Did Darlie Routier murder her precious sons? Part 2

[dodie20]

I read a post on this site that mentioned that Darin took Darlie's sister home, earlier that night. If that's true, & Darlie suspected that something had happened between them, then that could be the source of her rage. Darlie was obviously a very materialistic & vain woman. & a person like that enjoys flaunting what they have, in front of others. I would imagine that she especially enjoyed impressing her less fluent family members. She & Darrin were having major money problems, & were looking @ losing their house. Her fantasy world was crashing down. Now, if she believed that her husband was involved with her sister-the object of her flaunting-she would without a doubt, go into a jealous rage. Because that would not only take her back down to her sister's status, but also bring her sister up to her status. This would especially be true if Darlie took GREAT pride in making her sister jealous. & it's possible that her sons were victimized in an attempt to punish Darrin.

 

[shaine]

Jeffrey MacDonald was on amphetamines when he brutally killed his wife and children.

That was proven not to be true at the 1987 court case and to say it is true on the internet is going against a proven court decision.
Helena Stoeckley & Greg Mitchell were responsible for the murders. However the Army wanted to place the blame firmly on Jeffrey, and failed to allowed evidence that would have cleared him to be examined by the defense.
Read more about it all here: http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/
And here: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/family/jmacdonald/1.html

But that is not the topic of this thread.

In regards to the video of Darlie at the gravesite, wasn't there a part of the footage that was not shown, that showed her laying on the graves, crying for the boys? I seem to remember hearing about that, but of course the only part that is played for the courts is the silly string.

I've always been on the fence with this case. At times I think she did it. But then there are certain things that stick out to me that give me that moment of doubt. There are a lot of questions, well to me anyway. Some of you are so dead set on your opinions on this case and others from what I have noticed.
But we are all entitled to our own opinions here. And I respect that.

 

[whitywendy]

That was proven not to be true at the 1987 court case and to say it is true on the internet is going against a proven court decision.
Helena Stoeckley & Greg Mitchell were responsible for the murders. However the Army wanted to place the blame firmly on Jeffrey, and failed to allowed evidence that would have cleared him to be examined by the defense.
Read more about it all here: http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/
And here: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/family/jmacdonald/1.html

But that is not the topic of this thread.

In regards to the video of Darlie at the gravesite, wasn't there a part of the footage that was not shown, that showed her laying on the graves, crying for the boys? I seem to remember hearing about that, but of course the only part that is played for the courts is the silly string.

I've always been on the fence with this case. At times I think she did it. But then there are certain things that stick out to me that give me that moment of doubt. There are a lot of questions, well to me anyway. Some of you are so dead set on your opinions on this case and others from what I have noticed.
But we are all entitled to our own opinions here. And I respect that.

I respectfully disagree with your info in regards to JM. Did you not read the most recent info where the DNA was retested and it all came back matching JM. I am going to leave it at that in regards to JM. Like you said this is not the thread.

In regards to Darlie laying on the ground crying at her son's graves, the video shows her sitting on the ground as well as everyone else. She has her back to camera so you can not tell if she is crying. HOWEVER, just moments later when they had the "celebration" there is not any sign whatsoever of her crying. You can not cry like a baby and it not show on your face 15 min's later (if that long). Her face was not red, her eyes were not puffy, she wasn't sniffling. NO SIGN of her crying. Like you said everyone has their opinion. My opinion is Darlie is guilty guilty guilty guilty. Doesn't anyone else find it interesting how the DNA tests have been completed but WE the PUBLIC are not privy to the info. WHY??? Because it proved someone else murdered her babies..NO because all the DNA evidence STILL DID NOT RULE OUT DARLIE.

JM and Darlie was two pee's n a pod. JMHO

 

[cami]

That was proven not to be true at the 1987 court case and to say it is true on the internet is going against a proven court decision.
Helena Stoeckley & Greg Mitchell were responsible for the murders. However the Army wanted to place the blame firmly on Jeffrey, and failed to allowed evidence that would have cleared him to be examined by the defense.


Actually you are incorrect. There is no proven court document that Mac was not taking diet pills before and the night of the murders. MacDonald was never tested for hard drugs at the time of the murders, nor did they have any way to test for amphetemines back then. You have Mac's word for it that he was not taking amphetemines and since he is a proven liar, well you decide.

