Poll: Did Darlie Routier murder her children?

[SnootyVixen]

Maybe so but they couldn't get out of a bloody crime scene without leaving plenty of evidence behind. Forget climbing over the fence...that is an incredibly weak argument but even if they had PF Flyers on their feet, they still couldn't do it without leaving some blood somewhere beyond that utility room. You can come up with all the theories you want about who and what these mystery intruders were, but there is not one thing to support their existence except in the imaginations of supporters. If you guys are that disorganized, why wouldn't they have been all over that crime scene?

Goody you and the others continually come to the wrong conclusion that just because the police didn't find evidence it wasn't there. That is not necessarily the truth. And I think all of you know that. Probably in all cases there is evidence overlooked. Finding no evidence of an intruder in a cursory look for evidence is no reason for anyone to think that there definately was not an intruder. I'm sure you recall the poster who lives there who's friend's husband was a Rowlett policeman and called her that morning early and told her to not leave the house as there was a killer on the loose and then called back a couple of hours and told her it was okay that the mother did it.? You remember that. I know you do. But you want us all to think that this investigation was open and aboveboard throughout. Please. How can that be when they have decided the mother did it within a couple of hours?

 

[justice2]

We don't paint our fences in Lubbock. Natural wood with a stain or sealer, Was the fence painted?

I thought you knew her. You've never went to their house?

An unpainted fence would probably leave a mark also even if the person jumping it only touched it once. It would take a really healthy, muscular, limber person, (I'm thinking a military type or a survivalist type, not a body building type) to haul their *advertiser censored* over a fence. The amount of force from changing their momentum from forward to upward and the weight of that person would probably leave some type of mar, indention or something.

Let see, crack heads usually are not usually healthy, muscular and limber are they.

 

[SnootyVixen]

I thought you knew her. You've never went to their house?

An unpainted fence would probably leave a mark also even if the person jumping it only touched it once. It would take a really healthy, muscular, limber person, (I'm thinking a military type or a survivalist type, not a body building type) to haul their *advertiser censored* over a fence. The amount of force from changing their momentum from forward to upward and the weight of that person would probably leave some type of mar, indention or something.

Let see, crack heads usually are not usually healthy, muscular and limber are they.

For what it's worth (very little on this forum I think) I have seen firemen go over the smooth sides of privacy fences very quickly and very easily carrying things. I guess that's part of their training.

 

[Goody]

Goody you and the others continually come to the wrong conclusion that just because the police didn't find evidence it wasn't there. That is not necessarily the truth. And I think all of you know that. Probably in all cases there is evidence overlooked. Finding no evidence of an intruder in a cursory look for evidence is no reason for anyone to think that there definately was not an intruder. I'm sure you recall the poster who lives there who's friend's husband was a Rowlett policeman and called her that morning early and told her to not leave the house as there was a killer on the loose and then called back a couple of hours and told her it was okay that the mother did it.? You remember that. I know you do. But you want us all to think that this investigation was open and aboveboard throughout. Please. How can that be when they have decided the mother did it within a couple of hours?

First of all, I see no evidence that the investigation was anything but above board. You see monsters and conspiracies where there are none. You always have.

Secondly, if there is no evidence to indicate the existence of the intruder, it is reasonable to conclude that one did not exist...esp when you have other evidence pointing to another suspect.

Sorry, but I have no recollection of the Rowlett cop's wife, but I have no problem with the RPD looking at Darlie two hours after the crime was committed. The last person to see the victim alive is always a suspect, and when it is the mother of the children, always scrutinized very carefully. And when you have a mother who is harping about fingerprints on a murder weapon instead of craddling her dying child, a mother who is hollering that the kids are dying without any regard to how it would make at least one of them who was very obviously still alert enough to hear her feel, a mother ....ah, never mind...we have argued this stuff into the ground. You believe she is innocent. I believe she is guilty. You believe the cops were screw ups. I believe they did a pretty good job, not a perfect one, but darned good one. I think Darlie was the most likely suspect given the situation and that most of your complaints are just typical defense spin.

 

[Goody]

We don't paint our fences in Lubbock. Natural wood with a stain or sealer, Was the fence painted?

Yes. Probably factory paint but definitely painted. You can't tell in the photos if the fence had ever been repainted.

 

[beesy]

Yes. Probably factory paint but definitely painted. You can't tell in the photos if the fence had ever been repainted.

yeah, it was white

 

[beesy]

First of all, I see no evidence that the investigation was anything but above board. You see monsters and conspiracies where there are none. You always have.

Secondly, if there is no evidence to indicate the existence of the intruder, it is reasonable to conclude that one did not exist...esp when you have other evidence pointing to another suspect.

Sorry, but I have no recollection of the Rowlett cop's wife, but I have no problem with the RPD looking at Darlie two hours after the crime was committed. The last person to see the victim alive is always a suspect, and when it is the mother of the children, always scrutinized very carefully. And when you have a mother who is harping about fingerprints on a murder weapon instead of craddling her dying child, a mother who is hollering that the kids are dying without any regard to how it would make at least one of them who was very obviously still alert enough to hear her feel, a mother ....ah, never mind...we have argued this stuff into the ground. You believe she is innocent. I believe she is guilty. You believe the cops were screw ups. I believe they did a pretty good job, not a perfect one, but darned good one. I think Darlie was the most likely suspect given the situation and that most of your complaints are just typical defense spin.

They always look at family first, especially the people on scene. I love how people say Cron made up his in w/in minutes. He made an educated guess w/in mins. If the evidence had pointed another way, then he would have been wrong.

 

[beesy]

For what it's worth (very little on this forum I think) I have seen firemen go over the smooth sides of privacy fences very quickly and very easily carrying things. I guess that's part of their training.

So now the guy is a fireman? I bet he was a cop! That's why they framed Darlie! What about the motion detector which was not on when the cops got there, but which when timed, stayed on for 18 mins?
Do you know how many people would have to be involved in this conspiracy of yours? Why would anybody frame her? Wouldn't they look really stupid if another family had been slaughtered? Chris says some of the evidence was tainted. He says LE moved things because they were trying to plant them. Then why did they enter these things into evidence? Because they did nothing wrong.

 

[deanws]

They always look at family first, especially the people on scene. I love how people say Cron made up his in w/in minutes. He made an educated guess w/in mins. If the evidence had pointed another way, then he would have been wrong.

But he was dead on wasn't he? I am like you and the others here. I really wish he had been wrong. Unfortunately, he wasn't.

 

[G.I.RattlesnakeJane]

So now the guy is a fireman? I bet he was a cop! That's why they framed Darlie! What about the motion detector which was not on when the cops got there, but which when timed, stayed on for 18 mins?
Do you know how many people would have to be involved in this conspiracy of yours? Why would anybody frame her? Wouldn't they look really stupid if another family had been slaughtered? Chris says some of the evidence was tainted. He says LE moved things because they were trying to plant them. Then why did they enter these things into evidence? Because they did nothing wrong.

Why does Darlie's intruders have to be James Bond. I thought we had all decided this already
SKINHEAD, CRACK SMOKIN, CIRCUS CLOWNS wearing bugle boy jeans and carrying 2x4s.


They did move stuff around Look at all the positions of the INSURANCE AND IMPORTANT PAPERS BOX. MTJD.
Look at the blankets being folded and unfolded. MTJD.
They automatically look at the parents first in any child kidnapping, murder, abuse, etc. Access- parents have primary access to their children, statistically proven fact in most cases involving children. They followed the numbers first trying to build a case against Darlie. That is not to be faulted or blamed they should investigate the parents in cases like this but what gets me about the trail is. the police found a box in the den with these papers in it.
They moved the box around and photographed the contents, which happened to contain the insurance policy on the boys. At trial the lawyer presented these pictures and stated this is what they found in the den. Did he make the jury aware of the fact that it was the police who spread the contents around and photographed them as evidence. This makes it look like Darlie was all hot to trot to collect that insurance policy she had it spread out ready to file a claim. It isn't so much what he said to jury but he didn't say to them- all the story. He made it look more damming than it really was this way. What was that posted earier about hearsay and how it can totally change the meaning of something? This is a lawyers trick and a good one. If his case was so darn good why did the lawyer resort to this. The police didn't have to frame her , she couldn't remember what had happened let alone retrace every step she took that night with 100% clarity and consistancy, most traumatized victims do this very thing. They also disassociate from the event it takes alot of therapy sometimes for people to over violent crimes commited against them.

 

[SnootyVixen]

So now the guy is a fireman? I bet he was a cop! That's why they framed Darlie! What about the motion detector which was not on when the cops got there, but which when timed, stayed on for 18 mins?
Do you know how many people would have to be involved in this conspiracy of yours? Why would anybody frame her? Wouldn't they look really stupid if another family had been slaughtered? Chris says some of the evidence was tainted. He says LE moved things because they were trying to plant them. Then why did they enter these things into evidence? Because they did nothing wrong.

Oh get real beesy, you know what I meant by the fireman remark. And don't tell me that you don't know about the motion detector. Didn't any of the wonderful people who know all about this case and who taught you so much ever tell you the truth about the motion detector? Why I'm surprised at them!! Not.

 

[beesy]

Oh get real beesy, you know what I meant by the fireman remark. And don't tell me that you don't know about the motion detector. Didn't any of the wonderful people who know all about this case and who taught you so much ever tell you the truth about the motion detector? Why I'm surprised at them!! Not.

I don't get all my answers only from the people on here. I do my own research also. That's how I am able to post links. As I told you before, I have a hard time with the transcripts. I never can seem to find what I'm looking for. So if you would please find it for me? I'd like to know the truth

 

[G.I.RattlesnakeJane]

I am so tired of reading your skinhead, blah blah blah thing. I get it ok?
LE moved things around for a very good reason and that is: they take pictures of the scene as found, then they move the items to see if there's anything under them and take some more pictures. It's done all the time. This is not a conspiracy.
As you said, they took pictures of the contents. Find that place in the transcripts. I told Snooty before, I find it difficult to wade through, especially if I'm checking behind someone else. I've looked up alot of things for you.

I don't dispute the investigative tools, the contents of that box should have been photographed. The cops didn't do a totally bad job. In fact I don't want to criticise them at all, with better tools and support to our police departments alot more crimes would get solved. They should have had more support from State, Federal, all branches of government. No political pressure from anyone at any time on any investigative team. The Rowlett police didn't get that kind of support, funding, etc. I don't blame them.

It is the way the prosection presented the evidence leaving the impression in the mind of the jurors that this was the way they found it. That is a lie in its self.
Grandstanding is not considered good business to most good lawyers.


COULD YOU PLEASE SEND A LINK TO THE COPIES OF THE TRANSCRIPTS.

I f I could do more research on my own I wouldn't be asking. Some people here seem to have it memorized by page and volume #. Also I think I quoted you by mistake when I went to post something. be patient with me in regards to computer mistakes I will make them for certain.

The stuff I have posted about Darlie was so you could see some of the people she knows and what their life experiences are. There is more than one way to get to know someone. I might be a "colorful character" to put it politely, but think of myself as better than her, no just luckier I guess. A need to put her down- how more down could she be already.

I maybe a colorful character who's still sitting on the fence on some of the guilt/innocence issues its only because I do respect life. When you have a person strung up ready to meet their maker you best be certain before you slap that horses hinney, there isn't any turning back after that.

I hope my Country collequilism doesn't offend you. It is hard to cut someone loose you know personally. Have you ever seen Lonesome Dove, the movie not TV series.

Tommy Lee has to hang Robert Urich. He tossed in with a bad crowd and brought it on himself. If Darlie tossed her hat to evil I would have to slap that horse too. As much as it would hurt I'm not afraid to do the right thing.

Who knows the new tests may prove Darlie guilty as sin, they may not.
We have to be patient enough for the answers to come. If we all pray together that the truth comes out aren't we all on the same side anyway.

 

[Goody]

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/

I believe this is Cheryl's site. It is the best one and has just about everything available right now.

 

[Goody]

I don't get all my answers only from the people on here. I do my own research also. That's how I am able to post links. As I told you before, I have a hard time with the transcripts. I never can seem to find what I'm looking for. So if you would please find it for me? I'd like to know the truth

Jeff's an expert on the motion detector, bees. Make him tell YOU about it. :angel:

 

[Goody]

They moved the box around and photographed the contents, which happened to contain the insurance policy on the boys. At trial the lawyer presented these pictures and stated this is what they found in the den. Did he make the jury aware of the fact that it was the police who spread the contents around and photographed them as evidence. This makes it look like Darlie was all hot to trot to collect that insurance policy she had it spread out ready to file a claim. It isn't so much what he said to jury but he didn't say to them- all the story. He made it look more damming than it really was this way. What was that posted earier about hearsay and how it can totally change the meaning of something? This is a lawyers trick and a good one. If his case was so darn good why did the lawyer resort to this.

Because lawyers are lawyers and the court decides what can come in and what can't. Sometimes that chops up things in ways even the attys can't do anything about. You can ask this but you can't ask that...rules of evidence and all that. Then you have the competition going on between attys which is everpresent in our courts, some say as it should be. It is not an exercise in truth, you know. It is a p*ssing match between sides and boils down to who has the most evidence to support their claims.

But once again you are focusing on the least important and avoiding the most important. It is easy to believe the defendant in any case if you do that. Read her testimony and see what you think. I think she lied more than she told the truth. Esp that part about forgetting to tell Mercedes that she was dreaming when she said she fought with the intruder. That was just to cover her butt in case they called Mercedes to testify. It was very telling for me.

 

[SnootyVixen]

Jeff's an expert on the motion detector, bees. Make him tell YOU about it. :angel:

Why didn't you just tell her the truth when you were telling her everything else Goody.

 

[Goody]

Why didn't you just tell her the truth when you were telling her everything else Goody.

I didn't tell her much about the motion detector at all. I think I might have mentioned that supporters think walking a specific path could get one in and out of the yard without setting it off but no great attention was spent by me on the subject. Beesy is quite accomplished with the computer. I think she has done most of her own research.

Goody has been falsely accused <sniff, sniff>. I am deeply wounded. How could you be so callous, Jeffrey? How could you? Poor little goody.

 

[SnootyVixen]

I don't get all my answers only from the people on here. I do my own research also. That's how I am able to post links. As I told you before, I have a hard time with the transcripts. I never can seem to find what I'm looking for. So if you would please find it for me? I'd like to know the truth

Beesy, this is in Volume 30 sort of close to the beginning. There's probably more testimony about this but I didn't look for more. This officer is wiggling a lot on the hook but what he has to admit to is that there was a very good reason that the motion detector light was not on in the back yard when he got there the night of the crime. The light was triggered by motion in front of the door to the spa which was on the other side of the yard from the garage. Going to and fro from the gate to the window of the garage would not trigger it. I think there was also a report filed about the test that the officer's did. Or it might have been one of the one's that got lost. I don't remember now.
The part that I don't like is that we have had many many discussions about this over the years and these people all know this and yet no one bothered to let you know and yet they call themselves helping you learn the "truth" about the case. I'm not for sugarcoating anything to make her seem innocent but hey, at least pay attention to police testimony.
I think she's most probably innocent. I am not 100% sure of many things. But I think that her story changed some. I think it's obvious that she was in the utility room at least as far as the garage door.


Q. All right. You told us yesterday,
7 that you didn't know whether the lights in the backyard
8 were on or off at that time, didn't you?
9 A. No, sir.
10 Q. Were the lights off?
11 A. The lights in the backyard?
12 Q. Uh-huh. (Nodding head affirmatively).
13 A. Yes, sir, they were off.
14 Q. Okay. And when you walked from the
15 gate of the backyard over to the window that you had seen
16 from where you were in the garage, the lights did not
17 come on, did they?
18 A. Well, I didn't go there first.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. In fact, I walked first to the spa,
21 and past the spa and around the corner, I looked over at
22 the window as I was going through.
23 Q. Did the lights ever go on?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. While you were in the backyard?
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
556

1 A. Yes, sir.
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. The flood lights mounted on the spot
4 did.
5 Q. All right. Those are motion
6 detectors, are they not?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. Okay. Do you know where you were when
9 you set the motion detector light off?
10 A. I was approximately around the door of
11 the spa.
12 Q. The door of the spa?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. Okay. The spa is toward the back of
15 the lot, is it not?
16 A. Yes, sir, it is.
17 Q. And on this State's Exhibit 8-A, this
18 would represent the spa, I assume?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. And you were back in here when you set
21 the -- when the light turned on?
22 A. I would have to see a front view of
23 the spa to see where the door was.
24 Q. Well --
25 A. I really don't remember. Right along
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
557

1 in the center of the building, yes, sir.
2 Q. And it would follow, would it not,
3 that the door would be somewhere at the end of this
4 cement sidewalk?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. It didn't set the light off when you
7 came in through the gate, did you?
8 A. No, sir.
9 Q. Okay. Later on some experiments were
10 done. Were you there when those were done?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. And you were able to -- or the police
13 officer conducting it, was able to run in this area to
14 the window back and forth and not set off the alarm --
15 set off the lights, was he not?
16 A. The only thing that I did when the
17 light came on, I stayed out of -- or at the entrance to
18 the yard. When the lights came on, I timed it to see how
19 long they were on.
20 Q. Okay. Were you there when the
21 experiment was conducted?
22 A. Yes, sir, I was.
23 Q. Okay. Well, you know then that he was
24 able to walk from the window, and run from the window --
25 both run and walk from the window to the gate without
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
558

1 setting off the light?
2 A. I'm not sure what path that he took.
3 Q. Okay. But you were there when that
4 experiment was conducted?
5 A. Yes, sir, I was. I timed it.
6 Q. Did you make any notes of that, or did
7 you just relay the timing to somebody?
8 A. I just relayed it to somebody.
9 Q. Matter of fact, the only note that you
10 made out there was -- you carry a little whip-out book,
11 don't you?
12 A. Yes, sir, I do.
13 Q. Could we see that?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. Okay. You had a book similar to that,
16 did you?
17 A. No, sir, I had this book.
18 Q. You had that particular book?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. Okay. Did you -- but you didn't note
21 the time; is that correct?
22 A. Concerning the yard?
23 Q. Yes, sir.
24 A. No, sir, I didn't. Now, I didn't have
25 this book, or I don't know if I had this book or not when
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
559

1 you're talking about the experiment with the light. I
2 had this book the night that I was dispatched to 5801
3 Eagle Drive.
4 Q. Oh, okay. But you went out there
5 later on, with respect to the experiment with the light?
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. That happened a day or two later?
8 A. Something like that.
9 Q. Several days later, whatever?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. You didn't make any notes at that
12 time, you just relayed your information to someone there
13 who was taking notes?
14 A. Yes, sir.

 

[Goody]

Beesy, this is in Volume 30 sort of close to the beginning. There's probably more testimony about this but I didn't look for more. This officer is wiggling a lot on the hook but what he has to admit to is that there was a very good reason that the motion detector light was not on in the back yard when he got there the night of the crime. The light was triggered by motion in front of the door to the spa which was on the other side of the yard from the garage. Going to and fro from the gate to the window of the garage would not trigger it. I think there was also a report filed about the test that the officer's did. Or it might have been one of the one's that got lost. I don't remember now.
The part that I don't like is that we have had many many discussions about this over the years and these people all know this and yet no one bothered to let you know and yet they call themselves helping you learn the "truth" about the case. I'm not for sugarcoating anything to make her seem innocent but hey, at least pay attention to police testimony.
I think she's most probably innocent. I am not 100% sure of many things. But I think that her story changed some. I think it's obvious that she was in the utility room at least as far as the garage door.

If you are not Jeffrey, how could we have had many discussions on this this? Huh, Jeffie, huh?

Thanks for the reminder of this testimony. Contrary to your encyclopedic mind, Goody is not a walking steno pad. Completely forgot about it, but I got the gist of it down when I said supporters think one could walk a specific path to avoid setting the motion detector off. Again this is not as important as it could be if the light had been on when police arrived on the scene.

You and Beesy might make a good match, but if it gets ugly y'all will have to take it to GAC cause Jeana don't allow no pistol whipping round here.