Did Darlie Routier murder her precious sons? Part 2

1. Yes ~ I believe she murdered her precious sons and she's right where she belongs on death row.

2. I believe Darin played a role in their sons deaths.

3. No ~ I believe Darlie Routier is innocent.

4. No ~ There was a intruder.

5. I don't know.

I think that Darlie Router is guilty. I also think her husband but bruises on her & may have stabbed her in order to make it look like an intruder & I think her husband is covering up for her.

Why would he still support his wife despite the evidence against her? When it is obvious she murdered them.

The screen cut was inconsistent with most cuts by any burglar. According to investigators it was a T-shaped cut which made your opening to step through the narrow part.

Also a forensic expert testified @ trial that fragments from that garage window screen which had been cut were found on a 2nd knife in the Router kitchen.

The murder weapon was an 8-inch butcher knife, which came from their kitchen. Why would an intruder go through the trouble of looking for a murder weapon, wouldn't they bring their own murder weapon?

Also the 911 call was very damning, her sons were dying & she was concerned about having touched the knife. She was very defensive; she was concerned about them thinking it was her, when her children were dying.

She also changed her story & said she had amnesia. If she had amnesia how could she know that she struggled with the intruder?

She was also sleeping on the couch when she was, according to her attacked by an intruder. But no blood was on the couch.

There was also blood in the sink, someone had washed up. So if you believe there was an intruder that means that he/she came in stabbed Darlie killed the kids & then washed his hands in the sink? Darlie said she had struggled with him & he left. She didn't say he washed his hands.

There was a ton of evidence against her. Not to mention the fact she danced on the graves of her son.

I am trying to put my thoughts about Darlie into a brief outline. I don't want to post a book that no one will read so here goes:

1. She is guilty - listen to the 911 call. Why does her voice change when she is addressing Darren, telling him someone "intentionally came in here and did this DARREN". First of all it sounds to me that she is defending herself from something Darren had said. I want to know why you would tell 911 or anyone else that someone came in and did this "intentionally" , why that word? Maybe I am making something out of nothing. The fingerprints on the knife is telling also.

2. What is the deal with her sister Dana? Why wasn't she called to testify. She was the last known "adult" in that house besides the parents that night, yet no one knows except for her what exactly happened that evening prior to the murders. I do not doubt for one second that Darlie went off on Darren in front of Dana, making it uncomfortable, so Dana wants to go home. Can you imagine what she was feeling the next morning after hearing about it. Has Dana had a nervous breakdown yet? That would be telling......

3. The blood evidence. The blood outline of the knife in the carpet. The lack of evidence in regards to a struggle. No blood on sofa where the "so-called attack" occured.

4. Her complete COLDNESS toward her dying/dead children. I do not care that people grieve differently. An innocent mother would not act the way she did at her home that morning and in the hospital.

5. IMO - Darren didn't get involved until after Darlie got out of the hospital. Now, I do believe that when Darren woke and came downstairs that he knew then and there that his darlin wife Darlie did it. I agree with the others that she must have something over him or he at least doesn't want their only living son to know that his mother really did kill his brothers.

I do have a question though for you all. What is the deal with the vacuum cleaning? I understand that there were rolls marks of blood that were cleaned up. Was she actually trying to vacuum blood up? Can you vacuum blood? Wouldn't LE of found the bag inside soaked with this blood. This doesn't make any sense to me.

This trial/saga has captivated me for so many years. I don't know why I can't let it go. I guess I just want her to tell me WHY... No holding my breath.

"I do have a question though for you all. What is the deal with the vacuum cleaning? I understand that there were rolls marks of blood that were cleaned up. Was she actually trying to vacuum blood up? Can you vacuum blood? Wouldn't LE of found the bag inside soaked with this blood. This doesn't make any sense to me. "

She was not vacuuming the crime scene- the vacuum was in the kitchen (she was a neat freak I guess) and they used the placement of the vacuum to show forensic evidence. When she 'staged' the scene to show there was an intruder, she overturned the vacuum cleaner but her mistake was that the blood on the floor was fresh under it except for the parts where it was wheeled through the blood meaning that the blood droplets were there before the vacuum was overturned and not while a struggle was ensuing. It also showed when the glass was broken on the floor that the glass was laying on top of blood droplets so the intruder could not have broken that glass on the way out then she came after as she states or the blood drops would be on top of the glass that was already broken and not underneath it.

Oh thanks Kitty, I must of mis-understood what I was reading in the transcripts regarding the clean-up. I thought this was part of the "clean up" they were speaking about happening in the kitchen. After the spraying of the Lumoinal (sorry for the incorrect spelling), there were roll marks of blood that showed up. Starting out in one direction (right), then going left and also proof where it was actually lifted up and placed on another spot. Are we speaking of same or different part of transcript? Any help understanding is so greatly appreciated.

Kitty5001 said:

"I do have a question though for you all. What is the deal with the vacuum cleaning? I understand that there were rolls marks of blood that were cleaned up. Was she actually trying to vacuum blood up? Can you vacuum blood? Wouldn't LE of found the bag inside soaked with this blood. This doesn't make any sense to me. "

She was not vacuuming the crime scene- the vacuum was in the kitchen (she was a neat freak I guess) and they used the placement of the vacuum to show forensic evidence. When she 'staged' the scene to show there was an intruder, she overturned the vacuum cleaner but her mistake was that the blood on the floor was fresh under it except for the parts where it was wheeled through the blood meaning that the blood droplets were there before the vacuum was overturned and not while a struggle was ensuing. It also showed when the glass was broken on the floor that the glass was laying on top of blood droplets so the intruder could not have broken that glass on the way out then she came after as she states or the blood drops would be on top of the glass that was already broken and not underneath it.

Click to expand...

Didnt a member of the emergency services move the vacuum cleaner?

In respopnse to the questions of where I got blood on sofa info, asked on the last thread. I was watching old chat show I think it was The lena show, Darlies mother stated that the sofa was not taken as evidence and given back to the family couple days later - with a outline of a pillow in blood - the family cleaned up the sofa & sold it to help with legal costs.

If that was true then they would of given it to Darlie's lawyers right away because it would of proven "she was attacked on the sofa". NO WAY would they of just cleaned it and sold it.

whitywendy said:

If that was true then they would of given it to Darlie's lawyers right away because it would of proven "she was attacked on the sofa". NO WAY would they of just cleaned it and sold it.

Click to expand...

Thats what she - darlie mam - said, at the time they didnt know how useful it could have been to her defence. She did state that they thought because the police didnt take it as evidence then it was not important.

nicola said:

Thats what she - darlie mam - said, at the time they didnt know how useful it could have been to her defence. She did state that they thought because the police didnt take it as evidence then it was not important.

Click to expand...

What? I find this hard to believe. From everything I have read, they didn't trust LE once Darlie was arrested so why would they be willing to believe that a sofa with a blood outline of the pillow not be of any value to her defense. That family wasn't stupid. NO ONE is that stupid.

nicola said:

Didnt a member of the emergency services move the vacuum cleaner?

Click to expand...

No. The paramedics testified that they didn't go into the kitchen, and they did not move a vacuum cleaner. They were in the family room helping the boys, while Darlie stood nearby watching, holding a towel to her neck.

nicola said:

Darlies mother stated that the sofa was not taken as evidence and given back to the family couple days later - with a outline of a pillow in blood - the family cleaned up the sofa & sold it to help with legal costs.

Click to expand...

Darlie's mother lies. Sorry, but there's no nice way to say it.

Blood evidence - whose blood and where it was located on the couch - was definitely taken from the sofa, because there was extensive testimony about it during the trial. An outline of a pillow in blood? Nope, no such thing existed. In fact, there was NO blood at all where Darlie said her head was resting on the sofa, where she said she was attacked.

When both the prosecution and the defense were finished testing and documenting evidence on the sofa, it was given back to the family. SOP.

Mary456 said:

No. The paramedics testified that they didn't go into the kitchen, and they did not move a vacuum cleaner. They were in the family room helping the boys, while Darlie stood nearby watching, holding a towel to her neck.

Click to expand...

Hey Mary,

Could you please clear up my confusion in regards to the vacuum cleaner?

I thought that I had read in the Bevel sp? transcripts that after using the Loemonial sp? (sorry brain getting tired) on the floor that it was discovered that there were roll marks from the vacuum cleaner in blood, 1st going in the right direction, then off to the left and at one part in the floor it looked as if the vacuum had in fact been picked up and placed on another area of the floor. I remember what Kitty was talking about but I think this was part of the "clean-up".

Have I just read too much and it's time to go bye bye for a while, or did
I actually read this and if so, what does it mean.. see my below post.. any help... thank you...Wendy

I'll see if I can find chat show again, its on net somewhere. If I do find it i'll post address.

Thanks, Nicola - looking forward to watching/reading it

Hi whitywendy you'll be pleased to know ive found the show on web where it is stated about the blood on sofa. Watching parts of it again I was mistaken in saying that it was just Darlies mom that said bout sofa - Barbara Davies & darlie mom state bout it so does a member of the police. Its on the http://www.justicefordarlie.net site go into the media part on left & choose the Leeza show then watch part 4.

Whitywendy - let me know what you think about the sofa after you've seen Leeza show pt4.

Nicola - I sure will. Sorry I had to cut my other post short but my babies have kept me busy. Ya know I keep waking up at 3:30am in the morning every night thinking about this. It's starting to freak me out. Will get back to ya.

Whats freaking you out bout it? hope you dont mind me asking.

nicola said:

Whats freaking you out bout it? hope you dont mind me asking.

Click to expand...

I guess just the thought that Darlie, a mother, a woman, a so-called normal person living a normal life, with the same pressures we all have to some degree could do this. I know you believe she is innocent, which you have that right, as such I believe she is guilty. And it freaks me out because even my own mother had some major problems (worse than Darlie's, that I am aware of) and she let me and my brothers live. It's kind of hard to put it into words why. IF mental personalities are inherited (passed down from generation to generation) does it mean that one night I just might "snap" and harm my babies. LORD WILLING I DONT THINK SO. But when "we" lump it into mental disorders that's were it starts freakin me out. Sorry if I confused you.