Darlie Routier - Guilty or innocent?

[scc1222]

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.

[1990 UM fan]

Originally Posted by scc1222

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

[mwcarolina]

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.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by egswanso

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?

[dks64]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

[egswanso]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

[egswanso]

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.

[shek]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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)

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by shek

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?

[1990 UM fan]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

[WishfulDreamer]

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?

[1990 UM fan]

Originally Posted by WishfulDreamer

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.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by 1990 UM fan

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?

[1990 UM fan]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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

[scc1222]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.