Stockeley and Mitchell did not kill MacDonald's family. They have both been exonerated by dna or lack of it..none of there's was found on the bodies...only MacDonald's.

Read it all here at www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com....where the trial transcripts can be found.

No, there was no video of Darlie crying on the graves of her sons...that's just rumour. What there is is a surveillance tape that shows the back of the mourners and that's all, shows them hugging as well. It does not show Darlie crying, sobbing, prostrate on the ground or anything like that.

Yes some of us who have studied this case for years have very strong opinions.....the evidence backed up the trial transcripts helps. And yes everyone is entitled to their opinion...there are no wrong opinions.

 

[Satch]

I believe that Darlie Routier is guilty of the murder of her children based on so much of the physical evidence at the crime scene being inconsistent with her own statements. For example, if you listen to her 9-1-1 tape, it starts out with her saying hysterically, "They came in and stabbed my babies!!!" But the "they" changes to one "man" only one intruder. I also don't believe that it would be possible for her to be awakened from a sound sleep by someone beating on her and stabbing her. What was the motive for an intruder attack? Why weren't Darlie's feet bloody as she says by her own account that she walked threw the kitchen and it was full of glass. And I also have never heard a more cold, arrogant, person than both Darlie and her husband Darrin. Listen to Darrin talk about the murders of his children, it's like he acts, "Who gives a you know what?" There's no emotion, no sensitivity, nothing. At least Darlie was good at faking her crying. Absolutely ridiculous for her to spray that Silly String on the grave-sights, laughing and smacking her gum.

I know her supporters say they had a private memorial service and that was shown. I just wonder how much emotion Darlie showed during the private service? In any case, the damage had been done.

The only thing that I can't figure out was her neck wound was huge. How would she know how to injure herself so badly to survive such a gaping wound to the neck? Would she have taken a chance on dying herself if the paramedics had not gotten there in time?

And what we also don't know is what precipitated this on the night in question? Do you think it was a fight between her and the children, or do you think for Darlie, it was "OK, I'm gonna kill me kids tonight?" We know that she lived a very arrogant self-centered lifestyle and could not deal with the financial stress that the family had experienced.

I still believe that she is guilty, but there is some piece of the puzzle missing before the day/night of the murders. I think Darrin is covering up for her, but how did she and her husband plan this? Neither of them sound the most intelligent IMO.

Satch

 

[CathyR]

No, there was no video of Darlie crying on the graves of her sons...that's just rumour. What there is is a surveillance tape that shows the back of the mourners and that's all, shows them hugging as well. It does not show Darlie crying, sobbing, prostrate on the ground or anything like that.

Have you seen the tape of the graveside services before the party. I mean seen it for yourself not someones brothers uncle who says he saw it but the tape itself?

 

[cami]

No, there was no video of Darlie crying on the graves of her sons...that's just rumour. What there is is a surveillance tape that shows the back of the mourners and that's all, shows them hugging as well. It does not show Darlie crying, sobbing, prostrate on the ground or anything like that.

Have you seen the tape of the graveside services before the party. I mean seen it for yourself not someones brothers uncle who says he saw it but the tape itself?

No, no one has that's why I believe it doesn't exist. It's never been played in the public forum if it exists. The silly string tape would never have made it to trial if it exists.

What I have seen in the public forum is the surveillance tape made that day. It shows Darlie standing and then sitting down with a fussy Drake...from behind, it shows nothing of tears, sobbing, prostrate on the ground, etc.

Oh and that blue colour is really hard to read so I hoped I answered the right question.

 

[CathyR]

No, no one has that's why I believe it doesn't exist. It's never been played in the public forum if it exists. The silly string tape would never have made it to trial if it exists.

What I have seen in the public forum is the surveillance tape made that day. It shows Darlie standing and then sitting down with a fussy Drake...from behind, it shows nothing of tears, sobbing, prostrate on the ground, etc.

Oh and that blue colour is really hard to read so I hoped I answered the right question.

Sorry didn't know how to quote people and went back to copy and paste. Changed color to make copy known as a quote. After posting I noticed the QUOTE button. Feel like an idiot for noticing it AFTER posting.

Read the transcripts and the tape is discussed. If no tape existed, then why was it discussed during trial? It is obvious they aren't discussing the silly string tape in the transcripts.
It exists!!!!!
The memorial service was attended by quite a few people and they are often credited with the info of Darlie's behavior at the service.

 

[cami]

Sorry didn't know how to quote people and went back to copy and paste. Changed color to make copy known as a quote. After posting I noticed the QUOTE button. Feel like an idiot for noticing it AFTER posting.

Read the transcripts and the tape is discussed. If no tape existed, then why was it discussed during trial? It is obvious they aren't discussing the silly string tape in the transcripts.
It exists!!!!!
The memorial service was attended by quite a few people and they are often credited with the info of Darlie's behavior at the service.

That is the surveillance tape that they are discussing in the trial transcripts. The police surveillance tape I already posted about, where you can see the backs of the mourners and nothing more. If they had taped Darlie grieving as her supporters contend she was, crying, sobbing, lying on the ground, then the state would never have entered the SS tape into evidence as it can be impeached.

What I am talking about is the contention that the news crew filmed the memorial service, (which they didn't) and the state somehow managed to keep this from the jury. That is completely false.

Why if this tape exists hasn't her family and supporters gone bang here you go this is Darie grieving. Where is it???? Why hasn't it been shown to the public?

Anyway Darlie wasn't convicted on the strength of the SS tape. The blood and fibre evidence proves she murdered her boys.

 

[Crow_Ascending]

Watch A&E for their special "Mother on Death Row" and you can see the only tape of the memorial service. The part most people do not get to see is the long distance shot of about 15-20 people around the gravesite. From people who were there, the memorial service itself lasted about 15 minutes and the rest of the time was spent visiting and having the birthday party. No hours long solemn service.

 

[CathyR]

I'm doing a copy and paste here.

The tape must exist and Samford has seen it or intimates he has seen it.

Applicant claims her trial team was ineffective because it did not offer the police surveillance video of a prayer service held prior to the “silly string” party at the murdered boys’ grave.

The Court finds that Applicant’s trial team adduced testimony that Applicant mourned “appropriately” during a graveside service earlier in the day of the birthday party at the grave, and therefore the surveillance video was cumulative of other evidence admitted at trial.
Samford states in his Affidavit that the jury watched the “silly string” video 8 or 9 times during jury deliberations. Samford states that he had subsequently seen what was represented to be the surveillance video. Samford states that, had he seen the surveillance tape, he would not have voted to convict Applicant.

Are you saying the tape was shown to the jury?
Are you saying the witnesses who testified about her behavior at memorial are in error?
Samford seems to have viewed the tape but not at trial. At a later date he viewed it.


The jury also never heard exculpatory evidence that the State knowingly did not disclose to the defense – even though constitutionally required to do so – evidence that one of its key witnesses, Charles Linch, had a long history of depression and alcoholism, caused in part by job-related stress from working at crime scenes and testifying at capital trials. The State also never corrected certain misimpressions created by or false statements made in the testimony of Linch, James Cron, and Alan Brantley. Linch falsely testified that at the time he received the kitchen knives from 5801 Eagle Drive, only two had been dusted – neither of which was Knife Number 4 from which he recovered the fiber that he claimed came from the garage window screen. C.R.R. Vol. 37, p. 144:17 – 145:6. Linch now admits that, in fact, all of the knives had been dusted, before he received them for testing. This constitutes further evidence that Knife Number 4 was contaminated in the course of dusting the scene for fingerprints, and thus the fiber is not evidence of a staged crime scene.

I think everyone messed up here. The police, the prosecution, the defense. Legal wrangling aside I don't know why the defense didn't show the tape?

Alan Brantley gave the jury the misimpression that he had investigated whether there had been similar crimes in the area. See C.R.R. Vol. 40, pp. 53:24-54:5. In fact, a spree of crimes that started in December 1995 and ended around the time of the attack at the Routiers’ residence was not disclosed to the jury. The assailant’s modus operandi included using implements from the homes of his victim as weapons and using tube socks – like the one found three houses down from the Routier’s home (C.R.R. Vol. 32, p. 71:3-6) – to gag his victims. Brantley misleadingly suggested that criminal offenders never use objects found in victims’ homes as weapons. See C.R.R. Vol. 40, p. 84:5-9.

