed with a different knife, but also suffered deeper wounds than Darlie and Damon, which again is suggestive of multiple attackers. 19 years later, the issue of a possible motive Darlie would have for killing her children hasn't been resolved satisfactorily. But more to the point, what motive would Darlie have for inflicting greater injuries on Devon than Damon?

Suggesting that the investigators and forensic examiners somehow mistook their own brushes for screen materials isnt a reasonable counter argument.

Yeah, they did such a bang-up job in other regards.

If you want to advance the idea that the high impact blood spatter found on her shirt, and the screen fibers found on the knife were the result of investigator incompetence, malfeasance, or corruption that must be proven.

No, and that isn't my responsibility quite frankly. The investigation in this case WAS sloppy. That isn't my opinion, it's a fact. Blood evidence was compromised, bloody clothes were placed in a bag with other bloody clothes with no care as to preservation techniques. Trying to argue this is like trying to argue the sun doesn't rise.

Some people have seemingly inappropriate reactions to stress. (re: Darin smiling after failing the polygraph)

I tend to laugh when I'm upset, nervous or hurt. The stronger the emotion, the more inappropriate the reaction. It has gotten me in trouble more than once.

Me too. I laugh when I'm uncomfortable. Defense mechanism, I guess.

I'm not defending Darlie or Darin. I'm just saying I can relate.

I still think she's guilty as hell. I just can't dismiss the blood spatter evidence.

You cannot get cast off blood impressions (several of them, mind you) from contaminating evidence, or improperly storing them.

I've heard the question that if Darlie did stage her own assault, why did she slash her throat so badly that she came within an inch of severing an artery and killing herself? Reading a little bit about Darlie, she doesn't seem like the brightest bulb in the box.

I've heard the question that if Darlie did stage her own assault, why did she slash her throat so badly that she came within an inch of severing an artery and killing herself? Reading a little bit about Darlie, she doesn't seem like the brightest bulb in the box.

A lot of people die by having their throats slashed, so that would be a pretty risky self-injury on her part.

Taking into account all of the other stab wounds she sustained, she also would have been risking death by excessive blood loss.

I personally feel that if she were guilty and did those things to herself, it would require deliberate planning and a careful balance on her part. Do too much and she kills herself. Don't do enough and people become suspicious.

I haven't uncovered any evidence that Darlie had any medical training or otherwise would have had the knowledge to pull that off.

This episode was just on Forensic Files last night (headline news?!). Many have used the line "you don't know how you'd react if your kid was killed" to justify the silly string incident. This is really taking "open-mindedness" to an extreme.
If your kids were killed a week before brutally right in front of you and the killer was still at large and you don't know why they did it, how many people would have a balloon-infested silly string party in a graveyard? I doubt anyone who is honest with themselves (and not sociopathic) would admit to so doing because it is clearly inappropriate (especially bringing along a film crew!). A normal person would probably still be traumatized or be at the police station or at church. When you add this behavior to the other indicators at the crime scene, it makes sense when you realized that if someone was guilty and sociopathic and doesn't know how a normal person would react, a happy kids party for recently dead kids may seem appropriate and be able to draw attention to how much you "care" about your kids.

Several other points

The injuries to the mother were so minor that she was able to be at the graveyard only a few days later. Her just missing her vein was probably just luck not skill.

As for the crime itself it (much like MacDonald at Fort Bragg), it makes no sense that an intruder would arrive at a residence without a weapon, be dressed in such a way so they cannot be IDed, kill the two sleeping children who were harmless but fail to kill the adult who wasn't, then leave the weapon behind. While much is made of the lack of a motive for the mother (I'd say she did not like having the burden of three kids), there is even less for the intruder. If it was a burglary, he could have just fled (after all he was dressed in a manner in which he could not be IDed). If he was there to murder, why did he not bring a weapon? Why did he not finish the job?
And that's not even considering why he wanted to kill them?
Sad story but of interest because mothers don't usually kill their kids nor do they have silly string graveside parties several days later. But otherwise pretty much an open and shut case.

This episode was just on Forensic Files last night (headline news?!). Many have used the line "you don't know how you'd react if your kid was killed" to justify the silly string incident. This is really taking "open-mindedness" to an extreme.
If your kids were killed a week before brutally right in front of you and the killer was still at large and you don't know why they did it, how many people would have a balloon-infested silly string party in a graveyard? I doubt anyone who is honest with themselves (and not sociopathic) would admit to so doing because it is clearly inappropriate (especially bringing along a film crew!). A normal person would probably still be traumatized or be at the police station or at church. When you add this behavior to the other indicators at the crime scene, it makes sense when you realized that if someone was guilty and sociopathic and doesn't know how a normal person would react, a happy kids party for recently dead kids may seem appropriate and be able to draw attention to how much you "care" about your kids.

This has been discussed to death friend, pardon the expression. Yes, the video is tacky. Doesn't mean she killer her kids. There was also a 2 hour video that showed her "appropriately grieving." The media and the jury focused on the small snippet with the silly string, which was given to her by a relative.

The injuries to the mother were so minor that she was able to be at the graveyard only a few days later. Her just missing her vein was probably just luck not skill.

After a stay in the hospital. I don't know of anyone that would chalk up having their throat slashed as "so minor" of an injury. She certainly was putting her life in her hands if she self-inflicted that injury.

As for the crime itself it (much like MacDonald at Fort Bragg), it makes no sense that an intruder would arrive at a residence without a weapon,

how do you know they didn't?

be dressed in such a way so they cannot be IDed,

What do you mean by this?

kill the two sleeping children who were harmless but fail to kill the adult who wasn't,

an adult can put up more of a fight than a 5 year old child.

While much is made of the lack of a motive for the mother (I'd say she did not like having the burden of three kids),

So she leaves one of them alive still?

there is even less for the intruder. If it was a burglary, he could have just fled (after all he was dressed in a manner in which he could not be IDed). If he was there to murder, why did he not bring a weapon? Why did he not finish the job?

Putting this as politely as possible, I don't know what you're getting at here. The perp *did* murder two people. There are sick people out there that just like to murder children. It's horrible, it's difficult to comprehend, but they exist.

I also wanted to state something. Devon looked a lot more like Darin than Darlie. Damon, on the other hand, looked a lot more like his momma than Darin. I would imagine it would have to be very difficult for a mother to kill a child that sort of looks like her.

Interesting point! My neighbor grew up in a terrible household with severe abuse. She once told me that her father regularly beat her siblings that looked like their mother, but she looked just like her father so he never laid a hand on her.

I have been lurking here for many years, and I have to say your ideas and opinions on cases are generally my favorite, and I tend to usually agree with you :)

I've heard the question that if Darlie did stage her own assault, why did she slash her throat so badly that she came within an inch of severing an artery and killing herself? Reading a little bit about Darlie, she doesn't seem like the brightest bulb in the box.

If it hasn't been said before, I'll say it: She slashed her own throat because SHE KNEW help was on the way and the chances of them saving her were going to be a lot higher than that of her children.

Random realization-- Lots of comparisons have been made to the Jeffrey MacDonald case on this one. I firmly believe in Darlie's guilt, but I believe MacDonald is innocent.

Perhaps I'll have to re-read the MacDonald stuff and see where the chips fall... :)

If it hasn't been said before, I'll say it: She slashed her own throat because SHE KNEW help was on the way and the chances of them saving her were going to be a lot higher than that of her children.

Random realization-- Lots of comparisons have been made to the Jeffrey MacDonald case on this one. I firmly believe in Darlie's guilt, but I believe MacDonald is innocent.

Perhaps I'll have to re-read the MacDonald stuff and see where the chips fall... :)

I think you should re-read the MacDonald stuff. Dude is guilty.

Interesting point! My neighbor grew up in a terrible household with severe abuse. She once told me that her father regularly beat her siblings that looked like their mother, but she looked just like her father so he never laid a hand on her.

I have been lurking here for many years, and I have to say your ideas and opinions on cases are generally my favorite, and I tend to usually agree with you :)

aw shucks, what a compliment! Thank you and welcome to the forum!

If it hasn't been said before, I'll say it: She slashed her own throat because SHE KNEW help was on the way and the chances of them saving her were going to be a lot higher than that of her children.

I'll have to disagree for three reasons:

1) People that believe Darlie is guilty frequently mention the line "Darlie had such minor injuries." I don't believe that. It is true that if you compare that to Damon and Devon, her injuries ended up not being fatal like theirs were. But here's the thing: Yes, help can get there quickly and she knew that, but only one ambulance is likely to get there quickly, the next will have to be farther away. The first ambulance crew to get there is likely going to be more concerned with Damon and Devon than Darlie if she had "such minor injuries", meaning she's #3 on the Totem Pole and may have to wait for sufficient care or even care at all.

2) Not only was her throat slit, she was stabbed multiple times in the arms. A lot. Not only would she be taking her life into her hands by slitting her throat, she also runs the risk of bleeding to death with all of the knife wounds. People also bleed differently. Some people can heal very quickly, others can bleed excessively from a minor injury. I can testify to the latter from personal experience.

3) Darlie would have been shooting herself in the foot by claiming intruders and injuring herself. The ambulance people were delayed slightly because it was under the impression an intruder(s) might still be in the house. Although this wasn't a long delay, it was a delay nonetheless, and she also had no way of knowing how long the delay was going to be. There have been cases where the delays have been long and people have died because LE was ensuring there were no perps in the house before allowing ambulance crew to get in there. And when you have potentially life-threatening injuries, every minute, heck, every second can count.

I do not believe Darlie had planned on killing her children, because if she had, she would come up with something that didn't leave too much to chance (Damon living, her dying, etc.). The only other option if she's guilty is a snap, spur-of-the-moment type thing, but that seems incredibly unlikely given the everyone was asleep and the children couldn't have been an annoyance to her then.

Also with regards to Darlie thinking about the possibility of her injuries becoming more severe, she repeatedly held a towel to her neck, instead of placing it on her dying son.

Not only was her throat slit, she was stabbed multiple times in the arms. A lot.

Please provide proof of this claim.

aw shucks, what a compliment! Thank you and welcome to the forum!

Thanks :) For what it's worth, I lean more toward Darlie's innocence than guilt. You brought up many troubling points in this case and explained it far more eloquently than I ever could... It is frustrating that nobody has really addressed any of the questions you've raised :/

I understand why many just assume Darlie is guilty. The 911 call and funeral footage were clearly edited to cast her in a bad light. When you look at the UNTAMPERED evidence though, I am amazed anyone could ever vote guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

This video makes some good points:

https://youtu.be/dtusq27OD0M

It's also interesting how Darin never breaks eye contact or changes his story, which is backed by the 911 call. However, the first responding officer's account does not line up with the 911 call, and he looks to the left each time he recounts his time at the scene.

The officer can even be heard yelling at Darlie to lay down rather than insisting she help her son. Darin was already helping the boy and was trained in CPR.

On airplanes they warn that in a case of emergency, secure your own oxygen before trying to secure your child's. I believe the officer saw Darlie was in a compromised state herself, and that's why he immediately ordered her to lay down.

Please provide proof of this claim.
He has posted the photos multiple times already. It's almost as if no one wants to look at them.

Also, if I were going to stab myself in the neck, Id definitely take off my necklace first. It was so embedded in Darlie's neck that she required emergency surgery in order to remove it and save her life.

The defense claims these were hesitation wounds. If I was feeling hesitant, I certainly wouldn't want a necklace lodged inside my throat in addition to the knife wound.

He has posted the photos multiple times already. It's almost as if no one wants to look at them.

Also, if I were going to stab myself in the neck, Id definitely take off my necklace first. It was so embedded in Darlie's neck that she required emergency surgery in order to remove it and save her life.

The defense claims these were hesitation wounds. If I was feeling hesitant, I certainly wouldn't want a necklace lodged inside my throat in addition to the knife wound.

Photos of bruises, the neck wound, and a stab wound to the arm. As in one. Singular. He claims that Darlie was stabbed "a lot" on her arms. This is not true. Everyone (including the defense expert) testified under oath, that her injuries could have been self inflicted.

If it hasn't been said before, I'll say it: She slashed her own throat because SHE KNEW help was on the way and the chances of them saving her were going to be a lot higher than that of her children.

Random realization-- Lots of comparisons have been made to the Jeffrey MacDonald case on this one. I firmly believe in Darlie's guilt, but I believe MacDonald is innocent.

Perhaps I'll have to re-read the MacDonald stuff and see where the chips fall... :)

The basic similarity is that the story told by the convicted would have us believe that a motiveless unknown killer murdered kids or a sleeping woman but only mildly injured the awake adult who posed the greatest threat to them. And both of the convicted acted very odd after the crimes.

Photos of bruises, the neck wound, and a stab wound to the arm. As in one. Singular. He claims that Darlie was stabbed "a lot" on her arms. This is not true. Everyone (including the defense expert) testified under oath, that her injuries could have been self inflicted.
Guess it depends if you count all the cuts from what appears to be little knife cuts. My friend had a lot like those after she was attacked.

Stab wound in Darlie's arm which required stitches:
https://www.google.com/search?q=darlie+routier+feet&client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAWoVChMInsqZ-OOZyQIVkCyICh0-8Q9g&biw=320&bih=452#tbm=isch&q=darlie+routier+injuries&imgrc=lVc_zpe3-gjGJM%3A

Stab wound where arm attaches to chest, and notice bruising around neck from being choked when her necklace was stabbed into her throat and embedded, requiring emergency surgery:
http://murderpedia.org/female.R/images/routier-darlie/darlie-routier-injuries-5.jpg

There is a picture buried in this thread of the necklace tangled up inside her throat BEFORE it was surgically removed. I just cannot wrap my head around Darlie intentionally stabbing her necklace into their throat, when she could have easily taken it off first, or just aimed above or below the necklace.

Darlie is bruised severely with multiple cuts on her forearms and palms as if she put up her arms/hands in self defense.

I get bruises that don't appear until several days after an injury.

When Darlie first arrived at the hospital they would have closely examined her for DANGEROUS injuries that required immediate attention. After surgery, when her life was no longer in jeopardy, they'd simply keep an eye on the areas they operated on... I doubt doctors regularly checked her for new bruises on OTHER parts of her body.

Hospital staff are spread so thin between countless dying patients. There's not much extra time to spend on the patients you've already stabilized.

You say the experts testified that "the injuries COULD HAVE been self inflicted." COULD HAVE is simply speculation, hardly qualifies as a meaningful testimony IMO.

Not to mention that we always see countless so called experts contradicting each other in court. It's easy to shop around until you find one that shares your view. So I take their opinions with a grain of salt.

The main police officer
in the investigation lied from the
very moment he arrived on the scene (caught on tape!)

And the 911 call and funeral footage was deceptively edited as well. It makes it so hard to trust the investigation as a whole considering all the dishonesty.

I am not even saying Darlie is innocent. I just find A LOT of reasonable doubt. Far too much for a JUST guilty verdict.

I actually hope Darlie did do it, as she is going to die for it! The thought of executing an innocent mother who lost her babies would be a tragedy, AND it'd mean the sicko(s) who really did it are still on the loose!

The basic similarity is that the story told by the convicted would have us believe that a motiveless unknown killer murdered kids or a sleeping woman but only mildly injured the awake adult who posed the greatest threat to them. And both of the convicted acted very odd after the crimes.


Ted Bundy had the confidence to murder several women with their roommates awake in the very next room. They never heard a thing. He was even able to attack four women in one home invasion, all four none the wiser!

Possibility 1)

The killer snuck in to target Darlie. He wanted to quietly subdue her before she could put up a fight. While she was sleeping he knocked her in the head or strangled her until she passed out. He thought if he was quiet enough, he could sexually assault Darlie while the children slept. Maybe he even planned to drag her out of the room first. But the children woke up in the process while Darlie was unconscious. The killer panicked and attacked the children. Then to his surprise, a confused Darlie awoke and put up a fight. She was much stronger than her small children... a bigger threat. At this point things had gone horribly wrong, so the killer decided to just bolt.

Possibility number 2)

A killer broke in to murder the children, not Darlie. But Darlie was in the way. The killer intentionally attacked Darlie first because she was much stronger than the children, therefore the biggest threat. He wanted to subdue her before she had a chance to put up a fight. While she slept he knocked her out or strangled her unconscious. He thought she was dead, and it was finally safe to attack the children as he pleased. In the process, he didn't expect one child to wake Darlie back to life. She put up a fight, which he never intended, so he fled the scene.

OR, maybe he believed the children (his true targets) would be dead any moment so there was no need to stick around and continue to fight Darlie.

Possibility 3) An experienced killer was growing bored. He gradually moved up to riskier and risker crimes over time for the rush. The idea of attacking three people at once, where more could go wrong, was actually appealing to him. A fight ensued and he left after stabbing the family multiple times. They weren't all dead yet, but he had enough excitement for the night. He wasn't completely successful, but he still went further than he'd ever gone before and felt satisfied. He decided to flee the scene while he still believed he could get away with it all scotch free.

Growing up in my hometown of just 30,000 I remember a few bizarre thrill kills!

One was featured on UM (The I-70 serial killer)... A man in a trench coat walked into this woman's store, immediately shot her, and just walked away without a dime. Several similar murders happened in stores along the interstate in broad daylight and crowded areas with lots of witnesses. Police believe it was a serial thrill killer, as he never stole from stores where he murdered.

Then we had an elderly couple who were brutally murdered in their home/bookstore with a knife... They were stabbed so many times, the wife was nearly decapitated from her wounds. The killer (who was caught) only grabbed the $30 from the tip jar ON HIS WAY OUT THE DOOR.. He was all alone in their house/store during the middle of the night. He could have left with SO much more, but he simply wasn't interested. He just wanted to butcher them.

There are sickos out there who simply love to kill. Are they rare? Yes! But mothers who murder their own children are rare as well... Both happen! Is it really so unbelievable that a sadistic killer could attack two little children and their mother just for the heck of it?!

What I really can't understand is if Darlie wanted to kill her children, why would she let Drake live? In all of the most (in)famous cases of parents killing their children (Andrea Yates, Susan Smith, John List, William Bradford Bishop), they killed ALL of their children. And in Andrea's case, that included 5 children including a young baby. And it seems like Darlie could have waited for an opportunity for Darin to be out of the house, thus not only greatly reducing the risk of him potentially foiling her plan, but giving her the opportunity to take out Drake as well.

There were also some online reports that tried to paint Darlie as a neglectful mother who was annoyed by her children, and that they were frequently seen about unbathed. I can't find any actual evidence of that as the kids look clean in all of the pictures I've ever seen them in. There's also this exchange from a home movie after Devon hurt himself doing a cartwheel.

Devon: "Ow!"
Darlie: "Are you ok?"
Devon: "yeah"

Yeah, horrible neglectful parenting there. :rolleyes:

Can someone explain this to me? I listened to a podcast about this and I've read a little and I am not sure what to think.

They said fibers on a knife in the butcher block matched fibers from the screen that was cut. A different knife from the house was used to attack DD&D. So someone broke in, stole a knife to leave and use to break back in a different way to then use another knife to attack them? This makes no sense to me.

The one thing people like to argue that I don't put a lot of stock in is the whole silly string video. I don't have a problem with it. And from what I understand it's a small part of a longer video where she is crying. Plus it's her whole family there, not just her, and they are all kind of celebrating. Some people just try and make the best of things and celebrate the life of a person who has passed on, it just happened that his birthday was very shortly after he was killed. I can not judge her on this and it seems so many people use this as "proof" that she had to have done it.

I also don't get why she would not kill all the children if she wanted to get rid of her children. It's along the same lines of why all the Baskin children weren't taken if the parents were so abusive.

Again, I can't make up my mind about this one. I know there are passionate arguments for both sides. Neither have convinced me either way 100%.

It's also possible (if Darlie is guilty and in the event she got away with it) she could have just kept getting pregnant and kept having kids, thus defeating the purpose of offing two of them.

Can someone explain this to me? I listened to a podcast about this and I've read a little and I am not sure what to think.

They said fibers on a knife in the butcher block matched fibers from the screen that was cut. A different knife from the house was used to attack DD&D. So someone broke in, stole a knife to leave and use to break back in a different way to then use another knife to attack them? This makes no sense to me.

The one thing people like to argue that I don't put a lot of stock in is the whole silly string video. I don't have a problem with it. And from what I understand it's a small part of a longer video where she is crying. Plus it's her whole family there, not just her, and they are all kind of celebrating. Some people just try and make the best of things and celebrate the life of a person who has passed on, it just happened that his birthday was very shortly after he was killed. I can not judge her on this and it seems so many people use this as "proof" that she had to have done it.

I also don't get why she would not kill all the children if she wanted to get rid of her children. It's along the same lines of why all the Baskin children weren't taken if the parents were so abusive.

Again, I can't make up my mind about this one. I know there are passionate arguments for both sides. Neither have convinced me either way 100%.


Hey Guys, The Darlie Routier 48 hours episode "Precious Angels" will rerun on Sunday on ID.

The police butchered the investigation from the start. The 911 call proves the first responding officer was dishonest and incompetent. He didn't even bother to search for an intruder when he arrived at the scene. Darlie can be heard on tape begging him repeatedly to go check the garage. Yet the officer wasn't the least bit interested in finding the culprit. As the first responding officer, it was his job to secure the scene before paramedics could step in. He did no such thing. I imagine these officers had no clue how to properly process a crime scene, and they may have even tampered with evidence simply to get a conviction and call it a day. Because they did such a lousy job investigating, and because they lack integrity, I take their so called "evidence" against Darlie with a grain of salt.

I've always been a big ol' fence-sitter on this case, but if I had to make a decision, I would go with Darlie's innocence.

Those pictures of her injuries are just horrific. Those that believe her guilt will argue that having horrific injuries was part of her plan, but I have to disagree.

Also, if this was something Darlie planned, why wouldn't she wait until the husband wasn't home?

Now the main thing that bothered me was how the press and prosecution tried to portray Darlie. First, the statements thrown around that the children were sometimes dirty - um, they are little boys! They probably played in the sand and mud and got grass-stains, that's what little boys do. Then of course the birthday video (I think it was a birthday?) of her with the silly string and snapping the gum....everyone reacts differently to tragedy, that's one of my main complaints when watching crime documentaries....this person wasn't crying enough, this person was crying too hard, that person showed no emotion, that person looked cold. God, everyone reacts differently, the only thing that is consistent is no matter how you act, people want to get suspicious. Darlie was also only 26 years old, don't forget, so while I personally feel that "the silly string" might have been a bit distasteful, 1) it's not up to me to decide how she handles matters in her family, it's not my decision to make, and 2) it should never have been entered into evidence because it has no bearing as to whether she did it or not...it was just used to sour the jury, and it worked.

I agree.

Darlie's sister was the one who brought the silly string. There used to be footage online that showed Darlie crying... And her sister, trying to cheer her up, says "Here, I brought you some silly string" ... Darlie even asked "Are we allowed to do this?" before singing "Happy Birthday" and spraying it.

She had been crying all day long. But in her mind, she just wanted to throw her son his final birthday party. I feel she CHOSE to act happy and excited for her boys' sake, believing they were there in spirit...

I've been studying characteristics of mothers who killed their children. Here is what I found. In most cases, mothers who killed their children:

1) lived in a low-income household, with a possible motive being mother felt she couldn't financially take care of child(ren).
2) exhibited alcohol and/or drug abuse.
3) at some point in their lives, lived in a physically abusive environment.
4) motive was most often spousal revenge or an altruistic motive (killing kids because they thought they would be better off, etc).
5) attempted suicide immediately after the homicide.
6) had known history of mental illness and/or pattern of abuse/neglect.

Number of these characteristics known to be possessed by Darlie: Zero.

I've been studying characteristics of mothers who killed their children. Here is what I found. In most cases, mothers who killed their children:

1) lived in a low-income household, with a possible motive being mother felt she couldn't financially take care of child(ren).
2) exhibited alcohol and/or drug abuse.
3) at some point in their lives, lived in a physically abusive environment.
4) motive was most often spousal revenge or an altruistic motive (killing kids because they thought they would be better off, etc).
5) attempted suicide immediately after the homicide.
6) had known history of mental illness and/or pattern of abuse/neglect.

Number of these characteristics known to be possessed by Darlie: Zero.

I understand your argument, but you know what I'm going to say. Just because she doesn't fit the profile doesn't mean she couldn't have done it. I'll have to look up stuff on Ted Bundy, but as I recall, he kinda knocked everyone on their butts when he ended up being a serial killer. The reason behind that being that he was attractive, charismatic, and extremely well educated.

I understand that women who kill their children may fit a certain profile you describe, but it is not conclusive evidence of her innocence.

But weren't Darlie and her husband a bit financially strapped?

Someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I thought there was a lot of "talk" that Darlie's "apparent" motive was to gain sympathy....kind of like a Marie Hilley? Sort of like munchausen by proxy?

It's funny how aging/maturing changes you perception of things, because the more time that goes by, the less I think she is guilty. If you'd asked me 10 years ago, I would have said guilty as hell. I guess there is also a lot more access to facts/information/news articles these days on the internet than there was 10 years ago, too.

But weren't Darlie and her husband a bit financially strapped?

Someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I thought there was a lot of "talk" that Darlie's "apparent" motive was to gain sympathy....kind of like a Marie Hilley? Sort of like munchausen by proxy?

It's funny how aging/maturing changes you perception of things, because the more time that goes by, the less I think she is guilty. If you'd asked me 10 years ago, I would have said guilty as hell. I guess there is also a lot more access to facts/information/news articles these days on the internet than there was 10 years ago, too.

I remember the Munchausen comparisons, too.

Ah the case that never goes away. I always wonder how Daren did not awake.

But weren't Darlie and her husband a bit financially strapped?

There's been debate on that. Some have said they burned through money quickly, but they were also making a lot of it. They had a nice, large house in an affluent suburb, expensive cars and a boat. When I said "low income", that referred to people who didn't make a lot of money, most likely lived in poor housing and didn't have much in the way of worldly goods.

There's been debate on that. Some have said they burned through money quickly, but they were also making a lot of it. They had a nice, large house in an affluent suburb, expensive cars and a boat. When I said "low income", that referred to people who didn't make a lot of money, most likely lived in poor housing and didn't have much in the way of worldly goods.

Well yeah, there is a HUGE difference between people who earn a lot and spend a lot versus people who are struggling to feed their children. I think (once again!) the cops and media were in search of a motive, and money is always a great motive. In fact, other than infidelity, I think murder for/over money is the oldest motive around. I honestly think she didn't do it.

Well yeah, there is a HUGE difference between people who earn a lot and spend a lot versus people who are struggling to feed their children. I think (once again!) the cops and media were in search of a motive, and money is always a great motive. In fact, other than infidelity, I think murder for/over money is the oldest motive around. I honestly think she didn't do it.
I think she's guilty but in a more liberal area she may not have been convicted. Who knows. It's definitely a difficult case to understand. There is so much info out there that I don't know what to make of. I find it to be strange.

I definitely don't think she did it. I watched a show that said her husband had hired someone to rob the house for insurance money. I think he hired someone who went beyond what he was hired to do-he killed. Plus her husband failed a polygraph test. The show had pictures of her injuries -theres no way she did that to herself

I definitely don't think she did it. I watched a show that said her husband had hired someone to rob the house for insurance money. I think he hired someone who went beyond what he was hired to do-he killed. Plus her husband failed a polygraph test. The show had pictures of her injuries -theres no way she did that to herselfmy only flaw I see in that Theory is that darlie at some point would turn on Daren. I mean it must be almost 10 years since I've watched anything on this outside of these boards. I know they got divorced but would she turn on him if this were even suspected?

my only flaw I see in that Theory is that darlie at some point would turn on Daren. I mean it must be almost 10 years since I've watched anything on this outside of these boards. I know they got divorced but would she turn on him if this were even suspected?

I don't know that she's ever flat out accused him of involvement, but she has expressed some doubts.

I don't know that she's ever flat out accused him of involvement, but she has expressed some doubts.
Yeah if she's this monster that the state made her up to be you would think she would have turned on him. But I know early on they were United.

I've been reading this thread and trying to come up with a reasonable explanation to who put the sock in the alley way.

I happen to think that Darlie is the killer but I'am trying to understand both sides.

From the programs I have watched and the information I have read they sway me to believe that Darlie is the one responsible for causing the children's deaths. However Darin behaviour / comments make me suspicious that maybe he was involved in some way.

I have since found out that Darin left the house to get a neighbour who was a nurse from across the street. Perhaps he planted the sock away from the home during this time. It would seem more probable than Darlie having time to kill the boys, call 911 and slash her own throat.

Was the house the nurse lived in close by to where the sock was found?
How long was he out the house for?

My feeling is that Darin covered for his wife out of pure love, he seemed like the was besotted with her. Commenting about her breast to officers is a really bizarre thing to do given the circumstances.

Sorry if someone has mentioned this before I haven't read all of this thread yet. Just this whole sock business if it was not Darin or Darlie must have been left by an intruder. I would like to see it tied to one of them.

I've been reading this thread and trying to come up with a reasonable explanation to who put the sock in the alley way.

I happen to think that Darlie is the killer but I'am trying to understand both sides.

From the programs I have watched and the information I have read they sway me to believe that Darlie is the one responsible for causing the children's deaths. However Darin behaviour / comments make me suspicious that maybe he was involved in some way.

I have since found out that Darin left the house to get a neighbour who was a nurse from across the street. Perhaps he planted the sock away from the home during this time. It would seem more probable than Darlie having time to kill the boys, call 911 and slash her own throat.

Was the house the nurse lived in close by to where the sock was found?
How long was he out the house for?

My feeling is that Darin covered for his wife out of pure love, he seemed like the was besotted with her. Commenting about her breast to officers is a really bizarre thing to do given the circumstances.

Sorry if someone has mentioned this before I haven't read all of this thread yet. Just this whole sock business if it was not Darin or Darlie must have been left by an intruder. I would like to see it tied to one of them.

My thinking is darlie was the lone killer and tried to cover it up herself. I do find it strange that Daren slept through such a brutal event but wonder how much noise was made?

Don't know what her exact motive was but if Daren were involved 20 years later and a divorce...darlie would have completely turned on him by now.

Her lack of memory to me is confusing. Maybe if she were on drugs or had some kind of head trauma? Is it possible with the type of injuries she had to lose memory?

I agree.

Darlie's sister was the one who brought the silly string. There used to be footage online that showed Darlie crying... And her sister, trying to cheer her up, says "Here, I brought you some silly string" ... Darlie even asked "Are we allowed to do this?" before singing "Happy Birthday" and spraying it.

She had been crying all day long. But in her mind, she just wanted to throw her son his final birthday party. I feel she CHOSE to act happy and excited for her boys' sake, believing they were there in spirit...
to me the silly string video was irrelevant and I'm not a legal expert, but I don't know that should have factored in her case. that video alone took a life of its own in the state of texas. I remember it to this day! after I watched it I thought what a terrible mom. we had texas cable news outlets that showed that in every corner of the state and no doubt it went national. Would she have made UM without that video? IDK? no way she was going to get a fair trial after that. for a long time I supported her because of the video alone.

I think that in high profile cases there is this ying-yang issue that arises where the public can swing one way or the other. in this case it swung out of her favor. in cases like OJ for example he got a lot of support because people liked him and he got off because of poor execution of law enforcement and high paid attorney's that to this day don't like one another. I think as a juror you have to put all of that aside and look at the real evidence. and I think they made the right choice.

This was a dumb jury, that much is obvious, for them to focus so much on the silly string tape. People don't realize how stupid and biased many juries are, or how horribly flawed the jury system is to begin with. I started a thread on it, but it's such a bigger problem beyond what I and others have posted in the thread.

To start off with, everyone despises jury duty and for good reason, it sucks. It robs people of their work pay, gives them pennies on the dollar in return, forces them to wait all day, among many other atrocities. And then you have the subject matter of many trials, which often deal with science, law and the medical world, with much of the facts and evidence being too much for the average juror to comprehend. This means that people's fates are often decided by a collection of unqualified, unmotivated people.

And then you have the juries themselves. It's easy for many people to think that juries get it right most of the time, after all, if a dozen people agree than surely the verdict must be right. This is flawed thinking. Yes, there are a dozen people there, but the decision really comes down to a few people.

Yes, you'll have a mix of people in there. But here's the thing: lawyers will intentionally pick stupid looking people to be in that jury because they can be easily persuaded. Sure, they may have an initial opinion on the case, but their opinion can be changed by the more forceful members of the group. And you can usually count on one or two gung-ho "hang 'em high" members being part of that collection, willing to hand out life (or death) sentences for the tiniest of infractions. Therefore, the decision usually comes down to a few people who can best be described as "bullies."

A classic example is the first jury in the Menendez Brothers trial. I was just watching the American Justice episode on that again. You had one completely idiotic older guy on there who didn't care a whit they had been horrifically abused, he was just interested in putting them behind bars for life. When the jury foreman mentioned that if it were up to him, he would let them walk, said juror nearly committed physical violence on the jury foreman.

So, a preliminary vote is taken, and it may end up 10-2, or something like that. Eventually, the majority puts the pressure on the minority, making them feel awful for thinking the way they do. One can just imagine everything that's being said at this time. Many times, they'll cave (just as it happened in this case), because they don't want to viewed as the one person that stands in the way of justice. In most cases, the juries don't have to worry about being identified. If they wrongfully put an innocent person behind bars, they won't have to worry about being ridiculed. Heck, they don't even have to reveal what evidence they considered, how they came to the conclusion that they did, or really anything much at all.

It's an atrocious process than is in sore need of being refined.

Don't know what her exact motive was but if Daren were involved 20 years later and a divorce...darlie would have completely turned on him by now.



If she turned on him then she would have to ultimately confirm her guilt. I don't think she will ever admit the truth about what happened that night, no matter what she is faced with.

If she turned on him then she would have to ultimately confirm her guilt. I don't think she will ever admit the truth about what happened that night, no matter what she is faced with.
Perhaps but if Daren were the sole perp I just think at some point she would have said that. And being in 20
Years I would think she would say something by now if he were involved. I'm
Not sure if she has I think someone mentioned that she has hinted at it.

This was a dumb jury, that much is obvious, for them to focus so much on the silly string tape. People don't realize how stupid and biased many juries are, or how horribly flawed the jury system is to begin with. I started a thread on it, but it's such a bigger problem beyond what I and others have posted in the thread.

To start off with, everyone despises jury duty and for good reason, it sucks. It robs people of their work pay, gives them pennies on the dollar in return, forces them to wait all day, among many other atrocities. And then you have the subject matter of many trials, which often deal with science, law and the medical world, with much of the facts and evidence being too much for the average juror to comprehend. This means that people's fates are often decided by a collection of unqualified, unmotivated people.

And then you have the juries themselves. It's easy for many people to think that juries get it right most of the time, after all, if a dozen people agree than surely the verdict must be right. This is flawed thinking. Yes, there are a dozen people there, but the decision really comes down to a few people.

Yes, you'll have a mix of people in there. But here's the thing: lawyers will intentionally pick stupid looking people to be in that jury because they can be easily persuaded. Sure, they may have an initial opinion on the case, but their opinion can be changed by the more forceful members of the group. And you can usually count on one or two gung-ho "hang 'em high" members being part of that collection, willing to hand out life (or death) sentences for the tiniest of infractions. Therefore, the decision usually comes down to a few people who can best be described as "bullies."

A classic example is the first jury in the Menendez Brothers trial. I was just watching the American Justice episode on that again. You had one completely idiotic older guy on there who didn't care a whit they had been horrifically abused, he was just interested in putting them behind bars for life. When the jury foreman mentioned that if it were up to him, he would let them walk, said juror nearly committed physical violence on the jury foreman.

So, a preliminary vote is taken, and it may end up 10-2, or something like that. Eventually, the majority puts the pressure on the minority, making them feel awful for thinking the way they do. One can just imagine everything that's being said at this time. Many times, they'll cave (just as it happened in this case), because they don't want to viewed as the one person that stands in the way of justice. In most cases, the juries don't have to worry about being identified. If they wrongfully put an innocent person behind bars, they won't have to worry about being ridiculed. Heck, they don't even have to reveal what evidence they considered, how they came to the conclusion that they did, or really anything much at all.

It's an atrocious process than is in sore need of being refined.

Good points. I did jury duty once in Fort Worth and I basically sat around for a couple of hours until someone came out and said i could leave.

I learned a little bit about the process in my criminal justice class and we did a moch jury selection. It was actually fun and funny at the same time. I thought back then it was an interesting way to do things but the court system has so many checks and balances to obtain justice. Sometimes it can overcome one failure but sometimes the whole system fails. I do agree the silly string video was big. The police department used the media to fry her initially. By the time she was in court it was too late.

I have since found out that Darin left the house to get a neighbour who was a nurse from across the street. Perhaps he planted the sock away from the home during this time. It would seem more probable than Darlie having time to kill the boys, call 911 and slash her own throat. .

Actually the full unedited 911 call contradicts the first responding officer's statement. Darin is present until the very end of the 911 call and is even heard answering the door and letting the officer in. Therefore, Darin could not have already been outside running away from the house when the officer first pulled up to the scene and hadn't even rang the doorbell yet.

Some think it is possible the officer saw the REAL killer running away, not Darin. I don't know about that, but I do know the first responding officer is a liar, as he has made multiple statements that contradict the 911 call.

He can also be heard yelling at Darlie to lay down, NOT telling her to help her son. Clearly the officer saw she was severely injured. You do not instruct someone bleeding to death to take care of another person who is bleeding to death... That is the perfect way for both victims to die.

The officer lied about his instructions to Darlie, just like he lied about Darin running away from the house. The officer claims before he even rang the doorbell, Darin was already running away from the house, yet Darin himself answered the door!

I think as a juror you have to put all of that aside and look at the real evidence. and I think they made the right choice.

I agree that the silly string video should have been irrelevant and the jury should have looked at all the evidence. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. Instead the jurors deliberated for just 4 short hours, and spent a good portion watching the silly string video 7 times.

I myself thought she was guilty after that video. The fact that she has a psychotic voice doesn't help matters... Michelle Duggar anyone :crazy:?! I now believe Darlie is simply odd, not murderous. Either way though, it would take a jury much longer than 4 hours to reach an INFORMED conclusion.

I agree that the silly string video should have been irrelevant and the jury should have looked at all the evidence. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. Instead the jurors deliberated for just 4 short hours, and spent a good portion watching the silly string video 7 times.

I myself thought she was guilty after that video. The fact that she has a psychotic voice doesn't help matters... Michelle Duggar anyone :crazy:?! I now believe Darlie is simply odd, not murderous. Either way though, it would take a jury much longer than 4 hours to reach an INFORMED conclusion.
True four hours is quick and i certainly would have argued against the video being a factor.

Bumping due to the Dallas morning news doing a cover story on her today....



http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2016/06/did-darlie-routier-kill-her-kids-doubts-remain-20-years-later.html/?_ga=1.99730202.504388877.1459037870

A police detective on one program called Darlie one of the most coldhearted people he had ever met, based it seemed on mannerisms.

It is possible she could have been convicted as was Lindy Chamberlain in Australia, due to the jury and the public simply not liking her personality, not based on evidence of guilt. Years later new evidence exonerated Lindy after she was convicted of murdering her baby now believed to have been taken by a wild dingo. It was said at the time that Australians believed 7th Day Adventists sacrificed children. That really made me do a double take! If they believe that, they must sure have a different kind of 7th Day Adventists than we do around here, or think they do! Where I come from, Adventists don't even eat meat!

Regarding Darlie's guilt I tend to believe she is guilty and would be surprised if otherwise but would not rule it out.

Aside from all the other evidence of her guilt, her appellate attorneys just admitted she was only one who could've commited the crime in recent court documents. ����

Also, the 9/11 call...think about it...

She goes into great detail about fingerprints and a long story of what happened. Now I dont have children yet but I do have 2 younger brothers 13 and 16 whom I love more than anything and basically helped raise them. If I was awakened by a masked intruder slashing at me obviously shock and intense fear kicks in. Once that inital threat is gone, when I saw my little brothers severely wounded and possibly mortally wounded...my sole focus would be saving them in that moment. I'd go over to them probably hysterically, immediately dial 9/11, say someone came in and attached them and just scream and repeatedly tell the operator to get there asap to save them. I wouldn't even think about arresting the intruder in those minutes. My sole concern would be to save my loved ones. I'd try to stop the bleeding. (Darlie didn't).

Also, think about it. Wouldn't you be concerned about your loved ones upstairs?! She was woken out of a sound sleep. I'd be screaming up the stairs to see if they were alive. She never mentioned nor was concerned for her husband or newborn baby upstairs. She never screamed for her husband. He came down when he eventually heard all the commotion.

Seriously, the 9/11 tape is so telling. Yes, everyone reacts to trauma In different ways but that call was all about establishing her story. It's disgusting.

Aside from all the other evidence of her guilt, her appellate attorneys just admitted she was only one who could've commited the crime in recent court documents. ����

Where did you read this?

I obsessively read about this case a couple of years ago. I just remember nothing about Darlie's story made any sense.

There's also absolutely no evidence that an outside intruder ever entered the home.

Over 20 years on death row now and still no execution date. Texas has no issue with carrying out executions either, so I wonder what the holdup is.

I looked around online because I was curious if this case is still tied up in appellate courts. The most recent update to this case was the release of the DNA test result in 2015.

There are a total of six women on death row in TX. Only one of them has been there longer than Routier. None of the six women have a set execution date.

I just watched the forensic files episode which is a bit more illuminating than the UM segment with regard to Darlie's guilt. Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence is the bread knife in the knife block that had traces of rubber dust from the window screen that was cut by the "intruder". I don't know of any case with stronger evidence of staging.

Another tidbit from that forensic files episode: Darin bragged about his wife's breast size to the police when they arrived. That is pretty shocking while his sons lay dead and dying on the living room floor. There doesn't seem to be any physical evidence tying him to the crime itself but it certainly makes him a douche of the highest order

I just watched the forensic files episode which is a bit more illuminating than the UM segment with regard to Darlie's guilt. Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence is the bread knife in the knife block that had traces of rubber dust from the window screen that was cut by the "intruder". I don't know of any case with stronger evidence of staging.

Another tidbit from that forensic files episode: Darin bragged about his wife's breast size to the police when they arrived. That is pretty shocking while his sons lay dead and dying on the living room floor. There doesn't seem to be any physical evidence tying him to the crime itself but it certainly makes him a douche of the highest order

THIS ^^^

I was on the fence (leaning towards guilt) until I saw the Forensic Files show. Now I’m convinced she did it. Both Darlie and Darin are odd AF. She did it and I have to wonder what his role was. He certainly showed no markers of a distraught father whose kids were just brutally murdered and his wife attacked.

Even without the silly string video she is guilty...

http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/39900000/Devon-and-Damon-Routier-remember-the-angels-39943268-338-500.jpg

https://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/8279234_orig.jpg

Interesting look at Darlie and her only surviving son: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3yw06e

Wow. That was unbelievably disgusting to watch. That poor kid has no idea just what a complete sociopath his mother truly is. She is so incredibly guilty that it makes me cringe every time she professes her innocence. The forensic evidence against her is so damning that I don’t know how anyone in their right mind can believe she’s anything but guilty as hell.

It made me very sad that this lady and others wasted so much time and effort defending a horribly guilty murderer and apparently her son is totally deluded. There are also crime scene photos of the boy who was dead at scene if you can stand to look. They will come up under a Google image search of the boys' names but I appreciate that members may not want them shared here.

Yeah, I consider myself to be a pretty tough cookie... but, nope. No interest in seeing the photos of the boys laying there dead. The blood spatter and kitchen knife evidence were more than enough for me.

I've been reading this thread and trying to come up with a reasonable explanation to who put the sock in the alley way.

I happen to think that Darlie is the killer but I'am trying to understand both sides.

From the programs I have watched and the information I have read they sway me to believe that Darlie is the one responsible for causing the children's deaths. However Darin behaviour / comments make me suspicious that maybe he was involved in some way.

I have since found out that Darin left the house to get a neighbour who was a nurse from across the street. Perhaps he planted the sock away from the home during this time. It would seem more probable than Darlie having time to kill the boys, call 911 and slash her own throat.

Was the house the nurse lived in close by to where the sock was found?
How long was he out the house for?

My feeling is that Darin covered for his wife out of pure love, he seemed like the was besotted with her. Commenting about her breast to officers is a really bizarre thing to do given the circumstances.

Sorry if someone has mentioned this before I haven't read all of this thread yet. Just this whole sock business if it was not Darin or Darlie must have been left by an intruder. I would like to see it tied to one of them.

I too believe it might have gone down something like that. He walks in on the stabbing and then decides to help plant the sock.

Another theory I think is her getting the boys' blood on the sock at a different time. Kids play, they get scratches and cuts etc... There was little blood on the sock. I think it's possible she planted the sock before the attacks were carried out.

Actually both boys were dead at scene. The photographs I saw were specifically of the older boy who was dead when EMTs arrived--a couple views of how incredibly covered with blood he was before being zipped up, and then after being cleaned, indicating how deep the knife marks went. Apparently the paramedic who zipped him up was sobbing uncontrollably.

I've also seen it said that Darlie ignored requests to help the younger boy who was clinging to life. It's said the blood marks indicate she first attacked him while sleeping. He didn't know what happened and followed her seeking help whereon she attacked him again. She probably pretended to be unable to respond to the requests to help him as if she'd approached him again he might have freaked out and they'd have known she was guilty!

Actually both boys were dead at scene. The photographs I saw were specifically of the older boy who was dead when EMTs arrived--a couple views of how incredibly covered with blood he was before being zipped up, and then after being cleaned, indicating how deep the knife marks went. Apparently the paramedic who zipped him up was sobbing uncontrollably.

I've also seen it said that Darlie ignored requests to help the younger boy who was clinging to life. It's said the blood marks indicate she first attacked him while sleeping. He didn't know what happened and followed her seeking help whereon she attacked him again. She probably pretended to be unable to respond to the requests to help him as if she'd approached him again he might have freaked out and they'd have known she was guilty!

Then the cop tells her to apply pressure to the boys’ wounds 4 times and she doesn’t even do it.

One of them was still breathing when police/paramedics arrived.

Over 20 years on death row now and still no execution date. Texas has no issue with carrying out executions either, so I wonder what the holdup is.
that's a good question for a lawyer.

Just an amateur opinion, but I think it has to do with the state protecting its reputation for having a quick draw as well as being weary of the media coverage that the trial generated. the media attention that she got was a nightmare for the court. of corse this should not play a role. at the end of the day justice should be swift if you ask someone who believes in the welfare of young children.

she is surely guilty if you take the time to acknowledge the physical evidence. the court proceedings will always be revisited by lawyers who will inevitably queue up to defend darlie as she has gained supporters with her crying on camera. I think she will either die in prison or the state will hold off as long as possible.

that's a good question for a lawyer.

Just an amateur opinion, but I think it has to do with the state protecting its reputation for having a quick draw as well as being weary of the media coverage that the trial generated. the media attention that she got was a nightmare for the court. of corse this should not play a role. at the end of the day justice should be swift if you ask someone who believes in the welfare of young children.

she is surely guilty if you take the time to acknowledge the physical evidence. the court proceedings will always be revisited by lawyers who will inevitably queue up to defend darlie as she has gained supporters with her crying on camera. I think she will either die in prison or the state will hold off as long as possible.
As a Christian I should be against the death penalty in principle but there are cases such as these which do make me reflect on whether it is justified after all.

As a Canadian, I don't think the death penalty is justified. Ever. A civilized society doesn't executed its citizens regardless of the crime committed.

that's a good question for a lawyer.

Just an amateur opinion, but I think it has to do with the state protecting its reputation for having a quick draw as well as being weary of the media coverage that the trial generated. the media attention that she got was a nightmare for the court. of corse this should not play a role. at the end of the day justice should be swift if you ask someone who believes in the welfare of young children.

she is surely guilty if you take the time to acknowledge the physical evidence. the court proceedings will always be revisited by lawyers who will inevitably queue up to defend darlie as she has gained supporters with her crying on camera. I think she will either die in prison or the state will hold off as long as possible.

There is still a stigma about executing females (or even giving them the death sentence when a man would receive it) much more than executing males-just 16 female death sentences have been carried out since the capital punishment moratorium was lifted in 1976, as opposed to over 1,400 men.

As a Christian I should be against the death penalty in principle but there are cases such as these which do make me reflect on whether it is justified after all.

Really, why?

that's a good question for a lawyer.

Just an amateur opinion, but I think it has to do with the state protecting its reputation for having a quick draw as well as being weary of the media coverage that the trial generated. the media attention that she got was a nightmare for the court. of corse this should not play a role. at the end of the day justice should be swift if you ask someone who believes in the welfare of young children.

she is surely guilty if you take the time to acknowledge the physical evidence. the court proceedings will always be revisited by lawyers who will inevitably queue up to defend darlie as she has gained supporters with her crying on camera. I think she will either die in prison or the state will hold off as long as possible.

How many DNA tests has the court given Darlie after her conviction? I mean, DNA test after DNA test and it looks like not ONE time has it ever gone in her favor.

Really, why?

Yeah, this Christian is wondering the same thing.

Really, why?

That’s a really good question considering that in the history of the world more people have been killed “in the name of god” than for any other reason. ✌️

Really, why?
John 8:7 He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

That’s a really good question considering that in the history of the world more people have been killed “in the name of god” than for any other reason. ✌️
They were not and are not Christians unless they are killing in self-defence, as in the Second World War.

Well for darlie it’s live by the sword die by the sword. Her actions will get her what she deserves.

Ok, so piety aside, from what I can gather from non-definitive online sources, Routier still has a pending appeal at the federal level. I can't say for sure if that appeal is related to the most recent round of DNA tests that were finalized in 2015. Those test results indicated that Darlie Routier's DNA could not be excluded, so she is running out of options at this point. Once she does run out of options, a judge will likely set a date for her with the sleepy-time juice, as none of the tests have done anything but confirm the jury got it right the first time.

It's also worth mentioning that if she should get her sentence commuted to life in prison (and I see no reason to think that would happen) the state can still prosecute Routier for the murder of her oldest son if they choose to. No one has ever been prosecuted for his murder.

Once she does run out of options, a judge will likely set a date for her with the sleepy-time juice

"Sleepy-time juice" :lol: :lol: :lol:

I have to say, I can not see her being innocent. The forensics really painted a horrible picture of her.

The one thing that really nags at me about this case is... why only 2 out of 3?

The one thing that really nags at me about this case is... why only 2 out of 3?

First and foremost, she was probably mentally ill or psychotic. I'm no mental health professional, but it's obvious a normal, sane, stable person wouldn't do this. So I'm not sure we can put a reason to it.

With that said, maybe the older two were the hardest to parent. Also, they were downstairs in here immediate reach. I guess the question is whether or not this was premeditated. I tend to think it wasn't, but that she snapped and then covered it up. So the two that were right there were killed, the other one was ok being upstairs with Darin. If it was premeditated to only kill the older two, than she is truly evil.

The big question to me is still what role did Darin play? Did he help with the cover up? He certainly didn't act like a guy who walked in on his two oldest children brutally murdered and his wife "attacked."

First and foremost, she was mentally ill/psychotic. I'm no mental health professional, but it's obvious a normal, sane, stable person wouldn't do this. So I'm not sure we can put a reason to it.

With that said, maybe the older two were the hardest to parent. Also, they were downstairs in here immediate reach. I guess the question is whether or not this was premeditated. I tend to think it wasn't, but that she snapped and then covered it up. So the two that were right there were killed, the other one was ok being upstairs with Darin. If it was premeditated to only kill the older two, than she is truly evil.

The big question to me is still what role did Darin play? Did he help with the cover up? He certainly didn't act like a guy who walked in on his two oldest children brutally murdered and his wife "attacked."

Just because you don't understand how she could do something doesn't mean she's mentally ill. Some people are just evil, selfish jerks. Evil is not an illness.

Just because you don't understand how she could do something doesn't mean she's mentally ill. Some people are just evil, selfish jerks. Evil is not an illness.

I agree. I should have said "probably" before mentally ill/psychotic (and I will edit my original post). I'm just pointing out that she was a special type of evil. There could very well be mental illness or some other medical issue that caused her to act that way.

I'm not ripping on mentally ill people (I have plenty in my family) and as I said, I'm no expert. I know that too often "mental illness" is given to people who do bad things, and it isn't always the case. Most of the people who have mental illness are no more a risk than people who don't. But a certain percentage can be affected by that. My whole point was that she did is unforgivable and she has a depraved mind. I probably should have explained that better.

The one thing that really nags at me about this case is... why only 2 out of 3?

Because the baby was asleep upstairs with Darin.

Because the baby was asleep upstairs with Darin.


So, you don't think it was planned beforehand? How hard is it for a Texas stay at home mom to be alone with all three kids at some point?

So, you don't think it was planned beforehand? How hard is it for a Texas stay at home mom to be alone with all three kids at some point?
If anything the circumstances support that she went mental. Maybe it was over a course of a long time and she planned it or maybe she just snapped that night and Darren and the other child luckily were not there.

So, you don't think it was planned beforehand? How hard is it for a Texas stay at home mom to be alone with all three kids at some point?

Maybe she could raise 1 but not 3.

So, you don't think it was planned beforehand? How hard is it for a Texas stay at home mom to be alone with all three kids at some point?

She was suffering from postpartum depression, so no it was not planned. I think it all came to a head that night after Darin told her about their car being in the shop, essentially leaving Darlie stranded at home for awhile with the 3 boys. They argued over it. That's what triggered it, IMO.

She's never blamed Darin for the murders, ever. The window was slashed from the inside with a knife found in the Routier's knife block (fibers matching the screen where found on the knife). That narrows the killer down to 2 people: Darlie or Darin. Darlie admits to being the last one with the boys. No male DNA was found on the unknown fingerprint that they made a big deal about on the UM segment. Source (https://imgur.com/itFpldu) at the very end where it says "No Y-STR results were obtained" from testing that fingerprint. Meaning it wasn't a male. And every other piece of evidence tested could not exclude Darin or Darlie.

There is an episode of Werner Herzog's series On Death Row that has some very interesting interviews about this case. The first responder to arrive was interviewed, and he mentioned that Darlie was concerned about her jewelry on the table and if her fingerprints were in the knife. This is while one of the boys was still clinging to life.

In her interview, Darlie was complaining about media coverage surrounding her trial ... Werner Herzog reminded her he was a member of the media, and just because he opposed the death penalty "doesn't mean I have to like you". :)

He asked her what she would do if she was ever released, and she gave the typical "I'd give my family a big hug" answer. Why is it these convicted killers never say "I'll do anything I can to find the real killer"?

I have done a 180 over the years on the case and am now convinced beyond any reasonable doubt she killed her boys and whether she was psychotic or not is now the only question in my mind. While I think it was ridiculous that the 'silly string' video and their odd behavior was considered evidence that doesn't mean she was innocent.

The fact that she had the two oldest boys sleeping with her in the family room makes me think this was a pre-planned event. I guess it's just hard to accept a very well off mother could be such a monster but the evidence points to nobody but Darlie.

I think it all came to a head that night after Darin told her about their car being in the shop, essentially leaving Darlie stranded at home for awhile with the 3 boys. They argued over it. That's what triggered it, IMO.
Playing Devil's advocate but couldn't they have easily rented a car? I am only now understaning they were VERY well off financially and this would literally have been pocket change. I'm also no psychologist but isn't it rare to have postpartum depression after 8 months?

Playing Devil's advocate but couldn't they have easily rented a car? I am only now understaning they were VERY well off financially and this would literally have been pocket change. I'm also no psychologist but isn't it rare to have postpartum depression after 8 months?

They were in serious debt at the time. That was also a contributing factor, IMO. She knew she wasn't going to be able to keep up the lavish lifestyle she was accustomed to.

They were in serious debt at the time. That was also a contributing factor, IMO. She knew she wasn't going to be able to keep up the lavish lifestyle she was accustomed to.

Yes, Darin Routier's business was failing at the time. They appeared well off from the outside looking in, but in reality they were behind on mortgage payments, credit card payments, etc.

Yes, Darin Routier's business was failing at the time. They appeared well off from the outside looking in, but in reality they were behind on mortgage payments, credit card payments, etc.
Good point: I guess I just think of my own family and how not everyone thinks like us. If we made such an insanely high amount of money we would have put a good chunk of it away (at minimum more than my wife and I make now) but not everybody thinks that way. Certainly adds more of a motive to an otherwise senseless crime.

Clear from the start.

She's GUILTY AF

If the case for Darlie's innocence is the head of a dandelion, the bread knife and cut screen is the single puff of air that blows it all to the four winds.

The main reason I think she continues to have so many supporters is a combination of the motive being relatively ambiguous. Were it not for that one factor, I really think she would have gone the way of Theresa Knorr and other such individuals.

If the case for Darlie's innocence is the head of a dandelion, the bread knife and cut screen is the single puff of air that blows it all to the four winds.

^^^ This is OUTSTANDING! Both eloquent and succinct. Great job, Meg!

^^^ This is OUTSTANDING! Both eloquent and succinct. Great job, Meg!

:lol: Thanks. :)

Considering Darin, I have to agree with you, Todd: he sure didn't act like someone who'd just been through an experience as traumatic as walking in on a scene such as the one Darlie describes. Nor does he behave, in my opinion, as someone who was involved in the murders.

He's just kind of an odd character, really. I've never really known what to think of him.

The most likely scenario is Darin Routier's role in this was to help his wife hastily create the appearance of an intruder.

If it's true it would explain the clumsily planted bloody sock found a block away, while she was busy staging the scene in the kitchen.

His douchey comment to the police about her breast size was intended to create the impression that the "intruder" wanted to sexually assault her.

It would also explain why Darlie hasn't thrown him under the bus, even after their divorce. She can't implicate him without implicating herself. And for the same reason he's never pointed the finger at her.

The most likely scenario is Darin Routier's role in this was to help his wife hastily create the appearance of an intruder.

If it's true it would explain the clumsily planted bloody sock found a block away, while she was busy staging the scene in the kitchen.

His douchey comment to the police about her breast size was intended to create the impression that the "intruder" wanted to sexually assault her.

It would also explain why Darlie hasn't thrown him under the bus, even after their divorce. She can't implicate him without implicating herself. And for the same reason he's never pointed the finger at her.
Darlie has gone further here in doubting her husband than anything else I've previously seen. https://youtu.be/wPwHawRkilI

Not sure if this has already been posted but the story will be on "The Last Defense" on ABC June 12 at 10pm.

Not sure if this has already been posted but the story will be on "The Last Defense" on ABC June 12 at 10pm.

https://people.com/tv/viola-davis-documentary-series-last-defense-investigates-death-row-cases/

Ugh. I’ve never seen someone so blatantly guilty get so much attention from so many different television programs that were willing to listen to their BS. She’s been sitting on death row for far too long.

She protects her husband, right now she has (very slim) hope. I can not help but think if she will change her tune on him right before she gets the needle? I really do not think she will ever get that far but one could hope

She can't face telling Drake the truth, and whilst there are still so many on her side the judiciary doesn't have the guts to execute her.

The one thing that really nags at me about this case is... why only 2 out of 3?

I always wondered if killing the boys was a way for Darlie to punish Darin. Maybe they were splitting up and she didn't want to have a connection to him. Maybe she was trying to frame him. Who knows, maybe Darlie had an affair and Drake was fathered by another man. The brutality of the crime makes me think that money really didn't have much to do with it.

I always wondered if killing the boys was a way for Darlie to punish Darin. Maybe they were splitting up and she didn't want to have a connection to him. Maybe she was trying to frame him. Who knows, maybe Darlie had an affair and Drake was fathered by another man. The brutality of the crime makes me think that money really didn't have much to do with it.
Who knows what condition the psychiatrists will come up with to explain this heinous crime, though post-partum psychosis does spring to mind. It might well have been in part a punishment for Darin, a cry for help for him to pay her more attention as she had done less dramatically in the past.

I doubt Drake is another man's child as there is a striking physical resemblance between him and Darin.

The answer to “Why only 2 out of 3?” seems pretty obvious. Drake was in the back bedroom with Darin and she’d have a lot more trouble taking down a full-grown man, than she would with two elementary school-age kids.

The answer to “Why only 2 out of 3?” seems pretty obvious. Drake was in the back bedroom with Darin and she’d have a lot more trouble taking down a full-grown man, than she would with two elementary school-age kids.
Why would she kill the main breadwinner?

Darin was doubtless an accomplice after the fact and won't and can't tell Drake the truth either.

Darin was doubtless an accomplice after the fact and won't and can't tell Drake the truth either.
I don't know what that term is in US law but no father would kill his sons I would have thought.

I don't know what that term is in US law but no father would kill his sons I would have thought.

I won't bother asking what country you are from but what planet?

Of course Darin did not kill or assist in killing his sons, but may have assisted afterwards in staging the scene and covering up what he must have known about it. He doesn't dare admit it any more than the Ramseys dare admit the covering up and staging following whichever family member killed JonBenét. Whoever helped cover up and stage was an accessory after the fact which is not as bad as murder but still very bad. The only thing which might bring out the truth in such a case is if authorities had enough to charge someone and make the other one talk by offering a plea deal--obviously that doesn't work in every such case.

I won't bother asking what country you are from but what planet?

Of course Darin did not kill or assist in killing his sons, but may have assisted afterwards in staging the scene and covering up what he must have known about it. He doesn't dare admit it any more than the Ramseys dare admit the covering up and staging following whichever family member killed JonBenét. Whoever helped cover up and stage was an accessory after the fact which is not as bad as murder but still very bad. The only thing which might bring out the truth in such a case is if authorities had enough to charge someone and make the other one talk by offering a plea deal--obviously that doesn't work in every such case.
Well at least you have changed from "doubtless" to "may have". I think the whole original intruder idea emanated from Darin on the insurance scam and this germinated in Darlie's mind, later to be realized in her diabolical plan, which I might also ascribe to post-partum psychosis, though never to excuse.


The last time I checked I lived on planet earth: here to be a little more exact:https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=CSsuW4ieAouTsAG7z7_QDw&q=co-ordinates+for+united+kingdom&oq=co-ordinates+for+united+kingdom&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i13i5i30k1j0i8i13i30k1l9.1279.9591.0.9916.31.31.0.0.0.0.204.3519.4j26j1.31.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.31.3505...0j0i131k1j0i10k1j0i13k1j0i13i30k1j0i22i10i30k1.0.vBWtXQ8N_6I

I watched The Last Defense on ID earlier. I was familiar with the case but not as well as I am with other cases. I went in with an open mind, leaning a bit towards guilty. Now I pretty much feel that Darlie is innocent.

That was one dirty prosecuting team. They made Darlie look like a tramp because she was a sexy woman and enjoyed flaunting it. It worked on at least one juror who belongs in the 1920s. Darlie crying on that 911 call was just so sad. Some things can't be faked.

Silly string, smh, we all grieve differently. Her husband still loves her. That's a very sad case. God bless those beautiful boys.

I watched The Last Defense on ID earlier. I was familiar with the case but not as well as I am with other cases. I went in with an open mind, leaning a bit towards guilty. Now I pretty much feel that Darlie is innocent.

That was one dirty prosecuting team. They made Darlie look like a tramp because she was a sexy woman and enjoyed flaunting it. It worked on at least one juror who belongs in the 1920s. Darlie crying on that 911 call was just so sad. Some things can't be faked.

Silly string, smh, we all grieve differently. Her husband still loves her. That's a very sad case. God bless those beautiful boys.
But there's just no evidence of an intruder that morning. The whole justification for her sleeping downstairs with the boys was because she needed rest from looking after Drake due to being a light sleeper, yet we are supposed to believe she slept through the initial attack, struggled with the assailant, picked up the knife, got Devon's blood on the back of her nightshirt, chased her attacker through the kitchen to the garage where there was no point of entry, the screen having been cut by a knife from the kitchen block from the inside, the murder weapon being a different knife from the same kitchen block.

I agree that the Silly String tape should not have been shown at trial because it could be deemed to be prejudicial. I would also like to think if there are any lessons to be learned it's once again there should be more research into mental health, whether it's post-partum psychosis in this case or general mental health with David Katz. https://youtu.be/pxr97WeYcvc

Again... anyone who believes Darlie is innocent NEEDS to watch the Forensic Files episode about her case. It will quash any doubts you have regarding her innocence.

She did it. Plain and simple. The DNA and blood spatter do not lie.

Again... anyone who believes Darlie is innocent NEEDS to watch the Forensic Files episode about her case. It will quash any doubts you have regarding her innocence.

She did it. Plain and simple. The DNA and blood spatter do not lie.

Some of the forensic files episodes can make huge leaps but this one is nearly airtight and completely sealed it for me. The only question is if she is a murderer from a legal standpoint not whether she actually stabbed and killed them.

Again... anyone who believes Darlie is innocent NEEDS to watch the Forensic Files episode about her case. It will quash any doubts you have regarding her innocence.

She did it. Plain and simple. The DNA and blood spatter do not lie.

Yes! And the screen fibers on the knife in the kitchen. Of all the many pieces of evidence, this to me was the most damning, as it can't be explained away.

We can argue all day about the validity of the silly string video, but the forensics don't lie and that clearly show this crime was committed by the people in the house.

Again... anyone who believes Darlie is innocent NEEDS to watch the Forensic Files episode about her case. It will quash any doubts you have regarding her innocence.

She did it. Plain and simple. The DNA and blood spatter do not lie.

I've been on the fence about this case for years and just went and watched the Forensic Files episode. I'm more sure now than ever that she IS responsible for the deaths.

I've been on the fence about this case for years and just went and watched the Forensic Files episode. I'm more sure now than ever that she IS responsible for the deaths.

I was absolutely in the same boat. I remember catching the Forensic Files episode purely by accident. By the time it was over, I was like, "How did UM MISS ALL OF THIS?!?!?"

I had been leaning guilty. That show pushed me completely over to the guilty side.

The sole reason people still believe her is because they cannot fathom a parent murdering their own children. Same reason why Jeffrey MacDonald still has his supporters. Although at least with MacDonald, they had some potential "suspects". Not so much with Darlie.

I was absolutely in the same boat. I remember catching the Forensic Files episode purely by accident. By the time it was over, I was like, "How did UM MISS ALL OF THIS?!?!?"

.

It's just the difference in the format, one show demonstrates how forensic evidence tells a story and the episodes cleanly wrap up the case at the end without trying to leave any unanswered questions, which is totally contrary to what UM tried to do.

The sole reason people still believe her is because they cannot fathom a parent murdering their own children. Same reason why Jeffrey MacDonald still has his supporters. Although at least with MacDonald, they had some potential "suspects". Not so much with Darlie.

For me, it was always the lack of motive. She had no real reason to kill the kids, even if they were in debt. I believe the insurance paid out 10,000 but the funerals cost 13,000. No one has been able to clearly paint her as some kind of 'kept' woman who needed these kids out of her life for her lifestyle. Just talking about it now makes me think she is innocent.

For me, it was always the lack of motive. She had no real reason to kill the kids, even if they were in debt. I believe the insurance paid out 10,000 but the funerals cost 13,000. No one has been able to clearly paint her as some kind of 'kept' woman who needed these kids out of her life for her lifestyle. Just talking about it now makes me think she is innocent.

I used to struggle with this when I tried to make sense of it all. that and I always thought the media effected public opinion before she was ever on trial. Nothing really makes sense with this crime other than Darlie had her own reasoning for doing this. I don't think it was an instant gratification thing regarding money, but more of a long term thing of not having to be a mother. perhaps she would have killed more people later. We've seen that with psychopath murderers that get away the first time. Just guessing here....Unless she has a change of heart and shares it with the public we will never know. 20+ years later I have come to the conclusion that she should be on the segment with Marie Hilley.

For me, it was always the lack of motive. She had no real reason to kill the kids, even if they were in debt.

Who do you think was the killer, and what do you think was the motive?

For me, it was always the lack of motive. She had no real reason to kill the kids, even if they were in debt. I believe the insurance paid out 10,000 but the funerals cost 13,000. No one has been able to clearly paint her as some kind of 'kept' woman who needed these kids out of her life for her lifestyle. Just talking about it now makes me think she is innocent.

The lack of motive is really irrelevant. The forensics tell you all you need to know.

Who knows why... Maybe she was psychotic, maybe she was depressed, maybe she wanted attention. But all that matters is what the evidence shows and it clearly shows she is guilty.

The lack of motive is really irrelevant. The forensics tell you all you need to know.

Who knows why... Maybe she was psychotic, maybe she was depressed, maybe she wanted attention. But all that matters is what the evidence shows and it clearly shows she is guilty.

I have always wondered if Darlie had been screened for Munchausen by proxy. I'm sure it's been mentioned here in the numerous pages of this thread, but the whole crime scene screamed, "Look at me, look what happened to my kids, this has been so hard on me." And if you're familiar with this particular disorder.... that type of thinking is a hallmark of it.

Agree with Todd, though. The forensics tell us everything we need to know. We may never know the motive. Crap. There was a kid in my town who just murdered his parents in cold blood for reasons that we'll probably never know. I'd LOVE to know what was going on in Darlie's head at the time all this happened, but I think we have to accept it's not going to happen. She's never going to acknowledge guilt because she's loving how she's been able to play the wronged victim after all these years.

What really annoys me about this segment was that she was convicted not on objective scientific data but on a ridiculous home video. It makes me uncomfortable knowing someone would judge me for not "grieving right" as someone who is already considered weird by some: image the crimes that jury would have found someone like me guilty of for not acting 'normal'.

It appears that Darlie got railroaded at her trial but that doesn't mean for a second she is innocent.

For me, it was always the lack of motive. She had no real reason to kill the kids, even if they were in debt. I believe the insurance paid out 10,000 but the funerals cost 13,000. No one has been able to clearly paint her as some kind of 'kept' woman who needed these kids out of her life for her lifestyle. Just talking about it now makes me think she is innocent.

Mental illness. I believe she was suffering from postpartum depression after having her 3rd son. She also contemplated suicide prior to the boys being murdered.

bumping, I just found out 20/20 did a special highlighting potential new evidence that was never investigated in this case? something that the state of texas is blocking?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/darlie-routier-the-2020-documentary-event-special-airs-friday-at-98c-on-abc/vi-AAAZexw

bumping, I just found out 20/20 did a special highlighting potential new evidence that was never investigated in this case? something that the state of texas is blocking?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/darlie-routier-the-2020-documentary-event-special-airs-friday-at-98c-on-abc/vi-AAAZexw

Thanks for posting this, DALLASTEXAN! I wasn't aware of this episode but I just watched it on the ABC website.

The evidence that the state is blocking has to do with a fingerprint found in blood at the crime scene and a few other forensic items. I think that finger print is most likely from a cop or paramedic who treated them during the confusion of that incident. I think it would be really odd for an intruder to leave one single fingerprint and no others. The defense wants further testing on it but the state is blocking it.

To me the strongest evidence of her guilt has always been the residue from the window screen that was found on the knife in the butcher block. The defense tried to say it was from cross contamination during fingerprint dusting. I don't know whether that's possible or not, but it is awfully convenient. The only place this screen residue was found just happened to be on a knife in the butcher block but it wasn't used to cut the screen? I just can't buy that.

The defense seems to be throwing whatever they can out to explain away that which cannot be explained. At one time, they said that clearly Darlie's stab wounds were defensive wounds as she fought off her attacker. Later, when asked why she didn't wake up during the attack, they said she was rendered unconscious by an anesthetic on the sock. You can't have it both ways -- she was either incapacitated or she was awake and fighting back. They also said this was most likely a burglary gone wrong. Uhh... ok. Someone breaks in the house to rob it, then sees a mom and two tiny kids sleeping in the living room, and then decides to grab a knife out of the butcher block and brutally hack them to death? That is completely non-sensical.

I think the person who looked the worst in that whole show was Darin. He later signed an affidavit stating he was trying to hire someone to stage a burglary in their house to get insurance money. He blew off by saying "I was just doing it to help Darlie. I'd do anything to help her." He said he divorced her because it was just to painful to stay married. I get having a wife on death row would be hard, but if he really loved her as much as he claims wouldn't he stick by her? The more I hear from or about Darin, the more I wonder just what his role was in this whole thing.

It's funny to me how many similarities there are between this case and the JonBenet Ramsey case. We have two families who supposedly love their children and are good parents. In both, a child is killed in the home quite brutally and there is signs of staging, with no direct evidence of an intruder. In both cases, it is assumed one or more of the parents are guilty but many people rush to their defense. At least in Darlie's case, there is pretty good physical evidence that this was staged.

While I still can't fathom a parent doing this to their children, I think the evidence in this case is very strong that she did this.

Thanks for posting this, DALLASTEXAN! I wasn't aware of this episode but I just watched it on the ABC website.

The evidence that the state is blocking has to do with a fingerprint found in blood at the crime scene and a few other forensic items. I think that finger print is most likely from a cop or paramedic who treated them during the confusion of that incident. I think it would be really odd for an intruder to leave one single fingerprint and no others. The defense wants further testing on it but the state is blocking it.

To me the strongest evidence of her guilt has always been the residue from the window screen that was found on the knife in the butcher block. The defense tried to say it was from cross contamination during fingerprint dusting. I don't know whether that's possible or not, but it is awfully convenient. The only place this screen residue was found just happened to be on a knife in the butcher block but it wasn't used to cut the screen? I just can't buy that.

The defense seems to be throwing whatever they can out to explain away that which cannot be explained. At one time, they said that clearly Darlie's stab wounds were defensive wounds as she fought off her attacker. Later, when asked why she didn't wake up during the attack, they said she was rendered unconscious by an anesthetic on the sock. You can't have it both ways -- she was either incapacitated or she was awake and fighting back. They also said this was most likely a burglary gone wrong. Uhh... ok. Someone breaks in the house to rob it, then sees a mom and two tiny kids sleeping in the living room, and then decides to grab a knife out of the butcher block and brutally hack them to death? That is completely non-sensical.

I think the person who looked the worst in that whole show was Darin. He later signed an affidavit stating he was trying to hire someone to stage a burglary in their house to get insurance money. He blew off by saying "I was just doing it to help Darlie. I'd do anything to help her." He said he divorced her because it was just to painful to stay married. I get having a wife on death row would be hard, but if he really loved her as much as he claims wouldn't he stick by her? The more I hear from or about Darin, the more I wonder just what his role was in this whole thing.

It's funny to me how many similarities there are between this case and the JonBenet Ramsey case. We have two families who supposedly love their children and are good parents. In both, a child is killed in the home quite brutally and there is signs of staging, with no direct evidence of an intruder. In both cases, it is assumed one or more of the parents are guilty but many people rush to their defense. At least in Darlie's case, there is pretty good physical evidence that this was staged.

While I still can't fathom a parent doing this to their children, I think the evidence in this case is very strong that she did this.
I think that is one of the issues with this case. the crime scene was chaotic and who knows what was compromised by the first responders. It would be bad for darlie if that fingerprint got tested and came back to a first responder.

I did watch at least part of the special. and IIRC it did seem like they left off other aspects of the forensic evidence that were more incriminating for darlie. I did not know about a suspicious car that was seen at her residence on 2 occasions and called in by a neighbour.

I too can't believe that a parent would do that to a child. I want to believe that she did not do this...

the aspects that always bothered me were how beat up that she was and that the public turned on her over the birthday party at the cemetery. the inner wannabe lawyer in me feels like she may have not gotten a fair trial because of that video.

I did not know about a suspicious car that was seen at her residence on 2 occasions and called in by a neighbour.

I think this is a giant red herring. About once every other week, there is a "suspicious car" in our neighborhood (we live on a quiet street and my neighbors can be a bit nosy :lol:). They always turn out to be nothing. I think this was just reverse engineering by the neighbor looking for an intruder.

the aspects that always bothered me were how beat up that she was and that the public turned on her over the birthday party at the cemetery. the inner wannabe lawyer in me feels like she may have not gotten a fair trial because of that video.

I do think the bruising on her arm was odd. At first they tried to say that was a sign of defensive wounds, but when she says she slept through it and didn't notice until her son woke her up, I just can't buy it. The only thing I can think of is that she just went on a rage on her kids and bruised her arms in the process. But I will admit, her injuries are a bit odd when I try to put a timeline together.

I totally agree on the silly string video. As a parent, I find it very wrong that she is so excited in that video. I get they wanted to have a party at the cemetery (which is weird in its own way) but she seemed really gleeful. That said, we all grieve differently and she might have even been on medication -- who knows. I think testimony on her life was relevant because that goes to motive, but the silly string video should not have been shown as it was really prejudicial. It seems like many jurors really zeroed in on that, too. So while I think her behavior at the cemetery was weird, it wasn't fair to show at trial.

But the other forensic evidence leaves no doubt that this was an inside job with Darlie being the perpetrator.

I think this is a giant red herring. About once every other week, there is a "suspicious car" in our neighborhood (we live on a quiet street and my neighbors can be a bit nosy :lol:). They always turn out to be nothing. I think this was just reverse engineering by the neighbor looking for an intruder.



I do think the bruising on her arm was odd. At first they tried to say that was a sign of defensive wounds, but when she says she slept through it and didn't notice until her son woke her up, I just can't buy it. The only thing I can think of is that she just went on a rage on her kids and bruised her arms in the process. But I will admit, her injuries are a bit odd when I try to put a timeline together.

I totally agree on the silly string video. As a parent, I find it very wrong that she is so excited in that video. I get they wanted to have a party at the cemetery (which is weird in its own way) but she seemed really gleeful. That said, we all grieve differently and she might have even been on medication -- who knows. I think testimony on her life was relevant because that goes to motive, but the silly string video should not have been shown as it was really prejudicial. It seems like many jurors really zeroed in on that, too. So while I think her behavior at the cemetery was weird, it wasn't fair to show at trial.

But the other forensic evidence leaves no doubt that this was an inside job with Darlie being the perpetrator.

The vehicle might indeed be a red herring. I would contest that if a person feels the need to call police to report a suspicious vehicle then it should be followed up at the least. That’s their job. And maybe it was.

For the video and birthday celebration. I find it odd and in hindsight if I’m darlie’s lawyer I’m asking her why did you do that? if you just watch the video it can be misread out of context just like any other video that has ever been made. Things are not always what they appear.

I still go back to the forensic files segment I watched. If that production is bona fide, then I will always conclude that there was enough evidence to secure a conviction. Because of the injuries to darlie and the sock, I think a great lawyer could have prevented her from going to jail by relentlessly defending her. I want to believe she is innocent but the evidence points to her.

As far as I know, that fingerprint has never been able to rule out Darlie as the source of it. She could not be excluded on the tests.

The ABC News YouTube channel has this show 'Last Defense' broken up into short segments, but it does not include the entire program. I watched the 5 parts they did have on their channel but when it ends it's clear there's a lot more they haven't uploaded yet. Which was really annoying. It seemed like a very thorough and comprehensive presentation of the case - they had a lot of the original interviews as well as some recent ones. They had a recent interview with Darin Routier, I was curious if he still believed she was innocent - he's still emphatic that she wasn't involved

To me the strongest evidence of her guilt has always been the residue from the window screen that was found on the knife in the butcher block. The defense tried to say it was from cross contamination during fingerprint dusting. I don't know whether that's possible or not, but it is awfully convenient. The only place this screen residue was found just happened to be on a knife in the butcher block but it wasn't used to cut the screen? I just can't buy that.



This is exactly how I feel.

Silly string, post-partum depression, marriage problems, vehicle problems, massive debt...etc., etc...all of that is meaningless. What matters is the physical evidence, which all points to a staged crime scene.

This case has always intrigued me. I honestly don’t know what to think but I can say that if I were one of the jurors I would’ve voted “not guilty” simply because the “evidence” is not solid.

This case has always intrigued me. I honestly don’t know what to think but I can say that if I were one of the jurors I would’ve voted “not guilty” simply because the “evidence” is not solid.

Had you sat on the jury at the trial, I assure you you would have voted guilty. The evidence was there. These neat little TV shows that profile the case conveniently leave a ton of them out because they want to create an interesting show about a possibly imprisoned mother who may be innocent.

-Her own story didn't do her any favors

-Multiple rounds of DNA testing didn't do her any favors

-Lie detector test didn't do her any favors

-Evidence presented at the trial didn't do her any favors

I believe the murders were spontaneous, and not pre-planned which is why her account of what happened made no sense. She's very guilty.

As far as I know, that fingerprint has never been able to rule out Darlie as the source of it. She could not be excluded on the tests.

I love how her supporters say her quest to find the identity of who left the fingerprint "proves" she is innocent. Reminds me of how Stuart Heaton's supporters said the DNA evidence would set him free... until it confirmed he was the killer.

I was rooting for her. But I couldn’t fathom her not getting killed in a attack like that or without her screaming for her hubby (maybe she did I can’t remember). I think she did get a unfair trial but ultimately I think she did it.

I was rooting for her. But I couldn’t fathom her not getting killed in a attack like that or without her screaming for her hubby (maybe she did I can’t remember). I think she did get a unfair trial but ultimately I think she did it.

This is very similar to the Jeffrey MacDonald case: the intruder(s) (to quote Robert Stack, "motive and identity unknown") break in and savagely kill children while leaving the biggest threat, who is in plain sight, wounded but relatively ok. The biggest threat is also attacked after the weaker ones. Uh-huh.

I also don't buy the "Darlie came within a millimeter of dying" argument. While this may be true, I chalk this up to her not realizing how deep she cut herself and how dangerous that could be. To that end, maybe she didn't even care if she lived or died as we know she was suicidal earlier. But let's be real, here... If an intruder hacked her kids to death, why not make absolutely sure she is dead before leaving? Who is a better witness, Darlie or the kids? Who is the bigger threat? Makes no sense.

This is very similar to the Jeffrey MacDonald case: the intruder(s) (to quote Robert Stack, "motive and identity unknown") break in and savagely kill children while leaving the biggest threat, who is in plain sight, wounded but relatively ok. The biggest threat is also attacked after the weaker ones. Uh-huh.

I also don't buy the "Darlie came within a millimeter of dying" argument. While this may be true, I chalk this up to her not realizing how deep she cut herself and how dangerous that could be. To that end, maybe she didn't even care if she lived or died as we know she was suicidal earlier. But let's be real, here... If an intruder hacked her kids to death, why not make absolutely sure she is dead before leaving? Who is a better witness, Darlie or the kids? Who is the bigger threat? Makes no sense.

Todd - you read my mind. I agree 100%. I think it was a fluke she cut herself in the dangerous spot. Like you said similar to Jeff McDonald. McDonald not getting killed or maimed by the hippies while his family got slaughtered is pretty far fetched in my book.

I have always leaned to Darlie being guilty. After reading the book about the case which paints her as innocent, the only evidence that I wonder about is the bruising on her arms . How is that explained?

I have always leaned to Darlie being guilty. After reading the book about the case which paints her as innocent, the only evidence that I wonder about is the bruising on her arms . How is that explained?

From what I read, she bruised herself or had someone do it to herafter checking out of the hospital the initial time.

I have always leaned to Darlie being guilty. After reading the book about the case which paints her as innocent, the only evidence that I wonder about is the bruising on her arms . How is that explained?

As grim this sounds, I always wondered if her boys struggled with her and this is where the bruising came from. She was their mother, but I have to think more basic instincts such as self preservation will kick in especially when someone is stabbing you with a knife, no matter who they are.

The two-hour documentary on the Routier murders that I recently watched mentioned that in addition to the silly string video, there were 2 other clips not shown to the public. One was of Darlie crying at the boy's grave. I think that the Rowlett police and court system just didn't like her and tried to paint her as a terrible mother.

Something else I never thought of before. What if Darlle's bruises were caused by Darin trying to restrain her after he realized that she just stabbed Devon and Damon? Darlie could have still been flailing around and cut herself during this, but Darin would have been lacerated too, and if I recall, he was not injured. I also feel that maybe Darin stabbed the boys, and Darlie tried to intervene and was cut by the knife. Darin, knowing that if he killed his wife, would be solely blamed and imprisoned for the deaths, so he needed Darlie alive so she could take the fall. Might all sound farfetched, but not entirely impossible.

Didn't the nurses claim that the bruising wasn't there at the time of the physical examination right after the deaths?

Didn't the nurses claim that the bruising wasn't there at the time of the physical examination right after the deaths?

Yes that’s what I read too. I never saw a bruise appear one or two days later that intense.

The two-hour documentary on the Routier murders that I recently watched mentioned that in addition to the silly string video, there were 2 other clips not shown to the public. One was of Darlie crying at the boy's grave. I think that the Rowlett police and court system just didn't like her and tried to paint her as a terrible mother.

Something else I never thought of before. What if Darlle's bruises were caused by Darin trying to restrain her after he realized that she just stabbed Devon and Damon? Darlie could have still been flailing around and cut herself during this, but Darin would have been lacerated too, and if I recall, he was not injured. I also feel that maybe Darin stabbed the boys, and Darlie tried to intervene and was cut by the knife. Darin, knowing that if he killed his wife, would be solely blamed and imprisoned for the deaths, so he needed Darlie alive so she could take the fall. Might all sound farfetched, but not entirely impossible.

I can’t even begin to point out all of the fail in this post... so I won’t.

Darlie Routier is 100% guilty of murdering her sons and I question the sanity of those that think otherwise. Either they haven’t researched the physical evidence enough or they are blinded by “pretty white woman” syndrome or both.

She's 100% guilty and the last ABC special did not change that for me.

I can’t even begin to point out all of the fail in this post... so I won’t.

Darlie Routier is 100% guilty of murdering her sons and I question the sanity of those that think otherwise. Either they haven’t researched the physical evidence enough or they are blinded by “pretty white woman” syndrome or both.

Dude, look who created this thread. Of course I know about the case. I've only studied it for several years. A good researcher looks at all angles, however likely or unlikely. The Routier case has apparencies and it has discrepancies. Not everything is as it seems. I'm still convinced that Darin was somehow involved, whether it was during or after the fact. There's no way he slept through the stabbings and Darlie couldn't have staged the scene by herself (ex. the tube sock) without waking him.

Dude, look who created this thread. Of course I know about the case. I've only studied it for several years. A good researcher looks at all angles, however likely or unlikely. The Routier case has apparencies and it has discrepancies. Not everything is as it seems. I'm still convinced that Darin was somehow involved, whether it was during or after the fact. There's no way he slept through the stabbings and Darlie couldn't have staged the scene by herself (ex. the tube sock) without waking him.
I think he may well have buttressed the intruder theory by bruising his wife for those photographs post-murders though I very much doubt he would have colluded in killing the boys. The original invader theory was his with the insurance scam motive and I think Darlie embellished it diabolically due to her own financial concerns combined with her mental health issues.

I don't recall if it was revealed, but how deep were the wounds? Who would have created enough force to inflict those wounds, a man or a woman? Just a few small questions that haven't been cleared up.

I think he may well have buttressed the intruder theory by bruising his wife for those photographs post-murders though I very much doubt he would have colluded in killing the boys.

That's an interesting theory. And it wouldn't shock me if it turned out to be true. I do not think Darin had anything to do with the murders, but helping Darlie cover it up after the fact? Wouldn't put it past him.

I don't recall if it was revealed, but how deep were the wounds? Who would have created enough force to inflict those wounds, a man or a woman? Just a few small questions that haven't been cleared up.
She was put under general anesthesia at the hospital, so by sight the doctors must have thought her wounds were serious. She had a nine-centimetre neck wound which stopped two centimetres distant from the carotid artery, which if severed would have meant she would have bled to death within minutes. In addition she had sustained a 1 and a half inch deep cut to her left shoulder and a similar deep stab wound to her right forearm. No injuries to forearms, palms or fingers.

That's an interesting theory. And it wouldn't shock me if it turned out to be true. I do not think Darin had anything to do with the murders, but helping Darlie cover it up after the fact? Wouldn't put it past him.

Felt like Darin's possible involvement could explain why the sock ended up yards from the house.

Felt like Darin's possible involvement could explain why the sock ended up yards from the house.

One of the things that surprises me about this case is I've never seen him point the finger at her. If he helped cover for her, that would explain why. It's just a theory, but I think it makes more sense than an intruder running out of the house with a sock. I can't think of a reason why a hypothetical perpetrator would.

Do we know when the sock was found? And did they ever say if the sock belonged to one of the Routiers?

One of the things that surprises me about this case is I've never seen him point the finger at her. If he helped cover for her, that would explain why. It's just a theory, but I think it makes more sense than an intruder running out of the house with a sock. I can't think of a reason why a hypothetical perpetrator would.

Do we know when the sock was found? And did they ever say if the sock belonged to one of the Routiers?
The sock was found the same evening by Sergeant Ward. It was later matched to Darin's shoe and Darin himself admitted that it was his.

The sock was found the same evening by Sergeant Ward. It was later matched to Darin's shoe and Darin himself admitted that it was his.

That's hysterical. I never heard that it was Darin's sock. This certainly doesn't help Darlie's case. A couple of the investigators on the ABC show said the perp took the sock, covered it with a chemical, and held it over Darlie's mouth which incapacitated her.

Ok... So someone breaks in and brings the chemical to incapacitate her but not the sock? Does that make any g.d. sense???

That's hysterical. I never heard that it was Darin's sock. This certainly doesn't help Darlie's case. A couple of the investigators on the ABC show said the perp took the sock, covered it with a chemical, and held it over Darlie's mouth which incapacitated her.

Ok... So someone breaks in and brings the chemical to incapacitate her but not the sock? Does that make any g.d. sense???

She suffers from histrionic personality disorder, desirous of being the centre of attention or feeling that she was, the onset of her fourth pregnancy after the abortion leading to post-natal depression and an apprehension that she was trapped, the diet pill Fastin one attempt to regain her former physique, though only causing insomnia, the culmination being the tragedy of that night when in her mind it was them or her..

That's hysterical. I never heard that it was Darin's sock. This certainly doesn't help Darlie's case. A couple of the investigators on the ABC show said the perp took the sock, covered it with a chemical, and held it over Darlie's mouth which incapacitated her.

Ok... So someone breaks in and brings the chemical to incapacitate her but not the sock? Does that make any g.d. sense???

Too boot, Darin repeated the same thing basically saying that it was a sexual assault.

I think Darin was the one who ran the sock out of the house. How long did Darlie say it took to fight off the attacker? If she screamed for Darin as well as fighting the assaulter - what was Darin doing? Taking a leak? Then running down to help. Then the assaulter just hightailed out of the house and disappeared in the night before Darin had a clue what was going on. That is IF Darlie was screaming for Darin to help.

Too boot, Darin repeated the same thing basically saying that it was a sexual assault.

I think Darin was the one who ran the sock out of the house. How long did Darlie say it took to fight off the attacker? If she screamed for Darin as well as fighting the assaulter - what was Darin doing? Taking a leak? Then running down to help. Then the assaulter just hightailed out of the house and disappeared in the night before Darin had a clue what was going on. That is IF Darlie was screaming for Darin to help.
She changed her story, which didn't help her case. On June 6 she told Police she woke to find the attacker with the knife standing over her, but two days on when she first woke up Damon was pressing on her shoulder and the intruder was walking away from her.

I don't think she fell asleep that night at all..

I watched another show and listened to another podcast on this case and two things struck me...

1. They found the window screen fibers on the knife in the knife block in Darlie's kitchen. Slam dunk guilt... but her defense "experts" say this was transfer from the fingerprint brush. They dusted for fingerprints ALL over that house and on many of the items found in it. So we are to believe that fibers from the window where then found on a knife in the knife block, but conveniently nowhere else? That seems to me like a convenient way for her supporters to explain away the proverbial smoking gun. If there was really transfer like that, why wasn't it found in more places? So in other words, it shows her guilt.

2. The other thing that really bothered me was how she said she slept through the attack until one of her sons woke her up. She obviously experienced some violence and trauma, whether from someone else or by her own hands. There is no way she would not have woken up from that level of trauma. Her supporters say they think she was "drugged" and they want the sock that was found down the block tested for chloroform. I did a little research on chloroform and guess what: its effects for knocking people out are highly exaggerated in TV and movies. It is not something that takes effect instantly, and it has to be carefully dosed as it can be fatal. So the odds that someone, identity and motive unknown (to quote Stack), broke in to her house and knocked her out before violently attacking her kids is quite ridiculous. I think she went with that story so she could, in her mind, explain away why so much damage was done before she was awake. But after complaining of being a "light sleeper" that didn't hold water so she had to up the ante.

I'm also doubtful that Darin slept through such a vicious attack. Once the whole story came out about him trying to stage a home invasion, I really wonder what he had to do with this. I think his story is crap, too.

The only thing I've never been able to fully figure out is the sock they found a ways from the house. I don't think that proves it was an intruder by any means. I also think Darlie and/or Darin had plenty of time to plant it. What I can't figure out is why. My best guess is that Darlie thought it would "prove" an intruder had done this, but why put it so far from the house? I guess it doesn't even matter at this point.

When you look at this story from an outsider's perspective and take all of the emotion out of it, it is so clear that Darlie is guilty. Yes, I agree the silly string video is bogus to use against her (even though it is weird AF), but when you look at the actual evidence plus what was going on at the time with Darlie and Darin, there is no doubt she did it.

I'm reading one of the many books about this case right now, so it's been on my mind.

I work in the operating room and worked at a Level I trauma center for four years, so I was curious to know more about the nature of Darlie's surgery.

The trauma surgeon on call the night Darlie was brought to Baylor in Dallas was Dr. Alex Santos; the on-call trauma resident was a Dr. Patrick Dillawn. The procedure performed on Darlie that night was an exploration and closure of multiple wounds, but Dr. Santos was of course concerned primarily with the neck wound.

Here is an excerpts from the trial transcript. Emphasis mine:

SANTOS: Once we had her up in the operating room, under the anesthetic, with everything cleaned and prepped, there was very little bleeding at this time. So, we explored the wound and found that most of the bleeding had come from the veins that are located underneath the skin, in kind of, in what's called subcu, or the fat tissue that's underneath your skin. There's a bunch of veins here in the neck area. Some of those were injured. We repaired those by either using the electrocautery, which is an electric type of current that coagulates the vessels, or we put some stitches in the small vessels. We washed out the rest of the wound. We noted that the wound went down to what is called the platysma, which is the muscle that kind of covers your neck here. When you do that, you can see it flexing. Her wound went down to the platysma, had a little nick in it, but did not go beyond it. So, having found that extent of the injury, we washed that out and closed the neck wound.

Dr. Dillawn's testimony is pretty much exactly as Dr. Santos explained it regarding the neck wound.

I'm here to tell you: that is nothing in terms of exploratory surgery. Darlie was barely scraped on one of the most superficial muscle in her neck, so doc just did a wash-out and closed up. You could say it's an operative boo-boo kiss. The transfer to the OR was absolutely warranted, but it is certainly not the grueling procedure her supporters often make it out to be.

Her childrens' wounds are difficult to read about. I will say they were deep wounds that pierced vital structures multiple times. There is little doubt in my mind this woman is exactly where she should be: prison.

http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Dr-Alejandro-Santos-P.pdf

http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Dr-Patrick-Dillawn-P.pdf

I'm reading one of the many books about this case right now, so it's been on my mind.

I work in the operating room and worked at a Level I trauma center for four years, so I was curious to know more about the nature of Darlie's surgery.

The trauma surgeon on call the night Darlie was brought to Baylor in Dallas was Dr. Alex Santos; the on-call trauma resident was a Dr. Patrick Dillawn. The procedure performed on Darlie that night was an exploration and closure of multiple wounds, but Dr. Santos was of course concerned primarily with the neck wound.

Interesting... Thanks for posting this, Meg! I always wondered about this because Darlie's supporters kept floating that she was "a millimeter from death" when I just didn't buy that based on the other evidence. After reading this, it really does dispel that myth.

One of the other things that bugs me is how Darlie said she suffered this horrible beating and near-death stabbing, but didn't wake up until later, which is just ludicrous. I agree that she is where she belongs.

There is little doubt in my mind this woman is exactly where she should be: prison.

I agree with zero doubt. What convinced me 100% was the fact that the Routier kitchen knife that had been in the house the entire time had residue from the window screen that was cut. That means that Darlie definitely, beyond the shadow of a doubt is the one who staged the scene. My question is did the husband have anything to do with the murders or the staging/cover-up?

I watched another show and listened to another podcast on this case and two things struck me...

1. They found the window screen fibers on the knife in the knife block in Darlie's kitchen. Slam dunk guilt... but her defense "experts" say this was transfer from the fingerprint brush. They dusted for fingerprints ALL over that house and on many of the items found in it. So we are to believe that fibers from the window where then found on a knife in the knife block, but conveniently nowhere else? That seems to me like a convenient way for her supporters to explain away the proverbial smoking gun. If there was really transfer like that, why wasn't it found in more places? So in other words, it shows her guilt.

2. The other thing that really bothered me was how she said she slept through the attack until one of her sons woke her up. She obviously experienced some violence and trauma, whether from someone else or by her own hands. There is no way she would not have woken up from that level of trauma. Her supporters say they think she was "drugged" and they want the sock that was found down the block tested for chloroform. I did a little research on chloroform and guess what: its effects for knocking people out are highly exaggerated in TV and movies. It is not something that takes effect instantly, and it has to be carefully dosed as it can be fatal. So the odds that someone, identity and motive unknown (to quote Stack), broke in to her house and knocked her out before violently attacking her kids is quite ridiculous. I think she went with that story so she could, in her mind, explain away why so much damage was done before she was awake. But after complaining of being a "light sleeper" that didn't hold water so she had to up the ante.

I'm also doubtful that Darin slept through such a vicious attack. Once the whole story came out about him trying to stage a home invasion, I really wonder what he had to do with this. I think his story is crap, too.

The only thing I've never been able to fully figure out is the sock they found a ways from the house. I don't think that proves it was an intruder by any means. I also think Darlie and/or Darin had plenty of time to plant it. What I can't figure out is why. My best guess is that Darlie thought it would "prove" an intruder had done this, but why put it so far from the house? I guess it doesn't even matter at this point.

When you look at this story from an outsider's perspective and take all of the emotion out of it, it is so clear that Darlie is guilty. Yes, I agree the silly string video is bogus to use against her (even though it is weird AF), but when you look at the actual evidence plus what was going on at the time with Darlie and Darin, there is no doubt she did it.



I don't have a high level of care invested in this case .... but she did it.

How do you not wake up when you're being stabbed? How do you not wake up when someone is on top of you about to stab you? How do you not wake up when someone puts a sock in your face, even if to only pass out later from "the drugz"? Bull. And if she was incapacitated that's all the more reason she should have had the same deep wounds as the kids, if she'd been awake and fighting I could have bought it.

How do you not disturb the mud under the window or stretch the screen? How do your feet not get cut up by the broken glass all over the floor? Why is there no blood outside the house?

Only thing I'd say is I wish we'd stop judging the grieving process. The video tape with the silly string has zero value and shouldn't have been included. Grief is not static and I don't think a conviction should come down to the expectations of someone's behaviour. And it's not like anyone else it that video is in hysterics, the whole family's all laughing and having fun.

Only thing I'd say is I wish we'd stop judging the grieving process. The video tape with the silly string has zero value and shouldn't have been included. Grief is not static and I don't think a conviction should come down to the expectations of someone's behaviour. And it's not like anyone else it that video is in hysterics, the whole family's all laughing and having fun.

That's what I hate about this case: she was convicted, but for all the wrong reasons. That tape was completely irrelevant and had nothing to do with her guilt or innocence. The sad part is that had this tape not existed she would have likely be found not guilty and could never be tried for it again. I guess I must be a cold blooded murderer because I posed for a picture where I smiled before going to my grandfather's funeral, you know exactly like he would have wanted. If anything it made me believe her innocence for far too long rather than objectively study the facts that prove she is 100% guilty.

Her childrens' wounds are difficult to read about. I will say they were deep wounds that pierced vital structures multiple times. There is little doubt in my mind this woman is exactly where she should be: prison.

My favorite part about her supporters is the "silly string video being shown in court is what got her convicted" argument. I've read everything from her trial. Her children's wounds are the stuff of nightmares. There was testimony at her trial from several people in the hospital who did not notice any bruising on her arms. Not one person in that hospital described any bruising which was shown in photographs taken after her discharge from the hospital. What reason would these people have to lie about that?

I also seem to remember testimony of how her neck was clinched as it was slashed, as if someone, knowing the pain that would immediately come after slashing it, would clinch their muscles in the neck in an attempt to soften the pain.

Only thing I'd say is I wish we'd stop judging the grieving process. The video tape with the silly string has zero value and shouldn't have been included. Grief is not static and I don't think a conviction should come down to the expectations of someone's behaviour. And it's not like anyone else it that video is in hysterics, the whole family's all laughing and having fun.

The judge ruled the tape being shown as admissible because the defense team had another tape (taken by a local reporter, from what I remember) showing her grieving and crying at the graves. For whatever reason, her defense did not introduce this tape at her trial.

I would like to know how she got the bruises on her arm.

Werner Herzog interviewed her (very much worth watching if you’re interested in this case). I really liked that he told her “just because I don’t believe in the death penalty doesn’t mean I have to like you.”

The judge ruled the tape being shown as admissible because the defense team had another tape (taken by a local reporter, from what I remember) showing her grieving and crying at the graves. For whatever reason, her defense did not introduce this tape at her trial.

That's fine and all but I stand by what I said. Emotions are subjective and grief isn't rational, and convictions and "evidence" based on expected behavioral norms are garbage.

But she did it. The evidence more than establishes that she killed those kids.

Werner Herzog interviewed her (very much worth watching if you’re interested in this case). I really liked that he told her “just because I don’t believe in the death penalty doesn’t mean I have to like you.”

^ Word

I do believe that Darlie murdered her kids mostly convinced by the evidence on the kitchen knife containing residue from the torn screen.
Anyway, I forget what the motive was.

That's fine and all but I stand by what I said. Emotions are subjective and grief isn't rational, and convictions and "evidence" based on expected behavioral norms are garbage.

But she did it. The evidence more than establishes that she killed those kids.

And I was saying that the silly string video isn't what convicted her, but the totality of the evidence displayed at her trial. She didn't even mount much of a defense other than character witnesses who testified that she was a great mother who would never hurt her kids.

Guilty. And I've NEVER believed Darren slept through the "attack" either

Guilty. And I've NEVER believed Darren slept through the "attack" either

Always believed Darren was the one who planted the sock.

That's what I hate about this case: she was convicted, but for all the wrong reasons. That tape was completely irrelevant and had nothing to do with her guilt or innocence. The sad part is that had this tape not existed she would have likely be found not guilty and could never be tried for it again. I guess I must be a cold blooded murderer because I posed for a picture where I smiled before going to my grandfather's funeral, you know exactly like he would have wanted. If anything it made me believe her innocence for far too long rather than objectively study the facts that prove she is 100% guilty.

I've been a juror 3 times. Two were traffic accidents, one was a serious sexual assault. We jurors took our responsibility very seriously. Regarding one fender-bender accident, the defendant obviously was in the wrong, making a U-turn on a highway with traffic coming at him. Yet we spoke at length about the nature of the road, weather conditions, defendant's state of mind at the time, etc. Trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. That's why I don't believe the jurors decided Darlie's guilt based on that video, rather it was decided on the overwhelming evidence of her guilt.

Also, instead of watching that video so many times to see how she wasn't grieving, maybe they wanted to watch it, looking to find evidence that she WAS grieving, looking to give her the benefit of the doubt, just as we did with the driver in the case I sat on.

Guilty. And I've NEVER believed Darren slept through the "attack" either

Her husband's behaviour as recorded by EMTs and cops is EXTRAORDINARILY strange.

Also, instead of watching that video so many times to see how she wasn't grieving, maybe they wanted to watch it, looking to find evidence that she WAS grieving, looking to give her the benefit of the doubt, just as we did with the driver in the case I sat on.

Welcome to the board. :wave:

This is an excellent point, and I believe one of the jurors did confirm this was the reason they watched that tape so many times.

I’m not sure whether she did it or not. I generally feel that she did and that her husband knows more and didn’t sleep through it. Part of me says it’s possible that she didn’t do it but the lack of another credible suspect leads back to her. I’d say 80% she did it and 20% maybe she didn’t and there’s someone out there that did. It’s tricky since it’s not a slam dunk that she did it, and it’s not a slam dunk that she didn’t.

I honestly can’t say she did or didn’t do it. She was found guilty in court, but for the WRONG reasons. Whoever was her lawyer did a BAD job in not getting the funeral tape thrown out as “prejudicial” and “irrelevant.” Does it “look” bad?? Yeah, but is it proof of guilt?? No!! Proof of guilt is hard evidence that can’t be explained away or denied.

I honestly can’t say she did or didn’t do it. She was found guilty in court, but for the WRONG reasons. Whoever was her lawyer did a BAD job in not getting the funeral tape thrown out as “prejudicial” and “irrelevant.” Does it “look” bad?? Yeah, but is it proof of guilt?? No!! Proof of guilt is hard evidence that can’t be explained away or denied.

It is highly unlikely she was convicted on the tape-sure it would have made her look even worse in front of a jury, but she was convicted on her story not matching the crime scene investigation findings, medical professionals testimony etc.

It is highly unlikely she was convicted on the tape-sure it would have made her look even worse in front of a jury, but she was convicted on her story not matching the crime scene investigation findings, medical professionals testimony etc.
I agree with this. I’ve flopped around on this case over the years. She was definitely convicted in the court of public opinion based on the Dallas local media video tape. although I am not a lawyer, I do think the tape should not have been a manner of evidence in court.

I honestly can’t say she did or didn’t do it. She was found guilty in court, but for the WRONG reasons. Whoever was her lawyer did a BAD job in not getting the funeral tape thrown out as “prejudicial” and “irrelevant.” Does it “look” bad?? Yeah, but is it proof of guilt?? No!! Proof of guilt is hard evidence that can’t be explained away or denied.

Her lawyers chose to not introduce the tape of her "grieving" to offset the silly string video. There was a ton of evidence against her presented in court, the least of which was the silly string video. I have read her entire trial transcript. It's laughable at how bad her defense was.

I’m not sure whether she did it or not. I generally feel that she did and that her husband knows more and didn’t sleep through it. Part of me says it’s possible that she didn’t do it but the lack of another credible suspect leads back to her. I’d say 80% she did it and 20% maybe she didn’t and there’s someone out there that did. It’s tricky since it’s not a slam dunk that she did it, and it’s not a slam dunk that she didn’t.

Of course she did it. The fibers of the torn screen were found on a knife from their kitchen knife block. Guilty.
Has this dumb bitch been put to death yet?

Let's be honest here. She is guilty as hell. But she will get spared the death penalty despite this.

Of course she did it. The fibers of the torn screen were found on a knife from their kitchen knife block. Guilty.
Has this dumb bitch been put to death yet?

If she were to get an execution date it would be all over the media worldwide. You will hear about it for sure.

Seems like she’s been on death row for quite a while. What year did it all happen?

Seems like she’s been on death row for quite a while. What year did it all happen?

1996, she was convicted in 1997.

Her lawyers chose to not introduce the tape of her "grieving" to offset the silly string video. There was a ton of evidence against her presented in court, the least of which was the silly string video. I have read her entire trial transcript. It's laughable at how bad her defense was.

Interesting that you read the whole transcript. I remember a loooong time ago a juror saying the video had nothing to do with the verdict, it was all the evidence against her. And let's face it: All people act differently while grieving. Some are hysterical, some people are cool as ice.

I think Darlie is just where she needs to be. Not sure of Darrin's involvement, I tend to think no.

So a good friend of mine from high school and I had always been interested in doing a "radio show" together, going a-way back to the late 90s when we were just out of high school. This has morphed into a "podcast," which lately we have been recording and putting on YouTube. Turns out we both like true crime. We have tried different types of subjects (old movies, controversies of interest), but we are thinking about true crime right now, and today, at 2:10PM, we discuss this case live, which you can watch, and then it will be released in three segments later. My friend was unfamiliar with the Darlie Routier case before now.

Here is the link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK1OKtgpAhI) if any of you all are interested. As a long time poster here, I would appreciate any support! We own the content, so no issues there. Wish us luck!

Another case where long ago I was on the fence and now I believe the suspect is guilty. I'm reminded of the Jeffrey MacDonald case yet again. Two victims in this case who were much more vulnerable than the parent receive fatal wounds yet their mother gets a neck wound and injuries nothing like what her children endured (v. MacDonald's pregnant wife and two young daughters experiencing overkill while he got pretty much superficial wounding).

And another story that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The suspect apparently stabbed Darlie and then she woke up and he ran off and dropped the knife...rather than, you know, turning back and stabbing the woman who could potentially recognize him again after he took the time to slaughter her children? Eerily reminiscent of Donnie Hansen claiming he yelled at the man who shot his sister while the man, still armed with a gun, simply ran off without harming him and left the gun behind. Perhaps we need a "most ridiculous alibi/excuse" thread on this forum.

Regarding Darlie staging the crime scene, Forensic Files had a good episode on the case. UM speculates that Darlie would only have had 4 minutes to stage the scene, drop the sock, and injure herself. Forensic Files includes the indicates that the crime scene could easily have been staged prior the boys being wounded.

I've been aware of this DR case for a while, but only recently saw the old UM segment - which led me to do more research on this 25-year old crime.

This is an extremely clear-cut case & it's very obvious that DR murdered her sons, cut herself to look like she was a victim, and ended up blaming fictitious "intruder/intruders." Yes, this case absolutely reminds me of the 1970 Jeffrey MacDonald case; there are a lot of similarities here.

She is exactly where she belongs. Glad a jury got this right the first time. Also glad the authorities didn't arrest & convict an innocent person in this case - especially since these miscarriages of justice have happened before.

Not only is she a murderer of her defenseless children, but it's appalling that DR tried to blame her innocent neighbor for the crime.

As far as "why" she did it? It's possible that because her marriage/life was falling apart, she just "snapped". I don't see her as insane/mentally ill, just an entitled woman who thought she could literally get away with murder.

Whatever the reason, she is definitely guilty. Anyone supporting her is in denial. The physical evidence that she committed these murders is overwhelming.

The physical evidence that she committed these murders is overwhelming.

I agree that she did it, and when you read the full cross of her by the prosecution that becomes ever more apparent... but I don't know, I haven't seen any one piece of physical evidence, or even all the physical evidence when taken in aggregate, that I would consider to be "conclusive," in that it eliminates entirely, in and of itself, the possibility that her vague story about an intruder could be true.

I don't think it IS true, mind you, but it's hard to prove a negative, and there is nothing that I see as absolutely excluding the possibility of an intruder.

Much like the Jeffrey McDonald case, she's exactly where she belongs.

Guilty 200%

Whatever the reason, she is definitely guilty. Anyone supporting her is in denial. The physical evidence that she committed these murders is overwhelming.

Correct, sir.

There isn't a single plausible scenario that indicates she is the least bit innocent.

Here is the link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK1OKtgpAhI) if any of you all are interested. As a long time poster here, I would appreciate any support! We own the content, so no issues there. Wish us luck!

Good luck with this, I enjoy RobinW's podcast and encourage any and all board members to do their own spin on the show. This board has been a wealth of knowledge over the years, and I'd rather see it's users putting content out there than others who essentially take what has been discussed/discovered on this board and use it as their own.

The Innocence Project getting involved with this new round of DNA testing confirms my long suspicions that they anti-death penalty activists who are not always interested in the truth.

The Innocence Project getting involved with this new round of DNA testing confirms my long suspicions that they anti-death penalty activists who are not always interested in the truth.

Saw an excellent documentary on them some years back & they did seem genuine in trying to stop potential murders of innocent people, or getting them out of jail.

They got hugely annoyed when they had chosen a case & then the person had lied to them all way & wasted the chance of somebody that was innocent, as their resources only stretch so far. They were also jubilant when DNA evidence cleared people that had been sitting in jail for decades, while the real killer went free.

This one does seem odd based on what we know, although this would settle it once & for all. The DNA situation is confusing-it seems three DNA tests on evidence were ordered by judges from 2008-2017, but it is unclear how many if any of these were actually done-no idea why this information is either unavailable or very hard to find in such a high profile case.

I seem to remember finding out years back that the 2008 ones confirmed her guilt, although I may be wrong on that. IP paying for everything to be tested is a good thing-then there can be no doubt & no further appeals.

That's what I hate about this case: she was convicted, but for all the wrong reasons. That tape was completely irrelevant and had nothing to do with her guilt or innocence. The sad part is that had this tape not existed she would have likely be found not guilty and could never be tried for it again. I guess I must be a cold blooded murderer because I posed for a picture where I smiled before going to my grandfather's funeral, you know exactly like he would have wanted. If anything it made me believe her innocence for far too long rather than objectively study the facts that prove she is 100% guilty.

I know this is an old post but I just wanted to respond to the bolded part in particular because it is factually incorrect. Darlie has only ever been convicted for the murder of Damon. Even if she would have beaten the case that she ended up being convicted of, she still could have (and would have) been put on trial for the murder of her other son, Devon. It was a shrewd move by the prosecutor’s office to do it that way just in case she would have walked the first time. It gave them the proverbial “ace in the hole” so to speak. So yeah, even if by some miracle her original conviction was ever overturned, she’d immediately be arrested upon release and put on trial again for Devon’s murder. Luckily the jury got it right the first time though.

There are a lot of "what's" and "why's" in this case. If she did it, why? There is no motive for it. To say "Well, she went psycho" okay, I guess. But she also nearly put her own head on a tombstone if that's the case. Why go to those lengths?

I will say this, a couple of things make me pause before I say "She's 100% guilty." The bloody fingerprint that was never identified. Look, we all have fingerprints on our home. The plumber leaves them, your guests leave them, etc. But only a bloody one would have been left that night? Whose is it? Why can't they identify it? Is it just too smudged or something like that?

I always feel as if the family knows more than they let on. Darlie's mother, Darin, etc. I don't know why but I never get the whole "grieving family" thing from them. If anyone had motive, you would think it is Darin.

Lastly, Darin is remarried if people knew that or not. It happened in 2020. Darlie and Darin's only surviving son, Drake, is in his mid 20s and apparently well adjusted despite everything. His stepmother basically is said to consider him to be her own. Drake fought and beat cancer in his teen years. The kid has been through a lot, and my guess is he still has insecurities over it. Who wouldn't?

Also, I think Darlie herself can be charming and that plays a role in things. Darlie back in the day, man, she was a bombshell. I mean this was a hot girl. She has the girl next door southern accent going for her, the bambi eyes, the body. You name it. I might be stretching it here but I think this can play a role - especially in men - thinking she is innocent. Or at least WANTING her to be innocent. Maybe I am wrong.

Has her story changed though? That's a big issue.

This was a good documentary on this case. They interviewed her and her new fiancée (you'll see how that works out)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di4P86ehL4U

Pretty even-handed and the interviewer did an admirable job. I hadn't realized Darlie had been friends with Karla Faye Tucker (another killer who was executed in 1998)

I still believe she's guilty. I never thought her demeanor was ever relevant, but forensic evidence certainly is

This was a good documentary on this case. They interviewed her and her new fiancée (you'll see how that works out)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di4P86ehL4U

Pretty even-handed and the interviewer did an admirable job. I hadn't realized Darlie had been friends with Karla Faye Tucker (another killer who was executed in 1998)

I still believe she's guilty. I never thought her demeanor was ever relevant, but forensic evidence certainly is

Darlie has a fiancée now? I didn't see that coming. It seems her fiancée has had his previous two wifes die of cancer. I am not trying to judge the guy, I am just wondering what sort of life does he think he can have with her? From what I understand to this day she has still not been able to give her own son a hug as she is behind glass every time she sees him. Unless this guy is getting special privileges to have conjugal visits with her what is he doing this for? Even with the conjugal visits, he is with a woman almost certainly never getting out of prison, and maybe even still being executed.

Lol she upgraded to a Darin with 2 R's.

Darlie has a fiancée now? I didn't see that coming. It seems her fiancée has had his previous two wifes die of cancer. I am not trying to judge the guy, I am just wondering what sort of life does he think he can have with her?

They explain what happens with that at the very end

From what I understand to this day she has still not been able to give her own son a hug as she is behind glass every time she sees him. Unless this guy is getting special privileges to have conjugal visits with her what is he doing this for?

Also, I haven't looked into it or anything, but I highly highly doubt she's allowed to get conjugal visits on TX death row.

I'm like 90/10 that she's guilty. The evidence for her innocence is pretty flimsy

Also, I haven't looked into it or anything, but I highly highly doubt she's allowed to get conjugal visits on TX death row.

So I did pick up on that at the end, they broke off their engagement. You know, I get it. Darlie was a knockout. She's aged in the last 27 years sure, but mid 1990s, Wowzers! That girl could have turned heads. She was gorgeous back then. It sort of reminds me of a woman in Canada named Karla Homolka who helped her husband kidnap teenage girls and rape and kill them. She was unspeakably beautiful back then in the early 1990s. A monster underneath of course, but if you were just looking at pictures you would never suspect it.

I just don't know what the upside is to marrying a convicted murderer. Karla took a plea deal from the foolish prosecutors and got out after 12 years so she's free and re-married with children under a different name. I get that these women were once knockouts, but come on, eventually your conscience has to step in there.

Darlie wasn't a knockout. Neither was Karla. I think you have an unhealthy appreciation for damaged fake blondes with a glazed over look in their eyes.

Darlie wasn't a knockout. Neither was Karla. I think you have an unhealthy appreciation for damaged fake blondes with a glazed over look in their eyes.

Oh come on man, let's look at them as if they aren't murderers. Of course what we know now is disturbing. But these women definitely make you look twice if they are walking down the street. Darlie was.............well built let's say. Karla, well, they called her and her husband Paul Bernardo the "Ken and Barbie killers" for a reason. I am just saying on the surface having no idea who they are or what they did, they were quite attractive back in the day.

I agree with refinedsugar, but even if you find those women attractive, does that mean they couldn't be killers?

Oh come on man, let's look at them as if they aren't murderers. [...] I am just saying on the surface having no idea who they are or what they did, they were quite attractive back in the day.

Lol ... We're going to have to agree to disagree.

I agree with refinedsugar, but even if you find those women attractive, does that mean they couldn't be killers?

Remember, I am saying that old pictures of these women when they were young look attractive. I mean, not now. And yes to me it is a HUGE turn off if they are murderers!:D And also yes, a good looking woman can be evil.

Lol ... We're going to have to agree to disagree.

That's alright.................as long as we agree on Wendy Kerstetter. Hey, nothing wrong with her right, she was just a family member! ;)

Oh come on man, let's look at them as if they aren't murderers. Of course what we know now is disturbing. But these women definitely make you look twice if they are walking down the street. Darlie was.............well built let's say. Karla, well, they called her and her husband Paul Bernardo the "Ken and Barbie killers" for a reason. I am just saying on the surface having no idea who they are or what they did, they were quite attractive back in the day.

Got it. So giant gozongas equals attractive. Doesn't matter about anything above the neck.

Got it. So giant gozongas equals attractive. Doesn't matter about anything above the neck.

Nah, she was pretty as well back then.

https://thecrimewire.com/true-crime/Darlie-Routier-An-American-Railroad#gid=ci02ac0c1140012624&pid=darlie-routier-an-american-railroad-MTc1MTI5MjA3MzE4NTIwOTI3

Pro innocent article from a few weeks ago

https://thecrimewire.com/true-crime/Darlie-Routier-An-American-Railroad#gid=ci02ac0c1140012624&pid=darlie-routier-an-american-railroad-MTc1MTI5MjA3MzE4NTIwOTI3

Pro innocent article from a few weeks ago

The problem I have with it is why would little Darlie scare off a man with a butcher knife in her hand? Why would he drop it and flee? Why would he not kill an eyewitness? And there never seems to be any sort of mug shot. Heck, even Susan Smith had a description of the phantom guy who kidnapped her kids. Also, what is the motive? Why does he do it and leave two people unharmed? Why not finish off the mother as well? There just had to be proof that someone else was in that house and they couldn't do it. I also get a little bothered to an extent with Darlie on death row in that maybe, just MAYBE, there is this one in a million chance she has had everything go wrong for her in the last 25+ years and was framed. If so, that would be torture if she is in jail knowing someone else did this.

But I have never trusted her entirely and I don't even like Darin to be honest. Never sat well with me. It just makes me wonder why did neither of them turn on each other over these years? Somewhere along the line you figure they would have.

I’ve never felt that the prosecution proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in this case.

A screen window was cut with a knife from the Routier residence. The knife with the matching fibers from the window was found inside the knife block in their kitchen. There are only three possibilities:

-The "real killer", after murdering two young children and attempting to murder Darlie, cuts the screen and is courteous enough to return the knife back to the knife block.

-Darlie chases the "real killer" out into the garage area where he inexplicably drops the knife, and being the tidy person she is returns it to the knife block before calling 911.

-Darlie Routier is guilty and right where she belongs.

I am 99% sure she is guilty. The 1% comes from the photos of all those bruises up and down her arms that were taken in the hospital. How did she manage to do that to herself? Was she smart enough to remember to do this in the midst of committing the murders? If not, did she have an accomplice do it for her? ( ie Darin)

I can't help but wonder how common cases like this one are. There are more recent family annihilator cases which get a lot of attention (Chris Watts) and they seem to be middle class families who've taken on a financial load to live somewhat above their means. Does this happen in less affluent areas and it doesn't get as much attention, because the people in their life (family, neighbors, friends, etc.) aren't on TV either pleading the case for the family annihilator's innocence (or just gobsmacked that this could happen to this family)?

A screen window was cut with a knife from the Routier residence. The knife with the matching fibers from the window was found inside the knife block in their kitchen. There are only three possibilities:

-The "real killer", after murdering two young children and attempting to murder Darlie, cuts the screen and is courteous enough to return the knife back to the knife block.

-Darlie chases the "real killer" out into the garage area where he inexplicably drops the knife, and being the tidy person she is returns it to the knife block before calling 911.

-Darlie Routier is guilty and right where she belongs.

I think she is where she belongs too. I just want to know why though. Why those two boys and not the baby and not your husband? I can't picture what an intruder's motive would be, but I also can't picture what her motive would be either. I know they got denied for a $5000 loan, and that can be troublesome, but financial difficulty just doesn't scream "kill 66% of your sons" to me. I know that if she was in that sort of mindset then it isn't rational to begin with and we shouldn't try wondering, but man that just bothers me. Why would she do it?

Granted, I think she did it more than an intruder would have. She had the opportunity to do it and while I admit I am a heavy sleeper, I don't think I could stay asleep while my two sons are being butchered.

There is something bothersome about Darin though. I don't know why, but it always gets to me about him.

Lastly, I know there is so much more to the silly string video, such as she is actually mourning and crying prior to having fun and such, but man I just can't get over her in that video. She didn't look like a mother who had lost her kids. She didn't look tired, red eyed, depressed, or anything. She looked happy. I know, I know, it really shouldn't matter, but I just couldn't put on a happy face for that moment. Not even faking it.

I am 99% sure she is guilty. The 1% comes from the photos of all those bruises up and down her arms that were taken in the hospital. How did she manage to do that to herself? Was she smart enough to remember to do this in the midst of committing the murders? If not, did she have an accomplice do it for her? ( ie Darin)

I guess if she cuts herself and such then leaving bruises wouldn't be an issue. Yeah if she is innocent she really went all out. More than Jeffrey MacDonald did.