Darlie Routier Still Awaits Her Death Sentence Execution
June 25th, 2009 - 8:34 pm ICT by GD ( 627 comments )
This has always been a case of ‘had she done or she did not’. From the time Darlie Lynn Routier has been charged with the murder of her two young sons way back in 1996, people and the jury alike are still unsure about what had actually taken place on that night of the double murder. All this while, Darlie Routier sits on the Texas Death Row, crying hoarse that she did not under any circumstance murder her children.
In 1997, the court had found Routier guilty of the charges of murdering her two children in cold blood and had sentenced her to death. However, she is still waiting for the injection of the lethal toxins in her body, as juries beat their head over the ‘did or did not’ bit.
The motive though has never been clear all these years, with the only possible explanation being, that to maintain the lavish lifestyle for herself and her husband, she eliminated her children, when faced with a economic downfall. The evidence against her has always been damaging for the defense council to fight her case of acquittal. The crime scene evidence points to a different story than what Routier recounts of the fateful night. She had said in her statement that an intruder had barged in to her house in the posh Dallas suburb and had attacked Darlie and the kids.
However, the wounds received on the torso of the children were comparatively deeper and fatal than what was found on her body. She had also said that she had run across the kitchen to summon help, where glass pieces were strewn over the floor but examination had revealed no injuries on her foot. All this and more led the police to believe she was not completely honest about the whole incident.
The book “Hush Little Babies” is based on the true story of Darlie Routier.
- I did not kill Kercher: Knox tells court - Oct 03, 2011
- Chelsea Handler Steams It Up With Andre Balazs - Jan 25, 2011
- Reports suggest that Casey Anthony is in hiding - Sep 22, 2011
- 'Not A Love Story' - another crime story from Varma (IANS Preview) - Aug 17, 2011
- Miss Michigan Katie Lynn LaRoche Wins Quality Of Life Award At Miss America 2011 - Jan 16, 2011
- If I've a role for Maria Susairaj, I won't hesitate: RGV - Aug 12, 2011
- Brit cop howls like baby as he's jailed for having sex while on duty - Mar 16, 2011
- Drew Peterson Murder Trial To Have Less Hearsay Evidences - Jul 22, 2010
- Becks upset over news of eldest sister living on benefits - Aug 16, 2010
- American novelist Lionel Shriver still loves her Kevin - Jan 24, 2012
- Colorado mom accused of killing her two children formally charged - May 28, 2011
- Brit boys, 11, given 3-year supervision order for attempted rape - Aug 19, 2010
- Melissa Etheridge's Ex Communicates About Their Split - May 25, 2010
- Woman jailed for burning fiance` to death - Jan 04, 2012
- ABC's "20/20" Revisits The Triple Murder Case Of Timothy Hennis - Sep 18, 2010
Tags: acquittal, circumstance, cold blood, crime scene evidence, dallas suburb, death sentence, different story, double murder, economic downfall, evidence points, fateful night, glass pieces, hush little babies, intruder, juries, lavish lifestyle, routier, texas death row, torso, toxins
June 25th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
My goodness! I guess in your country you can post articles without any truth or facts.
If you would do research before you write the articles you would know Darlie Routier was only charged with one murder, not two.
The people of Texas found her guilty of one murder.
I notice no one takes credit for your poorly written articles.
Must be an untouchable without an education.
Why would thaindian.com post unverified articles, that are poorly written and false?
November 27th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
guilty or not. by law she deserves a new trial by law after all that was missed in first
December 8th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
To let a murderer go free is bad but to condemn an innocent person to death is too awful to contemplate.
To execute women like Karla Tucker who had truly been changed by a genuine conversion is a heartless and unmerciful act. George W Bush showed no insight in denying mercy. Claiming that he prayed to Almighty God about this was an abuse of a simple act of mercy and is a red herring to gain political points. I am a Christian and this does ring true.
The ghastly fact that this women, Darlie Routier could be innocent (certainly not enough evidence) has already been incarcerated in death row since 1996 only to have a lethal injection stuck into her is barbaric to say the least.
America has got to stop this as it just shows the outside world how cruel and hypocritical your justice system is.Too many innocent people already been killed and some have just narrowly escaped after additional evidence has been discovered.
Sure, there are times when the death penalty should be carried out. ie Ted Bundy and co. But it was barbaric to keep him on death row for so many years.
January 12th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
keep me posted
February 24th, 2010 at 6:50 am
i beleive she is innocent and would like a correspondance address
March 8th, 2010 at 1:47 am
Has already suffered a lot. I think that should be freely allowed. Start your life again.
March 8th, 2010 at 1:53 am
i beleive she is innocent and would like a correspondance address
More at : Darlie Routier Still Awaits Her Death Sentence Execution http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world/darlie-routier-still-awaits-her-death-sentence-execution_100209512.html#ixzz0hWCETakJ
March 16th, 2010 at 6:22 am
What is the matter with you people!! As the bible says, an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. These people must pay for their crimes. What about the victims, are they getting a second chance? What if it was your children?
April 11th, 2010 at 3:02 am
A lot of agony waiting for you.
The life is too short to be angry over a long period of time for people, and all stores, which hurts.
April 17th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Ruth, go to your bible and look up that verse. You need to do a little studying.
Quote from freedom writers: “justice doesn’t mean the criminal pays for the crime, it means that someone does” This woman is not treated properly. How in the world do police get to decide evidence doesn’t belong in a trail. (tennessee finger print analysis)
April 18th, 2010 at 3:32 am
I believe Darlie is innocent!!! What is the State of Texas so afraid of?? That they failed her, her husband, and her 3 sons!!! I looked at all the photographs of her injuries and there is no way that she did that to herself! All this evidence that was left out of the first trial needs to be evaluated in a second trial. How much more of her life and Drake’s is going to be wasted on her being stuck on Death Row?? Come on people you have a duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt with ALL the evidence. For those of you who think she is guilty, well let’s just lay it all on the line and see. The people who think she is guilty will be seen to have egg on their faces when she proves she is INNOCENT! Do Devon and Damon some real justice find their killer, instead of just pinning it on their mom!! This needs to be ended one way or another! NOW, not LATER!!!
April 18th, 2010 at 4:16 am
Oh Jennifer! I know you want to believe she is innocent. What mother would want to believe she brutally stabbed her sons? But the truth is, she had blood drops on the back of her shirt while she lifted the knife to stab over and over again. A jury of her peers saw the blood evidence, and her story change 16 times! I feel bad, because instead of her admitting the truth, and getting help for other women that suffers from postpartum depression, she believes her own lies. Pray for her, pray for her remaining son. And pray for those boys.
April 18th, 2010 at 10:24 am
Kimmy- Look at all the evidence not used at her trial!! If she is guilty then let’s bring ALL the evidence in and not just some of it. I do believe her. Look at the bruises on her body. No one can do that kind of harm to theirselves. She is righ handed, her throat was cut from someone standing behind her and cutting with their left hand or someone standing directly in fron of her and cutting with the right hand. Had she cut herself the knife would have been held in the right hand and she would have cut from left to right. The wound shows she was cut from right to left. Also the wound on her right forearm would have had been on her left arm had she done it. Common sense tells you that. Also the bruises that cover the tops of her hands and the whole inside of her arms from armpit to wrist show me that no one and i do mean no one can stand to cause themselves that much pain. How do you suggest she got the deep purple bruises on her inner arms? I just don’t buy that she did it! ALL the evidence needs to be re evaluated. There were jurors that said they did not see all the pictures. If they had they would not have found her guilty. Come on now all this is not adding up right.
April 18th, 2010 at 10:55 am
Jennifer, there is a website called Websleuths.com and it is a message board about crime. Darlie Routier has a huge message board on there. There is a lot of discussions you can read. I wasn’t there, but I have read the trial transcripts more than once. She had a lawyer. Why didn’t they prove to the jury that she was attacked? Come and take a look at the board. It’s a nice place, and tons of info.
April 25th, 2010 at 9:58 am
Darlie is guilty.
She killed her kids.
She staged the scene.
She got caught.
The trial was fine, Darlie is just guilty as hell. Defense attorneys had NOTHING to work with.
April 29th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
If you have done so (I do not believe) suffered a lot. Let me back home. Everyone will be happier.
June 3rd, 2010 at 11:57 pm
I lived very near whre she did back at that time (Garland, a Dallas suburb like Rowlett). Believe me, she is guilty. I will use the evidence that was seen by ALL of those in Dallas at that time.
1. She said that she was asleep on the couch and was only awakened by her son Devon shaking her shoulder. Now, how does a MOTHER sleep through all the chaos of her children being attacked, screaming in pain, furniture being moved in the melee, etc? She does not.
2. The famous silly string video. How can ANY family pull themselves together only a few days after the funerals to have a PARTY at the graves? Especially their own children? I have known families who cannot get out of bed for weeks. This is ridicuous. I know there was another video, but there was a preacher present for prayer. He was not there during the “party”.
3. The damage to Darlie was minor, a small cut, and some bruising, easily faked. And bruising can take a day ot two to appear. Her children were stabbed several times, one was at least 5 times. And yet the paramedics tried to get Darlie to help them with the children, but she was more concerned with the cut on her arm and neck.
In 13 years, there has been no new evidence to show she is innocent. There was NO evidence of an intruder. The screen that was cut at the back of the house, was cut from the inside to outside, not outside to come in, also staged. And the dust was not disturbed - no one came in or out that window. And with all the blood the children had lost, there was NONE tracked by an intruder leaving the scene. Just not possible.
Any mother that kills her kids should burn in hell.
June 4th, 2010 at 12:07 am
Oh, and by the way, she was only tried for one murder, the younger son, because he was under 6 years old. And just in case there was a jury who couldn’t believe a mother could brutally kill her children, she would be tried again for the other child.
And someone mentioned Karla Faye Tucker. Yes she was “born again”. Many thought she should get a reprieve. But did the two people she kelped to kill get a reprieve? No. She bragged how much she enjoyed it, even saying she had an “orgasm” every time she swung the pick axe, over and over and over again. Did they get mercy? clemency? No. And neither did Karla.
People, read the whole story before you make comments. Oh, And by the way, yes, I lived in Dallas at the time Karla was executed. I believe in the death penalty WHEN it is called for. But sometimes life in prison is more of a punishment. At least for some crimes.
June 13th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
In response to Carolyn:
1. It’s possible to sleep through a tornado if you are sleepy enough.
2. The silly string thing proves nothing.
3. What MD would attempt to self-inflict a neck cut such as Darlie had? The extensive brusing on her arms was ignored by gung-ho prosecution.
June 22nd, 2010 at 4:55 am
Reply:
1. Darlie claimed to be such a light sleeper that the baby moving in his crib kept her awake. That’s why she claims she was sleeping downstairs.
2. The silly string is appalling behavior when your children have been dead only 8 day.s
3. The cut on Darlie’s neck did not even need stitching and was closed with surgical tape. Yes, it came within 2mm of Darlie’s artery, but that’s probably because Darlie had no idea there was an artery there. Notice the direction of the cut - not straight across as in a true throat cutting. The bruising was documented evidence and all but one juror has stated they did see the photographs. She’s guilty.
June 29th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
I’ve never believed Darlee Routier killed her children. I saw a tv program about a killer named Tommy Lynn Sells who has an MO which could easily fit the Routier murders. Could he have been in the Dallas area June 1996?
July 13th, 2010 at 10:35 am
omg get real people…she is SO guilty….all the evidence says it loud and clear, especially the way the screen was cut…in such a way it wouldve been damaged if an adult were to come through,look at the way it was cut..and the dust was not disturbed and there was NO bloody trail in the garqge,on the walls by the window etc,not only that,they found a knife in the house with residual material from a screen on it…..i now it is hard to believe a mother would do this to her own babies, but it does happen,as horrific as it is,my God those babies mustve suffered,and their dog…..why didnt the dog bark, she had told the cops that her dog was an awesome watch dog,and he even barked at the cops,fiercely…but NOT at an intruder! shes guilty,100% guilty and deserves to DIE!
let those poor baby boys have their justice, quit pitying poor Darlie,ya dont get blood spatter on the back of your shirt for no reason…the party is over and im very sad she isnt dead yet…my heart goes out to those little boys,they are the ones who suffered an unspeakable hell, to have their mother look them straight in the face as she was plunging a knife deep inside their little bodies…die Darlie…dIE
July 17th, 2010 at 3:18 am
What really doesn’t make any sense is why would a “lone” killer come in dressed to conceal, kill two harmless little boys but only superficially wound the only eye witness.
July 17th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
This white trash wanna be princess is guilty as sin! Fry the skank!
July 17th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
My point is this…..If there is proof that the court transcripts were muddled and riddled with constant errors. Important errors such as “yes” when Darlie said “no” then her case deserves to be reviewed. She has that right and the legal system has to work for all of us.
July 17th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Scott, before little girls started being taken from their homes at night no one would have thought that someone would do that either. It isn’t that far fetched to think that the intruder was there to poke around to get one child quietly out of the house. It wasn’t common for three to be sleeping downstairs. I think he checked the bedrooms first, went back down stairs and in fear of discovery fled away from Darlie when she fought him off and he could only get the knife so close to her. He had little time to get away after she raised the alarm with her loud screams. A “lone” intruder wasn’t given a description of concealment. And I myself have been unsure of events that happened fast when in a traumatic situation. I have also stepped through broken glass on the floor and didn’t get cut more than once in my life. I have also slept through me son crying for me when I was exhausted, with only his shaking me getting me awake. And last but not least, I had a break in into my house and nothing was taken but a few pairs of underwear and a mirror. We just can’t know what these creeps out there are thinking and why they do the things they do.
July 18th, 2010 at 12:39 am
14 years and the justice system is still not taking action to correct mistakes? it’s so disgusting
July 28th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
America has got to stop this as it just shows the outside world how cruel and hypocritical your justice system is.Too many innocent people already been killed and some have just narrowly escaped after additional evidence has been discovered.
Sure, there are times when the death penalty should be carried out. ie Ted Bundy and co. But it was barbaric to keep him on death row for so many years.
Dear Michael:
How cruel and hypocritical our justice system is? Do you watch the news, read the paper? We’re (Americans) pussy cats compared to how many of the Hindu, Asian and Arab nations apply their so called “justice.”
We don’t publicaly behead people after a 15 minute hearing. We don’t flog, cane and incarcerate people for speaking against their government. (without a trial) We don’t utilize our military to decide punishment against proivate citizens.
He use a jury of peers, analyzice evidence presented and make a collective decision. It’s called democracy. You got to be kidding me with a statement like that. Which country and utopian society do you live in, sir, that has a perfect or better method of applying justice, I’m curious, I would consider moving there.
August 9th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Reply to Carolyn and Kathryn:…. In regard to the silly string incident. My question to both of you is have either of you lost a child? I have and so I can speak on this subject. No one can say what a parent is “suppose” to do, feel, or anything. Everyone is different, and handles grief in all different ways… Every year on what would be my daughters birthday, we go to a special place, put flowers down, sing happy birthday, and release balloons so that God can get them for her, and hand deliver them to her. If it were a tradition that on their birthday’s they sprayed silly string.. then who is to say that is wrong? Maybe that was healing for the rest of the family.. (take Darlie out of it for a bit).. she wasn’t the only one there….
August 31st, 2010 at 10:23 pm
I just finished the book on this. I cannot say what I believe, except that there just isn’t enough evidence to justify the death penalty. Then again IF you are truly a Christian (are there actually any true ones?) then you would believe what is said in the Bible - ‘Thou shalt not kill’ - ‘Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord’ - ‘Let those amongst you who are without sin cast the first stone’ etc etc. Advocators of the death penalty are only placing themselves on the same level as the murderer. That said, I do believe that Darlie should be kept in prison and the keys thrown away until any new evidence transpires to prove her innocence.
September 18th, 2010 at 4:43 am
for the sake of argument. If she didnt kill her children.Tell me why someone would brake into a house and focus on killing two small children. Is that what they were intending to do before they broke in or was he going to rob the home and figured that the two small boys were his biggest threat. It doesnt make sense. Nobody wants to think any parent can do something like that, unfortunatley it happens. It is reaslly hard for me to believe that this is some random act of violence. You have to be extremely disturbed to brake in someones house at 2:00 in the morning and focus on killing two kids. If it was a serial killer which I believe that would be the only person that would be messed up enough to do something like that. They usually are a little more mothedacle. Ever since that night I have never heard anything similar to this guys m.o.. It is a hard fact to face that It is more likely that a mother would kill her children than just some random guy walking down the street.
September 20th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
I just hate when I’m called to jury duty and I have to hear this bs about how we have the greatest justice system in the world. So we just go along with this, and just ignore all the thousands of people who have been railroaded by this crooked/broken system. In Darlie’s case, with no smoking gun and nothing but a bunch of hunches, what do you expect from a hillbilly jury out of a backward state like texas.
September 20th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
In response to Frank….I agree with you 100%. But if I had to be in jail, I’d rather be in jail here than in a barbaric country overseas.
September 20th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Why does everyone want a smoking gun? People kill and murder for the cash that is in your pocket, or because they got cut off in traffic. Darlie and her husband were fighting about money. They were seeking out people to “rob” them to get the insurance. Darlie was jealous, and thinking her husband was cheating on her. The list of reasons and potential goes on and on. Blood drops, of her sons were on the back of her shirt. You know how they got there? When she was repeatedly stabbing over and over, as she lifted the knife, blood dripped on her back. That doesn’t match with her story of she slept through the murders. Guilty, now stab her with poison, and watch her die.
September 22nd, 2010 at 3:54 am
What I do not understand is why do ppl not believe this could be a random thing? Maybe there was a guy and he wanted to rape and torture her and figured he would kill the 2 little ones so he could take his time with her. The husbands car was gone (broken down) so he though she was alone. Notice her panties were missing. He might not have expected her to fight back and being a coward that kills kids he ran off when faced with an adult. Stuff like that happens all the time. And the screen being cut? maybe the boys did it to sneak in and back out for Popsicle’s…. Maybe since Darin forgot to set the alarm they also left a door unlocked.. At the very least she deserves a new trial.
September 22nd, 2010 at 3:56 am
And she does strike me as being a vain woman, WHY would she cut her own neck and scar herself for life??
September 22nd, 2010 at 4:12 am
hello, look up Cheshire murders if you dont think random horrible crimes can truly happen… Home invasion, murder of children attack and rape of adult, granted they also wanted to steal cash but still, it hits close to home eehh?
September 22nd, 2010 at 4:57 am
t33 would you rather be scarred for life or die from lethal injection. Lets say this was a random murder. How did he know that it was the husbands vehicle that broke down? It could just as eaaily be the wifes. How would he know that. This person had to of staked out the home prior to the murders. As to my nollige nobody seen any strange people lurking out the neighborhood proir to this incident. Nor has this happened similar after. If you are a serial killer murder is like eating a potatoe chip you just cant have one. What im trying to say if it was just some random guy walking down the street in the middle of the night it a nice neighborhood looking to rape someone, he is taking a extremely big risk picking a random house, he doesnt know whos upstairs, killing to young children with a knife and stabbing your wife would be pretty loud, how doesnt know whos upstairs or how many or what kind of weopan did they bring with them when they came down stairs and sall you murdering there whole family. Like I said before it doesnt make sense.
September 29th, 2010 at 1:35 am
All the Darlie supporters on here keep saying she couldn’t fake those arm bruises; sure she could. It was even theorized that she did it by banging her arms on the bedrails; and that would do it. I’ve seen elderly patients with senile dementia do it many times.
If all this supposed new evidence and withheld evidence is so overwhelming why has appeal after appeal been denied?
Someone on here said she needs to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt; she was! I really and truly wanted to believe she was innocent. But after reading all the material including evidence and court transcripts, it’s obvious she’s lying and that she’s guilty, there’s just no denying that fact.
September 29th, 2010 at 3:24 am
njg13 - if you are going to post your opinion, please check spelling to appear as if you have SOME education.
“mothedacle” is “methodical”, as in method. Also as in “modus operandi”, a phrase in latin that police use for ‘method of operation’ - MO. The “brake” you are trying to use is “break” as in “break a glass”, not “brakes on a car”. “nollige” is spelled “knowledge”. And “potatoe” is not spelled with an “e”, it is “potato”.
I have not been to college, and I am not trying to be a snob. But it is painful to watch someone who cannot spell try to make a point.
September 29th, 2010 at 3:47 am
Carolyn,
Not every one is from USA, and they are trying to contribute. Get over yourself. Step away from Yo Gabba Gabba, and go get a job.
Sorry people, but I dislike soccer moms that have nothing else to contribute to society, on a article, but to correct spelling.
Darlie is guilty. Fry the bitch.
September 29th, 2010 at 5:09 am
iwantedtothankyouforcheckingmygrammaripromisenexttimeiwillpushforana
September 29th, 2010 at 6:09 am
Well, Kimmy, it seems that you are also “assuming” facts you know nothing about. I am not a soccer mom, I am not even a mom. I as not blessed with children, even though I love them very much.
You are correct about one thing, I am not currently employed. I was fired 2 years ago after I began having seizures at work. No other reason. I was a manager of a large department (radiology) in a hospital. I have had some education past high school for work in the medical field.
But now I am one of the more than 15 million who are currently unable to find work of any kind, primarily becuase of my history with seizures. And like I said, I am not trying to be a snob. It does bother me about the lack of education in our country. And from the rest of the posts by this person, she or he, is not foreign, they are from the United States. The structure of their sentences and phrases make it fairly obvious. English is their first language.
And if all else fails, nearly every computer out there has the option of “spell check”.
I realize this is off the thread about Darlie Routier, but it will follow up about the poor souls in this country who could possibly believe she is innocent. If someone were cutting your throat, putting such massive bruises on you, I believe any normal person would wake up. But she has kept up her story that she only woke up when her son, who was bloody, stabbed, and dying, touched her shoulder. WAKE UP !!! She is guilty. Death sentence or life in prison. Either sentence will be punishment.
September 29th, 2010 at 8:08 am
listen, I seen american justice on a&e couple weeks ago about this subject. I wanted to found out what happened to her so I looked online and found this website. I read a couple of comments and felt like responding. The reason why my grammar is poor is because I dont care enough to make it unpoor, I dont even care enough to click spell check. Whether you agree or disagree with my opinion is irrelovant to me, the same with whether you like the way I write or my grammar. I felt like putting a couple of comments down about the case and that was it. Thanks again to the english professor for correcting me. By the way it sounds like you are either collecting unemployment and or collecting on disability. So this illiterate who pays there taxes chipped in for your computer and is paying for your internet. Your welcome. I said my piece with this case signing off.
September 29th, 2010 at 8:51 am
I am “welcome”..??? I WAS on unemployment. Unemployment that was paid into the system by every one of my employers for the past 35 years. I have worked since I was 15. I have NEVER had to draw unemployment until now. Many times I worked 2 and 3 jobs at a time. I also worked 2 or 3 jobs to put myself through school. I also pulled many, many hours of call time. So do NOT act like the unemployment that I was entitled to was a “handout”. And yes, I have filed for disability but have not been approved yet. They generally make people jump through hoops for 2 years or so until they are satisfied I cannot work anymore. My disability will be based on the income I have EARNED and paid taxes on all of my life. NONE OF THE MONEY IS A HANDOUT. I have earned more money and paid more in taxes than quite a lot of people. My last job I made over $70,000 a year for the 5 or 6 years before it. I am single without children so my tax bracket was very high. NO ONE GAVE ME ANYTHING.
Back to the original thread. Since you have an interest in her legal situation (Darlie Routier’s), research further. It is interesting how many people were, and still are, fooled by her.
September 29th, 2010 at 11:13 am
I think that is the most amazing thing about Darlie. Her supporters truly want to believe she is innocent. Anyone that has taken any interest in this case has all the court transcripts available to them online. It is a painful read, I promise, but the facts are there.
I do believe in other cases, sometimes our government pushes guilt too fast, and can convict the innocent. During this trial, it was facts that convicted Darlie. Those jurors went in on the first day of that trial and wanted to believe that there was an intruder. They wanted to find Darlie innocent. They just couldn’t. The facts, the scientific evidence all excluded everyone else but her.
On a last thought for tonight. There are plenty of legal reasons that this case should be retried. Some of the transcripts tapes were lost by the court reporter. I have read that is a reason for retrial on appeal. I also believe that some information should have not been leaked to the press. If you are wire-tapping a gravesite, you really should find a way to suppress a jury from seeing that before trial. I am not claiming her innocence. I am saying that based on our laws and guidelines I believe her case should be retried properly. Yes, it will cost money. But I would want that for everyone. OUR laws should be held, for ALL.
September 29th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Carolyn and njg, I am in London, uk and have been following the Darlie case. Hey, dont worry about the grammar over there or the spelling. It’s far worse over here I can assure you. The days of well educated English people are long gone. Very few youngsters can spell and most of them cannot string a sentence together. Most Americans I hear on the TV are far more literate! As for Darlie, I know it’s tempting to wish death on wicked murderers but I feel a life sentence in her case would be safer as there is very little evidence to go on. Having said that I think prisons should be less comfortable for inmates!
September 29th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Why don’t we stick to the topic and hand here and you guys go fight over spelling, grammer, and unemployment on some other discussion group.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
njg13- Didnt you read that several people including those who testified against Darlie saw a black car lurking about up to several weeks before the murders? They could have been sacking the place. And I agree Serial killers dont stop but some do change MO’s and I also posted about Cheshire murders- home invasion, murdered kids, rape. Of course they also stole money and set the house on fire, but things happen all the time. I dont know if she is innocent or guilty but there are a lot of unanswered questions.
October 27th, 2010 at 11:57 am
OK I FEEL THE NEED TO ALSO ADD TO THIS DISCUSSION..SINCE YOU ALL KNOW SOO SOO MUCH YOU FORGET FROM THE VIDEO WHICH THE PROSECUTION DID NOT SHOW IN LENGTH DARLIE DID NOT BRING THE SILLY STRING TO THE CEMETERY HER FAMILY DID AND SHE IS AT FIRST SURPRISED TO SEE THE SILLY STRING.. THERE WAS OVER 40 MINUTES OF CRYING,CARRYING ON, GRIEVING GOING ON BEFORE THE SILLY STRING INCIDENT, AND THEN OUT CAME THE BALLOONS AND SILLY STRING, NONE OF WHICH DARLIE BROUGHT WITH HER, I BELIEVE HER SISTER SUPPLIED THESE ITEMS. AND WHETHER OR NOT HER WOUNDS WERE SELF INFLICTED OR NOT THE JURY NEVER SAW THE PHOTOS AT THE VERY LEAST SHE DESERVES THAT RIGHT UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION AND DUE PROCESS LAWS, THERE WAS ALSO A BLOODY SOCK FOUND DOWN THE BLOCK FROM THEIR HOME ON A FOLLOW UP SEARCH WHICH WAS NEVER BROUGHT UP DURING TRIAL HOW COULD DARLIE HAD PLANTED THAT THE ONLY PERSON PHYSICALLY CAPABLE OF THAT TASK AFTER THE ATTACK WAS DARIN.. AND MOST DAMNING, IS THE JUROR WHO SAT ON HER TRIAL WAS LATER SHOWN THE TAPE IN ITS FULL ENTIRETY THE PICTURES OF HER WOUNDS, AND A PICTURE OF THE BLOODY SOCK FOUND ABOUT 5-6 HOUSE UP THE STREET ON THE CURB, AND HE SAID AND I QUOTE ” HAD THIS BEEN SHOWN AT TRIAL I WOULD HAVE NEVER CONVICTED HER” SO YOU TELL ME!!!
October 27th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Darlie may not have brought the silly string, but no one made her participate. She was quite happy out there at that grave a mere 8 days after the brutal murder of two of her children.
As far as the video of the prayer service, there is no video that shows Darlie crying, carrying on, OR grieving. It was Darlie’s attorney (Doug Mulder)that decided not to show that tape and that is because it had no positive evidentiary value. Nothing that showed Darlie in a good light. Doug Mulder was one of the top criminal defense attorneys in the state. You have to know that winning this case would’ve been huge for him. If the prayer service tape could have been helpful to Darlie, he would have had it shown to impeach the silly string video. But there was nothing there. Only a SECOND video showing Darlie being Darlie.
The jury DID see the photographs of her injuries. The photographs were shown and argued in court. Anyone who has read the trial transcripts knows this. Go to Darlie’s website and watch the American Justice video and make note of Mulder saying that he doesn’t understand what Charlie Samford is talking about because the pictures of Darlie’s injuries were shown and argued.
Darlie planted the sock AFTER she stabbed the boys but BEFORE she injured herself. The boys wounds were seeping wounds. They didn’t spurt. But Darlie’s blood was EVERYWHERE. How do you explain not one drop of her blood being on that sock??? Tell me how an intruder could have had that sock on their hand and not gotten even one drop of her blood on it?
As far as Charlie Samford saying that he would not have convicted Darlie had he seen the photos of her injuries, 11 other jurors say that they DID see the photos of her injuries. So YOU tell ME.
Join the Darlie discussion here as well:
http://lifeontherow.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=dr
Lots of views from both sides.
Pamela C
October 27th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
I think Darlie has convinced herself she is innocent. I guess the bloody sock killer never struck again.
October 27th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
So the Darlie supporters honestly believe that someone broke in her house, killed both children left Darlie, the only witness alive, and didn’t steal anything. They just came in and killed two children for no reason what so ever? And, haven’t killed anyone else since then. Just like Nicole Simpsons killer, killed two people randomly for no reason, no motive, and haven’t killed again. Come on, wake up to reality.
And where in the part 1 video at the cemetery does it show Darlie crying and grieving before the silly string incident? I have somehow missed the tears part, I saw her head bent down a little. No one else seems to have seen her crying eight days after her kids were murdered except the Darlie supporters. It amazes me all these amateur Darlie supporting detectives are suddenly producing all this “newly discovered” info and evidence that her attorneys and the initial police investigators somehow missed. Where are you people finding all this magic evidence? How come her attorney’s aren’t interested in it? Were people there that night? Did you help investigate the crime scene? Maybe you read it in tea leaves or something.
October 27th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
In reply to post #29.Dana Says:
August 9th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Reply to Carolyn and Kathryn:…. In regard to the silly string incident. My question to both of you is have either of you lost a child? I have and so I can speak on this subject. No one can say what a parent is “suppose” to do, feel, or anything. Everyone is different, and handles grief in all different ways… Every year on what would be my daughters birthday, we go to a special place, put flowers down, sing happy birthday, and release balloons so that God can get them for her, and hand deliver them to her. If it were a tradition that on their birthday’s they sprayed silly string.. then who is to say that is wrong? Maybe that was healing for the rest of the family.. (take Darlie out of it for a bit).. she wasn’t the only one there….
First of all, Dana, I want to say that I am very sorry for your loss. It has to be the hardest thing ever to lose a child and I pray that I never know the feeling.
My question to you is, what kind of shape were you in a week after the loss of your child? I don’t know you, but my guess would be that you were sick with grief. I know that people grieve in different ways, but not standing graveside a week after the brutal murder of two of your children acting like she was as happy as a lark.
The ceremony you are speaking of for your daughter is not nearly the same. It’s sweet and sentimental and I could see a parent, a MOTHER, doing something like that. If Darlie had been out there flat and TOTALLY emotionless, then you could say that she was heavily medicated and that would be understandable. But the medication she was supposedly on
couldn’t hide her very apparent happiness. I’m sorry, Dana. Darlie is very guilty. No, she wasn’t the only one out there, but she was their mother. Quite frankly, I think her actions speak volumes.
Pamela Collins
October 29th, 2010 at 11:47 pm
Kimmy Says:
October 27th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
“I think Darlie has convinced herself she is innocent. I guess the bloody sock killer never struck again.”
I agree, Kimmy. I think she has herself completely convinced of her own lies. And, no… oddly enough, the bloody sock killer did NOT strike again. lol
How ridiculous is the sock thing? I’m sure that Darlie thought she was going to fool people with it, but that sock being found with NONE of her blood on it - just the boys blood and her skin cell DNA inside the sock - only reinforces her guilt.
October 29th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
The more I think about this entire case, the more I think justice is served better this way. Here it is, Darlie in jail, proclaiming her innocence. She spends all her time and other people’s money in HER.
You know what I would be doing in jail if I was innocent? FINDING THE KILLER!
So let her rot in jail, with the hope that one day someone will set her free on her fantasies.
October 30th, 2010 at 6:33 am
People need to read up on Julie Harper. She was convicted of murdering her only son in the same EXACT way as Devon and Damon. The killer even took a knife out of HER house. It isn’t MORALLY JUST to execute human beings without SOLID EVIDENCE. I challenge people to read about Cameron Todd Williams. Maybe this will soften your hearts some. The thought of a mother sitting on deathrow and may very well be innocent is VERY DISTURBING….At least to me. I am sure if some of these people who insist she is guilty wouldn’t feel this strongly about it if they or someone in their family was being strapped down and executed without proof. I am a MOTHER and have studied this case for YEARS! I can’t say for sure if she is guilty or innocent. BUT, what if she didn’t do it? The prosecution did not present evidence to prove her guilt. Why won’t the state of Texas give her a new trial? JUSTICE has not been served…Everytime I see someone post that “she did it” because of the silly string incident, my skin crawls…Hello, that is hardly evidence. Read the testimony of Officer Jimmy Patterson (PRIOR TO TAKING THE FIFTH) Have you people commenting that she is guilty even read the trial transcripts? I doubt it. No wonder Texas Criminal trials are known among lawyers in Texas as “Trial by Ambush”, not “Trial by Jury”
October 30th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
I agree with you 100%, Kimmy.
Pam
October 30th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Quoting Wendi:
“People need to read up on Julie Harper. She was convicted of murdering her only son in the same EXACT way as Devon and Damon. The killer even took a knife out of HER house.”
I personally believe that Julie Rae Harper is very guilty of killing her son.
“It isn’t MORALLY JUST to execute human beings without SOLID EVIDENCE.”
There was PLENTY of solid evidence against Darlie Routier. And I don’t believe that it is morally just to execute ANYONE.
“I challenge people to read about Cameron Todd Williams. Maybe this will soften your hearts some.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t see the connection between the Routier case and the Williams case except that I have a little doubt (and I do mean A LITTLE) where Williams is concerned and I have no doubt in the least where Routier is concerned.
“The thought of a mother sitting on deathrow and may very well be innocent is VERY DISTURBING….At least to me.”
The thought of an innocent mother/person on death row is very disturbing to me as well. That thought is disturbing to EVERYONE. Thankfully, we do not have to worry about that in Routier’s case because she is very guilty.
“I am sure if some of these people who insist she is guilty wouldn’t feel this strongly about it if they or someone in their family was being strapped down and executed without proof.”
I wouldn’t want execution for anyone, proof or not, as I am not a death penalty advocate. It would not bother me if they commuted her sentence. But she is where she belongs.
“I am a MOTHER and have studied this case for YEARS! I can’t say for sure if she is guilty or innocent.”
I am also a mother and I have also studied this case for years. Extensively. And there is not one doubt in my mind that she is guilty.
“BUT, what if she didn’t do it? The prosecution did not present evidence to prove her guilt.”
Again, don’t worry about that. She is guilty. No doubt, there are cases all over this country where people have been wrongly convicted. Darlie Routier’s case is not one of them. And if you honestly believe that the prosecution didn’t present evidence to prove her guilt, then you are thinking with your heart and not your head. The evidence against Routier is solid.
“Why won’t the state of Texas give her a new trial?”
There is criteria to meet in granting someone a new trial, Wendi. Routier, so far, has not met any of that criteria.
“JUSTICE has not been served…”
I disagree. I believe justice has definitely been served.
“Everytime I see someone post that “she did it” because of the silly string incident, my skin crawls…Hello, that is hardly evidence.”
The silly string video is not total evidence of Routier’s guilt. But it says a lot.
“Read the testimony of Officer Jimmy Patterson (PRIOR TO TAKING THE FIFTH)”
Patterson took the 5th because once he got on the stand, he was accused by the defense of an illegal act (the taping at the cemetary). He exercised the same right we all have as American citizens. Darin Routier and Darlie Kee later sued Rowlett PD and lost, because the owners of the cemetary gave the police their permission to place the surveillance equipment near the boys graves and it was determined that there is no expected privacy in a public place. No crime was commited.
“Have you people commenting that she is guilty even read the trial transcripts? I doubt it.”
Personally, I have read the trial transcripts many, many times. It is the trial transcripts that convinced me of Routier’s guilt. When I first heard about this case, I believed Darlie. But the transcripts quickly eradicated that belief. As a matter of fact, it has been my experience that it is the people who believe Routier that have not read the transcripts.
“No wonder Texas Criminal trials are known among lawyers in Texas as “Trial by Ambush”, not “Trial by Jury””
Darlie Routier is guilty. It wasn’t a trial by ambush, it was a trial with plenty of damning evidence and she was found guilty as a result of that evidence.
Pam
October 31st, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Sorry… that should be Cameron Todd WILLINGHAM, not Williams.
http://video.pbs.org/video/1618590505/
October 31st, 2010 at 8:09 pm
I agree with Pamela’s points, but I also see where Wendy is coming from. No one wants to believe Darlie did this; I know I didn’t when I first learned of the case. She doesn’t appear to have a background suggestive of someone capable of doing this. Sure, she likes spending money and living well, and she got into financial difficulty..a lot of us have, but that doesn’t necessarily set the stage for someone to murder their children.
It’s the crime scene evidence alone that points directly at Darlie, indisputable evidence. I agree, some things in the evidence are questionable, as I’m sure every crime scene contains, even cases where the killer confesses there is questionable evidence of some sort. But Darlie’s explanations for this questionable evidence doesn’t make any sense. And her stories and explanations are totally inconsistant. That’s what conviceted her.
Texas law is a bit different from other states but as Pamela pointed out, there is criteria in place to appeal and overturn court decisions, Darlie and her attorney’s have not been able to produce anything credible enough to have the case reopened.
I’m not sure she needs to be executed, but I feel that a life sentence with no possibility of parole is definitly indicated here.
You really need to read the court transcripts with an open undecisive mind before forming an opinion on this case. I too felt the evidence was 100% solid after reading it, and I read it 3 times. I’m afraid if I were a juror in this case based on what I read, the evidence produced by the prosecution and the failure of the defense to refute that evidence, I would have found her guilty hands down.
October 31st, 2010 at 11:14 pm
I was reading the transcripts the other night and the head officer didn’t even take notes! Are you serious! I thought in a murder investigation this was at least expected. No notes at all til later from “his recollection and other officers”. Also the neighbors are the ones that said there was a black car in the neighborhood and a man called in having spotted a man matching Darlie’s discription a short while later on the other side of town. After reading this I am more convinced now than ever that she did not do this. Simply my opinion and I really don’t see anything changing my mind.
November 1st, 2010 at 1:25 am
Jennifer, I understand that you are entitled to your opinion. In the United States, Darlie was judged by her peers, not the Dallas Police department. She is guilty in the eyes of the law, and her peers. Of course you want to believe that Darlie didn’t do it. Who would want to believe that a mother would do this to her sons? The truth is, every jury goes in to it wanting to believe the person on trial. Scott Peterson is a perfect example of a more recent case. That jury believed he was innocent going in. But after months of testimony, the jurors realized that some people are just selfish, and only think of themselves.
While we do not know the exact motive, we do know Darlie’s stories changed, and the evidence pointed to her, and only her.
I am glad she has a group of people that still want to proclaim her innocence. It gives her some false hope she will ever see the light of freedom, and that makes me happy.
Like her, I was a young mom. And I would feel more for her, if I understood what snapped in her to do this. She has the opportunity to admit her guilt, and help other young moms to avoid this. Instead, we live lie after lie coming from her.
With DNA testing, and so many hundreds of people released in the last decade, wouldn’t you think Darlie would be one of them if there was any, chance it wasn’t her?? But she wasn’t released. Why? Cause nothing proves her innocence, every piece of evidence proves her guilt.
Any one can state their opinion. The “black car” wasn’t there when the police arrived, and no one ever saw it again.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:38 am
Kimmy I too am a mother of 4 and in my opinion something just doesn’t set right with me about this whole case. I know there are people out there who think she is gulity as well as others who think she is innocent. I guess this will be one of those things people will argue about for a long time. All I am saying is I have not seen or read anything to change my mind. Too many inconsistances on everyones part makes it hard for me to actually believe that she did it.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:35 am
Hi Jennifer,
Do you mind if I ask how far you have gotten in the transcripts? Have you read Darlie or Darins testimony yet? Also, what do you think about the blood evidence and the sock found down the alley? I’m not sure where you are in your reading, but if you have finished all of the transcripts, would you mind sharing what you think about those things?
Thanks, Pam
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:57 am
The transcripts are very telling, I agree Pamela.
I have a problem mostly with the reasoning that Darlie is innocent because the court reporter lost tapes, or because the seasoned detective looked first at the scene, staging, and then the mom as a prime suspect.
Darlie has proven to be very vain, and extremely unbalanced. I do not have a degree to diagnose her, however her actions before and after the deaths are not consistent with that of a grieving mother that went through that type of assault. That is where the transcripts will provide you with a better understanding.
I wouldn’t be following this case, if I didn’t care about justice. I wouldn’t want to convict on silly string, or a “seasoned detective” either. That’s why I read every inch of the court transcripts. That’s why I watched all videos. That’s why I read Darlie’s mom’s site in full as well.
Not many people with a big heart, like you seem to have Jennifer, with three kids want to imagine a mom stabbing her children. I do not think you have the heart to read the weeks it will take to read day after day of testimony.
It’s okay. The jury already convicted her. I just know, I have done every bit of reading I could possibly read. My heart goes out for the families. My last hope is for the truth on what happened that night.
November 3rd, 2010 at 8:33 am
Quoting Mark @ post #61:
“I agree with Pamela’s points, but I also see where Wendy is coming from. No one wants to believe Darlie did this;”
Hi Mark,
I agree with your entire
post all the way and I absolutely understand Wendi’s point of view as well. NO ONE wants to believe that a mother did this unspeakable act. I started out on her Justice For Darlie site and only God could have convinced me she was guilty. Because, if you read her support sites and that’s ALL you read, you’ll believe her. But when you read those transcripts… there is just no way around it. Unlike most people who know about this case and believe she is guilty, I pity her. She was obviously off-balance. I wish that she had fought to prove her mental instability instead of trying to convince everyone that she was this perfect wife and mother who lived a perfect life and that the entire state of Texas was out to get her. As I stated earlier, I am not an advocate of the death penalty and I would be fine with her sentence being commuted. In fact, I’d prefer it. But the evidence is undeniable. I talked to a lady online once on another discussion board who believed tooth and nail that Darlie was innocent. When I asked her what she thought of the transcripts, she said that she had started reading them once, but they gave her a headache so she never even got through the first volume. And when I asked her about the blood evidence, she told me that that was not one of the aspects of the case she had really looked into. The blood evidence is one of the strongest points of the case! How can you know nothing about the blood evidence OR trial testimony and lecture others on how wrong they are for believing she is guilty??
Oh well, Mark. Sorry to ramble. It doesn’t take much to get me started where this case is concerned. lol! But at any rate, excellent posts on your part and I enjoyed reading them.
Pam
November 6th, 2010 at 12:46 am
This is how it is on every forum I’ve ever posted on concerning this case. Supporters come out with the same things they always do… “evidence was withheld”, “Black car lead never investigated”, “the jury now believes she is innocent”, and this was a good one-
Quoting Jennifer:
“a man called in having spotted a man matching Darlie’s discription a short while later on the other side of town.”
…What discription??? White male, 6′, wearing a ball cap??? Wow. They should have shot him on sight!!!
All of these statements and others constantly used by supporters can be easily be proven incorrect through the transcripts. They try to spread the misinformation, then when they are proven wrong, you never hear from them again.
You can always tell when a poster has actually read the transcripts or not. They claim that they have, but then quote the info from Darlie’s websites. They never last long.
No board is going to stay hot forever. I’m just sayin’…
Pam
November 6th, 2010 at 12:50 am
DEScription… not DIScription.
I should have proof-read my proof-reading! LOL
Have a great day all!
Pam
November 6th, 2010 at 12:55 am
And that is the long and short of it. Never once, has someone spent the time, as the jurors did, and listen to the entire testimony. Those that did, sadly, know that Darlie murdered her two sons. I have to agree more and more with Pam. Most of us came to read about this case, wanting to support Darlie. Evidence points to only one.
November 6th, 2010 at 8:47 am
I have not been able to locate Darlie’s Testimony online but i have read some of Darin’s if you know where i can find the rest of this testimony I would love to read it. I did read Patterson’s testimony and i just think all the “investigation” on this case was wrong. Why would they not take notes? Neighbors reported the black car in the area. I just can’t help but think this was just hurry up and solve the case instead of really investigating it. I do not post things on here to argue with anyone. This is simply put my opinion!!!!!!! If anyone knows where exactly i can find the remaining testimony of Darin’s and all of Darlie’s like i said i would like to read it.
November 6th, 2010 at 8:58 am
http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Legal/index.html
Here is all the available transcripts from Darlie’s own site
November 6th, 2010 at 10:32 am
I can’t believe what I’m reading here. How can you people honestly think Darlie did this. And yes, I read the transcripts. You know, the transcripts that contain 33,000 known errors? The flawed transcripts that resulted in the court stenographer getting jailed and her license taken away? The evidence does not at all point to Darlie. And of course Darlie’s testimony isn’t gong to be 100% consistant. Your’s wouldn’t be either if you had to repeat is 500 times.
This woman deserves a another trial, a fair trial with an impartial jury.
November 6th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Hi Jennifer,
Darin’s testimony begins in volume 42 and into volume 43. There is also testimony from him in volume 3 for the bond hearing and other spots here and there. Darlie’s testimony begins in volume 44. Here is a link for you:
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts.php
This is a break-down of trial proceedings and testimony which makes it a lot easier to get through the transcripts. Each witnesses name is listed and you just click on the name you are interested in and it will take you right to their testimony. I wish they’d had this done when I first started reading them.
I don’t mean to be on the attack, Jennifer. It’s just that these are the same things that supporters always say and it comes from Darlie’s websites. If that’s all anyone read about this case, EVERYONE would believe her. For example, there is always a supporter out there, at least one on any board I’ve ever commented on, that says that there was a man on the lawn when the 1st officer pulled up who was never identified. Officer Waddell testifies that Darin was in the yard when he pulled up and even drew his weapon on him until he identified himself as Darin Routier. Also, Darin claimed in more than one interview that he was progressively making $100,000.00 more every year than he’d made the year before and that there were NO money problems. But document after document brought in by the prosecution proved that to be very much a lie. Also, all the towels that Darlie claimed to be wetting to put on Damons open, gaping lung wounds (???) was never mentioned until the police released her house back to her and she saw they had cut out her sink for evidence. A LOT of blood was washed down that sink and she knew she would have to explain that. That’s when the story of wetting towels came about. Darlie constantly changed her story to fit the physical evidence. Those are just a few examples in a sea of others. The truth is there, Jennifer. I’m a mom, too. I would LOVE to know that this woman didn’t do what she did and I believed in her whole-heartedly. Reading the transcripts changed my mind dramatically.
Maybe you will feel the same after you read them. I don’t think that you will, but give it a shot if you’ve got the time. It makes for very interesting reading.
Pam
November 7th, 2010 at 2:16 am
Here is yet another frequent line constantly recited by Routier supporters:
Quoting Karen:
“And yes, I read the transcripts. You know, the transcripts that contain 33,000 known errors? The flawed transcripts that resulted in the court stenographer getting jailed and her license taken away?”
We are all aware of the trial transcript errors, Karen. Are you aware that the transcripts were corrected by audio recordings and certified corrected and complete? And to further clarify, the jurors were not reading transcripts when they were in that courtroom. They were LISTENING TO and SEEING evidence. Was it transcript error that had one juror saying that he never saw photos of Routier’s injuries while eleven others say they absolutely did see them? Was it transcript error that proved that not one drop of Darlie’s blood was on that sock, just the boys blood and HER skin DNA inside the sock? Was it transcript error that had Routier claiming that Damon was walking around TALKING to her with six, deep wounds in his vital organs, three of which being his heart,liver and lungs??? No that was just a bold-faced lie like everything else that comes out of her mouth.
NO, I’m sorry. If you choose to believe that Darlie Routier did not butcher her children, that is, of course, your right. But if you honestly believe that she was convicted - on transcript error - you’ve been duped and it’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. Sorry, the 17th most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. The first 16 would be the 16 different versions of Routier’s story. You know, the story she has constantly changed to fit any physical evidence found against her?
But since you do believe her and if you don’t mind the debate, would you mind sharing what you think about the sock, what was found on it and what you think about the blood evidence? Surely there is more to you believing her story than transcript errors.
Pam
November 7th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Well put, Pam, referencing comment #75. The jury indeed convicted Darlie from seeing factual evidence.
I don’t recall what the defense’ explanation was for Damon’s blood drops on the the back of Darlie’s shirt indicating cast off blood from the knife as she was raising it up to stab. That was pretty solid evidence to try to explain away as far as I’m concerened.
November 7th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Mark and Pam, you are both looking at this case with tunnel vision. We both agree that there were transcripit errors, ok they were corrected but not before the jury came up with a verdict. Do you really think that the jury didn’t review the transcripts before rendering a decision?
Can you two tell me why no one will do DNA testing on the bloody figerprints found on the livingroom table, the garage door and Darin’s jeans? Does that not indicate someone else being there at the crime scene? And what about the undientified public hair? And finally, why did the investigators take the 5th in court, what were they covering up? Sounds like Mark Fuhrmon all over again.
November 8th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
No tunnel vision here, Karen. I’ve been as far on both sides of this case as a person can possibly go. And there is not one ounce of doubt in my mind as to her guilt.
Are there any examples or documentation that you could share with us that show how heavily the transcripts were relied upon to reach a verdict? I doubt it. Those people sat in that courtroom day in and day out. They watched and listened to the testimony of many people (two of those people being Darlie and Darin) and observed all of the evidence. They SAW and HEARD everything for themselves. There’s just some things you don’t get by reading a piece of paper, Karen. Like Darlie’s total and complete meltdown on the stand on cross-examination. She was her own worst enemy. Well, her own and the boys.
New DNA testing has been ordered. Testing for the pubic and limb hair, fingerprints to be run through FBI etc, etc, etc. It’s been ordered. Two years ago. So… like you, I am waiting.
And again with the officers taking the 5th!
…I explained this earlier, in post #59 if you want to read it. That information comes straight from the transcripts.
And Mark… to answer your thought earlier, the defense explanation for the blood spatter pattern on the back of Darlie’s nightshirt was transfer. That the nightshirt had been improperly handled and that caused that pattern to transfer to the back of her shirt. Yeah… ok.
On a totally unrelated note, looking for info to post here, I came across this Anne Goode article. She really likes the Routiers:
http://www.justicedenied.org/twomen.htm
This came out when Brian Pardo came out of the woodwork and wanted to prove Darlie innocent by blaming Darin. It has some pretty interesting quotes from both Darlie and Darin. One of which, from Darlie, emphatically denies Darin’s involvement in the murders. Which I find fascinating since she is now trying to implicate him. I guess she is upset about his Facebook and MySpace pages…
November 26th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Pam, do you have any idea of the reason for the results delay on the DNA testing that was ordered two years ago?
November 26th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Hi Steph,
I know that there were some issues between the defense and the prosecution about where the testing would be done. Other than that, I haven’t heard anything since the testing was ordered back in ‘08.
November 27th, 2010 at 5:26 am
Hi guys, sorry I’ve been out of the loop and busy at work Just now got around to reviewing comments on here.
Karen, I am probably the furthest from tunnel vision you’ll ever see in someone. I’m a very open minded guy and studied the facts of this case pretty carefully before deciding in my mind that Darlie was guilty without question.
I’m not as knowledgeable about the subject as Pam is but I have read the transcripts in detail.
I think Pam has more than adequately answered you questions in post #77, so there’s no need in my repeating it.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I will say if you truly read the transcripts in their entirety you may have some doubts from your current stance. It certainly happened to me.
November 27th, 2010 at 5:32 am
Well Mark let me put it to you and your little self proclaimed “expert” buddy Pam like this, if I’m ever charged with a crime and am in deed innocent, I sure hope the two of you aren’t on my jury!
November 27th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Hi, Pam. Yes, I too read about squabbles between the defense and prosecution about which lab should conduct the DNA testing. It does seem odd that it’s taking/taken so long even though I think it is just another desperate (read: lying) attempt by Darlie to convince seld and others that she is innocent. Also, whereabouts did you read that she is now trying to implicate Darin?
November 28th, 2010 at 1:39 am
lol… When, exactly, did I proclaim to be an expert, Karen? I’m no expert and never claimed to be one. I’ve just done a lot of research on this case for a very long time. If someone asks a question and I know the answer, I’ll answer it. If I read something that someone has posted that I know to be incorrect, I’ll correct it. It’s up to the person being answered as to what they want to do with the information.
You’d be blessed to have someone like Mark or myself or others here like us on a jury if you were, indeed, falsely accused of a crime. You could be sure that we would look at all of the evidence and not rely on any preconceived notions or blind emotion.
November 28th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
@Steph “It does seem odd that it’s taking/taken so long even though I think it is just another desperate (read: lying) attempt by Darlie to convince seld and others that she is innocent.”
I agree. I know that testing takes time, but it’s been two year. I am just so anxious for this to wrap up and find out what the results are.
“Also, whereabouts did you read that she is now trying to implicate Darin?”
I’ve just read things here and there(I’ll get the links for you)that indicate a change of heart. I’m not saying she’s out and out accusing Darin of the murders. She’s just kind of leaving that window open now.
In the begining, Darlie was very adamant about Darin’s innocence:
(In response to Pardo saying that he believed that Darin was the killer, as told to Anne Good)
“What does Darlie have to say? In a recent phone conversation she called the
theory “ridiculous.” She went on to explain, “I have known this man since we were teenagers. I know everything about him and he could not have had anything more to do with the murder of Devon and Damon than I did. He just doesn’t have it in him. And I was there. He loved our boys with all his heart. I can assure you, I would not be sitting in here defending him if I thought for a second he had anything to do with this.” With an ironic twist, she adds, “Anne, I don’t have that in me.”"
source:justicedenied.org/twomen
Now, though… it’s a different story. In an interview with Sylvia Chase (20/20 Downtown)
Darlie is asked if she still believed that Darin didn’t have anything to do with the murders. Her reaction is interesting:
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/media/2020downtown.php
Ok… got to get to bed. It’s getting late. I’ll get those links for you tomorrow, Steph. Just wanted to answer with something since I didn’t have time to answer today when I answered Karen’s post.
November 28th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
It doesn’t take two years. I ought to know. I work in a lab that does this kind of testing.
November 28th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
@Steph “It does seem odd that it’s taking/taken so long even though I think it is just another desperate (read: lying) attempt by Darlie to convince seld and others that she is innocent.”
I agree. I know that testing takes time, but it’s been two years. I am just so anxious for this to wrap up and find out what the results are.
“Also, whereabouts did you read that she is now trying to implicate Darin?”
I’ve just read things here and there(I’ll get the links for you)that indicate a change of heart. I’m not saying she’s out and out accusing Darin of the murders. She’s just kind of leaving that window open now.
In the begining, Darlie was very adamant about Darin’s innocence:
(In response to Pardo saying that he believed that Darin was the killer, as told to Anne Good)
“What does Darlie have to say? In a recent phone conversation she called the
theory “ridiculous.” She went on to explain, “I have known this man since we were teenagers. I know everything about him and he could not have had anything more to do with the murder of Devon and Damon than I did. He just doesn’t have it in him. And I was there. He loved our boys with all his heart. I can assure you, I would not be sitting in here defending him if I thought for a second he had anything to do with this.” With an ironic twist, she adds, “Anne, I don’t have that in me.”"
source:justicedenied.org/twomen
Now, though… it’s a different story. In an interview with Sylvia Chase (20/20 Downtown)
Darlie is asked if she still believed that Darin didn’t have anything to do with the murders. Her reaction is interesting:
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/media/2020downtown.php
Ok… got to get to bed. It’s getting late. I’ll get those links for you tomorrow, Steph. Just wanted to answer with something since I didn’t have time to answer today when I answered Karen’s post.
Sorry if this turns out to be a duplicate post. I submitted it last night but at 6:13 this morning, it still isn’t here.
November 29th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
@clb in Dallas “I’ve never believed Darlee Routier killed her children. I saw a tv program about a killer named Tommy Lynn Sells who has an MO which could easily fit the Routier murders. Could he have been in the Dallas area June 1996?”
A lot of people have considered Sells, but he was in prison in West Virginia when Routier murdered her children. He was released in May of 1997.
PS… (To Karen) Not trying to be an expert, Karen. It’s just one of those things where I have seen this consideration quite often and I happen to know it’s not possible.
November 29th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
@ Steph “It doesn’t take two years. I ought to know. I work in a lab that does this kind of testing.”
Oh how fascinating!!! Tell me, Steph, how long does it take, as a rule, for this type of testing to be done? Also, does a lab do testing in the order that work is submitted?
December 4th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Hi, Pam. Well, the time taken varies from lab to lab…depending on what type of tests are being run, how big/small the samples are, how many staff are working on the samples, how ‘urgent’ the work, etc etc. But as a general rule, 4-6 weeks. And like most orgs, the people who actually do the work aren’t the ones who prioritise it.
December 4th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Pam, I am slowly reading the court transcripts. Can you tell me which volume contains the blood evidence?
December 7th, 2010 at 2:58 am
Steph, sorry it’s been so long. I answered this post the other day but I still don’t see it.
Blood evidence testimony starts in volume 36 through volume 39. Here is a link for you:
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts.php
It’s the transcript breakdown and makes it a little easier to get through.
December 10th, 2010 at 1:37 am
Ref to post#82
To Karen, if you’re still out there. I don’t understand your bitterness in this discussion. No one on here has proclaimed to be an expert on this case. It’s all a matter of exchanging opinions. Some people on here are better versed or more familiar with the case and transcripts than others, but no has specifically said “this is the way it is.”
Don’t get mad, just discuss it like everone else. We’re all open and willing to listen to other opinions. We may not necessarily all agree but we will listen.
As far as your comment about Pam and myself serving on your jury, I can comfortably say (I’m sure Pam agrees) that we would be fair and listen to all the facts before forming an opinion.
December 27th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
I’ve kept up with this case for a number of years. I believe Darlie Routier is guilty. In fact, I’ve also emailed some of her strongest supporters, telling them that if Darlie is truly innocent, why isn’t she demanding to undergo hypnosis, or another polygraph? After all, she has nothing to lose; she’s on death row anyway. And, interestingly, the people I emailed asking this NEVER replied back to me. Total silence. It’s as if they know deep down she did it and the truth of her involvement (and Darin’s) will come out and harm their publicity wires. As far as the bruises, I don’t believe they were self-inflicted at all. I feel that mainly Damon inflicted those bruises in an effort to fight her off. Nor do I feel she made a dash and dropped off the sock; I think Darin assisted her doing that.
December 27th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
And let’s remember too…Misty Cummings also refused to undergo hypnosis. It’s not hard to figure out why. So, all the Darlie supporters, if you really, truly believe she did NOT commit this crime, just beg her to undergo hypnosis…and prove me wrong.
December 29th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Testing
December 29th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
I’ve been trying to post this for a couple of days. Maybe the site was down for some reason? Anyway… Hi Gay! Good to have you here. You should love this:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23058
December 29th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
I think I spent more time trying to find ways to rule her out as the killer, than anything else. Nothing points to an “intruder” based on her multiple stories.
This case will always be in question. Everyone wants to know the why. Why Darlie? What made you plan your evening to kill your children? Of course that seems so far out there.
People would have to believe that Darlie intentionally decided to have the boys come down, and have a sleep over in the family room, rather in their beds.
Any mother with children doesn’t want to believe a mom can kill their kids. Especially pre-meditated.
This is why people still discuss the case. The Why!
December 30th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Hi Gay,
Welcome.
I have been trying to reply to you for several days and for some reason, the post isn’t showing up. Anyway…
Darlie has had hypnosis/regression therapy. Get this… she says it helped her to remember that there were TWO intruders. Yeah… not one, but TWO people were there and left no sign of being there.
December 31st, 2010 at 12:05 am
I’m starting to wonder about Darin’s involvement myself. First of all I find it hard to believe that he couldn’t hear the noise during the murders unless he is an EXTREAMLY heavy sleeper. And second, it does seem difficult that Darlie could do the sock thing alone without leaving some sort of traces of her going out and coming back in with blood all over her. I’m starting to think that Darin was directly involved or has assisted in covering up what Darlie did. And if so, she must be extreamly dedicated to him to not take him down with her, or reverse total blame on him to save her own skin.
As far as Gay’s comments on the bruises, it’s quite possible that Damon did that in defense but at the same time if you’ve ever been in a hospital bed it’s easy to how someone could do that to themself with the bed rails up. I doubt it would even make that much noise doing it.
December 31st, 2010 at 12:17 am
I just thought of something else. Pam, you would know the answer to this, in the defense testimony did they say that Darlie went upstairs to wake Darin and tell him what had happened when it was over or did they say he finally heard her screaming for him when it was over? My thinking is while this was occuring she would have been screaming at the top of her lungs for help seeing her kids get stabbed and then supposedly fighting the mystery intruder while she was being stabbed. How could he possibly not hear the initial screams for help but then suddenly could hear her calling for him when it was over? It doesn’t make sense to me.
December 31st, 2010 at 2:03 am
Thank you, Pam, for letting me know, I wasn’t aware of it. It obviously indicates no success, due to the fact if it had been to her advantage, she’d be the type to harp about it on and on. I read where she took a poly, but the results were never officially disclosed. Yet, a supporter on the Darlie camp said it was “inconclusive” due to the stress she was under. Well, Marc Klaas was under much stress too, but he passed his.
December 31st, 2010 at 2:13 am
Thank you, Pam. I wasn’t aware of it. That indicates to me the therapy wasn’t a success. Darlie strikes me as the type that would be yappin’ about it non-stop. I also read where she took a poly, but the results were never officially disclosed. Yet one from the Darlie camp stated it was “inconclusive” due to the stress she was under…well, I’m sure Marc Klaas was under much stress too, but he passed his.
December 31st, 2010 at 2:14 am
Sorry, it posted twice. I’m having trouble getting my comments to post.
December 31st, 2010 at 2:33 am
I don’t discount the possibilty the bruises were self-inflicted, and the bed rails would’ve been perfect, no noise. Mark, I wanted to believe that maybe she didn’t do it, but the evidence reinforces my belief in her guilt. But I do not believe she acted alone, and Darin was involved as well. Darin failed the poly “miserably” and I watched some footage of it, and he never stopped smiling at the officer. He never has stopped grinning since the moment it happened. I feel that mainly Darlie did the murders, but gave the sock to Darin, so she could stand by the sink and cut herself. To me that’d explain why Darlie’s blood isn’t on that sock. Another thing is, when crimes like this are committed by a family member, it is common for them to leave a weapon or other evidence down the street to try to offset the police. It’s a well-known amateur trick; any detective will tell you that. And it will ALWAYS be a small black car that was seen in the area. And it’s ALWAYS a male dressed in black. I think the reason Darlie stays quiet about Darin is that it will prove her guilt in the crime, but he needs to go down with her. She needs to start yappin’ and tell the real truth about what really happened.
December 31st, 2010 at 4:02 am
I’m sorry, I forgot to add that Darlie had an abortion between the time of Damon’s and Drake’s births. Now, I realize this is a private matter. But to me, when a married mother gets pregnant and has an abortion, that’s sends a big red flag. Personally, I don’t believe in abortion, especially for married mothers, but I would support it in the cases of rape or incest. If she’s willing to take the life of an unborn infant, who’s to say she can’t take the life of the other kids she had? Just before the murders occurred, the Routiers were denied a $5,000.00 loan. They were about 2 months behind on their house note. The way I see it, obviously their credit cards were maxed out or cancelled to get cash advances, and Darlie (and Darin) loved to spend money like there was no tomorrow. Considering the fact the bank denied this relatively small amount, and living in a huge home with lavish furnishings, a fancy boat, Darlie’s fancy jewelry and clothes, is indicative they did not know the value of a dollar. It was all about “puttin’ on the dog” and “keepin’ up with the Jones’s”. They got in over their head. Darlie was always known for being an attention-seeker and this is another reason the murders were committed. They thought they would get away with it, and recover financially by getting paid to appear on various TV shows. Didn’t work that way.
December 31st, 2010 at 5:31 am
Good points Gay, and I agree with you 100%. I wonder if Darlie did start to rat out Darin, even knowing that it would not help her out any, if that would be enough to charge him let alone convict him in court. You know the detectives had to have initially looked at him as a possible participant as well. I guess there just wasn’t enough there to charge him with. You and I think he was involved but apparently they didn’t. Failing the poly obviously wasn’t enough to get them to dig deeper into his involvement.
I’m just not sure if they would or could act on anything if she did talk. So many years have gone by and the police and the DA’s office consider this both a solved and closed case.
She would have to mention something that hasn’t been considered before and that could be verified by evidence. I’m not sure she could do that.
Interesting to think about.
December 31st, 2010 at 8:00 am
Oh I was so excited to check the board tonight and see so much discussion had gone on!!
RE: Post #99
Hi Mark
I’m not sure where I heard this, so it’s not a definite. I’ll talk to my friend Mary at Life On The Row. She knows this case front to back and knows the transcripts like she wrote them. But I believe that Darin had taken a sleeping pill that night. I will find out for sure where that came from and let you know. But with or without a pill, I don’t believe that a whole lot of noise was going on to be heard. He was asleep upstairs in a pretty large house. Aside from that, I don’t believe that Darlie was heard until she wanted to be heard.
To me, the sock is one of the biggest idicators of Darlie’s guilt. The fact that the boys blood is on the sock and hers isn’t only means one thing (to me, since I don’t believe Darin was involved), the sock was planted before Darlie’s injuries ever occured. I firmly beieve that Darin knew what Darlie did and knew it that night or very soon after. Darin idolized Darlie. IMO, that’s why he protected her, even after what she did. Now he can’t say anything because he doesn’t want to go to jail and she can’t say anything because that would mean admitting to the murders. I don’t think she’ll ever admit to it. If they do execute her, I’m curious to see if she says to heck with it and takes Darin down with her.
December 31st, 2010 at 8:01 am
Sorry… RE: Post #100, not #99!
December 31st, 2010 at 8:23 am
RE: Post #101
Darin heard Darlie screaming and ran downstairs. He says the first thing he heard was glass breaking and Darlie screaming Devons name. I’ll go in tonight and post her testimony about that.
Her screaming her head off would be my thinking too, Mark. But she doesn’t. Her children were in danger, she was in danger and her husband was right upstairs. But according to her own testimony, she doesn’t scream until the intruder is out of the house. Again, I don’t beieve that Darlie was heard until she wanted to be heard and that was after everything was in place.
December 31st, 2010 at 8:37 am
RE: Post #102
You’re welcome, Gay. I agree with you in that their silence indicates no success. You know that if they had ANYTHING that turned out with a positive note they would be blasting it for everyone to see and hear, and understandably so. The same goes for her polygraph tests. I agree with you as well about the stress excuse concerning the polygraph. I think most anyone who is in a position to take a polygraph is going to be stressed. Lol. It’s not generally a happy, carefree time when a polygraph situation arises…
December 31st, 2010 at 8:46 am
Post #107
Darin was for sure the first suspect which is only natural with him being the only uninjured adult in the house. He was separated from the rest of the family at the hospital because he was suspected. But ultimately, Darins version of events that night matched the evidence.
December 31st, 2010 at 9:01 am
Direct examination by Doug Mulder:
22 Q. Okay. And did you go to sleep?
23 A. Yes, sir, I did.
24 Q. All right. Darlie, what is the very
25 next thing that you remember, that you either felt or
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
4867
1 heard or saw?
2 A. The next thing that I remember is
3 Damon hitting my right shoulder, and he said “Mommy,” or
4 he said “Mommy, Mommy,” I’m not sure, but he said,
5 “Mommy.”
6 I looked up, and you’ve got to
7 remember that I’m in a — I am not completely awake, you
8 know, when you first wake up, you are not completely wide
9 awake. And there was a man, that was down, going away
10 from the couches, walking away from me.
11 I started to get up and when I stood
12 up, I heard noise like glass breaking. I started to walk
13 towards the kitchen, Damon was behind me, and when I got
14 to the kitchen, I put my hand back here for Damon to
15 stay. And when I got to the kitchen, I could see the guy
16 going into the utility room.
17 Q. Were the lights on?
18 A. No, sir, the lights were off.
19 Q. Okay. So the area was illuminated by
20 the big screen TV set only?
21 A. There was a little bit of — yeah, I
22 mean, there was a little bit of light, I don’t know what
23 you would call that, just kind of a –
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. A glare, maybe.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
4868
1 Q. All right. Okay. What happened?
2 A. I started to take a couple of steps
3 into the kitchen, and I realized that the lights were
4 off, so I turned back around, and I flipped the lights on
5 real quick. I started to walk into the kitchen.
6 Q. Where was the man by this time?
7 A. He was gone, he was out of my sight.
8 Q. All right.
9 A. I got into the kitchen, and I got to
10 where the island is, there is an island in the middle of
11 the kitchen. I got to where the island was, and it was
12 at that moment that I realized that I had blood on me.
13 And I kept going, walking a little
14 bit, and I saw a knife laying in the utility room. The
15 knife wasn’t completely the whole way in the utility
16 room, it was just like, a little bit into the doorway of
17 the utility room.
18 It was an instinct — I picked up the
19 knife, it was an instinct to pick up the knife. I didn’t
20 think about it. It was just an instinct. I picked up
21 the knife, I brought the knife back to the kitchen
22 counter, and set it up on the kitchen counter.
23 At that time, I started to walk into
24 the living room and it was at that time that I saw Devon,
25 and he was laying on the floor, and he wasn’t moving and
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
4869
1 his eyes were open, and he had cuts on him that were so
2 big.
3 Q. Did you say anything at that time?
4 A. I screamed “Devon.” I screamed out
5 and I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. It was at that
6 time that I turned back around and I went to Damon, and
7 Damon was standing up still.
8 Q. Could you see that he had been hurt or
9 cut or anything at that point?
10 A. Not at that time, I couldn’t see that
11 he had been hurt. I just started checking all over him
12 and when I turned him around I could see big, huge wounds
13 through his shirt. I started screaming, and I ran into
14 the entrance way, and I flipped on the lights real quick,
15 and I was screaming Darin, Devon, Darin and Devon, and,
16 we ran back into hallway, Darin went over to Devon, I
17 went into the kitchen and flipped the lights on, and I
18 grabbed the phone, and I went to the drawer where there’s
19 towels in the drawer, and I went to the drawer, and I
20 went over to the sink and I got the towels wet.
21 Q. Did you have all the lights on now?
22 A. Yes, sir.
December 31st, 2010 at 9:23 am
Darins testimony. Direct/Mulder
22 Q. When is the next thing that you heard
23 something of an unusual nature, Darin?
24 A. The very first thing I hear is the
25 glass break. And then, I hear Darlie screaming, I mean
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
4290
1 screaming so loud you wouldn’t believe it.
2 Q. All right. What did do you?
3 A. I jumped up, and I put on my glasses,
4 and I put my pants on, and I ran down the stairs as fast
5 as I could.
6 Q. Okay. What did you find when you got
7 downstairs?
8 A. Darlie was at the bottom of the
9 stairs, and I ran into the room, and while I was running
10 down the stairs, I was thinking that the coffee table had
11 tipped over, and fallen on Devon, because she was
12 screaming, “Devon, Devon, Devon.”
13 Q. Okay. What happened next?
14 A. I ran over to Devon, and I ran over
15 around the back of him, and I looked down in his chest,
16 and he had these great big, huge gashes in his chest, and
17 I was looking for the glass, and I was like — where is
18 the glass? I mean, I knew where they were when I went to
19 sleep. And, the blood — the blood wasn’t very — I
20 mean, there wasn’t very much blood. The blood didn’t
21 bother me, he had these huge gashes in his chest. Darlie
22 is screaming, and I’m screaming, and I mean, we’re just
23 freaking out.
24
25 THE COURT: Sir. Ma’am, if anybody in
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
4291
1 the courtroom — if this testimony is too emotional,
2 please leave.
3 Anybody care to leave? Let’s not have
4 any disturbance, please.
5 Thank you. You may continue.
6
7 BY MR. DOUGLAS D. MULDER:
8 Q. Yes, sir. What did do you when you
9 saw Devon there, near the glass table?
10 A. Well, the first thing I did was, I was
11 looking for any glass that could have been — fallen, or
12 broken, or went into him, and I couldn’t see anything and
13 I was –
14 Q. Where was the table?
15 A. The table was completely down. It was
16 fallen. The flowers had completely fallen off of the
17 table.
18 Q. All right. The table wasn’t sitting
19 slightly askew, and on its base?
20 A. No, it wasn’t on its base, it was
21 completely down to the ground.
22 Q. Okay. What, if anything, did you do?
23 A. The very first thing I did was I was
24 patting him on the face, and I remember when I looked at
25 him, and he looked like he was 12 years old.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
4292
1 Q. He looked like he had aged five years?
2 Is that right?
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. What, if anything, did you do?
5 A. The very first thing I did was, try to
6 give him CPR. And the very first thing I did was, I put
7 my hand over his nose, and I blew into his mouth, and
8 when I did, this blood just splattered all over my face,
9 and was blowing air right through him.
10 Q. Where was Darlie?
11 A. Darlie was running back and forth,
12 from the kitchen, over to Damon, and then she came over
13 to Devon. And she was going “Oh, my God, he is dead.”
December 31st, 2010 at 9:29 am
Wow…thanks Pam for all the info.
Mark
December 31st, 2010 at 9:57 am
UH OH… Greg Davis indicted!
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/122910dnmetdaindicted.a7c3e4.html
December 31st, 2010 at 9:57 am
You’re welcome, Mark.
December 31st, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Can I state from the outset that I haven’t read any of the court transcripts for this case so my only knowledge of it is from media and internet articles. And I have a question: numerous people have said that there was absolutely no evidence of an intruder. Yet I’ve read elsewhere that there were two bloodied fingerprints at the scene which were not identified. Which is true? Thanks, Ellen.
December 31st, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Re: Post 105. I would add though that to say that a woman who has had an abortion is therefore more likely to murder children is beyond idiotic.
December 31st, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Thank you so much Pam, that’s so informative! The one thing is have an issue with is Darin. I remember reading a book where he stated (paraphrasing) to the police, “This is gonna be the biggest thing that ever happend in Rowlett!” He told that to the police just after the crime. And both stated that earlier that night before going to sleep, Darlie & Darin sat up and talked.It’s been speculated Darlie wanted a separation; I don’t think we’ll ever really know, but I have to wonder if maybe they were putting the plan in order, getting the facts straight? It’s just a theory of mine, but I think it ties in with Darin’s statement to police about it “being the biggest thing”…to me, that is just not something a stunned worried parent would even think about. And the silly string party. It is appalling to me that Darlie had the audacity to call the damn media and have them present at that (but yet also I think it was a good thing, we got to see how kookoo she is.) I know many people have stated many grieve in different ways. Well, if that’s the case, I guess they wouldn’t have a problem if Darlie would have spit on the graves too. Or pissed on them. By calling the media to watch this indicates to me Darlie knew in advance about the silly string; she knew as well as her sister. Why invite the media to celebrate the horrific deaths of two boys? She’s chewing gum, flicks out her tongue, eyeballs wide open like thinking to herself “thank God those brats are gone!!” She also did this to bring more media attention and possibly make more $$$!!! Thank you again, Pam, and Mark, for this discussion. I’m really enjoying it, especially with two sensible people as you two!
December 31st, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Post 118 is speculative nonsense - emotive and ridiculous.
December 31st, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Quoting Pam Collins:
“I personally believe that Julie Rae Harper is very guilty of killing her son”.
Even though she was acquitted on the basis of extensive forensic evidence demonstrating that there was a third person in the house and even though someone else confessed to her son’s murder???
December 31st, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Well thank you too, Gay. It seems like we sort of sparked this thing up again the last couple of days. I’m enjoying the discussion as well.
Back to this “Was Darin involved?” thing. Pam, I know that you don’t think he was but the more I read (back to those transcripts again) and after re-watching videos, his responses to questioning and interviews, it seems to have been rehearsed. He seems to have an answer for everything and without hesitation. Almost as though he went over every possible question he might be asked with a pre-planned response.
I watched the 20/20 interview with him again last night (the polygraph) and that non-stop grinning when asked if he stabbed his wife bothers me. Was it just nervousness? Possibly, but I sure wouldn’t be smiling if I were asked that. The kicker for me was in the same video when Darlie was asked (in jail) by the interviewer if she still maintained her original story about Darin not being involved. She said no initially and then when asked “are you absolutely sure?” she kind of looked away and definitely hesitated for a few seconds before responding that she was. And, she almost smiled when she said that. I thought that was a very odd response. I don’t know, maybe we are raking this thing over the coals and looking to deep into it. Everyone’s emotions are different I guess.
December 31st, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Thank you and you’re welcome, Gay! I’m really enjoying the discussion as well!
Well Mark, I could be very wrong about Darin. He does seem quite cocky and arrogant and some of his actions are suspect, to say the least. Honestly, the thing that initially made me doubt his involvement was the 911 call. You can hear Darins voice for the first time about 30 seconds into the call. @ 00:39 you hear her say, “I don’t even know who did it.” Then @ 00:42 she says, “I don’t even know who did it, Darin!” You have to hear her voice. It’s like she is pleading with him to believe her. It’s more like she is trying to convince him of her explanation rather than just giving it. Then @ 05:13 she says, “Somebody walked in here and intentionally did it, Darin!” Lots of determination in her voice this time. It just didn’t seem to me that he was involved at his point. Do I believe that he helped her in the cover-up afterwards? Absolutely. But only to the extent of him not telling what he had to have known and maybe helping her with the bruising. I don’t belive that Darin had any part in the staging, including the sock. IMO, that was all Darlie.
December 31st, 2010 at 11:30 pm
Here’s the link for the 911 call:
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/emcall/index.php
December 31st, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Hi Pam, I’m not dead set convinced that Darin was a killing participant (I still can’t imagine someone doing that and living with their self)or that he was a pre-planner of the crime. But at the least I agree that he’s covering for Darlie. He knows something for sure. Maybe they were smart enough to have planned this from the git-go and have the convincing voices overheard on the 911 tape..who knows?
It does make since that Darlie wouldn’t rat out his involvement becaue it would for sure admit her guilt. Pam, what do you think about what I said yesterday about it being difficult to impossible to charge/convict Darin if Darlie did start talking in her final moments prior to execution?
And I have one more question…do you know what’s delaying the execution? Is it this disputed DNA/fingerprint / waiting for lab results business?
December 31st, 2010 at 11:45 pm
*Excuse the typo on post 119 - Sense not since.
Mark
January 1st, 2011 at 1:13 am
Hello, Pam & Mark…so what if we’re rehashing over and over, we’re bring up great points over intelligent conversation…nothing wrong with that! LOL! Regarding Mark’s comments about the 20/20 show, I think Darin’s grinning was more of arrogance rather than nervousness; just my opinion. I also remember well when Darlie was asked about his involvement and her is reaction is peculiar, to say the least. She was definitely “hesitant” about answering the question, rather than direct up-front surety about his guilt or innocence. When I heard the 911 call, I remember Darlie telling Darin “someone just come in here intentionally and did it Darin!” To me, this is what stands out…from the beginning on the 911 call, Darlie is harping, shreiking, talking quickly, sounding like a squawking crow in heat, can’t understand a word she’s saying. But if you listen to the statement to Darin, she’s VERY clear and distinct. That always stuck out for me for some reason. To me, it proves Darlie did it, doesn’t point to Darin in any way. But she’s making sure to reiterate (like picking up the knife) and make her story known on the tape. Pam, like Mark, I’m not convinced that Darin actually participated in the actual crime. But I’ll always believe he knew that something was ‘going to happen’ His comment about ‘the biggest thing in Rowlett’ always sticks out to me. Mark, I’ve wondered the same thing if it’s too late to involve Darin. Like you said, I think that’ll only happen if/when Darlie starts yakkin’…maybe she’ll get cold feet at the end before she walks to the gurney and spills the beans about what really happened.
January 1st, 2011 at 1:15 am
Correction: on the 7th line I meant to say “Mark, like Pam,” in my addressment.
January 1st, 2011 at 10:05 am
RE: Post #122
“… But at the least I agree that he’s covering for Darlie. He knows something for sure.”
I know we all agree there, Mark. Those of us who believe Darlie is guilty, anyway.
“Maybe they were smart enough to have planned this from the git-go and have the convincing voices overheard on the 911 tape..who knows?”
That’s true. It surely could have happened that way. But I still can’t help but to doubt Darins involvement.
“Pam, what do you think about what I said yesterday about it being difficult to impossible to charge/convict Darin if Darlie did start talking in her final moments prior to execution?”
I very much agree with you, Mark. They didn’t have enough evidence to arrest him 14 years ago and I don’t think that has changed. IMO, I feel sure the police knew that Darin was at the very least protecting Darlie and simply couldn’t prove it. And I don’t see them acting on Darlies word alone. Unless, as you mentioned before, she could come up with something new and verifiable. I think they’ll be satisfied with the execution, should it come to that.
“…do you know what’s delaying the execution?”
Personally, Mark, the only thing I know about the delay, aside from the appellate process itself, is the ongoing battle of where the testing is going to be done. There may be other factors as well. I will look around tonight and find some links for you.
January 1st, 2011 at 11:54 am
RE: Post #124
Hi Gay, I agree with you all the way, from beginning to end about Darin and the 911 call.
I took it the same way you did and I also thought that there was a huge difference in the way the two of them acted at the silly string party. Darlie was as happy as a lark. I think we can all agree to that. ;)
But to me, Darin seems quite uncomfortable. At one point, while she is singing Happy Birthday, etc., he looks over at her almost pleadingly. I don’t know how else to explain it. It’s like, for a micro-second, he’s begging her to stop. A million other people might see it a million different ways. But that’s what I see when I watch that tape. That is of course until they get to the part where they’re being interviewed. Darlie couldn’t look more guilty and Darin couldn’t look more whipped.
January 1st, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Hi Mark & Pam….Pam, I noticed too Darin was looking downward at the grave party. And when Darlie was saying Devon and Damon were up in heaven having the biggest…..” (end) She looked so happy and ticked. No grief showed at all. This morning, I had a friend over for coffee, an attorney. He’s one of the most intuitive people I’ve ever known, and I was telling him about our discussion and showed him some comments. I asked him what he thought about the Routier case. He said, (paraphrasing)..”As an attorney, it doesn’t hold in court how people should grieve, but as a PERSON, if I were in that jury box, that silly string tape alone would convince me 100% she’s guilty.” He felt that the video said an awful lot about her mentality. I found that interesting. He also told me that any person who’d believe in her innocence would also, no doubt, believe in the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, and Santa Claus!
January 1st, 2011 at 8:52 pm
Hi Gay and Pam…Gay, that’s interesting what your attorney friend said about the silly string video and how obvious her reactions were to him.
I’ve been reading the transcripts again where Darlie is being cross examined by the prosecution. That’s where, in my opinion, she took herself down. She had mentioned that she was a light sleeper. She stated that one of her children just turning over while sleeping would wake her up. Then try’s to convince everyone that both her children were stabbed and she was slashed on the neck and chest but never woke up? That it was Damon touching her shoulder and crying Mommy that woke her up? The prosecution kept hammering at her about this very thing but she had no explanation.
At one point she said that when she woke up she saw the intruder between the couch and table heading out. So when did the defensive bruises on her arms occur? I guess she fought this guy in her sleep? Or did this occur in the kitchen? Then we have her convenient “selective” memory; every time she was cornered with questions that she couldn’t come up with an explanation for, she suddenly couldn’t recall or remember.
Another excellent point the crime scene analyst (I can’t remember his name) mentioned was the knife Darlie supposedly picked up off the floor and placed on the counter had a fair amount of blood on it. She claimed the intruder dropped it to the floor on his way out. The analyst said that the knife hitting the floor with blood on it would have left blood “micro-spatter” on the floor when it hit….and of course none found…
I really don’t think it would make a difference if somehow she were granted a new trial. The DA even said this in 2006. I think she would be found guilty again hands down. The evidence is just overwhelming.
January 1st, 2011 at 8:53 pm
PS to post 133..Happy New Year to you all!
January 1st, 2011 at 10:31 pm
HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYBODY!!!
Darlie would have been better off if she’d never testified. As if the expert testimony wasn’t enough, she takes the stand and puts the icing on the cake.
And yes, where DID all of the defensive bruising come from? In the 911 call she says that she was “fighting” but then had to change that because that didn’t match her lack of memory claim. She also told officers that she fought with the man in the kitchen. Strange her bruising is restricted to her arms, don’t you think?
January 1st, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Good morning and Happy New Year Pam,
“Strange her bruising is restricted to her arms, don’t you think?”
Yes very strange. I’m telling you, being in the medical field (I work for NC Emerg. Mgt. and I’m also a paramedic) I have seen those types of inner arm bruises many times before. And each one I saw came from the rails of a hospital bed. (in the up position) They line up perfectly if you slam your arms down in them.
January 1st, 2011 at 10:56 pm
Happy New Year to all!
To: Ellen
Hi Ellen, maybe I didn’t explain enough what I meant about Darlie’s abortion. To me, it highly unusual for a married mother to have an abortion. It’s been stated that Darlie and Darin were having multiple affairs. I can’t help but wonder if the reason for the abortion is that maybe Darlie didn’t know who the father was? From what I’ve read about Darlie, she seems to jump to the fastest quick solution to solve the problem.
January 1st, 2011 at 11:12 pm
To: Mark and Pam
As far as Darlie’s bruises, I’ve been thinking about what Mark said re the bedrails. I wonder if maybe she noticed a few bruises coming on while in the hospital, and decided to make them worse by banging the bedrails, thinking that would make her look more “pitiful” so to speak. I know it’s been said Darlie could not have inflicted those bruises or cuts on herself. A couple of years ago, I knew a girl who developed a drug problem, and went to rehab. She was so messed up she took a pair of scissors and stabbed herself all over; neck, both arms, stomach and legs. Some wounds were nearly 2 inched deep. I know many Darlie supporters have said she couldn’t have inflicted those wounds to narrowly miss the carotid artery. I’ve been told the carotid is easily accessible and often used to insert IV’s. Darlie’s supporters try to lead people to believe the carotid is 2 or 3 inches deep. Not so. I’ve been told by a nurse it’s (give or take) roughly about a half inch. Mark, you’re in the medical profession….would you state that as being accurate as well? (Getting ready for work, gotta go, but later!)
January 1st, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Wow!…This discussion just gets better and better. Everyone is bringing up such excellent topics and points. Maybe we should be in the investigative profession…lol.
Amazing, the website:
http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/ sure didn’t waste time publicizing prosecutor Greg Davis’ indictment.
And of course they’re saying if he’s crooked now he must have manipulated the Routier prosecution in an illegal manner. Something else on that site (Greg Davis article) they mention that the nurses from the hospital Darlie was admitted to later admitted that they were “coached” by the prosecution and urged to change their original opinions. It also says that many of “the states witness’ later changed their testimony.” Where is that coming from? I never heard that unless it was an interview(s) locally in Texas????
Gay, in response to your question about the carotid arteries in the neck; the jugular veins and carotid arteries run parallel to each other on both sides of your neck. They are relatively close to the surface and the jugular vein is what is most often used for IV access (if no other veins are accessible) they are NOT a first choice stick site for IV administration.
As far as the depth (carotids) they run down the sides of the neck then curve toward the center of the neck (where her laceration was) and yes, it’s about 1/2 in down on the average person. It depends on the size of the person. Some people have more muscle and fat there then others of course.
The examining doc said “aprox. 2 mm from the carotid sheath” This sheath is simply connective tissue that surrounds the artery. So the knife still had a way to go to have done any life threatening damage. That doc also considered those lacerations “superficial” which is non-life threatening of course. He used steri-strips to close them,. he didn’t see a need to use suture material, the lac’s weren’t deep enough. (except on her arm I noticed)
January 2nd, 2011 at 9:30 am
Excellent posts & info! I’ll be back, guys. I found a couple of things I think you’ll find interesting and I want to get them posted tonight. By the way Mark, I talked to my friend Mary about Darin and the sleeping pill and she said that she’s never heard anything about it. So that’s a definite no on that. I’ve asked Mary to come and join us. I’m telling you, she really knows this case & you guys would really enjoy talking with her.
Ok… gotta run!I’ll be back.
Pam
January 2nd, 2011 at 10:27 am
To Pam:
Sounds good about you’re friend Mary. I’ll look forward to her joining the discussion here.
January 2nd, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Oh, thanks Pam! That’d be great to bring Mary aboard. And thank you Mark for verifying that about Darlie’s neck wounds; so strange, isn’t it, the boys received massive deep chest wounds, but nooooooo, that “intruder” wanted to protect her EE boobs!
January 2nd, 2011 at 11:09 pm
wow… I HATE IT when that happens!!!!!!! Wrong photo for defensive wounds. I’ll try again:
Real defensive wounds:
http://www.mda-sy.com/pathology/FORHTML/FOR014.HTM
Darlie’s defensive wounds:
http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/TrialExhibits/def_87.jpg
January 3rd, 2011 at 10:41 am
Hi, folks. Pam invited me over.
Mark Says:
January 1st, 2011 at 10:47 pm
“Yes very strange. I’m telling you, being in the medical field (I work for NC Emerg. Mgt. and I’m also a paramedic) I have seen those types of inner arm bruises many times before. And each one I saw came from the rails of a hospital bed. (in the up position) They line up perfectly if you slam your arms down in them.”
The bruises are one of my favorite subjects. Darlie’s website shows massive bruises on both arms, but don’t you believe it, lol. The only bruises on her left arm were from the I.V in her wrist and elbow, and they were already turning yellow/green when she was photographed on June 10th.
The dark, purple bruises were all confined to her right arm, and they certainly weren’t inflicted on June 6th. If they had, they would have been turning color like the ones from her I.V.
There is no testimony to support those left arm bruises on her website. Someone has touched up those photos.
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Thank you, Pam…I think those pictures tell the story and speak for themselves!
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Hi Mary! And welcome to our discussion…that is verrry interesting about Darlie’s bruises. By the way, Mary, I forgot to respond to a comment made by Ellen re the two fingerprints found that seem to be unidentified. I think this makes it so controversial and so many people split about Darlie’s guilt or innocence. For me, it’s one of two things.Either the prints were made by someone in the house after the crimes occurred and were not verified….OR, if it IS TRUE that Darin may have hired someone to come in and attack the family. I do know that he tried to stage a bogus burglary to collect on the insurance payout. He’s not one that I’d bring home to dinner, that’s for sure. And for some reason, all the Darlie supporters don’t really like to talk about Darin’s involvement. I have tried to see how I can work him out of the picutre, but I can’t help but believe he knows far more than what he’s saying.
Mary, what is your opinion about the fingerprints? And thanks again!
January 3rd, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Hi, Gay. Thanks for following up re: the unidentified fingerprints. I look forward to Mary’s response. To respond to your explanation:
“Ellen, maybe I didn’t explain enough what I meant about Darlie’s abortion. To me, it highly unusual for a married mother to have an abortion”.
I am a nurse. I have worked for Family Planning and in hospital and clinic settings. I can assure you that it is far from unusual for married women to have abortions. Around 1/3 of the women seeking terminations are married (here in NZ anyway). Generally, it is for health and economic reasons (e.g., cannot afford to raise another child, mother cannot cope with raising another child). Most married women never talk openly about having had an abortion for fear of judgement. Hence, the myth perpetuates that married women rarely get abortions. But it is in face, very common.
“It’s been stated that Darlie and Darin were having multiple affairs”.
I’ve read this too. But has it ever been substantiated? And I’m not sure what relevance this has even if true. Are you saying that perhaps Darlie killed her children for similar reasons to Susan Smith / Diane Downes…to get them out of the way so she could be with a lover???
“I can’t help but wonder if the reason for the abortion is that maybe Darlie didn’t know who the father was? From what I’ve read about Darlie, she seems to jump to the fastest quick solution to solve the problem”.
Maybe. But it’s equally possible that (if indeed she did have an abortion) she and Darrin simply didn’t want a fourth child.
Has it ever been substantiated that she had an abortion anyway? Not that I really understand any connection between this and the murder. But that’s just me.
Kind regards
Ellen
January 3rd, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Hey Mary!!!
I’m glad you’re here!:)!
January 3rd, 2011 at 7:58 pm
““It’s been stated that Darlie and Darin were having multiple affairs”.
I’ve read this too. But has it ever been substantiated? And I’m not sure what relevance this has even if true.”
It’s very relevant when Darlie & Darin try to portray themselves as the perfect couple with the perfect marriage. A lot like Darin claiming there were no money problems when it was abundantly clear that there were money problems.
January 3rd, 2011 at 7:59 pm
This was an exchange between me and Darlie Kee on YouTube. Post #1 was the original post from her, #2 my reply to her and so on. Post #4 was directed to someone else, but she jumped right in. The last comment was mine. She never replied.
(1) ok, yall are so full of wrong facts. Darlie was left for dead. Her throat was cut within 2mm of carriod artery. The necklace she had on saved her life. Why would she take a sock, man’s sock. 75 yards down the alley where it was barely found by police? Because she didn’t. How could she of cut her throat from right to left while laying down with her left hand?? She referred to the knife only after dispatch operator referred to it. So because Darin didn’t cry on this interview he did it/?? dpskee 3 weeks ago
(2) @dpskee Wow!!! A visit from Darlie’s mom! Darlie wasn’t left for dead. She came close to killing herself when staging the crime scene. The necklace was stuck on her neck with dried blood, not imbedded or lifesaving. She took the sock down the alley as a part of the staging. Barely found? lol It was either found or it wasn’t. What does “barely found” mean? Who says she was laying down when her throat was cut? It’s my firm belief that she was standing at the sink when she cut her throat. (con’t)
2hereagain 3 weeks ago
(3) @dpskee (con’t) She DID bring up the knife first. She was telling the officer that the intruder left a knife and the dispatcher then said, “There’s a knife? Don’t touch anything…” No, Darin didn’t do it. The truth is, and I’m sure you know this, a different emotion is expected from a mother. Frankly, a man has sex & from that comes a child. A woman carries that child in her body. She loves it deeply before it is ever born. A mothers bond is much deeper.
2hereagain 3 weeks ago
(4) @growingpainsfanatic When did Charlie Samford or Barbara Davis become forensic experts? There is not one wound on her that was in a place that she couldn’t reach. Injury photos were shown. It’s in the transcripts, 11 other jurors say they DID see them and Darlie’s own attorney says he does not understand what Samford is talking about. Darlie is guilty.
2hereagain 1 month ago
(5) @2hereagain WHEN DID THE POLICE IN ROWLETT BECOME EXPERTS??? CERTAINLY NOT DURING THIS INVESTIGATION. THEY DESTROYED CRIME SCENE, COULDN’T TAKE FINGERPRINTS, WERE TOLD THEY CONTAIMINATED ENTIRE CRIME SCENE WHICH YOU CAN SEE IN THEIR VIDEO OF CRIME SCENE. THE PHOTO WAS NOT PASSED AROUND BY THE JURORS. JUST HANDED TO ONE AND IT SIT THERE. IN DELIBERATION ROOM THEY WERE ALL IN BOX. MR Cron was a deputy, not expert. Besides that he is an alcoholic and LIAR.
dpskee 3 weeks ago
(6) @dpskee The police in Rowlett were plenty good enough before Darlie got arrested. When interviewed by the reporter that taped the silly string incident, Darlie and Darin had nothing but high praise for the Rowlett PD. The crime scene wasn’t contaminated and you know it. What photo was “not passed around”? James Cron is a liar? Ms Kee, you know that people that have any real knowledge of this case consider you a liar, don’t you?
2hereagain 3 weeks ago
(7) @dpskee With all of that said, you guys have wasted all of this time and effort trying to prove her innocence when you should be concentrated on saving her life. I’m truly sorry for you, Ms Kee. I cannot imagine being in your position. It’s sickening. And I don’t blame you for fighting for Darlie. I would fight for one of mine, no matter what, until the day I died. But the evidence just doesn’t go her way. I’m sorry.
2hereagain 3 weeks ago
January 3rd, 2011 at 8:33 pm
“““It’s been stated that Darlie and Darin were having multiple affairs”.
I’ve read this too. But has it ever been substantiated? And I’m not sure what relevance this has even if true.”
It’s very relevant when Darlie & Darin try to portray themselves as the perfect couple with the perfect marriage. A lot like Darin claiming there were no money problems when it was abundantly clear that there were money problems.”
Hi Ellen,
Sorry, when I re-read that I realized I wasn’t really clear. It’s relevant in that it lends to their credibility and the state of their marriage. Like the denial of money probelms. Why lie about something so easy prove? Like many of us, they were having problems. Marital and financial. That’s not a crime. Why lie about it?
January 3rd, 2011 at 8:49 pm
I feel terribly sorry for Darlie’s mother. Of course she doesn’t want to consider the possibility that her daughter is guilty of murdering her grandchildren.
So why do you think Darlie did it, Pam? Do you think she’s just a psychopath, pure and simple? Or do you think there was some other motive??
January 3rd, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Does anyone know what evidence / information that Barbara Davis came across to make her do a total turn around from what she wrote in her book about Darlie’s guilt? Her “official statement” isn’t that clear on this. Who would better know the case than she sitting through the trial for 5 weeks and writing a book about Darlie’s guilt? I still strongly believe Darlie is guilty but I can’t help but wonder what she found / heard that totally made her go in the other direction.
January 4th, 2011 at 1:52 am
Ellen, I feel for Darlie’s mom, too. I just can’t imagine and I pray I never know. For your child to be incarcerated is bad enough. But knowing they have the power to kill her? That’s sickening.
I very much believe that Darlie was sick. I believe that she and Darin were having financial and marriage problems and everything was too much for her to deal with. I think that she and Darin fought that night, (possibly involving her sister) and that was her limit. I think she snapped and wanted to hurt Darin as bad as she could. Just my opinion, of course.
Mark, Barbara Davis claims that the photos of Darlie’s injuries were not shown to the jury. I think there’s more to it than that, but that’s the main thing. Mary would know more about that than I do.
Pam
January 4th, 2011 at 1:53 am
Hi everybody!!
To: Ellen…I’m going by what I read in Patricia Springer’s book, who sat thru the entire trial. I realize our society doesn’t like to think of any parent killing a child, but it happens, and it’s the world we live in. Susan Smith finally confessed to the Sheriff and told them where the boys were. The evidence against Diane Downs was overwhelming. I don’t think Darlie killed her kids to be with another lover, but she just wanted them out of her life, period, so she and Darin could be less burdened, emotionally and financially. When it comes to abortion, why do they never consider adoption…for health reasons, rape or incest, I understand it.
To: Pam
Pam, I was reading your comments with Darlie Kee. This is what she’s blind to from her own statement. The police sprayed Luminal around the sink and floor and found where an enormous amount of blood was cleaned away. Darlie always claimed she was cut while on the couch. If she had been cut on the couch, why wasn’t there ANY blood there, not even the pillow, as I understand it? She stated she got up and followed him, but there was no trail of blood from the couch to the kitchen, etc. To me, that says it all. I wish you’d mentioned that to Darlie Kee, but maybe next time! To me, that couch would have been soaked with blood, and a clear trail of blood to back her story. None there.
To: Mary
Hi Mary…my question to you is Darlie and a letter she wrote after the crime. I’m going by memory only, no longer have Ms. Springer’s book, but I recall that she wrote a letter to a friend(?) and she stated she knew who did it. But there again, her selective memory loss kicked in. Do you recall who that was? Thanks!
To: Mark
Hi Mark…I never read the book by Barbara Davis, but have seen her in interviews. I think it was the bruises and two fingerprints that changed her mind. Sure, everybody is entitled to opinion about Darlie, but to me, the evidence speaks for itself, especially the blood around the sink and floor, no blood on the couch, the knife being “placed” instead of dropped, her story changing numerous times, etc.
Thank you to all of you again! Have a great day, everybody!
January 4th, 2011 at 3:09 am
If I recall correctly it was Barry Fife and Ben Claybour that you’re referring to that Darlie had supposedly told Darin she suspected. Fife allegedly stole a credit card from Darin years ago but Darin never filed charges.
One other thing, I read recently that the luminal tests did uncover a child’s handprint from the couch that someone had tried to wipe clean as was done at the sink in the kitchen.
I tried emailing Barbara Davis with my question (post 153) but I doubt she’ll answer me. I’m sure she gets hundreds a day.
January 4th, 2011 at 3:14 am
Thanks Mark! I read that too about the child’s handprint that was wiped. If anyone is interested in reading, a great article on the Internet is called Darlie Routier..Doting Mother/Deadly Mother. It also mentions things about the dog Domain, and Darlie’s conversation with her friend, Mercedes Adams, etc. Leaving for work now, but check in later!
January 4th, 2011 at 3:53 am
Questions, questions, questions…I’m just chock full of them here lately.
Ok, I just read “Evidence of Innocence” by Mark Smith on the JusticeforDarlie website. He claims that numerous finger prints and palm prints were taken form the mysterious window sill, supposed route of egress for the intruder. Also “Numerous unidentified prints” on the glass coffee table.
A thumb print on the escape route door, and a limb hair and pubic hair on the carpet. Now the article must be old because he mentions no one printing the boys prior to burial for a “rule out” of the prints. But I know the bodies were exhumed and printed since then. Is this true, all these multiple prints everywhere?
