Darlie Supporters and Darin Routier

[RobertStJames]

Darlie was standing at the bottom of the stairs waiting for Darin to come down. When he did, she showed him her cut neck which he does not remember. Then she went for the phone in the kitchen and he rushed past her to get to Devon,w whom he thought was the only child injured. He didn't see Damon even though he could have had to step over Damon to get to Devon. Darin thought the glass coffee table, which was overturned had hurt Devon. Darlie never went near Devon to see what happened to him, so it was never clear to me why she was screaming Devon, Devon, Devon! She supposedly saw Damon's injuries though and just ignored them. Makes no sense. Anyway, Darlie definitely saw her husband come down the stairs according to her's and his statements.

She never says anything about showing him her neck in her original statement. Nor does Darin say anything about this. He just magically appears. She did not say she saw him, or say she heard him. And from where she was, she would not have been able to see him come down the stairs. Darin is present from the very beginning of the 911 call.

When did he really show up? And why did he have his pants on?


RstJ

 

[RobertStJames]

Let me see. You think Darin sneaked up on Darlie as she slept and slashed her throat and blood spurted up and out at him but didn't get on the couch?

Then I guess he attacked the boys with deep plunging wounds while Darlie continued to sleep with her one little slash, less than an inch deep that hit nothing at all significant....no vocal cords, no wind pipe, not even that dastardly artery supporters keep harping on.

Then she sees Darin going out via the garage, out the window, I guess. Remember the screen was cut from the outside, not the inside, so when did he do that? And why would he choose to climb out a garage window when he could have just gone out the front door or slipped out the patio door in the family room? And why would he go thru the back yard knowing that darned motion detector was out there? Sure he would have known what path to take, but he also knew that stepping off the path could set it off, so why risk it when there was a much safer alternative right at his fingertips?

Then how did he get back upstairs to fool Darlie? Remember she thinks he is sleeping thru all this.

Why doesn't she recognize his walk? Not many wives would miss that. Shoot, I can recognize Elvis' walk on TV and I have never even met the man.

And after all the rest I am not even going into, how do you explain the hynosis she had done a couple years after the murders in which she claims to remember fighting with two intruders on the couch and goes into a bit of detail describing that, claiming that one is black and the other a small framed, dark skinned man? (How much you want to bet that he is supposed to be Hispanic?)

I think you are just grasping at anything you can to hold onto your belief that she is innocent. Bad investigative approach. You are supposed to follow the evidence, not try to fit the evidence to a preconceived conclusion. You can argue almost anything to create unanswered questions if you do the latter. That is why objective investigator's follow the evidence and let it lead them to the suspect.

The blood on Darin's pants may or may not be significant, depending on many things. It doesn't relieve Darlie of responsibility though. The only thing that can do that is a reasonable explanation for how the children's blood got on her shirt where it did.

BTW, only four drops of blood on her shirt is quite a bit. People have been convicted of murder with only one drop of blood pointing at them. It is where those droplets were and how they got there that points at her.

Darin might very well be involved in these murders, but so was Darlie, sad to say.

1) There was blood all over by the couch (remember the knife impression?)
2) He attacked the boys *afterwards*. First thing you do--kill the adult. Probably thought she *was* dead. And a throat slash is far more efficient than any stab wound could be. Has the advantage of making sure the vic can't scream.
3) When did Darin cut the screen. That's a tough one, seeing as how he was outside until 10:15 that night. And the path he took (back into the house) would not set off any motion detectors.
4) Who says he went back upstairs at all? There was a vacuum knocked over in the living room. It was the one Darlie used to clean up after the boys when they came in...the sliding glass door.
5) Why would she recognize his walk? She gives a description that fits Darin perfectly, then fudges on describing the face. Makes me wonder if maybe she did see him but just refuses to believe he had any part in the attack, that it must have been "intruders"
6) It's not "children's" blood. It's blood from *one* child. How'd she manage to stab up Devon but not get any blood on her?
7) Yes, it's where the droplets were. One of them was *on top* of her blood. So'd she cut herself up first then go after them? Should be her blood on the boys then, not the other way around.

An investigator would follow the blood. And they'd follow it right to Darin. In fact, he was asked about all the blood on his knees/stomach. That's when he claimed he wasn't wearing any pants. Problem was, LE found the pants he was wearing.


RstJ

 

[RobertStJames]

Hey there,

I don't post here a lot but I do know this case pretty well so I thought I would tell you what I know.

Yes, you have it correct that the imprint of the knife on the floor strongly suggests that whomever was holding it was bleeding very badly down their arm. I didn't read anything that mentioned the blood on the carpet being tested but, it is my understanding that there were only 4 swabs of blood taken from the knife. I also want to say (my memory is a bit vague in some areas because it was 4 years ago that I read the transcripts) that the mixture of the blood made it difficult to find Devon's DNA, which could suggest he was stabbed first. Also it was found that Devon's wounds were consistent with that same knife.

Also, from what I remember the blood found on the door to the garage belonged to Darlie.

RobertStJames, I'm just curious. You are going on and on about Darin's jeans. What makes you so certain about the blood splatters on them? Have you seen pictures? Have you read this somewhere? What makes you so certain his jeans had blood splatters consistent with Darlie's cut on her throat?

Writ of Habeus Corpus:
(http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Legal/Habeas/Habeas.html)

The physical evidence in the case also suggested Darin Routier’s involvement. In addition to the evidence detailed supra, the blue jeans that he was wearing contained considerable blood staining that was consistent with contact type blood staining. See Laber Aff. ¶ 11. Two areas on the blue jeans also contained blood spatter which suggests that Darin Routier was present at the time of the stabbings. See Laber Aff. ¶ 11.


That's why Darin had to invent that stupid "blood spraying out of the wounds" story.

Jeans, sock, shoes, jockey shorts, face, stomach, knees. Darin had blood *all over him.* Which is consistent with him stabbing his wife and kids, not with any "CPR/Mouth to mouth" scenario.



RstJ

 

[IrishMist]

But if you read the Court's findings, it says:

323. The Court finds that Applicant has misstated her habeas evidence. In his Affidavit, Laber suggests that genetic testing be performed on blood stains on Darin’s Jeans. (Applicant Writ Exhibit 7 “12.f” p.6). Laber does not use the term blood spatter with reference to Darin’s jeans, although he uses that term elsewhere in his Affidavit. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibit 7 “12.a” p.5). This distinction is important because Laber’s use of the term “spatter” is a clear reference to blood cast off or separated during the stabbing. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibit 7 “12.a” p.5). Laber does not state in his Affidavit that any evidence suggests that Darin was present at the stabbings. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibit 7).

324. The Court finds that Applicant has adduced no evidence showing that the blood present on Darin’s jeans was inconsistent with his attempts to resuscitate Devon, an act witnessed by the Rowlett Police. (RR.29: 311-12; RR.44: 4872-73).

Bold emphasis mine.
Court record is from the Darlie website: http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php

 

[IrishMist]

1) There was blood all over by the couch (remember the knife impression?)

No, there wasn't blood all over the couch. That's part of the problem with some of Darlie's stories.

2) He attacked the boys *afterwards*. First thing you do--kill the adult. Probably thought she *was* dead. And a throat slash is far more efficient than any stab wound could be. Has the advantage of making sure the vic can't scream.

Maybe he *thought* she was dead, but she clearly wasn't!! In your theory, what do you propose Darlie was doing while Darin was stabbing the children?? And she was certainly screaming on the 911 call...

3) When did Darin cut the screen. That's a tough one, seeing as how he was outside until 10:15 that night. And the path he took (back into the house) would not set off any motion detectors.

He'd have had to come in the house, get the knife out of the kitchen, go cut the screen, come back in the house, and put the knife back in the block. The motion detector question, I believe was about after the murders. If the intruder, or in your theory, Darin, escaped out the back, why weren't the motion lights on? (And why on Earth did they take the time to struggle with the gate in order to close it behind them??)

4) Who says he went back upstairs at all? There was a vacuum knocked over in the living room. It was the one Darlie used to clean up after the boys when they came in...the sliding glass door.

