Did Darlie Routier murder her precious sons? Part 2

[mollymalone]

EXACTLY!!! She went in early Thursday morning and was released on Saturday morning. Yep, LIFE SAVING SURGERY.

Didn't the doc say he'd have let her go home that night but he kept her in for some reason or other, can't remember what it was, but I remember it certainly wasn't because they were life threatening.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Didn't the doc say he'd have let her go home that night but he kept her in for some reason or other, can't remember what it was, but I remember it certainly wasn't because they were life threatening.

Yes, he did. He was concerned about the amount of publicity about this case and that she would need to get some rest or something to that effect and worried about the stress of her boys dying.

 

[cami]

Thanks Wendy - Im glad to be back!
Could you please explain to me what you mean about necklace placed to stop bleeding? I cant understand how that would work.
I read that the necklace was embedded in her neck and had to be surgically removed! I'll find where I rad it and get back to you.

The necklace did not have to be surgically removed Nicola. Wendy is correct when she says one of the nurses removed it prior to Darlie's surgery.

Nor was it severely embedded...a tug and it was out. My own opinion is she unknowingly pushed it in there when holding the towel to her neck.

 

[nicola]

The necklace did not have to be surgically removed Nicola. Wendy is correct when she says one of the nurses removed it prior to Darlie's surgery.

Nor was it severely embedded...a tug and it was out. My own opinion is she unknowingly pushed it in there when holding the towel to her neck.

Is it right that the links in the necklace were broken in places?

 

[mollymalone]

Yes, he did. He was concerned about the amount of publicity about this case and that she would need to get some rest or something to that effect and worried about the stress of her boys dying.

Thanks! I thought that it was something like that.

I was googling the case and found this link, I don't know if any of you have seen it before, but there is one or two people from the area, and one who actually worked with Darin and Darlie.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/654749/posts

Not only that, but I knew Darin a LOT more than I did Darlie. As I said previously, Darin was more open and amicable with me than Darlie was. He was just a regular guy there to do his job. And as I recall he did a good job for the company. After working for our company for several years he started his own little business and eventually quit his job where I worked, but he maintained contact with us. We in fact had him do some contract service work for our company. A little tidbit here. The afternoon before the early morning that the kids were murdered, Darin had been at our plant and had discussed with our production manager some contract work that we were going to be giving to Darin. At the time, our business was very strong and we were having trouble keeping up with it and by having Darin help it would relieve our situation.

Snip

The main point I'm trying to express is that I never had any reason to think that Darin was the type that would have anything to do with such a terrible thing like what Darlie was convicted of. Oh, one more little tidbit. About three weeks before the kids were murdered, I went into a Taco Bell here in Rowlett. It was fairly new at that time. When I walked in I glanced at someone that was sitting at a table near the corner of the store and thought to myself 'was that Darin?' But I had sort of dismissed it. After I placed my order I went back to sit and wait and he spoke to me "Hi Richard". I looked at him and said, "Darin, when I walked in I thought that was you, but I didn't recognize you with the beard." He had grown a beard and so I wasn't used to his new look. We had a short talk. I asked him how his business was doing and so forth, just small talk. They called for my order and I picked it, and as I walked out I told Darin to take it easy, see ya later. That was the last time I ever saw Darin......

Darlie, on the other hand, lived in her own world, had her own 'clique' - if you weren't part of it, you were nobody to her. Or at least, that's how I saw it. For example, on many occasions when she worked at my workplace, we would pass in the hallway and I would greet her (as I would everyone) with "good mornin'" or "howdy" or whatever, and she never once returned my greeting - absolutely not once....never. Consequently, I never did have any sort of conversation with her. That's my memory of Darlie, she was just cold. That was my impression.
31 posted on 03/28/2002 4:22:12 AM PST by MeekOneGOP

 

[whitywendy]

Is it right that the links in the necklace were broken in places?

No Nicola, the necklace was in perfect condition (besides blood being on it).

 

[Hopeful One]

I could swear the necklace was knicked but I could be wrong. I know I've seen a picture of it.

 

[Tril]

The final straw for me in deciding Darlie's guilt or innocence was the fact that she had downward-pointing blood droplets on her back. (I don't recall if the blood matched that of both boys, or just one.) Investigators believe the splatter was deposited when Darlie raised and drew back her arm in between knife stabs.

 

[IrishMist]

I could swear the necklace was knicked but I could be wrong. I know I've seen a picture of it.

There's a picture of it in Media Tried, Justice Denied.

There are two spots that the author calls nicks. It was a braided chain, made up of three intertwining loops. In both areas the author call a nick, one loop is broken.

He said you couldn't see it, just feel it.

In one close up, the loop is broken, and both ends face each other.
In the second close up, the loop is broken, and faces away from the rest of the chain. The author claims this piece cut through his rubber glove, and would have made the chain to uncomfortable to wear if it had been broken prior to that night.

I've had more than one necklace like this, and have noticed that I will get breaks in the links. They don't really hurt, but I find my hair will get caught in it.

I did my best to describe what I'm seeing in the pictures, but realize I may have not worded the descriptions well. If I wasn't clear enough, let me know and I'll gladly try again.

 

[Hopeful One]

Thanks, IrishMist. I have MTJD too but it's buried somewhere in boxes in the basement. I knew I had seen the necklace, I can just picture it!!