I am on the fence about her guilt. I give no weight to her "weird" behavior, her boob job, the silly string tape or the fiber evidence ( reasons given above). The blood drops on her nightshirt I am researching now.


Just to ask your opinion- if the DNA evidence comes back proving an "unknown" source for it, would it change anything?

I have read a lot of the appeals and it seems like any person wrongfully convicted has to solve the crime and prove they didn't do it in order to gain their freedom.

Would DNA findings prove her innocent, or just that a 3rd person was in the home.

 

[cami]

I'm doing a copy and paste here.

The tape must exist and Samford has seen it or intimates he has seen it.

Applicant claims her trial team was ineffective because it did not offer the police surveillance video of a prayer service held prior to the “silly string” party at the murdered boys’ grave.

The Court finds that Applicant’s trial team adduced testimony that Applicant mourned “appropriately” during a graveside service earlier in the day of the birthday party at the grave, and therefore the surveillance video was cumulative of other evidence admitted at trial.
Samford states in his Affidavit that the jury watched the “silly string” video 8 or 9 times during jury deliberations. Samford states that he had subsequently seen what was represented to be the surveillance video. Samford states that, had he seen the surveillance tape, he would not have voted to convict Applicant.

Are you saying the tape was shown to the jury?
Are you saying the witnesses who testified about her behavior at memorial are in error?
Samford seems to have viewed the tape but not at trial. At a later date he viewed it.


The jury also never heard exculpatory evidence that the State knowingly did not disclose to the defense – even though constitutionally required to do so – evidence that one of its key witnesses, Charles Linch, had a long history of depression and alcoholism, caused in part by job-related stress from working at crime scenes and testifying at capital trials. The State also never corrected certain misimpressions created by or false statements made in the testimony of Linch, James Cron, and Alan Brantley. Linch falsely testified that at the time he received the kitchen knives from 5801 Eagle Drive, only two had been dusted – neither of which was Knife Number 4 from which he recovered the fiber that he claimed came from the garage window screen. C.R.R. Vol. 37, p. 144:17 – 145:6. Linch now admits that, in fact, all of the knives had been dusted, before he received them for testing. This constitutes further evidence that Knife Number 4 was contaminated in the course of dusting the scene for fingerprints, and thus the fiber is not evidence of a staged crime scene.

I think everyone messed up here. The police, the prosecution, the defense. Legal wrangling aside I don't know why the defense didn't show the tape?

Alan Brantley gave the jury the misimpression that he had investigated whether there had been similar crimes in the area. See C.R.R. Vol. 40, pp. 53:24-54:5. In fact, a spree of crimes that started in December 1995 and ended around the time of the attack at the Routiers’ residence was not disclosed to the jury. The assailant’s modus operandi included using implements from the homes of his victim as weapons and using tube socks – like the one found three houses down from the Routier’s home (C.R.R. Vol. 32, p. 71:3-6) – to gag his victims. Brantley misleadingly suggested that criminal offenders never use objects found in victims’ homes as weapons.
See C.R.R. Vol. 40, p. 84:5-9.

652. In support of her argument, Applicant tendered five police reports from the Dallas Police Department. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibits A – E). Applicant argues that the police reports constitute favorable impeachment evidence that directly contradicts Agent Brantley’s crime-scene analysis testimony because: 1) these crimes are similar to this offense and occurred in the year immediately preceding it; 2) in one of the offenses, the intruder held a small knife from the victim’s kitchen against the victim’s throat prior to the sexual assault; 3) in another case, the assailant threatened a child with a kitchen fork; and 4) in four of the cases, the assailant “used a single tube sock—similar to the sock found in the alley behind the Routier residence—to gag his victims and to conceal fingerprints.” (Application at 103).

653. The Court finds that each of the five police reports involved: 1) a sexual assault, 2) with no additional serious bodily injury, 3) committed inside an apartment or at an apartment complex, 4) in the city of Dallas, 5) by an African-American male, Sammie Luckas Cook, Jr., who was apprehended through DNA testing, and 6) a demand for credit cards and cash from his victims. In the one offense involving a child witness, Cook did not sexually assault or physically harm the child.

