Cutting the screen

[TellTheTruth]

Hi Guys,
Can anyone confirm if this is a picture of the garage window that the 'intruder' used to gain entry to the house.

I've a feeling the window is at the back of the property (rather than the side) but this does look very similar to the crime scene photos albeit without the fence.

Cheers in advance.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=eagle+drive+rowlett+tx&ll=32.912901,-96.520751&spn=0.011601,0.017316&hnear=Eagle+Dr,+Rowlett,+Texas+75088,+United+States&gl=uk&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=32.912895,-96.520841&panoid=mcEl-LoCqMegmYuiqa4I7A&cbp=12,147.55,,0,5.02

 

[Sinsaint]

That is the house but not the correct window. The window at issue is on the other side of the garage.

 

[alwaysonmymind]

The formal dining room, breakfast nook and utility room windows are on this wall of the home.

The garage is directly behind this section of the home. The window is located on the other side of the garage inside the fenced back yard.

HTH




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TellTheTruth]

I thought as much - thank you very much both.

So what can be seen via google street map as being the back garden (red fence) is the same as it was when the Routier's had the house - although I think the fence was white back then.

I'm trying to look at the most 'sensible' escape routes for an intruder. The sock was found down the ally that runs at the back of the house and in the direction that suggests any intruder would be escaping by driving to the end of the ally, left onto WillowBrook and right onto Darlock (if the 'black car' suggestion by Darlie is to be believed).

I'm not convinced that is a perfect getaway for an intruder that has apparently cased the Routier home for several days.

 

[Sinsaint]

I thought as much - thank you very much both.

So what can be seen via google street map as being the back garden (red fence) is the same as it was when the Routier's had the house - although I think the fence was white back then.

I'm trying to look at the most 'sensible' escape routes for an intruder. The sock was found down the ally that runs at the back of the house and in the direction that suggests any intruder would be escaping by driving to the end of the ally, left onto WillowBrook and right onto Darlock (if the 'black car' suggestion by Darlie is to be believed).

I'm not convinced that is a perfect getaway for an intruder that has apparently cased the Routier home for several days.

I live in a development with only one road in the shape of a loop and one entrance/exit at the top of the development.Two guys decided to rob the house next to me after "casing the place out" a few days in advance. They showed up and parked their truck facing downhill going further into the development. When I caught them they had to drive to the bottom of the development and then back up the other side to get to the exit. Needless to say, all their casing out efforts failed. They got caught, in large part because their idea of a quick escape was stupid.

In the Routier case the guy might not have planned out his escape route as well as many might expect but not all criminals are highly intelligent. Aside from that, it may have been, for whatever reason, the route he was most comfortable with.

 

[TellTheTruth]

Is there a website in the US that allows you to see when property has changed ownership? I'm interested in finding out about 5709 Eagle Drive - as far as I can work out, this was the property the bloody sock was left at (on the back lawn).

 

[alwaysonmymind]

Try Dallas County Appraisal District
http://dallascad.org/





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chlban]

=Sinsaint;10126591].

In the Routier case the guy might not have planned out his escape route as well as many might expect but not all criminals are highly intelligent.

:floorlaugh: Ya think? Considering that this fantasy intruder forgot to bring his own weapon, forgot to steal anything, forgot to rape anyone, and then brilliantly decided to attack two tiny children brutally, whie leaving an adult alone until he was finished and then decided, apparently as an afterthought, to cut her throat, only didn't quite go deep enough, one might consider that fantasy man is not "highly intelligent".

OTOH, he managed to break in without breaking in, not leave a single trace of ever having been there, managed to instantly train a dog known for being "yappy" not to utter a sound, and then disappeared into the mist wihtout a trace, maybe he's a genius.

:seeya: Oh wait, I know. There was no intruder!

 

[TellTheTruth]

I've drawn a quick diagram to show the route from where the sock was found in relation to the Routier house (I've presumed this from the crime scene photos - please let me know if anyone has a better idea where the sock was 'placed').

One thing that has always struck me is the fact that those who think Darlie is guilty will say that there is no dust disturbance on shelf of the garage window, no blood trail to and from the sock etc and so an intruder is ruled out.

As a fence sitter, I have to ask the question - so how did Darlie get it there?
Did she choose another route another than that of what the intruder would have done?
If there is no blood spatter or window shelf disturbance, then how did she get the sock there? And why would she risk such a dangerous move (as she may of been caught) to plant a sock four doors down and return to her home?

Too many unanswered questions as to how the sock got there if people thinks Darlie planted it.

 

[chlban]

][As a fence sitter, I have to ask the question - so how did Darlie get it there?
Did she choose another route another than that of what the intruder would have done?

It's a pretty sure bet Darlie did not have to go through the window. Am I missing something or is this a trick a question.

If there is no blood spatter or window shelf disturbance, then how did she get the sock there? And why would she risk such a dangerous move (as she may of been caught) to plant a sock four doors down and return to her home?

Well let's see:

1. She put it there before she killed them. So she had no blood on her and obviously she would not go through the window. And what is the big deal if she is seen at that point? I see my neighbors walking around all the time, I have yet to say "I wonder if he is planting something to cover up a murder". But hey, that's just me.

2. If she didn't plant it ahead of time, then Darrin could have taken it out there, which would have taken no time at all, while waiting for the police to arrive. Again pretty sure he wouldn't have gone through the window.

Too many unanswered questions as to how the sock got there if people thinks Darlie planted it

Right. The planting of the sock is the big question. Not:

1. What was the "intruder" doing with the stray sock in the first place that explains why he had it with him?
2. Why was there no dust disturbed on the sill?
3. Why was the screen cut from inside?
4. Why didn't this crazed killer bring his own weapon?
5. Why did he butcher two small children that could have posed no serious resistance to a grown man and save the adult woman who could have for last?
6. Why is there no blood anywhere outside of the house where the intruder ran.
7. Why was the wine glass broken over the blood so as to not cut Darlies pretty little feet?
8. Why did the dog, known to be a barker, not make a sound while not only someone broke in but then proceeded to murder the children?
9.Why did Darlie talk to the 911 Operator about how she shouldn't have touched the knife while her two children lay dying?

For the sake of time and my effort Ill stop there, but, really, the sock is the big mystery here?:floorlaugh:

 

[TellTheTruth]

sock[/I] is the big mystery here?

You seem quite hostile - is everything OK?
I'm just asking open questions, there's no hidden agenda here.

I'm slightly confused by your stance as you say Darlie planted it and then you say Darin could have. Are you of the position that they are in this together?

The sock is 'a' question, not 'the' question. Just one of the many questions that needs more debate in my humble opinion.

 

[TellTheTruth]

1. What was the "intruder" doing with the stray sock in the first place that explains why he had it with him?
2. Why was there no dust disturbed on the sill?
3. Why was the screen cut from inside?
4. Why didn't this crazed killer bring his own weapon?
5. Why did he butcher two small children that could have posed no serious resistance to a grown man and save the adult woman who could have for last?
6. Why is there no blood anywhere outside of the house where the intruder ran.
7. Why was the wine glass broken over the blood so as to not cut Darlies pretty little feet?
8. Why did the dog, known to be a barker, not make a sound while not only someone broke in but then proceeded to murder the children?
9.Why did Darlie talk to the 911 Operator about how she shouldn't have touched the knife while her two children lay dying?