 

[cami]

Is it right that the links in the necklace were broken in places?

Nope that's not correct. It had a couple of nics but I don't recall any links being broken.

 

[IrishMist]

Is it right that the links in the necklace were broken in places?

No, the links weren't broken.

Nope that's not correct. It had a couple of nics but I don't recall any links being broken.

I'll try to be clearer in my explanation.

Each link is comprised of three loops. One loop (of the link) is broken in two separate places on the necklace.

Calling it a nick would be more accurate than saying a link was broken. Like I said, I've had these same thing happen to my necklaces just with normal wear and tear.

Am I clearing things up, or making things worse?

 

[cami]

No, the links weren't broken.




I'll try to be clearer in my explanation.

Each link is comprised of three loops. One loop (of the link) is broken in two separate places on the necklace.

Calling it a nick would be more accurate than saying a link was broken. Like I said, I've had these same thing happen to my necklaces just with normal wear and tear.

Am I clearing things up, or making things worse?

Yes, you're clearing it up. Don't put too much stock in what CW Brown has to say..he's an author and a poor one, that book gives me a headache, LOL.

 

[IrishMist]

Yes, you're clearing it up. Don't put too much stock in what CW Brown has to say..he's an author and a poor one, that book gives me a headache, LOL.

Thanks for letting me know.

And I don't put ANY stock in what he has to say! (I only bought the book for the pictures.) In this instance, I do believe what he says, I just don't interpret it the same way he does.

He seems to think that just because there are nicks, that proves something. IMO, it doesn't prove a darn thing. If anything, it tells me that her "slicing" wounds weren't applied with much pressure at all. These nicks were so small, they couldn't even be seen, only felt. Like I said above, that happens with my chains in everyday wear and tear.

I think if a hopped-up intruder sliced her neck, it would have done much more damage to the necklace than what was there.

 

[Parmenides]

I'd say Darlie is innocent and so there must have been an intruder. The timeline shows she only had about a minute to do the murders and it's just not a realistic scenario that a loving mother would suddenly unleash such massive violence. The bloody sock is exculpatory evidence. How do the DDI theorists explain the bloody sock? They don't, they just ignore it, because it is incompatible with a DDI theory. Also, the silly string episode has been consistently misinterpreted and taken out of context. It wasn't even Darlie's idea.

 

[IrishMist]

I'd say Darlie is innocent and so there must have been an intruder. The timeline shows she only had about a minute to do the murders and it's just not a realistic scenario that a loving mother would suddenly unleash such massive violence. The bloody sock is exculpatory evidence. How do the DDI theorists explain the bloody sock? They don't, they just ignore it, because it is incompatible with a DDI theory. Also, the silly string episode has been consistently misinterpreted and taken out of context. It wasn't even Darlie's idea.

I'm curious, Parmenides, have you read the transcripts?

 

[whitywendy]

I'd say Darlie is innocent and so there must have been an intruder. The timeline shows she only had about a minute to do the murders and it's just not a realistic scenario that a loving mother would suddenly unleash such massive violence. The bloody sock is exculpatory evidence. How do the DDI theorists explain the bloody sock? They don't, they just ignore it, because it is incompatible with a DDI theory. Also, the silly string episode has been consistently misinterpreted and taken out of context. It wasn't even Darlie's idea.

What timeline are you referring to? Darlie had plenty of time to commit the murders before she placed that 911 call. You can't use the 911 timeline as the murder timeline. We all know that she didn't pick up the phone, dial 911 then kill the boys as she was on the line with the operator.

Oh and the silly string - who cares. Even if the silly string never happened she would still be guilty of murder. The silly string just showed everyone how HAPPY Darlie was after the death of her two sons. That's all it proved!

 

[cami]

I'd say Darlie is innocent and so there must have been an intruder. The timeline shows she only had about a minute to do the murders and it's just not a realistic scenario that a loving mother would suddenly unleash such massive violence. The bloody sock is exculpatory evidence. How do the DDI theorists explain the bloody sock? They don't, they just ignore it, because it is incompatible with a DDI theory. Also, the silly string episode has been consistently misinterpreted and taken out of context. It wasn't even Darlie's idea.

So what, she shot the silly string and laughed and chomped on her gum...was she forced to that?

How is the sock exculpatory?

OH and btw, the time line starts with the 911 call...plenty of time for Darlie to do all that and more.

 

[White Rain]

So what, she shot the silly string and laughed and chomped on her gum...was she forced to that?

How is the sock exculpatory?

OH and btw, the time line starts with the 911 call...plenty of time for Darlie to do all that and more.

Yeah she really looked forced all right. You know when the kids were alive and on Devon's birthday she got irritated and shoved cake in his face. But one they were dead she had the time of her life "celebrating" his birthday.

 

[kcksum]

I'd say Darlie is innocent and so there must have been an intruder. The timeline shows she only had about a minute to do the murders and it's just not a realistic scenario that a loving mother would suddenly unleash such massive violence. The bloody sock is exculpatory evidence. How do the DDI theorists explain the bloody sock? They don't, they just ignore it, because it is incompatible with a DDI theory. Also, the silly string episode has been consistently misinterpreted and taken out of context. It wasn't even Darlie's idea.

Darlies own words will convince you more than anything that's she's guilty. Her lies dig her own grave....again
read the transcripts