Enough with the Silicone-Shaming
(“Invisible Intruder,” Forensic Files, and “Darlie Routier,” The Last Defense)
An ABC series called The Last Defense is reviving interest in the 1996 murders of Devon and Damon Routier and the character assassination prosecutors used to put their mother on death row.
Viewers of The Last Defense, co-produced by actress Viola Davis, may not realize that Forensic Files was on the case nearly two decades earlier.
Whereas The Last Defense disposes itself to throwing Darlie Routier’s guilt into doubt, the 1999 Forensic Files episode about the homicides of the boys, ages 5 and 6, portrays her as deserving of the capital punishment sentence doled out by a Texas jury.
But “Invisible Intruder,” the Forensic Files retelling of the suburban Dallas Greek tragedy, unwittingly lays the groundwork for skepticism over the prosecution’s presumption that it’s only logical for a sex kitten living in a mansion to stab her own children to death to free up more cash for Neiman Marcus.
On Forensic Files, a prosecutor named Greg Davis makes a number of narrow-minded judgments about Darlie that should have triggered the witch-hunt alarm.
Davis continues the defamation of the former housewife from Rowlett, Texas, on The Last Defense as do a number of others connected with the case. Unrelated observers also enjoy casting stones at the mother of three with the audacity to enjoy looking alluring.
Drawn from both Forensic Files and The Last Defense, the following seven assumptions and contentions are so unfair that I want to help Darlie Routier escape from her prison cell in the Mountain View Unit in Gatesville, Texas — whether she’s guilty or not.
Attack #1: Greg Davis and fellow prosecutor Toby Shook said they were “sickened” and “disgusted,” respectively, by a tribute involving Silly String and laughter the Routiers had at a grave-side birthday celebration for one of their slain sons. “It struck me as more than curious,” Davis said.
Refutation: People mourn in varied ways and processes, and some try to celebrate their loved ones’ lives in between the fits of unbearable sorrow.
Attack #2: Investigators contend a single fiberglass fragment on a knife from the Routiers’ kitchen indicates Darlie used the knife to stage the scene by cutting a hole in a screen.
Rebuttal: One tiny fragment? Murder scenes aren’t hermetically sealed chambers — how could they be when EMTs and police have to walk onto them in the first hours after the crimes? That fiber could have easily been accidentally transferred to, or planted on, that knife.
Attack #3: Greg Davis points out with disgust that Darlie liked to wear 10 rings at a time.
Dissenting view: So what? Madonna used to put on 20 bracelets at once and she still occasionally drapes herself in rhinestone-laden low-cut outfits. All five of her kids are alive and intact.
Attack #4: Again, Greg Davis is horrified (he sure thrives on repulsion), this time because the Routiers played Coolio hit “Gangsta’s Paradise” at their sons’ funeral. “I can’t imagine that you do that,” he said.
Wrong, wrong, wrong: Darlie’s husband, Darin, says it was the kids’ favorite song. The Last Defense shows video of the older boy dancing to it. People often enjoy songs because the melody and harmony speak to them — the lyrics are insignificant. My law-abiding mother taught me “La Cucaracha” when I was 5 years old. It’s about a cockroach who walks funny because he needs marijuana.
Attack #5: Davis notes one of Darlie’s diary entries asks God to “forgive her” for what she is “about to do.” He believes that means she intended to kill herself or her sons or both.
Oh, shut up, Greg: So now people have to censor themselves in their own journals because some modern-day Cotton Mather might read them one day? The woman had three kids by the time she was 26. Of course, she’s going to have down days. It doesn’t mean she was truly suicidal or remotely homicidal. Stay out of women’s diaries, Greg.
Attack #6: Juror Kerri Parris, who appeared on camera on The Last Defense, nonchalantly admits she used the fact that Darlie had breast implants as a strike against her. “That’s not something I would do,” Parris said.
Stop leaping: Who cares? Eating venison is something I wouldn’t do. That doesn’t mean I think deer hunters are inclined to turn their rifles on their own kids.
Attack #7: More from Kerri Parris: “I just knew that she killed her boys. I was angry about it, but also went in open-minded about it.”
Supreme Court, did you hear that? The presence of a juror who admits she was biased from the beginning sounds like a slam-dunk argument for a new trial. Actually, here’s a better idea: Spring Darlie Routier from her cell, and everybody else mind your own business.
By the way, Darin Routier, an IT entrepreneur who divorced Darlie in 2011, appears on The Last Defense and maintains that his former wife is entirely innocent. Does anyone really think that this Texas dad would defend a woman if there’s any chance she took away two of his man-children?
The Routiers’ surviving son, Drake, has leukemia. He lives near his father in Lubbock and has said he loves Darlie and always will.
Come on, Texas, let this nice young man and his mother console each other outside of razor wire. — RR
Read Part 2: Drake Routier: 5 Things to Know
Watch Forensic Files episode “Invisible Intruder” on YouTube or Amazon Prime
Amazon
Barnes & Noble
Books-a-Million
Target
Walmart
Indie Bound
I rarely respond to anonymous attacks on others, but since this is a forum that apparently encourages anonymity, I’ll roll with it.
#1. Sure people mourn differently, but certainly not to the blatant extent the silly string event indicates. If anything, the murders and the silly string go hand in hand to show this woman is far from carrying a full suitcase. You are reading more into this than is actually there.
#2. It sounds as if that fiber is microscopic. If that’s the case, how dexterous would someone have to be to attach it to a knife and make it look authentic? I think you’re groveling for theories that don’t exist.
#3. Madonna wears ten rings because she’s a goofy, overpaid celebrity. Darlie Routier is a work-a-day housewife. Why would she need ten rings, if she weren’t mentally compromised? Your analogy is tantamount to comparing a Volkswagen to a donkey.
#4. I’ll give you that one. I agree.
#5. Diaries are powerful pieces of evidence that go to an individual’s state of mind You’re dead in the water on this one.
#6, #7. I’ll give you both. Her defense should have brought this issue up before the appeals deadline tolled. Counsel should have asked for a mistrial and requested a trial de novo. Failing in that, she could have retained a new attorney and asked for a trial de novo based on incompetent counsel. I don’t know the parameters of the case but it appears, on its face, more could have been more done.
The husband’s opinion of her guilt or innocence is just that: opinion. At its best, it’s not evidence of anything; at its worst, it’s highly prejudicial.
Jason Houston
ROTFLing at #3. There’s no way you are for real with that list. The evils of Silly String, LOL!
You really think that wearing ten rings means a person is “mentally compromised”?
As for the Silly String, I dislike when people who are not mental health professionals make judgments about what is and what is not normal behavior for a person who has recently suffered a traumatic event.
Thanks for this, RR. As you present them, those seven faux anti-Routier arguments – bar one, I suggest – are absurd. I think, though, it’s reasonable to cite the diary entry as potentially prescient of the crime. I’d certainly use it as a prosecutor, as I think all would – even your good self, assuming it wasn’t too far ahead of the deaths and she didn’t have a plausible explanation for it. On matters such as this it’s up to the defence to debunk – and I’d certainly say that at worst this is (or could be) borderline relevant, with the others being plain asinine. That they are should at least have made it easy for a decent defence to show that poor-quality, desperate argument was being used to condemn the accused, of no probative value whatsoever, which could even have worked in her favour for the jury as a whole: Look how desperate they are to get her, by using character assassination etc. instead of sound evidence!
You’ve prompted me to re-watch the FF ep, and the ABC programme, and I’ll come back with any thoughts. The FF eps involving child deaths are usually the saddest and most serious (insofar as there’s any hierarchy of seriousness within deliberate taking of life). That the father’s on her side is, as you suggest, significant…
Thanks again, RR, for a hilarious and poignant read. Crime is at least a small portion of the world’s collectivized and socialized cynical humor reserves. I agree, even if she did kill her kids, she probably won’t do it again, unless she’s truly deranged, and owes it to herself to X the one remaining kid, who is already seriously ill. Probably not, she’s a celebrity of sorts, which is better than no celebrity at all. Let her out. She probably has a few miles left on her, and she could still make some rowdy Texan a happier Lone Star bumpkin. And don’t listen to Jason. You were right about everything.
Rowlett TX is a suburb of Dallas. Dallas is a solid blue city. Whatever nests there is not considered “Lone Star,” but “bumpkin” is an adorbs sobriquet for them to be sure.
The Court of Criminal Appeal of Texas (2003) states “The appellant does not challenge the legal or factual sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction, and therefore, it is not necessary to set out the evidence in detail.” I’ll try to establish why, for we know she denies the allegation. Does she, however, accept there was enough evidence to convict? She appealed in 2008 for (further?) DNA testing.
On my understanding of the case, I’d convict. While RR’s caveats are, I think, mostly spot-on, I don’t think the issues she (RR) raises would or could have swayed an intelligent jury. Now, I know what you’re thinking – and one jury member did say that without the ‘silly string’ video she probably wouldn’t have sanctioned conviction – but, on the whole, I think a jury wouldn’t be so dumb as to convict on such specious nonsense.
I disagree with Jason regarding his consistency in observations. He rejects the opinion of the husband as to her innocence, ‘cos it’s only huby’s opinion… but offers what can only be opinion on other matters, such as the probative value of the silly string incident. He can’t have it both ways! The silly string stuff is entirely contingent upon interpretation – opinion – and is assuredly not evidence, like RR contends. Furthermore, I suggest that most jurors would set higher store on the opinion of a father as to the innocence of a mother accused of murdering his children than whether seeming far too casual behaviour at their funeral indicated her guilt. A father is viewed as more ‘loyal’ to his children than the wife who may have killed them, and therefore as a ‘litmus test’ as to her guilt. But in the final analysis BOTH the significance or not of the silly string stuff AND father’s view of her guilt are matters of opinion and cannot be treated as having probative value in one case but not the other as matters of opinion per se.
Furthermore, Jason:
On #2, RR isn’t suggesting the fibre was DELIBERATELY placed, just that the scene was clumsily ‘infected’ by cops who could accidentally have transferred it to a knife by moving around in and out of the house. If it’s true that they were so sloppy with the crime scene, surely this is a valid point?
On #3, 10 rings is probative of precisely nothing – and even if it reflects some form of mental instability, as you suggest, how does that get you to her alleged crime? This is your opinion (and a strange one at that!) again. She had bad taste and/or liked to wear Madonna-type bling. To abstract a phrase, it (ought to be) from the book of who cares?!
On #4 and 5 we agree (hurrah!)
On #7, she wasn’t ADMITTING she was biased, she was stating, inadvertently (ie, unknowingly) she was biased in her dumb, contradictory statement. While on technical grounds this might have been a means of challenge, I’d say it’s moot, ‘cos how many jurors don’t form opinions before the summing-up – and what do we mean by bias? We are in ways ‘biased’ due to our respective differences in intellect, insight, etc, and so in our ability to weigh evidence; and in our moral, religious and political outlook. I don’t think we can take from this isolated juror that the verdict would have been different had she not been ‘biased.’ She was, to be sure, stupid to say what she did, and I’d make something of it as Routier’s defence.
In conclusion, these several or more caveats, while significant and important to highlight, do not of themselves suggest the verdict was unsound. If, however, it could be shown that they had made the difference between verdicts, that would be very worrying and sad – not just for Routier but about what is says of juries’ ability to see the wood for the trees…
Her denials are neither here nor there. Bundy denied his crimes – and his mother believed him – for many years in prison ’til days before his execution. His mother was broken when he confessed (as well as to other, undetected, murders). (I’m not analogising Bundy’s and Routier’s cases: the former was a slam-dunk whereas the latter’s is largely circumstantial).
You are still analyzing legal matters through the jaundiced eyes of a religious person (the polite term) and not through the eyes of the criminal justice system, which controls. I’m not going to waste another two hours kicking road apples with you again over highly speculative alternative propositions, as I have adequately stated my legal opinion, not a religious one. At law, a husband is considered a prejudicial witness. If they were divorced or other ‘what ifs,’ he might be considered an otherwise objective witness, but that’s not the case and has no relevance in the instant matter.
Jason: Nothing to do with ‘religious view’! You’re quite simply mistaken re the law. Show us, please, where in law spousal testimony against spouse in deemed necessarily partial, prejudiced, etc. I think you’re confusing the spousal testimonial privilege, whereby there’s no compulsion to require testimony against spouse – a rule which may in any case be suspended where a crime against a spouse’s child occurs.
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4183&context=ndlr
For a jury this hubby’s view has some moral relevance for the reason I state, quite distinct from whether he testified, and it would have every relevance if he claimed to be, or were deemed to be, a witness and agreed or were compelled to testify. And as RR’s suggested, even where not testifying, such opinions matter to juries, whether they should or not. It would be a matter for the jury to determine whether, if he testified – as he might – his testimony is reliable qua a spouse. If, as you suggest, it could have no value, being the “opinion” or “prejudice” of a spouse, why would spouses ever be called to testify? In this case, he expressed an opinion that his wife is innocent, though he cannot know that. Much like any other character witness, his opinion of her character matters to the jury – whether you think it should or not – and this is part and parcel of legal proceedings.
PS Unless you’re a lawyer, you’re not giving a “legal opinion” but an opinion about the law. They’re different.
PPS Would these other witnesses at her trial be dismissed by you as expressing mere opinion, ‘prejudiced’ by their friendship or otherwise of her?
https://darliefacts.com/1165-2/
Bruno: I’m not sure RR would go along with anything you say here. I certainly wouldn’t. Routier should be released if she’s innocent/acquitted – not ‘cos she probably won’t do it again (come on???), nor ‘cos some stetsoned oil baron with more money than sense might fancy some trailer trash. If by “hilarious” you mean the stupid stuff RR highlights – well it might be so in other contexts but not in one where a life is at stake.
First time commenting, long time lurker and this is one of my favourite websites. You don’t think it odd, that an intruder breaks into a home, viciously stabs 2 little boys to death and allows the only adult witness to live and only give her superficial wounds? Darlie was in hospital for 2 days and her neck wound closed with Seri strips.
It’s the old “Jeffrey McDonald Defense.” He stabbed, murdered and beat the hell out of his wife and two girls, yet he only got poked a few times with an ice pick “by a band of marauding, knife-wielding hippies.” (Fort Bragg, N.C., February, 1971)
Melina, good to hear from you. I agree it’s odd and think she might be guilty, but there’s no way for her to get a fair trial to find out now.
Melina: Hello! Yes, like the jury I think it’s too odd – and I think she’s very probably guilty. But as RR points out in this thread, there were some brainless things put by the prosecution. However, as always in trials, it’s up to the defence and jury to detect and dismiss brainlessness… If they don’t, the accused suffers. T’was ever thus… As I say earlier, regardless of the prosecution’s red herrings, I’d have convicted. There was simply no evidence that a mad(man) entered the home, murdered two children and merely injured her, with no apparent motive – but there was evidence that she did it and had a potential motive. What’s a jury to do other than convict?
Don’t you think it odd that the woman that was SO IN LOVE WITH HER APPEARENCE would make a huge scar right above her DDD breasts?
The best show in my opinion was the Wrong Man on YouTube. They are retired NY detectives with unbiased opinions.
Her knife used to cut screen, jewelry wasn’t taken at sink where clean up occurred, she named 2 men in her jail letters & freaked out on the stand when asked about it, blood under the glass & vacuum, no cuts on her feet, wine glass was latched wouldn’t have been knocked down, Domain didn’t bark, motion lites not on, she called media herself to film that grave scene. Her mother had the opportunity a few years ago to go on Dr. Phil? Worldwide attn and any dna testing? She refused. Why? She knows her daughter did this. Her fans say necklace was embedded, had to be surgically removed but it simply fell off when bandage removed. Bruising on her arms prob caused by boys kicking her off. Her wounds were superficial & she didn’t know what/where carotid was. She was lucky she didn’t kill herself. She was such a light sleeper that she would wake up when Drake turned over in his crib yet she slept through all that? She’s guilty. http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/
J: It’s widely reported that there is currently more DNA testing currently (seems to be taking an age). I don’t know how the case cold be advanced by this, except I’m guessing that if a third party’s DNA is found it supports the defence… and if not the prosecution.
Her mother’s apparent view is irrelevant. She may suspect guilt (and be appalled) even if she claims innocence (and feigns supportive): the ‘taint’ on Darlie’s side of the family can only be compounded if her mother expresses belief in guilt. In any case we see loved ones all the time engaging in ‘denial’ of incorrigible guilt of kin, either per cognitive dissonance (unable to accept something so horrible of them) or calculated stance per aforementioned.
I think her guilt is highly likely. As I’ve mentioned before, she said to police she knew who the murderer was but wouldn’t say. The ravings of a looney or revealing… of her own guilt? A psychotic episode could explain her failure to remember her murderous action, but she was found sane.
Yes, in her jail house letters she names Gary Austin and Glen Mize. When they were brought into court she freaked out and cried and asked the judge if it was legal for them to have read letters. She’s evil AND stupid.
Engrossing post. Loved this line: (he sure thrives on repulsion),
Your rebuttals in the main are strong and fun. Except for No. 5. If someone asks God to forgive them for what they’re about to and then her children die, that gets my attention.
Thanks, Mike. Everyone does seem to think the line in her diary is a veritible confession. But she may have been thinking about leaving the family or some other drastic move that didn’t involve murder. More important, I don’t think anyone who writes something in a diary owes an explanation about it to anyone else; it’s not a Facebook post.
RR: What “she may have been thinking” is good coffee shop debate, but meaningless in a court of law because it’s speculative. As far as US law is concerned neither diaries nor Facebook posts have any expectation of privacy; if they’re persuasive, a trier of fact may admit all or part.
Marcus: Actually, the South Carolina lady who drowned her two boys in 1994 by strapping them into their car seats in her 1990 Mazda, then shoving it into the lake, was Susan Smith.
Jason: Thanks for the Smith ID. What a bitch.
Re speculation: It’s only meaningless in law if a witness is asked directly, or in effect, to guess/imagine something. Speculation doesn’t, of course, apply where the agent (Routier) is directly questioned as to what was meant. Furthermore, juries are very commonly effectively asked to speculate as to what the most likely explanation for X or cause of Y, etc, is because physical evidence is lacking (as it often is). The attribution of motive is itself speculative (just ‘cos you’d commit murder for money – a (potential) motive – doesn’t necessarily mean I would: the jury is guessing how likely a motive it is for me alonside other factors such as my attributed ‘need’ for money or not).
In short, speculation is certainly not meaningless in law but an intrinsic factor in criminal and civil spheres. It is perfectly proper for the jury to come to a view (speculate) on the most likely interpretation of Routier’s diary entry alongside other evidence – particularly if she either refuses to say what she meant or offers, for the jury, an unconvincing explanation.
I always thought Susan Smith was guilty, even before she was a suspect.
Mike: Hello. To be sure: She had to be able to explain that strange diary entry. I’m sure she was asked about it, but don’t know what she said. For a typical jury member, it would and should raise a red flag…
Jason: Yes – a strong parallel with Macdonald, who, like Routier, was convicted and remains in prison but with possibility of parole (next in 2020). The possible difference is that M seemed to have no motive, whereas R may have had financial motive. We all hate to think a mum would kill her children for financial gain – but I’m reminded of the infamous case of the ghastly woman who locked her children in the boot of her car and pushed it in to a river to drown them – ‘cos the man she wanted didn’t want the ‘baggage’ of children. Unspeakable and unfathomable…
RR: I beg to differ from your most recent post. Precisely because a diary is deemed highly personal – more so than a Fbook post, which is necessarily for others – juries deem them probative. One doesn’t ‘lie’ to oneself in a diary (unless it’s intended to be discovered). I’d say that your view is an eccentric one – that juries would be very interested to know just what was meant by an unquestionably poignant, unusual entry. Your explanation – or something like it – could well be right; but the point is (i) a diary entry is significant (about which you disagree) and (ii) being significant, it demands explanation. I wonder what she said?
RR: Just to add that there are numerous examples in criminal law where diaries have been used as evidence against their author (both in US and UK), and there’s no Fourth Amendment protection against one’s privacy being invaded if, say, a family member or room-mate reports to police what they read therein.
I’m still not willing to assume to know what she meant in that passage. It was vague. And why would she leave evidence if she really intended to kill her children?
RR: We don’t “assume” we know the meaning; we do need to know what she herself meant – by questioning and judging whether plausible her response. As I say, diary entries are probative in law (whether we like it or not), and just as we would need to account for what we meant in saying something to a third party that is deemed potentially prescient of an impending crime, we equally have to do so in what we write – whether in a diary or elsewhere. You seem peculiarly unwilling to admit the relevance of a diary. It wasn’t claimed that it could only mean a crime is pending – just that it might. Why is that irrelevant to the question of her guilt? You say ‘it didn’t necessarily mean X’; the prosecution (and jury) say ‘did it mean X, ‘cos it may plausibly have?’ Why is that irrelevant or unreasonable?
RR: “And why would she leave evidence if she really intended to kill her children?” If by evidence you mean the diary – well, how many people have left evidence of their crimes??? All left evidence by the perp is unintentional – but ‘cos they’re stupid, forgetful or whatever, that’s what happens (thank goodness!). You say it as though she deliberately left the diary evidence! Maybe she forget she’d committed her plan to paper, or she’d be drinking, exposed her thoughts on paper, then never re-read what she’d written, or knew she had and simply forgot to get rid of the diary. There are multiple possible explanations for why the diary was found, of the same order as that of the police finding the crime scene staged: it, like she, was unconvincing.
What I find interesting is that Routier is someone you are striving to defend like no other you’ve featured, but you haven’t offered compelling reasons why. She seems to have captured your imagination!
I’m not sure about her guilt or innocence…the witch hunt is what really bothers me about this case.
RR: I understand, and the silly things said by the prosecution support your contention. On the other hand, if she did it she really is a witch that needed hunting…
I see Susan Smith is eligible for parole, which it seems is ‘cos there was suggestion she was ‘off her head’ at the time of the murders (though not quite ‘off’ enough not to blame an imagined black man for abducting them, which the police didn’t believe, then she confessed.) If I were she, I might want to stay in prison: there’ll be many people outside seeking revenge for the children… It may well be that she’ll be given a new identity and undisclosed location if released.
Does anyone remember that the woman had postpartum depression? I’ve been depressed, and suicidal, dang near my entire life… And yet here I am! If you were to read my diary you would find way worse entries than that.
Also like someone had mentioned earlier, people grieve in all sorts of different ways. They even had a forensic psychologist on the show saying that there’s probably a different way to grieve for every person alive. Trying to find a little joy on her son’s birthday seems like a coping mechanism. She can’t cry all day everyday. I just don’t think anyone has the right to judge anyone else for the way they grieve.
All good points — I agree!
But you’re assuming she is, in fact, grieving. We don’t know that, especially from watching what amounts to an incomplete story at best, since all these TV shows are edited to allow time for rip-offs, junk ads and their other commercial flotsam. This was one of the main points that caused the state’s case against Rodney King to fail – an incomplete videotape that gave a modified impression from what actually happened.
Morgan: I agree that inferring anything criminal from the ‘silly string’ stuff is absurd – not least ‘cos depression may affect our behaviour in the way you suggest (but that’s a double-edged sword – for depression may have induced murderous behaviour, so the defence would have to handle that carefully…)
We must remember that the prosecution’s job is to paint the defendant in the worst light (not a ‘truthful’ one); the defence, the best (again, not a ‘truthful’ one); they each provide versions of the truth, then it’s left to the jury to discern actual or most likely truth between the versions. Re the silly string factor, it was up to the defence, and the defendant, to say precisely the sort of thing you are…
Hey RR, can you do a post on the Forensic Files episode ‘Fate Date’ that details the triple murder by James Kidwell. That episode ranks in my top three episodes of the series because of the sheer senselesness of the crime. Interestingly, James Kidwell was recently embroiled in a legal battle with the Oklahoma Department of Corrections over his desire to have dentures after he had 13 of his remaining 14 teeth extracted
Sounds like something to sink my teeth into — I’ll put it on my list.
RR: Looking forward!
@Jason Houston – um I wear 8 rings, 12 earrings, 2 nose diamonds, have implants (for reconstruction but even if just because so what?), I dress nicely cause I can and have the body for it – and your point is what exactly again?
Why was the baby not touched? Anyone ever hear of postpartum depression. In the same diary where she said “please forgive me” she ALSO said she loved them all very much and hoped they grew up to be happy. That is suicidal not homicidal!
Juror # 8 said “who spends 2 k on herself” um LOTS of women. Just because she’s so plain and ugly and “would never do it,” that means any woman that would is a killer? Cmon!
Plus Juror # 8 – Parris whatever her name is said CLEARLY BEFORE the trial that “I think she did it but I’ll keep an open mind” Say WHAT?
Greg Davis knew to the penny how much the life ins was for but when asked how much the funeral costs were he got all sideways looking and stammered he didn’t know? BS! The ins policies are common. My parents had one on each of us and we all still lived to see adulthood.
The silly string thing is just ridiculous too – why was the jury not allowed to see it all? Oh that would make her look NOT guilty. The nurses were all coached and lied about Darlie. Her own notes in the hospital records all said she was crying, sobbing, emotional but on the stand? Nope not a tear!
At minimum Darlie deserves a new trial.
Such BS
It’s too bad Charlie Manson died. Maybe if he wore 8 rings, 12 earrings, 2 nose diamonds, he could have used your logic to petition for a new trial. “Well, maybe the jurors missed something?” “Maybe they laughed too hard?” “What bay were they sailing into?” “Maybe she said ‘please forgive me’ while at the dairy, rather than to her diary?” “Maybe they could charge her with the Kennedy assassination?” The possibilities are endless!
And yet you chose to ignore the other evidence showing reasonable doubts and focused on the character assassination. Don’t serve on any juries ok?
Marilyn: Where we disagree is that the points made by RR and yourself constitute reasonable doubt (as to the safety of the conviction). I don’t believe that even if her character were presented in a ‘fairer,’ ‘balanced’ way it would have changed the verdict (might it have reduced capital murder to life?). As I said earlier, these points have been made at appeal – and have been dismissed as insignificant to the outcome because of other, substantial evidence against her. The basis of a retrial is that either there is new evidence or that the conduct of the first trial was wrong SUCH THAT THE VERDICT and/or SENTENCE IS UNSAFE, or both. Even if all the points you and RR make were granted, the question is, is there reasonable reason (not just possibilty) to believe that the verdict and/or sentence would be different? The conclusion in this case is no. Cases are not retried merely to put some wrong right if in doing so there is no reasonable possibility of a change of outcome, ‘cos there simply ain’t the resources to do it.
Marilyn, you won’t like this, but I often serve on juries. That’s partly because I am trained and qualified and partly because I am a member of the ADR sections of two state bars.
If our courts were run under your “anything goes” logic (based on watching a 30-minute TV show that’s been highly edited for entertainment value) we would have all kinds of criminals acquitted and innocents sitting in jail.
Courts are not run on emotion, impulse, what-ifs, television shows, or hypothetical situations. If you’re an attorney and want to suggest maybe if she did this, or maybe she meant that, you must provide a foundation. That means there has to be some relevance in order to allow it to be admitted as evidence of something. You cannot stand and shout out how her father heard her say she loved her kids, and therefore, she should break out of jail, or some such. Nor can you proffer an educated opinion on how well or badly a trial was conducted, based on watching a half-hour TV summary, and still have heard everything the original jury heard.
I’m sure you mean well, but please arm yourself with knowledge first before you start kicking butts and suggesting people don’t know what they’re talking about, OK?
It’s too bad there are judgmental people like you that clearly don’t look at facts as reasonable doubt and focus on smoke and mirrors as the prosecution counted on. Have an amazing day.
Marilyn:
1 Bling is probative of nothing – agreed.
2 Suicidalists sometimes (sadly quite often) take their babies/toddlers with them – so granted the diary reference may well have been to suicide, but she could have decided to take at least the two she did with her and was then unsuccessful in her own attempt. I’m unsure if she claimed suicidal ideation as the explanation – but if she did she’d raise this suspicion. Of course, she could then haved used an insanity defence (but that threshold is very high and would almost certainly be unsuccessful).
3 The way her emotional status was presented was clearly misleading, as partial, but it can’t be said that impartial presentation would suggest innocence, just as partial presentation suggests guilt. It’s clear that grief or depression could cause strange behaviour, so too much was made of this.
There is too much focus on her person and how she presented, and not on the fact that there was simply no evidence that anyone else did it, so it must have been her.
The easy mistake to make by observers is that ‘cos SOME of the ‘evidence’ against her is weak – whether she wore bling / was a tramp / wanted money / didn’t cry enough – and doesn’t constitute proper evidence, ALL evidence is weak. It isn’t.
Finally, it was up to the defence to raise the questions that you do about her demeanour and what was shown to the jury, etc. If her defence were deemed poor at appeal it’s reasonable to assume that she’d get a re-trial. She’s had a number of bites at the cherry, with the same conclusion, and observers like us, who weren’t in court to hear all the evidence, can’t really claim that the jury was so readily duped and dumb that they must be wrong… One dumb juror doesn’t equal 12. So we have to assume that the conviction is correct unless we have reasonable reason to think otherwise. I don’t think RR’s points and yours, while noteworthy, amount to that which makes the conviction unsafe. All such points have been raised by her ongoing defence – to no avail. So unless we claim there is corruption and misconduct involved in keeping her where she is – and where’s the evidence for that? – she’s where she should be.
I’d LIKE to believe she were innocent, and am well aware of the too many wrongful convictions in the US (some of a capital nature) – but I’ve heard nothing suggesting to me that she is. If she is I dearly hope that can be shown.
Have you been to small town, Texas? I can very easily see how all the jurors would be biased.
I agree, it’s sad that they edit the story in such a way so as not to show us all the facts… It does make those of us not in law feel passionate about the case… And there are, of course, more of us not in law than in it. I have an engineering degree and unfortunately would not have thought of the logic you presented. Just the dumb juror, biased jury and unfortunate way women were, and sometimes still are, judged. She was pretty and rich and wanted to spend time with her girlfriends occasionally… Must be a murderer!
I do recall there being evidence presented of others committing the crime. The other neighborhood break-ins, the suspicious car, etc. And random crimes do happen.
Hello Morgan: No-one is truly un-biased, but people with a modicum of self-knowledge know what theirs are and allow- or should allow – for them. Bias itself doesn’t mean the conviction is wrong. The silly comments about her character are a distraction, and while they may have influenced dumb jurors, are we to believe that they influenced judges who ruled on her appeals? They could be wrong, but is it likely? They think there’s substantial evidence against her, distinct from the character attack. From a UK perspective, rich females who like bling are ten-a-penny (cent!) in US; so would US females in the jury really find her so tasteless, morally bereft, or whatever – and if they did, allow that to determine her guilt? This reflects a very low opinion of juries! Had she been ‘poor white trash’ from a trailer park we could, surely, equally think the jury would judge her negatively? We can’t second-guess the jury from what one dumb member said.
The other observations you make could apply to many convicts of whom there’s no absolute certainty of guilt (but beyond reasonable doubt). The appeals system is there to redress wrongs, and so far her conviction’s been re-affirmed, twice. She has one more appeal at federal level. Everything that’s been discussed here in her favour’s already been raised at appeal, and will be raised there again. No merit has been found in it… which should tell us something.
Morgan: Small town bias is an unfortunate and inevitable downside to our criminal justice system. There is a remedy at law (called change of venue) but the request must be approved by a judge first and, except in high profile cases in big cities, it is rarely granted.
As for there being evidence presented of others committing the crime, relevance must be shown, as I discussed above. If the law permitted just anyone to raise the SODDI defense, trials would last for decades and never be concluded.
A hundred years ago, if a black man in Alabama was wanted for murder and couldn’t be located, the state would hang his wife instead. Today, a black man on trial in a small town doesn’t get treated much differently, except that his wife won’t be hanged. It has often been said the wheels of justice turn slowly. This is no more obvious than in Small Town America.
Rowlett is not what I’d call a small town.
Marilyn was stating that the large amount of jewelry is not evidence of guilt. Your Charlie Manson reference is misinterpreting what she said as to mean that the large amount of jewelry is evidence of innocence. I’m sure you’re aware that there’s a difference.
Just as bias may work against defendants, it may work for them. Males particularly might be better disposed to an attractive female. Blacks may be biased for blacks; whites for whites, socio-economic like with like, etc. There’s simply no point in invoking the notion of bias, and certainly not in the sweeping generalisation as to ‘small towns’ – which is largely a metaphor for ‘limited thinking’ referenced to socio-economic group, not geography. But who says that Texans, or whoever, are less capable of trying fairly than anyone else? Is the suggestion that east coast liberals are fairer??? Come on! Such stereotyping is just what some are attacking the jury for…
All of you so sure she is guilty rest irritate me to no end. I can’t remember her name right off hand but awhile back there was another mom convicted of murdering her child under very similar circumstances to Routier and it later turned out that a serial killer really was responsible (he confessed to it when caught for other crimes).
When it comes to true crime I hate to say I’m certain about anything because as avid follower of true crime docus/books/blogs the only thing about crime I’m certain of is that (barring the cases where a killer was caught in the act or confessed totally and never recanted) you can never be 100% sure, but I’m almost positive she didn’t do it. First it was mostly the BS “evidence” that swayed the jury (primarily the birthday party at her sons’ grave but also her boob job and being nouveau riche) that made me feel like she didn’t get a fair shake. But then I looked at the case itself and nothing made sense.
She was a stay at home mom, why kill them when the husband was home? Why kill the older (and easier kids) but not the baby if she was “tired of being a mom”? Why call the cops when one of them was still breathing and alive? Not to mention the sock. There’s no way she had time to put the bloody sock as far away as it was found. And the wounds she sustained were really serious. She could have easily died from them had they not been attended to as quickly as they were. Not to mention she somehow had the foresight to use her nondominant hand to slash the dominant one? I’m not trying to insult her intelligence but I really don’t think she’d think of that.
I think moms can definitely kill their kids but not this one, not that way. I just don’t buy it.
My theory is that it was a random crazy person or that her husband hired someone to do it. The kids didn’t have a large life insurance policy, it barely covered their funerals, but she had a large one. He had talked about getting someone to “steal stuff” to file an insurance claim and then split the profits.
Maybe he hired someone to kill her and didn’t expect the kids to be asleep downstairs. The person he hired might have been skittish and unreliable so he killed the kids first, went to kill her but didn’t do so well against someone who could defend themselves. I lean towards the former but believe the latter is possible.
My point with this long post is that a lot of you are being way too quick to condemn her and I don’t think most of you have truly read through all the details of this case.
Shayne: Who said they’re certain??? The jury said they were convicted beyond reasonable doubt: they’re not certain, just sufficiently sure. That’s what the law asks. Certitude is very hard to come by and many cases could not reach that threshold. But that seems to be what you’re arguing for – a re-write of jurisprudence.
It’s absurd to suggest that the husband hired a killer ‘cos there’s not a shred of evidence for it (any reply that there’s not a shred of evidence of HER guilt is simply wrong and an insult to the jury) – and with that approach to crime-solving you’d convict no-one as you’d be too busy down blind alleys… Why couldn’t SHE be a “crazy person”?
By the way, we didn’t condemn her: the jury did. It’s also easy to criticise the jury from one’s armchair when one never heard the evidence – which is why I’m certianly not quick to suggest they got it wrong and I know better…
DNA doesn’t lie, but Darlie does. #Guilty:
https://youcouldbewrong.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/dr-06262015103716.pdf …
Darin knew what she had done the second he saw the boys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDQOAj1LeqU&t=67s
Remy, thanks for sending the links — the second one works, but the first leads to a nonfunctioning WordPress page. Is there a different link that leads to something about the case?
I’m going to assume you watched/listened to the second link that Remy Martin posted, and read the transcript of the 911 call. Just watching, and listening to the video, I realise how easy it is to convince people of something that doesn’t exist.
The YouTube channel owner, who goes by the profile “BSJ”, actually manages to convince people that Darlie Routier says, “I promise …” to Darin Routier. I listened to it [with my eyes closed] over, and again, and didn’t hear it at all. I then read the 911 call transcript, and the words are not there. Whatever is said, is [unintelligible]. BSJ plants a seed, using sarcasm. He doesn’t come right out and say it, but uses this non-existent comment to progress to his theory that Darin was accusing her of being responsible for what is happening. He says she is “snippy” at Darin, because he is accusing her. That’s not what I hear.
What I hear, is an accusatory tone directed at him – ” somebody who did it intentionally walked in here and did it Darin…”. Then, she almost screams, “there’s nothing touched…there’s nothing touched…oh my God…”
A lot has been made of her ‘knowing’ nothing had been touched in that 911 call; why she seemed to know then that nothing had been touched. The answer given, is that she knew it wasn’t a burglary, because she was the one who had savagely attacked her children. Her mounting distress about nothing being touched, seems to indicate [to me], that she is trying to come to terms with someone coming to intentionally harm them, and not to rob them. Is it possible that they had discussed a fake break-in for insurance purposes, at some point, previous to this night? Is this what is playing with her mind, when she gets ‘snippy’ at him?
In the 911 call, Darlie Routier alternates between “they”, “someone”, and “he”, concerning the alleged intruder. Is this someone who is trying to convince the operator of an intruder, or someone that is totally confused about what is happening/has happened?
I don’t know whether she did this terrible thing to her children, or not. I don’t know whether Darin Routier had any involvement in this, or not. What I do know is, there is reasonable doubt, and she deserves another trial. Time is running out for her, and they need to be certain they are executing a guilty woman.
This is a good site regarding Devon and Damons case: http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/
Interesting read! Ive interviewed Darlie, as well as other women in that prison who reside near her. I have always been of a similar mind as you’ve expressed on this case. The silly string incident in particular. Parts of that video show her crying and clearly devastated. Those parts are never shown. Those boys loved silly string and it was the only thing a grieving mother of murdered boys could do to bring happiness to their birthdays. That being said, I have heard some real horror stories about her behavior in prison from some of her neighbors. While I am sure that prison life changes you, such stories did make me rethink her innocence.
Hello Kelly: It must be said that neither the silly string issue NOR her bad prison behaviour are probative of filicide one iota. Plenty of prisoners behave appallingly but neither killed a child nor, apparently, wish to – let alone their own. So if that’s what causes you to be a little doubtful of her I’d think again! Attendance to the evidence at trial, not how peers say she behaves now, is of far greater significance. And it seems to need saying again: she was NOT convicted because of silly string by 12 jurors, who could all be so absurdly swayed against acquittal by incongruous use of a party piece!
The silly string was purchased by and brought to the service by another family member.
I think it’s fairly widely know that that’s the claim. But true or not, it shouldn’t matter. No reasonable inference as to guilt can be made from how R behaved after the murders, either because she’s the perp and was overcome by some mania related to knowledge of and guilt for it, or – and I think more likely – she was already unstable mentally before the murder (which may or may not have been causative of her perpetration).
The ‘silly string’ ep was, and should be treated as, a sideshow of no probative relevance whatsoever (which is NOT to refute that it could’ve been damaging to her; rather that it shouldn’t have been): there’s no range of ways to grieve to indicate certain behaviours outside that range that render them inauthentic and therefore ‘suspicious’.
To me, basing what I see in the infamous video, as involved with prison psychology, her behaviour was a form of mania. And whether as victim or perp, can we be surprised that what she’d experienced days before could render her behaviour ‘absurd’…?
I think she’s guilty – but certainly not because of this stuff.
Darin Routier should have been charged with accessory after the fact for helping conceal the murders by lying for his wife in order for her to evade arrest. Darlie Routier murdered her boys and she will be executed. No this.
Jade: I find it hard to believe that unless the husband wanted the murder he would actively conspire to cover for the wife. I would expect the default position of a husband who had no knowledge of the wife’s plan to be as horrified as the public at her actions and to want her to face justice for murdering his children. Is there evidence that he covered for her? If there is, then absolutely he should’ve been charged…
Would you be defending her if she wasn’t white? You’ve offered no evidence this is a “witch hunt”. Who are you? Donald Trump?
Former Fan, I’m concerned about race bias and white privilege in the justice system, too. But to me, the Darlie Routier verdict is a function of sexism.
Rebecca: Although not quite your point, I think it’s fair to say that reverse ‘sexism’ has also benefitted women in the justice system, at least regarding historic reluctance to impose the death penalty. That has probably lessened over time, but prosecutors still view juries as relatively reluctant. So the effects of sexism aren’t all one way!
PS – Some death penalty facts viz men v women:
Allowing for similarity of homicide, men are significantly more likely to receive the death penalty than women. Only eleven (1.1 percent) of the 1004 executions in the US from 1973 through 2005 were of female offenders. This execution pace changed more recently, with only one (0.2 percent) of the 434 executions from 1973 to 1997 being a female offender.
1900 through today, Texas, where Routier’s incarcerated, the clear leader in current executions, has killed 1,052 people; only six were women.
This disparity is an(other) argument against the death penalty: not only does it seem to discriminate against poor people and black people but against men… If justice isn’t blind – gender neutral – then its ultimate punishment is debased.
Great breakdown of stats. I don’t doubt that male killers get the death penalty more often that women. In Darlie’s case, I think the sexism lies in the way her alluring personal appearance was used as a criterion for deeming her likely to murder her sons.
Rebecca: If your contention’s true, then of course it’s a ridiculous factor in convicting (not that it can be reasonably argued it was the BASIS of conviction), but where I disagree is that it in fact played a part in the conviction. Where’s the evidence for that, rather than speculation? We know it was deployed by the prosecution, but it doesn’t follow that it influenced the jury (it could’ve tipped a fine balance…) The trope of female defendants as sluts/uncaring/unfeminine has been deployed many times and likely will be, and it’s up to the jury to reject manipulative stereotyping, aided by defence and judge objection.
It’s no consolation to either sex in court that just as women can be negatively stereotyped, so can men, as violent, ravening ‘wolves’ preying on the weak or ‘the weaker sex’. Some are, of course, but it’s the use of that stereotype – particularly to a significantly female jury – to gain prosecutorial advantage, as you suggest happend viz Routier, that requires competent defence and jury to see it and see through it.
If we were prosecuting, can we put our hand on heart and say we’d try to avoid this tactic even if there was evidence it could help our case (assuming we believed the defendant guilty)?
RR, Routier’s “alluring personal appearance” aside, what do you know about the evidence against her?
Pamela, thanks for sending the testimony passage — it’s telling content. To answer your question, as so with all the cases covered in the blog, my primary source is the Forensic Files episode, followed by internet research. In Darlie’s case, there was also The Last Defense, which in many ways was sympathetic to her cause.
RR
“Everyone does seem to think the line in her diary is a veritible confession.”
Routier’s testimony was that she was contemplating suicide.
19 Q. And tell the jury what you were
20 thinking and why you wrote what you wrote on May the 3rd?
21 A. Well, to be honest, I mean, I don’t
22 know why I wrote this, it was just — I am embarrassed
23 that I have to sit up here and even discuss this. I
24 never planned for this to be produced in front of the
25 whole world.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
4819
1 Q. I know it. And, as you wrote the
2 entry in your journal, when did you call Darin?
3 A. I called him during the middle, while
4 I was writing.
5 Q. Okay. And did he come home shortly
6 after that?
7 A. Directly.
8 Q. What happened when Darin got there?
9 A. Darin came up to the bedroom, Drake
10 was sleeping in the crib taking a nap. Damon was
11 watching TV. I was laying on the bed and I was crying.
12 I had my journal on the bed, but it was closed. And,
13 Darin came in, and asked my what was wrong. And —
14 Q. What did you tell him?
15 A. I told him that I didn’t like the way
16 I was feeling the past couple of days, that I didn’t like
17 crying, and I didn’t understand why I was feeling the way
18 I was feeling. I didn’t like it.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. And I told him what I started to write
21 down in the journal. And Darin started to cry, and we
22 cried for a little while together, a couple of minutes,
23 and Darin asked me how I was thinking about doing this,
24 when I said that I have thought about taking some pills
25 when I was thinking about it and —
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
4820
1 Q. Just over the counter sleeping pills?
2 A. Yes, they were just some over the
3 counter sleeping pills that I had had.
4 Q. Okay. You didn’t get anything special
5 for this deal?
6 A. What do you mean by special?
7 Q. Well, you had not gone out and made a
8 purchase just over the counter?
9 A. No, no, no, I mean I had — I had
10 sleeping pills, I had lots of different pills in the
11 house. You know, headache pills and stuff.
12 Q. Okay. So, you told Darin and y’all
13 had a cry together, and consoled one another, I suspect?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. And how did you resolve the
16 situation?
17 A. Well, the next day Darin went to work
18 and he asked me how I was feeling, and I told him that I
19 was feeling a lot better, and he told me that if I had
20 any problems, to call him at work, and I told him that I
21 would.
https://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/66_darlie-lynn-routier.pdf
Read her testimony. Pretty interesting when she dissolves into tears after being confronted with her letters from jail where she tells family and friends that she knows who did it but can’t say because “they read my mail.”
Darlie Routier is where she is because the evidence against her proves that she’s guilty. That evidence convinced a grand jury, a trial jury, and has held up on appeal.
Pamela: Thanks for this. It doesn’t help her case, to say the least. Saying she knows who did it but can’t say is absurd: an indication she’s either flailing around desperately for exculpation or plain delusional, talking nonsense. The latter is, in the circumstances, possible, I imagine, but unlikely. Indeed, her defence explained some of her ‘strange’ words and actions, interpreted as guilt, as grief – but it stretches credulity. I wonder if she still claims to know who did it?
Plain silly are those – some of whom posted here and will no doubt be back – saying her innocence is unquestionable. As is math, you can be right for the wrong reason(s). They may be right – but (i) their reasoning is poor; (ii) they fail to explain, as you state, why the jury, forensics, prosecution and judges are consistently wrong through appeal, other than the limp ‘she was railroaded’ or there was conspiracy.
Marcus and Pam, I’ll give you that — the part about knowing who did it but not saying is hard to explain away.
I was preparing dinner one balmy evening in June of 1996 when news of Darlie’s arrest was first broadcast on ABC World News. Peter Jennings began the segment with, and I quote, “What could make a mother kill her own child?” Obviously the trial was still a long way off, and no blood or DNA test results had come in as of that date. Yet, there’s Mr. Jennings, the man millions of Americans trusted to bring them up to date of current events around the nation, reporting on the arrest as if her guilt was a done deal and already set in stone. I can’t help but feel as though Darlie Routier was tried and convicted across every living room in America that very night, and any chance she may have had at a fair trial anywhere in the nation, let alone Texas, dissipated with those words. That’s the kind of statement that people take into account, without even realizing they are taking it into account. If Peter Jennings says she did it, then she must have, right?
“Opinions are like collar stays…everyone should have a few, but they should take care not to be stuck by them.”
Christine: People can and will speculate, as Jennings was. ‘What WOULD make a mum do that?’ may well have been rendered ‘what made a mum do that?’ What would you rather: that the public is forbidden to speculate (if it could)? Even if arrest IDs weren’t reported until charge, the same issue applies from charge, as Routier was. So there’s nothing that can be done about it – and nor should there be in a free world in which the media and freedom of thought and speech exist. Alas, intelligence cannot be legislated for… This isn’t to say that reporting can be FACTUALLY inaccurate or unprofessional – when it can be challenged legally or otherwise and retraction sought.
What addresses the issue you highlight is a jury not dumb enough to think that “If Peter Jennings says she did it, then she must have, right?” For if they’re too dumb to do that, they’re unfit for jury service and/or trial by jury is itself corrupt.
Juries are well aware that they must judge on, and only on, the evidence presented to them. If they’re subliminally affected by extraneous reportage, their own prior or others’ opinions, that’s just part ‘n parcel of the process and cannot be prevented. No-one’s come up with a fairer system – and of course it’s not just Routier who could have been affected by the matter you raise: all those charged with reported ’emotive’ crimes could.
Is there evidence that the jury was so influenced?
So true, America loves a story about a mother killing her children.
Yes Marcus, there is. The words of Kerri Sue Franklin-Parris, aka Juror #8.
“All we knew before the trial was that she was from Dallas, and, you know, she had killed her kids.”
Christine: That comment doesn’t imply that the outcome was prejudiced, which is what you’re suggesting, being ‘all she knew’ at the *commencement* of the case (and in any case a foolish comment from a possibly dumb juror), so is not evidence of a ‘wongful’ outcome. As I said, you can’t legislate for jurors’ intelligence. Furthermore, one swallow doesn’t make a summer.
Fundamentally, though, the question is what you would ‘reform’ to try to prevent this (and prevent what: people forming opinions early on that may (and probably should) change as the hearing proceeds)? How could evidence of ‘prejudice’ ever be known? All jurors will claim that they believe their decision is right and accords with the facts as presented… Even if there were NO media reporting – not necessarily desirable as it’s one means of gathering potential witnesses and other information such as from ‘snitchers’ – neighbours, family and friends would know and the bush telegraph would start. In a case of such magnitude it would be very difficult to suppress ‘information’ from gradual dispersal.
What would you do to change what you say is wrong?
Our system is fair to an extent, but it is also undeniably flawed. Fair or not, I can’t help but be disturbed by a multitude of factors surrounding the Routier case. That’s not going to change regardless of how many arguments are made in support of the death penalty conviction.
I think we’re done here.
The evidence is overwhelming, unless you believe some unknown intruder entered the home by cutting the screen with a bread knife he previously removed from the home. Put the bread knife back and selected the murder weapon, attacked the children first, but applying only superficial wounds, in comparison, to the adult later, likely in the kitchen. Made Darlie put Darin’s sock on her hand explaining how her DNA ended up in the toe (from trial transcripts) area, and dipped it in the children’s blood.
Went into the kitchen and cleaned the knife in the sink before noticing Damon was still alive, and finished him off. Raced to the utility room with Darlie in tow. Opened the wine glass cabinet before tossing a glass out and knocking over the vacuum cleaner. Dropped the knife, exited the garage without leaving any trace of his blood anywhere.
Then he somehow avoided the unavoidable motion detectors that set off the floodlights for 17 minutes that are mounted on the redwood spa (not on when police arrived 3 minutes into the 911 call) and cover the entire back yard. After departing the garage window, he decided not to take the quickest route away by choosing to avoid the mulch, and running all the way around the stacked toys (which are rarely shown except in evidence photos), opened and closed the broken gate, taking valuable time to close it, then ran down the alley and laid the sock on the ground in an obvious visible area next to a garbage and storm drain where it could have been easily disposed of.
Meanwhile, Darlie was inside walking around the kitchen leaving bloody footprints under the glass shards and under the vacuum cleaner while avoiding getting glass in her feet. Then calling 911 🙂
Matt: Apart from the physical evidence, there’s the problem that she herself initially said she knew who did it but couldn’t say – something often overlooked in discussion. She seems not to have meant her husband. It’s an inexplicable remark – unless a ‘Freudian’ reference to herself. I can’t see it being explained as a function of psychological trauma (causing fantasy), more that she’s so exhausted by interrogation, and perhaps assailed by guilt – the enormity of what she did – her defences are weak and she ‘confesses’.
I think we all agree that she’d have to be ‘mad’ to do what she very likely did – but so would the only other possibility (despite the physical evidence): a ‘mad axeman’, breaking in to do nothing more than murder children, since why would a would-be burglar or rapist stay to stab the children (and do a poorer job on her)?
We’d all rather it be some mad, infanticidal stranger rather than the mother, but the evidence for that is next-to-nonexistent, and against her, rather more. I don’t see that the jury had a choice but to convict…
Also their dog, Domain, was a barker. Barked at any and every thing and any and every one. But not a peep out of him that night. Also, she named two men in her jailhouse letters. When those letters were read to her in court she freaked out, started crying and asked the judge if it was legal for them to have read her letters. Along with all of the evidence of staging, zero evidence of an intruder, her lies and changing her stories told her guilt.
A few years ago mama Darlie Kee was offered Dr. Phil’s help with testing and worldwide attention to her daughters case but she blew a fuse on facebook and refused to do it. I think she, just like Darin, know Darlie did it.
Have just come across the case of Diane Downs, whom I’d never heard of. Strong parallel with Routier’s case: Downs shot her three children and drove them in a blood-spattered car to hospital. Upon arrival, Cheryl (7) was already dead, Danny (3) was paralyzed from the waist down, and Christie (8) had suffered a disabling stroke. Downs herself had been shot in the left forearm.
Prosecutors argued that Downs shot her children to be free of them so she could continue an affair, as she claimed her boyfriend let it be known he did not want children in his life. Much of the case against her rested on the testimony of her surviving daughter, Christie, who, once she recovered her speech, described how her mother shot all three while parked at the side of the road and then shot herself in the arm. Christie was eight at the time of the murder and nine at the time of the trial.
Downs was convicted on all charges and sentenced to life in prison plus fifty years. Psychiatrists diagnosed her with narcissistic, histrionic and antisocial personality disorders. The judge made it clear that he did not intend for Downs ever to be free.
Having seen her performance online at her most recent parole hearing, where she continues to deny guilt, she does indeed come over as something of a loon (but who knew how wrong her act would be). Ann Rule, who wrote about this case, considered it a ‘slam-dunk.’
I mention the case as evidence in surmounting the first hurdle that Routier’s prosecution MAY have faced: that a mother couldn’t kill her children cold-bloodedly for any reason. For me it is indeed almost unbelievable – yet Downs shot her three… then herself to make the explanation believable, showing she was coldly calculating. All this, seemingly, for a man, in combination with her seeming to have, and have had, no maternal feeling whatsoever, making the crime easier.
Downs should NEVER be paroled – something I’ve expressed to Oregon’s parole board. To me she’s an unfeeling monster.
Such an interesting case. I dug up a YouTube link to the TV movie with Farrah Fawcett https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw_a4JxVTl4&t=7987s
Rebecca: Indeed. Again, like Routier’s, it’s infamous. She’s changed details of the story over the years and has never shown much emotion about the deaths/injuries, which has done for her if there was any doubt. She comes across as a very odd woman – but then you likely would be if you could shoot your children!
Her last parole hearing’s worth a look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsV1u25eXR4
She’s now 65-ish and up for it again shortly.
Lave this post! Can I quote in my blog please!?
Of course! Please include the link.
The difference between Diana Downs and Darlie is there is no doubt Diane did it! She has her 3 kids in the car and decides to pick up a hitchhiker!! Then her children end up with horrific and in one case, life-ending injuries yet Diane was only shot in the forearm. Can you believe that upon arrival with her dead, almost dead and paralyzed son, she told a police officer investigating that “this really ruined my vacation”!
I’ve always felt the husband was involved, that he hired someone to kill her and the 2 kids. He’d be ok with a baby as they attract female attention, much like small animals. My teen son took a picture with a baby I sometimes look after and he admitted he put it on social media to get the girls attention and it worked.
Remember in Darlie’s case even the court report’s notes had something like hundreds of mistakes and the court reporter admitted she felt Darlie was guilty? She had a biased jury, court reporter, police force and probably the judge. Definite miscarriage of justice!
There is very little possibility indeed that anyone other than Downs is the perp. Her denial and ludicrous ramblings could be a function of mental illness – certainly she’s mad as a box of frogs now; but was she then? In law, of course, irrelevant if she knew right from wrong.
Similarly, there’s certainly some evidence of mental derangement in Routier at the time (unless she set that up as fall-back mitigation) – but as to innocence, it all points to her, whether associated agencies were biased or not (carefully of that fallacy: bias against her doesn’t equal non-guilt).
Meant to say in Diane’s case her dead daughter, nearly dead other daughter and her paralyzed son. It’s just unfathomable that a mom did this to her kids!! I met a man I liked when my daughter was little. He said he didn’t like women with kids. Ok. I moved on. My daughter is now 24. Same as Manling Williams and Susan Smith whose lover that didn’t want kids is a dad now! Diane still maintains her story of a bushy haired man and the Lifetime movie with Farrah Fawcett is great!!
Her knife used to cut screen, jewelry wasn’t taken at sink where clean up occurred, she named 2 men in her jail letters & freaked out on the stand when asked about it, blood under the glass & vacuum, no cuts on her feet, wine glass was latched, wouldn’t have been knocked down, Domain didn’t bark, motion lites not on, she called media herself to film that grave scene. Her mother had the opportunity a few years ago to go on Dr. Phil? Worldwide attn and any dna testing? She refused. Why? She knows her daughter did this. Her fans say necklace was embedded, had to be surgically removed but it simply fell off when bandage removed. Bruising on her arms prob caused by boys kicking her off. Her wounds were superficial & she didn’t know what/where carotid was. She was lucky she didn’t kill herself. She was such a light sleeper that she would wake up when Drake turned over in his crib yet she slept through all that? She’s guilty. darlieroutierfactandfiction DOT com
This is interesting, if you’re open-minded enough to read it:
https://soapboxie.com/government/Darlie-Routier-An-American-Railroad
Her knife used to cut screen, jewelry wasn’t taken at sink where clean up occurred, she named 2 men in her jail letters & freaked out on the stand when asked about it, blood under the glass & vacuum, no cuts on her feet, wine glass was latched wouldn’t have been knocked down, Domain didn’t bark, motion lites not on, she called media herself to film that grave scene. Her mother had the opportunity a few years ago to go on Dr. Phil? Worldwide attn and any dna testing? She refused. Why? She knows her daughter did this. Her fans say necklace was embedded, had to be surgically removed but it simply fell off when bandage removed. Bruising on her arms prob caused by boys kicking her off. Her wounds were superficial & she didn’t know what/where carotid was. She was lucky she didn’t kill herself. She was such a light sleeper that she would wake up when Drake turned over in his crib yet she slept through all that? She’s guilty. http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/