I knew of one print that was being looked at but this guy makes it sound like there were unidentified prints everywhere.
January 5th, 2011 at 7:14 am
Hi Guys!
Sorry to have been gone so long.
Gay, I know. There are a lot of things I would like to have said to Darlie Kee. But I felt like I was kind of tough on her to start with. So I just left it at what you read. If it were Darlie Routier, it would have been a different story. I just can’t blame her mom for how she feels and i kinda felt bad by the end of it, as you can see.
Mark, I am not as knowledgeable about the prints as Mary would be and I guess she has some things going on that are keeping her from getting back to us. What I know about the prints is pretty basic. When I come back, I will have the info that you and Ellen are looking for. See you then, guys!!
Pam
January 5th, 2011 at 7:34 am
I’m having trouble getting messages to post again. It says my last post is a duplicate but I don’t see it. Hopefully it will post. If not, in a nutshell, here’s what I said and if it does post, sorry to have repeated myself!
Ellen, Mark, to be honest with you, my knowledge of the fingerprints is pretty basic. Mary would have been more able to answer your questions in this area but I guess she has some things going on that have kept her from getting back to us. But I will be back with the fingerprint info you are looking for.
Gay, I know that I could have been harder on Darlie Kee but I felt like I was kinda rough on her to start with, so I left it at what you read. I feel sorry for her mom, really. When I hear her lies and ridiculous excuses for Darlie’s behaviour at the cemetary, it makes me angry. But I really can’t blame her, though. I would protect my kids no matter what. Very most especially, God forbid, from execution.
OK… I’ll be back!
Pam
January 5th, 2011 at 7:36 am
Of course… I FINALLY get something to post only to find out that the first post DID go through… ahhhhhhhhhhh
January 5th, 2011 at 8:01 am
Pam: “Of course… I FINALLY get something to post only to find out that the first post DID go through… ahhhhhhhhhhh”
Don’t let her fool you, guys. She gave me the finger and tried to pass it off as an accident.
Evil woman! :)
January 5th, 2011 at 8:21 am
LOL! Mary… you’re here!!!
January 5th, 2011 at 8:49 am
Mark Says:
January 4th, 2011 at 3:53 am
“Questions, questions, questions…I’m just chock full of them here lately.
Ok, I just read “Evidence of Innocence” by Mark Smith on the JusticeforDarlie website. He claims that numerous finger prints and palm prints were taken form the mysterious window sill, supposed route of egress for the intruder.”
Charles Hamilton dusted literally hundreds of spots in the house for latent fingerprints, Mark. Way too numerous to mention here, but you can read his testimony.
He was able to lift five fingerprints from the window area. I believe they belonged to the boys, but would have to look it up again to be sure.
Mark Smith is trying to make it sound like Hamilton “missed” a bunch of prints when, in fact, he lifted all that were liftable (sounds silly, but you know what I mean).
His testimony:
Q. Is that unusual to process an item such as a window and not come up with additional latent fingerprints?
A. No, it’s not unusual. It depends on the surface, atmospheric conditions, how long ago it was touched, IF it was touches, a number of factors.
January 5th, 2011 at 9:22 am
Mark Says:
January 4th, 2011 at 3:53 am
“Also numerous unidentified prints on the glass coffee table.”
They’re unidentified because they’re unidentifiable.
There were two latent prints lifted from the glass table in the family room, but there were only a few points of comparison.
Q. What were you able to do with those two latents?
A. I compared them, but I wasn’t able to make any identification.
Q. Why not?
A. They’re in liquid. They’re partial prints…I can see ridges, but there’s not enough points of comparison to identify anyone.
Q. Ok, so even if you had a known fingerprint, would you be able to make an identification?
A. No, I couldn’t identify the correct print if it was in front of me and I was making a comparison.
The defense has had those partial prints for 15 years. If they could identify someone, they’d have done it long ago.
January 5th, 2011 at 9:28 am
Mary Says:
January 5th, 2011 at 8:49 am
He was able to lift five fingerprints from the window area. I believe they belonged to the boys, but would have to look it up again to be sure.
I looked it up.
The prints lifted from the window area were partials, so they couldn’t be matched to anyone.
Cron testified that “they’re indicative of being a smaller person’s print.”
January 5th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Thank you, Pam and Mary for your info. I was wondering about the DNA testing the Routier supporters want performed. Is it known about how much it will cost? I’ve had a few strange emails from a few who know that I believe she’s guilty, but asking me for money.
Also, to Pam re: Post #154
It’s mentioned that Darlie and Darin may have argued ( possibly involving her sister)..does this indicate she suspected Darin was “involved” with her? I was wondering what that was about.
Thank you all!
January 5th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Pam - yeah, I did think you were hard on Darlie’s mum but it sounds like there was good reason for this. Can you tell us what Darlie Kee lied about?
Mary - thanks very much for the fingerprinit information - much appreciated.
Gay - happy to answer your question re: why married women don’t carry to term and adopt out children they can’t afford / can’t cope with, etc but think perhaps this is the wrong forum for it….
January 5th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
That’s only my opinion, Gay. Although I have posted on forums with others who thought the same thing. At the time of the murders, Darlie was stuck at home with the kids and no vehicle and her little sister was at the office all day with Darin. She came home with Darin the night of the 5th and had dinner with them and then Darin drove her home. Maybe he was gone longer than he should have been and that caused the fight that night when Darin got home.
I don’t know. But I remember the first time I read that Darin came home with the sister that night and then drove her home I thought, “Uh oh…”.
January 5th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Also, I think there was something mentioned about it in Patricia Springers book. I have the book and I’ll look for it.
January 5th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
“Can you tell us what Darlie Kee lied about?”
Good morning Ellen,
Well, If you believe that Routier is guilty, just about everything that comes out of Kee’s mouth is/has been a lie and she perpetuates the lies that surround this case. As I’ve said before, I don’t blame her for defending/trying to save her daughter, but she continually lies to do it.
January 5th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Again, I don’t blame her. I would lie, cry, DIE to save my child.
January 6th, 2011 at 1:20 am
Thanks Mary for the comments on the prints.
January 6th, 2011 at 1:44 am
I certainly understand Darlie Kee’s belief in her daughter and doesn’t want her to die. But those boys didn’t want to die either. Pam, it does sound interesting what you said about Darin and Darlie’s sister. One other thing I read about Darlie is before they were married they were at a party when Darin was leaving for college. She seemed jealous of Darin’s attention. So she left for a while and came back with a story that she’d been raped!!! There’s something terribly wrong with her mentality. Very wrong.
January 6th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Hi, Pam. Can you explain what you mean here:
“Well, If you believe that Routier is guilty, just about everything that comes out of Kee’s mouth is/has been a lie and she perpetuates the lies that surround this case”.
Or else post some links where Darlie Kee has lied about the case? I’m a bit confused as to what you mean about her lying if you believe Darlie is guilty. How does belief in Darlie’s innocence/guilt make any difference to something factual like a lie vs. truth?
Not trying to be argumentative here…just struggling to understand what you mean. Plus I’ve never seen any interviews with Darlie’s mother or read anything she has posted about the case. If you could provide some links, I’d be most grateful.
Am reading through the court transcripts and finding it really interesting.
Thanks
Ellen
January 6th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Also…I’ve read here and there that Darlie wrote to someone (a relative, I think) while in prison shortly after she was arrested and said that she knew who killed her kids. But I’ve never been able to find any article or information about this - just people stating this from time to time. Possibly it’s in the transcripts and I haven’t gotten to it yet. Does anyone know anything about this?
Thanks, Ellen.
January 6th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Hi Ellen! Read posts #155 and 156. I inquired about that too, and Mark replied. Gosh, I wish I hadn’t given that book away! LOL
January 6th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Good morning Ellen,
First I want to say that I don’t consider your comments as argumentative. I enjoy discussing this case and I don’t mind questions. So I hope that you won’t take offense to my answer.
“Or else post some links where Darlie Kee has lied about the case? I’m a bit confused as to what you mean about her lying if you believe Darlie is guilty. Not trying to be argumentative here…just struggling to understand what you mean.”
I’m not sure what’s confusing or causing you to struggle. Kee backs Routier 100% and is her most vocal supporter. If you don’t believe Routier’s story, how can you believe Kee’s story? As for a link for the lies Kee has told, we can start with the YouTube exchange:
“Darlie was left for dead.” Lie.
“The necklace she had on saved her life.” Lie.
“Why would she take a sock, man’s sock. 75 yards down the alley where it was barely found by police? Because she didn’t.” Lie.
“How could she of cut her throat from right to left while laying down with her left hand??” Lie.
“She referred to the knife only after dispatch operator referred to it.” Lie.
Need more beyond that? Watch any inteview she’s ever given. Once you’ve finished the transcripts it will become abundantly clear what makes Darlie Kee a liar. It’s one of two things, Ellen. Either Kee really believes what she is saying or she knows better but is still fighting for her daughter. If she knows better but perpetuates the lies, then she is a liar. Just my opinion.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
Ellen, Darlie is confronted with her accusations at trial, volume 44. She also accused at least one of her neighbors in her letters. I’ll be back with that info.
Pam
January 7th, 2011 at 3:29 am
To Gay - This goes back to the Darin/Dana thing I was taking about:
Flesh and Blood by Patricia Springer
(Pg 161)
Called by the prosecution, Darin Routier reluctanly took the stand. Assistant District Attorney Davis suggested to Darin that on the night of the killings Darlie had complained that she was left without transportation because the couples Jaguar sedan needed repair. Davis further suggested that Darlie had been angry about what Davis called Mr. Routier’s “flirting” with her sister, Dana.
Darin denied both suggestions. He admitted that he and Darlie had discussed problems with their cars and income from the family-owned business, but denied that the discussionshad accelerated into an argument. He dismissed any improper relationship with his teenage sister-in-law, Dana Stahl.
During a court recess, reporters milled around discussing the attention Dana Stahl had been giving Darin during court. The implication by the prosecutor that Darin had been flirting with his wife’s younger sister instantly became the object of courthouse gossip.
(Pg 162-163)
In a brief hearing the following week, courthouse gossip escalated as Darlie entered the courtroom and stared at Darin sternly. Gone was the sweet smile and the mouthed expression of love.
Dana Stahl no longer sat with Darin, but arrived in court with a boyfriend no one had seen at previous hearings. The speculation from court regulars was that someone, perhaps Mama Darlie, had put an end to the affectionate show of support displayed by her middle daughter to Darlie’s husband.”
I think there’s more about this in the Barbara Davis book, too. I’ll look through it and post it if there is.
January 7th, 2011 at 6:06 am
I know I seem to jump from topic to topic but it’s all so interesting. I was re-reading Vol 44 of the transcripts (Darlie’s testimony) I found it quite interesting when the ADA, Toby Shook pinned Darlie down on what she said on the 911 tape referencing her saying she was “fighting” the intruder, which would suggest that she did remember what happened, versus her version saying the word “frightening.” He got her pinned down on that one.
TOBY L. SHOOK, Asst. District Attorney:
Q. You are saying, I believe “Some man came in, stabbed my babies stabbed me. I woke up” — and
your version is, “I was frightening”?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Frightening?
A. Yes, sir.
She said clearly “I was fighting on the 911 tape.” Who would say “I was frightening?” Maybe frightened, but that’s not what she said.
Again, the in and out recollections/memories and changing versions of her story to cater to the “right answer” to the question.
T. Shook:
Q. Do you remember talking to Detective Waddell there when he came into your house?
A. Very briefly.
Q. Okay. Did you tell Detective Waddell that you had been fighting with the man there at the island area?
A. No, sir, it would have been on the (911) call as well, and it’s not on there.
Q. Okay. You never told him that any time he was in your house?
A. No, sir, I didn’t.
I can’t find it yet but I read in Waddell’s testimony that she did in fact say that to him, he has it written in his notes. And isn’t there another version she gave where she said she fought off the intruder at the couch while supposedly being slashed?
So I guess it’s damn if she does, damn if she doesn’t. If she did admit to saying “fighting” it could help her justify the supposed “defensive bruises” on her arms. But, by admitting to that it shows she did remember the events that occurred that she previously stated she couldn’t remember. She’s caught in a lie either way she goes.
January 7th, 2011 at 6:10 am
I too think she is innocent. Before you so harshly criticize me think of this. Since 1973 132 have been released from death row proven innocent (I am sure a lot of people were just sure they were guilty), there have been 10 people that we know of executed that have since been proven innocent. In addition how many people on here were just sure the Ramsey’s killed Jon Benet, until DNA exonerated them? Poor Patsy went to her grave with everyone thinking she was a child killer. Darlie’s conviction was based on circumstational evidence, and upheld by an unsequestered jury.
1. The blood spots someone mentioned on Darlie’s shirt don’t hold up. The original testing facility showed no blood from either child on her shit. The police didn’t like that so they had it retested somewhere else which showed 4 very tiny spots of blood, and the child blood was over Darlie’s. So what did Darlie slash her throat then kill the kids?
2. When someone “Stages” a scene they use the staging in their confession, Darlie never did.
3. People say she changed her story, but she never really changed that much. She was questioned at the scence (hsyterical), and on her way to ICU, come on folks. No telling what you would be saying then.
4. The silly string incident…..sigh, stupid move, but she didn’t know any better. Plus, why wasn’t the 1 hr long tape of her wailing at the graves not played prior to the silly string incident? Because it didn’t help the prosecutions case.
5. Only one child’s blood was found on the knife, where is the other weapon?
6. Where are Darlie’s panties they never located? EVER!
7. Where is the rape kit the police “lost” ?
I could go on and on, but I encourage you to read on your own. I hope the DNA finally proves there was someone else.
January 7th, 2011 at 6:12 am
Oops that should say “shirt” I didn’t mean for it to be profain
January 7th, 2011 at 6:19 am
Good stuff, Mark. I’m re-reading Vol. 44 as well. Her cross-exam is really something to read. This is her testimony when being questioned about helping Damon:
15 Q. Okay. Now, you say in that statement
16 that you laid a towel on Damon. Do you mean you laid it
17 across his back?
18 A. Yes, sir.
19 Q. While he was lying on the floor there?
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. Okay. You didn’t bend down and apply
22 pressure to his back though, did you?
23 A. No, sir.
24 Q. You just laid it across his back?
25 A. Yes, sir.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
4959
January 7th, 2011 at 9:12 am
Wow! Thanks, Pam and Mark! So much interesting information here. To either Pam or Mary, I’ve read the affidavit written by Darin concerning the fact he approached his step-father-in-law, Robbie Kee, to assist in helping him stage a phony burglary in the Routier home when the family wasn’t present. To me, that indicates the whole family seems “shady” and capable of anything. And also, didn’t Doug Mulder and/or Darlie’s first court-appointed attorney want to implicate Darin in the murders?
Thanks again to all of you! Really am having fun with everybody in this discussion.
January 7th, 2011 at 9:36 am
Flesh and Blood by Patricia Springer
Pg 145
Randy Reagan, Darin’s cousin, was among those who waited for Darin outside the station. He approached Chris Frosch.
“Did she do it, Chris?”
“Yes, she did,” Frosch answered.
“I kinda thought she might have.”
January 7th, 2011 at 9:37 am
Trial Transcripts Volume 44
13 Q. Okay. And when you — were you on
14 some type of drugs or something at the Silly String
15 party?
16 A. I had not been taking as much
17 medication as what I was, but yes, I was still on some.
18 Q. Are you trying to blame your behavior,
19 shooting Silly String, laughing and giggling on any
20 medication?
21 A. No, I am not blaming my behavior, I
22 don’t think there is anything to blame.
23 Q. Okay. And, the Silly String wasn’t
24 your idea, is that right?
25 A. No, sir.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
4918
1 Q. But your certainly didn’t mind
2 spraying it and things like that, did you?
3 A. I didn’t think there was anything
4 wrong with it.
January 7th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Thanks, you guys. Really good points! Ellen.
January 7th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
# Gay Says:
January 7th, 2011 at 9:12 am
“To either Pam or Mary, I’ve read the affidavit written by Darin concerning the fact he approached his step-father-in-law, Robbie Kee, to assist in helping him stage a phony burglary in the Routier home when the family wasn’t present.”
If Darin approached someone to burglarize his home, there is absolutely no evidence of it.
He hasn’t supplied any names, or where they can be found.
It’s bogus. Never happened. If it did, Darin would tell authorities the names of the men he contacted to commit the burglary.
He hasn’t supplied those names in fifteen years.
But more to the point, if his story was true, why didn’t he reveal it when his wife was on trial for her life? Why wait until years later to reveal this scam?
Darin’s story was concocted right before one of Darlie’s appeals. Put two and two together, and there you have it.
January 7th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Regarding Jennifer’s post #182
Hi Jennifer,
Not at all trying to harshly criticize you here. I don’t think anyone in the currently “active group” would. Everyone’s opinion is respected here; at least it is to me. I’m not a forensic expert, cop, lawyer; I’m not even as well versed on the details as some of the folks are on here. I came into this hoping I would not think Darlie was guilty as I think most on here were.
It’s easy to become influenced either way depending on which website, video, or book you look at. I felt my best approach was to read the transcripts all the way through, which I just about have and then form an opinion. I do agree with the Darlie supporters in the sense that there are several questionable things regarding the prosecution’s case, lack of real motive, certain evidence, etc. But the evidence that does exist and the testimony / transcripts directly points to Darlie; in my opinion of course.
Someone pointed out that there is no such thing as a perfect trial for the defense or the prosecution which we all know is true. I guess to a juror it’s a matter of which makes more sense.
If in fact the jurors were to admit that the silly string video is what swayed their decision, (I read they viewed it 8 times during deliberations) then I think she deserves a retrial, or at minimum life without parole, but not necessarily execution.
I personally think it’s unfair to convict someone on how they express their emotions or how we think they should. But leaving the entire video out of this scenario, I feel the physical evidence directly points at Darlie. You said none of know how we would act if in that situation as far as the changing stories, and you’re right. Unless we‘ve been through something like that we don’t know.
But her story changes while she’s testifying, and it’s so obvious that when she feels cornered during questioning…she suddenly doesn’t remember anything. But if it’s an answer to a question that would benefit her defense, she now has clear recollection. Even pertaining to an event that occurred within the same time frame of something she just said she didn’t remember. That right there would be one of the deciding factors to me if I were a juror.
You mentioned “where are her panties?” Does that really have a bearing on the case? Or the rape kit location? Losing the rape kit doesn’t insinuate a police / prosecution cover up, it just got misplaced, thrown away.etc; sloppy police work; you bet it was. But she didn’t say she was actually raped. And if she were, wouldn’t that wake her up? She said her child woke her up in one version, and the attacker “crouched down near her” woke her up in the other version. Maybe she never had panties on to begin with..who knows?
Again not trying to slam you here or start a big fight, just different opinion. I welcome your comments.
January 7th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
Sorry, dropped a word in the second paragraph above..should read: You said none of us know how we would act…
January 7th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
Interesting Mark, and I appreciate the response. I think my overall take on this case is that it was poorly handled, and there is reasonable doubt. I think she should get a new trial, based on all the errors that occured. The truth is none of us really know if she is guilty, or innocent, only Darlie knows. She could be suffering from traumatic amnesia, or she may have just snapped. The only motive I could ever find, was that she just freaked out. Maybe the kids refused to calm down? I don’t know. I do however think there is very compelling evidence that someone else was involved. I have a family member that was consulted on this case who in in law. He too, found the case very interesting, but was working another death penalty case at the time, and could not take this one on. Ironically, his client was aquitted.
January 7th, 2011 at 11:42 pm
Hi again Jennifer.
You’re right. Unless Darlie starts talking, I doubt anyone will know for sure.
I don’t at all rule out someone else’s involvement. I’ve been contemplating Darin. Not necessarily partaking in the murders, but covering for her. I think he knows she did it. Maybe even helped plan it. I know a few on here disagree with me; just a thought.
January 8th, 2011 at 1:38 am
Hi Jennifer, and welcome to the discussion! I don’t think any of us are being critical at all; and believe me, I know the Routier case can get ugly, heated and personal. I’ve seen other forums like that. But all of us here are just discussing our opinions on the evidence and the case. And all of us are mature adults, and welcome your comments. As you may have read, I too, believe Darlie is guilty. I would love to have something significant to prove her innocence, and yes, there are innocent people on death row. The one thing that stands out that proves her guilt (in my opinion) is the large pool of blood around the sink that was wiped up…it was in the sink, around the sink, wiped from the cabinets below the sink, and the floor. She always stated she awoke with the intruder by her, or on her, then got up and followed after him, and he left. Why would an intruder take the time to wipe up all that blood? Especially when it was Darlie’s blood at the sink? She always stated she’d already been cut when she woke up, but no blood on the sofa, but the luminol showed a child’s bloody handprint wiped away.
I too, believe Darin knows far more than he’s saying.
Leaving for work, but catch up later. Thanks for everybody’s comments…this is so much fun!
January 8th, 2011 at 2:57 am
Hey Gay, and Mark. Was is your opinion on Barry Fife, and Ben Calybour? They are the ones Darin named as talking to about stealing his vehicle, or breaking in.
Also, you said there was no blood on the couch, but the crime photo’s show her blood on the pillow from the couch.
In addition, wouldn’t the wet towels cause an issue with the sink?
Just something seems so off about this case. Maybe, it’s the fact Darin know so much more. Which if he wasn’t involved, or had talked to someone about a break in, she would not have gotten the death penalty.
Any idea when the additional DNA results will be back? Have they picked a lab yet?
January 10th, 2011 at 8:31 am
Jennifer Says:
“7. Where is the rape kit the police “lost” ?”
There may be a misunderstanding here, or perhaps this is another rumor.
I don’t believe the rape kit has been lost. It was one of the items the defense wanted to retest, but the judge denied that request in June, 2008 because “as with the claim of saliva on the tube sock, the appellant (Darlie) fails to meet the threshold burden of showing that there is even any ‘evidence containing biological material’ to be tested’.
Where did you hear it was lost?
I’ll respond to your other points in separate posts, Jennifer.
January 10th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Sorry guys! I’ve been having a big problem getting my comments to post…gonna try again!
To: Jennifer
Hi Jennifer, please read post #156 about Fife and Claybour. According to Darin, one or both stole his credit card and charged up $10,000.00 but Darin never filed charges. Something fishy about that too, that Darin never filed charges. I sure know I would have. As for the blood on the couch, it is my understanding there were two couches in that room. I was told from a Routier supporter there was no blood on the couch because her wounds didn’t bleed down until after she got up. the blood on and around the sink…why even bother to wipe up the blood at all? The kids should have been the priority. The sink (and area around it) were wiped where no blood was visible to the naked eye, but bloody smudges were left. It obviously indicates she was hiding something. When Darlie was questioned about this, her selective amnesia kicked in…”I don’t know,” or “I don’t remember.” Why would she even need to wipe the blood from the sink area anyway? As I understand it, the DNA testing hasn’t begun yet; they’re trying to decide where it’s going to be done.
Thanks everybody…I just hope I can keep getting my comments to post! LOL
January 10th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Hey guys… I’ve been going between the transcripts and the books. Lots of reading. This is fun!
Hi Jennifer,
I’m gonna jump in with my two cents worth, if you don’t mind!
“In addition, wouldn’t the wet towels cause an issue with the sink?”
If I’m taking this question the right way, you’re asking if Darlie wetting the towels would have caused the sink to be washed down.
Darlie never mentioned wetting towels until the police released her house back to her. Not even in her very detailed 10 page statement to the police:
http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/Voluntary/Darlie.pdf
When she saw they had cut her kitchen sink out & taken it as evidence, she knew she was going to have to explain the blood. That’s when the story of wetting the towels came about. Darlie made a habit of changing her story to fit whatever piece of physical evidence she was confronted with.
Pam
January 10th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Hi, Pam. Great stuff - thank you! Can you also please explain the significance of the transcript on post 184? Is it that Darlie didn’t mention wetting the towels before laying them on Damon? Or something else I am missing? Many thanks, Ellen.
January 10th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Pam ~ Thanks for the insight. Regarding the towels. I need to review the evidence again, but weren’t their crime scene photo’s showing the towels? In addition, didn’t one of the paramedics tell her to use the wet towel next to his body to apply pressure? Thanks, this is all very interesting. I guess I am just baffled as to why the sink would be cleaned but nothing else?
January 10th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Ellen Says:
“Can you also please explain the significance of the transcript on post 184?”
Hi Ellen,
It shows that Darlie admits that the only aid she ever administered to Damon was to lay a towel across his back. She didn’t apply pressure to try to stop his bleeding. When this subject comes up in a forum like this one, supporters will say, “You weren’t there so how do you know what she did to help Damon?” This shows that Darlie admits it herself.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
Hi all…
Jennifer,
I can’t speak for the paramedic that was there that night, but as a paramedic myself; I can’t see why he would want a wet towel on a bleed like that. A wet towel would actually hamper the hemorrhage control. But who knows? In a critical situation like that, anything quickly is better than wasting time looking for a dry towel. The goal would be to stop the bleeding …by any means.
I wonder about the “partial” sink cleaning myself and what she was thinking. Your children are dying who cares about cleanup?
The luminal tests also showed a child’s hand print on the couch. (I didn’t know there were two couches) but that could have been unintentionally wiped away if she scooted across it.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:52 pm
Good point Mark. You know this is probably terrible to admit, but when my daughter fell and cut her head open right above her eyebrown, I got a wet towel. I am not sure why, it just seemed to be the thing to do. There are so many questions in this case. It just baffles me.
January 11th, 2011 at 1:24 am
Pam, thanks for posting that about Darlie changing her story (again) when the sinks were removed. I didn’t know that. The sad thing is, I’ve heard this same wet towel argument from other Routier supporters, trying to give reason for the blood there….they’re falling for every lie she tells.
January 11th, 2011 at 1:46 am
Nice to see people discussing facts, transcripts. At least then, we know the more they read, the more all points to Darlie. Keep reading the documented facts, not spin.
January 11th, 2011 at 1:56 am
Are the transcripts online the correct one?
January 11th, 2011 at 6:57 am
Jennifer Says:
January 8th, 2011 at 2:57 am
Hey Gay, and Mark. Was is your opinion on Barry Fife, and Ben Calybour? They are the ones Darin named as talking to about stealing his vehicle, or breaking in.
Here are Darin’s and Robbie Kee’s sworn affidavits, which aren’t even worth the paper they’re written on. Darin doesn’t mention any names, nor does Kee:
Affidavit of Darin Routier
In the Criminal District Court No.3
Dallas County, Texas
DARLIE LYNN ROUTIER
No. F96-39973-MJ IN THE CRIMINAL
DISTRICT COURT
NO. 3 OF
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
AFFIDAVIT OF DARIN ROUTIER
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared DARIN ROUTIER, who, being by me duly sworn on his oath, stated the following:
“My name is Darin Routier. I am over the age of twenty-one and I reside in McKinney, Texas. I am capable and fully competent to make this affidavit. The statement herein are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge. I am the husband of the Petitioner, Darlie Lynn Routier.
“In 1994, I spoke to a person about my Jaguar automobile. In that conversation, I said that “it wouldn’t bother me” if the Jaguar was stolen. That person then stole the Jaguar.
“In March or April, 1996, I asked my father-in-law Robbie Gene Kee, if he knew anyone who would agree to burglarize my home as part of an insurance scam. I said that I would arrange for my family to be absent from my house at 5801 Eagle Drive, that someone who I would hire would come to the house and take away the furniture and other items from my house in a U-Haul truck, and that I would then pay that person from the proceeds of the resulting insurance payments.
“Between March 1996 and May 1996, I told multiple people of my planned insurance scam.
Affidavit of Robbie Gene Kee
In the Criminal District Court No.3 Dallas County, Texas
DARLIE LYNN ROUTIER
No. F96-39973-MJ
IN THE CRIMINAL
DISTRICT COURT
NO. 3 OF
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBBIE GENE KEE
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared ROBBIE GENE KEE, who, being by me duly sworn on his oath, stated the following:
“My name is Robbie Kee. I am over the age of 18 years and fully competent to make this affidavit.
“I am married to Darlie Kee and my step-daughter is Darlie Lynn Routier. In approximately earlier Spring of 1996, Darin Routier was at my home and we were in the kitchen when he asked me whether I knew of anybody who would ‘burglarize’ his home so he could make an insurance claim. Darin Routier explained that he and his family would be gone from the house and that the ‘burglar’ would come to the house with a U-Haul truck and remove ‘gobs’ of stuff from the house and take the items somewhere. Darin Routier said he would retrieve the items after his insurance company paid off and that he would pay the ‘burglar’ out of the insurance proceeds.”
Who are these ‘multiple people’ he told? They’ve never come forward or submitted affidavits.
Why did it take him 6 years to suddenly ‘remember’ this scam?
January 11th, 2011 at 7:03 am
Ellen Says:
January 6th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Also…I’ve read here and there that Darlie wrote to someone (a relative, I think) while in prison shortly after she was arrested and said that she knew who killed her kids. But I’ve never been able to find any article or information about this - just people stating this from time to time. Possibly it’s in the transcripts and I haven’t gotten to it yet. Does anyone know anything about this?
Thanks, Ellen.
Yes, Ellen, it’s in the transcript - Darlie’s testimony. She implicated Glenn Mize and Gary Austin.
Darlie wrote to numerous people from prison, saying “I know who did it…I saw him and I know who it is”.
Yet, when she testified, she couldn’t remember a darn thing!
January 11th, 2011 at 7:08 am
Jennifer Says:
January 7th, 2011 at 6:10 am
“1. The blood spots someone mentioned on Darlie’s shirt don’t hold up. The original testing facility showed no blood from either child on her shirt.”
Hi, Jennifer.
There was nothing sinister going on here. The t-shirt and many other pieces of evidence were first sent to SWIFS for testing. Carolyn Van Winkle found Darlie’s, Devon’s, and Damon’s blood on the t-shirt. It was then sent to Gene Screen, which is much more specialized than SWIFS in extensive DNA testing and other blood-related areas.
So yes, the original testing facility (SWIFS) showed blood from all three. It’s in Carolyn Van Winkle’s testimony.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:42 am
Ok, folks. Forget the Silly String tape. It’s peanuts compared to this.
Nelda Watts, a retired school teacher, lived directly across the street from the Routiers. This is what she saw on June 18th, 1996, less than two weeks after Devon and Damon were stabbed to death:
Q. And, where was Darlie Routier and her husband, Darin Routier?
A. They were in the front yard. There were many funeral wreaths, there were stuffed animals, flags, signs that people had placed there.
Q. Okay. And as you looked out there, what were Darin and Darlie Routier doing?
A. Darin was taking the animals and flags off of the wreaths.
Q. What is the first noise that you heard?
A. It sounded sort of like children laughing, that kind of thing. Darin would take a stuffed animal off of one of the wreaths and toss it over to Darlie and she would jump up and catch it, and then she would toss it back to him and he would chuck it toward the vehicle, the back end of the vehicle was open, and if he threw it in, she would jump up and cheer.
Q. Okay. What else did you see?
A. Well, he took a flag off of one of them, and she cheered as he climbed up the water fountain and put it at the top of the fountain…after they got most of the animals off and I didn’t stand there the whole time, but I looked again, because I was waiting to go out and get the mail. I didn’t want to go out there while they were out there doing that. So I looked again, and they were taking the wreaths and dragging them around toward the back, I assume for the trash.
Q. Okay. This was on the 18th of June of 1996?
A. Yes, sir, it was the 18th.
Q. As best you recall?
A. I know it was.
January 11th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
To: Mary
Thank you for posting this, Mary. Very compelling testimony, but yet very sickening at the same time. They have no conscience whatsoever. I think this reinstates what I feel about the silly string…they were doing that to celebrate the boys being gone, plain and simple.
January 11th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Mary, this brings another thought to mind again. When Ms. Watts is describing what’s going on in the front yard, it makes me wonder…Darin doesn’t seem the least bit upset either that the boys are dead. I still can’t help but believe he knew what was going to happen….
January 11th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Something I’ve read multiple times on pro-Darlie sites is that Darlie did not have time to kill the boys, clean the sink, plant the sock, stage the room, cut her neck and stab herself…because of expert testimony that her son could not have lived longer than 9 minutes and the fact that she was on the phone during the 911 call for almost 6 minutes. I think she is guilty as hell but agree that this is a hell of a tight timeframe. Would be interested in everyone’s comments on this.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Good morning, everyone! Wow… you guys have been busy! I told ya that Mary would not disappoint!
Hi Ellen,
Supporters LOVE the “she didn’t have time” theory.Unfortunately for them (and her), that theory just doesn’t hold water because 99% of that crime scene was set up before Darlie ever picked up the phone. It also explains (to me) why Darin didn’t hear anything happen. Darlie wasn’t heard until she wanted to be heard and she didn’t want to be heard until everything was in place.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Great response Pam. Darlie is very cunning. In her mind she was “so smart” in her timeline and pre-staging. She never really cared about her story lining up. She used the “I dont’ remember” plea 1000 times.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
Mary Says:
“Who are these ‘multiple people’ he told? They’ve never come forward or submitted affidavits.”
Exactly, Mary. And who would plan an insurance scam and tell ‘muliple people’ aabout it? Also, I guess it was left to the robbers discretion as to when this robbery would occur since Darin never says that he told him/them to be there the night the murders occured.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
Kimmy Says:
“She never really cared about her story lining up.”
Hey Kimmy!!!
No, she didn’t think her story all the way through, did she? She just had no problem thinking that she could convince everyone of her lies.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Pam #214 - I am glad I found this site, it’s all very interesting. So what is your theory on the sock? The sock had the children’s blood on it, which would mean it had to be placed after the boys were killed, and I am wondering how that is possible?
January 11th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Wow, business has certainly picked up here…
Pam, I agree with you, it would not be difficult to have everything in place (staged) while Darin and the boys were sleeping.
She could prepare the house to appear as if there was a struggle without making too much noise. (Except for the breaking wine glasses which could have been done last minute)The attack on the boys could have been done in 5 minutes, she then dips the sock in blood, runs it outside and drops it, comes back in the house, goes to the sink, cuts herself and starts screaming to wake Darin. Then she simply calls 911.
I am surprised that she didn’t drip blood running out with the sock. And she messed up by closing that back gate and not leaving it open. It was mentioned in the testimony that the gate dragged the cement when it opened posing some difficulty. The first arriving officer stated that the gate was closed upon his arrival.
It hurt her story trying to make the prosecution believe that an intruder would flee that way, struggle opening the gate and then take the time to close it back with difficulty. Just doesn’t add up.
January 12th, 2011 at 5:07 am
Jennifer Says:
“So what is your theory on the sock? The sock had the children’s blood on it, which would mean it had to be placed after the boys were killed, and I am wondering how that is possible?”
IMO, Darlie planted the sock after killing the boys but before she cut herself. Darlie bled quite a bit. It’s just impossible for me to believe that as much as she bled and as little as the boys bled that there would be blood on the sock from both boys but none of hers. To me, the only explanation for her blood not being on the sock is the sock was placed before she was ever cut. And don’t forget that her skin cell DNA was in the toe of the sock.
January 12th, 2011 at 5:18 am
pam ~ Thanks. I appreciate you guys responding so we can come up with rationalities, etc. I am not that concerned about her skin cell DNA, she could have folded the laundry. I just don’t see the time line adding up. It’s not that I want her to be innocent, or guilty, I just want this to make sense. I am unsure how she could have time to stab them, arrange the scene, clean up the sink, and plant the sock, all before they died. If you are turning the pieces of a puzzle over in relation to the time before the boys died, it just doesn’t match up, the time would expire before you were finished. Either she had help IMO, or she didn’t do it. I still don’t get how Darin was exonerated
January 12th, 2011 at 7:39 am
Pam Says:
January 11th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Hi Ellen,
Supporters LOVE the “she didn’t have time” theory.Unfortunately for them (and her), that theory just doesn’t hold water because 99% of that crime scene was set up before Darlie ever picked up the phone. It also explains (to me) why Darin didn’t hear anything happen. Darlie wasn’t heard until she wanted to be heard and she didn’t want to be heard until everything was in place.
Hi, Pam!
Another chilling thought that the prosecution subscribed to:
Darlie cut the screen before she stabbed the boys. There was no blood on the garage floor, no blood on any part of the window or the screen.
Sure, it’s possible that she cut the screen after, but what are the chances that she wouldn’t leave at least a smear of blood somewhere in that garage?
Very unlikely, imo.
January 12th, 2011 at 7:42 am
Kimmy Says:
January 11th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
She used the “I dont’ remember” plea 1000 times.
Oh, you little rascal. You’re exaggerating.
On cross-exam, Darlie said “I don’t remember” or “I don’t know” a mere 74 times.
And no, I’m not obsessed with this case :)
January 12th, 2011 at 10:33 am
Jennifer Says:
“I am unsure how she could have time to stab them, arrange the scene, clean up the sink, and plant the sock, all before they died.”
Hi Jennifer,
Well, I’m not sure what more I can say to help make it clearer. All of the things you mentioned could have been/were done before Darlie picked up the phone. By the time she called 911, all she had left to do was to stand on the phone because everything else was done. Maybe it would be easier to make my point clearer if I understood why you think that everything had to be completed before the boys died.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:36 am
Mary Says:
“Sure, it’s possible that she cut the screen after, but what are the chances that she wouldn’t leave at least a smear of blood somewhere in that garage?
Very unlikely, imo.”
I agree, Mary. VERY unlikely.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:37 am
Pam - well and you are still not answering my question. How can a person stage a fight, scour a sink, kill their kids, plant a sock with BOTH their children’s blood on it with a knife four houses down, and run back to slit their own throat?
January 12th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Ok here’s a new “Mark” idea on the “how did she plant the sock with out getting blood outside of the room” question. I may be reaching here…but, what if the blood had already been on the sock prior to her killing the boys? Like a cut finger, bloody nose..from earlier while they were playing? I know, a little far fetched….but possible.
January 12th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Jennifer Says:
“Pam - well and you are still not answering my question. How can a person stage a fight, scour a sink, kill their kids, plant a sock with BOTH their children’s blood on it with a knife four houses down, and run back to slit their own throat?”
If I’m not answering your question, Jennifer, perhaps it’s because your question doesn’t make sense. What do you mean, how could someone do those things??? By doing them! Once again, if I understood why you feel the staging would have to be complete “before the boys died”, I’d be better prepared to answer your question. Or maybe someone else sees something I don’t… Mary? Gay?
January 12th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Pam - I apologize, half the time I am typing my questions I am at work, or tending to kids. I can see how my question makes no sense. The sock had to have been planted after the children were killed, and the sink had to have been scoured after she slit here throat. So therefore, she needed more than the alloted 9 minutes to complete all this, and she spent more than 6 minutes on the phone with 911. Even if she had 12 minutes before the child died, she still didn’t have enough time. It doesn’t add up. Either Darin helped her, or there was an intruder. The horrible part surrounding this story is two children died a violent horrible death. I haven’t lost sight of that fact, but I do have many questions.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Hi everybody! In response to the questions about the timeline around 9 minutes; I don’t see how they can pinpoint exactly the amount of time the boys could have survived, and this is why. I remember many years ago I stepped on some glass and badly cut my foot. At the ER the doctor told my mom that children are FAR more resilient than adults. They just endure injuries more stronger and longer than adults do. Just my opinion, of course.
The blood on the sock? If I understand correctly, there were only a couple of drops from the boys, not soaked with their blood. I stated in an earlier comment that it’s one of the oldest amateur “staging” tricks seen by detectives. And there will always be a small black car seen before, and always a man wearing black and a cap. I find it interesting, that during all that going on in the house, the “intruder” never lost his cap, but took the time to use Darlie’s sock, and wipe the sink area.
I’m so glad I finally found a website where sensible people can discuss this!
January 13th, 2011 at 5:14 am
Jennifer Says:
“The sock had to have been planted after the children were killed.”
Agree.
“and the sink had to have been scoured after she slit her throat.”
Yes, after. But Darlie didn’t scour the sink. She just tried to wash the blood away, which would take only seconds.
Barbara Davis (Precious Angels) attended every day of the trial. This is what she had to say:
According to the medical examiner, Damon died at approximately 2:38 a.m. She testified that he could have lived as much as ten minutes once the mortal wounds were inflicted.
Defense attorneys tried to convince the jury that there wasn’t enough time for Darlie to do all these things. But the time started running when Darlie dialed 911 at 2:31 a.m.
I conducted a reenactment of the crime. Regarding the thirty to forty second sprint down the alley to ditch the sock, I made it in fifty seconds, and I’m a good 20 years older than Darlie.
After fatally stabbing Damon by the entryway, the only thing left to do before dialing 911 was for Darlie to walk the few feet to the kitchen sink, slit her throat, throw the vacuum cleaner on its side and break the wine glass.
According to the defense team’s own timeline, that gave Darlie three to four minutes to do those things. Time is often a hard concept to grasp. I used a stopwatch, clicked it on and waited for the first 60 seconds to pass, then the second 60 seconds, and finally the third 60 seconds ticked by.
Three minutes is a long time - more than sufficient time for Darlie Routier to accomplish the awful acts of which she was ultimately convicted.
January 13th, 2011 at 5:33 am
Barbara Davis retracted her statements, and now stands by the fact Darlie is innocent. So I am not sure a timeline drawn out by her is reliable.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:41 am
All of you are absolutely wrong! There is no way Darlie had time to do all fo these things in the allotted time frame.
How could she make it outside with out leaving blood / footprints outside of the kitchen?
I’ll tell you how, she didn’t do it.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:53 am
i have a question…how soon after the murders did they find the blood stained sock? is it possible that it was out there for some time before the murders even took place? was it established that the blood stain on the sock was fresh?
January 13th, 2011 at 11:40 am
Jennifer Says:
January 13th, 2011 at 5:33 am
“Barbara Davis retracted her statements, and now stands by the fact Darlie is innocent. So I am not sure a timeline drawn out by her is reliable.”
Babs hasn’t been heard from since 2000.
She didn’t change her mind; she wanted people to think she did, so she could sell another book.
Barbara Davis got into bed, so to speak, with Christopher Wayne Brown, who wrote the ridiculous Media Tried, Justice Denied. They were planning a book together, and it backfired.
Know why? Because she lied, and people who know this case called her on it. She claimed she never saw photos of Darlie’s bruises, and yet she described those bruises in graphic detail in her book.
She claimed that the State’s case was “immersed in cover-up, lies, false representations and evidence that was tampered with, tainted, and even created to suit particular purposes,” and yet she hasn’t provided one iota of evidence to support any of her baseless accusations.
Barbara Davis was just another media whore, hoping to cash in on the deaths of two little boys. Shameful.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:43 am
Hey Jennifer!
I’d asked you where you heard that the partial rape kit was lost.
Could you get back to me about that?
January 13th, 2011 at 11:55 am
Jennifer says:
“When someone “Stages” a scene they use the staging in their confession, Darlie never did.”
Darlie didn’t confess.
But in her June 8th voluntary statement to police, she most certainly included many instances of her staging.
Have you read her statement?
January 13th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Hi Jennifer,
Ohhhh… the 9 minute thing. I understand now.
IMO, the only way the 9 minute timeline is relevant is if you believe Darlie is innocent. Again, a majority of the crime scene could have been staged before Darlie ever called 911.
Here’s Darlie’s “to do” list that you posted:
*stage a fight
*scour a sink
*kill their kids
*plant a sock with BOTH their children’s blood on it four houses down
*run back to slit their own throat
Every single thing you listed here could have been, and in my opinion was, completed before the 911 call was ever made. Show me something that couldn’t have been done before the 911 call and then we’ll talk minutes.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Karen Says:
“There is no way Darlie had time to do all fo these things in the allotted time frame.”
You’re right. In the ‘allotted’ time frame, it might have been a little tight. But in reality, the time frame is ridiculous because everything was done before Darlie called 911.
“How could she make it outside with out leaving blood/ footprints outside of the kitchen? I’ll tell you how, she didn’t do it.”
She made it outside without leaving any blood or footprints because when she went out to plant the sock her injuries had not yet been inflicted. You should be asking yourself how an intruder would have gotten out of there and not left any blood or footprints.
January 13th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
“She made it outside without leaving any blood or footprints because when she went out to plant the sock her injuries had not yet been inflicted. You should be asking yourself how an intruder would have gotten out of there and not left any blood or footprints”.
Exactly. The lack o blood / footprints outside points straight to Darlie rather than an intruder. Since the boys bled little and Darlie bled lots….
January 13th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Hi Mary! Can you tell the name of the website where I can read all of Darlie’s statements and court testimony? I’ve been going so much from memory from reading Ms. Springer’s book long ago, and need refreshment.
Thank you!
January 13th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Good morning, Gay
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts.php
January 13th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Deslee Says:
“i have a question…how soon after the murders did they find the blood stained sock? is it possible that it was out there for some time before the murders even took place? was it established that the blood stain on the sock was fresh?”
Good morning Deslee,
The sock was found very shortly after the murders when the police arrived at the scene and the blood stains were definitely fresh.
January 13th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
good morning all! and thank you Pam for responding to my question….i myself have read,and re read so much on this case..and one big thing that did convince me of her guilt,i should say a few things,ws the way the screen was cut in the garage,and how it was simply cut in such a weird way that no one,let alone 2 people couldve escaped,especially without disturbing the screen further
this is such a sad tragedy and my heart aches for those adorable little boys.
i know its hard for some to fathom, but the truth is some women do kill their children.
i am a momma of 6 children and could nOT eve imagine doing anything like that,but thats me,it seems its on the news daily about how children are dying at the hands of their own parents/step parents etc
also, to me, her very inappropriate behavior after this horrible nightmare is unbelievable, and im not jsut taking about the sill string issues,her n Darin tossing stuffed animals at each other in the from yard,i know people grieve in different ways, and i can only speak for myself, but had it been my kids, i think i would have to be medicated for a lifetime,and couldnt bring myself to smile, let alone laugh,and toss around stuffed animals left in the yard for my 2 murdered children.
as far this alleged timeline issue with the staging the sock etc….how could anyone who just murdered 2 babies and slashed mommys throat in such a horrible fashion make it out of that house without leaving some sort of a blood trail? thats because no body else but DArlie Routier committed these crimes
January 13th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Mary - There is a statement from Greg Davis that the loss of the rape Kit was an unfortunate circumstance.
Deslee - The silly string was purchased by her sister, and there was a long solemn ceremony with the family that was recorded prior to the silly string incident that was never aired. Also, there were several police officers that went in and out of that window without disturbing the screen further hence the officers long blonde hair that was found on the screen.
Pam - Yes the 9 minute issue, and with my medical background I can tell you that I am surprised the children lived that long. So let’s say she “staged the scence” saving the killing the children, sliting her throat, and planting the sock (and knife found next to it) in less than 3 minutes……I still find it highly unlikely unless she had help. I am not saying she is innocent, I am however still saying she needs a new trial due to all the mistakes that were made in her first trial. The 33,000 transcript errors alone is a call for a mistrial…not sure what the judge was thinking.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Jennifer Says:
“So let’s say she “staged the scence” saving the killing the children, sliting her throat, and planting the sock (and knife found next to it)”
I’m not quite sure what to make of this. What do you mean by, ““staged the scence” saving the killing the children”?
Also confused on what you mean by, “and planting the sock (and knife found next to it)”. What “knife next to it” are you talking about? Are you saying there was a knife found beside the sock?
January 13th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Sorry, again was on the phone. What I meant was say she staged the scene before she called 911. She still had to stab the boys, and slit her throat and quickly call 911, and while on the phone run to plant the sock. It doesn’t seem to add up.
Yes, there was a knife next to the sock. The knife was stuck into the ground.
January 14th, 2011 at 12:03 am
Jennifer says:
“The silly string was purchased by her sister…”
But we’re not talking about who purchased the silly string. We’re talking about who used it.
“…and there was a long solemn ceremony with the family that was recorded prior to the silly string incident that was never aired.”
Have you seen the long solemn ceremony, Jennifer? Why do you think Doug Mulder chose not to show it?
“Also, there were several police officers that went in and out of that window without disturbing the screen further hence the officers long blonde hair that was found on the screen.”
The screen that you see in the crime scene photos does not look like ANYONE went through it,IMO. My question is, how does an at least 6ft man running from a bloody murder scene leave no sign of being or leaving there? How does a man that size squeeze through that screen in a hurry and not leave any sign of having gone through?
The blonde hair was on the screen as a result of transfer. The hair belonged to an officer that wasn’t at the murder scene.
January 14th, 2011 at 1:17 am
Pam - Her sister used the string also, we all grieve in our own way. Strange behavior, but it doesn’t mean she is a killer.
I have not watched the video, but I have seen the pictures, including the one where she is on her knees crying.
In the case of Jon Feeney (another family murder) the only indication of an intruder was 1 bloody shoe print. One shoe print…..and the murder scene was much worse. They said the house lit up like daylight once the luminol was applied. Yet that’s the only track they found. Oh, and just fyi, in that case they charged the husband too…….but he was acquitted. His attorney knew which evidence he should enter, and made sure the jury was sequestered. There was also a timeline issue in that case. The defense still maintains there were multiple people in the Feeney house that committed the crime, but yet again only one shoe print….one.
January 14th, 2011 at 2:00 am
Gay Says:
January 13th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Hi Mary! Can you tell the name of the website where I can read all of Darlie’s statements and court testimony?
You bet.
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/
January 14th, 2011 at 2:10 am
Pam Says:
January 14th, 2011 at 12:03 am
The screen that you see in the crime scene photos does not look like ANYONE went through it,IMO. My question is, how does an at least 6ft man running from a bloody murder scene leave no sign of being or leaving there? How does a man that size squeeze through that screen in a hurry and not leave any sign of having gone through?
Also, there’s a large animal cage almost directly in front of the window, Pam. It looks like there’s only about a one-foot opening for someone to squeeze through.
Jennifer - police officers did not crawl in and out of that window.
Chris Frosh stepped through it at trial, and didn’t disturb any dust. However, this was accomplished in the daylight, with the officer going carefully through the window.
Much different than an intruder scrambling through the window in the dark.
Hey folks - when I brought this up years ago, guess what some die-hard supporters told me.
The intruder(s) had cigarette lighters. Ahahahaaa!
January 14th, 2011 at 2:55 am
and wouldnt you think that IF someone were to break in someones house JUST to kill 2 kids and their momma,that they would bring their own weapon? correct me if i am wrong,but sisnt they prove the knife was from Darlies kitchen and did it not have screen fibers on it?
January 14th, 2011 at 7:23 am
Jennifer Says:
“Sorry, again was on the phone. What I meant was say she staged the scene before she called 911. She still had to stab the boys, and slit her throat and quickly call 911, and while on the phone run to plant the sock. It doesn’t seem to add up.”
I disagree, Jennifer. IMO, EVERYTHING was done before the 911 call and the 9 minute theory is ridiculous. You said yourself that with your medical background that you were surprised that the boys lived as long as they did, and that’s my point. You can’t base a definite timeline on something like that because those kinds of things can vary greatly from person to person. The 9 minute time frame is simply a straw being grasped at.
