ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Darlie Routier , death penalty cases , murder cases , Texas cases

Reply
Old 23rd November 2016, 08:32 PM   #201
wasapi
Philosopher
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,399
Originally Posted by Sinsaint View Post
What evidence points directly towards Darlie's guilt?
Sinsaint, I have to be brief now, but I will start with the DNA. Or, lack of. All DNA matches Routier, Nothing from an "intruder". Another strong point is that the screen was slit from the inside. Some, like Henri, choose to believe in an intruder carefully broke through a door, went to the kitchen and got a knife and then went and slashed it from the inside. Then, goes back and picks another knife from the kitchen to stab everyone. Darlie, who was always a light sleeper, sleeps downstairs because the it's quieter, sleeps through her and her sons being stabbed before she fully wakes up.

And yes, her wounds were superficial.

There is so much more. It has been an interesting case to have followed from the beginning. Very sad though. I would be happy to answer any questions I can.
__________________
Julia
wasapi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2016, 09:36 AM   #202
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
Sinsaint, I have to be brief now, but I will start with the DNA. Or, lack of. All DNA matches Routier, Nothing from an "intruder". Another strong point is that the screen was slit from the inside. Some, like Henri, choose to believe in an intruder carefully broke through a door, went to the kitchen and got a knife and then went and slashed it from the inside. Then, goes back and picks another knife from the kitchen to stab everyone. Darlie, who was always a light sleeper, sleeps downstairs because the it's quieter, sleeps through her and her sons being stabbed before she fully wakes up.

And yes, her wounds were superficial.

There is so much more. It has been an interesting case to have followed from the beginning. Very sad though. I would be happy to answer any questions I can.
There is not likely to be DNA of a murderer if he was wearing gloves. He didn't spill any blood. Darlie's husband was never checked for the blood on his jeans.

The wounds may seem superficial to a doctors who work in emergency rooms and have to deal with horrific injuries on a daily basis. There is the same sort of controversy in the Jeffrey MacDonald case were at least one injury came very close to vital organs. Darlie had one injury to her neck and throat that missed killing her by a whisker. Doctors don't always have right judgment. Many doctors don't believe that bugging happens.

The police and FBI jumped to conclusions and just decided Darlie did it from the start. It was only after the trial that the truth came out about Darlie's husband being involved in insurance scams and being prepared to invite burglars into the house. Divorce was being planned at the time of the murders. I don't know if there was any insurance money on Darlie, or her kids, in the event of death, or if it was ever paid out. Darlie's husband was never properly or thoroughly investigated. It was a serious injustice and a probable wrong verdict.

Terry Laber, the forensic scientist who worked for the prosecution to start off with now has an affidavit on the internet pointing out the inconsistencies and errors in the prosecution forensic case.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2016, 02:43 PM   #203
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is not likely to be DNA of a murderer if he was wearing gloves. He didn't spill any blood. Darlie's husband was never checked for the blood on his jeans.

The wounds may seem superficial to a doctors who work in emergency rooms and have to deal with horrific injuries on a daily basis. There is the same sort of controversy in the Jeffrey MacDonald case were at least one injury came very close to vital organs. Darlie had one injury to her neck and throat that missed killing her by a whisker. Doctors don't always have right judgment. Many doctors don't believe that bugging happens.

The police and FBI jumped to conclusions and just decided Darlie did it from the start. It was only after the trial that the truth came out about Darlie's husband being involved in insurance scams and being prepared to invite burglars into the house. Divorce was being planned at the time of the murders. I don't know if there was any insurance money on Darlie, or her kids, in the event of death, or if it was ever paid out. Darlie's husband was never properly or thoroughly investigated. It was a serious injustice and a probable wrong verdict.

Terry Laber, the forensic scientist who worked for the prosecution to start off with now has an affidavit on the internet pointing out the inconsistencies and errors in the prosecution forensic case.
Henri, this slashing the screen from the inside seems to preoccupy people. Can you cast any light on this matter?
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2016, 04:09 AM   #204
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Henri, this slashing the screen from the inside seems to preoccupy people. Can you cast any light on this matter?
From what I can make out there are doubts about this slashing of the screen from the inside. There were bungling detectives from the local police, and the FBI on the case, and at the crime scene, rather like in the JonBenet Ramsey case and the Jeffrey MacDonald case.

Lt. David Nabors head of Rowlett Police Department's Criminal Investigation Division says there were inconsistencies with her story and physical evidence and that he is comfortable with the case. The trouble is the police are apt to jump to conclusions, and to decide who did it, and then 'find' the evidence afterwards. Nabors is not a forensic scientist. There were disagreements between the forensic scientists on the case. Personally, I think the husband did it, possibly with the help of a hit man who was paid out of life insurance money.

There is background information to all this at:

https://soapboxie.com/government/Darlie-Routier

Quote:
The Elements of Doubt

There are many things missing in this case.

Darin's admission of an insurance scam attempt.

The screen that was mis-reported as being cut from the inside.

Possible improper read-back of testimony to the jury by the court reporter.

Apparent conflict of interest with the attorney that represented Darlie Routier at trial had an apparent conflict of interest, because he was said to have had a prearrangement with Darin Routier and other family members not to pursue any defense that could implicate Darin. This attorney supposedly stopped key experts for the defense from finishing forensic examinations.

The pictures of Darlie's cuts and bruises on her arms which were taken when she was hospitalized the night of the murders.

The prosecution's refusal to provide access to any evidence in their custody in the case.

No DNA testing.

Some writers who have interviewed Darlie Routier have decided to help her fight to get a new trial. Since reporting their opinions on her situation, they report that their ability to visit her has been blocked or made so inconvenient that little can be accomplished.

During the trial investigators invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination during cross examination, preventing the defense from rebutting their testimony. Why? This alone would be reason for disbelief and a new trial!
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2016, 04:19 AM   #205
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
There were disagreements between the forensic scientists in the Darlie Routier case:

Quote:
Affidavit of Terry L. Laber
In the Criminal District Court No.3
Dallas County, Texas
DARLIE LYNN ROUTIER
No. F96-39973-MJ IN THE CRIMINAL
DISTRICT COURT
NO. 3 OF
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

AFFIDAVIT OF TERRY L. LABER

Before me, the undersigned notary, on this day, personally appeared Terry L. Laber, a person whose identity is known to me. After I administered an oath to him, upon his oath, he said:

1. My name is Terry L. Laber. I am over twenty-one years old and I reside in White Bear Lake, Minnesota. I am capable and fully competent to make this Affidavit. The statement herein are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge.

2. I received a B.S. in Chemistry from the University of Wisconsin in 1969. From 1969-1971, I worked as a Crime Laboratory Analyst for the United States Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory. From 1971-2000, I held a series of positions at the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Forensic Science Laboratory ("Minnesota BCA"), including forensic scientist, supervisor of Serology Section and Biology Section, and assistant laboratory director. In August of 2000, I retired from the Minnesota BCA.

3. I am presently employed approximately forty-hours per week as a senior project consultant for Minnesota BCA. I am also self-employed as a forensic consultant on an as-needed basis in White Bear Lake, Minnesota and have been so employed since 1981. As part of my work as a forensic consultant, I analyze physical evidence, such as blood stains, microscopic particles and other trace evidence left at crime scenes to determine what such evidence suggests about how the crime occurred or did not occur. I have testified as an expert in bloodstain pattern analysis about forensic analysis of physical evidence in over fifty trials, including trials in the State of Texas. I have served as a forensic consultant in more than two hundred other cases.

4. I am a member of several forensic science organizations including the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, the Midwestern Association of Forensic Scientists, and the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts.

5. In August of 1996, I was retained by Douglas Parks and Wayne Huff, then-defense counsel to Darlie Lynn Routier, who was then-scheduled to be prosecuted for the death of her son Damon Routier. As part of that engagement, my colleague, Barton P. Epstein, and I viewed a number of pieces of physical evidence, then in the custody of the State of Texas. In August, 1996, Barton Epstein and I met with State's forensic analyst, Charles Linch, at the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences in Dallas, Texas. We reviewed a number of pieces of physical evidence in Mr. Linch's possession. We also reviewed evidence in possession of the Rowlett Police Department.

