by John W. Taylor (July 14, 2015)

“I think if I live to be a hundred, I wouldn’t be able to tell you everything that happened that night.” – Darlie Routier (Court Transcripts, The State of Texas No. F-96-39973-J vs. Darlie Lynn Routier A-96-253, Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter. Significant errors have been found in the court transcript, which ultimately resulted in the court reporter losing her license. Changes to the transcript could affect the analysis.)

In the early morning hours of June 6, 1996, a 911 dispatcher received an emergency call from a hysterical woman at 5801 Eagle Drive, in Rowlett, Texas, a suburb of Dallas. (The Darlie Routier Case, The Facts, http://darliefacts.com/case-background/, accessed June-July, 2015.)  Darlie Routier called 911 after an intruder attacked her and two of her children in the middle of the night. She was badly injured and two of her children were dying.

dar3Darlie, and her husband Darin, had three boys: Devon, age six; Damon, age five; and Drake, who was an infant. About a week prior to the attack, Darlie started sleeping downstairs because Drake’s crying disrupted her sleep. On the night of June 5, Darlie fell asleep on a couch in the living room on the first floor. Devon and Damon fell asleep on the floor nearby while watching television. Darin and Drake slept upstairs. (Court Transcripts, The State of Texas No. F-96-39973-J vs. Darlie Lynn Routier A-96-253, Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter. )

In the middle of the night, Damon woke Darlie by calling her name and pushing her on the shoulder. As she slowly came out of a deep sleep, she saw an intruder at the end of the couch walking toward the kitchen. She got up and followed him into the kitchen. He dropped a knife as he walked through the utility room and climbed out a garage window. Darlie picked up the knife and placed it on a counter. Darlie then turned on the lights and realized she was bleeding. She then looked at Devon laying on the floor and noticed he had large, gaping stab wounds in his chest. Darlie screamed for Darin. Though Damon initially appeared unharmed, she turned him around and saw numerous stab wounds in his back. (Ibid.)

Upon hearing Darlie’s screams, Darin raced downstairs. He administered CPR on Devon while Darlie called for help. (Ibid) Darin’s attempts were futile, as Devon was already dead. Damon was barely breathing. Darlie brought wet towels to Damon as they waited for help to arrive. Darlie also sustained injuries, but they did not appear life-threatening. The police and emergency personnel arrived and began treating Damon and Darlie. Both were rushed to the hospital, though Damon eventually succumbed to his injuries. Darlie survived the attacked, but incurred several scars. Luckily, Darin and Drake escaped the attack unscathed.

When the police arrived they immediately searched the house for the intruders, though none were found. The police also searched the neighborhood looking for the perpetrators, but to no avail. No valuable items had been taken from the house, even though jewelry was sitting out in the open. (Darlie Routier Fact & Fiction, Affidavit for Arrest Warrant, subscribed and sworn June 18, 1996, http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/.) There appeared to be no motive other than the murder of two young boys.

The intruder likely entered [and exited] the house through a cut screen in the garage. The police were left with two dead bodies, a bloody knife, a cut screen, and Darlie’s statements. Since Darlie picked up the knife when she pursued the intruder, the police had no evidence linked to the intruder. (911 Transcript, http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/911Call/transcript.html, Recorded by The Rowlett Police Department, transcript created by Barry Dickey, June 6, 1996. This transcript was done based on an “enhanced” version of the recording and is not considered completely accurate by some involved.They had limited leads to pursue.)

Though Darlie had no recollection of the attacks, her wounds indicated that she incurred a horrific beating. Darlie received numerous wounds of varying severity. Her hands and arms were badly bruised and cut in a manner consistent with defensive wounds. Darlie’s throat was also slashed within two millimeters of her carotid artery. (The Darlie Routier Case Website, http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/Wounds.html, Accessed June-July, 2015.) She barely escaped with her life.

Even though Darlie incurred various injuries, the police were immediately suspicious of her. The scene looked staged with what appeared to be random items strategically tipped over or broken. Darlie’s explanation was inconsistent with the crime scene, and key elements of her story kept changing. Whether it was the totality of the circumstances or just gut instinct, the police suspected Darlie’s involvement in the murders within twenty minutes of their arrival.

Police officers are forced to make quick assessments whenever they enter a situation. They must determine imminent risk, level of danger, and who needs assistance versus who may pose an additional threat. These quick decisions often save lives. However, if an officer is unwilling to reassess his initial judgments, it can result in a one-dimensional investigation.

Darlie and Darin cooperated with the police. Though the police may have pursued initial leads for suspects outside the immediate family, it was not clear how much these initial suspicions of Darlie impacted how the investigation unfolded. Regardless, most investigations start close to the victims and work their way outward. Inevitably, the police would have to determine whether or not Darlie deserved additional attention as a person of interest. Darin was eliminated as a suspect fairly quickly based on his statements, the crime scene, and Darlie’s statements.

Darlie’s story did not match the forensic evidence. The murders and home invasion simply could not have happened in the manner in which Darlie described them. There was no blood on the couch where Darlie’s alleged attack occurred. There were also no puncture holes or other damage to the couch. (Darlie Routier Fact & Fiction, Affidavit for Arrest Warrant, subscribed and sworn June 18, 1996, http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/.)

The vacuum cleaner was knocked over and there was broken glass in the kitchen, which both appeared to be the result of the intruder. However, Darlie’s bloody footprints were underneath the vacuum cleaner and broken glass. Since the footprints were beneath the items, Darlie walked through the kitchen after the attacks, but prior to when the glass was broken and the vacuum was overturned. (Ibid.) Testing also determined that someone attempted to clean up blood in the vicinity of the kitchen sink prior to the police arriving.

The Routier’s had a dog known for barking incessantly though the dog did not bark on the night of the murders. The Routiers also had a hostile cat that was kept in a cage because it was so aggressive toward people. The cat’s cage was in the living room on the night of the murders, but the cat also failed to make any noise at the intruder’s presence. (Court Transcripts, The State of Texas No. F-96-39973-J vs. Darlie Lynn Routier A-96-253, Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter. Significant errors have been found in the court transcript, which ultimately resulted in the court reporter losing her license. Changes to the transcript could affect the analysis.)

dar1The police had a forensic scientist examine the knives seized from the Routier’s kitchen. The butcher block on the kitchen counter contained eight knives. Upon testing the knives, the examiner found fiberglass rods on the serrated bread knife. He found the fiberglass rods to be microscopically identical to the fibers taken from the cut screen in the Routier’s garage. (Darlie Routier Fact & Fiction, Affidavit for Arrest Warrant, subscribed and sworn June 18, 1996, http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/.) Someone had cut the window screen and then returned the knife to its allotted position in the butcher block in the kitchen.

Though there was compelling circumstantial evidence pointing toward Darlie as the perpetrator of her sons’ murders, she had many strong supporters. They cite many factors as to why they believe in Darlie’s innocence. They cite police errors at the crime scene and during the investigation, a rush to judgment, and manipulation of witnesses and testimony. Her supporters point toward an unidentified hair in the Routier family room, a bloody sock found outside the house, and an unidentified bloody fingerprint as proof of an intruder. (The Darlie Routier Case Website, http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/HerProof/index.html, Accessed June-July, 2015.)

Finding an unidentified hair at a crime scene is hardly evidence of an intruder’s presence. Some reports have referred to it as a pubic hair, which begs the question as to how an intruder left a pubic hair when there were no indications of a sexual assault, and Darlie described the intruder as wearing pants.

The police found a bloody men’s tube sock outside the Routier’s home. The sock tested positive for both Devon and Damon’s blood. (The Darlie Routier Case Website, http://darliefacts.com/blood-evidence/, Accessed June-July, 2015.) The sock does not point toward or away from the intruder theory, but it does confirm that someone involved left the house after the murders transpired.

The pubic hair and the bloody sock should not be discarded as exculpatory evidence, but their value is limited. However, the bloody fingerprint extracted from the glass coffee table in the family room could conclusively prove the presence of an intruder. A bloody fingerprint was most likely tied to the murders. Some sources indicate that all police, emergency personnel, and members of the Routier family were excluded, while others sources were less definitive.

dar8An expert for the State contended that Darlie’s right ring finger print could not be excluded as a match to the bloody fingerprint. During trial, he testified that the print likely came from a juvenile, but stated the partial print was not enough to make a match. (Court Transcripts, The State of Texas No. F-96-39973-J vs. Darlie Lynn Routier A-96-253, Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter.) On the contrary one could argue that an unidentified bloody fingerprint conclusively proves Darlie’s innocence. However, there is significant forensic evidence pointing toward Darlie as the perpetrator, and there is no reason to place more emphasis on this evidence than others. The fingerprint came from the same supposedly contaminated crime scene, and it was collected by the same technicians who collected the other evidence. At this point, the fingerprint does not point toward or away from Darlie, but it is an additional piece of evidence that must be evaluated within the totality of the information collected.

Based on forensic evidence and Darlie’s inconsistent and illogical statements, she was arrested on June 18, 1996. During her trial, Darlie’s injuries were an area of contention. The State downplayed Darlie’s injuries and often referred to them as “superficial,” while the defense highlighted the severity of her neck wound, extent of medical care, and the number of injuries she sustained. (Ibid.) The underlying assumption was that the more severe her injuries the less likely they were self-inflicted.

If Darlie is guilty, it means she viciously stabbed her children to death. There is no more callous an act than this. If a woman is capable of brutally killing her children, cutting her hands and arms is relatively insignificant. Even slicing a portion of her neck pales in comparison to plunging a knife into her sleeping children. Another explanation could be that Darlie intended for her neck wound to be superficial, but accidently cut deeper than she intended. Alternatively, Darlie may have been trying to kill herself, but was unsuccessful.

If Darlie did not kill her children, then the thought of her inflicting these injuries is unthinkable. However, if she did kill her children, her injuries were consistent with her other vicious, psychopathic actions. Regardless, the severity of her injuries is unimportant in the determination of her guilt, it merely validates what one has already concluded.

A more relevant question is, how did Darlie obtain her injuries? She claimed to have no recollection of any interaction with the intruder, though she initially told police on the scene that she fought with the intruder. As a result, one is left to conclude that she received her injuries while fighting with the intruder as she slept. Under this scenario, Darlie incurred her wounds while lying on her back on the couch.

The intruder had a large knife, which he plunged deep into Damon’s and Devon’s sleeping bodies. Darlie sustained no such injuries. For her version of events to be plausible, Darlie had to have slept through the vicious, deadly attacks against her boys, but have awoken before the intruder started to attack her. Otherwise, the first strike against Darlie would have been a deep penetrating stab wound to the body, which she did not sustain. What woke her during this narrow window of time?

Darlie also sustained excessive bruising on her arms. The bruising most certainly resulted from a blunt instrument, yet the intruder had a knife not a baseball bat. Neither of the boys’ bodies exhibited severe bruising. Darlie also had a cut on her neck, yet the intruder would have been driving down with the knife as he stood over her. For Darlie’s version of events to be true, she either experienced some kind of traumatic amnesia or exhibited the skill of a Brazilian Jiu-Jitzu black belt while sleeping.

The two boys were attacked before Darlie, though she could have put up significant resistance. Anyone determined to kill Damon and Devon in the presence of their mother should have killed or immobilized her first. According to Darlie, the intruder was standing at the foot of the couch when Damon woke her. Why did the intruder leave two eyewitnesses to a murder? He could have easily killed them both, but instead opted to walk out of the house. What was his motive if it was not murder?

Evidence technicians found Darlie’s bloody footprints between the kitchen sink and the living room. However, they failed to detect any shoe or boot prints in the blood. (Darlie Routier Fact & Fiction, Affidavit for Arrest Warrant, subscribed and sworn June 18, 1996, http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/.) How did Darlie track blood through the kitchen, but the killer did not? The evidence appeared to be tied to Darlie, not an intruder, but it was all circumstantial.

Shortly after the attack, Darlie dialed 9-1-1. Her statements and responses were the most unrehearsed and least contemplated statements she has or will ever make regarding the night of her children’s murders. Here is the beginning of the 911 call*:

911 Operator #1: …Rowlett 911…what is your emergency…

Darlie Routier: …somebody came here…they broke in… (911 Transcript , http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/911Call/transcript.html, Recorded by The Rowlett Police Department, transcript created by Barry Dickey, June 6, 1996.)

*If there was a discrepancy or ambiguity in the transcript of the 911 call, the analysis defaulted to the original recording.

Darlie stated to the operator that “somebody” came here. “Somebody” is singular and an all-inclusive term, which could have referred to a man or a woman. “Came here” was a casual description of what had transpired. It certainly did not convey a sense of urgency or the life-threatening nature of the situation.

Darlie then clarified by stating, “They broke in.” She immediately replaced the singular pronoun with the plural. Darlie later claimed to have only seen one man, yet she referred to him as “they.” Inconsistent pronouns can often indicate deception. The person is not remembering, but creating the story as she is speaking. Darlie had not fully decided what her story was going to be, thus she wafted back and forth on the number of intruders in the house. This is clearly not something one would forget or confuse.

Darlie ended the clarifying statement with “broke in.” Her children were either dead or dying, yet she felt compelled to tell the operator that someone broke into the house. The call continued:

911 Operator #1: …ma’am…

Darlie Routier …they just stabbed me and my children… (Ibid.)

Her second statement again identified the intruder in the plural as “they.” Throughout the call, Darlie shifted between the plural and singular regarding the intruder(s). Darlie’s second statement conveyed a sense of urgency and relevance.

With the survival of her child in the balance, Darlie made the following statement on the call, “…we got to find out who it was…” At a different juncture during the call, she repeated “Who would do this?” twice. Ensuring that her son lived should have had a higher priority than trying to determine who stabbed him. Darlie placed undue and excessive emphasis on the intruder(s) when the obvious focus should have been on saving her children.

At one point during the call, Darlie attempted to explain what happened:

Darlie Routier: …some man …came in …stabbed my babies …stabbed me …I woke up …I was frightened* …he ran out through the garage …threw the knife down …my babies are dying …they’re dead …oh my God… (Ibid.)

*Prosecution claimed she said “fighting.”

In this statement, Darlie referred to the intruder as an individual, but added his gender. She also provided a fairly detailed description of what transpired prior to her call. As would be expected, Darlie told the story in chronological order. All of her statements were in chronological order, except one. The one item out of place chronologically was the segment “threw the knife down.” Changes to chronology are done for a reason. A break in chronology can indicate deception as the out-of-place item was not being drawn from memory, but created. According to Darlie, the intruder dropped the knife in the utility room prior to entering the garage though in this utterance she placed the dropping of the knife after the intruder left the garage.

In another statement on the emergency call, Darlie confused pronouns and chronology:

Darlie Routier: …no …he ran out …uh …they ran out in the garage …I was sleeping… (Ibid.)

Darlie changed “he” to ”they” during this statement, apparently correcting herself. She also placed the intruder(s) running out of the house before the fact she was sleeping, though it would have happened after she awoke.

On the emergency call, Darlie stated that the intruder(s) ran away. However, she stated during her trial testimony that the intruder [singular during this recollection] walked away from her. (Court Transcripts, The State of Texas No. F-96-39973-J vs. Darlie Lynn Routier A-96-253, Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter.) He walked out of the house. It is a detail one would not confuse. Darlie should have a clear visual image of the intruder in her house if it was a recollection.

dar2Darlie experienced extreme duress during the 911 call. One could argue that her grammatical and speech errors were understandable and explainable due to the circumstances. However, her misspoken statements only occurred where she would have had to fabricate information if she did kill her boys. It is also noteworthy that Darlie did not refer to her boys as girls or call her husband by the wrong name. She never said someone shot her or used future tenses to describe what happened. Her word choices unintentionally revealed more information than she desired.

During her murder trial, Darlie chose to testify. While Darlie was on the stand, her attorney walked her through her testimony until he arrived at the night of the murders. At which time, he shifted to a more open-ended question and answer approach to his direct examination.

Defense attorney: All right. Darlie, what is the very next thing that you remember, that you either felt or heard or saw?

Darlie Routier: The next thing that I remember is Damon hitting my right shoulder, and he said “Mommy,” or he said “Mommy, Mommy,” I’m not sure, but he said, “Mommy.” I looked up, and you’ve got to remember that I’m in a — I am not completely awake, you know, when you first wake up, you are not completely wide awake. And there was a man, that was down, going away from the couches, walking away from me. I started to get up and when I stood up, I heard noise like glass breaking. I started to walk towards the kitchen, Damon was behind me, and when I got to the kitchen, I put my hand back here for Damon to stay. And when I got to the kitchen, I could see the guy going into the utility room. (Ibid.)

When a person makes the statement “the next thing I remember,” she is usually leaving out critical elements of the story. The phrase enables her to jump over critical details. Darlie utilized the phrase in this same fashion, but she claimed to have a reason to segue because she allegedly slept through the murders. As a result, Darlie began her story from the moment her recollection began. Even though she slept within a foot of one of her sons, she did not recall hearing him or his brother being stabbed to death, nor did she wake during her own vicious attack. However, her son calling her name and tapping her shoulder woke her.

Darlie’s first sentence was repetitive, but fairly straight-forward. However, in her second sentence Darlie used the phrase, “…you’ve got to remember…” when she referenced her state of consciousness. Darlie felt she needed to emphasize her low level of cognition. She needed to convince the jury she was not fully awake. She lacked confidence in her statement, and she may have felt it lacked believability. She followed her intro by starting and stopping a statement. She stated “…I’m in a–…” What was she going to say? “I’m in a dream state” or “I’m in a trance.” We do not know what she was going to say because she chose not to continue her thought. Often times, people stop a statement because it would reveal something they did not want to say. She then stated, “I am not completely awake,” which was the wrong tense. She used the present tense rather than past tense. Many times the use of present tense indicates the person is creating the story currently rather than remembering.

She continued with the phrase “you know,” which distanced her from her statement. Darlie stated, “you know,” but we do not know what happened. Rather than telling us, she placed the burden on the listener to fill in the blanks. She went on to say, “when you first wake up, you are not…,” which further distanced her from her statement as she spoke in the second person rather than the first. She was not testifying about herself, she spoke hypothetically.

Continuing with her explanation, Darlie stated “I started to get up…” Unless something stopped her from getting up, “I started” was filler. It was unnecessary. The phrase “I started” implied that there was a beginning, a middle, and end to her action, yet most people consider getting up as one action. Darlie followed this by stating, “I started to walk towards the kitchen…” Once again she began with “I started.” Nothing stopped her from getting to the kitchen.

Darlie continued answering her attorney’s questions:

Defense attorney: Where was the man by this time?

Darlie Routier: He was gone, he was out of my sight… I got into the kitchen, and I got to where the island was, and it was at that moment that I realized that I had blood on me. And I kept going, walking a little bit, and I saw a knife laying in the utility room. The knife wasn’t completely the whole way in the utility room, it was just like, a little bit into the doorway of the utility room. It was an instinct — I picked up the knife, it was an instinct to pick up the knife. I didn’t think about it. It was just an instinct. I picked up the knife, I brought the knife back to the kitchen counter, and set it up on the kitchen counter… (Ibid.)

dar6Darlie’s statement placed a tremendous emphasis on the found knife. She stated three times that she picked up the knife. Repetition is done for emphasis. Darlie felt it was important for the jury to know she touched the knife. Darlie exhibited no obvious maternal instincts pertaining to saving the lives of her children, but she felt an instinctual need to pick up the knife used to kill her two boys. She also stated that she placed it on the kitchen counter, which was an odd decision considering she was following a murderer through her house. Her survival instincts were not well honed either.

The questioning shifted toward the intruder’s attack against Darlie:

Defense attorney: Okay. Do you have any recollection of this man attacking you and beating you severely and cutting you?

Darlie Attorney: I don’t have any — what you would say that, I mean, that I can remember him doing that. I have assumed that that is what he has done, because common sense tells you that that is what he has done. (Ibid.)

The correct answer should have been “no;” yet, her response varied sharply from the expected answer. The question triggered a stressful reaction by Darlie. Her first phrase was the beginning of a question followed by the filler phrase “I mean.” Both answering a question with a question and utilizing filler words provided her person with more time to answer the question. Even though she knew the question would be asked, she hesitated. Darlie also did not use the words “attack” or “beating.” Instead, she provided a confusing assortment of words, “…that I can remember him doing that.” She replaced action verbs with “doing that,” which distanced herself from her statements.

When referring to the attack, Darlie spoke theoretically. She referenced common sense, rather than providing the information, which required the listener to arrive at his own conclusions. Her answer was implied. Since Darlie claimed that she did not remember the incident, it might seem reasonable for her to draw this conclusion, but she should have simply answered, “No.”

Darlie’s husband, Darin, was allegedly asleep upstairs during the attacks. He had knowledge of what transpired in the house after he responded to Darlie’s screams, and he also provided insight into family dynamics, stressors in the family, and potential enemies they may have had.

Part of the State’s case against Darlie involved establishing a motive. Though not required, the State found it necessary to explain why Darlie killed her two boys. The State contended that she was severely depressed due to a confluence of stressors. Darlie likely suffered from post-partum depression after the birth of Drake, compounded by weight gain, trouble sleeping, and financial problems. The State postulated that these factors caused Darlie’s depression and resulted in her killing her boys. (Ibid.)

Darin has steadfastly maintained his belief in Darlie’s innocence. (Darlie Routier Fact & Fiction, Affidavit for Arrest Warrant, subscribed and sworn June 18, 1996, http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/.) Understandably, he said and did everything he could to protect her. As a result, many of his statements reflected this bias. He was not a disinterested party, but one set on skewing facts to best support Darlie.

Darin owned a business, which had been quite successful; however, during the beginning of 1996, it was struggling. A close look at the family’s finances showed a delicate situation where the slightest adverse shift in Darin’s business would impact the family’s ability to meet its financial obligations. The family had minimal savings, substantial debt, and several past due bills. (Darlie Routier Fact & Fiction, Affidavit for Arrest Warrant, subscribed and sworn June 18, 1996, http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/.) Darin drew a sizable six figure income, but the Routier’s outspent it.

Darin had recently applied for a loan in order for the family to take a vacation. Compounding the problem, his loan request was declined. Darin responded to the allegations of financial distress by indicating that the family had plenty of money. (Ibid.) Did Darin really believe the family’s finances were sound or was he merely downplaying the severity of the situation? An argument could be made for either one or both. Darin believed in Darlie’s innocence; therefore, the family finances were irrelevant. On the contrary, it is fairly reasonable to assume a man who fostered an environment that lead to this perilous financial situation would be unconcerned. Money came in; money went out. It was how he ran the business and family finances. To Darin, taking out a loan to pay for a vacation when he pulled in a six figure salary was uneventful.

Another aspect of the State’s motive theory pertained to Darlie being suicidal. About a month before the murders, Darlie wrote out what appeared to be a suicide note in her journal. After writing it, she called Darin and begged him to come home from work. He went home and after much discussion, Darlie appeared to be past her suicidal ideations. (Ibid.)

dar7Darin was asked about his wife’s emotional state leading up to the murders and specifically, the day she contemplated suicide. Darin referred to Darlie’s emotional state as “…having the blues a couple of times…not concerned.” Darin claimed he was not worried because she did not go through with killing herself. (Ibid.) Was Darin downplaying his wife’s emotional problems, or was he truly not concerned at the time? He had reason to protect his wife; she faced the death penalty. However, from almost all accounts, he loved Darlie dearly. He would have likely gotten Darlie help if he thought she was truly suicidal, yet he did not.

Darlie had numerous reasons to be depressed, but only Darlie knows how the stress affected her. She may have been severely depressed and even suicidal, but it does not mean she killed her two sons. It was the State’s theory for motive, yet motive is elusive and complex. People want to know the why, but it is not a rational or reasonable thought process that leads one to kill. Therefore, postulating on motive is often ill-fated; however, the prosecution must attempt to explain the unexplainable, because juries want to understand why.

Presenting a motive likely helped, because the jury found Darlie guilty of murder on February 1, 1997. Since her conviction, her defense team has filed numerous appeals, and she has maintained her innocence. However, her claims of innocence are usually indirect denials in second person. Similar to her comments on the 911 call and statements during her trial, her denials lack confidence or believability.

Though the circumstantial evidence compiled against Darlie was quite compelling, she was entitled to fairness within the legal system. During her trial, the State employed “character assassination” against Darlie which could have prejudiced the jury and diverted them away from the facts of the case. Supporters of Darlie accused the prosecution of witness testimony manipulation. (The Darlie Routier Case Website, http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/HerProof/index.html, accessed June-July, 2015.) Further, Darlie’s court transcript contained countless typos, omissions, and material errors, which ultimately resulted in the state board decertifying the court reporter. (“Routier Court Reporter Decertified,” Lubbock Avanlache-Journal, http://lubbockonline.com/stories/060799/sta_060799013.shtml#.VaJyQflViko, June 7, 1999.) Many of the actions by the State weakened the impartiality of the judicial process and provided Darlie with numerous grounds on which to appeal.

Recently, a judge ordered additional forensic testing of various crime scene items. (Wilonsky, Robert, “CNN, new book and judge’s order shine fresh spotlight on convicted child-killer Darlie Routier,” The Dallas Morning News, http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2015/07/cnn-new-book-and-judges-order-shine-fresh-spotlight-on-convicted-child-killer-darlie-routier.html/, July 13, 2015.) If the testing discovers unaccounted for DNA, it could result in Darlie receiving a new trial. However, the facts of the case have not changed. People seem to think they have the ability to know whether someone is capable of murder or not. Personality traits and gut instinct factor significantly in this determination. No one wants to believe a kind and caring person could also kill. It is much easier to deny or discredit evidence than change the very foundation of security and belief one has.

Darlie slept in the living room because Drake’s moving and crying in his crib disrupted her sleep. Yet, she claimed to have slept through the brutal murders of her two children and the attack against her. It does not seem like Darlie should have had any problem sleeping near a crying baby. Darlie’s story collides with common sense and logic. One must also suspend reason and ignore the forensic evidence to believe her version of events.

 

johntJohn W. Taylor writes in the true crime genre at www.truecrimewriting.com. He has written short pieces and articles on the death of Marilyn Monroe, JFK, and Martin Luther King, Jr., among others.  John wrote and published Umbrella of Suspicion: Investigating the Death of JonBénet Ramsey and Isolated Incident: Investigating the Death of Nancy Cooper in 2012 and 2014, respectively. 

John’s interest in the darker side of human nature has compelled him to conduct numerous research and writing projects on various unsolved crimes.  He currently resides in Raleigh, North Carolina. 

 

 

 

116 Responses to The Deep Sleeper – Darlie Routier’s Plight for Innocence

  1. Perugia Murder File (@PerugiaMurderFi) says:

    There are a couple of mistakes, but otherwise this is a very well written piece. Fairly objective and even-handed.

    Although it is most likely that Darlie killed her children, it is difficult to say with absolute certainty.

    • PatrickHMoore says:

      I also appreciate the even-handed quality of this article. Rather a rare quality, I would say among true crime folks.

      • jezmyopinion says:

        Mr. Moore I’ve very much enjoyed your writings as well :) This is a very even piece without tons of speculation. I wonder if Mr. Taylor is aware that Darlie Routiers latest round of DNA testing released June 17, 2015 also show zero evidence of an intruder..

        • PatrickHMoore says:

          Thanks, Jez. I think he probably is aware of that. I was impressed by the even-handed way in which Mr. Taylor tackles this complex case.

    • sarah line says:

      This case should have been thrown out long ago. As soon as the lead investigator took the 5th,their credibility was zero as far as I’m concerned. And once the prosecutor manipulated that cemetery tape and only showed the 2nd half which is the birthday party and omitted the 2 hrs of service and crying, they lost me completely.

      • jezmyopinion says:

        Sarah. There is no memorial tape other than the back shot the police got. They also got the right murderer.
        Mary Kelly. She was sleeping downstairs because she was such a light sleeper that little Drake rolling in his crib would wake her up. So that dog just won’t hunt.

      • cindy says:

        So lets let the child killer go free? Another OJ case for you. You must be happy he was found innocent by all the defense BS

      • raynjuls says:

        The investigator took the 5th because there was a question about whether the recording of the cemetery tape was legal. The “second half” of the memorial was recorded by a TV station that the family invited. Learn the case if you are going to comment on it.

    • Concerned Citizen says:

      John Taylor (the writer of the article) obviously believes in Darlie’s guilt, and was very selective in leaving out all of the evidence that contradicts the prosecutors & police’s account of events.
      He also conveniently dismissed information about Life Insurance, Darin’s failed polygraph, Darin soliciting a burglary of his own home, and a series of sexual assaults by a wan wearing socks on his hands in the neighborhood during time of this attack, among plenty of other evidence that raises adequate reasonable doubt to Darlie’s guilt.
      If Texas is going to be so hell-bent on executions, they’d better be damned sure about a party’s guilt.
      It is striking to me how much police did not investigate other options and did not pursue this event fully to arrive at the Truth!
      #Biased #NotHelpful #Incomplete

      • Tara De Courcey says:

        You are so right none of them have anything to say when confronted with real tangible evidence. They are merely groupies of the state. This is a women’s life we are talking about and her youngest son who lost his brother and has been kept from his mother his whole life. However they find it acceptable to condemn because they don’t particularly like Darlie or a based misguided sense of justice/retribution. Yet when confronted with the evidence that she is innocent they ignore it. As I said a misguided sense of justice

      • cindy says:

        Concerned citizen…please advise what evidence does not point to her guilt? Darins Blood was not at the crime scene he had no bloody clothes he did not take a shower. Darlies story changed all the time. Did you read her testimony at trial? Do you think OJ was innocent too?

  2. “However, if she did kill her children, her injuries were consistent with her other vicious, psychopathic actions.”

    Hardly. Psychopaths (and there is no indication whatsoever in Darlie’s past that she could be capable of such an act ) are generally self-centered, and very rarely self-harm, let alone in such a dangerous way.

    I note that the author has written about the JonBénet Ramsey case. It has recently become clear that this was the work of the serial killer Edward Wayne Edwards, see https://www.facebook.com/notes/edward-wayne-edwards-serial-killer/jonbenet-ramsey-case/1656952364523701

  3. Rick says:

    Interesting article, John. I always thought that the evidence was inconsistent with Darlie’s story.

  4. mary kelly says:

    I’ve gone without sleep for a night and the next night you’d better have an atom bomb if you want to wake me. The tv was on and something really loud could have been playing but Darlie and the kids were able to tune out this stuff. Moreover, the kids were asleep when they were stabbed so there would have been no sound.

    • jezmyopinion says:

      Well Darlie was such a light sleeper that Drake moving in his crib would wake her so that’s why she slept downstairs. A light sleeper wouldn’t sleep through what when on there. Darlie killed Devon & Damon.

  5. […] The Deep Sleeper – Darlie Routier’s Plight for Innocence […]

  6. Tara says:

    Hi, I am a student taking a course in Crime and The Media and have been assigned to interview someone who covers crime or who has covered crime for newspaper,radio,TV,Internet. I am interested to hear about anyone’s opinions and experience about the impact of media on the criminal justice system as a whole. Questions that I am looking for answers for:

    In your experience, what makes a “good” crime story or courtroom story?
    Who decides what goes “on the air” or in print after you get the story?
    What discrepancies have you found between what is reported and what actually occurred?
    What types of considerations come into play as you determine what is important to report, and what should be left out of the story?
    How do you check or confirm information you receive while investigating a story?
    What happens if there is an error in a story?
    What do you like best about being a crime reporter?
    What do you like least?
    What kind of relationship do you have with law enforcement? The courts?
    What are the main issues you face as a crime reporter?
    In terms of whether a story is newsworthy: How important is the gender of the victim or defendant to you and your news organization? Physical appearance? Age? Ethnic identity? Economic status? Celebrity status?

    Any answers to above questions would be greatly appreciated.

  7. Debbie says:

    I live within blocks of the Routiers. Never once did I doubt that she did this crime.

    • jezmyopinion says:

      I live 2 states away and had no doubt. The evidence and latest DNA leave no room for doubt. She definitely murdered Devon and Damon, not possible for it to have been any one else. Did you know her around the neighborhood for all her plasticity?

  8. Debora says:

    The one thing that I am perplexed about it is, how did her arms get covered with bruises? She has many, many injuries but the bruises on her arms were extreme. There weren’t just a couple of bruises here and there but huge bruises covering one arm and a huge on the other. I think she has way too many injuries for these to be self inflicted. More importantly, the jury did NOT see these photos. Do you think there would have been a different outcome if they had?

    • Natalie says:

      The fallacy ‘the jury didn’t see all the photo’s’ is a distortion perpetuated by Darlie’s camp and completely contradicts the court transcripts and what is published on Darlie’s web site…http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/index.html. Scroll down to the Defense Trial Exhibits and State Trial Exhibits and you will see what the jury saw. If one lone juror missed any of these photo’s I surmise he nodded off because you can’t miss it. Oddly, it is one lone juror out of twelve that proclaim this.

      • Tara De Courcey says:

        Even if they were shown some of the pictures they were not shown all of them. Even the ones they saw were ignored by jurors. They had already convicted Darlie in thier minds through speculation and character assassinations from Greg Davis. One juror admits on leeza show they were not interested in the evidence and were pretty much bored of the case and not really paying attention.

        • Natalie says:

          Given the emotional volatility of this crime, it’s very difficult to give credence to what was said on the Leeza show. However, due to your claim that a juror stated words to the effect that “they were not interested in the evidence and were pretty much bored of the case and not really paying attention.” I suffered through the show because I couldn’t fathom any juror not ‘being interested’ or ‘bored’ to the point of “not paying” attention when it involves the cold blooded murder of two beautiful innocent children. That said, you may want to re-check your facts because the information you just posted is flat out WRONG! You can attempt to debunk Greg Davis and the evidence all you want, he did his job and did it successfully…child killer Darlie Routier behind bars, still. Lastly, I think you’re being rather presumptive as to what was going through the 12 jurors heads and hearts…you weren’t one of them and you weren’t there. What I don’t quite understand is why people are beating a dead horse over a trial that took place 20 years ago…nothings changed in 20 years and it’s not going to either!!!!

        • Christine says:

          that is untrue, the transcripts clearly state that the photos were taken down the jury rail for all to see. Darlie’s injuries were the focus of her defence. One juror did not admit any such thing on the Leesa show, you must have watched a different show than I did because that one juror said she felt sorry for Darlie and had voted not guilty in the first straw vote. STop making things up, you have no idea what was in the jurors minds when they were deliberating.

      • CoffeeLover says:

        I clicked on the link you provided in your post. Did you notice that the M E listed the findings as 1,2,4,5,6,7 on Damon’s autopsy report? Either a typo (which is probably the case) or missing finding?

        • Natalie says:

          Awesome observation!! Shortly after posting that link I too noticed the #3 autopsy finding (stab wound of right mid back description)was missing. I did go on a hunt for a complete report of Damon’s autopsy. Here’s the link: http://murderpedia.org/female.R/images/routier-darlie/damon-routier-autopsy.pdf

          Good catch and thank you for presenting the opportunity to provide a link to the complete findings.

          • CoffeeLover says:

            Thank you for providing the link. I have read the other post on here and must say, I agree with you completely regarding this case. The killer is behind bars where she needs to be.

    • Natalie says:

      The bruises….you need to read Devon and Damon’s autopsy reports to get a clearer idea of the fight they put up. They didn’t merely lay there and allow their mother to stab them to death, they fought their little hearts out to stay alive. So, IMO, and this is only an opinion…Darlie is right handed and is the reason why her right arm sustained the greatest bruising. I think Damon and Devon kicked with all their might to get their murderer off of them. As well, if you would read the trial transcripts you would know the bruising on her left arm/hand is from a botched central line insertion at hospital and quite possibly received a few kicks too. That said, Darlie who proclaims she is a light sleeper, was a mere one foot and four feet away from her son’s, it completely defies logic that she could sleep through the sheer violent brutality of their murders.

      • jezmyopinion says:

        Excellent post, Natalie. I couldn’t agree more!

        • Natalie says:

          Hiya Jez and thanks for the kind words….right back at you! You’re posts are right in line with the facts of this case. It’s been within this last year that I’ve gotten interested in this case and being a bit more vocal. Rather than reading any books or delving into blogs, I went straight for the transcripts along with any and all documents I could find….figured I’d rather form my own opinion from facts rather than getting a tainted or jaded view from an author. Anyhoo, after all of the reading, my verdict…the jury got it right. Anyone who is interested in truly learning the facts needs to start with the transcripts! Thanks again Jez…be seeing you around:)

          • Natalie says:

            Hey hey Jez, as the old saying goes…out of the frying pan and into the fire! I agree Tara is so ardent and misguided in her beliefs that regardless of what I put forth she’ll never grasp the totality of the evidence. But through her, if I can answer questions for others and put to rest that the murderer of Damon and Devon is right where she should be, I’m willing. After all, to me this debate has nothing to do with Darlie and EVERYTHING to do with Damon and Devon. Hard to believe they would be young adults had Darlie not taken their lives.

        • Natalie says:

          Ha…what I didn’t mention in the post above is that I agreed to a debate of the evidence with Tara. Call me crazy:p

      • Tara De Courcey says:

        You have got it all wrong, look at the evidence properly. If she is right handed how did she inflict the wound to her neck. Maybe she is double jointed as well as a dumb blonde evil genius. Even the M.E had to admit on the stand that if she had died he would have labeled them as defensive wounds. You can also see in one picture that Darlie has a slice on her hand consistent with grabbing the blade. Do your research and I’m not talking hearsay or rumour I’m talking trial transcripts DNA reports crime scene photos.

        • Natalie says:

          I’m gonna try to type this without laughing…You say that in one picture that Darlie has a slice on her hand consistent with grabbing the blade. Are you serious?? That’s a mere paper cut!!!

          Darlie’s neck scratch…obviously Darlie’s right hand didn’t know what her left hand was doing.

          And again you’re being mighty presumptive about my research…I have not, nor will I ever refer you to a Leeza Gibbons show! Gimme a break!!!

          • Tara De Courcey says:

            I have read all the transcripts seen the ctime scene photos (some not shown to the jury) and yes i have also seen mant documentaries, films , talk shows etc portraying thua case. I have seen it from every perspective. You people are relying mainly on the transcripts which were and are unreliable at best (I have marked numerous mistakes that still exist in them). A psychic detective and the key stone cops got complete tunnel vision. What evidence is there she is guilty…….none. Her neck wound was not a scrath it was 1mm from the catroid artery meaning it was superficial to the carotid artery, not ”superficial’ in general(as the prosecution would have you believe) it cut through the carotid sheath which is a thin layer covering the artery. You have no actual answer for her neck would just that she’s super Darlie. Who’s bloody shoe/boot print was found behind the sofa? The tooth fairy’s.

          • Natalie says:

            You can spout off all you want about reading the transcripts and looking at the crime scene photo’s. Guess what….I have too. However, unlike you I tend to stick to FACTS and thus put ZERO credibility into documentaries, films or talk shows. That said, in perusing your many nonsensical posts, it’s quite apparent that you, on the other hand, rely heavily on these documentaries, films and talk shows because essentially most of what you claim as ‘fact’ are merely ‘hypothetical’s’ espoused by sensational journalistic endeavors…and all these people want to do is create controversy to line their pockets. As for your crime scene photo’s assertion, that too is banal and sophomoric. If you have ever been a jurist then you will know that EVERYTHING presented during trial (that’s including your so called ‘never shown to the jury’ crime scene photo’s) is available to the jury during deliberation…dot, period, end of sentence. I believe you’re giving too much credit to the various ‘designed for profit’ talking heads and one lone juror…you, me, the media pundits or authors were not in the deliberation chamber and therefore cannot say with 100% certainty that the stories are true, nor should anyone talk as though it is true/fact. Now if the majority of the jurors came forward with the same claim, THEN I would give that claim some weight. However, that has not been the case for the past 20 years. End of argument.

          • jezmyopinion says:

            Agree with you comepletely, Natalie. Tara either ignores or doesn’t want to see that everything points to Darlie. Nothing at all points to anyone else. I would think that she is Kee or Rae or the others, but Tara can spell properly ;)I won’t be replying to her anymore as she doesn’t know iota about the murderer of Damon and Devon, she just likes the verbal jousting. Have a great game day, Natalie!

          • Natalie says:

            Your ‘psychic detective and the key stone cops’ comments, along with your transcript argument, are very old and redundant too. Good on you for marking ‘the numerous mistakes that still exist’ in the transcript, but believe you could have spared yourself a lot of time and headache if you simply used the FOIA to get a copy of the Susan Simmons transcript. The tunnel visioned police work…apparently the Jury (the ONLY people who matter) didn’t see it the same way you do.

          • Natalie says:

            You ask, what evidence is there she is guilty?….what an utterly ridiculous question!!! You claim to have read the transcripts. In fact, you claim to be so in-depth with the transcripts that you’re marking errors that still exist. If you can’t see the forest through the trees in those transcripts, I’m certainly not going to waste my time and energy ‘explaining’ the evidence, only to say it’s there and nothing in the past 20 years has changed it. The SUPERFICIAL scratch on Darlie’s neck and the carotid sheath….may I refer you to Dr. Santos’ testimony. I suggest you read it Tara because it completely contradicts your down and out BS beliefs that you obtained from documentaries, films and talk shows. Are you sure you’ve been researching this case for the past 15 years…I’m not buying it! The bloody shoe/boot print….I’ll have to RESEARCH that as I am not familiar with it. Money, marbles or chalk says I’ll blast that little piece of Leeza Gibbons show propaganda out of the ballpark though. For future reference, if you want to have a discussion with me again, please don’t show up with this type of drivel. If this is all you know after studying this case for 15 years, I’d prefer if you just passed me by. However, if you wish to converse/debate matters of substance, I welcome it. Thank you.

        • Natalie says:

          Well Tara, seems this is your debate platform of choice as you have conveniently gone silent since our agreement to debate this elsewhere. Your claim that ‘the M.E,’ had to admit on the stand that if Darlie had died “he” would have labeled them as defensive wounds…

          Firstly, there were two ME’s and they are both female…Dr. Joni McClain and Dr. Janis Townsend-Parchman. There was NO male ME. Of the two women ME’s, neither stated your ‘defensive wounds’ claim.

          If there is anyone that needs to stop talking hearsay, rumor and all around tabloid nonsense, it’s YOU. Thus far two claims you have made are devoid of any fact and are down and out lies….why? Next up your ‘unidentified bloody boot print behind the couch.’

        • Natalie says:

          Tara De Courcey asks “Who’s bloody shoe/boot print was found behind the sofa? The tooth fairy’s.”

          15 years of studying the evidence and you can’t answer that question. Let me help you. May I please refer you to James Cron testimony volume 35…

          24 Q. Okay. Mr. Cron, let me ask you now,
          25 if at any time you went back into the family room area
          Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
          2251

          1 and observed carpet in that room?
          2 A. Yes, I did.
          3 Q. Did you have an opportunity to observe
          4 the section of the carpet that would be behind the west
          5 couch, between the couch and the windows that lead to the
          6 back yard?
          7 A. I did.
          8 Q. Did you observe anything when you
          9 looked at that, sir?
          10 A. Yes.
          11 Q. What did you see back there?
          12 A. Well, on the carpet there were several
          13 smudges, some of them in the appearance of heels of foot
          14 wear.
          15 Q. Okay. And, do you know what was done
          16 with that section of the carpet?
          17 A. Yes. While I was there it was cut
          18 out.
          19 Q. Okay. Did you recommend that that be
          20 done?
          21 A. Yes.
          22 Q. Okay. Now, did you ever have an
          23 opportunity to — well, did you have an opportunity to
          24 look at the section of carpet after it had been cut out?
          25 A. I did.
          Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
          2252

          1 Q. Did you also have an opportunity again
          2 to look at all of the impressions, the shoe impressions
          3 left by all of the emergency personnel back there?
          4 A. Yes.
          5 Q. Were you ever able to determine who

          6 left the shoe prints or the impressions back there on
          7 that section of the carpet behind the couch?
          8 A. Yes.
          9 Q. Okay. And how did you do that?
          10 A. I had not only the carpet, but
          11 photographs taken of the prints on the carpet. I had
          12 then enlarged to their actual size, true size. Using
          13 them, I compared them with the foot wear impressions of
          14 everybody at the scene that morning.
          15 Q. Okay. And what was the result?

          16 A. The results: Three of them are
          17 consistent, or the three patterns are consistent with
          18 being the boot pattern of the paramedic. And I probably
          19 have some trouble pronouncing his name, but I know his
          20 nickname.
          21 Q. What is his nickname?
          22 A. Toad.

          The bloody fingerprint…it’s an impartial print and has been claimed to be too smudged to read. However, if Darlie’s Appellate team think it’s worth pursuing then they will.

    • Tara De Courcey says:

      Debora the reason why it seems strange is because it isn’t logical. She is innocent the prosecutors want to think that their version of events is logical, but if you really look at all the evidence (which I have seen)……its not! Because she didn’t do it.

    • jezmyopinion says:

      She either bruised her own arms on the rails of the hospital bed or the boys were kicking trying to stop their “mother” while she brutally stabbed them.

      • Tara De Courcey says:

        Natalie that was a great long speach but you still have not mentioned what evidence they have of her guilt? As for seeing the pictures why did the state try to imply there was no blood on the sofa where Darlie was lying, I have seen it, its all on the end and on her pillow and pillow case. The bloody shoe/boot print behind the sofa was testified to by Charles Lynch, they took the carpet but didn’t do anything with it. Various unidentified fingerprints.(also in the transcripts). The knife had none of Devons blood on it. Blood transfers in the garage leading to the cut screen (ignored). James Chron the so called fingerprint expert that can’t identify fingerprints and lied on the stand implying the bloody fingerprint was one of the boys with no verification of his claims as the did not fingerprint the boys. If the boys were fighting back as Jez claims why not take clippings of thier fingernails?
        Pubic hair found in the living room, never tested. The sock found down the alley who’s limb hair is it (its been proven not Darin’s or Darlie’s). There was also elk hair found in the sock where did that come from?

        • Natalie says:

          Tara, you are exhausting! And perhaps against my better judgment, I’m willing to take on your challenge. You wanna go toe to toe and re-hash the evidence in this trial, I’m game. Before any decision is made though, there needs to be ground rules. Other than keeping this civil and courteous, there are two things that are important to me.

          1) We both need to cite our source(s) so that we can fact check each other. For example…you mentioned the juror on the Leeza Gibbons show saying they didn’t care about the evidence and weren’t paying attention and bored. I watched that Leeza Gibbons show and the juror said nothing remotely close to what you claim.

          2) We need to tackle each point one at a time. The laundry list of what about this, that and the other, like the one above, is hugely overwhelming and in this forum it would be impossible to give each point it’s just debate without monopolizing Mr. Taylor’s site.

          That said and in all fairness, I’ll abide by whatever ground rules you deem important. If you’re game, I’ll gladly set up a FB page for you and I to debate. What do you say?

          • Tara De Courcey says:

            Natalie I am not sure about setting up a Facebook page but i do understand that it will be long winded for the page. I know your stuck on the leeza gibbons thing but trust me that is just something I noticed that the jurors were outside alot and even conversing with family members. It was Darin’s mum that mentioned it that they werent paying attention because they were outside smoking, one juror didn’t seem to deny it. So that is where I came to conclusion that they were getting bored and not paying attention and yes that is my own opinion. However other evidence that I talk of is fact it’s in the crime scene photos from the transcripts or documents affidavits some of which I have printed. So I can reference the evidence however as you know some of it has been removed from the internet. However I am happy to post documents etc. The only rule I have is that it is not personal. I don’t like the name calling etc I am just interested in debating this case. As you said I am passionate you say misguided but that’s how I feel of your opinions. So I will take u up on it we may never aggree one way or another but I respect that you have your own opinion even though I do not aggree with it and would ask you to do the same.

          • Natalie says:

            I’m not a name caller either so think we’ll manage this just fine. Agreed…debate on! Sorry Mr. Taylor but it looks like Tara and I are going to be taking this page by storm.

            Without seeming presumptive Tara, it seems to me your burning question to me has been what evidence is there that Darlie is guilty. If you’re ok with it, I’d like to tackle that question first. Because there’s so much evidence, I’ll need time and also because I work a 7 night rotation of which I’m in the middle of right now. Patience is a virtue:)

        • Natalie says:

          The state did not imply that there was no blood on the sofa that Darlie slept on. What was said is the blood evidence on the sofa doesn’t match up with Darlie’s turn of events.

          Charles Lynch didn’t testify about the bloody boot print, that was James Cron and something was done with it and it turned out to be Paramedic Koschak’s boot print.

          There are three unidentified fingerprints…one belonged to Darin, another Darin could NOT be ruled out as the contributor and the third one was consistent with a small child. However, it is a small impartial smudged print, characteristic to a child. James Cron didn’t lie on the stand.

          I’ll have to research the ‘blood transfer in the garage’ as I don’t know anything about it.

          Agree with none of Devon’s blood on the knife but to me that doesn’t negate from Darlie’s guilt.

          It’s standard practice in murder investigations to check under the nails so your point holds no weight. More than likely it was Darlie’s DNA under Damon and Devon’s nails, but her defense team could have argued that effectively. However, had the DNA belonged to an intruder, Darlie’s defense team would have stood a chance at proving her innocence. Actually, had it been an intruders DNA this forum, and others like it, wouldn’t be here.

          The pubic hair, elk hair and limb hair….Darlie’s Appellate team can have a go at it. Very flimsy ‘evidence’ that doesn’t prove Darlie’s innocence whereas everything else proves her guilt.

        • Christine says:

          “The bloody shoe/boot print behind the sofa was testified to by Charles Lynch, they took the carpet but didn’t do anything with it.” And you say you know this case? Do you just willfully ignore it was Cron who testified about the shoe/boot print and that he compared it with the soles of all the people at the crime scene and matched it to the paramedic who treated Devon as testified to before the jury at trial.

          “The knife had none of Devons blood on it. ”

          Wrong again, the four areas of the knife tested had none of Devon’s blood, not the whole knife.

          “Blood transfers in the garage leading to the cut screen (ignored). ”

          Wrong again, you need to stop reading Media Tried Justice Denied as that big red stain is koolaid or melted ice pops as testified to before the jury at trial. The tiny bit of dried blood was a transfer from a cop’s shoe.

          “James Chron the so called fingerprint expert that can’t identify fingerprints and lied on the stand implying the bloody fingerprint was one of the boys with no verification of his claims as the did not fingerprint the boys.”

          Wrong again, and you said you studied these transcripts? Cron testified the print was small and had small ridges and not enough points to be identified, smudged in blood. He also testified before the jury that it was “possible” it belonged to a juvenile due to the smallness of the ridges.

          “Pubic hair found in the living room, never tested. The sock found down the alley who’s limb hair is it (its been proven not Darin’s or Darlie’s). There was also elk hair found in the sock where did that come from?”

          Wrong wrong wrong again, I love how you think you now this case, LOL.

          The pubic hair has been tested, it didn’t match anyone at the crime scene. And it also has no date on it to tell us when it was deposited not in the living room but on the green mat in front of the sink.

          The limb hair has not been tested so it’s impossible that it has been proven not be D or D’s.

          The elk hair? I’ve seen many photos of Darin and Drake with deer parts in their hands and the sock was outside, it could have fallen on the elk/deer hair, LOL.

        • cindy says:

          You are obviously so uninformed to say there is no evidence that she committed this crime. Most of what you say is not true. They tested more DNA in this case than any other in Texas history and could find no evidence of an intruder. You need to educate yourself on facts before you put lies out there.

  9. […] The Deep Sleeper – Darlie Routier’s Plight for Innocence […]

    • Tara De Courcey says:

      Hi Natalie, I wasn’t insinuating you were a name caller its just that some people online are which isn’t helpful in a debate. Do you think we should do the Facebook thing as I think it will be easier for me to post documents etc. Good idea to start with the evidence against her and then I can offer evidence that I think contradicts the states case. As you said patience is a virtue I work full time and have a child/house etc to run but I am up for the debate.

      • Natalie says:

        Hiya Tara! The FB deal sounds great! will definitely be easier as you say to post documents, audio and visual clips. If you’re concerned with privacy simply create a mock account for the debate page or adjust you settings to block your content from me. I have 3 more rotations to work so will get a FB page going Thur or Fri. Take care and looking forward to chatting with you:)

        • Tara De Courcey says:

          Hi Natalie I will set up a mock page so that it gives us both confidentiality. Let me know what your page is and I will add you. Take your time I know how busy life gets and believe it or not my life doesn’t revolve around the Routier case either. Take care too and i look forward to chatting :)

        • PatrickHMoore says:

          I’m really excited over the way you and Natalie are working together on this fascinating case even though you have opposite viewpoints on Ms. Routier’s culpability. I find this really inspiring.

          • Tara De Courcey says:

            Hi Patrick, thankyou for your kind post. I guess this case is so emotionally sensitive that there are alot of strong opinions and there seems to be a clear divide between those of us who think she is innocent and those who think she’s guilty. However I think you are right that it is a healthy way to tackle this. I am also exicited and interested to see how this goes. What is your view on this case?

          • Natalie says:

            Hi Mr. Moore and thank you for the encouraging words! I have created a debate page for Tara and I (https://www.facebook.com/TheDarlieDebate/). While the page is open to the public for view, I’m keeping the comments closed to only Tara and myself for now.

            All in all, Tara’s comment on your post sums it up perfectly…there is a strong divide and we are both looking forward to a healthy debate. Take care Mr. Moore and thanks again for taking the time to cheer Tara and I on.

          • PatrickHMoore says:

            Good stuff!

  10. Tara De Courcey says:

    Great writing style. However none of what you have said and your conclusions are consistent with the evidence. Darlie’s shirt has been retested using mitochondrial DNA analysis and the results show that only Darlie’s blood is on the shirt apart from the three small specks that are on top of Darlie’s blood. This leads me to believe that Darlie was attacked first. If it was murder/suicide why would she cut herself first then stab the boys. Also if this was the case her blood would have been all over the boys. I believe Darlie was attacked in her sleep and she would not be able to know a strict sequence of events due to trauma. I have seen & read everything in this case and I am sorry to say you are soooo far off. I could go on and on I could debunk every one of your theories based on evidence not speculation.

    • jezmyopinion says:

      No need to go on and on Tara. You obviously have not studied this case over the last 19 years and 4 months as you are very far off. The evidence speaks for itself. The boys were brutally butchered while Darlie had a few self inflicted scratches. DNA has shown yet again, that there was no intruder. Only Darlie. Even Darin knew it was Darlie as soon as he came downstairs. Listen to how angry she gets as soon as he asked her what she had done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDQOAj1LeqU All of the evidence points only to Darlie.

      • Natalie says:

        Well said Jez. IMHO, anyone that uses a Leeza show as a ‘go to’ source, definitely needs to brush up on their research. The sad part, I fell for it…a stomach churning 115 minutes of Leeza.

        • jezmyopinion says:

          I know, right? Another supporter that hasn’t even read the first page of the transcripts and makes up the rest as they go along. Up next? Name calling :)

          • Tara De Courcey says:

            I don’t do name calling I do facts and trust me have read every page of the transcripts. It’s not personal I am just passionate about this case and to me to think she is guilty after you’ve read everything and seen the photographs is completely illogical.

        • Natalie says:

          Tara, these past 48 hours has taught me that you haven’t even scratched the surface of any type of research. Your ‘facts’, as you call them, are tabloidish at best but certainly NOTHING to do with what actual facts of this case.

      • Tara De Courcey says:

        I have studied this case over 15years actually and all the evidence speaks for itself. Who’s unidentified fingerprints all over the house, some in blood?
        Who’s bloody shoe/boot print behind the sofa Darlie was sleeping on?
        Who’s pubic hair was found In the living room but never tested? Who’s li.b hair was found on the sock? New d a results on the sock show that they are not Darin and Darlie’s.

        • jezmyopinion says:

          All the fingerprints???? LOL Darlie was not ruled out from the ONE (single) bloody print. It is smudged and therefore unidentifiable, but it is small so it’s probably hers. The spelling errors in the transcripts don’t matter to me. The lack of a single hair or anything from her invisible intruder speaks louder than any of her changing stories. The DNA released this summer show zero evidence of an intruder. There was no intruder, just a very angry Darlie. Darin was broke and leaving her – he told her that very night before he went upstairs to bed.

          • Tara De Courcey says:

            If you read the transcript there are several unidentified fingerprints found at the crime scene on the screen, on the glass door in the patio, on the garage door both in blood and on the table. Unfortunately the great Insector chron who was actually supposed to be a fingerprint e left not a crime scene veteran(as he calls himself) couldn’t identify not one print… That’s Bull right there!!!

          • Natalie says:

            Tara, to your credit and the one thing I believe is that you are passionate about this case…no denying that. However, I can’t help but shake my head because your passion is sooooo misguided.

        • Natalie says:

          WRONG on the DNA from the sock….

          Item 10-2589.5C – cutting of diffuse stain from sock with possible blood

          Therein it states Darin Routier or any PATRILINEAL relative of Darin Routier CANNOT BE EXCLUDED as the contributor of the Y-chromosone DNA from 10-2589.5C.

          There is ZERO mention of anyone else’s DNA, only that of Darin’s and/or one or both of his son’s. No phantom ‘third person or intruder’ DNA is tainting this sock. Let me repeat that, the ONLY MALE DNA on that sock is Darin’s and/or Damon’s and/or Devon’s….PERIOD!

          One thing that has always struck me as odd is Darlie claims she only woke once Damon pushd on her shoulder and said ‘mommy’….why then is there none of Damon’s blood on the shoulder of her shirt yet quite plainly he left a bloody hand print on the carpet???

    • I believe you could go on and on. I don’t believe you could debunk anything, though. Since you haven’t so far.

      And the idea that Darlie was attacked first is the height of illogical and speculation. So I’d work on that ole “pot calling the kettle black” thing you’ve got going.

      • Tara De Courcey says:

        The boys blood is on top of Darlie’s so then you explain how she cut her own throat first then stabbed the boys ran down the alley leaving none of her own blood. The new DNA Results show that the hair found on the sock is not Darlie’s or Darin’s.

        • jezmyopinion says:

          And I can’t believe anyone can study this case and not find her guilty. No logic in that.
          We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I can’t change your mind and you can’t change mind.Have a nice day.

          • Tara De Courcey says:

            Sounds to me like you’ve all just had a quick flick through the transcripts and come to your (the states) conclusion. I find that alot of ‘Darlie haters’ can’t have an adult debate on the situation because thier theories fall apart when you remove character judgments and prejudice.

        • You’re lying about what the blood evidence is, and about what it would show even if what you said wasn’t a lie. So you’re not doing too well.

          • Tara De Courcey says:

            I am not lying about the blood evidence its all in the states original DNA testing done by SWIFTS and the new DNA. There are 3 drops of the boys blood on Darlie’s shirt, one the size of a pin head. Which tells me that Tom Bevels raising her arm while stabbing them is complete rubbish. The rest of the shirt is Darlie’s blood.Where is the so called ‘cast off”. Them three spots of blood are suspicious to say the least.

          • It’s your lies which are suspicious. But at least you admit Darlie never got close enough to her dying, bleeding sons to get any appreciable amount of their blood on her. She just left them to bleed to death on the floor, while concerning herself with whether or not there were fingerprints on the murder weapon.

          • Tara De Courcey says:

            Once again it is not lying when it is documented fact. Listen to full enhanced 911 tape the operator tells Darlie do not touch anything by which Darlie responds iv already picked up the knife. That comment was not said in isolation. Moreover Walling was lying when he said he told her numerous times to help the boys. The only thing he does is ask her to sit down or lay down. Anyway I have nothing to prove to you. Just reading the transcripts does not give you a full picture of the evidence etc. I have compared evidence and crime scene pictures with DNA and transcripts its all there for anyone to view. Some of which is the states own evidence go look it up.

          • Natalie says:

            @Tara De Courcey…your 15 years of studying this case has not served you well. So indepth with the transcripts that you’re making corrections that still exist and yet you haven’t yet produced one single provable fact in this forum….and you never will. Truth is Tara, you’re the one who ‘had a quick flick’ through the transcripts. It’s your theories that have fallen apart under scrutiny. See what happens when you rely solely on talk shows, documentaries and films’.

            The DNA evidence you claim excludes Darlie and Darin….WRONG again Tara. The DNA testing completed June 17, 2015 does not exclude Darlie, Darin or any patrilineal relative of Darin. More importantly, there is no ‘intruder’ DNA to be found. But don’t take my word for it, read here…https://youcouldbewrong.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/dr-06262015103716.pdf.

            After 20 years in the Appellate process in which Darlie and her team have to produce irrefutable evidence of her innocence and still nothing…and always be nothing as Darlie is the murderer of Damon and Devon.

  11. Tara De Courcey says:

    That’s the problem you are all so easy to condemn but yet you can’t answer any questions relating to the evidence. It’s all about bullying with you people because people don’t agree with your made up version of events. Why won’t they let everything get tested if she’s guilty why not prove it. If the state are right why are they so scared of the evidence ?

    • jezmyopinion says:

      That’s the problem with are you fans of the Darlies. You bully those of us who have seen the light and understand that Batman didn’t float in there and do this. They can test and retest everything and it won’t clear her. As for the slowness of the testing, it costs money that her fans are not coughing up. Darlie is the one afraid of the evidence, that is why she had the DNA from June 2016 sealed. If the DNA results had cleared her you all would be screaming it from the roof tops. Just like the Lie detector test she took – not a peep. Now, have a nice life. Somewhere else.

      • Tara De Courcey says:

        Perugia Murder FileOnce again it is not lying when it is documented fact. Listen to full enhanced 911 tape the operator tells Darlie do not touch anything by which Darlie responds iv already picked up the knife. That comment was not said in isolation. Moreover Walling was lying when he said he told her numerous times to help the boys. The only thing he does is ask her to sit down or lay down. Anyway I have nothing to prove to you. Just reading the transcripts does not give you a full picture of the evidence etc. I have compared evidence and crime scene pictures with DNA and transcripts its all there for anyone to view. Some of which is the states own evidence go look it up.

        • Natalie says:

          Hey hey Tara….gonna sneak a comment in before giving you the debate page address. Since you bring up the enhanced 911 tape, give a listen at about the 53 sec mark….Darin arrives to the bloody scene in his livingroom with obvious distress in his voice followed by Darlie saying to Darin ‘I didn’t do anything….’ Later in the call, Darlie’s faux hysteria with the 911 operator changes decisively to a rather bitchy tone toward Darin stating ‘someone who did it intentionally walked in here and did it Darin’. Why on earth would Darlie feel compelled to not once but twice, declare/convince her husband that she didn’t kill Devon and Damon??? Secondly, given the dire nature of her children’s condition why wouldn’t she simply state my children have been stabbed, I need an ambulance. Instead, she stays on the phone well over 5 minutes TALKING instead of dropping the phone to help her dying sons.

          Anyhoo, the debate page….https://www.facebook.com/TheDarlieDebate/. Looking forward to meeting you!!

        • jezmyopinion says:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDQOAj1LeqU
          If my sons were dying I wouldn’t be on the phone talking about why the knife would have my prints (setting up alibi). I would be trying like hell to save my sons (unless, like Darlie, I had done it and was hoping like hell they would die before they could tell anyone that it was me) Why is she sooo pissed? Because Darin came downstairs and said “What the hell did you do”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDQOAj1LeqU

    • Benji says:

      Just want to say that Tara keeps speaking of logical or illogical.
      Using logic why were the boys stabbed with deep penetration wounds to vital organs but Darlie is not?
      Darlie herself does not describe an attack to account for her injuries. She describes a man walking not running out the utility room and followed him without regard for kids or calling for Darin till she realized the boys were hurt.
      Isn’t it logical that the dog would bark? That the boys put up a struggle? I can tell you that I am in tune with my kids and grandkids that I always hear them even when I sleep. I just find it illogical that something like this happens right next to you, you are attacked and the killer just walks out.

      • jezmyopinion says:

        Especially if you are a light sleeper as Darlie claimed she was. Also the footprints under the wine glass and the vacuum. The outside light on a time wasn’t on, knife with screen fibers back in the block and, of course, the clean up at the sink. Anyone who can’t see through her guilt just isn’t capable of seeing all of the evidence and DNA instead of listening to Darlie sing and prance.

  12. Tara De Courcey says:

    There’s blood all on the end of the sofa where Darlie was lying and on her pilllow right through the pillow case (i have the photos)and on the wall behind the sofa. That’s strange when she cut herself at the sink, did a bit of light cleaning, stabbed the boys, not forgetting running the hoover around (oh yeah she must of been trying to hoover up the blood). She knocked the table over, then she grabbed one of Darin’s socks running down the alley in her nightgown and barefoot without getting any dirt or gravel on her feet. Placed the sock on the floor by a bin hurried back to the house climbed through the screen she had cut earlier without leaving a trace. Go back in the kitchen smash a glass call for Darin and call 911. It doesn’t add up

    • Benji says:

      She wasn’t hoovering the blood. In her words she was using it to walk with and variations in the 911 call shows she was moving from room to room.
      I’ve never heard that putting wet towels on bleeding wounds does anything other than hamper clotting. And why clean the area around the sink? Testing shows it was wiped.

  13. Tara De Courcey says:

    LMAO Darlie didn’t have them sealed how could she. They were sealed by the court she is on Death row for heavens sake she couldn’t get an envelope sealed. This is what makes me laugh about her haters. One minute she is an evil criminal genius or shes a dumb trailer trash blonde what one is it?, you can’t have it both ways

  14. Tara De Courcey says:

    Why was Damon with his mother when he died if she had harmed him. He would have tried to get away tried to get to Darin. Once again it doest add up if his mother had just visciuosly stabbed him as you imply.

    • jezmyopinion says:

      He wasn’t with his murderous mother.

      • Natalie says:

        Agree completely Jez. My thought is Damon was trying to make it to the stairwell to get to his father upstairs…away from his murderous mother.

        • Benji says:

          And is it so hard to believe that the young boy still went to his mother because he couldn’t believe she was doing this. I see that all the time from abused kids in the ER. Mothers make the boo boo’s better even if they hurt them first.

  15. […] The Deep Sleeper – Darlie Routier’s Plight for Innocence […]

  16. Karen says:

    This piece was written obviously with the mindset of Darlie being guilty from the beginning instead of casting doubts on her guilt. Her bloody footprints was found? Obviously, she was bleeding. Was the intruder bleeding? No.

    Analysing the 911 clips of “someone” and “they” have you heard of “they/them” pronouns being used for someone who neither identifies and male or female. Yes it is normal to use these pronouns to describe an individual.

    I stopped reading there and then because it’s obvious that this article was not written from a neutral perspective but of one where you’ve decided from the start of her guilt making this a biased and one sided article no matter how long you wrote.

    • Mary says:

      That’s a rather broad statement, Karen. Could you be more specific in terms of what you disagree with in Taylor’s piece and why you disagree?

      • jezmyopinion says:

        Save your breath, Mary. Karen doesn’t even know the slightest facts of this case. She won’t discuss it, she just cruises the web saying Darlie is innocent and anyone who doesn’t think the same she bashes.

  17. Andrew says:

    I think her guilt is shown by her own comments.
    She was sleeping downstairs because her baby, crying and moving, was waking her up.
    But, she sleeps through her own attack from an ‘assailant’. And the murderous attacks on her two son’s.
    On that alone, her claims are very, very dubious.

    • jezmyopinion says:

      The latest DNA from last summer confirm her guilt again. She changed her story too many times trying to fit the facts as she learned what the cops were finding. Her time will be up within a year or two.

  18. Kelly-Ann says:

    One thing I’d like to know is how no one including Darin heard anything of the boys being stabbed – especially if she really did do it and they gave her the bruising she had on her hands and arms. Either way supposedly the autopsies show some defensive wounding, if so why was there no noise?
    Why does Darin wake at the sound of a glass smashing and not of the boys fighting back?

    I thought I heard or read Darlie imply that there was something shoved in her mouth during the attack she claims. Excluding that though (since she has amnesia or is guilty and made it up anyway), why did she chase someone through the house without uttering a sound?
    If that were me, I’d scream blue murder as soon as blink if there was an intruder. Unless her story really is true and she had already been fighting so there was no impulse to scream.

    I have just come across this case, find it fascinating, but can’t make sense of how she could not be guilty given the forensic evidence.

  19. Elizabeth says:

    Darin & Darlie Routier are both narcissistic/psychopaths & there’s NO need to try to explain the reason “Why” or “How” this happened. Unfortunately Devon & Damon was never loved the way they deserved & died a horrible death. I think they should paint murals of Devon & Damon all over her cell walls of the way both boys looked before their deaths & what they would look like as young adults today, then she would have to look at them everyday. It probably wouldn’t even bother her, because she’s a narcissist & they can not feel empathy, sympathy & definitely no love. Darin, needs to be locked up for covering up for Darlie. Neither one of them tried to help or comfort Damon, the son who was still alive when paramedics got there. Darin’s over there helping Devon, the one who was deceased. He claimed she was not guilty & would always stick by her side until she’s freed. He’s not supporting that today. He’s moved on with his life years ago. I feel sad for Drake, because he never got to know his brothers & was born to very dark & evil people – be careful around your dad Drake, very careful!!! U never know when he might loose it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.