“Yes, there was a knife next to the sock. The knife was stuck into the ground.”
Wrong, Jennifer. Darlie didn’t plant the knife she used to murder the boys. She laid that knife down on the kitchen counter. The knife you’re talking about was found in the yard of the Guzman home. Here is the testimony regarding the Guzman knife:
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-32.php#3
January 14th, 2011 at 8:00 am
Hello! Thanks, Mary, for the website…going to take my time reading through it. I did have another question. I THINK it was on Forensic Files. They ran a story about this, and there was a forensic audiologist that interpreted the sound waves of Darlie’s 911 call. He indicated that Darlie was very quickly darting up and down, side to side, making very quick, swift movements during the call before the police arrived. Thus indicating she was quickly wiping the blood away from the sink area. Do you know if this was brought up at trial? I know her supporters would say maybe she was trying to help the boys in some way, but it’s very well known she didn’t assist the paramedics and apply pressure when they requested, as any loving parent would do to save their child.
Thank you!!!
January 14th, 2011 at 8:04 am
Jennifer Says:
“Pam - Her sister used the string also, we all grieve in our own way. Strange behavior, but it doesn’t mean she is a killer.”
I know that her sister also used the silly string, Jennifer. But I don’t expect the boys aunt to feel the same way about them that their mother should have felt. I am also aware that we all grieve in different ways. But no one on this earth could EVER convince me that an innocent, grieving mother could ever act the way Darlie did only 8 days after losing two of her children to a brutal murder. You said that you’re a mother, Jennifer… for one moment, imagine the brutality of what happened to Damon & Devon happening to one or more of your children and tell me they wouldn’t have to peel you off the floor only a week after.
I do not, under any circumstances, buy the “we all grieve differently” defense of Darlie’s hideous actions that day.
“I have not watched the video, but I have seen the pictures, including the one where she is on her knees crying.”
I am very curious as to where you saw those pictures because I would love to see them. I’ve never seen Darlie really cry except for when she got arrested. Please pass along a link if you can and I’m still curious as to why you think that Doug Mulder didn’t show the surveillance video of the long, solemn prayer service.
Pam
January 14th, 2011 at 8:07 am
Mary Says:
“Also, there’s a large animal cage almost directly in front of the window, Pam. It looks like there’s only about a one-foot opening for someone to squeeze through.”
I know, Mary!… How in the world did this big guy in a big hurry get through that tiny pathway and not knock anything out of place? The same goes for the plastic chairs outside the window.
January 14th, 2011 at 8:22 am
To: Jennifer
Hi Jennifer! Go back and read Post #132 about the silly string. I find it appalling that eight days after two kids are brutally murdered, Darlie actually calls and invites the media to film the birthday party. What grieving parent can even think of doing something like that? Maybe, and a BIG maybe, some years down the road it could be more understood. I always felt she was celebrating the fact they were finally gone and out of her life.
January 14th, 2011 at 9:34 am
Not sure this comment went through, so I’ll try again….it seems totally impossible to me, that an “intruder” could enter, brutally stab two boys with deep wounds, but politely made sure not to mess up a EE boob job, politely stop to wipe away blood around the sink area, run and escape through a gate that was difficult to open, didn’t activate the motion detector light, as the cops did, and didn’t leave a trail of blood, or lose his cap through all this.
January 14th, 2011 at 10:06 am
Gay Says:
January 14th, 2011 at 8:00 am
“I THINK it was on Forensic Files. They ran a story about this, and there was a forensic audiologist that interpreted the sound waves of Darlie’s 911 call.”
His name was Barry Dickey, Gay. He specialized in audio recordings and was able to isolate actions and sound within the house during the 911 call.
He testified that Darlie was moving around quite a bit from the carpeted area to the kitchen area. So she may have been doing some staging even during the call.
Darlie never helped her sons.
There were no towels on the boys when Waddell and Walling arrived. They’re adamant about that. Also, none of the boys’ blood was found on the front of her baggy t-shirt, where you’d expect to find it if she was leaning over them, giving aid.
January 14th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
I just read the testimony from Gustavo Guzman about the knife he and his mother left after they did some work in the yard. It’s just unbelievable to me how the Routier supporters are either misfed false information, or they deliberately try to twist peoples’ thinking contrary to what really happened; the only item found connected to the crime was the sock, nothing else. The knife used in the crime, as Pam stated, was still inside the house. The sock itself is strange; why would an intruder use a sock, or leave with a sock anyway? To me it proves even more that it was part of the staging.
January 14th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Hmmm I never thought about the front of her shirt. Wasn’t it covered in blood? Was it just hers?
So what is everyone’s ideas for motive? Do you think this was a murder/suicide gone wrong?
January 14th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Pam Says:
“I do not, under any circumstances, buy the “we all grieve differently” defense of Darlie’s hideous actions that day.”
Also not acceptable:
“Darlie was heavily medicated”
“Darlie was putting on a brave face for the children at the party”
All three of those excuses, excuse my language, are beyond crap.
January 15th, 2011 at 2:09 am
Hi Jennifer! Go back and read posts #106, 120, 128…they kind of cover a few of the things you mentioned in #261. Remember, alot is my opinion, but much also comes from Patricia Springer’s book, who sat through the trial and took her own notes. Also, another good article to read…on your web search pull up “Darlie Routier, Doting Mother/Deadly Mother”…really good article!
January 15th, 2011 at 2:40 am
There is a lot of talk about the silly string which again is circumstancial evidence, and nothing to be sentenced to death for. Darlie was pretty much convicted from that tape per the jurors. It was shown several times in court. Do we know if Darlie called an invited the press, or where they already at the location, and she invited them over?
Guilty or not she deserves a new trial. The vast amount of errors made in the trial itself combined with an unsequestered jury should have been reason enough for mistrial. It may end with the same sentence, but our judicial system promises a fair trial. Therefore, we as Americans should honor this system, and provide one.
Again, she may be guilty, she may not…only God, Darlie, and those poor boys know. I still would like to reiterate the fact that many people (probably many on here) were adamant that the Ramsey’s killed Jon Benet. Who would sneak into their house in the middle of the night, hog tie just the girl, and rape her? Someone else per the DNA.
January 15th, 2011 at 5:02 am
Jennifer Says:
“There is a lot of talk about the silly string which again is circumstancial evidence, and nothing to be sentenced to death for.”
More times than not, Jennifer, circumstantial evidence is all there is. There is not always a smoking gun or an eyewitness to a murder. I know that you believe that Darlie is innocent and that’s fine. You’re sure not alone. But the evidence against her is very strong. To me, her guilt is undeniable.
Darlie wasn’t sentenced to death because of the silly string tape. Supporters always have a problem with the jury viewing the silly string tape so many times and I don’t understand why. I feel certain they were searching for some sign of grief from her. Like it or not, whether you agree or disagree with the tape being shown, that tape said a lot about Darlie Routier. I find it ironic that what put a big snag in her plan was the party she orchestrated ‘in honor of Devon’s life’. That was pretty bold and it turned around and bit her in the a**.
“Do we know if Darlie called an invited the press, or where they already at the location, and she invited them over?”
Yes, we do know. We know that Darlie & Darin had an agreement with the news station to give them an exclusive interview if they would pay for the hotel rooms for Darlie’s out of town guests.
“It may end with the same sentence, but our judicial system promises a fair trial. Therefore, we as Americans should honor this system, and provide one.”
Darlie Routier was entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial. Her trial was fair and just.
One more thing… you never did tell me why you think Mulder didn’t show the surveillance tape or where we could see the pics of Darlie on her knees crying.
Thanks, Jennifer
Pam
January 15th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Gay Says:
“It’s just unbelievable to me how the Routier supporters are either misfed false information, or they deliberately try to twist peoples’ thinking contrary to what really happened”
I agree 100%, Gay.
January 15th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Thank you, Pam. To me, the clincher in this case is the blood clean from the sink area. Darlie convicted herself.
January 15th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
Pam - I have repeated that I am not sure if she is innocent, or guilty…although I do believe reasonable doubt was presented. I do however keep my stand that she needs a new trial due to all the errors in the case.
In regards to the video, I have someone that worked with the case who repeated they think not entering the footage prior to the silly string was a huge mistake. Also not having the jury sequestered.
Gay, your right, the sink is questionable. There is a lot that makes no sense on both the guilty side, and the innocent side.
January 15th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
Jennifer Says:
“Pam - I have repeated that I am not sure if she is innocent, or guilty…”
Jennifer Says:
January 7th, 2011 at 6:10 am
I too think she is innocent.
January 15th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
another thing that kinda did it for me,as far as believing she may be guilty,is that family dog,why didnt the dog bark at the alleged intruders,but went nuts on law enforcement? and darlie did state that she is a light sleeper?
January 16th, 2011 at 12:03 am
Yes I think there is a possibility she is innocent. That was me, but fyi there is more than one Jennifer posting on here. I did not post at the beginning of this thread.
January 16th, 2011 at 1:50 am
To: Deslee
Yes, Deslee, the dog Domain not only went nuts, but bit the pants leg of one of the police officers. Anyone that has a small dog knows they can be terrific watchdogs, and very alert to unusual noises that humans may not hear. My parents have had a toy poodle for years, and they can be sitting reading the paper, and suddenly the dog yaps loudly (very loudly) and they haven’t heard a thing. You can tell by looking at this dog of Darlie’s, Domain, it was a pampered dog; and the more pampered they are, the more protective they are, IMO.
January 16th, 2011 at 2:00 am
Jennifer Says:
“That was me, but fyi there is more than one Jennifer posting on here.”
Oh, I know, Jennifer! :) I knew it was you because that original post ties in with your other posts. I know you’re not the only Jennifer that’s posted here.
January 16th, 2011 at 2:33 am
Ok, Jennifer… I’ll get back to your post. By the way, I hope you don’t take offense to my responses. You’re the only person here posing questions/concerns from the other side so unfortunately it all falls on you. I hope you understand that it’s nothing personal.
“In regards to the video, I have someone that worked with the case who repeated they think not entering the footage prior to the silly string was a huge mistake.”
That was no mistake. The last thing Mulder wanted was a second video of Darlie not showing any grief to be shown to the jury. Again, why do YOU think Mulder didn’t show the video?
“Also not having the jury sequestered.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2091241/
“Gay, your right, the sink is questionable.”
It’s more than questionable. There is no reason whatsoever for a murderous intruder to clean a sink or close a gate on their way out.
Pam
January 16th, 2011 at 5:48 am
Gay Says:
January 14th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
“I just read the testimony from Gustavo Guzman about the knife he and his mother left after they did some work in the yard. It’s just unbelievable to me how the Routier supporters are either misfed false information, or they deliberately try to twist peoples’ thinking contrary to what really happened”
I love it when someone takes the time to read the transcript. It restores my faith in humanity, lol!
Honestly, when you read the transcript and then compare it to the half-truths, innuendo, and, yes, downright lies being told, it’s just infuriating.
And the bottom line is this: If you have to be dishonest about the facts of the case, you might need to question your “opinion”.
January 16th, 2011 at 6:10 am
Jennifer says:
4. Plus, why wasn’t the 1 hr long tape of her wailing at the graves not played prior to the silly string incident? Because it didn’t help the prosecutions case.
No, and that’s why you need to read the transcript.
It wasn’t played because her defense team didn’t enter it into evidence.
The prosecution AND Judge Tolle even gave Mulder a second chance - which, legally, they weren’t obligated to do - to play that tape, and he declined the offer.
January 16th, 2011 at 7:55 am
Hi Mary….I was wondering if if’s on the Internet anywhere of the video of Darlie prior to the silly string incident? For Mulder not to enter it into evidence, IMO, sounds to me it’s just as incriminating as the s/s video. It either shows her laughing, chewing gum, and/or showing no grief at all. Do you know exactly what that video shows?
Thank you!
January 16th, 2011 at 9:12 am
The only thing I could find was part of the ceremony at the link below. It doesn’t show any close-ups of Darlie though:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_E32kWqtu7o
January 16th, 2011 at 11:53 am
I don’t know of anyone who’s actually seen it, Gay, and I’ve been discussing this case for 12 years.
A couple of people claim to have seen it, but when you ask for a link, they backpedal.
Like this:
Jennifer says, “I have not watched the video, but I have seen the pictures, including the one where she is on her knees crying.”
Pam: “You never did tell me where we could see the pics of Darlie on her knees crying.”
Jennifer: “In regards to the video, I have someone that worked with the case who repeated they think not entering the footage prior to the silly string was a huge mistake.”
Notice how Jennifer completely changes the subject?
Darlie’s supporters are very good at the bait and switch routine. If you stay with this case, you’ll see more than you ever thought possible.
January 16th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Thank you Mary! If, in fact, this does go to trial again, I am hoping they reach the same verdict, and bring out the misconceptions and lies the Routier supporters have done all these years to sway people. But sadly, there’s always a chance a new jury could be similar to that of the O.J. Simpson murder trial….sure hope not. But, even if she were ever acquitted in a re-trial, I’m not worried about her. God will take care of it, for sure.
January 16th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Mary Says:
“Notice how Jennifer completely changes the subject?”
I sure noticed, Mary. Like when I said this:
“You said that you’re a mother, Jennifer… for one moment, imagine the brutality of what happened to Damon & Devon happening to one or more of your children and tell me they wouldn’t have to peel you off the floor only a week after.”
…and this…
“I am very curious as to where you saw those pictures because I would love to see them. I’ve never seen Darlie really cry except for when she got arrested. Please pass along a link if you can and I’m still curious as to why you think that Doug Mulder didn’t show the surveillance video of the long, solemn prayer service.”
Jennifer says this:
“Hmmm I never thought about the front of her shirt. Wasn’t it covered in blood? Was it just hers?
So what is everyone’s ideas for motive? Do you think this was a murder/suicide gone wrong?”
When I asked again about the pictures she claims to have seen of Darlie on her knees crying, she comes back with what Mary pointed out.
Supporters never last long because they run out of ammo so quickly. All they have is what the support sites give and that can easily be refuted with the transcripts.
January 16th, 2011 at 11:37 pm
Pam - First of all I thought this was a place for discussion. I am not a so called “supporter” and I have ran the transcripts. I have legitimate questions which you guys have been nicely answering until now. There is no reason to attack me, I thought we were discussing this situation. I have some reasonable doubt about this case, and that’s allowed.
Oh, and I don’t change the subject on purpose. As stated before I work full time. I also am a mother of a beautiful pre teen, and a disabled child who had a stroke. So therefore, I easily get distracted from this board, and may not answer all your conversations in the order you wish me to answer them in.
January 16th, 2011 at 11:38 pm
That should say “Read” the transcripts.
January 16th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
Mary -
“A couple of people claim to have seen it, but when you ask for a link, they backpedal”
Again, just because I don’t answer right away doesn’t mean I am back pedaling. I have better things to do than answer this board all the time. I have indeed seen the picture, and I will find it again. I have had little time to look it up.
Also, I did know someone involved in the case who heard from the lawyers mouth he thought it was a mistake he didn’t enter in the video from the cemetery. So to answer your question I have no idea what the attorney’s reasoning was for not entering it at the time, but I know he regretted it afterwards.
Again my stance is I am not sure if she is guilty or innocent. I think there is reasonable doubt, and many errors made during the trial. I have said before I think she needs a new trial. It may have the exact same result.
Your right I have not discussed the case on a regular basis for 12 years and therefor could probably learn a lot and hence my prior questions, and comments. Although NOW I do feel like I am being attacked, which is what everyone kept saying wouldn’t happen.
January 16th, 2011 at 11:59 pm
Jennifer.
im so sorry your child had a stroke,as a mom of 2 disabled boys myself i sure know what you mean when you say you are always busy,i hope n pray your child continues to recover,im sure that is so mmuch to go through for your family
and im sorry you feel attacked on here,im sure its not their intention
January 17th, 2011 at 12:32 am
Deslee - Thank you, that was very nice. He may be disabled but he is such a blessing. He has taught me more about life than anyone ever has.
I am just a normal person looking at this case in confusion. Maybe it’s because I cannot fathom any mother commiting this act. Maybe, it’s because there are questions left unanswered. Who knows.
In the end I believe it will be God that judges Darlie, because he knows the truth. We are going off facts, and lots of assumptions.
Sometimes I wish life had a rewind button where we could see exactly why these types of situations happen.
January 17th, 2011 at 1:02 am
Hi Jennifer! I don’t think Pam or anyone else is attacking you. But I think when you stated you cannot fathom any mother doing that…well, sadly, it happens every day. We watch Nancy Grace, Jane Velez-Mitchell..I wanted to believe Darlie was innocent too. But it’s not just the s/s tape. It’s a compilation of all the evidence put together, the blood wiped from the sink, the staged crime scene, broken glass but no cuts on her feet, the difference of the injuries to the boys compared to Darlie’s, no blood trail, a knife used from her own kitchen, intruder left no blood trail at all but managed to escape through a jammed gate, quickly escaped through a cut screen w/out leaving evidence, keeping the dog quiet, and even though the “intruder” left with Darlie’s sock, he didn’t take the time to gather all her fancy jewelry, but yet walked right past it to get a knife from the kitchen. It’s strange to me he didn’t just gather up the jewelry and stuff it into his pocket. The reason why he didn’t is because there was no intruder. Darlie was the intruder. It happens all the time in our society, sad to say. Yes, Darlie was beautiful, yes, she had a lovely home, yes, she had a nice boob job, but it’s obvious those things were all she cared about.
January 17th, 2011 at 1:10 am
And I should have mentioned, Jennifer, my heart goes out to any parent who has a disabled child; I admire any parent that has the strength to deal the problems day to day of such…I used to do private sitting years ago for a handicapped child, so I know. But it also brings to mind…I can’t help but think this way concerning your feelings about Darlie. Have you ever thought that YOU are a far better parent and human being than Darlie? You are not of her mentality at all! You obviously have far more better priorities in life than Darlie Routier ever had.
January 17th, 2011 at 5:29 am
Jennifer Says:
January 13th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
“Mary - There is a statement from Greg Davis that the loss of the rape Kit was an unfortunate circumstance.”
I can’t find this anywhere.
Link, please.
January 17th, 2011 at 8:30 am
Hi Jennifer,
First and foremost… I’m so sorry for what happened to your baby and hope for health and happiness for you & your family.
Jennifer Says:
“Pam - First of all I thought this was a place for discussion.”
It absolutely is a place for discussion, Jennifer. Please remember that I said this:
“I hope you don’t take offense to my responses. You’re the only person here posing questions/concerns from the other side so unfortunately it all falls on you. I hope you understand that it’s nothing personal.”
It’s nothing personal, Jennifer. You’ll notice that the majority of people who post here believe that Darlie is guilty of murdering two of her children in their sleep. That’s a horrible thing. That means you’re going to run across a lot of harsh words if you defend her. That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t defend her if you believe her. It just means prepare yourself to sometimes feel attacked when you post about Darlie. In your first post you also said:
“Before you so harshly criticize me think of this…” which leads me to believe you’re pretty much aware of how people can be concerning this case. People who really, really know the case believe that Darlie is very guilty and they WILL call you out on misinformation, no matter where you post.
“I am not a so called “supporter” and I have ran the transcripts.”
The very first sentence of your very post, says: “I too think she is innocent.” In almost every post since, you’ve defended Darlie. I mean, you’re not playing the Devil’s Advocate here, you’re out and out defending her. Jennifer, that’s your right. Defend her to the hilt as long as you believe her. But that does make you a supporter. And you’re going to think I’m on the attack again, but it’s kind of hard to belive that you’ve read the transcripts when you’ve posted misinformation like the officers climbed in and out of the window leaving a blonde hair, the knife was in the ground by the sock, etc.
“Oh, and I don’t change the subject on purpose.”
I’m sorry, Jennifer, but it seems like you do. It’s been pretty consistant when you’ve posted something that’s been proven incorrect or when you’re asked a direct question. I know you’re very busy though and it’s not like this is anything of great importance or anything. Your children and your life, of course, come first. I’m just saying…
That’s pretty much it, Jennifer. Nothing personal, just a discussion. Unfortunately you’re a part of a minority here and that can sometimes look as if you’re being picked on. But that’s not it at all. Believe me… this site is kittens and rainbows compared to lots of other sites where this case is discussed. You wouldn’t make it for long as a supporter at Life On The Row (the site Mary’s from). It’s hard-core over there! ;)
Pam
January 17th, 2011 at 8:42 am
““Mary - There is a statement from Greg Davis that the loss of the rape Kit was an unfortunate circumstance.”
I can’t find this anywhere.
Link, please.”
Jennifer,
While you’re looking (whenever you find the time, of course), see if you can find the pics of Darlie that we talked about earlier. Thanks, Pam
January 17th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Jennifer, if I may point out one more other thing. The fact you have a disabled child, that indicates the child needs extra attention. I don’t know the specifics, but let’s just say, for example, your child slips and falls down. As a loving, concerned parent, you’ll do everything you can to help the child get back up and and make sure he’s okay. All Darlie did was hold a rag to HER neck, and would not apply pressure as the paramedics requested, to the boys. All she did was lay a cloth on them, or one of them. If you suddenly woke up, saw your child badly injured, called 911, wouldn’t you do as YOU were instructed, or be more concerned about a cut on your neck? I’m not trying to be argumentative, but we are all trying to explain the logic of why we all feel Darlie is guilty. With all of the evidence presented as we know it, can you explain to us why you may still feel she is innocent?. Thank you!
January 18th, 2011 at 2:16 am
Well said, Gay.
One more thing I have to say…
Jennifer. I asked you to imagine for a moment what happened to Devon and Damon happening to your children. I know it’s a horrible thought, but just for a moment, imagine it. Imagine that you are actually in that situation. Imagine your babies being gone. Can you honestly tell me that a week later you could possibly be as happy and carefree as Darlie appears to be in the S/S video? Could you be THAT heavily medicated? Put on THAT brave of a face? Assuming you are a loving, caring mother, I say you could not.
People argue the legality of that tape being admitted/viewed and I’ll admit, there’s a fine line there. But that tape shows a mother a week after her sons were murdered, disturbingly unaffected. THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES. You can say that people grieve differently all day long, but no one could ever convince me that a loving, grieving, INNOCENT mother could behave that way a week after losing her children. Not in a million years.
Damn her rights. She’s been afforded due process. Who, exactly, was defending Devon and Damons rights? How many appeals did they get before they were executed?
Read the transcripts. That’s all I can say to anyone who has even the SLIGHTEST doubt. It will put your mind at ease, I promise you.
Pam
January 18th, 2011 at 3:01 am
Sorry guys, it’s been a super busy day today. Also, one of those days where everything seems to go wrong…sigh..lol.
Anyway, I searched for the link regarding Greg Davis’s statements and now (of course) cannot put my finger on it. I will continue to search for them. There are you tube video’s discussing errors made by the Rowlett policy..that’s easy to find. This is not surprising to me, and may have had nothing to do with her guilt or innocence. I also located the pre-cemetery silly string video we discussed, and it is on you tube too.
I am being educated through you guys so I am now hovering on the guilt, or innocence. I am not defending her, but merely asking questions, or making statements, and in turn your replies continue to further my education.
NO, I cannot imagine this happening to my children, and I don’t want to. I know I would be in full panic, and I would be doing whatever I could. I cannot imagine living without my children in my life.
Do I continue to have doubts reagarding this case? Yes. Why? I guess the number one reason is because of my background. I told you I knew someone associated with the case. I have a family member that is in criminal defense. I have seen first hand several cases where people were positive the party in questions was guilty, and then evidence would come a long to show they weren’t. One case in particular was a gentleman on death row for killing his wife. Everything in the case from the blood trail, to the alarm code, and the timeline all implicated the husband. Yet years later he was let out of prison because DNA cleared his name, turns out his brother did it. A very remote amount of DNA cleared him, and no one even suspected the brother.
In regards to the silly string……no, I cannot see myself acting like that. Although, I have been in a tragic situation, and lost someone dear to me. The emptiness and hole left from their death haunted me. One minute I would be laughing, and the next falling down crying. I spent hours at his grave crying my eyes out, but in the next I could laugh hysterically about a good memory. So do I think it’s possible…….yes. From me personally, no. I would be devastated.
Oh and no my son cannot walk, or talk, so yes I would take extra precautions with him.
I do feel for her children. No one should ever die in the manner they did, and not ever a child. Especially if their mother did it.
So what leads me to believe she is guilty:
The sink
the outline of the knife on the carpet
the lack of a blood trail
the staging
the lack of emotion
What leads me to still questions. Maybe you could answer them?
1. Could she have possibly been asphyxiated by the sock and thus losing consciousness, and therefore the explanation that she “didn’t remember”
2. The records state there was a rash of break ins in the Dallas area with the perp using tube socks, etc in the break in. Any thoughts on that?
3. What about the black car mentioned in the trancripts? Any importance to it?
4. Darlie’s neck wound concerns me. When people “slit” their own throats (ewww) they normally go straight across (at least that’s what I have been told). Her wound starts on one side, and seems to go down near her arm pit. It seems like if she is the killer than Darin helped her with this (thoughts?).
5. Who knows more about the blood pattern on her shirt? I have questions regarding this. If she did indeed forcefully stab them wouldn’t there be spray all over the front of her shirt? Maybe I didn’t read enough on this. I know they found a few droplets on the back showing she may have been lifting the knife over her head.
6. Was there indeed someone outside the house that said he was Darin, or was this false information?
7. what are your thoughts on the juror that said he is 100% sure she is innocent?
Again, just looking for answers. I too want justice for the boys, just wanting more information. I really appreciate you guys taking the time to educate me, and answer my questions. I don’t have the years of experience you do with this, but the story has always haunted me.
January 18th, 2011 at 4:26 am
Jennifer Says:
January 18th, 2011 at 3:01 am
Anyway, I searched for the link regarding Greg Davis’s statements and now (of course) cannot put my finger on it.
Why am I not surprised?
Jennifer Says:I also located the pre-cemetery silly string video we discussed, and it is on you tube too.
Please copy and paste the link for us. I can’t wait to see Darlie on her knees, wailing!
January 18th, 2011 at 4:33 am
Mary - Oh good grief, I knew someone would post something like that “Why am I not surprised?”. I think I was very nice in my last post, and listed everything everyone had been asking, and more. I will find the link for you. I read it a long time ago, so it’s reasonable I cannot locate it per your demand.
You can search you tube, there are plenty of video’s out there with the cemetery footage. I will find the picture eventually. She was on her knees holding Drake, but even then she could have been faking.
Again, she may be guilty as sin, I am just trying to have a conversation here. Some of you guys are nice, the others are just jaded and confrontational.
January 18th, 2011 at 6:06 am
Jennifer..thers been plenty of times where i have found something on google and then when id look again,i couldnt find stuff,its quite irritating,but non e the less happens a lot…and you do NOT need to defend yourself to anyone on here,even if you believe DArlie is innocent,this is a discussion board for all of us to voice our thoughts and opinions, no matter what they may be,and everyone should just respect it,i struggled with things on this case for years,and even though i do believe she is guilty now, that is only my opinion, i wouldnt get mad at someone who begs to differ
January 18th, 2011 at 6:24 am
Jennifer Says:
January 18th, 2011 at 3:01 am
2. The records state there was a rash of break ins in the Dallas area with the perp using tube socks, etc in the break in. Any thoughts on that?
Do you have a link for this, other than from supporters’ websites? Thanks.
January 18th, 2011 at 8:54 am
Mary - From the Writ of Habeus Corpus:
Alan Brantley gave the jury the misimpression that he had investigated whether there had been similar crimes in the area. See C.R.R. Vol. 40, pp. 53:24-54:5. In fact, a spree of crimes that started in December 1995 and ended around the time of the attack at the Routiers’ residence was not disclosed to the jury. The assailant’s modus operandi included using implements from the homes of his victim as weapons and using tube socks – like the one found three houses down from the Routier’s home (C.R.R. Vol. 32, p. 71:3-6) – to gag his victims. Brantley misleadingly suggested that criminal offenders never use objects found in victims’ homes as weapons. See C.R.R. Vol. 40, p. 84:5-9.
At the time that Brantley was testifying, however, police had records of other crimes that resembled the Routier murders. On December 8, 1995, an intruder entered a nearby residence, obtained a small kitchen knife, and held that knife against the throat of a victim in preparation for a sexual assault. Exh. B. On March 28, 1996, an unknown assailant threatened a child with a kitchen fork. Exh. A. In a series of other crimes, an unknown assailant used a single tube sock – similar to the sock found in the alley behind the Routier residence – to gag his victims and to conceal fingerprints. Exh. B (using a sock from the victims drawer as a gag) (December 8, 1995); Exh. C (same) (February 1, 1996); Exh. D (assailant used a tube sock to cover his hands) (April 7, 1996); Exh. E (using a sock from the victims drawer as a gag) (May 7, 1996).
“The fact that there had been violent break-ins in the area at the same time at other houses did not dissuade the police. It was entirely possible that evidence was contaminated in the collection process.” Unsolved mysteries.
Is this incorrect? I am open to learning
January 18th, 2011 at 10:13 am
Jennifer -
Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Applicant Fails to Allege & Prove Sufficient Facts
Applicant asserts that the State violated Brady and deprived her of her due process rights by failing to disclose evidence of similar crimes that would impeach the testimony of Agent Brantley. (Application at 103, 108).
652. In support of her argument, Applicant tendered five police reports from the Dallas Police Department. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibits A – E). Applicant argues that the police reports constitute favorable impeachment evidence that directly contradicts Agent Brantley’s crime-scene analysis testimony because: 1) these crimes are similar to this offense and occurred in the year immediately preceding it; 2) in one of the offenses, the intruder held a small knife from the victim’s kitchen against the victim’s throat prior to the sexual assault; 3) in another case, the assailant threatened a child with a kitchen fork; and 4) in four of the cases, the assailant “used a single tube sock—similar to the sock found in the alley behind the Routier residence—to gag his victims and to conceal fingerprints.” (Application at 103).
653. The Court finds that each of the five police reports involved: 1) a sexual assault, 2) with no additional serious bodily injury, 3) committed inside an apartment or at an apartment complex, 4) in the city of Dallas, 5) by an African-American male, Sammie Luckas Cook, Jr., who was apprehended through DNA testing, and 6) a demand for credit cards and cash from his victims. In the one offense involving a child witness, Cook did not sexually assault or physically harm the child.
654. The Court finds that the Dallas sexual assaults as set out in the tendered police reports are significantly dissimilar to the instant offense for the following reasons:
a. Unlike the victims detailed in the Dallas Police Department’s reports, Applicant, her husband, and her children lived in a two-story, colonial-style house in an upscale, suburban neighborhood in the city of Rowlett, twelve miles from the closest sexual assault; two of the three children in the house were stabbed to death; none of the victims were sexually assaulted; the intruder did not speak to or threaten Applicant; and he never demanded or took any money or property.
b. Furthermore, although a bloodstained sock was found in the alley three houses down from the Routier crime scene (RR32:1260, 1265, 1271, 1387), Applicant never reported that the intruder gagged any of the victims with a sock (as did the intruder in two of the Dallas sexual assaults). In fact, Applicant specifically testified that she did not find “any tape, or any gauze or anything stuffed in [her] mouth.” (RR44:4934). Applicant also did not ever report that the intruder wore socks on his hands (as did the intruder in one of the Dallas sexual assaults). (RR44:4789-5031; State’s Trial Exhibit 76A).
c. The intruder in the Dallas sexual assaults was African American, and, although Applicant told Officer David Waddell at one point that she did not know if her assailant was black or white (RR29:319), she repeatedly told Lieutenant Matt Walling her assailant was white. (RR29:514-15, 522, 530). Similarly, Applicant told her friend, Barbara Jovell, that the assailant was white. (RR36:2569). Applicant testified at trial that she “wasn’t sure if [the intruder] was white or black because it was dark, but that I assumed that he was white because of his hair.” (RR44:4883).
d. The Dallas sexual assaults occurred at apartment complexes in an urban area along a narrow corridor on the east side of a major highway, Highway 75 – Central Expressway, in an area approximately one mile wide and five miles long. Two of the sexual assaults occurred at the same complex. (State’s Writ Exhibit 10). The proximity of Central Expressway (and Highway 635 in two cases) would have provided easy access to a major highway to lessen the chances of detection. The Rowlett murders occurred approximately fifteen miles from Central Expressway, in a suburban neighborhood cul-de-sac. (RR40:3666, 3705; State’s Writ Exhibit 10). As one of Applicant’s neighbors described Rowlett in relation to Dallas:
Rowlett, Texas, is located to the [north]east of Dallas, on Lake Ray Hubbard, the city reservoir. It’s about approximately 35 miles from downtown Dallas. It’s a suburb of Dallas, just east of Garland.
(RR28:179, 184). Regarding their particular neighborhood, the neighbor explained: “It’s a fairly upscale neighborhood, as it’s been described before. The neighborhood is mostly family oriented, lots of small children, and kind of a bedroom community.” (RR28:186).
e. Furthermore, in each of the Dallas sexual assaults, the assailant demanded and/or took cash, credit cards, or property from his victims. In contrast, Brantley testified regarding the Routier case:
Q. [Prosecutor]: [R]obbery, in this case, were you aware of, well, I guess, it was various items left around in the residence; is that right?
A. [Brantley]: That’s correct.
Q. Okay. Do you remember what types of items we’re talking about?
A. Well, primarily, the jewelry, the large amount of jewelry that was left there in plain view, and certainly, this also seemed to be in this path of entry and escape, and so, I mean, it was right there for the taking, and all someone had to do was just reach over and grab it.
Also, you looked at the purses that were in the area, and whether they were disturbed, or whether anyone was attempting to steal money, cash or credit cards. And there is no indication that anything like that has occurred.
As a matter of fact, nothing was disturbed. Nothing of value in that home seemed to be of interest whatsoever to the offender in this case.
(RR40:3694-95).
655. The Court finds that Applicant fails to prove that the Dallas sexual assaults “resemble” or occurred “in the area” of the instant offense.
656. The Court finds that the Dallas sexual assaults in the police reports are not sufficiently similar to the instant offense to be relevant or material. See Willingham v. State, 897 S.W.2d 351, 358 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (to impeach a witness, it must be established that the evidence is relevant and material to the case).
657. Thus, the Court finds and concludes that Applicant has failed to prove that the facts she alleges are true, and therefore, the Court finds and concludes that Applicant has failed to produce evidence that entitles her to relief. See Ex parte Chappell, 959 S.W.2d at 628.
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php
January 18th, 2011 at 11:12 am
deslee Says:
“Jennifer..thers been plenty of times where i have found something on google and then when id look again,i couldnt find stuff,its quite irritating,but non e the less happens a lot…and you do NOT need to defend yourself to anyone on here”
Hi Deslee
I understand what you’re saying but no one is asking Jennifer or any other supporter to defend themselves, but to defend their opinion. It doesn’t bother me if someone questions why I support Darlie’s guilt, so why should Jennifer be upset if she’s asked why she supports her innocence? It’s not meant as an attack when you are asking someone to back-up what they say with some sort of documentation. I feel certain that if I were to make a claim against Darlie and Jennifer didn’t agree, she would expect me to back it up, and I would.
Pam
January 18th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
I’ve always thought that there was far far too much made of the silly string incident. To me, it makes Darlie look bad (and extremely dumb) but it proves nothing.
On the one hand, you get the Darlie defenders saying that people grieve differently and Darlie didn’t bring the silly string yada yada; on the other, those who think that no loving, grieving, innocent mother could behave that way a week after her kids were murdered.
Well, I think Darlie is guilty. But I’ve personally seen a loving grieving mother behave that way at her son’s funeral - sans the gum, I admit. A friend of mine’s son was killed in a farming accident - aged 15 and run over by a combine harvester. And my friend acted like Darlie at the funeral. She smiled and joked and laughed and she hugged everyone and thanked them for coming and not once did shed the slightest tear - either during the ceremony or afterwards (everyone else was in pieces). It was bloody unnerving, I can tell you. All afternoon, I was waiting for her to crack…but she didn’t.
She told me months later that she did this for Dallas (her son). That if there was an afterlife (which she didn’t personally believe) and therefore a chance that he was watching, he wouldn’t want to see his mother upset.
So I don’t think - I know - that sometimes devastated people can behave in strange ways.
I think Darlie is guilty because of all the other evidence and her selective amnesia.
January 18th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
“You can search you tube, there are plenty of video’s out there with the cemetery footage”.
The only footage on youtube of the ceremony prior to the silly string episode is the same footage as at the link I posted above. I’ve never been able to find anything more than this. It shows about eight seconds’ worth of blurry footage shot from well behind the mourners who are standing with their backs to the camera.
There are no vids on youtube showing close-ups of Darlie crying and grieving at the graves. None. If someone can send me a link to one, I will thank them profusely and I’ll even donate to her defence fund.
I have searched the Internet high and low for this purported grieving funeral ceremony and I agree with Mary - it is not there.
January 18th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Hi, Pam. Please “defend your opinion” re: post 122. I asked you a question which you never answered.
January 18th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Hello everybody! Pam, I just read your documentation about the other sock crimes. It’s amazing to me how so many Routier supporters always say there were other identical tube sock break-in and attacks, but never go into the specifics. From what I can see, I have no doubt that Darlie had read in the papers or seen this on the TV news, so she tried to stage her crime on the sock evidence, to match the other previous attacks. Obviously, she did her homework.
To: Jennifer
Jen, thank you for your response and comments regarding why you think she may be innocent or guilty. I’ve been working late hours and have to work late tomorrow, but hopefully, later Wednedsay, I hope to be able to answer your questions lingering that may have you thinking she could be innocent.
Thanks, to all of you! This is all so informative! Have a great day, and never forget to hug all the loved ones around you!!
January 18th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Zane Dunlop Says:
“I personally believe that Julie Rae Harper is very guilty of killing her son.
“Even though she was acquitted on the basis of extensive forensic evidence demonstrating that there was a third person in the house and even though someone else confessed to her son’s murder???”
Good morning Zane,
Yes, that’s right, that’s what I believe. I also don’t buy the Ramsey family being ‘cleared’.
Pam
January 18th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
“Hi, Pam. Please “defend your opinion””
Figure of speech, Zane.
No one is being forced to stay here. As I explained earlier, I’m not getting upset when I’m asked to “defend” (so to speak) my opinion, so I don’t understand anyone getting upset when they are asked to do the same.
Pam
I’ve been discussing this case for a few years now and it’s been my experience that supporters get upset when they’ve been confronted with the truth about Darlie.
January 18th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Good morning Ellen
Ellen Says:
“The only footage on youtube of the ceremony prior to the silly string episode is the same footage as at the link I posted above.”
You’re right, Ellen. The picture of Darlie on her knees crying that Jennifer described is the part where Darlie is seen holding Drake and squating to sit down with him. There is no other footage of the surveillance tape.
January 18th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
Deslee - Thank you for being so understanding.
Pam - Thanks for the post regarding the break ins, that was very informative.
I don’t mind backing myself up. I am still just weighing all the information.
January 18th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Good morning Jennifer,
Jennifer Says:
1. Could she have possibly been asphyxiated by the sock and thus losing consciousness, and therefore the explanation that she “didn’t remember”
“Furthermore, although a bloodstained sock was found in the alley three houses down from the Routier crime scene (RR32:1260, 1265, 1271, 1387), Applicant never reported that the intruder gagged any of the victims with a sock (as did the intruder in two of the Dallas sexual assaults).”
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php
2. The records state there was a rash of break ins in the Dallas area with the perp using tube socks, etc in the break in. Any thoughts on that?
Answered in post #300
6. Was there indeed someone outside the house that said he was Darin, or was this false information?
8 Q. All right. And as you came up here to
9 this location, Officer, is that when you saw the
10 individual that you now know to be Darin Routier?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. Can you please point where he was when
13 you first saw him?
14 A. He was coming out of the front door,
15 across the yard.
16 Q. All right. Do you recall how he was
17 dressed that morning?
18 A. He was wearing blue jeans, no shirt,
19 no shoes.
20 Q. Okay. Do you remember whether or not
21 he was saying anything as he came out?
22 A. He was saying something, but at that
23 time I didn’t know what it was.
24 Q. All right. Did you have your gun
25 drawn as you came up to that location?
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
301
1 A. Yes, I did.
2 Q. All right. And, why did you have your
3 gun drawn?
4 A. I didn’t know if he was a suspect,
5 or — I didn’t know who he was.
6 Q. All right. You know you had a
7 stabbing call; right?
8 A. Right.
9 Q. What did you do then as you came up
10 here and you saw this individual running out of the
11 house?
12 A. I hollered at him to stop, and then I
13 walked over and met him, in front of the fountain there.
14 Q. Okay. What happened when you met him
15 over there?
16 A. He told me that his kids had been
17 stabbed, and that they were dying.
18 Q. What did you do then?
19 A. After he told me that, he started
20 going back into the house, and I followed him inside the
21 house.
7. what are your thoughts on the juror that said he is 100% sure she is innocent?
Charlie Samford is the only juror out of 12 to say that he didn’t see the photos of Darlie’s injuries, despite the fact that they were shown and argued, as is reflected in the transcripts. Darlie’s own attorney, Doug Mulder, says that he doesn’t understand what Samford is talking about because the photos were entered.
The following is from http://www.fordarlieroutier.org
It shows what the State’s trial exhibits were:
http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/index.html
I’ll be back later today with responses to questions 3, 4, and 5. Mary may get back here before I do and she knows the evidence and transcripts.
Pam
January 18th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
“Pam - Thanks for the post regarding the break ins, that was very informative.”
You’re welcome, Jennifer.
“I don’t mind backing myself up. I am still just weighing all the information.”
I know you are, Jennifer. No problem.
Pam
January 19th, 2011 at 5:12 am
Ellen Says:
January 18th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
I’ve always thought that there was far far too much made of the silly string incident. To me, it makes Darlie look bad (and extremely dumb) but it proves nothing.
On the one hand, you get the Darlie defenders saying that people grieve differently and Darlie didn’t bring the silly string yada yada; on the other, those who think that no loving, grieving, innocent mother could behave that way a week after her kids were murdered.
Well, I think Darlie is guilty. But I’ve personally seen a loving grieving mother behave that way at her son’s funeral - sans the gum, I admit. A friend of mine’s son was killed in a farming accident - aged 15 and run over by a combine harvester. And my friend acted like Darlie at the funeral. She smiled and joked and laughed and she hugged everyone and thanked them for coming and not once did shed the slightest tear - either during the ceremony or afterwards (everyone else was in pieces). It was bloody unnerving, I can tell you. All afternoon, I was waiting for her to crack…but she didn’t.
She told me months later that she did this for Dallas (her son). That if there was an afterlife (which she didn’t personally believe) and therefore a chance that he was watching, he wouldn’t want to see his mother upset.
So I don’t think - I know - that sometimes devastated people can behave in strange ways.
I think Darlie is guilty because of all the other evidence and her selective amnesia.
Excellent post.
I’ve always said the prosecution didn’t even need the silly string tape. They had a mountain of evidence without it.
January 19th, 2011 at 6:13 am
Jennifer Says:
January 18th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
“I don’t mind backing myself up.”
Here’s the deal, Jennifer.
You’re entitled to your own opinion.
As long as you can support it.
So far, that support has been virtually non-existent.
For instance:
-The original testing facility showed no blood from either child on her shirt. The police didn’t like that, so they had it retested somewhere else…
- Why wasn’t the 1 hour long tape of her wailing at the graves not played? Because it didn’t help the prosecution’s case.
- Where is the rape kit the police lost?
It has been pointed out to you that those are lies taken from supporters’ websites. They can say anything they darn well please to pull the wool over the public’s eyes.
But that’s not how guilt or innocence is determined in this country. It’s determined in a court of law, which is why the transcript is the only unbiased, factual source of information upon which to base your opinion.
January 19th, 2011 at 6:18 am
Pam Says:
January 18th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
“You’re right, Ellen. The picture of Darlie on her knees crying that Jennifer described is the part where Darlie is seen holding Drake and squating to sit down with him. There is no other footage of the surveillance tape.”
I’m crushed. No wailing or gnashing of teeth?
January 19th, 2011 at 6:34 am
Mary - I have flat out admitted that I am wavering on my opinion, and that you guys are educating me. Some of the information I have received is from supporting websites. I watched whatever I can, read what I could, asked questions, and made statements.
My opinion is, “I am not sure anymore”. You on the other hand come across like you think everyone that counters with a statement or a question is an idiot. If you think something I have said is wrong, then posting it without a smart alec reply goes a lot further than you sounding jaded and crass. For example “I’m crushed. No wailing or gnashing of teeth?”
Anyway, I appreciate the responses, it has helped me immensley! I will continue to read whatever you guys post.
January 19th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Pam said:
“Figure of speech, Zane.
No one is being forced to stay here. As I explained earlier, I’m not getting upset when I’m asked to “defend” (so to speak) my opinion, so I don’t understand anyone getting upset when they are asked to do the same.
I’ve been discussing this case for a few years now and it’s been my experience that supporters get upset when they’ve been confronted with the truth about Darlie.”
I think you misunderstand me. I’m not in the slightest bit upset and I don’t think Darlie is innocent either. Furthermore, I think you make some excellent points.
I just wonder whether you think EVERY woman out there accused of killing her kid is guilty.
The Ramseys and Julie Harper were cleared by new DNA testing - which is getting more sophisticated all the time. If you think they are guilty, does this mean that you don’t trust DNA testing..? Or don’t trust the lab that conducted the testing..?? Or what?
I’m just curious and that’s why I’d like to hear you defend your opinion that they are guilty. Don’t mean to get off the subject of Darlie Routier but since DNA has been discussed in her case I still think it’s relevant. I mean, what if Darlie’s DNA tests come back with something none of us were expecting (unlikely but you never know)….
I, for one, would definitely re-evaluate my opinion about Darlie Routier’s guilt - or at least open my mind to the possibility that she is innocent - IF new DNA testing yielded new information.
January 19th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
The state has already spent too much money keeping her alive, feeding her and housing her. End the debate and execute this foul excuse for a woman already. Some countries get it right, tried, found guilty, shot behind the building the same day. The US should take notes.
January 19th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Pam and Rick - Rick the above comment that Pam posted is exactly why I don’t believe in the death penalty. I am now leaning towards the idea that Darlie is guilty, but just what if the DNA shows something else. Julie Rea Harper was convicted of almost the same type of murder, but was eventually exonerated and let out of prison. The Ramsey’s would have been executed on the spot by many Americans…….again innocent Since 1973 132 people that were on death row have been released. 10 executed that were innocent. You almost sound like my bosses approach, his response was “should have killed them anyway, I bet they did something in their life. In America our justice systems provides a case that is based on innocent until proven guilty. I am afraid it doesn’t always works. So imagine you are in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and you are now on death row. It happened to 132 other innocent people, so why couldn’t it happen to you, or someone you love? If you think of it that way, most people will question the death penalty.
January 20th, 2011 at 4:17 am
Jennifer Says:
January 19th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
“10 executed that were innocent.”
First of all, Jennifer, I am against the death penalty, too.
That being said, I’m astounded at your statement that we have executed 10 factually innocent people in this country.
What are their names & when were they found actually innocent?
With all the checks & balances, and endless appeals afforded death penalty cases, I find this very hard to believe.
January 20th, 2011 at 7:14 am
Jennifer says:
“1. Could she have possibly been asphyxiated by the sock and thus losing consciousness, and therefore the explanation that she “didn’t remember”
I was curious about ligature marks if this were the case. I asked a friend of mine that is a pathologist (MD). He said in order to put that much pressure on the carotid arteries (in the neck)to cut off the oxygen supply to the brain and render someone uncoscious with a sock or rope, would most definitely leave noticable marks on the neck.
January 20th, 2011 at 9:17 am
Jennifer Says:
“Pam and Rick - Rick the above comment that Pam posted is exactly why I don’t believe in the death penalty.”
What post is that, Jennifer?
By the way, I am ANTI-DP. I am against it because I don’t think it is any humans right to take another life. JMO, but that’s how I feel.
Pam
January 20th, 2011 at 11:20 am
Pam Says:
January 20th, 2011 at 9:17 am
“By the way, I am ANTI-DP. I am against it because I don’t think it is any humans right to take another life. JMO, but that’s how I feel.”
Pam
My sentiments exactly. Not to mention the fact that it costs much, much more to execute someone than LWOP. A terrible waste of time and money.
However, I can separate my feelings about the D.P. from a defendant’s guilt or innocence. They’re two completely different issues.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:48 am
Zane Says:
“I think you misunderstand me. I’m not in the slightest bit upset and I don’t think Darlie is innocent either. Furthermore, I think you make some excellent points.
“I just wonder whether you think EVERY woman out there accused of killing her kid is guilty.”
Hi Zane :)
No, I don’t think that every mother that is accused of killing her child/children is guilty. But if evidence points to a parent, you have to look in that direction. There is no denying that in more cases than not, when these things happen to children, it’s at the hands of someone in or close to the family. I mean, that’s not some kind of prejudice, it’s a fact. So I will admit that this is in my mind when I hear about one of these cases.
For the better part of the day I’ve been reading up on the Julie Rea Harper case and I must admit, I stand corrected. To be honest, I remember hearing about this case when it happened and from what I heard at the time, evidence was pointing to her guilt and it seemed strong. I was glad for the prison term. I heard sometime after that about her being released on a technicality and a new trial in 2006(?). Admittedly, I have never researched this case the way I have the Routier case and never followed up on the details of the new trial. Not knowing the case any better than I do, I’ll admit I should have looked into it further before making the statement I made.
I stand firm on the Ramsey case, though. Everything involved with that murder came from inside that house. The abduction happened inside the house, the murder happened inside the house, the materials for the garrotte came from inside the house, the material for the ransom note came from inside the house… everything in this case happens/comes from inside the house. I just find it impossible to believe that someone would come into their house, do what was done to Jon Benet and feel comfortable enough to sit down and write that ransom ‘novel’. The note in itself was ridiculous and the crime seen was horribly compromised, etc. I know DNA is involved here, and I may be very wrong, but I just can’t get past it. I’m sorry, I may be wrong for not accepting it but it just doesn’t ring true with me.
“I, for one, would definitely re-evaluate my opinion about Darlie Routier’s guilt - or at least open my mind to the possibility that she is innocent - IF new DNA testing yielded new information.”
I would definitely re-evaluate my opinion as well, Zane. Though I will admit, it would have to be something incredibly strong to make me change my mind.
Pam
January 20th, 2011 at 11:51 am
Mary Says:
“However, I can separate my feelings about the D.P. from a defendant’s guilt or innocence. They’re two completely different issues.”
I agree, Mary.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:59 am
Jennifer Says:
January 18th, 2011 at 8:54 am
“Mary - From the Writ of Habeus Corpus:
Alan Brantley gave the jury the misimpression that he had investigated whether there had been similar crimes in the area. See C.R.R. Vol. 40, pp. 53:24-54:5.”
