DARLIE ROUTIER
Lynn Smith
still interested in this case. Just thought you would want to know. Lynn
Lyrker
before last night. The evidence the show presented seems to point pretty
clearly to the mother having done it. The one bit of potential evidence they
seem to have to suggest otherwise is a smeary fingerprint from the coffee
table that they've yet to firmly discount as anyone's but one of the boys;
it's definitely not his bloody print.
There are a few things that don't add up in the case but those things don't
take a lot of thought to come up with several different notions to cover.
Like the bruises on the insides of her arms. Wouldn't be real hard to get
that same kind of bruise by whacking your own arm against a solid,
right-angle edge. Done it to myself on accident once when I tripped and
tried to catch myself on an armoire.
However. I was wondering if there's been any thought put to or discussion
about this angle: she had help.
I find it hard to believe that a self-professed light sleeper could sleep
through the brutal, bloody and violent murders of her babies, especially
when one was killed less than a foot from where she supposedly was sleeping
(according to the documentary). I'm willing to give that maybe those
injuries weren't self-inflected -- though the physical evidence seems real
shakey where that's concerned - there was only one puncture wound on her
body and that was on her forearm-- doesn't fit with a stabber; by all rights
she should've sustained at least some stabbing to the upper body, and not
just injuries on her arms and neck, which are two very easy to reach
locations for a person owning them whereas stabbing oneself in the
midsection A) invites accidental death and B) would be easy to prove which
direction the puncture came from which wouldn't mesh with the angle of an
attacker unless the individual knew a heckuva lot about stabbing. But then,
Darlie couldn't make up her mind whether she fought with the man she claimed
did it or if she didn't. anyway.
I'm willing to suspend disbelief and buy that she didn't injure herself. If
so, I'd think that given the whole of the documentary that she might've had
help. Maybe she had someone kill the boys and rough her up to make it look
good? Would explain the lack of aggravated damage to her person and the fact
that out of all the possessions in the house, the only things disturbed were
an overturned vacuum cleaner and a single broken wine glass.
It's a left-field theory, I know. But it was something that occurred and I
wanted to hear thoughts about it.
Anyone have any more information on the case in general? I'd like to hear
about it if you do.
Doc Thumper
wrote:
>It's a left-field theory, I know. But it was something that occurred and I
>wanted to hear thoughts about it.
>
>Anyone have any more information on the case in general? I'd like to hear
>about it if you do.
>
There are four books written on this case and all but the picture
book, Media Tried, Justice Denied...which was financed by the for
darlie group, conclude that she is guilty as you have concluded. This
is another "intruder did it case" with no evidence of an intruder.
Very similar to the Jeffrey MacDonald case, the Baby Sabrina case, and
the JonBenet Ramsey case. Where are all these intruders? Ron
BRogers115
talk about.
>early to the mother having done it. The one bit of potential evidence they
>seem to have to suggest otherwise is a smeary fingerprint from the coffee
>table that they've yet to firmly discount as anyone's but one of the boys;
>it's definitely not his bloody print.
The fingerprint on the coffee table is in Darlie's blood and the prosecution
decided that it was not able to be matched. The print has since been examined
by two fingerprint experts in New York who say that there are definately enough
points to make an identification. Thus far Darlie, Darin, Devon and all the
others in the house that night have been ruled out. The boys bodies were
exhumed to get their fingerprints because they had not been taken during the
autopsy but it's my understanding that water had gotten into the coffin and the
remains were not in very good shape.
There is also another fingerprint in blood on the door leading to the garage,
also unidentified and this one could not possibly be one of the boys'.
There are also a number of non-bloody fingerprints that have not been
identified. I don't remember where all they were but for sure on the sliding
glass door.
There are also partial palmprints on the underneath of the garage window which
cannot be identified with anyone in the house.
> Wouldn't be real hard to get
>that same kind of bruise by whacking your own arm against a solid,
>right-angle edge
I'm sure that you can get a whopper of a bruise that way, but the right-angle
edge would have to leave a mark I think to cause so much soft-tissue damage.
One of the pathologists testifying said that he definately found them to be
defensive wounds. Where she held her arms up to protect herself.
>
>I find it hard to believe that a self-professed light sleeper could sleep
>through the brutal, bloody and violent murders of her babies, especially
>when one was killed less than a foot from where she supposedly was sleeping
I think that this whole bit about her "sleeping" through the murders was
something done all out of porportion by the prosecution. It was Darlie who
said it first because all she remembers is waking up and seeing the children
stabbed. But a forensic psychiatrist who treated her in the jail testified
that she had traumatic amnesia and she also testified that Darlie did not fit
the profile of mother's who kill their children.
>rights
>she should've sustained at least some stabbing to the upper body,
She did have a stab in the upper chest area near the left shoulder. It kind of
gets lost among the stitches of the slash to the throat.
> of all the possessions in the house, the only things disturbed were
>an overturned vacuum cleaner and a single broken wine glass.
This was presented in the program but it isn't actually true. The coffee table
spent some time over on it's side but it was righted by people trying to get to
Devon. The crime scene was understandably messed with by the people trying to
resuscitate the children.
There's just a lot of little things that bother me. Like the fact that the
prosecution made so much out of the fact that Darlie went over to the wine rack
and threw a glass down onto the floor. Her story was that someone going away
from her ran into the wine rack and then she heard glass breaking. Long after
the trial and Darlie's death sentence it was discovered in one of the crime
scene photos that a part of the broken glass is still hanging in the wine rack.
This fact supports Darlie's story but not the prosecutions. It's just a
little thing, but there's lots of them.
There's lots and lots more about this case that is really interesting. If
you're interested in continuing the discussion I certainly am game. And I
definately would love to see Ron here as well.
Brenda
Doc Thumper
>This was presented in the program but it isn't actually true. The coffee table
>spent some time over on it's side but it was righted by people trying to get to
>Devon. The crime scene was understandably messed with by the people trying to
>resuscitate the children.
The people that "righted" the coffee table also left the bloody print
in Darlie's blood. Ron
Lyrker
BRogers115 <broge...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001128231911...@ng-mj1.aol.com...
> Lurker, you may be sorry you started this thread. This is my favorite
case to
> talk about.
Oh, not at all. :) I was left with a bundle of questions after seeing the
show - I was hoping someone out there would have more on this. If for no
other reason than to give different perspectives.
> The fingerprint on the coffee table is in Darlie's blood and the
prosecution
> decided that it was not able to be matched.
What you said about the table being righted by investigators would mesh
right in with what Ron said about this fingerprint - that whoever turned it
back upright may very well have left that print.
>Thus far Darlie, Darin, Devon and all the
> others in the house that night have been ruled out.
The only one I remembered hearing on the show that they ruled out was Darin.
I was wondering what had happened with the other print-comparings. Thanks.
:)
>The boys bodies were
> exhumed to get their fingerprints because they had not been taken during
the
> autopsy but it's my understanding that water had gotten into the coffin
and the
> remains were not in very good shape.
This is one I don't understand. Why weren't the boys' prints taken? From the
cases I've seen the autopsies on in the past, it's common practice in
autopsies to take the prints (if they can be taken) when the fingers are
examined. It would seem that the fingers of the boys would've been examined
for flesh or other trace evidence under the fingernails in hopes of getting
a sample from the killer. I could understand not getting prints off one boy
because of ME oversight but both? Weird.
> There is also another fingerprint in blood on the door leading to the
garage,
> also unidentified and this one could not possibly be one of the boys'.
> There are also a number of non-bloody fingerprints that have not been
> identified. I don't remember where all they were but for sure on the
sliding
> glass door.
> There are also partial palmprints on the underneath of the garage window
which
> cannot be identified with anyone in the house.
What's happened with these prints? Are they still trying to find matches or
have they pretty much stopped pursuing them?
> I'm sure that you can get a whopper of a bruise that way, but the
right-angle
> edge would have to leave a mark I think to cause so much soft-tissue
damage.
> One of the pathologists testifying said that he definately found them to
be
> defensive wounds. Where she held her arms up to protect herself.
It didn't on me. Just a long ugly bruise. I do wonder though, if the
pathologist believes she held her arms up to protect herself, what was she
protecting herself from? Those marks aren't consistent with what she'd get
from protecting herself from a knife. Or from punches or any other
hand-to-hand sort of method I can conjure to mind. Any theories on what sort
of weapon would have left marks like that? And only on the insides of her
arms?
> I think that this whole bit about her "sleeping" through the murders was
> something done all out of porportion by the prosecution. It was Darlie
who
> said it first because all she remembers is waking up and seeing the
children
> stabbed.
The whole story about what happened that night is all bumbled up. I can
understand that a traumatized parent wouldn't necessarily get their story
straight. But some of the testimony on the stand that they showed seems to
indicate that Darlie doesn't have much of her story in line at all, included
this aspect. However considering how mangled the court transcript was, I
can't quite put faith in anything either side says about what was or wasn't
said during the trial. Once again, like with the prints, the transcript
issue is quite weird to me. Okay. The court clerk botched her job badly. But
the fact that there were tapes missing from the recorded transcript as well
is just odd. Odd to me that both versions of the trial recordings were
botched - one, again, would be easily racked up to mistake. But both?
> She did have a stab in the upper chest area near the left shoulder. It
kind of
> gets lost among the stitches of the slash to the throat.
Ahh. I don't recall that they mentioned anything about it in the
documentary. I remember only the stabbing on her arm being noted. I could be
remembering wrong but I'm pretty sure they said in the show that was the
only stab-wound. I'm not backing this statement as fact, btw, in case it
sounds it. Just commenting that the show didn't mention it. More food for
thought.
> There's just a lot of little things that bother me. Like the fact that
the
> prosecution made so much out of the fact that Darlie went over to the wine
rack
> and threw a glass down onto the floor. Her story was that someone going
away
> from her ran into the wine rack and then she heard glass breaking. Long
after
> the trial and Darlie's death sentence it was discovered in one of the
crime
> scene photos that a part of the broken glass is still hanging in the wine
rack.
> This fact supports Darlie's story but not the prosecutions. It's just a
> little thing, but there's lots of them.
There's a lot of little things niggling me as well (hence the line out for
discussion). The fact that they wouldn't let her have an appeal is strange
to me as well as it was my understanding that all death penalty cases have a
mandatory appeal, regardless that the state she was put away in doesn't have
a life in prison sentence. Though it's always strange to me to hear about a
parent who can't convince a jury the first time that they didn't kill their
child (or spouse or sibling or parent...).
