Did Darlie Routier murder her precious sons? Part 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter CW
  • Start date Start date
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

Did Darlie Routier Murder Her Precious Sons ?


  • Total voters
    803
The one thing that really troubles me about this whole case is the cutting of the door screen. If the "suspect" had a sharp object to cut the screen upon entering the house, why did he/she then need to pick up the knife in the kitchen?
 
The one thing that really troubles me about this whole case is the cutting of the door screen. If the "suspect" had a sharp object to cut the screen upon entering the house, why did he/she then need to pick up the knife in the kitchen?

Darlie cut the screen with her serrated bread knife. A screen fibre and screen debris were found on the knife and in the butcher block.
 
The one thing that really troubles me about this whole case is the cutting of the door screen. If the "suspect" had a sharp object to cut the screen upon entering the house, why did he/she then need to pick up the knife in the kitchen?

And why would so someone bother to cut the screen when they could have just removed it?
 
And why would so someone bother to cut the screen when they could have just removed it?

Removing it could make noise. Slicing it would not.

I go back and forth on this case. I think part of it for me is the disbelief that someone could do this to their babies. There are things about the evidence that I feel point directly to guilt and then some things that still keep me not sure 100%.
 
Removing it could make noise. Slicing it would not.

I go back and forth on this case. I think part of it for me is the disbelief that someone could do this to their babies. There are things about the evidence that I feel point directly to guilt and then some things that still keep me not sure 100%.

I can understand that disbelief. I found it hard to believe a mother could brutally stab her boys. It took me a long while, and help from Cami, to understand the facts fully.

I don't put much weight on the silly string thing. It was probably a bit distasteful seeing as it was so soon after the murders, but I believe it was Darlie's sister who arranged it. I think that the blood evidence on Darlie's nightshirt, the evidence in the house and Darlie's actions and words prove her guilt. There is no evidence of an intruder.
 
Removing it could make noise. Slicing it would not.

I go back and forth on this case. I think part of it for me is the disbelief that someone could do this to their babies. There are things about the evidence that I feel point directly to guilt and then some things that still keep me not sure 100%.

It's hard for any mother to understand how she could do that. IMO, that is exactly why she has so many supporters. But the evidence is just too profound. There are no bloody footprints of an intruder escaping out through the kitchen and the laundry room. Did he float out? Darlie's bloody footprints are everywhere.

Her testimony that Damon followed her into the kitchen and called to her is absurd; he was stabbed through the lungs and major organs and couldn't walk or talk because he was dying. Of course we could go on and on and on with the evidence..... Just read the trial transcripts if you have any doubts. Read the transcript of the 911 call and listen to her defensively explain what happened to Darin. I agree, the silly string video was the least of it.

Because she doesn't appear deranged or insane, people just can't believe she could've done this. They grasp at any one-in-a-million chance or believe in conspiracy theories (the witnesses, law enforcement and medical community all bonded together to secretly to frame her). I live in Dallas and, as a mother, I initially couldn't get my head around it either. But she is a true sociopath. They have no consciences, act on impulse and can't feel remorse. I feel sorry for her. Can you imagine doing something like that and not feeling abject pain over it? To spend the rest of your life lying about it? To let your family bankrupt themselves believing in you? She cared nothing for those boys and thought she could easily get away with it - which is just more sociopathic behavior. It's sad.
 
I can understand that disbelief. I found it hard to believe a mother could brutally stab her boys. It took me a long while, and help from Cami, to understand the facts fully.

I don't put much weight on the silly string thing. It was probably a bit distasteful seeing as it was so soon after the murders, but I believe it was Darlie's sister who arranged it. I think that the blood evidence on Darlie's nightshirt, the evidence in the house and Darlie's actions and words prove her guilt. There is no evidence of an intruder.

Yes, you know I too believed no mother would brutally stab her own babies like this so I too believed she was innocent. However it was her story that didn't ring true to me and I sought more information, once I started learning, there just was no way. She did it, no one else, not Darin, not an intruder, not her sister, only Darlie. I too don't put my emphasis on the SS tape, it only proves to me Darlie is histrionic. I don't care if her sister arranged it, her sister didn't force her to chew gum, spray silly string and laugh like she hadn't a care in the world. She was playing to the cameras, IMO, her big break. But it's the blood evidence that convinces me she murdered Devon and Damon.
 
Denial is not the friend of a budding or experienced 'sleuther.' Murder of small children doesn't ever make sense, so that right there is a nonstarter. We know from past cases some women can and do murder their own children. Diane Downs has been in prison for over 25 years, Susan Smith for 20 years, so this is not some new thing. And we also know some women (or rather a parent) can be so mentally ill they think they are saving their childrens' souls by ending their lives (classic case: Andrea Yates).

No one wants to believe any adult would harm a child. But why would a stranger/intruder breaking into a house have more motive to harm a sleeping child who is certainly no match for said intruder than the child's own parent?

Intruders are there to steal, or maybe harm one or more adults, these are often the primary purposes, it is not usually to attack 2 small sleeping boys. Intruders don't usually have any particular anger towards a small child. They don't have to put up with that child, that child doesn't mess the intruder's house or cause the intruder to feel resentful about wasted youth or wasted beauty or prevent the intruder from taking vacations or buying lots of fancy things.

I think LE well understands this: people closest to the victim, especially when the victim is a child and the child is found dead in the home are often involved. Not always, nothing is 100%, but this turns out to be the case more often than not.
 
You know, very oddly, this looks like it could have been the work of Adam Leroy Lane, also known as the "Highway Killer".


http://murderpedia.org/male.L/l/lane-adam-leroy.htm


Family's capture of serial killer Adam Leroy Lane


It was 4 a.m. July 30, 2007, in Chelmsford, Mass. The McDonoughs were roused from sleep by the mysterious sounds of muffled moans coming from their 15-year-old daughter’s room.




http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/03/serial_killer_adam_leroy_lanes.html
 
What cinched it for me was the blood rinsed down the kitchen sink.


Kitchen

CSI’s noticed a tiny amount of blood in the sink. A presumptive test proved this was blood. However, the sink and the counter surrounding it were free of blood. In front of the sink, blood on the top of the counter there and blood dripped down the cupboard door below the sink aroused their suspicion, hence the luminol. Please note, only blood will show up on a presumptive test for blood. IOW, bleach cannot take the place of blood in a presumptive test.

Luminol proved blood was rinsed down the sink and wiped up from the counter on the sides of the sink, the taps and spout.

Blood dripped on the inside of the cupboard door proved to be Darlie’s.

Blood drops on top of blood drops on the carpet in front of the sink indicated someone bleeding standing there with little to no movement.

Luminol used on the floor showed someone had cleaned up bloody footprints.

Direct bleeding round blood drops proved someone bleeding was walking from the kitchen to the utility room and not running as Darlie described. The blood drops would have had tails had she been running.

Mixed stains of Devon/Damon found on the sink backsplash.

The vacuum cleaner found in the kitchen had bloody footprints underneath it and Darlie’s blood on the top in patterns showing she was moving, not using the vacuum as a crutch.

Wheel marks from the vacuum found in the blood in the kitchen.

No water or dilution of the blood was found on the kitchen floor.

https://justice4newcomers.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/blood-evidence-does-not-lie/
 
One thing occurred to me in reading through this thread again. Maybe the reason Darlie wouldn't go help her son in front of the police officer, is that she was afraid that the child would freak out if she came back over to him again. Pull away in fear or cry and indicate to the officer that she was the one who did it.
 
My husband watched a rerun of the "Disappeared" show about this case the other night. He had never heard of Darlie before and is not a Websleuths follower but his impression was that Darlie is guilty. The first time I heard of the case I kind of thought she might be telling the truth but then I realized it was just my reluctance to believe a seemingly normal and loving mother could do a thing like this. Every time I see anything about the case I become more convinced she did it.

I can see why the defense would want to point the finger at the husband, saying he may have attacked Darlie and the two boys for the life insurance, but if that were true I think he would have been covered in bruises as Darlie fought him. She did have a lot of bruising but anybody can self-inflict bruises by flailing their arms hard enough against objects in the house.
 
My husband watched a rerun of the "Disappeared" show about this case the other night. He had never heard of Darlie before and is not a Websleuths follower but his impression was that Darlie is guilty. The first time I heard of the case I kind of thought she might be telling the truth but then I realized it was just my reluctance to believe a seemingly normal and loving mother could do a thing like this. Every time I see anything about the case I become more convinced she did it.

I can see why the defense would want to point the finger at the husband, saying he may have attacked Darlie and the two boys for the life insurance, but if that were true I think he would have been covered in bruises as Darlie fought him. She did have a lot of bruising but anybody can self-inflict bruises by flailing their arms hard enough against objects in the house.

DP, did they really feature this on Disappeared? It makes no sense, unless I have forgotten something. And who was missing?
 
I don't know. It seems hard to believe that someone would slice open their own neck and arms with a big knife. One reason I say this is because: last summer I cut my thumb on a piece of sheet metal, and for such a small cut it was very painful.

The only way I would believe it is if the kids did something to set her off, and she just snapped, and went nuts from something. Therefore it could not have been premeditated murder. Besides the fact there is no motive.
 
Think about the kind of frenzy you'd have to build in yourself to kill children. Then carry that over to slicing her own neck, I think she did more damage than she intended.

It's funny in a way how the fact that she hurt herself worse than she intended convinces her that she is a victim. I remember my mother severely beating me as a kid and then coming and complaining to everyone about how she had bruises on her body and her hand hurt. She absolutely felt like an injured victim because "my bones were so hard." :thinking:
 
DP, did they really feature this on Disappeared? It makes no sense, unless I have forgotten something. And who was missing?

I meant to say I saw it on Discovery ID channel, not Disappeared.
 
Think about the kind of frenzy you'd have to build in yourself to kill children. Then carry that over to slicing her own neck, I think she did more damage than she intended.

It's funny in a way how the fact that she hurt herself worse than she intended convinces her that she is a victim. I remember my mother severely beating me as a kid and then coming and complaining to everyone about how she had bruises on her body and her hand hurt. She absolutely felt like an injured victim because "my bones were so hard." :thinking:

I am so sorry Chewy.No child deserves to be treated that way.
 
I don't know. It seems hard to believe that someone would slice open their own neck and arms with a big knife. One reason I say this is because: last summer I cut my thumb on a piece of sheet metal, and for such a small cut it was very painful.

The only way I would believe it is if the kids did something to set her off, and she just snapped, and went nuts from something. Therefore it could not have been premeditated murder. Besides the fact there is no motive.

The state is never burdened with proving a motive. What motive did some man have to come in there and automatically murder two boys? There is a motive, but you would need to go further into the family dynamics. marriage on the rocks, the business was failing, Darin desperate to get a loan for Darlie's vacation, Darlie depressed and doing diet pills and could have cared less what Damon and Devon were up to, etc. Darlie threatening Darin with a separation. DArlie murdering the boys to get back at Darin.
 
Sure... I think this could have went ether way here. Ether Darlie went bananas, and flew into a fit of rage or there was an intruder.

I don't think anyone has proven that there was no intruder, and from what I read, the crime scene was bumbled and compromised by dozens of LE, and ER trampling around that night along with neighbors and so-on; there was just no way to do a proper investigation.

It's true that anyone wandering around that house that night could have ran water in the sink, or knocked the vacuum on the floor; we just can't ever know at this point.

I know a lot of us on the forum would agree when saying there is a good probability of an intruder at Darlie's home the night the murders took place.

That's why I brought up Adam Lane.

http://murderpedia.org/male.L/l/lane-adam-leroy.htm

Family's capture of serial killer Adam Leroy Lane

It was 4 a.m. July 30, 2007, in Chelmsford, Mass. The McDonoughs were roused from sleep by the mysterious sounds of muffled moans coming from their 15-year-old daughter’s room.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...roy_lanes.html

As another poster could put it: it's highly unlikely that anyone could have inflicted such serous injuries upon their own-self. Not to mention the bruises and defensive wounds.

