Poll: Did Darlie Routier murder her children?

[Dani_T]

Here's a thought for you. Not my original though. Picked it up at another forum. What if Darin was just returning from dumping the sock when Waddell pulled up and he had to think of something real quick about why he was outside, so he started yelling that his wife and kids had been stabbed, waking up Gorsuch across the street. If this is probable, then maybe there is no blood going out the back and the gate was closed because no one ever went that way. Do you know if he could have exited via the front door and avoided the back yard altogether to make the sock run?

Hey Goody

Not sure that there would have been time for him to do that when you look at the 911 call. According to the transcript (which we all know is no perfect of course) his longest silence before Waddell arrives was just a bit longer than 40 seconds and then we hear him again in the house before Waddell arrives anyway. I'm not even sure he had time to run upstairs, get semi dressed, check Drake and get back downstairs in that time period (although there is, of course, other reasons why I don't believe the running upstairs story anyway)

 

[Mary456]

"What if Darin was just returning from dumping the sock when Waddell pulled up and he had to think of something real quick about why he was outside"

That won't work unless you believe that Waddell and Gorsuch were lying. Both of them said Darin ran out the front door and met Waddell by the fountain. Not trying to rain on your parade, Goody. It's just a thought.

 

[cami]

Hey Goody

Not sure that there would have been time for him to do that when you look at the 911 call. According to the transcript (which we all know is no perfect of course) his longest silence before Waddell arrives was just a bit longer than 40 seconds and then we hear him again in the house before Waddell arrives anyway. I'm not even sure he had time to run upstairs, get semi dressed, check Drake and get back downstairs in that time period (although there is, of course, other reasons why I don't believe the running upstairs story anyway)

Goody, you made it!!! Welcome

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Wow! I get to call you Jeana here instead of DP. That will take some getting used to.

Welp, I finally made it.

Here's a thought for you. Not my original though. Picked it up at another forum. What if Darin was just returning from dumping the sock when Waddell pulled up and he had to think of something real quick about why he was outside, so he started yelling that his wife and kids had been stabbed, waking up Gorsuch across the street. If this is probable, then maybe there is no blood going out the back and the gate was closed because no one ever went that way. Do you know if he could have exited via the front door and avoided the back yard altogether to make the sock run?

It was either that name or "TheOneAndOnlyDP"!!!!! It wouldn't take just two letters!! Anyway, glad you're here!!! Let's get to sleuthing!!

 

[Hopeful One]

Darlie is 100% innocent. I have followed this case very closely from Day One. I believe Darin had something to do with it. After he admitted to speaking with people just THREE DAYS before the killings about hiring someone to burglarize the house for the insurance money, that sent up a huge red flag for me.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Darlie is 100% innocent. I have followed this case very closely from Day One. I believe Darin had something to do with it. After he admitted to speaking with people just THREE DAYS before the killings about hiring someone to burglarize the house for the insurance money, that sent up a huge red flag for me.

He Shamrock and welcome to the forum. I look forward to hearing more about your theory!!

 

[dasgal]

Hi Shamrock. What makes you believe in her innocence?

 

[lisafremont]

Darlie is 100% innocent. I have followed this case very closely from Day One. I believe Darin had something to do with it...

Shamrock, are you saying that Darin attacked the boys and Darlie? If that is so, it would be reasonable to infer that Darlie knows that he was the assailant. Why would she take the rap for him if she were "100% innocent"? (Is that anything like "stone cold innocent", btw?)

 

[cami]

Darlie is 100% innocent. I have followed this case very closely from Day One. I believe Darin had something to do with it. After he admitted to speaking with people just THREE DAYS before the killings about hiring someone to burglarize the house for the insurance money, that sent up a huge red flag for me.

Wonder why nothing was stolen during this crime. Money, credit cards and gold jewellery lying right there for the thieves to take but they chose to take the lives of two little boys and nothing else.

His father-in-law "remembers" two years after the crime that Darin had asked him if he knew someone who could burglarize the house for the insurance money. Darin says nothing to the cops and investigators at the time of the murders and Darlie's attack about his alleged burglary scheme!

Darin is lying and so is Darlie. There was no burglary scheme. Darlie is guilty. My opinion only.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Shamrock, are you saying that Darin attacked the boys and Darlie? If that is so, it would be reasonable to infer that Darlie knows that he was the assailant. Why would she take the rap for him if she were "100% innocent"? (Is that anything like "stone cold innocent", btw?)

If Darlie is 100% innocent, then it shouldn't have been any problem for her to pass a lie detector test. She did not. She was also given regression therapy, the results of which haven't been made public. Don't you think that Darlie's supporters, who have absolutely no problem creating media attention for Darlie, would be screaming about the results from the rooftops (if the supported their claims of innocence)?

Its very easy to say you believe she's innocent. Its another thing to answer to all of the things that point to her guilt. So far, I haven't seen you (or anyone else) do that!!

 

[Ike]

I do not know a lot about this case but from what I've heard and read, I am 98% sure that Darlie is guilty and about 2% unsure.

Am I correct in thinking that I heard or read somewhere that the kitchen knife is the one that was used to cut the screen door? If so, that would be the huge clincher for me in believing Darlie's guilt.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I do not know a lot about this case but from what I've heard and read, I am 98% sure that Darlie is guilty and about 2% unsure.

Am I correct in thinking that I heard or read somewhere that the kitchen knife is the one that was used to cut the screen door? If so, that would be the huge clincher for me in believing Darlie's guilt.

Yes, one of the knives in the butcher's block was used to cut the screen and another to murder the boys.

 

[Ike]

Yes, one of the knives in the butcher's block was used to cut the screen and another to murder the boys.

So if the screen door was the point of entry, then how is it reasonable to conclude that an intruder did this? He/She would have had to already be in the house to have gotten the knife and if they were already in the house, there would be no reason to have to cut the screen. Seems pretty cut and dry to me, unless I am confusing my facts.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

So if the screen door was the point of entry, then how is it reasonable to conclude that an intruder did this? He/She would have had to already be in the house to have gotten the knife and if they were already in the house, there would be no reason to have to cut the screen. Seems pretty cut and dry to me, unless I am confusing my facts.

No, you've got it right. The "intruder(s) also left that way, then they got into the backyard after being chased out of the house and opened a broken gate by lifting it up off the ground and pushing on it and THEN THEY CLOSED IT BEHIND THEM. :liar: :liar: :liar: :liar:

 

[Dani_T]

So if the screen door was the point of entry, then how is it reasonable to conclude that an intruder did this? He/She would have had to already be in the house to have gotten the knife and if they were already in the house, there would be no reason to have to cut the screen. Seems pretty cut and dry to me, unless I am confusing my facts.

This is the smoking gun for me. However you would be absolutely amazed at the way supporters try to explain this.

Basically there were two microscopic pieces of evidence (fibre glass rod and pigmented rubber debris) found on the bread knife from the block (not the same knife as murder weapon) that were microscopically identical to what was created when you use that same knife to cut the screen.

However, supporters will argue
1) Nobody would use a bread knife to cut a screen- they would use a non-serrated blade (which to me is a nonsensical argument since a bread knife acts like a saw which to me would seem perfect for cutting a screen)
2) Microscopically identical is not good enough and they want tests on the actual make-up of the material ( tests which were attempted prior to trial but failed because there was no enough material) to prove that these two independent pieces of forensic evidence which are identical to the screen evidence just happened to end up on that one knife right next to each other. Some theories go that Darin was using the bread knife to hack away at a computer motherboard or/and Darlie used it to cut through packaging tape
3) The guy who fingerprinted the window (but who does not testify at all to fingerprinting the knife) picked up these two independent pieces of evidence from the screen and then after a few hours of continuous use the brush (which again we have no evidence was ever used on that knife) just happened to deposit both pieces of evidence on the same bread knife.

To me this is an absolute clincher and yet I remain amazed at the way others try and explain it away. Sometimes I want to :laugh:. Other times I just want to :banghead: or even :slap:

 

[cami]

This is the smoking gun for me. However you would be absolutely amazed at the way supporters try to explain this.

Basically there were two microscopic pieces of evidence (fibre glass rod and pigmented rubber debris) found on the bread knife from the block (not the same knife as murder weapon) that were microscopically identical to what was created when you use that same knife to cut the screen.

However, supporters will argue
1) Nobody would use a bread knife to cut a screen- they would use a non-serrated blade (which to me is a nonsensical argument since a bread knife acts like a saw which to me would seem perfect for cutting a screen)
2) Microscopically identical is not good enough and they want tests on the actual make-up of the material ( tests which were attempted prior to trial but failed because there was no enough material) to prove that these two independent pieces of forensic evidence which are identical to the screen evidence just happened to end up on that one knife right next to each other. Some theories go that Darin was using the bread knife to hack away at a computer motherboard or/and Darlie used it to cut through packaging tape
3) The guy who fingerprinted the window (but who does not testify at all to fingerprinting the knife) picked up these two independent pieces of evidence from the screen and then after a few hours of continuous use the brush (which again we have no evidence was ever used on that knife) just happened to deposit both pieces of evidence on the same bread knife.

To me this is an absolute clincher and yet I remain amazed at the way others try and explain it away. Sometimes I want to :laugh:. Other times I just want to :banghead: or even :slap:

So typical of the supporters eh Dani. One who lost total crediblity I believe is the refusal to believe that Darlie says "threw the knife down" in the 911 call. That way he/she/they can just ignore that lack of cast-off blood or any blood that points to the knife being dropped or thrown down by the intruder. I was shocked to say the least. That's how they do it, just refuse to admit she says it even though you can hear it plain as day.

 

[Dani_T]

So typical of the supporters eh Dani. One who lost total crediblity I believe is the refusal to believe that Darlie says "threw the knife down" in the 911 call. That way he/she/they can just ignore that lack of cast-off blood or any blood that points to the knife being dropped or thrown down by the intruder. I was shocked to say the least. That's how they do it, just refuse to admit she says it even though you can hear it plain as day.

Oh... do you mean "ree in the pee" from Jeff? I had some good long laughs over that one.

But yes, that's what some supporters do I guess- simply ignore evidence or facts. Another example is the conclusion that Darlie simply MUST have gone in the U-room since that blood is there despite her claims she didn't.

 

[annie mae]

Did Darlie ever take a lie-detector test? Just wondering, I know very little of this case but I am interested as to why so many people think she is guiilty? The evidence pointing to her guilt is that bad huh? Blessing to All

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Did Darlie ever take a lie-detector test? Just wondering, I know very little of this case but I am interested as to why so many people think she is guiilty? The evidence pointing to her guilt is that bad huh? Blessing to All

She took a lie detector test and she had regression therapy (I believe hypnosis). The results of both of these tests remain a secret. That, in and of itself, speaks volumes to me!!! Had she passed, I'm sure they'd be screaming it from the rooftops!!!

The evidence pointing to her guilt is overwhelming. She's lost several appeals already.

 

[annie mae]

Absolutely incrediable! If I were innocent why would I want my "tests" to remain private? and stay in the hell-hole she is presently calling home, case closed for me. And to think she actually injured herself? what is up with that. And, I am not so sure her husband dose not know the truth, how could he not.