654. The Court finds that the Dallas sexual assaults as set out in the tendered police reports are significantly dissimilar to the instant offense for the following reasons

I am on the fence about her guilt. I give no weight to her "weird" behavior, her boob job, the silly string tape or the fiber evidence ( reasons given above). The blood drops on her nightshirt I am researching now.


Just to ask your opinion- if the DNA evidence comes back proving an "unknown" source for it, would it change anything?

I have read a lot of the appeals and it seems like any person wrongfully convicted has to solve the crime and prove they didn't do it in order to gain their freedom.

Would DNA findings prove her innocent, or just that a 3rd person was in the home.

Well first of all you have posted those old claims that have been rejected by the appeals court. No tape but the SS tape was shown to the jury. I think Charlie had juror's remorse.

486. The Court notes that the purpose of current Rule 606(b) is to prevent harassment of jurors and to protect the secrecy of jury deliberations. See, e.g, Cochran, Texas Rules of Evidence Handbook 560; see also Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107,118-21 (1987).

487. The Court finds and concludes that Samford’s Affidavit is not admissible, not competent habeas evidence, and cannot be considered by the Court in considering Applicant’s claim.

488. In the alternative, the Court finds that Samford’s Affidavit does not account for the probability that the State would have explained the surveillance video with other testimony or argument.

489. The Court finds that Samford’s Affidavit, executed over five years after the trial, indicates that he considered the surveillance tape alone, and not in conjunction with all the other testimony, photographic evidence, audio tapes, video evidence, and forensic testimony that the jury considered during deliberations.

490. The Court finds that Samford’s Affidavit does not take into account the presence of the eleven other members of the jury during deliberations or the deliberative process.

491. The Court finds that Applicant has failed to rebut the presumption that her trial team acted according to reasonable trial strategy when they decided not to offer the surveillance videotape.

492. The Court finds that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her trial team’s strategy regarding the surveillance videotape was unreasonable.

493. The Court finds, without considering Samford’s Affidavit, that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her trial team was ineffective for failing to offer the surveillance videotape as evidence.

494. The Court concludes, without considering Samford’s Affidavit, that Applicant’s trial team was not ineffective for failing to offer the surveillance videotape as evidence.

495. The Court finds, without considering Samford’s Affidavit, that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her trial team’s decision not to offer the surveillance videotape as evidence prejudiced her.

496. The Court concludes, without considering Samford’s Affidavit, that Applicant was not prejudiced by her trial team’s decision not to offer the surveillance videotape as evidence.

497. In the alternative, the Court finds, even considering Samford’s Affidavit, that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her trial team was ineffective for failing to offer the surveillance videotape as evidence.

498. The Court concludes, even considering Samford’s Affidavit, that Applicant’s trial team was not ineffective for failing to offer the surveillance videotape as evidence.

The fibre from the screen and a dusting brush fibre are not similar at all so there is no way there was contamination.


905. The Court finds that the change between Linch’s trial testimony and his Affidavit is only relevant to Applicant’s claim at trial (and in this proceeding) that the fibers Linch recovered from the knife were from Charles Hamilton’s fingerprint brush rather than from the window screen in the Routier’s garage. (See Applicant’s Writ Exhibit 10 10; Application at 21).

906. The Court finds that Linch testified at trial that the fibers from Hamilton’s fingerprint brush were not consistent with the fibers found on the knife, because they were of 25% greater diameter. (RR.37: 3038-39; 3045-56).


Yes, that's correct, the onus is on Darlie now to prove she is innocent. She's been convicted, her conviction has been upheld. For the state, this case is solved and closed.

1. In order to sustain a claim of “actual innocence,” a habeas applicant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted her in light of newly discovered evidence. Ex parte Franklin, 72 S.W.3d 671, 675-77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).

5. The Court concludes that Applicant’s claim is a “substantive” claim of innocence, and therefore Applicant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted her in light of newly discovered evidence. See Franklin, 72 S.W.3d at 677; see also Schlup, 513 U.S. at 317.


I don't think anyone messed up, if there is a tape that shows Darlie grieving, the defence would have entered that into evidence lickedy split. Darlie had an excellent defence team.

you give no weight to the fibre evidence? big mistake. I don't give any weight to her weird behaviour, her boob job or the ss tape, although it is circumstantial evidence. The state has a right to impeach her claim she was a grieving mother.

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php

I don't think the dna results will identify anyone but Darlie as the killer and if they identify a u/k source I don't think it changes anything for Darlie. It could be artifact dna like in the Jonbenet case. That state did over 100 dna tests and no u/k source was found. What they want is the more uptodate dna tests that weren't available in 1996. My opinion is they are grasping at straws. Remember the MacDonald case, the dna tests identified MacDonald and no one else.

 

[Hangmanj]

One fact remains: there never would have been a "Silly String Tape" if Darlie had not invited the press. If there was this long service I am quite sure some of it would have been captured by the press who at that time beleived that Darlie was a grieving mother. If the jury looked at that tape 20 times I would say they were looking for something anything to find some grief in Darlie.

As for why Darlie did it we will never know. So much speculation about lifestyle, rage at Darin, or she did not want to be bothered. But has anyone thought of the fact that if it is true that she asked for a seperation from Darin that the thought would have entered her head that she would be a single mom with three kids. Do you know how hard it is to party and date when you constantly have to find babysitters for the kids, much less a man who is willing to date someone with that much baggage? Plus she would have to work and support herself as well. Pretty overwhelming for someone who married right out of high school and had never been in the real world like that before. Kids become a real hinderance.

 

[parasyte]

I have personal letters written from Darlie. They offer a lot of insight into her frame of mind and prison life.I am in the process of reading through the court transcripts if anyone would like to discuss this case with me.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Yes ~ I believe she is right where she belongs on death row.

She set up the entire scenario...JMHO

Justice has been served....

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Of Shadows and Silly String
Darlie Routier had not yet returned to her home on Eagle Drive since that horrible morning; she, Darin and baby Drake had been staying with Mama Darlie in Plano. Needing some articles of clothing, she telephoned her friend Mercedes Adams a few days after the funeral to ask if she would mind driving her there. Mercedes complied, but expected Darlie to buckle under upon walking into the place that took the lives of her two sons. The girlfriend was in for an awakening.

Death lingered in the foyer, but Darlie, Mercedes noted, charged onto the scene seemingly unaware and like a bull elephant, arms akimbo, shouted, "Look at this mess! It'll cost us a fortune to fix this ****!"

"Right there where her boys were killed, and that's the first thing she said to me. I put my hands on Darlie's shoulders and said, 'Darlie, look me in the eye and tell me you didn't kill the boys.' She looked me in the eye and said, 'I'm gonna get new carpet, new drapes, and fix this room all up.' I couldn't believe it."

Back at the Rowlett Police Station, questions loomed. Among them: 1) What was the motive for the murders? 2) If a robbery, why was Darlie's jewelry and purse left untouched? 3) Why would an intruder kill two children before dispatching the adult, who posed a more serious threat? 4) Why would the killer, who obviously had no scruples about murdering a pair of small boys, back off when Darlie awoke, leaving a witness alive to identify him? 5) Why would he drop the murder weapon on the floor, giving Darlie, his pursuer, a weapon in which to fight back? 6) Why would he have used the Routiers' butcher knife in the first place? (Assailants come to their intended victim's premises already armed.) 7) Why were there no visible signs of an intruder — footprints, handprints, drops of blood beyond the house where he made his escape? And as questions mounted, it appeared that a bread knife owned by the Routiers might have been used to cut the garage screen, thus more questions: 8) Had the intruder used the Routier's bread knife to slash his way in? and 9) If so, how did he get the knife in the first place?

Detective Jimmy Patterson conferred with Dr. Townsend-Parchman, who had photographed Darlie's wounds allegedly received by the phantom intruder. While her boys were maliciously and forcefully attacked, her wounds were surface and bore trademarks of what doctors call "hesitation wounds" — that is, the wounds indicated that the blade had slowly, deliberately, cut into her skin and, when pain was encountered, the person holding the blade reflexively withdrew it.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/women/routier/14.html

 

[wonders]

I have personal letters written from Darlie. They offer a lot of insight into her frame of mind and prison life.I am in the process of reading through the court transcripts if anyone would like to discuss this case with me.

Do you still correspond with Darlie?
What are your thoughts about her guilt or innocence?

 

[parasyte]

I haven't written to her in a few years. Altogether, I wrote to her only three times and she wrote back every time. She asked for me to order her stationary because she isn't allowed to receive anything from the public and has to purchase everything from the commissary.

I am not sure what to think on her guilt or innocence. There seems to be a lot of information I need to catch up on. The funny thing about her letters, she talks about her family and her boys, her mother and remaining son, but never mentions her husband once. She did say he had unidentified DNA on his pants the night of the murders. I will have to dig out the letters and re-read them. Too bad we can't scan them and put them on the forum.

I waver back and forth on her part in the murders. I staunchly stood by and supported her after seeing the story and hearing about all the mistakes made during the trial, seeing the bruises and the wound to her neck. However, it is hard to reconcile the fact that her wounds were completely different from the wounds her sons received and nothing was stolen from the home. Did I hear a rumor that her husband had previously tried to pay someone to rob their home for an insurance scam? Maybe that had something to do with it. I really need to refresh my memory on this case before I make a judgement call.

 

[wonders]

My replies in red.

I haven't written to her in a few years. Altogether, I wrote to her only three times and she wrote back every time. She asked for me to order her stationary because she isn't allowed to receive anything from the public and has to purchase everything from the commissary.
Wow, your a brave soul to have written to her. I wish I could read her letters to you in order to see what context she is asking for stationary.

I am not sure what to think on her guilt or innocence.
Have you read the trial transcripts? I was one who wondered about her innocence as well because of what I had read and saw on TV and then I discovered WS and the wealth of info that posters have on this case namely cami, she knows this case like the back of her hand and annkitty too, but she is on the fence about guilt or innocence.

There seems to be a lot of information I need to catch up on. The funny thing about her letters, she talks about her family and her boys, her mother and remaining son, but never mentions her husband once.
Man O Man, would I ever love to read those letters. Are they an attempt to bring you to her side KWIM? See, I'm so leary of her motives.
She did say he had unidentified DNA on his pants the night of the murders.
Again wow. I've never heard that before. I wonder if cami has and what her thoughts are on that. Is it an attempt to throw Darrin under the bus as he was supposed to be up-stairs until she starts screaming.
I will have to dig out the letters and re-read them. Too bad we can't scan them and put them on the forum.
That is an absolute bummer as I would love to read those letters. May I ask what made you stop writing her?

I waver back and forth on her part in the murders. I staunchly stood by and supported her after seeing the story and hearing about all the mistakes made during the trial, seeing the bruises and the wound to her neck.
If you'll read the transcripts I think you will see that her neck wound was not life threating and learn so much more. As far as the bruises I think the boys could have been kicking her (o gee I hate to even think how it must have been for them) trying to get away and defend themselves the best they could.
However, it is hard to reconcile the fact that her wounds were completely different from the wounds her sons received and nothing was stolen from the home.
Yeah, if you were an intruder wouldn't you attack the adult first?
Did I hear a rumor that her husband had previously tried to pay someone to rob their home for an insurance scam?
Yes he did but IIRC it was some years after (can't remember) but cami will know for sure. And at the same time why would a burglar kill children and just hurt the ~egg donor~. I think if it were a someone Darrin had hired it would have happened when no one was home. Gosh, I have a lot of thoughts on this but am affraid I'm running out of space.
Maybe that had something to do with it. I really need to refresh my memory on this case before I make a judgement call.

I have no doubt in my mind that Darlie is right where she belongs.
Thanks for your opinions and sharing.

 

[annkitty0630]

I have personal letters written from Darlie. They offer a lot of insight into her frame of mind and prison life.I am in the process of reading through the court transcripts if anyone would like to discuss this case with me.

Personally Parasyte, I would love to have a discussion/debate on this case!!! I have sat on the fence for over 10 years and have gotten close to her guilt, however, there is still always that small doubt that lingers in my mind. I would love to hear what you have to say??? Thanks if given the opportunity? Ann :twocents::woohoo::woohoo: