It does explain why the sock was found in the alley. And as you can see, at least one guy was was running around the Dallas area at the time using knives he found in the victims' homes and covering his hands with socks. Check out the timeline for his rapes. Suddenly stopped as of May when he was on a monthly cycle. He wasn't arrested until November. Why did he suddenly stop?
Darlie Routier
- Thread starter Desert Fox
- Start date
It does explain why the sock was found in the alley. And as you can see, at least one guy was was running around the Dallas area at the time using knives he found in the victims' homes and covering his hands with socks. Check out the timeline for his rapes. Suddenly stopped as of May when he was on a monthly cycle. He wasn't arrested until November. Why did he suddenly stop?
Let's see... Terry Labor and Barton Epstein both signed affidavits stating that after their testing, experiments and crime scene analysis it was their conclusion that Darlie's version matched the evidence and they could refute Bevel's findings. They also stated this information was told to Mulder via phone and they never received a call back from him after that conversation. Mulder, in later interviews, said it was his opinion that he could refute Bevel's findings on cross and didn't need a Labor or Epstein. So your assertion that Labor was "never able to explain" anything is factually incorrect.
Tom Bevel testified to a lot of things such as it was his opinion that if an intruder left through the window he would have expected to find blood on the screen because the attacker would have had a significant amount of blood on them. This got me thinking. Maybe I should look up other cases of murder involving a knife just to see how much blood might end up on a perpetrator.
Dr. Schwartz went to trial for hiring a second party to murder his ex-partner Dr. Stidham. The second party stabbed the victim no less than fifteen times then stole his car but no blood was found in it. The prosecution's expert blood spatter witness in that case, Tom Bevel, testified he was not surprised by the fact no blood was found in the car. According to him perpetrators who use knives typically don't get much, if any, blood on them because the blood will fly outward off the end of the knife tip as it is being swung.
I have reviewed the education, qualifications and experience of both experts and they seem remarkable similar so I'm not sure which expert I should believe.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Individuals in the grip of rage or mental health issues are well capable of carrying out the most brutal types of attacks on themselves that you can imagine, and the injuries suffered in this example don't even get close to what I've seen myself - an individual that stabbed themselves multiple times and only stopped when the knife they were using broke off at the hilt and was embedded in their chest actually survived, and this wasn't an individual on drugs either - one of those cases I saw was somebody that damn near succeeded in cutting their own head off, in public, in front of witnesses.
On a different note, I once observed an individual take a running jump through a plate glass window that didn't receive much more than scratches, and I thought for sure that was going to be a fatal - the jumper then took a zombie sized bite out of the intended victim's chest before they then jumped through the same window they entered and took off for parts unknown.
In short, this instance doesn't sound at all out of the question for self inflicted wounds.
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
If she can do all that, doesn't that mean she has mental health issues and should not get the death penalty?
The sock isn't simply an anomaly. It would have been impossible for Darlie to plant. The sock had Devon and Damon's blood on it and none of Darlie's. Bevel testified Darlie had to have been actively bleeding when Devon was attacked. We also know Damon couldn't have lived more than nine minutes after his attack according to the coroner. Her call to 911 lasted five minutes 38 seconds. A paramedic testified Damon died approximately one minute after he arrived which can be heard at the end of the call.
That leaves Darlie with roughly two and half minutes to take the sock 150 yards round trip without getting any of her blood on it and without depositing any of her blood anywhere on that trip, clean the sink and counter, clean the kitchen floor, run the vacuum through the kitchen, wipe a bloody handprint off the couch, put her own blood on a pillow and blanket, place a bunch of wet rags in the living room and hallway, break a wine glass on the floor then pick up a few pieces (without getting blood on them) and place them in an ice bucket and on the wine rack table top.
It's far more plausible that an intruder had it on his hand during the attack and simply discarded it as he fled down the alley. If the theory is she planted the sock why didn't she weave the intruder using a sock into her story? I doubt she would go to all that effort of planting it and then forget all about it.
Last edited:
So the sock should be ignored because the prosecution can't make it fit?
Lol... Not exactly:
Laber also disagrees with the state’s claim that Routier deliberately broke a wine glass to bolster her claim of a struggle.
“The wine glass was not thrown on the floor,” said Laber, adding that he and Epstein broke “a number of those” when conducting tests. “It had to have been broken by being knocked out of the rack and hitting something in the air before it hit the floor. There were glass shards that landed in an ice bucket on top of the table. (The shards) couldn’t have gotten that high from the glass hitting the floor.”
Laber said that he and Epstein have testified in a number of trials opposite Bevel, and that a dominant theme for Bevel is that a crime scene was “staged.”
“He’s always got this staging of the crime scene. And there have been all these cases where he’s been proven wrong,” Laber said. “All these implications add up that should never have been made, and I don’t know why people would make them unless they want to win the case. They want to get a conviction.”
And this statement was made prior to the Camm case.
But there is a DNA sample that came back inconclusive.
"Inconclusive Results
Results may be interpreted as inconclusive for several reasons. These include situations where no results or only partial results are obtained from the sample due to the limited amount of suitable human DNA or where results are obtained from an unknown crime scene sample but there are no samples from known individuals available for comparison. In the latter case, the results would be suitable for comparison once an appropriate sample for comparison is tested."
Then there's Kevin Fox. He was accused of murdering his daughter. There was an inconclusive DNA sample on her body. Zellner demanded a more sensative test be run on it and as we all know the real killer was caught.
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
I note you argue that the sink blood evidence is luminol only evidence. . . .Do you have any sources for that? I thought there was visible blood in and around the sink. Even if her DNA was then found, it was a sink she worked around so one would expect her DNA to be found.
I apologize. I assumed everyone was aware of the sink issue. Luminol was used on the countertop surrounding the sink basin. The luminol reacted but no further testing was done to determine if it was blood or some other substance such as bleach. The sink basin itself was not tested with luminol. I always just refer to it as the sink meaning the entire sink area including the surrounding countertop area. There was diluted blood that was visible with the naked eye in the sink basin. That was tested and determined to be Darlie, Devon and Damon's blood. This is to be expected as Darlie said she was running back and forth getting wet rags for the boys. The rags can be seen throughout the living room and hallway in various evidence photos.
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post a link yet. I tried earlier but the system said I wasn't allowed.
Last edited:
Over 15 posts I think so link away.
What is the key data point that precludes Darlie as offender?
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
I'm really not qualified to make that call, especially from a distance.
The individual that broke the knife off in their own chest had been under treatment for manic depression and had just experienced an extreme trauma in their family and had stop taking their meds - pretty clear in that instance.
The individual that did the stunt act with jumping through the plate glass window didn't have any history of mental health issues, and was eventually successfully prosecuted.
JM has always maintained his claim of innocence, although in my eyes he's guilty as sin, and iirc there was some allegations that he had been using speed before he murdered his family, and while diminished capacity isn't considered mental illness it can be a factor in sentencing.
kali1137
Illuminator
I had forgotten about this case. I haven't had a chance to go back and read all the documentation, and by that I mean official transcripts and such, not misleading websites ran by pro's or con's people. But I have always leaned toward her being guilty. I can't get past no DNA outside of the family and the contradicting stories she told, none of which were plausible.
Personally, it's the sock. Not so much because it doesn't fit. Former FBI agent Brantley and Tom Bevel both testified about why that sock would be there. Brantley's theory was the sock could have been placed there to dispose of it. In order for that to be the case Darlie would have needed a reason to think the sock would incriminate her in the first place. The sock did come from her house but so did the murder weapon and she made no attempt to dispose of that. And yes, the sock did eventually show that her DNA was on the sock but in order for Darlie to have feared that possibility she would have needed to know that DNA could be detected in sources other than blood such as saliva or skin cells. Darlie doesn't strick me as being all that intelligent nor is there any indication she had even a remote interest in things like DNA or crime scene investigations. Plus, she was highly familiar with that neighborhood. If she wanted it disposed of and never found I'm fairly certain she wouldn't have left it laying out in the open.
Tom Bevel had an alternate theory that Darlie planted the sock there to stage the scene. As part of staging the perpetrator will typically break things, move things, hide things, etc and then weave them into his or her story. Using the sock as the staged item she wanted to use to bolster her story she would have said something like... I remember there was a sock on the hand he was holding the knife with, he put a sock in my mouth or I saw him grab a sock in the laundry room as he was leaving the house... Then when the sock is found she will hope the cops view it as a piece of evidence that confirms her story. The problem is she never mentioned the sock at all. I don't think Darlie would have taken such a huge risk to plant it and then not bring it up.
Since neither theory seems to fit I'll revert to if she planted it how did she do it? Damon had only nine minutes to live after he was attacked so that is our timeframe. Darlie was on the phone for 5 minutes 38 seconds (it should be noted that the entire time she was on the phone she was in the presence of Darin, office Waddell or officer Walling so no staging could have been done during that time). A paramedic testified Damon died roughly 1 minute after he arrived. 6 minutes 38 seconds minus 9 minutes is 2 minutes 22 seconds.
In that 2 minutes and 22 seconds she would have needed to go 150 yards round trip to put the sock there, clean the countertop, clean the floor, run the vacuum cleaner across the kitchen floor, wipe off a bloody handprint on the couch, put her own blood on her pillow and blanket, deposit a bunch of wet rags in the living room and hallway, break a wine glass on the floor and then pick up a few pieces and put them in an ice bucket and the tabletop of the wine rack without getting any blood on those pieces. I have trouble believing she could have done all those things in that amount of time.
There seems to be no explainable reason why she would take the sock down there nor does seem to be enough time for her to do it in so we have to consider what else could explain how the sock got there. And intruder discarding it there after he fled the scene seems to be the most reasonable explanation.
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
Err, of note, 9 minutes is approximate. . . .Don't get so hung up on that number. Could end up being seven minutes or eleven.
The coroner initially said five minutes or less. She was pressed to go as far as nine.
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
Even, don't treat it so exact. . . . Maybe he lasted 9 minutes and 15 seconds for example. You would be better arguing without using exact numbers and stating that with all probability that it is nine minutes or less.
Edit: I would like to add that I can throw a decently weighed stick about 30 yards so I don't think throwing the sock is a real option either.
Last edited:
I've debated with people before about this case who took issue with me estimating time, like saying roughly nine minutes. Never quite sure if I should estimate or be precise. I usually just try to stick with the nine minutes as an outermost time since she initially estimated almost half as much time.
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
There are a number of cases which I have looked at where I have issues with the prosecution trying to squeeze a huge amount of things in a small amount of time.
So what would your opinion be on whether it's reasonable to believe Darlie would have/could have done all these things in a generous estimate of three minutes?
During the trial it was also brought up by Bevel that in his opinion Darlie removed the wine glass from the rack and then broke it on the floor as one of her last efforts to stage the scene. At this point Darlie would have been bleeding from her right arm (right handed) and would have most likely had blood on both of her hands. None of the glass had her bloody prints on it. There was also glass shards found on the tabletop of the rack (roughly three to three and a half feet high) and inside the ice bucket sitting on the tabletop. Again, none of those shards had her blood or prints on them and the tabletop itself had none of her blood on it either. Do you have any thoughts on how that could have happened without Darlie getting any blood on anything and/or why she would have put the glass pieces up there?