The Final Appeal of Darlie Routier - Page 2 - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

suzannec4444 · 04-07-2007, 07:27 PM

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

suzanne

nightbird · 04-10-2007, 08:06 PM

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

Lhasa · 04-13-2007, 04:33 PM

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

hostedbyrobertstack · 04-13-2007, 07:13 PM

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

treeman · 04-17-2007, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lhasa

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

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

-Ben

kamy · 11-01-2007, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dislimb

www.justicefordarlie.net

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

kadrmas15 · 11-01-2007, 03:14 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big3sCompanyFan · 11-01-2007, 06:29 PM

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

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

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

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

Nick_at_nite · 11-17-2007, 08:49 AM

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

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

Or maybe she killed them.

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

kamy · 11-17-2007, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kadrmas15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wiseguy182 · 11-25-2007, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kadrmas15

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

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

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

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

wiseguy182 · 11-25-2007, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justins5256

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

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

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

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

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

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

wiseguy182 · 11-25-2007, 02:35 AM

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

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

wiseguy182 · 11-25-2007, 03:47 AM

to answer some more questions,

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

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

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

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

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

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

James T · 11-25-2007, 04:31 AM

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

04-07-2007, 07:27 PM	#16
suzannec4444 Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Jul 11, 2005 Posts: 190	Hi I am reading this case and am I right to assume they convicted Darlie on her own words she touched the knife.There were no prints on the knife?Darlies prints were not on the knife?I really do not see where there is a case here against her. suzanne

04-10-2007, 08:06 PM	#17
nightbird Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Oct 13, 2005 Posts: 15	Another over zealous prosecuter getting there face on the news for a high profile case and climbing the political ladder on the back on innocent defendants. What reason would she want to kill her children.

04-13-2007, 04:33 PM	#18
Lhasa Member Forum Hawk Join Date: Aug 08, 2006 Location: New Jersey Posts: 3	I believe Darlie is guilty and that Darin had to be involved. How could Darin not hear Darlie fighting with the intruder and Devon and Damon being stabed but he woke up when he heard a wineglass break? When the paramedics came he asked them what they thought of Darlie's breast implants. He also made a comment about this being the biggest thing to ever happen in Rowlett. Darlie and Darin are both guilty in my mind.

04-13-2007, 07:13 PM	#19
hostedbyrobertstack Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Feb 23, 2007 Location: OH Posts: 436	I think she was definitely involved, theres no way she isn't i'm sure. She just seems insincere saying shes innocent and something about her makes me want to throw up. I'm sure her husband was involved as well. Messed up people. They seem like the type of people to get sick of having children.

11-01-2007, 03:14 PM	#22
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	Yes, I am torn on this one too. While I like to defend the innocent, on this one, I lean towards guilt although I do not know that they are for sure guilty, but I do think if Darlie did this that her husband was involved too. I think the prosecutor has always felt Darin was involved but there was never enough evidence against him and Darin has never been charged. Now, doesnt Darin to this day have custody of the youngest son, the only one that wasnt killed? I thought they had three sons, am I wrong? Now I believe what the prosecutor said was the motive, was money. The Routier's had been prosperous at one time but I believe they were in debt and living well beyond their means. They needed a way out and probably figured they would knock off the kids to get the insurance money. Something I have never figured out is, for as viciously as these kids were attacked, Darlie wasnt really hurt much. Also, if this mysterious intruder were to murder these kids in such a brutal fashion, why wouldnt he do the same to Darlie? I actually think Darlie was the one that cast suscpicion on herself. Just with the way she acted and going to her kids graves and like running around playing with silly string and stuff. I mean I get people grieve in different ways and while that in itself doesnt prove murder it just doesnt look good. I actually think Darlie would have been acquitted had the trial been held in Dallas County. But her public defender before she got a private lawyer had succeeded in getting the trial moved to a neighboring county that was more rural and in that county, if you are accused of killing kids especially, you are done for. It was a more rural, un educated jury and Darlie didnt have a chance.

11-01-2007, 06:29 PM	#23
Big3sCompanyFan Member Senior Member Join Date: Sep 16, 2003 Posts: 2,493	Actually, there is some compelling evidence of her innocence. I think on A&E they had a show on her case and they said the video of her laughing and spraying silly string on her son's graves is mostly what got her convicted. BUT the jury didn't see other parts of the video where she was very morose and teary eyed and it did look genuine and sincere. Plus there was the fingerpring or whatever they found in the house that wasn't hers or Darrin's. Also, Darlie was hurt pretty bad and they said that some of her wounds could NOT have been self-inflicted so that's more reason for a new trial. The tone of that show on A&E was leaning towards her innocence and they portrayed her in a pretty good manner. She should get a new trial to sort the issues out but in Texas that's easier said than done. But then again I'm not an expert on the case so if someone can expound on what I've said and add to it then I may have to re-evaluate.

11-17-2007, 08:49 AM	#24
Nick_at_nite Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Nov 17, 2007 Posts: 9	I'm divided on this one. My first thought was guilty, but then I heard about the sexual assaults and home invasions going on. Yes, nothing was taken, no one was raped - but that doesn't mean an intruder didn't have that intent. And Darlie could've been knocked out by the assailant. That's a possibility why she didn't see her sons being murdered. As to why someone would do this - Maybe the intent was rape or robbery and Darlie put more resistance than he was expecting. Maybe he stabbed the two boys in a frenzy and Darlie's wounds were less severe because she fought so hard. Maybe her fighting drove him off. Or maybe she killed them. I couldn't have voted to convict if I were on the jury.

11-25-2007, 02:35 AM	#28
wiseguy182 Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Apr 11, 2006 Location: Wendy's salad bar Posts: 7,030	wow, I must say i'm a bit surprised so many of you are firmly beliving Darlie is 100% guilty. while I'm not 1000% convinced of her innocence, I would say I'm about 75/25, and leaning towards her innocence. It takes a particularly heinous person to do this to their own children, and when the accused has serious wounds herself, it makes the scenario that she did all the more unlikekly. but I do welcome the debate: it's been awhile since we've had some good, and good-natured debates on here, so fire away.

11-25-2007, 03:47 AM	#29
wiseguy182 Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Apr 11, 2006 Location: Wendy's salad bar Posts: 7,030	to answer some more questions, I don't find it necessarily suspcious that the husband didn't hear anything. One time, after I took 2 sleeping pills (I work at night, sleep during the day), I slept through someone working on our furnace, which was described as being much louder than someone playing the drums. and we have a drummer and drum set in the house, so I can tell you that that would have been pretty loud. Darlie's house being targeted for robbery isn't an unlikely scenario: this was an affluent neighborhood after all, and these type of homes are more likely to be targeted, just like fancier cars have a higher theft rate. the tiny blood spatter on the back of Darlie's shirt: blood was everywhere in the house, so I don't think this is of the highest significance. the silly string thing, again, no real significance. Darlie's call to 911 was so frantic, that the operator had to tell her to calm down because she couldnt' understand what she was saying. I highly doubt Darlie would act this non-chalant when she knew other people were watching. I know I'm carrying on here with 4 consecutive posts, but with most everybody on the Darlie is guilty side, I though the other side needed some more representation. p.s. this case has EERIE similarities to the Ramseys.

11-25-2007, 04:31 AM	#30
James T Member Senior Member Join Date: Apr 23, 2006 Location: England Posts: 1,571	I thought the string video was a bit pointless to be honest and proved nothing, she looks and acts like she has mental health problems and there is zero evidence to suggest anybody else but her did this. Why was there no signs of a sexual assault if it was this guy who been doing these sex attacks was able to get into her house and find her asleep?