Why? What was the motive?

[Missi]

I am just stating why I believe she is innocent, not opinion, just the facts that I have been presented with. As far as Lynch goes, I didn't say his son, I said the investigator, Jimmy Pattersons son was the one that was a suspect. Lynch was admitted to a mental hospital because he was a danger to himself and others and later admitted that he did work on this case that he was not qualified to do. I also did not say any specifics about the case that I read about concerning the other crime that was sealed, I don't know the specifics of that case, I just know that the facts I have read have said that there was another murder in the same neighborhood within a week after Darlie's case. It is said to go unsolved. It was also sealed and not released to the public at that time when Darlie's case was in the beginning. Next time please read what I wrote before you respond because you flipped a couple things I said. I would be the first to say I was wrong if there was evidence to really prove Darlie did do it, but for now I still see a lot of evidence that says no. I was asked to present what facts I had and so I did, just because it isn't the same as what you have doesn't mean that it wasn't facts that have been stated. But thank you for all of your input, I just hope you can see why I think she is innocent. These are just the facts I have come across.

 

[whitywendy]

Missy, the majority are your opinions NOT FACTS.

Fact - the only blood found in that house was Darlie's, Damon's and Devon's. NO ONE ELSE

Fact - there was only one knife used in the actually murders. There is no PROOF OF FACT that there was another knife used in the murders. Just speculation.

Fact - Damon's and Devon's injuries were overkill, Darlie's superficial.

Fact - Darlie stood there with towel to her neck and ignored police officers repeated requests to apply a towel and pressure to Damon's wounds.

Fact - Darlie just stood there DID NOT TOUCH HER CHILDREN.

Fact - The Routier's were having serious money problems.

I could go on and on but I will not. I have come to the conclusion that you are not here for a actually debate of the FACTS. I believe you just came here to state that Darlie is innocent and closed your mind to the actual facts of this murder. I replied to your post in regards to your FACTS with ACTUAL FACTS. Still waiting on your FACTUAL RESPONSE.

 

[whitywendy]

Missy these weren't facts. They were questions and observations that have been going on with this trial from the get go.

You know most people including myself come on here to discuss and help each other with any questions of doubt etc. with this trial. Anytime someone suggests reading this or that to find the actual truth, it is done. WHY because he/she is in search of the real truth. You are not or you would not come here spouting "your facts" while ignoring the actual evidence and TRUE FACTS that others have brought up. Then you get defensive and try to use your "WORDS" to make others feel like you are being attacked upon and the "if you don't believe Darlie's guilty then leave" feeling is so old. Go back and read the archives, PRO and ANTI'S Darlie's are welcome here. Like I said I came here believing in her innocence. But after MY RESEARCH OF THE ACTUAL FACTS/EVIDENCE, I became completely convinced that Darlie murdered Devon and Damon.

EDITED OUT THE RUDE PORTION IN AN EFFORT TO SAVE THE POST.

 

[Missi]

Its so funny because I really don't care what you think of what I am saying....you want me to listen to you and what you have to say and it seems that no one here likes to be told they don't have the "FACTS"....isn't that right? You say this is a debate and that IS what I am trying to do, but if I don't agree with everything said here then I MUST be wrong. I find it hard to believe that the facts you seem to have were screwed up in the beginning and the transcript mistakes were trying to be covered up...what kind of sense does that make? How can you be so sure that there weren't anymore mistakes throughout the rest of it? You don't like what I have to say because you think I am wrong, well I think you are too, but isn't that what a debate is? The statements I have made here are the FACTS as I know them, so unless there is other evidence that you have to share that is really solid then we all are speculating on these FACTS. I don't feel attacked and that isn't how I am taking it, but the minute I write what I have learned I am the one that is supposed to be open minded and no one else is? And that is a FACT.

 

[whitywendy]

And how can you be so sure that transcripts are WRONG. Just because the original court reporter made errors? And so what you are saying is that since someone made some errors, then the transcripts are unrepairable. Forget about the people who were in the court room who verified (including Darlie's lawyers) the accuracy of the transcripts. AND YOU CALL ME CLOSE MINDED.

Hey this is a debate. BUT you must debate facts and provide resources to prove your facts. I am debating FACTS. When I am told that the transcripts are null and void, then I will stop debating FACTS.

No deary, you are not open-minded. If you were you would actually read the info that others suggest. You just throw all of it out the window as trash. Expecting us to believe your FACTS because YOU SAY THEY ARE FACTS. Gee if I was closed minded I wouldn't of taken the time to read your so called FACTS, now would I.

 

[White Rain]

I have researched this case for awhile as has a friend of mine that has written about it. So in response to the bankruptcy thing: The financial records were pulled and the investigation revealed that they had over $8,000 in the bank and all of their bills were up to date, so I really dont think you can go bankrupt on that. As far as the life insurance policy, Darren was the only one with a policy($500,000) so why not kill him if it's for the money, why kill the two boys?

Because Darrin could fight back and the boys couldn't. Because Darrin had the potential (even if his business failed) to make more and more money over time for Darlie to get her hands on...face it, in todays world $500,000 doesn't go that far.
And because the boys themselves costed money...new school clothes and shoes every year, xmas gifts, easter, birthday gifts. Eventually would come the cars, and possibly college...
And also because the boys were wearing her out, it was hard to handle two, but when the baby came she really had her hands full. Also with Darrin dead she's have to raise those boys alone.
Money was getting tight, things kept tearing up and costing her more money, the jag and machines at the business, the boys were getting to be a handful...she did it, there is no doubt in my mind.

 

[CyberLaw]

Also people who are psychopaths feel no empathy. They see people as object to benefit them, when the "objects" no longer "benefit" them they see the objects not as people but things to be "disposed" of, after all it it to their benefit and only to their benefit.

Darlie killed the boys for her benefit, and felt and will never feel any remorse for doing so, as with other psychopaths, they feel nothing for their victims but do feel sorry for themselves. As, poor Darlie, hard done by, sitting in prison, unjustly convicted, it is the fault of everyone else that in her opinion is sitting in prison, because after all Darlie and all her supporters just darn well know "some unknown" person is to blame. It is always the fault of everyone else.

They never, accept responsibility for what they do because after all they are just too darn special to be held accountable and responsible for their own actions.

 

[JMO8778]

Also people who are psychopaths feel no empathy. They see people as object to benefit them, when the "objects" no longer "benefit" them they see the objects not as people but things to be "disposed" of, after all it it to their benefit and only to their benefit.

Darlie killed the boys for her benefit, and felt and will never feel any remorse for doing so, as with other psychopaths, they feel nothing for their victims but do feel sorry for themselves. As, poor Darlie, hard done by, sitting in prison, unjustly convicted, it is the fault of everyone else that in her opinion is sitting in prison, because after all Darlie and all her supporters just darn well know "some unknown" person is to blame. It is always the fault of everyone else.

They never, accept responsibility for what they do because after all they are just too darn special to be held accountable and responsible for their own actions.

well-said and so true.and until you've seen someone like that in action,it's hard to believe.but they do exist.and I believe Darlie is one of them.most ppl can't fathom what she's done b/c they aren't like that and that's why it's so hard to believe.

 

[JMO8778]

Does anyone think Darrin was in on this? B/c I saw this story on Unsolved Mysteries,and he appeared to have something to hide,although it could just be he's afraid to speak up about what he saw out of fear he'll be proscecuted as well.
If he was in on it,I imagine book deals,movies,ins. money,etc were on his mind,bc didn't he say they were going to try to do movies and book deals,b/f Darlie was charged?And he's too adamant about her innocence,when I think he knows full well she's guilty.Why take up for her if he's not in on it? He should be too angry at her to be able to do that,unless he knows something and won't speak up out of fear or wants to profit from it.

 

[whitywendy]

Does anyone think Darrin was in on this? B/c I saw this story on Unsolved Mysteries,and he appeared to have something to hide,although it could just be he's afraid to speak up about what he saw out of fear he'll be proscecuted as well.
If he was in on it,I imagine book deals,movies,ins. money,etc were on his mind,bc didn't he say they were going to try to do movies and book deals,b/f Darlie was charged?And he's too adamant about her innocence,when I think he knows full well she's guilty.Why take up for her if he's not in on it? He should be too angry at her to be able to do that,unless he knows something and won't speak up out of fear or wants to profit from it.

Good question JMO, I have gone back and forth in regards to Darin being involved with the murders. From what I have read, he really did seem like he was in shock that night. He talked about things going in slow mode etc.. When he got involved in the cover up is what I haven't been able to figure out. Part of me believes it wasn't until after the evidence started piling up against her. Another part of me wonders if he is the one who cut the screen and dropped the sock in the alley. You would think that if he had no involvement what so ever, then why after all these years hasn't he turned against Darlie esp. since Darlie has turned against him . UMMMM because he knows far more about what happened in that house that night than he is willing to admit. Maybe he doesn't want Drake to believe that his very own mother murdered his brothers and if it wasn't for the fact that he was upstairs with Darin, he would be up in heaven with them. IMO of course....

 

[CyberLaw]

In Darlie's mind "most likely Darin "made or caused Darlie to do what she did.

Remember these people blame everyone else. Darin you did not make enough money to support my lifestyle, you could not get the car fixed, we were turned down for a loan all because you cannot make enough money.

So if you turn on me, I will "lie" and tell them that it is all your fault, you did it for insurance(or what ever reason) I should not be held responsible because after all it is all your fault. He again, may have even assisted her in the cover up and she has held that against him. Do what is best for little Blake and tell everyone I am innocent and support me so I can be a Mom to Blake and he does not have to come to jail to see me. I need your support or else.

You see you are the reason I took diet pills, you are the reason I was struck with three kids at home. Do you know how much work it is with three boys. I can't watch them all the time. Life would have been so much easier with just the young one and not the two oldest, I could not drive them anywhere for play dates to the park, I was stuck at home all because of you.

These people have a weird sense of manipulation and rationalization that normal people cannot understand.

In their world, they are never to blame and feel they can con anyone.

It never even entered Darlie's mind that there would be people who did not believe her and OMG hold her responsible. Their brains just don't function like a normal person and they are devoid of common sense.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Since this will appear under Jeana's name because I am not allowed to post directly, I think I should reintroduce myself as the person who wrote the "General Overview," which was Section One, Section Two (History of the Intruder), Section Three (Mixed Motive Crimes), and Section Four (What the Wounds Tell Us). I am writing what
I think will be my final installment and in this section I will focus solely on motive. I know I mentioned what I believe to be the motive in passing, but I will try and focus on it as the sole topic here.
Before I discuss motive, I think it is necessary to discuss how to determine the motive. One mistake I think a lot of people are making in this case is that they are trying to figure out logically why Darlie would have stabbed the boys. As a result, most people say that this crime is a killing for money. Some people say that the killing involves her getting rid of the two children because they were interfering with her lifestyle. We also know that the defense says there was an intruder. However, I don't think it was any of these things. The problem with using logic is that if you tell Darlie that the evidence is "X," she will say no, the evidence is "Y." If you tell her there was no intruder, she will say there was an intruder. If you tell her that she just stood there doing nothing after the boys were stabbed, she will tell you that she was a whirlwind of activity, wetting paper towels and hauling them over to the boys. In short, it is too easy to manipulate logic. We have to use some other approach and I suggest that approach should involve "memory."
In my native state of Illinois, four people were shot to death and a fifth, a husband was shot through the left wrist and in the thigh, and, thus, was wounded. This case is known as the Christopher Vaughn case and is not an "intruder" case but is helpful to consider. The husband said that the family was taking a short day trip, he stopped to check the luggage rack on their vehicle, and when he got back in the car, his wife pulled out a gun and started shooting him and the three kids in the back seat. The Chicago Sun Times contacted two experts who wrote the book on parent killers back in 2001. One of them said, "I've seen thousands of these case. After you have seen several they all start to look alike. The husband's story does not match what I have seen. I know by the third sentence of a report I hear on these types of crimes what category these kinds of crimes fall into (mother did it, father did it, neither did it), and the mother here is not likely to be the killer, as the father has indicated." Although the case is in the preliminary stages, the State's test on the mother's hands showed very little gunshot residue, and, especially, not consistent with someone who has shot five people. The husband has been charged with four counts of murder. In a similar vein is a passage I read in a book by John Douglas, the former FBI profiler. He was called to the scene of what looked to be a hate crime. The alleged victim sobbed about how his parents had raised him not to be hateful and how someone came into his house and drew a swastika on the wall as well as other indications of a hate crime. John Douglas looked the scene over for 30 minutes and had the guy arrested. Although the guy protested at first, he later admitted he had staged a hate crime scene. He then asked John Douglas how he knew, and Douglas responded, "When you have seen 3,000 crime scenes like I have, you know what a real hate crime scene looks like and this does not look like that."
In Darlie's case, I think most people don't know what happened so they review all the evidence and try to make an educated guess using logic. However, what I noticed first were the stab wounds inflicted on the boys. To me, the multiple thrusts of the knife into both boys indicates rage. Someone was pretty angry with them. We see this type of rage in the Jeffrey MacDonald case and the other case being discussed, the Julie Harper case. I am not sure exactly who the assailant is by this point, but one other thing I know from a lot of these cases is that a knife is "personal." As a result, I believe the assailant is very angry at them and has a personal reason for stabbing them. I then look at whether the attack is sustained or not. In both the MacDonald and Harper cases, I think the stabbing is sustained and, thus, is a homicidal rage in each case. Here, the boys were stabbed only a total of 10 times and neither victim had more than six stab wounds. What we appear to be looking at here is a rage that is more transient than sustained--in other words, the rage wore off. The only other type of rage that I know of is a "jealous" rage and that is what I believe this is. The rage trigger would not be around them and as a result, I believe that the rage had to have come from the argument that Darlie and Darin had that evening/early morning. This crime is not a killing for money because those crimes tend to be more "matter of fact" and far less violent than what we see here. Examples of killings for money include the Charles Stuart case in 1989 (wife shot once in the head), the George Revelle case in 1994 (wife shot in the head), and the Frances Newton case (husband shot in the head and their two children were also shot to death). In killings for money, the assailant appears only to want to move the victim aside to get something and, thus, there is a low level of violence.
However, what people say when I mention the jealous rage theory is, okay, I can see plunging the knife into them as rage, but why would she jealous of them? You have to remember that she came from an impoverished background and was only able to leave it once Darin came flying by. Even then, for the first few years after they were married in 1988, she and Darin weren't living large, as it would later be termed. It wasn't until 1992, when Darin's business took off, that they started living well. Eventually, Darlie fixed up the house so that it was "Nintendo House," the happening place for the kids to be. My understanding is that Darlie came from the bottom of the socioeconmic ladder growing up. After she was with Darin for a time, they had pretty much climbed to near the top of the socioeconmic ladder, assuming Darin's alleged statement is true that near the time of the murders, he and Darlie had made it into the top two percent of wage earners for their age group. I think Darlie had a considerable fear of ever going back to that impoverished background, as evidenced by her statement in her "suicidal thoughts" letter one month before the murders, "I have been fighting my whole life and feel like I just can't fight anymore." What has she been fighting her whole life? I think this is the most important statement in the whole case. I think the "just can't fight anymore" is a nod to the fact that they are running out of money, but what is this "whole life" thing? In any event, I believe that she had been pestering Darin for at least of week for money and continued to do so. Darin could not come across with the money because he did not have it. Finally, that evening or early the next morning, Darlie used the atomic bomb in her arsenal of manipulation, the statement that always did the trick, "I think we need to separate." This statement is what I like to refer to as "the gasoline" because Darin saw his way out of his no money predicament by telling her "good, and don't come back" to get her off his back for awhile. Darin's response is what I like to refer to as "the match" because I think he acted quite serious in his response and I think Darlie took him seriously. I then believe Darlie was very stressed because she had no problem-solving skills and the only place she could turn to would be back with her mother and that impoverished childhood once again. I think she then became angry at the two children not for anything they did, but for having permanent residence at "Nintendo House," while she was being forced back to the poverty of her childhood. I believe that the thought of the long fall down that socioeconomic ladder, which the two boys did not have to endure," was too painful for her and resulted in the crime that occurred in June of 1996. There is your jealousy. Too, I think once the rage dissipated and Darlie saw what she had done, she and Darin quickly came up with a plan to cover it up, and that they are working their plan even 11 years later, their plan being to walk away from what happened. All of the above is what I think memory tells us--it was not money, but the one ugly consequence of running out of money and the pain it brought Darlie, that resulted in what happened that night/early morning.

 

[White Rain]

Interesting...I never really thought about this until awhile back...someone (may have been you) posted something like this, about the fight and all.
I don't know if you plan to respond on here, but if you don't then I will just ask these general questions/statements to anyone...I am basing this on your motive theory:

If she knew they were having money problems, why would she assume that Darrin would be able to come up with the money to keep paying the mortgage?

If Darrin really told her to leave after the argument what would make her think he'd stand by her if she did something like killing the boys?

If Darrin was so stressed and wanted out from underneath it all, Darlie would have provided him a perfect way...she killed two of his sons and she went to jail...all he would have left to take care of would be him & Drake...why would he keep standing by her? Why would he lose custody of Drake just to keep defending her? And in the case of him helping her cover up or whatever, why bother doing that?


I had to go back and re-read your post just now cause I couldn't remember all you wrote...but also if she and Darrin were to seperate why would she think she wouldn't get a modest amt of child support? Here in GA 3 kids would get 25-27% of the non-custodial parents pay check. I am assuming she would try to get custody b/c if not then SHE would be liable for the support payments.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Interesting...I never really thought about this until awhile back...someone (may have been you) posted something like this, about the fight and all.
I don't know if you plan to respond on here, but if you don't then I will just ask these general questions/statements to anyone...I am basing this on your motive theory:

Yes, please feel free to post any questions. I'll post the answers that I receive from the writer.

 

[White Rain]

Yes, please feel free to post any questions. I'll post the answers that I receive from the writer.

Ok, Jeana, thanks.

 

[sharkeyes]

... I believe that the rage had to have come from the argument that Darlie and Darin had that evening/early morning.

I then believe Darlie was very stressed because she had no problem-solving skills and the only place she could turn to would be back with her mother and that impoverished childhood once again. I think she then became angry at the two children not for anything they did, but for having permanent residence at "Nintendo House," while she was being forced back to the poverty of her childhood. I believe that the thought of the long fall down that socioeconomic ladder, which the two boys did not have to endure," was too painful for her and resulted in the crime that occurred in June of 1996.

Very interesting post. I have a couple of questions:

1. Regarding the rage coming from the argument - do you think Darlie decided at that point to kill Devon and Damon, i.e.: Do you think the murders were premeditated - and that Darlie made a conscious decision to kill them after that argument - OR - Did she sit and stew about it, becoming more and more angry and then snap?

2. What kind of relationship do you think Darlie had with her mother while she was growing up - AND - what kind of relationship do you think she has now?

Thanks!

 

[White Rain]

Interesting...I never really thought about this until awhile back...someone (may have been you) posted something like this, about the fight and all.
I don't know if you plan to respond on here, but if you don't then I will just ask these general questions/statements to anyone...I am basing this on your motive theory:

I couldn't go back and edit my post but on the 1st question I meant to say if Darrin did tell her to leave, then what would make her think he'd be able to keep coming up/ the mortgage money?

 

[JMO8778]

good thoughts,thx all.
I was wondering if anyone knows when school got out that yr? Was it already out, or just about to be? B/c I'm thinking maybe Darlie did this early in the summer so she wouldn't have to be 'stuck' at home (she had no car,right?) for the summer w/ 3 kids.I'm just wondering if that could be the catalyst for her doing it at that time.Did the kids go to preschool? I'm assuming the 5 yo would have started Kindergarten that fall,and the 6 yo would go on to 1st grade.

 

[JMO8778]

In Darlie's mind "most likely Darin "made or caused Darlie to do what she did.

Remember these people blame everyone else. Darin you did not make enough money to support my lifestyle, you could not get the car fixed, we were turned down for a loan all because you cannot make enough money.

So if you turn on me, I will "lie" and tell them that it is all your fault, you did it for insurance(or what ever reason) I should not be held responsible because after all it is all your fault. He again, may have even assisted her in the cover up and she has held that against him. Do what is best for little Blake and tell everyone I am innocent and support me so I can be a Mom to Blake and he does not have to come to jail to see me. I need your support or else.

You see you are the reason I took diet pills, you are the reason I was struck with three kids at home. Do you know how much work it is with three boys. I can't watch them all the time. Life would have been so much easier with just the young one and not the two oldest, I could not drive them anywhere for play dates to the park, I was stuck at home all because of you.

These people have a weird sense of manipulation and rationalization that normal people cannot understand.

In their world, they are never to blame and feel they can con anyone.

It never even entered Darlie's mind that there would be people who did not believe her and OMG hold her responsible. Their brains just don't function like a normal person and they are devoid of common sense.

I know someone like this (he's never done anything illegal) but I think that was extremely well-said and right on target.ppl like that put the responsibility of the world onto someone else's shoulders so that when something goes wrong,they can (try to anyway) blame someone else and say they weren't at fault for it.
and they can also be good at pretending to be the innocent victim of someone else.it's all manipulation.

 

[whitywendy]

good thoughts,thx all.
I was wondering if anyone knows when school got out that yr? Was it already out, or just about to be? B/c I'm thinking maybe Darlie did this early in the summer so she wouldn't have to be 'stuck' at home (she had no car,right?) for the summer w/ 3 kids.I'm just wondering if that could be the catalyst for her doing it at that time.Did the kids go to preschool? I'm assuming the 5 yo would have started Kindergarten that fall,and the 6 yo would go on to 1st grade.

I was living in Texas, not in the same area, but school was already out for the summer. So yes, what you said makes sense. I also thought this.