Darlie Routier

[Desert Fox]

Some people believe strongly in her innocence but I have been listing to a number of counter arguments.

I am against the death penalty because, to be blunt, you can never be 100% sure.

My trouble is, no matter how much I try, I have trouble with somebody coming in just stabbing the kids and then slashing her. Seems much more plausible taht she was involved.

Thoughts, arguments?
Sorry if there has already been a thread on this.

 

[fuelair]

Some people believe strongly in her innocence but I have been listing to a number of counter arguments.

I am against the death penalty because, to be blunt, you can never be 100% sure.

My trouble is, no matter how much I try, I have trouble with somebody coming in just stabbing the kids and then slashing her. Seems much more plausible taht she was involved.

Thoughts, arguments?
Sorry if there has already been a thread on this.

Some data sil vous plait!!

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Some people believe strongly in her innocence but I have been listing to a number of counter arguments.

I am against the death penalty because, to be blunt, you can never be 100% sure.

My trouble is, no matter how much I try, I have trouble with somebody coming in just stabbing the kids and then slashing her. Seems much more plausible taht she was involved.

Thoughts, arguments?
Sorry if there has already been a thread on this.

I have never thought she was innocent, ever. Anglolawyer thinks she is, but I keep telling him he's wrong!

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Some data sil vous plait!!

Start here. There is lots of info about the crime all over the internet.

http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/

 

[David Sugar]

Some people believe strongly in her innocence but I have been listing to a number of counter arguments.

I am against the death penalty because, to be blunt, you can never be 100% sure.

My trouble is, no matter how much I try, I have trouble with somebody coming in just stabbing the kids and then slashing her. Seems much more plausible taht she was involved.

Thoughts, arguments?
Sorry if there has already been a thread on this.

I am not as certain of Routier's innocence as I am about some others, like Amanda Knox, Kirstin Lobato, Russ Faria but I believe Routier is more likely innocent than guilty. I estimate about a 85-90% chance of innocence.

There are two facts which strongly lead me toward innocence. One is her injuries. I do not believe many people can stab themselves in the neck, barely missing a major artery, nor do I see how someone can inflict injuries that cause so much bruising on her arms. The other reason is that at least one of her sons was still alive when she made the 911 phone call. If she wanted her sons dead, why call 911 before they are dead? Wouldn't she be concerned that her sons will tell the police what happened?

There are other problems with Routier being guilty---the sock found a block away---there is no explanation of how she could have planted that given the time constraints...there is also some (though not much) evidence of an intruder---this includes an unidentified bloody finger print that does not match anyone in the house---and a screen that was cut.

Needless to say, this does not even come close to proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

David

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Some people believe strongly in her innocence but I have been listing to a number of counter arguments.

I am against the death penalty because, to be blunt, you can never be 100% sure.

My trouble is, no matter how much I try, I have trouble with somebody coming in just stabbing the kids and then slashing her. Seems much more plausible taht she was involved.

Thoughts, arguments?
Sorry if there has already been a thread on this.

I think she did it, but I leave room for a sliver of doubt, and I would welcome real evidence pointing to an alternative. So far I have heard a lot of argumentation, some of it passionate, but I have not seen any good evidence pointing away from Routier.

For me, the most significant incriminating fact is the difference between Routier's injuries vs. those of the kids. That doesn't fit an intruder scenario, and neither does anything else about that crime scene.

The bloody sock... I think she must have planted it before she injured herself and made the call.

The main arguments for Routier's innocence seem to be her alleged good character and the fact that she took good care of the kids. I have looked over quite a few cases of maternal filicide, and I am not convinced. Check out Suzanna Simpson for purposes of comparison.

 

[Desert Fox]

I am not as certain of Routier's innocence as I am about some others, like Amanda Knox, Kirstin Lobato, Russ Faria but I believe Routier is more likely innocent than guilty. I estimate about a 85-90% chance of innocence.

There are two facts which strongly lead me toward innocence. One is her injuries. I do not believe many people can stab themselves in the neck, barely missing a major artery, nor do I see how someone can inflict injuries that cause so much bruising on her arms. The other reason is that at least one of her sons was still alive when she made the 911 phone call. If she wanted her sons dead, why call 911 before they are dead? Wouldn't she be concerned that her sons will tell the police what happened?

There are other problems with Routier being guilty---the sock found a block away---there is no explanation of how she could have planted that given the time constraints...there is also some (though not much) evidence of an intruder---this includes an unidentified bloody finger print that does not match anyone in the house---and a screen that was cut.

Needless to say, this does not even come close to proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

David

Didn't Susan Smith always take good care of her kids before she drowned them?

If there was some solid evidence of somebody else or even an actual viable suspect, I might shift my position.

 

[David Sugar]

Here I will list the evidence in this case that I believe is probative, and assign probability values to them. And then calculate the probability of guilt.

Evidence pointing to innocence:
1. Evidence of a break in. There is a cut screen and a bloody finger print that could not be matched to anyone in the house. The evidence of breakin is kind of weak, but there nonetheless. I estimate this evidence as having a probative value of 40% --> Pointing to Routier's innocence for 60% or 40% guilt.

2. Routier's wounds do not appear to be self-inflicted. I am no expert but from the descriptions and pictures I've seen, I think it is unlikely she caused them herself. Guilt value: 35%

3. Routier's sons were alive when she called 911---one was still alive when the police arrived. Why would a murderer call 911 before her victims were dead? She changed her mind? She thought they were dead? or was she not the murderer? guilt value: 25%

4. The bloody sock. It is unclear how Routier could have planted this. An intruder may have used it and dropped it while he was running away. Guilt value: 40%

Evidence pointing to guilt:
5. Darlie Routier could not give a straight story about what happened. While this points to guilt, I also believe someone sufferring a traumatic experience may possibly not remember things well. So, it is not absolute proof of guilt--not proof she was lieing. Guilt value: 60%

6. An intruder stabbing the boys to death but only non-fatally injuring an adult also there. This seems unlikely---though if Darlie fought back, it may have scared the intruder off, maybe why he didn't kill her. Guilt value: 55%

7. Darlie Routier was concerned that she touched the knife and telling the operator over the phone she might have got her fingerprints on it. This could be an indication that she was making up an allibi to explain her fingerprints. Guilt value: 60%

The probability of guilt, given a list of evidence e1, e2, ..., en each with an associated probability of guilt of p(ei) can be calculated as:

p(e1)*p(e2)*...p(en)/(p(e1)*p(e2)*...p(en)+(1-P(e1))*(1-p(e2))*...(1-p(en)))

.4*.35*.25*.4*.6*.55*.6/(.4*.35*.25*.4*.5*.55*.6+.6*.65*.75*.6*.4*.45*.4)
= 0.17 17% probability of being guilty or 83% probability of being innocent.

So I calculate Darlie Routier is innocent with probability 83%

PS: yes, I like numbers!

David

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Here I will list the evidence in this case that I believe is probative, and assign probability values to them. And then calculate the probability of guilt.

Evidence pointing to innocence:
1. Evidence of a break in. There is a cut screen and a bloody finger print that could not be matched to anyone in the house. The evidence of breakin is kind of weak, but there nonetheless. I estimate this evidence as having a probative value of 40% --> Pointing to Routier's innocence for 60% or 40% guilt.

2. Routier's wounds do not appear to be self-inflicted. I am no expert but from the descriptions and pictures I've seen, I think it is unlikely she caused them herself. Guilt value: 35%

3. Routier's sons were alive when she called 911---one was still alive when the police arrived. Why would a murderer call 911 before her victims were dead? She changed her mind? She thought they were dead? or was she not the murderer? guilt value: 25%

4. The bloody sock. It is unclear how Routier could have planted this. An intruder may have used it and dropped it while he was running away. Guilt value: 40%

Evidence pointing to guilt:
5. Darlie Routier could not give a straight story about what happened. While this points to guilt, I also believe someone sufferring a traumatic experience may possibly not remember things well. So, it is not absolute proof of guilt--not proof she was lieing. Guilt value: 60%

6. An intruder stabbing the boys to death but only non-fatally injuring an adult also there. This seems unlikely---though if Darlie fought back, it may have scared the intruder off, maybe why he didn't kill her. Guilt value: 55%

7. Darlie Routier was concerned that she touched the knife and telling the operator over the phone she might have got her fingerprints on it. This could be an indication that she was making up an allibi to explain her fingerprints. Guilt value: 60%

The probability of guilt, given a list of evidence e1, e2, ..., en each with an associated probability of guilt of p(ei) can be calculated as:

p(e1)*p(e2)*...p(en)/(p(e1)*p(e2)*...p(en)+(1-P(e1))*(1-p(e2))*...(1-p(en)))

.4*.35*.25*.4*.6*.55*.6/(.4*.35*.25*.4*.5*.55*.6+.6*.65*.75*.6*.4*.45*.4)
= 0.17 17% probability of being guilty or 83% probability of being innocent.

