Why? What was the motive?

[White Rain]

Yep absolutely, she was adament it wasn't Darin. Seems she's changed her mind now....

she's surely grasping at straws...ANY straw now!

 

[White Rain]

and the company was leasing the only vehicle that was working. I guess because of the photos on JFD (DUH) it gives a slight impression and for some this might of been living it been esp. a 26/27 year olds.

I never realized Texas had it's own Hollywood..

Ha ha, there actually is a Hollywood, GA as well....but don't blink in this town, or you will surely miss it...I know I did the 1st time going thru it...there are 1 or 2 gas stations and NOTHING else....no motels, restaurants, stores, etc...come to think of it I didn't even see a school!

 

[JMO8778]

Are you kidding? LOL Its probably worse because there's more money involved. You've got the Neiman Marcus family. The Dillard family. The H. Ross Perot family. The Marshall family. The Simmons family. Not to mention all those oil and cattle barrons! Gee whiz, I'm telling you, there's a LOT of money around these parts. You can get anything in Dallas or Houston than you can get in Beverly Hills.

Unfortunately for our little Darlie Routier, she had neither the breeding nor the looks to get anywhere close to it.

I don't know if it's still there or not,but on her site there was a pic of her turned to the side,obviously to show off her implants.how tacky.

 

[Hermione]

If I never read the transcripts or came here, I just might believe she is innocent.
I honestly don't understand why there is so much debate over her guilt, the evidence against her is overwhelming.

Now I'm curious enough to read up on this case. I'm fairly new to Websleuths, and have lurked for a long time on only a few cases. This case (Darlie's) is one where I was browsing WS outside of the cases I normally follow, saw the title, and I remembered I had not too long ago caught a program on tv, I remembered her name. It would be either CourtTV, or, I don't know, one of those late night biography/documentary type of shows on A&E or History Channel or something.

Well, I'm a novice to this case, and can say that just from the one tv channel I watched, in that one hour, it seemed like Darlie, from the tv show's angle, could really be innocent. From reading here it seems like people don't think so, but a complete newbie would come away from the tv show thinking "Gee, this poor mother lost her kids and then had to live with being accused". As I was watching the tv show I didn't think I had seen this case before until I saw the footage of the silly string at the grave, then I had an "Oh, yeah- that!" moment.

I guess what I finally thought in the last few minutes of the show was that if she's innocent she should have been able to somehow prove it, or convince people. It's all I know to think about this case.

 

[whitywendy]

Now I'm curious enough to read up on this case. I'm fairly new to Websleuths, and have lurked for a long time on only a few cases. This case (Darlie's) is one where I was browsing WS outside of the cases I normally follow, saw the title, and I remembered I had not too long ago caught a program on tv, I remembered her name. It would be either CourtTV, or, I don't know, one of those late night biography/documentary type of shows on A&E or History Channel or something.

Well, I'm a novice to this case, and can say that just from the one tv channel I watched, in that one hour, it seemed like Darlie, from the tv show's angle, could really be innocent. From reading here it seems like people don't think so, but a complete newbie would come away from the tv show thinking "Gee, this poor mother lost her kids and then had to live with being accused". As I was watching the tv show I didn't think I had seen this case before until I saw the footage of the silly string at the
grave, then I had an "Oh, yeah- that!" moment.

I guess what I finally thought in the last few minutes of the show was that if she's innocent she should have been able to somehow prove it, or convince people. It's all I know to think about this case.

Hey and welcome. I too prior to reading any transcripts thought WOW we again put someone on DR that is innocent. :loser: But after so much reading and with these older threads here from other posters, I have been able to say without a doubt that she is were she belongs. Need any help deciding, I am sure everyone here will help you find your way.:dance:

 

[SadieMae]

I'm with Cyberlaw. We'll never know why Darlie did this...the evidence proves she did. I bet she doesn't even know why she did it.

I'm a mother too and no way could I see harming a hair on my child's head but I'm not Darlie and yes I agree she loved her children..but I think she saw them more as status symbols of her upper class life. She objectified them...made it easier for her to get rid of them. Her detachment was becoming apparent to neighbours and I am sure family but they won't talk.

Cami...that's a very rational theory and it makes perfect sense to me. I loved a LV purse I had for years, until Prada came along. Wasn't hard at all to toss the LV. It was after all just a thing. How wicked is Darlie's mind to even think this way about her children?

