Poll: Did Darlie Routier murder her children?

[Goody]

You can tell by the way Waddell barks at Darlie, "Nothing is missing, Mrs Routier," that Darin has told him already that nothing was taken. Darlie certainly didn't and there is no way for Waddell to know if anything was taken. Darin says Waddell never talked to him, but that can't be true because we can hear Darin talking to someone and we can hear Waddell off and on and we can tell by Darlie's statements that she is talking to someone other than that the dispatcher. Waddell is not happy with her at all and I suspect it is because he is being told out of range (for the tape) that they don't who or why this happened, and he isn't buying it. I think Waddell knows right off the bat that he is looking at the killer(s) and he is probably not sure what to expect. All he can do is try to keep the situation under control until Walling arrives.

 

[G.I.RattlesnakeJane]

This is good research you're doing. Something a defense attorney would do on appeal. It might even be worth considering except that this moonlight factor in no way addresses all of the blood and other forensic evidence. If the garage being dark was the MAIN focus of her guilt, then good on ya, but it's not. [url="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_1_206.gif"]http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_1_206.gif[/url]

On any case you have to counter the theroy with one that disproves or impeaches witness or expert testimony. There was moonlight enough to see in the garage.
Point made-don't blow air up my skirt. I won't blow holes in your ship.

 

[Goody]

On any case you have to counter the theroy with one that disproves or impeaches witness or expert testimony. There was moonlight enough to see in the garage.
Point made-don't blow air up my skirt. I won't blow holes in your ship.

I thought you learned that the moon was not full that night or that it was overcast or something.

One thing to also consider is there was all kinds of artificial light on the corner where Darlie lived and back to the alley. Actually I should have said from the alley to the corner of their lot since the alley is closest to the entrance of the subdivision. There was a street light near the alley entrance, maybe across from their driveway on the other side of the street, and another street light across the other street (Eagle) which ran in front of Darlie's house, and three flood lights on in her front yard on the fountain. The lots are not huge so you basically have two street lights less than a half of block apart and three flood lights almost on top of them.....more than enough light to keep the area very well lit at night (and a horrible random choice for burglars or rapists). Makes you wonder if they were out of work actors looking for stage lights. (Ok, bad joke, I know.) But......

Now that we know the area is very well lit, we also have to take in consideration the heigth of the privacy fence around the back yard and how much of that light it would block out by creating dark shadows, etc. And were their blinds on the garage windows? If so, were they lowered or raised?

That being said, the window in question was closer to the back gate than I originally thought. Not sure what that means. I guess that it is just another detail to work into the puzzle of was there light or not in that garage?

I guess realistically that if there was an intruder it is possible he could have gotten thru the cluttered garage unscathed, but you almost have to have some evidence that the dude existed and was there that night to even entertain such possibilities.

At best though, I think the garage would not have been well lit. Some light might have helped but it was so cluttered and the path was not in a straight line, it was bound to be difficult for anyone to maneuver in the dark without knocking things over. Just no evidence that anyone other than the family was in the garage that night. So while there is a possibility, I think it is very, very slim in any workable application. You almost have to prove the intruder existed and that he was actually there that night to make this theory believable.

 

[G.I.RattlesnakeJane]

I thought you learned that the moon was not full that night or that it was overcast or something.

One thing to also consider is there was all kinds of artificial light on the corner where Darlie lived and back to the alley. Actually I should have said from the alley to the corner of their lot since the alley is closest to the entrance of the subdivision. There was a street light near the alley entrance, maybe across from their driveway on the other side of the street, and another street light across the other street (Eagle) which ran in front of Darlie's house, and three flood lights on in her front yard on the fountain. The lots are not huge so you basically have two street lights less than a half of block apart and three flood lights almost on top of them.....more than enough light to keep the area very well lit at night (and a horrible random choice for burglars or rapists). Makes you wonder if they were out of work actors looking for stage lights. (Ok, bad joke, I know.) But......

Now that we know the area is very well lit, we also have to take in consideration the heigth of the privacy fence around the back yard and how much of that light it would block out by creating dark shadows, etc. And were their blinds on the garage windows? If so, were they lowered or raised?

That being said, the window in question was closer to the back gate than I originally thought. Not sure what that means. I guess that it is just another detail to work into the puzzle of was there light or not in that garage?

I guess realistically that if there was an intruder it is possible he could have gotten thru the cluttered garage unscathed, but you almost have to have some evidence that the dude existed and was there that night to even entertain such possibilities.

At best though, I think the garage would not have been well lit. Some light might have helped but it was so cluttered and the path was not in a straight line, it was bound to be difficult for anyone to maneuver in the dark without knocking things over. Just no evidence that anyone other than the family was in the garage that night. So while there is a possibility, I think it is very, very slim in any workable application. You almost have to prove the intruder existed and that he was actually there that night to make this theory believable.

I see the point but it does narrow the field some, more likely than not if the person was familar with the house and the boys secret entry into it. The windows don't look covered where the entry occured blinds are visable on the other window but I can't tell if blinds are drawn up or missing on the window in question.

 

[Mary456]

There was moonlight enough to see in the garage.

There was no testimony about moonlight at all. In fact, Waddell and Walling said the garage was dark; they had to use their flashlights to scan it.

 

[Goody]

I see the point but it does narrow the field some, more likely than not if the person was familar with the house and the boys secret entry into it. The windows don't look covered where the entry occured blinds are visable on the other window but I can't tell if blinds are drawn up or missing on the window in question.

Well, if he was familiar with the boys' secret entry, then he would have known that all he had to do was pop the screen out. Why would he cut a screen he could just pop out? I mean, if a 5 year old and a 6 year old could figure that out, you would think a grown man could.

 

[cami]

That being said, the window in question was closer to the back gate than I originally thought. Not sure what that means. I guess that it is just another detail to work into the puzzle of QUOTE]

I believe that has to do with the mulch under the window Goody. We know there was no mulch under the alleged entry/exit window but there was under the window beside it which was closest to the fence. So, the quickest route to the fence/gate was to run through that mulch and the gate or up and over the fence. No sign of any footsteps/blood in the mulch, on the gate or fence. Gate closed, a gate that dragged on the ground and was a tad difficult to open and close.

 

[Goody]

That being said, the window in question was closer to the back gate than I originally thought. Not sure what that means. I guess that it is just another detail to work into the puzzle of QUOTE]

I believe that has to do with the mulch under the window Goody. We know there was no mulch under the alleged entry/exit window but there was under the window beside it which was closest to the fence. So, the quickest route to the fence/gate was to run through that mulch and the gate or up and over the fence. No sign of any footsteps/blood in the mulch, on the gate or fence. Gate closed, a gate that dragged on the ground and was a tad difficult to open and close.

That gate not only gives me a logical reason to disbelieve that anyone went thru it that night but it also shows both Darlie and Darin to be liars in their claims that Darin fixed it that evening so it wouldn't drag and be a problem for a fleeing intruder. It actually has a shoestring, I think, holding the latch on it...some feeble attempt of repair but it had been done long before that night. Amazing that Darin could do all that remodel work to the house then turned around and tried to fix the back gate with strings. LOL!

 

[christine2448]

I have been reading this case mostly, a post here and there, I was on the fence when I started reading about Darlie......I want so badly to believe she could not hurt her children like this........it has taken me FEREVER to get through these threads, and I'm still reading....you all are so smart! Thank you all for all the info and great posts!


This is what got me, I just read this today on the Bruises thread (now closed), it was posted by JeanaDP Actually, what they SHOULD have had to pry out of her hands is her children. Can you imagine just standing there staring down at your two dying children and NOT holding onto them for dear life?
That thought, that statement alone, did it for me, not forensics, not truths, not lies, Jeana's statement, just smacked me right in the face.... Darlie is guilty. IMO

 

[Goody]

I have been reading this case mostly, a post here and there, I was on the fence when I started reading about Darlie......I want so badly to believe she could not hurt her children like this........it has taken me FEREVER to get through these threads, and I'm still reading....you all are so smart! Thank you all for all the info and great posts!


This is what got me, I just read this today on the Bruises thread (now closed), it was posted by JeanaDP Actually, what they SHOULD have had to pry out of her hands is her children. Can you imagine just standing there staring down at your two dying children and NOT holding onto them for dear life?
That thought, that statement alone, did it for me, not forensics, not truths, not lies, Jeana's statement, just smacked me right in the face.... Darlie is guilty. IMO

Yep, Jeana has a way of telling it like it is. Mark Furhman said the same thing about another case, that usually cops have to pry the parents away from an injured or dead child. When they don't, so many times the parents are found to be guilty of causing the injury. I don't even understand that. I guess they just have to disassociate themselves to a point where they can stand back and be almost uneffected by what is going on.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Yep, Jeana has a way of telling it like it is. Mark Furhman said the same thing about another case, that usually cops have to pry the parents away from an injured or dead child. When they don't, so many times the parents are found to be guilty of causing the injury. I don't even understand that. I guess they just have to disassociate themselves to a point where they can stand back and be almost uneffected by what is going on.

Thanks ya'll. I think its the "cookie jar syndrome." Don't get caught with your hands near the "deed."

 

[Valinda]

Yep, Jeana has a way of telling it like it is. Mark Furhman said the same thing about another case, that usually cops have to pry the parents away from an injured or dead child. When they don't, so many times the parents are found to be guilty of causing the injury. I don't even understand that. I guess they just have to disassociate themselves to a point where they can stand back and be almost uneffected by what is going on.

Many murderers seem to have that same ability.

 

[Goody]

Many murderers seem to have that same ability.

I think that is what I meant. LOL!

 

[Goody]

Thanks ya'll. I think its the "cookie jar syndrome." Don't get caught with your hands near the "deed."

Esp with blood up to your elbows!

 

[Valinda]

I think that is what I meant. LOL!

You took that wrong...LOL

 

[Goody]

You took that wrong...LOL

I get ya. Many murderers have the ability to detach in order to commit the crime. Goody's a little slow on the uptake these days.

 

[Jodee]

One thing bothers be about this case. If Darlie was leaning over the kitchen sink cutting her throat, why was her necklace embedded in her throat? Seems to me if she were leaning the necklace would come away from her throat.

 

[cami]

One thing bothers be about this case. If Darlie was leaning over the kitchen sink cutting her throat, why was her necklace embedded in her throat? Seems to me if she were leaning the necklace would come away from her throat.

Maybe she pushed it into the wound when she was holding the towel against her neck to stop the blood.

 

[Goody]

One thing bothers be about this case. If Darlie was leaning over the kitchen sink cutting her throat, why was her necklace embedded in her throat? Seems to me if she were leaning the necklace would come away from her throat.

I doubt if she were leaning forward. Look at the cut. It angles downward. She was probably standing at the sink, but most likely threw her head back when she made the cut just to have more control. She may have thought the necklace would help keep the blade from going in too deeply and she was probably right but I think it still went deeper than she planned.

 

[ladygator]

I think Darlie is 100% guilty. Why she did it - we may never know.

On top of all the evidence that has been debated, on and off, between the pro and anti Darlie followers, one of the biggest pieces of evidence that tells me that she did do it, is the lack of evidence.

Darlie has led people to believe that she put up this struggle with a mythical intruder. She has bruises all over her body. Defensive slices to her hands. And multiple slashes on her upper body.

It gives you the impression that she put up one heck of a fight with someone.

That mythical intruder, the one who stabbed not one, but two of her boys, numerous times. The one, who should have had a good amount of blood all over his knife weilding hand. He comes from above her as she sleeps. He's trying to pin her down. She is fighting and trying to push him off of her. There's slapping, pushing, slicing, kicking, punching, hair is getting yanked,etc. (Never any yelling for Darin at this point)

And through out this whole ordeal, he never lost his balance, his bloody hand (even gloved) never touched the couch or anything else around the struggle scene.

Then, we are to believe that something all of the sudden, what? Scared him away? He had already killed 2 children. From the looks of Darlie, seems that he had the upper hand to just plunge that knife a couple of times into her gut and she'd be dead.

The lack of evidence is the evidence, for me.

The only thing I'm undecided on with this case is what, if anything, Darin had to do with it.

All, JMHO