Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:52 pm

Mlw289 wrote:I have been friends with and known Darlie for over 20 yrs. now and have had a front row seat to this horrible nightmare she has lived starting with the murder of her children.
I can tell you that after that horrible night her children were killed she was not thinking about the police ever looking at her or Darin as a suspect, indeed that was the furthest from her mind even though they asked her repeatedly to come in and give statements, even causing them to be late to Devon & Damon's viewing.
After she was arrested and no bonded because they found what appeared to be Darlie's hair in the screen that was cut, which turned out later to be a female police officers hair, it didn't take long to figure out they never pursued anyone else but Darlie. I never could understand the states theory that she committed this crime on her own children and tried to cover it up. The time line didn't make sense that she could stab her children, stage the crime scene, run down an alley to plant a bloody sock, come back bruise & stab her self embedding her gold chain in her neck in the process of doing so and then calling 911? It just doesn't add up and never has for me.
The public needs to be aware of the FACTS in this case!


Hello Mlw289, nice to see you here. I'm excited to see more supporters coming to the thread and commenting. Excellent!
"I am not the only one. There are many other wrongfully convicted people and they need your support. They need a voice." - Ryan Ferguson
ljrobins
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Wed Mar 19, 2014 5:37 pm

ljrobins wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Welcome sandyott3554 and K30whitt (we have a thread here called 'explain your online name' - you two sure have some explaining to do :) ). I hope you both stick around and help to educate and inform this important discussion of what seems to be a grotesque miscarriage of justice.


Gosh darn it Clive!!! Where is this thread? I can't find it.

Don't ask me, I am useless at searching the forum but I guarantee there is such a thread - I started it :)


And I've posted in it. :D



Yep... Saw yours. Figured it was a variation of your name. I posted in it.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby erasmus44 » Wed Mar 19, 2014 8:48 pm

ljrobins wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:Johnia Berry is another murder victim in a case in which the weapon was in her apartment and left in her apartment by the perp. For a long time, police suspected her male rommate. Then a teenager "confessed " to the crime. Finally, a DNA match identified the perp as neither the roommate nor the teenager. Cron's shorthand conclusion is the kind of flatulent seat of the pants BS which characterizes a lot of criminal "investigation" - if a financial firm made investment decisions based on these kinds of conclusory and totally unsupported "rules of thumb", they would go broke in a hurry, be shut down by the SEC, be sent to Club Fed for a decade or so, and would be laughed out of the financial community.


Not all murderers bring weapons with them. I mean, serial killer, Jack Untwegger didn't bring any weapons as he strangled the women with their own clothing (bras). Part of the problem (again) with cases like this is if it doesn't fit 'normal' patterns then it must be the person who was in the room and still alive.



And - of course - there has been no statistical study of how many intruders use weapons they find at the scene of the crime. That kind of statistical work is "too hard" and "too expensive" for the criminal process - on the other hand, in the world of finance where something important like money is at stake, no one in his right mind would make a decision without analysis of that kind of evidence. Instead, we get bloviators like Cron shooting off their mouths with no basis in fact.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:38 am

ljrobins wrote:
Mlw289 wrote:I have been friends with and known Darlie for over 20 yrs. now and have had a front row seat to this horrible nightmare she has lived starting with the murder of her children.
I can tell you that after that horrible night her children were killed she was not thinking about the police ever looking at her or Darin as a suspect, indeed that was the furthest from her mind even though they asked her repeatedly to come in and give statements, even causing them to be late to Devon & Damon's viewing.
After she was arrested and no bonded because they found what appeared to be Darlie's hair in the screen that was cut, which turned out later to be a female police officers hair, it didn't take long to figure out they never pursued anyone else but Darlie. I never could understand the states theory that she committed this crime on her own children and tried to cover it up. The time line didn't make sense that she could stab her children, stage the crime scene, run down an alley to plant a bloody sock, come back bruise & stab her self embedding her gold chain in her neck in the process of doing so and then calling 911? It just doesn't add up and never has for me.
The public needs to be aware of the FACTS in this case!


Hello Mlw289, nice to see you here. I'm excited to see more supporters coming to the thread and commenting. Excellent!

And welcome from me too. It's great to have more supporters showing up, especially knowledgable ones. It would also be good to have some folk from the other side to challenge the pro-innocence party line. We have had one or two but tempers frayed as they are apt to do. If we get another one, please be civil. Reasoned disagreement makes for a more instructive discussion.

Since we have so many here now, I want to throw out a probably ignorant question: how did the intruder get in and out without leaving any forensic trace of himself?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby spoookee » Thu Mar 20, 2014 9:44 am

Clive, as for how was there an intruder that left no forensic evidence of himself....he *did* leave forensic evidence of himself. They just didn't care nor bothered to ever check it. Anything that didn't fit the police and the investigator's "theory" was just swept under the rug and ignored.

1 - First and foremost, the bloody fingerprint. Again, using myself as an example, if a murder occurred across town, and they found *MY* fingerprint ON the crime scene...and not just my print...but my fingerprint IN THE VICTIM'S BLOOD, I'd have some SERIOUS explaining to do and would most likely be booked for murder. And honestly? I'd agree with that reasoning, sure. There are *very few* LEGITIMATE reasons why one's fingerprint would be *left in the victim's blood* on a crime scene. A police officer or EMT, sure - okay that's one of the very few legitimate reasons.

So - first they claimed initially that the print wasn't of good enough quality to be used. That was attempt number 1. Now once they realized that it most certainly CAN be identified, then they used the "it must be one of the boy's prints" excuse. Why? Because the boys were conveniently (for them) NOT fingerprinted at autopsy - feet were done, but no hands (but this was just a "snafu" per James Cron). So then what happens...? They had to exhume the boy's bodies in order to even GET their prints. Then when compared to the bloody fingerprint - shock faint - *sarcasm,* guess what...?

IT DOESN'T MATCH THE BOYS EITHER. So, that print doesn't match Darin, Darlie, Devon, Damon or any of the first responders.

There was an intruder and he left his bloody fingerprint on their glass coffee table, which was right next to Darlie and where the boys were sleeping.

Please watch this short (just over a minute long) video:
Watch on youtube.com


...and these were just two experts. I believe that print has been analyzed by 4 or 5 to date.

I agree with the one gentlemen, who said if it were him and two children were killed, he'd run this print through EVERYTHING. Why has this print NOT been added to AFIS??? (Because they're afraid they'll find a match and then it will be proven that what we have said all along is true. Darlie is innocent.)

He further says that he'd keep that print on his desk and analyze it against anyone arrested. THAT is home important to this case *he felt* (as a retired investigator from New York City), that print is.

A mystery intruder left his signature on this crime scene. In the form of a bloody fingerprint. Too bad nobody cares and would rather see an innocent woman rot and put to death than to admit they screwed up. :sadno:
spoookee
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby spoookee » Thu Mar 20, 2014 9:49 am

As for having folks from the other side, the "she's guilty" camp, come and say their piece: I'm surprised you haven't heard from them yet. Unfortunately, most of the "non-supporters" that we *strong* supporters encounter, are very..."unpleasant," to put it mildly.

I have friends that agree she is 100% innocent and a few personal friends that still insist she is guilty. I have *no problem* explaining case matters *TO PEOPLE WITH AN OPEN MIND,* or even discussing with someone who disagrees, if they can be civil. However, again, these types do nothing but harass, attack her family and.... I'll just stop right there. Should the time come, I'm sure you'll find out on your own.

However when that happens, I will continue to provide any information that I have, but I'm not going to get into a pointless debate with these same old "non-supporters" that have been harassing me and everyone else. I have enough problems on Facebook. One of them has so many alias ID's it's a full time job just keeping him from stalking my page.

To be COMPLETELY honest, Darlie has a LARGE camp of very determined supporters such as myself. These "non-supporters" that you mention... I think that's why you haven't gotten more responses on this particular board about Darlie. We have groups for Darlie on Facebook. Her family is involved with several of them. One of the "non-supporters" even went trash talking on Drake Routier's PRAYERS page for pete sake. (I mean what kind of a person does that...? He is sick? He was 7 months old? What the heck did HE do to anybody????)

On our Facebook groups, we can block them if the harassment gets too bad. And it has. Bad. Once these supporters that have been attacked by that jerk start posting in here, and he comes in - it's going to be open season on all of them. Many have had their lives turned upside down by this jerk.

How frequently is this forum monitored and checked for "inappropriate" posts? I know there are more that *want* to come talk. I think they're just afraid of opening themselves up to harassment, public Facebook insults, threatening phone calls, harassing phone calls, lies.....etc.
spoookee
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby spoookee » Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:37 am

A status report regarding the DNA testing efforts is available for viewing here:
http://darlielynnroutier.com/?page_id=800

This report details what has already been done, and what is to be done.

If you will look on page 3 of that document, you will see a paragraph stating that Darlie and Darin have BOTH been eliminated as possible contributors of two hairs that were collected as evidence left on the crime scene.

If you scroll down to page 10, you will see this:
Image

Please scroll to page 22 of the document, you will see "Applicant Darlie Lynn Routier's Second Motion for Forensic DNA Testing Pursuant to Chapter 64 of Code of Criminal Procedure."

Thankfully, due to the Michael Morton Act, we can now have items tested that Darlie's family, friend's and defense have wanted tested all along, but were denied the *RIGHT* to testing. This second motion calls for testing of these forensic materials: blood stains from the tube sock, limb hairs taken from the same tube sock, blood from the unidentified "bloody fingerprint," untested blood stains from the night shirt, the knife and pillows.

Page 23 details some of the procedural background of this case.

Please see the very BOTTOM of page 26, "In this Court's January 25, 2007 Order on..." and continue on...
Cooper goes into great detail as to the specific testing to be performed on each item.

*DEFINITELY* read starting on page 30. Cooper explains what they hope/expect to find as a result of these tests, and how that would prove Darlie's innocence.
spoookee
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:42 pm

Hey Spoookee... Who are you over there? I'm Michelle. Glad to see her supporters showing up over here.

ETA.... It stays pretty quiet here. If someone does bother you, you can either report the person or you can go into your account and add them onto your "foe" list so you don't need to read their posts.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:52 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
ljrobins wrote:
Mlw289 wrote:I have been friends with and known Darlie for over 20 yrs. now and have had a front row seat to this horrible nightmare she has lived starting with the murder of her children.
I can tell you that after that horrible night her children were killed she was not thinking about the police ever looking at her or Darin as a suspect, indeed that was the furthest from her mind even though they asked her repeatedly to come in and give statements, even causing them to be late to Devon & Damon's viewing.
After she was arrested and no bonded because they found what appeared to be Darlie's hair in the screen that was cut, which turned out later to be a female police officers hair, it didn't take long to figure out they never pursued anyone else but Darlie. I never could understand the states theory that she committed this crime on her own children and tried to cover it up. The time line didn't make sense that she could stab her children, stage the crime scene, run down an alley to plant a bloody sock, come back bruise & stab her self embedding her gold chain in her neck in the process of doing so and then calling 911? It just doesn't add up and never has for me.
The public needs to be aware of the FACTS in this case!


Hello Mlw289, nice to see you here. I'm excited to see more supporters coming to the thread and commenting. Excellent!

And welcome from me too. It's great to have more supporters showing up, especially knowledgable ones. It would also be good to have some folk from the other side to challenge the pro-innocence party line. We have had one or two but tempers frayed as they are apt to do. If we get another one, please be civil. Reasoned disagreement makes for a more instructive discussion.

Since we have so many here now, I want to throw out a probably ignorant question: how did the intruder get in and out without leaving any forensic trace of himself?


I'm of the mind that if you aren't looking for trace evidence of someone else other than Darlie, you probably aren't going to find it. I'll have to look up the case I just watched on ID. The guy stabbed a woman. The bed was a bloody mess. They decided to test every area of the blood. They eventual found one drop of blood that wasn't hers. Now look at the blood map and take note of all that untested blood.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby erasmus44 » Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:26 pm

I believe that there is a fingerprint in blood which is not hers. Unfortunately, they did not take the fingerprints of the two victims so they can't be excluded. As to the break in, there is a theory that her husband is a suspect (he could have committed the crime without breaking in).
I think that there is some evidence that they were somewhat of a sketchy couple. I believe she may have had suicidal tendencies and he is rumored to have tried to induce someone to break in (I think in order to obtain insurance money). Not exactly Ozzie and Harriet. In this context, there is always the possibility of a lurker - someone who got in during the day, hid out and committed the crime.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:32 pm

Thank you spookee and Sinsaint for those replies. So, there is an unaccounted for fingerprint in blood and a gap created by a one-track investigation. I will look at the document you posted spookee, thank you for that.

When trolls show up here, once it becomes clear they aren't willing to debate constructively, they are usually thrown off by the mods. Civil and honest disagreement is fine. We all know the type of person you mean. Most here are veterans of the Knox saga which has it's own very special breed of reptile. The world is a very weird place.

Back to some questions. How do you think the guy got into the yard the screen window gives onto? Did he vault the fence? Did he do so when leaving? I read that the gate scraped the ground and so I imagine he must have run from the house without stopping to close the gate.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:47 pm

erasmus44 wrote:I believe that there is a fingerprint in blood which is not hers. Unfortunately, they did not take the fingerprints of the two victims so they can't be excluded. As to the break in, there is a theory that her husband is a suspect (he could have committed the crime without breaking in).
I think that there is some evidence that they were somewhat of a sketchy couple. I believe she may have had suicidal tendencies and he is rumored to have tried to induce someone to break in (I think in order to obtain insurance money). Not exactly Ozzie and Harriet. In this context, there is always the possibility of a lurker - someone who got in during the day, hid out and committed the crime.


The boys were exhumed and their fingerprints were ruled out.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:03 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:Thank you spookee and Sinsaint for those replies. So, there is an unaccounted for fingerprint in blood and a gap created by a one-track investigation. I will look at the document you posted spookee, thank you for that.

When trolls show up here, once it becomes clear they aren't willing to debate constructively, they are usually thrown off by the mods. Civil and honest disagreement is fine. We all know the type of person you mean. Most here are veterans of the Knox saga which has it's own very special breed of reptile. The world is a very weird place.

Back to some questions. How do you think the guy got into the yard the screen window gives onto? Did he vault the fence? Did he do so when leaving? I read that the gate scraped the ground and so I imagine he must have run from the house without stopping to close the gate.


Okay. I know Darin testified, as did a neighbor, that he had fixed the gate earlier that day. It's possible the gate broke again when the intruder slammed it shut. I also believe he would have closed it behind him for the sheer fact, if Darlie had followed him out into the garage and watched him leave, if the gate were open, she might have been able to see which direction he fled in.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby spoookee » Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:17 am

erasmus44 wrote:I believe that there is a fingerprint in blood which is not hers. Unfortunately, they did not take the fingerprints of the two victims so they can't be excluded. As to the break in, there is a theory that her husband is a suspect (he could have committed the crime without breaking in).
I think that there is some evidence that they were somewhat of a sketchy couple. I believe she may have had suicidal tendencies and he is rumored to have tried to induce someone to break in (I think in order to obtain insurance money). Not exactly Ozzie and Harriet. In this context, there is always the possibility of a lurker - someone who got in during the day, hid out and committed the crime.


They exhumed Devon and Damon's bodies in order to get their prints. They were excluded.

Some still suspect the husband, Darin. I am not one of them. What happened, to my understanding, is that he had successfully pulled off an insurance scam regarding a vehicle previously. He was *contemplating* trying to find someone to burglarize their home while the family was all out of town. The "idea" he had was not just a quick run in and grab a few things robbery. It was supposedly to be taking large items, lots of valuables, then storing them in a U-Haul until the insurance claim could be settled, at which time they'd get their things back. He never followed through with those plans. I do not think he had any direct involvement. Again, an "insurance scam" and lifestyle that wasn't exactly Ozzie and Harriet doesn't make you a murderer. I saw no evidence that either of the older boys were "cramping their lifestyle." To me, all appearances indicate that Devon and Damon were the pride and joy of their parent's lives. Afterall, Ozzie and Harriet's kiddos wouldn't have been living in an almost 4,000 square foot home, complete with a large screen TV "Nintendo Room" for all of their little friends to come play at, always decked out in the latest and greatest fashions, at the time being Tommy Hilfiger, driving around a little mini porsche on the sidewalk, etc.

Now having said that, I *have* wondered if word may have gotten out in the local area. Remember they are not far from Dallas at all. Maybe some local thugs heard about him asking around and decided to go have a look see. I mean that would give one the impression that they must have items worth stealing, if he was contemplating an insurance scam, right? So maybe someone went to check out the house on their own. A car was seen that week lurking around the neighborhood, and checking out the Routier home. Darin's car was gone in the shop that night, which would give the impression Darlie was home alone with the boys.
spoookee
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby spoookee » Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:26 am

Sinsaint wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Thank you spookee and Sinsaint for those replies. So, there is an unaccounted for fingerprint in blood and a gap created by a one-track investigation. I will look at the document you posted spookee, thank you for that.

When trolls show up here, once it becomes clear they aren't willing to debate constructively, they are usually thrown off by the mods. Civil and honest disagreement is fine. We all know the type of person you mean. Most here are veterans of the Knox saga which has it's own very special breed of reptile. The world is a very weird place.

Back to some questions. How do you think the guy got into the yard the screen window gives onto? Did he vault the fence? Did he do so when leaving? I read that the gate scraped the ground and so I imagine he must have run from the house without stopping to close the gate.


Okay. I know Darin testified, as did a neighbor, that he had fixed the gate earlier that day. It's possible the gate broke again when the intruder slammed it shut. I also believe he would have closed it behind him for the sheer fact, if Darlie had followed him out into the garage and watched him leave, if the gate were open, she might have been able to see which direction he fled in.


Good point Sinsaint. It's possible that the gate door *did* break upon him leaving. I know there is one photo of that gate that is so weird looking. The cops have it propped all the way open - completely open to where the gate is touching the fence. And in front of the gate (yes, in FRONT of the gate, almost like a "prop" or doorjam) is a bush. And it's not a squished bush either. Looks like they lifted it up over the bush to keep it open or something.

Also, Darin didn't "fix" the gate as in a permanent solution to the latch problem. Darlie was going to breed her dog the next day. A woman was going to bring her Pom over and so she needed the gate door to be able to latch and stay shut. That's why she asked Darin to fix it that night. His "fix" was just a simple way to keep it closed so that the dogs wouldn't get out. I believe there was wire used on it even.

For that matter, it may have never even been closed or latched that night to begin with. I actually asked Darlie on our last visit if she ever actually saw the gate fixed and closed. She said no, she doesn't recall that she did. Just that he had said he'd taken care of it. Maybe he had a little quick fix wiring system to keep it closed and was going to apply it the next day.

As far as vaulting, as ridiculous as it sounds, it's possible. I knew a cop from Houston that had injured his shoulder vaulting fences through an entire neighborhood trying to catch a guy. (The guy's baggy sagging pants wound up catching on the top piece of wood and he caught him, LoL.) But I don't know that was actually how it happened. I'm with Sinsaint though. Assuming the gate *was* operational, I'd have shut it behind me too if I were running from the scene. I'll see if I can find that weird picture of the gate propped open. It was odd for sure. Not every day you see a gate opened completely backwards with a perfect looking shrub looking as though it grew in front of it that way or something. Odd.
spoookee
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby charity » Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:38 am

I have read all of the posts here on Darlie's case. All of the photo's and documents have all been presented here and I couldn't have done a better job with everything presented. I have believed in Darlie's innocence since I first saw her case. To sum it up "ALL OF THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO HER INNOCENCE" There was a definite miscarriage of justice in this case. The facts prove that. It should have screamed "reasonable doubt" to the jury, and I'm sure it would have if the juror's saw all of the photo's and evidence. This woman has paid a price and continues to pay a price for something she didn't do. I have become very close friends with her and fly all the way from New York to visit her. We need to spread the word far and wide to the public to take a look at this case and see this wrong made right. Her life is at stake!
charity
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:15 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby spoookee » Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:47 am

Well that was easy enough...

Check out this picture...
Image

See what I mean?

For - whatever reason, it looks like they had to "prop" it open so that it'd stay open and out of their way. So my best guess, from looking at that photo and the layout of the land there, is that it would have a tendency to swing back shut. Maybe they normally left it that way, not completely shut. It was obviously that way for quite some time prior to, or Darlie wouldn't have finally asked him to "fix" it. Maybe it was unlatched hanging there as it had been for months and Darin had the wiring mechanism "ready to go" for when the woman arrived there with her dog...

Well now this is interesting, too. Look where the vacuum is....
Image
In the room on the carpet right where she told me it was. Certainly isn't all strewn about in the kitchen floor.

No multch is under the window - in case nobody has seen this photo before...
Image

And wouldn't you think that *if* you were going to stage a crime scene, using the sock, that you would have made sure that there was a GOOD AMOUNT of blood ON it, so as that it would be noticed? I mean this just looks like a white sock that fell out of somebody's trash. The blood on it is so minute I'm surprised they ever even *found* it and connected it in the first place.
Image
Image

One bloody fingerprint - left right in the big middle of the crime scene...
Image
That's on the glass table that was right next to where they were all sleeping. Fingerprint in blood - doesn't belong to any family members or first responders.

Personally, I've always wondered where THIS blood came from. And they SHOULD HAVE tested it. That's on the OTHER couch, on the back side...? Too bad they never bothered to find out whose blood it was...
Image

Now that wine rack sort of sticks out like a sore thumb and is in the pathway. Why is it so hard to believe a glass got knocked off of this wine rack???
Image
Image
spoookee
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:50 am

Great answers on the gate. Thank you. We should check Darin's testimony to see whether it was put to him that the gate scraped along the ground and what he said about that. I have no problem at all with the guy vaulting on his way out.

Also, hello charity and welcome. It's great that we are getting informed newcomers to this discussion. I hope IA vets will drop by and fire some tough questions at you guys to really test you.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby spoookee » Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:36 pm

This entire family has been victims of the State of Texas for over 17 years now.

This is the Darlie Routier that the prosecution didn't WANT anyone to see: a very loving, normal mother. Actually, in my opinion, a mother that consistently went above and beyond for her children.
Watch on youtube.com
spoookee
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Bruce Fischer » Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:11 pm

The IA board has voted to make Darlie's case an Injustice Anywhere Featured Case. Please send me a PM if you are interested in joining the team that will lead the effort. We need a dedicated team in place if we are going to have success.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby dpskee » Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:40 am

I will be a resource for my daughter's case.
dpskee
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:51 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:13 am

dpskee wrote:I will be a resource for my daughter's case.

Great to have you hear dpskee.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby spoookee » Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:24 am

Yay! :)

I absolutely want to join the team. Bruce, I sent you a private message, but it's showing "outbox" rather than "sent." Please let me know if you do not receive it....
spoookee
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:22 am

spoookee wrote:Yay! :)

I absolutely want to join the team. Bruce, I sent you a private message, but it's showing "outbox" rather than "sent." Please let me know if you do not receive it....

THis is great. We will have some very strong people advocating in this case.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Lawrence Wilson » Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:37 pm

During the investigation of the attack of the Routier's there is the contention by the state that there is absolutely no indication of any intruder. This was put forth primarily by James Cron. In examining the cut screen window and surrounding area the claim is that there is no indication of any intruder going either in or out. So imagine our surprise when we looked at pictures of the cut screen and find a outward bent screen window frame. It is bent directly below the cut screen. Also on the right side below the screen there is also a big dent in the window frame itself. In itself these are very suspicious seeing as there is no reason that a closed window screen should have a outward bent frame. Seeing as the screen is on the outside of the window then any bending due to installation should be inward not outwards and there should be no reason for a dent in the frame. Now there might be reasons for these damages that have nothing to do with an intruder but the fact that no mention of this was made by James Cron. He talked a great deal about undisturbed dust and mulch under the window but nothing about this damage. Why not. If I didn't know better I would say they omitted mention so that the jury was unaware of this.
Lawrence Wilson
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:21 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby dpskee » Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:13 pm

I believe Carol Factor will join the team. She has a hopemob going for Darlie and you should read her overview of the case.
dpskee
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:51 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:36 pm

dpskee wrote:I believe Carol Factor will join the team. She has a hopemob going for Darlie and you should read her overview of the case.



Hello dpskee! We will need a "case overview" posted in the featured case section (which won't go up until Bruce has what he needs). Do you think that Carol Factor would allow us to use her overview in that section (of course, she can be credited)?
"I am not the only one. There are many other wrongfully convicted people and they need your support. They need a voice." - Ryan Ferguson
ljrobins
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:02 pm

A lot of new things have come to light since 1996,I am particularly happy to again see the truth be shown as it was in 1997 during trial.I take note that the supporters are genuinely quite happy to see IA feature this case, we do need to be 100% positive that we are doing the right thing in justice for this case, and showing it TWICE well...thats a good thing just to eliminate any doubts. The Intruder scaling the fence... Im sure you would think differently if you actually saw that fence and compared it to the description of the man that Darlie described,I guess it is possible.. but no so much as to leave a fiber or anything on the top of it as he went over it? There are also new developments that are actually not so new , that show them mindset and character of Darlie as she sat and waited trial this collected evidence does not show a grieving mother at all, I will be exited to share it with you all when it reaches me and can be verified as a fact. I noticed someone downthread refered to Devon and Damon as "The Victims" again.... its so disheartening to see supporters do that..but I do understand the disassociation and the OUT of Sight OUT of Mind theory, its pretty common among supporters to do that, after All it is their fault that she is where she is.I notice spookee mentioned a non supporter talking trash on Darkes Prayer page as well...can you clarify that? I seem to recall that a supporter moved on to the Travis Alexander support site following a Darlie non supporter I do not recall any trash talking on Drakes page just looking for Darlies fiancee you know..the guy with the squeaky clean record. At any rate I wish you all good luck you are certainly going to need it.Aaron Habel from Generation Why Podcasts is featuring Dariles case in April and we would like for a civilized supporter or to to join in and state their case if they are interested.The participants are Pam Collins And Chrissy Fougere, we would love to invite you to a civil conversation about the case.Id stick around but IM OFF to make some harassing phone calls and maybe a few death threats...PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFt..... Justice for Devon and Damon!! :bop: :bop:
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:13 pm

Ms Kee If anyone from IA would like to cover my travel expense Ill be glad to come on down there an submit my fingerprints..only if you agree to a written apology to me when they show nothing regarding the Darlie case? Does that sound good to you?Or should I just hold on to the email I have from dpskee@aol.com that demands those prints and accuses me of the crime until any new trial comes up?We all know the fruit dosnt fall far from the tree.I wonder how that petition is going? Im sure you have enough signatures to turn it in.. Please do..I would hate to think i wasted all that time with Dreama Crupp saving all those posts from supporters who signed it on the SECRET Page LOL Lisa Lamb Do ya think you can stop posting pics of my family? Dawn Berger and Mr Rennick trick no good.. Dayton police and detectives are well aware of supporters of Darlie Routier and they already pulled the Lets call CPS on them trick Patrick did that a couple of years ago and we all had a great laugh when I showed them the facebook pages of Darlie supporters... but feel free to call back we all enjoy a good laugh. I wish you all the best..now Im off to kick a puppy and slap a NUN
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:44 pm

brysanutt wrote:Ms Kee If anyone from IA would like to cover my travel expense Ill be glad to come on down there an submit my fingerprints..only if you agree to a written apology to me when they show nothing regarding the Darlie case? Does that sound good to you?Or should I just hold on to the email I have from dpskee@aol.com that demands those prints and accuses me of the crime until any new trial comes up?We all know the fruit dosnt fall far from the tree.I wonder how that petition is going? Im sure you have enough signatures to turn it in.. Please do..I would hate to think i wasted all that time with Dreama Crupp saving all those posts from supporters who signed it on the SECRET Page LOL Lisa Lamb Do ya think you can stop posting pics of my family? Dawn Berger and Mr Rennick trick no good.. Dayton police and detectives are well aware of supporters of Darlie Routier and they already pulled the Lets call CPS on them trick Patrick did that a couple of years ago and we all had a great laugh when I showed them the facebook pages of Darlie supporters... but feel free to call back we all enjoy a good laugh. I wish you all the best..now Im off to kick a puppy and slap a NUN


If you don't believe Darlie is innocent, you certainly have a right to that position. We welcome points of view from all sides of the case. But we also encourage you to provide factual information for your position. However, if you are only here to harass others or take personal jabs then you won't last very long. Enjoy your day.
"I am not the only one. There are many other wrongfully convicted people and they need your support. They need a voice." - Ryan Ferguson
ljrobins
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:54 pm

Edited by a Moderator. Please keep the conversation civil. Please do not post private emails on this forum.
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:58 pm

ljrobins wrote:
brysanutt wrote:Ms Kee If anyone from IA would like to cover my travel expense Ill be glad to come on down there an submit my fingerprints..only if you agree to a written apology to me when they show nothing regarding the Darlie case? Does that sound good to you?Or should I just hold on to the email I have from dpskee@aol.com that demands those prints and accuses me of the crime until any new trial comes up?We all know the fruit dosnt fall far from the tree.I wonder how that petition is going? Im sure you have enough signatures to turn it in.. Please do..I would hate to think i wasted all that time with Dreama Crupp saving all those posts from supporters who signed it on the SECRET Page LOL Lisa Lamb Do ya think you can stop posting pics of my family? Dawn Berger and Mr Rennick trick no good.. Dayton police and detectives are well aware of supporters of Darlie Routier and they already pulled the Lets call CPS on them trick Patrick did that a couple of years ago and we all had a great laugh when I showed them the facebook pages of Darlie supporters... but feel free to call back we all enjoy a good laugh. I wish you all the best..now Im off to kick a puppy and slap a NUN


If you don't believe Darlie is innocent, you certainly have a right to that position. We welcome points of view from all sides of the case. But we also encourage you to provide factual information for your position. However, if you are only here to harass others or take personal jabs then you won't last very long. Enjoy your day.

I see spokee has lasted quite sometime with her personal jabs, but thats fine....
One may wonder why you didnt comment the same under her post??
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:02 pm

Lawrence Wilson wrote:During the investigation of the attack of the Routier's there is the contention by the state that there is absolutely no indication of any intruder. This was put forth primarily by James Cron. In examining the cut screen window and surrounding area the claim is that there is no indication of any intruder going either in or out. So imagine our surprise when we looked at pictures of the cut screen and find a outward bent screen window frame. It is bent directly below the cut screen. Also on the right side below the screen there is also a big dent in the window frame itself. In itself these are very suspicious seeing as there is no reason that a closed window screen should have a outward bent frame. Seeing as the screen is on the outside of the window then any bending due to installation should be inward not outwards and there should be no reason for a dent in the frame. Now there might be reasons for these damages that have nothing to do with an intruder but the fact that no mention of this was made by James Cron. He talked a great deal about undisturbed dust and mulch under the window but nothing about this damage. Why not. If I didn't know better I would say they omitted mention so that the jury was unaware of this.


A dent in the window frame could be caused by lawn equipment jetting a rock from its blade.. why would and intruder need to bend that screen in any direction Lawrence?
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Lawrence Wilson » Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:17 pm

It's dented on the inside not the outside and it's the location that is suspicious. It's directly below the cut screen. The same as the screen frame bend also directly below the other side of the screen. This is bent from the inside outwards. And with the screen in place you can't say it was the kids or others because the screen would have been intact and therefore nobody would have been crawling through and therefore bending it. And if so why not mention the damage to the police. And why didn't Mulder ask about it.
Lawrence Wilson
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:21 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby spoookee » Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:53 pm

Oh joy and he has landed I see.

NOT doing this w you. And you bring up Drake because you know it gets under my skin. Why? Because I am human and I care. I don't think you could qualify for either.

Police departments are looking for Darlie supporters!? ROTF....okay what cities again do I need to call to find out my charges?

As for Drake, I have every word that was spoken between us and what you did on his prayer page. Yes, including me cussing you out. Yes, I did. I freely admit it. I am a Christian. It was wrong. And I acknowledged that.

You were 100% WRONG in what you did w Drake on many levels. I'll be happy to message to anyone that needs to see it.

I am so done with you Bryan. Truly.

And as for the screen, it was bent outwards duh. Were they mowing INSIDE the home to chunk the rock?

You bring out THE worst in people. You are miserable with nothing better to do. Its sad really.
spoookee
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:43 am

brysanutt wrote:Edited by a Moderator. Please keep the conversation civil. Please do not post private emails on this forum.
Of course LOL We wouldnt want anyone to see that damaging email Moderator hahaha
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:54 am

spoookee wrote:Oh joy and he has landed I see.

NOT doing this w you. And you bring up Drake because you know it gets under my skin. Why? Because I am human and I care. I don't think you could qualify for either.

Police departments are looking for Darlie supporters!? ROTF....okay what cities again do I need to call to find out my charges?

As for Drake, I have every word that was spoken between us and what you did on his prayer page. Yes, including me cussing you out. Yes, I did. I freely admit it. I am a Christian. It was wrong. And I acknowledged that.

You were 100% WRONG in what you did w Drake on many levels. I'll be happy to message to anyone that needs to see it.

I am so done with you Bryan. Truly.

And as for the screen, it was bent outwards duh. Were they mowing INSIDE the home to chunk the rock?

You bring out THE worst in people. You are miserable with nothing better to do. Its sad really.
Of course you will message it Stephanie but you sure wont post it because thats not what happened///Who said PD were looking for supporters I said they are aware of supporters and their false calls ( see if you do not understand what you read its clear why you may think someone is innocent) the dent is on the outside Stephanie..Moderator can you see the post? Supporters have called Dayton Police so much that they are aware of you guys read again spookee ( Thats a great name) you sure wont post what was on Drakes page here..I suggest you control you r supporters from coming to my victim memorial pages..OH I have the entire secret room saved in BOOK form Steph or should I call you Kelly LOL SO Im not human Im miserable Im wrong LOL Mod are we able to do this name calling here? I had no intention of that BUT you see where it starts..I too was frustrated as a supporter when i found it so hard to debate with not a leg to stand on...... I guess this is allowed if you support child killers the name calling Just couldn't do it huh Spookee?? Great name btw..it fits you perfectly What does DUHHHH mean Steph is that some insult on intellect... Moderator are these types of name hurling permitted here..as you can see I have not resorted to that even though one of my posts with Darlie kees threat to me was deleted can we fix this here Thanks in advance..... Not doing this with you she says...then she does it with me LOL...Keep up the good work Darlie Supporters!!
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby RoseMontague » Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:16 am

brysanutt wrote: Of course you will message it Stephanie but you sure wont post it because thats not what happened///Who said PD were looking for supporters I said they are aware of supporters and their false calls ( see if you do not understand what you read its clear why you may think someone is innocent) the dent is on the outside Stephanie..Moderator can you see the post? Supporters have called Dayton Police so much that they are aware of you guys read again spookee ( Thats a great name) you sure wont post what was on Drakes page here..I suggest you control you r supporters from coming to my victim memorial pages..OH I have the entire secret room saved in BOOK form Steph or should I call you Kelly LOL SO Im not human Im miserable Im wrong LOL Mod are we able to do this name calling here? I had no intention of that BUT you see where it starts..I too was frustrated as a supporter when i found it so hard to debate with not a leg to stand on...... I guess this is allowed if you support child killers the name calling Just couldn't do it huh Spookee?? Great name btw..it fits you perfectly What does DUHHHH mean Steph is that some insult on intellect... Moderator are these types of name hurling permitted here..as you can see I have not resorted to that even though one of my posts with Darlie kees threat to me was deleted can we fix this here Thanks in advance..... Not doing this with you she says...then she does it with me LOL...Keep up the good work Darlie Supporters!!


I think you will find that the posters at IA are interested in discussing the facts of the case. What we are not interested in is spats, bickering, and importing personal issues from other places around the internet. I have no problem with you posting and arguing for what you believe is evidence indicating guilt. Just keep it to the evidence, please.
User avatar
RoseMontague
 
Posts: 3526
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:42 am

RoseMontague wrote:
brysanutt wrote: Of course you will message it Stephanie but you sure wont post it because thats not what happened///Who said PD were looking for supporters I said they are aware of supporters and their false calls ( see if you do not understand what you read its clear why you may think someone is innocent) the dent is on the outside Stephanie..Moderator can you see the post? Supporters have called Dayton Police so much that they are aware of you guys read again spookee ( Thats a great name) you sure wont post what was on Drakes page here..I suggest you control you r supporters from coming to my victim memorial pages..OH I have the entire secret room saved in BOOK form Steph or should I call you Kelly LOL SO Im not human Im miserable Im wrong LOL Mod are we able to do this name calling here? I had no intention of that BUT you see where it starts..I too was frustrated as a supporter when i found it so hard to debate with not a leg to stand on...... I guess this is allowed if you support child killers the name calling Just couldn't do it huh Spookee?? Great name btw..it fits you perfectly What does DUHHHH mean Steph is that some insult on intellect... Moderator are these types of name hurling permitted here..as you can see I have not resorted to that even though one of my posts with Darlie kees threat to me was deleted can we fix this here Thanks in advance..... Not doing this with you she says...then she does it with me LOL...Keep up the good work Darlie Supporters!!


I think you will find that the posters at IA are interested in discussing the facts of the case. What we are not interested in is spats, bickering, and importing personal issues from other places around the internet. I have no problem with you posting and arguing for what you believe is evidence indicating guilt. Just keep it to the evidence, please.

Seconded
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby erasmus44 » Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:42 am

RoseMontague wrote:
brysanutt wrote: Of course you will message it Stephanie but you sure wont post it because thats not what happened///Who said PD were looking for supporters I said they are aware of supporters and their false calls ( see if you do not understand what you read its clear why you may think someone is innocent) the dent is on the outside Stephanie..Moderator can you see the post? Supporters have called Dayton Police so much that they are aware of you guys read again spookee ( Thats a great name) you sure wont post what was on Drakes page here..I suggest you control you r supporters from coming to my victim memorial pages..OH I have the entire secret room saved in BOOK form Steph or should I call you Kelly LOL SO Im not human Im miserable Im wrong LOL Mod are we able to do this name calling here? I had no intention of that BUT you see where it starts..I too was frustrated as a supporter when i found it so hard to debate with not a leg to stand on...... I guess this is allowed if you support child killers the name calling Just couldn't do it huh Spookee?? Great name btw..it fits you perfectly What does DUHHHH mean Steph is that some insult on intellect... Moderator are these types of name hurling permitted here..as you can see I have not resorted to that even though one of my posts with Darlie kees threat to me was deleted can we fix this here Thanks in advance..... Not doing this with you she says...then she does it with me LOL...Keep up the good work Darlie Supporters!!


I think you will find that the posters at IA are interested in discussing the facts of the case. What we are not interested in is spats, bickering, and importing personal issues from other places around the internet. I have no problem with you posting and arguing for what you believe is evidence indicating guilt. Just keep it to the evidence, please.




Another point. I think it is fun to try to emulate E. E. Cummings, but for this particular exercise, try to use complete sentences and conventional punctuation. Because if u use runon sentences and u leave out periods commas and stuff like that it begins to be hard for many of us to understand exactly what u are trying to say even if what you are saying makes sense to u it doesnt to us so that we read it and scratch our heads and I have dandruff so all that scratching put stuff on top of my Mac so that I can't even find the letters to type up a reply and that means I get angry and tired and then I automatically wont reed any of your stuff no more.....not meant to insult you or anything like that but just the way your posts tend to seem to me so that if you could make it easier for me to understand it would make me happy and I also think that if you refer to an earlier communication email letter or something else you should tell us what u are talking about so that we can understand it. LOL
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Mar 27, 2014 9:31 am

erasmus44 wrote:
RoseMontague wrote:
brysanutt wrote: Of course you will message it Stephanie but you sure wont post it because thats not what happened///Who said PD were looking for supporters I said they are aware of supporters and their false calls ( see if you do not understand what you read its clear why you may think someone is innocent) the dent is on the outside Stephanie..Moderator can you see the post? Supporters have called Dayton Police so much that they are aware of you guys read again spookee ( Thats a great name) you sure wont post what was on Drakes page here..I suggest you control you r supporters from coming to my victim memorial pages..OH I have the entire secret room saved in BOOK form Steph or should I call you Kelly LOL SO Im not human Im miserable Im wrong LOL Mod are we able to do this name calling here? I had no intention of that BUT you see where it starts..I too was frustrated as a supporter when i found it so hard to debate with not a leg to stand on...... I guess this is allowed if you support child killers the name calling Just couldn't do it huh Spookee?? Great name btw..it fits you perfectly What does DUHHHH mean Steph is that some insult on intellect... Moderator are these types of name hurling permitted here..as you can see I have not resorted to that even though one of my posts with Darlie kees threat to me was deleted can we fix this here Thanks in advance..... Not doing this with you she says...then she does it with me LOL...Keep up the good work Darlie Supporters!!


I think you will find that the posters at IA are interested in discussing the facts of the case. What we are not interested in is spats, bickering, and importing personal issues from other places around the internet. I have no problem with you posting and arguing for what you believe is evidence indicating guilt. Just keep it to the evidence, please.




Another point. I think it is fun to try to emulate E. E. Cummings, but for this particular exercise, try to use complete sentences and conventional punctuation. Because if u use runon sentences and u leave out periods commas and stuff like that it begins to be hard for many of us to understand exactly what u are trying to say even if what you are saying makes sense to u it doesnt to us so that we read it and scratch our heads and I have dandruff so all that scratching put stuff on top of my Mac so that I can't even find the letters to type up a reply and that means I get angry and tired and then I automatically wont reed any of your stuff no more.....not meant to insult you or anything like that but just the way your posts tend to seem to me so that if you could make it easier for me to understand it would make me happy and I also think that if you refer to an earlier communication email letter or something else you should tell us what u are talking about so that we can understand it. LOL


I've pointed out to Bryan in the past that he should try using a few periods every now and then... I mean they are free. He apparently just doesn't like them.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Thu Mar 27, 2014 9:56 am

erasmus44 wrote:Another point. I think it is fun to try to emulate E. E. Cummings, but for this particular exercise, try to use complete sentences and conventional punctuation. Because if u use runon sentences and u leave out periods commas and stuff like that it begins to be hard for many of us to understand exactly what u are trying to say even if what you are saying makes sense to u it doesnt to us so that we read it and scratch our heads and I have dandruff so all that scratching put stuff on top of my Mac so that I can't even find the letters to type up a reply and that means I get angry and tired and then I automatically wont reed any of your stuff no more.....not meant to insult you or anything like that but just the way your posts tend to seem to me so that if you could make it easier for me to understand it would make me happy and I also think that if you refer to an earlier communication email letter or something else you should tell us what u are talking about so that we can understand it. LOL


Brilliant! :lol:
"I am not the only one. There are many other wrongfully convicted people and they need your support. They need a voice." - Ryan Ferguson
ljrobins
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby spoookee » Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:55 am

brysanutt wrote:
ljrobins wrote:
brysanutt wrote:Ms Kee If anyone from IA would like to cover my travel expense Ill be glad to come on down there an submit my fingerprints..only if you agree to a written apology to me when they show nothing regarding the Darlie case? Does that sound good to you?Or should I just hold on to the email I have from dpskee@aol.com that demands those prints and accuses me of the crime until any new trial comes up?We all know the fruit dosnt fall far from the tree.I wonder how that petition is going? Im sure you have enough signatures to turn it in.. Please do..I would hate to think i wasted all that time with Dreama Crupp saving all those posts from supporters who signed it on the SECRET Page LOL Lisa Lamb Do ya think you can stop posting pics of my family? Dawn Berger and Mr Rennick trick no good.. Dayton police and detectives are well aware of supporters of Darlie Routier and they already pulled the Lets call CPS on them trick Patrick did that a couple of years ago and we all had a great laugh when I showed them the facebook pages of Darlie supporters... but feel free to call back we all enjoy a good laugh. I wish you all the best..now Im off to kick a puppy and slap a NUN


If you don't believe Darlie is innocent, you certainly have a right to that position. We welcome points of view from all sides of the case. But we also encourage you to provide factual information for your position. However, if you are only here to harass others or take personal jabs then you won't last very long. Enjoy your day.

I see spokee has lasted quite sometime with her personal jabs, but thats fine....
One may wonder why you didnt comment the same under her post??


Bryan where are all of these supposed "personal jabs" I've been making against you? I'll elaborate so that there is no confusion...
"PRIOR TO" your appearance on this forum, show me posts where I have "personally jabbed" you please.

I mentioned you in ONE post - one. Simply to advise that there are MANY other Darlie supporters out there (which there are), who aren't posting here because they do not want to deal with you (because they don't).

That's hardly a "personal jab." And as for WHY the supporters wouldn't want to deal with you, well Bryan, I think your rantings and ravings on here have made that all too obvious to the others here, now.

You'll notice paragraph after paragraph with Bryan complaining. But what FACTS does he deliver about Darlie or her case? His posts are 90% "I hate Darlie supporters" and MAYBE 10% "Darlie " - and THAT is generous.

Why are you going on and on about Travis Alexander - and asking the moderator of this forum to "keep us supporters from" doing this or that to your whatever page. Seriously? IF someone is posting on your Travis page, that's their right and privy. What do you want the moderators here to do to him, spank him and take his birthday away?
spoookee
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby spoookee » Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:12 am

RoseMontague wrote:
brysanutt wrote: Of course you will message it Stephanie but you sure wont post it because thats not what happened///Who said PD were looking for supporters I said they are aware of supporters and their false calls ( see if you do not understand what you read its clear why you may think someone is innocent) the dent is on the outside Stephanie..Moderator can you see the post? Supporters have called Dayton Police so much that they are aware of you guys read again spookee ( Thats a great name) you sure wont post what was on Drakes page here..I suggest you control you r supporters from coming to my victim memorial pages..OH I have the entire secret room saved in BOOK form Steph or should I call you Kelly LOL SO Im not human Im miserable Im wrong LOL Mod are we able to do this name calling here? I had no intention of that BUT you see where it starts..I too was frustrated as a supporter when i found it so hard to debate with not a leg to stand on...... I guess this is allowed if you support child killers the name calling Just couldn't do it huh Spookee?? Great name btw..it fits you perfectly What does DUHHHH mean Steph is that some insult on intellect... Moderator are these types of name hurling permitted here..as you can see I have not resorted to that even though one of my posts with Darlie kees threat to me was deleted can we fix this here Thanks in advance..... Not doing this with you she says...then she does it with me LOL...Keep up the good work Darlie Supporters!!


I think you will find that the posters at IA are interested in discussing the facts of the case. What we are not interested in is spats, bickering, and importing personal issues from other places around the internet. I have no problem with you posting and arguing for what you believe is evidence indicating guilt. Just keep it to the evidence, please.


Bryan,

I sincerely thank you, for making "explaining what your problem is" SO much easier. There is no need now. I think everyone here sees your tactics.

This is Bryan's game. This is what they like to do. See...if they can get under your skin, and make you mad or irritated, THEN you feel the need to stop what you are doing and address each ridiculous accusation or comment that he has made. Then this banter goes back and forth and back and forth...

...and....guess what?

He has accomplished what he wants to do - which is to keep our minds busy dealing with his nonsense, so that we are NOT free or available to help Darlie. Victim's Memorial pages, David Moff, Patrick this, Steph that...Darlie Kee this, Darlie Kee that. Yada yada yada....

THIS is why I do not "debate" with him. His mind is already made up and set in stone. I didn't even join debate in High School.

I am more than willing to discuss this case (and I do, regularly, and wind up with more and more supporters because of it) with anyone with an OPEN MIND. Senseless debate is a waste of time. It has nothing to do with "legs to stand on," but Bryan already knows that. He's upset that we're making headway in Darlie's case, so the mean nasty Bryan is coming out. *shrug*

No, I don't want to post what happened on Drake's page here, because I don't think it's relevant to the point at hand - which is his mother's wrongful conviction. I simply stated that I would be happy to provide the moderators here (PRIVATELY) the information if they felt they needed to see it. This is their forum, not mine. And if they want to understand the mindset of someone like you coming over here, acting the way that you are, then yes I will be more than happy to provide that for them.

I don't know what you are talking about with your reference to "Kelly." However, that is nothing new. As others have pointed out, as "pointless" as your "points" really are, they'd be a heck of a lot easier to understand if you'd use spell check and some punctuation.
spoookee
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby daniowen » Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:56 am

[album][/album]https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1.0-9/10150663_245054115679484_335711https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1.0-9/10150663_245054115679484_335711955_n.jpg955_n.jpg
daniowen
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:34 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby daniowen » Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:55 pm

[album][/album][/album]https://www.facebook.com/ajax/mercury/attachments/photo.php?fbid=272015912974773&mode=contain&width=176&height=176
daniowen
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:34 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:00 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
RoseMontague wrote:
brysanutt wrote: Of course you will message it Stephanie but you sure wont post it because thats not what happened///Who said PD were looking for supporters I said they are aware of supporters and their false calls ( see if you do not understand what you read its clear why you may think someone is innocent) the dent is on the outside Stephanie..Moderator can you see the post? Supporters have called Dayton Police so much that they are aware of you guys read again spookee ( Thats a great name) you sure wont post what was on Drakes page here..I suggest you control you r supporters from coming to my victim memorial pages..OH I have the entire secret room saved in BOOK form Steph or should I call you Kelly LOL SO Im not human Im miserable Im wrong LOL Mod are we able to do this name calling here? I had no intention of that BUT you see where it starts..I too was frustrated as a supporter when i found it so hard to debate with not a leg to stand on...... I guess this is allowed if you support child killers the name calling Just couldn't do it huh Spookee?? Great name btw..it fits you perfectly What does DUHHHH mean Steph is that some insult on intellect... Moderator are these types of name hurling permitted here..as you can see I have not resorted to that even though one of my posts with Darlie kees threat to me was deleted can we fix this here Thanks in advance..... Not doing this with you she says...then she does it with me LOL...Keep up the good work Darlie Supporters!!


I think you will find that the posters at IA are interested in discussing the facts of the case. What we are not interested in is spats, bickering, and importing personal issues from other places around the internet. I have no problem with you posting and arguing for what you believe is evidence indicating guilt. Just keep it to the evidence, please.

Seconded

Absolutley ... i was referring to the imported rant about another place on the internet which involved myself and my group when I was not even here..I hope the same applies to all members here Fact: Darlie and Darin changed their statement regarding the conversation they had before retiring to sleep that night, talk of a separation was hidden upon the initial statement givin to police.Would one assume in all reality that a fight that resulted in the ending of a marriage between parents whose children came up dead right after that fight could be a plausible motive for one or both parents to be in a state of temporary insanity while dealing with that separation issue? Why would they change those statements...to cover suspicion of motive.Can someone explain that?

Point of interest: Barry Fife still owns and operates Auto Medic in Rock-wall his number is listed, he blames Darin to this day, can anyone touch on why?

Telford unit is on scheduled lock down for reasons of institutional shakedown, I will have no contact via telephone with Phil Adams. but soon a writtin statement will come regarding the confiscation of some personal letters between he and Darlie while they awaited trail, he assured me they were hooked up by Darins aunt Sandy Aiken ( she has not responded to email) he claims Darlies state of mind was that Darin did the killing..he read from one letter that he does still have that shows the state of mind of this grieving mother whos children were murdered.Details... about the steamhouse...trips to Cancun... Once I recive a valid letter I will post it...Confirmation has been made as far as the search warrant for his cell and the contents removed per Greg Davis D.A

Thank You Danelle for your very civil statement on group,come back anytime you will see that 99 percent of the non supporter DO have genuine heartfelt sorrow for you and your family,that doesn't pardon the nasty remarks your mother continuously makes at people and has been from Day one..she even stepped out and call Ast DA a LIAR on national Tv. We do understand her pain and frustration,anyone would do just what she is doing to fight for their child, BUT carrying on too much only makes it tougher for the child that fights for her life.

I have made efforts through several supporters to draw an end to the in difference between those who oppose Darlies conviction and those who condone it.
Point to Ponder: Each one of you in Darlies support are passionate and aggressive about her innocence and you have every right to do that,if I felt she was innocent I would be vigorus and assertive as some of you are.But I wouldn't resort to making up stories to convince anyone to follow me.
Im accuses of all kinds of things..PFFFT it dosnt change the facts in the case.Im open for questions...I represent all the non supporters at this point... tell me why shes innocent?
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:53 am

spoookee wrote:
RoseMontague wrote:
brysanutt wrote: Of course you will message it Stephanie but you sure wont post it because thats not what happened///Who said PD were looking for supporters I said they are aware of supporters and their false calls ( see if you do not understand what you read its clear why you may think someone is innocent) the dent is on the outside Stephanie..Moderator can you see the post? Supporters have called Dayton Police so much that they are aware of you guys read again spookee ( Thats a great name) you sure wont post what was on Drakes page here..I suggest you control you r supporters from coming to my victim memorial pages..OH I have the entire secret room saved in BOOK form Steph or should I call you Kelly LOL SO Im not human Im miserable Im wrong LOL Mod are we able to do this name calling here? I had no intention of that BUT you see where it starts..I too was frustrated as a supporter when i found it so hard to debate with not a leg to stand on...... I guess this is allowed if you support child killers the name calling Just couldn't do it huh Spookee?? Great name btw..it fits you perfectly What does DUHHHH mean Steph is that some insult on intellect... Moderator are these types of name hurling permitted here..as you can see I have not resorted to that even though one of my posts with Darlie kees threat to me was deleted can we fix this here Thanks in advance..... Not doing this with you she says...then she does it with me LOL...Keep up the good work Darlie Supporters!!


I think you will find that the posters at IA are interested in discussing the facts of the case. What we are not interested in is spats, bickering, and importing personal issues from other places around the internet. I have no problem with you posting and arguing for what you believe is evidence indicating guilt. Just keep it to the evidence, please.


Bryan,

I sincerely thank you, for making "explaining what your problem is" SO much easier. There is no need now. I think everyone here sees your tactics.

This is Bryan's game. This is what they like to do. See...if they can get under your skin, and make you mad or irritated, THEN you feel the need to stop what you are doing and address each ridiculous accusation or comment that he has made. Then this banter goes back and forth and back and forth...

...and....guess what?

He has accomplished what he wants to do - which is to keep our minds busy dealing with his nonsense, so that we are NOT free or available to help Darlie. Victim's Memorial pages, David Moff, Patrick this, Steph that...Darlie Kee this, Darlie Kee that. Yada yada yada....

THIS is why I do not "debate" with him. His mind is already made up and set in stone. I didn't even join debate in High School.

I am more than willing to discuss this case (and I do, regularly, and wind up with more and more supporters because of it) with anyone with an OPEN MIND. Senseless debate is a waste of time. It has nothing to do with "legs to stand on," but Bryan already knows that. He's upset that we're making headway in Darlie's case, so the mean nasty Bryan is coming out. *shrug*

No, I don't want to post what happened on Drake's page here, because I don't think it's relevant to the point at hand - which is his mother's wrongful conviction. I simply stated that I would be happy to provide the moderators here (PRIVATELY) the information if they felt they needed to see it. This is their forum, not mine. And if they want to understand the mindset of someone like you coming over here, acting the way that you are, then yes I will be more than happy to provide that for them.