This is a perfect example of the games defense liars (er, I mean lawyers) play.
Alan Brantley did NOT in any way, shape, or form say that he’d investigated or not investigated similar crimes in the area. This is his testimony:
“I always ask the question: Are there any similar or related events in the area? I’m trying to get an assessment of the crime rate; is it a high crime rate area or a low crime rate area? In this case I was informed it was a very low crime rate area. As a matter of fact, certainly no other homicides like this, to my knowledge, ever, and the homicides that had occurred had been resolved, or had been effectively ruled one way or the other.”
Now…if Mulder wanted to present similar crimes in the area, he could have done it. Get the police records, enter them into evidence, and present them to the jury.
He didn’t do that, and it wasn’t because he overlooked those crimes, or because he forgot to enter them into evidence, or what have you.
It’s because he couldn’t produce any crimes in the Rowlett area that even remotely resembled the Routier murders. He threw the possibility out there (without any supporting evidence), hoping to create doubt in the mind of at least one juror.
That’s what defense lawyers do.
January 20th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Zane Dunlop Says:
January 19th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
“The Ramseys and Julie Harper were cleared by new DNA testing”
I’m sitting here looking at a 3″ file on Julie Rea Harper. I would really like to write a blog about how she got away with murder, but I don’t know how to go about it. Any suggestions?
It would be difficult anyway, because her camp has refused to post the trial transcript online.
Oh well, ya win some, ya lose some. At least Tim Hennis was finally nailed by DNA.
January 20th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Mary Says”
“I’m sitting here looking at a 3″ file on Julie Rea Harper. I would really like to write a blog about how she got away with murder, but I don’t know how to go about it. Any suggestions?”
http://juliereaharpercase.proboards.com/index.cgi?
PLEASE, Mary… post away!!!!!!! I am DYING to see this!!! :)
You guys are more than welcome to join us there if you have any interest in this case.
Pam
January 20th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
RE: Post #325
Excellent post, Mary.
January 20th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
RE: Post #320
Thanks for the info, Mark.
January 20th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Goes straight to the JRH thread:
http://juliereaharpercase.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general
January 20th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
Mary - Here is a website that has information regarding possibly innocent people put to death http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent
I also found this answer which I thought was interesting “The problem with answering this question is that it’s very difficult to determine the answer with any degree of certainty. Even pro-death penalty scholars admit that it has almost certainly happened, but what constitutes absolute proof? Once someone has been executed, there are no appeals, no new trials, and no official investigations.
A review of executions taking place between 1901 and 1973 found compelling evidence in 27 cases that indicated that the executed inmate was probably innocent. Some cases are so compelling that it’s almost a certainty that they were innocent. A review of the case of Bruno Hauptmann, for example, revealed that witnesses were paid to lie, all evidence was fabricated, and evidence supporting his innocence was suppressed. The prosecutor eventually committed suicide. Yet DNA evidence is a fairly new technology and older cases like this don’t have any DNA evidence preserved for us to confirm anything with a scientific certainty.
Proponents of the death penalty often refute any claims of innocent short of someone being found innocent in a lawful trial, but this simply isn’t going to happen in a case where the defendant is already dead. In other words, it is impossible to meet their standard of proof.
To date, DNA evidence has exonerated 217 people from death row. These are people who would have been put to death had DNA technology not been available. This only includes cases for which somebody put up the resources to intervene. With numbers like that it is a statistical certainty that many people have been put to death despite being innocent. Couple these numbers with the fact that the burden of proof required in older cases is not the same as it is today and you can bet good money that a good number of errors were made. Unfortunately, you are not going to find any solid numbers simply because there is no agreement on what constitutes absolute proof, and we lack the means and physical evidence necessary to review all of the thousands of cases in which a person was executed.”
In addition I mentioned before how my family member ran an appeal for a gentleman on death row, and after DNA testing the man was exonerated. So I have witnessed first hand how someone innocent can be sitting on death row.
January 20th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Pam - The fact you still believe the Ramsey’s may be involved truly concerns me. For years I believed they were innocent. Just because a parent wants a tiara on their child’s head does NOT make them a killer. I knew several people that knew Patsy Ramsey personally, and she adored Jon Benet.
So are we now not going to trust DNA?
“July 09, 2008
Recently developed “touch DNA” technology has cleared all members of JonBenet Ramsey’s family of her slaying, authorities said Wednesday.
Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy said no one in the Ramsey family is considered a suspect and formally apologized in a letter to John Ramsey for the cloud of suspicion his family has lived under for nearly 12 years.
“To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry,” Lacy wrote.”
People break into others homes….just to kill children. It sucks, it’s horrible, but it happens.
I still waiver on Routier between guilt and innocence, but I 100% never believed the Ramsey’s had anything to do with their daughters murder, and never will.
January 20th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Jennifer Says:
“Pam - The fact you still believe the Ramsey’s may be involved truly concerns me.”
Don’t be concerned, Jennifer. There’s nothing to be concerned about. I find it extremely hard to believe that you (or anyone else) can still be undecided about - or believe in - the innocence of Darlie Routier with all of the evidence that’s available… but I’m not CONCERNED about it. None of the Ramsey’s lives hang in the balance because of me or my opinion. This isn’t a court of law, just a place for opinions. My opinion is that SOMEONE in the Ramsey home is guilty of Jon Benet’s murder and those who did not participate covered it up. No one is going to die or be incarcerated because of that opinion, so no need for your concern.
“For years I believed they were innocent.”
Good, Jennifer. That’s your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it.
“Just because a parent wants a tiara on their child’s head does NOT make them a killer.”
Who here said it did? That’s a ridiculous statement, Jennifer.
“I knew several people that knew Patsy Ramsey personally, and she adored Jon Benet.”
I’m sure you did. I never claimed that Patsy didn’t love her daughter.
“So are we now not going to trust DNA?”
I don’t know what “we” are going to do. I trust DNA, for sure. But I also know that John Ramsey is a well-connected, wealthy man. Stranger things have happened.
If you want, we can start a thread on the JRH board that I created for Mary to post her info on and discuss it there.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Hello everybody! Sorry I haven’t been on much. I finished reading the transcripts of Darlie’s testimony (thanks again Mary!) and Darlie herself has convinced me one trillion percent she’s guilty. I was amazed at how her selective amnesia always kicked in when cross-examined. I also can’t help but wonder if it wasn’t just a spur-of-the-moment snap, but rather she’d been secretly entertaining the thought of murder for a couple of months. And, the Routier supporters never mention that she’d been sleeping on the couch about 5 nights straight. It wasn’t all peaches and cream as she tried to lead the jury to believe when questioned by Mulder. As far as Charlie Samford and Ms. Davis changing their opinions on her guilt…I think Ms. Davis is trying to draw attention to herself. Now Mr. Samford, seems like a good guy, but after I read Darlie’s testimony I don’t see how he could change his mind. But you never know what’s going on in anyone’s mind, but maybe he too, may just be trying stir more controversy.
January 22nd, 2011 at 9:18 am
Pam Says:
January 20th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
“If you want, we can start a thread on the JRH board that I created for Mary to post her info on and discuss it there.”
Great idea, Pam.
I’m in the process right now of organizing all the JRH material. Without the transcript, it’s a matter of taking what’s on Julie’s old website (which, as you can guess, is rather biased & leaves out much of the damaging testimony) and comparing it to court documents and the articles written by reporters who attended the trial.
In 2005, I wrote to the Lawrence Public Library, requesting copies of the trial coverage. It only cost me $13.00 plus a stamp!
But the story was much different when I tried to get the transcript. The court reporter told me it would cost several thousand dollars.
This is what Rich Mitchell told me when I asked him to post the transcript online:
“Legal counsel advises not to post JRH transcripts due to a violation of privacy of all people. The only way the transcripts can be posted is to get signed permission from each and every name mentioned therein. That would be a lot of sigs to run around and gather.
Only a verdict is considered public record.”
Baloney! It’s ALL public record. That’s when I knew for sure her supporters had a lot to hide.
Anyway, I’ll head over to the other message board when I’m finished.
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:07 am
Thank you, Mary. I can’t wait to see what you’ve got. I’m really excited to get into/talk about another case.
http://juliereaharpercase.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general
Everyone’s welcome. I only started the board for Mary to share her info on JRH and discussion so we wouldn’t be off topic here. There’s nothing else there. But we could always add other cases later if there’s something else you guys would like to get into.
Pam
January 22nd, 2011 at 2:04 pm
I think it’d be a great idea to post the actual testimony from the JRH trial. I remember seeing the TV show about her, but as we all know, many important aspects of the case may be left out. I know Tommy Lynn Sells confessed to the crime, but was his DNA actually found at the crime scene? I realize Diane Fanning did not give him specifics in her letter, but I can’t help but also think he was questioned about numerous murders, and may have been aware of this one as per the police. I do recall reading somewhere she was obsessed with the #13, the day of the crime. But that could also be coincidence, too. I do think it’s a good idea to post all the facts from the case.
Thank you!
January 23rd, 2011 at 4:45 pm
I believe the Ramseys are guilty too Pam. There was no intruder. And I agree with Mary on the Harper case. I’ve never been able to read the trial transcripts as her website won’t post them all. However, I did see a programme on the forensics and my opinion now is…she’s guilty and she got away with murder.
Well y’all know my opinion on Darlie, guilty, guilty, guilty and then some.
January 23rd, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Defence attorney Lin Wood with the help of Mary Lacy has pulled the wool over the eyes of those who believe the dna results they bandy about. The real truth is the Ramsey case is not and never will be a dna case.
1. The dna in the panties is unsourced…it’s not blood, semen, sperm or saliva. It’s also only a partial dna with only 10 markers…13 is the bar for human indentification. It is also old and degraded. Nor does it match the fingernail dna.
Mary Lacy may have exonerated the Ramseys’ but the new DA hasn’t and declares it still an open case.
The Ramseys both are culpable in JB’s death.
January 23rd, 2011 at 8:10 pm
As you all know, I stand firmly on Darlie’s guilt…I’m pretty much the same opinion about Julie Rea Harper, but I’d rather back it up by reading more info in the case. As far as the Ramseys, I feel the same way. What has not been disclosed by the supporters is that JonBenet was wearing a brand new pair of panties fresh from the package. It is known that DNA from the people that packaged the underwear could very well be the reason it was found on the underwear. I find it difficult to believe that an intruder would spend a few (or several) hours in the home taking his time “practicing” a ransom note when they aren’t home. We’ve all seen the ransom note, and just in my opinion, it just strikes me from the nature of the letter that a woman would write it. Hard to explain, but just the way I see it. Why would they only offer a reward of $100,000.00 for info leading to what happened to JB but spent millions defending themselves? From what I could tell of John Ramsey, he doesn’t strike me as one that would discuss his personal financial business with others…but why would an intruder ask a ransom for the same amount of John’s Christmas bonus? That’s very peculiar to me. On the 911 call Patsy said Burke was asleep, but forensic audiologists probed the call and could hear Burke’s voice in the backgroud, asking what was going on. Patsy was not wearing a housecoat, but was (as I understand) wearing clothing from the day before. I think it was Nancy Grace’s show I was watching, and this case was being discussed…a guest was a prosecutor who stated that the day before, John was wearing an imported fabric sweater that was only to be professionally cleaned, and very expensive. He wore a different shirt the day her body was found. But fibers from the imported fabric were found on the crotch of JB’s panties. Another thing that strikes me as very odd. This happened during the Christmas holiday season, when burglaries are the highest. No doubt, the Ramsey’s had many valuables in that multi-million dollar home. Why on earth was there not a burglar alarm system intact???? A few years ago, I dated a guy who had a very nice home, and if a person walked anywhere in the home, it set off a loud alarm that would shock the neighborhood. It could be heard from a long distance. And they didn’t have the alarm system set?? Doesn’t make sense to me. And I guess I’m the only oddball on this panel, but I’m a firm believer in the death penalty. If anyone ever tried to harm my loved ones, that criminal would be looking at me, and I alone would be the death penalty. I wouldn’t hesitate to kill someone trying to harm my loved ones. I don’t care if I’d go to prison…at least I know I killed a thug that won’t harm any other innocent person.
January 24th, 2011 at 5:21 am
cami Says:
January 23rd, 2011 at 4:45 pm
“I believe the Ramseys are guilty too Pam.”
Cami!
I agree. Patsy did it, imo.
The DNA in the Ramsey case is a bunch of hooey. And Mary Lacey…arghhhh.
January 25th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Do you lot think Amanda Knox is guilty?? Interested in discussing? Ellen
January 25th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Good morning Ellen
Personally, I don’t know a lot about this case but would love to learn and discuss. Come on over. I’ll put up an Amanda Knox board today.
http://juliereaharpercase.proboards.com/
January 27th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
Just watched the documentary on this case Crime & Investigation channel, which led me here…OK, so she’s found guilty - that was the verdict. My question is WHY? WHY WHY WHY would she do it? Was it a pyschotic attack on her part? She comes across as a ditsy rather stupid “blonde”, seemed to love her life, pics of her boys look happy and loved, well groomed. Also, she stabs them - I haven’t researched, but it seems unusual to me, for a mother to stab her kids to death, I know there was that woman who pushed her car with kids into dam, she distanced herself from the dastardly deed. To stab to death is so close and personal, Were there ever any pyschological evaluations done on Darlie? I have got one question, if she staged the whole event, you would expect her to stage devestated demeanour, no? Crying and wailing at the funeral etc etc. She doesn’t do that, is that because she’s so stupid, or does a sense of innocence prevail? As for the husband, he is a simpleton, end of story.
January 28th, 2011 at 5:10 am
Hi Jax! You cover many issues about this case, and yes, many people wonder why a brutal stabbing death. Well, Andrea Yates didn’t stab her kids, but they still died a horrible drowning death. And I don’t recall her name, but after the Yates murders, there was a woman that beheaded her two kids (I think it was two kids). I think it’s a compilation of many things going on in her life. I’m not a doctor or psychologist, just a fan of reading about true crime. As far as Darlie not staging a grievious, boo-hooing demeanor is because she had no real sorrow over the boys being gone, and I firmly believe she looks happy at the s/s party because she’s glad they’re out of her life. I don’t think she could’ve staged a face full of tears if she tried, just my opinion. It’s unbelievable that any parent could do this, but it does happen. She made sure to wipe the blood away around the sink area….and my question has always been, if a parent sees his/her children on the floor bleeding to death, why on this earth would it be a priority to wipe the blood away from the sink area to begin with?? I wouldn’t give a diddly hoot-n-annie squat shit about blood on the sink. My prioritiy would strictly be saving the lives of the kids. But she was more concerned about stemming the blood flow on her neck, not the boys. There are many interesting comments if you go back on this forum and read them. IMO, I think she just wanted the kids out of her life and wanted to regroup, and not be burdened with the responsibility of them.
Welcome to our discussion, by the way!!!
January 29th, 2011 at 8:35 am
Gay Says:
She made sure to wipe the blood away around the sink area….and my question has always been, if a parent sees his/her children on the floor bleeding to death, why on this earth would it be a priority to wipe the blood away from the sink area to begin with??
Gay, have you read Darin’s interview with CPS Jamie Johnson?
I could make a tasteless joke here about Darlie’s cleanaholic obsession…but I won’t :)
January 29th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Hi Mary! I think I saw a short interview somewhere with Darin, but don’t specifically recall. Can I find it on Youtube, or other site? Thanks, I’d love to see it….and furthermore, I’d LOVE you to post your joke about Darlie’s cleanaholic obsession! LOL Something tells me it’s not only a joke, but the truth!!!
January 29th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
It’s in Darin’s testimony, gay.
He was questioned by Jamie Johnson, a child protection services worker, about two weeks after the murders.
He described Darlie as a “cleanaholic”. He said the boys would make messes and she’d be right behind them cleaning up.
When he testified, under oath, he either denied saying any of those things to Jamie Johnson or said he couldn’t remember.
January 29th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Hmmm…..he couldn’t remember? Sounds like he has the same selective amnesia that Darlie had under cross-examination!!! LOL
January 29th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
I was reading back in the posts Pam and it seems there’s some confusion re the timeline.
As evidence proves, Damon was stabbed at two separate times and in two separate areas of the room. He was originally attacked in front of the sofa, he moved at least 15 ft to the hallway to the entrance, where blood shows he was stabbed again. This was after Darlie had dumped the sock and after she had self-inflicted her own wounds.
Then she called 911. It’s the second group of stabbings, the fatal ones that start the 9:00 timeline. Devon was killed almost instantly.
January 29th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
342.Ellen Says:
January 25th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Do you lot think Amanda Knox is guilty?? Interested in discussing? Ellen
Yes, I do, she and her bf. Another one whose story changed and changed and changed. Plus her dna found on the victim..that’s just a tad of the evidence against her.
January 29th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
All that blood was cleaned from the sink and the surrounding counters (tidy intruder what?) because that’s where she stood to cut her arm and cut her neck.
She was not wetting towels and running them into Darin. Darin who knew first aid knew you don’t use a wet anything to try and stop bleeding, you put pressure on the wounds. All the towels they talk about were used to clean the counters and the sink.
January 29th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
As you all know, I stand firmly on Darlie’s guilt…I’m pretty much the same opinion about Julie Rea Harper, but I’d rather back it up by reading more info in the case. As far as the Ramseys, I feel the same way. What has not been disclosed by the supporters is that JonBenet was wearing a brand new pair of panties fresh from the package. It is known that DNA from the people that packaged the underwear could very well be the reason it was found on the underwear.
As well, her body was washed and redressed…what intruder does that?
I find it difficult to believe that an intruder would spend a few (or several) hours in the home taking his time “practicing” a ransom note when they aren’t home. We’ve all seen the ransom note, and just in my opinion, it just strikes me from the nature of the letter that a woman would write it. Hard to explain, but just the way I see it.
I think we all know who wrote that note and it wasn’t a stranger or an intruder.
Why would they only offer a reward of $100,000.00 for info leading to what happened to JB but spent millions defending themselves? From what I could tell of John Ramsey, he doesn’t strike me as one that would discuss his personal financial business with others…but why would an intruder ask a ransom for the same amount of John’s Christmas bonus? That’s very peculiar to me. On the 911 call Patsy said Burke was asleep, but forensic audiologists probed the call and could hear Burke’s voice in the backgroud, asking what was going on. Patsy was not wearing a housecoat, but was (as I understand) wearing clothing from the day before. I think it was Nancy Grace’s show I was watching, and this case was being discussed…
Not only was Patsy still wearing the party clothes she had on the night before but she was in full makeup with her hair done..at 5:00 something in the morning! She didn’t go to bed that night, IMO.
But fibers from the imported fabric were found on the crotch of JB’s panties.
Fibres from Patsy’s red sweater were found all over Jonbenet, in her hair, in the garrotte, etc.
The CS however was contaminated from the get go. Still I think there was enough evidence to put both Patsy and John on trial. Especially considering the vaginal injuries and proof of prior molestation.
January 29th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
Gay Says:
January 20th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Hello everybody! Sorry I haven’t been on much. I finished reading the transcripts of Darlie’s testimony (thanks again Mary!) and Darlie herself has convinced me one trillion percent she’s guilty. I was amazed at how her selective amnesia always kicked in when cross-examined. I also can’t help but wonder if it wasn’t just a spur-of-the-moment snap, but rather she’d been secretly entertaining the thought of murder for a couple of months. And, the Routier supporters never mention that she’d been sleeping on the couch about 5 nights straight. It wasn’t all peaches and cream as she tried to lead the jury to believe when questioned by Mulder. As far as Charlie Samford and Ms. Davis changing their opinions on her guilt…I think Ms. Davis is trying to draw attention to herself. Now Mr. Samford, seems like a good guy, but after I read Darlie’s testimony I don’t see how he could change his mind. But you never know what’s going on in anyone’s mind, but maybe he too, may just be trying stir more controversy
HI Gay: It appears it was just the opposite despite D&D’s attempt to portray themselves as a loving, giving family with no problems. Darin testified everything was peachy, no marital problems, no money problems, etc. Then you find out it’s all lies. The business was failing, there was no money left, they were behind in the mortgage, behind in the taxes, maxed out on credit cards, etc. The marriage was also on it’s last legs. Darin finally admitted they fought that night and that she asked for a separation. Darlie was depressed and suicidal and Darin didn’t give a crap.
January 31st, 2011 at 11:33 pm
Jax says:
“Also, she stabs them - I haven’t researched, but it seems unusual to me, for a mother to stab her kids to death, I know there was that woman who pushed her car with kids into dam, she distanced herself from the dastardly deed. To stab to death is so close and personal…”
Google Vanessa Ricon or Ottey Sanchez or Dena Schlosser or better yet, Monica McCarrick. Thats just a start.There’s plenty more out there, unfortunately.
February 1st, 2011 at 1:20 am
Hi Pam! Ugh…Monica McCarrick??? She’s just another Darlie Routier. She slashes her twins up, then her own throat. And all these Darlie supporters keep saying there’s nooooo way Darlie could have slashed her own throat! LOL It amazes me; if people believe she just couldn’t do something like that, I guess they also believe 9-11 didn’t really happen either.
As far as Amanda Knox, I’m not convinced of her innocence either. I saw in a news story a day or so after the murder she was seen with her boyfriend at a sexy lingerie store laughing and giggling while shopping for undies. Then, just after the murder, when the police were there, she’s seen with her sweety, and they’re embraced, quietly whispering to each other. Just my opinion, but I’ve wondered if they’re trying to “keep their stories straight” when they were going to be questioned. We’ll never know, of course, but my opinion.
February 1st, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Good morning Gay!
I posted a reply to this yesterday but, of course, I don’t see it today.
I’ve run across a lot of people who say that they just can’t believe Darlie did it because the chilfren were stabbed. All you have to do is put that search term in and watch the names appear. It’s NOT unusual, unfortunately.
I agree with you on Amanda Knox as well. I don’t know a lot about this case, but I’m starting to read more about it now. Seems to me she is quite guilty. I saw the little whisper session between them, too and I got the same impression you did. Looked like they were trying to get their story straight. Like you, just my opinion. I know it’s nothing to convict anyone over, but it was still strange and in my eyes, very telling. Just like Darlie’s actions were very telling on the SS tape.
February 23rd, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Ok guys… help me out here. Listen to the 911 call:
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/emcall/index.php
Please pay attention to time marks @ 00:39, 00:42, 00:49, 00:50 -00:54
@ 00:39 Darlie says, “Oh my God, I don’t even know who did it.”
@ 00:42 Darlie whines, I don’t even know who did it, Darin!
@ 00:49 Darlie says, “Who would do this?”
@ 00:50 Darin says, “Did you do this to my children??” THAT IS NOT EXACT. It’s hard to make out what Darin is saying, but I hear the words “my children”.
What’s important is what she says and the way she says it when she responds to Darin.
@ 00:51 Darlie squeals back, “I didn’t do anything, Darin!”
@ 00:54 She breathlessly repeats, “I didn’t do anything…”
Turn up the volume, pay close attention to the 00:39, 00:42, 00:49, 00:50, 00:51, 00:54 and tell me what you think.
I couldn’t believe it.
March 2nd, 2011 at 3:48 am
I have just discovered this site and am very intrigued by this discussion. Many of you seem to have great insight and in depth knowledge about this case. I myself have read about it on and off over the years and I must agree with the majority of you that the physical evidence is just so overwhelming that I must agree that Darlie is probably guilty. Additionally, from much that I have read she seems to have a lot of sociopathic personality traits. I don’t really beleive she fully appreciated her children or the type of lifestyle she was living at a very young age. I realize that this in and of itself does not make one a murderer but when I consider this along with her lack of conern/emotion over the loss of her children it throws up a red flag. I am in a much worse situation myself than Darlie was at the time of the muders as far as I am going through a bankruptcy, forclosure and divorce, however I would no more harm my children than the man on the moon. On the contrary, they are what sustain me and my main source of joy in life. I would love to know what you guys think will take place with this case going forward. Do you think an execution date is soon to be set? How many more appeals does she have until they are all exhausted? Will all of the media attention surrounding this case and her die hard supporters be an issue? You guys seem so well informed about all of this and I would love to join the discussion and get your take on these things. Thanks, Carly
March 2nd, 2011 at 11:23 pm
To: Pam
Hi Pam! I tried to turn it up and listen as best I could but I don’t get the best reception on the speakers on my PC. Darlie’s squawking so much (lol) it’s hard to hear the background; but one thing does stand out…at the end of the tape the only time she’s not squawking like a crow in heat is when she clearly states to Darin that someone come in and intentionally did it. Strange!!
Hi Carly!! And welcome to the discussion…glad to have you!! From what you’ve described you’re going through a tougher time than Darlie, but have a much stronger fortitude and heart than Darlie ever did. You stated it clearly your kids sustain you and are the main source of joy in life. For Darlie, the only things that sustained her were money, a big house, fancy clothes, fancy jewelry, and “status” among her family, friends, and neighbors. As far as what’s going to take place in the future…who knows? As far as I know, until further DNA testing is done, her case still remains idle. I’m not really sure if she has exhausted all her appeals yet, but maybe Mary would know. Yes, I think (sadly) her supporters and the media could very well play an issue in the future in this case. Her supporters know how to twist the facts so much and blind people’s thinking; the main thing is to read Darlie’s testimony. Frankly, I’ve always been pro-death penalty. I think her execution has been put on hold far too long. To me, (and you’re soooo right) she’s not only a sociopath, but a self-absorbed narcissist. You’ve presented great comments, Carly, and know just as much, if not more, than I do!! LOL!! Thank you for your comments, Carly!! (And keep the faith, and I hope and pray things improve for you; I know what tough times are like as well, but the strong do survive.)
March 3rd, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Hi Carly
Welcome!
Darlie is in her federal appeals. I was looking for a diagram that I’ve seen that shows the appellate process in Texas and I found this:
http://www.txexecutions.org/primer.asp#appeal
It’s pretty interesting and I think it will answer some of your questions. Mary has been sick, but when she comes back I’m sure she’ll be glad to answer any other questions you may have.
Good luck to you!
Hi Gay,
Well thanks for listening and getting back to me. It just blew me away when I heard it. It’s hard to understand Darin but there is no doubt as to what Darlie said. Of course, there’s no other reason for her to say what she said, they way she said it, if Darin wasn’t accusing her in some way. Interesting, huh?
Gotta run. Nice to talk to you again, Gay!
Pam
March 4th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
To: Gay
Hi Gay and thank you so much for the warm welcome and words of encouragement! It also seems to me that Darlie’s execution has been placed on hold for too long. I agree with you that her supporters are pretty much operating on “blind faith”, are twisting the facts as you stated and aren’t even addressing any of the physical evidence. I agree this could be an issue in the end. Perhaps from enough pressure from them, her case could possibly be commuted to life in prison. Do you think this is a possibility? thank you again for your reply. Carly
To: Pam
thanks for the welcome as well as the link to the Texas appellate process. This provided some really interesting and good information. I don’t believe any of Darlie’s federal appeals will yield any information that will serve to acquit her but will delay the process. What do you think? Also, as I said to Gay, I think there is a good possibility that all the pressure from her supporters as well as the media could possibly precipitate her sentence to be commuted to life in prison. Do you agree this is a possbility after all appeals have been done? This is a very interesting discussion indeed!, Carly
March 6th, 2011 at 1:11 am
You’re welcome, Carly.
I agree. I don’t think that these appeals will do anything for Darlie except delay the inevitable. I’ve also wondered about the possibility of her sentence being commuted. I guess anything is possible. But they had no mercy for Karla Faye Tucker and she confessed to her crimes, seemed to feel remorse for what she’d done, and did everything in her power to become a different/better person. She had tons of public and media support but she was still executed. So we’ll see what happens.
Nice to have you here, Carly.
Have a great day,
Pam
March 9th, 2011 at 10:38 am
Pam Says:
March 3rd, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Hi Carly
Welcome!
Darlie is in her federal appeals.
I may be wrong about this, but I believe Darlie’s case hasn’t reached the federal level yet.
It was remanded back to the state courts for further DNA testing. Why it’s taking so long, I don’t know, but I’m sure the defense is tickled pink.
If I’m wrong,
March 9th, 2011 at 10:43 am
Oh, shoot.
What I meant to say is that if I’m wrong, please correct me.
March 9th, 2011 at 11:02 am
Carly said: “Will all of the media attention surrounding this case and her die hard supporters be an issue?”
Hi, Carly.
Yes, I think the media attention will be tremendous if/when an execution date is set. That’s their bread and butter, so you can bet they’ll stir up as much controversy as possible.
Her supporters are another story. I’ve followed this case for 12 years now. Back in 1999, she had some very vocal supporters. But since then, almost everyone I’ve come in contact with is firmly convinced of her guilt.
Darlie’s supporters made a huge mistake that they can’t take back. They posted the trial transcript online. Anyone who takes the time to read it will know the truth.
March 9th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Hi Mary,
Thanks for the wecome. You seem to be pretty well versed on this case. I think you are correct that the number of Darlie’s supporters has dwindled over the years and though I have read many of the transcripts, I have not had a chance to read them all. I can say that so far they are very telling as far as her guilt. I recently read something kind of interesting and that is that Darin no longer visits her nearly as frequently as he used to. It said in the beginning he went to visit her every week and now it is only about once a year. If this is true then I wonder if he now feels she is guilty as well (unless he knew this all along which I think is a real possibility) or if this just evolved over time. I have heard that the spousal following for female prisoners tends to be low to non-existant. Perhaps he has more or less given up that she will ever be exonerated and released since it has been so many years and the case seems to be indefinitely stalled at this point (waiting for more DNA testing - who knows if/when that will even happen?) It appears he may have just decided to move on with his life but I don’t know for sure. What about her youngest son that is living? Has he been raised by his father or grandparents or a combination of both? Does he ever see Darlie? Frankly, I don’t really see any benefit in his doing this as for all intents and purposes, he doesn’t even know her although by now I’m sure he is fully aware of the circumstances of her incarceration. I feel like he is the true victim here (as well as of course, the two little boys who were murdered). What do you guys think? Carly
March 9th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
Mary Says:
“I may be wrong about this, but I believe Darlie’s case hasn’t reached the federal level yet.”
I’m sure if anyone’s wrong it’s me, Mary. You know this case like the back of your hand.
My apologies, Carly. I should have read further when I was looking for an answer for you. I’ll leave this to Mary.
Pam
March 13th, 2011 at 10:16 am
Carly said: “If this is true then I wonder if he now feels she is guilty as well (unless he knew this all along which I think is a real possibility) or if this just evolved over time.”
Judging from all the lies Darin told in the pre-trial hearings and on the stand, he knew darn well that Darlie murdered their sons. If his wife was innocent, there would be no need to tell such gigantic whoppers.
“What about her youngest son that is living? Has he been raised by his father or grandparents or a combination of both?”
At the time of the murders, Darin was supporting Darlie, so custody of Drake was given to his parents, Leonard and Sarilda Routier. Drake lived with them for years. Whether he still does, I don’t know.
I believe Drake does visit Darlie. Again, I don’t know how often.
Darin and his family seem to have completely dropped out of the picture. They were such vocal supporters at first, but now you don’t hear a peep from them. Of course, Darlie and Brian Pardo tried to throw Darin under the bus, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the family has simply washed their hands of her.
March 13th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Hello everybody!! Carly, from what I last knew of, Darin was living with his parents along with Drake, and was employed as a photographer; but don’t know if he still living with his parents or doing photography. I think the reason Darlie and Brian Pardo couldn’t pursue Darin’s involvement in the crime is because it would prove Darlie’s guilt once and for all. It wouldn’t surprise me at all, if due to the mega publicity her case will get up to execution, that her sentence may be sentenced to life. If so, I say throw her in with the general population, not her own private “condo” so to speak. But honestly, I hope she will be executed. I remember the Karla Faye Tucker case. This is my opinion…even though KFT was very much a better person, I still feel her execution was justified. If her sentence had been commuted to life, every single other criminal in this country would have followed the same road and said they, too, had become “born again Christians” and didn’t deserve to die. This is what I never understood about KFT; if I were her, and knowing I’d truly changed, I’d be standing there with my chin up, ready to meet my Maker. I don’t recall if Karla herself was trying avoid execution, or if it was her supporters and the media attention, but I’d have been pushing for execution, looking forward to it. Just my opinion.
March 13th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
DOn’t misunderstand me. I wasn’t saying that since KFT “turned over a new leaf” that she shouldn’t have been executed. (even though I am not a DP advocate) All I was saying was that at the very least she admitted to her crimes, etc., had a huge public/media following and they still executed her and that I don’t see Darlie’s followers/media attention saving Darlie. But God knows I could be wrong. Just my opinion.
March 13th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
Pam,
It’s not that you’re wrong at all. I think at this point it’s really hard to say what will happen with the media once they actually set an execution date for Darlie. At this point it does seem that the media attention her case recieved initially and for quite a while afterwards has significantly dwindled but I think if they ever set an execution date it will heat right back up again and the media will be out in full force. Now whether she will ever admit to the crime is another matter. I don’t beleive at this point that she ever will though that is just my opinion. For some reason I always thought that if the defendant admitted/confessed to the crime from the beginning (before the trial) then the prosecutors would not seek the death penalty but this does not seem to be the case in Texas. Carly
March 14th, 2011 at 1:56 am
Hi Pam! Oh no, I wasn’t contradicting you. I too, believe KFT was a much better person, and you’re right….she did step up to the plate and admit her crimes. Very few do that.
Hi Carly! I’m hoping that since her own website did post her testimony (hehehe!!) proving her guilt it may override the liberal media’s side of her “innocence” if it does become a media blowout. Frankly, I’d be surprised if she ever admitted her guilt. I get the impression she’ll try to push for a new trial and anticipate getting another O.J. Simpson jury. Then she’ll get a guaranteed ticket to walk free. So sad. But, like I always say, there is a God, and He’ll get her in the right way!
March 14th, 2011 at 6:26 am
Gay said:
“I get the impression she’ll try to push for a new trial and anticipate getting another O.J. Simpson jury. Then she’ll get a guaranteed ticket to walk free.”
Except that the State could bring her to trial again for Devon’s death, Gay. She was only convicted of killing Damon.
And you can bet they will, if by some wild streak of luck she gets another trial.
May 1st, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Hi - I recently found out about this case and don’t know a lot about it yet. I have a few questions. People are saying that the blood evidence was that Darlie had killed the boys. I looked at the forensic reports, etc., and as far as I could understand, there was hardly any of the boys blood on Darlie’s nightshirt - just a few drops on her back. If she was stabbing them so violently that drops fell on her back, then their blood would have sprayed up onto the front of her nightshirt. How did the prosecution explain that at the trial?
Another question I have is this: the sock was found beside a big bin. Was that bin searched for other evidence or not? If not, then why not?
My last question concerns an account of a screwdriver and a knife which were noted near the sock, but were not initially gathered as evidence. I am wondering why those were not gathered as evidence. I read somewhere that the police revisited that place before the trial and miraculously claim to have found the screwdriver and knife in the same spot as before. Does anyone know the date that they finally added these items to the inventory of evidence? And how did they account for the fact that none of the local people had seen them, picked them up and handed them in when the murder must have been a notorious local issue.
May 2nd, 2011 at 7:03 am
Hi Flora. Welcome.
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts.php
1)Darlie’s wounds were different from the boys wounds and didn’t bleed the same way. The boys wounds were seeping wounds, not spurting wounds like Darlie.
2)Of course the trash can was checked. They walked 75 yards down an alley looking for evidence. I doubt they’d find a sock with blood on it next to a trash can and not at least lift the lid.
3)http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-32.php#3
May 2nd, 2011 at 11:02 am
I re-read my post and it seemed a little rude. I didn’t intend to be. Sorry, Flora.
Pam
May 2nd, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Hi Flora:
The knife and the scewdriver were no where near the sock.
The knife and screwdrive were being used as garden tools.
Yeah Flora don’t believe all you hear and read about cops. It’s only sour grapes because Darlie got caught
May 2nd, 2011 at 11:23 pm
“I get the impression she’ll try to push for a new trial and anticipate getting another O.J. Simpson jury. Then she’ll get a guaranteed ticket to walk free.”
That won’t happen, she’ll never get a new trial.
May 3rd, 2011 at 10:30 am
“I looked at the forensic reports, etc., and as far as I could understand, there was hardly any of the boys blood on Darlie’s nightshirt - just a few drops on her back. If she was stabbing them so violently that drops fell on her back, then their blood would have sprayed up onto the front of her nightshirt. How did the prosecution explain that at the trial?”
Here’s the real question:
If Darlie had tried to help her sons after they’d been stabbed (as she and Darin testified), why wasn’t there a single drop of the boys’ blood on the front of her nightshirt?
That’s where you’d expect to find some of their blood, if she was leaning over Damon, putting a wet (LOL!) towel on his wounds, comforting him, holding him.
Twenty-six samples were taken from the front of her nightshirt. None of them were the boys’ blood.
The boys’ blood with the little tails, indicating cast-off, was on the back of her t-shirt, over the right shoulder. Darlie was right-handed.
There’s really no other logical or scientific explanation as to how those blood drops got there, except that they were deposited when she was stabbing her sons.
May 3rd, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Thanks for the replies. I am wondering if any evidence was found which explained how Darlie managed to have text-book defensive wounds. Were books or articles found in the house which showed that she had studied this area of forensics? Unless you are interested in forensic science, and have read books or articles on the subject, you are unlikely to know what such wounds look like. The first medical “expert witness” in Darlie’s trial was a qualified doctor, albeit not a specialist in the appropriate field, yet even he was obviously totally ignorant of what defensive wounds look like, which is proof, I think, of how specialised a field this is. I believe that he described the defensive stab wounds on her forearms as “hesitation wounds”, when in fact there was no major injury to that part of her arm, whereas the major injury to her neck, which was inflicted in one sweeping slash has no sign of any hesitation wound near it. The deep stab wound in Darlie’s arm which sliced through muscle and hit the bone is obviously not a hesitation wound either, and has no hesitation wounds around it. I thank you in advance for civil answers. I am merely curious.
May 3rd, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Hi Mary, I cannot answer your question, because I have not read enough about this case. I came here with questions, hoping to find out from people who knew a bit more than me. However, I know one thing.. if a child of mine was badly wounded, I’d be very loath to try to do much in case I made matters worse. Darlie was on the phone urging for medical help the whole time, because she knew that those people were the only ones who’d be able to save her little boy. The policeman who appears to have done nothing except stood around watching her cynically was trained in CPR and would have known what to do. For reasons best known to himself, he chose to stand around cold-bloodedly watching a hysterical woman desperately pleading for help from the emergency services, while he could have administered first aid to the little boy himself. Whether or not Darlie Routier was guilty, that policeman’s conduct was worse. He was in a far stronger position to help, as he was far more able to be objective and cool-headed in that situation.
May 4th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
“Thanks for the replies. I am wondering if any evidence was found which explained how Darlie managed to have text-book defensive wounds.”
Her wounds were hardly textbook defensive wounds. More like textbook self-inflicted wounds. Look here for real defensive wounds in comparison to Darlie’s very clean, controlled cuts:
http://www.google.ca/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1020&bih=439&q=defensive+wounds&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=
“Unless you are interested in forensic science, and have read books or articles on the subject, you are unlikely to know what such wounds look like.”
She must not have done any research whatsoever then because her attempts at creating defensive wounds were feeble, at best.
“The first medical “expert witness” in Darlie’s trial was a qualified doctor, albeit not a specialist in the appropriate field, yet even he was obviously totally ignorant of what defensive wounds look like, which is proof, I think, of how specialised a field this is.”
Dr Santos was more than qualified to make the assessment he made.
21 Q. Okay. Could you tell the jury your
22 educational and professional training that you have for
23 the position that you hold, please.
24 A. I attended the University of Texas at
25 San Antonio and graduated there with a Bachelor of
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
708
1 Science degree. Then attended the University of Texas
2 Medical Branch in Galveston for medical school. And then
3 did my surgical training at Methodist Hospital in Dallas.
4 Q How long have you been at Baylor
5 Hospital?
6 A. I was in private practice at Baylor
7 University of Medical Center in Dallas for approximately
8 five years.
9 Q. And what did you do there? What were
10 your duties there at Baylor?
11 A. I specialized in trauma surgery,
12 critical care management and general surgery.
13 Q. Okay. Tell the jurors what trauma
14 surgery is.
15 A. Trauma surgery has to do with dealing
16 with patients who have suffered traumatic injuries, such
17 as gunshot wounds, stab wounds, car wrecks, falls, that
18 sort of trauma.
19 Q. Okay. Do you deal with people that
20 are brought into the emergency room and need immediate
21 treatment, and that sort of thing?
22 A. Yes, sir, that’s where I get all of
23 the trauma patients.
You don’t have to be a specialist (which he was) to see the vast difference between Darlie’s wounds and the boys wounds and as I said, Dr Santos was more than qualified to make the assessment he made.
“I believe that he described the defensive stab wounds on her forearms as “hesitation wounds”, when in fact there was no major injury to that part of her arm,”
Only one injury to the forearm, not including the hesitation wound. Look at the photo of the wound to her arm. That was not what was being described as a hesitation wound. The mark above that incised wound is clearly a hesitation wound.
“whereas the major injury to her neck, which was inflicted in one sweeping slash has no sign of any hesitation wound near it.”"
Her neck wound was far from a sweeping slash and was not a ‘major wound’. That cut was made with a lot of control and restraint. It’s obvious where she started, then stopped, holding the knife to her throat as she built up enough courage to continue, cut then stop, etc. The angle of the cut is also indicative of a self inflicted wound.
“The deep stab wound in Darlie’s arm which sliced through muscle and hit the bone is obviously not a hesitation wound either, and has no hesitation wounds around it.”
Again, the incised wound to Darlie’s arm was not a ‘deep’ wound. You said it yourself: “in fact there was no major injury to that part of her arm,”. Not a lot of depth there. The wound was longer than in was deep (incised). Aside from that, there absolutely was a hesitation mark above it.
“I thank you in advance for civil answers. I am merely curious.”
Not that I mind, as I welcome debate concerning this case, but I think you’re more than “merely curious”. Sounds like you’re used to getting uncivilized answers.
Pam
May 4th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Darlie did not have “text book” defensive wounds. She had two self-inflicted wounds.
If she had defense wounds, she’d be cut on the fingers, palms, wrists, etc.
May 4th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Carly, there certainly are hesitation wounds to Darlie’s arm and neck.
The deep stab wound in her arm, LOL, that’s supporter baloney. She had an incised wound, you know a surface wound, a slash wound
May 4th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/FORHTML/FORIDX.html#5
Check out the above web page for defence wounds when someone is stabbing
May 4th, 2011 at 6:38 pm
For Carly:
Link to Darlie’s wounds:
You can see the wounds here. I have to warn you the photos of the boys are graphic and disturbing.
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/galleries.php
May 5th, 2011 at 12:24 am
Hi Pam, thanks for the detailed answer. I am not any more than merely curious. I don’t know enough about this case to form a judgement and am just trying to discover a little more. However, before writing anything here I had scanned various forums and was really horrified by the tone of the answers, in the case of people who disagreed with the poster. I see nothing wrong with asking questions, or with people having conflicting opinions, which all serve to inform and as such are valuable, however I do not appreciate people being aggressive or offensive. The Google images are not comparable with Darlie’s wounds, because they show fresh defensive wounds - before stitches, surgery and cleaning up. I didn’t make myself plain enough when I was discussing the various wounds on Darlie’s arms, which demonstrates how easy it is for confusion and wrong information to be spread. A wound which severs muscle and hits bone is not insignificant and it would have been deeper had the bone not obstructed the path of the knife. The slash to her throat appeared to me to have been inflicted with the knife angled downwards, and that is not in keeping with self-inflicted wounds, while the carry-through of the slash which goes right across her shoulder is virtually impossible to achieve if you factor in the length of the knife and handle. Hesitation wounds can also be quite alarming and look deep, as can be seen by this image:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljyvbrk2pX1qimut2o1_500.jpg
It is the location and incidence of Darlie’s wounds which are pretty much text-book defensive wounds. I am sure that if you look further, you will be able to find what is meant by defense/hesitation wounds, and my meaning will perhaps then become more clear.
May 5th, 2011 at 1:23 am
Mary said: “Only one injury to the forearm, not including the hesitation wound. Look at the photo of the wound to her arm. That was not what was being described as a hesitation wound. The mark above that incised wound is clearly a hesitation wound”.
I have confused matters by saying that there was no other injury in that part of her arm.. I did not see the small wound near the stitched wound.. However, on the underside of her arms, she had a lot of bruising and many other incised wounds, which certainly mimic defensive wounds. It is a matter of debate whether or not some wounds are defensive or not. Forensic examinations consist not only of the injuries themselves, but takes into consideration other information, which is usually supplied by the police. I wonder what other information was supplied in this case, because according to their statements, within minutes of arriving there, they had already decided that the screen had been slashed from the inside (later proven to be impossible), they had noted that “mulch” outside the window was undisturbed (while photos of the utility room window shows clearly that the window opens onto a large patio paved with concrete slabs), their statements give the impression of Darlie being thoroughly disinterested in the children, while the 911 call tells a very different story of a woman begging for medical help for her children, etc. etc. Jumping to the conclusion of guilt prejudiced the whole investigation, and has muddied the water in terms of understanding what happened. Regardless of your own personal opinion as to her guilt or innocence, this is an unarguable fact.
May 5th, 2011 at 3:27 am
Flora: Boy are you wrong. It’s easy to see you are just quoting that information from her website.
The truth is the mulch was beside the exit window, clearly seen in the CS photos, and it was the quickest way to the gate/fence and the outside. Taking the concrete walkway–not patio– triggered the lights around the hottub and they stayed on for 18 minutes..they weren’t on when the cops arrived.
Darlie did not have a lot of incised wounds on her underarms..those are called scrapes.
Well say what you will about the 911 call but she sounds more angry than hysterical to me. All that shouting…
Well you can accuse the detectives of jumping to guilt but Darin was the first suspect not Darlie. It wasn’t until the forensic evidence started to come back that it pointed to Darlie.
The physical evidence tells what happened and it isn’t muddy.
May 5th, 2011 at 3:50 am
It is the location and incidence of Darlie’s wounds which are pretty much text-book defensive wounds. I am sure that if you look further, you will be able to find what is meant by defense/hesitation wounds, and my meaning will perhaps then become more clear
HI Flora:
No I understood your meaning quite well and once again I disagree that Darlie had defensive wounds on her arms or anywhere on her body.
Text book defensive wounds include: fingers, (usually happens when victim grabs the knife) palms of hands, undersie of forearms–all consistant with holding your arms up to cover your face.
Yes, Darlie has the large bruise on the underside of her arm but she doesn’t have any broken arm bones, no facial injuries, no head injures, etc.–as you expect someone holding their amrs up to cover their face and head.
Regardless, the jury believed the arm had one hesitation wound and one incised wound. The defense had nothing to offer the jury to contradict this evidence.
The bone is only an inch below the surface of the skin in the forearm
May 5th, 2011 at 5:17 am
Hi Cami - you are jumping to incorrect conclusions. I am not actually quoting Darlie’s website. I have mostly read the forensic reports and looked at the photographs of the crime scene, which were on other websites, or TV programmes. It was on a couple of the TV programmes that I heard the policemen saying that they thought there had been no break-in, but perhaps the programmes or the detectives were giving the wrong impression, because the programmes were retrospective, of course, after Darlie had been convicted of the crime. I am interested that there was a light with motion sensor at the back of the house. So, are you saying that the light and bulb were fully functioning and there was no way of avoiding the motion sensors, for example, by crouching down to avoid triggering the light? I would like to reiterate that I am not coming from an angle that Darlie was innocent or guilty. I am merely exploring the issue, and please don’t feel obliged to answer. Many thanks for your time in answering my questions.
May 5th, 2011 at 5:26 am
Hi Cami - I am really surprised at what you are saying. I surfed the internet and I saw photographs of quite a lot of incised wounds on Darlie’s forearms, consistent with holding her arms up to defend herself, in addition to the bruising. There were also cuts across her fingers. Admittedly I did have to surf quite a lot to find some of the images, but given that you seem to know so much, I am surprised that you were not aware of those injuries. Unfortunately, the prosecution “medical experts” fell very far short of anything useful or informative, so unless the Routiers themselves had an independent report prepared, I think the only source of information will be the photographs.
May 5th, 2011 at 7:50 am
Hi Flora! Welcome to our discussion on this case. The best answer I can give you is to go back on this website to read all the comments going back to abou #60 to #70-something and take your time reading on down. There are many links added where you can also go back and read the court transcripts from Darlie’s own testimony in court, which proves Darlie convicted herself. Although many or most of the people on this site (such as myself) offer many great opinions, I feel Mary is the most informed on the forensic evidence and status of the case. If you will, just take your time going down reading all the many comments and I firmly believe these will give you answers to the interesting questions you have presented so far. Thank you again, and welcome to our discussion!!! We’re determined to never let this rest and let the proper justice be done!!!
May 5th, 2011 at 8:06 am
“I don’t know enough about this case to form a judgement…”
Oh, sure you do. You’re not a newbie.
“However, before writing anything here I had scanned various forums and was really horrified by the tone of the answers, in the case of people who disagreed with the poster. I see nothing wrong with asking questions, or with people having conflicting opinions, which all serve to inform and as such are valuable, however I do not appreciate people being aggressive or offensive.”
You can always leave if we (or I) offend your sensitive nature.
“A wound which severs muscle and hits bone is not insignificant”
It did not hit the bone. It was an incised wound, almost 2″ wide and less than in inch deep.
She sliced her own arm.
“and it would have been deeper had the bone not obstructed the path of the knife.”
See above ^. A stab wound is deeper than it is wide. It had nothing to do with her bone obstructing it, because it was too shallow to even touch the bone.
“It is the location and incidence of Darlie’s wounds which are pretty much text-book defensive wounds.”
Not even close. A person defending themself against a knife will have horrendous injuries to the hands and arms.
May 5th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Flora says:
“Hi Pam, thanks for the detailed answer. I am not any more than merely curious.”
You’re welcome, Flora. But you are much more than merely curious. As Mary pointed out, you’re no newbie. That was obvious from your first post.
“I don’t know enough about this case to form a judgement and am just trying to discover a little more.”
Again… that’s not true. You know quite a bit. The problem is, an overwhelming majority of what you ‘know’ is incorrect. And you are clearly not here to discover more. You came here with your mind made up, just like every other poster here and you believe she’s innocent. I just don’t understand why you are here in sheeps clothing, so to speak.
“However, before writing anything here I had scanned various forums and was really horrified by the tone of the answers, in the case of people who disagreed with the poster.”
That’s the way it is with this case, Flora. People who know no other information other than what’s offered on her support sites vehemently defend her innocence. But those of us who have taken the time to research the case know how very guilty she is. So there’s no middle-ground when it comes to this case. You either believe her or you don’t. That can ignite flame wars. The only people who complain are the ones who support her innocence. If you’ll notice, the posters that believe in her guilt don’t mind the heat.
“I see nothing wrong with asking questions, or with people having conflicting opinions, which all serve to inform and as such are valuable, however I do not appreciate people being aggressive or offensive.”
No, there’s nothing wrong with asking questions. I know that every poster here has no problem answering whatever questions a truly, new to the case, curious person might have. It only becomes aggravating when posters come on and claim not to know anything about the case, just looking for information, and then begin using the support site information to defend her. I’d much rather a person come straight out and say that they believe her and not play games about it.
“The Google images are not comparable with Darlie’s wounds, because they show fresh defensive wounds - before stitches, surgery and cleaning up.”
You’re right. The Google images aren’t comparable to Darlie’s wounds, and that’s my point. They are not comparable because the wounds in those images are actual defensive wounds and Darlie’s wounds are not.
“I didn’t make myself plain enough when I was discussing the various wounds on Darlie’s arms, which demonstrates how easy it is for confusion and wrong information to be spread.”
You made yourself plain. Confusion and wrong information being spread is exactly why anyone here who knows that Darlie’s guilty will correct any misinformation that is quoted from her support sites. They post outright lies over there and don’t provide space for comment, then count on the fact that at least some people will come away from there believing what they’ve said and not bother to look up any facts of the case. Misinformation here will be corrected.
“A wound which severs muscle and hits bone is not insignificant and it would have been deeper had the bone not obstructed the path of the knife. The slash to her throat appeared to me to have been inflicted with the knife angled downwards, and that is not in keeping with self-inflicted wounds, while the carry-through of the slash which goes right across her shoulder is virtually impossible to achieve if you factor in the length of the knife and handle. Hesitation wounds can also be quite alarming and look deep, as can be seen by this image:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljyvbrk2pX1qimut2o1_500.jpg
It is the location and incidence of Darlie’s wounds which are pretty much text-book defensive wounds.”
I think Mary and Cami did a fine job of covering this. No need to repeat it.
“I am sure that if you look further, you will be able to find what is meant by defense/hesitation wounds, and my meaning will perhaps then become more clear.”
Well thank you, Flora but I know what defense/hesitation wounds are. It’s perfectly clear to me already.
Pam
May 5th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
“Flora says
Hi Cami - I am really surprised at what you are saying. I surfed the internet and I saw photographs of quite a lot of incised wounds on Darlie’s forearms, consistent with holding her arms up to defend herself, in addition to the bruising.”
I know this was directed to Cami, but since I’m here at the moment, I have to ask… can you provide any links that offer proof of what you’re saying? Links to these pictures that show all of these incised wounds to the forearm? I mean, I know you can’t because there was only one incised wound to Darlie’s forearm and that is a fact, no two ways about it. But give it a try.
“Admittedly I did have to surf quite a lot to find some of the images…”
I’m sure you did. There are no images that show “quite a lot” of incised wounds to Darlie’s forearm because there was only one.
“..but given that you seem to know so much…”
Dangerous territory… no one on this board knows the evidence in this case like Mary and Cami do. So be prepared to back up your statements if you care to debate because they know this case like the back of their hands.
“…I am surprised that you were not aware of those injuries.”
Again, she wasn’t aware because they weren’t there. You are wrong about the wounds to her arms.
Pam
May 5th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Hi Cami - you are jumping to incorrect conclusions. I am not actually quoting Darlie’s website
Hi Flora: Welcome to this site btw. For the sake of not arguing with you, I will only say States 13 AB&C entered into evidence in the trial shows the back windows and the yard perfectly. The mulch is beside the exit window, the gate is beside that.
Whether or not you could duck under the light I don’t know,you’ll have to try and find that out….however you’re missing the main point really. The fence showed no evidence that anyone had gone over it, no scuff marks, no blood. The gate was heavy and dragged on the ground and was closed when the police officers got there.
You can look all you want for pictures of Darlie’s incised wounds to her underarms but you won’t find them, because they are none. All of Darlie’s injuries were fully discussed with the doctors during her trial. Say what you will about the arm wound but it was hardly life threatening. The point we are not addressing is the difference in the attackers well attack, first the two boys are killed with deep penetrating wounds into their torsos yet Darlie receives only surface cuts, serious but non life threatening. Strange don’t you think Flora?
You say you’re not really interested in Darlie’s guilt or innocence then you repeat something directly from the Darlie camp, something that is untrue. Be very careful of that website.
May 5th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
BTW, We need a link (s) to those website that show these incised wounds. Mary and I have studied and posted about this case for over 10 years and we’ve never seen nor heard of any incised wounds on the underside of Darlie’s arms.
May 5th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Pam Says:
I’m sure you did. There are no images that show “quite a lot” of incised wounds to Darlie’s forearm because there was only one.”
Let me correct that a bit… There are no images that show “quite a lot” of incised wounds to Darlie’s arm, period. Forearm or otherwise.
May 5th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
To Gay: thanks very much for your advice to read down. I had started reading, but there seemed so much opinion, rather than facts that it galled me to read it. I come from a country where capital punishment does not exist and I am guess I have lived a sheltered life. I will do as you say and try reading further.
May 5th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
TO PAM: I haven’t read your post, because I found the beginning of it to be offensive. I am indeed a newbie and have said repeatedly that I don’t know a lot about this case and posted to ask questions. Whether or not you formed a mistaken impression from my first post is immaterial - you are wrong, jumping to conclusions and you are more or less calling me a liar. If you are leaping to wrong conclusions about me then I do not feel I can trust your comments about Darlie Routier or anyone else. I can assure you that I had never even heard of Darlie Routier until recently, and I have merely scraped the surface by watching one or two TV programmes, surfing to find some photographs, and reading a couple of autopsy reports and the first few pages of the trial plus a few articles here and there on the internet. Not a lot by any means, hence my questions. I am not going to decide that someone is guilty just because someone tells me. If that was the case then I’d not be here, as she has been convicted by a jury who heard a lot of evidence. If no-one can answer my questions, then that’s fine, but please do not make aspersions as to my honesty.
May 5th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
Cami - can you tell me what it is I have repeated from Darlie’s camp, which was not true? I have looked at that website, hoping to find the trial transcripts, but I haven’t read a lot of it and found it quite difficult to navigate around.
With reference to the timing you gave of 18 minutes for the light - can you explain where you got that information? I did a search to find more about that, and what I discovered contradicted the 18 minute statement. Not that I am saying you’re wrong, of course - I’m just wondering where you got the information, so I can look at it myself.
May 5th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
Back to Cami again.. with reference to your question about whether or not I find the difference between Darlie’s wounds and her sons wounds strange, I’d say that I don’t really find it strange. If there was an intruder from outside, then they might have had various motives, and little children of that age have no strength and would be very easy to overcome and hold in place with one hand, while stabbing with the other. An adult is a different kettle of fish. I do find certain things about this case strange, for sure. One thing I find very strange is that sock. How did the investigators know it was Darin’s sock? If it was Darin’s sock then why did they not pick up any of his skin cells from it? Why on earth would anyone plant a sock?? Surely if someone wanted to plant evidence they’d plant something else. The sock just seems such a bizarre item to plant. Also, if it wasn’t planted, then why would an intruder have removed it from the house? Could it have been used to wipe off fingerprints or something then accidentally dropped? I tell you just that sock alone does my head in - either way you look at it.
May 5th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
http://www.mysterycrimescene.com/image-files/darlie-hospital.jpg
Those look like random wounds on the underside of the forearm to me.
May 6th, 2011 at 1:05 am
Hi Flora….As far as the wounds to Darlie’s forearms, and only one shallow cut just above one of her breasts, those wounds don’t even compare to the degree of depth and deadly stabs the poor boys suffered. Devon and Damon had very deep wounds. Even if there had been an intruder, it seems strange he was so careful not to mess up those huge watermelon-sized implants she paid big $$$ on. Darlie’s were only superficial. And what intruder would stop and take the time to stop and wife the sink area? Any intruder would be in a big hurry to get the heck out of there. It is beyond insanity to believe Darlie’s story that she wiped the kitchen sink/counter area when the towels were wet to apply to the boys’ wounds. What loving mother would be concerned about wiping up a mess when her kids are taking the last breath? But yes, she did wipe the sink area….to try to conceal evidence from the police. Didn’t work. Thank you.
May 6th, 2011 at 4:20 am
Flora, you don’t have to trust anything I say about Darlie. But keep in mind that you are the one who came here saying things that are untrue and therefore can’t be backed up. I can and did back up my statements. So in reality, it is your statements that cannot be trusted.
May 6th, 2011 at 4:31 am
Hi Gay, I am not saying that this is what happened, because I don’t know enough about it, but actually I think it is very likely that if someone had blood on themselves they would prefer to wash it off and wipe away traces of that before leaving. I did a quick search for this and found a few examples:
http://www.freewebs.com/thebtksite/sherrybaker.htm
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-05-11/delhi/27764080_1_sanchit-sachdeva-preeti-sachdeva-teen-murder
so it’s not unheard of.
May 6th, 2011 at 4:32 am
Flora says:
“Those look like random wounds on the underside of the forearm to me.”
You did not say that she had random wounds on the underside of the forearm. You said this:
“However, on the underside of her arms, she had a lot of bruising and many other incised wounds, which certainly mimic defensive wounds.”
May 6th, 2011 at 4:51 am
Hi Pam, I have already stated that I am a newb. I registered here for the first time immediately prior to my first post. I have stated that I know nothing about this case, and am merely posting here to ask questions or try to answer questions which have been put to me, purely based on common sense or circumspection. I assume that yet again you are trying to tell me that I am lying when I say that I don’t know much about this and am not a “newbie” as you put it. I am not sure if this is really a place I can feel able to ask questions in. I admit that I can be a bit naive, but being cynical and assuming that people are lying is worse. I would have liked to have asked more questions, but I am thinking that this is not a place I am going to get simple answers. I can understand that you are all probably fed up of answering the same questions over and over, but there’s no need to be offensive and insulting and accuse people of lying.
May 6th, 2011 at 4:53 am
Flora, if you will go back and read the entirety of the court testimony (especially Darlie) it should be very obvious that you will see she convicted herself. And not only that, but here in this forum, I was mistaken about some things, and Mary, Cami, and Pam, as well as others, quickly clarified what I was unclear about. Another is the two cuts on her throat. All the supporters on the Routier camp keep saying her wounds were SO DEEP it all but just missed the carotid. Trying to make people think the artery is at least 2 or 3 inches deep. Not so. The carotid is only approx. maybe an inch. There were even no sutures needed. They only used “stripping tape” to close them.
May 6th, 2011 at 4:55 am
Hi Pam, “However, on the underside of her arms, she had a lot of bruising and many other incised wounds, which certainly mimic defensive wounds.”
Yes - that is what I said. I posted a picture of such wounds, with the comment “Those look like random wounds on the underside of the forearm to me”.
I don’t see that one contradicts the other. The wounds appear to me to be incised wounds, and they also appear to be randomly placed.
May 6th, 2011 at 5:10 am
Hi Gay, thanks for that. I had been intending to read it all, but naturally while reading, I find questions cropping up, which is why I posted in the first place. I might read more, but there doesn’t seem much point in reading stuff here which seems mostly based on opinion if I cannot ask more factual questions of the people who know so much more and therefore have more entrenched opinions than I have. I am in a different country and hadn’t heard of this case, so I imagined that a lot of the information and articles will no longer be in the public domain, hence my questions.
May 6th, 2011 at 6:42 am
Flora says:
“The wounds appear to me to be incised wounds…”
Do you know what an incised wound is?
May 6th, 2011 at 8:54 am
Flora says:
“I might read more, but there doesn’t seem much point in reading stuff here which seems mostly based on opinion if I cannot ask more factual questions of the people who know so much more and therefore have more entrenched opinions than I have.”
Your questions get answered, Flora. You just don’t like the answers. This is why I was a little short with you in the first post. I hate it when people come to post their opinions and say that they are new to the case and just looking for information, don’t know enough to form an opinion, when in fact they’re supporters looking for a place to post their belief in Darlie’s innocence. They don’t really know the evidence well enough to argue the facts of the case so they come in undercover. And that’s fine, but they want to do it without anyone countering their opinion or what they are trying to pass off as fact. They say they don’t have an opinion, but then counter your answers to their questions with information from the support sites.
We’re not talking about some random crime, Flora. We’re talking about two little boys who were murdered while they slept in their home, only a few feet away from their mother. Anyone who knows the evidence knows she killed her kids and this is a very high-profile case. You’re not going to be able to post misinformation and not be corrected, no matter where you post. You will run into hostile posters, no matter where you post. This was a horrible crime against two little boys and people are angry and emotional about it. Especially when there is so much evidence that points to her guilt.
The majority of people who have knowledge of this case believe in her guilt. So if you want to defend her, then defend her. But don’t expect it to be easy.
May 6th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
You know, Flora, discussions about Darlie’s case are open to all. But the thing is, it’s important to discuss it as an adult. It appears to me you’ve approached this website with a firm set opinion already, and simply have nothing more to do than try to pull people’s chain. It’s very obvious to all you firmly believe in Darlie’s innocence. We’re all entitled to our beliefs. But believe me, you’re not going to change our opinions of her guilt. In fact, you are only reinforcing our opinions even more. It never ceases to amaze me how supporters of the Routier Camp seem to keep grasping at straws. No matter how much the actual facts are laid out, some just try to keep arguing the matter. It may be better for you to offer more support to the website “Justice For Darlie”…you will definitely get more support there. I, too, at one time, tried to believe that maybe she was innocent. But after looking at both sides, reading her testimony, and using common sense, it wasn’t hard for me to confirm her guilt. I hope you will do the same and look at the actual facts rather than believe the lies her supporters keep thowing out.
May 6th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
It’s not obvious to me that Flora believes Darlie is innocent - she seems to be to be on the fence and even if she isn’t, so what if she believes Darlie is innocent and is prepared to challenge that or ask questions about the things that make her think that way?? Good for her. This is a great discussion group for her to join and in which to debate hard and freely. It seems to me that strength of this forum lies in its history (lots of probing questions asked and answered exhaustively), it’s excellent resources (links to pics / particular court testimony), and the incredible knowledge of this case held by some of the posters. Let’s not turn it into some smug little -club outing a “Routier supporter” just because we all believe Darlie is guilty. Ask away, Flora and if you believe Darlie is innocent, feel free to say why and we’ll tell you why we think she isn’t. But I’d like to welcome you because I really enjoy this forum and it’s nice to have new blood. Best, Ellen.
May 6th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
PAM said: Your questions get answered, Flora. “You just don’t like the answers. This is why I was a little short with you in the first post”.
What a nonsensical statement. I had only posted one question and your post was the first which answered me, so you cannot say that you were short with me because I didn’t like the answers. While you were writing your post, I had not been given any answers.
May 6th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
To Ellen: thanks very much for your kind welcome. I really appreciate it.
May 6th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
Hi Ellen,
Please, endulge me here and allow me to explain myself because I knew from Flora’s first post that this was the direction this would take and I’d like to clarify a few things.
“It’s not obvious to me that Flora believes Darlie is innocent - she seems to be to be on the fence…”
I’m not sure what posts you’ve been reading but I can assure you that Flora is NOT on the fence. She has a very firm opinion formed. Nothing wrong with that, why hide it?
“… and even if she isn’t, so what if she believes Darlie is innocent and is prepared to challenge that or ask questions about the things that make her think that way?? Good for her.”
Yes, good for her. I have no problem with her defending Darlie, asking questions or challenging anything. But if that’s the intent, then DO IT! Don’t come in claiming not to know anything about the case and then refute the answers you get with support site jargon. If you believe she’s innocent, then say that and don’t play games.
“This is a great discussion group for her to join and in which to debate hard and freely.”
“Let’s not turn it into some smug little -club outing a “Routier supporter” just because we all believe Darlie is guilty.”
I couldn’t agree more. That’s why posters like Flora get under my skin. They say they’re looking for answers but their mind is already set. Their questions aren’t actually questions, they’re prompts. They easily become combative. They have quite a lot to say but should you return fire, they claim they’re being unfairly treated. Posting with them is aggravating and quickly becomes couter-productive and reduces the integrity of the board.
“It seems to me that strength of this forum lies in its history (lots of probing questions asked and answered exhaustively), it’s excellent resources (links to pics / particular court testimony), and the incredible knowledge of this case held by some of the posters.”
Again, I couldn’t agree more and this a prime example of what I’m talking about:
Gay Says:
May 5th, 2011 at 7:50 am
“Hi Flora! Welcome to our discussion on this case. The best answer I can give you is to go back on this website to read all the comments going back to abou #60 to #70-something and take your time reading on down. There are many links added where you can also go back and read the court transcripts from Darlie’s own testimony in court…”
Flora Says:
May 5th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
“To Gay: thanks very much for your advice to read down. I had started reading, but there seemed so much opinion, rather than facts that it galled me to read it.”
First of all, Ellen, you and I know that’s not true. I don’t know about you but this has been one of the most civil, well debated boards I’ve ever been on and full of factual information. But since she believes in Darlie’s innocence, she didn’t like a great deal of what she saw, so she has to degrade it. That doesn’t sound like someone who is truly has questions, as she claimed in her first post. And she can’t blame it on not liking the attitude of the poster, because Gay couldn’t have been nicer.
I’m sorry to seem so cynical, Ellen. But I knew when I read her first post that this would end up exactly where it is and I was right. The only way the board can keep going is if something new comes up, of course or if someone comes along here who has questions and/or an opposing view. I don’t have a problem with questions, opposition, or challenge. My problem is with people who come here to post and don’t have enough faith in their opinion to stand up and admit what they believe.
May 6th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
Flora Says:
“What a nonsensical statement. I had only posted one question and your post was the first which answered me, so you cannot say that you were short with me because I didn’t like the answers. While you were writing your post, I had not been given any answers.”
When I posted that comment, I didn’t post it correctly so it probably wasn’t as clear as it could have been. It should have had this appearance:
“Your questions get answered, Flora. You just don’t like the answers.
“This is why I was a little short with you in the first post. I hate it when people come to post their opinions and say that they are new to the case…”
The first sentence had nothing to do with the rest of the post. It should’ve been a seperate paragraph.
May 7th, 2011 at 9:03 am
*separate
May 7th, 2011 at 9:45 am
Hi Flora: “they had noted that “mulch” outside the window was undisturbed (while photos of the utility room window shows clearly that the window opens onto a large patio paved with concrete slabs)”
I accused you of quoting this from Darlie’s website. I do believe it is the article that Anne Good wrote?
Flora: Please feel free to read the transcripts from Darlie’s trial. That is where you will learn that the lights stayed on for 18 minutes. I didnèt just make it up, itès there somewhere. There were sensor lights around the patio, they were triggered when you walked on the pavement near the spa. Read Darinès tesitmony, he might have bragged about them as he usually like to brag about what they had.
I donèt give a crap if youère a newbir or an old supporter, Jo or Pepsi or whatever. I know deep in my heart that Darlie killed her two boys and sheès paying the price for it now.
Tesitmony from the doctor who treated Darlie:
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-30.php#3
Q. Okay. Did you see any other major
8 cuts on her that needed to be tended to?
9 A. No. We examined her when we had her
10 up in the operating room, since she was under an
11 anesthetic, and we didn’t want to cause any discomfort.
12 We examined all three of these wounds
13 that I’ve talked about. We repaired those. We looked to
14 make sure she had no other stab wounds to her back or
15 anywhere else. We did not find any other injury.
16 Q. You looked pretty close for any
17 injuries; is that right?
18 A. Yes, sir.
1 Q. And, was there another wound on her
2 right arm?
3 A. There was a wound on her right arm on
4 the — what we call the dorsal aspect, about right here.
5 And it was approximately an inch long. It was also
6 superficial. It was down to the bone in that point. But
7 the bone at that point is very superficial in the arm.
8 And these wounds did not approach any dangerous
9 structures.
May 7th, 2011 at 9:52 am
Flora wrote: http://www.mysterycrimescene.com/image-files/darlie-hospital.jpg
“Those look like random wounds on the underside of the forearm to me.”
Dr. Dillawn testified that those were not wounds; they were simply spots of blood that adhered to the skin.
Darlie’s arm was checked by nurses and doctors numerous times during her hospital stay. If those were wounds, they would have been noted and treated.
Have you read the trial transcript? That’s where you need to begin. Virtually all of your questions can be answered in that court document.
May 7th, 2011 at 9:53 am
To Flora:
Darin admits in his trial testimony that the sock found in the alley was his. Fibres found on the sock matched his Reboks. The sock contained Darieès dna from shed skin cells. It also contained tiny stains from Devon and DevonéDAmon mixed. It doesnèt contain any of Darlieès blood. The sock is an anomilie really, no one knows why itès in the alley…. I canèt believe that someone would depense with Devon and Damon so easily and brutally take a sock with him when he left..ridiculous.
May 7th, 2011 at 10:07 am
Flora wrote:
“I wonder what other information was supplied in this case, because according to their statements, within minutes of arriving there, they had already decided that the screen had been slashed from the inside…”
Please tell me the name of the person who, within minutes of arriving there, testified that the screen was cut from the inside.
(I’ll save you some work. No one did).
You’re obviously getting this from Darlie’s website. They lie a lot.
May 7th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Hi Flora:
Earlier you said that you wouldn’t find it unusual for the intruder to have washed up at the kitchen sink.
Darlie’s statements all say he left from her couch and went straight to the garage and out, dropping the knife as he went.
Do you think he washed up before he attacked Darlie? That’s the only scenario that fits.
Also on our discussion on the backyard lights, you have yet to comment on the fact that there were no footprints in the mulch, no scuff marks or blood on the fence our gate. In fact no blood outside the house at all. The gate was heavy and it dragged on the ground. It would take too much time and make too much noise to get out that gate and the person actually closed it after himself!
I tend to focus on solely the evidence..physical evidence and not she said/who said/ they said. It’s the blood evidence that convicts her. IMO, once you know that, you can’t give her the out.
Bye for now
May 7th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
There’s also the physical evidence, I forgot that. The knife/screen debris and fibre is irrefutable. Well no one has tried to refute it yet and it’s been almost 15 years.
May 7th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Pam says:
[QUOTE]“Hi Ellen,
Please, endulge me here and allow me to explain myself because I knew from Flora’s first post that this was the direction this would take and I’d like to clarify a few things.
“It’s not obvious to me that Flora believes Darlie is innocent - she seems to be to be on the fence…”
I’m not sure what posts you’ve been reading but I can assure you that Flora is NOT on the fence. She has a very firm opinion formed. Nothing wrong with that, why hide it?”
[END QUOTE]
Excuse me, Pam.. but Ellen is entirely correct. I have repeatedly said that I do not know enough about this case to judge. I am still “on the fence”. However, the sort of bilge that you and your cohorts have spouted about me since I wrote in with a few queries gives me serious doubts about your ability to assess any situation or written text objectively. You appear to have no ability to see more than one side of any argument, or to realise that every human being has flaws and can make mistakes, and that includes Darlie, Darin, their friends, the police, witnesses for the prosection and the defence, etc. etc. Approaching from a variety of hypothetical angles enables one to prove or disprove any theory. As you are so unwilling or unable to understand that, it seems to me that your reaction to any challenge to your theories gets your hackles up.
May 7th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Cami: “There’s also the physical evidence, I forgot that. The knife/screen debris and fibre is irrefutable. Well no one has tried to refute it yet and it’s been almost 15 years”.
The knife was seemingly a serrated bread knife. Now, if you have ever tried to cut fabric with a serrated implement, you will know that the threads of the fabric will catch, causing the fabric to pucker. I saw photos of the slashed screen, and the fabric had not puckered, so I don’t think that knife was used to slash the screen at all, by Darlie or anyone else. (There is also the fact that bread knives have blunt tips, which would stretch fabric rather than cut it during an initial incision, and the fabric appears to have been pierced with no stretching.) On the other hand, if an intruder came through the screen, then they could have slashed it with their own knife. Taking a knife from within the house for the crime shows a bit of criminal savvy, because it saves them having to explain the disappearance of their own knife, or trying to dispose of a murder weapon, especially if they were caught near the scene of the crime. If an intruder did come in the screen, then they’d have been very quiet and careful, gone to the kitchen and found the knives in the butcher’s block, quietly slid one out and tested the blade with a finger to see that it was sharp, they’d reject a serrated one immediately, slide it back in and try another. The reason I think that is that I have used knives from butcher’s blocks in friends’ kitchens, and I always slide the knife out and test the blade while selecting one, and generally reject at least one before finding a suitable one for the purpose). However, having said all that, I am not saying that the fiber from the screen is irrefutable proof that someone came in through the screen and made a beeline for the butcher’s block. The fiber could just as easily have arrived there by innocent transfer or accidental contamination of evidence. My own opinion is that this fiber on the screen could be used in an argument for the prosecution or the defence case, but it is not a terribly strong piece of evidence either way.
May 7th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Sorry: I meant to say “My own opinion is that this fiber on the KNIFE could be used in an argument for the prosecution or the defence case, but it is not a terribly strong piece of evidence either way”.
May 7th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
CAMI says:
To Flora:
Darin admits in his trial testimony that the sock found in the alley was his. Fibres found on the sock matched his Reboks. The sock contained Darie’s dna from shed skin cells. It also contained tiny stains from Devon and Devon/DAmon mixed. It doesn’t contain any of Darlie’s blood. The sock is an anomilie really, no one knows why it’s in the alley…. I can’t believe that someone would depense with Devon and Damon so easily and brutally take a sock with him when he left..ridiculous”.
Yes. This is a most strange thing. It is neither an obvious item to plant, or to drop. However, if something small had been stolen, like a ring, a chain or something, then a sock is the ideal thing to put it into, so it won’t be dropped or lost. I guess that the transfer of body oils or skin cells from the jewellery could explain for a trace of Darlie to be found in the toe of the sock, since the weight of such objects would drop to the toe, but as far as I am aware Darlie didn’t notice anything missing at the time. If the incident was staged, why didn’t they say stuff was missing? I want to unravel a few of these conundrums before I make up my mind either way on what my opinion is.
May 7th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
CAMI said:
“Hi Flora:
Earlier you said that you wouldn’t find it unusual for the intruder to have washed up at the kitchen sink.
Darlie’s statements all say he left from her couch and went straight to the garage and out, dropping the knife as he went.
Do you think he washed up before he attacked Darlie? That’s the only scenario that fits.
Also on our discussion on the backyard lights, you have yet to comment on the fact that there were no footprints in the mulch, no scuff marks or blood on the fence our gate. In fact no blood outside the house at all. The gate was heavy and it dragged on the ground. It would take too much time and make too much noise to get out that gate and the person actually closed it after himself!
I tend to focus on solely the evidence..physical evidence and not she said/who said/ they said. It’s the blood evidence that convicts her. IMO, once you know that, you can’t give her the out.
Bye for now”
Sorry Cami - I know I am not staying on top of all the postings, but I haven’t got time to respond to them all. I just scan down and select a few points at random.. I will reply to this and all as and when I have the opportunity.
Just briefly, though I’d prefer not to waste your time by giving any possible scenarios, because I don’t know enough to form proper theories yet, and my time is too limited to catch up on so much information in a short space of time. I will try to address a few of these points off the top of my head.. From what I have read, there could have been more than one intruder, and even if there was only one, he/she could have washed his hands, then come back into the room to check it out before leaving. With regard to what you said about blood, there is nothing to suggest that a killer had blood on his/her shoes, someone said here that Darlie didn’t have blood on her front because the boys had seeping wounds, so based on that, there’s no reason to think there was a lot of blood on an intruder - certainly not enough to leave a trail. I agree that it is unlikely that an intruder would have closed the gate after himself, but I don’t see why someone could have jumped over a fence, without leaving scuff marks. I have witnessed someone scaling the wall of a block of flats to the third floor up a drainpipe in seconds, and someone else getting over a 3-4 metre high fence in about one second, leaving no scuff marks, so I know how easy it is for some people, even though I am not strong enough to manage it easily myself. With regard to the “mulch” - I saw a photo of the utility room window in a programme about Darlie. Outside the window was what I would call a patio - it had patio furniture on it and certainly in my country we would not call it a walkway. Beyond that I could see grass. I could not see mulch. What was meant by mulch, and was there a photograph of it? Do they mean bark chips? Because if so, they would not show signs of anyone walking on them - they are loose. The boys used to play outside a lot, so I would have thought that any area which enabled quick access would have been trampled flat and hard, unless is was loose material like bark chippings. I also saw a floorplan of the house, and as far as I could see, it was possible to double back through the house and leave by the front door, which would explain why a car was seen leaving the front of the house. A car could have been hidden up the alley for one intruder to go and fetch, then pulled up briefly in front of the house to pick up another person or people. However, the reason I came here was to ask some questions, because I don’t know enough about this case to make any comment. I need to read exactly what Darlie said - it is possible that she made some assumptions herself in her testimony, without really considering all the possibilities. I do reiterate, however, that I myself have not made up my mind about this case, and need to learn a lot more before I do so.
Thanks very much for your replis and for answering my questions. I really appreciate it. I hope you are not offended by the sparse time I am able to devote to my replies, but I just don’t have more time to spare at present. Have a nice day, and thanks again.
May 7th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Correction:
I meant to say:
I agree that it is unlikely that an intruder would have closed the gate after himself, but I don’t see why someone couldn’t have jumped over a fence, without leaving scuff marks.
May 7th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Cami siad:
[QUOTE]
Hi Flora: “they had noted that “mulch” outside the window was undisturbed (while photos of the utility room window shows clearly that the window opens onto a large patio paved with concrete slabs)”
I accused you of quoting this from Darlie’s website. I do believe it is the article that Anne Good wrote?”
[QUOTE ENDS]
I see. I didn’t copy it from Darlie’s website - those are my own words. I saw the photograph myself on a television programme and described it as it appeared to me. In what way do you think it is untruthful?
May 8th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Hi Flora:
Okay, why is it that you seem to be challenging with all the supporter arguments? Obviously you spent time on Darlie’s website
With the amount of blood washed down that drain and washed from the surrounding counters, that intruder would have been there some time eh?
No we wouldn’t expect the intruder to have a lot of blood on him as the boys had seeping wounds.
Darlie’s nightshirt was soaked with her own blood, in front. None of the boys blood was found on the front of her nightie
The fence was 3 metres, no one could just jump over it. No it’s not bark, it’s mulch and it was wet with dew when the cops there.
No, I don’t think it’s “untruthful” but why did you use “they” if it’s just you watching tv. The patio is not under the exit window, jeez, I’m looking right at the photos and I see no patio, concrete slabs yes and a concrete walkway going forward and off to the side, if there’s a patio, it’s in the area of the sliding glass doors.
Yeah we call it patio in Canada too.
Now you know that the backyard you saw does’t accurately relfect in the CS photos that I’ve seen.
If you’ve got a friend who scaled a drainpipe, just isn’t the same as escaping a fence. And if you saw someone climbing a 4 meter fence without leaving a mark, then I sugges to that person was barefoot.
Oh please don’t start that nonsense about two intruders. We haven’t found so much as a head hair that there was one intruder let alone two.
Oh God not that black car again. The black car is nothing but a red herring. Black cars drive past the Routiers all the time. A black car did not commit this crime, nor was a black car seen speeding away from the Routiers at the time of the crime. Who saw it? it was the middle of the night.
I wish you luck on your search for Darlie’s explanations. Try to remember that she is a pathological liar and manipulator.
You have a nice Day
May 8th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Hi Flora:
“they had noted that “mulch” outside the window was undisturbed (while photos of the utility room window shows clearly that the window opens onto a large patio paved with concrete slabs)”
Who is the “they” you mention. You said you saw the backyard in photos.
May 8th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
I mean on TV, not in photos
May 8th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
oops I’m being redundant
May 8th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
To Flora:
If we don’t expect the intruder to have much blood on him, who left the patent fingerprint and the blood running down the utility room door?
May 8th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Yes. This is a most strange thing. It is neither an obvious item to plant, or to drop. However, if something small had been stolen, like a ring, a chain or something, then a sock is the ideal thing to put it into, so it won’t be dropped or lost. I guess that the transfer of body oils or skin cells from the jewellery could explain for a trace of Darlie to be found in the toe of the sock, since the weight of such objects would drop to the toe, but as far as I am aware Darlie didn’t notice anything missing at the time.
Oh don’t most theieve just put jewellry in their pockets. Now you’ve got the intruder searing for a sock and cleaning up at the sink and old sleeping beauty Darlie never moves. The woman who couldn’t sleep in her own bed because her baby moving in the cot woke her up.
wearing the sock on your hand whilst you stab your little boys is also a great way to get blood on the sock.
Your speculation on jewellry is just that speculation and that doesn’t work in court.
Nothing was missing from that home, not so much as a toe ring.
Take care
May 8th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Happy Mothers Day to all my lovely friends
May 8th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Happy Mother’s Day Cami and to all of my fellow mommies here.
Off topic, I know but
I got this in an email the other day and wanted to share it with you guys for Mother’s Day. I loved it so much I printed a copy of it and put it in my daughters card for her first Mother’s Day. Hope you guys enjoy it, too.
*******
We are sitting at lunch when my daughter casually mentions that she and her husband are thinking of starting a family.”We’re taking a survey,” she says, half-joking. “Do you think I should have a baby?”
“It will change your life,” I say, carefully keeping my tone neutral. “I know,” she says, “no more sleeping in on weekends, no more spontaneous vacations….”
But that is not what I meant at all. I look at my daughter, trying to decide what to tell her. I want her to know what she will never learn in childbirth classes. I want to tell her that the physical wounds of child bearing will heal, but that becoming a mother will leave her with an emotional wound so raw that she will forever be vulnerable.
I consider warning her that she will never again read a newspaper without asking “What if that had been MY child?” That every plane crash, every house fire will haunt her. That when she sees pictures of starving children, she will wonder if anything could be worse than watching your child die.
I look at her carefully manicured nails and stylish suit and think that no matter how sophisticated she is, becoming a mother will reduce her to the primitive level of a bear protecting her cub. That an urgent call of “Mom!” will cause her to drop a soufflé or her best crystal without a moment’s hesitation.
I feel I should warn her that no matter how many years she has invested in her career, she will be professionally derailed by motherhood. She might arrange for childcare, but one day she will be going into an important business meeting and she will think of her baby’s sweet smell. She will have to use every ounce of her discipline to keep from running home, just to make sure her baby is all right.
I want my daughter to know that everyday decisions will no longer be routine. That a five year old boy’s desire to go to the men’s room rather than the women’s at McDonald’s will become a major dilemma. That right there, in the midst of clattering trays and screaming children, issues of independence and gender identity will be weighed against the prospect that a child molester may be lurking in that restroom.
However decisive she may be at the office, she will second-guess herself constantly as a mother.
Looking at my attractive daughter, I want to assure her that eventually she will shed the pounds of pregnancy, but she will never feel the same about herself. That her life, now so important, will be of less value to her once she has a child. That she would give it up in a moment to save her offspring, but will also begin to hope for more years — not to accomplish her own dreams, but to watch her child accomplish theirs. I want her to know that a cesarean scar or shiny stretch marks will become badges of honor.
My daughter’s relationship with her husband will change, but not in the way she thinks. I wish she could understand how much more you can love a man who is careful to powder the baby or who never hesitates to play with his child. I think she should know that she will fall in love with him again for reasons she would now find very unromantic.
I wish my daughter could sense the bond she will feel with women throughout history who have tried to stop war, prejudice and drunk driving. I hope she will understand why I can think rationally about most issues, but become temporarily insane when I discuss the threat of nuclear war to my children’s future.
I want to describe to my daughter the exhilaration of seeing your child learn to ride a bike. I want to capture for her the belly laugh of a baby who is touching the soft fur of a dog or a cat for the first time. I want her to taste the joy that is so real, it actually hurts.
My daughter’s quizzical look makes me realize that tears have formed in my eyes.
“You’ll never regret it,” I finally say.
Then I reach across the table, squeeze my daughter’s hand and offer a silent prayer for her, and for me, and for all of the mere mortal women who stumble their way into this most wonderful of callings. This blessed gift from God . . . that of being a Mother.
Angie Colovas
May 8th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
LOL my cat’s name is Darcy. I just called him Darlie.
I think I need a break
May 8th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
OK, Flora… back to you.
Flora says:
“Excuse me, Pam.. but Ellen is entirely correct. I have repeatedly said that I do not know enough about this case to judge. I am still “on the fence”.”
Oh, come on, Flora…
When anyone replies to one of your ‘questions’ you come back immediately with information from the support sites. How do we know that? Because we scan those sites, too and those sites are filled with outright lies that are easily proven as lies by anyone who takes the time to look at both sides of the story.
“However, the sort of bilge that you and your cohorts have spouted about me since I wrote in with a few queries gives me serious doubts about your ability to assess any situation or written text objectively.”
This is what I’m talking about.
Anyone who read this post alone would think, “Poor lady. She’s just asked a few questions and they’ve verbally assaulted her.”
No one here has spouted any bilge, Flora. Again, you just don’t like what you’re hearing.
My ability to assess any situation or written text objectively must not be too far off because I had you pegged from the first post.
“You appear to have no ability to see more than one side of any argument…”
Absolutely untrue. We are all here because we enjoy the debate. What’s a debate without opposing views? I simply find your style annoying.
“…or to realise that every human being has flaws and can make mistakes, and that includes Darlie, Darin, their friends, the police, witnesses for the prosection and the defence, etc. etc.”
I’m aware that we all make mistakes, Flora. Darlie’s was just bigger than most peoples mistakes are. Interesting order you put that list of names in, by the way. Most important to least important in your mind?
“Approaching from a variety of hypothetical angles enables one to prove or disprove any theory.”
So does following the evidence.
“As you are so unwilling or unable to understand that, it seems to me that your reaction to any challenge to your theories gets your hackles up.”
What I’m unwilling and unable to do is coddle you. Debate the facts of the case or go somewhere like prisontalk.com where all of your support site jargon will be welcomed with open arms.
May 9th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
[QUOTE FROM CAMI]
Hi Flora:
Okay, why is it that you seem to be challenging with all the supporter arguments? Obviously you spent time on Darlie’s website
[END QUOTE]
I don’t think it takes Einstein to work out there are some mysteries in this case. I have stated what I have read, and I think it is obvious that my preference has been to look at the source material, such as photographs, witness statements, and the court transcription rather than to read a potted version tainted by opinion. I have definitely seen the first page of that website, because I have gone there in order to find the transcripts, but otherwise, I can’t remember reading much, if anything more, apart from the official documents. I don’t think that I am qualified to judge what the “supporter arguments” are, any more than I know what the opposite arguments are, so I cannot comment on any parallels between their arguments and my questions. I don’t think I have come out with too many arguments, because I posted here in the hope of having some of my questions answered, partly, I admit, out of laziness - for which sin I have been accused of lying, trolling, being manipulative, having a hidden agenda, etc. It beggars belief, really. I have made it plain in my posts that I have already formed the opinion that the police didn’t do a thorough job or follow up obvious leads, which has left too many unanswered questions, and I don’t respect the way they handled the case.
[QUOTE]
With the amount of blood washed down that drain and washed from the surrounding counters, that intruder would have been there some time eh?
[UNQUOTE]
I don’t know really know enough about the wiped down surfaces to comment, but I don’t think it would be possible for the police to work out how much blood had been washed down the drain. Any statements which implied the opposite are misleading.
[QUOTE]
The fence was 3 metres, no one could just jump over it. No it’s not bark, it’s mulch and it was wet with dew when the cops there.
[UNQUOTE]
I wasn’t implying that someone would jump over the fence. I think it is possible to climb over a fence very quickly without leaving scuff-marks. It is also possible that a different exit was used.
What is meant by mulch? I googled it and it showed bark.
[QUOTE]
No, I don’t think it’s “untruthful” but why did you use “they” if it’s just you watching tv. [UNQUOTE]
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Can you be a bit more specific please? If I said something about “they” with reference to the photos, then presumably I was talking about the photos.
[QUOTE]
The patio is not under the exit window, jeez, I’m looking right at the photos and I see no patio, concrete slabs yes and a concrete walkway going forward and off to the side, if there’s a patio, it’s in the area of the sliding glass doors.
[UNQUOTE]
Where I live, a slabbed area which contains patio furniture is called a patio, regardless of whether or not there is another patio at the address. I don’t really see the need to split hairs about terminology. See the google search for a variety of slabbed areas which show under a search on the word “patio”:
http://www.google.com/search?q=patio&hl=en&site=&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=1tTHTYf6CNCxhQeL8ankAw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CCYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1155&bih=669
[QUOTE]
Now you know that the backyard you saw does’t accurately relfect in the CS photos that I’ve seen.
[UNQUOTE]
I saw the slashed window, a slabbed patio and grass. I didn’t see a walkway coming off that, so I agree we were looking at photographs taken at a different angle. Can you post the link to the photo you are seeing please? I cannot post a link to the photo I looked at, unfortunately, because it was on a TV programme, but presumably those photos were in the police possession and they gave copies to the TV programme makers, so they must still be in existence somewhere.
[QUOTE]
And if you saw someone climbing a 4 meter fence without leaving a mark, then I sugges to that person was barefoot.
[UNQUOTE] No. But you made me laugh. However, it is not outwith the bounds of possibility that an intruder (or intruders) would not be wearing shoes though - that way they’d be quieter.
[QUOTE]
Oh please don’t start that nonsense about two intruders. We haven’t found so much as a head hair that there was one intruder let alone two.
[UNQUOTE]
Who is “we”? Were you there? I read somewhere that there was a blond hair found in the slashed screen which did not belong to one of the family or anyone at the investigation. Perhaps that was yours? According to the police, they matched it to a policewoman who wasn’t there (ahem), so it might just as conceivably have been yours. “Beam me up Scotty” and all that.
[QUOTE]
Oh God not that black car again. The black car is nothing but a red herring. Black cars drive past the Routiers all the time. A black car did not commit this crime, nor was a black car seen speeding away from the Routiers at the time of the crime. Who saw it? it was the middle of the night.
[UNQUOTE]
I read about that in the court transcript. It was a policeman called Jimmy Ray Patterson who testified in court about this. His words were:
A”I heard a lady call out that she wanted to talk to an officer. And I walked over there to talk to her”.
Q. Okay. And were you advised that she had seen a small, black car in this location?
A. Yes”.
A. “She asked to speak with an officer, and so I walked over there, and she said something to the effect that she had saw a car leaving that scene, as the police and the fire department
had arrived, or right after they had arrived”
[QUOTE]
I wish you luck on your search for Darlie’s explanations.
Try to remember that she is a pathological liar and manipulator.
[UNQUOTE]
I will bear that comment in mind when I read the transcripts. There are a lot of people who are manipulative, though, and a lot of people do not cope very well with being questioned in court, because it is really intense, and the way the questions are constructed, they are designed to extract answers which will imply guilt. You really have to read between the lines, and deconstruct everything in order to get to the bottom of the matter. I am sure, however, that the people on this site are very well capable of doing that - probably better than I am - so I will probably come back with lots more questions later, if I haven’t given up on you all.
[QUOTE]
You have a nice Day
[UNQUOTE]
Many thanks - it’s gorgeous here - bright, fresh breeze, some dramatic clouds.. You have a good day too.
May 9th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
[QUOTE FROM CAMI]
Hi Flora:
“they had noted that “mulch” outside the window was undisturbed (while photos of the utility room window shows clearly that the window opens onto a large patio paved with concrete slabs)”
Who is the “they” you mention.
[END QUOTE]
In this instance, “they” meant the police.
May 9th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
This will have to be the last I answer now, cos I have no time left.
QUOTE FROM CAMI:
“If we don’t expect the intruder to have much blood on him, who left the patent fingerprint and the blood running down the utility room door?”
[END OF QUOTE]
I believe that the fingerprint owner has not been absolutely established. Presumably it could not have been Darlie’s, because the footprints leading to it would have been a give-away, since her tracks are clearly visible, due to her blood-loss.
Did they do any tests to find out whose blood the fingerprint was?
[QUOTE]
Oh don’t most theieve just put jewellry in their pockets.
[END QUOTE]
Well, it was just a hypothetical situation, but I would categorically state that if someone stole something small that they would not just put it into their pocket, as it could easily fall out, especially if they were planning to make a quick get-away over a fence, or in a car. They’d definitely want to wrap it in something.
[QUOTE]
Now you’ve got the intruder searing for a sock
[UNQUOTE]
I will assume that you mean “searching for a sock”. The photos show baskets of laundry in the utility, so an intruder wouldn’t have to search - he’d just have to grab a small item.
[QUOTE]
and cleaning up at the sink and old sleeping beauty Darlie never moves. The woman who couldn’t sleep in her own bed because her baby moving in the cot woke her up.
[END QUOTE]
I haven’t read enough of the trial transcripts to judge about this. I have read a statement given by Darlie right at the start, and her recollection is to waking up and seeing the intruder, and only later realising that she was wounded, so this would imply that she slept through the injuries too, which clearly cannot be the case. The neck wound pierced the carotid sheath. I might be wrong, but I think that sheath also houses the vagus nerve, stimulation of which can temporary drop in blood pressure and heart rate and loss of consciousness. When one loses consciousness, the transfer of memory can be affected, so the events leading up to the period of unconsciousness will not be recalled. I don’t know enough about this to comment, but I think it conceivable that she might have experienced a loss of memory following the neck wound. This is not to say that she is not guilty.. But it is possible that she cannot remember when she incurred the wound. In the event of loss of memory, it is a know fact that the subconscious mind will try to fill the gaps. I have read a bit on this subject myself, hence that small knowledge. However, I’d need to listen to the 911 call and re-read the statement, plus read a bit more before I can draw any conclusions one way or another.
[QUOTE]
wearing the sock on your hand whilst you stab your little boys is also a great way to get blood on the sock.
[UNQUOTE]
In my opinion, this is not possible, given the depth of the wounds. The knife would have slipped and cut the sock and the pattern of spots on the sock is not consistent with that theory.
[QUOTE]
Your speculation on jewellry is just that speculation and that doesn’t work in court.
Nothing was missing from that home, not so much as a toe ring.
[END QUOTE]
It was just that - speculation, off the top of my head, and I was not trying to say that this was my “theory”, because as I said, I hadn’t read anywhere that there was anything missing. Nevertheless, the sock was there, planted or dropped, and there must have been a reason for that. You cannot say nothing was missing from that house, because you don’t know. No-one knows. We have been told that Darlie’s knickers were missing, but presumably we only have her word for that, unless Darin remembers her wearing a particular pair of knickers, which were then found to be missing, and even then, they could have been working together. In a house that size, with the amount of stuff they owned, it would be easy to overlook at least one item, particularly when two members of the house have been murdered, a funeral has to be arranged, not to mention the birthday party and then a murder charge. There might well have been something else missing, and it needn’t have been an intruder who removed it. The sock was right beside a bin, and it makes me wonder just how carefully that bin was searched.. Did the police take the contents of the bin for forensic examination?
Well this is my last post for now. Thanks for your replies.
May 10th, 2011 at 6:02 am
Cami said: “Oh don’t most theieve just put jewellry in their pockets?”
Not if they’re scaling a six-foot fence, they don’t. It could drop out!
Much safer to put it in a sock that you must carry while scaling the six-foot fence.
Sheesh, don’t you know anything ;)
May 10th, 2011 at 6:19 am
Flora said: “However, it is not outwith the bounds of possibility that an intruder (or intruders) would not be wearing shoes though - that way they’d be quieter.”
Can’t you just picture it?
Shoes in one hand, jewelry-filled sock in the other, scaling a six-foot fence.
Oh wait…you probably meant that the intruders took off their shoes BEFORE entering the house.
Damn, I can be so dense sometimes.
May 10th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Mary, I just sat down to check updates with a cup of coffee. Your post made me laugh so hard that coffee just squirted out my nose!
May 11th, 2011 at 2:09 am
Who is “we”? Were you there? I read somewhere that there was a blond hair found in the slashed screen which did not belong to one of the family or anyone at the investigation. Perhaps that was yours? According to the police, they matched it to a policewoman who wasn’t there (ahem), so it might just as conceivably have been yours. “Beam me up Scotty” and all that.
aaaahahaha of course I wasn’t there, silly it’s just an expression. And no I am as brunette as they come. Nor do I live in the States but it could be my hair….secondary transfer.
And that’s what it was…..the hair belonged to a female police officer…secondary transfer.
May 11th, 2011 at 2:25 am
Just briefly, though I’d prefer not to waste your time by giving any possible scenarios, because I don’t know enough to form proper theories yet, and my time is too limited to catch up on so much information in a short space of time. I will try to address a few of these points off the top of my head.. From what I have read, there could have been more than one intruder, and even if there was only one, he/she could have washed his hands, then come back into the room to check it out before leaving.
Then who left the bloody fingerpint and blood running down the utility room door?
May 11th, 2011 at 2:37 am
I have made it plain in my posts that I have already formed the opinion that the police didn’t do a thorough job or follow up obvious leads, which has left too many unanswered questions, and I don’t respect the way they handled the case.
Oh I see, but if you read the transcripts you’ll understand that the cops did a bang up job on this case.
What are the “obvious leads” they should have pursued?
Actually you don’t even know what the investigation consisted of….none of us do.
What about the case don’t you respect?
May 11th, 2011 at 3:01 am
“The knife was seemingly a serrated bread knife. Now, if you have ever tried to cut fabric with a serrated implement, you will know that the threads of the fabric will catch, causing the fabric to pucker”
You see this is when I tend not to bother to read the rest of the post…posters who try to add scenes from their own lives to refute the scientific evidence in the case.
Okay Flora, it’s not fabric that was cut, it was a screen. A fibre from this screen was found in the serrations of the bread knife. There was also rubber dust caught in the serrations…two pieces of evidence from the screen found on this knife…..
Nothing in the house matched this fibre and dust.
Try it, I’ve got my son’s Henkel Troken serrated (he’s a cook) here, I just put it up to my window screen. It very easily could go through the screen.
Darlie’s defence has yet to refute the screen evidence Paula. Nor could they prove or even complain of contamintion.
May 11th, 2011 at 3:06 am
“I haven’t read enough of the trial transcripts to judge about this. I have read a statement given by Darlie right at the start, and her recollection is to waking up and seeing the intruder, and only later realising that she was wounded, so this would imply that she slept through the injuries too, which clearly cannot be the case. The neck wound pierced the carotid sheath. I might be wrong, but I think that sheath also houses the vagus nerve, stimulation of which can temporary drop in blood pressure and heart rate and loss of consciousness. When one loses consciousness, the transfer of memory can be affected, so the events leading up to the period of unconsciousness will not be recalled. I don’t know enough about this to comment, but I think it conceivable that she might have experienced a loss of memory following the neck wound. This is not to say that she is not guilty.. But it is possible that she cannot remember when she incurred the wound. In the event of loss of memory, it is a know fact that the subconscious mind will try to fill the gaps. I have read a bit on this subject myself, hence that small knowledge. However, I’d need to listen to the 911 call and re-read the statement, plus read a bit more before I can draw any conclusions one way or another.”