Just to answer these points;

1. No idea. That's why I'm asking the question.
2. Or when in court a 6 foot police officer managed to get through the window without disturbing the sill?
3. Not correct. It is accepted that the screen was cut from the outside.
4. There are many cases of intruders using weapons within the home of there victims. This wouldn't be the first, or the last.
5. That's a good question. It makes no sense at all.
6. Again, it doesn't add up. We must assume an 'intruder' wasn't hurt himself though as his blood would have been found in the Routier house. Therefore, it would not be far fetched for Darlie's, Devon's and Damon's blood to be soaked into the intruders clothes and not necessarily 'sprayed' all over the back garden and ally way.
7. There is an argument that a lot of evidence was moved after the crime. This could, does and will continue to happen in crime scenes unfortunately.
8. I think the same could be asked if Darlie/Darin planted to sock - why didn't the dog bark?
9. Darlie was asked a direct question by the operator. She didn't offer the information until she was asked about the murder weapon.

Your points aren't concrete enough to suggest she killed her boys unfortunately - I wish they were! One way or another there should have been some irrefutable point that made it suggest she was innocent or guilty.

That's the problem with this case - it's purely circumstantial.

 

[chlban]

Just to answer these points;

1. No idea. That's why I'm asking the question.
2. Or when in court a 6 foot police officer managed to get through the window without disturbing the sill?
3. Not correct. It is accepted that the screen was cut from the outside.
4. There are many cases of intruders using weapons within the home of there victims. This wouldn't be the first, or the last.
5. That's a good question. It makes no sense at all.
6. Again, it doesn't add up. We must assume an 'intruder' wasn't hurt himself though as his blood would have been found in the Routier house. Therefore, it would not be far fetched for Darlie's, Devon's and Damon's blood to be soaked into the intruders clothes and not necessarily 'sprayed' all over the back garden and ally way.
7. There is an argument that a lot of evidence was moved after the crime. This could, does and will continue to happen in crime scenes unfortunately.
8. I think the same could be asked if Darlie/Darin planted to sock - why didn't the dog bark?
9. Darlie was asked a direct question by the operator. She didn't offer the information until she was asked about the murder weapon.

Your points aren't concrete enough to suggest she killed her boys unfortunately - I wish they were! One way or another there should have been some irrefutable point that made it suggest she was innocent or guilty.

That's the problem with this case - it's purely circumstantial.

Actually many defendents are convicted on circumstantial evidence. Generally, there aren't videos of the murder being committed (although where I live two cops just dodged a murder charge when the murder was on video, so go figure). But I digress.

However there is plenty of forensic evidence on this one. Read the transcripts, read a couple of books on the case and then see if you actually believe this is circumstantial only.

Had I been on the jury I would have convicted on the circumstantial evidence alone. However, had I been on the jury i would not have had to.

This case has always reminded me of the Jeffrey Macdonald case, the subject of the first true crime book I ever read. In both cases:

1. The biggest threat to the "intruder(s)" was barely scratched in comparison to the butchery exhibited with the much smaller, more defenseless victims.

2. There was no physical evidence of an intruder, or intruders, at either scene

3. Both murderers self iinflicted wounds to make it appear they were attacked, again absolutely miniscule in comparison to the victims. Although MacDonald did a more convincing job as he was a doctor.

4. Neither was able to demonstrate any reasonable semblence of grief, IMO because neither was capable of feigning such a basic human emotion.

5. Neither had any history that would indicate they would end up butchering their children, thereby making it hard for many to accept that they could commit such atrocities.

6. Neither will ever admit their guilt, nor will they ever shut the F up about their "innocence" and they seem to always be able to find some new generation of crime buffs, not familiar enough with the facts, that they can convince them they are innocent. At least for a while. Until that new generation gets totally up on all the facts of their case.

Although Jeffy is aging rapidly and the State of Texas (thank heaven it's Texas and not my home state) just might get tired of Darlies ridiculous appeals and put the needle that arm. Now that ought to leave a real nice, legitmate bruise.:great::great:

 

[TellTheTruth]

Actually many defendents are convicted on circustantial evidence. Generally, there aren't videos of the murder being committed (although where I live two cops just dodged a murder charge when the murder was on video, so go figure). But I digress.

However there is plenty of forensic evidence on this one. Read the transcripts, read a couple of books on the case and then see if you actually believe this is circumstantial only.

Had I been on the jury I would have convicted on the circumstantial evidence alone. However, had I been on the jury i would not have had to.

This case has always reminded me of the Jeffrey Macdonald case, the subject of the first true crime book I ever read. In both cases:

1. The biggest threat to the "intruder(s)" was barely scratched in comparison to the butchery exhibited with the much smaller, more defenseless victims.

2. There was no physical evidence of an intruder, or intruders, at either scene

3. Both murderers self iinflicted wounds to make it appear they were attacked, again absolutely miniscule in comparison to the victims. Although MacDonald did a more convincing job as he was a doctor.

4. Neither was able to demonstrate any reasonable semblence of grief, IMO because neither was capable of feigning such a basic human emotion.

5. Neither had any history that would indicate they would end up butchering their children, thereby making it hard for many to accept that they could commit such atrocities.

6. Neither will ever admit their guilt, nor will they ever shut the F up about their "innocence" and they seem to always be able to find some new generation of crime buffs, not familiar enough with the facts, that they can convince them they are innocent. At least for a while. Until that new generation gets totally up on all the facts of their case.

Although Jeffy is aging rapidly and the State of Texas (thank heaven it's Texas and not my home state) just might get tired of Darlies ridiculous appeals and put the needle that arm. Now that ought to leave a real nice, legitmate bruise.:great::great:

I've read the transcripts but I haven't read any books, or intend to do so - third party reporting doesn't help me form an unbiased opinion on a case.

I do agree that both Darin and Darlie show signs of narcissism. From Darlie's stone faced persona to her singing at the end of almost every interview now - it's a little odd.

I could throw up the case of Cameron Todd Willingham and ask you to go through the above points you raise again.

 

[Val830]

Darlie could have went right out of the front door, down that space between her house and the neighbors house, right to the back street.

With a security light that stays on for several minutes and a gate that drags loudly when opened or closed, I'd say it would have been much less risky for her to go out the front door.

Somehow though, the intruder managed to not set off the motion detector light and was courteous enough to shut the annoying dragging gate behind him. Such a polite child killer!

If it was an intruder who planted that sock- he HAD to go out the back b/c Darlie is the only one who claims to have seen him, and she SAID he went out that way.

If it was Darlie who planted that sock - she could have went out the front or the back door.

 

[Sinsaint]

Well let's see:

1. She put it there before she killed them. So she had no blood on her and obviously she would not go through the window. And what is the big deal if she is seen at that point? I see my neighbors walking around all the time, I have yet to say "I wonder if he is planting something to cover up a murder". But hey, that's just me.

Do you hear yourself? It had blood from both boys on it. Do you think she somehow made them both bleed earlier in the day, smeared their blood on it that afternoon, planted the sock around the same time and then killed them both that night?

2. If she didn't plant it ahead of time, then Darrin could have taken it out there, which would have taken no time at all, while waiting for the police to arrive. Again pretty sure he wouldn't have gone through the window.

For one, this theory of yours would have Darin coming downstairs, seeing his two boys dead or dying, knowing instantly Darlie did it, put aside all the rage and anger he would feel towards her at that very moment, come up with the brilliant idea of planting a sock with the boys blood on it a few houses away all without knowing how long it would take for the cops to show up. Yea, I buy that.

Right. The planting of the sock is the big question. Not:

1. What was the "intruder" doing with the stray sock in the first place that explains why he had it with him?

Wiping his hands off.

2. Why was there no dust disturbed on the sill?

Probably because there was none there to begin with. Or because the window is like a gigantic foot off the ground. I child could crawl through that window without disturbing the windowsill.

3. Why was the screen cut from inside?

It was cut from the outside.

4. Why didn't this crazed killer bring his own weapon?

Because it's pretty common knowledge that most houses have kitchens where he could easily find a knife.

5. Why did he butcher two small children that could have posed no serious resistance to a grown man and save the adult woman who could have for last?

Because, those two small children could scream and possibly give a description of the man that hurt Mommy. And you have no idea which was attacked first. For all you know he could have attacked Darlie first and when the kids woke up he had two more problems to deal with.

6. Why is there no blood anywhere outside of the house where the intruder ran.

Why do you feel there needs to be?

7. Why was the wine glass broken over the blood so as to not cut Darlies pretty little feet?

Because it got kicked around. I'm not drinking the Kool-aid Waddell and Walling are selling that they noticed the glass on the floor and were careful enough to step over it.

8. Why did the dog, known to be a barker, not make a sound while not only someone broke in but then proceeded to murder the children?

How much noise do you think the guy made while he was breaking it? I'm pretty sure the guy would have gone to great lengths to be as quiet as possible.

9.Why did Darlie talk to the 911 Operator about how she shouldn't have touched the knife while her two children lay dying?

Because Darlie was talking to Waddell and the 911 operator kept interrupting her.

For the sake of time and my effort Ill stop there, but, really, the sock is the big mystery here?:floorlaugh:

Thank goodness.

 

[Madeleine74]

Because, those two small children could scream and possibly give a description of the man that hurt Mommy. And you have no idea which was attacked first. For all you know he could have attacked Darlie first and when the kids woke up he had two more problems to deal with.

Except Darlie herself said the intruder left and she followed him through the kitchen. She didn't describe him coming back to then attack the boys. According to Darlie the boys were attacked first.

Wiping his hands off.

There's no 'wiping' stain on the sock (I assume you are referring to blood). As far as we know, there's no other DNA on the sock besides Darlie's in the toe area (skin cells), and both boys' blood.

There's no logical reason for an intruder to take a sock with him and go down a dead end alley to leave the sock. How did the intruder get down there without triggering the security lights from the Routier home? The sock is a red herring and was put there to imply, "yeah, he went thata way!" It looks out of place because it is out of place. It doesn't make sense because it was planted there on purpose, not dropped by a fleeing "intruder."

Because it got kicked around

This is where it would be important to look at the crime scene photos and testimony. Did the shards of glass have streaks of blood on them that might indicate they were being "kicked around?" What about the floor underneath? Are there bloody footprints by the responding officers that lead up to "kicked around glass?" In order to "kick around the glass" they would have to have been right up to the glass and there was a lot of blood in the area. What evidence are you using to make this allegation of kicked around glass?

 

[TellTheTruth]

It's times like this I wish those spouting 'evidence' against Darlie would come up with something a little more convincing.

If nothing else, just so I don't have to go on caring about someone on death row who may be innocent.

 

[CathyR]

You can go over a fence easily if the adrenaline is flowing.

 

[CathyR]

Who says the security light was not triggered?

I have one and it doesn't stay on forever if triggered it goes back off after a short amount of time. It is a motion detector type.

No one noticed the light on. At that time of night it would have taken someone awake and looking in that direction to notice it. So saying it was not triggered is a false claim.

It wasn't on when the police arrived is all that can be proven. It triggered when they searched the area.

My neighbor has one in their backyard and the feral cats in our neighborhood trigger it all the time. When they first installed the light, it used to wake me as it shines right into my bedroom. I'm used to it and now I don't wake up anymore when it goes on or off. If I'm awake watching TV or reading I'll see it but I barely pay attention to it anymore. My neighbors had a party last night and I didn't even notice the light on at first but I heard the laughter and talking and then saw the light was on.

There is not a recording device on the light that shows when it was triggered, how many times it has been triggered, what time it was triggered, so the claims that the light never went on or off is not an indisputable fact.

No one can say they they saw it is all.


No one noticed the light being on or off.

A neighbor used to the light would not notice it just like I don't notice it anymore. It is familiar to me and my brain filters it out as unimportant as all my previous brain training has conditioned me to ignore it.