BRogers115
>The people that "righted" the coffee table also left the bloody print
>in Darlie's blood. Ron
>
fingerprint. But there is still the possibility that the print is Devon's, but
there is not a possibility that the one on the garage door is his. As it
stands now, there are several unidentified fingerprints. Brenda
Brenda
Doc Thumper
wrote:
>It didn't on me. Just a long ugly bruise. I do wonder though, if the
>pathologist believes she held her arms up to protect herself, what was she
>protecting herself from? Those marks aren't consistent with what she'd get
>from protecting herself from a knife. Or from punches or any other
>hand-to-hand sort of method I can conjure to mind. Any theories on what sort
>of weapon would have left marks like that? And only on the insides of her
>arms?
and the knives used, to both cut the screen in the garage and kill the
children were from darlie's kitchen...the intruder did not bring his
own weapon! Ron
BRogers115
>This is one I don't understand. Why weren't the boys' prints taken?
This is a real shame. It is the policy to take the fingerprints but for some
reason they just were not done on either boy. And there were two different
pathologists that did the autopsies. But both boys did have their footprints
taken. I have no idea why. The older boy, Devon, had had his prints taken at
school so the family had a set, but none for Damon.
>What's happened with these prints? Are they still trying to find matches or
>have they pretty much stopped pursuing them?
>
The prosecution considers the case closed and nothing is being done about
anything concerning the case. The only investigating going on is being done by
the appeal lawyers and the investigators hired by the Routiers I think.
> Any theories on what sort
>of weapon would have left marks like that? And only on the insides of her
>arms?
I don't really know enough about different types of injuries to make a guess
but Dr. DiMaio the pathologist said that just looking at the bruising he would
say they looked like maybe a baseball bat. She did have some peculiar markings
on her arms also, that I've never heard anyone give an accounting for.
>Once again, like with the prints, the transcript
>issue is quite weird to me.
To me too. Sandra Halsey was an experienced court reporter and she had a good
reputation I've heard. This just ruined her. She got into trouble for lying
to the judge also. I've read the transcript from her trial or hearing and it's
like all the mistakes that could possibly happen did so to her in this one
case. 33,000 errors. Some of them were minor but many of them changed the
testimony significantly. Enough to where the appeals court said they could not
use that transcript to evaluate whether or not she had a fair trial.
> I remember only the stabbing on her arm being noted
I think you're correct. But the program just left out the other.
One of the strangest things about this case is that sock that was found down
the alley that runs behind the Routier house. It was three houses down and had
Darlie's DNA on it and blood from the two boys but not Darlie on it. No-one
ever did a satisfactory explanation of how it got there. The police brought in
bloodhounds and they tracked from the house to the sock and then stopped. I
don't think that any conclusions could be drawn from that because of too many
possibilities.
Brenda
WyrdWoman
>
> The older boy, Devon, had had his prints taken at
> school so the family had a set, but none for Damon.
I know it's a bit late now, but couldn't they have dusted the whole
house for fingerprints and tried to find any that matched the
unidentified one? It seems like Damon's prints would have been all over
the house since he lived there, and they could at least identify an
unknown set of prints throughout the house as possibly his. That's just
plain stupid to not fingerprint the deceased kids.
--
WyrdWoman
Doc Thumper
>I don't really know enough about different types of injuries to make a guess
>but Dr. DiMaio the pathologist said that just looking at the bruising he would
>say they looked like maybe a baseball bat. She did have some peculiar markings
>on her arms also, that I've never heard anyone give an accounting for.
Where is the baseball bat? Could she not have been defending herself
against the violent fists of Darin during their fight the night
before? Ron
Doc Thumper
<wyrd...@SPAMcarolina.rr.com> wrote:
>I know it's a bit late now, but couldn't they have dusted the whole
>house for fingerprints and tried to find any that matched the
>unidentified one? It seems like Damon's prints would have been all over
>the house since he lived there, and they could at least identify an
>unknown set of prints throughout the house as possibly his. That's just
>plain stupid to not fingerprint the deceased kids.
>
>--
I agree, but the defense claims these were in Darlie's blood, not just
fingerprints. As in the JMac case, where a bloody partial was found
on the master bed foot...I wonder what happens to pre-existing
fingerprints, just present on the coffee table or bed, waiting to be
"developed" by a dusting of blood. Maybe the print was there to begin
with and the blood "dusted" it. Ron
BRogers115
>I know it's a bit late now, but couldn't they have dusted the whole
>house for fingerprints and tried to find any that matched the
>unidentified one?
They did try to get his fingerprints that way but only after the family had
been allowed to go into the house and pack and move everything out and so there
was no way at that time to get the prints. They were just too late. I don't
know for sure, but I think possibly the investigators didn't know the coroner's
hadn't gotten the fingerprints until a while into the investigation.
Brenda
BRogers115
>fingerprints, just present on the coffee table or bed, waiting to be
>"developed" by a dusting of blood. Maybe the print was there to begin
>with and the blood "dusted" it. Ro
I've thought about that since we were discussing the JMac case and I think that
a liquid wouldn't work because it's the oils on the finger that leave the print
and I think that it takes something really dry like powder to stick to the oil.
I don't know if blood would or not.
Perhaps a really thin liquid would flow gently over the old print and when it
dried it might leave the fingerprint visable, but don't you think that blood's
too viscuous?
At any rate in the Darlie case the fingerprint is mashed right in the middle of
a thick run of blood down the glass. The blood's pretty thick all around the
edges of the print so that it really does look like a finger pressed into thick
blood.
Brenda
BRogers115
>Where is the baseball bat? Could she not have been defending herself
>against the violent fists of Darin during their fight the night
>before? Ron
There was no baseball bat found at the house. But if there had been one an
intruder could have taken it. But Dr. DiMaio was just asked what type of thing
he thought would cause those type of bruises.
(This is just my thoughts but the bruises were for the most part like she had
been hit by something smooth. There weren't any cuts, scratches, abrasions etc
like you would expect if you were hit with a peice of wood or something.)
As for her and Darin having a fight the night before, there's no history of
violence at all in their marriage. Not a single person, even those that
testified against her said that Darin had ever laid a hand on her.
He had no bruises on him or on his hands. But I don't know whether or not you
would expect to see bruises on his hands in these circumstances.
This is a theory that's possible in the sense that anything is. But there's
nothing to point to it's being true.
Brenda
BRogers115
There is a disputed issue of a bloody shoeprint in the garage. The print is in
Darlie's blood but appears to be from a shoe or boot. It would not seem
possible for Darlie to have left the print.
This is the story behind that print. An investigator named James Cron came to
the crime scene shortly after all the victims had been taken away and while it
was still dark. After 20 minutes he declared that there had been no intruder
and he stated his reasoning. But he did make some mistakes in what he said.
One of them was about this bloody footprint. Cron declared that no blood had
been found in the garage. But when the criminologists got there and began
collecting the evidence they found the blood on the floor. Cron was shown the
blood and in his court testimony he flatly says that it had to be left there by
a policeman because it was not there when he made his first walk through. When
asked how he could be sure, he stated because if it had been there he would
have seen it. When asked if he could have make a mistake he declared that he
never made mistakes. When asked whether or not he had looked into whether or
not a policeman had made the print he said no.
So, it all hinged on this man's conviction that he could not have made a
mistake and no one ever tried to check it out.
Brenda
Doc Thumper
>As for her and Darin having a fight the night before, there's no history of
>violence at all in their marriage. Not a single person, even those that
>testified against her said that Darin had ever laid a hand on her.
>He had no bruises on him or on his hands. But I don't know whether or not you
>would expect to see bruises on his hands in these circumstances.
>This is a theory that's possible in the sense that anything is. But there's
>nothing to point to it's being true.
>Brenda
As I have repeatedly stated, no one knows what goes on behind closed
doors (good song title), and certainly most domestic violence does not
take place in front of witnesses, other than children. Maybe the kids
watched Darin beat their mother that night. Silent witnesses now.
Ron
ImNot911
>As I have repeatedly stated, no one knows what goes on behind closed
>doors (good song title), and certainly most domestic violence does not
>take place in front of witnesses, other than children. Maybe the kids
>watched Darin beat their mother that night. Silent witnesses now.
>Ron
>
**Maybe the bruises were caused by the kicks of a child who was fighting for
his life.
JoAnn
Doc Thumper
Distinct possibility that I had never thought about. We only have
Darlie's cockamamie story that she slept while her kids were brutally
murdered five feet away... She also claimed to have been sleeping
downstairs because the baby in the crib upstairs kept her awake (a
light sleeper), Ron
BRogers115
>take place in front of witnesses,
This may be true but family and close friends get the idea anyway of what's
happening. That wasn't the case with these two people.
Since you seem to want to push your theory, do you have anything at all to use
to back it up?
Brenda
BRogers115
>**Maybe the bruises were caused by the kicks of a child who was fighting for
>his life.
>JoAnn
These children didn't have a chance to fight for their lives. One child seems
to have had time to put one arm up and the other one seems to have been stabbed
while sleeping.
Brenda
BRogers115
>Darlie's cockamamie story that she slept while her kids were brutally
>murdered five feet away..
Ron, you're too smart for that. You know perfectly well that she didn't
"sleep" through that.
Brenda
Doc Thumper
>This may be true but family and close friends get the idea anyway of what's
>happening. That wasn't the case with these two people.
>Since you seem to want to push your theory, do you have anything at all to use
>to back it up?
>
>Brenda
In one of the books on the case, I do remember Darlie claiming that
they had had a fight that night and the reason fro her sleeping on the
couch...but I have nothing to back up my theory of the cause of her
bruises, anymore than she has to explain the bruises with her
cockamamie story. Ron
Doc Thumper
>>**Maybe the bruises were caused by the kicks of a child who was fighting for
>>his life.
>>JoAnn
>
>These children didn't have a chance to fight for their lives. One child seems
>to have had time to put one arm up and the other one seems to have been stabbed
>while sleeping.
>Brenda
How do you know they did not have a chance to fight for their
lives...only what Darlie tells you and the world. Ron
Doc Thumper
You and I know that, but that is part of her cockamamie story. She
awakened to one of the kids beside the bed and an intruder fleeing the
scene. No, I do not think she was asleep when she brutally stabbed
her kids. Ron
Lynn Smith
climbed over the fence standing on a lawn chair or something and bruised her
arms that way. Just something I thought of while watching the show. Lynn
Lynn Smith
blood spatter evidence. Did anyone else see it? It was pretty interesting from a
crime reconstruction viewpoint. Lynn
BRogers115
>In one of the books on the case, I do remember Darlie claiming that
>they had had a fight that night
Ron, I think you're mistaken about that. An author may have written that but I
believe it's since been admitted that it was without foundation.
>..but I have nothing to back up my theory of the cause of her
>bruises, anymore than she has to explain the bruises with her
>cockamamie story. Ron
Darlie has never given a cockamamie story about how she got the bruises. She's
never given any story at all about it. But there are several cockamamie
stories circulating around. Yours is very popular. But you have to remember
that the prosecution claimed at her trial that she was not injured on the night
of the assault but that she received those bruises after leaving the hospital.
(Which I'm sure you know conflicts with what medical science knows about the
development and staging of bruises.) 4 days after the assault they were purple
in color. The testimony at her trial about the bruising was that purple
bruises meant that they were fresh and that's not true.
Brenda
BRogers115
>How do you know they did not have a chance to fight for their
>lives...only what Darlie tells you and the world. Ron
>
Because the autopsy reports are on the internet. Neither child fought with
anyone.
You should know from our discussion on the JMac case that I'm very skeptical
about the story told by the accused. My opinions are all based on my
interpretation of objective data. I've seen the photos of the boys at the
scene, and the autopsy photos and read the autopsy reports. If there's any of
this that you havn't seen yet, email me. I'd really highly value your opinion
of it.
Brenda
Linda
<lsm...@holidayinndayton.com> wrote:
>There was another show on The Learning Channel last night that had some interesting
>blood spatter evidence. Did anyone else see it? It was pretty interesting from a
>crime reconstruction viewpoint. Lynn
Yes, I saw that show last night on TLC. I also saw the others. I
wasn't too sure about this case, I've been following it, but just not
sure. As with other "intruder" murders for which there is no intruder
evidence. Anyway, the part that got me last night was the blood
splatter on the back of Darlie's nightshirt. They showed it as having
come from the motion of a knife. I think this is the most striking
evidence yet, and I don't remember hearing about it until now.
By the way, I wonder what is in Darrin's mind nowadays? Why was he
commenting on his wife' s breasts, etc. when his children were just
killed? (Although I know we cannot predict what is anacceptable way
to behave in these situations)
Linda
BRogers115
>You and I know that, but that is part of her cockamamie story. She
>awakened to one of the kids beside the bed and an intruder fleeing the
>scene.
I agree that this is a cockamamie story, but I just believe that this
particular story is understandable. The psychiatrist said that she had
traumatic amnesia and to me it seems that it would seem to her like she just
woke up and found things as they were.
Apparantly there has been a profile made of mother's who kill their children
and it was testified to at her trial that she did not fit the profile. I know
it's not proof of anything but it's another nagging doubt.
No, I do not think she was asleep when she brutally stabbed
>her kids. Ron
Do you have any reason for thinking it was her that did it except for the fact
that she was convicted?
Brenda
BRogers115
>climbed over the fence standing on a lawn chair or something and bruised her
>arms that way. Just something I thought of while watching the show. Lynn
From what I have learned, the gate to the back fence was not jammed shut. You
had to lift up on the latch but the gate was easily opened. Even the police
testified to that. They had no trouble getting in or out of the yard.
Brenda
Doc Thumper
>Do you have any reason for thinking it was her that did it except for the fact
>that she was convicted?
>
Logic tells one that "intruders" with no possible motive, just don't
come into a house, just kill the children and then vanish from the
face of the Earth. Circumstantial evidence is the only thing that
proves her guilt. She has no reason to have amnesia, and full well
knows what happened that night, as well as do you and I. She does not
even allege a head injury like JMac. Ron
kae...@hotmail.com
>>
>>You and I know that, but that is part of her cockamamie story. She
>>awakened to one of the kids beside the bed and an intruder fleeing the
>>scene.
>
>I agree that this is a cockamamie story, but I just believe that this
>particular story is understandable. The psychiatrist said that she had
>traumatic amnesia and to me it seems that it would seem to her like she just
>woke up and found things as they were.
>Apparantly there has been a profile made of mother's who kill their children
Brenda,
Do you know if this profile of mothers who kill their children is on
the web any where?
Thanks.
Penny
GMSpider
>the web any where?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Penny
If you go to http://www.google.com and search for "profile of mothers who kill
their children" you will come up with a couple hundred sites. I am sure some
of them will be of help to you.
SCRIPTURES, n.
The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and
profane writings on which all other faiths are based.
The Devil's Dictionary
BRogers115
>Do you know if this profile of mothers who kill their children is on
>the web any where?
>
Not for sure, but I would think it would be. Maybe a search under psychiatry
would find it. Or better yet, forensic psychiatry.
Brenda
kae...@hotmail.com
>>Do you know if this profile of mothers who kill their children is on
>>the web any where?
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>Penny
>
>If you go to http://www.google.com and search for "profile of mothers who kill
>their children" you will come up with a couple hundred sites. I am sure some
>of them will be of help to you.
Thanks a lot, Sarah. I have found many sites as you stated. :o)
kae...@hotmail.com
>>
>>Do you know if this profile of mothers who kill their children is on
>>the web any where?
>>
>
>Not for sure, but I would think it would be. Maybe a search under psychiatry
>would find it. Or better yet, forensic psychiatry.
>Brenda
I did as Sarah suggested and found many sites on this subject. Thanks
Brenda.
Penny
Lynn Smith
I totally agree about the bloodsplatter on her night shirt. That was something I had not
heard of until that show. I wonder if that information is substantiated any other place?
Lynn
DedNdogYrs
was possible that an intruder may have used it to hold on a cut he had but if
it didn't have a stranger's blood on it then that wouldn't be so. If that
isn't the case then why would it be there? Someone is going to steal a sock and
leave behind jewelry and money? It looks kind of like Darle may have heaved it
down the alley.
Dogs & children first.
DedNdogYrs
Why would there be a sock from the crime scene in the alley?
Dogs & children first.
kae...@hotmail.com
Or maybe the intruder put those socks on to hide his fingerprints from
the knives used in the murders and then dropped them when he was
fleeing? I think that would be just a plausible as any other
scenario. If there wasn't any of his DNA on the sock could mean he
didn't get cut on this hand. In all honesty, I don't know whether
Darlie is guilty or not but I do think she does deserve a new trial
because of the condition of the trial transcripts alone.
Penny
>Dogs & children first.
Sharpjfa
sharp Justice For All http://www.jfa.net/
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/ http://www.murdervictims.com/
Overwhelmingly, the US criminal justice system benefits criminals, dishonors
victims and contributes to future victimizations.
Lyrker
Lynn Smith <lsm...@holidayinndayton.com> wrote in message
news:3A280B8D...@holidayinndayton.com...
> They said on the TV show that the gate in back was jammed. couldn't she
have
> climbed over the fence standing on a lawn chair or something and bruised
her
> arms that way. Just something I thought of while watching the show. Lynn
That's an interesting idea. If she slipped coming down one side or the
other, that would explain the length and consistency of the bruising though
I'd think such a slip would show other evidence on her body as well.
My SO and I have been debating the bruised-arms issue since we saw the show.
He holds that the bruises on the insides of her arms are too uniform to be
caused by a scrape - that in order to get bruises that severe from scraping
alone she (or her attacker) would have had to repeatedly scrape her arms
against a suitable surface, which would have lacerated the surface skin and
left erratic bruise patterns where the impacts would have occured.
This same theory would seem to rule out fending off a baseball bat. If you
bashed at someone's arms with a baseball bat more than once, there'd be
seperate points of contact where the bruising would be most severe. Likewise
it stands to reason that if someone hit her hard enough with a baseball bat
to completely bruise the insides of her arms like that, that there would be
interal damage too - most likely hairline fractures or even a complete
break. She experienced neither so I'm inclined to say that impact-damage
wasn't the cause.
My SO then theorized that perhaps she was slammed facing into a wall and put
her arms up. But where the bruising occured... well. My argument was that in
order for her to hit a wall hard enough to bruise her arms like that, once
again there should have been other marks on her body consistent with such an
act, either on her legs or chest/breasts or face.
Any other theories? This particular portion of the case really mystifies me.
Lyrker
What did they say? Inquiring minds want to know.
Lynn Smith <lsm...@holidayinndayton.com> wrote in message
news:3A280C48...@holidayinndayton.com...
Lyrker
the crime - swaying between believing her and thinking she had help). The
fact that the sock has only trace evidence from Darlie and her child and
Darlie's blood does smack suspicious.
I saw an earlier post here that said they got bloodhounds out to trail the
sock and the trail stopped at the gutter where the sock was found. Question:
if they were using hounds, whose scent were the dogs following to track the
sock to the gutter?
That aside, there are a couple of explanations for the trail stopping:
A) The person who put the sock there (and either way you slice it, the
dropped sock looks intentional) doubled back to the house.
B) The person who dropped it there hopped into a waiting car in the alley
and drove off.
DedNdogYrs <dednd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001204055842...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
> I was wondering why there would be a sock in the alley. At first I
thought it
> was possible that an intruder may have used it to hold on a cut he had but
if
> it didn't have a stranger's blood on it then that wouldn't be so. If that
> isn't the case then why would it be there? Someone is going to steal a
sock and
> leave behind jewelry and money? It looks kind of like Darle may have
heaved it
> down the alley.
> Dogs & children first.
Lyrker
> Logic tells one that "intruders" with no possible motive, just don't
> come into a house, just kill the children and then vanish from the
> face of the Earth.
Here's the way I see it: nothing was stolen from the house. The two boys
were killed first. That means that the intruder deliberately set out to kill
the boys. Went straight for them. Knew where they slept and killed them -
according to what Brenda posted, one looked to have been stabbed in his
sleep. Which means the killer, in cold blood, went in to murder. Not to
steal, not to rape. To kill.
Why would someone bent on killing kill two of three little boys, leave the
baby and the mother alive?
Seems to me that someone who was entering the house with the intent of
murder would have either killed Darlie first to make sure no one could call
the cops while the rest of the house was killed or the killer would have
made sure and killed her after she caught him killing her first two kids.
What reason would he have to leave a living witness around who was close
enough for him to brutalize that she should have been able to accurately
describe what he looked like - at least enough to draw a composite sketch
off of. You can't get in hand-to-hand range with someone and not have them
get a general impression of your height and weight - even in absolute
darkness.
The supposed perp has already murdered two and has a battered witness who
stands to testify against him and get him the death penalty. It would be
suicide to leave her alive. Seems to me that the only person who should have
had a chance of surviving such an encounter would've been the baby. If they
were willing to break into the house just to kill the kids, seems like they
would have finished the job and made sure there wasn't a potential witness
around. If the perp had supposedly been there to rob, why start off killing
kids and risk waking the sleeping house? Doesn't make sense.
What does make sense is that either Darlie or someone she knew killed the
kids and roughed her up to get her off the hook as the main suspect. Either
she killed them and beat herself up. She killed them and had someone she
knew beat her up to make it look good or someone she knew killed them and
either she's protecting them by claiming not to remember or she helped and
had them beat her up deliberately. Any way you cut it, I do believe she
knows who did it and isn't talking. My opinion on a case with a lot of open
doors though, mind you. I don't know any better than the next person about
the truth of the situation.
Maggie
>> come into a house, just kill the children and then vanish from the
>> face of the Earth.
>
***You know, I hadn't really thought of it before, but a murder-for-hire thing
makes pretty good sense--it certainly could explain the only real piece of
evidence that tends to exonerate Darlie (that bloody sock). I wonder if a
scenario has been investigated.
Maggie
"Pretty smart campaign for a dumb guy."--Newsweek on George W.
Doc Thumper
wrote:
>My SO then theorized that perhaps she was slammed facing into a wall and put
>her arms up. But where the bruising occured... well. My argument was that in
>order for her to hit a wall hard enough to bruise her arms like that, once
>again there should have been other marks on her body consistent with such an
>act, either on her legs or chest/breasts or face.
>
>Any other theories? This particular portion of the case really mystifies me.
Some have postulated that those bruises only showed up after her ever
so brief hospitalization, for her ever such relatively minor injuries
(when compared to the slaughter of her children). The most likely
etiology of same bruises is hematoma formation from botched
intravenous catheter insertions, or infiltration of the IV's. Ron
Doc Thumper
wrote:
>What does make sense is that either Darlie or someone she knew killed the
>kids and roughed her up to get her off the hook as the main suspect. Either
>she killed them and beat herself up. She killed them and had someone she
>knew beat her up to make it look good or someone she knew killed them and
>either she's protecting them by claiming not to remember or she helped and
>had them beat her up deliberately. Any way you cut it, I do believe she
>knows who did it and isn't talking. My opinion on a case with a lot of open
>doors though, mind you. I don't know any better than the next person about
>the truth of the situation.
You have done a very good job of characterizing the prosecution's case
for essentially a circumstantial case. The entire "intruder did it
scenario" just does not make sense. Once again the cockamamie story
of the defense (Darlie), and her subsequent actions afterward,
destroyed her credibility entirely. Ron
Doc Thumper
wrote:
>***You know, I hadn't really thought of it before, but a murder-for-hire thing
>makes pretty good sense--it certainly could explain the only real piece of
>evidence that tends to exonerate Darlie (that bloody sock). I wonder if a
>scenario has been investigated.
>
>Maggie
Darlie would be just as guilty if she had hired this murder...but I
don't think she would have the "hitman" use the knives from her
kitchen. The knife story is what really nails her coffin for me. She
picks up the knife, in order to wipe her prints off of it, and makes
sure that she tells the 911 operator that she accidentally picked up
the knife, just in case she missed a print. The knife had no prints
on it, even after she told the world she had picked it up...why do you
think she wiped it clean? Brenda will tell you she was in "shock"
LOL. Ron
Ozma von Oz
Does anyone think that Darin was in on it also? I can't see any other
explanation. Maybe he awoke after she murdered the boys and tried to cover up
for her. Hence the "staged" appearance of the crime scene . I still don't know
what she hoped to get out of this, I have heard of insurance money, but how
much was it? Also does anyone think she just snapped and killed them or did she
plan it all along?
I'm an light sleeper also and there is no way I could have slept through all
that activity, someone breaking into the house and then stabbing the children.
As to the birthday party, even after the explanation of the previous hours
spent in prayer and tears, it still makes the hair stand up on the back of my
neck to see it.
I taped this show and took the vid to work and now I can't recall specifically
how Darin referred to the boys, but it was something about referring to one of
the boys as "the younger of the two" that just seemed cold. It was like he was
talking about some inanimate object.
Karen
DedNdogYrs
makes pretty good sense--it certainly could explain the only real piece of
evidence that tends to exonerate Darlie (that bloody sock). I wonder if a
scenario has been investigated.>
The sock makes no sense to me at all. If it was carried away by the
"intruder", then the only reason I can think of for him to take it with him
would be to hold against a bleeding cut or if it stuck to him. However, if a
stranger's blood wasn't on it then the first theory isn't so. The sock sticking
to him doesn't seem very likely; maybe someone with a criminal justice or
science background here can comment on that. If neither of those ideas are
possible, then all I can think of is Darlie tossing it down the alley as
"evidence" of an intruder. But what kind of evidence is this? An intruder is
going to leave behind money and jewelry and steal a sock?
Dogs & children first.
Michelle Martin
suicide note which her husband blew off as not that important. Maybe Darlie
planned on killing her children and herself but chickened out when it came
time for her to kill herself. It doesn't make sense that the children would
be so brutally attacked and she wasn't - also if it was an intruder you
would think that he would make sure she was dead (a witness) and would go
for the adults first instead of the children.
Lynn Smith
with someone repeatedly raising their arm in a stabbing motion. Lynn
Doc Thumper
Exactly why everyone except the most ardent die-hard Darlie cultists
believe in her guilt as I do. Ron
Ozma von Oz
Don't get me wrong I think she is guilty also, I just have a few details that I
have questions about.
1. Did her husband have anything to do with it?
2. How did she get the bruises? Those are some heavy duty black and blue marks
on her arms.
I can see her snapping and killing the kids but then what did she do? Start
yelling for Darin, did he come down and help her arrange the scene? Or did she
quietly kill the kids and then arrange the scene herself?
Karen
Lyrker
> explanation. Maybe he awoke after she murdered the boys and tried to cover
up
> for her. Hence the "staged" appearance of the crime scene . I still don't
know
> what she hoped to get out of this, I have heard of insurance money, but
how
> much was it? Also does anyone think she just snapped and killed them or
did she
> plan it all along?
This is something I suggested to my SO, who kind of shrugged it off - that
someone she knew helped her out after the fact. It doesn't seem such a
stretch for me to see someone helping her cover her ass; it's happened in
many other crimes where in someone close to a killer helped them to dispose
of bodies and even leant alibis for them. Look at the case with the starved
Tausha - her mother's boyfriend helped her bag and toss the body out by the
side of the road then helped her come up with a story about how they lost
her at the mall. Then of course the more recently case of Karla Homolka
that's been all over the board.
I think that if she did kill them, it was a matter of being fed up and
having a plan. Make it look like an intruder did it and she's off
scott-free. Maybe her husband found her before she got to the baby and his
arrival was enough to snap her back to reality. Or maaaaaaaybe... he found
her killing the kids, jumped on her and beat the tar out of her to make her
stop killing the kids (thus sparing the baby), then helped her frump up the
intruder story afterward when she was easier to reason with. It would
explain why none of the injuries she received were incredibly
life-threatening.
I'm still undecided on the case, though. There's far too many unanswered
questions for me. I'm glad I wasn't on the jury.
Lyrker
> don't think she would have the "hitman" use the knives from her
> kitchen. The knife story is what really nails her coffin for me. She
> picks up the knife, in order to wipe her prints off of it, and makes
> sure that she tells the 911 operator that she accidentally picked up
> the knife, just in case she missed a print.
That's the other big bell for me. The weapon used in the killings and the
knife used to cut the screen were from the house. What intruder breaks into
someone's house, goes to their kitchen and rifles through the drawers to
find a knife (while the oh-so-light sleeper Darlie is in the next room
sleeping), takes it BACK outside to cut the screen with, then enters the
house to kill the two oldest children in the before going back around to
rough the mom up a bit only to run away, leaving the knife there. But who
then leaves a single sock down the alley to show which way they ran..? Makes
absolutely no sense.
If the 'intruder' was completely bonkers, they'd have attacked Darlie first
as she'd be the first they'd see on the way to the kitchen (unless the
Routiers were in the habit of leaving sharp knives around the house with 3
small children around). If it was a robbery gone bad, why wouldn't they
finish the job? There's already 2 bodies - what burglar's going to run the
risk of the death penalty on a botched robbery and not get something out of
it for the trouble? Just does not add up to an intruder, any way I slice it.
Ozma von Oz
hasn't distanced himself from her? He seems to be devoted to her. I wish
someone would come out with detailed book about this. I was at the bookstore
and couldn't find one. I think it's a very interesting case.
Karen
DoctorsHelm
There are at least four books written on this case, Hush Little
Babies, Precious Angels, Media tried, Justice Denied, none of which
are well written or really researched.
The problem with the Darin theory is that once Darlie was convicted, I
don't believe she would take the hit a nd let Darin go free if he was
involved in the coverup. Coverups only work until one of the parties
is convicted and then fall apart. Ron
DedNdogYrs
bookstore and couldn't find one. I think it's a very interesting case.>
Actually, I'm pretty sure there are three books.
Dogs & children first.
glas
"Lyrker" <lil...@whoever.com> wrote in message
news:90rmvj$9...@news.or.intel.com...
I've been trying to find my book on the Routier case but I must have passed
it on to my mother so I can't look up the exact time line of events, but
there was not enough time for anyone to have worked out and staged a coverup
with Darlie if she had killed the boys. The wounds they suffered were so
severe that death was within minutes and the ambulance attendents were there
before at least one of them died.
Have you read any books on this case? I recommend "Hush Little Babies" by
Don Davis. It's a pretty good exploration of what happened.
glas
Ozma von Oz
I have read two books on this case, the one by Barbara Davis which is null and
void in my eyes since she has changed her mind on Darlie's guilt, kind of
reverse Joe McGinniss. I read the Don Davis book also. They just left a couple
of holes in the explanations for me. I thought maybe there was a better one
that I hadn't come across.
If Darin didn't help her, where did the bruises come from? According to those
pictures she was really bruised up. I finally found information on the Court TV
website about the insurance policies for $5,000 for each child that doesn't
seem like alot. Of course I guess the bottom line is she's crazy.
She certainly has a devoted group of followers according to her website. I
still don't understand the author changing her mind after writing the book.
Karen
BRogers115
>If Darin didn't help her, where did the bruises come from? According to those
>pictures she was really bruised up.
The explanation for the bruises that was presented at her trial by the
prosecution was that the bruises were self-inflicted by Darlie after she left
the hospital. What the prosecution used as evidence for this theory was
several nurses who testified that they did not see the bruises when she was in
the ICU. They were shown photos of the bruises taken 4 days after the killings
(the same photos that are in Media Tried, Justice Denied and on the tv shows.)
The bruises are purple and they incorrectly testified that purple bruises were
fresh bruises, when in fact it means old bruises.
Dr. DiMaio (a Medical Examiner) correctly testified as to the age of the
bruising, but his testimony was apparantly ignored.
I finally found information on the Court
>TV
>website about the insurance policies for $5,000 for each child that doesn't
>seem like alot.
The burial insurance was not even enough to pay for all the funeral expenses.
Of course I guess the bottom line is she's crazy.
I don't think she's crazy. She has had a psychiatric evaluation and no psych
disorders were found except that she suffered from "traumatic amnesia" about
the events of that night.
I think it is of note that the Psychologist also testified that Darlie did NOT
meet the criteria for women who kill their children.
Brenda
Maggie
>those
>>pictures she was really bruised up.
>
>The explanation for the bruises that was presented at her trial by the
>prosecution was that the bruises were self-inflicted by Darlie after she
>left
>the hospital. What the prosecution used as evidence for this theory was
>several nurses who testified that they did not see the bruises when she
>was in
>the ICU. They were shown photos of the bruises taken 4 days after the
killings
>(the same photos that are in Media Tried, Justice Denied and on the tv shows.)
>The bruises are purple and they incorrectly testified that purple bruises
>were
>fresh bruises, when in fact it means old bruises.
>Dr. DiMaio (a Medical Examiner) correctly testified as to the age of the
>bruising, but his testimony was apparantly ignored.
***I cry foul on this one. For reasons that are nobody's business, I have
several bruises on my thigh that I can date to the hour. One was inflicted
Monday morning (5 days ago) and it is greenish-yellowish-purplish. The other
was inflicted Thursday afternoon (2 days ago) and is deep purple.
And, no, my husband doesn't beat me.
kae...@hotmail.com
wrote:
I think it would depend on how deep and severe of a bruise it is. I
was in a serious car accident in 1990. Our car was flipped over onto
it's top and I was sent into the stick shift so hard it fractured my
hip. I got those same type bruises Darlie had 2 days after the
accident and they were that deep dark purple 5 days later when I was
released from the hospital. They didn't finally get to the
greenish-yellowish-purplish stage until almost 2 weeks later.
Penny
Faye
I think the 'Darin' theory has a ring of truth about it. after she
murdered the 2 children, whether he was in on it or not, believe that he
helped stage the scene, placed the sock in the alley, etc. He is
devoted to her ....why is he not totally upset and bitter toward her?
Was he ever under suspicion at all?...Faye.
BRogers115
>several bruises on my thigh that I can date to the hour. One was inflicted
>Monday morning (5 days ago) and it is greenish-yellowish-purplish. The other
>was inflicted Thursday afternoon (2 days ago) and is deep purple.
>
I did not mean to imply that all bruises turned purple in four days. In
Darlie's case there was testimony by a pathologist about her specific bruises
and the severity of them and when they would be expected to have turned purple.
Brenda
BRogers115
I believe he was initially under suspicion but cleared. He has stated that he
totally believes her to be innocent.
>
Brenda
Faye
both Barbara Davis and Don Davis? Thanks.....Faye
Jamie
I don't think the scene was staged that elaborately. What convinced me of her guilt
is the lack of intruder evidence. The screen was cut, when it would've been easier
to lift the screen totally of its frame. The ground under the window was
undisturbed, there was no blood outside the house. The weapon came from the
Routier's own kitchen. An intruder breaking in to a house unarmed and then getting
a weapon from the kitchen is unheard of, as is what Darlie claimed: which is that
the intruder dropped the knife on the floor as he was fleeing.
The problem with the intruder theory is that there is a complete lack of motive.
What purpose was there for someone to break into the house *unarmed*? What was the
motive? Robbery? Darlie's jewelry and purse were in the kitchen in plain view, and
not taken. Rape? A rapist would've gone for Darlie first, and not killed the kids
when he could've used them as leverage with Darlie. Why would an intruder go for
two little kids first, leaving Darlie undisturbed on the sofa, and risk her waking
up at any moment? Why would the intruder attack Darlie, but suddenly decide to go
when she, a small woman, fought back? You would have to believe that this intruder
savagely stabbed two children, yet couldn't bring himself to kill Darlie, and
instead left her alive as a witness, and then *dropped the murder weapon*, which
would've give Darlie a chance to grab the knife herself and possibly fight back
with it. And at least one of the boys showed signs of struggle. Darlie claimed that
she awoke when the intruder was on her, and didn't notice until later that she was
slashed in the throat. How could a woman sleep through the struggle and murder of
her two small children in the same room *and* her own throat being slashed? And if
she struggled with the intruder, then why was there not more damage to the room,
why were more things not broken?
And the biggest question for me, why was the sink basin in the kitchen cleaned of
blood? If Darlie was as hysterical as she claimed, I don't see how she could've
picked up the murder weapon, brought it into the kitchen, set it on the counter,
and then run water in the sink. I would think the first instinct of a hysterical
mother would be to run to the children to see if they were all right.
--
~Jamie
DoctorsHelm
Hush Little Babies and Precious Angels, can't remember who wrote which
book because they were both poorly written, documented and researched,
IMNSHO. Ron
BRogers115
>is the lack of intruder evidence. The screen was cut, when it would've been
>easier
>to lift the screen totally of its frame.
The screen was latched from the inside. How could it be lifted out of it's
frame from the outside?
The ground under the window was
>undisturbed,
This misinformation was generated in the very beginning of this case when the
crime scene specialist stated that the mulch underneath the window was not
disturbed. He just made a mistake. There was only concrete under the window,
an extension of the patio. The other windows had mulch but not the window with
the cut screen.
>there was no blood outside the house.
Actually, the criminologists did find blood in the garage on the floor that
turned out to be Darlie's. This was disregarded by the police however because
the crime scene expert said in his initial conclusion about the scene that
there was no blood in the garage.
He was present when the criminologists found it. In the trial he testified
that the blood must have been tracked in there by a policeman because it was
not there when he made his first walk through. He flatly denied the
possibility that he could have been mistaken (even though he was also mistaken
about the mulch under the window), and testified to the fact that nothing was
ever done to verify whether or not the blood came from a policeman. Basically
this was just ignored based on this man's assurance that he did not make
mistakes.
> The weapon came from the
>Routier's own kitchen. An intruder breaking in to a house unarmed and then
>getting
>a weapon from the kitchen is unheard of,
In the last month there have been some very interesting articles in the Dallas
papers about a man they have in custody for serial rapes in Northeast Dallas
from 1995 to the present. The Routier murders took place in a suburb northeast
of Dallas. This man's MO was to get the weapon from the victims house. He got
various things including a knife from a countertop knife block, scissors and
once a fork from a dishwasher. In one case a little girl was present and he
threatened the child if the mother didn't cooperate and another time he
threatened the abdomen of an 8 months pregnant woman and ended up trying to
smother her. He will be tried on 10 cases where he left DNA evidence and is
suspected in many more cases where he did not leave any DNA.
Something of even more similarity to the Routier crime is that his MO also
included wearing socks on his hands and stuffing socks into his victims
mouths.>
>And the biggest question for me, why was the sink basin in the kitchen
>cleaned of
>blood?
Both Darlie and Darin testified that Darlie was wetting kitchen towels at the
kitchen sink and carrying them into the family room to put on the boys wounds.
The people at the crime analysis laboratory testified that something like 13 or
14 small towels were brought in by the police for testing. In the crime scene
photos you can see multiple towels lying around on the carpet. (This is after
the paramedics have taken the boys and Darlie.)
Brenda
PattyC4303
(BRogers115) writes:
>An intruder breaking in to a house unarmed and then
>>getting
>>a weapon from the kitchen is unheard of,
>
You are kidding, right?
I am sure this can happen. I know from experience.
PattyC
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."
Jamie
> What convinced me of her guilt
> >is the lack of intruder evidence. The screen was cut, when it would've been
> >easier
> >to lift the screen totally of its frame.
>
> The screen was latched from the inside. How could it be lifted out of it's
> frame from the outside?
>
> The ground under the window was
> >undisturbed,
>
> This misinformation was generated in the very beginning of this case when the
> crime scene specialist stated that the mulch underneath the window was not
> disturbed. He just made a mistake. There was only concrete under the window,
> an extension of the patio. The other windows had mulch but not the window with
> the cut screen.
"Indeed, Cron found, as the side of the house, in the garage – but he knew at
first glance it was a no-go. The screen showed no signs of having been forcibly
pushed in or out to allow a body through its netting, but even more telling was the
fact that the
screen's frame was easily removable. Any criminal with an idiot's IQ would have
simply taken it off its setting. Additionally, the ground below the window,
comprised of a dewy, wet mulch, was undisturbed."
From http://www.crimelibrary.com/fillicide/routier/3.htm which also has a photo of
the window in question. If you have any actual cites to contradict that, feel free
to provide them.
>
>
> >there was no blood outside the house.
>
> Actually, the criminologists did find blood in the garage on the floor that
> turned out to be Darlie's.
And how does that provide evidence of an intruder? If Darlie did it, she would've
slit the garage window herself. Therefore, she could've tracked the blood onto the
floor herself. Or, as you say below, a police officer could have tracked it later.
> This was disregarded by the police however because
> the crime scene expert said in his initial conclusion about the scene that
> there was no blood in the garage.
Cite please.
>
> He was present when the criminologists found it. In the trial he testified
> that the blood must have been tracked in there by a policeman because it was
> not there when he made his first walk through. He flatly denied the
> possibility that he could have been mistaken (even though he was also mistaken
> about the mulch under the window), and testified to the fact that nothing was
> ever done to verify whether or not the blood came from a policeman. Basically
> this was just ignored based on this man's assurance that he did not make
> mistakes.
Okay, even if one believes that, then could you please tell us why a such tiny
amount of Darlie's blood would be on the garage floor, when this intruder, who due
to the force of the crime, would've been literally *drenched* in the blood of the
boys? And why would he flee through the garage and squeeze through the small window
the same way he got in? And how could a grown man, drenched in blood, crawl through
a window that size without getting any blood on the frame, the ledge, the sides,
the walls around the window, the screen, etc?
> > The weapon came from the
> >Routier's own kitchen. An intruder breaking in to a house unarmed and then
> >getting
> >a weapon from the kitchen is unheard of,
>
> In the last month there have been some very interesting articles in the Dallas
> papers about a man they have in custody for serial rapes in Northeast Dallas
> from 1995 to the present. The Routier murders took place in a suburb northeast
> of Dallas. This man's MO was to get the weapon from the victims house. He got
> various things including a knife from a countertop knife block, scissors and
> once a fork from a dishwasher. In one case a little girl was present and he
> threatened the child if the mother didn't cooperate and another time he
> threatened the abdomen of an 8 months pregnant woman and ended up trying to
> smother her.
Exactly what I said (and what you snipped). In that case, the MO of the rapist was
to use any children present as leverage *against* the woman. The rapist you're
talking about didn't kill any of the children you mentioned, which is drastically
different from the Routier case, wherein the "intruder" killed the two small
children before even approaching the adult woman in the room. In fact, killing the
children would be the *last* thing a rapist like that would do, because if the
children were dead already, what is he going to use against the woman? A woman who
sees that her children are alright, but in imminent danger, will do anything to
cooperate with an intruder. But a woman who sees that her children are already
severely wounded will have nothing to lose, and do anything to get help for her
kids.
BTW, did the rapist in question actually stab any of his victims? You say he tried
to smother one woman, which is very different from the Routier case, wherein the
children were brutally and savagely stabbed (a killer of adults has a very
different profile than a child killer, and indeed, serial criminals always have
certain things that are consistent in their crimes). In short, the Dallas suspect's
crimes, as you describe them, are so different than the Routier case it's like
comparing O.J. to JonBenet.
> He will be tried on 10 cases where he left DNA evidence and is
> suspected in many more cases where he did not leave any DNA.
> Something of even more similarity to the Routier crime is that his MO also
> included wearing socks on his hands and stuffing socks into his victims
> mouths.>
No socks were found in the mouths of the boys, and Darlie wasn't gagged with a
sock, so how you can say the MO is "very similar" is beyond me.
> >And the biggest question for me, why was the sink basin in the kitchen
> >cleaned of
> >blood?
>
> Both Darlie and Darin testified that Darlie was wetting kitchen towels at the
> kitchen sink and carrying them into the family room to put on the boys wounds.
Then how do you explain the bloody handprint from one of the boys on the sofa,
which was also cleaned away?
> The people at the crime analysis laboratory testified that something like 13 or
> 14 small towels were brought in by the police for testing. In the crime scene
> photos you can see multiple towels lying around on the carpet. (This is after
> the paramedics have taken the boys and Darlie.)
However, the first policeman at the scene testified that the towels only appeared
after he instructed Darlie to get them to apply pressure on the boys' wounds.
(You're also not going to sway a lot of people here using *Darlie's* testimony.)
And BTW, I have a hard time believing that a hysterical woman would pause to
*dampen* towels to use them for pressure bandages, and also, I don't believe that
the simple act of dampening some towels in a sink would manage to clean the *whole*
sink basin, while at the same time managing to get blood on the tiles and walls
surrounding the sink.
--
~Jamie
Jamie
> In article <20001211211452...@ng-fc1.aol.com>, broge...@aol.com
> (BRogers115) writes:
>
> >An intruder breaking in to a house unarmed and then
> >>getting
> >>a weapon from the kitchen is unheard of,
> >
>
> You are kidding, right?
>
> I am sure this can happen. I know from experience.
I'm sure it does happen, but in cases like robberies where the criminal is
surprised. But the Routier case was not a robbery, in fact, as evidenced by the
boys' wounds, it was an incredibly savage murder. Someone who would break into a
house to commit a crime as evil and angry as that is not going to be taking
chances and depending on there being a suitable weapon in the home.
--
~Jamie
DoctorsHelm
>I'm sure it does happen, but in cases like robberies where the criminal is
>surprised. But the Routier case was not a robbery, in fact, as evidenced by the
>boys' wounds, it was an incredibly savage murder. Someone who would break into a
>house to commit a crime as evil and angry as that is not going to be taking
>chances and depending on there being a suitable weapon in the home.
>
>
>
>
>--
>~Jamie
>
There was never an intruder in that house. Darlie's story is
incredible. Darlie deserves the ultimate punishment. Hopefully, but
I doubt it, she will add to the long list of Texas' achievements at
setting records for executions, sometime in the future. Ron
BRogers115
>first glance it was a no-go. The screen showed no signs of having been fo=
>rcibly
>pushed in or out to allow a body through its netting, but even more telli=
>ng was the
>fact that the
>d have
>simply taken it off its setting. Additionally, the ground below the windo=
>w,
>comprised of a dewy, wet mulch, was undisturbed."
>
> a photo of
>the window in question. If you have any actual cites to contradict that, =
>feel free
>to provide them.
>
I went to the above website and read the first two paragraphs. It is riddled
with errors about this case. Whoever wrote it didn't know very much about the
case. For instance:
"thought it was strange that the sink was spotless and white"....actually the
sink was stainless steel and it was not spotless. There was washed out blood
clearly visable in the sink and samples were collected.
2. The article says there were footprints from the kitchen out through the
utility room into the garage and leading to the window and this is completely
untrue.
3. The window screen was fabric and there was a demonstration using a
policeman (a large one) in the trial and he was able to go through the screen
without touching things twice, walking and running. And the screen always
falls back into the same position which is falling towards the inside of the
garage.
4. There was no mulch beneath the window. It was concrete.
My information comes from the crime scene photos and the trial transcript, both
of which are readily available.
The crime scene photos are in the book Media Tried, Justice Denied and the
trial transcript is on the web.
>> Actually, the criminologists did find blood in the garage on the floor =
>that
>> turned out to be Darlie's.
>
>And how does that provide evidence of an intruder? If Darlie did it, she =
>would've
>slit the garage window herself. Therefore, she could've tracked the blood=
> onto the
>floor herself.
From the cut fibers they could tell that the screen was cut from the outside.
Darlie was bleeding profusely and stepping in her own blood as she walked and
her footprints were very bloody and she was barefoot. Her footprints stopped
at the utility room. There were none of her footprints in the garage. The
blood in the garage did not come from a bare footprint.
>
>> This was disregarded by the police however because
>> the crime scene expert said in his initial conclusion about the scene t=
>hat
>> there was no blood in the garage.
>
>Cite please.
>
If you will read Jim Cron's testimony in the transcript you will see that he
says that he was present when the criminologists found the blood in the garage
but that it had not been there when he was in there earlier. When asked if he
could have made a mistake he answered "No". When the cross examining attorney
asked him if everyone didn't make mistakes he replied "I don't"
Then he was asked if a policeman transferring the blood would have needed to
step in wet blood in the utility room and he replied "Yes".
He was then asked if he had looked to see if any of the blood in the utility
room had been stepped in and he replied "NO".
Just of note: I have seen a picture of the utility room which was taken after
the criminologists were there and I cannot remember seeing any blood that had
been stepped in.
It is my feeling that the presence of blood in the garage would have been of
paramount importance in proving an intruder and the police totally ignored it.
Once it was found and was determined to be Darlie's then they should have
tested all of the policemen and found out whether or not one of them had left
it there. There were some shoe prints in the carpet behind one of the sofas
and they went so far as to test everyone of them and discovered that it was a
paramedic and yet they disregarded the blood found in the garage based solely
on Jim Crons belief that he could not have made a mistake on his initial
walkthrough.
He made other mistakes about the staging of the crime scene too because he got
there after Darin and the paramedics had moved things around some to get to the
boys. He based his judgement on how he saw things when he got there.
>
>Okay, even if one believes that, then could you please tell us why a such=
> tiny
>amount of Darlie's blood would be on the garage floor, when this intruder=
>, who due
>to the force of the crime, would've been literally *drenched* in the bloo=
>d of the
>boys?
In the transcript the pathologist testifies that the wounds that the boys
received would not be the type that would spurt blood, but would rather run
more to the inside of the body. It is noteworthy that Darlie was not drenched
with their blood either. The crime scene was shockingly bloody but it was
nearly all Darlie's blood. The boys bled to death but it was internally
mostly. (This information comes from the autopsy on the boys which is also
available on the web)
> leverage *against* the woman. The rapist y=
>ou're
>talking about didn't kill any of the children you mentioned,
What you say is true but he also was never confronted with two children. In
one case he held a little girl up in the air by her neck and I believe he
threatened to rape the little girl also. The woman held the little girl
clutched to her while he raped her. And he did try to kill the pregnant woman,
so he was capable of violence. But the point is that there are crimes that are
very similar to what happened at the Routiers so it's not so unusual not to
find an intruders DNA, for one to get a weapon from the house, and it's very,
very common for intruders who enter through a window to cut the screen.
> In fact, ki=
>lling the
>children would be the *last* thing a rapist like that would do, because i=
>f the
>children were dead already, what is he going to use against the woman? A =
It's just my opinion but I think that he did not initially know that the two
children were there. They were on the floor. I think it's possible that he
could not trust that he could control two of them and Darlie. I also think
that his intention was to kill Darlie too and I think he thought he had killed
her. JMHO
>
>BTW, did the rapist in question actually stab any of his victims?
Not that I know of.
>
>No socks were found in the mouths of the boys, and Darlie wasn't gagged w=
>ith a
>sock, so how you can say the MO is "very similar" is beyond me.
>
There was a sock that was found about three houses down in the alley behind the
Routier house that had Darlie's DNA on it and blood from both of the boys on it
but no blood of Darlie's. Darlie had cuts inside her mouth from her teeth and
a red scrape from the corner of her mouth to her chin. This just makes me
think that it's very possible something was stuffed in her mouth at one time.
Again JMO, but based on the facts of the case.
>
>Then how do you explain the bloody handprint from one of the boys on the =
>sofa,
>which was also cleaned away?
I don't explain it. Other's have suggested that maybe a wet towel was thrown
on the couch and washed it away. I don't have an opinion on that and can't
imagine why it would be thought that anyone had washed it away deliberatly in
an attempt to "clean up" the scene. There was blood all over the downstairs of
that house.
>
>However, the first policeman at the scene testified that the towels only =
>appeared
>after he instructed Darlie to get them to apply pressure on the boys' wou=
>nds.
No, this is not what he testified. He testified that he told Darlie to help
the boy and she didn't. He also testified that she appeared hysterical, was
running around and talking to the 911 operator on a handheld phone and talking
to him at the same time. He also testified that he told her to lie down or sit
down. She didn't do that either. As for the towels, he testified that he
didn't see her taking any towels to the boys. I'm not absolutely sure of that
but I think that's what he says but you can clearly see the towels are present
in the photos. In the kitchen there is also a drawer that has towels in it and
it is hanging open with some towels hanging out and blood dripped inside the
drawer.
>
>And BTW, I have a hard time believing that a hysterical woman would pause=
> to
>*dampen* towels to use them for pressure bandages
You have the right to form any opinion you want to about the case. But the
facts are that someone wet a whole bunch of towels and took them in to the
boys. Plus you have her blood all over the floor in front of the sink and her
bloody footprints going back and forth to the sink and overlapping each other.
Maybe that was the only thing she could think of to do in a hysterical state
and while trying to call 911 too.
> and also, I don't beli=
>eve that
>the simple act of dampening some towels in a sink would manage to clean t=
>he *whole*
>sink basin, while at the same time managing to get blood on the tiles and=
> walls
>surrounding the sink.
There wasn't any blood on the wall around the sink. The blood was at the front
of the sink where your body would press against the cabinet holding the sink,
dripping down the front of the lower cabinets and on the floor in front of the
sink. There was also some blood inside the towel drawer and inside the cabinet
below the sink. I think the only other blood in that area was on the floor.
Brenda
Faye
calling 911.....oh, by the way, I did pick up the knife!!......an
obvious statement to cover her tracks.....Faye
Cliff or Linda Griffith
thoughts intact.
Linda
PattyC4303
Robbery was not involved in the case I am talking about.
As to your thought that someone might not go in without a weapon... And let's
face it, if we are talking some evil creep who is hell bent on doing wrong....
What on earth would be so surprising about the fact that an intruder supposed
there were sharp knives in the kitchen?
How many anywhere do not have sharp knives in the kitchen?
I have no opinion either way as to the Routier thing. I was taking up the
sweeping comment that it's "unheard of" for a perp to go in and use only a
weapon found in the house.
Cliff or Linda Griffith
> This misinformation was generated in the very beginning of this case when the
> crime scene specialist stated that the mulch underneath the window was not
> disturbed. He just made a mistake. There was only concrete under the window,
> an extension of the patio. The other windows had mulch but not the window with
> the cut screen.
For some reason, it didn't influence the jury. Why do you suppose?
Shouldn't there have been footprints even on the concrete?
>
> >there was no blood outside the house.
> Actually, the criminologists did find blood in the garage on the floor that
> turned out to be Darlie's. This was disregarded by the police however because
> the crime scene expert said in his initial conclusion about the scene that
> there was no blood in the garage.
How does Darlie's blood in the garage indicate that she didn't kill the
boys?
>
> > The weapon came from the
> >Routier's own kitchen. An intruder breaking in to a house unarmed and then
> >getting
> >a weapon from the kitchen is unheard of,
>
> In the last month there have been some very interesting articles in the Dallas
> papers about a man they have in custody for serial rapes in Northeast Dallas
> from 1995 to the present. The Routier murders took place in a suburb northeast
> of Dallas. This man's MO was to get the weapon from the victims house. He got
> various things including a knife from a countertop knife block, scissors and
> once a fork from a dishwasher. In one case a little girl was present and he
> threatened the child if the mother didn't cooperate and another time he
> threatened the abdomen of an 8 months pregnant woman and ended up trying to
> smother her. He will be tried on 10 cases where he left DNA evidence and is
> suspected in many more cases where he did not leave any DNA.
> Something of even more similarity to the Routier crime is that his MO also
> included wearing socks on his hands and stuffing socks into his victims
> mouths.>
But he didn't kill, did he? (In all honesty, Brenda, I haven't heard
about these cases, so I have to take your word for it.) This guy
threatened the child to gain cooperation from the mother; he didn't kill
the child first to rape the mom without a witness. Then he tried to
smother one victim, not slit her throat. I don't think those examples
indicate a similar MO. The socks on the hands may just be a safety
precaution, perhaps based on one of the Routier people's suggestion. Or
maybe he thought of it himself. Anyway, did he say he got the socks out
of the victim's own dirty-clothes hamper?
>
> >And the biggest question for me, why was the sink basin in the kitchen
> >cleaned of
> >blood?
>
> Both Darlie and Darin testified that Darlie was wetting kitchen towels at the
> kitchen sink and carrying them into the family room to put on the boys wounds.
> The people at the crime analysis laboratory testified that something like 13 or
> 14 small towels were brought in by the police for testing. In the crime scene
> photos you can see multiple towels lying around on the carpet. (This is after
> the paramedics have taken the boys and Darlie.)
From what I've read, Luminol shows an attempt to clean up blood. Simply
dragging wet towels across a bloodied area doesn't give the same result,
I think. Dragging wet towels across blood should've still shown blood
to the naked eye, though diluted. The sink was tested with Luminol, and
the results are, in my understanding, indicative of a more thorough
attempt at cleaning than what would be accomplished by dragging wet
towels through the area.
Linda
Cliff or Linda Griffith
> The crime scene photos are in the book Media Tried, Justice Denied and the
> trial transcript is on the web.
"Media Tried, Justice Denied" will be your undoing, Brenda. The book is
so poorly written, so obviously slanted, that the pictures therein are
themselves suspect. Can you cite a URL for the trial transcript other
than "fordarlieroutier.org"? That site only posts sections of the
transcript that favor the Routier side; and all the while, they're
contesting the transcript itself. How can they post part of the
transcript to prove their points and then contest the entire thing?
BTW, have you heard anything about the contest of the transcript? Has
it been certified, or they still considering it? We get no news up here
in the D-FW area these days, unless Darlie comes up for a hearing. (And
she hasn't had a hearing lately, AFAIK). Well, it hasn't been in the
paper, anyway. I've just been watching election stuff on MSNBC, so I
may have missed a TV account.
Linda
KBELL12345
>sweeping comment that it's "unheard of" for a perp to go in and use only a
>weapon found in the house.
>
Jeff MacDonald - knife used from kitchen
Jon Benet - notepad and duct tape used from house
There are probably others - can anyone think of more?
Jamie
> In article <3A35A86B...@ivnet.com>, Jamie <ang...@ivnet.com> writes:
>
> >PattyC4303 wrote:
> >
> >> In article <20001211211452...@ng-fc1.aol.com>,
> >broge...@aol.com
> >> (BRogers115) writes:
> >>
> >> >An intruder breaking in to a house unarmed and then
> >> >>getting
> >> >>a weapon from the kitchen is unheard of,
> >> >
> >>
> >> You are kidding, right?
> >>
> >> I am sure this can happen. I know from experience.
> >
> >I'm sure it does happen, but in cases like robberies where the criminal is
> >surprised. But the Routier case was not a robbery, in fact, as evidenced by
> >the
> >boys' wounds, it was an incredibly savage murder. Someone who would break
> >into a
> >house to commit a crime as evil and angry as that is not going to be taking
> >chances and depending on there being a suitable weapon in the home.
>
> Robbery was not involved in the case I am talking about.
>
> As to your thought that someone might not go in without a weapon... And let's
> face it, if we are talking some evil creep who is hell bent on doing wrong....
Actual, we know that the evil creep was hell bent on killing those children. It
was a crime of anger; whoever did it *meant* to do it, and do it savagely. Now why
would a total stranger break into a house in a rage to kill two children, yet not
come equipped with a weapon?
> What on earth would be so surprising about the fact that an intruder supposed
> there were sharp knives in the kitchen?
>
> How many anywhere do not have sharp knives in the kitchen?
I don't, at least in plain view. Anyone who broke into my house depending on a
knife being there would have to a) know where the kitchen was exactly, and go
through several rooms to find the kitchen and b) rummage around in drawers to find
a suitable knife.
Unless you believe the murderer was some guy who was walking around in the
neighborhood and then suddenly decided, "Hey! Why don't I kill some people
tonight!" on the spur of the moment, it just doesn't make sense. Whoever killed
those boys obviously *targeted* them, and a killer who targets the victims is not
going to be taking chances that there will be a suitable weapon in plain view at
the actual crime scene.
--
~Jamie
DedNdogYrs
in and use only a weapon found in the house.>
Yes, I have heard of it. I read about a woman who was greeted by a man in the
hall of her apartment building who helped her pick up cans of cat food she had
dropped. He aggressively insisted of helping her carry her groceries up to her
apartment and she gave in because he wouldn't take no for an answer. As soon
as the door was opened, he pushed his way in, pointed a gun at her and raped
her. He then told her to stay on the bed while he went to the kitchen.
Although he had a gun, he was looking for a knife to kill her without making
any noise. She snuck out of the apartment while he was pawing through her
kitchen drawers. It turned out later that he had killed another woman doing
this exact same thing.
Dogs & children first.
DoctorsHelm
<grif...@home.com> wrote:
>"Media Tried, Justice Denied" will be your undoing, Brenda. The book is
>so poorly written, so obviously slanted, that the pictures therein are
>themselves suspect. Can you cite a URL for the trial transcript other
>than "fordarlieroutier.org"? That site only posts sections of the
>transcript that favor the Routier side; and all the while, they're
>contesting the transcript itself. How can they post part of the
>transcript to prove their points and then contest the entire thing?
I agree again with Linda, that "Media Tried, Justice Denied" barely
meets the definition of a book. I have called it a picture book
supported and financed by the "fordarlie" group and about as
authoritative as the National Enquirer. Brenda wasted an atrocious
amount of money for this rag, and needs to justify her investment :-)
Ron
DoctorsHelm
>Yes, I have heard of it. I read about a woman who was greeted by a man in the
>hall of her apartment building who helped her pick up cans of cat food she had
>dropped. He aggressively insisted of helping her carry her groceries up to her
>apartment and she gave in because he wouldn't take no for an answer. As soon
>as the door was opened, he pushed his way in, pointed a gun at her and raped
>her. He then told her to stay on the bed while he went to the kitchen.
>Although he had a gun, he was looking for a knife to kill her without making
>any noise. She snuck out of the apartment while he was pawing through her
>kitchen drawers. It turned out later that he had killed another woman doing
>this exact same thing.
>Dogs & children first.
Okay, and "he raped her". He did not kill two sleeping children, and
our "intruder" did not rape Darlie, or steal anything. He just broke
in (with a knife supposedly never found), then uses the kitchen
knives to kill two sleeping children, and then gets seen fleeing
through the garage. Yeah, right! Ron
BRogers115
>For some reason, it didn't influence the jury. Why do you suppose?
>Shouldn't there have been footprints even on the concrete?
>>
Why on earth would you expect footprints on the concrete?
>How does Darlie's blood in the garage indicate that she didn't kill the
>boys?
>
Because everywhere Darlie went she dripped blood all over the place and left
bloody barefoot footprints. It's very easy to follow her path and it ends in
the utility room. There were no drops of Darlie's blood or bloody bare
footprints found in the garage. The blood that was found in the garage was on
the floor and up against the bottom of a poster that was out there and it did
not come from a bare foot. It was not a footprint in it's entirety, but a
smudge of blood like from the bottom of a shoe.
> Then he tried to
>smother one victim, not slit her throat.
Well, I was trying to be somewhat brief in my posting. He did threaten one
woman with "do you want to die like Nicole Simpson?". I think while holding a
knife to her throat. But no, he didn't kill anyone that I know of. But my
point is not being taken. There were a lot of similarities to the Routier case
that others have said never happened. I was just tryiing to show that
sometimes attackers do strike randomly and do take the weapon from the house
etc., and sometimes don't leave any DNA evidence of their having been there.
These are all things that have been cited as proving Darlie must have done it.
>to the naked eye, though diluted. The sink was tested with Luminol, and
>the results are, in my understanding, indicative of a more thorough
>attempt at cleaning than what would be accomplished by dragging wet
>towels through the area.
>
This is information that I didn't know. But I'm no expert in Luminol. But can
you explain why anyone would clean up a sink when the house is a blood bath and
why anyone would wipe a handprint off the couch and leave another on the carpet
below the couch. What would possibly be the purpose?
Brenda
BRogers115
>BTW, have you heard anything about the contest of the transcript? Has
>it been certified, or they still considering it? We get no news up here
>in the D-FW area these days, unless Darlie comes up for a hearing. (And
>she hasn't had a hearing lately, AFAIK). Well, it hasn't been in the
>paper, anyway. I've just been watching election stuff on MSNBC, so I
>may have missed a TV account.
>
>Linda
This is the latest I've heard about the transcript. There was a hearing set in
Dallas in Sept. I think. The defense lawyers were going to be allowed to
question Greg Davis, the prosecutor and Charles Linch the trace evidence
analyst and others I don't recall. The Judge had ordered Darlie brought to
Dallas and she was delivered to the Dallas jail and Charles Linch was in an
airplane on the way to Dallas when the Judge suddenly and inexplicably
cancelled the hearing. It was done very suddenly and shortly before it was to
start and to this day the Judge has not said anything about why. Even the
defense attorney's had to hear about the cancellation on the news.
The Judge just decided to send the transcript as it was to the CCA. They of
course said they couldnt' use it and sent it right back to him and so far he's
said nothing. So it's all still up in the air about what's going to happen.
This is just my observation but it seems to me that what's happened is that the
Judge has decided that the transcript is as good as it can be considering all
the errors in it origionally, but the CCA says it's not good enough for them to
rule on an appeal. I think most people think she'll get a new trial because of
this.
Brenda
BRogers115
>"Media Tried, Justice Denied" will be your undoing, Brenda. The book is
>so poorly written, so obviously slanted, that the pictures therein are
>themselves suspect. Can you cite a URL for the trial transcript other
>than "fordarlieroutier.org"? That site only posts sections of the
>transcript that favor the Routier side; and all the while, they're
>contesting the transcript itself. How can they post part of the
>transcript to prove their points and then contest the entire thing?
>
order to make your own decision about some of the evidence you have to see them
in that book. It's the only place they're available. That makes the book very
valuable to use when reading the trial transcript. You will see that each
picture is marked as "State's Evidence" and a number. There's no question as
to their authenticity.
It makes no difference to me what anyone thinks of that book or any other. In
fact, I believe that to use any of the books that have been written about this
case is a waste of time. They all have errors and not just little ones. Now
that the trial transcript is available there's no need for anything but it and
the photos. And don't forget that MTJD also has Darlie's and Darin's
statements to the police as well as other photocopied things that were entered
into evidence at the trial. You really do need it as you go through the
transcript to get a clear picture.
As far as your questions about the transcript I can't answer them. The
transcript that exists is the one posted obviously. When you read it you have
to read it errors and all. The errors are obvious and do make some sentences
so that you have to guess what was said, but all in all you can get the idea
pretty well. I am not sure but I believe that it's just not considered to be
good enough to put someone to death when you can't be positive what was said.
Apparantly some things like "yes" transcribed as "no". Can as cannot. Things
like that. But it is well worth reading.
It's my understanding that the transcript at the Routier site is complete now.
I havn't looked at it but I read a post about it just the other day. But the
one I have been reading is at the websleuths site. I have discovered quite a
few sites with discussion groups on this case. Later I'll get all the url's
and post them. Some are pro-Darlie and some are anti, but I find the anti just
as interesting. They all make good reading.
Transcript at websleuths-
http://members.nbci.com/routiertrial
You don't have to be a member to get the transcript.
Brenda
DoctorsHelm
>So it's all still up in the air about what's going to happen.
>This is just my observation but it seems to me that what's happened is that the
>Judge has decided that the transcript is as good as it can be considering all
>the errors in it origionally, but the CCA says it's not good enough for them to
>rule on an appeal. I think most people think she'll get a new trial because of
>this.
>Brenda
What a shame that she might get a new trial based on the fact that a
court reporter could neither spell nor write. The jury heard the
evidence and did not rely on a damn transcript to convict her of the
crimes that she committed. Ron
Jamie
> > Then he tried to
> >smother one victim, not slit her throat.
>
> Well, I was trying to be somewhat brief in my posting. He did threaten one
> woman with "do you want to die like Nicole Simpson?". I think while holding a
> knife to her throat. But no, he didn't kill anyone that I know of. But my
> point is not being taken. There were a lot of similarities to the Routier case
> that others have said never happened.
That's what we're trying to tell you: there *aren't* significant similarities
between the case you outlined and the Routier case. Different crimes committed by
one person have similarities. To break it down:
The Dallas suspect you described did not kill anyone. He raped, and threatened a
child who interrupted the crime.
In the Routier case, Darlie was *not* raped, and the two boys were savagely
murdered before the "intruder" even approached Darlie.
Right there, even with the barest details, the crimes are so totally different. As
followers of true crime know, there are different profiles for rapists,
rapist/killer, killers of adults, killers of children, etc. The rapist you
described targeted grown women, and apparently had no concern for children unless a
child happened to interrupt him.
The killer in the Routier case meant to kill those boys; if it was an intruder, the
intruder went right for the children in the room and killed them, while ignoring
the adult woman in the room. The Dallas suspect, as you describe him, does not
sound anywhere near like a criminal who would kill two children and then leave an
adult woman alone without violating her. The purpose of a rapist is to *rape*, and
that did not happen in the Routier case.
You seem to want us to believe that a serial rapist, who attacked a string of adult
women and threatened a child, suddenly broke into a house, killed children, and
didn't rape a woman who was in plain view, then apparently left and continued on
with his crimes as before, having only changed his MO for that one crime.
In short: the person who killed the Routier boys obviously had no hesitations in
committing murder, and someone who commits savagery will not just "threaten" his
other victims.
--
~Jamie
BRogers115
I was right in the middle of responding to your post when my beloved aol threw
me off-line. Now your post is lost to me but I'll try to answer at least one
point that I was in the process of.
I was not trying to accuse that man in Dallas that I mentioned of doing the
Routier crimes although I do think there are a lot of striking similarities. I
was using that case to show how sometimes the criminal does get his weapon from
the home of the victim, and that random violent attacks are not rare.
I'm sure there was a lot more to your post that I would have liked to read and
I'm sorry to have lost it.
Brenda
Chattervig
"Jamie" <ang...@ivnet.com> wrote in message
news:3A37E795...@ivnet.com...
Sorry to jump in on this but after reading the story and following this
thread, nobody mentions why the husband didn't hear any of the noise? Or
the yipping dog? Maybe I missed an earlier thread that already discussed
it. If so, I apologize. But how could an intruder break into a home,
murder two little boys before attacking their mother without somebody giving
a blood curdling scream at least once? Not to mention the noise from the
fight. And where was the dog that so hates outsiders that he nips and yips
at anybody that comes into the home? Nothing adds up. Even the slit in
the screen shows that it was never stretched. Even if it was made of a
fabric that shrinks back to size, the edges of the slit are still going to
show some damaged stretching or ripping.
DoctorsHelm
<cr.hat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Sorry to jump in on this but after reading the story and following this
>thread, nobody mentions why the husband didn't hear any of the noise? Or
>the yipping dog? Maybe I missed an earlier thread that already discussed
>it. If so, I apologize. But how could an intruder break into a home,
>murder two little boys before attacking their mother without somebody giving
>a blood curdling scream at least once? Not to mention the noise from the
>fight. And where was the dog that so hates outsiders that he nips and yips
>at anybody that comes into the home? Nothing adds up. Even the slit in
>the screen shows that it was never stretched. Even if it was made of a
>fabric that shrinks back to size, the edges of the slit are still going to
>show some damaged stretching or ripping.
Most of us interested in this case believe full well that Darin knows
much more than either he or Darlie are saying. The only thing that
makes sense is that Darlie "silently" killed the wee ones, never
screamed, and then when setting up the "intruder scenario" breaking
glass in the kitchen etc., Darin finally hears her and comes wandering
downstairs. OR...the two of them are deeply involved in the murder
and coverup...BUT why would either keep his/her mouth shut after
Darlie was convicted? I believe in the stealth attack by Darlie. Ron
BRogers115
>Sorry to jump in on this but after reading the story and following this
>thread, nobody mentions why the husband didn't hear any of the noise? Or
>the yipping dog?
As far as the dog goes, the policemen's testimony in the transcript says that
the dog only uttered a peep when they went into the master bedroom where the
dog actually was. When they entered the room it barked and attacked them, or
tried to. Before that the dog didn't bark, for whatever reason
.> But how could an intruder break into a home,
>murder two little boys before attacking their mother without somebody giving
>a blood curdling scream at least once?
It does sound odd, but I'm sure stranger things have happened.
> Even the slit in
>the screen shows that it was never stretched. Even if it was made of a
>fabric that shrinks back to size, the edges of the slit are still going to
>show some damaged stretching or ripping.
This I was not aware of. I'll have to re-read the testimony about the screen.
It was my understanding that the window was brought into the courtroom and
there was a demonstration with a policeman going through the screen both
walking and running and I had thought that the screen was no problem for him.
At any rate, whether I'm remembering correctly or not it's all in the
transcript.
Brenda
BRogers115
>Most of us interested in this case believe full well that Darin knows
>much more than either he or Darlie are saying. The only thing that
>makes sense is that Darlie "silently" killed the wee ones, never
>screamed, and then when setting up the "intruder scenario" breaking
>glass in the kitchen etc., Darin finally hears her and comes wandering
>downstairs. OR...the two of them are deeply involved in the murder
>and coverup...BUT why would either keep his/her mouth shut after
>Darlie was convicted? I believe in the stealth attack by Darlie. Ron
I can understand why you would believe that. It's certainly what the police
put forward. However there are things about this case that you don't know if
you've not read the transcript or seen the crime scene photos. Be that as it
may however, Darlie will have to have a new trial because of the transcript
errors I think.
Brenda
Ozma von Oz
I'm glad to hear that someone else thinks Darin knows more than he admits. I'm
surprised he is so loyal to her unless maybe he is afraid to anger her,
thinking she might incriminate him.
Karen