Darlie Routier

[Desert Fox]

I know it has been a while but this should also be linked to
http://injusticeanywhereforum.org/do...le.php?id=1864

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Desert Fox

I know it has been a while but this should also be linked to
http://injusticeanywhereforum.org/do...le.php?id=1864

DF, link doesn't work for some reason.
This might work better
http://injusticeanywhereforum.org/vi...p?f=197&t=1638

[Desert Fox]

I clink on it and it opens the PDF for the DNA tests?

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Desert Fox

I clink on it and it opens the PDF for the DNA tests?

Ok maybe NZ can't get it.
DF, out of curiosity, what do you think of the case?
Charlie Wilkes cogently argues she is guilty, so I regarded that as a difficult hurdle for innocence, but I see she is an IA promoted case, which suggests she should be innocent.

[Desert Fox]

Originally Posted by Samson

Ok maybe NZ can't get it.
DF, out of curiosity, what do you think of the case?
Charlie Wilkes cogently argues she is guilty, so I regarded that as a difficult hurdle for innocence, but I see she is an IA promoted case, which suggests she should be innocent.

I do not want her to be guilty but I don't see any way that it is someone else. If the DNA tests had shown somebody else, especially the railroad murder, would have of course changed things.

I do think there is/was something wrong in her head. I would likely to see her somehow get off death row.

Edit: The PDF report is the DNA report on various items all showed that she was almost certainly the contributor and there are some minor contribution which were consistent with her husband.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Desert Fox

I do not want her to be guilty but I don't see any way that it is someone else. If the DNA tests had shown somebody else, especially the railroad murder, would have of course changed things.

I do think there is/was something wrong in her head. I would likely to see her somehow get off death row.

Edit: The PDF report is the DNA report on various items all showed that she was almost certainly the contributor and there are some minor contribution which were consistent with her husband.

Nobody should be on death row, least of all those that killed their own children. But the case seems open and shut. Jeremy Bamber deserves a thread here, in a case where it is possible he is in jail for a crime perpetrated by his sister. Her children were shot dead.

[Sinsaint]

Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater

Start here. There is lots of info about the crime all over the internet.

Darlieroutierfactandfiction.com

I'd rather not. The woman who runs the site has a tendency to state false or incorrect information as fact. In one of her "myths" she stated Darlie never got towels for specifically Devon. There is photographic evidence that there was a towel that came from the Routier home laying right beside Devon's body (later photographed on the table in the living room).

She then changed the site to state that while there was a towel there it was left there by a paramedic, Kolbe. She states that Kolbe testified he left a rag behind. What she doesn't tell her readers is that he also testified that when he entered the home he went straight to Devon, determined he was already dead, provided no first aid and then moved to Damon. He also testified he did leave a "rag" behind. It was a 3x3 sterile gauze pad that he had used on Darlie and left it on the porch. I pointed out to her that she was again misleading her readers and she refused to correct it. To my knowledge she still hasn't.

I sent her a detailed list describing how each and every one of her myths is factually incorrect (citing the trial transcripts and/or photos). Clearly she isn't concerned about making sure her readers get accurate information.

[Sinsaint]

DP.

[Sinsaint]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

I think she did it, but I leave room for a sliver of doubt, and I would welcome real evidence pointing to an alternative. So far I have heard a lot of argumentation, some of it passionate, but I have not seen any good evidence pointing away from Routier.

For me, the most significant incriminating fact is the difference between Routier's injuries vs. those of the kids. That doesn't fit an intruder scenario, and neither does anything else about that crime scene.

The bloody sock... I think she must have planted it before she injured herself and made the call.

The main arguments for Routier's innocence seem to be her alleged good character and the fact that she took good care of the kids. I have looked over quite a few cases of maternal filicide, and I am not convinced. Check out Suzanna Simpson for purposes of comparison.

The difference between her wounds and the boys' wounds is that Darlie was an adult with the ability to better defend herself vs. two small boys with a lesser ability. Damon was attacked from behind which means he couldn't put up any defense.

I'll get to the sock later.

[Sinsaint]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

This is an interesting post, because it represents the polar opposite of how I look at a criminal case.

I always start by asking myself, "what happened here? What kind of crime was this?"

This one had to be one of two crimes:

- A deranged, random intruder.

- Maternal filicide.

I think it was more likely the latter, because the kids had multiple stab wounds in their chest and abdomen, whereas Routier had a non-fatal stab wound in her neck. It sounds like a self-inflicted wound to create a cover story, c.f. Michelle Kehoe or Diane Downs.

And, as you say, Routier's story is problematic. She says she slept through this. That is hard to believe.

BUT, where was Tommy Lynn Sells when the Routier murders went down? The basic scenario, as described by Routier, is not without precedent.

I can't say for sure with Routier. I think she probably did it.

Based on the evidence at trial Darlie was attacked first. She was most likely unconscious when the boys were attacked, not sleeping.

[Sinsaint]

Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater

The investigation showed the screen had most likely been cut with a knife from the butcher block set in the kitchen and a layer of dust on the inside windowsill had been undisturbed.

Hamilton testified he arrived on the scene around 8:30 a.m. and began dusting, starting with the window including the window sill. Then he worked his way from there into the house. Linch testified he arrived a few hours later that day. He testified to seeing the "fine layer of dust" on the window sill. The obvious question is how did he see this fine layer of dust a few hours after it had been dusted for fingerprints.

Regarding the screen fiber, Hamilton (who dusted the window first) moved from there dusting along the way. Per his testimony he suddenly could not remember what, if anything, he had dusted in the kitchen but didn't think he dusted the knives in the butcher block. Linch later testified when he analyzed the knives only two knife handles in the butcher block had been dusted.

He has since signed an affidavit that when he received the butcher block and knives all the knives (handles and blades) had already been dusted. If there were no possible issues with contamination why did the prosecution go to such a great effort to hide the fact Hamilton dusted the knives at the scene?

Quote:

Luminol discovered blood cleanup on the counter surface all around the sink, as well as cleaned up drips of blood on the floor in front of the sink where someone apparently stood in one place for some time dripping blood. There was no appreciable amount of blood found on the couch, where Darlie claimed to have been when the intruder inflicted her injuries. Detectives theorized Darlie inflicted her wounds to herself while standing in front of the kitchen sink. There was one child's handprint in blood on that couch, but it had been cleaned up and was discovered with Luminol.

Not quite. Luminol reacted to something on the countertop. There was no follow-up test done to determine if what was reacted to was blood. For all we know the luminol reacted to bleach which is a very common cleaner used in kitchens. If you look at what the prosecution claimed is cleaned up blood and bloody footprints on the floor you will see (via photos from prior to luminol testing) that these blood drops and footprints were already visible.

Case in point... There is a picture of a very uncleaned, blood footprint with a ruler sitting beside no less. Later there is another picture of this same exact footprint with luminol all over it. It was visible before they dumped luminol all over it but everyone thinks "gee, if it's got luminol all over it they must not have been able to see it before." Give me a break. Nothing in the kitchen was cleaned up and that's obvious just by looking at the pictures. There was no blood found on any of the cleaning supplies under the sink and the sponge on the sink was dry.

The supposedly "cleaned up" handprint of Damon on the couch has two problems. One, we already know the crime scene crew has some issues with determining if blood has been cleaned up. Two, there would be no motive for Darlie to clean it because it wasn't incriminating to begin with. If you believe Darlie did clean that print off the couch, what reason do you think she could have had for wiping it up? Late spring cleaning?

As for no appreciable blood being found on the couch, her blood was found on the pillow and blanket she was laying on. Not only was it on the pillowcase, it had soaked through to the pillow underneath which means the source of that blood was resting on that pillow for a considerable amount of time. If you look at her shirt you can also see that her blood had pooled to the left side of her shirt and then ran down her back which indicates she was laying on her left side at some point. Not a single person on the scene testified to seeing Darlie laying down and her shirt was cut off of her prior to her being put on the gurney. If the prosecution's theory is correct that she stood at the sink and cut herself she would have need to do a back bend while standing there as well. I'm fairly certain we can all agree she probably wasn't working on her gymnastics skills while she was cutting herself.

Quote:

Darlie's wounds were of a completely different severity than those of her sons, in the opinion of the medical examiner who performed Devon's autopsy and also examined Darlie.

Darlie is an adult who had a far better ability to defend herself. The boys were far smaller and had a lesser ability to do so. Obviously their injuries would be more severe.

Quote:

The one son was already dead at the time the husband reached him, the other barely alive at all, with just a hint of a pulse. When the police arrived, they instructed Darlie to put pressure on the wound of the one barely alive son, She ignored the request.

This information came from officer Waddell. He can be heard on the 911 call telling Darlie to "sit down... lay down..." What you will never hear him telling Darlie to do on that 911 call is to help her son in any way. Officer Waddell's initial report did not mention anything about Darlie refusing to help her children or any other oddities in her behavior. After he was told Darlie was the suspect he amended his report. He suddenly remembered all these details that never came up in his initial report. It should be noted, officer Waddell has been on countless TV shows claiming Darlie stabbed the boys with so much force the knife tip went through and damaged the cement floor underneath. This obviously isn't true as the autopsy reports clearly state neither boy had any stab wounds that went the entire way through their bodies.

Quote:

It seems she had ample time to clean up and stage the scene. I am sure this was part of it. Thank god it didn't succeed in getting her off.

Nope. The coroner initially stated Damon could have lived much longer than five minutes. The prosecution knew this would be a huge problem for them as the 911 call lasted almost six minutes and the paramedics testified he died within a minute of them entering the house, meaning there would have been zero minutes for Darlie to do all the cleaning and staging she supposedly did. So, the coroner changed that time to nine minutes. That gave her a little over two minutes to stage everything, including the sock, and inflicting all her injuries. She never would have had the time to do it all.

