I find myself wondering if her husband somehow set this up, (his lack of injuries seems to indicate that he was not directly involved). Maybe he let someone into the house to await the perfect opportunity. He knew she was sleeping on the sofa so he'd be able to tell a "hit man", (so to speak), where she would be. He could have given the perpetrator the knives from the kitchen, knowing it wouldn't add up once the screen was cut with a knife that was originally inside the house, and would therefore implicate Darlie. It would also explain why he allegedly didn't hear anything. How much insurance was on Darlie and the boys?
There have also been rumors of infidelity, (but I don't know how true those are). If those rumors are true, perhaps it was someone with whom Darlie was having an affair ... that maybe she broke it off saying something about her family ... husband & kids at home ... just not right, doesn't want to break up the family, etc. So then the guy comes after the family that stood between them, injures her enough to make her feel some pain but hurts her most by taking away that family, sparing her so she can forever feel that pain. Far-fetched, I know. But like I said, something just doesn't seem right to me.
It seems impossible that this was a random act, someone that didn't know them because it doesn't seem that the perpetrator was there for any reason other than murder.
I definitely find it odd that in this case, (like so many others ... Riley Fox, for instance), that this crime just so happened to occur on the one night when Darlie and the two boys were sleeping in the living room. How many times does a random intruder happen into the homes of unsuspecting victims when they just happen to be right there for the taking? This seems to be a common thread, and I find it very troubling in regards to the possibility that this was simply a random intruder.
In the media section of the Justice for Darlie website, there is a link to a news bit entitled "Routier's Defense Name Suspect". In it, they claim that Darin is the prime suspect in their opinions. They mention the series of questions that he failed during the lie detector test:
1) Were you involved in a crime in your home in June of 1996?
2) Did you, yourself, stab Darlie?
3) Can you name the person who stabbed your son?
Other than question #2, it could imply that someone else did this but at his request.
The news report claims that he did not sleep in his bed that night and that he admitted sneaking back into the house once it was a crime scene. The report also mentions the idea that Darlie was going to leave him, and that he was "obsessed" with her. I was just reading a post yesterday, (probably on the Riley Fox forum), that contained a link to an article about murder at the hands of parents. It was stated that both mothers & fathers view children as the mother's property. It basically stated that women tend to kill their children when they are acting out against themselves ... when they feel like bad parents, unworthy, etc. Fathers, however, tend to murder their children as a way of getting back at the mother, (as in a case where the wife says she is going to leave ... he gets back at her by killing the one thing that is most important to her and that best represents who she is).
I also agree with an earlier post on this forum that the way these murders were committed was much more in line with the methods that men have been known to employ. Not to say it is impossible, but this is typically not a woman's type of crime.
I still won't say one way or the other but when you put all of these things together, it seems somewhat unlikely to me.
)