I don't know what you are talking about with your reference to "Kelly." However, that is nothing new. As others have pointed out, as "pointless" as your "points" really are, they'd be a heck of a lot easier to understand if you'd use spell check and some punctuation.
See there you go again!!! Is your mind set in stone that she is innocent ? Can anyone convince you other wise? of course you will only post that scene on Drakes page in private, just like you post Darlie vids and disable the comments. The mean streak in me??? lets talk about the mean streak in Darlie Jr... you get supporters with misinformation...I again challenge any supporter to convince me of her innocence...I know what im talking about with my reference to KELLY thats the fake profile you mention using in your SECRET Page all about me ( because Im not important) Go ahead and lie your tail off about it my group has seen your post about it..... I see none of you talked the questions I brought forth...because you CANT..you simply cant debate me...getting slapped in the face with the truth HURTS so avoid it at all costs.MOD I notice the rule here are different for people who support Darlie did you NOT tell me that instigation will not work here? Did you not tell me to stick with the evidence?? So why does that rule not apply to spookee? OH I see///LOL come on Steph..anyone...debate the case with me.Is that all you have is use spell check and pronunciation LOL thats pretty weak when you clearly understand what I mean...sure you will be happy to provide things in secret LOL I have an entire page of your crap saved and Ill be glad to post it here.
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:54 am

Steph I didnt have to use Elias Sayegh to pay my bills LOL NUFF said
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:52 am

brysanutt wrote:Absolutley ... i was referring to the imported rant about another place on the internet which involved myself and my group when I was not even here..I hope the same applies to all members here Fact: Darlie and Darin changed their statement regarding the conversation they had before retiring to sleep that night, talk of a separation was hidden upon the initial statement givin to police.Would one assume in all reality that a fight that resulted in the ending of a marriage between parents whose children came up dead right after that fight could be a plausible motive for one or both parents to be in a state of temporary insanity while dealing with that separation issue? Why would they change those statements...to cover suspicion of motive.Can someone explain that?

Point of interest: Barry Fife still owns and operates Auto Medic in Rock-wall his number is listed, he blames Darin to this day, can anyone touch on why?

Telford unit is on scheduled lock down for reasons of institutional shakedown, I will have no contact via telephone with Phil Adams. but soon a writtin statement will come regarding the confiscation of some personal letters between he and Darlie while they awaited trail, he assured me they were hooked up by Darins aunt Sandy Aiken ( she has not responded to email) he claims Darlies state of mind was that Darin did the killing..he read from one letter that he does still have that shows the state of mind of this grieving mother whos children were murdered.Details... about the steamhouse...trips to Cancun... Once I recive a valid letter I will post it...Confirmation has been made as far as the search warrant for his cell and the contents removed per Greg Davis D.A

Thank You Danelle for your very civil statement on group,come back anytime you will see that 99 percent of the non supporter DO have genuine heartfelt sorrow for you and your family,that doesn't pardon the nasty remarks your mother continuously makes at people and has been from Day one..she even stepped out and call Ast DA a LIAR on national Tv. We do understand her pain and frustration,anyone would do just what she is doing to fight for their child, BUT carrying on too much only makes it tougher for the child that fights for her life.

I have made efforts through several supporters to draw an end to the in difference between those who oppose Darlies conviction and those who condone it.
Point to Ponder: Each one of you in Darlies support are passionate and aggressive about her innocence and you have every right to do that,if I felt she was innocent I would be vigorus and assertive as some of you are.But I wouldn't resort to making up stories to convince anyone to follow me.
Im accuses of all kinds of things..PFFFT it dosnt change the facts in the case.Im open for questions...I represent all the non supporters at this point... tell me why shes innocent?

These are my reasons, based on what I know, which is far from being enough:

1 Inherent improbability of what is alleged - it is rare, not unknown of course, for a mother to murder her children

2 the staging verges on the impossible. Look up Sinsaint's reconstruction of the staging and tell us what, if anything, she has wrong and whether you believe Darlie did all the things she needed to do to create the scene the police came across

3 certain particulars of the staging strike me as very odd indeed, most particularly the sock. First, I don't see her thinking of it, second , if she did think of it the sock would not have been dropped so far away but maybe outside the screen window or over the fence (what if someone saw her and what about the time involved - did she put on shoes and if not were her feet dirty?) third, if she thought of this brilliant move why did she not weave it into her fabricated story to 'help' the detectives go looking for that sock (remember she did not know for months they had found it and fourth, the cops formed their crime theory on the spot and before they knew about the sock. They were already committed to the 'no intruder' meme before they came across this knock-out item.

4 the self-inflicted injuries are far too well done, not only including a deep and near lethal wound to the neck with her necklace actually embedded in it, but also classic defensive injuries to her arms which only a forensic science student would be likely to know about. There is also even a possible slash wound that starts on her face and continues to her shoulder with a gap in-between just as you get when an attacker is swinging at you with a knife in an arc

5 the evidence against her includes meaningless tittle-tattle of the kind hinted at in your post - forget silly string and local gossip, the whole story is at the crime scene

5A blood spatter 'evidence' has an unwarrantedly high CSI effect anyway but when it comes from Tom Bevel alarm bells should be ringing

6 the trial seems to have been a railroad job, conducted within a few months of the crime. Among the posters here, I probably know better than anybody what that means for the defence team.

7 the case has all the hallmarks of confirmation bias at work - an early theory sustained by mistaken analysis of crucial evidence (the hair found at the window, left there by a police officer, the fibre in the knife block probably put there by the finger print man, the scraping gate which has to be wedged to stay open)

I do not include the fingerprint as I know too little about it. That does not mean it's not another very strong point for her nor that there aren't others equally or even more strong.

Please take your spats with other posters elsewhere and just address the evidence here. I have absolutely no problem with someone having a pro-guilt POV and welcome an opposing view of the case. I will learn about it faster that way and find out which of my ideas are wrong. If you want to educate me I'm all ears, but if you want to bandy unpleasantries with other members I will lobby for you to be banned. I am neither passionate nor aggressive but intrigued and curious. Would you please expand on your suggestions that

1 Darlie and Darin changed their statements, and

2 The opinion of Barry Fife means anything

I don't understand the other stuff you refer but don't need you to explain any of it when replying to this.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Fri Mar 28, 2014 9:21 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:These are my reasons, based on what I know, which is far from being enough:

1 Inherent improbability of what is alleged - it is rare, not unknown of course, for a mother to murder her children

2 the staging verges on the impossible. Look up Sinsaint's reconstruction of the staging and tell us what, if anything, she has wrong and whether you believe Darlie did all the things she needed to do to create the scene the police came across

3 certain particulars of the staging strike me as very odd indeed, most particularly the sock. First, I don't see her thinking of it, second , if she did think of it the sock would not have been dropped so far away but maybe outside the screen window or over the fence (what if someone saw her and what about the time involved - did she put on shoes and if not were her feet dirty?) third, if she thought of this brilliant move why did she not weave it into her fabricated story to 'help' the detectives go looking for that sock (remember she did not know for months they had found it and fourth, the cops formed their crime theory on the spot and before they knew about the sock. They were already committed to the 'no intruder' meme before they came across this knock-out item.

4 the self-inflicted injuries are far too well done, not only including a deep and near lethal wound to the neck with her necklace actually embedded in it, but also classic defensive injuries to her arms which only a forensic science student would be likely to know about. There is also even a possible slash wound that starts on her face and continues to her shoulder with a gap in-between just as you get when an attacker is swinging at you with a knife in an arc

5 the evidence against her includes meaningless tittle-tattle of the kind hinted at in your post - forget silly string and local gossip, the whole story is at the crime scene
blood spatter 'evidence' has an unwarrantedly high CSI effect anyway but when it comes from Tom Bevel alarm bells should be ringing

6 the trial seems to have been a railroad job, conducted within a few months of the crime. Among the posters here, I probably know better than anybody what that means for the defence team.

7 the case has all the hallmarks of confirmation bias at work - an early theory sustained by mistaken analysis of crucial evidence (the hair found at the window, left there by a police officer, the fibre in the knife block probably put there by the finger print man, the scraping gate which has to be wedged to stay open)

I do not include the fingerprint as I know too little about it. That does not mean it's not another very strong point for her nor that there aren't others equally or even more strong.

Please take your spats with other posters elsewhere and just address the evidence here. I have absolutely no problem with someone having a pro-guilt POV and welcome an opposing view of the case. I will learn about it faster that way and find out which of my ideas are wrong. If you want to educate me I'm all ears, but if you want to bandy unpleasantries with other members I will lobby for you to be banned. I am neither passionate nor aggressive but intrigued and curious. Would you please expand on your suggestions that

1 Darlie and Darin changed their statements, and

2 The opinion of Barry Fife means anything

I don't understand the other stuff you refer but don't need you to explain any of it when replying to this.


Clive, this is a fantastic list. Thank you for posting it. By the way, that whole propped up gate thing is now a very glaring anomaly given the narrative of the gate not being easily opened or closed because it scraped along the ground. Funny how the eyes can deceive us.
"I am not the only one. There are many other wrongfully convicted people and they need your support. They need a voice." - Ryan Ferguson
ljrobins
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Mar 28, 2014 9:35 am

ljrobins wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:These are my reasons, based on what I know, which is far from being enough:

1 Inherent improbability of what is alleged - it is rare, not unknown of course, for a mother to murder her children

2 the staging verges on the impossible. Look up Sinsaint's reconstruction of the staging and tell us what, if anything, she has wrong and whether you believe Darlie did all the things she needed to do to create the scene the police came across

3 certain particulars of the staging strike me as very odd indeed, most particularly the sock. First, I don't see her thinking of it, second , if she did think of it the sock would not have been dropped so far away but maybe outside the screen window or over the fence (what if someone saw her and what about the time involved - did she put on shoes and if not were her feet dirty?) third, if she thought of this brilliant move why did she not weave it into her fabricated story to 'help' the detectives go looking for that sock (remember she did not know for months they had found it and fourth, the cops formed their crime theory on the spot and before they knew about the sock. They were already committed to the 'no intruder' meme before they came across this knock-out item.

4 the self-inflicted injuries are far too well done, not only including a deep and near lethal wound to the neck with her necklace actually embedded in it, but also classic defensive injuries to her arms which only a forensic science student would be likely to know about. There is also even a possible slash wound that starts on her face and continues to her shoulder with a gap in-between just as you get when an attacker is swinging at you with a knife in an arc

5 the evidence against her includes meaningless tittle-tattle of the kind hinted at in your post - forget silly string and local gossip, the whole story is at the crime scene

5A blood spatter 'evidence' has an unwarrantedly high CSI effect anyway but when it comes from Tom Bevel alarm bells should be ringing

6 the trial seems to have been a railroad job, conducted within a few months of the crime. Among the posters here, I probably know better than anybody what that means for the defence team.

7 the case has all the hallmarks of confirmation bias at work - an early theory sustained by mistaken analysis of crucial evidence (the hair found at the window, left there by a police officer, the fibre in the knife block probably put there by the finger print man, the scraping gate which has to be wedged to stay open)

I do not include the fingerprint as I know too little about it. That does not mean it's not another very strong point for her nor that there aren't others equally or even more strong.

Please take your spats with other posters elsewhere and just address the evidence here. I have absolutely no problem with someone having a pro-guilt POV and welcome an opposing view of the case. I will learn about it faster that way and find out which of my ideas are wrong. If you want to educate me I'm all ears, but if you want to bandy unpleasantries with other members I will lobby for you to be banned. I am neither passionate nor aggressive but intrigued and curious. Would you please expand on your suggestions that

1 Darlie and Darin changed their statements, and

2 The opinion of Barry Fife means anything

I don't understand the other stuff you refer but don't need you to explain any of it when replying to this.


Clive, this is a fantastic list. Thank you for posting it. By the way, that whole propped up gate thing is now a very glaring anomaly given the narrative of the gate not being easily opened or closed because it scraped along the ground. Funny how the eyes can deceive us.


Thank you LJ, I amended it to separate the Tom Bevel point, as it is distinct from the one preceding it. I will be interested to see whether I get any reply from the poster to whom I directed that little lot. Point 3 above reminds me of David Camm and the question whether he could have left his basketball game without being seen. That was always the wrong question. The real question was whether he could or would have counted on being able to leave it and return unnoticed to which the answer screams out - 'no way!' It's the same with the sock. It's interesting to figure out whether she could have done it (did she climb over the fence?) but much more problematic to figure whether she would even have tried and then forgotten to lay it on thick about the intruder having:

"something … something in his .. h-hand like, I don't know, like maybe it was a sock or something, Darin, honey, could y'all check the laundry to see if you are missing any socks?"
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Fri Mar 28, 2014 4:28 pm

Clive wrote:"something … something in his .. h-hand like, I don't know, like maybe it was a sock or something, Darin, honey, could y'all check the laundry to see if you are missing any socks?"


"I was trying to scream but something was in my mouth... I don't know... It smelled like feet or Clorox or something..."
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby jane » Fri Mar 28, 2014 4:53 pm

It will be great to see Darlie Routier as a featured case. Haven't followed it for long. But the minute I saw the pictures of her injuries, I knew she was innocent.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Fri Mar 28, 2014 4:57 pm

erasmus44 wrote:
RoseMontague wrote:
brysanutt wrote: Of course you will message it Stephanie but you sure wont post it because thats not what happened///Who said PD were looking for supporters I said they are aware of supporters and their false calls ( see if you do not understand what you read its clear why you may think someone is innocent) the dent is on the outside Stephanie..Moderator can you see the post? Supporters have called Dayton Police so much that they are aware of you guys read again spookee ( Thats a great name) you sure wont post what was on Drakes page here..I suggest you control you r supporters from coming to my victim memorial pages..OH I have the entire secret room saved in BOOK form Steph or should I call you Kelly LOL SO Im not human Im miserable Im wrong LOL Mod are we able to do this name calling here? I had no intention of that BUT you see where it starts..I too was frustrated as a supporter when i found it so hard to debate with not a leg to stand on...... I guess this is allowed if you support child killers the name calling Just couldn't do it huh Spookee?? Great name btw..it fits you perfectly What does DUHHHH mean Steph is that some insult on intellect... Moderator are these types of name hurling permitted here..as you can see I have not resorted to that even though one of my posts with Darlie kees threat to me was deleted can we fix this here Thanks in advance..... Not doing this with you she says...then she does it with me LOL...Keep up the good work Darlie Supporters!!


I think you will find that the posters at IA are interested in discussing the facts of the case. What we are not interested in is spats, bickering, and importing personal issues from other places around the internet. I have no problem with you posting and arguing for what you believe is evidence indicating guilt. Just keep it to the evidence, please.




Another point. I think it is fun to try to emulate E. E. Cummings, but for this particular exercise, try to use complete sentences and conventional punctuation. Because if u use runon sentences and u leave out periods commas and stuff like that it begins to be hard for many of us to understand exactly what u are trying to say even if what you are saying makes sense to u it doesnt to us so that we read it and scratch our heads and I have dandruff so all that scratching put stuff on top of my Mac so that I can't even find the letters to type up a reply and that means I get angry and tired and then I automatically wont reed any of your stuff no more.....not meant to insult you or anything like that but just the way your posts tend to seem to me so that if you could make it easier for me to understand it would make me happy and I also think that if you refer to an earlier communication email letter or something else you should tell us what u are talking about so that we can understand it. LOL



I could draw you a picture would that be easier LOL
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:00 pm

Sinsaint wrote:
Clive wrote:"something … something in his .. h-hand like, I don't know, like maybe it was a sock or something, Darin, honey, could y'all check the laundry to see if you are missing any socks?"


"I was trying to scream but something was in my mouth... I don't know... It smelled like feet or Clorox or something..."

If you made that up, funny, but not as funny as mine :mrgreen: . If it's real, why is her DNA not on the sock? It would be like taking a swab.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:35 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Clive wrote:"something … something in his .. h-hand like, I don't know, like maybe it was a sock or something, Darin, honey, could y'all check the laundry to see if you are missing any socks?"


"I was trying to scream but something was in my mouth... I don't know... It smelled like feet or Clorox or something..."

If you made that up, funny, but not as funny as mine :mrgreen: . If it's real, why is her DNA not on the sock? It would be like taking a swab.


I did make it up. And, dearest Clive, her DNA is on the sock silly boy.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:37 pm

brysanutt wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
RoseMontague wrote:
brysanutt wrote: Of course you will message it Stephanie but you sure wont post it because thats not what happened///Who said PD were looking for supporters I said they are aware of supporters and their false calls ( see if you do not understand what you read its clear why you may think someone is innocent) the dent is on the outside Stephanie..Moderator can you see the post? Supporters have called Dayton Police so much that they are aware of you guys read again spookee ( Thats a great name) you sure wont post what was on Drakes page here..I suggest you control you r supporters from coming to my victim memorial pages..OH I have the entire secret room saved in BOOK form Steph or should I call you Kelly LOL SO Im not human Im miserable Im wrong LOL Mod are we able to do this name calling here? I had no intention of that BUT you see where it starts..I too was frustrated as a supporter when i found it so hard to debate with not a leg to stand on...... I guess this is allowed if you support child killers the name calling Just couldn't do it huh Spookee?? Great name btw..it fits you perfectly What does DUHHHH mean Steph is that some insult on intellect... Moderator are these types of name hurling permitted here..as you can see I have not resorted to that even though one of my posts with Darlie kees threat to me was deleted can we fix this here Thanks in advance..... Not doing this with you she says...then she does it with me LOL...Keep up the good work Darlie Supporters!!


I think you will find that the posters at IA are interested in discussing the facts of the case. What we are not interested in is spats, bickering, and importing personal issues from other places around the internet. I have no problem with you posting and arguing for what you believe is evidence indicating guilt. Just keep it to the evidence, please.




Another point. I think it is fun to try to emulate E. E. Cummings, but for this particular exercise, try to use complete sentences and conventional punctuation. Because if u use runon sentences and u leave out periods commas and stuff like that it begins to be hard for many of us to understand exactly what u are trying to say even if what you are saying makes sense to u it doesnt to us so that we read it and scratch our heads and I have dandruff so all that scratching put stuff on top of my Mac so that I can't even find the letters to type up a reply and that means I get angry and tired and then I automatically wont reed any of your stuff no more.....not meant to insult you or anything like that but just the way your posts tend to seem to me so that if you could make it easier for me to understand it would make me happy and I also think that if you refer to an earlier communication email letter or something else you should tell us what u are talking about so that we can understand it. LOL



I could draw you a picture would that be easier LOL


Proper punctuation will suffice.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:45 pm

Sinsaint wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Clive wrote:"something … something in his .. h-hand like, I don't know, like maybe it was a sock or something, Darin, honey, could y'all check the laundry to see if you are missing any socks?"


"I was trying to scream but something was in my mouth... I don't know... It smelled like feet or Clorox or something..."

If you made that up, funny, but not as funny as mine :mrgreen: . If it's real, why is her DNA not on the sock? It would be like taking a swab.


I did make it up. And, dearest Clive, her DNA is on the sock silly boy.

She even thought of that too? The little minx! We are talking about a Bond villain here! This was meticulously planned down to the last detail (except the getting away with it part).
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:48 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Clive wrote:"something … something in his .. h-hand like, I don't know, like maybe it was a sock or something, Darin, honey, could y'all check the laundry to see if you are missing any socks?"


"I was trying to scream but something was in my mouth... I don't know... It smelled like feet or Clorox or something..."

If you made that up, funny, but not as funny as mine :mrgreen: . If it's real, why is her DNA not on the sock? It would be like taking a swab.


I did make it up. And, dearest Clive, her DNA is on the sock silly boy.