Quote:

Here are a few more tidbits:

"They" vs "he":
In the 911 call, Darlie said, "They came in and..."
By the time detectives arrived, this had become "He...," as she changed her story to a single attacker.

The supposed exit of the intruder was through the utility room and through the garage, yet there were no lights on and it was said to be a type of obstacle course to get through there, an unlikely means for escape without leaving bloody evidence. There was no blood in the garage nor on the fence an intruder would have had to have passed to escape that way. Also no blood on the difficult-to-open gate through which an intruder would have exited. Flower beds between the garage and the gate were undisturbed. The garage door was closed and locked from the inside.

Bloody bare footprints from the kitchen heading into the family room belong to one set of feet which matched Darlie's. There were no bloody prints leading to the utility room and none in the utility room or the garage.

They vs. he? She running around frantically on adrenaline and you're going to critique her dialect? That's about as bad as noting that she brought up her own injuries before mentioning her children were injured as well... "They just stabbed me and my children." Judge Judy would be horrified. It's my children and I. She can also be heard begging the dispatcher to tell them to hurry because her "babies are dying" and then pleading with Damon (the boy she refused to help) numerous times to "hang on baby... hang on honey..." I can total see how Waddell, who would have been standing right there listening to her thought she was unconcerned about her children.

The cops who helped test those lights couldn't get them to turn on until they got to the hot tub which is further into the yard than the door. And there was no obstacle course out there. There were two or three toys, not near the window and it was a straight shot from the window to the gate. There wouldn't have been any need to run through the mulch. The gate was never tested for blood until June 11th which was a few days after a heavy rainstorm and it was only a visual inspection. "Nope, no blood here. What's next?"

Why would you expect to find an intruder's bloody footprints leading to the utility room or in the garage? Darlie was attacked on the couch. There would have been no blood of her's on the floor for him to walk through. Devon never moved from where he was attacked and it would have taken a considerable amount of time for enough blood to get onto the carpet for him to walk through. Damon was attacked where the two couches meet. He didn't move to the entryway until later, after any intruder would have been gone. There wouldn't have been any blood to walk through ergo no reason to think the absence of any bloody footprints means anything.

[Sinsaint]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

I didn't know anything about this case beforehand; after reviewing the information presented in this thread pro and con, were I on the jury I would vote to convict. The undisturbed layer of dust on the windowsill is persuasive to me; an intruder, if he existed, would have to disturb that dust while entering. The sock was probably planted before the crime, and the bloody footprints are pretty damning.

Hamilton testified he arrived at the house a little before 9:00 a.m. and began dusting for prints soon after, starting with the window. Linch testified he arrived around 12:30 p.m. that day and observed a "fine layer of dust" on the windowsill. I guess Hamilton put the dust back on the windowsill once he was finished.

[Desert Fox]

If she is innocent, it is a strange case, but still one of the major problems with the police and prosecution generally is that they don't examine evidence with an open mind but instead look to prove guilt.

[Sinsaint]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

Both have precedents (cf. Suzanna Simpson and Tommy Lynn Sells), both are rare, and this had to be one or the other.

Above you note that the nature and limited extent of Routier's injuries could be explained if she defended herself. She deprived herself of this explanation with her statements, however, presumably because her husband was upstairs at the time of the murders, so she could have called out for help.

So, if this was someone like Tommy Lynn Sells (cf. Julie Rea Harper, who is undoubtedly innocent) we have to contemplate a scenario where the intruder forced his way in, found a woman and two children sleeping, stabbed both children repeatedly in the chest and abdomen without waking up the woman (or the man who was sleeping upstairs), and then stabbed the sleeping woman once in the neck before running off.

I'm not buying it. It is implausible on the face of it, and it doesn't appear to match the blood evidence at the crime scene. At the same time, I can't say it's impossible or that the blood evidence is infallible.

Why are you assuming the attacker didn't cover her mouth before he started attacking her? Sells covered the mouth of his victim before he attacked her so she wouldn't be heard screaming. You are also assuming the children were attacked first then Darlie. Testimony at trial proves this assumption is incorrect. First, Bevel testified that Darlie had to have already been bleeding when Devon was attacked. Second, the coroner testified Damon lived no longer than nine minutes after his attack (initially five minutes). If she were attacked last then Damon would have been dead by the time paramedics arrived.

Factoring these two facts into the equation the most plausible theory that fits with the physical evidence is that Darlie was attacked first. Her mouth was most likely covered as the intruder would not have wanted her to scream out and wake up the boys on the floor or her husband who was asleep upstairs. During the struggle a lampshade and flower vase got knocked over which would have woken up the boys. At this point he had already cut Darlie's neck, she had passed out and he assumed she was dead.

Now he has one or both boys awake who might start screaming and could possibly identify him. With Darlie's blood still on the blade he attacks Devon. Darlie is laying on her left side, blood pooling to her left and down her back as Devon is attacked. Cast-off of Darlie's blood mixed with Devon's lands on her back. Damon sees his brother being attacked and goes to his mother thinking she can protect him (if Darlie were the attacker he would have ran toward the stairs to get his father, not further into the room where he would have been cornered). The intruder stabbed Damon in the back while he was standing near Darlie's feet. He then walked away thinking all three were dead or dying. Darlie woke up (came to) as the intruder was walking away through the kitchen. She walked after him. From then on is documented in the 911 call.

The prosecution's theory has her running around stabbing herself, stabbing her children, cleaning up blood off the floor, cleaning blood off a couch, knocking things over, taking a sock 75 yards down the alley, running a vacuum cleaner, breaking glass, putting some of that glass in an ice bucket for no apparent, reason, cleaning the sink and counter tops, putting wet rags all over the place, doing a back bend at some point... It becomes a bit too much to believe at some point.

[Sinsaint]

Originally Posted by Desert Fox

If she is innocent, it is a strange case, but still one of the major problems with the police and prosecution generally is that they don't examine evidence with an open mind but instead look to prove guilt.

"There was a lack of evidence connecting a suspect to this. All we had was a scene and victims and therefore one of the victims became the suspect. We didn't start looking at the mother until, uh, twenty thirty minutes in when I told them, I said 'something's wrong with this scene.'"

-James Cron

The Investigators - A mother on death row
TruTv original air date - April 29th, 2004

[Desert Fox]

If the prosecution used junk science in any way to convict her, Texas does have a junk science statute which can be used to get a new trial.

[Sinsaint]

Originally Posted by Desert Fox

I take almost no stock in how emotional somebody appears to be.
I hate when that is used as evidence, I admit.
Edit: That is actually for either side just like I take no stock in lie detectors for either side.

Also, nurse handwriting is not much better than doctors

I agree. Judging someone based on the emotion they display isn't a good indication of anything. The issue here is why the nurses wrote that she was tearful, sad, frightened but then testified that she wasn't. It's almost as if their testimony had been coach at a mock trial to make Darlie look as bad as possible.

[Sinsaint]

Originally Posted by Desert Fox

My whole issue is if we can reasonably (not possibly) get someone else into the house and committing the crime.

Look, I consider if she is guilty that there was something mentally wrong with her and that should be a reasonable argument for not executing her. I think it is probable that she also tried to commit suicide at the same time.

I am anti Death Penalty but would not feel bad if or when Charles Ng is executed. I would feel that her execution is different.

Sammie Luckus Cook, Jr.

The first witness was Virginia Smith. That was not her true name, but she testified that it was the name which she wanted to go by for this trial. At the time of the offense, Virginia Smith lived in an apartment complex in Dallas. Virginia Smith testified that April 13, 2000, was a day that she will never forget. She got to her apartment about 5:30 p.m., changed clothes, and went to check the mail. When she got back to the apartment, she opened the patio door and started cleaning the kitchen. While she was putting up the dishes, she heard a noise from the patio. Then she saw a man standing in her living room. She made a positive identification of appellant as the man who came into her apartment and assaulted her.

Virginia Smith said that she asked appellant what he wanted and that he kept telling her to “shut up.” Virginia Smith testified that appellant grabbed her by her arm and pulled her into her bedroom. Then he took her into the bathroom. Appellant closed the bathroom door, and Virginia Smith could hear him in the kitchen going through the drawers. When he came back to the bathroom, appellant had Virginia Smith's purse and a knife. He told her to give him all the money that she had. Virginia Smith said that appellant had the only sharp knife which she had in the apartment. After he took all the money from her purse, appellant told Virginia Smith to get undressed. Virginia Smith started crying, and appellant poked her with the knife until she complied with his demand. Virginia Smith identified the pictures which showed the way she looked when the police came to her apartment later that night....

Proof at Punishment Phase

Six other victims of aggravated sexual assaults testified at the punishment phase of trial. There was DNA evidence from each of those assaults which matched the DNA evidence from appellant.   These witnesses will be identified by the pseudonyms which they used during trial or by initials.

“Amy Harrison” testified about events on February 15, 1995, when she was subjected to two acts of aggravated sexual assault by an unknown man. The police took her to Parkland Hospital for the rape kit examination.

"Mary Smith” testified about events on December 18, 1995, when she was subjected to an aggravated sexual assault by an unknown man. The police took her to Parkland Hospital for the rape kit examination.  

M.C.R. testified through an interpreter about the events on March 28, 1996, when she was subjected to an aggravated sexual assault by an unknown intruder (in the presence of her five-year-old daughter). The police took her to the hospital for an examination.  

“Joanna Smith” testified about events on May 7, 1996, when she was subjected to a series of aggravated sexual assaults by an unknown intruder. The police took her to Parkland Hospital for the rape kit examination.

 “Beth Smith” testified about the events on May 19, 1996, when she was subjected to a series of aggravated sexual assaults by an unknown intruder. The police took her to the hospital for a rape kit examination.

“Mary Becker” testified about the events on May 6, 2000.   These events occurred 23 days after the offense for which appellant was convicted.   After he committed several acts of aggravated sexual assault, appellant fell asleep in Mary Becker's apartment. Appellant was arrested after she was able to escape and call the police. The police took her to the hospital for the rape kit examination. The police detective put appellant's photograph into the photographic lineup which he showed to Virginia Smith.



During the mid-to-late '90s, police were convinced that not one, but several, serial rapists were terrorizing northeast Dallas. Ultimately, a 34-year-old man named Ollie Ray Diles, who had been labeled "The Box-Cutter Rapist" after victims described the weapon used to subdue them, was caught in 1997, convicted for three sexual attacks and given three life sentences. Next to be apprehended was Sammie Luckus Cook Jr., 31, who was linked by DNA evidence to as many as 15 rapes dating to 1995.

The litany of details provided by Cook's victims was numbing: Their assailant, each reported, had worn a bandanna over his face and either gloves or socks on his hands to prevent leaving any fingerprints. Purse straps, belts or electrical cords were used to bind their hands and feet, and they were threatened with a knife or scissors. In one case, a woman told of coming out of her bathroom to find a man holding a kitchen fork to the throat of her 6-year-old daughter. The mother managed to grab the youngster but was eventually raped as the terrified child looked on. Another had been eight months pregnant at the time of her attack.

[Desert Fox]

If I missed it early, sorry, but I assume one of your arguments is that the murdered wore socks over his hands as cheap gloves? It is not completely unreasonable.

[Sinsaint]

Originally Posted by spooky24

As always websleuths has an enormous amount of material on this case. The autopsy photo of one of the boys showed someone had held him on his stomach and drove a knife six times(I think it's hard to see) all the way through him. John Douglass would call this overkill and I agree.

Whatever happened it was an 'emotionally powered act of violence as JD would say) . How that fits in I have no clue.

Nope. Read the autopsy report. None of the wounds on either boy went the entire way through the body.

[Sinsaint]

Originally Posted by Desert Fox

If I missed it early, sorry, but I assume one of your arguments is that the murdered wore socks over his hands as cheap gloves? It is not completely unreasonable.

It does explain why the sock was found in the alley. And as you can see, at least one guy was was running around the Dallas area at the time using knives he found in the victims' homes and covering his hands with socks. Check out the timeline for his rapes. Suddenly stopped as of May when he was on a monthly cycle. He wasn't arrested until November. Why did he suddenly stop?

[Sinsaint]

Originally Posted by JTF

Darlie's mythical home invader story is not quite as ridiculous as Jeffrey MacDonald's hippie intruder story, but it is in the same zip code. The evidence is circumstantial, but clearly points to one perp and one perp only. The key piece of evidence is the blood spatter found on her night shirt. The source of the blood was her butchered son and was cast-off from the knife to her clothing. Defense expert Terry Laber was never able to explain this inculpatory evidentiary item. When analyzing this case, it's important to KISS.

Let's see... Terry Labor and Barton Epstein both signed affidavits stating that after their testing, experiments and crime scene analysis it was their conclusion that Darlie's version matched the evidence and they could refute Bevel's findings. They also stated this information was told to Mulder via phone and they never received a call back from him after that conversation. Mulder, in later interviews, said it was his opinion that he could refute Bevel's findings on cross and didn't need a Labor or Epstein. So your assertion that Labor was "never able to explain" anything is factually incorrect.

Tom Bevel testified to a lot of things such as it was his opinion that if an intruder left through the window he would have expected to find blood on the screen because the attacker would have had a significant amount of blood on them. This got me thinking. Maybe I should look up other cases of murder involving a knife just to see how much blood might end up on a perpetrator.

Dr. Schwartz went to trial for hiring a second party to murder his ex-partner Dr. Stidham. The second party stabbed the victim no less than fifteen times then stole his car but no blood was found in it. The prosecution's expert blood spatter witness in that case, Tom Bevel, testified he was not surprised by the fact no blood was found in the car. According to him perpetrators who use knives typically don't get much, if any, blood on them because the blood will fly outward off the end of the knife tip as it is being swung.

I have reviewed the education, qualifications and experience of both experts and they seem remarkable similar so I'm not sure which expert I should believe.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by David Sugar

I am not as certain of Routier's innocence as I am about some others, like Amanda Knox, Kirstin Lobato, Russ Faria but I believe Routier is more likely innocent than guilty. I estimate about a 85-90% chance of innocence.

There are two facts which strongly lead me toward innocence. One is her injuries. I do not believe many people can stab themselves in the neck, barely missing a major artery, nor do I see how someone can inflict injuries that cause so much bruising on her arms. The other reason is that at least one of her sons was still alive when she made the 911 phone call. If she wanted her sons dead, why call 911 before they are dead? Wouldn't she be concerned that her sons will tell the police what happened?

There are other problems with Routier being guilty---the sock found a block away---there is no explanation of how she could have planted that given the time constraints...there is also some (though not much) evidence of an intruder---this includes an unidentified bloody finger print that does not match anyone in the house---and a screen that was cut.

Needless to say, this does not even come close to proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

David

Individuals in the grip of rage or mental health issues are well capable of carrying out the most brutal types of attacks on themselves that you can imagine, and the injuries suffered in this example don't even get close to what I've seen myself - an individual that stabbed themselves multiple times and only stopped when the knife they were using broke off at the hilt and was embedded in their chest actually survived, and this wasn't an individual on drugs either - one of those cases I saw was somebody that damn near succeeded in cutting their own head off, in public, in front of witnesses.

On a different note, I once observed an individual take a running jump through a plate glass window that didn't receive much more than scratches, and I thought for sure that was going to be a fatal - the jumper then took a zombie sized bite out of the intended victim's chest before they then jumped through the same window they entered and took off for parts unknown.

In short, this instance doesn't sound at all out of the question for self inflicted wounds.

[Desert Fox]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Individuals in the grip of rage or mental health issues are well capable of carrying out the most brutal types of attacks on themselves that you can imagine, and the injuries suffered in this example don't even get close to what I've seen myself - an individual that stabbed themselves multiple times and only stopped when the knife they were using broke off at the hilt and was embedded in their chest actually survived, and this wasn't an individual on drugs either - one of those cases I saw was somebody that damn near succeeded in cutting their own head off, in public, in front of witnesses.

On a different note, I once observed an individual take a running jump through a plate glass window that didn't receive much more than scratches, and I thought for sure that was going to be a fatal - the jumper then took a zombie sized bite out of the intended victim's chest before they then jumped through the same window they entered and took off for parts unknown.

In short, this instance doesn't sound at all out of the question for self inflicted wounds.

If she can do all that, doesn't that mean she has mental health issues and should not get the death penalty?

[Sinsaint]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

I have to agree that the bloody sock strikes me as the biggest anomaly in the whole case. It doesn't seem to fit perfectly neatly into any scenario. It's possible Routier planted it to throw police of the scent, but it seems like an odd thing to do under the circumstances (which, admittedly, are way out of the ordinary already so who knows what passes for logic in such situations). On the other hand, if it were placed by an outside intruder, what sequence of events would result in its placement? Did the intruder take it as a souvenir and then drop it during his escape? Did it inadvertently stick to him and fall off at some point? As far as I can see, Routier planting the sock makes as much sense as any other scenario. And considering what I believe is the overwhelming weight of the other evidence against her, I don't see the sock as a particularly significant impediment to the conclusion she did it. (This would, of course, change if it were somehow proved that it was impossible for her to place the sock -- which thus far does not seem to be the case.)

The sock isn't simply an anomaly. It would have been impossible for Darlie to plant. The sock had Devon and Damon's blood on it and none of Darlie's. Bevel testified Darlie had to have been actively bleeding when Devon was attacked. We also know Damon couldn't have lived more than nine minutes after his attack according to the coroner. Her call to 911 lasted five minutes 38 seconds. A paramedic testified Damon died approximately one minute after he arrived which can be heard at the end of the call.

That leaves Darlie with roughly two and half minutes to take the sock 150 yards round trip without getting any of her blood on it and without depositing any of her blood anywhere on that trip, clean the sink and counter, clean the kitchen floor, run the vacuum through the kitchen, wipe a bloody handprint off the couch, put her own blood on a pillow and blanket, place a bunch of wet rags in the living room and hallway, break a wine glass on the floor then pick up a few pieces (without getting blood on them) and place them in an ice bucket and on the wine rack table top.

It's far more plausible that an intruder had it on his hand during the attack and simply discarded it as he fled down the alley. If the theory is she planted the sock why didn't she weave the intruder using a sock into her story? I doubt she would go to all that effort of planting it and then forget all about it.

[Sinsaint]

Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater

I agree it seems like a plant.

The other thing is there is often a piece of evidence which does not seemingly belong in the puzzle. I believe many investigators will say it is not unusual to have something which doesn't necessarily fit the rest of the picture.

So the sock should be ignored because the prosecution can't make it fit?

[Sinsaint]

Originally Posted by JTF

Terry Laber is a highly respected blood spatter expert and his work on the Jeffrey MacDonald case was top notch.

The fact that he could not present a tangible rebuttal to Bevel's testimony speaks to the credibility of Bevel's blood spatter analysis.

Lol... Not exactly:

Laber also disagrees with the state’s claim that Routier deliberately broke a wine glass to bolster her claim of a struggle.

“The wine glass was not thrown on the floor,” said Laber, adding that he and Epstein broke “a number of those” when conducting tests. “It had to have been broken by being knocked out of the rack and hitting something in the air before it hit the floor. There were glass shards that landed in an ice bucket on top of the table. (The shards) couldn’t have gotten that high from the glass hitting the floor.”

Laber said that he and Epstein have testified in a number of trials opposite Bevel, and that a dominant theme for Bevel is that a crime scene was “staged.”

“He’s always got this staging of the crime scene. And there have been all these cases where he’s been proven wrong,” Laber said. “All these implications add up that should never have been made, and I don’t know why people would make them unless they want to win the case. They want to get a conviction.”

And this statement was made prior to the Camm case.

[Sinsaint]

Originally Posted by JTF

DF: Ya lost me when you advocate for THE DEVILS KNOT as reliable source material for that case. To be frank, that book is a mess. It is filled with assumptions, distortions, half-truths, and falsehoods. In regards to the Routier case, her camp can run, but they can't hide from the blood spatter evidence. It's important to note that the DNA tests in the Routier case were the most extensive in Texas state history. The results of this extensive testing? Not a single DNA exemplar was found to be exculpatory. Not one.

But there is a DNA sample that came back inconclusive.

"Inconclusive Results
Results may be interpreted as inconclusive for several reasons. These include situations where no results or only partial results are obtained from the sample due to the limited amount of suitable human DNA or where results are obtained from an unknown crime scene sample but there are no samples from known individuals available for comparison. In the latter case, the results would be suitable for comparison once an appropriate sample for comparison is tested."

Then there's Kevin Fox. He was accused of murdering his daughter. There was an inconclusive DNA sample on her body. Zellner demanded a more sensative test be run on it and as we all know the real killer was caught.

[Desert Fox]

I note you argue that the sink blood evidence is luminol only evidence. . . .Do you have any sources for that? I thought there was visible blood in and around the sink. Even if her DNA was then found, it was a sink she worked around so one would expect her DNA to be found.

[Sinsaint]

Originally Posted by Desert Fox

I note you argue that the sink blood evidence is luminol only evidence. . . .Do you have any sources for that? I thought there was visible blood in and around the sink. Even if her DNA was then found, it was a sink she worked around so one would expect her DNA to be found.

I apologize. I assumed everyone was aware of the sink issue. Luminol was used on the countertop surrounding the sink basin. The luminol reacted but no further testing was done to determine if it was blood or some other substance such as bleach. The sink basin itself was not tested with luminol. I always just refer to it as the sink meaning the entire sink area including the surrounding countertop area. There was diluted blood that was visible with the naked eye in the sink basin. That was tested and determined to be Darlie, Devon and Damon's blood. This is to be expected as Darlie said she was running back and forth getting wet rags for the boys. The rags can be seen throughout the living room and hallway in various evidence photos.

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post a link yet. I tried earlier but the system said I wasn't allowed.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Sinsaint

I apologize. I assumed everyone was aware of the sink issue. Luminol was used on the countertop surrounding the sink basin. The luminol reacted but no further testing was done to determine if it was blood or some other substance such as bleach. The sink basin itself was not tested with luminol. I always just refer to it as the sink meaning the entire sink area including the surrounding countertop area. There was diluted blood that was visible with the naked eye in the sink basin. That was tested and determined to be Darlie, Devon and Damon's blood. This is to be expected as Darlie said she was running back and forth getting wet rags for the boys. The rags can be seen throughout the living room and hallway in various evidence photos.

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post a link yet. I tried earlier but the system said I wasn't allowed.

Over 15 posts I think so link away.

What is the key data point that precludes Darlie as offender?

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Desert Fox

If she can do all that, doesn't that mean she has mental health issues and should not get the death penalty?

I'm really not qualified to make that call, especially from a distance.

The individual that broke the knife off in their own chest had been under treatment for manic depression and had just experienced an extreme trauma in their family and had stop taking their meds - pretty clear in that instance.

The individual that did the stunt act with jumping through the plate glass window didn't have any history of mental health issues, and was eventually successfully prosecuted.

JM has always maintained his claim of innocence, although in my eyes he's guilty as sin, and iirc there was some allegations that he had been using speed before he murdered his family, and while diminished capacity isn't considered mental illness it can be a factor in sentencing.

[kali1137]

I had forgotten about this case. I haven't had a chance to go back and read all the documentation, and by that I mean official transcripts and such, not misleading websites ran by pro's or con's people. But I have always leaned toward her being guilty. I can't get past no DNA outside of the family and the contradicting stories she told, none of which were plausible.

[Sinsaint]

Originally Posted by Samson

Over 15 posts I think so link away.

What is the key data point that precludes Darlie as offender?

Personally, it's the sock. Not so much because it doesn't fit. Former FBI agent Brantley and Tom Bevel both testified about why that sock would be there. Brantley's theory was the sock could have been placed there to dispose of it. In order for that to be the case Darlie would have needed a reason to think the sock would incriminate her in the first place. The sock did come from her house but so did the murder weapon and she made no attempt to dispose of that. And yes, the sock did eventually show that her DNA was on the sock but in order for Darlie to have feared that possibility she would have needed to know that DNA could be detected in sources other than blood such as saliva or skin cells. Darlie doesn't strick me as being all that intelligent nor is there any indication she had even a remote interest in things like DNA or crime scene investigations. Plus, she was highly familiar with that neighborhood. If she wanted it disposed of and never found I'm fairly certain she wouldn't have left it laying out in the open.

Tom Bevel had an alternate theory that Darlie planted the sock there to stage the scene. As part of staging the perpetrator will typically break things, move things, hide things, etc and then weave them into his or her story. Using the sock as the staged item she wanted to use to bolster her story she would have said something like... I remember there was a sock on the hand he was holding the knife with, he put a sock in my mouth or I saw him grab a sock in the laundry room as he was leaving the house... Then when the sock is found she will hope the cops view it as a piece of evidence that confirms her story. The problem is she never mentioned the sock at all. I don't think Darlie would have taken such a huge risk to plant it and then not bring it up.

Since neither theory seems to fit I'll revert to if she planted it how did she do it? Damon had only nine minutes to live after he was attacked so that is our timeframe. Darlie was on the phone for 5 minutes 38 seconds (it should be noted that the entire time she was on the phone she was in the presence of Darin, office Waddell or officer Walling so no staging could have been done during that time). A paramedic testified Damon died roughly 1 minute after he arrived. 6 minutes 38 seconds minus 9 minutes is 2 minutes 22 seconds.

In that 2 minutes and 22 seconds she would have needed to go 150 yards round trip to put the sock there, clean the countertop, clean the floor, run the vacuum cleaner across the kitchen floor, wipe off a bloody handprint on the couch, put her own blood on her pillow and blanket, deposit a bunch of wet rags in the living room and hallway, break a wine glass on the floor and then pick up a few pieces and put them in an ice bucket and the tabletop of the wine rack without getting any blood on those pieces. I have trouble believing she could have done all those things in that amount of time.

There seems to be no explainable reason why she would take the sock down there nor does seem to be enough time for her to do it in so we have to consider what else could explain how the sock got there. And intruder discarding it there after he fled the scene seems to be the most reasonable explanation.

[Desert Fox]

Err, of note, 9 minutes is approximate. . . .Don't get so hung up on that number. Could end up being seven minutes or eleven.

[Sinsaint]

Originally Posted by Desert Fox

Err, of note, 9 minutes is approximate. . . .Don't get so hung up on that number. Could end up being seven minutes or eleven.

The coroner initially said five minutes or less. She was pressed to go as far as nine.

[Desert Fox]

Originally Posted by Sinsaint

The coroner initially said five minutes or less. She was pressed to go as far as nine.

Even, don't treat it so exact. . . . Maybe he lasted 9 minutes and 15 seconds for example. You would be better arguing without using exact numbers and stating that with all probability that it is nine minutes or less.

Edit: I would like to add that I can throw a decently weighed stick about 30 yards so I don't think throwing the sock is a real option either.

[Sinsaint]

Originally Posted by Desert Fox

Even, don't treat it so exact. . . . Maybe he lasted 9 minutes and 15 seconds for example. You would be better arguing without using exact numbers and stating that with all probability that it is nine minutes or less.

Edit: I would like to add that I can throw a decently weighed stick about 30 yards so I don't think throwing the sock is a real option either.

I've debated with people before about this case who took issue with me estimating time, like saying roughly nine minutes. Never quite sure if I should estimate or be precise. I usually just try to stick with the nine minutes as an outermost time since she initially estimated almost half as much time.

[Desert Fox]

Originally Posted by Sinsaint

I've debated with people before about this case who took issue with me estimating time, like saying roughly nine minutes. Never quite sure if I should estimate or be precise. I usually just try to stick with the nine minutes as an outermost time since she initially estimated almost half as much time.

There are a number of cases which I have looked at where I have issues with the prosecution trying to squeeze a huge amount of things in a small amount of time.

[Sinsaint]

Originally Posted by Desert Fox

There are a number of cases which I have looked at where I have issues with the prosecution trying to squeeze a huge amount of things in a small amount of time.

So what would your opinion be on whether it's reasonable to believe Darlie would have/could have done all these things in a generous estimate of three minutes?

During the trial it was also brought up by Bevel that in his opinion Darlie removed the wine glass from the rack and then broke it on the floor as one of her last efforts to stage the scene. At this point Darlie would have been bleeding from her right arm (right handed) and would have most likely had blood on both of her hands. None of the glass had her bloody prints on it. There was also glass shards found on the tabletop of the rack (roughly three to three and a half feet high) and inside the ice bucket sitting on the tabletop. Again, none of those shards had her blood or prints on them and the tabletop itself had none of her blood on it either. Do you have any thoughts on how that could have happened without Darlie getting any blood on anything and/or why she would have put the glass pieces up there?