Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's almost been 20 years since Rowlett mom Darlie Routier was convicted of murdering her kids. I can remember seeing it on the local Dallas news all the time, and I always had mixed feelings on the conviction.
Anyway, it came up in conversation so I googled it and didn't find anything recent on her attempts to get a new trial.
I watched a court tv investigation on youtube, and I'm still on the fence. I believe in the death penalty, but I think every attempt needs to be made to prove guilt. The local media looks really one sided as I watch it back, and I have a few concerns.
(1) They found unidentified male DNA on the bloody sock in the alleyway
(2) The lead investigator pleaded the 5th and did not testify
(3) Darlie's husband had been shopping around for someone to burglarize their home, so that they could collect insurance money. It could possibly have gone way wrong.
(4) At least one jury member has come out, and said he was not given correct facts and regrets his decision
1. They did not find male DNA on the sock in the alley, only Darlie's DNA from shed skin cells. However DNA tests on the sock are ongoing.
2. The lead investigator did testify as to the facts in the case. He refused to answer questions on the surveillance tape from the grave as he was accused of a federal crime by defense attorney Mulder while testifying.
3. There is no evidence that Darlie's husband Darin was shopping around for someone to burglarize his home. Darin tendered an affidavit to the court six years after the murders and just in time for Darlie's habeas review. The only source of this scam is Darlie's step father Robbie Kee. WE might wonder why Mr. Kee said nothing when the boys were murdered and Darlie was arrested. He "suddenly remembered" two years after the murders. Darin argued vigorously with the prosecutor at trial that he had no financial problems in the weeks before the murders. The appellate court doubted the veracity of the so called insurance scam.
4. All the facts were given to the jury in Darlie's trial. This juror was coerced into claiming the prosecutor didn't show the jury photos of Darlie's terrible injuries. The trial transcripts and one other juror who has spoken out prove he is not correct, all the photos were testified to and then handed to the jury.
All of the evidence points to only one person, Darlie Routier.
They are so stupid this lady is innocent they badger her trying to make her lie but she's innocent and there has been a case where the police is to harsh on people to were they just end up lying because that's all they want to hear. That one story about the little boys were they lied because they wouldn't leave them alone for days and hours.
This case is the worse case for a death penalty case I have ever seen. Darlie used Darins lawyer she had to agree not to say anything to incriminate Darin. He was her reasonable doubt and they took that from her. They claimed the evidence or crime scene didn't match Darlies story, the reason Darin never became a suspect was because his story matched the crime scene. That would make sense if he was the one who staged it. Darlin claims he was woken by hearing a wine glass break in the kitchen. I do not believe that for one minute, the house is 3600 square feet the kitchen is at the other end of the house from where Darin was sleeping. Darin said Darlie asked him to make her a promise to find the killer. Darlie asked Kathy to do that it was written in her statement. Darin had no money yet he was able to keep up the life insurance policies on all three of them, the one for Darlie being 250,000 dollars. They claimed Darlie planted the sock but they couldn't explain why. I don't think the sock was planted at all. Darlie said when Darin came downstairs he only had his pants and glasses on, so his socks would not have been contaminated by the blood. Yet the sock in the alley was. I think Darin left the house at some point and that sock accidently fell out of his pant legs. Darin knew every detail about the crime scene, he even knew who knocked over the lamp. Darin knew exactly how many rings Darlie had. I do not know one man that could tell you how many rings their wife had. They were married for over 10 years. I think Darlie was drugged the night of the attack and that's why her stories and memories were so distorted. Darlie told Darin that night she wanted to leave him. Darlie was convicted mainly on the silly string tape and the evidence at the home. They didn't show the part where Darlie was grieving for her sons, and as far as the evidence goes. They had over 15 people in and out of that house before anyone closed off and secured the crime scene.
This case is the worse case for a death penalty case I have ever seen. Darlie used Darins lawyer she had to agree not to say anything to incriminate Darin. He was her reasonable doubt and they took that from her. They claimed the evidence or crime scene didn't match Darlies story, the reason Darin never became a suspect was because his story matched the crime scene. That would make sense if he was the one who staged it. Darlin claims he was woken by hearing a wine glass break in the kitchen. I do not believe that for one minute, the house is 3600 square feet the kitchen is at the other end of the house from where Darin was sleeping. Darin said Darlie asked him to make her a promise to find the killer. Darlie asked Kathy to do that it was written in her statement. Darin had no money yet he was able to keep up the life insurance policies on all three of them, the one for Darlie being 250,000 dollars. They claimed Darlie planted the sock but they couldn't explain why. I don't think the sock was planted at all. Darlie said when Darin came downstairs he only had his pants and glasses on, so his socks would not have been contaminated by the blood. Yet the sock in the alley was. I think Darin left the house at some point and that sock accidently fell out of his pant legs. Darin knew every detail about the crime scene, he even knew who knocked over the lamp. Darin knew exactly how many rings Darlie had. I do not know one man that could tell you how many rings their wife had. They were married for over 10 years. I think Darlie was drugged the night of the attack and that's why her stories and memories were so distorted. Darlie told Darin that night she wanted to leave him. Darlie was convicted mainly on the silly string tape and the evidence at the home. They didn't show the part where Darlie was grieving for her sons, and as far as the evidence goes. They had over 15 people in and out of that house before anyone closed off and secured the crime scene.
Quote:
This case is the worse case for a death penalty case I have ever seen. Darlie used Darins lawyer she had to agree not to say anything to incriminate Darin. He was her reasonable doubt and they took that from her.
No that's not what happened at all. Darlie herself has stated again and again and again that Darin was not the intruder. You need to read all the trial transcripts and appeals and stop watching Darlie fan club videos that distort everything. I believe I talked to you about this on Youtube, you have a lot of information incorrect.
Quote:
They claimed the evidence or crime scene didn't match Darlies story, the reason Darin never became a suspect was because his story matched the crime scene. That would make sense if he was the one who staged it
The evidence found did not match the story Darlie told that night, that's correct. In fact, Darin was Patterson's first suspect, he was stripped of his clothes, his body examined and photographed and he was interviewed right there, in the hospital. Darin was cleared as a suspect yes because his statements as to his movements that night remained consistent unlike Darlie.
Quote:
Darlin claims he was woken by hearing a wine glass break in the kitchen. I do not believe that for one minute, the house is 3600 square feet the kitchen is at the other end of the house from where Darin was sleeping. Darin said Darlie asked him to make her a promise to find the killer. Darlie asked Kathy to do that it was written in her statement. Darin had no money yet he was able to keep up the life insurance policies on all three of them, the one for Darlie being
None of this even makes sense and has nothing to do with the trial. Yes Darin awoke when he heard glass break, then Darlie's screaming. As for promises to find the killer means nothing a court of law.
Quote:
They claimed Darlie planted the sock but they couldn't explain why. I don't think the sock was planted at all. Darlie said when Darin came downstairs he only had his pants and glasses on, so his socks would not have been contaminated by the blood. Yet the sock in the alley was. I think Darin left the house at some point and that sock accidently fell out of his pant legs. Darin knew every detail about the crime scene, he even knew who knocked over the lamp. Darin knew exactly how many rings Darlie had. I do not know one man that could tell you how many rings their wife ha
Yes Darlie planted the sock, it had her DNA in the toe, not Darin's. You are really off base with this case. The sock was an old sock that was used as a rag cleaning or washing the car. Both Darin and Darlie testified it was in the rag bin. the sock contained Darlie's DNA in the toe from shed skin cells and five stains of the boys blood, Three stains were Devon's blood and two stains were Damon's blood. Who cares if Darin knew or didn't know about Darlie's rings? He paid for them all so I'm quite sure he knew what she was buying and what does that have to do with Darlie murdered her children. There was no robbery or burglary.
Quote:
I think Darlie was drugged the night of the attack and that's why her stories and memories were so distorted. Darlie told Darin that night she wanted to leave him. Darlie was convicted mainly on the silly string tape and the evidence at the home. They didn't show the part where Darlie was grieving for her sons, and as far as the evidence goes. They had over 15 people in and out of that house before anyone closed off and secured the crime scene.
Darlie was not drugged the night of the attack, according to her tox screen from the hospital the only drugs she was taking were amphetamines, diet pills. Darlie was convicted on the evidence that proves she is the killer, not the silly string tape, the blood evidence so clearly proves she committed the murders. Her son's cast-off blood, as it flew from the knife when she removed it from their bodies, and landed on the shoulders of her nightgown. They most certainly did not have over 15 people in and out before they closed off and secured the CS.
Please educate yourself by reading the trial transcripts and the appeals documents. I'm not trying to mean or harsh but if you are basing your support of Darlie on what you have posted here then you know pretty much nothing about Darlies' case yet you seem pretty sure she's innocent and her husband to blame. Darin was cleared of this crime years ago.
Darlie murdered those boys, all the evidence points to her, not her husband. That's why she was arrested and charged. Darin is a nobody. For people to actually believe he could have someone directed this investigation off himself and onto Darlie is ludicrous.
Maybe she was framed? Maybe her husband had a lover and they planned itm or maybe she was cheating on her husband and her and her lover planned something....
The window in the door was broken from the inside. Obviously and literally, it was an inside job. Darlie claimed it was intruder, and that alone sufficed to remove any reasonable doubt.
(1) They found unidentified male DNA on the bloody sock in the alleyway All of the DNA testing has shown NO unknown DNA
(2) The lead investigator pleaded the 5th and did not testify He only pled the 5th on the question of recording at the grave
(3) Darlie's husband had been shopping around for someone to burglarize their home, so that they could collect insurance money. It could possibly have gone way wrong. The shopping for a burglar was a story made up by her mother after the trial
(4) At least one jury member has come out, and said he was not given correct facts and regrets his decision That juror said he didn't see pictures that all the other jurors said they did see
Latest DNA results from June 2015 (that her mother had sealed - she's gotta keep the $ coming in) show no unknown DNA again. Only Darlie since Darlie is the one that slaughtered her sons.
The window in the door was broken from the inside. Obviously and literally, it was an inside job. Darlie claimed it was intruder, and that alone sufficed to remove any reasonable doubt.
The knife used to cut the screen from inside was found in her butcher block. Also the screen was just cut, it wasn't widened to allow access and the dust on the sill undisturbed. Also the vacuum was laid over, not knocked over. The wine glass was broken across the kitchen floor yet not a scratch on her feet. Luminol proved that the sink had been cleaned up, tho there was still blood around it. That's one heck of an OCD intruder to clean up, spare the adult and not take the gaudy jewelry that was by the sink. She's so guilty I can't find her even slightly innocent.
I 150% think she deserves a new trial. I'm still undecided on whether or not she actually did it. But, it's clear the entire trial was one-sided. Multiple investigators and crime scene specialist fully believe she did not do it based on physical evidence but....they were never called to testify....a picture was painted of her and that's what was held on to throughout the trial. I'm not saying she's totally innocent, I don't know, but there's a huge part of me that feels like she is. I watch a loooooooot of crime shows (like most of yall) and you always "know" who did it while watching the show or reading about the crime, I didn't feel that with this one. Not once. It's hard to believe that someone would just walk in and kill two boys and try to kill the women but.....they talk a lot about how much money they had and all the jewelry they had...if someone broke in to rob them and saw people and panicked? very likely to be an intruder....idk just my thoughts. I feel she at least deserves a new trial.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The knife
