Darlie Routier

[Sinsaint]

This doesn't give any details w.r.t. location or police report numbers or anything. It is simply assertion by defense attorneys. For all we know it could have happened in another state somewhere by someone's ex-boyfriend.

Moreover, the defense is complaining about not being given the incidents - isn't it their job to go find the incidents so they can create reasonable doubt? They are given a list of witnesses and they can depose them. It sounds like they are whining about not having done their own duties thoroughly.




Who is it? Who was convicted? I would read about his crimes in the context of the Routier case if I knew who it was.

The key word(s) in that paragraph are intruder and unknown assailant. If this guy were dating all these women he wouldn't be unknown to them and the crimes all occurred in the Dallas area as all the victims were taken to Parkland for their rape exams. Sammie Luckus Cook Jr. His appeal is on-line as well as an article about Gary Faison in which some of Cook's crimes are mentioned.

I beg to differ that they are just "whining" for not doing their own due diligence. For starters the issue is Brantley's testimony. He stated he had reviewed police reports in the geographical area looking for similarities to the Routier crime and had found none. Either he lied about how diligent his research was or he lied about there being no similar crimes. Any defendant, including Darlie, has the right to have only truthful testimony given against them.

Secondly, we don't know what Darlie's defense team had access to prior to her trial. All of these rapes were unsolved at that time and anyone who wanted to view the police reports may have been required to get a court order (common practice in most states if it's an ongoing investigation). You can't request a court order if you don't know what police reports you want to view. I remember debating with a woman on another message board who claimed to live in Dallas at the time and was emphatic no rapists were trolling the area during that time. Clearly there were at least three (or four including one traveling rapist who claims he returned to the Dallas area on occasion to rape women) active serial rapists in the area at that time and it wasn't exactly public knowledge.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

The key word(s) in that paragraph are intruder and unknown assailant. If this guy were dating all these women he wouldn't be unknown to them and the crimes all occurred in the Dallas area as all the victims were taken to Parkland for their rape exams. Sammie Luckus Cook Jr. His appeal is on-line as well as an article about Gary Faison in which some of Cook's crimes are mentioned.

I beg to differ that they are just "whining" for not doing their own due diligence. For starters the issue is Brantley's testimony. He stated he had reviewed police reports in the geographical area looking for similarities to the Routier crime and had found none. Either he lied about how diligent his research was or he lied about there being no similar crimes. Any defendant, including Darlie, has the right to have only truthful testimony given against them.

Secondly, we don't know what Darlie's defense team had access to prior to her trial. All of these rapes were unsolved at that time and anyone who wanted to view the police reports may have been required to get a court order (common practice in most states if it's an ongoing investigation). You can't request a court order if you don't know what police reports you want to view. I remember debating with a woman on another message board who claimed to live in Dallas at the time and was emphatic no rapists were trolling the area during that time. Clearly there were at least three (or four including one traveling rapist who claims he returned to the Dallas area on occasion to rape women) active serial rapists in the area at that time and it wasn't exactly public knowledge.

Considering Darlie's was not a sexual attack, I would have to say these crimes to which you refer were not similar and that Brantley was correct. One guy was known as the box-cutter rapist, another had the women shower afterward and yet another bound his victims. I don't see where any of these fit the MO of a supposed intruder at the Routier's. Why would anyone be looking for a rapist anyway? Whoever killed those kids was not interested in rape at all.

 

[Sinsaint]

Considering Darlie's was not a sexual attack, I would have to say these crimes to which you refer were not similar and that Brantley was correct. One guy was known as the box-cutter rapist, another had the women shower afterward and yet another bound his victims. I don't see where any of these fit the MO of a supposed intruder at the Routier's. Why would anyone be looking for a rapist anyway? Whoever killed those kids was not interested in rape at all.

Considering the rape kit was lost along with her underwear no one knows if Darlie was raped or not. Whether she was raped or not is really a non-issue. The issue would be what the intruder intended to do regardless of his failed efforts. If Brantley was trying to do a true assessment of similar crimes he would have said "We have a woman who claims an unknown intruder entered her home. She isn't sure if she was sexually assaulted but claims she felt pressure down there. A kitchen knife from the home was used as a weapon in the attack. A sock from the home was found in the alley leading away from the house. Do the elements of this crime match the elements of any other crimes in the area?" Obviously they do.

As you pointed out, there are differences in the crimes. Focusing on the rapes that occurred in the victims' homes was every known victim of that rapist tied up? Did Darlie do something different (like not comply) that prevented the intruder from tying her up? Bruising indicates she fought back which might explain why she wasn't tied up. Was Darlie forced to shower after the attack? Was there any element of this crime that differed from the other known victims? Due to Darlie fighting back the intended rape may not have happened ergo no need to force her to wash the evidence away. The intruder also stabbed her (and subsequently her children) so fleeing the scene immediately would be a higher priority than sticking around to make his victim shower.

Most people are open to the obvious fact that a serial criminal will have slight variations in his crimes depending on how the situation unfolds.

 

[desmirelle]

Most people are open to the obvious fact that a serial criminal will have slight variations in his crimes depending on how the situation unfolds.

Yeah, but none of your candidates for the death penalty in this situation slaughtered children before, during, or after the "rape/attempted rape" you're floating as a motivating factor, right? You have to admit that is more than a 'slight variation' on the theme.


We have a house with a little yappy dog that made NO NOISE UNTIL THE OFFICERS ARRIVED; and the little yappy dog being silent tells me there were no intruders in the house.

 

[Samzilla]

Yeah, but none of your candidates for the death penalty in this situation slaughtered children before, during, or after the "rape/attempted rape" you're floating as a motivating factor, right? You have to admit that is more than a 'slight variation' on the theme.


We have a house with a little yappy dog that made NO NOISE UNTIL THE OFFICERS ARRIVED; and the little yappy dog being silent tells me there were no intruders in the house.

Charles Boney had never murdered women or children before either until he found himself in a situation where his usual assault circumstances changed.

 

[Sinsaint]

Yeah, but none of your candidates for the death penalty in this situation slaughtered children before, during, or after the "rape/attempted rape" you're floating as a motivating factor, right? You have to admit that is more than a 'slight variation' on the theme.


We have a house with a little yappy dog that made NO NOISE UNTIL THE OFFICERS ARRIVED; and the little yappy dog being silent tells me there were no intruders in the house.

So your argument is once a rapist, only ever a rapist? The Scarborough rapist never murdered any of his victims, until he did. Let's say a guy robs nineteen convenience stores at gun point. All the stores are in the New York City area. He has a southern accent and always wears red gloves. He never shot a single person in all nineteen robberies. Then there is a robbery in the New York City area of a convenience store where three people are shot. The only survivor claims the robber had a southern accent and wore red gloves. Is your argument going to be it can't be the same guy who robbed the other stores because he never killed anyone before? Or will you recognize that it most likely is the same guy but something about the circumstances of this robbery were different in some way and he decided to shoot people for some reason?

Scenario two: Desmirelle read her local paper one day and saw an article stating police are searching for a guy who is breaking into homes and raping women. Luckily he hasn't murdered any of his victims. Later that night Desmirelle falls asleep on her couch with her children camped out on the floor. At 2:00 a.m. Desmirelle wakes up to guy laying on top of her with a knife in his hand. Does Desmirelle say to herself "Gee, I've heard about this guy. Looks like I'm only going to get raped?" Or does Desmirelle say to herself "Oh my God, this guy could kill me and my kids. We could be his first murder victims." If you're honest with yourself you'll recognize that just because he didn't murder any of his previous victims doesn't mean he won't start with you. There's a first time for everything unless you think all murderers start out on their third kill.

And I have a big yappy dog. She has always been nice to people. Well, with the exception of the day she wasn't and decided to bite the UPS man. She always barks at anyone who pulls into the driveway. Just the other day my daughter's friend's dad pulled into the driveway, walked all the way through the basement, up the stairs, through the living room and into my kitchen all without me knowing. You know what my dog didn't do? Bark. I don't put much stock in the behavior of an animal.

 

[wasapi]

Wasapi, this is not very useful.
First catch rabbit, please do not describe the thread subject like this until we can all be sure she did the crime.
I think it is vanishingly unlikely, so you are engaging in circular argument like a hamster.
You may be correct, but Sinsaint seems to have all the sorts of counter arguments that prove you wrong, difficult though you will find it.

I guess I am confused. And I have been wrong - and admitted it - before on this board. See, I thought this was a "discussion" board, a place to share opinions. " . . . please do not describe the thread subject like this until we can all be sure she did the crime."

What? I can reenter the thread after everyone else agrees on guilt or not?

 

[Samson]

I guess I am confused. And I have been wrong - and admitted it - before on this board. See, I thought this was a "discussion" board, a place to share opinions. " . . . please do not describe the thread subject like this until we can all be sure she did the crime."

What? I can reenter the thread after everyone else agrees on guilt or not?

I did not mean to sound that way. My concern is more humanitarian, let us not recommend execution yet.
I consider it an appallingly conceived plan for financial gain, where there is very great difficulty imagining it will work without a slip up. Whenever I see this, eg Lundy, Bamber, Bain, Ewan MacDonald, I look for a data point they can't escape from. It seems the screen slashing is not that point if Sinsaint is correct, so we need another.

 

[Sinsaint]

I did not mean to sound that way. My concern is more humanitarian, let us not recommend execution yet.
I consider it an appallingly conceived plan for financial gain, where there is very great difficulty imagining it will work without a slip up. Whenever I see this, eg Lundy, Bamber, Bain, Ewan MacDonald, I look for a data point they can't escape from. It seems the screen slashing is not that point if Sinsaint is correct, so we need another.

10 Q. Okay. Did you ever form an opinion as
11 to whether or not you thought this cut had been made from
12 the outside looking in or from the inside of the garage
13 looking out?
14 A. There is one microscopic finding that
15 is more suggestive of it being punched from the outside.
16 The scanning electron micrograph in the top right of this
17 exhibit is a view of the back side, that would be the
18 view from inside the garage of the screen cross strands.
19 Now, the first cut occurs on that strand coming down,
20 right where you are indicating.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. Now, the strand to the right of that,
23 indicates a stress puncture. If the knife goes in and
24 that is the first strand that is cut, the strand next to
25 it is experiencing the force, in my opinion, going inward

Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2904

1 to the garage.
2 Q. So more suggestive of from the
3 outside?
4 A. Yes, sir.

 

[Samson]

10 Q. Okay. Did you ever form an opinion as
11 to whether or not you thought this cut had been made from
12 the outside looking in or from the inside of the garage
13 looking out?
14 A. There is one microscopic finding that
15 is more suggestive of it being punched from the outside.
16 The scanning electron micrograph in the top right of this
17 exhibit is a view of the back side, that would be the
18 view from inside the garage of the screen cross strands.
19 Now, the first cut occurs on that strand coming down,
20 right where you are indicating.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. Now, the strand to the right of that,
23 indicates a stress puncture. If the knife goes in and
24 that is the first strand that is cut, the strand next to
25 it is experiencing the force, in my opinion, going inward

Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2904

1 to the garage.
2 Q. So more suggestive of from the
3 outside?
4 A. Yes, sir.

Good. If someone is innocent in jail, there is a way to deconstruct each and every inculpatory item of evidence. This looks authentic.

 

[Sinsaint]

Good. If someone is innocent in jail, there is a way to deconstruct each and every inculpatory item of evidence. This looks authentic.

It's authentic. It's testimony from Charles Linch trace evidence analyst for SWIFS. He was a witness for the prosecution. He clearly states the evidence points to the screen being cut from the outside. Many people in the pro-guilt camp will constantly claim the screen was cut from the inside because 90% of readers on a message board won't have the energy to see if it's true or not. They will bring up the fiberglass rod on the bread knife as damning proof of her guilt but never mention that both Linch and Nabors lied about whether the knives had been dusted prior to his (Linch's) analysis. They will constantly point out her blood in the sink proves she cut herself there but they won't bother to tell anyone her blood was also found on her blanket and pillow that she was sleeping with on the couch. They tout the castoff stains on her shirt as proof she stabbed the boys but refuse to give an explanation for how her blood was mixed with Damon's if she cut herself last in the kitchen. No explanation for why Darlie would have picked up shards of glass from the staged broken wine glass and placed them in the wine bucket and on the tabletop of the wine rack. No explanation for how the first two police officers on the scene could see small, clear glass fragments on the kitchen floor but never saw a big vacuum cleaner laying right beside them.

Any second now someone will come rolling through here spewing the lie that the boys were stabbed with so much rage the cement slab under the carpet was chipped by the knife.

 

[Samson]

It's authentic. It's testimony from Charles Linch trace evidence analyst for SWIFS. He was a witness for the prosecution. He clearly states the evidence points to the screen being cut from the outside. Many people in the pro-guilt camp will constantly claim the screen was cut from the inside because 90% of readers on a message board won't have the energy to see if it's true or not. They will bring up the fiberglass rod on the bread knife as damning proof of her guilt but never mention that both Linch and Nabors lied about whether the knives had been dusted prior to his (Linch's) analysis. They will constantly point out her blood in the sink proves she cut herself there but they won't bother to tell anyone her blood was also found on her blanket and pillow that she was sleeping with on the couch. They tout the castoff stains on her shirt as proof she stabbed the boys but refuse to give an explanation for how her blood was mixed with Damon's if she cut herself last in the kitchen. No explanation for why Darlie would have picked up shards of glass from the staged broken wine glass and placed them in the wine bucket and on the tabletop of the wine rack. No explanation for how the first two police officers on the scene could see small, clear glass fragments on the kitchen floor but never saw a big vacuum cleaner laying right beside them.

Any second now someone will come rolling through here spewing the lie that the boys were stabbed with so much rage the cement slab under the carpet was chipped by the knife.

That is interesting because Charlie Wilkes earlier in the thread said,

I don't know, but I'd like to have about 10 times more crime scene photos than what I have seen over the years. One of the problems with her story is that she says she was sleeping on the couch when she was stabbed or cut with the knife. The photos I have seen don't show any blood on the couch, and you'd sure expect to see some.

Her supporters say there was blood on the couch, but it doesn't show in the photos, and the couch was discarded after the crime. Kind of like the windshield on Kennedy's limo...

So that seems to be answered.

 

[Sinsaint]

That is interesting because Charlie Wilkes earlier in the thread said,

I don't know, but I'd like to have about 10 times more crime scene photos than what I have seen over the years. One of the problems with her story is that she says she was sleeping on the couch when she was stabbed or cut with the knife. The photos I have seen don't show any blood on the couch, and you'd sure expect to see some.

Her supporters say there was blood on the couch, but it doesn't show in the photos, and the couch was discarded after the crime. Kind of like the windshield on Kennedy's limo...

So that seems to be answered.

https://darliefacts.com/gallery/#jp-carousel-1546

https://darliefacts.com/gallery/#jp-carousel-1544

The above two pictures show Darlie's pillow and a blue blanket. Both were tested and had her blood on them. The top link has a better view of the blood on it. Also note that the couch (left side of picture) has blood on it. Judith Floyd or Kathryn Long (not sure which... too lazy to look right now) testified to taking three samples of blood from the couch closest to the bar and one sample from the couch along the wall (couch Darlie was on). Van Winkle testified all four samples came from Darlie.

Also keep in mind, if you are sleeping on a couch with a blanket and pillow and you get stabbed while laying on that couch most of the blood will end up on the blanket and pillow directly under you.

https://darliefacts.com/gallery/#jp-carousel-1639

This is the back of Darlie's shirt. Look at the first picture of the pillow with the clear view of the blood. Spot anything interesting?

 

[Samson]

https://darliefacts.com/gallery/#jp-carousel-1546

https://darliefacts.com/gallery/#jp-carousel-1544

The above two pictures show Darlie's pillow and a blue blanket. Both were tested and had her blood on them. The top link has a better view of the blood on it. Also note that the couch (left side of picture) has blood on it. Judith Floyd or Kathryn Long (not sure which... too lazy to look right now) testified to taking three samples of blood from the couch closest to the bar and one sample from the couch along the wall (couch Darlie was on). Van Winkle testified all four samples came from Darlie.

Also keep in mind, if you are sleeping on a couch with a blanket and pillow and you get stabbed while laying on that couch most of the blood will end up on the blanket and pillow directly under you.

https://darliefacts.com/gallery/#jp-carousel-1639

This is the back of Darlie's shirt. Look at the first picture of the pillow with the clear view of the blood. Spot anything interesting?

No, I can't see a pillow.

 

[Sinsaint]

No, I can't see a pillow.

In the first link it's the maroon thing at the top of the picture. Look at the blood on it and the look at the blood on the back of Darlie's shirt in the last link.

 

[Samson]

In the first link it's the maroon thing at the top of the picture. Look at the blood on it and the look at the blood on the back of Darlie's shirt in the last link.

OK only saw last link. Interesting that there are opposing views.
I don't buy that a crime scene can result in that much uncertainty.
This looks an interesting case that should be solved.

 

[Henri McPhee]

I still don't think the husband Darin should be given a pass, though I am willing to agree an intruder might have been involved, with all that talk of insurance scams. The police seem to be fixated on Darlie. They are not willing to consider any other leads and suspects.

I am not the only person who thinks this either. From the internet:

What convinces me of her innocence is that there's too much pointing to Darin's guilt.

1) He had blood all over him including spatter on two places on the jeans he was wearing.

2) One of his hairs was found on the murder weapon

3) That was his sock in the alley, with blood from both boys, and Darlie's saliva. This fits with something being put in her mouth. And Darin is the only person we know was outside that night.

4) Motive: Darin was in trouble financially. He had a 250k policy on Darlie.

5) Opportunity: he was home, everyone was asleep downstairs

6) Means: the knife used came from inside the house.

7) Darlie's description of the "intruder" black hat, long hair, tall, jeans. That describes Darin, the black hat was found, he was wearing jeans.

8) Darin's extremely odd behavior, noted in his affidavit. He fled across the street when LE showed up. He then went back across the street again after the bodies had been taken out. 30mins after the ambulances left, Darin is still there. What is he doing?

9) It's not Darlie's story about what he was wearing that changed--it's his. He says he came down w/o jeans. Then he changed it to wearing jeans.

10) He flopped a polygraph and I don't believe his story about how he was manipulated into taking it, or how it was "rigged." And his story makes it clear he did not take an early polygraph.

 

[Sinsaint]

I still don't think the husband Darin should be given a pass, though I am willing to agree an intruder might have been involved, with all that talk of insurance scams. The police seem to be fixated on Darlie. They are not willing to consider any other leads and suspects.

I am not the only person who thinks this either. From the internet:

One thing about message board posters (myself included) is that sometimes the "facts" they present aren't facts at all.

What convinces me of her innocence is that there's too much pointing to Darin's guilt.

1) He had blood all over him including spatter on two places on the jeans he was wearing.

Darin, Darlie and officer Waddell all testified Darin was performing CPR on Devon. Devon was shirtless with two stab wounds to the chest. Both he and Darlie testified that when Darin gave rescue breaths blood came spraying out of Devon's chest wounds. Assuming Darin was in the correct position while performing CPR at least one of his knees and upper leg would have been right beside Devon's chest meaning that portion of Darin's jeans could have ended up with this spray of blood on it that might resemble blood spatter. Now, if the blood were tested and it came back as Damon or Darlie's blood, he would have a problem explaining that.

2) One of his hairs was found on the murder weapon

Untrue. No hairs were found on the murder weapon.

3) That was his sock in the alley, with blood from both boys, and Darlie's saliva. This fits with something being put in her mouth. And Darin is the only person we know was outside that night.

First, no one knows if the DNA from Darlie on the sock came from saliva. For all anyone knows they are just her skin cells that were deposited on the sock during her normal course of doing the laundry. Just because the sock came from the house doesn't mean either one of them used it during the crime (obviously it was used but no one can say who used it). Yes, Darin did leave the house that night but it was after first responders arrived and his movements can be accounted for from then on.

4) Motive: Darin was in trouble financially. He had a 250k policy on Darlie.

Untrue. The policy on Darlie was $100-$150k which was roughly half of the amount that Darin had on himself and right in line with how much she should have been insured for as a housewife (typical insurance amounts for a stay-at-home mother at that time were one half of the husband's insured amount). These policies had been in effect for a long time and Darin never attempted to have her insurance policy increased.

5) Opportunity: he was home, everyone was asleep downstairs

Opportunity by itself means nothing.

6) Means: the knife used came from inside the house.

Which implicates Darlie and Darin equally.

7) Darlie's description of the "intruder" black hat, long hair, tall, jeans. That describes Darin, the black hat was found, he was wearing jeans.

I would be willing to bet roughly 90% of the American male population wear jeans on a daily basis. It's not exactly a unique article of clothing. "The black hat" was not found. A black hat was found and it was determined to belong to one of the boys.

8) Darin's extremely odd behavior, noted in his affidavit. He fled across the street when LE showed up. He then went back across the street again after the bodies had been taken out. 30mins after the ambulances left, Darin is still there. What is he doing?

Darin did not flee the scene. He ran to a neighbor's house (Karen) to get help as she is a nurse. This was done after two police officers arrived but prior to paramedics entering the home. Karen testified that by the time she got to the house (with Darin) paramedics were in the house. He did go back across the street after Darlie and Damon left in the ambulances because Karen was going to give him a shirt to put on. He was still there thirty minutes later because he wasn't allowed to ride in the ambulance and couldn't take his vehicle. He waited in the front yard until Karen and/or her husband returned to drive him to the hospital.

9) It's not Darlie's story about what he was wearing that changed--it's his. He says he came down w/o jeans. Then he changed it to wearing jeans.

Chalk it up to someone who had just experienced a traumatic event and couldn't quite remember what he had on when he went downstairs.

10) He flopped a polygraph and I don't believe his story about how he was manipulated into taking it, or how it was "rigged." And his story makes it clear he did not take an early polygraph.

Polygraph machines have to be the biggest junk science equipment that people still put stock in. Lie detectors (as commonly called) do not detect lies. They detect a physiological response that the body has when asked questions. Those questions could invoke sadness or anger in the person causing the person to have a physiological response. Gary Ridgeway passed his polygraph test with flying colors. The husband of a victim of BTK failed his polygraph test miserably. There is an unsolved murder case in Florida where a husband and wife were attacked and their daughter was killed. The husband and wife both said only one man was there. So far at least three men who don't know each other have failed a polygraph test.

I've considered to possibility Darin did it. The only way he could have done it would have been to leave through the window, run 75 yards down the alley to drop the sock, run 75 yards back and around the house to the front door, go inside and take his shoes off, run upstairs and then run straight back down the stairs. Darlie said as soon as the attacker left she picked up the knife, walked back through the kitchen to turn on a light, started yelling for Darin and then called 911. Darlie said she saw Darin run down the stairs and he is heard on the 911 tape less than a minute into it. This means Darin had roughly sixty seconds or less to do everything mentioned above. Personally, I don't think he had the time to do it.

 

[Henri McPhee]

All I am getting is a load of opinions about the Routier case from the internet, and not enough facts. I still think the husband, Darin, is a suspicious character and that he was never thoroughly or properly investigated. Just saying he only had a few thousand dollars of life insurance on his family without backing it up with hard documentary evidence does not convince me. The police and FBI just thought it was an open and shut case and they are comfortable with it. I have my doubts about it and very little confidence in it.

This is an affidavit by Darin Routier. It doesn't convince me but instead raises my eyebrows:

Affidavit of Darin Routier
In the Criminal District Court No.3
Dallas County, Texas
DARLIE LYNN ROUTIER
No. F96-39973-MJ IN THE CRIMINAL
DISTRICT COURT
NO. 3 OF
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

AFFIDAVIT OF DARIN ROUTIER

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared DARIN ROUTIER, who, being by me duly sworn on his oath, stated the following:

"My name is Darin Routier. I am over the age of twenty-one and I reside in McKinney, Texas. I am capable and fully competent to make this affidavit. The statement herein are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge. I am the husband of the Petitioner, Darlie Lynn Routier.

"In 1994, I spoke to a person about my Jaguar automobile. In that conversation, I said that "it wouldn't bother me" if the Jaguar was stolen. That person then stole the Jaguar.

"In March or April, 1996, I asked my father-in-law Robbie Gene Kee, if he knew anyone who would agree to burglarize my home as part of an insurance scam. I said that I would arrange for my family to be absent from my house at 5801 Eagle Drive, that someone who I would hire would come to the house and take away the furniture and other items from my house in a U-Haul truck, and that I would then pay that person from the proceeds of the resulting insurance payments.

"Between March 1996 and May 1996, I told multiple people of my planned insurance scam.

"In the late evening on June 5, 1996, I had a verbal disagreement with my wife Darlie Lynn Routier. During that discussion, my wife asked me for a martial separation.

"I first met with attorney Douglas Mulder in July 1996. I met at least once a week with Mr. Mulder in July 1996. The subject of the meetings was Mr. Mulder's potential representation of my wife Darlie Lynn Routier and I in her criminal trial.

"I continued to meet with Mr. Mulder in August 1996. During one of the meetings I had with Mr. Mulder in August 1996, he told me that the court-appointed attorneys in my wife's case, Wayne Huff and Douglas Parks, had confided in him that they were going to try and portray me as the person guilty of the murder of my sons Damon and Devon because they thought that I had something to do with the deaths of my sons. I told Mr. Mulder that if we hired him, I did not want him to "go after" me. Mr. Mulder agreed that, if hired to represent my wife, he would not argue as part of the defense that I was in any way responsible for the death of my children.

"Between July 1996 and late September 1996, I continued to meet regularly with Mr. Mulder. On September 30, 1996, Mr. Mulder represented me at a show cause hearing before Judge Tolle where the State of Texas alleged that I violated a gag order in the criminal case against my wife. In September and October 1996, I believe, based on Mr. Mulder's comments to me, that he was my attorney.

"On October 21, 1996, Mr. Mulder became lead counsel in my wife's criminal trial."

[signed]
______________________
Darin Routier

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this the 11 day of July, 2002

[signed]

 

[desmirelle]

I guess I am confused. And I have been wrong - and admitted it - before on this board. See, I thought this was a "discussion" board, a place to share opinions.

So did I, but it's not unless you agree with the idea of Darlie's innocence.