Darlie Supporters and Darin Routier

[RobertStJames]

I still haven't heard anything that clears Darin. What are the top five pieces of evidence that do that?

When three people are found in one part of a house, two dead from knife wounds and one put in the ICU (and doctors did not put her there for "nerves") while two people in another part of the house (including an adult male) aren't even scratched, that points to the adult male, not his injured wife. 1/4 deeper on that knife slash and Darin'd be on death row and none of us would have heard of the Routiers. He'd have been arrested on the spot. The jeans would have gone into evidence in the case against him, and we would have had a much better understanding of motive, which is all but certainly financial. A 250K prize dangling in front of a guy who was heading into bankruptcy is one huge motive.

And I've got a pair of Reeboks:
10 Q. The Reeboks, SWIFS item No. 1O3, could
11 you give us the results of your analysis, please?
12 A. I worked with two stains from the
13 Reeboks. Both of those came back as matching Darlie.
14 Q. Okay. Two stains both matched Darlie
15 Routier, correct?

Darin stop to put on his shoes too? Those Reeboks are the source of the fibers found on the sock found in the alley


4 Q. Okay. Now, you had also mentioned
5 that you found certain fibers; is that right?
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. And, did you have occasion to receive
8 two Reebok tennis shoes from the Rowlett Police
9 Department?
10 A. Yes, I did.
11 Q. And, did you have occasion to examine
12 them for fiber materials?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. Okay. What types of fiber materials
15 do you find inside those two Reeboks that you got from
16 the Rowlett Police Department?
17 A. Inside these two black Reebok shoes,
18 matching pair, there were a large number of Caucasian
19 limb hairs in the shoe. The insole, the white insole of
20 the shoe was the same fiber type as the fiber type found
21 on the sock.

So'd Darlie wear Darin's Reeboks to commit the murder?

(had to trim the rest. Post is too long)


RstJ

 

[RobertStJames]

Hello everyone,

<..> Don't you think, RSJ that if she truly thought her husband had anything to do with it she would have confided that much earlier? If I was in her shoes, and I was innocent I sure as hell wouldn't hold back any information on my husband that may have seemed odd to me. JMHO:waitasec:

I really don't know. Like I've said, some women will cover for some pretty violent behavior. Up to and including husbands killing children?

It's not an accusation she'd make lightly. If she wasn't 100% positive it was him (and was desperately trying to avoid facing that possibility) she might avoid saying anything that might make him look guilty.

But I'm at a total loss to explain why she'd change things like "fighting" to the nonsensical "frightening." Huh?
"stabbed me ...I woke up ...I was fighting"

Why change this part to the ludicrous "I was frightening" when it basically removes the struggle from her narrative leaving her no way to explain where she got those wounds? That's (metaphorically) cutting your own throat.

Why couldn't she say she struggled with the attacker? Is it because Darin had injuries that he couldn't explain?


RstJ

 

[Mary456]

"Why couldn't she say she struggled with the attacker?"

Darlie had to avoid that at all cost. Struggling with an attacker would have left many defensive wounds to her hands, arms, face, etc. as well as a lot more damage in the family room.

"Is it because Darin had injuries that he couldn't explain?"

I don't think so. Darin was photographed in the hospital and he had no injuries to his body.

 

[RobertStJames]

I don't think so. Darin was photographed in the hospital and he had no injuries to his body.

According to whom, Darin? Has anyone ever seen these photos? LE certainly took some, but they would not have been introduced as evidence at Darlie's trial. Nor would they have been released to the public. Nor do we have any notes as to the substance of Darin's interrogation. Those notes *do* exist, but of course would not be part of the trial either.

What is this claim based on? Do you have a cite?


RstJ

 

[dasgal]

According to whom, Darin? Has anyone ever seen these photos? LE certainly took some, but they would not have been introduced as evidence at Darlie's trial. Nor would they have been released to the public. Nor do we have any notes as to the substance of Darin's interrogation. Those notes *do* exist, but of course would not be part of the trial either.

What is this claim based on? Do you have a cite?


RstJ

No, actually it was according to one of the officers I spoke to. Believe me, they WANTED to bring Darin into this. It's obvious to everyone in that department that he has some culpibility in this.....but truth is, there was nothing to pin on him, and unfortunately still not enough to pin on him, although with Darlie's tiretracks over the top of him, there is more than before. But is she lying? Again? Trying to bail out? Last ditch effort on her part? That is what is in the backs of LE's mind. Neither one of them make a very good witness with all the lies they constantly get caught in. But Darlie is still busy trying to bury Darin. It's not like she has a whole lot of options left.

 

[cami]

I still haven't heard anything that clears Darin. What are the top five pieces of evidence that do that?

Well why don't you post the top five pieces of evidence that clear Darlie?

"When three people are found in one part of a house, two dead from knife wounds and one put in the ICU (and doctors did not put her there for "nerves")"

Are you saying the doctors lied then? Under oath? On penalty of perjury?Why?

 

[cami]

I still haven't heard anything that clears Darin. What are the top five pieces of evidence that do that?

When three people are found in one part of a house, two dead from knife wounds and one put in the ICU (and doctors did not put her there for "nerves") while two people in another part of the house (including an adult male) aren't even scratched, that points to the adult male, not his injured wife. 1/4 deeper on that knife slash and Darin'd be on death row and none of us would have heard of the Routiers. He'd have been arrested on the spot. The jeans would have gone into evidence in the case against him, and we would have had a much better understanding of motive, which is all but certainly financial. A 250K prize dangling in front of a guy who was heading into bankruptcy is one huge motive.

And I've got a pair of Reeboks:
10 Q. The Reeboks, SWIFS item No. 1O3, could
11 you give us the results of your analysis, please?
12 A. I worked with two stains from the
13 Reeboks. Both of those came back as matching Darlie.
14 Q. Okay. Two stains both matched Darlie
15 Routier, correct?

Darin stop to put on his shoes too? Those Reeboks are the source of the fibers found on the sock found in the alley


4 Q. Okay. Now, you had also mentioned
5 that you found certain fibers; is that right?
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. And, did you have occasion to receive
8 two Reebok tennis shoes from the Rowlett Police
9 Department?
10 A. Yes, I did.
11 Q. And, did you have occasion to examine
12 them for fiber materials?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. Okay. What types of fiber materials
15 do you find inside those two Reeboks that you got from
16 the Rowlett Police Department?
17 A. Inside these two black Reebok shoes,
18 matching pair, there were a large number of Caucasian
19 limb hairs in the shoe. The insole, the white insole of
20 the shoe was the same fiber type as the fiber type found
21 on the sock.

So'd Darlie wear Darin's Reeboks to commit the murder?

(had to trim the rest. Post is too long)


RstJ

How does this testimony clear Darlie? she very well could have wrapped that sock around her hand as she stabbed the boys staining it with their blood and leaving her dna, via skincells, in the toe. Darlie did open the front door to scream for Karen did she not? She could have bled on the reeboks then. Weren't they there in the front of the house. I'm trying to remember the testimony. Have to go do a search I guess.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

RobertStJames, if you'll look at the crime scene photographs, you'll see those sneakers by the front door. High top sneakers laced all the way up. Since you've got three pair, try to remove them from your feet while they're still laced all the way up. :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:

 

[cami]

RobertStJames, if you'll look at the crime scene photographs, you'll see those sneakers by the front door. High top sneakers laced all the way up. Since you've got three pair, try to remove them from your feet while they're still laced all the way up. :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:

thanks DP, now I don't have to search the transcripts.

 

[RobertStJames]

No, actually it was according to one of the officers I spoke to. Believe me, they WANTED to bring Darin into this. It's obvious to everyone in that department that he has some culpibility in this.....but truth is, there was nothing to pin on him, and unfortunately still not enough to pin on him, although with Darlie's tiretracks over the top of him, there is more than before. But is she lying? Again? Trying to bail out? Last ditch effort on her part? That is what is in the backs of LE's mind. Neither one of them make a very good witness with all the lies they constantly get caught in. But Darlie is still busy trying to bury Darin. It's not like she has a whole lot of options left.

True. But until she drops that "intruder" nonsense, her appeals aren't going to go anywhere. And her lying is a major problem. Even if she came out and said "he did it! I saw him!" who's going to believe her now, almost ten years later?
I think there is evidence against Darin in the form of those jeans, but if Darlie is going to take the stand and start babbling about 300lb intruders, black cars, and mysterious phone calls, how can a case be made?

I know that my thesis relies on Darlie being so totally brainwashed that she'd lie to protect Darin even though he'd killed her "babies." Yet, if she wasn't 100% sure, do we think she'd make that kind of accusation? At least, at the time? If she'd said "I don't know if it was him or not" then the DA most likely goes after Darin. But with her saying "It absolutely positively could not have been him" the DA really had no choice.

Thanks for the insight into LE thinking. Am I right in saying that the investigation into the death of Devon Routier is considered to be an open case?

I think Darlie could get a new trial based on:
a) making a full, written statement covering not only the night
of the murder, but the days/weeks leading up to it.
b) taking an FBI-administered polygraph to verify that statement
c) agreeing to testify against Darin, if not as an eyewitness, then to
the events leading up to the murders
d) pleading guilty to accessory after the fact for having lied to protect him.

RstJ

 

[cami]

I think Darlie could get a new trial based on:
a) making a full, written statement covering not only the night
of the murder, but the days/weeks leading up to it.
b) taking an FBI-administered polygraph to verify that statement
c) agreeing to testify against Darin, if not as an eyewitness, then to
the events leading up to the murders
d) pleading guilty to accessory after the fact for having lied to protect him.

RstJ

She'll never get a new trial on Damon's murder. If she should somehow win an appeal, she'll be re arrested on Devon's murder.

d. Never happen, she's guilty of the murders not Darin. He's the accessory after the fact.

 

[RobertStJames]

She'll never get a new trial on Damon's murder. If she should somehow win an appeal, she'll be re arrested on Devon's murder.

d. Never happen, she's guilty of the murders not Darin. He's the accessory after the fact.

Any lawyer would destroy that case in a week on double jeopardy. Since there's no reason to believe the murders were two separate crimes, but part of the same attack. I've never bought the official line that they were going to re-try Darlie on Devon's murder if they couldn't get a conviction on Damon's. Can you think of any other case that's ever worked that way?
And if the evidence was so strong that she's guilty, why did the DA only file on *one* of the murders?

She's not guilty of the murder(s) plural. She was only tried, and convicted, on one of them. Doesn't that strike anyone as extremely odd? Especially since the evidence was "overwhelming"?

She drops this intruder nonsense, and finally tells the truth, then I think she gets a new trial. And I think that if we could see *all* the evidence, we'd rapidly change our minds on this case. Don't you think there's a reason Dari's jeans are still in an evidence locker, ten years later?


RstJ

 

[Jeana (DP)]

And if the evidence was so strong that she's guilty, why did the DA only file on *one* of the murders?

Why did the prosecutor in the sniper case only file on a portion of those killings? Because its STANDARD proceedure.

 

[RobertStJames]

Why did the prosecutor in the sniper case only file on a portion of those killings? Because its STANDARD proceedure.

These were murders committed at the *same time* not like the sniper killings at all, committed over multiple days with no clear indication who was actually pulling the trigger. Are you saying there's any doubt whose hand was on the knife in both killings?

You do not get two shots at a person for the same crime by playing games like this. Talk to a lawyer. Ask him if Darlie Routier could have been retried on Devon's murder had the DA failed to obtain a conviction on Damon's. If he tells you they can, then have him cite a case where that has happened.


RstJ

 

[Jules]

Did the same thing with Bundy, Andrea Yates, numerous others. And, yes, they can be tried on the ones they weren't originally charged with. While it doesn't happen very often, it does happen.

 

[RobertStJames]

Did the same thing with Bundy, Andrea Yates, numerous others. And, yes, they can be tried on the ones they weren't originally charged with. While it doesn't happen very often, it does happen.

Fair enough, although Yates actually confessed.

"
Yates faces one count of capital murder for the June drowning deaths of her two oldest children, Noah, 7, and John, 5. A grand jury indicted her last week on a second charge of capital murder for the death of 6-month-old daughter Mary.

Yates also has admitted killing sons Paul, 3, and Luke, 2, police said. In Texas, prosecutors typically forgo multiple capital murder charges since only one conviction is generally needed for the maximum penalty.
"


But your point is taken--it does happen. I just wonder what would happen when the DA went back for the second bite after having missed the first time around.



RstJ

 

[Jules]

RstJ - You beat me to it. I was looking for that info. Andrea's case came to mind immediately - as did Bundy. I know he wasn't tried in all his cases either - though his were commited over many months and many states - so not exactly the same situation.

I also thought of Susan Smith, but she was tried for both Michael and Alex.

So, yes, it does happen - just not often.

I have no idea what would have happened if the DA would have went back for the "second bite." I'm trying to find a case where that has actually happened.

Jules

 

[Jeana (DP)]

You do not get two shots at a person for the same crime by playing games like this. Talk to a lawyer. Ask him if Darlie Routier could have been retried on Devon's murder had the DA failed to obtain a conviction on Damon's. If he tells you they can, then have him cite a case where that has happened.

Let's see . . . where can I find a lawyer . . . :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:

 

[RobertStJames]

Let's see . . . where can I find a lawyer . . . :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:

Acutally, now you've gotten me curious. Have you heard of a case where the DA failed to get a conviction on one murder victim, then went back and got a conviction on a different victim from the same crime scene?



RstJ

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Acutally, now you've gotten me curious. Have you heard of a case where the DA failed to get a conviction on one murder victim, then went back and got a conviction on a different victim from the same crime scene?
RstJ

See, you go spouting off at the mouth and then ask the questions!!! LOL When time permits, I'll do some reading up. Its certainly not uncommon for a D.A. to only bring charges on one victim. Its a good question though.