In at least one of her stories, she sees Darin come down the stairs.

5) Why would she recognize his walk? She gives a description that fits Darin perfectly, then fudges on describing the face. Makes me wonder if maybe she did see him but just refuses to believe he had any part in the attack, that it must have been "intruders"

Now, RSJ, don't you think that's a bit of a stretch??

6) It's not "children's" blood. It's blood from *one* child. How'd she manage to stab up Devon but not get any blood on her?

This has been answered many many times on here, I'm not going there again!!

7) Yes, it's where the droplets were. One of them was *on top* of her blood. So'd she cut herself up first then go after them? Should be her blood on the boys then, not the other way around.

Not if she thought it was over, sliced her throat, and then realized she had to go back and stab Damon again.

An investigator would follow the blood. And they'd follow it right to Darin. In fact, he was asked about all the blood on his knees/stomach. That's when he claimed he wasn't wearing any pants. Problem was, LE found the pants he was wearing.

What the heck does this mean?? "LE found the pants he was wearing"
You make it sound like Darin hid them, and LE dug 'em up!!
He had them on! I believe it was Waddell that witnessed Darin giving the CPR, and the results of those attempts.


RstJ[/QUOTE]

 

[RobertStJames]

No, there wasn't blood all over the couch. That's part of the problem with some of Darlie's stories.

Maybe he *thought* she was dead, but she clearly wasn't!! In your theory, what do you propose Darlie was doing while Darin was stabbing the children?? And she was certainly screaming on the 911 call...

He'd have had to come in the house, get the knife out of the kitchen, go cut the screen, come back in the house,

Ok, stop right there. Why couldn't he have cut the screen earlier? He was outside for over an hour that night. What was he doing? It didn't take that long to take Dana home.

and put the knife back in the block. The motion detector question, I believe was about after the murders. If the intruder, or in your theory, Darin, escaped out the back, why weren't the motion lights on? (And why on Earth did they take the time to struggle with the gate in order to close it behind them??)

Nobody went out that gate.

Not if she thought it was over, sliced her throat, and then realized she had to go back and stab Damon again.

Please. You're saying she couldn't manage to kill a 6yr old at the first attempt? Oh, and about sleeping, how'd she manage to kill one of the kids while the other slept?

What the heck does this mean?? "LE found the pants he was wearing"
You make it sound like Darin hid them, and LE dug 'em up!!
He had them on! I believe it was Waddell that witnessed Darin giving the CPR, and the results of those attempts.

Well, you believe wrong, since Waddell saw Darin already outside when Waddell was approaching the house. Nobody saw Darin do any of this CPR except Darlie.

And if he had them on, why was he trying to claim he came downstairs w/no pants? That's in his statement. We don't know what pants Darin was wearing when he finally went to the hospital, and of course, LE would have searched his house. If had had pants on, why was he claiming that he didn't?

That's a pretty big variation. Shall we start counting the number of times Darin's changed his story?

Let's call that Version #1.



RstJ

 

[RobertStJames]

But if you read the Court's findings, it says:

323. The Court finds that Applicant has misstated her habeas evidence. In his Affidavit, Laber suggests that genetic testing be performed on blood stains on Darin’s Jeans. (Applicant Writ Exhibit 7 “12.f” p.6). Laber does not use the term blood spatter with reference to Darin’s jeans, although he uses that term elsewhere in his Affidavit. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibit 7 “12.a” p.5). This distinction is important because Laber’s use of the term “spatter” is a clear reference to blood cast off or separated during the stabbing. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibit 7 “12.a” p.5). Laber does not state in his Affidavit that any evidence suggests that Darin was present at the stabbings. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibit 7).

f. Genetic testing should have been conducted on several blood-stained areas of Darin Routier's blue jeans since they might have indicated that he was involved in the murder.


Laber seems pretty clear there.
http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/WritAffidavits/laber.html

324. The Court finds that Applicant has adduced no evidence showing that the blood present on Darin’s jeans was inconsistent with his attempts to resuscitate Devon, an act witnessed by the Rowlett Police. (RR.29: 311-12; RR.44: 4872-73).