She even thought of that too? The little minx! We are talking about a Bond villain here! This was meticulously planned down to the last detail (except the getting away with it part).


Like a Willy E Coyote episode.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Reality Check

Postby lane99 » Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:03 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:...These are my reasons, based on what I know, which is far from being enough:

1 Inherent improbability of what is alleged - it is rare, not unknown of course, for a mother to murder her children...


It is patent nonsense to say it is improbable that Darlie committed these murders. The only "inherent improbabilities" here are found in Darlie's story.

The fact of the matter is this: when children of that age are murdered, with few exceptions they are murdered by one of their parents or some other caregiver (such as the boyfriend of a single mother). The statistical probabilities, coupled with the specific known facts of this case, clearly show that is it inherently PROBABLE that Darlie is the one who butchered her children.

The rest of your post consisted of various other flavours of hokum.
lane99
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:25 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:13 pm

:lol:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
ljrobins wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:These are my reasons, based on what I know, which is far from being enough:

1 Inherent improbability of what is alleged - it is rare, not unknown of course, for a mother to murder her children

2 the staging verges on the impossible. Look up Sinsaint's reconstruction of the staging and tell us what, if anything, she has wrong and whether you believe Darlie did all the things she needed to do to create the scene the police came across

3 certain particulars of the staging strike me as very odd indeed, most particularly the sock. First, I don't see her thinking of it, second , if she did think of it the sock would not have been dropped so far away but maybe outside the screen window or over the fence (what if someone saw her and what about the time involved - did she put on shoes and if not were her feet dirty?) third, if she thought of this brilliant move why did she not weave it into her fabricated story to 'help' the detectives go looking for that sock (remember she did not know for months they had found it and fourth, the cops formed their crime theory on the spot and before they knew about the sock. They were already committed to the 'no intruder' meme before they came across this knock-out item.

4 the self-inflicted injuries are far too well done, not only including a deep and near lethal wound to the neck with her necklace actually embedded in it, but also classic defensive injuries to her arms which only a forensic science student would be likely to know about. There is also even a possible slash wound that starts on her face and continues to her shoulder with a gap in-between just as you get when an attacker is swinging at you with a knife in an arc

5 the evidence against her includes meaningless tittle-tattle of the kind hinted at in your post - forget silly string and local gossip, the whole story is at the crime scene

5A blood spatter 'evidence' has an unwarrantedly high CSI effect anyway but when it comes from Tom Bevel alarm bells should be ringing

6 the trial seems to have been a railroad job, conducted within a few months of the crime. Among the posters here, I probably know better than anybody what that means for the defence team.

7 the case has all the hallmarks of confirmation bias at work - an early theory sustained by mistaken analysis of crucial evidence (the hair found at the window, left there by a police officer, the fibre in the knife block probably put there by the finger print man, the scraping gate which has to be wedged to stay open)

I do not include the fingerprint as I know too little about it. That does not mean it's not another very strong point for her nor that there aren't others equally or even more strong.

Please take your spats with other posters elsewhere and just address the evidence here. I have absolutely no problem with someone having a pro-guilt POV and welcome an opposing view of the case. I will learn about it faster that way and find out which of my ideas are wrong. If you want to educate me I'm all ears, but if you want to bandy unpleasantries with other members I will lobby for you to be banned. I am neither passionate nor aggressive but intrigued and curious. Would you please expand on your suggestions that

1 Darlie and Darin changed their statements, and

2 The opinion of Barry Fife means anything

I don't understand the other stuff you refer but don't need you to explain any of it when replying to this.


Clive, this is a fantastic list. Thank you for posting it. By the way, that whole propped up gate thing is now a very glaring anomaly given the narrative of the gate not being easily opened or closed because it scraped along the ground. Funny how the eyes can deceive us.


Thank you LJ, I amended it to separate the Tom Bevel point, as it is distinct from the one preceding it. I will be interested to see whether I get any reply from the poster to whom I directed that little lot. Point 3 above reminds me of David Camm and the question whether he could have left his basketball game without being seen. That was always the wrong question. The real question was whether he could or would have counted on being able to leave it and return unnoticed to which the answer screams out - 'no way!' It's the same with the sock. It's interesting to figure out whether she could have done it (did she climb over the fence?) but much more problematic to figure whether she would even have tried and then forgotten to lay it on thick about the intruder having:

"something … something in his .. h-hand like, I don't know, like maybe it was a sock or something, Darin, honey, could y'all check the laundry to see if you are missing any socks?"



1( Clive Can you elaborate the Rarity of mothers killing their children here are 8 cases if you need more I can provide that, it is not rare and that is only a claim that you cant produce a backing for http://www.oddee.com/item_98679.aspx It is only your opinion that it is rare and has no bearing on Darlies guilt or innocence

2( I would have to agree that the staging was nearly impossible, that is just why it did not work for Darlie and her movements were tainted and seen through by investigators

3( Clive you use a lot of what ifs, and in Capitol murder cases what ifs do not get it, Darin had a black pair of reebok shoes placed conveniently in the front entranceway to the house if you see the picture you will notice the laces loose and the tounges down..it is not unlikely that she slipped those on in an attempt to discard the sock..I feel like the idea was to discard it and in haste she missed the sewer or trash bin ( remember it was Darlie who told us all she didnt know about that sock months after the fact just as she told us all her lie detector test was inconclusive, Her mother denied on national TV she even took a LD test) I would agree with Cron based on his many years of crime scene experience including over 4000 cases with bodies,Cron based after a walk through of the scen within 30 minutes he determined there was no sign of an intruder Darin was the first suspect and says so on national TV ( LEEza GIbbons, In the same show Darin and Darlie Kee back the false information of the knife going through one of the boys into the carpet and floor but the autopsy reports show that never happened

4( You use unnecessary words like "Near Lethal" to expand the dramatics The wound was not near lethal and was testified to as superficial by doctors.The necklace was stuck in coagulated blood

5("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. http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidenc ... darin.html This is not the same statement Darin gave t o police that night. Why have they changed their stories?

6( Why does the family continue to use lies to support Darlie Lynn Darlie Routier secretly took a lie detector test before the murder trial that sentenced her to death.

It’s results were never made public.

Defence attorneys usually don’t hesitate to release a polygraph test when it’s inconclusive or confirms their clients are telling the truth.

Bill Parker, a private investigator/polygraph examiner who consulted for Rowlett police on the case, says the covert test probably indicates Routier flunked.

Bill Parker: I feel that, I believe that logic would dictate to us that had she done well on any of the issues in the polygraph examination we would have all heard about it long before now.

As Routier prepared for her appeal, her mother, Darlie Kee blatantly lied about the polygraph her daughter had taken.

Darlie Kee: She wanted to take a polygraph, she wanted to do hypnosis…

Robert Riggs: Did she ever take a polygraph?

Darlie Kee: No, she never took a polygraph.

The Robert Riggs interview, shows that Routier’s court appointed attorney obtained a sealed motion for a polygraph shortly before jury selection began. The judge ordered the Dallas County jail to allow the polygraph test without the knowledge of the district attorney’s office.

According to jail records, on Friday October 4th, during the afternoon, Routier was moved from her cell in the Lew Sterrett Justice Center, through the basement sally port, into a room at the Crowley Courts Building. It was in there that she was given a polygraph exam which lasted six hours. Routier’s mother met with her daughter within minutes of finishing the polygraph.

Robert Riggs: Wouldn’t she have told you that she did something like this?

Darlie Kee: I believe she would’ve, yes.

Robert Riggs: Then… why don’t you think she did?

Darlie Kee: I don’t know…

Robert Riggs: Routier’s mother says Doug Parks, the court appointed lawyer at the time, did not tell the family about the polygraph. Parks declined to discuss the polygraph, citing attorney/client privilege. Parks filed this bill with Dallas county four days after the polygraph requesting a one thousand dollar payment for five hours of confidential consultation. In a follow-up letter on the bill to the county auditor, Parks wrote: “This is still a sensitive issue and identification of the consultant would violate an attorney/client privilege.”

Under a recent court ruling, polygraph evidence is not always inadmissible in court. Investigator Bill Parker says if Darlie Routier truthfully answered the questions about the murder of her sons then she should authorize the release of her polygraph test charts and results.

6( Why does Barry Fifes opinion mean nothing to you when Darlie stated a confrontation with him, and Darin stated this man stole his Jaguar ( no police report
of that either) If Fifes opinion means nothing then yours would mean??

7( No one has challenged Tom bevels Findings in this case to date, David camm was innocent and he proved actual innocence by providing identification of the intruder which BTW is what Darlie will have to do to gain Appeal posting.php?mode=quote&f=123&p=136430#

8( Darlie did not climb over the fence she went put the front door to get rid of the sock

9( The silly string tape was crucial to the jurors and showed Darlies inappropriateness after the crime as a FACT, upon its airing on local news in Dallas, residents of Dallas began to call into the DAs office and demand the immediate arrest of Darlie, based on those calls Mosty files a motion to change venue because of the community outcry against Darlie

10( The sock came from a bucket of used worn socks that were kept in the utility room, ( this based on teestimony from Darin who stated they used the old socks to clean or wax the cars) Why would an intruder set on killing not have his own gloves?

11( it is very rare that a random killer would walk the streets and pick a home to do the devils work in without ever leaving a clue of himself or any mention after 17 years of the crime and never be caught thats what is rare

(12 if you watch Herzogs On Death row feature of Darlie you can hear her lie about her wound and say that the knife actually cut into her carotid artery

13( as I said before I wasnt even here and people were talking about me, i respond to them and see NONE of your posts regarding that person sticking to the evidence, Probably placed the fiber in the knife block??? Really..... are we pulling at straws? Darlie is guilty of this crime IA picking it up will not change the evidence in this case at all
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:16 pm

Sinsaint wrote:
brysanutt wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
RoseMontague wrote:
brysanutt wrote: Of course you will message it Stephanie but you sure wont post it because thats not what happened///Who said PD were looking for supporters I said they are aware of supporters and their false calls ( see if you do not understand what you read its clear why you may think someone is innocent) the dent is on the outside Stephanie..Moderator can you see the post? Supporters have called Dayton Police so much that they are aware of you guys read again spookee ( Thats a great name) you sure wont post what was on Drakes page here..I suggest you control you r supporters from coming to my victim memorial pages..OH I have the entire secret room saved in BOOK form Steph or should I call you Kelly LOL SO Im not human Im miserable Im wrong LOL Mod are we able to do this name calling here? I had no intention of that BUT you see where it starts..I too was frustrated as a supporter when i found it so hard to debate with not a leg to stand on...... I guess this is allowed if you support child killers the name calling Just couldn't do it huh Spookee?? Great name btw..it fits you perfectly What does DUHHHH mean Steph is that some insult on intellect... Moderator are these types of name hurling permitted here..as you can see I have not resorted to that even though one of my posts with Darlie kees threat to me was deleted can we fix this here Thanks in advance..... Not doing this with you she says...then she does it with me LOL...Keep up the good work Darlie Supporters!!


I think you will find that the posters at IA are interested in discussing the facts of the case. What we are not interested in is spats, bickering, and importing personal issues from other places around the internet. I have no problem with you posting and arguing for what you believe is evidence indicating guilt. Just keep it to the evidence, please.




Another point. I think it is fun to try to emulate E. E. Cummings, but for this particular exercise, try to use complete sentences and conventional punctuation. Because if u use runon sentences and u leave out periods commas and stuff like that it begins to be hard for many of us to understand exactly what u are trying to say even if what you are saying makes sense to u it doesnt to us so that we read it and scratch our heads and I have dandruff so all that scratching put stuff on top of my Mac so that I can't even find the letters to type up a reply and that means I get angry and tired and then I automatically wont reed any of your stuff no more.....not meant to insult you or anything like that but just the way your posts tend to seem to me so that if you could make it easier for me to understand it would make me happy and I also think that if you refer to an earlier communication email letter or something else you should tell us what u are talking about so that we can understand it. LOL



I could draw you a picture would that be easier LOL


Proper punctuation will suffice.
Im not the one supporting a convicted child killer, good morals would suffice as well ( did ya understand THAT?).
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Reality Check

Postby brysanutt » Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:19 pm

lane99 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:...These are my reasons, based on what I know, which is far from being enough:

1 Inherent improbability of what is alleged - it is rare, not unknown of course, for a mother to murder her children...


It is patent nonsense to say it is improbable that Darlie committed these murders. The only "inherent improbabilities" here are found in Darlie's story.

The fact of the matter is this: when children of that age are murdered, with few exceptions they are murdered by one of their parents or some other caregiver (such as the boyfriend of a single mother). The statistical probabilities, coupled with the specific known facts of this case, clearly show that is it inherently PROBABLE that Darlie is the one who butchered her children.

The rest of your post consisted of various other flavours of hokum.
Thank You Lane..... Or maybe Clive would like to go On HLN Barwood did and it worked out great for HIM!
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:03 pm

brysnautt wrote:Im not the one supporting a convicted child killer, good morals would suffice as well ( did ya understand THAT?).


I'm supporting a woman I believe to be innocent of murder. If I think an injustice is being done the only morally correct thing to do is stand up for her and try to bring attention to her cause.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Sat Mar 29, 2014 12:57 am

spoookee wrote:
RoseMontague wrote:
brysanutt wrote: Of course you will message it Stephanie but you sure wont post it because thats not what happened///Who said PD were looking for supporters I said they are aware of supporters and their false calls ( see if you do not understand what you read its clear why you may think someone is innocent) the dent is on the outside Stephanie..Moderator can you see the post? Supporters have called Dayton Police so much that they are aware of you guys read again spookee ( Thats a great name) you sure wont post what was on Drakes page here..I suggest you control you r supporters from coming to my victim memorial pages..OH I have the entire secret room saved in BOOK form Steph or should I call you Kelly LOL SO Im not human Im miserable Im wrong LOL Mod are we able to do this name calling here? I had no intention of that BUT you see where it starts..I too was frustrated as a supporter when i found it so hard to debate with not a leg to stand on...... I guess this is allowed if you support child killers the name calling Just couldn't do it huh Spookee?? Great name btw..it fits you perfectly What does DUHHHH mean Steph is that some insult on intellect... Moderator are these types of name hurling permitted here..as you can see I have not resorted to that even though one of my posts with Darlie kees threat to me was deleted can we fix this here Thanks in advance..... Not doing this with you she says...then she does it with me LOL...Keep up the good work Darlie Supporters!!


I think you will find that the posters at IA are interested in discussing the facts of the case. What we are not interested in is spats, bickering, and importing personal issues from other places around the internet. I have no problem with you posting and arguing for what you believe is evidence indicating guilt. Just keep it to the evidence, please.


Bryan,

I sincerely thank you, for making "explaining what your problem is" SO much easier. There is no need now. I think everyone here sees your tactics.

This is Bryan's game. This is what they like to do. See...if they can get under your skin, and make you mad or irritated, THEN you feel the need to stop what you are doing and address each ridiculous accusation or comment that he has made. Then this banter goes back and forth and back and forth...

...and....guess what?

He has accomplished what he wants to do - which is to keep our minds busy dealing with his nonsense, so that we are NOT free or available to help Darlie. Victim's Memorial pages, David Moff, Patrick this, Steph that...Darlie Kee this, Darlie Kee that. Yada yada yada....

THIS is why I do not "debate" with him. His mind is already made up and set in stone. I didn't even join debate in High School.

I am more than willing to discuss this case (and I do, regularly, and wind up with more and more supporters because of it) with anyone with an OPEN MIND. Senseless debate is a waste of time. It has nothing to do with "legs to stand on," but Bryan already knows that. He's upset that we're making headway in Darlie's case, so the mean nasty Bryan is coming out. *shrug*

No, I don't want to post what happened on Drake's page here, because I don't think it's relevant to the point at hand - which is his mother's wrongful conviction. I simply stated that I would be happy to provide the moderators here (PRIVATELY) the information if they felt they needed to see it. This is their forum, not mine. And if they want to understand the mindset of someone like you coming over here, acting the way that you are, then yes I will be more than happy to provide that for them.

I don't know what you are talking about with your reference to "Kelly." However, that is nothing new. As others have pointed out, as "pointless" as your "points" really are, they'd be a heck of a lot easier to understand if you'd use spell check and some punctuation.

And what part of this is evidence?
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:01 am

Sinsaint wrote:
brysnautt wrote:Im not the one supporting a convicted child killer, good morals would suffice as well ( did ya understand THAT?).


I'm supporting a woman I believe to be innocent of murder. If I think an injustice is being done the only morally correct thing to do is stand up for her and try to bring attention to her cause.


And we stand for the victims in this case Devon and Damon, the tactic used over the years by supporters is to kill the messenger to elude from the message you know with little tiny jabs about pronunciation or whatnot, considering that is all they have.Over the years the main characters in this case have been belittled beginning with DK interrupting an interview and calling the man a liar.
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:04 am

brysanutt wrote:
spoookee wrote:
RoseMontague wrote:
brysanutt wrote: Of course you will message it Stephanie but you sure wont post it because thats not what happened///Who said PD were looking for supporters I said they are aware of supporters and their false calls ( see if you do not understand what you read its clear why you may think someone is innocent) the dent is on the outside Stephanie..Moderator can you see the post? Supporters have called Dayton Police so much that they are aware of you guys read again spookee ( Thats a great name) you sure wont post what was on Drakes page here..I suggest you control you r supporters from coming to my victim memorial pages..OH I have the entire secret room saved in BOOK form Steph or should I call you Kelly LOL SO Im not human Im miserable Im wrong LOL Mod are we able to do this name calling here? I had no intention of that BUT you see where it starts..I too was frustrated as a supporter when i found it so hard to debate with not a leg to stand on...... I guess this is allowed if you support child killers the name calling Just couldn't do it huh Spookee?? Great name btw..it fits you perfectly What does DUHHHH mean Steph is that some insult on intellect... Moderator are these types of name hurling permitted here..as you can see I have not resorted to that even though one of my posts with Darlie kees threat to me was deleted can we fix this here Thanks in advance..... Not doing this with you she says...then she does it with me LOL...Keep up the good work Darlie Supporters!!


I think you will find that the posters at IA are interested in discussing the facts of the case. What we are not interested in is spats, bickering, and importing personal issues from other places around the internet. I have no problem with you posting and arguing for what you believe is evidence indicating guilt. Just keep it to the evidence, please.


Bryan,

I sincerely thank you, for making "explaining what your problem is" SO much easier. There is no need now. I think everyone here sees your tactics.

This is Bryan's game. This is what they like to do. See...if they can get under your skin, and make you mad or irritated, THEN you feel the need to stop what you are doing and address each ridiculous accusation or comment that he has made. Then this banter goes back and forth and back and forth...

...and....guess what?

He has accomplished what he wants to do - which is to keep our minds busy dealing with his nonsense, so that we are NOT free or available to help Darlie. Victim's Memorial pages, David Moff, Patrick this, Steph that...Darlie Kee this, Darlie Kee that. Yada yada yada....

THIS is why I do not "debate" with him. His mind is already made up and set in stone. I didn't even join debate in High School.

I am more than willing to discuss this case (and I do, regularly, and wind up with more and more supporters because of it) with anyone with an OPEN MIND. Senseless debate is a waste of time. It has nothing to do with "legs to stand on," but Bryan already knows that. He's upset that we're making headway in Darlie's case, so the mean nasty Bryan is coming out. *shrug*

No, I don't want to post what happened on Drake's page here, because I don't think it's relevant to the point at hand - which is his mother's wrongful conviction. I simply stated that I would be happy to provide the moderators here (PRIVATELY) the information if they felt they needed to see it. This is their forum, not mine. And if they want to understand the mindset of someone like you coming over here, acting the way that you are, then yes I will be more than happy to provide that for them.

I don't know what you are talking about with your reference to "Kelly." However, that is nothing new. As others have pointed out, as "pointless" as your "points" really are, they'd be a heck of a lot easier to understand if you'd use spell check and some punctuation.

And what part of this is evidence?
Stephanie Kelly is the fake profile you mention using in the Supporters who are being Harassed page would you like me to post your comment here or should I continue to save it for when one of you folks decided to turn in that petition?
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:05 am

brysanutt wrote:
brysanutt wrote:
spoookee wrote:
RoseMontague wrote:
brysanutt wrote: Of course you will message it Stephanie but you sure wont post it because thats not what happened///Who said PD were looking for supporters I said they are aware of supporters and their false calls ( see if you do not understand what you read its clear why you may think someone is innocent) the dent is on the outside Stephanie..Moderator can you see the post? Supporters have called Dayton Police so much that they are aware of you guys read again spookee ( Thats a great name) you sure wont post what was on Drakes page here..I suggest you control you r supporters from coming to my victim memorial pages..OH I have the entire secret room saved in BOOK form Steph or should I call you Kelly LOL SO Im not human Im miserable Im wrong LOL Mod are we able to do this name calling here? I had no intention of that BUT you see where it starts..I too was frustrated as a supporter when i found it so hard to debate with not a leg to stand on...... I guess this is allowed if you support child killers the name calling Just couldn't do it huh Spookee?? Great name btw..it fits you perfectly What does DUHHHH mean Steph is that some insult on intellect... Moderator are these types of name hurling permitted here..as you can see I have not resorted to that even though one of my posts with Darlie kees threat to me was deleted can we fix this here Thanks in advance..... Not doing this with you she says...then she does it with me LOL...Keep up the good work Darlie Supporters!!


I think you will find that the posters at IA are interested in discussing the facts of the case. What we are not interested in is spats, bickering, and importing personal issues from other places around the internet. I have no problem with you posting and arguing for what you believe is evidence indicating guilt. Just keep it to the evidence, please.


Bryan,

I sincerely thank you, for making "explaining what your problem is" SO much easier. There is no need now. I think everyone here sees your tactics.

This is Bryan's game. This is what they like to do. See...if they can get under your skin, and make you mad or irritated, THEN you feel the need to stop what you are doing and address each ridiculous accusation or comment that he has made. Then this banter goes back and forth and back and forth...

...and....guess what?

He has accomplished what he wants to do - which is to keep our minds busy dealing with his nonsense, so that we are NOT free or available to help Darlie. Victim's Memorial pages, David Moff, Patrick this, Steph that...Darlie Kee this, Darlie Kee that. Yada yada yada....

THIS is why I do not "debate" with him. His mind is already made up and set in stone. I didn't even join debate in High School.

I am more than willing to discuss this case (and I do, regularly, and wind up with more and more supporters because of it) with anyone with an OPEN MIND. Senseless debate is a waste of time. It has nothing to do with "legs to stand on," but Bryan already knows that. He's upset that we're making headway in Darlie's case, so the mean nasty Bryan is coming out. *shrug*

No, I don't want to post what happened on Drake's page here, because I don't think it's relevant to the point at hand - which is his mother's wrongful conviction. I simply stated that I would be happy to provide the moderators here (PRIVATELY) the information if they felt they needed to see it. This is their forum, not mine. And if they want to understand the mindset of someone like you coming over here, acting the way that you are, then yes I will be more than happy to provide that for them.

I don't know what you are talking about with your reference to "Kelly." However, that is nothing new. As others have pointed out, as "pointless" as your "points" really are, they'd be a heck of a lot easier to understand if you'd use spell check and some punctuation.

And what part of this is evidence?
Stephanie Kelly is the fake profile you mention using in the Supporters who are being Harassed page would you like me to post your comment here or should I continue to save it for when one of you folks decided to turn in that petition?
Looks like you felt the need to stop what you were doing to make comments about non supporters when NONE we even here Steph Kudos to US!!
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:08 am

"No, I don't want to post what happened on Drake's page here, because I don't think it's relevant to the point at hand " Spookee if you didnt feel it was relevant to the point of hand then why did you post it while no one was here to defend that?All the sudden when someone is here to challenge your statement it is now not relevant Well is that not convenient!
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Reality Check

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:18 am

lane99 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:...These are my reasons, based on what I know, which is far from being enough:

1 Inherent improbability of what is alleged - it is rare, not unknown of course, for a mother to murder her children...


It is patent nonsense to say it is improbable that Darlie committed these murders. The only "inherent improbabilities" here are found in Darlie's story.

The fact of the matter is this: when children of that age are murdered, with few exceptions they are murdered by one of their parents or some other caregiver (such as the boyfriend of a single mother). The statistical probabilities, coupled with the specific known facts of this case, clearly show that is it inherently PROBABLE that Darlie is the one who butchered her children.

The rest of your post consisted of various other flavours of hokum.

I put point 1 at the top realising it would get this sort of response. I am aware that infanticide exists and don't claim this to be my best argument. I said so (read it again). I still include the point though given that on the other side are people (you are one of them) who seriously think they can discern what happened from the silly string video. Your dismissal of the rest of my post is pathetic. Typical guilter tactic of avoiding argument by imperiously dismissing the other guy's case as not worthy of reply. Why do you bother to post this crap? Do you really think you have the authority to be so high-handed? LOL.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:16 am

brysanutt wrote::lol:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
ljrobins wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:These are my reasons, based on what I know, which is far from being enough:

1 Inherent improbability of what is alleged - it is rare, not unknown of course, for a mother to murder her children

2 the staging verges on the impossible. Look up Sinsaint's reconstruction of the staging and tell us what, if anything, she has wrong and whether you believe Darlie did all the things she needed to do to create the scene the police came across

3 certain particulars of the staging strike me as very odd indeed, most particularly the sock. First, I don't see her thinking of it, second , if she did think of it the sock would not have been dropped so far away but maybe outside the screen window or over the fence (what if someone saw her and what about the time involved - did she put on shoes and if not were her feet dirty?) third, if she thought of this brilliant move why did she not weave it into her fabricated story to 'help' the detectives go looking for that sock (remember she did not know for months they had found it and fourth, the cops formed their crime theory on the spot and before they knew about the sock. They were already committed to the 'no intruder' meme before they came across this knock-out item.

4 the self-inflicted injuries are far too well done, not only including a deep and near lethal wound to the neck with her necklace actually embedded in it, but also classic defensive injuries to her arms which only a forensic science student would be likely to know about. There is also even a possible slash wound that starts on her face and continues to her shoulder with a gap in-between just as you get when an attacker is swinging at you with a knife in an arc

5 the evidence against her includes meaningless tittle-tattle of the kind hinted at in your post - forget silly string and local gossip, the whole story is at the crime scene

5A blood spatter 'evidence' has an unwarrantedly high CSI effect anyway but when it comes from Tom Bevel alarm bells should be ringing

6 the trial seems to have been a railroad job, conducted within a few months of the crime. Among the posters here, I probably know better than anybody what that means for the defence team.

7 the case has all the hallmarks of confirmation bias at work - an early theory sustained by mistaken analysis of crucial evidence (the hair found at the window, left there by a police officer, the fibre in the knife block probably put there by the finger print man, the scraping gate which has to be wedged to stay open)

I do not include the fingerprint as I know too little about it. That does not mean it's not another very strong point for her nor that there aren't others equally or even more strong.

Please take your spats with other posters elsewhere and just address the evidence here. I have absolutely no problem with someone having a pro-guilt POV and welcome an opposing view of the case. I will learn about it faster that way and find out which of my ideas are wrong. If you want to educate me I'm all ears, but if you want to bandy unpleasantries with other members I will lobby for you to be banned. I am neither passionate nor aggressive but intrigued and curious. Would you please expand on your suggestions that

1 Darlie and Darin changed their statements, and

2 The opinion of Barry Fife means anything

I don't understand the other stuff you refer but don't need you to explain any of it when replying to this.


Clive, this is a fantastic list. Thank you for posting it. By the way, that whole propped up gate thing is now a very glaring anomaly given the narrative of the gate not being easily opened or closed because it scraped along the ground. Funny how the eyes can deceive us.


Thank you LJ, I amended it to separate the Tom Bevel point, as it is distinct from the one preceding it. I will be interested to see whether I get any reply from the poster to whom I directed that little lot. Point 3 above reminds me of David Camm and the question whether he could have left his basketball game without being seen. That was always the wrong question. The real question was whether he could or would have counted on being able to leave it and return unnoticed to which the answer screams out - 'no way!' It's the same with the sock. It's interesting to figure out whether she could have done it (did she climb over the fence?) but much more problematic to figure whether she would even have tried and then forgotten to lay it on thick about the intruder having:

"something … something in his .. h-hand like, I don't know, like maybe it was a sock or something, Darin, honey, could y'all check the laundry to see if you are missing any socks?"



1( Clive Can you elaborate the Rarity of mothers killing their children here are 8 cases if you need more I can provide that, it is not rare and that is only a claim that you cant produce a backing for http://www.oddee.com/item_98679.aspx It is only your opinion that it is rare and has no bearing on Darlies guilt or innocence

Finding ten cases (including Debra Milke) does not answer the point. I can find you ten plane crashes if you like, that wouldn't stop you flying. Mothers rarely kill their children. Nature has fixed it so they don't want to so when it is suggested that this very unusual thing has happened we need to look closely and skeptically.

2( I would have to agree that the staging was nearly impossible, that is just why it did not work for Darlie and her movements were tainted and seen through by investigators

This is just a rhetorical answer which begs the question whether the cops' interpretation of the crime scene is correct. It's an argument that uses it's conclusion as a premise and is thus invalid. I take it you have read Sinsaint's list, agree with it and still believe she did all that.
3( Clive you use a lot of what ifs, and in Capitol murder cases what ifs do not get it, Darin had a black pair of reebok shoes placed conveniently in the front entranceway to the house if you see the picture you will notice the laces loose and the tounges down..it is not unlikely that she slipped those on in an attempt to discard the sock..I feel like the idea was to discard it and in haste she missed the sewer or trash bin ( remember it was Darlie who told us all she didnt know about that sock months after the fact just as she told us all her lie detector test was inconclusive, Her mother denied on national TV she even took a LD test) I would agree with Cron based on his many years of crime scene experience including over 4000 cases with bodies,Cron based after a walk through of the scen within 30 minutes he determined there was no sign of an intruder Darin was the first suspect and says so on national TV ( LEEza GIbbons, In the same show Darin and Darlie Kee back the false information of the knife going through one of the boys into the carpet and floor but the autopsy reports show that never happened

Thanks for the info on the shoes. I didn't know that. Do you know what size shoes he wore and what size she did? Have you ever tried running in shoes too big for you like Coco the clown? Do you think she planned the crime or that she was seized with a sudden impulse in the middle of the night? I guess the latter, right, or she would have used her own shoes. I like your idea she was trying to get rid of an incriminating item. That works as a possible explanation, although now it looks more premeditated and calculated. And why would she miss the trash bin? How hard could it be to put a sock in the trash? And if she did drop it on the ground at her first attempt, what would it cost to pick it up and stuff it in - a second or two?

4( You use unnecessary words like "Near Lethal" to expand the dramatics The wound was not near lethal and was testified to as superficial by doctors.The necklace was stuck in coagulated blood

I read the knife came within two millimetres of her carotid artery. That's why I said 'near' (two millimetres) 'lethal' (carotid artery). Is my information wrong? Man, she sure bled a lot. But the better point is the defensive injuries. What's your take on those? In her place, how would you go about faking those injuries?

5("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. http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidenc ... darin.html This is not the same statement Darin gave t o police that night. Why have they changed their stories?

Why do you use the word 'they' when referring only to Darin?

6( Why does the family continue to use lies to support Darlie Lynn Darlie Routier secretly took a lie detector test before the murder trial that sentenced her to death.

It’s results were never made public.

Defence attorneys usually don’t hesitate to release a polygraph test when it’s inconclusive or confirms their clients are telling the truth.

Bill Parker, a private investigator/polygraph examiner who consulted for Rowlett police on the case, says the covert test probably indicates Routier flunked.

Bill Parker: I feel that, I believe that logic would dictate to us that had she done well on any of the issues in the polygraph examination we would have all heard about it long before now.

As Routier prepared for her appeal, her mother, Darlie Kee blatantly lied about the polygraph her daughter had taken.

Darlie Kee: She wanted to take a polygraph, she wanted to do hypnosis…

Robert Riggs: Did she ever take a polygraph?

Darlie Kee: No, she never took a polygraph.

The Robert Riggs interview, shows that Routier’s court appointed attorney obtained a sealed motion for a polygraph shortly before jury selection began. The judge ordered the Dallas County jail to allow the polygraph test without the knowledge of the district attorney’s office.

According to jail records, on Friday October 4th, during the afternoon, Routier was moved from her cell in the Lew Sterrett Justice Center, through the basement sally port, into a room at the Crowley Courts Building. It was in there that she was given a polygraph exam which lasted six hours. Routier’s mother met with her daughter within minutes of finishing the polygraph.

Robert Riggs: Wouldn’t she have told you that she did something like this?

Darlie Kee: I believe she would’ve, yes.

Robert Riggs: Then… why don’t you think she did?

Darlie Kee: I don’t know…

Robert Riggs: Routier’s mother says Doug Parks, the court appointed lawyer at the time, did not tell the family about the polygraph. Parks declined to discuss the polygraph, citing attorney/client privilege. Parks filed this bill with Dallas county four days after the polygraph requesting a one thousand dollar payment for five hours of confidential consultation. In a follow-up letter on the bill to the county auditor, Parks wrote: “This is still a sensitive issue and identification of the consultant would violate an attorney/client privilege.”

Under a recent court ruling, polygraph evidence is not always inadmissible in court. Investigator Bill Parker says if Darlie Routier truthfully answered the questions about the murder of her sons then she should authorize the release of her polygraph test charts and results.

Thanks for the information. This has nothing to do with the point I was making but what the heck. You are wrong to draw any inference from the fact, if true, that Darlie did not tell her mother about the polygraph minutes after taking it. She would not have known the result by then. Polygraphs aren't admissible here either. In fact, they are not used here at all as far as I know. If you gave me concrete proof she failed such a test I would say 'so what?'.

6( Why does Barry Fifes opinion mean nothing to you when Darlie stated a confrontation with him, and Darin stated this man stole his Jaguar ( no police report
of that either) If Fifes opinion means nothing then yours would mean??

You have a numbering problem. My point 6 had nothing to do with Barry Fife of whom I know nothing. The grammar-fails in your reply preclude comment. I literally have no idea what you're talking about here.

7( No one has challenged Tom bevels Findings in this case to date, David camm was innocent and he proved actual innocence by providing identification of the intruder which BTW is what Darlie will have to do to gain Appeal posting.php?mode=quote&f=123&p=136430#
I realise she has an uphill battle. The English system is similarly resistant to appeals. Can you tell me the key findings of Bevel that you find most compelling?
8( Darlie did not climb over the fence she went put the front door to get rid of the sock

Got it, thanks.

9( The silly string tape was crucial to the jurors and showed Darlies inappropriateness after the crime as a FACT, upon its airing on local news in Dallas, residents of Dallas began to call into the DAs office and demand the immediate arrest of Darlie, based on those calls Mosty files a motion to change venue because of the community outcry against Darlie

I wish I had been on that jury because I would have argued for this irrelevant piece of non-evidence to be totally ignored. It is purely prejudicial and has no probative value whatever.

10( The sock came from a bucket of used worn socks that were kept in the utility room, ( this based on teestimony from Darin who stated they used the old socks to clean or wax the cars) Why would an intruder set on killing not have his own gloves?
Are you saying intruders always use gloves? Great, we can save a lot of money on fingerprint experts by dismissing them all.

11( it is very rare that a random killer would walk the streets and pick a home to do the devils work in without ever leaving a clue of himself or any mention after 17 years of the crime and never be caught thats what is rare

I agree we are talking about a rare event and that there should be evidence of his presence at the scene but not that there is anything amazing about him keeping quiet about it.
(12 if you watch Herzogs On Death row feature of Darlie you can hear her lie about her wound and say that the knife actually cut into her carotid artery
And the point of this lie would be what exactly?

13( as I said before I wasnt even here and people were talking about me, i respond to them and see NONE of your posts regarding that person sticking to the evidence, Probably placed the fiber in the knife block??? Really..... are we pulling at straws? Darlie is guilty of this crime IA picking it up will not change the evidence in this case at all

Your incredulity is not an answer to my point. First, transfer of forensic evidence on fingerprint brushes is a known thing and second one of the hairs of the brush nay even have been mistaken for a fibre from the screen. Sinsaint knows more than I do about this. Third, why is she using one knife to cut the screen and a different one to kill the boys?

On your other point about my apparent double standard, this is a pro-innocence forum. You chose to show up here looking for a fight. Without you we mostly get along fine. I hope you are treated civilly and so long as you stick to arguing the case I'll fight your corner if folks are abusive to you. I value your presence because I hope to learn from you faster than I would otherwise. I am not interested in the other crap. I bet there are plenty of other places you can exchange abuse. This is not that kind of forum. And try replying without the stupid smiley next time.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby RoseMontague » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:26 am

Sinsaint wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Clive wrote:"something … something in his .. h-hand like, I don't know, like maybe it was a sock or something, Darin, honey, could y'all check the laundry to see if you are missing any socks?"


"I was trying to scream but something was in my mouth... I don't know... It smelled like feet or Clorox or something..."

If you made that up, funny, but not as funny as mine :mrgreen: . If it's real, why is her DNA not on the sock? It would be like taking a swab.


I did make it up. And, dearest Clive, her DNA is on the sock silly boy.


Cite? What I read is this...

DPS also analyzed a cutting from a sock (01-33-AA) found outside the
crime scene residence, which revealed a DNA profile consistent with a
mixture of contributors. Devon Routier was found to be the source of the
major component, but no comparisons could be made to the minor component.


http://darlielynnroutier.com/wp-content ... esting.pdf
User avatar
RoseMontague
 
Posts: 3526
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Reality Check

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:26 am

brysanutt wrote:
lane99 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:...These are my reasons, based on what I know, which is far from being enough:

1 Inherent improbability of what is alleged - it is rare, not unknown of course, for a mother to murder her children...


It is patent nonsense to say it is improbable that Darlie committed these murders. The only "inherent improbabilities" here are found in Darlie's story.

The fact of the matter is this: when children of that age are murdered, with few exceptions they are murdered by one of their parents or some other caregiver (such as the boyfriend of a single mother). The statistical probabilities, coupled with the specific known facts of this case, clearly show that is it inherently PROBABLE that Darlie is the one who butchered her children.

The rest of your post consisted of various other flavours of hokum.
Thank You Lane..... Or maybe Clive would like to go On HLN Barwood did and it worked out great for HIM!

I would not go on HLN. I would expect to get a hard time. That's because I don't know the case well enough. Hopefully you two experts will show me where my impression of the case is wrong.

Btw. did geebee go on HLN? Is there a tape of that? I would like to see it if there's a link. I would not be surprised at all if it turned out badly since I assume he was arguing for Jodi Arias' innocence. Not a great call of his, but why mock? I sometimes wonder what you guilters are getting out of these cases.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:28 am

RoseMontague wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Clive wrote:"something … something in his .. h-hand like, I don't know, like maybe it was a sock or something, Darin, honey, could y'all check the laundry to see if you are missing any socks?"


"I was trying to scream but something was in my mouth... I don't know... It smelled like feet or Clorox or something..."

If you made that up, funny, but not as funny as mine :mrgreen: . If it's real, why is her DNA not on the sock? It would be like taking a swab.


I did make it up. And, dearest Clive, her DNA is on the sock silly boy.


Cite? What I read is this...

DPS also analyzed a cutting from a sock (01-33-AA) found outside the
crime scene residence, which revealed a DNA profile consistent with a
mixture of contributors. Devon Routier was found to be the source of the
major component, but no comparisons could be made to the minor component.


http://darlielynnroutier.com/wp-content ... esting.pdf

Thanks Rose. I should trust my memory more.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Reality Check

Postby RoseMontague » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:46 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
brysanutt wrote:
lane99 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:...These are my reasons, based on what I know, which is far from being enough:

1 Inherent improbability of what is alleged - it is rare, not unknown of course, for a mother to murder her children...


It is patent nonsense to say it is improbable that Darlie committed these murders. The only "inherent improbabilities" here are found in Darlie's story.

The fact of the matter is this: when children of that age are murdered, with few exceptions they are murdered by one of their parents or some other caregiver (such as the boyfriend of a single mother). The statistical probabilities, coupled with the specific known facts of this case, clearly show that is it inherently PROBABLE that Darlie is the one who butchered her children.

The rest of your post consisted of various other flavours of hokum.
Thank You Lane..... Or maybe Clive would like to go On HLN Barwood did and it worked out great for HIM!

I would not go on HLN. I would expect to get a hard time. That's because I don't know the case well enough. Hopefully you two experts will show me where my impression of the case is wrong.

Btw. did geebee go on HLN? Is there a tape of that? I would like to see it if there's a link. I would not be surprised at all if it turned out badly since I assume he was arguing for Jodi Arias' innocence. Not a great call of his, but why mock? I sometimes wonder what you guilters are getting out of these cases.


http://www.hlntv.com/video/2014/03/19/j ... s-innocent

I admire what geebee does despite the fact that we do not agree on a few cases (and this is one of them)
User avatar
RoseMontague
 
Posts: 3526
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Reality Check

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Mar 29, 2014 4:38 am

RoseMontague wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
brysanutt wrote:
lane99 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:...These are my reasons, based on what I know, which is far from being enough:

1 Inherent improbability of what is alleged - it is rare, not unknown of course, for a mother to murder her children...


It is patent nonsense to say it is improbable that Darlie committed these murders. The only "inherent improbabilities" here are found in Darlie's story.

The fact of the matter is this: when children of that age are murdered, with few exceptions they are murdered by one of their parents or some other caregiver (such as the boyfriend of a single mother). The statistical probabilities, coupled with the specific known facts of this case, clearly show that is it inherently PROBABLE that Darlie is the one who butchered her children.

The rest of your post consisted of various other flavours of hokum.
Thank You Lane..... Or maybe Clive would like to go On HLN Barwood did and it worked out great for HIM!

I would not go on HLN. I would expect to get a hard time. That's because I don't know the case well enough. Hopefully you two experts will show me where my impression of the case is wrong.

Btw. did geebee go on HLN? Is there a tape of that? I would like to see it if there's a link. I would not be surprised at all if it turned out badly since I assume he was arguing for Jodi Arias' innocence. Not a great call of his, but why mock? I sometimes wonder what you guilters are getting out of these cases.


http://www.hlntv.com/video/2014/03/19/j ... s-innocent

I admire what geebee does despite the fact that we do not agree on a few cases (and this is one of them)

I watched. I thought he did very well. I am sure he's wrong on that case although he is onto something with the gun shot first/last switch. The more I think about that the more unfair it seems. And, as an unfair trial is no trial at all maybe she was wrongfully convicted after all. I did not know Brits were considered credible. Useful. I may launch a career of crime in the US.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Sat Mar 29, 2014 7:17 am

brysanutt wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
brysnautt wrote:Im not the one supporting a convicted child killer, good morals would suffice as well ( did ya understand THAT?).


I'm supporting a woman I believe to be innocent of murder. If I think an injustice is being done the only morally correct thing to do is stand up for her and try to bring attention to her cause.


And we stand for the victims in this case Devon and Damon, the tactic used over the years by supporters is to kill the messenger to elude from the message you know with little tiny jabs about pronunciation or whatnot, considering that is all they have.Over the years the main characters in this case have been belittled beginning with DK interrupting an interview and calling the man a liar.


And if Darlie is innocent, as I firmly believe she is, then I am standing for the victims as well... Including Devon and Damon. Justice for Devon and Damon will not be done by executing their innocent mother.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Sat Mar 29, 2014 7:26 am

RoseMontague wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Clive wrote:"something … something in his .. h-hand like, I don't know, like maybe it was a sock or something, Darin, honey, could y'all check the laundry to see if you are missing any socks?"


"I was trying to scream but something was in my mouth... I don't know... It smelled like feet or Clorox or something..."

If you made that up, funny, but not as funny as mine :mrgreen: . If it's real, why is her DNA not on the sock? It would be like taking a swab.


I did make it up. And, dearest Clive, her DNA is on the sock silly boy.


Cite? What I read is this...

DPS also analyzed a cutting from a sock (01-33-AA) found outside the
crime scene residence, which revealed a DNA profile consistent with a
mixture of contributors. Devon Routier was found to be the source of the
major component, but no comparisons could be made to the minor component.


http://darlielynnroutier.com/wp-content ... esting.pdf


12 Q. Okay. Do you have an opinion as a DNA
13 analyst as to why that sample came back to Darlie Routier
14 from the toe area? Do you have an idea of what you were
15 actually seeing there?
16 A. When I was asked to test the sock,
17 there was an interest in who might have been the wearer
18 of the sock. I tested the toe area, the heel area and
19 the band of the sock. Which typically, is a site where
20 you might obtain cells from the person having worn a
21 sock. And that is the reason that I chose that area, and
22 it did not appear to have blood stains in that particular
23 area.
24 Since I did obtain a faint typing, and
25 quite often, if you're going to get the person who might

1 have worn the sock, it's going to be fairly faint. And
2 that is a possibility.

Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
3128 - 3129
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Sat Mar 29, 2014 10:53 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
brysanutt wrote::lol:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
ljrobins wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:These are my reasons, based on what I know, which is far from being enough:

1 Inherent improbability of what is alleged - it is rare, not unknown of course, for a mother to murder her children

2 the staging verges on the impossible. Look up Sinsaint's reconstruction of the staging and tell us what, if anything, she has wrong and whether you believe Darlie did all the things she needed to do to create the scene the police came across

3 certain particulars of the staging strike me as very odd indeed, most particularly the sock. First, I don't see her thinking of it, second , if she did think of it the sock would not have been dropped so far away but maybe outside the screen window or over the fence (what if someone saw her and what about the time involved - did she put on shoes and if not were her feet dirty?) third, if she thought of this brilliant move why did she not weave it into her fabricated story to 'help' the detectives go looking for that sock (remember she did not know for months they had found it and fourth, the cops formed their crime theory on the spot and before they knew about the sock. They were already committed to the 'no intruder' meme before they came across this knock-out item.

4 the self-inflicted injuries are far too well done, not only including a deep and near lethal wound to the neck with her necklace actually embedded in it, but also classic defensive injuries to her arms which only a forensic science student would be likely to know about. There is also even a possible slash wound that starts on her face and continues to her shoulder with a gap in-between just as you get when an attacker is swinging at you with a knife in an arc

5 the evidence against her includes meaningless tittle-tattle of the kind hinted at in your post - forget silly string and local gossip, the whole story is at the crime scene

5A blood spatter 'evidence' has an unwarrantedly high CSI effect anyway but when it comes from Tom Bevel alarm bells should be ringing

6 the trial seems to have been a railroad job, conducted within a few months of the crime. Among the posters here, I probably know better than anybody what that means for the defence team.

7 the case has all the hallmarks of confirmation bias at work - an early theory sustained by mistaken analysis of crucial evidence (the hair found at the window, left there by a police officer, the fibre in the knife block probably put there by the finger print man, the scraping gate which has to be wedged to stay open)

I do not include the fingerprint as I know too little about it. That does not mean it's not another very strong point for her nor that there aren't others equally or even more strong.

Please take your spats with other posters elsewhere and just address the evidence here. I have absolutely no problem with someone having a pro-guilt POV and welcome an opposing view of the case. I will learn about it faster that way and find out which of my ideas are wrong. If you want to educate me I'm all ears, but if you want to bandy unpleasantries with other members I will lobby for you to be banned. I am neither passionate nor aggressive but intrigued and curious. Would you please expand on your suggestions that

1 Darlie and Darin changed their statements, and

2 The opinion of Barry Fife means anything

I don't understand the other stuff you refer but don't need you to explain any of it when replying to this.


Clive, this is a fantastic list. Thank you for posting it. By the way, that whole propped up gate thing is now a very glaring anomaly given the narrative of the gate not being easily opened or closed because it scraped along the ground. Funny how the eyes can deceive us.


Thank you LJ, I amended it to separate the Tom Bevel point, as it is distinct from the one preceding it. I will be interested to see whether I get any reply from the poster to whom I directed that little lot. Point 3 above reminds me of David Camm and the question whether he could have left his basketball game without being seen. That was always the wrong question. The real question was whether he could or would have counted on being able to leave it and return unnoticed to which the answer screams out - 'no way!' It's the same with the sock. It's interesting to figure out whether she could have done it (did she climb over the fence?) but much more problematic to figure whether she would even have tried and then forgotten to lay it on thick about the intruder having:

"something … something in his .. h-hand like, I don't know, like maybe it was a sock or something, Darin, honey, could y'all check the laundry to see if you are missing any socks?"



1( Clive Can you elaborate the Rarity of mothers killing their children here are 8 cases if you need more I can provide that, it is not rare and that is only a claim that you cant produce a backing for http://www.oddee.com/item_98679.aspx It is only your opinion that it is rare and has no bearing on Darlies guilt or innocence

Finding ten cases (including Debra Milke) does not answer the point. I can find you ten plane crashes if you like, that wouldn't stop you flying. Mothers rarely kill their children. Nature has fixed it so they don't want to so when it is suggested that this very unusual thing has happened we need to look closely and skeptically.

2( I would have to agree that the staging was nearly impossible, that is just why it did not work for Darlie and her movements were tainted and seen through by investigators

This is just a rhetorical answer which begs the question whether the cops' interpretation of the crime scene is correct. It's an argument that uses it's conclusion as a premise and is thus invalid. I take it you have read Sinsaint's list, agree with it and still believe she did all that.
3( Clive you use a lot of what ifs, and in Capitol murder cases what ifs do not get it, Darin had a black pair of reebok shoes placed conveniently in the front entranceway to the house if you see the picture you will notice the laces loose and the tounges down..it is not unlikely that she slipped those on in an attempt to discard the sock..I feel like the idea was to discard it and in haste she missed the sewer or trash bin ( remember it was Darlie who told us all she didnt know about that sock months after the fact just as she told us all her lie detector test was inconclusive, Her mother denied on national TV she even took a LD test) I would agree with Cron based on his many years of crime scene experience including over 4000 cases with bodies,Cron based after a walk through of the scen within 30 minutes he determined there was no sign of an intruder Darin was the first suspect and says so on national TV ( LEEza GIbbons, In the same show Darin and Darlie Kee back the false information of the knife going through one of the boys into the carpet and floor but the autopsy reports show that never happened

Thanks for the info on the shoes. I didn't know that. Do you know what size shoes he wore and what size she did? Have you ever tried running in shoes too big for you like Coco the clown? Do you think she planned the crime or that she was seized with a sudden impulse in the middle of the night? I guess the latter, right, or she would have used her own shoes. I like your idea she was trying to get rid of an incriminating item. That works as a possible explanation, although now it looks more premeditated and calculated. And why would she miss the trash bin? How hard could it be to put a sock in the trash? And if she did drop it on the ground at her first attempt, what would it cost to pick it up and stuff it in - a second or two?

4( You use unnecessary words like "Near Lethal" to expand the dramatics The wound was not near lethal and was testified to as superficial by doctors.The necklace was stuck in coagulated blood

I read the knife came within two millimetres of her carotid artery. That's why I said 'near' (two millimetres) 'lethal' (carotid artery). Is my information wrong? Man, she sure bled a lot. But the better point is the defensive injuries. What's your take on those? In her place, how would you go about faking those injuries?

5("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. http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidenc ... darin.html This is not the same statement Darin gave t o police that night. Why have they changed their stories?

Why do you use the word 'they' when referring only to Darin?

6( Why does the family continue to use lies to support Darlie Lynn Darlie Routier secretly took a lie detector test before the murder trial that sentenced her to death.

It’s results were never made public.

Defence attorneys usually don’t hesitate to release a polygraph test when it’s inconclusive or confirms their clients are telling the truth.

Bill Parker, a private investigator/polygraph examiner who consulted for Rowlett police on the case, says the covert test probably indicates Routier flunked.

Bill Parker: I feel that, I believe that logic would dictate to us that had she done well on any of the issues in the polygraph examination we would have all heard about it long before now.

As Routier prepared for her appeal, her mother, Darlie Kee blatantly lied about the polygraph her daughter had taken.

Darlie Kee: She wanted to take a polygraph, she wanted to do hypnosis…

Robert Riggs: Did she ever take a polygraph?

Darlie Kee: No, she never took a polygraph.

The Robert Riggs interview, shows that Routier’s court appointed attorney obtained a sealed motion for a polygraph shortly before jury selection began. The judge ordered the Dallas County jail to allow the polygraph test without the knowledge of the district attorney’s office.

According to jail records, on Friday October 4th, during the afternoon, Routier was moved from her cell in the Lew Sterrett Justice Center, through the basement sally port, into a room at the Crowley Courts Building. It was in there that she was given a polygraph exam which lasted six hours. Routier’s mother met with her daughter within minutes of finishing the polygraph.

Robert Riggs: Wouldn’t she have told you that she did something like this?

Darlie Kee: I believe she would’ve, yes.

Robert Riggs: Then… why don’t you think she did?

Darlie Kee: I don’t know…

Robert Riggs: Routier’s mother says Doug Parks, the court appointed lawyer at the time, did not tell the family about the polygraph. Parks declined to discuss the polygraph, citing attorney/client privilege. Parks filed this bill with Dallas county four days after the polygraph requesting a one thousand dollar payment for five hours of confidential consultation. In a follow-up letter on the bill to the county auditor, Parks wrote: “This is still a sensitive issue and identification of the consultant would violate an attorney/client privilege.”

Under a recent court ruling, polygraph evidence is not always inadmissible in court. Investigator Bill Parker says if Darlie Routier truthfully answered the questions about the murder of her sons then she should authorize the release of her polygraph test charts and results.

Thanks for the information. This has nothing to do with the point I was making but what the heck. You are wrong to draw any inference from the fact, if true, that Darlie did not tell her mother about the polygraph minutes after taking it. She would not have known the result by then. Polygraphs aren't admissible here either. In fact, they are not used here at all as far as I know. If you gave me concrete proof she failed such a test I would say 'so what?'.

6( Why does Barry Fifes opinion mean nothing to you when Darlie stated a confrontation with him, and Darin stated this man stole his Jaguar ( no police report
of that either) If Fifes opinion means nothing then yours would mean??

You have a numbering problem. My point 6 had nothing to do with Barry Fife of whom I know nothing. The grammar-fails in your reply preclude comment. I literally have no idea what you're talking about here.

7( No one has challenged Tom bevels Findings in this case to date, David camm was innocent and he proved actual innocence by providing identification of the intruder which BTW is what Darlie will have to do to gain Appeal posting.php?mode=quote&f=123&p=136430#
I realise she has an uphill battle. The English system is similarly resistant to appeals. Can you tell me the key findings of Bevel that you find most compelling?
8( Darlie did not climb over the fence she went put the front door to get rid of the sock

Got it, thanks.

9( The silly string tape was crucial to the jurors and showed Darlies inappropriateness after the crime as a FACT, upon its airing on local news in Dallas, residents of Dallas began to call into the DAs office and demand the immediate arrest of Darlie, based on those calls Mosty files a motion to change venue because of the community outcry against Darlie

I wish I had been on that jury because I would have argued for this irrelevant piece of non-evidence to be totally ignored. It is purely prejudicial and has no probative value whatever.

10( The sock came from a bucket of used worn socks that were kept in the utility room, ( this based on testimony from Darin who stated they used the old socks to clean or wax the cars) Why would an intruder set on killing not have his own gloves?
Are you saying intruders always use gloves? Great, we can save a lot of money on fingerprint experts by dismissing them all.

11( it is very rare that a random killer would walk the streets and pick a home to do the devils work in without ever leaving a clue of himself or any mention after 17 years of the crime and never be caught thats what is rare

I agree we are talking about a rare event and that there should be evidence of his presence at the scene but not that there is anything amazing about him keeping quiet about it.
(12 if you watch Herzogs On Death row feature of Darlie you can hear her lie about her wound and say that the knife actually cut into her carotid artery
And the point of this lie would be what exactly?

13( as I said before I wasnt even here and people were talking about me, i respond to them and see NONE of your posts regarding that person sticking to the evidence, Probably placed the fiber in the knife block??? Really..... are we pulling at straws? Darlie is guilty of this crime IA picking it up will not change the evidence in this case at all

Your incredulity is not an answer to my point. First, transfer of forensic evidence on fingerprint brushes is a known thing and second one of the hairs of the brush nay even have been mistaken for a fibre from the screen. Sinsaint knows more than I do about this. Third, why is she using one knife to cut the screen and a different one to kill the boys?

On your other point about my apparent double standard, this is a pro-innocence forum. You chose to show up here looking for a fight. Without you we mostly get along fine. I hope you are treated civilly and so long as you stick to arguing the case I'll fight your corner if folks are abusive to you. I value your presence because I hope to learn from you faster than I would otherwise. I am not interested in the other crap. I bet there are plenty of other places you can exchange abuse. This is not that kind of forum. And try replying without the stupid smiley next time.


Actually I showed up to civilly debate and find Mrs Hopkins ( who turns to other supporters to pay her monthly bills) degrading the actions of non supporters whilst she thought none would show here, I have read Sinsaints analogy and can say as I have many times she is the most informed and well spoken supporter there is however she is not fool proof each time.

Darin and Darlie both agreed on a separation and the fact that an argument took place that night STUDY and read all her statements you will find that she agreed with her counsel that she was represented adequately and agreed to the courts findings.One way to learn about a case is to research it yourself and not depend on others to do the work for you.

As Far as intruders using gloves (Do you think this is a random spur of the moment act)? Why would a murderer set on spree killing people not come prepared IE no weapon, No Gloves, no escape route.

The dents in the window area...?? Wouldn't that make a loud noise? I think Domain must have been doggy drunk that night

Point to ponder: Just as you say why would she use one knife to cut the screen and another do do the killing.... Why would an intruder change his method of attack from deep stabs directly to vital organs on Devon and Damon to slice wounds on Darlie ( who was the bigger threat)

I will refer you to the autopsy of Devon Routier and let you discover for yourself his DEFENSE wounds, and what matters is that JURORS felt he defended himself against his attacker to receive those wounds, why would Darlie Kee and Darin Routier agree on TV that the knife went through Devons body into the floor below when the autopsy contradicts this?

Darlie was NOT the First suspect do you agree or disagree?

If you feel the available icons in this forum are stupid you may consider posting your discontent of them to the creators of this forum :MJ:

Yes without me you usually get along fine, of course that it human nature to get along just fine with others who agree to your point and theirs no one around to challenge you.

As I said I have been reading in on this forum for some time and felt the need and the right to defend myself against Spookees ( NON EVIDENTICAL) post about people who arent here to defend themselves : Note No one commented to here that no one was interseted in her post and to stick with the evidence.

Sinsaint is not always correct, she comes with a lot of what ifs.....

Clive I welcome you to join my group lets see how long your sarcasm lasts there

Be sure to tell everyone to stay away from my pages...the truth tends to piss people off and ruin their day

Darlie Routier is guilty of this crime and will likely die for that

When a non supporter shows up in open forums like these supporters always become insulting thats all they have

Anyone is welcome to join Facebook Darlie Routier Facts or Fables ( leave your insults here) We have the most factual members on this case anywhere

Have a great day Clive I hope you find the law here is much different then the law where you are George Barwood... ( Physical evidence is just fluff...you cant prove anything with that) :facepalm: ::cry:: <Cheers> :worthy: :worthy: :worthy:
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Sat Mar 29, 2014 10:57 am

Thanks for the information. This has nothing to do with the point I was making but what the heck. You are wrong to draw any inference from the fact, if true, that Darlie did not tell her mother about the polygraph minutes after taking it. She would not have known the result by then. Polygraphs aren't admissible here either. In fact, they are not used here at all as far as I know. If you gave me concrete proof she failed such a test I would say 'so what?'. Darlies Mother MET her directly after the Lie detector test, and Darlie Kee denied she ever took one Polygraph is not always inadmissible, if they were why would they take one..... what would you think if I had proof she passed the test Clive?
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Reality Check

Postby lane99 » Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:15 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:...(you are one of them) who seriously think they can discern what happened from the silly string video...LOL.


More hokum.
lane99
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:25 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:23 am

brysanutt wrote:
Me: Thanks for the information. This has nothing to do with the point I was making but what the heck. You are wrong to draw any inference from the fact, if true, that Darlie did not tell her mother about the polygraph minutes after taking it. She would not have known the result by then. Polygraphs aren't admissible here either. In fact, they are not used here at all as far as I know. If you gave me concrete proof she failed such a test I would say 'so what?'.

You: Darlies Mother MET her directly after the Lie detector test, and Darlie Kee denied she ever took one Polygraph is not always inadmissible, if they were why would they take one..... what would you think if I had proof she passed the test Clive?


Could you try a little harder with the quote function?

Not much is the answer. I don't believe in polygraph tests whichever way they go.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:41 am

brysanutt wrote:Actually I showed up to civilly debate and find Mrs Hopkins ( who turns to other supporters to pay her monthly bills) degrading the actions of non supporters whilst she thought none would show here, I have read Sinsaints analogy and can say as I have many times she is the most informed and well spoken supporter there is however she is not fool proof each time.

Darin and Darlie both agreed on a separation and the fact that an argument took place that night STUDY and read all her statements you will find that she agreed with her counsel that she was represented adequately and agreed to the courts findings.One way to learn about a case is to research it yourself and not depend on others to do the work for you.

Agree. I need to do my own reading.

As Far as intruders using gloves (Do you think this is a random spur of the moment act)? Why would a murderer set on spree killing people not come prepared IE no weapon, No Gloves, no escape route.

We have an offence here called 'going equipped to steal'. There is a risk associated with being out in the small hours with a weapon. But, he must have had a knife because he cut his way in. So I figure it was a small knife which could be used to threaten with a view to rape, but then he found the boys asleep and grabbed a killing knife. Sinsaint has an impressive collection of crimes that resemble this one in many respects I believe.

The dents in the window area...?? Wouldn't that make a loud noise? I think Domain must have been doggy drunk that night

Domain?

Point to ponder: Just as you say why would she use one knife to cut the screen and another do do the killing.... Why would an intruder change his method of attack from deep stabs directly to vital organs on Devon and Damon to slice wounds on Darlie ( who was the bigger threat)

The boys were prone and he just wanted to kill them. She put up some kind of fight and got slashed I guess.

I will refer you to the autopsy of Devon Routier and let you discover for yourself his DEFENSE wounds, and what matters is that JURORS felt he defended himself against his attacker to receive those wounds, why would Darlie Kee and Darin Routier agree on TV that the knife went through Devons body into the floor below when the autopsy contradicts this?

Why would they falsifiably lie?

Darlie was NOT the First suspect do you agree or disagree?

Disagree.

snip

Sinsaint is not always correct, she comes with a lot of what ifs.....

Good. You can point out when she's wrong.


Clive I welcome you to join my group lets see how long your sarcasm lasts there

Be sure to tell everyone to stay away from my pages...the truth tends to piss people off and ruin their day

Darlie Routier is guilty of this crime and will likely die for that

When a non supporter shows up in open forums like these supporters always become insulting thats all they have

Anyone is welcome to join Facebook Darlie Routier Facts or Fables ( leave your insults here) We have the most factual members on this case anywhere

One forum is enough. I didn't think I had been sarcastic, actually.
Have a great day Clive I hope you find the law here is much different then the law where you are George Barwood... ( Physical evidence is just fluff...you cant prove anything with that) :facepalm: ::cry:: <Cheers> :worthy: :worthy: :worthy:

The law here is similar enough. I don't yet see anything in the discussion that hinges on points of law though. George has nothing to do with this case and your bringing him up is just silly. What is your point?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby jane » Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:59 am

Personally, Clive, I don't see why you put up with these bullies or trolls or whatever you want to call them, especially for a featured case where the board is supporting the convicted person's claim of innocence.

I don't see that they're contributing anything to the discussion except for personal attacks on Darlie, her family members, and her supporters.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sat Mar 29, 2014 12:47 pm

jane wrote:Personally, Clive, I don't see why you put up with these bullies or trolls or whatever you want to call them, especially for a featured case where the board is supporting the convicted person's claim of innocence.

I don't see that they're contributing anything to the discussion except for personal attacks on Darlie, her family members, and her supporters.


We try to eliminate bullies and trolls but open conversation is good for all cases. The forum is quite a bit different from our advocacy websites where we work to present the facts of the case without distraction. We feel the forum's benefits outweigh the negatives.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Mar 29, 2014 5:01 pm

jane wrote:Personally, Clive, I don't see why you put up with these bullies or trolls or whatever you want to call them, especially for a featured case where the board is supporting the convicted person's claim of innocence.

I don't see that they're contributing anything to the discussion except for personal attacks on Darlie, her family members, and her supporters.

I don't feel bullied. I regard these discussions as character-building as well as a source of information. It is good for us to encounter disagreement and deal with it. I am better at it now than I was a couple of years ago. Anyway, I think Bryansutt is arguing reasonably enough. Lane is a different story but not really a problem.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:12 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
jane wrote:Personally, Clive, I don't see why you put up with these bullies or trolls or whatever you want to call them, especially for a featured case where the board is supporting the convicted person's claim of innocence.

I don't see that they're contributing anything to the discussion except for personal attacks on Darlie, her family members, and her supporters.

I don't feel bullied. I regard these discussions as character-building as well as a source of information. It is good for us to encounter disagreement and deal with it. I am better at it now than I was a couple of years ago. Anyway, I think Bryansutt is arguing reasonably enough. Lane is a different story but not really a problem.

The fact of the matter is that NO one..support or non supporter wants Darlie to be guilty, no one went to seek out Darlie and condemn her for being condemned, its the fact that she will not tell the truth about it.We feel that she killed Devon and Damon..we think of the last thing on earth they saw..their mother stabbing them.How hateful and vile is a person who genuinely feels for these poor children? I have noticed over the years from some supporters in posts will always refer to Darlie by name and refer to Devon and Damon as Those boys, or the kids, or in Patrick Kings case as victim number one and victim number two.I had to correct him on that..they have names..and out of sight out of mind will not work in this case .Notice every year on June 6th the lack of memorials posted on the support sites for Devon and Damon..as a matter of fact look at Darlie Kees twitter posts for that day..no mention of her grandchildren.WE stand for Devon and Damon,The supporters generally stand for Darlie and Darlie alone..each lie each theory each insult is another stab in the back to Devon and Damon to me
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:14 pm

Clive how would you feel if you were publicly accused of killing Devon and Damon yourself? Would you be bitter about that and seek to find the truth with aggression and passion.?
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:48 pm

brysanutt wrote:Clive how would you feel if you were publicly accused of killing Devon and Damon yourself? Would you be bitter about that and seek to find the truth with aggression and passion.?

I really have no idea. I don't think you get to the bottom of this case by straying from the crime scene.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby erasmus44 » Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:11 am

brysanutt wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
jane wrote:Personally, Clive, I don't see why you put up with these bullies or trolls or whatever you want to call them, especially for a featured case where the board is supporting the convicted person's claim of innocence.

I don't see that they're contributing anything to the discussion except for personal attacks on Darlie, her family members, and her supporters.

I don't feel bullied. I regard these discussions as character-building as well as a source of information. It is good for us to encounter disagreement and deal with it. I am better at it now than I was a couple of years ago. Anyway, I think Bryansutt is arguing reasonably enough. Lane is a different story but not really a problem.

The fact of the matter is that NO one..support or non supporter wants Darlie to be guilty, no one went to seek out Darlie and condemn her for being condemned, its the fact that she will not tell the truth about it.We feel that she killed Devon and Damon..we think of the last thing on earth they saw..their mother stabbing them.How hateful and vile is a person who genuinely feels for these poor children? I have noticed over the years from some supporters in posts will always refer to Darlie by name and refer to Devon and Damon as Those boys, or the kids, or in Patrick Kings case as victim number one and victim number two.I had to correct him on that..they have names..and out of sight out of mind will not work in this case .Notice every year on June 6th the lack of memorials posted on the support sites for Devon and Damon..as a matter of fact look at Darlie Kees twitter posts for that day..no mention of her grandchildren.WE stand for Devon and Damon,The supporters generally stand for Darlie and Darlie alone..each lie each theory each insult is another stab in the back to Devon and Damon to me



If Darlie is innocent, then her acquittal may lead to a further investigation identifying the actual culprit. So whether particular posters "stand for" Devon and Damon really depends upon the ultimate question of guilt. As horrible as the murder was, it really does not honor to the victims to punish (and to actually execute) an innocent party thereby closing the case and allowing the perp to go free. So we get back to the fundamental issue of guilt or innocence here and that depends upon the evidence. In that regard, this case strikes me as an extreme case of confirmation bias - the police jumping to a conclusion early and warping the investigation and their assessment of all evidence to fit that conclusion. Of course, in some cases those initial conclusions are correct; it all depends upon the evidence and that is what we should be focusing on.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby jane » Sun Mar 30, 2014 5:52 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
jane wrote:Personally, Clive, I don't see why you put up with these bullies or trolls or whatever you want to call them, especially for a featured case where the board is supporting the convicted person's claim of innocence.

I don't see that they're contributing anything to the discussion except for personal attacks on Darlie, her family members, and her supporters.

I don't feel bullied. I regard these discussions as character-building as well as a source of information. It is good for us to encounter disagreement and deal with it. I am better at it now than I was a couple of years ago. Anyway, I think Bryansutt is arguing reasonably enough. Lane is a different story but not really a problem.


What do Darlie's family members and long time supporters think about this? Do they think it's character-building?
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Sun Mar 30, 2014 6:57 am

brysanutt wrote:Clive how would you feel if you were publicly accused of killing Devon and Damon yourself? Would you be bitter about that and seek to find the truth with aggression and passion.?


Probably about as bitter as being publicly accused of being married to a child molester.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Sun Mar 30, 2014 7:01 am

Clive, did you see my post about Darlie's DNA being found on the sock? I also have the DNA report from Gene Screen showing they took six samples (band, heel and four in the toe area). One sample from the toe area had a faint banding pattern that matched Darlie.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Poppy1016 » Sun Mar 30, 2014 10:12 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
jane wrote:Personally, Clive, I don't see why you put up with these bullies or trolls or whatever you want to call them, especially for a featured case where the board is supporting the convicted person's claim of innocence.

I don't see that they're contributing anything to the discussion except for personal attacks on Darlie, her family members, and her supporters.

I don't feel bullied. I regard these discussions as character-building as well as a source of information. It is good for us to encounter disagreement and deal with it. I am better at it now than I was a couple of years ago. Anyway, I think Bryansutt is arguing reasonably enough. Lane is a different story but not really a problem.


Just don't attempt to comment at Bryan's page Darlie Routier Facts or Fables. Those with view points that are not in agreement with the views of the group are either booted or harassed unmercifully, until they leave on their own.
Poppy1016
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:43 pm

Sinsaint wrote:Clive, did you see my post about Darlie's DNA being found on the sock? I also have the DNA report from Gene Screen showing they took six samples (band, heel and four in the toe area). One sample from the toe area had a faint banding pattern that matched Darlie.

Yes, but I was not sure what it meant. Does it prove the sock was in her mouth but not carried in her hand or that it was carried in her hand but never in her mouth?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:57 pm

Poppy1016 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
jane wrote:Personally, Clive, I don't see why you put up with these bullies or trolls or whatever you want to call them, especially for a featured case where the board is supporting the convicted person's claim of innocence.

I don't see that they're contributing anything to the discussion except for personal attacks on Darlie, her family members, and her supporters.

I don't feel bullied. I regard these discussions as character-building as well as a source of information. It is good for us to encounter disagreement and deal with it. I am better at it now than I was a couple of years ago. Anyway, I think Bryansutt is arguing reasonably enough. Lane is a different story but not really a problem.


Just don't attempt to comment at Bryan's page Darlie Routier Facts or Fables. Those with view points that are not in agreement with the views of the group are either booted or harassed unmercifully, until they leave on their own.

Bryan can be as unreasonable as he likes elsewhere so long as he is reasonable here.

I have been thinking about Bryan's shoe theory. If she put on Darins running shoes and went out the front door she had to tie them up because there is no way she could run in shoes too big (I assume his feet are bigger than hers) plus she now has to run round the back of the house from the front and this has to add another 40-50 yards to the trip each way. Now it's something like 250 yards. Was she a high school sprinter? Even if she was she still had to do this in shoes too big and years after her best days as an athlete. I'm saying this trip would take at least a minute and with the tying and untying of the laces about two altogether. In what state were these shoes found? Were they tossed randomly in the area of the door or placed neatly where Darin left them?

How could she know Darin would not wake up while she was on her run or that nobody would see her? I thought running out the back would result in security lights going off. She probably knew that.

What did she use the sock for? To not get fingerprints on it I guess, is that right? So why did she pick it up? I thought that brilliant manoeuvre was to get her prints on it in a way she could expain.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Sun Mar 30, 2014 1:47 pm

Hold on Clive.... I've got pics of the shoes somewhere.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Sun Mar 30, 2014 2:02 pm

Image
Shoes at the front door.

Image
Front door shoe picture in evidence.

Image
More shoes in the garage.

As you said Clive, if she did put on the shoes at the front door and left that way her trip down the alley would have been even longer than the 150 yards round trip from the back yard. It would have been more like 200 yards round trip. I'll post separately about the sock.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Sun Mar 30, 2014 2:31 pm

Clive wrote:What did she use the sock for? To not get fingerprints on it I guess, is that right? So why did she pick it up? I thought that brilliant manoeuvre was to get her prints on it in a way she could expain.


If this is a Darlie done it scenario only two theories can be used. Either she snapped and did it with no thought or she planned (as little as a few hours or minutes before). If she simply snapped I'm hard pressed to believe a sock ever entered her mind, be it to cover prints as she stabbed or to hide it later to divert attention away from her. I mean, seriously, a sock?

"I'm in a complete rage. I hate my husband. I hate two of our three children. I want to stab them until they are dead. Wait... I need to get a sock." -Darlie Routier

Then there's the other theory. It was a planned attack. For some reason she decided to get a sock to use over her hand to stab the boys so her fingerprints wouldn't be on the knife. She then planted the sock, got back home and then said...

"Holy Shit... I when I pick up the knife to cut myself my prints will be all over the knife anyway. I guess planting that sock was a complete waste of time." - Darlie Routier

And in either scenario tons of things beg the question. If she needed to use something to cover her prints, why not a washcloth? She could keep that in the house, wouldn't need to plant it. Simply use a rag, stab the boys, injure herself and put the knife down. Then wet the towel and put it on neck. And if she did put thought into it she had to decide on a way she wanted the crime to look to investigators. Sexual assault is the simplest one. Why plant a sock when she could plant her underwear?
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Darlie Routier Case

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest