Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register. May 22, 2013, 12:20am
Life_on_the_row
"I deserve, certainly, the most extreme punishment society has, and I think society deserves to be protected from me and others like me." Ted Bundy
Re: Is she innocent? « Reply #840 on Jan 19, 2011, 1:00am »
Well, I wasn't joking. I'm not a supporter and I have read the transcripts and it still seems to me that the boys hampering her lifestyle was always brought to the forefront.
Christine is looking for sympathy, but she is not going to get any sympathy here, not here on this forum, you hear me Christine, no one is going to give you sympathy, now turn around and get you little behind out of here, before I throw it out!! Now get going.. Go. don’t look back, just keep going.
aaawww did Santa not stop at your place this year Alan?
yeah hon, he did, and poor vinny is STILL trying to pull that switch out of his azz and get the coal taste out of his mouth
Re: Is she innocent? « Reply #843 on Jan 23, 2011, 11:20pm »
Hi there...
This is my first post here - just some comments/questions. I've done some reading about this case and was happy to come across this forum, as it would seem Cami and Mary have an encyclopedic knowledge of the facts. They both also seem to have the patience of saints and are always gracious w/their responses. That's appreciated because sometimes when someone asks a question that has been addressed somewhere else on the forum, people get nasty. That being said, I've looked at both Darlie sites, read some transcripts, read some newspaper accounts, read some book reviews and watched some of the programs available online (I've been off work all week - my mother had surgery and I've been staying at her house caring for her). A week ago I had no idea who Darlie Routier is (I just came across the Bill Kurtis video of her on YouTube, watched it, and started researching) and today I think I have a pretty good idea of what happened. I do have some remarks to make and would appreciate any responses.
1. The sock was dropped next to a trash can and atop a storm drain. I assume both were searched and nothing else found. Does anyone have any ideas as to the significance, if any, of this location? Was the sock supposed to go down the drain or in the trash?
2. The second knife that was found in the neighbor's yard. Was this actually a knife, or was it a gardening tool? Why did the police officer not take it in as evidence on June 6th? Where was its location in relation to the sock? Same yard? This seems like an inexcusable mistake to me (not collecting it at the time of the murders), unless, of course, there's something I don't know.
3. Somewhere I saw somebody make a remark about Darlie's mother (and sister?) at a hair salon. Her comment suggested that something incriminating was said or happened. Does anyone know what it was?
4. Where in the transcripts is there testimony about Darren discussing Darlie's breast implants w/the police officers at the hospital? I've seen people discuss him talking about them on many occasions, but I haven't been able to find the actual testimony. I'd like to read what he said. He's very difficult to read as far as what he knew when and I think that this type of behavior would suggest that he did NOT have a hand in the cover up (I'm certain he had no part in the killings).
5. Somewhere I also think that I saw something about Damon having abrasions(?) on his heal. Is this true?
6. Cami/Mary - you indicated somewhere that the picture of Darlie holding her arm and showing her bruise has been "enhanced." If it hasn't and that picture is an accurate representation of what her arm looked like, then I do not believe it was self-inflicted. Her arm is BLACK in that picture and I just can't see her inflicting that type of pain on herself. Of course, this would strongly indicate that Darren had a hand in the cover up. Do either of you have a more accurate depiction of what her arm looked like that you could post?
7. I think the polylgraph given to Darren was ridiculous. I have never seen a situation where a polygraph examiner asks a subject a question and then begins arguing with him about the answer! The examiner was no professional and the results are completely invalid.
8. As time goes by, it appears that Darlie's camp is trying harder and harder to implicate Darren, yet Darren has not seperated himself from her, nor has he spoken out against her. I'm curious as to how long this will continue. Does anyone have any thoughts as to what Darren would ever be willing to divulge? I would not be at all surprised if one day Darren asks for immunity (against perjury charges) and comes clean about the whole thing, especially if he ever remarries and finally lets go of her once and for all.
I have some more questions, but this is getting long so I'll end it there. Thanks for whatever thoughts you can provide!
Diana
p.s. I'm not a big supporter of the dog theory, just because I think a dog would have made more of a mess w/the furniture. More likely, Domain was actually a homeless armadillo who disguised himself as a Pomeranian in order to find a nice family to take care of him. When Darlie advised him that she was going to breed him, he knew the jig was up and all hell broke loose.
This is my first post here - just some comments/questions. I've done some reading about this case and was happy to come across this forum, as it would seem Cami and Mary have an encyclopedic knowledge of the facts. They both also seem to have the patience of saints and are always gracious w/their responses. That's appreciated because sometimes when someone asks a question that has been addressed somewhere else on the forum, people get nasty. That being said, I've looked at both Darlie sites, read some transcripts, read some newspaper accounts, read some book reviews and watched some of the programs available online (I've been off work all week - my mother had surgery and I've been staying at her house caring for her). A week ago I had no idea who Darlie Routier is (I just came across the Bill Kurtis video of her on YouTube, watched it, and started researching) and today I think I have a pretty good idea of what happened. I do have some remarks to make and would appreciate any responses.
1. The sock was dropped next to a trash can and atop a storm drain. I assume both were searched and nothing else found. Does anyone have any ideas as to the significance, if any, of this location? Was the sock supposed to go down the drain or in the trash?
2. The second knife that was found in the neighbor's yard. Was this actually a knife, or was it a gardening tool? Why did the police officer not take it in as evidence on June 6th? Where was its location in relation to the sock? Same yard? This seems like an inexcusable mistake to me (not collecting it at the time of the murders), unless, of course, there's something I don't know.
3. Somewhere I saw somebody make a remark about Darlie's mother (and sister?) at a hair salon. Her comment suggested that something incriminating was said or happened. Does anyone know what it was?
4. Where in the transcripts is there testimony about Darren discussing Darlie's breast implants w/the police officers at the hospital? I've seen people discuss him talking about them on many occasions, but I haven't been able to find the actual testimony. I'd like to read what he said. He's very difficult to read as far as what he knew when and I think that this type of behavior would suggest that he did NOT have a hand in the cover up (I'm certain he had no part in the killings).
5. Somewhere I also think that I saw something about Damon having abrasions(?) on his heal. Is this true?
6. Cami/Mary - you indicated somewhere that the picture of Darlie holding her arm and showing her bruise has been "enhanced." If it hasn't and that picture is an accurate representation of what her arm looked like, then I do not believe it was self-inflicted. Her arm is BLACK in that picture and I just can't see her inflicting that type of pain on herself. Of course, this would strongly indicate that Darren had a hand in the cover up. Do either of you have a more accurate depiction of what her arm looked like that you could post?
7. I think the polylgraph given to Darren was ridiculous. I have never seen a situation where a polygraph examiner asks a subject a question and then begins arguing with him about the answer! The examiner was no professional and the results are completely invalid.
8. As time goes by, it appears that Darlie's camp is trying harder and harder to implicate Darren, yet Darren has not seperated himself from her, nor has he spoken out against her. I'm curious as to how long this will continue. Does anyone have any thoughts as to what Darren would ever be willing to divulge? I would not be at all surprised if one day Darren asks for immunity (against perjury charges) and comes clean about the whole thing, especially if he ever remarries and finally lets go of her once and for all.
I have some more questions, but this is getting long so I'll end it there. Thanks for whatever thoughts you can provide!
Diana
p.s. I'm not a big supporter of the dog theory, just because I think a dog would have made more of a mess w/the furniture. More likely, Domain was actually a homeless armadillo who disguised himself as a Pomeranian in order to find a nice family to take care of him. When Darlie advised him that she was going to breed him, he knew the jig was up and all hell broke loose.
Hi Diana:
I'll try to answer as best I can. Some things we will never know of course.
1. The sock was found on the ground beside a garbage container. All garbage bins and all back yards were immediately searched in the aftermath of the crime. I don't know frankly what the sock's placement means. The storm drain was searched visually for more evidence, but I understand that there is a lock you can open to see further into the drains which was not done. So, was she dumping evidence and she missed the sock? Did she put the sock there to try and make the police think the intruder when that way? No one knows unless Darlie talks.
2. the knife in the yard was being used by the owners for gardening. No, it was not in the same area as the sock. The knife was buried in the ground and there were a couple of other tools there. I believe the officer could see that the knife was not used in the homicides and that it had been in the ground for a while, not taken out and put back again that night.
Anyway you can read the neighbour's testimony on the knife.
3. I've never heard anything about comments in a hair salon.
4. I believe they questioned Darin about the BI during his testimony at trial but not the strange things he said that night. You would probably find that in the Bond Reduction Hearing..it's what led the cops to believe Darin was involved but once the evidence started coming back...it all pointed to Darlie. I believe it is in the officer's testimony..Patterson's maybe.
5. Damon's injuries are well documented in his autopsy as are Devon's. if the dorsum is the heel, he did, of the right foot. He also had multiple abraisons on the pretibial area of his left foot and an old bruise on a toe.
6. I think you're a tiny bit mixed up on the photos. It's not the photo of her holding her arm out..that was taken by the police at the station on June 10th and yes it shows the massive bruise on her arm. You can trust this photo. It was a photo another poster posted of her taken in the hospital, you can tell the photos are photos of photos, there is a definite red hue to them.
I respect your opinion, mine is if you wanted to make it look as if you're a victim, you'll do anything. If she could cut her own neck, what's a few bruises? Of course they are puzzling. I used to think they were blood settle from the neck but the docs say the are BF injuries. What is significant is the testimony of all the medical staff who did not see those bruises whilst D was in hospital leading many to believe she self-inflicted them after she was released.
7. I agree with you on the polygraph test.
8. It's possible he'll come clean. One never knows, he's such a strange person to understand. I hope he does for the sake of those boys.
Ha ha, there were no dogs...that's Vinnie's crazy theory based on a Canadian case he knows about. The mother was convicted of murdering her daughter, but it was really the dog.
Joined: Mar 2009 Gender: Female Posts: 236 Karma: 16
Re: Is she innocent? « Reply #845 on Jan 29, 2011, 1:28am »
dlw44 said:
1. The sock was dropped next to a trash can and atop a storm drain. I assume both were searched and nothing else found. Does anyone have any ideas as to the significance, if any, of this location? Was the sock supposed to go down the drain or in the trash?
Cami, remember Goody saying she thought Darlie was trying to throw the sock in the trashcan or down the storm drain?
At first I didn't buy it, but now it makes sense. My opinion has always been that Darlie was trying to get rid of the sock, because she used it to cover the knife handle and the boys' blood/her DNA or fingerprints were on it.
A poster made this comment years ago, and it's always stuck with me: "If Darlie wanted to implicate an intruder, she could have simply thrown the sock into the backyard. Why risk running down the alley, where someone could have seen her?"
So yeah, I don't think Darlie was trying to implicate an intruder at that point. In the chaos of her mind...fingerprints? blood? Darin's sock?...she just knew she had to get rid of it. Maybe she tossed the sock in a panic, and didn't even realized it had missed her target.
But, as you pointed out, we'll probably never know.
1. The sock was dropped next to a trash can and atop a storm drain. I assume both were searched and nothing else found. Does anyone have any ideas as to the significance, if any, of this location? Was the sock supposed to go down the drain or in the trash?
Cami, remember Goody saying she thought Darlie was trying to throw the sock in the trashcan or down the storm drain?
At first I didn't buy it, but now it makes sense. My opinion has always been that Darlie was trying to get rid of the sock, because she used it to cover the knife handle and the boys' blood/her DNA or fingerprints were on it.
A poster made this comment years ago, and it's always stuck with me: "If Darlie wanted to implicate an intruder, she could have simply thrown the sock into the backyard. Why risk running down the alley, where someone could have seen her?"
So yeah, I don't think Darlie was trying to implicate an intruder at that point. In the chaos of her mind...fingerprints? blood? Darin's sock?...she just knew she had to get rid of it. Maybe she tossed the sock in a panic, and didn't even realized it had missed her target.
But, as you pointed out, we'll probably never know.
Yes I remember Goody's supposition...it's a good one. Since we don't know why, all we can do is guess. I remember reading somewhere they thought she got rid of it cause it had the boys' blood on it.
I hate that sock, it's the most puzzling piece of evidence to me. Also the fact that she ran down the alley to get rid of it..Why, she had to, for some reason that precluded her even thinking of someone seeing her.
I at one time believed she planted it there but not for a long time now, I believe she had to get it away for the house for some reason--to take such chances.
Re: Is she innocent? « Reply #847 on Feb 2, 2011, 11:57pm »
Hi Cami, Hi Mary...thanks for your responses. Just a few comments...
1. Is there an index somewhere of the trial transcripts? One that says "Vol. 30, Testimony of Bob Smith, Routier Neighbor" or "Vol. 30, Testimony re: blood in kitchen sink?" Or am I missing something re: searching for a transcript? The only search method I see is by keyword and that's just not very helpful...
2. Re: the hair salon comment. I think I read about that in one of the book reviews on Amazon. I actually think two reviewers remarked about it. One said Ewwwwww afterward, as if somebody (Darlie's mom or sister) had said something gross or the event recounted was gross. Just curious what that could've been - some people seem to lose all common sense when chatting w/a hairdresser and it could be quite telling.
3. The problem w/this case is that, in order to believe she did it (which I do), you have to accept certain conclusions as truths, those truths later being called into question. No. 1 - Darlie knew nothing about forensics, crime scene analysis, or police investigation on the night she killed her boys; No. 2 - Darlie anticipated that her story would be fully believed because of her looks, social standing, and her history of being successfully manipulative; and No. 3 - Darren did not help w/the murders or cleanup, though he did come to realize almost immediately that she did it.
That in mind, the sock cannot be a "plant." So why would she leave the house w/it and risk being seen? The only thing that I can figure is that she wanted it gone because it was (in her mind) her only link to the crime. She didn't bother disposing of the knife because it didn't occur to her that the police would come to realize that it was her own knife. She assumed the police would belive the intruder bought it with him. But the sock? No intruder would put on a sock to do the killings, so she wanted it gone.
I think she ran out of the house w/the intention of getting rid of it, but had no particular destination in mind. If it was trash day, she probably ran past several trash cans, which she ignored. Why? Again, I'm thinking she wouldn't have even considered the possibility of the police searching those cans (after all, they were going to believe her, no questions asked). So why would she not throw them in a can? I'm thinking maybe she just couldn't bring herself to do that because she wanted to keep that trophy close. She wanted to put it in a secret place that only she knew about, she just didn't have time to find one.
When she finally ran out of breath and stopped, she may or may not have thrown her underwear down the drain. But the sock? Whether she put it down the drain or in the trash, she would never see it again and she was so conflicted about that. It would be gone, as she needed it to be at that moment, but she wouldn't have the thrill of knowing that she put one over on everybody (if they had just looked under that rock over there!) and she would no longer have her one physical tie to the crime.
So, I'm thinking her dropping the sock there came about out of sheer frustration and a lack of time. She couldn't bring herself to throw it away, but she didn't have time to find a good hiding place for it either. So she just dropped it. If it was found by the police, then at least her trophy still existed, just not in her own hands. If not found, then it was out there making its way around the neighborhood, nobody knowing its significance, and how fun is that!
I think there's a lot of psychology going on with that sock and not a lot of reason. Somebody did a forensic analysis of Darlie's 911 statement. I wish someone would do the same w/this sock scenerio.
Sorry if this is rambling! I have some things to say about her bruising too, but I have to get to bed. I'll check back in later and share my thoughts, in case you're interested. Thanks for reading!
Re: Is she innocent? « Reply #848 on Feb 3, 2011, 7:26am »
" Is there an index somewhere of the trial transcripts? One that says "Vol. 30, Testimony of Bob Smith, Routier Neighbor" or "Vol. 30, Testimony re: blood in kitchen sink?" Or am I missing something re: searching for a transcript? The only search method I see is by keyword and that's just not very helpful..."
I hate that sock, it's the most puzzling piece of evidence to me. Also the fact that she ran down the alley to get rid of it..Why, she had to, for some reason that precluded her even thinking of someone seeing her.
For me, the sock is simple. I believe it was a 'stage' of her staging. Period. Left to show that a killer had to have left the house and in that direction because here is something 3 houses down with blood on it from two of the victims. She didn't stop to think that the sock having none of her blood on it would be key. Her primary goal was to distance herself as far as possible from the murders. Also, she went into the neighborhood, where she would feel safe. That's not where an intruder would feel safe. An intruder would feel safe leaving the neighborhood, not going deeper into it. And why not just throw it out the back door? That's what drove her out there at the risk of being seen. All she could think about was distance.
Re: Is she innocent? « Reply #850 on Feb 3, 2011, 3:38pm »
The sock is a very interesting scenario. Now I think in probablity she did commit these horrific crimes, but the sock srikes me as odd. It obviously was'nt planted before the attacks so that being the case she did it after. Now my questions are; at what point did she run up the alley? When Darin was there? Before he came downstairs? How long would it take to run and get back? Would she not have the boys blood on her? Would this not have left at least some blood spots in the alley or on the door? Did she attack the boys then wash up then plant it. The timeline is now critical. So much to do so liitle time.Can anyone offer me any answers to my myriad of questions? If its obvious and I'm missing something I apologise but would really like your input. Thanks.
Joined: Jun 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 2,758 Location: white bluff, tennessee Karma: 22
Re: Is she innocent? « Reply #851 on Feb 3, 2011, 4:45pm »
y'all are missing the salient point. darlie did NOT plant the sock. in the first place, she is too stupid to even think about concocting the scenario, let alone planting evidence. the whole intruder idea was darin's, and HE planted the sock. he just told her what to do in cleaning the kitchen and so on. he cut the screen and the rest.
Joined: Jun 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 551 Karma: -12
Re: Is she innocent? « Reply #852 on Feb 3, 2011, 8:42pm »
First of all Jim, if your going to say y'all, you have to be wearing a dress, ok., and or, at least mabye pink panties.
Its already been proved through timelines, based on the 911 call to validate the timelines, that she Routier, didn’t plant the sock, But you, and everyone else is ignoring the fact, better yet, the pertinent question is, how is planting a sock down the ally in anyway related to staging a crime. I never heard of that before, and there is not one documented case anywhere that has happen in the entire world, beside this lunacy brought forth.
The sock was transported thru the garbage disposables pick up system. That fact, this fact is validated thru the timelines involved, schedules, and routes for the pick ups in that neighbourhood.
Did the police, or Cron stop garbage removal in this double homicide investigating, The answer is NO, they couldn’t be bothered with all their experience, meanwhile half the evidence in the investigation is driving passed them on the way to the dump, what a joke their just standing there like a bunch of retards trying to figure out how Routier did it while they nod bye to the evidence, as it drives by them.
First of all Jim, if your going to say y'all, you have to be wearing a dress, ok., and or, at least mabye pink panties.
Its already been proved through timelines, based on the 911 call to validate the timelines, that she Routier, didn’t plant the sock, But you, and everyone else is ignoring the fact, better yet, the pertinent question is, how is planting a sock down the ally in anyway related to staging a crime. I never heard of that before, and there is not one documented case anywhere that has happen in the entire world, beside this lunacy brought forth.
The sock was transported thru the garbage disposables pick up system. That fact, this fact is validated thru the timelines involved, schedules, and routes for the pick ups in that neighbourhood.
Did the police, or Cron stop garbage removal in this double homicide investigating, The answer is NO, they couldn’t be bothered with all their experience, meanwhile half the evidence in the investigation is driving passed them on the way to the dump, what a joke their just standing there like a bunch of retards trying to figure out how Routier did it while they nod bye to the evidence, as it drives by them.
The sock is a very interesting scenario. Now I think in probablity she did commit these horrific crimes, but the sock srikes me as odd. It obviously was'nt planted before the attacks so that being the case she did it after. Now my questions are; at what point did she run up the alley? When Darin was there? Before he came downstairs? How long would it take to run and get back? Would she not have the boys blood on her? Would this not have left at least some blood spots in the alley or on the door? Did she attack the boys then wash up then plant it. The timeline is now critical. So much to do so liitle time.Can anyone offer me any answers to my myriad of questions? If its obvious and I'm missing something I apologise but would really like your input. Thanks.
I'll try.
The sock was disposed of after the two children were stabbed and before Darlie inflicted her own injuries. Three spots of blood on the sock are pure Devon and the other two are Devon/Damon mixed.
It was disposed of before Darin came downstairs.
It probably took 20-30 seconds for her to run down the alley and back...the sock was only a couple of houses away.
Wouldn't an intruder have blood on him?
There was lots of time. Regardless of what supporters say about her not having enough time. Damon didn't die right away, he was stabbed, then he tried to get away where he was stabbed again by the wall leading to the entryway. It's the second stabbings that were the fatal ones. The 911 call starts the timeline, everything was in place before she placed that call.
All anyone can do is guess, I suppose. Unless Darlie talks, we'll never know.
y'all are missing the salient point. darlie did NOT plant the sock. in the first place, she is too stupid to even think about concocting the scenario, let alone planting evidence. the whole intruder idea was darin's, and HE planted the sock. he just told her what to do in cleaning the kitchen and so on. he cut the screen and the rest.
I disagree Jim so I am not missing any points. I don't think Darin was involved at all.
Joined: Jun 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 551 Karma: -12
Re: Is she innocent? « Reply #856 on Feb 4, 2011, 6:45pm »
If there is unknown blood on that sock, and I bet there is, are the cops going to come clean on the results. They themselves control the lab, and the results of any tests done in that lab. Again how is that staging a crime planting a sock with the victims blood on it, if your going to plant evidence in the hopes the police find it, how would that take the attention from you, unless it had unknown blood samples as well. Then run home, and get rig of just one, under the investigations theory, but one of the murder weapons, and leave the other with your fingerprints all over it. Its amazing people actual believe is crap, Again another reason to rid the jury system in the justice system in Texas. Its obvious they can determine fact form fiction.
The only staging here in this crime, was a frame job conform by the police, the lab, expert witnesses produced, and Davis.
If you murder your two children, and it was planned, why phone the cops ( 911 ) just get rid of the bodies, and move to another town where no one knows you, and start a new life, not this BS produced, Its like in Ramsey, they called the police because a crime was committed. Everyone believed the mother killed her children, and her husband was protecting her. It like in Crowe, they called the police, and the police pinned the murder on their child. And the list goes on, some executed already.
Joined: Jun 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 551 Karma: -12
Re: Is she innocent? « Reply #857 on Feb 5, 2011, 7:57pm »
The only reason John List was caught, is because he left the bodies of his family behind “ evidence when he left. " or we society as society members would have never known he killed his entire family. Besides that, he fit in like Cinderella,s shoe, he was a bank manger with a new family when they caught up with him. A prominent member of society, but on the paradox. I can give you a list of scum like List who still is.
I cant help myself, though I tried restating, but like Irish Jim, who uses the justice system as his weapon of choice.
Re: Is she innocent? « Reply #859 on Feb 6, 2011, 10:48am »
Yes Cami I think you are probably right. We will never know.So this the scenario: She stabs the boys. Washes off the blood. Runs up the alley' Stabs again. Stages the scene. Slashes herself. Dials 911 Darin turns up. Thats a busy 10 minutes or so.
Yes Cami I think you are probably right. We will never know.So this the scenario: She stabs the boys. Washes off the blood. Runs up the alley' Stabs again. Stages the scene. Slashes herself. Dials 911 Darin turns up. Thats a busy 10 minutes or so.
pretty much...except I believe she had already inflicted her own wounds prior to stabbing Damon a second time.
Re: Is she innocent? « Reply #861 on Feb 6, 2011, 12:23pm »
If she had slashed herself prior to resuming the attack on Damon would not Damons body be awash with her blood.I'm inclined to think she probably killed the little boy and then inflicted her own wounds. It would make more sense.In the aftermath ,did she clean the sink and surrounds or did Darin do it? Of course all the official evidence shows that Darin had no hand in any of it which would give her another chore before dialling 911. I think the authorities should have had more than a cursory look at Darin it seems to me they had got enough evidence to get Darlie and that would do.
y'all are missing the salient point. darlie did NOT plant the sock. in the first place, she is too stupid to even think about concocting the scenario, let alone planting evidence. the whole intruder idea was darin's, and HE planted the sock. he just told her what to do in cleaning the kitchen and so on. he cut the screen and the rest.
I disagree Jim so I am not missing any points. I don't think Darin was involved at all.
naw hon, darlie just isn't smart enough to stage it. everything points to darin having set the coverup. he was already proficient at being devious with the prior scams. darlie would never have thought of cutting the screen or planting the sock. i don't think that it was her idea to cut herself either. she is too vain. in all likelihood, darin insisted that she do it
Wow Jim thats a very convincing argument.Have you reported your evidence to the relevent authorities ?
no reason to. the murderer is on death row. the only crimes darin committed were tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice. he had nothing to do with the murders
Hi Cami, Hi Mary...thanks for your responses. Just a few comments...
1. Is there an index somewhere of the trial transcripts? One that says "Vol. 30, Testimony of Bob Smith, Routier Neighbor" or "Vol. 30, Testimony re: blood in kitchen sink?" Or am I missing something re: searching for a transcript? The only search method I see is by keyword and that's just not very helpful...
2. Re: the hair salon comment. I think I read about that in one of the book reviews on Amazon. I actually think two reviewers remarked about it. One said Ewwwwww afterward, as if somebody (Darlie's mom or sister) had said something gross or the event recounted was gross. Just curious what that could've been - some people seem to lose all common sense when chatting w/a hairdresser and it could be quite telling.
3. The problem w/this case is that, in order to believe she did it (which I do), you have to accept certain conclusions as truths, those truths later being called into question. No. 1 - Darlie knew nothing about forensics, crime scene analysis, or police investigation on the night she killed her boys; No. 2 - Darlie anticipated that her story would be fully believed because of her looks, social standing, and her history of being successfully manipulative; and No. 3 - Darren did not help w/the murders or cleanup, though he did come to realize almost immediately that she did it.
That in mind, the sock cannot be a "plant." So why would she leave the house w/it and risk being seen? The only thing that I can figure is that she wanted it gone because it was (in her mind) her only link to the crime. She didn't bother disposing of the knife because it didn't occur to her that the police would come to realize that it was her own knife. She assumed the police would belive the intruder bought it with him. But the sock? No intruder would put on a sock to do the killings, so she wanted it gone.
I think she ran out of the house w/the intention of getting rid of it, but had no particular destination in mind. If it was trash day, she probably ran past several trash cans, which she ignored. Why? Again, I'm thinking she wouldn't have even considered the possibility of the police searching those cans (after all, they were going to believe her, no questions asked). So why would she not throw them in a can? I'm thinking maybe she just couldn't bring herself to do that because she wanted to keep that trophy close. She wanted to put it in a secret place that only she knew about, she just didn't have time to find one.
When she finally ran out of breath and stopped, she may or may not have thrown her underwear down the drain. But the sock? Whether she put it down the drain or in the trash, she would never see it again and she was so conflicted about that. It would be gone, as she needed it to be at that moment, but she wouldn't have the thrill of knowing that she put one over on everybody (if they had just looked under that rock over there!) and she would no longer have her one physical tie to the crime.
So, I'm thinking her dropping the sock there came about out of sheer frustration and a lack of time. She couldn't bring herself to throw it away, but she didn't have time to find a good hiding place for it either. So she just dropped it. If it was found by the police, then at least her trophy still existed, just not in her own hands. If not found, then it was out there making its way around the neighborhood, nobody knowing its significance, and how fun is that!
I think there's a lot of psychology going on with that sock and not a lot of reason. Somebody did a forensic analysis of Darlie's 911 statement. I wish someone would do the same w/this sock scenerio.
Sorry if this is rambling! I have some things to say about her bruising too, but I have to get to bed. I'll check back in later and share my thoughts, in case you're interested. Thanks for reading!
I think you made a really good point here, one I didn't consider. No one would expect an intruder to wear a sock on his hand/s. I don't recall any testimony about the mate to that sock, but maybe Mary does, maybe D was getting rid of both socks and one went down the drain.
Joined: Jun 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 551 Karma: -12
Re: Is she innocent? « Reply #865 on Feb 6, 2011, 6:31pm »
The other sock in question was in the garbage can, in the alley, along with the one the police found that fell out during the dumping procedure involved, and all the other evidence that didn’t fall out of the garbage truck during pick-up, including the murder weapon the police couldnt find, could not find was transported away to the landfill..
Darrin was not involved, Darlie was a victim of a crime, there was no staging, that was produced by the police to sell the conviction to the Jury of housewife,s that they recruited. The injuries to Router, and her children were not self inflicted, anyone can see this fact from the exhibit photos.
It s just incomprehensible to believe the police,s version of the events that took place that night. Or that anything that they finally testified to that was pertinent was only a guess, and or opinion based on the agreed conformations produced. They rehearsed their testimonies, and they still couldn’t get it right.
If you read the transcript people, its all in there documented. You just have to read the transcript.
Re: Is she innocent? « Reply #866 on Feb 7, 2011, 1:30pm »
no reason to. the murderer is on death row. the only crimes darin committed were tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice. he had nothing to do with the murders
That would indicate the crime was not fully investigated, and if they had evidence against Darin he should have been prosecuted. You say he had nothing to do with the murders, well I,m sorry,but as soon as he started assisting in the staging he became an acssessory[spelling bad sorry] The worry is, if the cops could'nt be bothered to do the job properly concerning Darin, what else could'nt they be bothered with?
I disagree Jim so I am not missing any points. I don't think Darin was involved at all.
naw hon, darlie just isn't smart enough to stage it. everything points to darin having set the coverup. he was already proficient at being devious with the prior scams. darlie would never have thought of cutting the screen or planting the sock. i don't think that it was her idea to cut herself either. she is too vain. in all likelihood, darin insisted that she do it
Nope, I completely disagree. What other "scams" are you talking about. There's no proof Darin committed any scams for insurance. And I disagree on Darlie not being smart enough to concoct this scenario...Darlie wore the pants in that family.
If she had slashed herself prior to resuming the attack on Damon would not Damons body be awash with her blood.I'm inclined to think she probably killed the little boy and then inflicted her own wounds. It would make more sense.In the aftermath ,did she clean the sink and surrounds or did Darin do it? Of course all the official evidence shows that Darin had no hand in any of it which would give her another chore before dialling 911. I think the authorities should have had more than a cursory look at Darin it seems to me they had got enough evidence to get Darlie and that would do.
Her blood is over there on the wall next to Damon's body so she at least had one wound inflicted on herself.,.that arm slash. Damon's blood is also on top of her blood on the nightshirt.
There's no statute of limitations on murder so if anyone has any evidence that Darin was involved they can still try him. I somehow don't see Darlie sitting on DR if Darin was involved in the killings. She was adament that Darin was not involved in this crime.
Darin's story remained consistant each time he was interviewed whilst Darlie changed her story every time she became aware of evidence against her. Of course people forget things in between interviews but you don't change the whole complexion of the story like Darlie did.
don't get me wrong, I think Darin is a creep but I don't think he had a hand in these killings.
Joined: Jun 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 551 Karma: -12
Re: Is she innocent? « Reply #869 on Feb 7, 2011, 8:40pm »
The inference is, Darin was not charged with a crime as you people so conclusively agreed upon has happened. It would make sense to convict Darrin right ? Wrong. The chances are with a good lawyer, an investigation team, or through the appeals processes based on the facts, verses the propaganda presented, DARIN WOULD BE FOUND NOT GUILTY, he would have been an accessory to a crime that cant produced a murder weapon, the paradox would have been Darin Routier not guilty based on evidence, and Darlie Routier found guilty on a video tape deliberation, creating many more contingencies in their conviction.
If the police knew, and could prove the Routiers murdered their children, they would have convicted Darrin as well, but BUT, this is not the case. They took a long shot LONG SHOT, HAIL MARY PLAY PASS in court, recruited housewife’s, and drunks to be on the Jury, and sold them a soap opera based on a silly string video, again validated by the fact during the deliberation they only looked at the silly tape for three hours. Not to mention I know Ms Way was a jury plant, there is no way the police, and Davis would rely on a legitimate jury in this trial brought forth.
If you do not believe me, please read the Jury interview selections before the trial started, Mulder just sat there, while Davis selected, basically hand picked Jury members, that already believed the defendant was guilty before the trial even started, except his plant, she would make a good a jury member for the defence if you didn’t know any better, which, witch, but which is indicative to the fact.
Hmm, you think the transcript got that right. I didn’t say she was a witch, I said which, but if you can understand English, my point is clear, betwen witch, and which, but speeking of witches, back to you Christine.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Live Chat]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/chat.gif "[Live Chat]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
![[poll]](http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r293/life_on_the_row/smileys/boohoo.gif "[poll]")
Poll
Author
Logged![[avatar]](http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r293/life_on_the_row/jim.jpg "[avatar]")
![[image]](http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r293/life_on_the_row/smileys/thcheers.gif "[image]")
![[avatar]](http://i438.photobucket.com/albums/qq110/alanthony88/Cat-with-hat.jpg "[avatar]")
their just standing there like a bunch of retards trying to figure out how Routier did it while they nod bye to the evidence, as it drives by them.