6. Barton Epstein and I recommended to Mr. Parks and Mr. Huff that certain samples of physical evidence that we reviewed be analyzed to test the State's theory that the crime scene at 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas had been stated. For example:


a. Fiber and Opaque Material Said to Have Been Removed from Bread Knife: We recommended that microscopic and/or elemental comparison tests be conducted on the fiberglass and opaque materials removed from a bread knife to substantiate or dispute the State's theory that the source of these materials was the window screen in the garage of 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas.

b. Other Fibers Said To Have Been Removed from Knife on Counter: We recommended that the apparent wood fragments and blue fibers removed from the knife found on the kitchen counter be microscopically examined to determine their source.

c. Darlie Routier's Nightshirt: Based on defects (i.e. cuts) observed on the left side of the nightshirt, we determined that additional testing was required to identify the source of the defects. In addition, we recommended that genetic testing be conducted on several blood-stained areas of the nightshirt.

d. Hoover Vacuum Cleaner: Based on our visual examination of the blood stains found on the Hoover vacuum cleaner, we determined that genetic testing was required to determine the source of the blood.

e. Carpet: We recommended DNA and possible chemical testing of blood stains and prints left on the carpet from 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas.

f. Darin Routier's Blue Jeans: We recommended that genetic testing be conducted on several blood-stained areas of Darin Routier's blue jeans.

g. Pillow and furniture: We recommended that genetic testing be conducted on several blood-stained areas on the living room furniture, pillow and on the wine rack.


7. In late October 1996, Douglas Parks informed Mr. Epstein and I that he had been replaced as defense counsel by Darlie Routier and that we should send him a final bill for our services. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Parks informed us that he had been removed as trial counsel and Douglas Mulder had been substituted as the new trial counsel.

8. In late October or November 1996, I met with Douglas Mulder and his investigator, Lloyd Harrell, to discuss the testing that Barton Epstein and I had conducted to date. Barton Epstein did not attend that meeting.

9. During the meeting, I provided Mr. Mulder and Mr. Harrel with a general overview of the work done to date by Mr. Epstein and I. It was my impression that neither Mr. Mulder nor Mr. Harrell seemed particularly interested in that work. Both men asked me only a few questions. The meeting lasted about two hours.

10. Following the meeting, I expected that Douglas Mulder or one of his colleagues would follow up with me because the time in the introductory meeting was not sufficient time to explain in necessary depth the forensic significance of the analysis Barton Epstein and I had performed or had recommended be performed. Mr. Mulder did not retain either Barton Epstein or me to perform any of the testing we recommended, and so we discontinued all work on the case. I had no further involvement in the trial of Darlie Lynn Routier after November 1996.

11. Based on the analysis I performed in this case, it was my professional opinion in November 1996, and is my professional opinion today, that there were numerous pieces of physical evidence we reviewed that were not consistent with a staged crime scene. For example:


a. Review of the blood spatter on and near the vacuum cleaner indicated that the vacuum cleaner had not been pushed around by someone bleeding, but, instead, that most of the bleeding had occurred after the vacuum cleaner had been knocked down.

b. The placement of shards of glass below the location of the wine glasses indicated that the wine glass had broken while still in the rack and was not consistent with a person smashing or throwing the glass onto the floor as part of a staged crime scene.


12. In my professional opinion, scientific testing of the physical evidence would have been critical to Darlie Lynn Routier's defense. Independent testing of that physical evidence was crucial to properly evaluate the State's case. There were numerous potential holes in the State's case that required testing to conform or refute the State's presentation of the evidence and to provide evidence that could well have refuted the State's forensics testimony. These and other tests would have been critical to developing the physical evidence to refute the State's use of forensic and physical evidence and establish Darlie Lynn Routier's innocence.


a. Based on my blood-spatter analysis experience, for the theory that direct hits of Darlie Lynn Routier's blood being spattered from her stab would precisely covered each blood spatter of her tow sons Damon and Devon to have been correct would have required an extremely unlikely sequence of events. My preliminary analysis of the shirt Darlie Lynn Routier was wearing indicated only minimal area of blood spatter and the critical areas of spatter were not subjected to genetic testing. Genetic testing should have been conducted on those blood-stained areas of Darlie Lynn Routier's nightshirt. In addition, a microscopic examination should have been performed to determine the source of cuts observed on the left-side of the neck of the nightshirt.

b. Testing of the fiberglass and opaque material said removed from the bread knife should have been conducted to substantiate or dispute the State's theory that the source of these materials was the window screen in the garage, and the window screen was cut as part of the staged crime scene.

c. The apparent wood fragments and blue fibers removed from the knife found on the kitchen counter should have been microscopically examined to determine their source.

d, DNA testing should have been performed on the blood stains found on the Hoover vacuum cleaner to determine the identity of the persons or persons whose blood was on the vacuum cleaner.

e. DNA and possible chemical testing of blood stains and prints left on carpet and flooring should have been pursued to determine the identity of those who bled or left prints.

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

g. Genetic testing should have been conducted on several blood-stained areas on the furniture, pillow and wine rack to reconstruct the location and movement of individuals at the crime scene.


12. It is my professional opinion that further testing and evaluation of the items referenced above in numbered paragraphs 6-11 would help establish if in fact the crime scene was or was not staged. Such testing is necessary to confirm or refute the State's testimonial evidence presented at Darlie Routier's trial and to establish Darlie Lynn Routier's innocence. For example:

a. DNA testing and/or microscopic examination should be conducted on blood stains left on Darlie Routier's nightshirt, the Hoover vacuum cleaner, furniture items, pillow, wine rack, and all flooring and carpeting samples in the State's custody.

b. Chemical testing of the flooring and carpeting samples should also be explored. In addition, all microscopic slides of fibers and other matter removed from 5801 Eagle Drive should be examined to determine their source and/or to rule out possible sources.

c. Testing of the brush and powder used to dust the knives in the home at 5801 Eagle Drive should be performed and may refute the theory that fiberglass was consistent with the material from the garage window screen.

13. In order to conduct such testing, access to the above-referenced items in the State's custody, as well as samples of the garage window screen and all known blood samples would be required. Although certain testing might use up a portion of the existing sample, none would destroy the sample completely. Thus, there would be remaining sample for the State to conduct confirmatory testing should it desire to do so.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing 13 numbered paragraphs are true and correct.

STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY

SWORN TO and SUBSCRIBED before me by Terry L. Laber on July 11, 2002

Dated: ______________________________

[signed]
___________________________________
Terry L. Laber
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2016, 10:57 AM   #206
Sinsaint
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
Sinsaint, I have to be brief now, but I will start with the DNA. Or, lack of. All DNA matches Routier, Nothing from an "intruder". Another strong point is that the screen was slit from the inside. Some, like Henri, choose to believe in an intruder carefully broke through a door, went to the kitchen and got a knife and then went and slashed it from the inside. Then, goes back and picks another knife from the kitchen to stab everyone. Darlie, who was always a light sleeper, sleeps downstairs because the it's quieter, sleeps through her and her sons being stabbed before she fully wakes up.

And yes, her wounds were superficial.

There is so much more. It has been an interesting case to have followed from the beginning. Very sad though. I would be happy to answer any questions I can.
The screen being cut from the inside is a common inaccuracy many people point to as a reason for her guilt. One of the reasons Darlie was arrested was because a blond hair was found stuck to the screen with the root still attached. In the affidavit for arrest and the later bail hearing it was suggested that this hair must have come from Darlie and proved she cut the screen from the inside. The hair and screen were tested after the bail hearing. The hair was not Darlie's and the screen had been cut from the outside. Linch, prosecution expert, testified to this at trial.

DNA actually supports Darlie's version. The prosecution's theory is that Darlie stabbed Damon first, then Devon and then herself at the kitchen sink. However, there is a castoff stain that is a pure mixture of Darlie and Damon on her shirt. The only way this could be possible is if Darlie's blood was already on the knife when Damon was stabbed.

I don't believe Darlie "slept through" anything. Assuming it was an intruder Darlie would have been the target and she's the person the intruder would have started with. During the attack on her one or both boys woke up so the intruder attacked them as well either to eliminate witnesses and/or to keep them quiet long enough for him to make his escape. Damon would have been attacked directly after Darlie while her blood was still on the knife to mix with his. Devon woke up and was attacked beside the couch where Darlie was laying. If Darlie were attacking Damon Devon would have ran towards the stairs to get his father for protection. If an intruder were attacking Damon Devon would have tried to get to his mother for protection. Evidence shows he was at that couch. Evidence also shows that Darlie was telling the truth when she said Devon walked to the entryway of the room where he was laying when paramedics arrived.

Darlie's wounds were not superficial. This is yet another misconstruing of the facts. At Darlie's bail hearing Parchman testified that Darlie's wounds were one to two inches from the carotid artery which to quote her was "a medical mile" from causing any real damage. We all know now that simply isn't true. At trial Dillwan testified the injury to Darlie's neck was two millimeters from the carotid artery, superficial to the carotid sheath. In medical terms this means the injury was just adjacent to the carotid artery. The general public has taken the word superficial and twisted it to mean something that was never said. Dr. Vincent Dimaio, the Godfather of forensic pathology, testified that had Darlie died he would have determined her wounds were defensive wounds and the manner of death as homicide.

If the prosecution's theory that Darlie cut herself at the sink is to be believed how do you explain the blood stain patterns on her shirt? There is staining on her shirt that shows blood from her neck ran to the left side and then down her back. The only way this could have happened was if she were laying down while her neck bled and keep in mind not a single person testified that she ever laid down with her shirt on.
Sinsaint is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2016, 12:44 PM   #207
Sinsaint
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is not likely to be DNA of a murderer if he was wearing gloves. He didn't spill any blood. Darlie's husband was never checked for the blood on his jeans.

The wounds may seem superficial to a doctors who work in emergency rooms and have to deal with horrific injuries on a daily basis. There is the same sort of controversy in the Jeffrey MacDonald case were at least one injury came very close to vital organs. Darlie had one injury to her neck and throat that missed killing her by a whisker. Doctors don't always have right judgment. Many doctors don't believe that bugging happens.

The police and FBI jumped to conclusions and just decided Darlie did it from the start. It was only after the trial that the truth came out about Darlie's husband being involved in insurance scams and being prepared to invite burglars into the house. Divorce was being planned at the time of the murders. I don't know if there was any insurance money on Darlie, or her kids, in the event of death, or if it was ever paid out. Darlie's husband was never properly or thoroughly investigated. It was a serious injustice and a probable wrong verdict.

Terry Laber, the forensic scientist who worked for the prosecution to start off with now has an affidavit on the internet pointing out the inconsistencies and errors in the prosecution forensic case.
Just wanted to elaborate on a few of your points and correct one...

James Cron was called in to evaluate the crime sceen within a few hours. He has done numerous interviews for television programs claiming that he decided within twenty to thirty minutes that Darlie did it. I will paraphrase his comments but can pull up the exact quotes if necessary. "After my initial walk through, finding no evidence of an intruder I decided one of the victims had to be the perpetrator... I told the investigators to start looking at the mother." This is evident in the fact he told Patterson to check Darlie's feet for cuts when he went to interview her the first time. This is a textbook scenario for what is called tunnel vision. He also told people at the scene to look for evidence Darlie was involved which explains why no evidence pointing to an intruder was never found. According to Darlie the intruder left through the window meaning the intruder most likely touched the gate that was found closed. This gate wasn't processed for evidence until six days later and the day after a heavy rain storm.

Brantley, an FBI profiler, was brought into the case. However, he never evaluated the scene to come up with a profile of the possible perpetrator. His evaluation was done backwards. Darlie was the perpetrator and he threw out a few theories about the evidence and erroneous crime facts to bolster his claims. First he explained what staging is and how people will stage items and then weave those items into their story. An example of this would be knocking over a table and then later saying "while I was fighting with the guy we hit a table and it got knocked over." He theorized Darlie staged the sock down the alley to give credence to her intruder claim. The problem with his theory is that Darlie never mentioned the intruder having a sock. If the sock were part of her staging she would have said something like "the guy put a sock in my mouth so I couldn't scream or I saw socks on his hands when I was fighting with him."

He also misstated some crime facts. He claimed there were no crimes of this nature in the area and home invaders always bring their own weapons when breaking into a house. Both statements were false. There was a rapist in the Dallas area who not only used knives found in the homes to attack his victims he used socks found in the homes to cover his hands. He also claimed that children wouldn't be harmed in this type of attack, rather they would be used as leverage over the mother to get her to comply with his demands. This assertion ignores the possibility (probability) that Darlie was attacked first and that the boys may have only been attacked because they woke up. They were no longer leverage; they were witnesses.

There was life insurance policies on Darlie and both boys. Her's was for $100-$150,000 and the boys were $5,000 each. The funeral expenses were around $12,000 so no money was made from their deaths.

Terry Labor was not a prosecution expert. He was a defense expert hired by the attornies who were initially appointed to represent Darlie. Both he and Bart Epstein came to the conclusion that the evidence supports Darlie's claims and that much of the evidence the prosecution claims was staged wasn't. When Mulder took over he had one meeting with them which Labor says Mulder just seemed disinterested in their findings and never called them to testify even though they were prepared to do so. During closing arguments the prosecution stated that no blood spatter or forensic experts testified on Darlie's behalf because they all came to the same conclusions as the state's experts. This statement was completely false and never corrected for the jury.
Sinsaint is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2016, 02:46 PM   #208
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by Sinsaint View Post
Just wanted to elaborate on a few of your points and correct one...

James Cron was called in to evaluate the crime sceen within a few hours. He has done numerous interviews for television programs claiming that he decided within twenty to thirty minutes that Darlie did it. I will paraphrase his comments but can pull up the exact quotes if necessary. "After my initial walk through, finding no evidence of an intruder I decided one of the victims had to be the perpetrator... I told the investigators to start looking at the mother." This is evident in the fact he told Patterson to check Darlie's feet for cuts when he went to interview her the first time. This is a textbook scenario for what is called tunnel vision. He also told people at the scene to look for evidence Darlie was involved which explains why no evidence pointing to an intruder was never found. According to Darlie the intruder left through the window meaning the intruder most likely touched the gate that was found closed. This gate wasn't processed for evidence until six days later and the day after a heavy rain storm.

Brantley, an FBI profiler, was brought into the case. However, he never evaluated the scene to come up with a profile of the possible perpetrator. His evaluation was done backwards. Darlie was the perpetrator and he threw out a few theories about the evidence and erroneous crime facts to bolster his claims. First he explained what staging is and how people will stage items and then weave those items into their story. An example of this would be knocking over a table and then later saying "while I was fighting with the guy we hit a table and it got knocked over." He theorized Darlie staged the sock down the alley to give credence to her intruder claim. The problem with his theory is that Darlie never mentioned the intruder having a sock. If the sock were part of her staging she would have said something like "the guy put a sock in my mouth so I couldn't scream or I saw socks on his hands when I was fighting with him."

He also misstated some crime facts. He claimed there were no crimes of this nature in the area and home invaders always bring their own weapons when breaking into a house. Both statements were false. There was a rapist in the Dallas area who not only used knives found in the homes to attack his victims he used socks found in the homes to cover his hands. He also claimed that children wouldn't be harmed in this type of attack, rather they would be used as leverage over the mother to get her to comply with his demands. This assertion ignores the possibility (probability) that Darlie was attacked first and that the boys may have only been attacked because they woke up. They were no longer leverage; they were witnesses.

There was life insurance policies on Darlie and both boys. Her's was for $100-$150,000 and the boys were $5,000 each. The funeral expenses were around $12,000 so no money was made from their deaths.

Terry Labor was not a prosecution expert. He was a defense expert hired by the attornies who were initially appointed to represent Darlie. Both he and Bart Epstein came to the conclusion that the evidence supports Darlie's claims and that much of the evidence the prosecution claims was staged wasn't. When Mulder took over he had one meeting with them which Labor says Mulder just seemed disinterested in their findings and never called them to testify even though they were prepared to do so. During closing arguments the prosecution stated that no blood spatter or forensic experts testified on Darlie's behalf because they all came to the same conclusions as the state's experts. This statement was completely false and never corrected for the jury.
Sinsaint, did this man have an alibi?
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2016, 03:37 PM   #209
Sinsaint
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Sinsaint, did this man have an alibi?
I don't believe so. Darlie's defense team didn't know about the crimes. He was caught in November 1996 but it was for credit card fraud or something. He was released roughly two years later and went right back to raping women within a few months. He was eventually caught in the house of one of his victims. His DNA was linked to five or six rapes dating back to December 1995. He was arrested (and convicted) for those rapes but it was years after Darlie was convicted. People who believe in her guilt ignore him as a possible perpetrator claiming Darlie wasn't raped and he never killed anyone ergo his crimes aren't similar.

I've looked up his appeal and his crime timeline is telling. He was raping women at an interval of roughly one rape a month with his last before the Routier murder being May 5, 1996. Then nothing. It was as if something made him suddenly stop. There were no more rapes attributed to him until after his release for credit card fraud (and Darlie's conviction). I found an article about him that stated aside from the ones he was convicted of, based on similarities of his known crimes (entering through windows, using knives and socks found in the victims' homes) he is suspected in roughly twenty other rapes. There was no DNA evidence found in those crimes so he was never charged. I would love to know the details of those unsolved rapes.
Sinsaint is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2016, 03:51 PM   #210
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by Sinsaint View Post
I don't believe so. Darlie's defense team didn't know about the crimes. He was caught in November 1996 but it was for credit card fraud or something. He was released roughly two years later and went right back to raping women within a few months. He was eventually caught in the house of one of his victims. His DNA was linked to five or six rapes dating back to December 1995. He was arrested (and convicted) for those rapes but it was years after Darlie was convicted. People who believe in her guilt ignore him as a possible perpetrator claiming Darlie wasn't raped and he never killed anyone ergo his crimes aren't similar.

I've looked up his appeal and his crime timeline is telling. He was raping women at an interval of roughly one rape a month with his last before the Routier murder being May 5, 1996. Then nothing. It was as if something made him suddenly stop. There were no more rapes attributed to him until after his release for credit card fraud (and Darlie's conviction). I found an article about him that stated aside from the ones he was convicted of, based on similarities of his known crimes (entering through windows, using knives and socks found in the victims' homes) he is suspected in roughly twenty other rapes. There was no DNA evidence found in those crimes so he was never charged. I would love to know the details of those unsolved rapes.
Sinsaint, this looks like a remarkably promising lead.
I am now provisionally believing the innocence side. It would be interesting to see how Ampulla and Wasapi counter this. It is a featured case at IA, and probably for good reason. I note Charlie Wilkes believes she is guilty, I must go back and read more.

Last edited by Samson; 27th November 2016 at 03:52 PM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2016, 10:14 AM   #211
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Sinsaint View Post
There was life insurance policies on Darlie and both boys. Her's was for $100-$150,000 and the boys were $5,000 each. The funeral expenses were around $12,000 so no money was made from their deaths.

Terry Labor was not a prosecution expert. He was a defense expert hired by the attornies who were initially appointed to represent Darlie. Both he and Bart Epstein came to the conclusion that the evidence supports Darlie's claims and that much of the evidence the prosecution claims was staged wasn't. When Mulder took over he had one meeting with them which Labor says Mulder just seemed disinterested in their findings and never called them to testify even though they were prepared to do so. During closing arguments the prosecution stated that no blood spatter or forensic experts testified on Darlie's behalf because they all came to the same conclusions as the state's experts. This statement was completely false and never corrected for the jury.
That's interesting information. For some reason I have always had it in my head that Terry Laber once worked for the prosecution, but from what Laber said in his affidavit he says he was retained in the initial investigation by Douglas Parks and Wayne Huff then defense counsel to Darlie Routier. They seem to have been public defenders, though I may be wrong about that, and they seemed to be doing excellent legal work for Darlie until she was persuaded to change lawyers to the husband's lawyer. I don't think that was a good businesslike move. There was a conflict of interest.

I have never really made a profound study of the Darlie Routier case. It's just that I have had my doubts about it. To me the police and FBI decided she did it without the necessary supporting evidence, though they think they are right, as in the JonBenet case, and the Jeffrey MacDonald case. Was there ever any absolute certainty that there was only one insurance money policy on the two murdered kids by the husband?
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2016, 09:16 AM   #212
Sinsaint
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's interesting information. For some reason I have always had it in my head that Terry Laber once worked for the prosecution, but from what Laber said in his affidavit he says he was retained in the initial investigation by Douglas Parks and Wayne Huff then defense counsel to Darlie Routier. They seem to have been public defenders, though I may be wrong about that, and they seemed to be doing excellent legal work for Darlie until she was persuaded to change lawyers to the husband's lawyer. I don't think that was a good businesslike move. There was a conflict of interest.

I have never really made a profound study of the Darlie Routier case. It's just that I have had my doubts about it. To me the police and FBI decided she did it without the necessary supporting evidence, though they think they are right, as in the JonBenet case, and the Jeffrey MacDonald case. Was there ever any absolute certainty that there was only one insurance money policy on the two murdered kids by the husband?
I agree her court appointed attornies were doing a far better job representing her. However, I don't think the issue was any loyalty Mulder had to Darin. Mulder did a television interview (Herzog I believe) where he stated he just didn't think any jury would believe Darlie could have killed her children so brutally. This was right on the heels of Susan Smith admitting to killing her children so jury members were definitely going to be open to the possibility. In short, he didn't take the case seriously enough.

As for Darin and the insurance policies... I don't believe he was involved. I believe the agent who wrote the policies testified that the policies were normal. Darin and Darlie both had insurance on themselves and the policies on the boys were fairly inexpensive with multi policy discounts. There were also no other policies on the boys or Darlie. Just as a side note, most insurance companies will not allow a child to be insured for over what is considered the cost for an average burial. Gerber is one of the largest child life insurance agencies and they only allow $10,000 for a child under 18. If Darlie or Darin wanted to make money off the death of the boys they would have needed ten to fifteen policies. The only policies that the police found on the boys were the two (one for each boy) that were testified to.

Last edited by Sinsaint; 29th November 2016 at 09:17 AM.
Sinsaint is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2016, 11:07 AM   #213
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,019
Originally Posted by Sinsaint View Post
I don't believe so. Darlie's defense team didn't know about the crimes. He was caught in November 1996 but it was for credit card fraud or something. He was released roughly two years later and went right back to raping women within a few months. He was eventually caught in the house of one of his victims. His DNA was linked to five or six rapes dating back to December 1995. He was arrested (and convicted) for those rapes but it was years after Darlie was convicted. People who believe in her guilt ignore him as a possible perpetrator claiming Darlie wasn't raped and he never killed anyone ergo his crimes aren't similar.

I've looked up his appeal and his crime timeline is telling. He was raping women at an interval of roughly one rape a month with his last before the Routier murder being May 5, 1996. Then nothing. It was as if something made him suddenly stop. There were no more rapes attributed to him until after his release for credit card fraud (and Darlie's conviction). I found an article about him that stated aside from the ones he was convicted of, based on similarities of his known crimes (entering through windows, using knives and socks found in the victims' homes) he is suspected in roughly twenty other rapes. There was no DNA evidence found in those crimes so he was never charged. I would love to know the details of those unsolved rapes.
Got any references for this guy? (Specifically about him and socks.)
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2016, 01:31 PM   #214
Sinsaint
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Got any references for this guy? (Specifically about him and socks.)
At the time that Brantley was testifying, however, police had records of other crimes that resembled the Routier murders. On December 8, 1995, an intruder entered a nearby residence, obtained a small kitchen knife, and held that knife against the throat of a victim in preparation for a sexual assault. Exh. B. On March 28, 1996, an unknown assailant threatened a child with a kitchen fork. Exh. A. In a series of other crimes, an unknown assailant used a single tube sock similar to the sock found in the alley behind the Routier residence to gag his victims and to conceal fingerprints. Exh. B (using a sock from the victims drawer as a gag) (December 8, 1995); Exh. C (same) (February 1, 1996); Exh. D (assailant used a tube sock to cover his hands) (April 7, 1996); Exh. E (using a sock from the victims drawer as a gag) (May 7, 1996). Had defense counsel been given this information, they would have been able to impeach Brantley with evidence that his investigation into similar crimes was inadequate, and that his conclusions were not based on inaccurate assumptions.

http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Lega...as/Habeas.html

This man was only convicted of two of these assaults (five or six other victims linked by DNA testified at his trial). He was never tried for his other suspected assaults so there is no known record of those crimes to compare similarities.
Sinsaint is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2016, 01:59 PM   #215
wasapi
Philosopher
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,399
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post

I have never really made a profound study of the Darlie Routier case. It's just that I have had my doubts about it. To me the police and FBI decided she did it without the necessary supporting evidence, though they think they are right, as in the JonBenet case, and the Jeffrey MacDonald case. Was there ever any absolute certainty that there was only one insurance money policy on the two murdered kids by the husband?

Yes, there was only one policy by the husband, Darin. I lost many of my saved documents on the case with a computer crash a few months ago, but I can look up a reference or two. A facebook page about the case is a good reference option to find related links.

Speaking of Darin, I would like to say that after seeing him interviewed several times, as well as reading transcripts of him, I don't like him. As a human being, as a man. He is shallow, ignorant, materialistic.

But he isn't evil. He loves his children and his raising of their son, Drake, into adulthood is admirable. His simple mind wasn't equipped to predict how far his narcissistic, sociopath wife would go.
__________________
Julia
wasapi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2016, 02:27 PM   #216
Sinsaint
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
Yes, there was only one policy by the husband, Darin. I lost many of my saved documents on the case with a computer crash a few months ago, but I can look up a reference or two. A facebook page about the case is a good reference option to find related links.

Speaking of Darin, I would like to say that after seeing him interviewed several times, as well as reading transcripts of him, I don't like him. As a human being, as a man. He is shallow, ignorant, materialistic.

But he isn't evil. He loves his children and his raising of their son, Drake, into adulthood is admirable. His simple mind wasn't equipped to predict how far his narcissistic, sociopath wife would go.
Which expert testified she's a narcissistic sociopath?
Sinsaint is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2016, 04:07 AM   #217
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Sinsaint View Post

As for Darin and the insurance policies... I don't believe he was involved. I believe the agent who wrote the policies testified that the policies were normal. Darin and Darlie both had insurance on themselves and the policies on the boys were fairly inexpensive with multi policy discounts. There were also no other policies on the boys or Darlie. Just as a side note, most insurance companies will not allow a child to be insured for over what is considered the cost for an average burial. Gerber is one of the largest child life insurance agencies and they only allow $10,000 for a child under 18. If Darlie or Darin wanted to make money off the death of the boys they would have needed ten to fifteen policies. The only policies that the police found on the boys were the two (one for each boy) that were testified to.
I agree with you that a hit man may have been involved, but we don't know for certain the name of that hit man, if he exists. I am not as willing as you to give Darin a pass. His behavior when the police turned up was suspicious. I don't exactly know the forensic significance of blood on his jeans. All this talk of insurance scams and inviting burglars into the house is a red flag for me and it raises my eyebrows. It's not normal.

I just think the police and FBI never did a complete investigation. They are apt to jump to conclusions and they decided Darlie did it from the start. As far as I know there was never an investigation by a forensic accountant to see if Darin had more life insurance money from somewhere like the Cayman Islands or Belize, where there would be secrecy involved.

To go into the realms of speculation and guesswork and 'perhaps' and 'maybe' which would not be admissible in a courtroom, it could be that Darin intended to kill Darlie using a hitman but it went wrong and he missed by a whisker. I agree that Darlie is loathe to accuse her husband, or former husband, but this is very serious for her and there is a possibility she might be executed.

I agree with a poster on another forum:

Quote:
This one is hard for me. I don't think she caused her own injuries- I do believe it was either the husband or an intruder (possibly hired by the dad).....
As a nurse, I highly doubt that neck wound would have been placed there as a decoy- that was meant to kill her plain and simple. By some miracle it was 1-2 mm too shallow.
You just don't cut there if you are trying to fake injuries and not kill yourself. That is what makes me think this wasn't her own hand.....
As far as involvement, I don't know... haven't read enough about it... I totally suspect the dad though just based on his history.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2016, 06:10 AM   #218
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
Yes, there was only one policy by the husband, Darin. I lost many of my saved documents on the case with a computer crash a few months ago, but I can look up a reference or two. A facebook page about the case is a good reference option to find related links.

Speaking of Darin, I would like to say that after seeing him interviewed several times, as well as reading transcripts of him, I don't like him. As a human being, as a man. He is shallow, ignorant, materialistic.

But he isn't evil. He loves his children and his raising of their son, Drake, into adulthood is admirable. His simple mind wasn't equipped to predict how far his narcissistic, sociopath wife would go.
Wasapi, this is not very useful.
First catch rabbit, please do not describe the thread subject like this until we can all be sure she did the crime.
I think it is vanishingly unlikely, so you are engaging in circular argument like a hamster.
You may be correct, but Sinsaint seems to have all the sorts of counter arguments that prove you wrong, difficult though you will find it.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2016, 08:01 AM   #219
Sinsaint
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I agree with you that a hit man may have been involved, but we don't know for certain the name of that hit man, if he exists. I am not as willing as you to give Darin a pass. His behavior when the police turned up was suspicious. I don't exactly know the forensic significance of blood on his jeans. All this talk of insurance scams and inviting burglars into the house is a red flag for me and it raises my eyebrows. It's not normal.

I just think the police and FBI never did a complete investigation. They are apt to jump to conclusions and they decided Darlie did it from the start. As far as I know there was never an investigation by a forensic accountant to see if Darin had more life insurance money from somewhere like the Cayman Islands or Belize, where there would be secrecy involved.

To go into the realms of speculation and guesswork and 'perhaps' and 'maybe' which would not be admissible in a courtroom, it could be that Darin intended to kill Darlie using a hitman but it went wrong and he missed by a whisker. I agree that Darlie is loathe to accuse her husband, or former husband, but this is very serious for her and there is a possibility she might be executed.

I agree with a poster on another forum:
I don't think Darin hired a hitman. At most I think he might have hired someone to rob the house and it went horribly wrong. That might explain why Darlie agreed to have Mulder represent her and never even suggested Darin could have done it. In her mind she might have been thinking Darin hired the guy but he never wanted her or the kids to get hurt and she didn't want him to go to prison for it.

There couldn't have been other insurance policies. A) When a person dies the beneficiary who intends to collect on insurance policies needs to request a certified death certificate to send to each insurance company plus one or two more for legal purposes like declaring an estate. If there were multiple policies Darin would have needed to request a lot of death certificates and the police would have known about it. B) When an insurance company gets a claim on a policy where the death was a result of a homicide the insurance company will call the police to ask if the beneficiary is suspected of committing the crime. The police would know if the boys had multiple policies on them because they would have received multiple calls from multiple insurance companies. There is simply no way there was more insurance on the boys than the two policies everyone knows about. Darlie, on the other hand, might have been more insured than we know about.

I agree with the poster on the other board about Darlie's injuries. I don't believe they were self inflicted but I'll elaborate a bit on reasons other than the dangerously fatal neck wound. As a poster noted above, Darlie is apparently a narcissist. No narcissist is going to injure themself in such a way as to leave a hideous scar that can only be concealed with a turtleneck. If the neck wound were self inflicted Darlie would have needed to do it with her left hand. Same goes with the wound on her right forearm. She would have needed to switch the knife to her right hand at some point and stab her left shoulder. It defies logic she would have used both hands to stab herself with.

The wound on her arm is pretty telling. It's on the outer forearm and the direction is up and down. If someone were stabbing at her and she had her arms up in a boxer like defensive position this is the exact spot and direction you'd expect to see that wound. So Darlie, who doesn't appear to be all that bright, not only knows enough to inflict wounds on herself where they should be if she's defending herself but also makes inflicts them in the exact direction they should be? Nope. Not buying it. Same goes with the tears in her shirt. The prosecution claims they were part of hesitation stabs. It is far more likely those tears came from an attacker pulling at her with her shirt and stabbing at the same time. He managed to tear the shirt as it was pulled away from her body but didn't stab deep enough to penetrate her skin.
Sinsaint is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2016, 09:03 AM   #220
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,019
Originally Posted by Sinsaint View Post
At the time that Brantley was testifying, however, police had records of other crimes that resembled the Routier murders. On December 8, 1995, an intruder entered a nearby residence, obtained a small kitchen knife, and held that knife against the throat of a victim in preparation for a sexual assault. Exh. B. On March 28, 1996, an unknown assailant threatened a child with a kitchen fork. Exh. A. In a series of other crimes, an unknown assailant used a single tube sock similar to the sock found in the alley behind the Routier residence to gag his victims and to conceal fingerprints. Exh. B (using a sock from the victims drawer as a gag) (December 8, 1995); Exh. C (same) (February 1, 1996); Exh. D (assailant used a tube sock to cover his hands) (April 7, 1996); Exh. E (using a sock from the victims drawer as a gag) (May 7, 1996). Had defense counsel been given this information, they would have been able to impeach Brantley with evidence that his investigation into similar crimes was inadequate, and that his conclusions were not based on inaccurate assumptions.

http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Lega...as/Habeas.html


This doesn't give any details w.r.t. location or police report numbers or anything. It is simply assertion by defense attorneys. For all we know it could have happened in another state somewhere by someone's ex-boyfriend.

Moreover, the defense is complaining about not being given the incidents - isn't it their job to go find the incidents so they can create reasonable doubt? They are given a list of witnesses and they can depose them. It sounds like they are whining about not having done their own duties thoroughly.


Originally Posted by Sinsaint View Post
This man was only convicted of two of these assaults (five or six other victims linked by DNA testified at his trial). He was never tried for his other suspected assaults so there is no known record of those crimes to compare similarities.
Who is it? Who was convicted? I would read about his crimes in the context of the Routier case if I knew who it was.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2016, 11:42 AM   #221
Sinsaint
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
This doesn't give any details w.r.t. location or police report numbers or anything. It is simply assertion by defense attorneys. For all we know it could have happened in another state somewhere by someone's ex-boyfriend.

Moreover, the defense is complaining about not being given the incidents - isn't it their job to go find the incidents so they can create reasonable doubt? They are given a list of witnesses and they can depose them. It sounds like they are whining about not having done their own duties thoroughly.




Who is it? Who was convicted? I would read about his crimes in the context of the Routier case if I knew who it was.
The key word(s) in that paragraph are intruder and unknown assailant. If this guy were dating all these women he wouldn't be unknown to them and the crimes all occurred in the Dallas area as all the victims were taken to Parkland for their rape exams. Sammie Luckus Cook Jr. His appeal is on-line as well as an article about Gary Faison in which some of Cook's crimes are mentioned.

I beg to differ that they are just "whining" for not doing their own due diligence. For starters the issue is Brantley's testimony. He stated he had reviewed police reports in the geographical area looking for similarities to the Routier crime and had found none. Either he lied about how diligent his research was or he lied about there being no similar crimes. Any defendant, including Darlie, has the right to have only truthful testimony given against them.

Secondly, we don't know what Darlie's defense team had access to prior to her trial. All of these rapes were unsolved at that time and anyone who wanted to view the police reports may have been required to get a court order (common practice in most states if it's an ongoing investigation). You can't request a court order if you don't know what police reports you want to view. I remember debating with a woman on another message board who claimed to live in Dallas at the time and was emphatic no rapists were trolling the area during that time. Clearly there were at least three (or four including one traveling rapist who claims he returned to the Dallas area on occasion to rape women) active serial rapists in the area at that time and it wasn't exactly public knowledge.
Sinsaint is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2016, 05:25 PM   #222
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,019
Originally Posted by Sinsaint View Post
The key word(s) in that paragraph are intruder and unknown assailant. If this guy were dating all these women he wouldn't be unknown to them and the crimes all occurred in the Dallas area as all the victims were taken to Parkland for their rape exams. Sammie Luckus Cook Jr. His appeal is on-line as well as an article about Gary Faison in which some of Cook's crimes are mentioned.

I beg to differ that they are just "whining" for not doing their own due diligence. For starters the issue is Brantley's testimony. He stated he had reviewed police reports in the geographical area looking for similarities to the Routier crime and had found none. Either he lied about how diligent his research was or he lied about there being no similar crimes. Any defendant, including Darlie, has the right to have only truthful testimony given against them.

Secondly, we don't know what Darlie's defense team had access to prior to her trial. All of these rapes were unsolved at that time and anyone who wanted to view the police reports may have been required to get a court order (common practice in most states if it's an ongoing investigation). You can't request a court order if you don't know what police reports you want to view. I remember debating with a woman on another message board who claimed to live in Dallas at the time and was emphatic no rapists were trolling the area during that time. Clearly there were at least three (or four including one traveling rapist who claims he returned to the Dallas area on occasion to rape women) active serial rapists in the area at that time and it wasn't exactly public knowledge.
Considering Darlie's was not a sexual attack, I would have to say these crimes to which you refer were not similar and that Brantley was correct. One guy was known as the box-cutter rapist, another had the women shower afterward and yet another bound his victims. I don't see where any of these fit the MO of a supposed intruder at the Routier's. Why would anyone be looking for a rapist anyway? Whoever killed those kids was not interested in rape at all.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2016, 08:21 PM   #223
Sinsaint
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Considering Darlie's was not a sexual attack, I would have to say these crimes to which you refer were not similar and that Brantley was correct. One guy was known as the box-cutter rapist, another had the women shower afterward and yet another bound his victims. I don't see where any of these fit the MO of a supposed intruder at the Routier's. Why would anyone be looking for a rapist anyway? Whoever killed those kids was not interested in rape at all.
Considering the rape kit was lost along with her underwear no one knows if Darlie was raped or not. Whether she was raped or not is really a non-issue. The issue would be what the intruder intended to do regardless of his failed efforts. If Brantley was trying to do a true assessment of similar crimes he would have said "We have a woman who claims an unknown intruder entered her home. She isn't sure if she was sexually assaulted but claims she felt pressure down there. A kitchen knife from the home was used as a weapon in the attack. A sock from the home was found in the alley leading away from the house. Do the elements of this crime match the elements of any other crimes in the area?" Obviously they do.

As you pointed out, there are differences in the crimes. Focusing on the rapes that occurred in the victims' homes was every known victim of that rapist tied up? Did Darlie do something different (like not comply) that prevented the intruder from tying her up? Bruising indicates she fought back which might explain why she wasn't tied up. Was Darlie forced to shower after the attack? Was there any element of this crime that differed from the other known victims? Due to Darlie fighting back the intended rape may not have happened ergo no need to force her to wash the evidence away. The intruder also stabbed her (and subsequently her children) so fleeing the scene immediately would be a higher priority than sticking around to make his victim shower.

Most people are open to the obvious fact that a serial criminal will have slight variations in his crimes depending on how the situation unfolds.
Sinsaint is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2016, 08:53 PM   #224
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 460
Originally Posted by Sinsaint View Post
Most people are open to the obvious fact that a serial criminal will have slight variations in his crimes depending on how the situation unfolds.
Yeah, but none of your candidates for the death penalty in this situation slaughtered children before, during, or after the "rape/attempted rape" you're floating as a motivating factor, right? You have to admit that is more than a 'slight variation' on the theme.


We have a house with a little yappy dog that made NO NOISE UNTIL THE OFFICERS ARRIVED; and the little yappy dog being silent tells me there were no intruders in the house.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2016, 12:26 AM   #225
Samzilla
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
Yeah, but none of your candidates for the death penalty in this situation slaughtered children before, during, or after the "rape/attempted rape" you're floating as a motivating factor, right? You have to admit that is more than a 'slight variation' on the theme.


We have a house with a little yappy dog that made NO NOISE UNTIL THE OFFICERS ARRIVED; and the little yappy dog being silent tells me there were no intruders in the house.
Charles Boney had never murdered women or children before either until he found himself in a situation where his usual assault circumstances changed.
Samzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2016, 08:31 AM   #226
Sinsaint
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
Yeah, but none of your candidates for the death penalty in this situation slaughtered children before, during, or after the "rape/attempted rape" you're floating as a motivating factor, right? You have to admit that is more than a 'slight variation' on the theme.


We have a house with a little yappy dog that made NO NOISE UNTIL THE OFFICERS ARRIVED; and the little yappy dog being silent tells me there were no intruders in the house.
So your argument is once a rapist, only ever a rapist? The Scarborough rapist never murdered any of his victims, until he did. Let's say a guy robs nineteen convenience stores at gun point. All the stores are in the New York City area. He has a southern accent and always wears red gloves. He never shot a single person in all nineteen robberies. Then there is a robbery in the New York City area of a convenience store where three people are shot. The only survivor claims the robber had a southern accent and wore red gloves. Is your argument going to be it can't be the same guy who robbed the other stores because he never killed anyone before? Or will you recognize that it most likely is the same guy but something about the circumstances of this robbery were different in some way and he decided to shoot people for some reason?

Scenario two: Desmirelle read her local paper one day and saw an article stating police are searching for a guy who is breaking into homes and raping women. Luckily he hasn't murdered any of his victims. Later that night Desmirelle falls asleep on her couch with her children camped out on the floor. At 2:00 a.m. Desmirelle wakes up to guy laying on top of her with a knife in his hand. Does Desmirelle say to herself "Gee, I've heard about this guy. Looks like I'm only going to get raped?" Or does Desmirelle say to herself "Oh my God, this guy could kill me and my kids. We could be his first murder victims." If you're honest with yourself you'll recognize that just because he didn't murder any of his previous victims doesn't mean he won't start with you. There's a first time for everything unless you think all murderers start out on their third kill.

And I have a big yappy dog. She has always been nice to people. Well, with the exception of the day she wasn't and decided to bite the UPS man. She always barks at anyone who pulls into the driveway. Just the other day my daughter's friend's dad pulled into the driveway, walked all the way through the basement, up the stairs, through the living room and into my kitchen all without me knowing. You know what my dog didn't do? Bark. I don't put much stock in the behavior of an animal.
Sinsaint is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2016, 03:55 PM   #227
wasapi
Philosopher
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,399
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Wasapi, this is not very useful.
First catch rabbit, please do not describe the thread subject like this until we can all be sure she did the crime.
I think it is vanishingly unlikely, so you are engaging in circular argument like a hamster.
You may be correct, but Sinsaint seems to have all the sorts of counter arguments that prove you wrong, difficult though you will find it.
I guess I am confused. And I have been wrong - and admitted it - before on this board. See, I thought this was a "discussion" board, a place to share opinions. " . . . please do not describe the thread subject like this until we can all be sure she did the crime."

What? I can reenter the thread after everyone else agrees on guilt or not?
__________________
Julia
wasapi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2016, 04:26 PM   #228
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
I guess I am confused. And I have been wrong - and admitted it - before on this board. See, I thought this was a "discussion" board, a place to share opinions. " . . . please do not describe the thread subject like this until we can all be sure she did the crime."

What? I can reenter the thread after everyone else agrees on guilt or not?
I did not mean to sound that way. My concern is more humanitarian, let us not recommend execution yet.
I consider it an appallingly conceived plan for financial gain, where there is very great difficulty imagining it will work without a slip up. Whenever I see this, eg Lundy, Bamber, Bain, Ewan MacDonald, I look for a data point they can't escape from. It seems the screen slashing is not that point if Sinsaint is correct, so we need another.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2016, 04:48 PM   #229
Sinsaint
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I did not mean to sound that way. My concern is more humanitarian, let us not recommend execution yet.
I consider it an appallingly conceived plan for financial gain, where there is very great difficulty imagining it will work without a slip up. Whenever I see this, eg Lundy, Bamber, Bain, Ewan MacDonald, I look for a data point they can't escape from. It seems the screen slashing is not that point if Sinsaint is correct, so we need another.
10 Q. Okay. Did you ever form an opinion as
11 to whether or not you thought this cut had been made from
12 the outside looking in or from the inside of the garage
13 looking out?
14 A. There is one microscopic finding that
15 is more suggestive of it being punched from the outside.
16 The scanning electron micrograph in the top right of this
17 exhibit is a view of the back side, that would be the
18 view from inside the garage of the screen cross strands.
19 Now, the first cut occurs on that strand coming down,
20 right where you are indicating.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. Now, the strand to the right of that,
23 indicates a stress puncture. If the knife goes in and
24 that is the first strand that is cut, the strand next to
25 it is experiencing the force, in my opinion, going inward

Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2904

1 to the garage.
2 Q. So more suggestive of from the
3 outside?
4 A. Yes, sir.
Sinsaint is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2016, 11:38 PM   #230
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by Sinsaint View Post
10 Q. Okay. Did you ever form an opinion as
11 to whether or not you thought this cut had been made from
12 the outside looking in or from the inside of the garage
13 looking out?
14 A. There is one microscopic finding that
15 is more suggestive of it being punched from the outside.
16 The scanning electron micrograph in the top right of this
17 exhibit is a view of the back side, that would be the
18 view from inside the garage of the screen cross strands.
19 Now, the first cut occurs on that strand coming down,
20 right where you are indicating.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. Now, the strand to the right of that,
23 indicates a stress puncture. If the knife goes in and
24 that is the first strand that is cut, the strand next to
25 it is experiencing the force, in my opinion, going inward

Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2904

1 to the garage.
2 Q. So more suggestive of from the
3 outside?
4 A. Yes, sir.
Good. If someone is innocent in jail, there is a way to deconstruct each and every inculpatory item of evidence. This looks authentic.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2016, 08:54 AM   #231
Sinsaint
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Good. If someone is innocent in jail, there is a way to deconstruct each and every inculpatory item of evidence. This looks authentic.
It's authentic. It's testimony from Charles Linch trace evidence analyst for SWIFS. He was a witness for the prosecution. He clearly states the evidence points to the screen being cut from the outside. Many people in the pro-guilt camp will constantly claim the screen was cut from the inside because 90% of readers on a message board won't have the energy to see if it's true or not. They will bring up the fiberglass rod on the bread knife as damning proof of her guilt but never mention that both Linch and Nabors lied about whether the knives had been dusted prior to his (Linch's) analysis. They will constantly point out her blood in the sink proves she cut herself there but they won't bother to tell anyone her blood was also found on her blanket and pillow that she was sleeping with on the couch. They tout the castoff stains on her shirt as proof she stabbed the boys but refuse to give an explanation for how her blood was mixed with Damon's if she cut herself last in the kitchen. No explanation for why Darlie would have picked up shards of glass from the staged broken wine glass and placed them in the wine bucket and on the tabletop of the wine rack. No explanation for how the first two police officers on the scene could see small, clear glass fragments on the kitchen floor but never saw a big vacuum cleaner laying right beside them.

Any second now someone will come rolling through here spewing the lie that the boys were stabbed with so much rage the cement slab under the carpet was chipped by the knife.
Sinsaint is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2016, 01:19 PM   #232
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by Sinsaint View Post
It's authentic. It's testimony from Charles Linch trace evidence analyst for SWIFS. He was a witness for the prosecution. He clearly states the evidence points to the screen being cut from the outside. Many people in the pro-guilt camp will constantly claim the screen was cut from the inside because 90% of readers on a message board won't have the energy to see if it's true or not. They will bring up the fiberglass rod on the bread knife as damning proof of her guilt but never mention that both Linch and Nabors lied about whether the knives had been dusted prior to his (Linch's) analysis. They will constantly point out her blood in the sink proves she cut herself there but they won't bother to tell anyone her blood was also found on her blanket and pillow that she was sleeping with on the couch. They tout the castoff stains on her shirt as proof she stabbed the boys but refuse to give an explanation for how her blood was mixed with Damon's if she cut herself last in the kitchen. No explanation for why Darlie would have picked up shards of glass from the staged broken wine glass and placed them in the wine bucket and on the tabletop of the wine rack. No explanation for how the first two police officers on the scene could see small, clear glass fragments on the kitchen floor but never saw a big vacuum cleaner laying right beside them.

Any second now someone will come rolling through here spewing the lie that the boys were stabbed with so much rage the cement slab under the carpet was chipped by the knife.
That is interesting because Charlie Wilkes earlier in the thread said,

I don't know, but I'd like to have about 10 times more crime scene photos than what I have seen over the years. One of the problems with her story is that she says she was sleeping on the couch when she was stabbed or cut with the knife. The photos I have seen don't show any blood on the couch, and you'd sure expect to see some.

Her supporters say there was blood on the couch, but it doesn't show in the photos, and the couch was discarded after the crime. Kind of like the windshield on Kennedy's limo...


So that seems to be answered.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2016, 05:50 PM   #233
Sinsaint
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
That is interesting because Charlie Wilkes earlier in the thread said,

I don't know, but I'd like to have about 10 times more crime scene photos than what I have seen over the years. One of the problems with her story is that she says she was sleeping on the couch when she was stabbed or cut with the knife. The photos I have seen don't show any blood on the couch, and you'd sure expect to see some.

Her supporters say there was blood on the couch, but it doesn't show in the photos, and the couch was discarded after the crime. Kind of like the windshield on Kennedy's limo...


So that seems to be answered.
https://darliefacts.com/gallery/#jp-carousel-1546

https://darliefacts.com/gallery/#jp-carousel-1544

The above two pictures show Darlie's pillow and a blue blanket. Both were tested and had her blood on them. The top link has a better view of the blood on it. Also note that the couch (left side of picture) has blood on it. Judith Floyd or Kathryn Long (not sure which... too lazy to look right now) testified to taking three samples of blood from the couch closest to the bar and one sample from the couch along the wall (couch Darlie was on). Van Winkle testified all four samples came from Darlie.

Also keep in mind, if you are sleeping on a couch with a blanket and pillow and you get stabbed while laying on that couch most of the blood will end up on the blanket and pillow directly under you.

https://darliefacts.com/gallery/#jp-carousel-1639

This is the back of Darlie's shirt. Look at the first picture of the pillow with the clear view of the blood. Spot anything interesting?
Sinsaint is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2016, 06:26 PM   #234
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by Sinsaint View Post
https://darliefacts.com/gallery/#jp-carousel-1546

https://darliefacts.com/gallery/#jp-carousel-1544

The above two pictures show Darlie's pillow and a blue blanket. Both were tested and had her blood on them. The top link has a better view of the blood on it. Also note that the couch (left side of picture) has blood on it. Judith Floyd or Kathryn Long (not sure which... too lazy to look right now) testified to taking three samples of blood from the couch closest to the bar and one sample from the couch along the wall (couch Darlie was on). Van Winkle testified all four samples came from Darlie.

Also keep in mind, if you are sleeping on a couch with a blanket and pillow and you get stabbed while laying on that couch most of the blood will end up on the blanket and pillow directly under you.

https://darliefacts.com/gallery/#jp-carousel-1639

This is the back of Darlie's shirt. Look at the first picture of the pillow with the clear view of the blood. Spot anything interesting?
No, I can't see a pillow.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2016, 08:39 PM   #235
Sinsaint
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
No, I can't see a pillow.
In the first link it's the maroon thing at the top of the picture. Look at the blood on it and the look at the blood on the back of Darlie's shirt in the last link.
Sinsaint is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2016, 09:52 PM   #236
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by Sinsaint View Post
In the first link it's the maroon thing at the top of the picture. Look at the blood on it and the look at the blood on the back of Darlie's shirt in the last link.
OK only saw last link. Interesting that there are opposing views.
I don't buy that a crime scene can result in that much uncertainty.
This looks an interesting case that should be solved.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2016, 05:04 AM   #237
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
I still don't think the husband Darin should be given a pass, though I am willing to agree an intruder might have been involved, with all that talk of insurance scams. The police seem to be fixated on Darlie. They are not willing to consider any other leads and suspects.

I am not the only person who thinks this either. From the internet:

Quote:
What convinces me of her innocence is that there's too much pointing to Darin's guilt.

1) He had blood all over him including spatter on two places on the jeans he was wearing.

2) One of his hairs was found on the murder weapon

3) That was his sock in the alley, with blood from both boys, and Darlie's saliva. This fits with something being put in her mouth. And Darin is the only person we know was outside that night.

4) Motive: Darin was in trouble financially. He had a 250k policy on Darlie.

5) Opportunity: he was home, everyone was asleep downstairs

6) Means: the knife used came from inside the house.

7) Darlie's description of the "intruder" black hat, long hair, tall, jeans. That describes Darin, the black hat was found, he was wearing jeans.

8) Darin's extremely odd behavior, noted in his affidavit. He fled across the street when LE showed up. He then went back across the street again after the bodies had been taken out. 30mins after the ambulances left, Darin is still there. What is he doing?

9) It's not Darlie's story about what he was wearing that changed--it's his. He says he came down w/o jeans. Then he changed it to wearing jeans.

10) He flopped a polygraph and I don't believe his story about how he was manipulated into taking it, or how it was "rigged." And his story makes it clear he did not take an early polygraph.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 3rd December 2016 at 05:05 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2016, 09:29 AM   #238
Sinsaint
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I still don't think the husband Darin should be given a pass, though I am willing to agree an intruder might have been involved, with all that talk of insurance scams. The police seem to be fixated on Darlie. They are not willing to consider any other leads and suspects.

I am not the only person who thinks this either. From the internet:
One thing about message board posters (myself included) is that sometimes the "facts" they present aren't facts at all.

Quote:
What convinces me of her innocence is that there's too much pointing to Darin's guilt.

1) He had blood all over him including spatter on two places on the jeans he was wearing.
Darin, Darlie and officer Waddell all testified Darin was performing CPR on Devon. Devon was shirtless with two stab wounds to the chest. Both he and Darlie testified that when Darin gave rescue breaths blood came spraying out of Devon's chest wounds. Assuming Darin was in the correct position while performing CPR at least one of his knees and upper leg would have been right beside Devon's chest meaning that portion of Darin's jeans could have ended up with this spray of blood on it that might resemble blood spatter. Now, if the blood were tested and it came back as Damon or Darlie's blood, he would have a problem explaining that.

Quote:
2) One of his hairs was found on the murder weapon
Untrue. No hairs were found on the murder weapon.

Quote:
3) That was his sock in the alley, with blood from both boys, and Darlie's saliva. This fits with something being put in her mouth. And Darin is the only person we know was outside that night.
First, no one knows if the DNA from Darlie on the sock came from saliva. For all anyone knows they are just her skin cells that were deposited on the sock during her normal course of doing the laundry. Just because the sock came from the house doesn't mean either one of them used it during the crime (obviously it was used but no one can say who used it). Yes, Darin did leave the house that night but it was after first responders arrived and his movements can be accounted for from then on.

Quote:
4) Motive: Darin was in trouble financially. He had a 250k policy on Darlie.
Untrue. The policy on Darlie was $100-$150k which was roughly half of the amount that Darin had on himself and right in line with how much she should have been insured for as a housewife (typical insurance amounts for a stay-at-home mother at that time were one half of the husband's insured amount). These policies had been in effect for a long time and Darin never attempted to have her insurance policy increased.

Quote:
5) Opportunity: he was home, everyone was asleep downstairs
Opportunity by itself means nothing.

Quote:
6) Means: the knife used came from inside the house.
Which implicates Darlie and Darin equally.

Quote:
7) Darlie's description of the "intruder" black hat, long hair, tall, jeans. That describes Darin, the black hat was found, he was wearing jeans.
I would be willing to bet roughly 90% of the American male population wear jeans on a daily basis. It's not exactly a unique article of clothing. "The black hat" was not found. A black hat was found and it was determined to belong to one of the boys.

Quote:
8) Darin's extremely odd behavior, noted in his affidavit. He fled across the street when LE showed up. He then went back across the street again after the bodies had been taken out. 30mins after the ambulances left, Darin is still there. What is he doing?
Darin did not flee the scene. He ran to a neighbor's house (Karen) to get help as she is a nurse. This was done after two police officers arrived but prior to paramedics entering the home. Karen testified that by the time she got to the house (with Darin) paramedics were in the house. He did go back across the street after Darlie and Damon left in the ambulances because Karen was going to give him a shirt to put on. He was still there thirty minutes later because he wasn't allowed to ride in the ambulance and couldn't take his vehicle. He waited in the front yard until Karen and/or her husband returned to drive him to the hospital.

Quote:
9) It's not Darlie's story about what he was wearing that changed--it's his. He says he came down w/o jeans. Then he changed it to wearing jeans.
Chalk it up to someone who had just experienced a traumatic event and couldn't quite remember what he had on when he went downstairs.

Quote:
10) He flopped a polygraph and I don't believe his story about how he was manipulated into taking it, or how it was "rigged." And his story makes it clear he did not take an early polygraph.
Polygraph machines have to be the biggest junk science equipment that people still put stock in. Lie detectors (as commonly called) do not detect lies. They detect a physiological response that the body has when asked questions. Those questions could invoke sadness or anger in the person causing the person to have a physiological response. Gary Ridgeway passed his polygraph test with flying colors. The husband of a victim of BTK failed his polygraph test miserably. There is an unsolved murder case in Florida where a husband and wife were attacked and their daughter was killed. The husband and wife both said only one man was there. So far at least three men who don't know each other have failed a polygraph test.

I've considered to possibility Darin did it. The only way he could have done it would have been to leave through the window, run 75 yards down the alley to drop the sock, run 75 yards back and around the house to the front door, go inside and take his shoes off, run upstairs and then run straight back down the stairs. Darlie said as soon as the attacker left she picked up the knife, walked back through the kitchen to turn on a light, started yelling for Darin and then called 911. Darlie said she saw Darin run down the stairs and he is heard on the 911 tape less than a minute into it. This means Darin had roughly sixty seconds or less to do everything mentioned above. Personally, I don't think he had the time to do it.
Sinsaint is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2016, 09:55 AM   #239
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
All I am getting is a load of opinions about the Routier case from the internet, and not enough facts. I still think the husband, Darin, is a suspicious character and that he was never thoroughly or properly investigated. Just saying he only had a few thousand dollars of life insurance on his family without backing it up with hard documentary evidence does not convince me. The police and FBI just thought it was an open and shut case and they are comfortable with it. I have my doubts about it and very little confidence in it.

This is an affidavit by Darin Routier. It doesn't convince me but instead raises my eyebrows:

Quote:
Affidavit of Darin Routier
In the Criminal District Court No.3
Dallas County, Texas
DARLIE LYNN ROUTIER
No. F96-39973-MJ IN THE CRIMINAL
DISTRICT COURT
NO. 3 OF
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

AFFIDAVIT OF DARIN ROUTIER

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared DARIN ROUTIER, who, being by me duly sworn on his oath, stated the following:

"My name is Darin Routier. I am over the age of twenty-one and I reside in McKinney, Texas. I am capable and fully competent to make this affidavit. The statement herein are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge. I am the husband of the Petitioner, Darlie Lynn Routier.

"In 1994, I spoke to a person about my Jaguar automobile. In that conversation, I said that "it wouldn't bother me" if the Jaguar was stolen. That person then stole the Jaguar.

"In March or April, 1996, I asked my father-in-law Robbie Gene Kee, if he knew anyone who would agree to burglarize my home as part of an insurance scam. I said that I would arrange for my family to be absent from my house at 5801 Eagle Drive, that someone who I would hire would come to the house and take away the furniture and other items from my house in a U-Haul truck, and that I would then pay that person from the proceeds of the resulting insurance payments.

"Between March 1996 and May 1996, I told multiple people of my planned insurance scam.

"In the late evening on June 5, 1996, I had a verbal disagreement with my wife Darlie Lynn Routier. During that discussion, my wife asked me for a martial separation.

"I first met with attorney Douglas Mulder in July 1996. I met at least once a week with Mr. Mulder in July 1996. The subject of the meetings was Mr. Mulder's potential representation of my wife Darlie Lynn Routier and I in her criminal trial.

"I continued to meet with Mr. Mulder in August 1996. During one of the meetings I had with Mr. Mulder in August 1996, he told me that the court-appointed attorneys in my wife's case, Wayne Huff and Douglas Parks, had confided in him that they were going to try and portray me as the person guilty of the murder of my sons Damon and Devon because they thought that I had something to do with the deaths of my sons. I told Mr. Mulder that if we hired him, I did not want him to "go after" me. Mr. Mulder agreed that, if hired to represent my wife, he would not argue as part of the defense that I was in any way responsible for the death of my children.

"Between July 1996 and late September 1996, I continued to meet regularly with Mr. Mulder. On September 30, 1996, Mr. Mulder represented me at a show cause hearing before Judge Tolle where the State of Texas alleged that I violated a gag order in the criminal case against my wife. In September and October 1996, I believe, based on Mr. Mulder's comments to me, that he was my attorney.

"On October 21, 1996, Mr. Mulder became lead counsel in my wife's criminal trial."

[signed]
______________________
Darin Routier

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this the 11 day of July, 2002

[signed]

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 3rd December 2016 at 09:59 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2016, 11:01 AM   #240
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 460
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
I guess I am confused. And I have been wrong - and admitted it - before on this board. See, I thought this was a "discussion" board, a place to share opinions.
So did I, but it's not unless you agree with the idea of Darlie's innocence.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.