 

[SadieMae]

Now I'm curious enough to read up on this case. I'm fairly new to Websleuths, and have lurked for a long time on only a few cases. This case (Darlie's) is one where I was browsing WS outside of the cases I normally follow, saw the title, and I remembered I had not too long ago caught a program on tv, I remembered her name. It would be either CourtTV, or, I don't know, one of those late night biography/documentary type of shows on A&E or History Channel or something.

Well, I'm a novice to this case, and can say that just from the one tv channel I watched, in that one hour, it seemed like Darlie, from the tv show's angle, could really be innocent. From reading here it seems like people don't think so, but a complete newbie would come away from the tv show thinking "Gee, this poor mother lost her kids and then had to live with being accused". As I was watching the tv show I didn't think I had seen this case before until I saw the footage of the silly string at the grave, then I had an "Oh, yeah- that!" moment.

I guess what I finally thought in the last few minutes of the show was that if she's innocent she should have been able to somehow prove it, or convince people. It's all I know to think about this case.

Hi Hermione and welcome to WS! Darlie's going to have a hard time proving the invisible man killed her children. Therefore, that's why NO stranger DNA or other evidence was found in her home, it's all invisible too. If she didn't do it, that's the only other possible suspect on my list.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Now I'm curious enough to read up on this case. I'm fairly new to Websleuths, and have lurked for a long time on only a few cases. This case (Darlie's) is one where I was browsing WS outside of the cases I normally follow, saw the title, and I remembered I had not too long ago caught a program on tv, I remembered her name. It would be either CourtTV, or, I don't know, one of those late night biography/documentary type of shows on A&E or History Channel or something.

Well, I'm a novice to this case, and can say that just from the one tv channel I watched, in that one hour, it seemed like Darlie, from the tv show's angle, could really be innocent. From reading here it seems like people don't think so, but a complete newbie would come away from the tv show thinking "Gee, this poor mother lost her kids and then had to live with being accused". As I was watching the tv show I didn't think I had seen this case before until I saw the footage of the silly string at the grave, then I had an "Oh, yeah- that!" moment.

I guess what I finally thought in the last few minutes of the show was that if she's innocent she should have been able to somehow prove it, or convince people. It's all I know to think about this case.

Truth be told, I'd rather people NOT see that video until they read the transcripts. I think that the transcripts are what seals the deal, not that video. It does go a long way toward solidifying the "coldness" that is Darlie Routier, but the transcripts and the evidence therein PROVE that it could be no other but Darlie who murdered those boys.

 

[whitywendy]

Are you kidding? LOL Its probably worse because there's more money involved. You've got the Neiman Marcus family. The Dillard family. The H. Ross Perot family. The Marshall family. The Simmons family. Not to mention all those oil and cattle barrons! Gee whiz, I'm telling you, there's a LOT of money around these parts. You can get anything in Dallas or Houston than you can get in Beverly Hills.

Unfortunately for our little Darlie Routier, she had neither the breeding nor the looks to get anywhere close to it.

Oh I know Texas is full of money, what I meant was their attitude. I worked for a developer who built these rich people their beach homes. I never felt that they acted like most of the people I came across living in California. That's what I meant...

It's puts me in the mind of Anna Nicole Smith, someone seeking that "lifestyle status". How sad that they both end in tragedy .

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Oh I know Texas is full of money, what I meant was their attitude. I worked for a developer who built these rich people their beach homes. I never felt that they acted like most of the people I came across living in California. That's what I meant...

It's puts me in the mind of Anna Nicole Smith, someone seeking that "lifestyle status". How sad that they both end in tragedy .

I know what you mean. I spent 10 years in San Diego. There's definately not the "laid back" attitude that they have there. Here a work day is 10-12 hours. No need to hurry to hit the waves or anything! LOL There's a definately "arrogance" that some of the weathier families around here can have at times. That's one of my biggest pet peeves. I usually can handle them for about 5 minutes before I have to excuse myself to barf. LOL On other other hand, however, there are millionaires walking around that you'd never in a million years guess had a pot to piss in. They're the ones that I don't mind spending time with.

Of course, then you have the Routiers, who didn't have $20 to their name, but wanted to pretend to "live large.":doh:

 

[cami]

I/think.so.too.forgive.me.my/spacebar.isn't.working.
Ithink/he/got/psychotic.on.them.or.they.caused.him.to.have.homicidal.thoughts.and.feelings.and.he.acted.them.out.I.would.really.like.to.hear.what.a.criminal.psych.has.to.say.about.why/Darlie.did.it.

again/I/apologise.for.this.

I've shouted that for years. I would dearly love to see the standard psychological tests results on Darlie. I wonder if she ever submitted to them..probably not..no reason....she pleaded not guilty.

I'm convinced she has a sociopathic personality disorder along with histrionic and narcissistic tendencies..they usually cluster together like that...but none of the "standard or typical" symptoms seem to fit Darlie but we know so little about her really. Darin came the closest when he interviewed with the CPS worker, he described a depressed and unstable wife, tired and suicidal overwhelmed with the care of three children and the home.

Darlie was very depressed when she had a third son..not a daughter.

 

[cami]

I believe the house was even cheaper than that. It was on the wrong side of the tracks. The Jaguar was broken down and the boat wasn't much better, as far as I remember. They were behind on all of their bills and Darin's business was failing miserably. There is nothing that leans even slightly, to this being an upwardly mobile family. This is a family that lived beyond its means for a few years and was now facing bankruptcy.

That's the facade of their lives. The unreality..they portrayed themselves as upper middle class when they weren't.

They paid $130,000 for the house I believe.

 

[nicola]

I'm convinced she has a sociopathic personality disorder along with histrionic and narcissistic tendencies..

Dont mean to be ignorent but can you explain what this means please? Ive heard loads of people be described as sociopathic/narcissitic but never understood what it was? HELP!!!

 

[nicola]

Its OK I got it!

 

[nicola]

Yep, I really need to see some pic's because I did not know this. NOW I am not saying this but I am sure someone is going to come back and say: Because the intruder had her blood all over him as he was leaving....

THeres pics on the justicefordarlie site. Look under galleries on left. Crime scene pics of boys on there are horrifying. I was close to tears when I saw those boys.

 

[nicola]

Originally Posted by cami
I don't think it is. I am in no doubt it's Darlie's print. She described an over 6ft tall intruder. The print is small perhaps from a juvenile or an adult woman. No way that tiny print matches the large intruder she described. And why only one smudged print? That place was a blood bath. Read Cron's testimony on the print and also read Jantz's findings. Even he puts Darlie back in the guilty yard with this print and he was hired by her defense.

At trial Retired Lt. James Cron, testifying as an expert, stated under oath the print originated from a "juvenile" (Vol. 35). He went on to state "It fits the criteria to be a younger person's prints." Over time Retired Lt. James Cron's expertise has been called into question as well as his conclusions.
When one bears in mind the lack of certification in the field of fingerprints it is no wonder an individual like Retried Lt. James Cron could be used by a prosecutor and testify under oath as has happened in this case. Taken from http://www.justicefordarlie.net/op/op-006.php

Dr. Jantz's also does not state if its darlie print only that the print may either belong to an adult female or possibly adult male, this totally contradics what Cron said. It is also very vague, as it does not state if the print is darlies only that it is a possibility, then again maybe not.

Lohnes is the only one who gives a definate answer to the question, 'did darlie make the print?' In his qualified opinion, NO!

 

[cami]

At trial Retired Lt. James Cron, testifying as an expert, stated under oath the print originated from a "juvenile" (Vol. 35). He went on to state "It fits the criteria to be a younger person's prints." Over time Retired Lt. James Cron's expertise has been called into question as well as his conclusions.
When one bears in mind the lack of certification in the field of fingerprints it is no wonder an individual like Retried Lt. James Cron could be used by a prosecutor and testify under oath as has happened in this case. Taken from http://www.justicefordarlie.net/op/op-006.php

Dr. Jantz's also does not state if its darlie print only that the print may either belong to an adult female or possibly adult male, this totally contradics what Cron said. It is also very vague, as it does not state if the print is darlies only that it is a possibility, then again maybe not.

Lohnes is the only one who gives a definate answer to the question, 'did darlie make the print?' In his qualified opinion, NO!

Why don't you read Cron's testimony on the print? That's not what he said at all.

I said that Jantz findings throw Darlie back into the guilty yard and they do. His findings are not accepted by the court anyway. He's an anthropolgist, not a fingerprint expert.

I don't know what to tell you about this print Nicola...if that's what your going to focus on. The print is smudged in blood and likely to remain unidentified.

 

[nicola]

Contrary to Cron’s testimony, the latent fingerprint had sufficient points of identification for University of Tennessee Professor Richard Jantz to conduct an anthropological analysis of the fingerprint. This analysis involves comparing the breadth of the ridges and size of the latent fingerprint with reference fingerprint samples of adult males, adult females, and children. See generally Jantz Aff. Based on such comparisons, Jantz concluded that the latent print belongs to an adult not a child. He also compared the latent fingerprint with fingerprint samples from Petitioner, Darin, Damon, and Devon Routier, and all law enforcement personnel who responded to the residence at 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas. See generally Jantz Aff. None of the fingerprints from these individuals matched the latent fingerprint. See generally Jantz Aff. Thus, the bloody fingerprint is evidence that an unknown adult intruder must have been in the Routiers’ residence on June 6, 1996 at the time of the attack or shortly thereafter to leave a fingerprint in blood before it dried. Taken from http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/writ.php

If Cron didnt say the print was from a child, what did he say? I cant see how Jantz findings 'throw darlie back into guilty yard'. He didnt state that the print definatly belonged to her. As I stated earlier the only qualified person to comment specifically if it was darlie print was Lohnes & he said it wasnt hers. If this is the case then this evidence is a BIG DEAL as it would show that there was an intruder.

 

[cami]

Contrary to Cron’s testimony, the latent fingerprint had sufficient points of identification for University of Tennessee Professor Richard Jantz to conduct an anthropological analysis of the fingerprint. This analysis involves comparing the breadth of the ridges and size of the latent fingerprint with reference fingerprint samples of adult males, adult females, and children. See generally Jantz Aff. Based on such comparisons, Jantz concluded that the latent print belongs to an adult not a child. He also compared the latent fingerprint with fingerprint samples from Petitioner, Darin, Damon, and Devon Routier, and all law enforcement personnel who responded to the residence at 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas. See generally Jantz Aff. None of the fingerprints from these individuals matched the latent fingerprint. See generally Jantz Aff. Thus, the bloody fingerprint is evidence that an unknown adult intruder must have been in the Routiers’ residence on June 6, 1996 at the time of the attack or shortly thereafter to leave a fingerprint in blood before it dried. Taken from http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/writ.php

If Cron didnt say the print was from a child, what did he say? I cant see how Jantz findings 'throw darlie back into guilty yard'. He didnt state that the print definatly belonged to her. As I stated earlier the only qualified person to comment specifically if it was darlie print was Lohnes & he said it wasnt hers. If this is the case then this evidence is a BIG DEAL as it would show that there was an intruder.

Cron is and was more than qualified to testify as to the print. Read his qualifications in the trial transcripts. Didn't I quote you Cron's testimony? I meant to. He said the print was small, it could be a child's, there's just no way to tell. He did not testify absolutely the print belonged to a juvenile or a child as the defense would have us believe.

I think that all we are ever going to get as far as this print is concerned are opposing opinions...the defense says it's not hers, the state says she can't be excluded. She can't be definitely included either because of the quality of the print....so the defense claim that it is definitely not her print is incorrect. This print will remain unidentified with the closest match to Darlie herself.

Jantz finding's are moot really, he is not a qualified print expert and his tests were not accepted by the court.

Here's Cron's testimony:

3 Q. Where did they come from?
4 A. Off of the glass table top in the
5 family room. And one of them, well, both of them, that's
6 right, both of them are off the glass-topped table.
7 Q. Okay. What were you able to determine
8 by looking at those two latents?
9 A. That there is ridge detail, a few
10 points of comparison, but I can't -- couldn't make any
11 identification.
12 Q. Okay. Same thing as you had with the
13 other sets that I have just shown you?
14 A. Yes. These are better prints but
15 still lacked sufficient points of identification.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. Actually, they're the same. Let's
18 see, that is -- oh, yes, that is, they're double lifts of
19 the same print.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. He attempted -- the man that lifted it
22 tried to get it clear, make it clear by the second lift
23 and it didn't work.
24 Q. Okay. How would you classify the size
25 of these two latents?
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2269

1 A. Small.
2 Q. Okay. What do you mean by small?
3 What would that be consistent with?
4 A. A juvenile, it could be. It fits the
5 criteria to be a younger person's prints.
6 Q. Okay. What are those criteria?
7 A. Small ridges.
8 Q. Let me just ask you: The two prints
9 here, 85-I and J, would they be consistent with having
10 been left by a five or six year old child?

11 A. It's possible, yes, sir.
12 Q. Okay. Mr. Cron, let me show you
13 what's been marked as State's Exhibit 85 -- 88-A, B, C,
14 D, E and F. Do you recognize those also, sir?
15 A. Yes, sir.



http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-35.php#1

 

[whitywendy]

Hey Cami - ya know what I noticed when reading the latest DNA Appeal Brief, NO MENTION of the bloody fingerprint on the UT Door. Only talks about the sofa table and some flakes found on the outside Garage door.

The one found in the UT always made me think twice. Now, they don't bring it up.