To refresh some memories, she was a wife and mother of 3 sons who was found guilty of murdering one of 3 sons. Her two oldest, Devon and Damon, were stabbed to death in the family's home on June 6th, 1996. Darlie was only convicted of capital murder in Damon's death. She is currently on death row in Texas awaiting death by lethal injection. Her husband, Darin, filed for divorce in July of 2011.

Before I give you my side on why I think she is guilty or not, here is excerpts from the story:

Motive(s) for the murders:

Prosecutors contend that Darlie Routier murdered her sons because of the financial difficulties her family faced. She was a full-time homemaker while her husband, Darin, a small business owner, earned a relatively high annual income. However, most of the money he earned was quickly spent. This was later referred to as "living large" by Darin Routier in an interview with Joe Munoz of KXAS Channel 5 on June 14, 1996. The family, from a lower-to-middle class background, lived in a typical two-story tract-style home in a middle class neighborhood, drove a mid-sized SUV and a used Jaguar, typically inoperable, and owned a used $24,000 boat. Prosecutors argued that Darlie, described as a pampered and materialistic woman, with substantial debt, plummeting credit ratings, and little money in the bank, feared that her middle class lifestyle was about to end and killed two of her children to rid herself of a financial burden. This claim has been disputed by her family and other supporters. By the time of the murders, the money had practically run out, the Jaguar and the boat weren't running, and their income had fallen by $90,000 from the year before. In addition, they allegedly owed up to $10,000 in back taxes and $12,000 in credit card debt, were two months behind on their mortgage payments, and had just been denied a $5,000 loan by their bank. Darlie's husband, Darin, vigorously denies these claims. The two boys were insured for $5,000 each.

The murders:

Darlie Routier claimed that an intruder killed her children, but police became suspicious when they found inconsistencies between some of Darlie's report and crime scene evidence. Mrs. Routier's children were killed with deep, penetrating knife wounds to their torsos, while the slashes to Routier's neck and arm were more superficial. The two boys weighed about 40 lbs each and were held face down on the floor and stabbed 4 times in the back. Mrs. Routier weighed 128 lbs and was standing and fighting when she was wounded.

Darlie Routier claimed that at one point she ran barefoot through her kitchen to call for help. The floor of the kitchen was covered with broken glass, but Routier had no injuries to her feet. 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. The sink in the kitchen had been cleaned up, but blood was found down the front of the cabinets directly under the sink, so police suspected that she inflicted her wounds over the sink, then washed the blood down. Nonetheless, the first responding officer, David Waddell, noted that Mrs. Routier was bleeding profusely and her shirt was covered in blood when he arrived. Areas of blood around the sink had been wiped away, as revealed by a luminol test. Her claim for defensive wounds was the bruising on her arms. However, at trial, after looking at photos taken June 10, Dr. Alex Santos, the trauma surgeon who operated on Darlie, stated that the bruising looked to be only a day or two old at most, which would mean it occurred in the hospital. When questioned by the defense, however, Dr. Santos extended the timeline and said the bruising might have been inflicted up to four days before the photo was taken, that is, on June 6.

There were other details:

-Officers at the scene, paramedics, nurses, doctors and neighbors were all struck by the fact that Routier never asked how the boys were or inquired whether they were alive.
-First responder Officer David Waddell asked Routier repeatedly to apply pressure to her son Damon's back and to tend to him, but received no response from her. However, she continued to apply pressure to her own neck wounds.
-After the operator told Darlie not to touch anything, Routier told the 911 operator that she had already picked up the murder weapon (thus removing any prints), which made police suspicious.
-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.
-The killer's "trail of blood" led into the garage and stopped cold at the window that Darlie told police the killer escaped through. The blood trail did not extend beyond the interior of the house; not a single drop of blood was found anywhere on the property's exterior. All of the blood found at the crime scene was contained inside the house.
-Darlie's claim that the killer dropped the knife as she chased him through the kitchen was seen by investigators as wildly inconsistent. They questioned why an intruder would drop the murder weapon in plain sight, thus giving Darlie, the pursuer, a weapon with which to fight back.
-Darlie's purse and several pieces of her jewelry were found on the kitchen counter, untouched. This cast suspicion on the idea that the family was the victim of a home invasion.
-The surgeon who attended her referred to her wounds as "superficial". They were described by prosecutors as "hesitation wounds". While the boys were savagely and forcefully attacked, the "hesitation wounds" found on Darlie were slowly and deliberately inflicted.
-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.
-Blood found under a vacuum cleaner and blood spots on the cleaner itself, indicating that the vacuum cleaner had been placed there after the crime was committed.
-Routier told her ex-maid that she wasn't worried about the cost of the funeral as she could claim $10,000 in funeral insurance.
-Routier was considering suicide two months before killing her sons.
-The very evening before the murder, Routier squabbled with her husband and asked him for a separation, as he admitted. The couple's relationship was in trouble, with public fights and rumors of mutual cheating by both partners.
-In the 911 call, she stated she was 'fighting' the intruder; however, at trial this was heavily disputed by the defense team, who said she stated she was "frightened". Prosecutors stated this was said to explain the lack of blood on the sofa and surrounding areas where she was supposedly stabbed.
-Another steadfast argument by the police was that the slash on Darlie's throat was at a downward 45-degree angle, consistent with having made the slash herself.

Routier described the alleged attacker as a man of medium height, dressed entirely in black with a T-shirt and baseball cap. However, she later claimed to suffer from traumatic amnesia due to the event, and her account was of little use.

Darlie's prison sentence:

Routier was ultimately convicted of murdering one of her two sons, and sentenced to death. Prosecutors did not try Routier for the death of the second son, holding his murder in reserve in case of Routier's acquittal on the first murder trial.

As of 2010, Routier is incarcerated in the Mountain View Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ); she has the TDCJ ID 00999220.

Routier's defense attorney, Douglas Mulder, was the district attorney responsible for the wrongful death penalty conviction of Randall Adams in 1977. Adams' case is profiled in the documentary The Thin Blue Line.

Scandal:

Newscasts appeared of Darlie Routier and other family members holding a "birthday party" at the children's grave to celebrate posthumously Devon's 7th birthday, just eight days after the murder. The grave had been under hidden police surveillance to obtain evidence against Darlie Routier, in the event that she were to break down or otherwise make a confession near the graveside. Darlie arrived with a local television crew she had invited, essentially rendering moot any need for police surveillance. At the birthday party, Routier was shown laughing and spraying silly string on her sons' grave. Darlie yelled out to her dead children that she loved them, all the while grinning and chewing bubble gum. Four days later, she was charged with their murder. When the case was tried in court, the jury was shown the so-called "silly string videotape".

Innocence claims:

The Routier family created and maintains a website that proclaims her innocence. The claims are based on mistakes her defense attorneys allege were made during her trial and in the investigation of the murders, especially at the crime scene. Some have argued that Routier should be given a new trial, often alleging that her original trial was based heavily on circumstantial evidence and therefore unfair.

The story of Darlie Routier was covered on a 2004 episode of the CourtTV series The Investigators titled "Mother on Death Row: Darlie Routier". The episode ends with a screen noting that "In May 2003, despite forensics proving that the disputed finger print is not from the Routiers or investigators, Texas upheld Darlie Routier's conviction. The defense is appealing to federal courts.

On September 10, 2008, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected, without comment, her attorney's motion for a second chance to make their case for more DNA testing.


Discrepancies/inconsistencies in the case:


-Darlie's court transcript contained more than 30,000 errors. Darlie's family believes that this alone should be enough for Darlie to receive a new trial.
-Darlie was still heavily sedated in the hospital recovering from her injuries when police questioned her.
-Darlie's family question as to why Darlie would kill her 2 oldest sons for their life insurance ($5000 a piece), when it takes $13,000 to bury them. They believe that Darlie would've been in a more better financial state cashing in on her husband's life insurance ($800,000) had he been killed instead.
-Darlie's mother claims that police poorly handled evidence collected from the scene, thereby cross-contaminating blood evidence.
-Darlie's supposed confession to a detective was reportedly not tape recorded, video recorded or written down
-Evidence used to secure an arrest warrant against Darlie was flawed
-A blonde hair found on a slashed window screen in the Routier home did not match Darlie, but a Rowlett police officer
-Darlie was on several medications, including antibiotics, antidepressants and painkillers, after being released from the hospital. This may have caused her to "grieve" in an unusual way on the "silly string" tape of Devon's posthumous birthday celebration.
-Darlie's family says that photos of her injuries were not properly presented to the jury during her trial
-A tube sock found in an alley 75 yards from the Routier home contained both boy's blood and possibly skin cells from Darlie. None of the blood on the sock belonged to Darlie. They believe that someone close to Darlie touched the sock and placed it there.
-Medical testimony claims that Damon could not have lived more than 9 minutes after receiving his stab wounds. Darlie was on the phone with a 911 operator 5 minutes and 40 seconds of those 9 minutes. Authorities secured the scene for an additional 2 minutes. They claim that Darlie would have only had a minute and an half to plant the tube sock, stage the crime scene and then slash her own throat. It is disputed by Darlie's supporters that she would have had enough time to do all of that in a short amount of time before police and paramedics arrived.
-It is thought that Darlie was smothered unconscious with the tube sock before she later regained consciousness and realized she and her 2 oldest sons had been attacked.
-A fingerprint on the door leading to the garage and another fingerprint on a credenza behind the couch were never positively identified by investigators, but they did not match Darlie or anyone else in the house.
-Darlie's family believes the attacks were a sexual assault gone awry. A series of violent rapes occured in the area around the time of the Routier attacks. The assailant in those assaults entered victim's homes through unlocked doors or windows, accosted them with knives found in their own kitchens, and wore tube socks over his hands to avoid leaving fingerprints. A suspect was arrested for the assaults and Darlie's family and supporters feel that authorities should consider the man a suspect in the attack on the Routier family.

My opinion:

I think her case was based on circumstantial evidence. Due to the fact that some physical evidence was not directly presented to the jury, it made jurors bias in convicting her. I believe she was made to look like a monster by the conservative court that convicted her. I used to think she looked 100 percent guilty, but after reviewing her case over and over, I think her case deserves another look and that evidence not presented before may exonerate her and possibly point towards another attacker, possibly even her ex-husband Darin, who was the only other person in the house at the time capable of carrying out the attacks, or the rapist that some feel was responsible as I mentioned above.

There's no doubt in my mind she's right where she belongs. The abscence of ANY other viable suspect (after all of the years that have passed) other than Darlie is very telling. Her defense could not come up with a logical reason as to why a man would break into a house, unarmed, look around the house to find a sock (presumeably to conceal his fingerprints), then go search for a weapon to brutally murder two young boys and attempt to murder their mother. There is no motive for anyone to have killed those young kids other than Darlie. The "intruder" is nothing more than a fantasy. It's awful convenient that this man just so happens to plan to do some unlawful act (be it murder, or sexually assault Darlie) yet he breaks into the house unarmed? Then he goes into their laundry room of all places and uses one of their socks to hide his fingerprints. Only then does he search for a weapon, which just so happens to be their butcher knife.

All of Darlie's bizarre actions after the murders (her lack of emotion, the "silly string incident", etc.), and the circumstantial evidence they used against her can all be thrown out the window, IMO. The bottom line for me has always been this; only one person had the means and the motive to kill the Routier boys, and that was Darlie herself.

While the inconsistencies will prevent me from ever being 100 % sure, I will agree with all the points presented here and concur that Darlie is exactly where she belongs. Yes, killing her sons just because they each had a $5000 life insurance policy is a pretty weak motive, but I'm never prepared to exonerate someone just because they don't have a good motive. I think society just feels uncomfortable believing that people will commit murder not because they have a motive, but simply because they are pure evil, especially if it involves a mother killing her children.

However, I have always had my suspicions that Darin Routier might have been involved somehow, so this case may not be 100 % closed. I was quite surprised when Darin divorced Darlie a few months ago, as she might be less inclined to stay silent and cover for him if he had anything to do with it. It will be interesting to see if her execution comes close to actually happening, as I could see her suddenly "remembering" something that implicates Darin.

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=196192&highlight=darlie

I've discussed this case quite a bit on the thread linked above. My first post is #96 on page 7.

1990 Um fan, if you are interested in my opinions, please feel free to scan through my posts there. I tend to believe Darlie is not involved in the murders but I'm quite obviously in the minority.

I pretty much stopped posting on this subject because, like the Dr. Jeff MacDonald case, it's a hot button issue with a lot of arguing and aggressive disagreements. The people voting "innocent" are never going to change the minds of the people voting "guilty" and vice versa.

I just don't want to get involved in all that drama and stress again but thought since we both have similar opinions on the case, you might want to know what I had say about it back when I was reading up on the details.

To refresh some memories, she was a wife and mother of 3 sons who was found guilty of murdering one of 3 sons. Her two oldest, Devon and Damon, were stabbed to death in the family's home on June 8, 1996. Darlie was only convicted of capital murder in Damon's death. She is currently on death row in Texas awaiting death by lethal injection. Her husband, Darin, filed for divorce in July of 2011.

Before I give you my side on why I think she is guilty or not, here is excerpts from the story:

Motive(s) for the murders:

Prosecutors contend that Darlie Routier murdered her sons because of the financial difficulties her family faced. She was a full-time homemaker while her husband, Darin, a small business owner, earned a relatively high annual income. However, most of the money he earned was quickly spent. This was later referred to as "living large" by Darin Routier in an interview with Joe Munoz of KXAS Channel 5 on June 14, 1996. The family, from a lower-to-middle class background, lived in a typical two-story tract-style home in a middle class neighborhood, drove a mid-sized SUV and a used Jaguar, typically inoperable, and owned a used $24,000 boat. Prosecutors argued that Darlie, described as a pampered and materialistic woman, with substantial debt, plummeting credit ratings, and little money in the bank, feared that her middle class lifestyle was about to end and killed two of her children to rid herself of a financial burden. This claim has been disputed by her family and other supporters. By the time of the murders, the money had practically run out, the Jaguar and the boat weren't running, and their income had fallen by $90,000 from the year before. In addition, they allegedly owed up to $10,000 in back taxes and $12,000 in credit card debt, were two months behind on their mortgage payments, and had just been denied a $5,000 loan by their bank. Darlie's husband, Darin, vigorously denies these claims. The two boys were insured for $5,000 each.

The murders:

Darlie Routier claimed that an intruder killed her children, but police became suspicious when they found inconsistencies between some of Darlie's report and crime scene evidence. Mrs. Routier's children were killed with deep, penetrating knife wounds to their torsos, while the slashes to Routier's neck and arm were more superficial. The two boys weighed about 40 lbs each and were held face down on the floor and stabbed 4 times in the back. Mrs. Routier weighed 128 lbs and was standing and fighting when she was wounded.

Darlie Routier claimed that at one point she ran barefoot through her kitchen to call for help. The floor of the kitchen was covered with broken glass, but Routier had no injuries to her feet. 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. The sink in the kitchen had been cleaned up, but blood was found down the front of the cabinets directly under the sink, so police suspected that she inflicted her wounds over the sink, then washed the blood down. Nonetheless, the first responding officer, David Waddell, noted that Mrs. Routier was bleeding profusely and her shirt was covered in blood when he arrived. Areas of blood around the sink had been wiped away, as revealed by a luminol test. Her claim for defensive wounds was the bruising on her arms. However, at trial, after looking at photos taken June 10, Dr. Alex Santos, the trauma surgeon who operated on Darlie, stated that the bruising looked to be only a day or two old at most, which would mean it occurred in the hospital. When questioned by the defense, however, Dr. Santos extended the timeline and said the bruising might have been inflicted up to four days before the photo was taken, that is, on June 6.

There were other details:

-Officers at the scene, paramedics, nurses, doctors and neighbors were all struck by the fact that Routier never asked how the boys were or inquired whether they were alive.[5]
-First responder Officer David Waddell asked Routier repeatedly to apply pressure to her son Damon's back and to tend to him, but received no response from her. However, she continued to apply pressure to her own neck wounds.
-After the operator told Darlie not to touch anything, Routier told the 9-1-1 operator that she had already picked up the murder weapon (thus removing any prints), which made police suspicious.
-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.
-The killer's "trail of blood" led into the garage and stopped cold at the window that Darlie told police the killer escaped through. The blood trail did not extend beyond the interior of the house; not a single drop of blood was found anywhere on the property's exterior. All of the blood found at the crime scene was contained inside the house.
-Darlie's claim that the killer dropped the knife as she chased him through the kitchen was seen by investigators as wildly inconsistent. They questioned why an intruder would drop the murder weapon in plain sight, thus giving Darlie, the pursuer, a weapon with which to fight back.
-Darlie's purse and several pieces of her jewelry were found on the kitchen counter, untouched. This cast suspicion on the idea that the family was the victim of a home invasion.
-The surgeon who attended her referred to her wounds as "superficial". They were described by prosecutors as "hesitation wounds". While the boys were savagely and forcefully attacked, the "hesitation wounds" found on Darlie were slowly and deliberately inflicted.
-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.
-Blood found under a vacuum cleaner and blood spots on the cleaner itself, indicating that the vacuum cleaner had been placed there after the crime was committed.
-Routier told her ex-maid that she wasn't worried about the cost of the funeral as she could claim $10,000 in funeral insurance.
-Routier was considering suicide two months before killing her sons.
-The very evening before the murder, Routier squabbled with her husband and asked him for a separation, as he admitted. The couple's relationship was in trouble, with public fights and rumors of mutual cheating by both partners.
-In the 911 call, she stated she was 'fighting' the intruder; however, at trial this was heavily disputed by the defense team, who said she stated she was "frightened".Prosecutors stated this was said to explain the lack of blood on the sofa and surrounding areas where she was supposedly stabbed.
-Another steadfast argument by the police was that the slash on Darlie's throat was at a downward 45-degree angle, consistent with having made the slash herself.

Routier described the alleged attacker as a man of medium height, dressed entirely in black with a T-shirt and baseball cap. However, she later claimed to suffer from traumatic amnesia due to the event, and her account was of little use.

Darlie's prison sentence:

Routier was ultimately convicted of murdering one of her two sons, and sentenced to death. Prosecutors did not try Routier for the death of the second son, holding his murder in reserve in case of Routier's acquittal on the first murder trial.

As of 2010, Routier is incarcerated in the Mountain View Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ); she has the TDCJ ID 00999220.

Routier's defense attorney, Douglas Mulder, was the district attorney responsible for the wrongful death penalty conviction of Randall Adams in 1977. Adams' case is profiled in the documentary The Thin Blue Line.

Scandal:

Newscasts appeared of Darlie Routier and other family members holding a "birthday party" at the children's grave to celebrate posthumously Devon's 7th birthday, just eight days after the murder. The grave had been under hidden police surveillance to obtain evidence against Darlie Routier, in the event that she were to break down or otherwise make a confession near the graveside. Darlie arrived with a local television crew she had invited, essentially rendering moot any need for police surveillance. At the birthday party, Routier was shown laughing and spraying silly string on her sons' grave. Darlie yelled out to her dead children that she loved them, all the while grinning and chewing bubble gum. Four days later, she was charged with their murder. When the case was tried in court, the jury was shown the so-called "silly string videotape".

Innocence claims:

The Routier family created and maintains a website that proclaims her innocence. The claims are based on mistakes her defense attorneys allege were made during her trial and in the investigation of the murders, especially at the crime scene. Some have argued that Routier should be given a new trial, often alleging that her original trial was based heavily on circumstantial evidence and therefore unfair.

The story of Darlie Routier was covered on a 2004 episode of the CourtTV series The Investigators titled "Mother on Death Row: Darlie Routier". The episode ends with a screen noting that "In May 2003, despite forensics proving that the disputed finger print is not from the Routiers or investigators, Texas upheld Darlie Routier's conviction. The defense is appealing to federal courts.

On September 10, 2008, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected, without comment, her attorney's motion for a second chance to make their case for more DNA testing.


Discrepancies/inconsistencies in the case:


-Darlie's court transcript contained more than 30,000 errors. Darlie's family believes that this alone should be enough for Darlie to receive a new trial.
-Darlie was still heavily sedated in the hospital recovering from her injuries when police questioned her.
-Darlie's family question as to why Darlie would kill her 2 oldest sons for their life insurance ($5000 a piece), when it takes $13,000 to bury them. They believe that Darlie would've been in a more better financial state cashing in on her husband's life insurance ($800,000) had he been killed instead.
-Darlie's mother claims that police poorly handled evidence collected from the scene, thereby cross-contaminating blood evidence.
-Darlie's supposed confession to a detective was reportedly not tape recorded, video recorded or written down
-Evidence used to secure an arrest warrant against Darlie was flawed
-A blonde hair found on a slashed window screen in the Routier home did not match Darlie, but a Rowlett police officer
-Darlie was on several medications, including antibiotics, antidepressants and painkillers, after being released from the hospital. This may have caused her to "grieve" in an unusual way on the "silly string" tape of Devon's posthumous birthday celebration.
-Darlie's family says that photos of her injuries were not properly presented to the jury during her trial
-A tube sock found in an alley 75 yards from the Routier home contained both boy's blood and possibly skin cells from Darlie. None of the blood on the sock belonged to Darlie. They believe that someone close to Darlie touched the sock and placed it there.
-Medical testimony claims that Damon could not have lived more than 9 minutes after receiving his stab wounds. Darlie was on the phone with a 911 operator 5 minutes and 40 seconds of those 9 minutes. Authorities secured the scene for an additional 2 minutes. They claim that Darlie would have only had a minute and an half to plant the tube sock, stage the crime scene and then slash her own throat. It is disputed by Darlie's supporters that she would have had enough time to do all of that in a short amount of time before police and paramedics arrived.
-It is thought that Darlie was smothered unconscious with the tube sock before she later regained consciousness and realized she and her 2 oldest sons had been attacked.
-A fingerprint on the door leading to the garage and another fingerprint on a credenza behind the couch were never positively identified by investigators, but they did not match Darlie or anyone else in the house.
-Darlie's family believes the attacks were a sexual assault gone awry. A series of violent rapes occured in the area around the time of the Routier attacks. The assailant in those assaults entered victim's homes through unlocked doors or windows, accosted them with knives found in their own kitchens, and wore tube socks over his hands to avoid leaving fingerprints. A suspect was arrested for the assaults and Darlie's family and supporters feel that authorities should consider the man a suspect in the attack on the Routier family.

My opinion:

I think her case was based on circumstantial evidence. Due to the fact that some physical evidence was not directly presented to the jury, it made jurors bias in convicting her. I believe she was made to look like a monster by the conservative court that convicted her. I used to think she looked 100 percent guilty, but after reviewing her case over and over, I think her case deserves another look and that evidence not presented before may exonerate her and possibly point towards another attacker, possibly even her ex-husband Darin, who was the only other person in the house at the time capable of carrying out the attacks, or the rapist that some feel was responsible as I mentioned above.

Everything I've read on the case says the murders occurred on June 6, 1996 so I'm curious about the above date of June 8, 1996.

There is something odd about this case. I do think Darlie deserves a new trial. The silly string tape was out of context and unfair and with all the errors in the court transcripts and her defensive bruising on her forearms, (which was left out of the first trial), a new trial is in order, IMO. Many folks I admire are convinced of Darlie's innocence after much study.

It would be nice to gain some new evidence in this one since it's been 16 years someone may come forward at some point. Still, the fact that there were no other bloody footprints but hers and a few of her sons, and the remnants of the screen on the bloody knife just sticks with me and does have me lean towards her guilt, but with an open mind.
However I could be swayed to her innocence if more evidence comes to light and if in fact there is not enough evidence to convict her in another trial, obviously i do think the woman should be freed.

I never said she was innocent, but I never said she was guilty either. I just think as much as people hate her, she wasn't given a fair trial due to jury bias and leaving out key pieces of evidence like the unknown fingerprints. I think her being questioned while still sedated really wasn't cool and they should've waited until she wasn't so groggy to get the full story from her.

I don't normally "advocate" for people behind bars but her case I think deserves another look. There's just so many missing pieces to the puzzle that weren't presented forward. They never did find the weapon used to stab Devon. That right there is a bit peculiar.

Coincidentally, this is the episode that was queued up next on my DVD. I watched a bit and saw the part where one of the Rowlett cops, Sgt. Poos, is telling us how he knows Darlie is guilty.

He says the blood was all contained in one area and somehow or other, that proves Darlie was the only killer at the scene. He says the Rowlett cops are well trained investigators who know how to handle and process blood evidence. Oh, and he wants us to know they didn't just fall off the hay wagon.

So while he's telling us that there is a "lack of a blood trail" and that's "problematic", the camera is filming scenes of a large blood trail spread out all over a huge area of the house. There are drops, pools, smears, splatters. It's in the kitchen, the family room, on the floors, on the walls, heading out down the hallway, and toward the garage or something. It's even in an alley a few houses down, on a bloody sock.

And one of Rowlett's "well trained" crime scene investigators left her own long bleached blonde hair stuck to the sliced window screen. They tried to use it as evidence to prove Darlie staged an intruder scenario. Until the DNA came back.

With the cops leaving their own evidence all over the place, and bemoaning the lack of a blood trail leading away from the crime scene while the camera is showing us the exact blood trail the cops say they can't find.... And your best investigator neglects to audio or video record his interrogation of the main suspect, and the entire police department forgets that they need a judge to sign a warrant before they can place listening devices on Devon and Damon's graves.... Well it just doesn't look so good to go on TV and brag about how professional you are.

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=196192&highlight=darlie

I've discussed this case quite a bit on the thread linked above. My first post is #96 on page 7.

1990 Um fan, if you are interested in my opinions, please feel free to scan through my posts there. I tend to believe Darlie is not involved in the murders but I'm quite obviously in the minority.



I read your whole post on the other thread. Seems like they should've looked more at Darin Routier like Darlie's mom thought they should've.

I'm undecided on her guilt, however, I do believe she deserves a new trial. The importance placed on the Silly String video always bothered me. People grieve in odd ways. In stressful situations, laughter and crying can go hand in hand, both acting like a pressure release valve on the brain. Not to mention the fact that one of the side effects of narcotic painkillers is euphoria.

I don't know if she is guilty or innocent first off....

There are different approaches that can be taken here. There are the people that think that she is guilty because she is the only possible suspect and that the evidence does not allow for her to be completely removed from the crime. Those people are probably going to say she deserves to be in prison.

Then there are the people that think that she is innocent and got railroaded by the court/police/etc.

I'm somewhere in between on this one. I lived in arlington texas at the time and this was all over the media obviously there long before there was an UM segment. What I will say is that the prosecution did an excellent job of convicting her in the court of public opinion.

We are all visual people. When it comes down to it we all seek the bottom line. We don't want to sift through hours of evidence and details to make conclusions. We want to watch video's, pictures, or see an expert talk about DNA, etc. That silly string video convicted Darlie. When the news showed that video, everyone in the area blasted her and instantly believed that she was guilty. I thought she was 100% guilty. Then the prosecution showed this tape to the jury. Not that it mattered because I'm sure they all saw it on tv. However, it should have been addressed by the court and they should not have used it against her because it has no say over her innocence or guilt.

I don't know if she was guilty or not, but she didn't get a fair trial and that is the bottom line. For me it is tough because I want to see justice for those boys, but it is heartbreaking to see innocent people lose their lives. Innocent people fry when the courts don't do their job right and murderers walk free when there is not enough evidence to convict. So it is a tough call to make.

I'm undecided on her guilt, however, I do believe she deserves a new trial. The importance placed on the Silly String video always bothered me. People grieve in odd ways. In stressful situations, laughter and crying can go hand in hand, both acting like a pressure release valve on the brain. Not to mention the fact that one of the side effects of narcotic painkillers is euphoria.
The other thing that people don't understand is that darlie was diagnosed with depression. Sometimes grieving in that manner is absolutely necessary for people, especially for trauma type cases like this one. Many people feel that you should celebrate someone's death because it is the last time they are remembered.

It's one thing to lose your sons, but let's imagine for a moment that she was innocent. Imagine someone breaking into your home and stabbing you and your two children to death. How are you supposed to act? Is there a textbook out there? Or do you find it on google?

So I agree about the tape. That video convicted her...that is my opinion and I remember how it felt to watch it because I watched it on the evening news.

I used to lean toward innocent but now I'm leaning the other way. However, I agree with you DallasTexan, I'm on the fence even if leaning. She needs a new trial. That videotape really caused the conviction, more than likely, and all those drugs she was on no doubt influenced her behavior. If she was not on anything and behaving that way, then it would be pretty upsetting. There needs to be a new trial where the jury can know about the drug intake and hear her testimony about silly string being her children's favorite toys (even if not true, it's only fair that she can assert her side of the story).

And didn't the transcript have 30,000 errors+? That alone says she needs a new trial.

I lean towards guilty after hearing all the evidence, but I'm still on the fence. I'm not 100% convinced.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how there's any single shred of evidence that would suggest either Darlie is innocent or the crime was carried out by someone other than Darlie. The "Silly String Incident" is overplayed by the Darlie-supporters, IMO. She was convicted on several other factors, not the silly string tape alone. Don't you think that if Darlie truely was innocent, there would have been SOMETHING found at the scene to indicate someone else was there? This is almost nearly identical to the Jeffrey MacDonald case. He's maintained his innocence for 40+ years and there has YET to be ANYTHING that's came to light in all of those years that could prove his innocence. Same with Darlie.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how there's any single shred of evidence that would suggest either Darlie is innocent or the crime was carried out by someone other than Darlie.

I think that's overstating the case. There clearly are some aspects of the case that don't feel 100% right, however, that said, it doesn't mean she's innocent or necessarily even deserves a new trial. Errors are commonplace in criminal trials - but error alone isn't cause for reversal if they are essentially "harmless" and partisans on both sides often so cloud issues that it can be hard to get at actual reality without personal research in the original sources, which isn't, of course, always possible.

please please please...DO your research on this case.read the transcripts,go to websleuths.com for clarification,etc..I thought perhaps Darlie might be innocent at first as well,but in-depth reading has left me no other opinion than to think she is nothing short of 100% guilty.I'm not going to debate or explain;just please 'do the math' i.e.-research it well.thx.

please please please...DO your research on this case.read the transcripts,go to websleuths.com for clarification,etc..I thought perhaps Darlie might be innocent at first as well,but in-depth reading has left me no other opinion than to think she is nothing short of 100% guilty.I'm not going to debate or explain;just please 'do the math' i.e.-research it well.thx.

thanks but I think I've delved into the case enough to wrap an opinion around it :)

i have been the same since i first heard this story, i am undecided on her guilt which means i would NOT have her on death row.

I think that's overstating the case. There clearly are some aspects of the case that don't feel 100% right, however, that said, it doesn't mean she's innocent or necessarily even deserves a new trial.

I disagree. There were only two people in that house who were capable of committing these murders and who would have had a motive to carry it out. That's Darlie and Darin. Since Darlie has never came forward and stated that the man who was attacking her was Darin and since she corraborated his story about being upstairs asleep with their youngest child, that leaves Darlie and/or an unknown intruder. Had there been someone else in that house, something would have been found in that house. A fiber, fingernail, etc. There was no evidence that anything foreign entered that house on the night of the murders. The murder weapon belonged to the Routier's, the sock which was used to conceal fingerprints belonged to the Routier's. Everything connected with the actual murders themselves can be traced to the Routier residence. Is it that much of a stretch to also see that whoever committed these hideous crimes was also a member of the Routier family?

The "Silly String Incident" is overplayed by the Darlie-supporters, IMO. She was convicted on several other factors, not the silly string tape alone.

I'm not a supporter and I still don't factor that in at all. I keep that separate and look at the evidence at hand. Still lean towards guilty, but not 100% convinced.

Is it that much of a stretch to also see that whoever committed these hideous crimes was also a member of the Routier family?

No, certainly not. That's the reason she was convicted and all her appeals have been for naught.

The problem is, in theory, if LE did not perform a good crime scene investigation. Obviously a lack of evidence doesn't mean much IF that evidence was not properly found and analyzed.

Like I said before, I'm not saying she's not guilty, not by a long-shot; but questions of poor crime scene investigation can always create problems - frankly, that's the point of the criminal justice system and the lengthy appeals process (to determine if doubt and error rise to reasonable doubt and prejudicial error) - and here, that certainly doesn't favor Darlie, even given the shortcomings of Texas justice.

I will also say this - while I believe that the case against Darlie is strong, I am always wary of prosecutors who fight DNA testing - if they are confident in their verdict (as they should be), then testing should be welcomed.

I disagree. There were only two people in that house who were capable of committing these murders and who would have had a motive to carry it out. That's Darlie and Darin. Since Darlie has never came forward and stated that the man who was attacking her was Darin and since she corraborated his story about being upstairs asleep with their youngest child, that leaves Darlie and/or an unknown intruder. Had there been someone else in that house, something would have been found in that house. A fiber, fingernail, etc. There was no evidence that anything foreign entered that house on the night of the murders. The murder weapon belonged to the Routier's, the sock which was used to conceal fingerprints belonged to the Routier's. Everything connected with the actual murders themselves can be traced to the Routier residence. Is it that much of a stretch to also see that whoever committed these hideous crimes was also a member of the Routier family?
I rarely get into such debates but I can't help but share a few thoughts as an outsider looking in.
1) This part of the story has always bugged me. If my husband was sleeping upstairs and an intruder came in and started stabbing my kids, I would be screaming so loud that it would be impossible for him to sleep through it, even if he was in semi-comotose state. He would have responded to my screams in a micro minute. Heck, even the neighbors would've been able to hear me.
2) The insurance money arguement. I highly doubt that was the motive. I am inclined to think that she was upset with Darin at the time and wanted him to suffer in a way. And maybe to evoke his (and others) sympathy to get more attention.
3) As far as DNA testing is concerned to futher their case in convicting Darlie - keep in mind that it is still very expensive and if it's not needed, why spend the money. They have budgets to deal with, too. (Trust me, I know from personal experience on that one)

1) This part of the story has always bugged me. If my husband was sleeping upstairs and an intruder came in and started stabbing my kids, I would be screaming so loud that it would be impossible for him to sleep through it, even if he was in semi-comotose state. He would have responded to my screams in a micro minute. Heck, even the neighbors would've been able to hear me.

Exactly. To "fix" this error in her story, supporters of Darlie have said that the intruder must have held his hand over her mouth and knocked her unconscious which is why she did not scream for Darin. That makes the story even more implausible though, IMHO. If the killer was there to do harm to Darlie, why did he feel the need to murder her two sons if he already had her subdued?

Exactly. To "fix" this error in her story, supporters of Darlie have said that the intruder must have held his hand over her mouth and knocked her unconscious which is why she did not scream for Darin. That makes the story even more implausible though, IMHO. If the killer was there to do harm to Darlie, why did he feel the need to murder her two sons if he already had her subdued?

Maybe it wasn't his original intent, maybe he was after the boys the whole time but attacked Darlie when she regained consciousness.

The reenactment in the beginning seems pretty ridiculous (if that's what she claims). Man standing over her with knife and she just follows him into the kitchen while he makes NO EFFORT to come back and harm her further. And there hadn't been anything to startle her husband into coming down yet, thus probably no reason for the guy to run out and not come back and kill her. I can see the shock startling her into not realizing she was hurt until a few minutes later (after all Gord McCallister was so worried about his wife being shot that he didn't even notice he was wounded until minutes later). But the guy with the knife, if he was so bent on killing her and the boys, I don't see why he would just leave.


What does everyone think about the sock found a distance away?

The reenactment in the beginning seems pretty ridiculous (if that's what she claims). Man standing over her with knife and she just follows him into the kitchen while he makes NO EFFORT to come back and harm her further. And there hadn't been anything to startle her husband into coming down yet, thus probably no reason for the guy to run out and not come back and kill her. I can see the shock startling her into not realizing she was hurt until a few minutes later (after all Gord McCallister was so worried about his wife being shot that he didn't even notice he was wounded until minutes later). But the guy with the knife, if he was so bent on killing her and the boys, I don't see why he would just leave.


What does everyone think about the sock found a distance away?

It could've been a sexual assault gone awry like they mentioned. I think he intended on raping Darlie and/or the boys and when Darlie regained consciousness and put up a fight, he decided it was too much and took one of their kitchen knives and attacked them with it. I wonder if Darin was asked if the tube sock belonged to him or not? If not, then that means a third party was involved and dropped the sock in the alley while fleeing. If so, then maybe they could've implicated him for the crime. Darlie's blood was not on the sock but Devon and Damon's blood was. It's possible that Darlie was smothered into unconsciousness with it and the attack on the boys happened after and that's why their blood is on the sock.

Maybe it wasn't his original intent, maybe he was after the boys the whole time but attacked Darlie when she regained consciousness.

Why would an unknown assailant break into a house to murder two children not known to him?

Why would an unknown assailant break into a house to murder two children not known to him?

I don't know, I don't think like a killer

Why would an unknown assailant break into a house to murder two children not known to him?
yeah,really,and leave the parent alive. ::rolling eyes:: not to mention,all of the other evidence.UM made it seem like there could only be one timeline..truth is,she had time to plant the sock.and that's prolly where the other knife went,too.oh,and anytime the weapon comes from the home? it's someone who lives there.that's basic crime knowledge.

yeah,really,and leave the parent alive. ::rolling eyes:: not to mention,all of the other evidence.UM made it seem like there could only be one timeline..truth is,she had time to plant the sock.and that's prolly where the other knife went,too.oh,and anytime the weapon comes from the home? it's someone who lives there.that's basic crime knowledge.

Maybe the attacker thought he injured her enough that she would succumb to her injuries? I can't say for sure. If she planted the sock, then where did the second weapon go?

But if she really followed the attacker into the kitchen (as she claims) then he would have seen that she was running after him and not laying down mortally wounded like the boys.

I think a lot of people, especially the cops, automatically look at darlie first because she lived through the attack and at first glance she had only superficial wounds. when you first look at it, it looks too good to be true. so in a sense she is the only possible suspect so they go after her with complete confidence that she is guilty no matter what the evidence says. the problem is there are so many questions after you investigate. there is so much circumstancial evidence and then combine the trial and investigative errors you have people who can legitmately question whether or not darlie did this.

In a sense this kind of reminds me a little of the charles holden/dorothy donovan case. when you first look at the case there's no way in hell that you would think that it happened the way he said. I thought on the forensic files episode they did a better job of UM in showing that the cops actually believe close to 100% that charles holden killed dorothy and were trying like hell to gain a confession out of him.... for attackers or intruders sometimes there is simply no explainable motive other than to asault people for there own personal gain and the motive can only be found within their own twisted thoughts. even psychologists that devote countless years of studies can't wrap their finger around these people's thoughts.

I'm stuck in the middle on this one because i feel like the court never proved her guilt. the sock is a good question??? what the hell is the deal with the sock? I've never heard about that.

yeah,really,and leave the parent alive. ::rolling eyes:: not to mention,all of the other evidence.UM made it seem like there could only be one timeline..truth is,she had time to plant the sock.and that's prolly where the other knife went,too.oh,and anytime the weapon comes from the home? it's someone who lives there.that's basic crime knowledge.
Most attacks on children by parents are form cases in which they lose complete control in the heat of the moment. For this case that is not possible.

If the following is the case I'm glad she's in jail and I don't feel sorry for her in the slightest:

It is very possible that darlie is an extreme sociopath and premeditated the murders. she may have planted the sock ahead of time and cut the screen from inside the house like they claim. she may have staged the whole scenario to be away from darren so that he did not hear the attack. she also just as easily may have stabbed herself close to her artery not knowing it because most of us are not experts on anatomy. again these are all aspects that the court has to prove, but in my opinion they themselves centered there case around other areas like the tape(copout for supporters or not) which was wrong of them. it allows for darlie defenders to argue on her behalf. So I am still unsure about this and likely always will be.

They kept saying she attacked her kids in a postpartum depression rage. Was she ever even diagnosed as having postpartum depression?

They kept saying she attacked her kids in a postpartum depression rage. Was she ever even diagnosed as having postpartum depression?
no,not that I know of.I think it's possible she had some form of depression though.And possibly she would have faired better off if she'd admitted her guilt and claimed such.

Most attacks on children by parents are form cases in which they lose complete control in the heat of the moment. For this case that is not possible.


why not? she and darrin both admitted they had fought that evening.and IMO,it's obvious darrin knows more than he is telling,from the UM segment..per his denial of money problems,etc...he's hiding something.(although I think darlie was the killer,not him).but he knows more than he is saying.they DID have money problems,that is documented.



It is very possible that darlie is an extreme sociopath and premeditated the murders. she may have planted the sock ahead of time and cut the screen from inside the house like they claim. she may have staged the whole scenario to be away from darren so that he did not hear the attack. she also just as easily may have stabbed herself close to her artery not knowing it because most of us are not experts on anatomy. again these are all aspects that the court has to prove, but in my opinion they themselves centered there case around other areas like the tape(copout for supporters or not) which was wrong of them. it allows for darlie defenders to argue on her behalf. So I am still unsure about this and likely always will be.
i don't think she planted the sock.I think she was trying to rid of it,along with the weapon,at the same time.

One thing that I always found intriguing about this case was this mysterious intruder. Supporters of Darlie have given explanations that he tried to rob the family, but Darlie’s jewelry, wallet, and a cheque on the kitchen counter were untouched. Nothing was missing from the home, so robbery was quickly ruled out as a motive.

Next, a second theory was proposed that the intruder intended to rape Darlie. The problem is that killing the boys served no purpose. If anything, keeping them alive would have been good leverage to make Darlie cooperate, if a sexual assault was the main intent. However, the intended targets were definitely Devon and Damon, who were stabbed in such a manner as to make sure that they would be dead.

It has never been established how the intruder got in or out of the house, either. The dust from the garage window was not disturbed, which means he never exited out that garage window. Moreover, it is also very puzzling as to why he took a bread knife, cut the screen from the outside, and put the knife back into its butcher’s block in the kitchen. Remember that he also did this without turning on the lights, either.

The final puzzle is why the intruder wiped away one of the children’s bloody hand print off the sofa. That was detected under luminal testing. Why would he bother cleaning up the crime scene? Lastly, how did he manage to drop Darin’s tube sock several houses away without leaving any of his skin cell DNA traces while leaving Darlie’s DNA inside the sock intact?

The story of the mysterious intruder proves weak. Logically, if the intruder story is suspect, then the remaining killers become either Darlie or Darin. Most of the evidence points to Darlie, but it is quite possible that Darin helped cover up the crime after the fact.

why not? she and darrin both admitted they had fought that evening.and IMO,it's obvious darrin knows more than he is telling,from the UM segment..per his denial of money problems,etc...he's hiding something.(although I think darlie was the killer,not him).but he knows more than he is saying.they DID have money problems,that is documented.



i don't think she planted the sock.I think she was trying to rid of it,along with the weapon,at the same time.
good point, i guess I used a poor choice of words. I've always got the impression based on the circumstances of the incident that I've watched on TV might I add, that she either premeditated the attacks and carried them out in a matter that made it look like an intruder did it. Or she was truly attacked by an intruder(not darren).

The loss of control doesn't make sense unless she was still up with her boys and they drove her to the point of complete loss of control at 2AM? or whatever it was? and then she had not much time to think on her feet and react by planting a sock, tearing a screen, stabbing herself, etc. I think that she either thought ahead or she was attacked, but I guess it is possible that she did everything in the moment because she paniced or freaked out and lost complete control.

yeah the darren aspect is weird, but the fact that they have both supported each other throughout the years leaves me to believe that darren really had no involvment in this and slept through the ordeal which is not impossible if darlie did it or if she was attacked while she was asleep.

Anyone else think it's entirely possible that Darlie (while her two young sons were sleeping) went out and staged the crime scene? I think she most likely slashed the screen and ditched the sock before she actually killed her boys. There really was no blood found anywhere outside of the Routier home, which is why I think she went around planting things before the actual murders were committed.

And both boys were actually held down to the floor and stabbed repeatedly. Had an "intruder" broke in the house to rape/sexually assault Darlie, why would he feel the need to then murder two young boys, each of whom weighed about 40 lbs? And why would an "intruder" take the time to clean up the mess he created in the sink, not to mention how would there have even been any mess in the sink (since Darlie and her children were attacked in the living room)? And why would the "intruder" place the murder weapon back in the butcher block that it came from? And how did the "intruder" exit the house? There was a slit in the screen, but beyond that the screen was not pushed in or out (which would have happened if someone had passed through it). And just how did Darlie manage to ger her son's blood on the back of her nightgown if she was allegedly knocked unconscious by this "intruder" (lying on her back on the couch while the "intruder" straddled her)? After he knocked her unconscious, did he turn her over on her back while he then murdered her two children? That would be the only logical way that blood from her sons could have gotten onto the back of her nightgown if Darlie was truely innocent. Darlie also conveniently described her attacker as wearing all black and a baseball cap. I find it amazing that in the midst of 2 murders and one attempted murder, there was NOTHING left behind by this "intruder". His cap being knocked from his head could have resulted in some hairs or DNA being found. Since Darlie was allegedly fighting for her life and her son's lives, you would think the odds would have been fairly high for this "intruder" to have left something behind that proved his existence. But yet there was nothing.

It's fairly obvious to me that Darlie is responsible and right where she belongs. She placed the butcher knife back in her butcher block thinking that she could convince police that the "intruder" brought his own weapon and took it with him after the attacks. I also think she never anticipated anyone focusing on the sink area (which is where I think she cleaned up the weapon and possibly herself after killing her children). I also think it's awful convenient that at first she gave a vague description of this "intruder" yet later recanted saying she was suffering from "traumatic amnesia". :rolleyes: I think the real reason why Darlie still manages to get support is because nobody wants to believe a mother could do that to her children. But after going over the case and reading the actual undisputed facts, I don't see how anyone else could have committed these crimes other than Darlie Routier.

Anyone else think it's entirely possible that Darlie (while her two young sons were sleeping) went out and staged the crime scene? I think she most likely slashed the screen and ditched the sock before she actually killed her boys. There really was no blood found anywhere outside of the Routier home, which is why I think she went around planting things before the actual murders were committed.

And both boys were actually held down to the floor and stabbed repeatedly. Had an "intruder" broke in the house to rape/sexually assault Darlie, why would he feel the need to then murder two young boys, each of whom weighed about 40 lbs? And why would an "intruder" take the time to clean up the mess he created in the sink, not to mention how would there have even been any mess in the sink (since Darlie and her children were attacked in the living room)? And why would the "intruder" place the murder weapon back in the butcher block that it came from? And how did the "intruder" exit the house? There was a slit in the screen, but beyond that the screen was not pushed in or out (which would have happened if someone had passed through it). And just how did Darlie manage to ger her son's blood on the back of her nightgown if she was allegedly knocked unconscious by this "intruder" (lying on her back on the couch while the "intruder" straddled her)? After he knocked her unconscious, did he turn her over on her back while he then murdered her two children? That would be the only logical way that blood from her sons could have gotten onto the back of her nightgown if Darlie was truely innocent. Darlie also conveniently described her attacker as wearing all black and a baseball cap. I find it amazing that in the midst of 2 murders and one attempted murder, there was NOTHING left behind by this "intruder". His cap being knocked from his head could have resulted in some hairs or DNA being found. Since Darlie was allegedly fighting for her life and her son's lives, you would think the odds would have been fairly high for this "intruder" to have left something behind that proved his existence. But yet there was nothing.

It's fairly obvious to me that Darlie is responsible and right where she belongs. She placed the butcher knife back in her butcher block thinking that she could convince police that the "intruder" brought his own weapon and took it with him after the attacks. I also think she never anticipated anyone focusing on the sink area (which is where I think she cleaned up the weapon and possibly herself after killing her children). I also think it's awful convenient that at first she gave a vague description of this "intruder" yet later recanted saying she was suffering from "traumatic amnesia". :rolleyes: I think the real reason why Darlie still manages to get support is because nobody wants to believe a mother could do that to her children. But after going over the case and reading the actual undisputed facts, I don't see how anyone else could have committed these crimes other than Darlie Routier.

If she planted the sock beforehand, then why are her boy's blood on the sock? They said something to an extent that a possible intruder could've crouched down to get out of the slashed window screen without disturbing dust and mulch, but that seems bizarre too. I would also like to know if the rapist that was breaking into people's homes and assaulting them around the time of the Routier attacks attacked adult females or children. Maybe that could provide an answer to my theory about an intruder assaulting Darlie and/or her boys. I am not an advocate for Darlie. The last thing I ever want to do is side with a killer/possible killer, but something about this case nags at me and I know something isn't right about it other than the fact 2 innocent boys were murdered.

will post more later, but...darlie wasn't raped..everything about that came up negative.no dna,no bruising "down there",nothing.

I would also like to know if the rapist that was breaking into people's homes and assaulting them around the time of the Routier attacks attacked adult females or children.

Yes, there was a rapist operating around the time of the Routier murders. His name is Sammie Luckas Cook, Jr., and he was convicted of five rapes in Dallas. The defense mentioned him in their Writ of Habeus Corpus as a potential suspect that was never investigated by the police. During the assaults, Cook attempted to conceal his fingerprints by wearing a tube sock around his hand; sometimes he would use the sock as a gag. The defense believed there might be a connection to the tube sock found on the sidewalk, several houses down. However, Cook’s modus operandi was significantly different from what occurred at the Routier crime scene.

Cook began his crime spree in December 1995. He raped only in the city of Dallas, miles away from the Routier home. He targeted only apartment complexes, not detached homes. Cook would break into an apartment, and obtain any objects that could be used as a potential weapon (i.e., knife, scissors, fork). He would always rob his victims and sexually assault them. In one case, he held a fork to a child to subdue the female adult victim into acquiescing to his demands. He never stabbed the child though or any of his other victims, and he was always loud during the attacks to appear threatening. Sometimes Cook wore a condom, but there were times he did not, and his DNA was eventually able to connect him to the rapes. Last, Cook is African-American, while Darlie claimed the intruder was a Caucasian male (later she claimed not to remember what he looked like at all). By the time Darlie was on trial, Cook had already been caught and arrested.

Yes, there was a rapist operating around the time of the Routier murders. His name is Sammie Luckas Cook, Jr., and he was convicted of five rapes in Dallas. The defense mentioned him in their Writ of Habeus Corpus as a potential suspect that was never investigated by the police. During the assaults, Cook attempted to conceal his fingerprints by wearing a tube sock around his hand; sometimes he would use the sock as a gag. The defense believed there might be a connection to the tube sock found on the sidewalk, several houses down. However, Cook’s modus operandi was significantly different from what occurred at the Routier crime scene.

Cook began his crime spree in December of 1995. He raped only in the city of Dallas, miles away from the Routier home. He targeted only apartment complexes, not detached homes. Cook would break into an apartment, and obtain any objects that could be used as a potential weapon (i.e., knife, scissors, fork). He would always rob his victims and sexual assault them. In one case, he held a fork to a child in order to subdue the female adult victim into acquiescing to his demands. He never stabbed the child though, or any of his other victims, and he was always loud during the attacks to appear threatening. Sometimes Cook wore a condom, but there were times that he did not, and his DNA was eventually able to connect him to the rapes. Lastly, Cook is African-American, while Darlie claimed that the intruder was a Caucasian male (later she claimed not to remember what he looked like at all). By the time Darlie was on trial, Cook had already been caught and arrested.

Thanks for all that info, I had no clue what his name was and what his MO was

If she planted the sock beforehand, then why are her boy's blood on the sock?

IIRC, investigators were stunned that there was no blood found outside the Routier residence. Had there been an intruder, there surely would have been blood found outside around the Routier residence. There was a trail of blood leading to the slit window and it abruptly ended and there was no trace found anywhere outside of the residence. That's a pretty hard pill to swallow if you believe an intruder was involved.

They said something to an extent that a possible intruder could've crouched down to get out of the slashed window screen without disturbing dust and mulch, but that seems bizarre too.

Yes I agree, it's very bizarre. After just brutally murdering two young children and then being chased away by the woman you just viciously attacked (according to Darlie she chased the "intruder" from the residence) why would this "intruder" take great pains and an extreme amount of patience to fit through a window without disturbing the screen and/or dust on the sill? Would he really be that carfeul after fleeing the crime scene being chased by a woman with his weapon?

I would also like to know if the rapist that was breaking into people's homes and assaulting them around the time of the Routier attacks attacked adult females or children. Maybe that could provide an answer to my theory about an intruder assaulting Darlie and/or her boys. I am not an advocate for Darlie. The last thing I ever want to do is side with a killer/possible killer, but something about this case nags at me and I know something isn't right about it other than the fact 2 innocent boys were murdered.

I simply think Darlie used the story about rapes in the area as a way to coverup the crimes and attempt to pin them on someone else. The closest thing they could find (which matched some of Darlie's account of the "intruder") was this Sammie Cook, Jr. But we all know Darlie said she was attacked by a white man (Cook was black), and Cook was known to attack apartments, not houses. And Cook never killed or stabbed any of his other known victims, and I don't think Cook ever struck a house where there was an adult male present. I think Darlie attempted to create a story which fit some of the MOs of the Dallas area rapist at the time to make it seem like she and her boys were the victims of a sick serial rapist/killer. I also don't think it was known at the time (during the Routier) that Cook was the one responsible for the rapes in the Dallas area. Which may have been why Darlie described her attacker as white.

I love all the feedback this topic is getting. Thanks for all of your opinions. I am curious to hear more.

I've always felt she is guilty. The silly string? I'm not sure that swayed my opinion at all. Very weird, that's for sure and the last way I would want to be acting is all happy and such. Yes, people grieve differently, but I am sure you wouldn't want anyone to see you grieve that way for fear of what people might think. Surely even if Darlie was innocent she should have been aware that the police were bearing down on here at the time and she should watch what she's doing.

But that's all circumstantial. How about the actual case in itself. Why in the world does the intruder kill two young boys and then injure Darlie only to run away from her and drop the knife? Why did she never get a good look at him? Why did she not wake up when her boys were being sliced by the guy? I know I am a heavy sleeper but I would think that something would cause me to wake up feeling something is amiss. An unusual noise?

Darin I do not believe is guilty. I'm not so sure if him divorcing Darlie says anything. They've been apart for 15 years, that's tough on a marriage even if you think she's innocent. But I have never left out the chance that he knows something that he has never shared with anyone else, not even Darlie. You would think that the man who knew her the best would have picked up on something right? A conversation they had days earlier, or a noise he heard, or whether or not it was unusual for her and the boys to fall asleep in front of the television so late at night. They had a baby, maybe the baby slept through everything but was it unusual for their baby to sleep through the night at that time? Darin would know this the best so I get the feeling that there are things he at least might suspect either way that he has never shared. Just my opinion.

Everything points to Darlie. Even Jeffrey MacDonald has a more convincing case in his favour. He has a confession from someone, a patient who called his house and heard laughter in the background from multiple people and he was a guy that the hippies would have certainly targeted. What about Darlie? Why would someone break into their home, steal NOTHING, come unarmed with the chance that they find a knife just to kill two boys and injure the only person who could identify him? It makes no sense. A person who would do this would have to be familiar with their home. It would have to be someone Darlie knew. Yet she couldn't identify him. Strange.

I think she is where she belongs. Larry Gibson's case sounds more convincing

I think Darlie is guilty. Although I'm not as well read on this case as some others on this forum seem to be, there are just too many holes in the logic if we accept an intruder committed these crimes. Among the most obvious questions - why would this person, whose intent was apparently to rob/rape/maim/kill/whatever, not bring some kind of weapon of his own? Also, why attack the two weakest threats - the children and not neutralize the greatest threats - Darlie and Darin?

I think a lot of people want to believe she is innocent because these crimes are so abominable and it is difficult to comprehend a mother doing this to her children. However, there have been women, such as Andrea Yates, who have murdered their children. I also think it's easy to ask questions like "what was the motive?" and since the motives suggested by the police/prosecutors do seem weak, it's easy to then suspect an outsider. However, what motive is strong enough to justify these brutal crimes? I think only Darlie herself can answer.

Not too keen on this one. Really a 50/50 one for me. I'd say the 30,000 transcript errors alone should give her a new trial though, regardless of guilt.

While I can't say I believe that the local PD did a great job on this case by any stretch, I'm pretty comfortable with the verdict and don't believe there was enough reasonable doubt...for myself that is.

The 30, 000 transcript errors is really hinky to me too, however I question the breadth and magnitude of these errors, as they don't go into detail in the segment. By this I mean, are these simply grammatical errors? Is it possible that the stenographer didn't double space after every new sentence or is of the purely technical nature and the defense is trying to utilize this as a technicality or are these errors related to factual inaccuracies and omissions?

I have a great deal of specific educational training within areas of filicide, infanticide, neonaticide, family annihilators and all forms of suicide and with special focus on mothers with postpartum depression, it is a very harrowing and multifaceted topic, that is quite difficult to interpret for the layperson. From here, I would not be surprised if this were originally a planned murder/suicide and the mother lost her nerve when it came to killing herself, which for myself explains her wounds. This would fall in line with a postpartum depression motive, which I could accept.

I also have great issue with the possession of the murder weapon, as it just doesn't make sense to me why an attacker would leave themselves open to attack from a living victim by leaving their weapon availible to be taken or furthermore, get scared away by a female stabwound victim, after having callously murdered two boys and somehow lost their weapon on such a small woman? This all doesn't seem reasonable to me.

I'm also very intrigued by the husband and wife dynamic and what impact that had on the night of this tragedy. I'm curious as to how hard of a run LE took at the husband from the getgo, how exactly he was cleared. If there was a potential of an upcoming divorce, which could be a very costly and tenuous, stressful event, this would've been a fine lead for either parent, however it seems the forensics points to the wife.

With many cases that aren't a lock, there are many factors than make one pause and holdup due to police error or malfeasance, I see the ones in this case, but am ultimately unmoved.

Perhaps I'm a bit too optimistic about this type of thing, because it's never comforting to find out that someone who claims to be innocent overwhelmingly ends up being guilty, but this is a segment I've seen many times, and in all seriousness, I think there are several things that cast doubt upon Darlie Routier being guilty.

First, there's the issue of the hair found stuck in the window screen. DNA testing proved that it was not Darlie's, but rather that of a Rowlett, Texas police officer, and a troubling question that arises from that is: what was that hair doing in the screen in the first place?

Second, most people insisted that Darlie's injuries were self-inflicted and non-life threatening, but closer analysis revealed that the knife wound in her neck would have killed her if it had been just as little as 1/16 of an inch deeper, and I just don't see how Darlie could have known to stop it right where she did.

Third, it was brought up during the segment that the life insurance policies on the two boys were worth a total of $10,000 (less than what it would cost to bury them), yet the life insurance policy on Darlie's husband was worth several hundred thousand dollars. If she was intent on killing for money so she could resume a lavish lifestyle, why didn't she kill her husband instead? $10,000 is not going to carry you that far.

It's certainly one of the most deeply provocative guilty-or-innocent cases in UM history, and I don't completely disregard those who think she's guilty, but I think that the things I mentioned do cast at least some reasonable doubt.

The 30, 000 transcript errors is really hinky to me too, however I question the breadth and magnitude of these errors, as they don't go into detail in the segment. By this I mean, are these simply grammatical errors? Is it possible that the stenographer didn't double space after every new sentence or is of the purely technical nature and the defense is trying to utilize this as a technicality or are these errors related to factual inaccuracies and omissions?

IIRC, some of the errors were fairly serious including recording a witness's "yes" answer as a "no" or vice versa. The court recorder had not transcribed the documents in a timely manner and was making appearances on tv shows. She was even held in contempt by the judge regarding the transcript but I've forgotten the details on why that happened.

I've always thought this was a fascinating case, although I do think that "Darlie did it."

I just have never come across a case where an intruder breaks in to a house simply to bump off two kids -- I mean, this was a large, upper-middle-class home, where the parents were obviously home that evening. What "intruder" is going to walk in, grab their knife, stab two little kids, then try to kill mom (but apparently get scared off by a small woman) and run out the door?

I could see an intruder coming in if it was just two little kids sleeping there by themselves.

I could see an intruder coming in if it was just a woman sleeping there by herself.

I cannot fathom any sort of bad guy bothering with a mom AND two little kids...and then simply run out of the house, never to be seen again...

I think Darlie had a narcissistic snap and was going to kill herself, too, but then her self-preservation kicked-in and I think maybe a teeny tiny part of her doesn't entirely dislike her new notoriety...just my two cents :crazy:

Honestly, who else could have murdered these boys outside of Darlie or Darin?

-Nothing was missing from the home.
-The murder weapon used was a knife that belonged to the Routier's.
-There was no blood found on the outside of the Routier residence. Everything was contained inside the residence.
-The sock used to "conceal fingerprints" was one that belonged to the Routier's.
-There was no signs of a disturbance on the window that was slit, indicating that nothing came in or went out of that window.
-There has never been a viable suspect, outside of Darlie (and possibly Darin) that has ever surfaced in the past 15+ years since the murders.

When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's usually going to be a duck.

yes and anytime the weapons and such come from inside the house,odds are it's an inside job.I'm sure there may be exceptions;generally though,that's the case,and experts know it.

No need for anyone to get defensive here, I am open to everyone's opinions here and I would hope the same from everyone else.

not being defensive,my apologies if I came off that way,just trying to stick to the facts. :)

From what I read in an article from this past July, the court allowed Darlie's defense to proceed with testing blood and DNA evidence from the original crime scene. The article here will tell you more about the latest developments but that the testing results have not been made public as of yet: http://justice4juveniles.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/will-dna-save-darlie-routier-from-execution/

Here is an article from last Tuesday as well: http://pollyannalana.hubpages.com/hub/Darlie-Routier

I know many of you are tired of hearing about this case so I'm sorry.

But at best I feel that this is a 50/50 case. I don't see how a person can be on death row under these circumstances. I lived in DFW when this case broke out and LE focused on her from day one in spite of what the evidence said. they left out evidence in her trial and used the video tape from her son's bday/funeral which was wrong. this was a high profile case and it was in the dallas media from day one and there was a lot of pressure on law enforcement to convict her. I think this is a major factor that no one affilliated with UM considers.

she got convicted in the court of public opinion and like many other people in texas she got hammered by circumstancial evidence that can be argued many ways. how many cases like this have we seen on UM only to see that an innocent person was convicted yet this one is different? i don't get it. she may be guilty, but may is the key word and I do not believe in executing people that may have committed a crime.

I recently saw another show on Darlie (I think maybe Notorious or Women Behind Bars), and something I'd not known before was brought up: when she was on the 911 call, apparently one of her little boys was still alive (barely).

When you listen to the 911 call, you can hear Darlie immediately start talking about an intruder, rather than "omg operator what do I do to save my little boy, CPR or do I try to stop the blood flow or what?"

It's actually quite chilling to listen to when you're presented with the fact that while she's jabbering about this stealth intruder, her little son is gasping for life in the next room...and she's not trying to help him survive...

But at best I feel that this is a 50/50 case. I don't see how a person can be on death row under these circumstances.

IMHO, I'd say it's maybe about 80/20 in favour of Darlie's guilt, but I also concur that I have no desire to see her executed. No matter how heinous the crime may be, that 20 % doubt would still leave me feeling very uncomfortable about actually going through with the execution. I don't think Darlie's ever getting out, but given how controversial this case is, I doubt the state will ever execute her.

Second, most people insisted that Darlie's injuries were self-inflicted and non-life threatening, but closer analysis revealed that the knife wound in her neck would have killed her if it had been just as little as 1/16 of an inch deeper, and I just don't see how Darlie could have known to stop it right where she did.




I dont really see how that is relevant. Just because it was close to being a fatal wound doesnt mean it couldnt be self inflicted. She simply had no idea that she was close to clipping a main artery.
The story Darlie told makes no sense. The kids were killed with brutal stabs while Darlie received a few slashes. Why would anyone attack the little boys first when an adult is laying right next to them?
How plausible is it that someone broke into the house and then retrieved a knife from the kitchen in order to commit the crime?
There are many more inconsistencies and I have no doubt she is guilty. My only question is if Darin had anything to do with it or the attempted coverup.

I dont really see how that is relevant. Just because it was close to being a fatal wound doesnt mean it couldnt be self inflicted. She simply had no idea that she was close to clipping a main artery.
The story Darlie told makes no sense. The kids were killed with brutal stabs while Darlie received a few slashes. Why would anyone attack the little boys first when an adult is laying right next to them?
How plausible is it that someone broke into the house and then retrieved a knife from the kitchen in order to commit the crime?
There are many more inconsistencies and I have no doubt she is guilty. My only question is if Darin had anything to do with it or the attempted coverup.
The thing that bothers me about this case is that she appears to have injuries that could be defensive wounds from a struggle. I'd imagine the boys couldn't resist an attacker with as much effort as she could have since she is a grown adult. This makes some sense to me.

The question is motive but as we've seen some people are just ruthless and will kill for no apparent reason. Now this is speculation on my part. But why were the pictures of her injuries not allowed in court? Is this true or did the jury see the photos.

I recently saw another show on Darlie (I think maybe Notorious or Women Behind Bars), and something I'd not known before was brought up: when she was on the 911 call, apparently one of her little boys was still alive (barely).

When you listen to the 911 call, you can hear Darlie immediately start talking about an intruder, rather than "omg operator what do I do to save my little boy, CPR or do I try to stop the blood flow or what?"

It's actually quite chilling to listen to when you're presented with the fact that while she's jabbering about this stealth intruder, her little son is gasping for life in the next room...and she's not trying to help him survive...
This is exactly the problem I have with the way the state convicted her. They looked at her reaction and judged her behavior during and after the event to form an opinion of guilt. They stocked her and focused 100% on her from day 1. How many other UM cases were just like this were it came out later that they did have the wrong person. Is there a textbook out there for reactions to these types of events? The fact is no one knows how they would react to a situation like this unless it happens. It's easy for us to judge but its completely different when something actually happens and most people respond to chaos and tragedy in different ways. Many people don't even know what they are doing or what they actually saw. This is why so many eye witness accounts are unreliable. I've also heard that it is common for women to block out or lose memory of tragic events that happen to them. I don't know how true that is but psychologists have said that this can happen.

IMHO, I'd say it's maybe about 80/20 in favour of Darlie's guilt, but I also concur that I have no desire to see her executed. No matter how heinous the crime may be, that 20 % doubt would still leave me feeling very uncomfortable about actually going through with the execution. I don't think Darlie's ever getting out, but given how controversial this case is, I doubt the state will ever execute her.
My thoughts exactly.

I think she's guilty as sin.


But I think she got railroaded at trial.

yes the jury saw the photos.check the websleuths.com forum for more info.some of the posters there are highly informed about the case.it's just like LE said,the photos were there.
While I think Darlie is guilty,I do think Darin has something to hide,thus his pretending to defend her,esp. in the early days.I thought he came off as untruthful and highly defensive in the segment,esp. the part about denying they had financial problems,which of course they did.Just something about him does not sit right with me.JMO.

The thing that bothers me about this case is that she appears to have injuries that could be defensive wounds from a struggle. I'd imagine the boys couldn't resist an attacker with as much effort as she could have since she is a grown adult. This makes some sense to me.

The question is motive but as we've seen some people are just ruthless and will kill for no apparent reason. Now this is speculation on my part. But why were the pictures of her injuries not allowed in court? Is this true or did the jury see the photos.

I haven't been keeping up with this case anymore but the last I read about Darlie's defensive wounds (dark purple bruising covering a large part of her arms, among other things) it was said that there were thousands of photos, all were admitted into evidence, but there were so many that the jury didn't take the time to go through all of them.

One of my concerns was that the photos used by the prosecution actually show severe bruising that look like Darlie had had her wrists restrained by a person's hands and that someone beat her arms until they were so purple they were nearly black. It takes a great amount of trauma to cause such deep bruising.

People who say Darlie is guilty claim that the prosecution's photos were obtained by Darlie's sympathizers after the trial, were photoshopped to make the bruising look much worse than it was, then were uploaded to the pro-Darlie website to make it look like she's been attacked when she hadn't.

Who knows what to believe, with all this crazy information being circulated online. IMO, there were WAY too many mistakes in her original trial and she deserves another trial where the Bleach Blonde Rowlett Police Officer's hair found at the scene is not admitted into court evidence as proof that Darlie poked her head through a sliced window screen.... plus a whole bunch of other stuff.

I'm still waiting on the results of the DNA tests they allegedly performed earlier this year.

I haven't been keeping up with this case anymore but the last I read about Darlie's defensive wounds (dark purple bruising covering a large part of her arms, among other things) it was said that there were thousands of photos, all were admitted into evidence, but there were so many that the jury didn't take the time to go through all of them.

One of my concerns was that the photos used by the prosecution actually show severe bruising that look like Darlie had had her wrists restrained by a person's hands and that someone beat her arms until they were so purple they were nearly black. It takes a great amount of trauma to cause such deep bruising.

People who say Darlie is guilty claim that the prosecution's photos were obtained by Darlie's sympathizers after the trial, were photoshopped to make the bruising look much worse than it was, then were uploaded to the pro-Darlie website to make it look like she's been attacked when she hadn't.

Who knows what to believe, with all this crazy information being circulated online. IMO, there were WAY too many mistakes in her original trial and she deserves another trial where the Bleach Blonde Rowlett Police Officer's hair found at the scene is not admitted into court evidence as proof that Darlie poked her head through a sliced window screen.... plus a whole bunch of other stuff.
I agree. Good post. I don't want to give people the idea that I think she's innocent. I just have doubts.

The thing that bothers me about this case is that she appears to have injuries that could be defensive wounds from a struggle. I'd imagine the boys couldn't resist an attacker with as much effort as she could have since she is a grown adult. This makes some sense to me.

The question is motive but as we've seen some people are just ruthless and will kill for no apparent reason. Now this is speculation on my part. But why were the pictures of her injuries not allowed in court? Is this true or did the jury see the photos.


It just doesnt add up regardless of her wounds. She claimed she was sleeping downstairs because the baby's crying would keep her up but she slept while her sons were brutally murdered a couple feet from her. Attacking two small children who are not much of a physical threat before going after the adult sleeping three feet away is nonsensical especially when coupled with the fact that the murder weapon came from the kitchen.

Although I have no doubt she is guilty, it is obvious that anyone accused of murdering a child is going to have a hard time getting any public support regardless of the evidence.

The 80's and 90's where the witchhunt days for child abusers. Some of the accused were innocent, like Patricia Stallings for example. They went after her aggressively when her son Ryan became ill and eventually died. Eventually, they found he died from a metabolic disorder and wasn't poisoned but the damage was already done to the Stallings family. That is sort of how I feel about the Routier case. To me, Darlie's case seems to be on both sides of the fence than to say she's either 100% guilty or 100% innocent. Courts in today's world don't care about truth or what is right, they just want to win cases and get the money. If they can prove she is innocent, great. If they can't prove innocence with 100% certainty, then she belongs in prison. I can't wait to find out the results of the recent DNA tests, I want to know the truth, right or wrong.

Courts in today's world don't care about truth or what is right


That is one thing that irks me about many prosecuting attorneys. They look at getting a conviction is just another step at advancing their career and reputation and are willing to act unethically to get a conviction. You see it all the time when convictions are overturned. It seems that unethical behavior is common and the idea of justice is lost.
Im not saying that Darlie Routier is a victim of misconduct but there is no doubt that a case as publicized as hers can put a lot of pressure on a prosecutor to get a conviction.

Courts in today's world don't care about truth or what is right, they just want to win cases and get the money.

I find that statement immensely reactionary, and moreover, simply untrue.

"Courts" do not receive compensation; attorneys do. Some lawyers are motivated largely by compensation, but again, so are others in just about every profession. It's akin to claiming ALL police officers aren't concerned with enforcing the law; they just want to shake people down and take bribes.

That is one thing that irks me about many prosecuting attorneys. They look at getting a conviction is just another step at advancing their career and reputation and are willing to act unethically to get a conviction. You see it all the time when convictions are overturned.

That is presupposing all convictions are overturned because the convicts are innocent--which isn't always the case.


The sweeping generalizations are a little tiresome.

I find that statement immensely reactionary, and moreover, simply untrue.

"Courts" do not receive compensation; attorneys do. Some lawyers are motivated largely by compensation, but again, so are others in just about every profession. It's akin to claiming ALL police officers aren't concerned with enforcing the law; they just want to shake people down and take bribes.

That's who I meant.

I think she's guilty as sin.


But I think she got railroaded at trial.That's about what I feel. I mean, the prosecution's case is nowhere near as flimsy as, say, in Tommy Ziegler's case but it's not as strong as it could be given how shoddy the defense's case is. They should have done a more competent job than they did.

She won't get executed, though. I'm fairly certain of that.

However, I have always had my suspicions that Darin Routier might have been involved somehow, so this case may not be 100 % closed. I was quite surprised when Darin divorced Darlie a few months ago, as she might be less inclined to stay silent and cover for him if he had anything to do with it. It will be interesting to see if her execution comes close to actually happening, as I could see her suddenly "remembering" something that implicates Darin.
I also have always felt that the husband Darin was somehow involved. There is no doubt that someone in the house committed the murders since knife #4 from the kitchen block had a fiber from the screen on it. Darin is a weirdo. At the hospital (right after the murders) he is talking to police about how large Darlie's breasts are and how hot she is. He never once inquires about his dead children or his injured wife. The guy is just strange. Another thing that nags at me is all of Darlie's defensive wounds and bruises on her arms and wrists. How could she have done that to herself? I may be wrong, but I think Darin might be the actual assailant and Darlie has been brain-washed to cover for him since she seems like a weak minded weirdo herself.

I also have always felt that the husband Darin was somehow involved. There is no doubt that someone in the house committed the murders since knife #4 from the kitchen block had a fiber from the screen on it. Darin is a weirdo. At the hospital (right after the murders) he is talking to police about how large Darlie's breasts are and how hot she is. He never once inquires about his dead children or his injured wife. The guy is just strange. Another thing that nags at me is all of Darlie's defensive wounds and bruises on her arms and wrists. How could she have done that to herself? I may be wrong, but I think Darin might be the actual assailant and Darlie has been brain-washed to cover for him since she seems like a weak minded weirdo herself.

I've never been able to accept the "Darin did it" theory in this case. For one, from the get-go Darlie said she was attacked by an unknown man. How long would Darin have had to "brainwash" her after the attacks to the 911 call? A minute or two, if not seconds. Plus Darlie said that Darin was upstairs with their infant son sleeping and that she was downstairs with the boys. Darin was also the one who tried to revive one of the boys, IIRC. Never got the vibe that he had anything to do with it.

I've consistently been put off by Darin whenever I've seen him in interviews--I think his demeanor is always strange--but I also think he had nothing to do with it. Never have.

I've consistently been put off by Darin whenever I've seen him in interviews--I think his demeanor is always strange--but I also think he had nothing to do with it. Never have.

Yes his arrogant "good ole boy" demeanor always got on my nerves.

There isn't much of a scenario of them both being involved and everything ending up like that which makes a lot of sense when you consider how the crime scene was found. The two would have had plenty of time to make a better trail for an intruder than that because they would have had more time to stage everything.

That leads me to believe that it was one person working in a tight timeline doing whatever they could to throw suspicion off of themselves.

I've never been able to accept the "Darin did it" theory in this case. For one, from the get-go Darlie said she was attacked by an unknown man. How long would Darin have had to "brainwash" her after the attacks to the 911 call? A minute or two, if not seconds. Plus Darlie said that Darin was upstairs with their infant son sleeping and that she was downstairs with the boys. Darin was also the one who tried to revive one of the boys, IIRC. Never got the vibe that he had anything to do with it.
Okay. I 100% believe that someone in the house committed the murders, but what is the explanation for Darlie's defensive wounds and bruises on her arms, fore arms, and wrists? How could they possibly be self inflicted?

Okay. I 100% believe that someone in the house committed the murders, but what is the explanation for Darlie's defensive wounds and bruises on her arms, fore arms, and wrists? How could they possibly be self inflicted?

Her wounds were described as "hesitation wounds", which means someone hesitated before cutting her. The only person who would hesitate before inflicting harm on Darlie is Darlie herself.

Her wounds were described as "hesitation wounds", which means someone hesitated before cutting her. The only person who would hesitate before inflicting harm on Darlie is Darlie herself.
I wasn't referring to her cuts. I was referring to the big, black and blue bruises on her arms, forearms and wrists. They are on both of her arms.

I wasn't referring to her cuts. I was referring to the big, black and blue bruises on her arms, forearms and wrists. They are on both of her arms.

The doctor who examined her on the night of her sons murders testified that he did not see any bruising on her arms or legs.

http://lubbockonline.com/news/010997/doctor.htm

And Darlie was told repeatedly to grab towels and apply pressure to her son (the one who was still barely alive at that point) but she just stood their blank faced.

ETA: The Darlie is innocent crowd are quick to point out her "life threatening" injuries. But in reading over some overviews of the case, everyone involved agrees that Darlie stood around AFTER the police and paramedics arrived and actually talked to investigators outside after her boys were taken to the hospital. Had her injuries been life threatening, she would have been taken to the hospital immediately.

The doctor who examined her on the night of her sons murders testified that he did not see any bruising on her arms or legs.

http://lubbockonline.com/news/010997/doctor.htm

And Darlie was told repeatedly to grab towels and apply pressure to her son (the one who was still barely alive at that point) but she just stood their blank faced.

ETA: The Darlie is innocent crowd are quick to point out her "life threatening" injuries. But in reading over some overviews of the case, everyone involved agrees that Darlie stood around AFTER the police and paramedics arrived and actually talked to investigators outside after her boys were taken to the hospital. Had her injuries been life threatening, she would have been taken to the hospital immediately.
To me, it looks like she did have quite a bit of bruising. But I do agree that Darlie is a weirdo and I have no doubt that she was/is a lousy person.

I have to. Say to me darlie does not. Appear to me to act like an innocent woman.

Like some one said earlier how. Could she not. Have made enough noise to draw the attention of her husband. Your two sons who you created and raised are being stabbed, I don't buy she was sleeping through that! When u have kids the slightest noise alerts you to what mischief they are up to.2 kids being stabbed 8 times between the two surely would aroused you. If the bruise marks shown on her wrists indicating that she was pinned down then her mouth was not covered unless this man had 3 hands. I would have clawed the hell. Out of him and correctly said knocked his cap off.

She chased this "killer" not screaming for help from her husband or even shouting abuse I.e "you f*** b******" the killer who has a knife is trying to escape a woman he just sliced through the neck? I some how think he would have turned around and finished the job.

The clean up operation? When did the killer do this? Just for the record? He must have stabbed the kids and then her then went to the sink and cleaned it for her blood to be there. A man who just killed 3 people I.wouldn't think would hang around. Why clean there blood? It was all over the house? Why clean the weapon? It makes no.sence. What does is that she slit her neck over the sink and attempted to.clean it up. So her testimoni. Said she chased the killer through the kitchen nothing was mentioned about him cleaning up.

The fact that she never asked the operator to give everyone her help on her dying child speaks volumes being a mother myself. I would be begging for help on how to save then over describing my attacker. Kids lives are priority. Expesisly the fact that she was told to apply pressure to her sons wounds and ignored this to tend to her own. That is not normal parenting. If she wanted her kids alive she should have made more of an effort go.save them.

The sock if worn by an attacker surely would have some scrap lf dna, how could it not? How could there be not a single shred of evidence?

Darlie is guilty 100% I've read a lot about her and not a single thing has even tilted me to think she is innocent.
I belive she did this to get sympathy which it has. She never acted like a mother during or after the attack so I can truly believe she could kill her own kids in cold blood.

I haven't read up on the case in while and the main thread is very long.

Off the top of your head (not necessary to research if you don't feel like it), does anyone recall Darin's state of dress during these attacks?

It seems I remember reading that he was asleep upstairs with the youngest child, a baby, and Darlie was asleep downstairs with the two older boys.

During the attacks, she screamed for Darin to wake up and come save them. He came downstairs fully dressed - Jeans, shirt, glasses, etc, and maybe even shoes?

Is this right? Am I remembering that correctly?

I haven't read up on the case in while and the main thread is very long.

Off the top of your head (not necessary to research if you don't feel like it), does anyone recall Darin's state of dress during these attacks?

It seems I remember reading that he was asleep upstairs with the youngest child, a baby, and Darlie was asleep downstairs with the two older boys.

During the attacks, she screamed for Darin to wake up and come save them. He came downstairs fully dressed - Jeans, shirt, glasses, etc, and maybe even shoes?

Is this right? Am I remembering that correctly?
The reenactment had him coming down the stairs appearing fully dressed, IIRC, glasses and all. Not sure how accurate that is compared to the real events, though.

About this case...I try so hard NOT to look at Darlie's personality and just at the evidence we are presented, but I can't help taking note of her strange demeanor. Certainly, we all grieve differently. We all have different reactions. But my question is, has anyone ever heard her profess anger/desire to see ''the real killer'' apprehended? Or sorrow for the two boys? Her interview just seemed so strange to me, and I know of course we're only seeing portions of it, but I just get a weird vibe here.

I haven't read up on the case in while and the main thread is very long.

Off the top of your head (not necessary to research if you don't feel like it), does anyone recall Darin's state of dress during these attacks?

It seems I remember reading that he was asleep upstairs with the youngest child, a baby, and Darlie was asleep downstairs with the two older boys.

During the attacks, she screamed for Darin to wake up and come save them. He came downstairs fully dressed - Jeans, shirt, glasses, etc, and maybe even shoes?

Is this right? Am I remembering that correctly?

I thought Darin ran down wearing a t-shirt and jeans, IIRC. And yes he was upstairs with the youngest boy while Darlie slept downstairs with the two older boys.

As for Darlie's bruises, there was testimony at her trial that those pictures taken of her (the ones with the bruises on her arms and legs) were taken four days after the murders. No one at the hospital recorded any such bruises when she was taken there later that night.

1. Blond wig hair was found at the crime scene, Darlies hair was natural and she wore no wigs. No wigs were even found in the house

2. Unidentified foot prints were found

3 Unidentified blood was found

4. A sock or some type of clothing with one of childs blood was found blocks away

5. A rumor floating around says police framed Darlie due to the real killer being linked to someone higher up in the department possibly the Chief of Police or in the Sheriffs office

6. http://darliefacts.com/evidence/

That's definitely a good rumor. A person who randomly struck a house to kill two kids and strike a mother once and then never attack anyone again with his hunger to kill two random children finally satiated after years of hunger for blood. Does that seem worth covering up to you? Or do you really believe the police would throw an innocent mother into jail to protect a man who stabbed two children to death? That every police officer would conspire to protect this person?

Is it just me or is it always when there are no viable suspects in a case that it always has to be a crooked cop that apparently every other cop is fine with covering for because hey murdering kids is okay! How often does this actually happen?

Give me an actual name or description of a possible suspect and I'll consider it. Not phantoms from 80s cop movies. This is my biggest problem with the case and you'd figure after so many years they'd have a stronger idea than vague maybes.

I think she needs to rely on all the Un identified blood? Everyone linked to case was tested including Darlie? So if she is guilty who the hell does that blood that was found belong too?

And why is the prosecution fighting to not have it tested?

Nobody wants to answer these questions

I think she needs to rely on all the Un identified blood? Everyone linked to case was tested including Darlie? So if she is guilty who the hell does that blood that was found belong too?

And why is the prosecution fighting to not have it tested?

Nobody wants to answer these questions

"Unidentified blood" does not automatically mean that there was an intruder. The blood could have been contaminated, degraded, etc. to produce an "unidentified" result. The prosecution does not want to waste time and money on a test when they already have the right person behind bars. There's a very huge possibility that if they did retest the blood it would come back as had coming from Darlie or one of her two children. Not to mention Darlie never said she struck the attacker in any way, shape, or form so just how would the attacker have bled at the scene?

The one question no Darlie supporter wants to answer is why was her DNA found on the inside of the sock that was found in the alley behind their house? And another question they fail to answer: the Routier's backyard had a gate that was broken, and it was wrapped with wire to keep it shut...the police found the fence and gate undisturbed and the wire was still in place, so how in the world did the "intruder" get out of the backyard?

While things do tend to point to her guilt more than her innocence, wouldn't it be horrific if she didn't do it and she's in jail for these deaths? Not only did she lose her boys, she lost her freedom.

While things do tend to point to her guilt more than her innocence, wouldn't it be horrific if she didn't do it and she's in jail for these deaths? Not only did she lose her boys, she lost her freedom.


I thought she was innocent when they said a guy was going through houses in the same manner.

ETA: The Darlie is innocent crowd are quick to point out her "life threatening" injuries. But in reading over some overviews of the case, everyone involved agrees that Darlie stood around AFTER the police and paramedics arrived and actually talked to investigators outside after her boys were taken to the hospital. Had her injuries been life threatening, she would have been taken to the hospital immediately.

In terms of life-threatening injuries, I thought Routier did sustain a slash wound that came within two millimeters of her carotid artery. I never did ascertain whether that was substantiated by exam documentation. Regardless, I will be quick to add that she is not a healthcare professional, nor does she have any specialized knowledge of human anatomy, by all accounts.

I think that the location and angle of that slash wound makes it appear more self-inflicted than anything else. Is Routier right-handed?

There is also a world of difference between the violent stabbing the boys endured and died from, and the slash wounds and bruising Routier was treated for.

Reminds me of another case in which the adult sustained largely superficial and survivable wounds and the children were quite frankly butchered.

I thought she was innocent when they said a guy was going through houses in the same manner.Which guy was this?

Are you talking about Sammie Luckas Cook? Because you might want to read this post:

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=4658780&postcount=43

Yes, there was a rapist operating around the time of the Routier murders. His name is Sammie Luckas Cook, Jr., and he was convicted of five rapes in Dallas. The defense mentioned him in their Writ of Habeus Corpus as a potential suspect that was never investigated by the police. During the assaults, Cook attempted to conceal his fingerprints by wearing a tube sock around his hand; sometimes he would use the sock as a gag. The defense believed there might be a connection to the tube sock found on the sidewalk, several houses down. However, Cook’s modus operandi was significantly different from what occurred at the Routier crime scene.

Cook began his crime spree in December of 1995. He raped only in the city of Dallas, miles away from the Routier home. He targeted only apartment complexes, not detached homes. Cook would break into an apartment, and obtain any objects that could be used as a potential weapon (i.e., knife, scissors, fork). He would always rob his victims and sexual assault them. In one case, he held a fork to a child in order to subdue the female adult victim into acquiescing to his demands. He never stabbed the child though, or any of his other victims, and he was always loud during the attacks to appear threatening. Sometimes Cook wore a condom, but there were times that he did not, and his DNA was eventually able to connect him to the rapes. Lastly, Cook is African-American, while Darlie claimed that the intruder was a Caucasian male (later she claimed not to remember what he looked like at all). By the time Darlie was on trial, Cook had already been caught and arrested.If that's who you're talking about then I don't know what to tell you. There was no one in the area going through houses in the way the Routier home was found. So basically this mystery person struck a random home to kill two children and wound a mother then never struck in the area again.

This case bares resemable to Jeff McDonald for several reasons.

While it may be true that the boys suffered more extensive wounds than Darlie (and in that same manner, Jeff McDonald's children suffered more wounds then he did), it's important to note that adults are more likely to put up a fight to fend off their attacker then children. I think it's entirely possible Darlie put up more resistance than the attacker was expecting and he/she/them decided to flee, which would explain why Darlie wasn't killed.

I recorded an American Justice episode on this case. I need to watch it again, I'm sure it's got some stuff the UM segment didn't.

In terms of life-threatening injuries, I thought Routier did sustain a slash wound that came within two millimeters of her carotid artery. I never did ascertain whether that was substantiated by exam documentation. Regardless, I will be quick to add that she is not a healthcare professional, nor does she have any specialized knowledge of human anatomy, by all accounts.

I believe this was something created by her mother. Her mother claims that a doctor told her that the distance between the slash wound and her artery was "paper thin". There was testimony at her trial that said her wounds were superficial, and that the cut on her neck did not penetrate any muscle, only skin and fat.

As for her bruises on her arms, nobody finds it odd that there is massive swelling and bruising on the inside of her arms, yet no damage or bruising on her face?! Wouldn't the attacker want to strike Darlie somewhere near or around the head instead of the inside of her left arm? Makes no sense to me.

ETA: I watched some program on the forbidden site about Darlie, and when Darlie was brought in for questioning the investigator started to accuse her of murdering her sons the first thing out of her mouth was, "well if I did it I don't remember".

ETA: I watched some program on the forbidden site about Darlie, and when Darlie was brought in for questioning the investigator started to accuse her of murdering her sons the first thing out of her mouth was, "well if I did it I don't remember".
I saw that too. I find it hard to believe that any innocent person would say something like that. However, I also find it hard to believe that Darin wasn't somehow involved. That bloody sock that was found in the alley had a fiber on it that matched Darin's tennis shoes.

If I were on the jury I would not have convicted. My guts says she's guilty but I would need something pretty concrete and irrefutable in order to send someone to prison. Or in the case of Texas, send them to death.

As for the slash wound... Perhaps the mother is remembering what she would want to remember in order to exonerate her daughter. Memory is not a recording, it is interpretation.

That said, it wouldn't take much of a throat slash to come very close to the carotid or jugular and what could reasonably called "paper close" and at the same time be rather superficial. There's a lot of real important stuff and not much room in the neck.

As a medic I was trained to perform cricothyrotomy which is an emergency airway procedure to gain access to the airway via a small incision in the neck. I have never had to perform one in combat but I have done supportive care of an Iraqi that had to have one performed. It would be pretty easy to pinch the outer layers of skin/fat on the neck and slash it well out of the way of any major blood vessels but still leave a rather nasty injury.

In short, I think it is conceivable that all these wounds are self inflicted. But without anything concrete tying her to the murders I could not say beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty though I believe she did commit the crime.

It would be pretty easy to pinch the outer layers of skin/fat on the neck and slash it well out of the way of any major blood vessels but still leave a rather nasty injury.

That is something that crossed my mind as well.

I saw that too. I find it hard to believe that any innocent person would say something like that. However, I also find it hard to believe that Darin wasn't somehow involved. That bloody sock that was found in the alley had a fiber on it that matched Darin's tennis shoes.

The only thing I think Darin is guilty of is being delusional. He definitely does not come across as a grieving father in most of his interviews, and seems more concerned with clearing Darlie rather than catching the real killers. Darlie does the same thing in jailhouse interviews. She constantly wants to prove that she's innocent, but makes no mention of finding the real killer.

Regarding Darlie's neck wound, it is commonly reported that the knife cut necked the sheath of her carotid artery and was 2mm away from the artery itself. Ironically, the knife missing the artery actually harms Darlie's case, and not helps it.

Why? Because when the the neck is raised and pulled back, the carotid artery retreats into the neck as the sternomastoid muscles come over the artery bundle. As a result, the carotid artery will remain intact and a loss of blood is reduced.

When examining a deceased individual with a cut throat, medical examiners will study the carotid artery to determine whether it has been cut or not. This is helpful in determining the final manner of death (homicide or suicide). When neck wounds are self-inflicted, the individuals will typically raise their necks back and unwittingly avoid cutting their cartoid artery. These type of wounds are usually "neater" in appearances. When neck wounds are inflicted by a perpetrator, the skin around the neck is loose, not taut, and the cut is messier as the victim and perpetrator struggle. This will usually result in the carotid artery being cut, as the sternomastoid muscle cannot protect it (Essential Forensic Biology, Alan Gunn, 2011).

Since it is doubtful that Darlie would have willingly extended her neck back for the killer to cut her throat, her carotid artery should have been cut deeply. The fact that it wasn't is another possible (although not definite) sign that her neck wound was self-inflicted.

Regarding Darlie's neck wound, it is commonly reported that the knife cut necked the sheath of her carotid artery and was 2mm away from the artery itself. Ironically, the knife missing the artery actually harms Darlie's case, and not helps it.

Why? Because when the the neck is raised and pulled back, the carotid artery retreats into the neck as the sternomastoid muscles come over the artery bundle. As a result, the carotid artery will remain intact and a loss of blood is reduced.

When examining a deceased individual with a cut throat, medical examiners will study the carotid artery to determine whether it has been cut or not. This is helpful in determining the final manner of death (homicide or suicide). When neck wounds are self-inflicted, the individuals will typically raise their necks back and unwittingly avoid cutting their cartoid artery. These type of wounds are usually "neater" in appearances. When neck wounds are inflicted by a perpetrator, the skin around the neck is loose, not taut, and the cut is messier as the victim and perpetrator struggle. This will usually result in the carotid artery being cut, as the sternomastoid muscle cannot protect it (Essential Forensic Biology, Alan Gunn, 2011).

Since it is doubtful that Darlie would have willingly extended her neck back for the killer to cut her throat, her carotid artery should have been cut deeply. The fact that it wasn't is another possible (although not definite) sign that her neck wound was self-inflicted.

This is an excellent point. Glad you brought it up, and it makes perfect sense why the artery was missed now. Thanks! :thumbsup:

Regarding Darlie's neck wound, it is commonly reported that the knife cut necked the sheath of her carotid artery and was 2mm away from the artery itself. Ironically, the knife missing the artery actually harms Darlie's case, and not helps it.

Why? Because when the the neck is raised and pulled back, the carotid artery retreats into the neck as the sternomastoid muscles come over the artery bundle. As a result, the carotid artery will remain intact and a loss of blood is reduced.

When examining a deceased individual with a cut throat, medical examiners will study the carotid artery to determine whether it has been cut or not. This is helpful in determining the final manner of death (homicide or suicide). When neck wounds are self-inflicted, the individuals will typically raise their necks back and unwittingly avoid cutting their cartoid artery. These type of wounds are usually "neater" in appearances. When neck wounds are inflicted by a perpetrator, the skin around the neck is loose, not taut, and the cut is messier as the victim and perpetrator struggle. This will usually result in the carotid artery being cut, as the sternomastoid muscle cannot protect it (Essential Forensic Biology, Alan Gunn, 2011).

Since it is doubtful that Darlie would have willingly extended her neck back for the killer to cut her throat, her carotid artery should have been cut deeply. The fact that it wasn't is another possible (although not definite) sign that her neck wound was self-inflicted.

Nice! Great post. I was totally unaware of the "retreating" carotid until now but it makes perfect sense why that mechanism exists in the context of survival. In any event, it definitely doesn't seem to help her case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

maybe she planned to kill all three children but Darin took Drake to bed with her and she lost that oppertunity.

Yes I find it hard to understand why the bruises are on her arms and none on her face. I believe the 'killer' would of finished Darlie off because he doesnt need a witness, some one who can give out a discription of him. It doesnt make sence. In a panic would you slash or stab? Is stabbing not more fatal than slashing? The info about the atery is a very valid one, thanks for the info. Again another reason to point to guilty.

I also didnt know about the gate being tied with wires shut, another relavent point.

Begging to be free also makes her look shifty. I would expect and innocent mother to be begging for the killer to be caught. She not a normal mother.


"well if I did it I don't remember". <---- no normal mother would say that!!!!

She's GUILTY!

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

I must have watched a different one because I don't remember the program I watched make any mention of that. There was no evidence of an intruder in the house, according to investigators. The one investigator said that there was blood just about everywhere in the house and that if there was an intruder he would have left boot or shoe prints all through the kitchen, the garage, and some evidence outside of the residence. The program also said that one of the knives found in the kitchen block had threads which matched the slashed screen. Unless the intruder stole the Routier's knife beforehand, and then used it to slit the screen, and then put it back in the block there is no way that Darlie didn't cut the screen herself.

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

Another female juror said the silly string didn't get her convicted, but rather her demeanor. Darin and Darlie did not come off good on the stand (according to both the defense and prosecution), and this helped convict Darlie, IMO. The defense were the ones who did not admit the surveillance footage, and it was not blocked or challenged by the prosecution or the judge. They could have admitted it into evidence but they chose not to.

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

Darin allegedly walked up to one of the officers at the hospital and kept saying how hot his wife looked, and kept complimenting her breasts. This was mere hours after both of his children were murdered.

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

Now this I agree with. The errors are just ridiculous. I do think that the court reporter had a bias towards Darlie which would account for the errors. But the reporter was fired shortly after the errors were discovered. I still don't think this has any bearing on Darlie's guilt or innocence though.

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

The show that I watched came up with a motive that I'd never heard before. It was "spousal revenge" or something like that. Basically the theory was that Darlie was frustrated with Darin because they were losing money, Darlie didn't have a car and she was stuck at home with the children all the time, she may have had PPD after having Drake, and that she and Darin began to argue over money. So the best way to get back at Darin (in her mind) was to kill his children. I think she murdered them in some sort of frenzy, and after she realized what she did she went around and staged the scene and then slashed her neck.

Oh God, I just accidentally stumbled upon crime scene photos. Wasn't quite ready for that.

I read most of the transcript of the 911 call. Darlie keeps telling the 911 operator about her babies. Someone stabbed her babies. She refers to them a lot more than herself, even though she was also injured. This is really something. I think her motherly instincts were kicking in and she was more concerned about them than herself.

The responding officer kept telling Darlie to get down on the floor and apply pressure to Damon's wounds because he was still alive. He testified at her trial that she ignored his repeated requests and stood there applying pressure to her neck wound.

Regarding Darlie's neck wound, it is commonly reported that the knife cut necked the sheath of her carotid artery and was 2mm away from the artery itself. Ironically, the knife missing the artery actually harms Darlie's case, and not helps it.

Why? Because when the the neck is raised and pulled back, the carotid artery retreats into the neck as the sternomastoid muscles come over the artery bundle. As a result, the carotid artery will remain intact and a loss of blood is reduced.

When examining a deceased individual with a cut throat, medical examiners will study the carotid artery to determine whether it has been cut or not. This is helpful in determining the final manner of death (homicide or suicide). When neck wounds are self-inflicted, the individuals will typically raise their necks back and unwittingly avoid cutting their cartoid artery. These type of wounds are usually "neater" in appearances. When neck wounds are inflicted by a perpetrator, the skin around the neck is loose, not taut, and the cut is messier as the victim and perpetrator struggle. This will usually result in the carotid artery being cut, as the sternomastoid muscle cannot protect it (Essential Forensic Biology, Alan Gunn, 2011).

Since it is doubtful that Darlie would have willingly extended her neck back for the killer to cut her throat, her carotid artery should have been cut deeply. The fact that it wasn't is another possible (although not definite) sign that her neck wound was self-inflicted.

I won't argue too much with any of that since you know more about anatomy than I do. But, it does seem to me unlikely that Darlie would take such a risk. I mean, if she miscalculates (even by a few millimeters) or has an involuntary flick of the wrist or something, she's a dead woman.

I recently recorded and watched yet another program on this case. This one was "On Death Row" and it is/was written and directed by Werner Herzog. I'm not a film buff, but apparently he's a big deal in the industry, especially in his native Germany. This is another show where information on the net is pretty scarce. ID felt the need to interject bumpers with Paula Zahn, which were widely panned by viewers. The episode dates from 2011 I believe.

In any event, here are some interesting details that caught my eye.

-There was some evidence that Darlie's jewelry (of which she had quite a few pieces) was rifled through.

-15 years later, Darlie still has several large and noticeable scars, including the one on her neck.

-Everything I've seen out of Darlie indicates to me she loved her children. She lights up when bringing up fond memories of them. She said her first wish, if she got out, would be to have this great reunion with Drake (the unharmed son). Darlie had planned suicide some time before the murders and in the note she wrote to her 3 sons: "I love you more than anything. Please don't think of this as your fault." IMO, that makes her better than say, Gale Delano, who couldn't even be bothered to inform her children that she committed suicide.

-Some of the first responders and investigators formed their opinion that "Darlie did it" in the first few SECONDS they arrived on the scene. Not days, hours, or even minutes. SECONDS. Even more disturbing, one of the first responders felt that Darlie was involved because Darrin came out of the house and he told Darrin (thinking he might be the intruder/attacker) to stay put. As it turns out, Darrin was going over to a neighbor's house, who was a nurse and he thought she might be able to provide help. Why the first responder felt Darlie was guilty based on this, I'll never know but it's obvious that tunnel vision formed at the very outset of this case.

-The importance of the infamous silly string video cannot be understated. The jury watched it 9 times in deliberations. It was stated that after the trial was over, that was all you ever heard about was the silly string video. It was what got her convicted. I mentioned this before, but on the AJ episode, the prosecutors conveniently left out film footage from the very same day that showed a very emotional Darlie grieving at the very same location. The jury, of course, didn't see that. The prosecution picked and chose what they wanted to be shown.

Now, aside from the program, one thing that has never been explained to me is if Darlie wanted to kill her children, then why was Drake, you know, UNHARMED?! And Darlie knew he was upstairs sleeping with Darrin and it would be virtually impossible she could kill him without waking Darrin. That don't make a no sense. And if Darlie did plan to kill her children, would she do in a place where Darrin could easily stumble upon the scene? I'm sorry, but like a lead balloon, that just doesn't fly.

At this point, I feel there is way too much doubt to give Darlie the death penalty.

Drake Routier suffered through Leukemia recently, but it looks like he's recovering nicely. Poor guy, hasn't he suffered enough?

-There was some evidence that Darlie's jewelry (of which she had quite a few pieces) was rifled through.

I've never heard of this before, but it's still possible that this was either claimed by Darlie or committed by Darlie herself.

-15 years later, Darlie still has several large and noticeable scars, including the one on her neck.

They were horrible wounds, but testimony at her trial said that the wounds were self inflicted.

-Everything I've seen out of Darlie indicates to me she loved her children. She lights up when bringing up fond memories of them. She said her first wish, if she got out, would be to have this great reunion with Drake (the unharmed son). Darlie had planned suicide some time before the murders and in the note she wrote to her 3 sons: "I love you more than anything. Please don't think of this as your fault." IMO, that makes her better than say, Gale Delano, who couldn't even be bothered to inform her children that she committed suicide.

Except Gale Delano didn't murder her children.

-Some of the first responders and investigators formed their opinion that "Darlie did it" in the first few SECONDS they arrived on the scene. Not days, hours, or even minutes. SECONDS. Even more disturbing, one of the first responders felt that Darlie was involved because Darrin came out of the house and he told Darrin (thinking he might be the intruder/attacker) to stay put. As it turns out, Darrin was going over to a neighbor's house, who was a nurse and he thought she might be able to provide help. Why the first responder felt Darlie was guilty based on this, I'll never know but it's obvious that tunnel vision formed at the very outset of this case.

The first responders have probably seen several crime scenes before, and I'm sure domestic disputes have produced more carnage that the one Darlie alleged. The absence of any evidence of an intruder also probably made them suspicious, coupled with the way Darlie was acting at the scene. She mentioned that she touched the knife and that her prints might be on them, all the while her children were on the floor dying.

-The importance of the infamous silly string video cannot be understated. The jury watched it 9 times in deliberations. It was stated that after the trial was over, that was all you ever heard about was the silly string video. It was what got her convicted. I mentioned this before, but on the AJ episode, the prosecutors conveniently left out film footage from the very same day that showed a very emotional Darlie grieving at the very same location. The jury, of course, didn't see that. The prosecution picked and chose what they wanted to be shown.

The defense, not the prosecution, decided not to admit the surveillance video showing Darlie prior to the silly string incident. That's on Darlie's defense team, not the prosecution. And it's irrelevant either way. There is no evidence that has surfaced over the years that shows any hint of an intruder, or a reason as to why a guy would break into a house and murder two small children.

Now, aside from the program, one thing that has never been explained to me is if Darlie wanted to kill her children, then why was Drake, you know, UNHARMED?! And Darlie knew he was upstairs sleeping with Darrin and it would be virtually impossible she could kill him without waking Darrin. That don't make a no sense. And if Darlie did plan to kill her children, would she do in a place where Darrin could easily stumble upon the scene? I'm sorry, but like a lead balloon, that just doesn't fly.

Drake was upstairs asleep with Darrin, meaning she would have had to have gone into the bedroom to murder Drake while Darrin was in earshot. That's why Drake was spared. The Routier house was big, so there's no way in knowing how possible it would have been for Darrin to have heard what was going on downstairs with his relation to where the bedroom was located. The real lead balloon that doesn't fly is why an unarmed intruder would break into a house, motive unknown, and decide to murder two small children using a weapon from the Routier residence, as well as a sock from the laundry room to conceal prints. This "intruder" had no way of knowing if Darrin was in the house, if he was armed, and if he was awake or in a nearby room during this alleged attack. And by Darlie's own account, this "intruder" murdered her two children before deciding to attempt to sexually assault her. :rolleyes:

Stuff like this is what's frustrating about cases like Darlie's. Her defenders keep throwing more and more "suspicious" things out there, hoping that something will stick to help drum up reasonable doubt. It doesn't work that way. Based off of the known evidence, even the more recent evidence (including the police officer's hair, not Darlie's being found in the slashed screen) has yet to show any conclusive proof that these murders were committed by anyone other than Darlie.

If anything the suicide note to me seems to go towards her unstable mind and when you are unstable in the mind you do things. Believe me I'd love to believe that Darlie didn't commit these crimes but the evidence is overwhelming that she did.

I guess the biggest thing that has always bothered me about this case is that like the MacDonald case, it is presented (on the defense side of the house) as an instance of a stranger-intruder coming in to physically harm the victim--whether that be assault, rape, or murder--in which said stranger-intruder fails to bring his or her own weapon. When the assailant is known to the victim and has presumably been in the victim's home, that theory just might hold some water. When the assailant's motive is thought to have been burglary--regardless of whether the assailant was known to the victim or not--I can even accept that, too. But a stranger breaking and entering a home and just hoping that somewhere in the night darkness he or she will be able to find a suitable object to utilize as a weapon is something that has always been very difficult for me to envision.

You can take just about any murder case, even the ones where the murderer is 100% guilty (OJ for example), and use twisted facts and logic to come up with "alternate" suspects and scenarios. They are sometimes farfetched, but people still buy them. Darlie's case is no exception. She claims that a man broke into her house, murdered her two sleeping young children, and then attempted to rape/sexually assault her before trying to murder her as well. And she slept through all of it.

IIRC, the reason the jury saw the silly string video and not the video of the Darlie grieving is because the silly string video was taken by a news crew and the grieving video had been obtained illegally by the authorities so it couldn't be used as evidence.

What makes me believe that Darlie's story is untrue are the following-

How did the killer enter the property? This tube sock that was used by the killer if he in fact did exist was presumably to cover up his prints. Then there should be prints before he found the sock found in the home leading up to before the sock was found.
Now we cant presume that the killer entered through the cut screen because a knife from the kitchen block was used to cut the screen. So it's therefore impossible for a killer on the outside of the home to cut the screen to gain entry as the knife is on the inside in the kitchen.
Another issue I have that centers around the knife, Darlie claims while chasing the intruder he dropped the knife on the kitchen floor. So how did he cut the screen in the garage to escape if he had dropped the knife?

With these three statements in mind that means the killer entered through a different place that the garage, firstly scoured the home for the sock, then went to the kitchen to get the knife, then went into the garage to cut the screen in advance then went back to the room where Darlie and the children were to kill them. I fail to understand that if the killer was wandering around the home for that long that Darlie wouldnt of heard.

Darlie's defense withheld the inclusion of the surveillance video. They could have used it to counter the silly string video, but for whatever reason they didn't.

I just listened to Generation Why's podcast on this case. They laid out the facts of the case (not what was widely believed to have happened).


There is no doubt in my mind that she is guilty.

What I find really strange is her husband and the dog managed to sleep through (or did they????) what had to be a very loud and disturbing bunch of noises.

Also her baby was sleeping in another room. Two of her children are slaughtered and she didn't even ask about the baby...if the baby was okay or not. That would be the first thing on my mind after I knew my two other children were dead. She didn't have to ask about the baby because she KNEW the baby was okay.

What I find really strange is her husband and the dog managed to sleep through (or did they????) what had to be a very loud and disturbing bunch of noises.

Also her baby was sleeping in another room. Two of her children are slaughtered and she didn't even ask about the baby...if the baby was okay or not. That would be the first thing on my mind after I knew my two other children were dead. She didn't have to ask about the baby because she KNEW the baby was okay.

Say what?

To clarify, her husband and the youngest son were sleeping upstairs. They were on a whole other level. I have no doubt Darren would have told her (without her even asking) if anything happened to Drake. Being that she had the emergencies of dealing with her 2 oldest children, not to mention all the injuries to herself, I don't blame her for not immediately asking about Drake. She had enough going on.

Also, Damon was still alive when the paramedics first arrived and was not dead at that point.

I never realized this but 5 people in the household and everyone's name starts with D. Weird.

I never realized this but 5 people in the household and everyone's name starts with D. Weird.

OFF TOPIC

And not such a good idea, imo, even if people think it's cute to do that to their kids.

My mother in law did it with her 5 kids and they all have the same initials too. Talk about a life long headache!

One BIL and SIL had their homeowner's insurance company accidentally insure my house, instead of theirs, for months before the mistake was discovered. Her purchases have shown up on my store credit cards.

Another brother in law married a woman with the same exact name as me. Hubby and I have been denied credit because they thought we were them. I've had my store credit cards frozen for her non-payments. My car payments were deposited into her savings account at our credit union. And their messes have turned up on my credit reports, which are almost impossible to get removed.

We had to move out of town, change banks, close out our credit union accounts, and drop our store credit cards to get away from it all.

I found these assorted and frequent calls to police of suspicious activity near or at the Routier home on the day of or near the day of the murders from another website. I copied them word for word here. It should be noted that some person has responses to all of the calls, but pigeonholes the entire lot by claiming they were "all checked out" (how would they know that?) and states that there's nothing suspicious about any of them because everyone in the neighborhood owned cars, which doesn't come off as very convincing.

Here is the list:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darlie Routier's "defense" at her trial consisted of the following people:

-Sherry Moses: Darlie's aunt. Her testimony was basically her saying how good of a mother Darlie was before the murders, and that she never saw or heard of Darlie feeling depressed. Her testimony was called into question by the prosecution when she admitted that she had talked with Darlie's family members (as well as Darin's aunt who was taking notes throughout the trial) with regards to who and what was testifying. That goes against the Rule of Evidence. Therefore, her testimony was essentially a flop. But she did make a note of how awful Darlie's bruises were (almost a year after the fact), but on cross admitted that she didn't even mention the bruising to a doctor or nurse (the medical staff were tending to the cuts on Darlie) because it "wasn't her place to".

-David Rogers: the clergy who presided over the boy's funerals. His testimony was that Darlie appeared to be grieving as appropriately as any mother would under the circumstances. On cross, he brought up the fact that "Gangsta's Paradise" was the first song selected by Darlie to be played at the funeral. His testimony was somewhat damaged when the prosecution got him to admit that prior to the jury selection, he had visited Darlie once while she was incarcerated. Afterwards, he had seen her upwards of fifty times. The prosecution was trying to hint that Darlie was staging this strong Christian faith and a strong relationship with her pastor, to help play up her innocence more.

-Dana Godfrey: Darlie's neighbor. She testified that Darlie and the boys were doing great prior to the murders. On cross, the prosecution brought up the fact that Darin interrupted her suicide attempt and got her to admit that anyone committing suicide was not "doing great".

-Cara "Jeanie" Byford: Darlie's mother's friend. She had generally testified that there is no set grieving pattern for a mother who lost a child. She also had lost a child, and Darlie reached out to her for help and support. On cross examination, she said that after the murders, she visited Darlie in the hospital and asked what had happened. Darlie told her a man came in and killed her boys and then attacked her, in that order. The prosecution then asked how many times after Darlie left the hospital did she visit with Darlie, and she said about 15 times. Not once did Darlie ever go into more detail about the murders. She never once offered a description of her attacker, or any sort of struggle or chase with this intruder.

-Julie Clark: Darlie's friend. More general testimony about Darlie's actions and emotions after the murders. The prosecution then brought up Darlie's lavish lifestyle (the various vacations they had taken, the new spa in their backyard, the furniture in their house, their 28 foot boat they had) and the fact that the Routier's were facing financial dire straits, coupled with Darlie's stress after Drake being born generally had her in a depressed mood. The prosecution also got her to read Darlie's suicide note out loud addressed to her three children.

-Luann Black: Darlie's aunt. Similar testimony of Darlie's other aunt. Went over the bruises that she noticed in the hospital. The prosecution got her to admit that Darlie never discussed the bruises, or how she got them. Her family just assumed they happened during the attack, but Darlie never offered up an explanation for them.

-Karen Neal: Darlie's neighbor and friend. She testified to Darin running over to her house on the night of the murders, and entering the Routier home to render aid (she was a nurse). She also testified to seeing a dark car with tinted windows parked in front of her house but "angled" towards the Routier house. This was a week before the murders. When she approached the car, it sped off through the neighborhood. On cross she admitted to only seeing the car one time prior to the murders, and at no point after. She also admitted that the Routier's dog was growling, barking, and nipping at the responding officers, and that since the dog recognized her she was able to calm it down. The prosecution presented how implausible it was that the dog would have remained silent if an intruder were definitely in their house.

-Detective Jimmy Patterson: detective assigned to the case. His testimony was him walking through his arrival at the crime scene, and also a mention of another neighbor reporting a small black car being seen in an alley about 2 hours before the murders were called in. The defense called him because they wanted to show a somewhat inept attitude the cops had taken in investigating the case, and preserving the crime scene. He testified that he did not take any notes while he was at the crime scene, and was essentially going off of memory. The defense also brought up the police tapping the Routier's phone lines. After a long day of testimony, Patterson was asked to step down. The next day, he plead the fifth for all further questions.

-Mary Rickels: a lady who said that on the night of the murders, two men had attempted to break into her house. She was up late waiting for her husband to come home, when she heard someone trying to open the front door. Assuming it was her husband, she went to the door and turned on the porch light, and saw two men fleeing from her house. A couple of minutes later, she heard noises coming from one of her windows, and saw the same two men back at her house. She scared them away again by turning on a light, and they never returned. She never called police until a week later, and she claims they seemed uninterested in her story. On cross examination however, she claimed that the "jiggling" noises she heard at the door were "very loud" and went on for several minutes but she sat there and did nothing. It was only when she heard wood splinter that she decided to get up and see what was going on. She also said that one of the men was wearing a knit cap and a jogging suit, and the other man was wearing a cowboy hat, a long sleeved western style shirt, and blue jeans. Neither of the men matched the description Darlie gave of her attacker. After scaring the men off the first time, she went back and continued to watch a horror movie on television, and never once thought it prudent to call the police until a week later. She also admitted to having a stroke, her brother dying, and having three heart attacks shortly before these people showed up at her house trying to break in. It was obvious from her testimony that she was flat out unreliable.

-Sarilda Routier: Darin's mother. She testified about how great a daughter-in-law Darlie was, and attested to Darlie's good overall character. The prosecution didn't cross examine her.

-Darin Routier: His testimony can be found in it's entirety here :http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/59_darin-routier-1.pdf
http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/61_darin-routier-2.pdf

-Officer Chris Frosch: he plead the fifth amendment and didn't testify.

-Dr. Vincent DiMiao: his testimony was that it was his belief that Darlie's wounds were not self inflicted. On cross, the prosecution got him to admit he was hired by Darlie's defense (implying bias), and that he had only examined the photographs of Darlie in making his determinations. He also never conferred with the medical staff that tended to Darlie at the hospital she was taken to. The prosecution also got him to admit that Darlie's wounds could have been self inflicted.

-Dr. Lisa Clayton: defense expert on traumatic amnesia. http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/63_dr-lisa-clayton.pdf

-Andrea Langford was called as a witness, but when it was shown that she was in the courtroom during another witnesses testimony, she was not allowed to testify.

-Lloyd Harrell: defense investigator. His testimony went over the surveillance of the Routier grave site and how the recording of it was illegal in his opinion. He also testified as to how he interpreted the 911 transcript differently than the prosecution. On cross examination, he admitted that he used no software to transcribe the 911 tape and simply had done so by ear. The prosecution also got him to admit to recording a conversation with a state's witness without the witnesses consent, and got him to admit that what he had done was, in his opinion, not illegal.

-Darlie Routier: http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/66_darlie-lynn-routier.pdf

These witnesses were called for Darlie's defense. Not such a strong "defense", when you think about it. The only thing the defense did right, IMO, was to refute the silly string video by showing that the cops had "illegally" been spying on the Routier's at the grave sites of Damon and Devon. There were no witnesses to any intruder, and when the defense put on the lady who claimed to have had an attempted home invasion on the same night as the murders, she fell apart on cross examination. She's guilty as sin, IMO.

I've always believed shes guilty. I realize everyone can go back and forth with reasons they believe she is or isn't. The main reason I've always believed she is guilty is simply a stranger breaking into a house without a weapon, takes a butcher knife from the kitchen, overkills two children, "injuries darlie", then flees the scene. It makes no sense. There's no motive for a stranger to overkill to children. Her 9-11 call is ridiculous too. She talks about forensic evidence (such as fingerprints ect) which I don't know any mother who would talk about that as their small children lay dying.

I've always believed shes guilty. I realize everyone can go back and forth with reasons they believe she is or isn't. The main reason I've always believed she is guilty is simply a stranger breaking into a house without a weapon, takes a butcher knife from the kitchen, overkills two children, "injuries darlie", then flees the scene. It makes no sense. There's no motive for a stranger to overkill to children. Her 9-11 call is ridiculous too. She talks about forensic evidence (such as fingerprints ect) which I don't know any mother who would talk about that as their small children lay dying.

Conversely, there is no motive that I know of for her to kill 2 of her children, but leave another one unharmed.

In regards to the knife, my theory is this: The intruder never intended to use a knife, or any weapon, or kill anyone. I personally think this was a burglary gone bad (evidenced by the ransacked jewelry). He didn't bring a knife because there was no need to. I don't know whether or not he thought the house was empty, but he certainly couldn't have counted on Darlie, Devon and Damon sleeping downstairs (since that wasn't certainly not their usual routine).

The Routier's back yard was fenced in by a wood fence, and the gate in which you entered or exited was secured tightly with a wire strap. Darlie claims the man ran out through the garage, slit the screen, and fled into the backyard. When the police arrived, they found no evidence of the wire strap being disturbed. And the Routier fence was built in such a way that it would be virtually impossible for someone to climb over it. Not to mention had an intruder actually been in the house, he would have been covered in blood. No blood was found in the backyard at all. There is no explanation for that. Darlie supporters need to explain that, but they can't.

ETA: How would an intruder know where Darlie kept her jewelery? Don't most women keep their jewelery in their bedroom? Conveniently where Darin and Drake were sleeping?

And an interesting tidbit from Darlie's testimony at her trial. She claims to have slept downstairs because Drake would roll around in his crib (which was in the master bedroom), and that because she was a light sleeper she would constantly wake up any time he moved. So how is it possible that Darlie slept through the brutal murders of her two sons as well as the purported attack on her?!

So I finally decided to post on this topic, and I spent hours reading through the other threads on this case. I have trouble with absolute guilt or absolute innocence, and those who have that opinion because they don't really listen to the other side of the argument. And quite frankly Cami is a bit scary...:eek: haha. I tend to lean more toward innocence or in the very least reasonable doubt. I would not have convicted her.

My opinion is simply that, an opinion. I know people have posted to read the transcripts before forming an opinion, but the transcripts had tons of errors, where yes was actually no, etc. So I don't trust them. In addition, if evidence was left out, then I would only be biased because all the evidence wasn't presented.

The sock:

So I think this is quite strange, to stage a sock 75 yards away, and risk being seen by neighbors, or the kids getting help, because I believe the kids were still alive at this time. If Im playing devils advocate, if I were Darlie, only half kill my boys, then plant evidence outside my home, to come back and place bruises, cut screens, stab myself, etc.... sounds a bit hokey, and extremely far fetched. Now if it was an intruder, and he used the sock to protect his hand, and initially attacked Darlie, covering her mouth and nose, while she fought and possibly passed out, hence the bruises, and not remembering the attack. Maybe the boys woke up so he had to attack them. If he discarded sock on way out of neighborhood, he could have pulled it off, turning sock inside out and therefore leaving dna of Darlie's inside the sock. Not sure which way it was but both stories leave doubt in my mind...... reasonable doubt

Trail of blood out of house

To me this can go either way for guilt or innocence. I believe another poster said that why didn't the supposed intruder leave a blood trail? Well why didn't Darlie leave a blood trail either when she planted the sock?? Reasonable doubt

Two knives used or only one?

This is very strange to me. Why isn't one of the boys blood on the knife? This suggested two knives were used. If so then where is it? This suggests an intruder brought a murder weapon, used it to gain entry, started with one boy. Well what if the knife broke? Or became too slippery? Maybe he grabbed one from the kitchen.... If we are going the other way, why was it missing blood from one of the victims. I suppose its possible that it came off when the next child was stabbed.... but as I said before.... reasonable doubt

Motive

People have talked over and over about how she was materialistic and wanted insurance money. Really? 10,000 bucks. Funerals cost more than 5,000 per person, not much gain there. Or she was sick of taking care of kids... now this one is the dumbest one Ive heard. She had a baby, who is likely the most time consuming. I have 3 children, I know. The suicide and take the boys with me theory doesn't jive either. Ive also heard that they were in all this financial trouble, and her lavish lifestyle was about to be taken from her. This doesn't jive either. This sounds like most middle class families in America. We are generally one or two paychecks from being in the poor house. I don't think a viable motive is killing the older two boys for money would have made that much of a financial impact on their situation. I found a very interesting article where Greg Davis called her a psychopath which has no basis in fact. A very interesting read.... (I couldn't post URL because I haven't posted enough, but the title of article is "Prosecutor accused Rowlett homemaker of being a psychopath"

Talks about how the prosecutor never had an expert witness testify as to whether or not she is a future danger which could have changed the death penalty verdict. Very interesting.

Im not here to stir up trouble with a few of the die hard kill Darlie posters, however I seriously question so much of this case, a bunch of which I haven't commented on. Im not 100% either way, but i think at the very least she deserves a new trial.

The sock



It could be possible that Darin was the one who planted the sock. My gut feeling is that he is more involved, maybe he did it to try and divert the attention from his wife.



What I find really strange is her husband and the dog managed to sleep through (or did they????)

I'm sorry I didnt know there was also a dog in the house! Mega impossible the dog didnt hear anything! (I have 2 dogs and grown up with dogs all my life) To think that the dog was never disturbed is beyond me. 100% sure if it seen a stranger fighting with its owners it would bark/growl. Maybe not so much if it seen its owner attacking another owner. Probably wouldn't react.

I'm sorry I didnt know there was also a dog in the house! Mega impossible the dog didnt hear anything! (I have 2 dogs and grown up with dogs all my life) To think that the dog was never disturbed is beyond me. 100% sure if it seen a stranger fighting with its owners it would bark/growl. Maybe not so much if it seen its owner attacking another owner. Probably wouldn't react.

The dog did not react at all if someone was around known to the dog. When the police arrived at the scene, the dog was barking so loud and was trying to get down the steps it was also attempting to break the doggie gate at the top of the steps, IIRC. The police had a neighbor go upstairs to calm the dog down. There's no way a dog would have remained silent if an intruder was inside the house.

It could be possible that Darin was the one who planted the sock. My gut feeling is that he is more involved, maybe he did it to try and divert the attention from his wife.

True, I now believe he is more involved somehow.

I'm sorry I didnt know there was also a dog in the house! Mega impossible the dog didnt hear anything! (I have 2 dogs and grown up with dogs all my life) To think that the dog was never disturbed is beyond me. 100% sure if it seen a stranger fighting with its owners it would bark/growl. Maybe not so much if it seen its owner attacking another owner. Probably wouldn't react.

I didn't know about the dog either!!! That is so weird. My dog woke up from the slightest noise outside., though he generally slept downstairs. One night he barked the intruder bark and my husband ran downstairs to find our garage open. I think it depend on where the dog is sleeping. If dog was upstairs with a door closed, I suppose it's possible but strange.

There's the old expression "his bark is worse than its bite" and I think something similar could apply here. I know there are dogs that bark their heads off at everything, but when confronted with a real problem/intruder, they get scared. Totally not implausible to think a dog would keep quiet and keep attention away from itself when there are killings going on in the house. Yes, some dogs are brave and will protect their owners, even at the risk of losing their own lives, but others won't.

There's the old expression "his bark is worse than its bite" and I think something similar could apply here. I know there are dogs that bark their heads off at everything, but when confronted with a real problem/intruder, they get scared. Totally not implausible to think a dog would keep quiet and keep attention away from itself when there are killings going on in the house. Yes, some dogs are brave and will protect their owners, even at the risk of losing their own lives, but others won't.

That would work if the Routier dog wasn't acting erratically to the responding police officers. This dog had to be restrained and calmed down by a neighbor, because it was constantly growling and trying to bite the officers.

What convinces me personally of her guilt that will never change are 3 things

1) She wrote letters in jail while awaiting trial to family/friends claiming to know who the "real killer" was. When the prosecution used them at trial when she was on the stand during cross examination, she had no explanation for the letters or why she would say that. Innocent people don't make up lies to grieving relatives. Unless you're Casey Anthony that is (and I don't think she's innocent either)
2) She claims she slept through her children being brutally stabbed so hard the knife penetrated the floor, all while she was just a few feet away. She claims to have awoken seeing a stranger standing over her and then fleeing She ran after him not realizing what all took place until after she chased him from the house. Unless you're on Michael Jackson type sleeping medication (anesthesia) I don't know many people who can sleep through that as well as their own throat supposedly being slashed. She had to say she "slept through it" because otherwise, most mothers would die defending their children, or should would've screamed so loud it would've woken her husband who would've fought the stranger.
3) The whole story makes absolutely no sense. A stranger breaks into a house without a weapon at all (this is in Texas after all, where many homeowners own guns), picks up a knife in the kitchen, then goes right for the sleeping children and brutally overkills them. The knife was thrust so hard it went right through the boys and penetrated into the floor beneath them. Then almost as an afterthought, cuts Darlies throat and flees.

The "silly string" video is pointless as far as I'm concerned. People do grieve in different ways and honestly that has no bearing with why I personally feel she's guilty.

1) She wrote letters in jail while awaiting trial to family/friends claiming to know who the "real killer" was. When the prosecution used them at trial when she was on the stand during cross examination, she had no explanation for the letters or why she would say that. Innocent people don't make up lies to grieving relatives. Unless you're Casey Anthony that is (and I don't think she's innocent either)

Excellent point. She actually did name the guy as an ex-friend or coworker of Darin (I can't remember specifically) as her attacker to her family members. She said the man who attacked her looked like the coworker/friend, and then changed it to she was sure it was him. The prosecution brought this man into the courtroom, in front of Darlie, and had her reread her statement to the police. In describing her "attacker", she said the man was slim with long black hair. The coworker/friend was short, stocky, and had a short hairstyle. The prosecution got her to admit on the stand that he definitely wasn't the man who "attacked" her.

Excellent point. She actually did name the guy as an ex-friend or coworker of Darin (I can't remember specifically) as her attacker to her family members. She said the man who attacked her looked like the coworker/friend, and then changed it to she was sure it was him. The prosecution brought this man into the courtroom, in front of Darlie, and had her reread her statement to the police. In describing her "attacker", she said the man was slim with long black hair. The coworker/friend was short, stocky, and had a short hairstyle. The prosecution got her to admit on the stand that he definitely wasn't the man who "attacked" her.


Oh wow! I forgot about that. Thank you! I knew she claimed to know the real killer and they tore her apart on the stand during trial about her claims to family/friends but I forgot all the details as its been awhile since I've read up on the case. I recently saw the case on "On death row" the Werner Herzog documentary series on ID. Although, I'm a fan of Herzog, he didn't ask her any pressing questions about her story or the events. I don't know if that's because he had to agree to not ask certain questions in order to get an interview for the episode. However, he left out all the points I left and more. The episode is actually on youtube under a channel that is to "free Darlie" so I guess that speaks volumes of it being biased. But other than that, I haven't seen any specials or anything at all on the case in quite awhile. Thanks for refreshing me though! :)

That would work if the Routier dog wasn't acting erratically to the responding police officers. This dog had to be restrained and calmed down by a neighbor, because it was constantly growling and trying to bite the officers.

That may be true when there were tons of people in the house. What I found interesting is that no barking dog can be heard on the 911 tape.... :confused:

Excellent point. She actually did name the guy as an ex-friend or coworker of Darin (I can't remember specifically) as her attacker to her family members. She said the man who attacked her looked like the coworker/friend, and then changed it to she was sure it was him. The prosecution brought this man into the courtroom, in front of Darlie, and had her reread her statement to the police. In describing her "attacker", she said the man was slim with long black hair. The coworker/friend was short, stocky, and had a short hairstyle. The prosecution got her to admit on the stand that he definitely wasn't the man who "attacked" her.

Is their proof of this from the court transcripts???

What convinces me personally of her guilt that will never change are 3 things

1) She wrote letters in jail while awaiting trial to family/friends claiming to know who the "real killer" was. When the prosecution used them at trial when she was on the stand during cross examination, she had no explanation for the letters or why she would say that. Innocent people don't make up lies to grieving relatives. Unless you're Casey Anthony that is (and I don't think she's innocent either)

Do you have proof of this? I've never heard this before.


2) She claims she slept through her children being brutally stabbed so hard the knife penetrated the floor, all while she was just a few feet away. She claims to have awoken seeing a stranger standing over her and then fleeing She ran after him not realizing what all took place until after she chased him from the house. Unless you're on Michael Jackson type sleeping medication (anesthesia) I don't know many people who can sleep through that as well as their own throat supposedly being slashed. She had to say she "slept through it" because otherwise, most mothers would die defending their children, or should would've screamed so loud it would've woken her husband who would've fought the stranger.

That depends on how you look at it. How do we know who was attacked first. I believe it's possible that she was the target and boys woke up. She could have passed out in the attack.


3) The whole story makes absolutely no sense. A stranger breaks into a house without a weapon at all (this is in Texas after all, where many homeowners own guns), picks up a knife in the kitchen, then goes right for the sleeping children and brutally overkills them. The knife was thrust so hard it went right through the boys and penetrated into the floor beneath them. Then almost as an afterthought, cuts Darlies throat and flees.

How do we know he didn't have a weapon? It's all pure speculation. No blood of one of the boys on the knife at the scene. It's possible the intruder used his own knife to gain entry and attack Darlie, then moved on to the boys. Some have even speculated about 2 attackers. We just don't know.

The "silly string" video is pointless as far as I'm concerned. People do grieve in different ways and honestly that has no bearing with why I personally feel she's guilty.

We agree there. I believe it was taken completely out of context. I've seen people in the grief process and studied it in school. Some people freak out initially only to become completely devoid of emotion. It's a coping mechanism. Trying to hold it together for other family and children.

Have you ever viewed the crime scene photos? It's crazy. They have the vacuum cleaner in three different places, all propped up, and some close up of the blood on it, which shows the cord wrapped up like it was when put away. Then there is one where it is in the kitchen floor over the blood stains with the cord all over the place. That sound awfully hokey to me. Same thing with the papers by the couch. Several photos of them in different spots... I believe they tried to claim that she was looking at insurance on the boys and snapped. They moved from by the couch with an elastic band over it neatly put away to on the couch where her pillow was. Some great detective work there.

It's things like that make me think she at the very least needs a new trial. I can try and post the photos if you like.

Is their proof of this from the court transcripts???

Yes go to page 9 in this thread, it's on one of my posts. There is a link to the full trial testimony of Darlie Routier. It's in there.

Yes go to page 9 in this thread, it's on one of my posts. There is a link to the full trial testimony of Darlie Routier. It's in there.

It took awhile but I read her entire testimony. It states that based on what she was told from a private investigator, friends and family that a guy that worked close by named Glenn Mize possibly could have been the intruder. Apparently he threatened her for telling his wife something. She never admitted under that she was sure but was basing it off information from others. Like she is trying to figure out who could have done it. She told them specifically during testimony that she did not remember what he looked like. But in her letters to friends and family she mentioned that it could be him, and she eludes that it's him or another guy named Gary Austin who was allegedly out in those hours of the morning and more physically fits the description of the intruder. She also states she was hoping. I think she wanted answers.

I interpreted the letters different than someone who thinks she is guilty. I guess that's the nature of the beast. We can read the same exact testimony but interpret different.

What I found interesting is that the letters were admitted into evidence that day because Kerr County Sheriffs Office was in possession of them but would not let them be taken out. So the state subpoenaed them and defense was not given notice to these. There is a running objection that is overruled by the judge against using them for cross examination. Then the judge allows them to be admitted into evidence under objection by the defense.

I have always tried to put myself in her shoes. Would I be reaching out to my family for help to try and find the person who did this.... Grasping at straws so to speak???? Possibly.... She sounds desperate, trying to find answers. I certainly wouldn't want a psychic around if I were guilty. Not to mention she is trying to have a bunch of evidence tested that wasn't. I hope she gets answers.

I have always tried to put myself in her shoes. Would I be reaching out to my family for help to try and find the person who did this.... Grasping at straws so to speak???? Possibly.... She sounds desperate, trying to find answers. I certainly wouldn't want a psychic around if I were guilty. Not to mention she is trying to have a bunch of evidence tested that wasn't. I hope she gets answers.

I'm pretty sure if you were attacked by someone you knew or knew of, you wouldn't be insinuating to others that that person was the one who attacked you if you weren't sure. Not to mention that something that traumatic (a person you know murdering your two young sons) would definitely want to make you give that person's name to someone who could do something about it: the police.

I'm pretty sure if you were attacked by someone you knew or knew of, you wouldn't be insinuating to others that that person was the one who attacked you if you weren't sure. Not to mention that something that traumatic (a person you know murdering your two young sons) would definitely want to make you give that person's name to someone who could do something about it: the police.

My point exactly! I think if she REALLY knew she wouldn't. However I think that is key point. She doesn't know and is holding on to hope.... That these possibilities people are telling her could be true. It could honestly go either way. If she were guilty of this elaborate staging, she might say its got to be him or that guy to move blame away from her. I can see that. But it could go other way too.

I guess if you think she staged the scene, you would automatically conclude that possibility. If you think she was attacked, you would believe she was grasping at straws, hoping this person would be caught, and genuinely believing it was so and so if the pieces fit.

Although I usually do enjoy a good back and forth, I'm going to have to take myself out of this one. I will always believe she's guilty based on what I stated before. We can go all day with scenarios or "what ifs" this or "how do you know". I've seen people do that with the OJ Simpson, Scott Peterson or Jodi Arias case. If you want to believe she's innocent than nothing can convince you she's guilty. I actually went into this hoping she was innocent because who wants to believe a mother would do this? But after reading everything a few years ago, I'm convinced she did it.

However, I'll give you this much, I don't believe she should be put to death because the victims family is also her family. They have been through enough with the murder of the little boys and putting her to death will only cause them more pain. I do believe she belongs in jail for the rest of her life though.

I really think she is both guilty and was railroaded.

At least this week.

I lean towards guilty after hearing all the evidence, but I'm still on the fence. I'm not 100% convinced.
I agree.

I remember when this happened Just so awful! those poor babies,But I really don't believe Darlie Routier did this and never did,the damn police where to lazy to work the case,so framed the Mom. FREE Darlie,there is no right way or wrong way to act when something bad happens to any of us.I myself have done things some would find wrong or not what they might do and it has to do with shock,Trauma. we all have different way we get through and we may be going through. Grief is so awful,I don't think the birthday party at the cemetery made her the killer,I would have looked more at the Father.

[QUOTE=Necco]I really think she is both guilty and was railroaded.
/QUOTE]

This. I think she did it, but I think the investigation was shoddy. And I don't think she should have been convicted just because of the silly string video, though I'm guessing that is probably what stood out to the jury the most.

I also wonder if the father is more involved than he has let on.

[QUOTE=Necco]I really think she is both guilty and was railroaded.
/QUOTE]

This. I think she did it, but I think the investigation was shoddy. And I don't think she should have been convicted just because of the silly string video, though I'm guessing that is probably what stood out to the jury the most.

I also wonder if the father is more involved than he has let on.


Oh good, I was hoping someone understood what I meant. I wonder about the father as well.

I recently recorded a 20/20 episode that had a segment on this, so throw that one on to the pile of shows that's covered this case.

Check: Okay, Hugh Downs is still alive. I was thinking he died. 93 years old. Been married to his wife for 70 years. Outstanding. I remember the olden days when it was just him and Barbara Walters (whom Cheri Oteri did a great impression of on SNL). I think the show lost something when they added John Stossel. But I have a high respect for Hugh Downs and the professionalism he brought to the job.

The jurors said they watched that silly string video multiple times during their deliberations.

And I can't remember if it was on a pro-Darlie site or if I actually read or saw the guy interviewed independently, but one of the jurors said if they'd seen the worst of Darlie's injury pics, they allegedly didn't see them all because there were so many, he wouldn't have voted to convict. In a news article (not a pro-darlie site), a juror said he initially voted not to convict, was pressured by the other jurors to convict, and only gave her the DP due to the young age of the victim. He said he wished he'd never convicted her because he doesn't believe she's guilty. http://lubbockonline.com/stories/062999/loc_062999084.shtml

I tend to think she didn't do it, but do understand the very good points made the people who think she's guilty, and those arguments sometimes make me go back and forth on my opinions. I had only seen the silly string video on the news and I KNEW she was guilty. But the main thing that changed my mind was when I saw the illegally recorded video (that the jurors weren't allowed to see because the officials didn't get the proper paperwork). The police recorded at the cemetery for hours. The family had a two hour memorial service complete with hugging, grieving, and crying. During a prayer, the minister asked "may this day of birthday be a day of rejoicing". It was after all that when Darlie's sister brought out the silly string she had brought and they had a joyful "birthday party" for the boys.

I'm also wondering about the husband's involvement. Didn't he come downstairs, fully dressed, in the middle of the night, when Darlie screamed? (Or was that just in the UM reinactment?) Wouldn't he have been wearing his pajamas or something, and then maybe throw on a pair of jeans or robe before the cops and paramedics arrived. Darlie was in her nightgown for the entire thing.

Weren't they were losing their business and getting heavily into debt? I've read that Darin had set this up as an insurance scam and it went wrong. Was that just a theory or did they have evidence that he'd been considering committing insurance fraud?

Also, I am still mad at her lawyers asking for a change of venue when she was already in the best place for a trial. They had all of Dallas county, with about 2,000,000 people from which to pick jurors, only to end up having her case heard in Kerr county with a population of about 40,000. It's Texas! Were they thinking they'd get lucky and the judge would send them to Austin?

Asking for a change of venue out of Dallas county was extremely risky, with Texas being so conservative and not afraid to apply the DP. Of course they ended up in an area that was unlikely to look favorably upon an unlikable, materialistic, bleach blonde, fake breasted, woman who is accused of murdering her babies in such a heinous way and then partying at their graves. I mean no offense to the jurors, I would have probably given her the same sentence if I'd been on that jury, but imo Darlie's lawyers were idiots if they couldn't foresee the chances of a COV in Texas landing them in some small area much less sympathetic to a woman like Darlie than the citizens in Dallas.

If Darlie is innocent, where is the intruder?

The dog did not react at all if someone was around known to the dog. When the police arrived at the scene, the dog was barking so loud and was trying to get down the steps it was also attempting to break the doggie gate at the top of the steps, IIRC. The police had a neighbor go upstairs to calm the dog down. There's no way a dog would have remained silent if an intruder was inside the house.

This makes sense on a personal experience my dogs see my kids kicking crap out of each other (serious and play) and my partner immaturely joining in. The dogs never bat an eye lid, they trust their owners to know what they are doing. However the twins had a friend stop over and once they all began to play fight the dogs went mental, barking and growling and I had to intervene very quickly before someone got hurt.



I didn't know about the dog either!!! That is so weird. My dog woke up from the slightest noise outside., though he generally slept downstairs. One night he barked the intruder bark and my husband ran downstairs to find our garage open. I think it depend on where the dog is sleeping. If dog was upstairs with a door closed, I suppose it's possible but strange.

Perhaps it would depend on where the dog was sleeping? Can we assume it was downstairs and thats why the neighbour had to remove it away from the police? Or what it upstairs asleep behind the gate and the police were that worried they asked the neighbour to lock it up before it broke down the gate?

Personally I have found it makes no difference to where the dog is asleep they have fantastic hearing. As a kid our house was burgled and our dog at the time (who thought he was a human and scared of his own shadow) woke and barked the full house awake even though he was in bed with me and the door was closed. Although we all thought the dog had gone mad and he got a scolding, when we went downstairs the following morning my parents wallets were both gone and the back door left open.

Even if the dog was scared it would most likely ran to a safe distance and barked / growled although it does appear that this dog had balls as it was aggressively barking at the officers on scene.
I highly doubt that any human or dog can sleep through three people being attacked and the scuffle, glass breaking ect ect.

I agree the silly strings hold no water either way for me. I do find it incredibly insensitive and I cant say I would do the same but we are all different.

I do believe she is guilty and I think that Darin knows that and maybe tried to cover for her. Maybe he felt sorry for her because he knew she was mentally unstable. He seems quite vein the way he was boasting about his wife after his children had been murdered so could he possible defend her knowing what she had done just to keep his trophy wife? Obviously he has filed for divorce but that could be because he has found someone else, family pressure, press going after him?

I think only he and Darlie know the motive for this attack. Perhaps their doesn't even need to be a motive. IMO Darin planted the sock its the only possibility because their defo was not an intruder in the house and I dont see Darlie having the time to do it or and their not being a blood trail.

If Darlie is innocent, where is the intruder?

Probably off doing god knows what....

We can use the same logic with other cases. Just because we cannot find the killer, due to shoddy investigative work, doesn't mean it didn't take place.

Not meaning to argue, just playing devils advocate... :p

Here's one thing that gets me:

The FF episode stated that Darlie's panties were missing. Someone asked Darlie if she was raped (which would provide a motive). Darlie stated she "felt pressure down there". A test came back negative for rape, but Darlie never stated definitively she was raped, just that she felt pressure.

On FF, it was theorized that Darlie discarded her panties in a garbage can in the house in order to get people to believe that rape was the motive. But if that were the case, surely the investigators would have found the panties? They were never found!

I am, however, starting to wonder if Darren was involved. I never got a good vibe off the guy, starting with his comments about his wife and her breasts as soon as people started to arrive in the house.

Apparently, he slept through the entire thing, but awoke when he heard a glass breaking? That didn't seem right.

On FF, it was theorized that Darlie discarded her panties in a garbage can in the house in order to get people to believe that rape was the motive. But if that were the case, surely the investigators would have found the panties? They were never found!

That doesn't prove they necessarily left the house...she could have flushed them down the toilet and in a less than thorough investigation they'd never check the plumbing!

Not sure it was a good idea to bump this one up...too much encouragement to the poltergeist dude.... ohno:

Another point I wanted to raise was that the FF episode stated that they had an "expert" analyze Darlie's 911 call and remove the background noises so that just Darlie's voice was heard. The so-called expert stated that he could tell Darlie was in at least 3 rooms of the house, which contradicted Darlie's claim that she stayed in just one room. How in the hell would they be able to determine what rooms she was in?

Perhaps I've been wrong all along and Darlie really is guilty, but I think the most of the "evidence" against her is utter crap.

The Forensic Files episode is making the rounds now on HLN. Just to let you know, it's very one-sided and not one of their better episodes. I've always been surprised they tackled this one at all, given how controversial it is.

One thing I've always wondered: has there ever been any indication that Darlie or Darin had extramarital affairs? In some of the more famous cases of mothers murdering their children (Diane Downs, Susan Smith), their crime was motivated by the fact that they had an affair with a man who didn't want children, so they were considered liabilities. Of course, that motive wouldn't really fit here since only two of the three children were murdered here before Darlie called 911. But if Darlie discovered Darin was having an affair, I could see her snapping and punishing him by killing two of their sons as a possible motive.

I learn towards Darlie being guilty, but I've always been bothered by not being able to figure out a solid motive. So many parents who murder their children do so because they want to make a clean break from their lives. It's just so random for a mother to murder two of her children, but leave her youngest child and husband alive.

For me the biggest indicator of guilt was the silly string video. I remember when the local media played that thing over and over again and again. At that point I knew she was guilty. It wasn't until years later I watched the UM segment and other shows that showed the details of the case and thought to myself wow that was a controversial case. I know I've said it on here many times but I always felt like the video convicted her.

For me the biggest indicator of guilt was the silly string video. I remember when the local media played that thing over and over again and again. At that point I knew she was guilty. It wasn't until years later I watched the UM segment and other shows that showed the details of the case and thought to myself wow that was a controversial case. I know I've said it on here many times but I always felt like the video convicted her.

I agree that the video is probably what convicted her (didn't some of the jurors say as much?), and that bothers me. I think it's very possible that she's guilty, but she shouldn't be convicted by that video. It's not proof of guilt. Also, IIRC, the whole video wasn't shown, just the silly string part. There are other parts that show her grieving and crying.

I think Darren was at least involved. I think Darlie is probably guilty too, but I don't think the police did a very good job with the crime scene.

I've always leaned toward Darlie being guilty, but primarily because the murder weapon belonged to the household, and Darlie claimed the assault was carried about by a stranger who had broken into her home. As I've brought up before, it's hard for me to imagine someone intent on committing a criminal act not bringing his or her own weapon (unless the intruder had good reason to think the home was unoccupied). But even then, we have a cut window screen--despite the fact that one can simply remove a window screen (by simply displacing the retention tabs) with far less effort and noise than it would take to cut it and move through it. So, we allegedly have an intruder who supposedly cuts through a window screen with some kind of sharp tool he's carrying, yet he chooses to use a knife from the home to murder two little boys and injure their mother. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I recorded the Routier Forensic Files episode this week and like wiseguy mentioned, it was very clear-cut that this case was presented quite differently than it has been on other television shows. FF presented a LOT of prosecution evidence, nearly to the absence of that from the defense. Of course, this IS Forensic Files, and Darlie Routier was convicted, so I can maybe see why that was the case.

The more I watch and read about this case, the more suspicious Darin becomes to me.

I've always leaned toward Darlie being guilty, but primarily because the murder weapon belonged to the household, and Darlie claimed the assault was carried about by a stranger who had broken into her home. As I've brought up before, it's hard for me to imagine someone intent on committing a criminal act not bringing his or her own weapon (unless the intruder had good reason to think the home was unoccupied). But even then, we have a cut window screen--despite the fact that one can simply remove a window screen (by simply displacing the retention tabs) with far less effort and noise than it would take to cut it and move through it. So, we allegedly have an intruder who supposedly cuts through a window screen with some kind of sharp tool he's carrying, yet he chooses to use a knife from the home to murder two little boys and injure their mother. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I recorded the Routier Forensic Files episode this week and like wiseguy mentioned, it was very clear-cut that this case was presented quite differently than it has been on other television shows. FF presented a LOT of prosecution evidence, nearly to the absence of that from the defense. Of course, this IS Forensic Files, and Darlie Routier was convicted, so I can maybe see why that was the case.

The more I watch and read about this case, the more suspicious Darin becomes to me.

After reading through the trial transcripts, Darlie didn't have much of a defense. It was a lot of relatives saying how close she was to her children, how she was a good mother, etc., some friends of Darlie, and a woman who claimed to have had an attempted burglary/home invasion on the same night Darlie's boys were murdered. That woman was picked apart by the prosecution, and it definitely didn't seem like she was playing with a full deck.

ETA: I think people are too hard on Darin. He was the one who was administering CPR to his son, he was the one who ran out and sought a neighbor who was a nurse to help save his children, AND he was the only adult present in the room where the surviving child was sleeping. It just doesn't make any sense for him to have any involvement. Compare his actions after seeing his sons as compared to Darlie.

ETA: I think people are too hard on Darin. He was the one who was administering CPR to his son, he was the one who ran out and sought a neighbor who was a nurse to help save his children, AND he was the only adult present in the room where the surviving child was sleeping. It just doesn't make any sense for him to have any involvement. Compare his actions after seeing his sons as compared to Darlie.

All of these things are valid points, but I'm not sure what kind of man makes comments about the size of his wife's breasts after she's been rushed to an emergency room bleeding profusely from knife wounds allegedly inflicted by an unknown assailant. Maybe we can chalk it up to "people say stupid things", but man, that's kind of weird.

I will admit most of what personally puts me off about him is his demeanor in interviews. He almost always seems a little chipper for my taste, but that's certainly no indication of his guilt. It does give me a weird feeling, however.

Count me in the "Darlie's guilty" camp as well. Why? For the same reason, Diane Downs and probably Jeffrey MacDonald are guilty: discrepancies in injuries. Two kids get deep thrusting chest wounds while the adult, who would pose the most threat to a burglar, gets a slash along the neck?! Yeah, I think the carotid artery thing was just luck on Darlie's part.

But I do agree with everyone about Darin. There is just something skeevy about that guy and I have to wonder to what extent was his involvement?

But then again, I've always been a little suspicious of families where everyone has the same initials. Especially if their last name is Duggar. Maybe it's an unfair generalization but it seems like the type of families who do the same letter naming scheme usually seem more concerned with tailoring their kids into box sets rather than, y'know, raising adults who will eventually have to think for themselves and carve out an identity outside the family.

I agree that the video is probably what convicted her (didn't some of the jurors say as much?), and that bothers me. I think it's very possible that she's guilty, but she shouldn't be convicted by that video. It's not proof of guilt. Also, IIRC, the whole video wasn't shown, just the silly string part. There are other parts that show her grieving and crying.

I think Darren was at least involved. I think Darlie is probably guilty too, but I don't think the police did a very good job with the crime scene.

I cannot emphasize enough that people take the video out of context. Taking the video as a whole (seeing her hysterical both before and after the silly string scene), it then makes a lot of sense to know she was still under a doctor's care and taking pain medication for the injuries she had. Her behavior is pretty much what I would expect. She was basically in a daze for days afterward.

As to guilt, I will simply say, if an action is criminal, to convict one must believe the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I simply have to say no. Too much reasonable doubt.

Count me in the "Darlie's guilty" camp as well. Why? For the same reason, Diane Downs and probably Jeffrey MacDonald are guilty: discrepancies in injuries. Two kids get deep thrusting chest wounds while the adult, who would pose the most threat to a burglar, gets a slash along the neck?! Yeah, I think the carotid artery thing was just luck on Darlie's part.

Count me, too, on this. Also, Jeffrey MacDonald's wounds were more serious than superficial but that could have been just luck as well--ultimately they were not fatal--whether or not he had accomplices.

I'm watching the FF episode now. Will post more later, but there are some things that, had UM originally covered it, may have influenced my decision a bit more...

Count me in the "Darlie's guilty" camp as well. Why? For the same reason, Diane Downs and probably Jeffrey MacDonald are guilty: discrepancies in injuries. Two kids get deep thrusting chest wounds while the adult, who would pose the most threat to a burglar, gets a slash along the neck?! Yeah, I think the carotid artery thing was just luck on Darlie's part.

But I do agree with everyone about Darin. There is just something skeevy about that guy and I have to wonder to what extent was his involvement?

But then again, I've always been a little suspicious of families where everyone has the same initials. Especially if their last name is Duggar. Maybe it's an unfair generalization but it seems like the type of families who do the same letter naming scheme usually seem more concerned with tailoring their kids into box sets rather than, y'know, raising adults who will eventually have to think for themselves and carve out an identity outside the family.

People frequently die by having their necks slashed. Additionally, it wasn't her only injury. AFAIK, she didn't have any medical training or anything that would give her the knowledge to inflict that type of injury and survive. And this is the days before the internet was widespread.

Believing that she is guilty because everyone in the house had a name that started with D, and we don't even know she is the one who named her children? Oooookayyyyyyy......

I found the blood spatter evidence to be the most convincing of her guilt. Also, the fact that blood had appeared to be cleaned up was also problematic for someone who is innocent. I thought the theory that she stood over the sink and cut herself was interesting and also plausible.

I was really interested in the shape of the blood droplets as they fell from her body. They would have been shaped differently had she been running as she said she was. Also, the blood spatter on the back of her nightshirt is hella incriminating, as is the lack of intruder footprints in all that blood.

It's not an indicator of guilt, but the silly string incident really messes with me. Even more now that I'm a mommy myself. I can't imagine doing that over my child's grave only a few days after they died, nor would I ask a flipping news crew to tag along.

So yeah. I think she's guilty and she is where she needs to be.

I found the blood spatter evidence to be the most convincing of her guilt. Also, the fact that blood had appeared to be cleaned up was also problematic for someone who is innocent. I thought the theory that she stood over the sink and cut herself was interesting and also plausible.

I was really interested in the shape of the blood droplets as they fell from her body. They would have been shaped differently had she been running as she said she was. Also, the blood spatter on the back of her nightshirt is hella incriminating, as is the lack of intruder footprints in all that blood.

It's not an indicator of guilt, but the silly string incident really messes with me. Even more now that I'm a mommy myself. I can't imagine doing that over my child's grave only a few days after they died, nor would I ask a flipping news crew to tag along.

So yeah. I think she's guilty and she is where she needs to be.


Agree with that, the foresnsics are, in my view, conclusive. Also the fact that she was keen to impress upon the 911 Operator and police officers that she had picked up the murder weapon is HUGELY significant in my view (an innocent person would not be too concerned about contaminating evidence in the general panic and chaos), and the general MO of the supposed perp doesn't make any sense - he apparently broke into the house, brutally killed two kids and tried to kill her....to what end? Darlie doesn't claim that he was interested in robbery or was a sex offender. There was also a family dog, who would bark and snap at the cops and EMTs, but, if apparently greeted this supposed offender with silence

I will concede some points to the "Darlie is innocent" crowd. The behaviour of the husband is more than a little suspicious - the cops should have looked at him a great deal more closely than they did. The evidence of the blood covered sock found some distance from the house is also puzzling. Lastly, video of the weird birthday bash at the graveside should not have gone before the jury - people grieve in all sorts of ways, and this behaviour, as odd and arguable distasteful as it was, is not inconsistent with innocence.

Lastly, video of the weird birthday bash at the graveside should not have gone before the jury - people grieve in all sorts of ways, and this behaviour, as odd and arguable distasteful as it was, is not inconsistent with innocence.

I totally agree... And I'm a PROSECUTOR!! Lol.

I've always leaned toward Darlie being guilty, but primarily because the murder weapon belonged to the household, and Darlie claimed the assault was carried about by a stranger who had broken into her home. As I've brought up before, it's hard for me to imagine someone intent on committing a criminal act not bringing his or her own weapon (unless the intruder had good reason to think the home was unoccupied).

I have read online that only Darlie's and Damon's blood was found on the knife retrieved from the house. None of Devon's blood is on it. This suggests to me two intruders and two murder weapons.

I have no idea why intruders would murder two boys, but then again, I have no idea what motive Darlie would have had either. Apparently Darin had an $800,000 life insurance policy, while both boys combined had a lot less. Murdering Darin would have had a lot bigger payoff, if you will.

All of these things are valid points, but I'm not sure what kind of man makes comments about the size of his wife's breasts after she's been rushed to an emergency room bleeding profusely from knife wounds allegedly inflicted by an unknown assailant. Maybe we can chalk it up to "people say stupid things", but man, that's kind of weird.

I will admit most of what personally puts me off about him is his demeanor in interviews. He almost always seems a little chipper for my taste, but that's certainly no indication of his guilt. It does give me a weird feeling, however.

Guess I shouldn't have said "too hard"...what I had meant was people were piling on Darin as a possible suspect or if he had some involvement in the murders, and I just don't see it. He has always struck me as a self absorbed pretentious wannabe in just about every interview I've seen of him.

It's not an indicator of guilt, but the silly string incident really messes with me. Even more now that I'm a mommy myself. I can't imagine doing that over my child's grave only a few days after they died, nor would I ask a flipping news crew to tag along.

What's even more ridiculous is her excuse for doing it at their graves...because they already bought presents and sent out invites!? Jesus, I'm pretty sure the people you invited would understand if you cancelled the "party".

Interestingly, Darlie took a lie detector test, the results of which have never been released.

Forensic psychologist Dr. Lisa Clayton believed Darlie was innocent after interviewing her, stating that she showed typical black-out and distorted memory symptoms of someone who experienced trauma.

The jury was not shown photographs of Darlie's injuries (there were a lot of them), which strongly indicated she fought off an attacker. Perhaps most telling was severe bruising and she also appeared to have been struck with a blunt instrument. (if said item was in the house, what was it?).

Here is a link to photos of Darlie's injuries

http://murderpedia.org/female.R/r/routier-darlie-injuries.htm

Quite frankly, her arms and neck look terrible. She also looks severely depressed, which would be a normal reaction.

I think one of the biggest reasons I believe that she may be innocent is the suicide letter she wrote, about a month previous to the attacks. She stated that she loved her 3 sons more than anything in the world. She would have no reason to lie there as she thought she was dying anyways. I don't see how she could go from that, to violently murdering 2 of them in a few weeks. Experts also say there would have been warning signs in Darlie, and apparently there were none. She even made them popcorn and watched a movie with them earlier in the evening.

Conversely, here is what I found about Darin:

-he gave inconsistent statements.

-he asked his father a short time before the attacks how to arrange a burglary of his house as part of an insurance scam, but stated he wanted to arrange it so that everyone was out of the house at the time. I really have to wonder if Darin had planned such a burglary, but perhaps got the date wrong or forgot about it and the burglars felt forced to kill Darlie, Devon and Damon since they were witnesses.

Seriously, I think this may have been what happened.

Interestingly, Darlie took a lie detector test, the results of which have never been released.

*cough* *cough* Because she failed it. *cough* *cough*

All kidding aside, the ONLY reason I can think of that the results wouldn't have been published are because she failed. Or because it was inconclusive. From my own experience, if I've got FAVORABLE evidence to share, I'm going to do it. And I'm going to scream about it a lot.

However... that being said, I do think you raise some interesting points about Darin, wiseguy. I have wondered how he could have simply slept through what seemed like a hell of a fight. IF it actually happened the way Darlie says it did, I would assume that there would be quite a bit of noise. She'd be yelling, there would be glass breaking... you get my point. How does one sleep through that? Answer is obvious: He was either in on it, or he was the intruder.

I tend to believe he was in on it, but not the one who did the actual killing of the children. The blood spatter evidence sealed it for me, although I agree that he needed to be looked at more closely.

I cannot understand a possible motive for Darlie at all. If she was tired of parenting, then why leave the baby unharmed? As a baby, he would have required the most attention out of Darlie. Darin's life insurance policy was 800k, the boys barely covered their funerals, with nothing or next to nothing left over.

This is the biggest reason I believe Darin had nothing to do with the murders: the baby, Drake, was left unharmed. Why? Because he was asleep upstairs with Darin, according to both Darlie and Darin. Why lie about this? The fact that Drake was unharmed, tells me the only reason Darlie didn't kill him was because she knew Darin might have been startled out of his sleep and stopped her. As far as I know, the only forensic evidence that implicated Darin in any way, was hairs found near or on the knife found in the laundry room that matched Darin, and fibers found on the sock found outside that matched his tennis shoes. Both of these can easily be explained. Obviously, if the sock was Darin's, his shoe fibers are going to be found on it. And the hair in the laundry room could have innocently been dropped there if Darin was out there throwing clothes in the washer/dryer.

Another kicker: if Darin was involved, the prevailing theory that he hired someone to break into his house for an insurance scam that turned bloody, why would a father/husband let this person get away scot-free for not only having his wife incarcerated for the crime but also for murdering his two young sons when that wasn't even part of the original plan!?

It reminds me of the West Memphis Three...first they pointed the finger at one of the stepfathers for years, but once he was exonerated, now they're focusing on another stepfather. Trying to throw something at a wall and hope it sticks.

*cough* *cough* Because she failed it. *cough* *cough*

All kidding aside, the ONLY reason I can think of that the results wouldn't have been published are because she failed. Or because it was inconclusive. From my own experience, if I've got FAVORABLE evidence to share, I'm going to do it. And I'm going to scream about it a lot.

It seems most guilty people don't take them at all. There are exceptions though (Tim McClure).

I'm psychic like Tim McClure. I KNEW you were going to say that. :)

I cannot understand a possible motive for Darlie at all.


Even though I think she is guilty, neither can I to be honest. However, occasionally vulnerable people just "snap" and murder members of their family - just this week in Australia, there has been a horrific case of a woman being charged with killing eight of her children in a frenzied attack

And though I cannot think of a motive for Darlie; neither can I think of one for some unidentified psycho to break into a strangers house, murder two children THEN attack an adult - with no attempt at robbery or sex assault, before that stranger disappears, never to be seen nor heard of again.

Does anyone remember if there was a life insurance policy on Darlie or Drake. We know the boys had very small policies and Darin had a big policy.

If Darlie killed her sons, I don't really think their small life insurance policies would have been the motive.

In cases where one parent goes berserk, kills their kids, and tries to (or succeeds) in killing themselves, they go after everyone in the house. If Darlie was the killer, I think Darin and Drake would have been attacked too, before she sliced herself up. I also think she would have waited until her second son was dead before calling 911. Why take the chance that he would survive and could then tell authorities what happened? (Although Diane Downs was guilty and she drove her injured self and kids to the hospital where a surviving child finally told what really happened.)

If it was an intruder (attempted rape would probably be the motive), I could see where he would kill the kids and then be free to attack Darlie without interference, but leave Darin and Drake unharmed because he had no idea they were even in the house.

So many weird things, discrepancies, and also a botched investigation and poor legal defense (imo) in this case. I lean toward "innocent" but then every now and then a poster points out information that makes me think that she really did do it.

Even though I think she is guilty, neither can I to be honest. However, occasionally vulnerable people just "snap" and murder members of their family - just this week in Australia, there has been a horrific case of a woman being charged with killing eight of her children in a frenzied attack

And though I cannot think of a motive for Darlie; neither can I think of one for some unidentified psycho to break into a strangers house, murder two children THEN attack an adult - with no attempt at robbery or sex assault, before that stranger disappears, never to be seen nor heard of again.

^ Co-sign.

Even though I think she is guilty, neither can I to be honest. However, occasionally vulnerable people just "snap" and murder members of their family - just this week in Australia, there has been a horrific case of a woman being charged with killing eight of her children in a frenzied attack

And though I cannot think of a motive for Darlie; neither can I think of one for some unidentified psycho to break into a strangers house, murder two children THEN attack an adult - with no attempt at robbery or sex assault, before that stranger disappears, never to be seen nor heard of again.

That's true, but apparently everyone was asleep at the time. I don't know how someone can snap in their sleep.

No offense to anyone, but I'm surprised nobody has put forth a bedwetting motive yet, since that seems to be prevalent in cases like these (Jeffrey MacDonald, JonBenet)

The woman killing her 8 children in Australia has made news here in the States. I heard about it several days ago. How horribly sad. :(

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the intruder for rape theory. Why would this person strike in the middle of the night, in a suburb described as "upscale", without even knowing whether or not the husband was home, or their was someone armed in the house? Not to mention, the Routier's house was fenced in the backyard making it impossible for someone to be peering in to the house and notice Darlie asleep downstairs.

This thread is probably the only one I try to avoid because I'm so passionate about her guilt. You're right, TheCars, it doesn't make sense because it isn't true. That's why you cant get your head around it. The only way its similar to the Jeffery MacDonald case is that the "mysteries intruders" left the biggest person in the room alive and with relative minor injuries compared to the insane overkill the children received. I actually cant think of a single case where an intruder was convicted where the children were brutally overkilled and the adult had one injury that was pretty minor compared to the children. (with no rape or robbery involved either). I just cant think of any. That's because that makes no sense, even from a criminal point of view.

Secondly, who can sleep through that insane amount of violence going on just a few feet away. Her children where being butchered just a few feet away, both boys. Are you kidding me? She even claims she only awoke at the end of this "mysterious intruder" cutting her throat (after he was done cutting her throat)? Seriously? She is such a light sleeper she claims, she choose to sleep downstairs with the boys so the infant baby didn't keep her up? But she can sure sleep through her children being butchered so violently the knife actually penetrated the floor just feet away and this "mysterious intruder" cutting her throat? Who can sleep through their throat being cut?! Her story is so ridiculous its almost comical. Also, what innocent person writes letters from jail telling their GREIVING family that they know who killed their children (I mentioned this months ago in this thread) and when confronted on the stand with this (her own letters), had no explanation??

Sorry, she's as guilty as sin and its so obvious to me. Even Scott Petersons supporters put up the same "they are innocent scenarios" and even say "well, why didn't he just leave his wife?". Just like people say "well, why would she kill them? why not just up and leave?". People who would kill their spouses/children don't exactly rationalize like people who wouldn't kill.

Anyways, I'm not a supporter of capital punishment but that woman deserves to sit in jail for the rest of her life. If she's executed, well that's the law in Texas for committing that horrific crime. I feel bad for her family as they have already suffered such a loss and Darlee continues to feed them lies and not fess up to what she did. Her family wants to believe her because who could or want to believe their own child brutally killed her own children? Plus, shes trying to save her own neck.

This thread is probably the only one I try to avoid because I'm so passionate about her guilt. You're right, TheCars, it doesn't make sense because it isn't true. That's why you cant get your head around it. The only way its similar to the Jeffery MacDonald case is that the "mysteries intruders" left the biggest person in the room alive and with relative minor injuries compared to the insane overkill the children received. I actually cant think of a single case where an intruder was convicted where the children were brutally overkilled and the adult had one injury that was pretty minor compared to the children. (with no rape or robbery involved either). I just cant think of any. That's because that makes no sense, even from a criminal point of view.

Secondly, who can sleep through that insane amount of violence going on just a few feet away. Her children where being butchered just a few feet away, both boys. Are you kidding me? She even claims she only awoke at the end of this "mysterious intruder" cutting her throat (after he was done cutting her throat)? Seriously? She is such a light sleeper she claims, she choose to sleep downstairs with the boys so the infant baby didn't keep her up? But she can sure sleep through her children being butchered so violently the knife actually penetrated the floor just feet away and this "mysterious intruder" cutting her throat? Who can sleep through their throat being cut?! Her story is so ridiculous its almost comical. Also, what innocent person writes letters from jail telling their GREIVING family that they know who killed their children (I mentioned this months ago in this thread) and when confronted on the stand with this (her own letters), had no explanation??

Sorry, she's as guilty as sin and its so obvious to me. Even Scott Petersons supporters put up the same "they are innocent scenarios" and even say "well, why didn't he just leave his wife?". Just like people say "well, why would she kill them? why not just up and leave?". People who would kill their spouses/children don't exactly rationalize like people who wouldn't kill.

Anyways, I'm not a supporter of capital punishment but that woman deserves to sit in jail for the rest of her life. If she's executed, well that's the law in Texas for committing that horrific crime. I feel bad for her family as they have already suffered such a loss and Darlee continues to feed them lies and not fess up to what she did. Her family wants to believe her because who could or want to believe their own child brutally killed her own children? Plus, shes trying to save her own neck.

FWIW, I agree with everything you've said here. Just about everything involving an intruder breaking into a house and slaughtering the smallest threat (small children in this case) while leaving a bigger threat (adult) alive, it just unbelievable to me. Random guy enters house to either rob or rape Darlie, before doing so decides to murder her two sleeping children, before then going on to attack/assault Darlie. :rolleyes:

Thanks Thecars1986. Yeah, it makes no sense. I have still been unable to find one case ever that a random intruder was convicted of murdering only the children and leaving the adult not only alive, but with relative minor injuries (able to talk/walk/ect at the scene). With no sexual assault or actual robbery that took place. Not one case ever.

For me, people focus too much on trying to understand a definite motive. Just for the record, I do not believe it was for the insurance money or at least the wasn't the main motivation here. Darlie had written about suicide and seemed to have suicidal thoughts going back awhile in her diary. A neighbor who was close to the family said that shortly after the new baby was born she went over to visit, to find Darlie staring blankly into space and seemingly in a trance like state. She asked "darlie wheres the baby?" as her child (I believe) Id have to reread it, wanted to see the baby. Darlie did no response. The baby was on Darlies lap but they couldn't see the baby as it was practically covered in laundry that was also on Darlies lap. She took the baby from Darlie to give her break thinking she was exhausted and overwhelmed. Something wasn't right. They were also in financial straights' at this point. Now do all young mothers who are overwhelmed, depressed, or even resentful towards their children kill them? Absolutely not, most never would. There is no one thing that makes someone kill their child. Logical and rational people want a definite motive that makes sense but when dealing with a mother who brutally kills their child/children their isn't necessarily a logical/rational answer as to why. Why would Casey Anthony kill her daughter? Why not just get a real job instead of pretending to work for years and move out of her mothers house with her daughter? Wouldn't she realize her lies would add up? My point being is that its pretty hard to put a logical answer together when you're dealing with someone who isn't logical or has the same basic moral compass most people have.

I definitely believe she resented her children, at least the two boys at this point. The agents who profiled the killer said the gross amount of overkill showed great rage toward the children. She didn't just snap that night. She had probably had homicidal thoughts for awhile and the actual murders were probably planned out days in advance. Darlie also cared a lot about what people thought about her so if she just gave up on her motherly duties, she would be too concerned with what people thought of her. Plus, not having the boys would be less of a financial and emotional burden for her. She also might've thought she would get sympathy and attention if her plan went as she thought. Again, its hard to rationalize with someone who's capable of doing that. There just no one solid explanation in these cases.

One last point..Rememeber this "rare mystery intruder/rapist" DID NOT bring a weapon to the crime scene. Again, DID NOT bring a weapon to commit his umm "rape?" or umm "robbery?" Yes, in Texas, at night, in an upscale neighborhood, with a husband/man living in this house (had he been stalking out his target he would've noticed this), with dogs in this house. HE BROUGHT NO WEAPON. NONE. The knife was one of the Routiers. This rapist also must've had great hate and rage toward elementary age children because as the profilers said, due to the gross overkill, it was someone who had a serious rage against these victims.

Lastly, I will never get past how an innocent woman can write letters to grieving relatives saying she knows who killed her children and then when confronted on the witness stand with the letters, can't explain it (well, that makes an sense). She now says she has no idea who killed her children. Okay. Sounds like an "innocent" woman to me.

Lastly, I will never get past how an innocent woman can write letters to grieving relatives saying she knows who killed her children and then when confronted on the witness stand with the letters, can't explain it (well, that makes an sense). She now says she has no idea who killed her children. Okay. Sounds like an "innocent" woman to me.

What's even more hilarious is that she id'ed two men by name as to who could have been her "attacker". The prosecution brought these men into the courtroom, and IIRC, one was bald and short, and the other one was short and heavyset with short blonde hair. The prosecution got her to admit that neither of these men resembled her description of the "attacker" and that they couldn't have been involved.

Lastly, I will never get past how an innocent woman can write letters to grieving relatives saying she knows who killed her children and then when confronted on the witness stand with the letters, can't explain it (well, that makes an sense). She now says she has no idea who killed her children. Okay. Sounds like an "innocent" woman to me.

Completely forgot about that part. Sounds a lot like Susan Smith, who accused a "black man" of kidnapping her kids.

We all know how that worked out for her.

Completely forgot about that part. Sounds a lot like Susan Smith, who accused a "black man" of kidnapping her kids.

We all know how that worked out for her.

I forgot about Susan Smith. Yup, exactly!. Also, If I'm not mistaken they believe Susan Smiths motive was to keep her lover because he didn't want children? I mean to a logical person that makes no sense, its completely senseless. There would be so many other options. I feel the same applies to Darlie. It was senseless and trying to make logic out of it to a normal person is almost a waste of time. Thanks though I almost forgot about that case!

It's important to note that Darlie implied that she was attacked first, then the boys. Since she probably passed out from the injuries, it would then be completely understandable why she didn't hear the boys being attacked. It's also important to note that she did not remember everything about the attack, which is common in victims.

I know parents kill their children sometimes, but I don't know of any other case where it was alleged a parent had STABBED 2 of their children to death so violently. And I also don't understand how they could just wake up in the middle of the night and transition from a peaceful sleep to going berserk like that.

I think we're missing some of the facts here.

I know parents kill their children sometimes, but I don't know of any other case where it was alleged a parent had STABBED 2 of their children to death so violently.

Jeffrey MacDonald.

One last point..Rememeber this "rare mystery intruder/rapist" DID NOT bring a weapon to the crime scene. Again, DID NOT bring a weapon to commit his umm "rape?" or umm "robbery?" Yes, in Texas, at night, in an upscale neighborhood, with a husband/man living in this house (had he been stalking out his target he would've noticed this), with dogs in this house. HE BROUGHT NO WEAPON. NONE. The knife was one of the Routiers. This rapist also must've had great hate and rage toward elementary age children because as the profilers said, due to the gross overkill, it was someone who had a serious rage against these victims.


FWIW, I agree with everything you've said here. Just about everything involving an intruder breaking into a house and slaughtering the smallest threat (small children in this case) while leaving a bigger threat (adult) alive, it just unbelievable to me. Random guy enters house to either rob or rape Darlie, before doing so decides to murder her two sleeping children, before then going on to attack/assault Darlie.


These two quotes illustrate perfectly why I'm in the "Darlie's Guilty" camp. Too much discrepancy in injuries...the Big Bad Burglar (BBB) decides to take out two elementary-school kids with deep thrusting chest wounds yet when he comes across the adult who posed more of a threat to him, he gives her a slash on the neck. Did I mention when slashing her neck, BBB doesn't go for the traditional ear-to-ear throat slash which would cause Darlie to bleed out pretty fast, but instead makes some weird meandering slash that didn't even go in that deep. In doing so, BBB gives Darlie more of a chance to not only get a good look at him, but also possibly fight and chase after him. So yeah...why didn't BBB just give her the same thrusting stab wounds he gave the kids, unless you argue that maybe he was just tired and shagged out from stabbing two sleeping children, an explanation that makes me :rolleyes:

I do confess that I'm not entirely sure of a motive in this case. From what it sounds like, maybe Darlie was suffering some kind of post-partum issues. This may be one of those things we'll never know. As bad as the Diane Downs case was, at least it somewhat made sense: Diane was having an affair with a married man who didn't want kids, so she decided to get rid of the perceived obstacle to happiness (the kids) in hopes of living happily ever after.

I do wonder to what extent Darin knew what was going on. Everything I've read about him...he strikes me as kind of skeevy. My belief as to why the baby wasn't also attacked is that, well, maybe Darlie felt that it would be too unbelievable to explain to the police why BBB went to all this trouble to brutally murder everyone in the house but her, so she decided to avoid that. That and Darin would probably be more capable of fighting back than her kids, thus causing her scheme to quickly unravel. Plus, she loses Darin...goodbye to a comfortable life in a rich suburb. If she were frugal, she could survive a while on the insurance money, but from what I heard, Darlie wasn't the frugal type.

I think one of the biggest reasons I believe that she may be innocent is the suicide letter she wrote, about a month previous to the attacks. She stated that she loved her 3 sons more than anything in the world. She would have no reason to lie there as she thought she was dying anyways. I don't see how she could go from that, to violently murdering 2 of them in a few weeks.

I actually think the "suicide entry" in Darlie's personal diary supports the theory that she committed the crimes rather than that which holds she did not. It demonstrates mental stress and instability (a gross divergence from the remainder of the diary, supposedly, which was described as being rather upbeat) emerging in close proximity to the commission of the murders. I also seem to remember something about a line reading something to the effect of "I hope you all will forgive me for what I am about to do". I'm not sure if she actually clarified what exactly she was apparently planning to do in that entry, but it's an interesting choice of words.

Many mothers who murder their children maintain that they love them, as convoluted and bizarre as that does sound. Andrea Yates and Susan Smith both certainly did.

Experts also say there would have been warning signs in Darlie, and apparently there were none.

Warning signs are sometimes only apparent to people who have been trained to know what those warning signs are. I doubt Darin Routier would've been able to tease out changes in his wife's demeanor in the way in which a psychologist or psychiatrist might unless they were extreme. And unfortunately, as many of us have seen with those who have died of suicide (another tragic manifestation of mental illness), it isn't for lack of love or concern that those signs often go unheeded--it's often lack of knowledge.

I'm still scratching my head as to why Darlie would go after her throat. That is definitely one of the LAST places on my body I would stab, cut or slit on myself. It's such a horrific injury and I don't know of any other documented cases where someone allegedly slit their own throat.

Wiseguy, I never said she was "sound asleep". Thats Darlies story. I dont think she was ever sound asleep that night. To say she went to sleep then woke up and a trance and killed is not what Im saying. To assume that is to believe her story. Nope, I think she planned in, at least within that day or days/weeks leading up to it. Wait, so if Darlie was attacked first, then how did she not see her children attacked? what? Also, makes no sense that an intruder would go into a house at night, Unarmed, not rape or rob, and OVERKILL brutally two small children and leave the adult in the room able to talk/walk/ect. Never happened either. Darlie and the kids usually slept upstairs so this intruder just um I dont know, walked in unarmed then decided to butcher two small sleeping children? You've never heard of a woman brutally killing her children? Let me get a list together for you.

Yes the story that an armed intruder, in the process of killing the alleged intended target, suddenly stops and runs away because the victim woke up is ridiculous. :rolleyes:

Can remember seeing this segment & thinking her story was a crock & she looked & acted as guilty as hell. The stuff with the silly string was repulsive.

Wiseguy, I never said she was "sound asleep". Thats Darlies story. I dont think she was ever sound asleep that night. To say she went to sleep then woke up and a trance and killed is not what Im saying. To assume that is to believe her story. Nope, I think she planned in, at least within that day or days/weeks leading up to it. Wait, so if Darlie was attacked first, then how did she not see her children attacked? what? Also, makes no sense that an intruder would go into a house at night, Unarmed, not rape or rob, and OVERKILL brutally two small children and leave the adult in the room able to talk/walk/ect. Never happened either. Darlie and the kids usually slept upstairs so this intruder just um I dont know, walked in unarmed then decided to butcher two small sleeping children? You've never heard of a woman brutally killing her children? Let me get a list together for you.

Nice job of twisting my words around.

I never said you claimed she was sound asleep.

I also never claimed a woman hasn't brutally killed their children before. I know of lots of cases. What I said was I've never heard of a mother violently stabbing two of her children to death before.

Please read more carefully next time.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ariz-mother-stabbed-children-sleep-police-article-1.2047829

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/dec/19/at-least-seven-children-killed-in-mass-stabbing-in-cairns

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/19/justice/maryland-exorcism-deaths/

The thing about the top link there is that the woman had a history of child abuse. Darlie was never known to abuse her children.

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.

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.

Speaking as a mom, I really don't think it matters. It should be difficult for a mother to kill her child whether they look like her or not.

Wiseguy, there really is no need to get mean. My internet has been down for a few days and I have to use my cell phone which hasn't made it the easiest to read long pages. This is why I avoid these pages. People can get so nasty. I never meant to twist your words around. I was going by this comment .

"And I also don't understand how they could just wake up in the middle of the night and transition from a peaceful sleep to going berserk like that."

If you meant something else by it and I misunderstood what you were trying to say, then I sincerely apologize. Insinuating that I was purposely twisting words around and that I don't read isn't very nice. Again, sorry if I misunderstood.

I do not include the "silly string" video in my reasons why I think she's guilty. I don't think it means anything. Sure, its a little weird but I will concur that people do grieve in odd ways so I don't even factor that in either way. Its meaningless to me.

I have noticed over the years reading about this case that a lot of the supporters of Darlie always point to the fact that they cant understand why should would do it or how she just snapped. I've given up a long time ago trying to figure out why anyone who kills a spouse or child does it. The same could be argued about Casey Anthony, Scott Peterson, Susan Smith, and many more ect. "why not just leave, why not just get a divorce, why not just give them to somebody else?" There are always a lot of options other than killing someone close to you. So, trying to make logic out of an illogical thought process isn't going to happen.

Abuse in childhood is only a partial factor in why people kill. Many people have killed with no abuse and children who were horribly abused have turned into loving adults. its only a factor. I will get a list though of woman who have violently killed their children as I've seen quite a few on discovery IDs show "Deadly women". I just cant recall all their names or cases off the top of my head. One was an woman who butchered (overkilled) her two daughters in their beds as they slept. I just cant recall her name. I will find it out and post it though. Hope that helps.


1) For an intruder to enter a house in an upscale Texas home at night with a healthy young father living in the house, without bringing any weapons what so ever, with dogs, motive unknown, doesn't rape or rob, doesn't know that the mother and two small children are sleeping downstairs (Darlie usually slept in her bed with her husband, she claimed she decided to sleep downstairs as the baby kept waking her up that night and she needed sleep)
and it wasn't a habit for the children to sleep downstairs. The normal routine was for everyone to be sleeping in their beds. Again, this is an upscale home in Texas with a man living there (many Texas homeowners own guns), this intruder went in completely unarmed (I guess just hoping the family had knives laying around?) but a knife could hardly compete with a gun. No rape or robbery was committed. None. The only crime that was committed was overkilling two small children so brutally the knife penetrated the floor.

2) Most supporters of Darlies innocence really don't address the fact that the intense overkill of children is almost always someone very close to them. According to forensic physiologists and profilers at the FBI, even the one on this case, say that overkill is the result of an intense rage directed at the victim. Most small children don't make fatal enemies or have lovers who have a grudge. So, its almost always the caretaker. Especially when that caretaker is relatively unharmed (walking/talking at the scene) compared to the intense overkill of the children.

3) Darlie claimed she slept through the brutal overkill of her two children just a few feet away. That is just...insane. Her reason given for sleeping downstairs that night was that her baby kept her awake. She would have to be the worlds deepest sleeper. Its impossible to believe. Her story has changed as to at what exact point she woke up but either story she has given makes just no sense.

3) None of Darlies supporters address this...She wrote letters to grieving family members in jail saying she knew who killed her children. She now of course says she has no idea. At trial, while on the stand, she was called out on it in a great way. I have a HUGE problem with someone who lies to their own grieving family members about who killed their children. Its not exactly indicative of someone who is innocent. Her supporters almost always gloss over this fact

4) The crime scene was so staged to me. The forensic evidence about the vacuum cleaner was pretty damning to me. Her blood in the kitchen sink sound familiar? (a la Jeffery MacDonald. His blood in the bathroom sink).

5) Her 911 call. Talking about evidence and fingerprints when your staring at your dying children on the floor who were just butchered alive? The one boy was still technically alive when paramedics arrived (although barely). This is probably the most circumstantial of all my points but seriously that is very disturbing. It has always bothered me.

Anyways, everyone is entitled to their opinions or beliefs but I honestly just cant believe she is an innocent woman.

I think in some sick way Darlie was trying to hurt Darren by killing the boys and then planned to kill herself, but ultimately regretted her actions. She called 911 at that point. They were having money and marriage issues. Every interview I've seen with Darlie convinces me she's guilty.

I think in some sick way Darlie was trying to hurt Darren by killing the boys and then planned to kill herself, but ultimately regretted her actions. She called 911 at that point. They were having money and marriage issues. Every interview I've seen with Darlie convinces me she's guilty.

There's a scenario I never considered....

Forensic Files episode pretty much convinced me she was guilty. It was written in black and white. That and the bizarre birthday celebration.

The thing that disgusted me most was how she talked about how Devin and the other one were having a big birthday celebration up in Heaven. Although it is a nice thought, hearing it from her was sort of disgusting, because you know she probably didn't even really believe it, she was just saying it as a disgusting cover for a dirty deed in a pathetic and despicable attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes.

Misconceptions rule this case.

A few weeks ago, I posted the link to the photos of Darlie's injuries. Nobody talked about them, and instead go on insisting "but Darlie only had one minor injury as opposed to the brutal overkill of the boys." Really? Funny, that's not what the pictures and evidence show. How do you explain the bruises and cuts on her arms? Talk about glossing over things.

The silly string "evidence" couldn't be more worthless if it was a $3 bill. And yet, look at how many people believed she was guilty based on that. If I went back and looked on this thread, the number would be high. The jury felt it was the clincher.

I can live with people thinking she's guilty, but the constant misconceptions on this case really nag at me. So many people pluck one or two things that don't amount to a hill of beans and believe she should get the death penalty based on that.

The string isn't evidence-other than appearing to be evident of a deeply disturbed individual. However it is deeply damaging to her when a jury sees it. Her best defence would have been to cut a deal for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility-not sure if that is what it is called in the US.

The silly string "evidence" couldn't be more worthless if it was a $3 bill. And yet, look at how many people believed she was guilty based on that. If I went back and looked on this thread, the number would be high. The jury felt it was the clincher.

I can live with people thinking she's guilty, but the constant misconceptions on this case really nag at me. So many people pluck one or two things that don't amount to a hill of beans and believe she should get the death penalty based on that.

What did you think of all the blood spatter evidence? I found it to be the most compelling... The round drops of blood which didn't support her story of running, the large amounts of blood THAT APPEARED TO BE CLEANED UP by the sink, and most damning the blood drops on the back of her nightshirt which places the murder weapon in her hands.

Also-- just a hypothesis. Darlie inflicted the wounds upon herself AFTER she made the call to 911. She knew they would be coming and cut herself banking on the ambulance responding quickly.

What did you think of all the blood spatter evidence? I found it to be the most compelling... The round drops of blood which didn't support her story of running, the large amounts of blood THAT APPEARED TO BE CLEANED UP by the sink, and most damning the blood drops on the back of her nightshirt which places the murder weapon in her hands.

Also-- just a hypothesis. Darlie inflicted the wounds upon herself AFTER she made the call to 911. She knew they would be coming and cut herself banking on the ambulance responding quickly.

That is possible-although would likely mean the husband was in on it too you would think.

What did you think of all the blood spatter evidence? I found it to be the most compelling... The round drops of blood which didn't support her story of running, the large amounts of blood THAT APPEARED TO BE CLEANED UP by the sink, and most damning the blood drops on the back of her nightshirt which places the murder weapon in her hands.

Also-- just a hypothesis. Darlie inflicted the wounds upon herself AFTER she made the call to 911. She knew they would be coming and cut herself banking on the ambulance responding quickly.

No. The first person to arrive was a police officer, who arrived 3:45 into the 911 call, which lasted for another 2 minutes, ending at the 5:44 mark. She was on the phone the entire time.

The crime scene was very much contaminated, so I didn't think that much of it. What I do know is that there was unidentified prints (a palm print and a bloody finger print).

Since it's not known what the exact position of everyone was while they were sleeping, I can't say with great certainty that the blood drops on the back of her night shirt came from her repeatedly using the weapon. My understanding is that she was sleeping on the sofa, and the boys were sleeping on the floor. It's possible an intruder stabbed the boys, and if Darlie was sleeping in such a way that her back was to the boys, the blood would end up on her nightshirt.

Basically, I believe that in this or any other case, everything has to fit. There can be 10 things that make a person look guilty, but if there is even one unexplained item, I can't conclusively say they're guilty. And I believe this case has a ton of unexplained items.

The Forensic Files episode gave the impression that there was no blood found at the kitchen sink, but testing later proved there was mass amounts of blood there and it was cleaned up. Does this look like a kitchen sink that's been cleaned up?

Blood splatter evidence confirms that Darlie was over top her children as they were being stabbed.

Blood splatter evidence confirms that Darlie was over top her children as they were being stabbed.

It confirms nothing. Blood soaked clothing was placed in bags with other blood soaked clothing. Police and paramedics moved stuff around.

Why would an innocent woman write letters from prison while awaiting trial to her family saying she knew who killed her children but when confronted she had no valid explanation on the stand. Nowadays, she claims she has no idea who killed her children.

It confirms nothing. Blood soaked clothing was placed in bags with other blood soaked clothing. Police and paramedics moved stuff around.

It was not transfer blood, it was cast off blood found on the back of her nightgown.

Since it's not known what the exact position of everyone was while they were sleeping, I can't say with great certainty that the blood drops on the back of her night shirt came from her repeatedly using the weapon. My understanding is that she was sleeping on the sofa, and the boys were sleeping on the floor. It's possible an intruder stabbed the boys, and if Darlie was sleeping in such a way that her back was to the boys, the blood would end up on her nightshirt.

Basically, I believe that in this or any other case, everything has to fit. There can be 10 things that make a person look guilty, but if there is even one unexplained item, I can't conclusively say they're guilty. And I believe this case has a ton of unexplained items.

The Forensic Files episode gave the impression that there was no blood found at the kitchen sink, but testing later proved there was mass amounts of blood there and it was cleaned up. Does this look like a kitchen sink that's been cleaned up?

The contamination of crime scenes is vastly overrated. People come in & out of houses all the time-neighbours, family, friends, meter readers, tradesmen etc-they will leave hairs & DNA all over the place. Even if you found an unidentified hair it could easily be theirs & chances are they will not have a criminal record,

If everything had to fit then likely hardly anybody would be convicted & jails would be near empty-there are probably questions about every crime that cannot be explained with 100% certainty-the defence will use them all the time, but the prosecution puts forward the evidence they have with experts in the field & usually that is more logical than the defence arguments which tend to be trying to get people off any way they can.

Why would an innocent woman write letters from prison while awaiting trial to her family saying she knew who killed her children but when confronted she had no valid explanation on the stand. Nowadays, she claims she has no idea who killed her children.

I am somewhat puzzled by this statement from her & her legal team in 2003. Can anybody who knows more about it put it into context?

Results: Unresolved. In an update to her case, Darlie and her attorneys have conceded that she is the only possible killer, as noted by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on May 21, 2003. A request for retesting of a limited number of items was granted on June 18, 2008 and the parties are waiting for the results. Only if they show the actual existence of an intruder can a court order a new trial on her claim that she is actually innocent of the crime for which she was convicted.

I am somewhat puzzled by this statement from her & her legal team in 2003. Can anybody who knows more about it put it into context?

Results: Unresolved. In an update to her case, Darlie and her attorneys have conceded that she is the only possible killer, as noted by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on May 21, 2003. A request for retesting of a limited number of items was granted on June 18, 2008 and the parties are waiting for the results. Only if they show the actual existence of an intruder can a court order a new trial on her claim that she is actually innocent of the crime for which she was convicted.

I'm thinking that it means that in order for a new trial to be granted, there has to be actual evidence of an intruder...which their obviously isn't. This "new DNA" testing is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. The same thing was done for years and years by Jeffrey MacDonald and his supporters, and when the results came back that showed MacDonald was the only person who could have murdered his wife, the supporters jumped on to a new bandwagon.

Just seems weird the defendant & their team would concede there could not possibly be another killer-if I was innocent I wouldn't be saying that, especially as there doesn't appear to be any benefit to her saying it. Seems they are just hoping for any unidentified DNA to be found in the new testing which as you say is very unlikely.

The contamination of crime scenes is vastly overrated. People come in & out of houses all the time-neighbours, family, friends, meter readers, tradesmen etc-they will leave hairs & DNA all over the place. Even if you found an unidentified hair it could easily be theirs & chances are they will not have a criminal record,

The prints I'm talking about had blood on them. The ones you're describing do not.

A request for retesting of a limited number of items was granted on June 18, 2008 and the parties are waiting for the results. Only if they show the actual existence of an intruder can a court order a new trial on her claim that she is actually innocent of the crime for which she was convicted

I wonder what's taking so long for them to test the DNA.

The prints I'm talking about had blood on them. The ones you're describing do not.

I wonder what's taking so long for them to test the DNA.

Yep, I was speaking generally. Whenever I hear about undetectable hairs or DNA in homes I think right away about all the people who visit a house & leave some evidence of them having been there & that they likely have no criminal record.

It should be done ASAP you would think-she has been in jail for the best part of 20 years awaiting execution. Then again there still hasn't been a proper DNA analysis of the Turin Shroud that would settle that once & for all.

I would think she would have nothing left after that if it still pointed to her as being guilty.

The prints I'm talking about had blood on them. The ones you're describing do not.



I wonder what's taking so long for them to test the DNA.
It may have been a different county but I recently saw a ff episode of two parents near the Dallas area where I'm from that were wrongfully convicted for the death of their daughter who was mauled by a stray dog. What does this have to do with darlie? There are some parts around that are quick to charge people without hearing all of the evidence. They are also very difficult to appeal even when common sense stares them in the face. I think they'd rather let darlie sit in jail for as long as possible as opposed risking the outside chance that they kill an innocent person. This is a case that I'm not sure on. I think she did it but I'm not sure. When I was a teen the only thing I saw was the silly string video and that made up my mind that she was an awful mother and was a killer because at the time that was what the media played the most.

Why would an innocent woman write letters from prison while awaiting trial to her family saying she knew who killed her children but when confronted she had no valid explanation on the stand. Nowadays, she claims she has no idea who killed her children.

Why would an innocent woman write letters from prison while awaiting trial to her family saying she knew who killed her children but when confronted she had no valid explanation on the stand. Nowadays, she claims she has no idea who killed her children.
Yeah there are a lot of questions about her. She definitely has Some red flags that don't make sense. It always seemed to me that the consensus in texas is that she was guilty until later when she started to be featured on television. I didn't realize how many people she has had defending her. With all the back and forth in the media I wonder what is real and what is not.

Yeah there are a lot of questions about her. She definitely has Some red flags that don't make sense. It always seemed to me that the consensus in texas is that she was guilty until later when she started to be featured on television. I didn't realize how many people she has had defending her. With all the back and forth in the media I wonder what is real and what is not.

ALOT of death row inmates have a pretty big backing. They get a lot more publicity because of the death penalty opponents, more exposure, more sympathy, ect. Also because she is a woman and its a much more rare occurrence for a woman to be on death row than a man. Death penalty inmates get a lot more exposure and publicity than people who are sentenced to life in prison for obvious reasons. Especially in Texas as they usually put people to death in 8-10 years where as other states such as California, you are more likely to die from natural causes than die from the lethal injection. if you watch Herzog's "On Death Row" series almost every inmate claims they are innocent and if you Google their cause they too have a decent backing. Look at Michael Perry from the documentary "Into the Abyss" By Herzog. He was so guilty and the evidence was overwhelming yet he still had a HUGE camp of people pushing for his innocence. I'm sure there are a select few that have been truly innocent but most of them aren't and IMO, Darlie is definitely guilty as sin. I'm not a proponent of the death penalty necessarily but when the drugs start flowing through her IV, I wont feel sorry for her.

Well, the letters she wrote to her family claiming to know the identity of her childrens killer isn't conjecture. They presented these letters as evidence at her trial. She never denied writing the letters. She seemed like a deer caught in headlights in the transcript when confronted with those on the stand. She had no real explanation as to why she claimed that to family members. Now, she says she has no clue who killed her children. Innocent people don't lie to grieving family members

Why would an innocent woman write letters from prison while awaiting trial to her family saying she knew who killed her children but when confronted she had no valid explanation on the stand. Nowadays, she claims she has no idea who killed her children.

Didn't she try pointing the finger at one of their neighbours but then retracted it?

Didn't she try pointing the finger at one of their neighbours but then retracted it?

TheCars1986 had refreshed my memory on this one a page or two back, this is what happened and is in the court transcript. If you read it, it's hilarious how she was caught in a lie..

"What's even more hilarious is that she id'ed two men by name as to who could have been her "attacker". The prosecution brought these men into the courtroom, and IIRC, one was bald and short, and the other one was short and heavyset with short blonde hair. The prosecution got her to admit that neither of these men resembled her description of the "attacker" and that they couldn't have been involved."

I cant recall if these men were co-workers of Darins or neighbours, id have to look that up..Maybe TheCars1986 knows.

ALOT of death row inmates have a pretty big backing. They get a lot more publicity because of the death penalty opponents, more exposure, more sympathy, ect. Also because she is a woman and its a much more rare occurrence for a woman to be on death row than a man. Death penalty inmates get a lot more exposure and publicity than people who are sentenced to life in prison for obvious reasons. Especially in Texas as they usually put people to death in 8-10 years where as other states such as California, you are more likely to die from natural causes than die from the lethal injection. if you watch Herzog's "On Death Row" series almost every inmate claims they are innocent and if you Google their cause they too have a decent backing. Look at Michael Perry from the documentary "Into the Abyss" By Herzog. He was so guilty and the evidence was overwhelming yet he still had a HUGE camp of people pushing for his innocence. I'm sure there are a select few that have been truly innocent but most of them aren't and IMO, Darlie is definitely guilty as sin. I'm not a proponent of the death penalty necessarily but when the drugs start flowing through her IV, I wont feel sorry for her.

Well, the letters she wrote to her family claiming to know the identity of her childrens killer isn't conjecture. They presented these letters as evidence at her trial. She never denied writing the letters. She seemed like a deer caught in headlights in the transcript when confronted with those on the stand. She had no real explanation as to why she claimed that to family members. Now, she says she has no clue who killed her children. Innocent people don't lie to grieving family members
Good points. Then you have the opposite in the past in the state of Texas when the prisons were overpopulated and they released Kenneth mc duff instead of executing him and who killed again Colleen reed before finally being executed. I do know there are cases where people are convicted with circumstantial evidence only to be cleared later. Then there are people who are never formally indicted and seem as guilty as Tim freaking McClure (inside joke). It's a fine line I guess and everyone has their opinions

This is a statement I've seen frequently on this thread: "But Darlie only had one minor injury as opposed to the brutal overkill of the 2 boys."

Well, there's 2 things that dispel that:

1) Darlie not only had numerous injuries, but one of them was 2 millimeters from her carotid artery.

2) Damon was still alive when the police and such started to arrive. Yes, his injuries were terrible and grave and I feel very sorry for him, but he was still alive at that point. And not only that, but all the evidence I can find says that Darin tried to assist him (important to note he went to him first and not his wife) and Darlie can be heard on the phone uttering such phrases as "They're taking forever" and "What do we do?"

This is a statement I've seen frequently on this thread: "But Darlie only had one minor injury as opposed to the brutal overkill of the 2 boys."

Well, there's 2 things that dispel that:

1) Darlie not only had numerous injuries, but one of them was 2 millimeters from her carotid artery.

2) Damon was still alive when the police and such started to arrive. Yes, his injuries were terrible and grave and I feel very sorry for him, but he was still alive at that point. And not only that, but all the evidence I can find says that Darin tried to assist him (important to note he went to him first and not his wife) and Darlie can be heard on the phone uttering such phrases as "They're taking forever" and "What do we do?"

What any good parent would do first seeing her two kids lying there covered in blood-pick up the knife & wipe any evidence clear. Well it would be a bit odd/look odd going to the wife who is running around shouting rather than ignoring the child who is lying there struggling to breathe.

What any good parent would do first seeing her two kids lying there covered in blood-pick up the knife & wipe any evidence clear. Well it would be a bit odd/look odd going to the wife who is running around shouting rather than ignoring the child who is lying there struggling to breathe.

She admitted to picking up the knife, but I didn't see anything where she wiped it off. The knife retrieved had blood on it. I assume she picked it up so that, you know, the attacker wouldn't use it again!

She admitted to picking up the knife, but I didn't see anything where she wiped it off. The knife retrieved had blood on it. I assume she picked it up so that, you know, the attacker wouldn't use it again!

Why would the "attacker" drop the knife in the first place if Darlie was still alive?

TheCars1986 had refreshed my memory on this one a page or two back, this is what happened and is in the court transcript. If you read it, it's hilarious how she was caught in a lie..

"What's even more hilarious is that she id'ed two men by name as to who could have been her "attacker". The prosecution brought these men into the courtroom, and IIRC, one was bald and short, and the other one was short and heavyset with short blonde hair. The prosecution got her to admit that neither of these men resembled her description of the "attacker" and that they couldn't have been involved."

I cant recall if these men were co-workers of Darins or neighbours, id have to look that up..Maybe TheCars1986 knows.

One of the guys was a neighbor who lived in an alley behind to the left of the Routier's house. Darlie told people he was always watching her (before the attack) through the windows, but during the trial the prosecution proved how (based off of the distance from the neighbor to Darlie's house) impossible it would have been for this guy to have seen into the Routier house. The distance was too far, and there were a lot of obstructions in the way. The other guy was an ex-friend/coworker of Darin.

Why would the "attacker" drop the knife in the first place if Darlie was still alive?

Perhaps it slipped out of his hand?

Perhaps it slipped out of his hand?

Sometimes I just want to give you one of these: :bighug:

Sometimes I just want to give you one of these: :bighug:

Happy New Year!

She admitted to picking up the knife, but I didn't see anything where she wiped it off. The knife retrieved had blood on it. I assume she picked it up so that, you know, the attacker wouldn't use it again!

Is that the attacker who decides to break into a house to kill people & uses a knife from the kitchen to do it & leaves it at the scene with possible DNA evidence because he is scared of a woman whose throat he has already slashed so runs away?

One of the guys was a neighbor who lived in an alley behind to the left of the Routier's house. Darlie told people he was always watching her (before the attack) through the windows, but during the trial the prosecution proved how (based off of the distance from the neighbor to Darlie's house) impossible it would have been for this guy to have seen into the Routier house. The distance was too far, and there were a lot of obstructions in the way. The other guy was an ex-friend/coworker of Darin.

Either she had/has serious mental health problems or she has just spent the last 18 years clutching at straws & pointing the finger at anybody she can think of to save her skin.

Is that the attacker who decides to break into a house to kill people & uses a knife from the kitchen to do it & leaves it at the scene with possible DNA evidence because he is scared of a woman whose throat he has already slashed so runs away?

^ I think that's a pretty salient point. A perpetrator bold enough to break and enter a home apparently without a murder weapon--reliant on whatever happens to be in the home--is probably an individual bold enough to remain in order to absolutely ensure the only adult he is contending with is dead.

Is that the attacker who decides to break into a house to kill people & uses a knife from the kitchen to do it & leaves it at the scene with possible DNA evidence because he is scared of a woman whose throat he has already slashed so runs away?

That's why her account of what happened is so ludicrous. Had she mentioned being smothered unconscious and then waking up and finding her children dead, her story would be more believable. But waking up and chasing the guy out of the house seems too made up, IMO.

Experts testified that 2 knives were almost certainly used. I talked about that earlier. The knife that was found, the one from Darlie's home, did not have any of Devon's blood on it. Not a drop.

Here's a link (from an unbiased source) to where it mentions a knife and a screwdriver were found in a neighbor's yard.

http://lubbockonline.com/news/111996/new.htm

Experts testified that 2 knives were almost certainly used. I talked about that earlier. The knife that was found, the one from Darlie's home, did not have any of Devon's blood on it. Not a drop.

Here's a link (from an unbiased source) to where it mentions a knife and a screwdriver were found in a neighbor's yard.

http://lubbockonline.com/news/111996/new.htm

And what was the upshot of this? Did the knife match the stab wounds? Was there any blood on it? What did the neighbour say about the knife?

And what was the upshot of this? Did the knife match the stab wounds? Was there any blood on it? What did the neighbour say about the knife?

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

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

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