Should Darlie have a new trial?

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

Should Darlie Routier be given a new trial?


  • Total voters
    502
Darlie herself has said many times that Darin did not do the killings. She claims she saw the intruder and it was not Darin. There is no way Darin could have fled out the back of the house and come down the inside stairs in his underwear 30 seconds later. IMO the reason Mrs. Kee and Darin told Mulder not to go after Darin, is that they both know Darlie is guilty. Darin said in a later interview, that he wanted to help Darlie, but was not going to 'take her place in prison. They want to swap me for her.' Also, in my opinion, Darin caught Darlie before her staging of the crime scene was complete. If Darlie or her lawyers try to point the finger at Darin, he will roll on Darlie.
 
Darn, I wish I could read this article without having to pay for a subscription.

It's been so long since I studied the facts of this case that I can't remember much. I wish I had the time to go over everything again and come to a conclusion based on a fresh view of it all.

That paper has been doing a series of articles on Darlie's trial. To be honest, I've found them ALL to be very interesting. I am so sorry about the paid sub thing. I paid to read it all, but I know most people here won't choose to do so.
I'm so sorry, because I think the articles are well- written and bring up some very interesting points, such as Darrin's aunt's notebook from the trial showing how the judge slept off and on almost every single afternoon. If I could have linked the article for free, or posted it, I definitely would have, but it would have been a WS TOS..

I'm very conflicted about what I think happened, as I did not follow the case when the boys were killed. Everything I know is after the fact, and it's almost all clouded with opinions. I keep going back to the fact that the country was still shocked over the deaths of Susan Smith's two sons, then the re-enactments on TV of their drownings. I have heard that LE was focused on Darlie to the exclusion of all other possibilities because of the Smith case. IDK. Sometimes, I think she's guilty, other times, I have doubts.

I wish there would be a new trial without Tom Bevel giving the blood splatter evidence, and with better defense attorneys, an alert judge and circumspect court procedures followed all around. Maybe the outcome would be the same, maybe it wouldn't be.
And I am one of the many who think that Casey Anthony definitely murdered Caylee, and that Patsy Ramsey was the killer of JonBenet Ramsey. IOW, I am not an apologist for murderers. I simply have doubts about this one case. Her bruises, her knife wound in her neck. It doesn't add up to self- injury to me. Some other things cause doubts too---

The main things for me being in favor of a new trial are that she is on death row, and Texas is a killing state. Also, that the jury didn't see all the physical evidence of her injuries.
 
That paper has been doing a series of articles on Darlie's trial. To be honest, I've found them ALL to be very interesting. I am so sorry about the paid sub thing. I paid to read it all, but I know most people here won't choose to do so.
I'm so sorry, because I think the articles are well- written and bring up some very interesting points, such as Darrin's aunt's notebook from the trial showing how the judge slept off and on almost every single afternoon. If I could have linked the article for free, or posted it, I definitely would have, but it would have been a WS TOS..

I'm very conflicted about what I think happened, as I did not follow the case when the boys were killed. Everything I know is after the fact, and it's almost all clouded with opinions. I keep going back to the fact that the country was still shocked over the deaths of Susan Smith's two sons, then the re-enactments on TV of their drownings. I have heard that LE was focused on Darlie to the exclusion of all other possibilities because of the Smith case. IDK. Sometimes, I think she's guilty, other times, I have doubts.

I wish there would be a new trial without Tom Bevel giving the blood splatter evidence, and with better defense attorneys, an alert judge and circumspect court procedures followed all around. Maybe the outcome would be the same, maybe it wouldn't be.
And I am one of the many who think that Casey Anthony definitely murdered Caylee, and that Patsy Ramsey was the killer of JonBenet Ramsey. IOW, I am not an apologist for murderers. I simply have doubts about this one case. Her bruises, her knife wound in her neck. It doesn't add up to self- injury to me. Some other things cause doubts too---

The main things for me being in favor of a new trial are that she is on death row, and Texas is a killing state. Also, that the jury didn't see all the physical evidence of her injuries.

I am conflicted over so many things. And that's why I said I wish I had the time to go over everything again with a fresh eye. I was convinced 100% of her innocence years ago and wrote to her for several years as well. I finally stopped writing, got away from the case, and have recently renewed my interest in it. But like I said, I have forgotten so much that I don't feel I'm even qualified to make an informed decision anymore.

I just can't wrap my mind around the idea of her killing those kids and for what reason? I know there doesn't have to be a motive but I just can't see it. And like you, I know there are moms who kill their kids. I'm not delusional to that fact. This one just doesn't sit right with me for some reason. That's why I wish I had ALL of the facts to sort through, not just some glorified selling points for either side, so I could come to a conclusion. But life is just too busy right now. :(
 
IMO, more and more evidence is coming forth that Darlie did not get a fair trial. A North Texas area newspaper, the Hood County News, has been doing a series on things which were wrong in the trial. I have read 2 of the articles. I don't know how many they have done, but the reporter who is undertaking this assignment should be able to provide anyone who wants the other articles copies. There will probably be a small charge.

The first article I read was direct eyewitness testimony from one of Darrin's aunts. She kept a notebook and one of the things which stunned her was the number of times the judge slept.He napped every single day of the trial!!! And now Darlie Routier is on Death Row. ( This, while the court reporter made a mistake severe enough that had she not been given some sort of procedural immunity, Darlie could have gotten a new trial).

The latest article is this one:
http://hcnews.com/pages/news/forens...ith-states-version-of-events-in-routier-case/

It has testimony from 2 DEFENSE blood spatter experts who say they were not allowed to testify by Mulder, her lead attorney. They say that if they HAD been allowed, they would have testified that there was not cast off blood spatter on Darlie's nightgown. They would have testified about the co-mingled blood, indicating that Darlie was injured before the boys were killed.
Next, the blood spatter evidence at trial is called into question. It is said that the blood spatter on Darlie's gown is not conclusive of blood cast off from stabbing the boys, that her blood is mixed in with the boys' and that a third person's blood is mixed with hers and the boys. The blood spatter expert for the prosecution, Tom Bevel's, report is called into question. He is also under fire for a homicide analysis in Tarrant County.
( I used to think he was great. Now I think he is as slimy as the DNA labs who perform DNA tests with contaminated equipment for their own profit).

Also, it is reported that Darlie Kee and her son-in-law allegedly cut a deal with Mulder may have ultimately helped seal Darlie Routier’s fate.
Quote-" As part of the alleged bargain, Mulder agreed to deviate from Parks’ and Huff’s defense strategy in one key area: he would not raise reasonable doubt for Routier by casting suspicion on the only other adult known to have been in the house when the attacks occurred: Darin.
The alleged agreement to protect Darin is detailed in the writ of habeas corpus filed as part of Routier’s appeals process. The writ refers to affidavits by Kee and Darin Routier claiming that there had been such an agreement. “As a result of this promise, Darin and Kee asked Mulder to represent Ms. Routier at trial,” the writ states."

Why would Darlie's mother do this? I am very sure I do not know.


I don't know why the Hood County News is doing this series so late " in the game" so to speak, but they seem determined to show that Darlie Routier may be innocent. I think their series is very well thought out and presented.
I would love to talk to the reporter because I have always thought that Darrin was the killer. I believe Darlie is innocent.
This is my opinion, based upon the hospital photographs of her wounds, the fact that Darrin had a financial stake in choosing Darlie's attorney, that Darlie's high-priced attorneys were less than diligent and competent, that the agreement was signed to not implicate Darrin in any wrong- doing, and the fact that he tried to have his own home burned for insurance money. Oh, and that it is said that Darlie's own mother went to extraordinary measures to protect Darrin from any charges.

I may be mistaken... NONE of us were in that house in Rowlett that night!!
I know a lot of Texans and those who know of the crime outside Texas feel strongly and have very deep emotions about Darlie's guilt. I have just as strong emotions about her innocence. Just as I believe totally that Casey Anthony is solely responsible for the death of Caylee Anthony and that justice was not carried out, I believe that Darlie Routier is not a murderer, did not harm her sons in any way and is probably going to die for a crime she didn't commit, barring a miracle.

You are mistaken unfortunately. Darin never ever tried to have his home burned for insurance money. Darlie's step father Robbie Kee "suddenly remembered" two years after the murders that Darin had asked him if he knew anyone who would rob his house and then hide the things so he could collect the insurance money and Darin went along with it and signed an affidavit. Both Darin and Darlie adamantly stated during their trial testimony that they had no money problems at all. This affidavit was presented as part of Darlie's appeal but it went nowhere as the appeals court doubts the veracity of the claim given both their testimonies

Just because none of us were in the house that night does not mean we cannot intelligently understand the facts. The detectives are never "in the house" they let the evidence lead them to the perpetrator and in this case all the evidence points straight at Darlie Routier as the killer not Darin.

Darlie's trial is long long over and despite Ms. Cruz's series of articles, the appeals court have ruled that Darlie received a fair trial and that her attorney, Doug Mulder, was competent. Darlie had an excellent legal team..


That nonsense about the judge napping during the trial every day is just what it is nonsense. Why did she wait sixteen years to tell someone? That would have been an automatic retrial. There's no way Darlie's mother would have missed that. Why didn't Aunt Sandy bring this to Darlie's legal teams attention during the trial? Aunt Sandy's notebook means nothing as she's clearly biased.

Nor did the court reporter make any serious mistakes in the transcript...she had a lot of typos and spelling errors but that's about it.

It has testimony from 2 DEFENSE blood spatter experts who say they were not allowed to testify by Mulder, her lead attorney. They say that if they HAD been allowed, they would have testified that there was not cast off blood spatter on Darlie's nightgown. They would have testified about the co-mingled blood, indicating that Darlie was injured before the boys were killed.
Next, the blood spatter evidence at trial is called into question. It is said that the blood spatter on Darlie's gown is not conclusive of blood cast off from stabbing the boys, that her blood is mixed in with the boys' and that a third person's blood is mixed with hers and the boys. The blood spatter expert for the prosecution, Tom Bevel's, report is called into question. He is also under fire for a homicide analysis in Tarrant County.

The cast-off blood on the back of Darlie's nightshirt is as plain as the nose on your face. I've seen it in the crime scene photos. It's Damon's blood and it is not mixed with anything. Any blood expert who doesn't see it is not much of an expert IMO. Nor is there any blood belonging to a third person, that's completely false. Her blood is covering the boys blood, not mixed with it.

So Terry Laber disagrees with Tom Bevel....it's just dueling experts. Bevel isn't under fire for anything. He has testified in hundreds of cases. I know the case you mean, Horinek, and I know I misspelled it. Anyone can get on CNN shouting the odds means nothing.

Unfortunately Ms. Cruz did not check her facts against the trial evidence using the trial transcripts.

Mulder contradicts Routier and Kee's allegation that he promised not to go after Darin as the intruder. Darlie adamantly stated again and again that Darin was not the intruder. She testified at trial that Darin was not the intruder. NOw sixteen years later, they are trying to throw Darin under the bus. There is absolutely not one shred of physical evidence that points to Darin.

She's the intruder, she killed those kids and she's paying for it.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If you think she's innocent you do. I for one believe she's guilty as sin. I've read every single court document to do with this case, all the trial transcripts, all the appeals, everything and for me there is just no way anyone but Darlie committed these murders.

Take care
 
Darn, I wish I could read this article without having to pay for a subscription.

It's been so long since I studied the facts of this case that I can't remember much. I wish I had the time to go over everything again and come to a conclusion based on a fresh view of it all.

You don't have to pay for it. It's on www.darliefacts.com
 
Darlie herself has said many times that Darin did not do the killings. She claims she saw the intruder and it was not Darin. There is no way Darin could have fled out the back of the house and come down the inside stairs in his underwear 30 seconds later. IMO the reason Mrs. Kee and Darin told Mulder not to go after Darin, is that they both know Darlie is guilty. Darin said in a later interview, that he wanted to help Darlie, but was not going to 'take her place in prison. They want to swap me for her.' Also, in my opinion, Darin caught Darlie before her staging of the crime scene was complete. If Darlie or her lawyers try to point the finger at Darin, he will roll on Darlie.

I think Darin should have been arrested the same time Darlie was. I believe he would have sung like a bird if he had been.
 
I am conflicted over so many things. And that's why I said I wish I had the time to go over everything again with a fresh eye. I was convinced 100% of her innocence years ago and wrote to her for several years as well. I finally stopped writing, got away from the case, and have recently renewed my interest in it. But like I said, I have forgotten so much that I don't feel I'm even qualified to make an informed decision anymore.

I just can't wrap my mind around the idea of her killing those kids and for what reason? I know there doesn't have to be a motive but I just can't see it. And like you, I know there are moms who kill their kids. I'm not delusional to that fact. This one just doesn't sit right with me for some reason. That's why I wish I had ALL of the facts to sort through, not just some glorified selling points for either side, so I could come to a conclusion. But life is just too busy right now. :(

The trial transcipts are where you will find all the facts.
 
Kathy Cruz's series of articles mean nothing to LE. And she's irresponsible as well, she didn't bother to check any facts just continues to repeat the same old allegations by Routier's family. The DA is probably laughing at her for being manipulated and conned by Darlie.
 
The main things for me being in favor of a new trial are that she is on death row, and Texas is a killing state. Also, that the jury didn't see all the physical evidence of her injuries.

Respectfully snipped and bolded by me.

I'm not sure where this idea that the jury didn't see photographs of her injuries/bruising is coming from, other than from the Pro-Darlie websites. The transcripts are very clear that the photographs were entered into evidence. From Cami's post earlier in this very thread:

12 Q. Okay. Now, let me go to these other
13 photographs for a moment. State's Exhibits 52-E, D, C,
14 B, A, and I. Do these appear to be photographs of Darlie
15 Routier?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. And is there a date present
18 here in the bottom right-hand corner of these
19 photographs?
20 A. It says 6-10-96.
21 Q. Okay. So, we can assume, at least if
22 that's correct, they were taken on the 10th day of June,
23 1996?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Okay. Now, let's look at 52-A. Do
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
765

1 you see a wound here to the right arm, or evidence of an
2 injury to the right arm?
3 A. There's a large amount of bruising to
4 the right arm, but I don't see any -- actually by
5 laceration, there's none. But there is evidence of
6 bruising to the arm.
7 Q. Okay. And that's a pretty large
8 bruise, isn't it?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Where does it extend from?
11 A. It appears to go from her wrist to
12 right below where her hand is, past her elbow, up toward,
13 almost into her armpit.
14 Q. Okay. And then 52-E, that's an even
15 more close-up photograph of that bruise?
16 A. Yes, correct.
17 Q. If you could take these two
18 photographs and go along the jury rail so all the jurors
19 can see.
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. Now, Dr. Santos, tell the jurors what
22 caused this type of bruising.
23 A. Some type of trauma. Some kind of
24 blunt trauma, being hit, a car wreck, anything like that.
25 Some kind of a force to the arm.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
766

1 Q. What is blunt trauma?
2 A. Blunt trauma, as opposed to none
3 penetrating. Penetrating is usually stab wound or
4 gunshot wound. Blunt trauma is -- again, in a car wreck,
5 falling and hitting your arm, being hit with a baseball
6 bat or something like that.
7 Q. Being struck by an object very hard?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Doesn't break the skin?
10 A. Does not penetrate.
11 Q. But causes these deep bruises?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. Is this pretty severe blunt
14 trauma that we're looking at?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. Now, by looking at these photographs,
17 can you tell anything about the age of this bruise?
18 A. Just by looking at this photograph, I
19 would say that that injury is about 24 to 48 hours old.
20 Q. 24 to 48 hours old?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. And what do you see there in the
23 photograph that let's you have that opinion?
24 A. On this photograph there is some deep
25 bruising to this part of the arm over here. But up
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
767

1 towards -- the upper part of her arm, the arm proper
2 close to the armpit, there's more of a redness over here.
3 That tells you that this is not a very old wound. Wounds
4 like this tend to get very dark, and after about three or
5 four days starts turning green when that blood starts to
6 get absorbed. But this redness up here tells me that it
7 was probably a 24 to 48 hour old wound.
8 Q. When it's photographed here?
9 A. Yes, at that time.
10 Q. And the date is 6-10-96?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Now, you had Ms. Routier from about
13 3:30 in the morning on June 6th, 1996 to you say around
14 noon or so on June 8th; is that right?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Okay. Now, y'all checked pretty
17 carefully about other injuries; is that right?
18 A. Yes, we did.
19 Q. And in ICU, are there enough nurses in
20 attendance at all times?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. It's not like being in a room
23 when you're in the hospital and the nurse just checks on
24 you once in a while; is that right?
25 A. Correct.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
768

1 Q. They're right there all the time?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. And you examined Mrs. Routier
4 several times on her stay there?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Examined the wounds that you sewed up?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. And before she was released, do
9 you examine those wounds?
10 A. Yes. Routinely we'll look at the
11 wounds just to make sure they're healing okay.
12 Q. Did you see at any time while she was
13 in the hospital any injury that would cause this type of
14 bruising?
15 A. No, I did not see any evidence of
16 that.
17 Q. Okay. Is this something that you
18 would have been if it had occurred on June 6th, let's say
19 at 2:30 in the morning, 1996?
20 A. Yes. I believe we would have seen
21 some evidence of that before she left the hospital.
22 Q. Okay. A person, when they get blunt
23 trauma, they don't bruise -- a huge bruise doesn't just

http://www.routiertranscripts.com/transcripts/volumes/vol-30.php#3

20 BY MR. TOBY L. SHOOK:
21 Q. Okay. Again, can you -- 52-M, is that
22 a photograph of bruising there to the left arm?
23 A. Yes. It shows some bruising to the
24 left arm around the wrist area extending down toward her
25 elbow.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
775

1 Q. Again, Doctor, if you could start
2 maybe down at this end. You can come on down.
3 A. Okay.
4
5 (Whereupon, the witness
6 stepped down from the
7 witness stand, and
8 approached the jury rail
9 and the proceedings were
10 resumed as follows:)
11
12
13 (Whereupon, the following
14 mentioned item was
15 marked for
16 identification only
17 as State's Exhibit 52-N,
18 after which time the
19 proceedings were
20 resumed on the record
21 in open court, as
22 follows:)

It appears to me that the jury did see the photos of the bruising according to this testimony.


This is one of the many falsehoods in this case that have been repeated so often that some people are accepting it as the truth. It isn't true, and it does nothing but deflect attention from the extremely damning evidence in this case, such as:
* the cast-off blood on Darlie's nightshirt,
* the difference in the powerful stabbing wounds the boys received compared to the hesitant slice Darlie inflicted on her own neck,
* the screen fibers found on the knife from inside the home,
* the lack of missing items or any other motive for an intruder,
* evidence of cleanup at the kitchen sink,
* the staging of the crime scene to look like a struggle had occurred (including laying the vacuum cleaner over blood droplets on the carpet, and
* Darlie's own ever-evolving stories.

The new nugget about the judge sleeping during the trial would certainly have been noticed by Attorney Mulder, and would have been a slam-dunk reason to appeal; yet the only person in an entire courtroom to apparently notice it was a biased onlooker in Darin's aunt? Again, like the transcript brouhaha, none of it has anything to do with the evidence in the case, and is further diminished when you realize that Darlie had a jury trial, and the non-sleeping jurors were the ones who found her guilty.
 
I voted yes. I think since she is on death row, no stone should remain unturned. One thing I want to see if there is a new trial is if the graveside silly-string video is shown to the jury, it be shown in its entirety. I do not know if Darlie's jury got to see the entire video but whenever it was shown to the public it was usually only the silly portion--the solemn parts were cut, and I think this helped convict Darlie in the court of public opinion. No doubt the video speaks volumes, but fair is fair.
 
I voted yes. I think since she is on death row, no stone should remain unturned. One thing I want to see if there is a new trial is if the graveside silly-string video is shown to the jury, it be shown in its entirety. I do not know if Darlie's jury got to see the entire video but whenever it was shown to the public it was usually only the silly portion--the solemn parts were cut, and I think this helped convict Darlie in the court of public opinion. No doubt the video speaks volumes, but fair is fair.

What stone do you feel was left unturned; in other words, what evidence warrants a retrial? I'm not being snarky, just curious?
 
I voted 'not sure' for many reasons, the main one being that I have not read the trial transcripts, and therefore my opinion or thoughts on this case are not particularly valid (IMO). However, after many years of contemplation, I am absolutely against the death penalty in any situation, and that is the aspect of the trial situation that bothers me the most. From what I have read on this site I do believe that Darlie is guilty, though like many I have a very difficult time wrapping my head around it. I want very badly for someone else to have done it, since the idea of a mother doing this to her children is completely beyond me. I recognize that my feelings on the death penalty as well as my inability to entirely comprehend matricide (and thus my subconscious tendency to assume 'it must have been someone else') influence my opinion on this case unfairly and unhelpfully, mostly why I stay out of the discussion!
 
I agree with Nicola there was so many pieces of evidence they didn't even introduce at the first trial it was a joke.

The whole defense spin as well that stated her husband couldn't be implicated I think was very telling as well. He was involved somehow and even if the wife is guilty perhaps at a lesser degree and maybe she should get life instead of the needle. There is something we are missing here regarding the husband and the 911 call is very telling.

The one thing I wish the most is one of the children could have said something to the first responding officer or the dad (if he is not guilty) that mommy did it....

That is the one haunting thing if they were still alive they had to know who murdered them but if the wounds were too severe I guess they couldn't do anything so sad.......
 
The defense did not implicate Darin as a possible suspect at the specific demand of Darlie and Mrs. Kee. I firmly believe this is because Darin does know that the killer was Darlie because he interrupted her during the staging of the crime scene. Darin said after the appeals began that Darlie and her new lawyer wanted to 'swap me for her. I want to help her out, but no way am I going to take her place.' Anyway, Doug Mulder wouldn't have been able to use Darin as a suspect because Darlie claims she saw the intruder and it wasn't Darin. It definitely wasn't Darin.
 
I voted yes. I think since she is on death row, no stone should remain unturned. One thing I want to see if there is a new trial is if the graveside silly-string video is shown to the jury, it be shown in its entirety. I do not know if Darlie's jury got to see the entire video but whenever it was shown to the public it was usually only the silly portion--the solemn parts were cut, and I think this helped convict Darlie in the court of public opinion. No doubt the video speaks volumes, but fair is fair.

It has been shown in it's entirety. There are no solemn parts. You are confusing two tapes.

One filmed by a news crew invited to film the graveside party and an interview from D&D but were asked by the family NOT to film the prayer service. There is a police surveillance tape of the prayer service, given to the defence under the rules of discovery long before the trial. Not only did Mulder not enter this surveillance tape into evidence, he was given the opportunity to show it to the jury during the trial. That he didn't speaks volumes to me anyway.

Darlie screwed up, she should have had the news crew tape the prayer service and not her jumping around chewing gum and laughing and spraying silly string.
 
I agree with Nicola there was so many pieces of evidence they didn't even introduce at the first trial it was a joke.


There has only been one trial and what evidence wasn't introduced?

The whole defense spin as well that stated her husband couldn't be implicated I think was very telling as well. He was involved somehow and even if the wife is guilty perhaps at a lesser degree and maybe she should get life instead of the needle. There is something we are missing here regarding the husband and the 911 call is very telling.

No one ever said her husband couldn't be implicated. But you need some physical evidence to implicate him and there is none. Darlie was adamant her husband was not the intruder.

Yes the 911 call is very telling. Why is Darlie saying to Darin "I didn't do anything Darin, I promise" and then why does she stop screaming and angrily declare "someone just walked in here and intentionally did it Darin"

Darin is not involved in the murders of his sons, he was upstairs she was downstairs with the two boys.

Devon died almost immediately and was given no treatment by the first responders. Damon a five year old traumatized child had stab wounds into his lungs and liver, highly doubtful he could talk and he was a five year old and traumatized, gasping for breath when the first officer arrived. He wouldn't be hollering Mummy did it to anyone.
 
I voted 'not sure' for many reasons, the main one being that I have not read the trial transcripts, and therefore my opinion or thoughts on this case are not particularly valid (IMO). However, after many years of contemplation, I am absolutely against the death penalty in any situation, and that is the aspect of the trial situation that bothers me the most. From what I have read on this site I do believe that Darlie is guilty, though like many I have a very difficult time wrapping my head around it. I want very badly for someone else to have done it, since the idea of a mother doing this to her children is completely beyond me. I recognize that my feelings on the death penalty as well as my inability to entirely comprehend matricide (and thus my subconscious tendency to assume 'it must have been someone else') influence my opinion on this case unfairly and unhelpfully, mostly why I stay out of the discussion!

Unfortunately it does happen and it happened here. There was no intruder. What motive would an intruder have to brutally murder two sleeping little boys? WE all want for someone else to have done it but we are not going to get that wish because Darlie Routier murdered her two boys. Maybe look up and read on Revenge Filicide. It might help a bit.

I firmly believe Darlie killed those boys as revenge on Darin. Their marriage was on the rocks, the business was defunct and there was no more money, Darlie depressed and suicidal and taking diet pills, possibly there was adultery. We know they had a huge screaming fight that night. Darlie was constantly whining and complaining to Darin that she couldn't keep the big house clean and the kids were driving her nuts, she was fed up, fed up with everything. I think Darin told her to pack her bags that night oh and leave the children since you can't take care of them I will. She exploded outward in a rage at Darin for kicking her off the gravy train and the kids got to stay in the Nintendo house.
 
It has been shown in it's entirety. There are no solemn parts. You are confusing two tapes.

One filmed by a news crew invited to film the graveside party and an interview from D&D but were asked by the family NOT to film the prayer service. There is a police surveillance tape of the prayer service, given to the defence under the rules of discovery long before the trial. Not only did Mulder not enter this surveillance tape into evidence, he was given the opportunity to show it to the jury during the trial. That he didn't speaks volumes to me anyway.

Darlie screwed up, she should have had the news crew tape the prayer service and not her jumping around chewing gum and laughing and spraying silly string.

Mulder wanted to use the tape as proof that the police viewed Darlie as the one and only suspect right from the beginning.

The contents of the tape was probably nothing to impress the jury with.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
98
Guests online
1,613
Total visitors
1,711

Forum statistics

Threads
598,440
Messages
18,081,455
Members
230,634
Latest member
lbmeadows98
Back
Top