I did see a show on youtube. I don't have a link right now, but I can look it up for you guys later.

Anyhow, on the show: two highly professional investigators took a look at the Darlie case. They even interviewed her in prison. Their conclusions were: the case was improperly investigated, and bumbled from the get go. I think they also interviewed the guy who testified about the blood spatter/back spatter, and concluded he was filled with malarkey.

Nevertheless, I know we can't say at this point if there was an intruder or not. I do believe many feel the case should be re-examined.
 
Sure... I think this could have went ether way here. Ether Darlie went bananas, and flew into a fit of rage or there was an intruder.

I don't think anyone has proven that there was no intruder, and from what I read, the crime scene was bumbled and compromised by dozens of LE, and ER trampling around that night along with neighbors and so-on; there was just no way to do a proper investigation.

It's true that anyone wandering around that house that night could have ran water in the sink, or knocked the vacuum on the floor; we just can't ever know at this point.

I know a lot of us on the forum would agree when saying there is a good probability of an intruder at Darlie's home the night the murders took place.

That's why I brought up Adam Lane.



As another poster could put it: it's highly unlikely that anyone could have inflicted such serous injuries upon their own-self. Not to mention the bruises and defensive wounds.

I did see a show on youtube. I don't have a link right now, but I can look it up for you guys later.

Anyhow, on the show: two highly professional investigators took a look at the Darlie case. They even interviewed her in prison. Their conclusions were: the case was improperly investigated, and bumbled from the get go. I think they also interviewed the guy who testified about the blood spatter/back spatter, and concluded he was filled with malarkey.

Nevertheless, I know we can't say at this point if there was an intruder or not. I do believe many feel the case should be re-examined.

I don't think anyone has proven that there was no intruder, and from what I read, the crime scene was bumbled and compromised by dozens of LE, and ER trampling around that night along with neighbors and so-on; there was just no way to do a proper investigation.

That is absolutely not true, that is nothing but supporter rhetoric. In fact the crime scene was controlled, even the Chief of Police was not allowed in, there were not dozens of rescue workers running up and down the house. Nor were neighbours allowed in. One neighbour was escorted, by police, up the front stairs, no where near the scene of the murders, to get the dog, that's it.

It's true that anyone wandering around that house that night could have ran water in the sink, or knocked the vacuum on the floor; we just can't ever know at this point.

No one wandering around the house ran water that night and yes we do know at this point because we have their trial testimony and the photos of the crime scene.

I know a lot of us on the forum would agree when saying there is a good probability of an intruder at Darlie's home the night the murders took place.

Almost 20 years after the murders and we have yet to discover any evidence whatsoever an intruder was in Darlie's home that night killing her boys. All the blood evidence points to her and no one else.

You need to read the trial transcripts. It's the only true record of what happened.

Anyhow, on the show: two highly professional investigators took a look at the Darlie case. They even interviewed her in prison. Their conclusions were: the case was improperly investigated, and bumbled from the get go. I think they also interviewed the guy who testified about the blood spatter/back spatter, and concluded he was filled with malarkey.

LOL, those two retired detectives were a hoot. I can't believe they would make such blunders against their fellow officers. That was just a tv show, nothing occurred because of it. Neither one of them is or was an experience crime scene investigator nor is either one of them an experienced, veteran blood spatter expert like Bevel is so who cares if they think his theory was malarkey, the jury didn't.

This case has been reexamined on appeal, there was no intruder, just Darlie. There is absolutely no legal reason for a new trial whatsoever. For 20 years now, Darlie has claimed that the bloody print on the glass table belongs to the male intruder in her home that night. The new Y-STR DNA tests refute that claim, there was no Y, or male gene, detected. She has no where else left to go except to her execution.

This crime does not fit Adam Lane's MO, he never murdered two sleeping children and he's been caught by evidence he committed the crimes he was charged with.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
179
Guests online
303
Total visitors
482

Forum statistics

Threads
608,547
Messages
18,241,101
Members
234,397
Latest member
Napqueenxoxo
Back
Top