Be sure to read the doctors and the paramedics who treated Darlie. Darlie hersef says she never lost consciousness so no reason for her not to remember what happened that night.
May 11th, 2011 at 3:14 am
“I don’t know really know enough about the wiped down surfaces to comment, but I don’t think it would be possible for the police to work out how much blood had been washed down the drain. Any statements which implied the opposite are misleading.”
WEll no the cops wouldn’t know, but the Serologists who examined the sink and the sink traps would.
Yeah don’t worry, the cops don’t usually make those statements.
I don’t know about your country but in mine and in the US, the crime scene is not touched by a cop until after the CS is videoed, photographed, the bodies removed and the CS Investigators finished…you know those guys in the white suits..they collect all the evidence..they collect the blood evidence. Of course there are all kinds of variances because every crime is different
May 11th, 2011 at 3:18 am
“I believe that the fingerprint owner has not been absolutely established. Presumably it could not have been Darlie’s, because the footprints leading to it would have been a give-away, since her tracks are clearly visible, due to her blood-loss.”
LOL, why couldn’t it be Darlie’s? Her blood is dripped all over the utility room, on the floor, on the appliances yet she swears she never went further than the door so how did her blood get in the room? Plus you have the killer washing up at the kitchen sink so it can’t be his bloody fingerprint.
“Did they do any tests to find out whose blood the fingerprint was?”
Of course they did, the blood is Darlie’s as the majority of the blood in the house.
May 11th, 2011 at 3:23 am
“In my opinion, this is not possible, given the depth of the wounds. The knife would have slipped and cut the sock and the pattern of spots on the sock is not consistent with that theory.”
Well it’s possible in my opinion so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
What blood pattern is there on the sock, please that is inconsistant with that theory?
May 11th, 2011 at 3:52 am
HI Flora:
“With regard to the “mulch” - I saw a photo of the utility room window in a programme about Darlie. Outside the window was what I would call a patio - it had patio furniture on it and certainly in my country we would not call it a walkway. Beyond that I could see grass. I could not see mulch. What was meant by mulch, and was there a photograph of it?”
Yes, Flora that’s all they ever show on tv is the concrete under the exit window because they go for ratings not truth.
Yes, there are photographs of the whole yard. Actually, States 13, A,B & C which show the exit window with the concrete underneath it, the mulch beside it and the fence and gate.
“Do they mean bark chips? Because if so, they would not show signs of anyone walking on them - they are loose. The boys used to play outside a lot, so I would have thought that any area which enabled quick access would have been trampled flat and hard, unless is was loose material like bark chippings.”
Nope, it’s not bark, it’s mulch. There are probably a qazzilion types of mulch.
“I also saw a floorplan of the house, and as far as I could see, it was possible to double back through the house and leave by the front door, which would explain why a car was seen leaving the front of the house.”
That would be impossible given Darlie’s testimony.
“A car could have been hidden up the alley for one intruder to go and fetch, then pulled up briefly in front of the house to pick up another person or people. However, the reason I came here was to ask some questions, because I don’t know enough about this case to make any comment. I need to read exactly what Darlie said - it is possible that she made some assumptions herself in her testimony, without really considering all the possibilities. I do reiterate, however, that I myself have not made up my mind about this case, and need to learn a lot more before I do so.”
Could have but that’s not what happened. I’m wondering why you have two intruders murdering two tiny sleeping boys for no reason
May 11th, 2011 at 4:31 am
“Isaw the slashed window, a slabbed patio and grass. I didn’t see a walkway coming off that, so I agree we were looking at photographs taken at a different angle. Can you post the link to the photo you are seeing please?
Sorry, I can’t, I don’t have a link, I am looking at the CS photos in MTJD. Okay we’ll agree the patio starts under the exit window. One walkway starts at that overturned chair.
Where did you and Pam find the “quote” I can’t find it.
May 11th, 2011 at 4:45 am
A”I heard a lady call out that she wanted to talk to an officer. And I walked over there to talk to her”.
Q. Okay. And were you advised that she had seen a small, black car in this location?
A. Yes”.
A. “She asked to speak with an officer, and so I walked over there, and she said something to the effect that she had saw a car leaving that scene, as the police and the fire department
had arrived, or right after they had arrived”
Oh I know all that Paula. A black car was stopped and the occupants made to get out whilst the cops searched them and the car.
Several neighbours saw a black car in the vicinity days before the crimes. The problem is that’s all they saw. No license plate no., no description of the car or occupants. None of the neighbours warned the Routiers or called the cops, etc. to report this suspicious black car. So you can see the black car is just a red herring.
“Leaving the scene after the fire and police arrived!”
Perhaps it was the Police Chief going back to the station.
May 11th, 2011 at 4:50 am
I will assume that you mean “searching for a sock”. The photos show baskets of laundry in the utility, so an intruder wouldn’t have to search - he’d just have to grab a small item.
Actually it was “wearing”. As noted, the dirty laundry was right there, he wouldn’t have had to search for anything.
May 11th, 2011 at 8:51 am
“Perhaps that was yours? According to the police, they matched it to a policewoman who wasn’t there (ahem), so it might just as conceivably have been yours. “Beam me up Scotty” and all that.”
So Paula what does all this mean…”ahem”. You don’t believe in the concept of transfer?
Are you accusing the cops of something? That could have been my hair, could have been yours.
Did you ever hear of Locard and Locard’s theory? Locard was basically the inventor of the criminal crime lab.
May 11th, 2011 at 8:53 am
# Ellen Says:
May 10th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
“Mary, I just sat down to check updates with a cup of coffee. Your post made me laugh so hard that coffee just squirted out my nose!”
If you stay with this case long enough, Ellen, you’ll elicit some coffee-snorting of your own.
Sometimes the absurdity of the supporters’ theories simply demand an equally absurd reply.
May 11th, 2011 at 9:18 am
I’ve been monitoring this conversation for some time now. All of you seem more intent on bickering, arguing, and picking on certain individuals than you do discussing the topic at hand.
May 11th, 2011 at 9:19 am
“The policeman who appears to have done nothing except stood around watching her cynically was trained in CPR and would have known what to do. For reasons best known to himself, he chose to stand around cold-bloodedly watching a hysterical woman desperately pleading for help from the emergency services, while he could have administered first aid to the little boy himself. Whether or not Darlie Routier was guilty, that policeman’s conduct was worse. He was in a far stronger position to help, as he was far more able to be objective and cool-headed in that situation.”
You know Paula you are such a hoot.
This comes directly from Darlie supporters. Remember Mary, remember Eljefe who was so disgusted and upset that the cop just stood there and did nothing. (Or so he thought)
So now Paula is on the same beat. Even though she knows that the first priority of any police officer is to secure the scene, not to give CPR to little boys. And how does a cop or anyone for that matter “cynically” watch anything.
No the police officer claims he waited for backup so he could check out the garage where Darlie told him the intruder was.
She claims she knows nothing about this case but she can repeat all the supporter rhetoric.
You know what Paula, no cop would have to even tell me to put a towel on my child’s back because that child would have been in my arms whilst I comforted and rocked him and held him whilst he died. Darlie didn’t even go near those kids, no comfort, nothing. Oh yeah we know she hollered “hold on honey” on the 911 call, she could have been talking to the dog for all we know.
Darlie’s nightshirt should be full of their blood, the front of it where she comforted them and held them and kissed them.
And please don’t reply that in the shock of the moment or that Darile was confused.
Darlie was nothing that night but a cold blooded killer.
May 11th, 2011 at 9:40 am
Cami said: “Oh don’t most theieve just put jewellry in their pockets?”
Not if they’re scaling a six-foot fence, they don’t. It could drop out!
Much safer to put it in a sock that you must carry while scaling the six-foot fence.
Sheesh, don’t you know anything ;)
LOL Mary was he carrying it in his teeth?
My but Paula’s friends have extraordinary powers Mary wouldn’t you say. One of them can scale a 10 metre pipe ( so can spiderman), and another of them can jump a 2-4 metre high fence without leaving a mark.
May 11th, 2011 at 9:40 am
Flora Says:
May 9th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
“I have made it plain in my posts that I have already formed the opinion that the police didn’t do a thorough job or follow up obvious leads, which has left too many unanswered questions, and I don’t respect the way they handled the case.”
And you formed that opinion without ever reading the trial transcript.
Amazing.
When will you folks realize that those who HAVE read the testimony, it takes all of about 5 minutes to spot those who haven’t?
More at : Darlie Routier Still Awaits Her Death Sentence Execution http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world/darlie-routier-still-awaits-her-death-sentence-execution_100209512.html#ixzz1M0V75j5D
May 11th, 2011 at 9:58 am
cami Says:
May 11th, 2011 at 9:40 am
“LOL Mary was he carrying it in his teeth?”
Certainly not! The sock containing the jewelry that wasn’t stolen was tucked between his toes.
That left him one free hand to scale the fence. Remember, he had shoes in the other hand.
I’m shocked that you can’t grasp the logic of this scenario, Cami.
P.S. How are you, dear friend? Gettin’ your “Darlie On” again, I see :)
May 11th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
1.
P.S. How are you, dear friend? Gettin’ your “Darlie On” again, I see :)
Yes, I’m terribly bored and feeling much better…..low blood pressure is no fun. Anyway I’m off those damn cigarettes once and for all!
How are you dear?
May 12th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Hi Cami - sorry I haven’t been back sooner, but I had other things to do. One thing was to start to read through more of the transcript, because I had only glanced through a few pages of that.
I haven’t read much of what’s here yet, but when I have more time, I will come back to answer you. In the meantime, sorry for the delay.
Yes - I had already realised that the police have not investigated this crime adequately, and that was obvious to me from the cursory glance I had through the court transcript.
May 12th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
[QUOTE FROM MARY]:
Can’t you just picture it?
Shoes in one hand, jewelry-filled sock in the other, scaling a six-foot fence.
Oh wait…you probably meant that the intruders took off their shoes BEFORE entering the house.
Damn, I can be so dense sometimes.
[UNQUOTE]
You said it, lol. However, I didn’t say it was likely that shoes might not have been worn in a house break-in - I just said it was not outwith the bounds of possibility. :0)
I did a search on the internet, and I found stories about - guess what?? Burglars who committed the crime wearing no shoes.
May 12th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
[QUOTE} And that’s what it was…..the hair belonged to a female police officer…secondary transfer.
[UNQUOTE]
Well, they said it belonged to a female police officer, but I have already noticed that what the police said in this case sometimes was more opinion than hard fact. However, let me assume that they had a hair root in this case, and got a full DNA profile from the hair to make a match with the police officer…
The fact that they can contaminate that screen, when it was a pretty important piece of evidence for their own case is a clear indication that they could also contaminate any other item, particularly a fairly innocuous kitchen item which could not have been used for slitting the screen.
With regard to “fabric” - I used the term loosely. Please insert the word “mesh” if that makes my meaning more clear.
May 12th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
[QUOTE]
What are the “obvious leads” they should have pursued?
Actually you don’t even know what the investigation consisted of….none of us do.
What about the case don’t you respect?
[UNQUOTE]
I have not read a great deal, as I said, but I will bundle a few of my initial observations together:
1. The police arrived when the little boy was still alive, and they did not ask the little boy if he say the attacker. According to the doctor who examined him on arrival at the hospital, his injuries would not have prevented him from communicating.
2. The Routiers had a neighbour who was a nurse, and the Routiers had tried to contact her to come to help. She was barred from entering by the police.
3. As far as I can gather, the paramedic team were initially barred from entering to give aid to the victims.
4. The policeman who gave evidence at the trial was trained in CPR, correctly described Darlie as hysterical, meaning that she was displaying overwhelming emotion, but he did not attempt to assist the child who was dying.
5. According to people who have written on this thread, the police said that the use of Luminol had shown that extensive areas in the kitchen had been wiped down of blood. Luminol is known to be a poor indicator of blood in forensic findings in a kitchen because Luminol also shows up certain bleaches, so if someone has cleaned their kitchen using bleach, it will not be possible to tell the difference between areas of blood and areas of bleach. If they presented Luminol findings in court as “evidence”, then they were misleading and confusing not only to the judge and jury, but also to the person accused of the crime and her family.
6. There were reports of crimes in the neighbourhood which bore similarities and I do not think that these similarities were adequately investigated.
7. There were a number of reports of a car being seen in the neighbourhood, including one outside the house at the time of the crime, which was in the early hours of the morning, when traffic flow would have been sparse. These do not appear to have been followed up.
8. The issue of motive for the crime was not really adequately established or proven.
These are only some of my immediate observations, and ones I can remember off the top of my head, as it were. No doubt as I read further, more issues will present themselves.
May 12th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
The fact that they can contaminate that screen, when it was a pretty important piece of evidence for their own case is a clear indication that they could also contaminate any other item, particularly a fairly innocuous kitchen item which could not have been used for slitting the screen.
WEll Paula, the defence never claimed the CS was contaminated.
Darlie told the cops there was a killer in her garage….they had to secure the scene before anything else. Remember that’s how they do it in the US.
Yes read Charles Linch’s testimony on the screen, please.
Good for you on your google search. You can be assured though that no barefoot burglars entered the Routier home.
That actually was a rapist in Dallas….he went barefoot and wore socks on his hands. No where near Rowlette and not the same type of crime.
Sheesh you could tell by a cursory glance at the transcripts the police didn’t adequately investigate the crime? Come on you’re winding us up aren’t you? Are you a Barrister or a Judge or do you have an uncanny legal mind? Well anyway Darlie lost that appeal.
Paula, Darlie has lost all her appeals so far on all this so called contaminated evidence so really all this posting is redundant.
All that’s left is the dna tests she was granted by the federal court. Of course Paula, you know imo they won’t help her.
Take care and have a good day.
May 12th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
[QUOTE]
Be sure to read the doctors and the paramedics who treated Darlie. Darlie hersef says she never lost consciousness so no reason for her not to remember what happened that night.
[UNQUOTE]
If one is unconscious, there will probably be no memory of the period of time during which one is unconscious.
May 12th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
1. A traumatized child gasping for breath…sure he’s going to tell the cop “mummy did it.”
2. Yep, supposedly a knife-weilding intruder in the garage who’s slaughtered two boys and cut their mother…SECURE THE SCENE…standard operating procedure.
3. The same for the paramedics.
4. Why don’t you read all the testimony? Or do you just pick out the stuff you like? ONCE AGAIN, SECURE THE SCENE…jeesh.
5. The is absolute nonsense. Luminol is used world wide. Yes, bleach floreses under luminol but it’s cursory, it fades right away whilst blood does not. It stays strong and blue.
6. Not true….those crimes happened in Dallas-12 miles from Rowlette and were committed by an African American.
7. Yes there were lots of black cars…but a black car can’t commit a crime. No one ever reported a “suspicious” black car, no one called the cops, no one told Darin, etc. etc. etc. Funny, the neighbour across the street who had just returned home from work didn’t see any black car parked or speeding away from the Routier house.
Please tell what would there be in a black car to find? Everything was left at the CS..the murder weapon,etc.
8. Never, ever does a DA, nor does the Crown, ever have to prove a motive. They don’t know why people kill anymore than we do.
May 12th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
[QUOTE]
FLORA SAID: “I don’t know really know enough about the wiped down surfaces to comment, but I don’t think it would be possible for the police to work out how much blood had been washed down the drain. Any statements which implied the opposite are misleading.”
CAMI REPLIED: WEll no the cops wouldn’t know, but the Serologists who examined the sink and the sink traps would.
[END QUOTE]
For police in my statement above, please susbstitute “Serologists”. Sink traps and sinks will not yield data which will enable a calculation of the amount of blood which has been washed down a sink.
May 12th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Excuse the misprint. My last post should have read:
For police in my statement above, please substitute “Serologists”. Sink traps and sinks will not yield data which will enable a calculation of the amount of blood which has been washed down a sink.
May 12th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
You didn’t get that list by a cursory glance at the transcripts. Why can’t you tell the truth?
I’ve been nothing but honest with you from day one.
Regardless, all of that is redundant now, she didn’t win any appeals as yet and she won’t, IMO.
May 12th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Why don’t you read the testimony instead of guessing on your own? No one said the measured how much blood was washed down the sink.
What I said was there was A LOT OF BLOOD WASHED DOWN THE SINK AND CLEANED UP FROM THE COUNTERS.
May 12th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
[QUOTE]
FLORA SAID:
“In my opinion, this is not possible, given the depth of the wounds. The knife would have slipped and cut the sock and the pattern of spots on the sock is not consistent with that theory.”
CAMI SAID: “Well it’s possible in my opinion so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
What blood pattern is there on the sock, please that is inconsistant with that theory?”
[END QUOTE]
If a knife is used to pierce someone then you’ll get a spray, a spurt, or an overflow, etc.. You are not going to get tidy round drops. Round, clean drops like that are more likely to have occurred in the same way as they are described: i.e. “drops” which have dropped or dripped.
The sock is unlikely to have been worn, because it would be difficult to remove a stretchy sock without smudging the spots. There’s what appears to me to be a smudged fingerprint on it too. I have only seen one side of the sock, and don’t know what is on the other side. Were there any other marks on the sock apart from 2 spots and one smudge on one side?
May 12th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
If one is unconscious, there will probably be no memory of the period of time during which one is unconscious.
LOL, now you’re a doctor. Yeah Yeah everyone knows that Flora, we’re not babes in the woods here. Everyone knows you don’t remember after a head injury. Well Darlie had no head injury.
You can be assured Flora, Darlie did not lose consciousness that night.
Darlie was oriented to time and place, she wasn’t in shock, her vitals were normal at Baylor….
Okay so now you’re going to try and show you know more than the doctors who treated her.
May 12th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
[QUOTE]
“I believe that the fingerprint owner has not been absolutely established. Presumably it could not have been Darlie’s, because the footprints leading to it would have been a give-away, since her tracks are clearly visible, due to her blood-loss.”
LOL, why couldn’t it be Darlie’s? Her blood is dripped all over the utility room, on the floor, on the appliances yet she swears she never went further than the door so how did her blood get in the room? Plus you have the killer washing up at the kitchen sink so it can’t be his bloody fingerprint.
“Did they do any tests to find out whose blood the fingerprint was?”
Of course they did, the blood is Darlie’s as the majority of the blood in the house.
[END QUOTE]
Let’s get real here. If the police could possibly have made any argument whatsoever to suggest that that fingerprint was Darlie’s, then they’d have presented it as evidence that she left the house to slash the screen. So that tells me that it could not have even arguably been Darlie’s.
However, if they were unable to identify the fingerprint, then they could have presented it as evidence along with the pattern of her footprints. From what I have read in posts here, they appear to have tried to reconstruct her every move, so if they couldn’t factor in that fingerprint, then it is because it didn’t fit with the evidence of Darlie’s movements around the rooms.
May 12th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
[QUOTE]
I’ve got my son’s Henkel Troken serrated (he’s a cook) here, I just put it up to my window screen. It very easily could go through the screen.
[END QUOTE]
I believe that the knife in question was a bread knife in an ordinary kitchen. A serrated cook’s knife will have a sharp tip, suitable for piercing and cutting meat, etc. Bread knife tips are usually blunt, unless someone has sharpened them specially for a specific purpose. If you have an ordinary bread knife, and a screen to spare, then feel free to have a shot.
May 12th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
[QUOTE]
FLORA SAID:
“What was meant by mulch, and was there a photograph of it?”
CAMI SAID:
“..States 13, A,B & C which show the exit window with the concrete underneath it, the mulch beside it and the fence and gate”.
FLORA SAID
“Do they mean bark chips?”
CAMI SAID:
“Nope, it’s not bark, it’s mulch. There are probably a qazzilion types of mulch”.
[END QUOTE]
Is it possible for me to view these state exhibit photographs online? Could you give me the link, if possible, please.
May 12th, 2011 at 8:03 pm
[QUOTE]
FLORA SAYS:
“I saw the slashed window, a slabbed patio and grass. I didn’t see a walkway coming off that, so I agree we were looking at photographs taken at a different angle. Can you post the link to the photo you are seeing please?”
CAMI SAYS:
“Sorry, I can’t, I don’t have a link, I am looking at the CS photos in MTJD.”
[END QUOTE]
What is MTJD, and are you able to explain how can I see those photographs? So far, I have seen no mulch in either of the two photographs I have seen.
Can you find me an image file of the type of mulch which was described, if that is not too much trouble, please.
[QUOTE]
Okay we’ll agree the patio starts under the exit window. One walkway starts at that overturned chair.
Where did you and Pam find the “quote” I can’t find it.
[UNQUOTE]
I am sorry but I am not sure what you mean now, because I have forgotten my original question or statement.
[QUOTE]
A black car was stopped and the occupants made to get out whilst the cops searched them and the car.
[UNQUOTE]
I see. Thanks for that answer. Where did you get that piece of information? I didn’t read it in the trial transcript, although I haven’t read through the whole thing yet.
May 12th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Let’s get real here. If the police could possibly have made any argument whatsoever to suggest that that fingerprint was Darlie’s, then they’d have presented it as evidence that she left the house to slash the screen. So that tells me that it could not have even arguably been Darlie’s.
Okay as real as can be. Both prints are partial prints in blood, they are unidentifiable. You only have to read Cron’s testimony on the prints to understand. One is smudged on a glass table. The print is small and certainly would not match the over 6ft, 200 lb man Darlie described. Even her expert (Jantz) gave the prints a 60% chance of being an adult woman.
Darlie’s camp makes more of these prints than they are. They absolutely swear they can’t be Darlie’s when no State expert has ruled her out..only her own defence. They couldn’t be anyone else but Darlie’s prints don’t you see. Her blood leads up to the one on the door and past the door into the utility room. The other print is clear across the other side of the house on a glass table….the only blood trail between these two prints is Darlie’s.. Don’t you see Paula, if the intruder had that much blood on him why isn’t any dripped in the garage or anywhere past it?
May 12th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
This will probably be my last reply as I am out of time..
[QUOTE]
“Perhaps that was yours? According to the police, they matched it to a policewoman who wasn’t there (ahem), so it might just as conceivably have been yours. “Beam me up Scotty” and all that.”
So Paula what does all this mean…”ahem”. You don’t believe in the concept of transfer?
[UNQUOTE]
lol.. well I was having a laugh after you said that not one hair had been found.
[QUOTE]
Are you accusing the cops of something?
[UNQUOTE]
Hmmmmmmm.. let’s see.. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that I was accusing them of anything.. just that the implication might be there… lol.
Many thanks for your time, and the information you’re sharing, Cami. I will probably not be able to post any more today.
May 12th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
“I believe that the knife in question was a bread knife in an ordinary kitchen. A serrated cook’s knife will have a sharp tip, suitable for piercing and cutting meat, etc. Bread knife tips are usually blunt, unless someone has sharpened them specially for a specific purpose. If you have an ordinary bread knife, and a screen to spare, then feel free to have a shot.”
Well that’s where you’re wrong. The knife in question is a large, stainless steel serrated knife….in the butcher block on the counter with the rest of the knives.
May 12th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
A black car was stopped and the occupants made to get out whilst the cops searched them and the car.
[UNQUOTE]
I see. Thanks for that answer. Where did you get that piece of information? I didn’t read it in the trial transcript, although I haven’t read through the whole thing yet.
Yes, I did get that information from the trial transcript.
May 12th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
[UNQUOTE]
lol.. well I was having a laugh after you said that not one hair had been found.
[QUOTE]
LOL, you can have a laugh at me but since you don’t know much about evidence maybe that laugh might be turned around.
Not one hair was found where they should have been found…on the boys and on Darlie..get it. Darlie at least should have some dna from the intruder on her shouldn’t she Paula? A hair grabbed or a piece of skin. No intruder hair found on the couch she was allegedly sleeping on. No intruder hair found on the boys.
Darn that intruder eh?
May 12th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Hmmmmmmm.. let’s see.. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that I was accusing them of anything.. just that the implication might be there… lol.
Yeah well if you could implicate them you would. It might surprise you to know the integrity of this crime scene is taught in other jurisdictions.
May 12th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
A serrated cook’s knife will have a sharp tip, suitable for piercing and cutting meat, etc. Bread knife tips are usually blunt, unless someone has sharpened them specially
Well I guess it’s my turn now to have a laugh.
Are you a cook? A chef? A cook will not use a serrated knife to pierce or cut meat, LOL, they use a chef’s knife…big difference.
A serrated bread knife can easily cut a mesh screen, LOL. Why don’t you read Linch’s testimony if you don’t believe me.
My ex-husband is a chef and my son a sous-chef. I have had on occasion purchased knives for them. I think I know what I am talking about.
May 12th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Hi Roger, thanks very much for the observation. I do feel a bit under fire here, especially since I am very much a newb and relatively uninformed as to the ins and outs of the case. I haven’t formed very many opinions yet, but in the end it isn’t a bad thing in the end to be challenged, and it is certainly good to have the knowledge and expertise of the people here to keep me right. Have a good day, Roger, and thanks.
May 12th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Cami - I did say that was my last post, but as it posted I caught sight of your last post, and I simply cannot resist in answering it.
I could not find the maker which you mentioned on the internet, but the nearest I could find is Henckel. I found an image of a set of steak knives for you:
http://www.target.com/gp/detail.html/187-9801468-3991533?asin=B00023C6L6&AFID=Nextag_df&LNM=|B00023C6L6&CPNG=kitchen&ci_src=9324560&ci_sku=B00023C6L6&ref=tgt_adv_XSN10001
I am not a butcher, or a chef, but I think I am correct in saying that steak is a cut of beef, which is meat. Or are you going to split more hairs on terminology here? ]
This is my last post for today.
May 12th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
See this site: Chef’s Knives Online for more serrated knives for meat:
http://www.chefsknivesonline.com/kbase/Chefs_Knives/types_of_chefs_knives.html
The description is as follows:
“Serrated slicers are used for beef, lamb, pork, poultry, whilst plain slicers are used with ham and fish. Those slicers with a scalloped edge allow better meat separation and ensure a cleaner cut.”
May 12th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
Hi Flora,
I’m not by any means trying to start anything up here or accuse anyone of anything. After all, everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinions. I just think there are polite ways of going about taking a firm stance on something that you believe in. Smart -alec condescending remarks like I’ve read on here do nothing but fire up tempers. Not everyone is as well versed on the topic as others and there needs to be some patience involved. Getting frustrated at those that have not read the transcripts or have already formed an opinion due to having read the Darlie support sites is understandable as well. I just think people can be nice about suggesting to those of that group to read the transcripts…not insult them.
May 12th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
Of for gosh sakes….I know what steak knives look like silly. Are you suggesting the steak knife was used to cut the screen. Yes, it’s Henckel, I spelled it incorrectly. Most of the chefs I know use their products.
http://www.cutleryandmore.com/henckels.htm?src=Google&cam=Canada&sub=Henckels&kw=henckels%20knife&gclid=CLm3i9_X4qgCFQQbKgod73SvEA
Here you go here’s a link to what I am talking about.
And here’s a link to the bread knives I am talking about.
http://www.cutleryandmore.com/bread.htm
It was this knife used to cut the screen.
I think you are misunderstanding the difference between a serrated bread knife (photo above) and the serrations on a chef’s knife.
Q. Okay. Now, I want to draw your
6 attention to knife number 4; 67-H there in front of you.
7 Did you have an opportunity to examine knife number 4,
8 sir, in your laboratory?
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. What sort of examinations did you do
11 with knife number 4?
12 A. I looked first with the naked eye for
13 any hairs or fibers that might be on it. And then I put
14 this knife under the stereo microscope, that is like a
15 dissecting microscope, to look for material that was
16 within the serration grooves of this knife.
17 Q. Okay. Did you find anything within
18 the serrations themselves?
19 A. Yes, sir, I did.
20 Q. What did you find?
21 A. There were some fibrous debris and
22 some gray-type debris.
23 Q. All right. And that debris, when did
24 you find it? Do you remember the date that you actually
25 found it on knife number 4?
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2905
1 A. Well, the debris was found, or removed
2 from the blade and placed on a microscope slide. Now, my
3 appreciation of what was actually on the microscope slide
4 occurred slowly.
5 Q. Okay. And, did you then take
6 microscopic slides of what you had found on the knife
7 blade, State’s Exhibit 67-H, your knife number 4?
8 A. You mean did I take photographs of
9 what I found?
10 Q. Yes, sir.
11 A. Yes, sir, I did.
12
13
14 (Whereupon, the following
15 mentioned item was
16 marked for
17 identification only
18 after which time the
19 proceedings were
20 resumed on the record
21 in open court, as
22 follows:)
23
24 BY MR. GREG DAVIS:
25 Q. All right. Let me show you State’s
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2906
1 Exhibit No. 116, Mr. Linch. The top, left-hand
2 photograph, does that show the butcher block and knives
3 still in the butcher block as they appeared at the
4 residence on June 6th, 1996?
5 A. That’s right.
6 Q. The photograph right below that, is
7 that a photograph of State’s Exhibit 67-H, your knife
8 number 4 from the butcher block?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. Then do we have five photographs of
11 what you saw underneath the microscope when you looked at
12 what you had retrieved from knife number 4?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14
15 MR. GREG DAVIS: Your Honor, at this
16 time we will offer State’s Exhibit 116.
17 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
18 MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: No objection.
19 THE COURT: State’s Exhibit 116 is
20 admitted.
21
22 (Whereupon, the item
23 Heretofore mentioned
24 Was received in evidence
25 As State’s Exhibit No. 116
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2907
1 For all purposes,
2 After which time, the
3 Proceedings were resumed
4 As follows:)
5
6 BY MR. GREG DAVIS:
7 Q. Mr. Linch, again, the top left-hand
8 photograph, it is a little hard to see, but do we see a
9 butcher block with what appears to be eight knives with
10 black handles there?
11 A. That’s right.
12 Q. State’s Exhibit 67-H, is that shown
13 here in the photograph right below that?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. Okay. We now have five photographs
16 here on the right-hand side of the board. Can you just
17 tell us — let’s just start with the stop and go down.
18 You have an area here that has been highlighted in brown.
19 What is contained in that highlighted portion of that
20 photograph, sir?
21 A. May I step down?
22 Q. Yes, sir.
23
24 THE COURT: You may.
25
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2908
1 (Whereupon, the witness
2 Stepped down from the
3 Witness stand, and
4 Approached the jury rail
5 And the proceedings were
6 Resumed as follows:)
7
8 BY MR. GREG DAVIS:
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. On the right side of State’s Exhibit
11 116, there is a photograph at the top and within that
12 photograph is a brownish appearing insert. In the insert
13 is a glass rod or a piece of fiberglass. The other
14 insert shows what I term a rubber dust particle.
15 Q. Okay. Now, photographs underneath
16 that, so the darker brown is a fiberglass rod piece; is
17 that right?
18 A. That’s right.
19 Q. The lighter brown then shows a, what,
20 a kind of grayish black material; is that right?
21 A. Yes, sir.
22 Q. Both of these items were found on
23 State’s Exhibit 67-H knife, number 4; is that right?
24 A. That’s right.
25 Q. In the photograph underneath the
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2909
1 second photograph on the right, we have a dark brown area
2 highlighted. What do we see in that photograph?
3 A. That is a piece of glass debris that
4 is with, again, what I term the dust particle material,
5 rubber dust particle material.
6 Q. So both fiberglass and rubber dust
7 material is shown in the second photograph together; is
8 that right?
9 A. Well, I don’t know if it is
10 fiberglass, but it’s more of a glass dust than a glass
11 with any morphology or shape.
12 Q. The third photograph in the
13 highlighted area here, shown in the brown; what do we
14 see?
15 A. That is what appeared to be rubber
16 dust material with a fragment of glass.
17 Q. Okay. Fourth photograph in the
18 highlighted area; what do we see there?
19 A. That is a particle of what I identify
20 as rubber dust material.
21 Q. And finally, the bottom photograph,
22 the highlighted area; what do we see there?
23 A. That is a larger piece of this rubber
24 dust material that is, it is a little thicker than some
25 of these others. But in this photograph you can see the
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2910
1 pigment inclusions.
2 Pigment inclusions are consistent with
3 titanium dioxide. That is material that is used in
4 paints and rubbers to change the colors. If you add
5 titanium dioxide crystals to something that is black, it
6 will look a little grayer. And also within there there
7 are pigmentation that is consistent with carbon black.
8 Q. So, this board shows then what you
9 found on this knife blade under the microscope; is that
10 correct?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. Now, you had mentioned that you had
13 taken certain knives out of the butcher block and
14 actually done a test with a test screen; is that right?
15 A. That’s right.
16 Q. Okay. And, was that test screen
17 identical to the screen that Rowlett had produced for you
18 with the T-cut already in it?
19 A. It appeared to be.
20 Q. Okay. And when you cut that screen on
21 your test, sir, did you ever look under the microscope to
22 see what, if anything, had been deposited on your test
23 knife blade?
24 A. Yes, sir, I did.
25 Q. Okay. Did you find –
1 A. May I?
2 Q. Yes. Did you find anything on the
3 knife blade when you ran your test and tried to reproduce
4 this T-cut on another screen?
5 A. Well, the debris obtained on the test
6 cut knife blade was the same as the type of debris that I
7 found on that knife.
8 Q. Okay. Well, you said the same. First
9 of all, did you see any fiberglass rod material as shown
10 here on State’s Exhibit No. 116?
Here you go Paula, feel free to read the official version in the transcript.
May 12th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
“Slicer Knife:
These knives perform a similar function to that of a carving knife, however they are usually longer with a typical length of 30 cm to 35 cm (12 to 14 inches). Serrated slicers are used for beef, lamb, pork, poultry, whilst plain slicers are used with ham and fish. Those slicers with a scalloped edge allow better meat separation and ensure a cleaner cut.
Very sneaky of you Paula. Did you think I couldn’t follow the link to read the whole description.
Cooks Knife:
Also called the chefs knife this is the most commonly used knife in the kitchen. Each knife has been designed to perform well in a range of different kitchen tasks. Typically 15cm to 30cm (6 to 12 inches) it is usual that a chef will have a selection of differing lengths to perform differing tasks. The pointed tip can be used for precision work whilst the middle of the blade can be used for general cutting, chopping or slicing.
May 12th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
Mulch:
1 Q. Where is next place that you went to
2 then?
3 A. It wasn’t actually a specific area, it
4 was just the interior of the courtyard surrounded by the
5 white, wooden fence.
6 Q. And again, what are you looking for
7 then?
8 A. Signs of travelling through the mulch
9 that was in the areas where an intruder might have left
10 the window to the gate, I was looking for scuff marks on
11 the gate, to see if there were any signs of blood or
12 scuff marks, any signs of a person possibly scaling the
13 fence.
14 Q. Okay. If we look at State’s Exhibit
15 13-A and 13-B, do we see an area of mulch here?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. And, again, both these
18 photographs show the open window, do they not?
19 A. They do.
20 Q. Okay. Did you look in this area of
21 mulch for signs of disturbance?
22 A. I did.
23 Q. And again, what types of signs were
24 you looking for?
25 A. Well, that mulch I was looking for any
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2190
1 dampness or signs that feet were drug through the area,
2 or fast movement of a heavy object, to see if it traveled
3 through the mulch.
4 Q. Okay. Sir, when you looked at it, did
5 you see any sign of that?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Let me direct your attention down here
8 to State’s Exhibit 13-E. Do you see that area?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Is that another area of mulch in the
11 backyard?
12 A. It is.
13 Q. Okay. Did you look at that area,
14 also?
15 A. I did.
16 Q. Were you looking for the same things?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. Did you find any evidence that
19 that mulch had been disturbed?
20 A. No, I tested it to see if it could be
21 disturbed, and I could disturb it, but –
22 Q. How did you do that?
23 A. Two ways. One, I walked flat-footed,
24 very gently or easily across the mulch and nothing
25 happened. I then walked very fast across it and I
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2191
1 disturbed it, and I ran across it and I did disturb it,
2 and the dampness under the upper layer of mulch was then
3 exposed and was darker than the top layer, and it became
4 evident.
5 Then, I did bend down and take my hand
6 and just ruffle up the mulch, and it appeared dark
7 wherever I did disturb it.
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-34.php#4
May 12th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Paula: If you speak German, you can see the programme on the forensics on Youtube.
Other than that, the .net site has gallaries you can watch, you can pause the slide show to better see the photo.
I can’t rip my book to scan the photos, I am sure you understand.
Take care
May 13th, 2011 at 1:10 am
I meant to say not splitting hairs but we are not talking about professionals here, we’re talking about household knives.
The photos are just to describe the type of knives Darlie had in her kitchen.
May 13th, 2011 at 2:26 am
# Flora Says:
May 12th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
“I did a search on the internet, and I found stories about - guess what?? Burglars who committed the crime wearing no shoes.”
How many of those burglars broke into a house, butchered two sleeping boys, and didn’t take a thing?
Your fuzzy logic is starting to worry me.
May 14th, 2011 at 2:13 am
Wow… three days at the beach and the board goes crazy!
Roger says:
“I’ve been monitoring this conversation for some time now. All of you seem more intent on bickering, arguing, and picking on certain individuals than you do discussing the topic at hand.”
“I’m not by any means trying to start anything up here or accuse anyone of anything. After all, everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinions. I just think there are polite ways of going about taking a firm stance on something that you believe in
Smart -alec condescending remarks like I’ve read on here do nothing but fire up tempers. Not everyone is as well versed on the topic as others and there needs to be some patience involved. Getting frustrated at those that have not read the transcripts or have already formed an opinion due to having read the Darlie support sites is understandable as well. I just think people can be nice about suggesting to those of that group to read the transcripts…not insult them.”
Don’t worry about Flora. This is not her first rodeo. You can believe that she’s enjoying herself (as we all are) or she wouldn’t keep coming here day after day, post after post.
May 14th, 2011 at 4:01 am
Yep she certainly is. I don’t think you’ll see her back. She couldn’t convert anyone to the Darlie side so….
just my opinion
May 14th, 2011 at 7:43 am
What did you think of Princess Eugenie’s hat she wore to the Royal Wedding? LOL
And it’s on sale! Who’d buy it? Mickey Mouse maybe
May 14th, 2011 at 7:44 am
Welcome back Pam. I was wondering where you were. Out sunning on the beach eh. Whilst I’m still wearing my winter coat, LOL.
May 14th, 2011 at 8:33 am
Welcome back, Pam!
May 14th, 2011 at 8:39 am
cami Says:
May 14th, 2011 at 7:44 am
“Welcome back Pam. I was wondering where you were. Out sunning on the beach eh. Whilst I’m still wearing my winter coat, LOL.”
As I told you years ago, Cami, you live on a part of North America that was a mere afterthought in land formation.
I’ll send you a scarf. Or would you prefer a thermal bikini?
May 14th, 2011 at 8:42 am
cami Says:
May 14th, 2011 at 7:43 am
“What did you think of Princess Eugenie’s hat she wore to the Royal Wedding? LOL”
I screamed with fright. Seriously, I did.
And she has way too many teeth.
May 14th, 2011 at 11:13 am
Thanks, ladies. It’s nice to be back. ;)
May 14th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
LOL, those teeth, she got those from Andrew but where he’d get them.
Maybe it’s those old Hanoverian genes, probably a werewolf or two in the royal line
May 14th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
As I told you years ago, Cami, you live on a part of North America that was a mere afterthought in land formation.
I’ll send you a scarf. Or would you prefer a thermal bikini?
Yeah I think the man upstairs just kicked us unto Canada for fun.
LOL, could you see this fat old body in a bikini aaahahahahaha.
It’s that damn north wind….it’s cut you like a knife. Plus it’s been raining for weeks. All of a sudden we’ll get a nice sunny day and everything will explode with colour.
Last night there was one lonely loon on the lake (besides me) and he called all night..very sad.
Anyway it’s 8C today and no rain so it’s should be warm.
May 14th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Okay now I feel guilty complaining of cold with all that’s going on in Manitoba and down in the States. I live in the best place, LOL, might be cold but all we get is the occasional hurricane.
I had the most amazing conversation yesterday with a lady at the busstop…she was 91 years old and just as spry as could be..very intelligent.
May 14th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
I hadn’t seen Princess Eugenie’s hat until today…
http://www.metro.co.uk/showbiz/863204-duncan-bannatyne-bids-5-000-for-princess-beatrices-bizarre-hat
WOW…
May 19th, 2011 at 8:20 am
Where’s Paula? She must be off reading the transcripts.
May 19th, 2011 at 8:21 am
Whatever possessed her to wear such a hat! LOL I think Walt Disney designed it.
May 19th, 2011 at 8:33 am
I’m a little confused….Are Flora and Paula the same person??? I haven’t debated much on the site lately….well, all the real evidence is on Justice for Darlie, proving she convicted herself with her lies…she wiped down the sink, at the moment when their lives dwindled down to mere seconds, but she was more concerned with wiping down the sink and the counter around it. I haven’t jumped in the recent debate, for the reason from what I’ve gathered….why argue with someone who is firmly conviced of Darlie’s innocence, contrary to her comment she wasn’t really familiar with the case? I always heard never argue with a fool, since it puts you down to that level. LOL!!
May 19th, 2011 at 9:12 am
OH I’m sorry Gay, that’s me Cami, I mixed up the names, I don’t think they are the same person. I have cognitive problems and I usually get names wrong.
For me, it’s not arguing with someone who has a firm belief in Darlie’s innocence. But when they come here with lies that’s when I get involved to correct those lies as they are basing their opinion on those lies.
There’s a lot of information on http://www.websleuths.com, there is an active debate on Darlie there.
Look in Crime and Trials.
May 19th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
QUOTE FROM ROGER:
Hi Flora,
I’m not by any means trying to start anything up here or accuse anyone of anything. After all, everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinions. I just think there are polite ways of going about taking a firm stance on something that you believe in. Smart -alec condescending remarks like I’ve read on here do nothing but fire up tempers. Not everyone is as well versed on the topic as others and there needs to be some patience involved. Getting frustrated at those that have not read the transcripts or have already formed an opinion due to having read the Darlie support sites is understandable as well. I just think people can be nice about suggesting to those of that group to read the transcripts…not insult them.
[UNQUOTE]
I agree, Roger, and I think you are right. I find it really offensive to be called a liar and other stuff, and I do appreciate you clear-headedness.
May 19th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
Sorry I haven’t been able to post back to your replies, everyone. I haven’t had any time to visit here or to read any more of the transcripts. I am aware that without reading the transcripts I am just wasting your time, because I don’t know enough to give any answers. I posted here with questions, some of which have been answered. I will answer a few posts just now if I can but I probably need to spend more time going back to read the source documents before I can say a great deal.
May 19th, 2011 at 10:37 pm
Hi everyone,
I am sorry I haven’t had time to come back to read your posts in reply to mine. I am going to try to look at a few now, but I might not spend too much time here today, because I haven’t got much time to spare at the minute, and I’d quite like to read some more of the transcripts to learn a bit more about the case.
May 19th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
Sorry everyone, but my posts are not showing, so I won’t spend any time here just now, as I assume there’s a glitch in the site. I will try again later.
May 19th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
My posts suddenly appeared at once, so I’ll try another:
[QUOTE FROM CAMI]
Flora said: “The policeman who appears to have done nothing except stood around watching her cynically was trained in CPR and would have known what to do…. ”
You know Paula you are such a hoot.
This comes directly from Darlie supporters. Remember Mary, remember Eljefe who was so disgusted and upset that the cop just stood there and did nothing. (Or so he thought)
So now Paula is on the same beat. Even though she knows that the first priority of any police officer is to secure the scene, not to give CPR to little boys. And how does a cop or anyone for that matter “cynically” watch anything.
[UNQUOTE]
Wrong again, Cami, on all counts. The first priority of emergency services is preservation of life. There is always going to be contamination of evidence, and that is an accepted fact. Yes, it is important to preserve the crime scene, but a potential eye witness is a very good piece of evidence, so whichever way you look at it, trying to save the little boy’s life should have been the first priority. I find your attitude to be almost incredible. How can you possibly begin to condone the police in this matter. Whether or not Darlie Routier was guilty, that child should have been given the best possible assistance in order to try to save his life. This is a real person we are talking about, with his whole life ahead of him - even if both of his parents had deliberately conspired to kill him, especially so, in fact, he deserved the best possible protection and care given to saving his life, as a top priority. As far as cynicism goes, I think the police are more likely than anyone else to be cynical. They have seen far more to make them so. I got the impression of his cynicism from hearing a short interview with him on a programme I watched - which, incidentally, was not particularly pro Darlie Routier.
[QUOTE]
No the police officer claims he waited for backup so he could check out the garage where Darlie told him the intruder was.
[UNQUOTE]
Totally pathetic. What an utter disgrace.
[QUOTE]
You know what Paula, no cop would have to even tell me to put a towel on my child’s back because that child would have been in my arms whilst I comforted and rocked him and held him whilst he died. Darlie didn’t even go near those kids, no comfort, nothing. Oh yeah we know she hollered “hold on honey” on the 911 call, she could have been talking to the dog for all we know.
Darlie’s nightshirt should be full of their blood, the front of it where she comforted them and held them and kissed them.
And please don’t reply that in the shock of the moment or that Darile was confused.
Darlie was nothing that night but a cold blooded killer.
[UNQUOTE]
We are talking about the police in this instance. Stop dodging the issue with more claims about my credibility. Given that you cannot even manage to get my name right, I am not surprised that you have a hard time comprehending my ability to make some intelligent observations. I am also not surprised to hear that other people have the ability to make similar, rudimentary observations about certain glaring inadequacies of the police in this case.
Cradling a child is not going to help him, and in fact it could have killed him, depending on what internal injuries he might have had. In the same position, I most certainly would not have attempted to move him, and I too would have been on the phone urging the emergency services to get a move on. I was actually in a situation when a small child in my family almost died. There were two of us present. One grabbed him and started sobbing, and I took different action, never touched him or cried, and I saved his life. If I had not been there, he’d have died, cradled in the arms of my sobbing relative. As to how you would react if something happened to your child, just pray to God that you never find out. I have witnessed enough deaths and life-threatening situations to know that everyone has a different reaction, both to death itself, and to the aftermath of a traumatic and sudden death. Often the very people you’d imagine would be the most deeply affected sail through it without shedding a tear, while others who barely knew the deceased can be overwhelmed with grief.
May 19th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
[QUOTE BY CAMI]
WEll Paula, the defence never claimed the CS was contaminated.
[UNQUOTE]
I didn’t say that they did, however you will never get a perfect uncontaminated crime scene, particularly not with the type of policemen who claim that the reason for scuff marks on a gate was that the police kicked it open.
[QUOTE]
Darlie told the cops there was a killer in her garage….they had to secure the scene before anything else. Remember that’s how they do it in the US.
[UNQUOTE
Is it? They leave potential witnesses bleeding to death while they secure the crime scene? I don't think that's how they do it in the US. Maybe that's how they do it in Rowlett, Texas - I don't know - but I doubt if they'd get off with it anywhere else.
[QUOTE]
Yes read Charles Linch’s testimony on the screen, please.
[UNQUOTE]
I need to read a lot more, and also re-read stuff, because I have just scanned over things once and got a bare impression.
[QUOTE]
Good for you on your google search. You can be assured though that no barefoot burglars entered the Routier home.
That actually was a rapist in Dallas….he went barefoot and wore socks on his hands. No where near Rowlette and not the same type of crime.
[UNQUOTE]
Did he ever use a knife? Could this have been a copy-cat attempt?
[QUOTE]
Paula, Darlie has lost all her appeals so far on all this so called contaminated evidence so really all this posting is redundant.
[UNQUOTE]
I don’t know anything about the law system of the appeal in the states. Where I live, the appeals only deal with new evidence or points of law, so any short-comings about the original trial/evidence/prosecution/defense cannot be revisited without a retrial.
[QUOTE]
All that’s left is the dna tests she was granted by the federal court. Of course Paula, you know imo they won’t help her.
[UNQUOTE]
I haven’t read a great deal about it, but it does seem unlikely, if the original tests were adequately conducted. I think if anything is going to cast more light, it would be that bloody smudge on that sock, but I know nothing about this case, as I said, so I am not the best judge of this matter.
May 20th, 2011 at 12:44 am
First of all let me apologize for calling you Paula, I don’t know where I got that!
“Wrong again, Cami, on all counts. The first priority of emergency services is preservation of life.”
The police officer is not an emergency service provider…he’s an officer of the law and his first priority is to secure the crime scene.
I think maybe you misunderstand what I mean by that…..the officer cannot lay his gun down and give treatment to the injured child, I know it sounds callous but he/she would be direlect in their duties if they did. Darlie has told him there is a killer in her garage. The first priority for the officer is to catch that killer and to protect the family. What if he laid down his gun and treated Damon? The intruder gets away or he comes back in and stabs Darlie to death. That officer is off the police force right away. As soon as he was positive no one else was in the house..the paramedics came right in to treat the children.
“There is always going to be contamination of evidence, and that is an accepted fact. ”
Yes absolutely the victims are the first to contaminate the crime scene, then the cops, paramedics, etc.
“Yes, it is important to preserve the crime scene, but a potential eye witness is a very good piece of evidence, so whichever way you look at it, trying to save the little boy’s life should have been the first priority. I find your attitude to be almost incredible. How can you possibly begin to condone the police in this matter. Whether or not Darlie Routier was guilty, that child should have been given the best possible assistance in order to try to save his life.”
He was given the best and available treatment to save his life….by the paramedics, not the cops as noted above. Why aren’t you asking yourself why didn’t his mother help him? She stood there ignoring the cop when he told her two or three times to get a towel and lay it on Damon’s back. Or Darin, why was he giving CPR to a dead child whilst they other lay there gasping for breath?
This is a real person we are talking about, with his whole life ahead of him - even if both of his parents had deliberately conspired to kill him, especially so, in fact, he deserved the best possible protection and care given to saving his life, as a top priority.
True, his mother could have been the first one to help him but since she killed him, she didn’t want to go anywhere near him. Damon was given the best treatment possible by the paramedic. His testimony is on line. So is the fact that he was so disturbed by the scene he had to seek counselling for an extended period of time.
As far as cynicism goes, I think the police are more likely than anyone else to be cynical. They have seen far more to make them so. I got the impression of his cynicism from hearing a short interview with him on a programme I watched - which, incidentally, was not particularly pro Darlie Routier.
Yes, well they see it all don’t they and when we all are asleep in our warm beds. I couldn’t be a cop, I don’t think…well too old now anyway, LOL.
May 20th, 2011 at 12:49 am
“I haven’t read a great deal about it, but it does seem unlikely, if the original tests were adequately conducted. I think if anything is going to cast more light, it would be that bloody smudge on that sock, but I know nothing about this case, as I said, so I am not the best judge of this matter.”
The blood on the sock has already been identified by dna for the original trial.
Three spots are pure Devon. The other two spots are Damon/Devon mixed. Darlie’s dna was found in the toe of the sock…from shed skin cells.
So no I don’t think the sock helps her, it’s already been subjected to dna tests and everything goes back to the Routiers. Darin claimed the sock as his and fibres on the sock matched his running shoes.
All of this is in trial testimony so it’s not my opinion it’s the facts.
May 20th, 2011 at 12:51 am
Is it? They leave potential witnesses bleeding to death while they secure the crime scene? I don’t think that’s how they do it in the US. Maybe that’s how they do it in Rowlett, Texas - I don’t know - but I doubt if they’d get off with it anywhere else.
Yeah they do as callous as it sounds but I already explained it in another post. Since you google look up police procedure.
May 20th, 2011 at 1:08 am
We are talking about the police in this instance. Stop dodging the issue with more claims about my credibility. Given that you cannot even manage to get my name right, I am not surprised that you have a hard time comprehending my ability to make some intelligent observations. I am also not surprised to hear that other people have the ability to make similar, rudimentary observations about certain glaring inadequacies of the police in this case.
I didn’t dodge your issue at all, I told you the cops first priority is to secure the crime scene.
I apologized for getting your name wrong. I didn’t say you weren’t intelligent. I said you are basing your opinions on the lies and spin from the Routier camp. I’m sorry that you don’t seem to understand me…it’s police procedure.
Everything I have posted is not my opinion, it is facts of the case. It’s all in the trial transcripts. Once you get a chance to read them, you’ll see what I mean.
“Did he ever use a knife? Could this have been a copy-cat attempt?”
I don’t know, what if he did? He was a rapist. He was African American and he was caught and his crimes were limited to Dallas..12 miles away from Rowlett
Doesn’t seem to be any evidence it was a copy-cat murder. But that’s just my opinion.
“I don’t know anything about the law system of the appeal in the states. Where I live, the appeals only deal with new evidence or points of law, so any short-comings about the originaltrial/evidence/prosecution/defense cannot be revisited without a retrial.
[QUOTE]
Everyone sentenced to death in the US gets an automatic appeal. First there are state appeals, then federal appeals, if all those fail, then they appeal to the Governor for mercy. The Governor always refuses to commute so then the execution date is set.
Darlie has failed all her state appeals…did she have a fair trial, were her rights infringed on….all those appeals are finished.
The Federal court granted her a stay and the right to have further dna tests on some of the evidence and the fingerprints can be run through the AFIS system although they are only partials.
It happens the same way in the US. If she wins an appeal, she gets a new trial but the burden of proof is on her to prove she is innocent with new evidence before she is granted that trial. In 15 years no evidence has surfaced to support her claim of an intruder.
May 20th, 2011 at 1:15 am
OH I forgot, if Darlie should somehow get that new trial and win, she’ll be rearrested on Devon’s murder
May 20th, 2011 at 1:17 am
[QUOTE]
1. A traumatized child gasping for breath…sure he’s going to tell the cop “mummy did it.”
[UNQUOTE]
He was six years old, and could and should have been asked, particularly when the police were present and noting certain behaviour in the mother which they felt was inconsistent with an intruder attack.
[QUOTE]
2. Yep, supposedly a knife-wielding intruder in the garage who’s slaughtered two boys and cut their mother…SECURE THE SCENE…standard operating procedure.
3. The same for the paramedics.
[UNQUOTE]
This was an emergency call about an intruder with a knife. Are you suggesting that a lone policeman showed up, entered the house, then decided that he couldn’t enter the garage without backup? That does not make sense. Either he was unable to enter the house or garage until back-up arrived, or he was able to enter both the house and the garage. I know nothing about policing in the States, but where I live, the police work in pairs. Furthermore, if he had believed there was a real threat, he’d have evacuated the house and got the family out.
[QUOTE]
4. Why don’t you read all the testimony? Or do you just pick out the stuff you like? ONCE AGAIN, SECURE THE SCENE…jeesh.
[UNQUOTE]
I have explained that I haven’t had time to read all the transcript material. However, you are asking me questions, so out of courtesy I am giving you answers which pertain to those questions you asked, backing up my answers with parts of the testimony I remember - there is nothing wrong with that.
[QUOTE]
5. The is absolute nonsense. Luminol is used world wide. Yes, bleach floreses under luminol but it’s cursory, it fades right away whilst blood does not. It stays strong and blue.
[UNQUOTE]
Where did you get this information? It is not correct. Even just taking the most basic science, Luminol shows up metal, and basic metal doesn’t “fade right away”. This issue is more complex than you seem to be aware.
[QUOTE]
6. Not true….those crimes happened in Dallas-12 miles from Rowlette and were committed by an African American.
[UNQUOTE]
What is not true? You are agreeing that crimes happened, and twelve miles is nothing to anyone who has a car. It is interesting that you say that they were committed by an African American, because one of those people who saw a black car in the alley on an afternoon said that two people were in it, and one of them was black. However, I am not sure if those crimes were the same as the ones I was referring to. I was referring to attempted break-ins and robberies. In the case of one robbery, the culprit had not been identified, by the time of the writing of the article I was reading.
[QUOTE]
7. Yes there were lots of black cars…but a black car can’t commit a crime. No one ever reported a “suspicious” black car, no one called the cops, no one told Darin, etc. etc. etc. Funny, the neighbour across the street who had just returned home from work didn’t see any black car parked or speeding away from the Routier house.
[UNQUOTE] People did report a suspicious black car. I have already given you quotes from the statement by a policeman who said that people had reported black cars. Furthermore, I have read the testimony of a maid who said that she saw a black car in the alley, felt it was suspicious, and pointed it out to her daughter, who testified in the trial that she remembered the incident. The failure to follow up these reports was negligent.
[QUOTE]
Please tell what would there be in a black car to find? Everything was left at the CS..the murder weapon,etc.
[UNQUOTE]
Really? And how were they supposed to know that so early in this case? Do I need to spell this out for you? For one thing, a moving vehicle would have a driver and possibly passengers. They might be suspects or witnesses, but all these reports should most certainly have been taken seriously and an effort should have been made to trace them.
It is important to cover all possibilities and to investigate any possible leads. As far as “everything” being left at the scene, the police cannot possibly know that at an early stage of an enquiry. They might form opinions, but no-one is infallible. It is a very arrogant man indeed who thinks he knows everything and cannot be wrong.
[QUOTE]
8. Never, ever does a DA, nor does the Crown, ever have to prove a motive. They don’t know why people kill anymore than we do.
[UNQUOTE]
Of course they do not need to prove a motive, but they can advance a feasible theory as to what the motive might have been, which they do not appear to have done in this case.
May 20th, 2011 at 1:25 am
QUOTE FROM CAMI:
What I said was there was A LOT OF BLOOD WASHED DOWN THE SINK…
[UNQUOTE]
And I repeat that they cannot tell how much blood was washed down the sink from the u-bend or the drain, ergo they could not say if there was a lot or a little.
May 20th, 2011 at 1:50 am
And I repeat that they cannot tell how much blood was washed down the sink from the u-bend or the drain, ergo they could not say if there was a lot or a little.
Whatever, I’m not a crime scene analyst so I don’t know if you are right or not. If there was an intruder, there shouldn’t be any blood washed down the kitchen sink or wiped from the counter.
May 20th, 2011 at 2:05 am
[QUOTE FROM CAMI]
Everyone knows you don’t remember after a head injury. Well Darlie had no head injury.
You can be assured Flora, Darlie did not lose consciousness that night.
Darlie was oriented to time and place, she wasn’t in shock, her vitals were normal at Baylor….
Okay so now you’re going to try and show you know more than the doctors who treated her.
[UNQUOTE]
A head wound is not the only reason for amnesia. A traumatic incident is a very common cause of amnesia. This is common knowledge, but a medic would not diagnose this, because it is a psychological phenomena, so a psychologist would be required to assess that. Medical training is primarily based on anatomy. When I suggested that it was conceivable that Darlie lost consciousness, it was because she described awaking, as if from a sleep, which gives the impression that she was lying down. It is, however, possible that in the event of amnesia following a traumatic event, initial recollections might be vague or unreliable. Take a look at the Wikipedia entry for psychogenic amnesia for more information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychogenic_amnesia
May 20th, 2011 at 2:06 am
Where did you get this information? It is not correct. Even just taking the most basic science, Luminol shows up metal, and basic metal doesn’t “fade right away”. This issue is more complex than you seem to be aware.
Really!
I believe I saw it on a British Forensics programme. F2 I think it was.
I know that, so far I know that luminol reacts to the iron in hemoglobin and iron compounds. It also reacts to copper and copper compounds, horseraddish and bleach. Whilst it’s not the only forensics tool used at a crime scene it’s still a good one and still used world wide. In fact they often used amido black and another one I can’t think of.
I think the point for me is why would anyone use that much bleach on their counters and in the sink. And in this case why would there be so much blood cleaned up..by an intruder? Darlie doesn’t say anything about the sink in her verbal and then later her written statements. She said she followed him to the garage.
May 20th, 2011 at 2:12 am
Of course they do not need to prove a motive, but they can advance a feasible theory as to what the motive might have been, which they do not appear to have done in this case.
And that means nothing in the law.
The burden of proof always lies with the proscecutor but noone ever has to prove a motive. Since Darlie wouldn’t allow her defence to advance any mitigating factors, the prosecutor had to go with what he saw. You only have to delve into Darlie’s life before the crime to know there are mitigating factors that her defence attorney should have followed up on..her severe depression for one thing..her suicidal note for another…but she wouldn’t allow him to and she made it seem to the jury that she was just being silly when she wrote that note.
May 20th, 2011 at 2:12 am
QUOTE FROM CAMI:
“They couldn’t be anyone else but Darlie’s prints don’t you see. Her blood leads up to the one on the door and past the door into the utility room. The other print is clear across the other side of the house on a glass table….the only blood trail between these two prints is Darlie’s.. Don’t you see Paula, if the intruder had that much blood on him why isn’t any dripped in the garage or anywhere past it?”
[UNQUOTE]
So you’re saying that Darlie’s footprints lead directly to both of these fingerprints and back again? Or did they only go in one direction? What I am wondering is why these footprints were not factored into the prosecution case? The big man himself said he misses nothing, so surely he cannot have overlooked the huge smear I saw on that door.
May 20th, 2011 at 2:16 am
He was six years old, and could and should have been asked, particularly when the police were present and noting certain behaviour in the mother which they felt was inconsistent with an intruder attack.
Maybe you should read his autopsy results, you might change your mind.
With knife wounds in his lungs, it was almost impossible that he could talk, he might have made some sounds but he wouldn’t be talking. He was drowning in his own blood.
I do believe you can hear the police officer on the 911 tape asking “who did this.”
May 20th, 2011 at 2:22 am
Please can I make a suggestion.. I wait for at least a day before coming to respond to any messages.. If Cami or anyone else would wait until I have posted my batch of responses, then the discussion would not be so garbled. No sooner do I start to respond than someone comes leaping in and cross-posting. Can I suggest that you wait until I have finished my answers to your previous posts, then post your own, because I am missing posts and not seeing them until later. I am hoping that I will be able to go back to respond to any which I have missed, so please do not be offended if I have inadvertently missed any posts. If I found a post to be offensive because it accused me of lying, then I stated that at the time, and otherwise, I am intending to answer anyone who responded to my posts, if I can find the time.
May 20th, 2011 at 2:26 am
QUOTE FROM CAMI:
“I believe that the knife in question was a bread knife in an ordinary kitchen.”
Well that’s where you’re wrong. The knife in question is a large, stainless steel serrated knife….in the butcher block on the counter with the rest of the knives.
[UNQUOTE]
Cami - a bread knife is a large stainless steel serrated knife. The storage options do not change what a bread knife is.
May 20th, 2011 at 2:26 am
So you’re saying that Darlie’s footprints lead directly to both of these fingerprints and back again? Or did they only go in one direction? What I am wondering is why these footprints were not factored into the prosecution case? The big man himself said he misses nothing, so surely he cannot have overlooked the huge smear I saw on that door.
I don’t understand who the “big man” is?
The only bloody foot prints are Darlie’s leading to the door and beyond. Darlie said she didn’t go past the utility room door, yet her blood is dripped everywhere in there. She said the intruder left through the garage door, so he wasn’t in the utility room. How did all her blood get in that room? She’s lying about going in there.
One bloody print is on the sofa back table in the family room, the other is on the utitly room door, the only blood in between these two prints is Darlie’s and the only footprints are Darlie’s. Darlie’s blood is dripped beyond the door in the utility room, that’s her print on the door. The prints are small..not from the over 6 ft, 200 lb intruder she described.
Of course the big man (whomever, I assume you mean Cron) saw the print and had it dusted right away.
If you can read here and challenge me with all those “googles” you have done, why can’t you read the transcripts? It’s easy, read Linch, Cron and Darlie and Darin, then make up your mind what the CS analysts did, what the cops did instead of insulting them and accusing them of crummy work.
May 20th, 2011 at 2:33 am
A head wound is not the only reason for amnesia. A traumatic incident is a very common cause of amnesia. This is common knowledge, but a medic would not diagnose this, because it is a psychological phenomena, so a psychologist would be required to assess that. Medical training is primarily based on anatomy. When I suggested that it was conceivable that Darlie lost consciousness, it was because she described awaking, as if from a sleep, which gives the impression that she was lying down. It is, however, possible that in the event of amnesia following a traumatic event, initial recollections might be vague or unreliable. Take a look at the Wikipedia entry for psychogenic amnesia for more information.
Oh know all about it, don’t have to read at Wiki. She also would not have had traumatic amnesia for this long even if she did have it. The doctor who testified on this said it’s possible she had some holes in her memory due to trama but her memory should have returned by then.
And I think we all know it’s normal to forget some things but once you get over the initial shock you start remembering.
It’s not like she was being abused daily like children who are molested. There was no reason for her amnesia if she had it to last this long.
I’m sorry to tell you this but Darlie lies and her describing “awakening” is just another one of her lies. She said her baby rolling in the cot kept her awake and that’s why she was sleeping downstairs yet she wants people to believe she slept through her boys and herself being stabbed….patently ridiculous.
May 20th, 2011 at 2:35 am
Cradling a child is not going to help him, and in fact it could have killed him, depending on what internal injuries he might have had. In the same position, I most certainly would not have attempted to move him, and I too would have been on the phone urging the emergency services to get a move on
Oh but it’s okay for the police officer to try and treat him in your opinion.
May 20th, 2011 at 2:38 am
People did report a suspicious black car. I have already given you quotes from the statement by a policeman who said that people had reported black cars. Furthermore, I have read the testimony of a maid who said that she saw a black car in the alley, felt it was suspicious, and pointed it out to her daughter, who testified in the trial that she remembered the incident. The failure to follow up these reports was negligent
Strange that you should read that. Anyway that was at trial. What are the cops supposed to do then?
Why didn’t any of these people call 911 or tell Darin and Darlie?
May 20th, 2011 at 2:45 am
This was an emergency call about an intruder with a knife. Are you suggesting that a lone policeman showed up, entered the house, then decided that he couldn’t enter the garage without backup?
Yes, thats exactly what I’m saying
That does not make sense. Either he was unable to enter the house or garage until back-up arrived, or he was able to enter both the house and the garage. I know nothing about policing in the States, but where I live, the police work in pairs. Furthermore, if he had believed there was a real threat, he’d have evacuated the house and got the family out.
[QUOTE]
Well that’s your opinion but that’s not what happened. It’s the dispatch that relays the facts as she knew them…intruder in the garage, two children and mother injured to the police over their radios. That’s what 911 does.
In fact, the polce officer stopped Darin, at gunpoint, on the front lawn thinking he was the intruder so it was Darin who first explained what happened in the house.
May 20th, 2011 at 2:47 am
“The failure to follow up these reports was negligent.”
How can the police follow up a black car when the neighbours didn’t take a licence number, didn’t know the make of the car or the model?
Are they supposed to stop every black car they see?
May 20th, 2011 at 2:55 am
“What is not true? You are agreeing that crimes happened, and twelve miles is nothing to anyone who has a car. It is interesting that you say that they were committed by an African American, because one of those people who saw a black car in the alley on an afternoon said that two people were in it, and one of them was black. However, I am not sure if those crimes were the same as the ones I was referring to. I was referring to attempted break-ins and robberies. In the case of one robbery, the culprit had not been identified, by the time of the writing of the article I was reading.
What’s not true is the rapist from Dallas who wore socks on his feet did not enter the Routier home and murder the two boys.
This has all been investigated by the way. You only have to read Darlie’s appeals. Judge Francis’ Final Decision.
Nothing was robbed or stolen from the Routier home.
I may be stupid but I don’t think burglars break in and just kill two sleeping kids and leave.
Besides that, there’s no physical evidence an intruder was in the home.
He allegedly came and went by the garage window yet the layer of dust on the sill was undisturbed. The garage is packed with items, a animaal carrier right in front the window and a large animal cage beside it. Yet this guy got in and out without making a sound or distrubing the dust..or leaving any blood anywhere outside the utility room.
Oh yes she testified there was a black man in a car, at trial. She didn’t say anything before the trial. What can be done then?
May 20th, 2011 at 2:59 am
Cami - a bread knife is a large stainless steel serrated knife. The storage options do not change what a bread knife is.
Oh come on. Now you’re being silly. And that bread knife, the large stainless steel knife, in Darlie’s butcher block was used to cut the screen so please explain how the intruder got in, got the knife, then went back out and cut the screen?
I posted Linch’s testimony for you on the screen..did you read it?
May 20th, 2011 at 3:20 am
Here I’ll fast forward your transcript reading for you. This is Judge Francis’s decison on the Dallas rapist
Applicant Fails to Allege & Prove Sufficient Facts
Applicant asserts that the State violated Brady and deprived her of her due process rights by failing to disclose evidence of similar crimes that would impeach the testimony of Agent Brantley. (Application at 103, 108).
652. In support of her argument, Applicant tendered five police reports from the Dallas Police Department. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibits A – E). Applicant argues that the police reports constitute favorable impeachment evidence that directly contradicts Agent Brantley’s crime-scene analysis testimony because: 1) these crimes are similar to this offense and occurred in the year immediately preceding it; 2) in one of the offenses, the intruder held a small knife from the victim’s kitchen against the victim’s throat prior to the sexual assault; 3) in another case, the assailant threatened a child with a kitchen fork; and 4) in four of the cases, the assailant “used a single tube sock—similar to the sock found in the alley behind the Routier residence—to gag his victims and to conceal fingerprints.” (Application at 103).
653. The Court finds that each of the five police reports involved: 1) a sexual assault, 2) with no additional serious bodily injury, 3) committed inside an apartment or at an apartment complex, 4) in the city of Dallas, 5) by an African-American male, Sammie Luckas Cook, Jr., who was apprehended through DNA testing, and 6) a demand for credit cards and cash from his victims. In the one offense involving a child witness, Cook did not sexually assault or physically harm the child.
654. The Court finds that the Dallas sexual assaults as set out in the tendered police reports are significantly dissimilar to the instant offense for the following reasons:
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php
May 20th, 2011 at 3:27 am
“Cami - a bread knife is a large stainless steel serrated knife. The storage options do not change what a bread knife is.”
I apologize, I’m the silly one, now I read what you said..and I replied with the same answer. I didn’t read one all the through.
May 20th, 2011 at 3:38 am
[QUOTE FROM CAMI]
Not one hair was found where they should have been found…on the boys and on Darlie..get it. Darlie at least should have some dna from the intruder on her shouldn’t she Paula? A hair grabbed or a piece of skin. No intruder hair found on the couch she was allegedly sleeping on. No intruder hair found on the boys.
Darn that intruder eh?
[UNQUOTE]
lol.. Well, I haven’t formed an opinion about whether or not there was an intruder. Not everyone sheds a lot of hair, and a baseball cap would catch any loose hair anyway. I will be interested to see what new DNA tests on the sock will uncover, although given the length of time since the crime, the DNA samples will have deteriorated, unfortunately. I have a gut feeling that if they didn’t find anything before, then they probably won’t find much more now, but I might be wrong.
May 20th, 2011 at 5:04 am
Okay - this is my final post for today.
[QUOTE FROM CAMI:]
First of all let me apologize for calling you Paula, I don’t know where I got that!
[UNQUOTE]
No probs, Cami. It is not a big deal. I was a bit confused initially, but I got used to it. If you start calling me Flora now, I might think you’re talking to someone else, lol.
[QUOTE]
The police officer is not an emergency service provider…he’s an officer of the law and his first priority is to secure the crime scene.
[UNQUOTE]
By emergency services I meant all those who respond to emergency calls, including the police. The top priority for all of these people is the preservation of life, so the police should not block the admittance of medical personnel.
[QUOTE]
I think maybe you misunderstand what I mean by that…..the officer cannot lay his gun down and give treatment to the injured child, I know it sounds callous but he/she would be direlect in their duties if they did. Darlie has told him there is a killer in her garage. The first priority for the officer is to catch that killer and to protect the family. What if he laid down his gun and treated Damon? The intruder gets away or he comes back in and stabs Darlie to death. That officer is off the police force right away. As soon as he was positive no one else was in the house..the paramedics came right in to treat the children.
[UNQUOTE]
But this is not what happened. You need to read the trial transcript volume 4. Your account of this situation is not in keeping with the evidence given by the policeman himself. Please read it.
[QUOTE]
He was given the best and available treatment to save his life….by the paramedics, not the cops as noted above.
[UNQUOTE]
The best treatment would be being placed at a higher priority than the preservation of the crime scene. My point is (and was) that a trained nurse and a team of paramedics were initially refused entry by the police. It should not be a matter of debate about what Darlie Routier should or should not have done. Placing the preservation of the evidence at a higher value than human life and emergency medical care is not acceptable.
[QUOTE]
Why aren’t you asking yourself why didn’t his mother help him?
[UNQUOTE]
We were talking about the police, and not Darlie Routier. I am not asking myself why his mother was not helping him because I read the testimony in the transcript from the nurse saying that when Darlie arrived at the hospital and took the towel away from her neck, blood started to spurt out, denoting arterial bleeding, so she was stemming spurting bleeding with one hand, and holding the telephone with the other. I also have witnessed people being utterly unable to cope in certain situations, and to judge by the 911 call, Darlie was completely unable to cope emotionally and was utterly hysterical, so I don’t think her behaviour can be judged at that point. Even if she wasn’t hysterical on the phone, I’d not necessarily judge her behaviour, because different people react to things in different ways, and in terms of an incident of this nature, there is no “normal”. By the way, I have some experience of hysteria, because I witnessed it at first hand while working in a psychiatric hospital in an acute admission and assessment unit. I can assure you that hysterical people are not capable of behaving rationally.
[QUOTE]
She stood there ignoring the cop when he told her two or three times to get a towel and lay it on Damon’s back. Or Darin, why was he giving CPR to a dead child whilst they other lay there gasping for breath?
[UNQUOTE]
This is precisely the point I am making about the police. He is refusing entry to the experts, and telling a totally hysterical woman, who was wailing loudly down the phone with no break, to stem the bleeding when she could not possibly have heard him, given the noise she was making.
Possibly, Darin didn’t know the extent of the injuries of the older child. He might have started to aid the younger son because he appeared to be in a worse state.
I really don’t think there is any point in wasting time debating peoples’ behaviour - this is not sufficient proof of guilt. Someone might detest their children, but unless they carried out the crime, or arranged it, they are not murderers. I am not saying that either or both of them were not murderers, but Darlie’s behaviour at the crime scene or at the graveside is not proof of guilt. What is more compelling proof of guilt is any evidence that they might have staged the incident, and that will be of more interest to me personally.
[QUOTE]
Yes, well they see it all don’t they and when we all are asleep in our warm beds. I couldn’t be a cop, I don’t think…well too old now anyway, LOL.
[UNQUOTE]
Me neither, although I would quite like to be a forensic expert. I think I might be quite good at it, though I’d need new specs, lol.
Well, as far as being too old to be one, they say you’re only as old as the man you feel, ;) lol.
Thanks for taking the time to tell me some things. I have a lot to learn for sure.
I cannot reply to any more posts today, and probably won’t manage back tomorrow, but maybe I’ll manage to do a bit of transcript reading before I return.
May 20th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Hi, all.
Quote from Flora:
“The best treatment would be being placed at a higher priority than the preservation of the crime scene. My point is (and was) that a trained nurse and a team of paramedics were initially refused entry by the police. It should not be a matter of debate about what Darlie Routier should or should not have done. Placing the preservation of the evidence at a higher value than human life and emergency medical care is not acceptable”.
I’m a trained nurse, Flora. And I can assure you that that kid would have died even if the paramedics got inside when the cop did. Multiple knife wounds to the lungs will do that. And Cami is dead right - there was no way that little boy could talk while he was drowning in his own blood.
Quote from Flora:
“The top priority for all of these people is the preservation of life, so the police should not block the admittance of medical personnel.”
In certain circumstances, yes they should. And in certain circumstances, they have to. When the Police enter hostage situations, e.g., where there are gunmen and casualties, medical personel are not admitted. When police enter homes to find a bloodbath and where they are told by a screaming bleeding mother that the man who stabbed her and her two little boys is in the garage, medical personnel are not admitted. It’s the policeman’s job to make sure the area is safe to enter first. They are not allowed to endanger anyone but themselves.
Quote from Flora:
“By the way, I have some experience of hysteria, because I witnessed it at first hand while working in a psychiatric hospital in an acute admission and assessment unit”.
In what capacity were you working in the acute admission and assessment unit of a psychiatric hospital? You didn’t seem to know that traumatic amnesia is a temporary condition so I know you are not a clinician or a psychiatrist. And you seem to think that a child with knife wounds to the lungs is capable of speech so I know you are not a nurse. And you have no clue about police or emergency procedures so I know you are not a paramedic.
What was your job in the psychiatric hospital?
Thanks
Ellen
May 22nd, 2011 at 1:38 am
I really don’t think there is any point in wasting time debating peoples’ behaviour - this is not sufficient proof of guilt. Someone might detest their children, but unless they carried out the crime, or arranged it, they are not murderers. I am not saying that either or both of them were not murderers, but Darlie’s behaviour at the crime scene or at the graveside is not proof of guilt. What is more compelling proof of guilt is any evidence that they might have staged the incident, and that will be of more interest to me personally.
I guess I just hhave a hard time understanding you. Everythying the cops did was wrong, the paramedics, etc. you don’t mind discussing their behaviour and insulting them but oh no let’s not discuss Darlie’s behaviour.
Who ever said Darlie’s behaviour at the graveside was proof of guilt? Certainly not me, I think it’s just Darlie being a goof, playing to the cameras.
However, when her defence claims and portrays as a greiving mother, the state has a right to impeach that contention and they did by playing the silly string tape.
Yes, this will be my last post on cops and paramedics behaviour.
Get reading those transcripts on the evidence…that’s what they brought to court and that’s what she was convicted on
May 22nd, 2011 at 1:40 am
Flora: I am not going to dig back into thses posts, but I made a mistake on one I think.
Darlie’s bloody footprints went from sink to the family room and back.
Her blood is dripped to and beyond the untility room door.
May 22nd, 2011 at 2:13 am
But this is not what happened. You need to read the trial transcript volume 4. Your account of this situation is not in keeping with the evidence given by the policeman himself. Please read it.
Please don’t tell me to read the transcripts when I’ve read them through and through, when you seem to only have read what you believe are mistakes.
Nor did I say that exactly happened. I said “suppose” and “what if.” Please go read up on police procedures in the US.
Please don’t lecture me on police procedure. Obviously you are just arguing for the sake of arguing okay.
I don’t much about police procedure. YOu can scream all you want they did this wrong or that wrong but it doesn’t change anything Flora: It’s just your opinion after all. No one here is going to try and change your opinions….certainly not me…they are yours, they belong to you.
May 22nd, 2011 at 2:18 am
“but I know nothing about this case, as I said,”
And I don’t believe that Flora, you seem to know or think you know cops did everything wrong, Cron and Linch did everything wrong…Basia testimony, etc.
You came here with some kind of agenda but I don’t it is and don’t care.
What did you think of Darlie’s testimony eh? Or Darin’s…..lies, lies and more lies.
Take care
May 22nd, 2011 at 2:27 am
We were talking about the police, and not Darlie Routier. I am not asking myself why his mother was not helping him because I read the testimony in the transcript from the nurse saying that when Darlie arrived at the hospital and took the towel away from her neck, blood started to spurt out, denoting arterial bleeding, so she was stemming spurting bleeding with one hand, and
We need to assess what their injuries
22 are right away. And so, as soon as she got over, the
23 technicians there, were taking the dressings off of the
24 arms, and began taking the dressing off the neck here.
25 Q. Okay.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
897
1 A. And the paramedics were giving us a
2 report about what the injuries were.
3 Q. Her neck was bleeding; is that right?
4 A. Her neck initially was not bleeding.
5 We pulled the dressing off. It was initially not
6 bleeding, but the surgeon there had to explore that wound
7 just a little bit and look at it. And after he had
8 touched it just slightly, a bit of blood squirted out of
9 the wound, which would, to us indicates an arterial
10 bleeding, and that we don’t want to mess with that in the
11 emergency room. So we immediately covered that back up.
12 Q. Okay. Now, as far as what the actual
13 damage was, you don’t know at that time. Right?
14 A. No. We knew that it was bleeding and
15 some — indicating some type of arterial bleed. I
16 believe it ended up not being an arterial bleed. But for
17 us, that’s not something we need to mess with. You lose
18 a lot of blood that way. You just –
Please provide the transcript where the nurse said her neck wound spurted blood once the bandage was removed.
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-31.php#2
May 24th, 2011 at 9:57 am
Ellen Says:
May 20th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
“What was your job in the psychiatric hospital?”
I think you misunderstood Flora.
She didn’t work in a psychiatric hospital, Ellen. She was a patient.
May 24th, 2011 at 11:36 am
Mary Says:
May 24th, 2011 at 9:57 am
“…She didn’t work in a psychiatric hospital, Ellen. She was a patient.”
:)hehehe…
But honestly, I absolutely cannot wait for Flora’s reply to Ellen’s post. This should be a good one…
May 24th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Very great comments clearing up one of the lies the Routier Camp is throwing out, such as the blood spurting from her neck. I don’t understand why they don’t want to accept the transcripts from Justice for Darlie. Hell, it’s on her own website! LOL! They ought to believe that! What I’m wondering about is the status of the latest DNA testing that’s supposed to be done. Who is gonna be paying for that? The Routier supporters,family, state, or what? And now and then I see these videos on Youtube strongly defending Darlie, and they all have that sad, pitiful music, trying to sway people to believe Darlie was the victim, not Devon and Damon. I’m assuming they make money off these videos they post, and part of the reason they keep defending her. And I can’t help but wonder, if there were even a videotape showing Darlie killing her kids, these supporters still wouldn’t believe it! Why is it that people seem to worship her so much? Is there a money-making thing in this for some who so very strongly defend her????? I can’t help but wonder. Thank you.
May 25th, 2011 at 10:07 am
I’m in the middle of moving my apt so wont’ be around for a while.
May 26th, 2011 at 5:45 am
Watching the Casey Anthony trial and trying to pack, LOL,
Mary..my internet will be down for a while whilst I move to my son’s place
May 27th, 2011 at 9:29 am
cami Says:
May 26th, 2011 at 5:45 am
“Watching the Casey Anthony trial and trying to pack, LOL”
Isn’t it great? The trial, I mean. Packing sucks.
“Mary..my internet will be down for a while whilst I move to my son’s place.”
Have a safe and happy move, Cami. Hurry back; you deal with Flora much better than I do. She makes my eyes bleed.
May 27th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
I’m still waiting for Flora’s reply to tell us where in the world she read that blood was “spurting” from Darlie’s neck! LOL!!! I can’t help but think we won’t be hearing any more from her, since the transcripts telling the truth of the matter obviously rub her the wrong way! LOL! Sounds to me it’s possible she may be making money on this case somehow.
May 27th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
Gay says:
“I’m still waiting for Flora’s reply to tell us where in the world she read that blood was “spurting” from Darlie’s neck! LOL!!!”
Don’t hold your breath on that one, Gay. I don’t think she’ll be back either.
May 28th, 2011 at 2:00 am
Oh Flora’s a good girl, I love Flora. It’s not her fault she’s been deluded by the “darlies”
Nest it will be they had to perform surgery to remove Darlie’s necklace.
May 28th, 2011 at 5:11 am
For those of you who have ID, Darlie’s case is on now. Pay attentnion to the forensics. Here you learn the state did over 100 dna tests for the trial
May 29th, 2011 at 7:55 am
Hi, Cami. What do you mean “for those of you who have ID, Darlie’s case is on now”? Do you mean it is on tv? Thanks, Ellen.
May 31st, 2011 at 4:52 am
Ellen Says:
May 29th, 2011 at 7:55 am
Hi, Cami. What do you mean “for those of you who have ID, Darlie’s case is on now”? Do you mean it is on tv?”
Hi, Ellen. I.D. is short for “Investigation Discovery” channel on TV. You have to subscribe to get it, though.
You can also check out their website & get a lot of information. Hope that helps.
June 5th, 2011 at 12:44 am
Hi Ellen and Mary:
Sorry for the confusion Ellen and Mary thanks for replying. I just got my computer up and running today.
Did you get to watch the program? What did you think of DiMaio’s theory on the cast-off blood, LOL. I wonder how much they paid him to make those conclusions.
June 6th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
I just love how some pig-headedly believe the B.S. put out by prosecutor Greg Davis(who has been indicted for tampering with a governmental record) and a purchased media. They painted this woman a very ugly color and called her trash because she grew up poor, and you eat it up like a fat kid eats candy. When something happens to you or a loved one you’ll find it won’t be so easy to swallow. But will you regret your condenmation of another when you can’t possibly know for a fact she is guilty? Of course not. That’s what makes you horrible human beings.
June 6th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
That indictment was squashed so i.e. Davis did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.
Actually it’s the evidence we rely on to prove to us that Darlie is guilty. No one but Darlie committed these murders. The media had nothing to do with it.
So this “horrible human being” cares more for the two little boys she slaughtered 14 years ago today.
June 6th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
oink, oink, oink
that’s me being pig headed
June 6th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
What does growing up poor have to do with anything?
I grew up dirt poor, times we didn’t eat and it didn’t cause me to commit any crimes…just gave me a weight problem.
June 6th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
“But this is not what happened. You need to read the trial transcript volume 4. Your account of this situation is not in keeping with the evidence given by the policeman himself. Please read it.”
Waddell’s testimony is in Volume 29. What did I say that was so different from what he testified?
July 19th, 2011 at 5:34 am
where is evereyone? Stuck on Casey maybe.
July 19th, 2011 at 5:38 am
I can’t find a volume 4 Flora, can you point it out to me please
July 25th, 2011 at 8:11 am
Anji Says:
June 6th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
When something happens to you or a loved one you’ll find it won’t be so easy to swallow. But will you regret your condenmation of another when you can’t possibly know for a fact she is guilty? Of course not. That’s what makes you horrible human beings.
Emotional blackmail is so childish.
Two questions for you, Anji:
Whose blood was found on the right shoulder and back of Darlie’s nightshirt?
Whose blood was found on the front of Darlie’s nightshirt?
July 25th, 2011 at 8:45 am
Did you know Darin has filed for divorece? No plans to remarry of course, cough, cough.
I don”t have a link
July 25th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
@Cami, Here’s a ink for Darin filing for divorce:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7636341.html
@Mary, Hello my dear! Hope this finds you well.
July 25th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
That would be a LINK, not an INK…
July 26th, 2011 at 8:20 am
Pam Says:
July 25th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
“Cami, Here’s a ink for Darin filing for divorce:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7636341.html
@Mary, Hello my dear! Hope this finds you well.”
Wow. He finally did it.
Pam, sorry I’ve been gone so long. Lots of drama here with our son and daughter-in-law separating. It’s the pits.
Hope you’re doing well, too. I’ve missed you!
July 26th, 2011 at 8:22 am
Pam Says:
July 25th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
“That would be a LINK, not an INK…”
Put down that pipe, young lady.
July 26th, 2011 at 10:03 am
Maybe Darlie can hire Jose Baez? Oh wait, there was blood drips from her son on the back of her shirt when she lifted the knife. Remember in her story the boys were already stabbed when she woke up with one trying to rape her. They dropped the knife and stole her panties. If anyone can explain that away.. it’s Jose “Super Bozo” Baez!
July 26th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Something strikes me a little oddly. But I can’t help but wonder if “Flora” and “Anji” are really the same person? But used a different name due to the fact she couldn’t back up the ‘blood spurting from the neck’ lie from the Darlie supporters? If that’s so….(sigh) what a horrible human being! LOL!!!
July 26th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
They painted this woman a very ugly color and called her trash because she grew up poor, and you eat it up like a fat kid eats candy.
I don’t think people called her trash because she grew up poor. I think they called her trash because of those big fake tits and the faked histrionics and the faked stab wounds and the faked rapist and because the evidence pointed to her and no one else and because y’know, only a lowlife piece of trash would stab their little kids to death. But hey, maybe that’s just me.
When something happens to you or a loved one you’ll find it won’t be so easy to swallow.
I think you are right. but you sound like someone who knows how to swallow shit really easily though…can you teach me?
But will you regret your condenmation of another when you can’t possibly know for a fact she is guilty?
Will you regret your condemnation of others who don’t share your blind faith when you can’t know for a fact that she is innocent?
Of course not. That’s what makes you horrible human beings.
Of course not. That’s what makes you a dumbarse.
July 26th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
And Ellen, don’t forget the fake story she made up about being raped at a party given for Darin, I think when he was moving away for college (or work). She was jealous of the attention he was getting. She’s a cockamamie nut who thrives on attention. Darlie doesn’t give a crap about all her supporters….as long as they keep feeding her ego; that’s all that matters to her. She and Casey Anthony are the biggest professional liars I have ever come across.
July 27th, 2011 at 11:44 am
she and Casey Anthony are two of a kind…spawns of the devil.
July 28th, 2011 at 1:17 am
No one called Darlie trash, it was her mother and Sarilda Routier who were called “trailer trash” by the DA because they were screaming at him whilst he was being interviewed.
July 28th, 2011 at 1:22 am
Maybe Darlie can hire Jose Baez? Oh wait, there was blood drips from her son on the back of her shirt when she lifted the knife. Remember in her story the boys were already stabbed when she woke up with one trying to rape her. They dropped the knife and stole her panties. If anyone can explain that away.. it’s Jose “Super Bozo” Baez!
Ha hahaha Yeah watch out Darin. (George)
Of course that’s already been tried and failed. (Pardo)
I’ll never understand how a defence made up of lies (Baez) can get a child killer off.
July 28th, 2011 at 2:52 am
Two things (at least) the Casey Anthony jury did that they shouldn’t have done:
1.They considered the punishment when deliberating their verdict.
2.Judged too closely to the jury instruction instead of employing their common sense as well as the instruction.
Grrr…
July 28th, 2011 at 4:26 am
My question is to all those who, like me, believe Darlie is GUILTY…..I went back and re-read Flora’s comments and then Anji’s. I believe she’s the same person! How many of you agree with me?? If you look over Flora’s comments and how she keeps defending Darlie, but couldn’t back up the “blood spurting from her neck” claim, she’s then silent. All of a sudden, “Anji” shows up and calls us horrible human beings, and the basic content of her comments are similar to Flora. Do any of you agree?
July 28th, 2011 at 10:45 am
Yes, I agree Gay. Darlie supporters are full of tricks like that. First they try to convince you that Darlie was wrongfully convicted. They fail to understand the trial transcripts tell the true story. They get around that by saying Oh well with 33,000 errors the transcripts are unreliable or I don’t know anything about this case, I’m trying to learn.
Then they go away and come back and insult you. I think it’s Darlie Kee myself or one of Darlie’s sisters. Who else would still be so angry that Darlie was convicted.
July 28th, 2011 at 10:49 am
Pam, yeah I know the jury deliberated incorrectly. They are not supposed to consider cause of death, motive or punishment but they did just that. No common sense was used. They had dollar signs in their eyes.
July 28th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Gay says:
“I believe she’s the same person! How many of you agree with me??”
I agree, Gay. It’s probably Flora. They always resort to insults when they run out of fuel.
July 28th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Cami says:
“They had dollar signs in their eyes.”
Yes they did. I’m not buying one thing that has anything to do with that girl. Magazines, sponsor products, nothing. Oh it just makes me so mad…
July 28th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Me too Pam, it’s so frustrating.
I too won’t buy nor watch anything to do with her. I won’t even say her name, the devil. What can she have to say that anyone wants to hear except why did she kill her daughter.
July 29th, 2011 at 10:09 am
Dave Moff is on Facebook singing the praises of Darlie: https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=325666737017
I’ve been posting there since yesterday and he is like the worst supporter you’ve ever seen or could imagine… x’s 50. Wow.
July 29th, 2011 at 10:22 am
Ok… well I don’t know how many of you have Facebook accounts but you have to have one in order to view the page.
This site is bad about what they allow to stay posted. I tried to post excerpts from the transcripts several times last night and they were deleting them as fast as I could post them. This morning the ones I managed to get posted last night were gone this morning. Anyway, Mary and Cami know who Dave is…. what a whack-job!
July 29th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Hi everybody! Re Cami’s post at #596….honestly, I think the Darlie supporters DO understand what the trial transcripts really tell. That’s why they don’t like for people to see them! LOL!! As far as who Flora/Anji really is, could be Darlee Kee, one of the sisters, but I also wonder about whoever is posting those false Youtube videos in support of Darlie. It’s definitely someone that is in contact with and knows Darlie. I also find it strange that none of those pro-Darlie videos (with that stupid music that’d give a hog a tummy virus) never post any of the trial transcripts, and disable comments. Obviously, because they KNOW the real truth and don’t want to be confronted with it. And they all WANT to be sure it is shielded and hidden!! Sounds to me like this is a meal ticket for some of these kooks. Dave Moff? I think maybe you, Pam, or Mary, should start a page on FB that shows the transcripts that will shut the pieholes of her deceptive supporters. THE REAL DARLIE ROUTIER AND THE REAL FACTS OF THE CASE. I’m so glad I found this website, and know the real facts! Thank you all!!!
July 29th, 2011 at 11:50 pm
Gay… that is a great idea. I’m gonna check that out now.
July 30th, 2011 at 5:29 am
Pam we have one, the Darlie is guilty page, no one but you and I have posted on that. I no longer access FB for private reasons.
Dave Moffatt is a complete nut, he’s certifiable. He’s totally in love with Darlie and thinks she’s in love with him.
So sorry I can’t challenge him as I’m no longer on FB.
July 30th, 2011 at 8:11 am
Cami Says:
“Pam we have one, the Darlie is guilty page”
Ok, good. I’m gonna blow it up with transcript excerpts and anything else I can think of. I think I’ll start with the ridiculous ‘Guilty of Innocence’ video’s from CIAustralia. I may have to come to you and Mary for info, if you guys don’t mind.
Cami Says:
“So sorry I can’t challenge him as I’m no longer on FB.”
Oh, that’s ok, Cami. Thanks anyway. I didn’t know you had to be registered to view the page (duh) when I posted the link.
July 30th, 2011 at 8:14 am
LOL… Mary & Cami are my Anti- Darlie Forces.
July 30th, 2011 at 8:17 am
The ADF!
July 30th, 2011 at 9:40 am
Pam Says:
July 29th, 2011 at 10:09 am
“Dave Moff is on Facebook singing the praises of Darlie: https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=325666737017
I’ve been posting there since yesterday and he is like the worst supporter you’ve ever seen or could imagine… x’s 50. Wow.”
I feel justified in repeating this, because Dave posted it himself.
He’s a recovering alcoholic. He keeps a gun in every room of his house (slightly paranoid). He takes great delight in ripping off the government every chance he gets, and encourages others to do the same.
Oh, and even his parents didn’t like him. They paid for his sibling’s college expenses, but wouldn’t help Dave. He had to work his way through college & ended up having the first of several nervous breakdowns.
Pam, I notice he mentioned Starkman. Darren Starkman had the only non board back in 1999. It was the first one I ever posted on, before the transcript was made public. Because only her supporters had the transcript, they were able to put out a lot of misinformation & lies, many of which are still repeated as fact.
Dave detests and distrusts all authority figures, so it’s only natural that he’d believe Darlie was railroaded by a giant conspiracy. He’s a sorry little man. And nasty. Boy, is he nasty!
July 30th, 2011 at 9:52 am
Here is the message board Cami referred to:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/guiltyascharged
There’s a wealth of information there, and it’s a very easy board to navigate.
I’d love it if we could get that board going again, because the format is much better than this one (I don’t mean that as a criticism - just stating a fact :)
August 2nd, 2011 at 11:03 am
Mary, is there some reason we can’t get that board going again or is it just a matter of getting over there and doing it? I’m willing.
Why am I not shocked about the info on Dave Moff? Sorry, I don’t mean to be rude but I knew that guy was a whack job!! This was his last post to me today. It is supposed to be in reference to the photo’s of Darlie’s injuries not being shown:
“I see so clearly now. This poster believes everything she sees and hears, provided it fits into a narrow predetermined set of criteria of which only she is aware. Anything which does not fit within that narrow space either doesn’t exist or isn’t real. Well, that mindset is familiar and I think the rest of us know the solution which I will now employ. I have no further response to this person. If anyone has a genuine question which I am able to discuss it, I will happily do so. But the troll will have to rebait her hook. My final comment on the subject (I have no doubt her “last word” will be hilarious–seen ‘em many times before). Next, please.”
He’s odd.
August 3rd, 2011 at 1:34 am
Pam Says:
August 2nd, 2011 at 11:03 am
“Mary, is there some reason we can’t get that board going again or is it just a matter of getting over there and doing it?”
It’s just a matter of us going over there and posting, Pam It hasn’t been closed down.
I decided to stop paying the monthly “host” fee about 6 months ago, because nothing was happening with Darlie’s case,and people lost interest.
But I have a feeling things are going to heat up in the near future, and that board is much easier to navigate than this one. I’d gladly reactivate my account if the posters here would like to relocate.
Besides, nothing would infuriate Dave more than seeing that board become active again. He’s always hated my guts, and now he hates yours, too.
Congratulations!
P.S. I’d love to see Dave’s face right now. He probably looks like a bulldog chewing a wasp.
August 3rd, 2011 at 7:09 am
Mary Says:
August 3rd, 2011 at 1:34 am
“He’s always hated my guts, and now he hates yours, too.
Congratulations!
P.S. I’d love to see Dave’s face right now. He probably looks like a bulldog chewing a wasp.”
LOL… thanks, Mary. I’m honored! …and I’m definitely getting an image of Dave and the wasp…
I’d be willing to post over there at Delphi. No problem at all.I’m gonna go over and check it out tonight.
Ooooh Mary! Also… I wanted to get over to ‘Darlie Is Guilty’ on Facebook tonight… would you have a problem with me posting some of your comments to Dave from your prisontalk.com debate with him? That was the best beat-down I’ve ever seen.
Gay… see you there!
August 3rd, 2011 at 7:13 am
Cami… would you mind if I quoted you as well?
August 3rd, 2011 at 9:38 am
Pam Says:
August 3rd, 2011 at 7:09 am
“Ooooh Mary! Also… I wanted to get over to ‘Darlie Is Guilty’ on Facebook tonight… would you have a problem with me posting some of your comments to Dave from your prisontalk.com debate with him? That was the best beat-down I’ve ever seen.”
Go right ahead, Pam. Anything to make Dave squirm ;)
Thank you for the compliment!
August 4th, 2011 at 5:59 am
Mary Says:
August 3rd, 2011 at 9:38 am
“Go right ahead, Pam. Anything to make Dave squirm ;)”
OK, great. Thanks! I’ll do it.
“Thank you for the compliment!”
You’re welcome, Mary. It’s the truth.
August 4th, 2011 at 6:02 am
Pam, when I go to the Facebook page that you’ve been posting on, there’s no “Comment” option.
In other words, how the heck do you post a message?
August 5th, 2011 at 5:40 am
Mary Says:
August 4th, 2011 at 6:02 am
Pam, when I go to the Facebook page that you’ve been posting on, there’s no “Comment” option.
In other words, how the heck do you post a message?
Mary, all I did was click on “Join” before it let me post but then it let me post right away. My daughter just told me that the same thing happened to her on Facebook so she restarted the computer and that worked for her. Hope you get it worked out soon. I’ll be very glad to see you there!
August 5th, 2011 at 5:56 am
…another Dave Moff moment…
Dave Moff Says:
Our troll has posted “quotes” from me and other members which, at least in my case, I did not write (one may have been mine but if so, I either got a name wrong or it was changed). If anyone wishes to communicate with Facebook about slander/harassment/what have you, I’m with you.
Pamela Lakes Collins Anyone who doesn’t believe that Dave made the comments that I posted on the Darlie Routier Is Guilty page, you are welcome to check it out for yourselves: http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1099
“If anyone wishes to communicate with Facebook about slander/harassment/what have you, I’m with you.”
Come on, Dave… I haven’t slandered or harrassed you. You posted about Darlie as you always do. I’m sure you believe as much now as you did back then that Darlie is innocent, so why do you care if I quote you? You made a comment here yourself a few days ago that you expected to see your comments from here copied and pasted on other websites. You know how it goes, Dave, because this is not your first time posting about Darlie. ANYONE who has done any extensive posting on the Darlie Routier case knows who Dave Moff is. You’re more than used to being quoted.
Pamela Lakes Collins …and I haven’t posted quotes from anyone other than you, Dave. I posted your quotes because you say the same things that all of Darlie’s supporters say and I thought it would be a good way to get all of those questions answered quickly. And Mary definitely had an answer for everything you said.
”…which, at least in my case, I did not write (one may have been mine but if so, I either got a name wrong or it was changed).”
I resent the implication, Dave. The posts are right there on prisontalk.com for anyone to see and compare. You don’t even have to be registered to read them.
August 5th, 2011 at 6:10 am
I can be such a moron sometimes. Didn’t realize you had to join. Thanks, Pam.
August 5th, 2011 at 11:02 am
LOL… you’re welcome, Mary. I’ll be watching for you!
August 7th, 2011 at 4:46 am
Oh my Dave is such a nut. I had all my posts at Prisontalk deleted because I didn’t show “proof” I laughed and said oh that’s how you do it, just delete posts that show yours up to be lies.
August 8th, 2011 at 11:17 am
http://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/darlie-routier-recalls-night-sons-murders-13366836
August 9th, 2011 at 5:15 am
Darlie sings at the end… don’t miss it!
August 9th, 2011 at 7:17 am
Thanks for the video Pam, I’ve never seen the singing Darlie before. Oh and everyone is a liar but her, LOL. I am sure the interviewer had a hard time suspending her disbelief during this interview.
August 10th, 2011 at 5:49 am
Well, that does it for me. A mother with an angel voice like that couldn’t possibly be capable of murder ;)
January 28th, 2012 at 9:22 am
Does anyone know for sure if Darlie’s boobs are real or fake? They are so big! Someone said in a previous post that they were size EE, does anyone know if this is true? Are their any links with pics of her boobs? My god theyre so damn big!