Darlie Routier

Seriously, Sinsaint? Darlie NEVER changed her story?

That explains the 16 different versions of what she told police or others on websleuths. Go look it up.

She started off telling the police she saw the guy at the kitchen and chased him. Then she was awakened by Damon and there was MAN ON TOP OF HER ALREADY - but that didn't wake her up - she who slept so lightly that her baby moving in his crib woke her. She's got the guy on top of her but DAMON woke her up touching her and saying Mommy.

Oh, wait, Darlie did say she knew who did it. Even though in the 911 call she says she didn't know. In letters to friends about the case, she was all "Glenn did it". Glenn Mize was brought in and she promptly admitted she didn't know who did it and 'was hoping.' So much for your girlfriend ain't changed her story.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
I hope others find this as interesting as I do.
With the same data, serious researchers, Sinsaint and Ampulla, find respectively that Darlie should be released immediately and executed immediately.

Wasapi would also execute but the chilvarous Desert Fox not.

Sherkeu believes that Darin killed his sons, and will see his plan completed when his wife is executed for his dastardly crime.

You couldn't make this up, I feel like a shuttlecock in a badminton game.
Click to expand...

:)

For those of you who believe she is innocent, I've heard of a new book that sounds interesting. I'm sorry I can't find the title. It covers 3 different cases (I believe all are DP cases), where those convicted, are actually believed to be innocent. Darlie's conviction is one of the 3 cases featured in the book.

I just heard someone talking about it recently, and it sounded as if the book is recent.
 
I watched the 41 minute video on Dailymotion, I don't understand why anyone thinks she could be guilty. It is completely impossible, even just with the sock and the injuries, as photographed, to Darlie.
Darin's strange conspiracy is coincidental or connected, but he couldn't do it either.

She will never be executed, there would be too much disgust and revulsion at those lying cheating prosecutors in the case. They should be executed in her place in my opinion.

So Ampulla and Charlie Wilkes think she did this. I don't get it.
 
Last edited:
Try reading the transcripts. And her 16 different stories on what happened. And her letter telling a friend that they know Glenn did it and her admission - in open court - that her letters were just made-up and that, when faced with Glenn, she admitted he wasn't the guy.
 
Last edited:
desmirelle said:
Try reading the transcripts. And her 16 different stories on what happened. And her letter telling a friend that they know Glenn did it and her admission - in open court - that her letters were just made-up and that, when faced with Glenn, she admitted he wasn't the guy.
Click to expand...
None of that replaces the ridiculous plan, the half killing one boy, and running out with a bloody sock. What happens when the still alive boy wakes his father during this? How does she assume he stays asleep and how does she inflict the savage arm bruising to herself. It is all abject nonsense.
I doubt Charlie spent anywhere near the time Sinsaint did, and he will always change his mind with fresh material.
You people should consider a concept of doubt. The prosecutor concealed the two hour video of the service, just releasing the cathartic faux celrebration of the boys' lives. Disgusting.
 
Get your facts straight. It's the not the prosecutor's job to show evidence favorable to the defendant. That job would belong to....oh, yeah, the DEFENSE ATTORNEY. You want someone to blame for that omission, look at ol' Doug.

And it was a ridiculous plan. But it was apparently the only one she could come up with. (And the boys could have bruised her arms in self-defense - or she could have done it to bolster her weak story.)
 
Last edited:
Let us assume that I am leaning toward guilt, how the hell does the jury get past reasonable doubt? Even worse that she got the death penalty?
 
desmirelle said:
Get your facts straight. It's the not the prosecutor's job to show evidence favorable to the defendant. That job would belong to....oh, yeah, the DEFENSE ATTORNEY. You want someone to blame for that omission, look at ol' Doug.

And it was a ridiculous plan. But it was apparently the only one she could come up with. (And the boys could have bruised her arms in self-defense - or she could have done it to bolster her weak story.)
Click to expand...
At least we agree it was a ridiculous plan, which is why I don't think it happened. 75 yards for the sock makes no sense, all the disasters that could ensue during the escapade, such as Darin waking up and asking why she left the house. Why not 20 yards away? She picked up the knife and was deemed guilty because she mentioned fingerprints, yet the act of picking it up incites the brutal realisation it is a murder weapon, which might help find the criminal. I see a huge hoax, red flags everywhere. I hope the prosecutor is eventually charged and jailed for wroughting the jury.
 
People can think Darlie did it, but it seems to me that prosecutors knew by the time of trial that Darin cut the screen and planted the sock.
We know now he did have plans for a staged break-in for insurance fraud. I believe he had planned for the family to be off on vacation for this, but with no money left to go out of town, plans changed.

https://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/59_darin-routier-1.pdf

Portion of Darin's testimony at the trial:

20 A. How do you know it's my sock.
21 Q. Well, because you told Corrine Wells,
22 back on December the 3rd of 1996, it was yours, didn't
23 you?
24 A. I said I wouldn't be surprised if it
25 wasn't mine.
1 Q. No. You remember Corrine Wells, don't
2 you?
3 A. Who?
4 Q. Corrine Wells?
5 A. No, sir.
6 Q. Well, maybe -- let's take you back.
7 You know the house that you lived in on Bond Street,
8 don't you?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. Okay. Matter of fact, you went there
11 on December the 3rd of '96, didn't you?
12 A. Yes, sir, I did.
13 Q. Yeah. She caught you out there
14 looking at the window screens at that house at about 5:20
15 in the afternoon, didn't she?
16 A. Yes, sir, she did.
17 Q. And then, she started talking with you
18 and you went inside and talked with her for, what, about
19 an hour and a half to two hours, didn't you?
20 A. Yes, sir, we had a good talk.
21 Q. And among the other things that you
22 said was, that that was your sock, that it had come from
23 your utility room, inside of your house, correct?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. And you also told her that if Darlie

1 wanted to take that sock and put it down the alley, it
2 would take her only 27 seconds to do that, didn't you?
3 A. No, sir, I didn't say that.
4 Q. That is something you didn't tell her?
5 A. No, sir.
6 Q. That screen that was out there in the
7 garage, when you were out there on June the 5th of '96
8 for the inventory for the garage sale, do you remember
9 that time?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. That screen wasn't cut then, was it?
12 A. No, it wasn't.
13 Q. Matter of fact the last time that you
14 saw that screen that evening, everything was just fine on
15 it, wasn't it?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. And yet, when you went over there to
18 Corrine Wells on December the 3rd of 1996, you went there
19 for the purpose of seeing whether you had cut screens on
20 your old house there at Bond, didn't you?
21 A. Yes, sir, I did.
22 Q. So you were trying at that time,
23 weren't you, Mr. Routier, to come up with some feasible
24 story to tell this jury, as to how that window screen got
25 cut that evening, weren't you?

1 A. No, sir, I was just very interested.
2 Q. You were just curious?
3 A. I was very curious.
4 Q. Very curious about whether the screens
5 were cut over there on Bond Street?
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. The house that you haven't lived in in
8 three years?
9 A. Yes, sir.

The questioning on this GIANT red flag ends here and the subject is changed abruptly to Darlies behavior.

Their question about him going there to make up a feasible story about the screen on the new house doesn't even make sense! They knew he did it.
 
Last edited:
It looks like a remarkable coincidence. Darin plans an insurance fraud but Darlie beats him to it.
This reminds me of Ryan Hillegas conveniently murdering Teresa Halbach and getting the lawsuit off Manitowoc County by framing Steve Avery.
 
Darin may have done things to back Darlie up - that may or may not explain the sock. Or she could have thought both boys were dead before she did it. Barbara Davis (who now claims she believes Darlie to be not guilty) said she could do the dash up the alley and back quite quickly and was much older than Darlie at the time she (BD) did it. So, it's not that big a roadblock. But Darin's such a dim bulb that it wouldn't surprise me if he did it to bolster her story - not thinking she was guilty, but thinking the police weren't buying her story (which they weren't) and doing his best to help his wife.
 
desmirelle said:
Darin may have done things to back Darlie up - that may or may not explain the sock. Or she could have thought both boys were dead before she did it. Barbara Davis (who now claims she believes Darlie to be not guilty) said she could do the dash up the alley and back quite quickly and was much older than Darlie at the time she (BD) did it. So, it's not that big a roadblock. But Darin's such a dim bulb that it wouldn't surprise me if he did it to bolster her story - not thinking she was guilty, but thinking the police weren't buying her story (which they weren't) and doing his best to help his wife.
Click to expand...
I gathered from the documentary Darin was definitely planning a fraud.
The sock is a nonsense, and exculpates Darlie. Plans must have a very high chance of success, and if there is an element that will likely create a big fail mark I look elsewhere for a crime solution. No man would create a stupid alibi like this after seeing his loved children killed. This is as silly as the Jon Benet ransome note and suggesting they wrote it to cover for the kid. It is all garbled nonsense, in New Zealand the great "planner" Mark Lundy is set to win an appeal for killing his wife and daughter, David Bain the great "planner" has been released, because the plan never happened. Jeremy Bamber should be released, Russ Faria has been released, John Tessier/Jack Daniel Mc Cullough is out, Amanda Knox and Sollecito, Michael Peterson, the list is endless. This Darlie Routier case is bollocks, a plan that would be sure to fail. I suppose Jeffrey MacDonald is something of an exception, though Henri disagrees.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
Plans must have a very high chance of success, and if there is an element that will likely create a big fail mark I look elsewhere for a crime solution.
Click to expand...

This is a generalization. In life, plans sometimes work out perfectly and sometimes they do not. Sometimes things happen beautifully when not planned at all. It is not a certainty either way. A good detective realizes there are no guarantees or absolutes and lets the evidence lead him or her.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
This is a generalization. In life, plans sometimes work out perfectly and sometimes they do not. Sometimes things happen beautifully when not planned at all.
Click to expand...

True. Like when you plan a fraud and cut the screen in your window but then neighbors notice it too early and your plans are foiled. Gah!
And the next time you cut the screen in another home you dont make sure your wife is dead and she interrupts your staging. But then, as luck would have it, she thinks it was an intruder and police think SHE did it. They even found your bloody sock but didn't bother checking the storm drain right next to it. You can hardly believe they do not suspect you.
But what if they see that other cut screen? My oh my. Then they would know.
So, you go back where you have not lived 3 years to see if the screen is still cut. It isn't....BUT you stay too long and you are caught snooping, police find out, and your plan is foiled AGAIN!
They have your bloody jeans and blood on the waistband of your jockey shorts where you hid the bloody shirt. This looks bad. You can hardly think how you will explain how it all got there.
But as luck would have it again, silly string trumps it all, no one cares, they test none of it, and your wife goes to death row. Ta-Da!

It never works just the way you planned but sometimes it works out anyway!
 
Henri McPhee said:
The Darlie Routier case was never a complete investigation.
Click to expand...
I have a serious doubt any plot would include running around with a blooded sock while leaving live people in the house.
It seriously does not compute, what an idiot plan.
And then you still have to collect the insurance, where red flags fly at full mast.
It sounds ridiculous so it probably is.
 
I think she should have pled temporary insanity citing postpartum depression.

I don't think that's the truth, but that's what she should have done. Sixteen different ways to have the event happen indicate some consciousness of guilt. Which is why she should have pled the above. She did it, that's what the evidence shows. Since we heard Darin stomping down the stairs, he didn't do it. That leaves Darlie. Not a whole lot of choice since Drake couldn't get out of the crib to do it and the dog lacked opposable thumbs to hold the knife.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom