Darlie Routier

[crystaldawn]

Originally Posted by Mommy2sets

CD- and if Darin was trying to kill Darlie for insurance money why would he overkill the boys and barely cut Darlie's neck and then run out through the garage leaving her alive after she stood up and saw him? Why wouldn't he have gone for her first?

As far as why Darlie wasn't injured as severely as the boys, was it really dark in there? I don't know I guess I was envisioning him going down into the very dark downstairs and started slashing not knowing necessarily who was who but maybe it was more lit than I'm thinking. Another thing, do you really think Darin thinks or knows that Darlie did it? I can't imagine him standing up for her all these years if she murdered his two sons, death penalty or not. I don't necessarily think Darin is guilty, I just think he had some motive there and thought I'd throw that possiblity out there and see what you guys thought. Thanks for commenting.

[Mommy2sets]

Sure. Darin testified at trial, and Darlie has said before too, that Darin and Darlie talked before he went upstairs to bed. He testified he went up and got her a pillow even for the sofa, and saw the boys sleeping on the floor before he went upstairs. The lights were out later but it doesn't seem likely he would have accidentally missed the whole couch and accidentally slashed figures laying on the floor thinking it was Darlie on the couch. That's a big miss!

[srf53005]

Hi guys,

I'm with you, Mommy2sets, about not wanting to believe Darlie had committed that crime - in fact, I am still unable to conceive how anyone could do such a thing. There's a special place in hell . . .

As for Darin, I've just always felt he was credible, at least in terms of whether or not he committed the murders. I don't think he can be trusted to tell the truth about Darlie, but I don't really think he killed those kids. I watched some of the family's appearance on the Leeza show after Pam gave me that link, and I was struck by a comment made by the woman on stage who had been "a court observer." In one exchange with Mama Darlie, the woman said that she believed the family lives in a beautiful world of total denial. Yeah. I think she's right.

As for Darlie's injuries being explained by the darkness, that's a no go. She and the kids fell asleep while watching TV, so the light, though not bright, was certainly bright enough for a killer who has just entered the house from the outside darkness - or come down from upstairs - to see what he was doing. The room they were in wasn't that big. The house is between 3000 and 3500 sq. ft., including the garage. Keeping in mind that it's two story, you have the front entry, the two front rooms, the Roman room where the murders occurred, at least one downstairs bathroom, the kitchen, and the utility room all on the first floor, so the actual crime scene is really not that large.

[srf53005]

Hey, have you guys read the most recent legal posting on the justicefordarlie website? Here's the link: http://www.justicefordarlie.net/pdf/...atusreport.pdf

[synthisislab]

If there was an intruder, wouldn't they have left behind some shoe prints in the blood in the kitchen? From my recollection of what the investigators said (on one of those A&E or Discovery Channel shows on this case that showed all of the physical evidence) was that there was blood all across the kitchen floor, yet Darlie was the only one that left foot tracks in it. Wasn't it pretty much impossible for there not to be some kind of bloody footprint other than Darlie's if there was an intruder like she suggests? And wouldn't you think they would have left some sort of blood trail in their escape route, even outside the house? I mean whoever killed the kids would have had to have been very close to them as they stabbed them and would have had blood dripping all over and off of them as they fled afterwards. Add the staging of the kitchen ransacking to that as well as the massive amount of blood that was cleaned up near the kitchen sink where Darlie cut her neck and you've got all of the major physical evidence pointing right to the person that is and should be on death row for this. I really don't know what the whole debate is on this case still. The physical evidence always speaks the truth, even at a staged crime scene (like this one).

[srf53005]

Hi Synthisislab,

An intruder would not necessarily have left behind prints in the kitchen; he would be moving through there before Darlie came in and bled everywhere, so there would be no blood to track. In Christopher Brown's book, there is a picture of one print on the carpet beside one of the kids - or at least a picture of something that Brown insists is a print that doesn't match any of the emergency personnel, police, or known occupants. In the interview on the Leeza show, author Barbara Davis (who at that time was fully convinced of Darlie's guilt but later did a 180) points out that none of victims had "spurting" wounds. Both boys were stabbed through the lungs and Darlie's throat was cut, but none of them had severed arteries that would have showered blood. The exception to this was when Darin gave one of the boys CPR only to have the air he pushed into the lungs come rushing out of the chest wounds, covering him with the boy's blood.

It's really not as cut and dry (no pun intended) as you might think.

[Mommy2sets]

Hi srf

'Beautiful world of total denial'. Exactly. I actually find it hard to listen to Darlie's family, ...between them stating things that go against all my common sense or insult my intelligence, to twisting and just outright lying about things, I really find them difficult to watch. I saw that episode too. Notice how the story of how they were getting along that night is so blatantly different than Darin's most recent affidavit. I found this online written after Darin wrote his affidavit about the supposed insurance fraud and big fight the night of the murders....... it says at the end "Mr Routier said he is not troubled that the appeal is focusing on him". .........."It's not up to me", he said. "The strategy has already been put in place." (for some reason it won't allow me to copy and paste from that page but the address is http://justicefordarlie.net/articles/ar-009.php)

That's exactly how I think they view this whole thing. Like a big game, trying to outmatch the evidence with all different moves and plays. If they had truth on their side they wouldn't have to do that....they could just stick to one story. Of course I don't blame them as much as Darlie..I think she is the real controller and has manipulated people to the point of brainwashing almost. Psycopaths have an uncanny way of doing that. And I really dislike Darin for selling out his poor boys to that killer, even if I do feel a little sorry for him.

Hey Synthesislab, To be clear though the boys didn't receive the types of wounds that would splatter blood they were seeping type wounds. Still, you'd think after that big struggle with Darlie leaving her so beat up while holding a knife he'd surely have atleast some blood on him! And certainly would have had footprints! Or dirt, grass, something, anything, left on his shoes from coming in from outside. Not to mention how he ran out of the packed garage in the dark without disrupting a thing, leaving a trace on the screen or sill below, and managed to either scale the fence or open and then shut a broken gate behind him w/out leaving a trace or even tripping the motion light! Yes, it's just almost ridiculous for anyone to believe. There's just no evidence of an intruder when there should be a lot if it happened the way Darlie said.

[Mommy2sets]

Originally Posted by srf53005

Hi Synthisislab,

In Christopher Brown's book, there is a picture of one print on the carpet beside one of the kids - or at least a picture of something that Brown insists is a print

'a picture of something that Chris Brown insists is a print', that's about it. I liked it when Chris Brown is asked directly if he's ever had that print verified by any kind of expert, and he answers with everything but an answer to that question because the answer is no. It's never been verified by any expert, nor does it make sense how there could be one bloody footprint of an intruder on the carpet but none in the kitchen or anywhere else on his way out of the house. Chris Brown seems so gaga for Darie he can't see straight.

Oh and srf, I almost forgot to thank you for posting that link! I hadn't seen that.

[user296686@aol.c]

Originally Posted by crystaldawn

Hello! Okay I have some questions or more I guess asking you guys very well read up on the case a few things. I do think that Darlie could have done it albeit I don't really see how the rage comes in as these were clearly acts of pure rage. Thats the only thing thats tough to swallow.

Hi crystaldawn
That's my point exactly. Rage... pure rage. My first thought was that this was the act of someone very angry. What intruder would have such anger against two little boys??? No, I KNEW that that murder was PERSONAL.

Pam

[Ireneparalegal]

Originally Posted by user296686@aol.c

Hi crystaldawn
That's my point exactly. Rage... pure rage. My first thought was that this was the act of someone very angry. What intruder would have such anger against two little boys??? No, I KNEW that that murder was PERSONAL.

Pam

Exactly!

No intruder/stranger would see to it that two children were killed and leave an adult alive. I think it is safe to say that it is common knowledge that even if you slashed someone's throat, the chances that you killed them are slim and you wouldn't want an adult to live and identify you. You would do an overkill on them to ensure they are dead.

Again, desperate people do desperate things and if they are capable of overkill on two of their beloved children, then a slash across their own neck is nothing. Anyone recall Charles Stuart who shot and killed his pregnant wife (for monetary gain) and had to shoot himself so as to make the crime look like someone else committed the crime? I recall many cases of where someone caused harm to themselves (stabbing, shooting, cutting) simply to deflect the guilt off of them.

[synthisislab]

Originally Posted by Mommy2sets

Hi srf

'Beautiful world of total denial'. Exactly. I actually find it hard to listen to Darlie's family, ...between them stating things that go against all my common sense or insult my intelligence, to twisting and just outright lying about things, I really find them difficult to watch. I saw that episode too. Notice how the story of how they were getting along that night is so blatantly different than Darin's most recent affidavit. I found this online written after Darin wrote his affidavit about the supposed insurance fraud and big fight the night of the murders....... it says at the end "Mr Routier said he is not troubled that the appeal is focusing on him". .........."It's not up to me", he said. "The strategy has already been put in place." (for some reason it won't allow me to copy and paste from that page but the address is http://justicefordarlie.net/articles/ar-009.php)

That's exactly how I think they view this whole thing. Like a big game, trying to outmatch the evidence with all different moves and plays. If they had truth on their side they wouldn't have to do that....they could just stick to one story. Of course I don't blame them as much as Darlie..I think she is the real controller and has manipulated people to the point of brainwashing almost. Psycopaths have an uncanny way of doing that. And I really dislike Darin for selling out his poor boys to that killer, even if I do feel a little sorry for him.

Hey Synthesislab, To be clear though the boys didn't receive the types of wounds that would splatter blood they were seeping type wounds. Still, you'd think after that big struggle with Darlie leaving her so beat up while holding a knife he'd surely have atleast some blood on him! And certainly would have had footprints! Or dirt, grass, something, anything, left on his shoes from coming in from outside. Not to mention how he ran out of the packed garage in the dark without disrupting a thing, leaving a trace on the screen or sill below, and managed to either scale the fence or open and then shut a broken gate behind him w/out leaving a trace or even tripping the motion light! Yes, it's just almost ridiculous for anyone to believe. There's just no evidence of an intruder when there should be a lot if it happened the way Darlie said.

Yeah, the supposed perp left no trace on the screen, windowsill, or any footprints outside the window. The only evidence that there even was an intruder was the sock that had a small amount of blood on it, which could have been planted before or after the murders, since it was only 75 yards from the house (it could take someone Darlie's size about a minute to run that far and back). The other piece of evidence that suggested an intruder was the tear in the screen, which also could have been staged before the murders by Darlie. They found bits of the screen on a knife that was inside the house that matched a set of the kitchen knives and was in the butcher's block when police found it. If the perp was inside the house and found the knife, then why would he use it to cut out the screen? It makes no logical sense at all. She also handles the murder weapon even after the 911 operator tells her not to, removing any fingerprints that the supposed perp could have left. Then you have Darlie's blood on the inside of the cabinet edges under the sink area that suggests that was where she cut her own neck. Then you have the turned over vacuum cleaner on the other side of the table from where the intruder supposedly escaped and the broken vase with no cuts on Darlie's feet where there should have been from running through the kitchen through broken glass. Also, next to the murder weapon on the kitchen island where Darlie dropped it was Darlie's purse and jewelry which weren't even touched. Then you have their little doggie that should have alerted the house occupants of an intruder. This case has so many pieces of physical and circumstanicial evidence against Darlie and only a couple that suggest an intruder did it and the few pieces that suggest an intruder did it could have easily been staged by Darlie. The supposed bloody palm and fingerprint was too smeared to be of use to investigators and could have been from Darlie.

One question I do have is was the murder weapon a knife from the kitchen set like the knife with the screen debris on it?

[user296686@aol.c]

Originally Posted by crystaldawn

Hello! Okay I have some questions or more I guess asking you guys very well read up on the case a few things. I do think that Darlie could have done it albeit I don't really see how the rage comes in as these were clearly acts of pure rage. Thats the only thing thats tough to swallow. I guess I'm curious why you guys are so convinced that Darlie did it and not Darrin? I think Darrin has more motive than Darlie actually. First off he admits to almost having his house burglarized to get some money from insurance. That says how desperate he was in the months before the crime for money. I believe I read that Darlie asked for a divorce the night of the murders (correct me if I'm wrong on that). If that is the case Darrin could have been fearful he would be losing his family, his big house and everything if Darlie were to get a divorce. If he had came down into the dark living room and intended to kill the boys and Darlie in his mind he wouldn't have had to go through a messy divorce and would have loads of insurance money as I do know Darlie's life was heavily insured. So why do you guys think that Darlie is more like to have done it than Darrin? Just curious.

Hi crystaldawn

If it was Darin, how is it that he could attack Darlie and her not recognize him? I mean, what did he do? Come down stairs, kill the boys, attack Darlie, run back upstairs and then wait for Darlie to call him and then go running back downstairs? Darlie claims that the intruder ran out through the garage. Why would she stay on death row, or even get arrested for that matter and not turn Darin in? If it was for money, why wouldn't he just slaughter Darlie instead of his boys? That theory just doesn't work in my mind, can't wrap my brain around it.

Take care
Pam

[crystaldawn]

Originally Posted by user296686@aol.c

Hi crystaldawn

If it was Darin, how is it that he could attack Darlie and her not recognize him? I mean, what did he do? Come down stairs, kill the boys, attack Darlie, run back upstairs and then wait for Darlie to call him and then go running back downstairs? Darlie claims that the intruder ran out through the garage. Why would she stay on death row, or even get arrested for that matter and not turn Darin in? If it was for money, why wouldn't he just slaughter Darlie instead of his boys? That theory just doesn't work in my mind, can't wrap my brain around it.

Take care
Pam

Well at first I was envisioning a very dark room but apparently that wasn't the case. You would think that Darlie, in an attempt to dissuade attention from herself, would have come up with some sort of description of the "attacker". Even a bogus composite sketch. Maybe she did, but I've never heard of any type of composite. As far as the rage goes, there have been many psychopathic killers out there who have committed rage killings not knowing their victims but I see what you're saying. On one hand, I don't really see a rage killing (like this clearly was) something that was premeditated. If you agree with that than it seems like there was some sort of unknown trigger that night to set her off. But on the other hand I still don't know if I buy she just happened to be sleeping in the living room with the two boys that night as a coincidence. I think it could have been something she planned. Thoughts?

[Mommy2sets]

Originally Posted by synthisislab

One question I do have is was the murder weapon a knife from the kitchen set like the knife with the screen debris on it?

Yes, from the very same butcher block.

[user296686@aol.c]

Originally Posted by synthisislab

If there was an intruder, wouldn't they have left behind some shoe prints in the blood in the kitchen? From my recollection of what the investigators said (on one of those A&E or Discovery Channel shows on this case that showed all of the physical evidence) was that there was blood all across the kitchen floor, yet Darlie was the only one that left foot tracks in it. Wasn't it pretty much impossible for there not to be some kind of bloody footprint other than Darlie's if there was an intruder like she suggests? And wouldn't you think they would have left some sort of blood trail in their escape route, even outside the house? I mean whoever killed the kids would have had to have been very close to them as they stabbed them and would have had blood dripping all over and off of them as they fled afterwards. Add the staging of the kitchen ransacking to that as well as the massive amount of blood that was cleaned up near the kitchen sink where Darlie cut her neck and you've got all of the major physical evidence pointing right to the person that is and should be on death row for this. I really don't know what the whole debate is on this case still. The physical evidence always speaks the truth, even at a staged crime scene (like this one).

Could not agree withn you more.

Pam