Darlie Routier - Guilty or innocent?

[Yesha]

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.

[88keys]

[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.

[Necco]

[QUOTE=88keys]

Originally Posted by 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.

[wiseguy182]

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.

[TracyLynnS]

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/062...62999084.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.

[TheCars1986]

If Darlie is innocent, where is the intruder?

[nikkispence1989]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

Originally Posted by FantasticallyFlawed

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.

[FantasticallyFlawed]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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...

[wiseguy182]

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.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

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....

[wiseguy182]

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.

[RobinW]

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.

[DALLASTEXAN!!]

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.

[88keys]

Originally Posted by DALLASTEXAN!!

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.

[MegtheEgg86]

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.