Darlie Routier's Appeals & Court Rulings

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
I too think DArlie is as guilty as sin - and I have to agree that I Think it was sometype of revenge killing against her hubby... I think he knows alot more than he is willing to share.. How can all of that happen on the main floor of the house while he is upstairs and he hears NOTHING... sounds a little fishy...

Yes, Darlie should have been covered in blood... Holding her babies, rocking her babies, trying ot stop the bleeding... Their blood should be all over her...But it was not - and that in itself tells a story..
 
I always suspected the mother. It never made sense to me that an intruder would leave the biggest threat (the adult) alive and the least injured. If it were truly an intruder, he would have killed her first.

Further, if it were an intruder, what would the motive be? Just some nut entering the home for no other reason than to kill?? If this were the case, wouldn't he have been armed before entering the home?

Sorry, but both Darin and Darlie seem like "trailer trash." I wouldn't want them living in my neighborhood.

Darlie is where she needs to be. I think Darin knows a lot more than currently revealed. However, I'm not sure Darlie will ever reveal the truth...maybe after all of her appeals are exhausted. I still don't think so. Darin probably gives her money and visits, etc.

In any case I don't think anything revealed by Darlie will set her free because I think that she killed the boys.
 
Sherlock said:
Jeana: I haven't read this whole thread yet, I stopped when I read this post. I followed this case minimally, but have always been very interested in it. Not just the murders, the their whole life style, the money, her behavior at the graves, etc. I don't know all the details and would love if you started this topic. I think there would be enough interest. Are you game?

Sherlock


Of course Sherlock. Let me know what you want to know about. I'll give a brief description, but I'm going on memory here and honestly haven't discussed this case for a while because I was on Darlie overload! LOL

They purchased their home for about $130,000. Darin owned his own business (Testnec) (may be spelled incorrectly). At one time, he was bringing in a very good amount of money. However, by the time of the murders, his business was failing. I believe he only brought in about $75,000 that year.

They owned two automobiles. A Jaguar, which was 10 years old and was broken down at the time of the murders. Darlie was at home with three young boys all day while Darin was at work and had no vehicle.

They took out a loan for a "hot tub house" for their backyard for about $10,000.

They had no savings at all.

They also had a loan for a cabin cruiser.

They were in debt to credit card companies for a little over $12,000.

They were two years behind in paying their taxes and were trying to catch up by paying $1000.00 per month.

They were two months behind on their mortgage and the district attorneys office produced a letter that apparently was found in their garbage can. I believe a payment was made in the day or so before the murder.

They had been trying to plan for Darlie to take a vaction away from Darin (can't remember exactly what for now, but I believe to visit relatives in another state). They tried to take out a $5000.00 loan, but were turned down. They say it was for a truck for Darlie's sister, Dana, but they also had no way to pay for Darlie's trip. They were also planning on renewing their marriage vows and had no money to pay for those expenses either (I believe a second honeymoon was being planned).

A local news station wanted the exclusive rights to the funeral, so the Routiers actually took money from the news station to allow them to attend. The money was used for hotel rooms for out of state guests who attended the funeral, or so I'm told.

For a man whose only bringing in $75,000 (or less) per year, they were living WAY WAY beyond their means. Darlie was a stay at home mother, yet she had someone come and help her with the housework.

If you have any other questions, let me know and I'll do my best to answer them.
 
nanandjim said:
I always suspected the mother. It never made sense to me that an intruder would leave the biggest threat (the adult) alive and the least injured. If it were truly an intruder, he would have killed her first.


You're right on target here. Another big problem in Darlie's lies is her trying to shift the focus of the intended target. She is adamant that SHE was the target. Not the boys. If you compare her wounds to the wounds the boys received, you'll notice striking differences. She had "slash" wounds. The boys had deep penetrating wounds to the trunks of their bodies. The person who murdered those boys knew EXACTLY where to stab them to create the most damage. If the murderer wanted Darlie dead and if she was indeed the first one attacked that night, she'd be dead. The supporters want you to believe that she was so awesomely beautiful that some guy decided that if he couldn't have her, she couldn't live. They claim that Darlie's panties that she was wearing that night are missing. Well I think that's crap. There was a huge pile of dirty laundry a few feet away from the room the murders occurred in. That's apparently where the "intruder" obtained the sock that was found outside. If Darlie wanted the police to believe that she was the target of a sexual assault, it would have taken all of two seconds for her to take off her panties and put them in that dirty laundry pile. We're supposed to believe that Darlie's telling the truth about missing panties????? This woman has told at least 16 DIFFERENT versions of the events of that night. I'm not too fired up about a pair of missing underwear.
 
Hi,

Since I saw this thread, I started doing a lot of reading on this case. Although I'm leaning towards guilty, because some things just don't add up, I'm still not convinced. There are a lot of unaswered questions. I came upon this article, and it outlines some of the questions I have.

The attorney that represented Darlie Routier at trial had an apparent conflict of interest, because he reportedly had a pre-arrangement with Darin Routier and other family members not to pursue any defense that could implicate Darin. This attorney allegedly stopped key experts for the defense from completing forensic examinations.

Other areas of concern, which were never brought to the attention of the jury, include the pictures of Darlie's cuts and bruises on her arms which were taken when she was hospitalized the night of the murders. At least one jury told reporters he would never have voted to convict if he had seen those photographs.

Bloody fingerprints have been found that do not belong to Darlie, Darin, the children or any of the police or other people in the Routier house the night of the murder. This contradicts testimony given during her trial that stated there were no fingerprints found outside the home.

Questions her defense team want answered:
A bloody fingerprint was found on the living room table. Who does it belong to?

There was a bloody fingerprint on the door of the garage. Who does it belong to?

Darin Routier's jeans had blood on them. Whose blood is it?

A pubic hair was found in the Routier living room. Who does it belong to?

How did the blood on Darlie's nightshirt get there and whose is it?

Did the police get debris on the knife in the kitchen while investigating the murder or did it come from the screen door?

Other areas of concern which were never brought to the attention of the jury include the pictures of Darlie's cut's and bruises on her arms which were taken when she was hospitalized the night of the murders.
Darin Routier has admitted to trying to arrange an insurance scam, which included someone breaking into their home. He has admitted that he had begun the initial steps to arrange a break-in, but that it was to be done when no one was at home. No jury has ever heard this admittance.

The incriminating Birthday Party film that was viewed by the jury showed Darlie dancing on the graves of her son along with other family members, but did not include the filming of the hours previous to that scene when Darlie sobbed and grieved over the graves with her husband Darin. Why was the additional footage not shown to the jury?

Neighbors reported seeing a black car sitting in front of the Routier home a week before the murders took place. Other neighbors reported seeing the same car leaving the area on the night of the murders. Were these reports investigated by police?

Investigators during her trial invoked their fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination during cross examination, preventing the defense from rebuting their testimony. What did these investigators fear by being cross-examined?

There was discussion of the police not protecting the evidence as they collected it which could have possibly damaged it's origins. Did this really occur?

More Questions that Need Answers
The screen which investigators reported to the press as being cut from the inside was later proven in court to be cut from the outside.

When the paramedics arrived at the scene they said that Darin Routier was outside, but Darin was inside trying to save his children. Who was the man outside?

Was the testimony from the nurses in the hospital coached and rehearsed in mock trials by the prosecution prior to their testimony, as it has been reported?

The surgeon who operated on Darlie said that the cut in her neck was 2mm of the carotid sheath but was superficial to the carotid artery. The necklace she was wearing was damaged as a result of the wound but it also blocked the knife from going deeper into her neck. Did the jury get a clear understanding as to the seriousness of her wounds?

Was there an improper read-back of testimony to the jury by the court reporter, due to mistakes she made in the transcript?

The prosecution has reportedly refused to provide access to any evidence in their custody in the case. Why is it not readily available to all interested parties?

The advancements in DNA testing could put many of these questions to rest. Why is there such a reluctance to do the testing?

Some writers who have interviewed Darlie Routier have decided to help her fight to get a new trial. Since reporting their opinions on her situation, they report that their ability to visit her has been blocked or made so inconvenient that little can be accomplished.

Here is the link:

http://crime.about.com/od/current/a/darlieroutier_3.htm

If anyone is familiar with these points, let me know! It is intriquing. I can't imagine that her cuts would be so minor, and her boys would be plunging stabs. That doesn't sit well with me. I also can't imagine sleeping through two attacks. The children had to have yelled or moaned or something. I also listened to her 911 call, and there is a bit of an "acting" feeling I'm getting from it. She is hysterical, but overly so imo.

I would like to think that in a similar situation, although panicked, I would have the sense to try and handle the situation to help keep my sons alive, rather than run around hysterical yelling "Oh my god, oh my God" and doing nothing for the boys.

-Sherlock
 
Other areas of concern, which were never brought to the attention of the jury, include the pictures of Darlie's cuts and bruises on her arms which were taken when she was hospitalized the night of the murders. At least one jury told reporters he would never have voted to convict if he had seen those photographs.

Bloody fingerprints have been found that do not belong to Darlie, Darin, the children or any of the police or other people in the Routier house the night of the murder. This contradicts testimony given during her trial that stated there were no fingerprints found outside the home.
_______________________________

Those photographs WERE shown to the jury. Douglas Mulder, Darlie's attorney (and by the way, the BEST criminal defense attorney in the State of Texas) ADMITTED that they were introduced.

The so-called fingerprint is reportedly "small." Approximately the size of a child or small adult according to experts. There are not enough points to be sure, but more than a couple experts say that they're most likely Darlie's print.

The conflict of interest story is fiction. Mulder said that it was not true.

The rest of your post (I assume you pulled from her website) is untrue as well. This is what's known as "grasping for straws once you get really desperate."
 
Jeana (DP) said:
Other areas of concern, which were never brought to the attention of the jury, include the pictures of Darlie's cuts and bruises on her arms which were taken when she was hospitalized the night of the murders. At least one jury told reporters he would never have voted to convict if he had seen those photographs.

Bloody fingerprints have been found that do not belong to Darlie, Darin, the children or any of the police or other people in the Routier house the night of the murder. This contradicts testimony given during her trial that stated there were no fingerprints found outside the home.
_______________________________

Those photographs WERE shown to the jury. Douglas Mulder, Darlie's attorney (and by the way, the BEST criminal defense attorney in the State of Texas) ADMITTED that they were introduced.

The so-called fingerprint is reportedly "small." Approximately the size of a child or small adult according to experts. There are not enough points to be sure, but more than a couple experts say that they're most likely Darlie's print.

The conflict of interest story is fiction. Mulder said that it was not true.

The rest of your post (I assume you pulled from her website) is untrue as well. This is what's known as "grasping for straws once you get really desperate."

DP, if you are up to it I would be happy to open a forum for this case. I can also allow pictures.

This case still has a lot of attention. It's just so strange.

After reading this thread I am convinced of her guilt. Again. I thought she might be innocent for a bit but I just can't see it now.
 
Tricia:

That would be great! I'd love for DP to have a thread for this case, I mentioned it earlier. I'm very interested in this case.

I'm not totally convinced, but I certainly lean towards guilt. Too many weird things just don't make sense.

Sherlock
 
Tricia, while I think that there will be some interest in this case, there's one thing you need to keep in mind. Darlie's got a handful of rabid supporters who WILL find their way here and WILL cause trouble. Whomever you get to moderate that forum should be strong-willed and available 24/7.
 
Jeana (DP) said:
Tricia, while I think that there will be some interest in this case, there's one thing you need to keep in mind. Darlie's got a handful of rabid supporters who WILL find their way here and WILL cause trouble. Whomever you get to moderate that forum should be strong-willed and available 24/7.


Good point. I know you have a full life plus more.

Any takers? Let's think about this.
 
Tricia said:
Good point. I know you have a full life plus more.

Any takers? Let's think about this.

One more thing: most of the pictures that are running around about this case are from Christopher Wayne's book. He's sleazy enough to try and sue anyone who uses them without permission (and the family has its head stuck so far up his butt, they'll support him). Unless a forum is willing to hand over total control to Darlie's supporters, they'll never let a picture up. They've also been known to stalk people who don't support her.
 
Jeana (DP) said:
One more thing: most of the pictures that are running around about this case are from Christopher Wayne's book. He's sleazy enough to try and sue anyone who uses them without permission (and the family has its head stuck so far up his butt, they'll support him). Unless a forum is willing to hand over total control to Darlie's supporters, they'll never let a picture up. They've also been known to stalk people who don't support her.

Ok. let's review.

If we open a Darlie forum we could be:

*Stalked
*Sued
*Harrassed to no end
*overrun with Darlie supporters.


Alllrigtythen. I think this nice little thread is just fine for now..LOL.
 
Tricia said:
Ok. let's review.

If we open a Darlie forum we could be:

*Stalked
*Sued
*Harrassed to no end
*overrun with Darlie supporters.


Alllrigtythen. I think this nice little thread is just fine for now..LOL.


Yup, and that's exactly what they count on. That no one will want to take them on. That way, they can spin the case any way they want to. That's why River finally gave up on the forum and closed it.
 
If the pictures were part of evidence etc and he didnt take the pictures, how can he sue? Does he own the pictures? The copyright on pictures always confuses me. Are they owned by the original photograper? The courts? lol I always wonder that in regards to all the Peterson pictures.
 
I suppose one of you mods could go down to the Dallas County Courthouse like Christopher did and get them for yourselves and then yes, you could post them. However, if someone just took copies from his book, they'd try to make trouble for you. Most of the time, its really not an issue since they are public record. However, this is a family with stuff to hide. That's why they want total control of every discussion with regard to Darlie's case. Her own website has some information, yet it leaves out anything she can't explain away - and there's a lot of that.
 
Jeana:

You don't think that perhaps some of this has died down by now? I mean, we could try it and see, and then close it if we had to. It's not like we couldn't close the forum and just have some threads if it got out of hand.

I think it's worth a try.

I'm willing to try it and will do what I can to help. There is definitely interest and I have the time, especially during the day, to help out any moderators.

I agree with Tybee, that if the pics were available in court, then they are part of the state's property and not private property.

Sherlock
 
tybee204 said:
If the pictures were part of evidence etc and he didnt take the pictures, how can he sue? Does he own the pictures? The copyright on pictures always confuses me. Are they owned by the original photograper? The courts? lol I always wonder that in regards to all the Peterson pictures.
Photographs are always 100% owned by the photographer who took them, unless they sell them to someone else, or at least sign over the rights to them, such as an employer in the media. But the original owner is whomever took the actual picture. Period. :)
 
Dark Knight said:
Photographs are always 100% owned by the photographer who took them, unless they sell them to someone else, or at least sign over the rights to them, such as an employer in the media. But the original owner is whomever took the actual picture. Period. :)

If a person uses an evidence picture in a book that is in a public court record, that person does not own it. It is in the public domain.

Look at it like this. When we get court documents off the net it's because they are part of a public file. They are not the property of the lawyer. They are the property of the court and, unless sealed by a judge, are made available to the public.

So if I want to take a picture from a book that was taken from a public file I can. The author of the book doesn't own the picture.

I would be willing to pay one of our members to go to the court and get Darlie's public file. The whole thing. At long as it's not cost prohibitive to copy the file.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
69
Guests online
1,754
Total visitors
1,823

Forum statistics

Threads
605,338
Messages
18,185,865
Members
233,318
Latest member
AR Sleuth
Back
Top