Bold emphasis mine.
Court record is from the Darlie website: http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php

Since that wasn't his purpose, it's not surprising he didn't address the issue. And although it's clear that Laber saw the jeans, he obviously was not allowed to test them.


RstJ

 

[IrishMist]

Ok, stop right there. Why couldn't he have cut the screen earlier? He was outside for over an hour that night. What was he doing? It didn't take that long to take Dana home.



Nobody went out that gate.




Please. You're saying she couldn't manage to kill a 6yr old at the first attempt? Oh, and about sleeping, how'd she manage to kill one of the kids while the other slept?



Well, you believe wrong, since Waddell saw Darin already outside when Waddell was approaching the house. Nobody saw Darin do any of this CPR except Darlie.

And if he had them on, why was he trying to claim he came downstairs w/no pants? That's in his statement. We don't know what pants Darin was wearing when he finally went to the hospital, and of course, LE would have searched his house. If had had pants on, why was he claiming that he didn't?

That's a pretty big variation. Shall we start counting the number of times Darin's changed his story?

Let's call that Version #1.



RstJ

You never answered my question on what you think Darlie was doing while Darin was killing the children.

If you read Darlie's statement - "In Her Own Words" on her website, she says that she saw Darin come down the stairs wearing jeans and glasses.
This statement was written while in prison, so she wasn't on drugs, or in shock, etc. (We could actually start a whole thread just on this statement alone.)

Darin was outside when waddell saw him, they went inside, and Darin tried again to do CPR on Devon. Darin borrowed a clean T-shirt from the Neals, but wore the bloody jeans to the hospital.

 

[IrishMist]

f. Genetic testing should have been conducted on several blood-stained areas of Darin Routier's blue jeans since they might have indicated that he was involved in the murder.


Laber seems pretty clear there.
http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/WritAffidavits/laber.html





Since that wasn't his purpose, it's not surprising he didn't address the issue. And although it's clear that Laber saw the jeans, he obviously was not allowed to test them.


RstJ

<<Genetic testing should have been conducted on several blood-stained areas of Darin Routier's blue jeans since they might have indicated that he was involved in the murder.>>

So he recommended that they test the jeans, because the MIGHT have indicated... ?? Forgive me, I don't find that all that convincing.

As far as not being "allowed" to test them... you do realize it was the DEFENSE that he met with? And it wasn't the he wasn't "allowed", they just didn't hire him to do it.
Now, one could ask themselves... why wouldn't the defense want those jeans tested??

 

[Mary456]

"You (RstJ) never answered my question on what you think Darlie was doing while Darin was killing the children.

He's already answered that question, Irish: Darlie lied about Darin coming down the stairs. She was just trying to protect her SO like the women who stand up in court with a split lip and say, "I fell down the steps."

What RstJ doesn't make clear is why a loving mother would lie to protect a husband who has stabbed their two sons to death. Geez, I don't believe in the death penalty, but if I thought she'd lied to protect her murdering husband, I just might change my mind.

In some ways, that would be the ultimate betrayal of Devon and Damon. It would mean that two people considered them expendable, just a bothersome result of living large. Like a boat that doesn't work, and it's in your best interest to get rid of it.

 

[IrishMist]

You're right, I don't know what I was thinking.

So even if the RSJ theory is true, I still think Darlie is right where she belongs.

Heck, maybe even moreso...

 

[Jaxie]

RobertStJames,

Laber suggests in his habeus corpus that the blood spatter on Darin's jeans SHOULD have been tested because they did have blood spatters on them. However, he didn't conclude that the blood spatters were, in fact, cast off from stabbing someone. He just suggests them to be looked at more carefully. (like IrishMist posted) I think you've manipulated that just a bit in order to fit your theory.

Also, keep in mind, that Darlie's wound was a hesitation wound, not a clean slice. If Darin had sliced her throat and aimed to kill her as you suggested then it would have been a penetrating, clean slice.

And how could he have slit her throat and then, thinking she was dead, moved on to stab the children? Remember Darlie had bruises on her that "suggests" she put up a fight. If this was, in fact the case then where did her bruises come from? If he just sliced her neck in her sleep then how are you suggesting she got the bruises?

One other point I want to make is about how "difficult" it would be to kill a 6 year old boy. My son is only 3 years old and when he decides to put up a fight when I'm changing his pullup, he can cause bruises. Granted, I'm not a man but I think a kid fighting for his life would put up more of a fight then you think.

Darlie would NOT risk her precious reputation for Darin. Remember, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and Darlie had a past of being VERY concerned with her reputation/appearance. The idea of her being so victimized that she allows herself to be put on death row while her mother, family, and friends go through hell and back, JUST to cover for Darin is ludicrous!!

I'm sorry but I just don't understand what the big friggin deal is about whether Darin was wearing jeans when he came downstairs or not. Surely that isn't your prime focus when trying to accuse the man of murder.

The boys were the object of that attack. It was overkill and, IMO, the perpetrator is right where she belongs.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Ok, stop right there. Why couldn't he have cut the screen earlier? He was outside for over an hour that night. What was he doing? It didn't take that long to take Dana home.

Nobody went out that gate.

Please. You're saying she couldn't manage to kill a 6yr old at the first attempt? Oh, and about sleeping, how'd she manage to kill one of the kids while the other slept?

1. Why couldn't Darlie have cut the screen earlier? SOMEONE went out that gate. Even if you believe Darlie - you're saying that Darin went out the garage into the backyard. What did he do, fly over the gate? and
2. You're saying that Darin couldn't have managed to kill a sleeping woman at the first attempt - and, more importantly, decided it was a good idea to leave her alive so that she could identify him.

 

[accordn2me]

Not that you will answer this post or anything like that, but you can hear Darin coming down the stairs in the 911 call.

I've heard that - thud, thud, thud - like Darin coming down the stairs in the 911 call. I thought this was Darin's second trip down the stairs. I don't know where I got that idea from.

Didn't he say he came downstairs with no pants on...but on the 911 call you hear what sounds like him coming down the stairs...If that's his first trip down the stairs, what took him so long? I figured he had gone back up to put his pants on because LE was on the way.

 

[Goody]

1) There was blood all over by the couch (remember the knife impression?)
2) He attacked the boys *afterwards*. First thing you do--kill the adult. Probably thought she *was* dead. And a throat slash is far more efficient than any stab wound could be. Has the advantage of making sure the vic can't scream.
3) When did Darin cut the screen. That's a tough one, seeing as how he was outside until 10:15 that night. And the path he took (back into the house) would not set off any motion detectors.
4) Who says he went back upstairs at all? There was a vacuum knocked over in the living room. It was the one Darlie used to clean up after the boys when they came in...the sliding glass door.
5) Why would she recognize his walk? She gives a description that fits Darin perfectly, then fudges on describing the face. Makes me wonder if maybe she did see him but just refuses to believe he had any part in the attack, that it must have been "intruders"
6) It's not "children's" blood. It's blood from *one* child. How'd she manage to stab up Devon but not get any blood on her?
7) Yes, it's where the droplets were. One of them was *on top* of her blood. So'd she cut herself up first then go after them? Should be her blood on the boys then, not the other way around.

An investigator would follow the blood. And they'd follow it right to Darin. In fact, he was asked about all the blood on his knees/stomach. That's when he claimed he wasn't wearing any pants. Problem was, LE found the pants he was wearing.


RstJ

The reason you have so many problems with the evidence is that you don't know it. You need to go back and read the transcripts again. Forget the books. The authors made tons of mistakes in them. The books are only good for photos and accounts of what the authors saw and heard that is not in the transcript.

To answer your comments above:

1. There was no knife impression on the couch. That was on the rug and it was not an impression. It was the bloody outline of the knife.

There was no blood on the couch. That is one of the main points that was used against her because there should have blood on the couch.

2. There is no evidence about when "he" attacked the boys, only theory.

3. Darin could have cut the screen anytime before or after the murders since he was not bleeding and would not leave bloody evidence behind, but there is no evidence that he cut the screen. I personally think he very well may have, but I don't think he went out through the garage window at any time nor do I think he walked through the back yard. Darlie also could have cut the screen, probably before the murders, before she was bloody.

4. The only vacuum knocked over was in the kitchen, not the living room, not the family room. There was a second vacuum in the formal living room, I think, but it was standing upright, and I don't believe it was used that evening. I think she used the one in the kitchen to clean up after the boys. Not that it matters. The one in the kitchen is the one in question and the only one that applies to the crime.

5. I won't argue anymore about whether she recognized his walk or not. I don't believe there was an intruder. You apparently do, though I don't know why.

6. Darlie's shirt had blood droplets from both boys are her shirt. If you don't believe me, go back to the transcripts and read Tom Bevel's testimony. He was the blood expert.

And, yes, they found Darin's pants alright.....on his body when he came to the hospital to see about Darlie. LOL! He hid them alright. Right out in plain sight. O, what a crafty fellow Darin was. hahahahaha!

 

[Dani_T]

Writ of Habeus Corpus:
(http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Legal/Habeas/Habeas.html)

The physical evidence in the case also suggested Darin Routier’s involvement. In addition to the evidence detailed supra, the blue jeans that he was wearing contained considerable blood staining that was consistent with contact type blood staining. See Laber Aff. ¶ 11. Two areas on the blue jeans also contained blood spatter which suggests that Darin Routier was present at the time of the stabbings. See Laber Aff. ¶ 11.


That's why Darin had to invent that stupid "blood spraying out of the wounds" story.

Please produce WHERE in the Laber Affidavit it says anything about blood spatter on Darin's jeans?

I'm not sure why I should have to repeat myself on this count so I made it clear a few posts about that I couldn't find anywhere in the affidavit which says what the defense claims it says.

You are really very selective in what you will and will not respond to.

Edit: Oh... I see you did respond to someone else's comment on it. Pity that you just completely skirted the issue. See response below

 

[Dani_T]

f. Genetic testing should have been conducted on several blood-stained areas of Darin Routier's blue jeans since they might have indicated that he was involved in the murder.


Laber seems pretty clear there.
http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/WritAffidavits/laber.html





Since that wasn't his purpose, it's not surprising he didn't address the issue. And although it's clear that Laber saw the jeans, he obviously was not allowed to test them.


RstJ

Oh for crying out loud.

Let's say it slowly together.

Laber says nothing about blood spatter on Darin's jeans.

And now that we have gotten over that hurdle let's go to the logical conclusion

The defense have produced no evidence that there was blood spatter on the jeans

There now. That wasn't so hard was it?

 

[CyberLaw]

This is to the Darlie Supporters:

Please answer this question: Why and to what benefit would an "intruder" stay and clean up the crime scene.

What benefit would it have to anyone except Darlie.???

A person who commits a crime, cleans up the scene and it sure is not "an unknown intruder".

Unless of course the "blood" points to the person who committed the crime.

Like saying an uknown person cut your throat, but in reality, you stood over the sink and cut it yourself.

then of course you would clean up the crime scene because the blood at the sink does not fit in with "your story".

 

[KatherineQ]

As I understand it, by reading, the EMT's told her to stand over the sink and fix a warm wet compress for one of her boys. Whichever one was still alive.

The EMT believed she was guilty, and stated as a point in fact that she wasn't being helpful - she was running around in shock and clueless, and he had to ask her several times to go get a warm compress for him. So, she did.

Could that be where the bloody footprints in front of the sink came from? Seems pretty obvious to me. All they have to do is look at the EMT's statement, and voila, there it is. He told her to do that.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

As I understand it, by reading, the EMT's told her to stand over the sink and fix a warm wet compress for one of her boys. Whichever one was still alive.

The EMT believed she was guilty, and stated as a point in fact that she wasn't being helpful - she was running around in shock and clueless, and he had to ask her several times to go get a warm compress for him. So, she did.

Could that be where the bloody footprints in front of the sink came from? Seems pretty obvious to me. All they have to do is look at the EMT's statement, and voila, there it is. He told her to do that.

I've never heard that, but you may be correct. However, you'll have to find it for me to believe it was ever said.