Darlie Routier

Henri McPhee said:
The police don't always get it right, like those two keystone cops in the JonBenet Ramsey case SteveThomas and Kolar.
Click to expand...

Well, the first part of your sentence is correct but no one here has ever stated that the police always get it right, so your point is? And the second half of your sentence makes you sound catty and jealous.
 
Ah, and this is the problem. You think it is the wrong verdict, yet you cite nothing FACTUAL to support it. You do the exact same thing on the Jeffrey MacDonald Did It thread. You have yet to actually address the evidence against her or MacDonald.
 
desmirelle said:
Ah, and this is the problem. You think it is the wrong verdict, yet you cite nothing FACTUAL to support it. You do the exact same thing on the Jeffrey MacDonald Did It thread. You have yet to actually address the evidence against her or MacDonald.
Click to expand...
desmirelle:
Can you refute specific data points Sinsaint has brought to the thread?
Any one will be a start. She seems to have started at the crime scene and worked assiduously from there.
My experience is that there is no point in considering other material, prosecutors, courts and so on until the crime scene is deconstructed in detail. Sinsaint is winning hands down on this thread from what I have seen.
 
Sinsaint's post #87 implies that Darlie did bring Devon a towel because one was in a photograph near his body. That only proves there was a towel, it says nothing about who placed it there. S. then disputes the term "rag" v. "gauze pad" as if has deep meaning. It just means different people use different terminology for the same thing. Another post opines that Darlie was unconscious when Darlie has no head injury that would account for unconsciousness. From what I'm seeing, S. is just re-interpreting all evidence for Darlie rather than against her. She's even using fingerprint dust put on a surface as "proof" the police weren't doing a good job (Linch reported observation, Linch does not indicate whether or not the information that the sill was dusted was given prior to the observation.)
 
Oh, and the sock. Read "Precious Angels" where Barbara Davis points out that she could sprint out and plant the sock and she's much older than Darlie. Of course, Davis had since changed her mind (after her son's death at the hands of the police). But she makes a compelling argument against Darlie in the book.
 
desmirelle said:
Oh, and the sock. Read "Precious Angels" where Barbara Davis points out that she could sprint out and plant the sock and she's much older than Darlie. Of course, Davis had since changed her mind (after her son's death at the hands of the police). But she makes a compelling argument against Darlie in the book.
Click to expand...

It's most unlikely that Darlie sprinted out to plant the sock after the injuries she received, and being in a state of shock. The physical evidence does not point to Darlie as the police maintain. They jumped to conclusions. Darlies's husband will never feel safe until Darlie is executed.
 
I wrote: READ the book, not jump to a wild conclusion as to what Barbara Davis wrote. Hint: You are jumping to the conclusion, after her conviction, that Darlie told the truth about when she cut herself. She wasn't in shock, no one reported that. The book makes sense in its conclusion about the sock.
 
desmirelle said:
I wrote: READ the book, not jump to a wild conclusion as to what Barbara Davis wrote. Hint: You are jumping to the conclusion, after her conviction, that Darlie told the truth about when she cut herself. She wasn't in shock, no one reported that. The book makes sense in its conclusion about the sock.
Click to expand...
Can you help me by explaining why she thought this plan would make her life better? I have studied a score of cases where plans looked ridiculous, and lo and behold, it turns out in every case they are completely innocent.
Jeremy Bamber.
Mark Lundy.
Ewen MacDonald.
David Bain.
Amanda Knox
Raffaele Sollecito
Sabrina and Cosima Miseri
The West Memphis 3.
The Norfolk 4
Jack Daniel MacCullough
David Tamihere
The Ramsey family
Steven Avery

The list is endless. Look at the science behind alibis.
I can't be sure about this case, but it smacks of the most ludicrous and unpleasant concoction for a young woman with financial problems.
It looks exactly like an intruder, a big boy who did it and ran away. I bet it's what it looks like.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
Can you help me by explaining why she thought this plan would make her life better? I have studied a score of cases where plans looked ridiculous, and lo and behold, it turns out in every case they are completely innocent.
Jeremy Bamber.
Mark Lundy.
Ewen MacDonald.
David Bain.
Amanda Knox
Raffaele Sollecito
Sabrina and Cosima Miseri
The West Memphis 3.
The Norfolk 4
Jack Daniel MacCullough
David Tamihere
The Ramsey family
Steven Avery

The list is endless. Look at the science behind alibis.
I can't be sure about this case, but it smacks of the most ludicrous and unpleasant concoction for a young woman with financial problems.
It looks exactly like an intruder, a big boy who did it and ran away. I bet it's what it looks like.
Click to expand...

What, exactly, have you studied with regard to this case?
 
Samson said:
Can you help me by explaining why she thought this plan would make her life better?
Click to expand...

PLAN? Where exactly in the quote you cite did I say Darlie Routier had a PLAN? I told Henri to READ A BOOK and look at the conclusion about a SOCK that Barbara Davis made before she changed her mind.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
What, exactly, have you studied with regard to this case?
Click to expand...
Sinsaint mainly. She has the answers I look for. I don't believe anyone goes for this nonsensical strategy to relieve financial pressure. As plans it is a five star fail, you gonna get busted. Of course you will say it nearly worked or some such, but I don't buy it. I looked at Charlie's posts and he appears to have not understood the blood evidence.
I asked about the screen door cutting and SS answered to my satisfaction. The case looks like a crock to me, maybe you can tell me what surely sinks her claims? One big immoveable data point or locking piece. I probably asked earlier and you probably answered, sorry if so.
 
Samson said:
Sinsaint mainly. She has the answers I look for. I don't believe anyone goes for this nonsensical strategy to relieve financial pressure. As plans it is a five star fail, you gonna get busted. Of course you will say it nearly worked or some such, but I don't buy it. I looked at Charlie's posts and he appears to have not understood the blood evidence.
I asked about the screen door cutting and SS answered to my satisfaction. The case looks like a crock to me, maybe you can tell me what surely sinks her claims? One big immoveable data point or locking piece. I probably asked earlier and you probably answered, sorry if so.
Click to expand...

So reading one anonymous internet poster's POV is enough for you to declare someone innocent? Someone who was tried and convicted and has lost many appeals, I might add. You haven't looked through any official sources of the case and you haven't researched any of the pieces of evidence, yet you feel educated enough about the case to declare all those other people wrong, and to shout from the mountain tops, "Darlie is innocent!

See, I can't do that. I have to go down rabbit hole after rabbit hole. I have to read everything I can get my hands on, so I am sure I understand the case inside and out. Only then do I feel educated enough to render an opinion.

Specifically, with regard to motive, is there any good reason, ever, to murder one's children? Susan Smith did it for a man, is that reasonable? Brandi Worley did it because her husband wanted a divorce, is that reasonable? In the end, the "why" doesn't really matter and, in fact, does not have to be a part of the State's case, here in the U.S. The more important aspect is that Darlie's many stories of the crime did not add up and there was no evidence of an intruder whatsoever. The crime could not have happened the way she said it happened, from the slashed screen to the broken glass, to the jewelry, to the closed and locked outside gate, to the blood evidence.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
So reading one anonymous internet poster's POV is enough for you to declare someone innocent? Someone who was tried and convicted and has lost many appeals, I might add. You haven't looked through any official sources of the case and you haven't researched any of the pieces of evidence, yet you feel educated enough about the case to declare all those other people wrong, and to shout from the mountain tops, "Darlie is innocent!

See, I can't do that. I have to go down rabbit hole after rabbit hole. I have to read everything I can get my hands on, so I am sure I understand the case inside and out. Only then do I feel educated enough to render an opinion.

Specifically, with regard to motive, is there any good reason, ever, to murder one's children? Susan Smith did it for a man, is that reasonable? Brandi Worley did it because her husband wanted a divorce, is that reasonable? In the end, the "why" doesn't really matter and, in fact, does not have to be a part of the State's case, here in the U.S. The more important aspect is that Darlie's many stories of the crime did not add up and there was no evidence of an intruder whatsoever. The crime could not have happened the way she said it happened, from the slashed screen to the broken glass, to the jewelry, to the closed and locked outside gate, to the blood evidence.
Click to expand...
Which one of these points am I best to research? Which individual one proves she is guilty. Proof normally lies with one big point, one for which an alternative explanation does not exist? I will do the hard work if you name the point and give a few links.
 
Samson said:
Which one of these points am I best to research? Which individual one proves she is guilty. Proof normally lies with one big point, one for which an alternative explanation does not exist? I will do the hard work if you name the point and give a few links.
Click to expand...

Cite the major cases where ONE BIG POINT is the proof. I've always noticed the devil is in the details. Like where the motion sensor light wasn't on even though the police arrived within the time limit in which it was to have remained on...on the path the mythic intruder would have taken out of the yard.
 
desmirelle said:
Cite the major cases where ONE BIG POINT is the proof. I've always noticed the devil is in the details. Like where the motion sensor light wasn't on even though the police arrived within the time limit in which it was to have remained on...on the path the mythic intruder would have taken out of the yard.
Click to expand...
That is a fair point. For that you need a simple set of parameters showing when she claims the intruder came, how soon after she called the police and when they arrived and a set of scientific tests on the sensor and light.
I just get surprised at a scene like this not yielding certainty. Despite claims to the contrary, there is certainty Sheila Caffel killed herself then her family by a host of data points for example. Ignoring what the police claim is the first step to discovery.
 
Samson said:
That is a fair point. For that you need a simple set of parameters showing when she claims the intruder came, how soon after she called the police and when they arrived and a set of scientific tests on the sensor and light.
I just get surprised at a scene like this not yielding certainty. Despite claims to the contrary, there is certainty Sheila Caffel killed herself then her family by a host of data points for example. Ignoring what the police claim is the first step to discovery.
Click to expand...

Well, let's start with DARLIE's version. She called as soon as she chased the mythical intruder out. Check the time on the call. She was STILL on the phone with the same operator, same call, when the police arrived. Check that time. The motion sensor stays on more than 15 minutes. Did 15 minutes elapse between the call and the arrival?
 
Last edited:
desmirelle said:
Well, let's start with DARLIE's version. She called as soon as she chased the mythical intruder out. Check the time on the call. She was STILL on the phone with the same operator, same call, when the police arrived. Check that time. The motion sensor stays on more than 15 minutes. Did 15 minutes elapse between the call and the arrival?
Click to expand...
Is that a rhetorical question? I don't know or how to find out quickly. But I bet Sinsaint and Ampulla know enough one way or other.
 
Samson said:
Is that a rhetorical question? I don't know or how to find out quickly. But I bet Sinsaint and Ampulla know enough one way or other.
Click to expand...

No, that was not a rhetorical question. It was a question of how well can YOU research. The answer I'm getting is "not very well at all" and Ampulla is right, you're just reading these posts and drawing conclusions from them.

BTW, the answer to the question I asked in the post is: No.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom