Darlie Routier - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

spark19 · 01-28-2008, 11:37 PM

Alright, so tonight I was sitting in my weekly Crime Scene Investigation class (I'm a business major - so yay for electives!) and my professor starts talking about investigator characteristics and when investigating a scene they have to understand that the scene they investigate may be set up to look one way even though things may have really happened another way etc. particularly the example of murders set up to look like suicides and suicides looking like murders (so that families can collect the insurance money) and this is when he mentioned the Darlie Routier case.

My professor used to be on the Dallas police force and is good friends with one of the detectives who has worked on the case, and this investigator had told my professor that he was almost certain that Darlie Routier would not receive the death penalty for the simple reason that they believed that this was a suicide attempt. I haven't seen the airing of this case for for quite sometime, and haven't seen this mentioned on the boards anywhere, but the investigator said that not only had she come within a millimeter of completely slitting her throat, therefore killing herself as well, but she had prepared and taken out the insurance papers/policies for the boys and herself - she simply chickened out when it was her turn.

I know that her case was presented as a final appeal and there was uncertainty as to her guilt, but I know that most of you believe she's guilty. So this is the newest theory - yes she is guilty as hell but she really did attempt to kill herself too, not just doctor the scene. At least, that is the opinion of the investigator.

If this has been posted already, my apologies and I'll delete this! I just thought it was interesting and since it happened tonight I thought I'd post it and see what everyone else thought!

kadrmas15 · 01-29-2008, 12:06 AM

Well, now that is a theory I had never heard before, interesting. I suppose that would and could make sense. While a person slitting their own throat like that to kill themselves is an odd way to kill themselves, I have also believed some people have killed themselves via poisoning over the years to make their spouse look guilty, so I guess anything is possible.

It is just strange, I would say that if Darlie did do this, that as you said, her killing two out of her three boys and then staging a break in wouldnt make sense. Her doing this and then killing herself would make more sense than the staged break in theory. But I had never heard any of the cops in the UM segment even allege that Darlie tried to kill herself, but that does present a different spin on it.

I guess something I do not get though is, if she wanted to kill herself, why not just do it? Why take two out of three of the boys with her and not all three? I just dont get it. I dont know, I still do not think based on the evidence presented there was enough there to convict at trial, the prosecution mostly went with innuendo and it worked with the rural jury whereas if this trial had been held in Dallas County, Darlie would have been acquitted probably or if she had been convicted she would have got life. But the trial was moved to a rural county where if you are accused of killing a kid, you are going down, evidence or not.

spark19 · 01-29-2008, 12:38 AM

Well kadrmas, while my professor didn't delve too deep into the matter (I wish he had, and I probably should have asked), he seemed to imply that money had something to do with it considering that he mentioned it immediately after saying that many people commit suicide but stage it as a murder so that the family can collect. Maybe the little that she did do to make it look like a break-in would reinforce that theory.

Of course, with that theory it is odd that she would think the money would be more important than her sons' lives. Then again, she did silly string their graves so, ya know...

Also, I don't know why this was never mentioned before, and I guess the insurance policies weren't mentioned? I remember reading about this case on the crimelibrary website and didn't recall any mention of it.

Personally, I think she is guilty, so I'm glad she wasn't tried in Dallas county because she would have been acquitted.

justins5256 · 01-29-2008, 12:40 AM

Someone else mentioned this on the Darlie Routier Final Appeal thread I started a while ago. It seems to be a good theory, but as with most theories in this case, it is not without problems. I would be very curious to know where the bruises on her arms came from, for example.

Also I wanted to point out again that it is not unheard of for people committing suicide to have second thoughts and call 911 in an attempt to save themselves after inflicting damage. I knew someone once who swallowed a bottle of pain killers and then freaked out and called 911. Her life was saved but her liver is shot.

spark19 · 01-29-2008, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justins5256

Someone else mentioned this on the Darlie Routier Final Appeal thread I started a while ago. It seems to be a good theory, but as with most theories in this case, it is not without problems. I would be very curious to know where the bruises on her arms came from, for example.

Hmm I'm sorry I missed that part of the thread! (I ran a search just now, and I know I responded to it haha)

justins5256 · 01-29-2008, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoftentheSilence

If you look this case up on wikipedia, they state that the family was living well beyond their means, and offer up a motive that she killed her sons to relieve herself of having to provide financially for them. They state that the family owed $10,000 in back taxes, $12,000 in credit card bills, were two months behind on their mortgage payments, and were just denied a $5,000 loan from their bank. The site also claims that a $5,000 life insurance policy was taken out on each of her sons. This to me provides all the motive we need. As sad as it is, we all know from watching too much UM that some cold-hearted parents are willing to kill their own children for financial gain.

This was addressed in the segment I believe. I'm pretty sure the burial costs exceeded any insurance proceeds they would have received.

kadrmas15 · 01-29-2008, 01:13 AM

Yes I agree with Justin, if Darlie did this, I do not feel insurance money or any money for that matter was the motive. Yes they were in debt, lots of people are, does that make them all murderers too? This is part of this character assassination crap that DA's and pro prosecution people like to do that bugs me. They take situations and things lots of people have been involved in and try to turn them into murderers. Lots of people have been in debt, lots of people have had affairs, lots of people have lived well beyond their means, does that make them all murderers? No.

Spark, I must say I am sort of disappointed, if you want to think Darlie is guilty that is fine, I'm not sure I agree, but you have every right to think she is guilty. What bothered me though was your reasoning behind it, I mean you think the silly string makes her guilty? Why in the hell would anyone if they were guilty, I dont care how arrogant you are, why would you spray silly string on the grave if you actually did it? That silly string does not prove Darlie is a murderer and anyone that would say it does should be ashamed of themselves.

spark19 · 01-29-2008, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kadrmas15

Yes I agree with Justin, if Darlie did this, I do not feel insurance money or any money for that matter was the motive. Yes they were in debt, lots of people are, does that make them all murderers too? This is part of this character assassination crap that DA's and pro prosecution people like to do that bugs me. They take situations and things lots of people have been involved in and try to turn them into murderers. Lots of people have been in debt, lots of people have had affairs, lots of people have lived well beyond their means, does that make them all murderers? No.

Spark, I must say I am sort of disappointed, if you want to think Darlie is guilty that is fine, I'm not sure I agree, but you have every right to think she is guilty. What bothered me though was your reasoning behind it, I mean you think the silly string makes her guilty? Why in the hell would anyone if they were guilty, I dont care how arrogant you are, why would you spray silly string on the grave if you actually did it? That silly string does not prove Darlie is a murderer and anyone that would say it does should be ashamed of themselves.

Well I wasn't implying at all people in debt are murderers (that is kind of an odd statement to make), but it is still a plausible motive for murder.

And I didn't say that silly stringing her kids' graves is the reason I believe she is a murderer, but I think it implies something about her mentally. Sorry, I don't know of any other cases where this happened, so I cannot see it as "normal" behavior. I just find the "evidence" for a break-in to be weak, and the inconsistencies in her story (i.e. running through her kitchen barefoot to call the police which was covered with broken glass, yet she had no cuts on her feet) and that as I previously stated think something is off with her mentally.

treeman · 01-29-2008, 07:31 AM

Just because the funerals ended up costing just as much as the payout doesn't mean anything. A lot of young women in Australia get pregnant for the money as you get like $3000 when you have a baby from the government. Even though the medical bills and stuff for the baby would outweigh those costs.

Darlie probably didn't consider the cost of the funeral as she probably wasn't mentally stable enough to do so.

-Ben

kadrmas15 · 01-29-2008, 03:26 PM

I said anyone that alleges that someone is guilty of first degree murder because they sprayed silly string at a grave should be ashamed of themselves. If you want to prove someone guilty that is one thing, but do it the right way, circumstancial evidence or in the case of the silly string, something that was inappropriate and not in good taste but certainly did not prove murder.

It was inappropriate for the video of the silly string to be brought in at trial, I know what the prosecutors were trying to show in their attempt at conviction via character assassination of Darlie Routier but they went overboard. I was merely pointing that out, I do get emotionally charged about cases where someone was potentially wrongfully convicted, I take that seriously.

mozartpc27 · 01-30-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kadrmas15

It was inappropriate for the video of the silly string to be brought in at trial.

I definitely agree with this, and more generally I agree that she should not have been convicted on the evidence as it stood. As to whether or not she did it, I'm not so sure...

The problem is most of the evidence in this case can be read two ways. The blood evidence (the small spatters from the two boys on Darlie's back) is suggestive, but hardly conclusive. I'm sure I can dream up a few ways in which blood from the two boys might have ended up on their mother's back. The palm print is certainly problematic for the prosecution's sake, especially since they evidently made no effort to address it. Had I been the prosecutor in the case, I might have bitten the bullet and had all officers present at the scene give PALM prints for comparison against what was found (I know cops have to have FINGER prints on file when they are hired, but I don't think they are required to give their PALM prints). It seems to me that there is a good chance that some incompetent policeman or EMT simply put his hand on the wall after helping out with Darlie or the two boys, resulting in the "unidentified" print. I wonder how much due diligence was done here. If the print truly doesn't match after close analysis is FULLY completed, then it almost certainly exonerates Darlie; if it does, her story gets weaker. The blond hair that was found could be evidence of a police cover-up (since it evidently belonged to a female officer who wasn't on the scene), but more probably is evidence of police incompetence (her hair got on to another, probably male, officer during physical contact the two shared --- either legitimate or illicit --- and was then transferred to the crime scene by the male officer).

And then there's this point, which justin5256 reminded us of:

Quote:

Originally Posted by justiin5256

I would be very curious to know where the bruises on her arms came from, for example.

Her two boys, while not teenagers, were certainly old enough to put up a struggle, especially one for their lives. It would surprise me if the boys inflicted those brusies on her arms, in attempting to defend themselves. Then again, a murderer could just as easily have inflicted the bruises on her, while attempting to gain control of her so he could kill her.

And then there's the matter of the sock. I still find the prosecution's theory - that she found the time to plant it and then return to the house and THEN call 911 - suspect. But perhaps it's possible.

Still, nothing here that would have led me to vote to convict, despite my suspiscions. I think the murder-attempted suicide theory is a damn good one.

wiseguy182 · 01-30-2008, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mozartpc27

And then there's the matter of the sock. I still find the prosecution's theory - that she found the time to plant it and then return to the house and THEN call 911 - suspect. But perhaps it's possible.

good point. she came within a milliimeter of dying, as someone else pointed out, and was on her way to the hospital herself, yet the prosecution has her going down several houses to bury a sock. Pretty superhuman ala the Larry Race case. And wouldn't there have been a blood trail had she done that?

kadrmas15 · 01-30-2008, 09:17 PM

Heck, I'm surprised the cops in this case who seem more and more like the Keystone cops, didnt try to plant blood. It just seems to me like this is way too much of a railroad job to me, clearly the cops and prosecutors didnt have the strong case they claimed to have, hence why they did the character assassination and hid evidence, planted evidence, destroyed evidence, they did it all.

If Darlie did do this, I will tell you, Darren in my opinion would have had to be involved. It is kind of all or nothing, either they are both innocent or they are both involved, I just have a hard time believing Darlie could have pulled this whole thing off by herself. It is possible, but unlikely in my opinion, that if she did this, that she pulled it off by herself.

There had been other burglaries in the area, the police had Darlie in their sights almost from the start and just were unwilling to consider anyone but Darlie Routier could have done this. I believe the police investigated Darren too but they really had no more evidence against him than they did Darlie and Darren was never charged.

Honestly, I just dont see it here, it was weird to me how in case of Routier how you didnt have the prosecutor gloating on there which they usually love to do, but they must not have wanted to answer any tough questions or look like an A$$ like the prosecutor in the Tommy Ziegler case did or the Larry Race case did or the Stuart Heaton case did or the Glen Consagra case did.

You had the cop who was a jerk or came off as one, again no real evidence, basically saying Darlie was/is guilty because she wasnt "grieving" the way he felt she should be. Also how the cops basically lured Darlie to be arrested before she was indicted I found strange. That is very unusual in a murder case for a person to be arrested before they are indicted if they do not admit to doing the crime and were not arrested right when the murder happened.

spark19 · 01-31-2008, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

good point. she came within a milliimeter of dying, as someone else pointed out, and was on her way to the hospital herself, yet the prosecution has her going down several houses to bury a sock. Pretty superhuman ala the Larry Race case. And wouldn't there have been a blood trail had she done that?

Ok again, my memory is fuzzy on the details, but couldn't it have been possible to plant the sock before all of this started? Or in between murdering the boys and trying to slit her throat?

kadrmas15 · 01-31-2008, 01:05 AM

Well, the time frame on her allegedly murdering the boys, running down to plant this sock and then running back to her own house, slitting her throat and then calling 911 doesnt add up. Wouldnt people have seen her planting this sock? Or thought it odd of her walking around? I dont know, I think the odds are she didnt plant the sock.

Again, sure it is possible she planted the sock, but I would say the odds are she didnt plant the sock. I know you want her to be guilty, but the fact of the matter is the evidence in this case is VERY weak at best. It just simply should have never resulted in conviction, even in Texas it shouldnt have resulted in conviction. Also, just because a cop says there is all this strong evidence supposedly and that a person is guilty does not necessarily mean that it is true.

01-28-2008, 11:37 PM	#1
spark19 Member Frequent Poster Join Date: May 08, 2006 Location: USA Posts: 122	Darlie Routier Alright, so tonight I was sitting in my weekly Crime Scene Investigation class (I'm a business major - so yay for electives!) and my professor starts talking about investigator characteristics and when investigating a scene they have to understand that the scene they investigate may be set up to look one way even though things may have really happened another way etc. particularly the example of murders set up to look like suicides and suicides looking like murders (so that families can collect the insurance money) and this is when he mentioned the Darlie Routier case. My professor used to be on the Dallas police force and is good friends with one of the detectives who has worked on the case, and this investigator had told my professor that he was almost certain that Darlie Routier would not receive the death penalty for the simple reason that they believed that this was a suicide attempt. I haven't seen the airing of this case for for quite sometime, and haven't seen this mentioned on the boards anywhere, but the investigator said that not only had she come within a millimeter of completely slitting her throat, therefore killing herself as well, but she had prepared and taken out the insurance papers/policies for the boys and herself - she simply chickened out when it was her turn. I know that her case was presented as a final appeal and there was uncertainty as to her guilt, but I know that most of you believe she's guilty. So this is the newest theory - yes she is guilty as hell but she really did attempt to kill herself too, not just doctor the scene. At least, that is the opinion of the investigator. If this has been posted already, my apologies and I'll delete this! I just thought it was interesting and since it happened tonight I thought I'd post it and see what everyone else thought!

01-29-2008, 12:06 AM	#2
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	Well, now that is a theory I had never heard before, interesting. I suppose that would and could make sense. While a person slitting their own throat like that to kill themselves is an odd way to kill themselves, I have also believed some people have killed themselves via poisoning over the years to make their spouse look guilty, so I guess anything is possible. It is just strange, I would say that if Darlie did do this, that as you said, her killing two out of her three boys and then staging a break in wouldnt make sense. Her doing this and then killing herself would make more sense than the staged break in theory. But I had never heard any of the cops in the UM segment even allege that Darlie tried to kill herself, but that does present a different spin on it. I guess something I do not get though is, if she wanted to kill herself, why not just do it? Why take two out of three of the boys with her and not all three? I just dont get it. I dont know, I still do not think based on the evidence presented there was enough there to convict at trial, the prosecution mostly went with innuendo and it worked with the rural jury whereas if this trial had been held in Dallas County, Darlie would have been acquitted probably or if she had been convicted she would have got life. But the trial was moved to a rural county where if you are accused of killing a kid, you are going down, evidence or not.

01-29-2008, 12:38 AM	#3
spark19 Member Frequent Poster Join Date: May 08, 2006 Location: USA Posts: 122	Well kadrmas, while my professor didn't delve too deep into the matter (I wish he had, and I probably should have asked), he seemed to imply that money had something to do with it considering that he mentioned it immediately after saying that many people commit suicide but stage it as a murder so that the family can collect. Maybe the little that she did do to make it look like a break-in would reinforce that theory. Of course, with that theory it is odd that she would think the money would be more important than her sons' lives. Then again, she did silly string their graves so, ya know... Also, I don't know why this was never mentioned before, and I guess the insurance policies weren't mentioned? I remember reading about this case on the crimelibrary website and didn't recall any mention of it. Personally, I think she is guilty, so I'm glad she wasn't tried in Dallas county because she would have been acquitted.

01-29-2008, 12:40 AM	#4
justins5256 Member Forum 3000 Club Member Join Date: Aug 08, 2002 Posts: 3,866	Someone else mentioned this on the Darlie Routier Final Appeal thread I started a while ago. It seems to be a good theory, but as with most theories in this case, it is not without problems. I would be very curious to know where the bruises on her arms came from, for example. Also I wanted to point out again that it is not unheard of for people committing suicide to have second thoughts and call 911 in an attempt to save themselves after inflicting damage. I knew someone once who swallowed a bottle of pain killers and then freaked out and called 911. Her life was saved but her liver is shot.

01-29-2008, 01:13 AM	#7
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	Yes I agree with Justin, if Darlie did this, I do not feel insurance money or any money for that matter was the motive. Yes they were in debt, lots of people are, does that make them all murderers too? This is part of this character assassination crap that DA's and pro prosecution people like to do that bugs me. They take situations and things lots of people have been involved in and try to turn them into murderers. Lots of people have been in debt, lots of people have had affairs, lots of people have lived well beyond their means, does that make them all murderers? No. Spark, I must say I am sort of disappointed, if you want to think Darlie is guilty that is fine, I'm not sure I agree, but you have every right to think she is guilty. What bothered me though was your reasoning behind it, I mean you think the silly string makes her guilty? Why in the hell would anyone if they were guilty, I dont care how arrogant you are, why would you spray silly string on the grave if you actually did it? That silly string does not prove Darlie is a murderer and anyone that would say it does should be ashamed of themselves.

01-29-2008, 07:31 AM	#9
treeman -Treeman Frequent Poster Join Date: Jan 12, 2005 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 151	Just because the funerals ended up costing just as much as the payout doesn't mean anything. A lot of young women in Australia get pregnant for the money as you get like $3000 when you have a baby from the government. Even though the medical bills and stuff for the baby would outweigh those costs. Darlie probably didn't consider the cost of the funeral as she probably wasn't mentally stable enough to do so. -Ben

01-29-2008, 03:26 PM	#10
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	I said anyone that alleges that someone is guilty of first degree murder because they sprayed silly string at a grave should be ashamed of themselves. If you want to prove someone guilty that is one thing, but do it the right way, circumstancial evidence or in the case of the silly string, something that was inappropriate and not in good taste but certainly did not prove murder. It was inappropriate for the video of the silly string to be brought in at trial, I know what the prosecutors were trying to show in their attempt at conviction via character assassination of Darlie Routier but they went overboard. I was merely pointing that out, I do get emotionally charged about cases where someone was potentially wrongfully convicted, I take that seriously.

01-30-2008, 09:17 PM	#13
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	Heck, I'm surprised the cops in this case who seem more and more like the Keystone cops, didnt try to plant blood. It just seems to me like this is way too much of a railroad job to me, clearly the cops and prosecutors didnt have the strong case they claimed to have, hence why they did the character assassination and hid evidence, planted evidence, destroyed evidence, they did it all. If Darlie did do this, I will tell you, Darren in my opinion would have had to be involved. It is kind of all or nothing, either they are both innocent or they are both involved, I just have a hard time believing Darlie could have pulled this whole thing off by herself. It is possible, but unlikely in my opinion, that if she did this, that she pulled it off by herself. There had been other burglaries in the area, the police had Darlie in their sights almost from the start and just were unwilling to consider anyone but Darlie Routier could have done this. I believe the police investigated Darren too but they really had no more evidence against him than they did Darlie and Darren was never charged. Honestly, I just dont see it here, it was weird to me how in case of Routier how you didnt have the prosecutor gloating on there which they usually love to do, but they must not have wanted to answer any tough questions or look like an A$$ like the prosecutor in the Tommy Ziegler case did or the Larry Race case did or the Stuart Heaton case did or the Glen Consagra case did. You had the cop who was a jerk or came off as one, again no real evidence, basically saying Darlie was/is guilty because she wasnt "grieving" the way he felt she should be. Also how the cops basically lured Darlie to be arrested before she was indicted I found strange. That is very unusual in a murder case for a person to be arrested before they are indicted if they do not admit to doing the crime and were not arrested right when the murder happened.

01-31-2008, 01:05 AM	#15
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	Well, the time frame on her allegedly murdering the boys, running down to plant this sock and then running back to her own house, slitting her throat and then calling 911 doesnt add up. Wouldnt people have seen her planting this sock? Or thought it odd of her walking around? I dont know, I think the odds are she didnt plant the sock. Again, sure it is possible she planted the sock, but I would say the odds are she didnt plant the sock. I know you want her to be guilty, but the fact of the matter is the evidence in this case is VERY weak at best. It just simply should have never resulted in conviction, even in Texas it shouldnt have resulted in conviction. Also, just because a cop says there is all this strong evidence supposedly and that a person is guilty does not necessarily mean that it is true.