So I calculate Darlie Routier is innocent with probability 83%

PS: yes, I like numbers!

David

This is an interesting post, because it represents the polar opposite of how I look at a criminal case.

I always start by asking myself, "what happened here? What kind of crime was this?"

This one had to be one of two crimes:

- A deranged, random intruder.

- Maternal filicide.

I think it was more likely the latter, because the kids had multiple stab wounds in their chest and abdomen, whereas Routier had a non-fatal stab wound in her neck. It sounds like a self-inflicted wound to create a cover story, c.f. Michelle Kehoe or Diane Downs.

And, as you say, Routier's story is problematic. She says she slept through this. That is hard to believe.

BUT, where was Tommy Lynn Sells when the Routier murders went down? The basic scenario, as described by Routier, is not without precedent.

I can't say for sure with Routier. I think she probably did it.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Here I will list the evidence in this case that I believe is probative, and assign probability values to them. And then calculate the probability of guilt.

Evidence pointing to innocence:
1. Evidence of a break in. There is a cut screen and a bloody finger print that could not be matched to anyone in the house. The evidence of breakin is kind of weak, but there nonetheless. I estimate this evidence as having a probative value of 40% --> Pointing to Routier's innocence for 60% or 40% guilt.

The investigation showed the screen had most likely been cut with a knife from the butcher block set in the kitchen and a layer of dust on the inside windowsill had been undisturbed.

2. Routier's wounds do not appear to be self-inflicted. I am no expert but from the descriptions and pictures I've seen, I think it is unlikely she caused them herself. Guilt value: 35%

Luminol discovered blood cleanup on the counter surface all around the sink, as well as cleaned up drips of blood on the floor in front of the sink where someone apparently stood in one place for some time dripping blood. There was no appreciable amount of blood found on the couch, where Darlie claimed to have been when the intruder inflicted her injuries. Detectives theorized Darlie inflicted her wounds to herself while standing in front of the kitchen sink. There was one child's handprint in blood on that couch, but it had been cleaned up and was discovered with Luminol.

Darlie's wounds were of a completely different severity than those of her sons, in the opinion of the medical examiner who performed Devon's autopsy and also examined Darlie.

3. Routier's sons were alive when she called 911---one was still alive when the police arrived. Why would a murderer call 911 before her victims were dead? She changed her mind? She thought they were dead? or was she not the murderer? guilt value: 25%

The one son was already dead at the time the husband reached him, the other barely alive at all, with just a hint of a pulse. When the police arrived, they instructed Darlie to put pressure on the wound of the one barely alive son, She ignored the request.

4. The bloody sock. It is unclear how Routier could have planted this. An intruder may have used it and dropped it while he was running away. Guilt value: 40%

It seems she had ample time to clean up and stage the scene. I am sure this was part of it. Thank god it didn't succeed in getting her off.

Here are a few more tidbits:

"They" vs "he":
In the 911 call, Darlie said, "They came in and..."
By the time detectives arrived, this had become "He...," as she changed her story to a single attacker.

The supposed exit of the intruder was through the utility room and through the garage, yet there were no lights on and it was said to be a type of obstacle course to get through there, an unlikely means for escape without leaving bloody evidence. There was no blood in the garage nor on the fence an intruder would have had to have passed to escape that way. Also no blood on the difficult-to-open gate through which an intruder would have exited. Flower beds between the garage and the gate were undisturbed. The garage door was closed and locked from the inside.

Bloody bare footprints from the kitchen heading into the family room belong to one set of feet which matched Darlie's. There were no bloody prints leading to the utility room and none in the utility room or the garage.

 

[Desert Fox]

Was luminol confirmed to be human blood?
There are a lot of chemicals around the house which will react to luminol.
As well, I am pretty sure that beef "juices" would cause a perfect luminol raction.
This is mostly an issue with the kitchen.

 

[David Sugar]

The investigation showed the screen had most likely been cut with a knife from the butcher block set in the kitchen and a layer of dust on the inside windowsill had been undisturbed.

I've seen some pretty good arguments that the knife was not responsible for cutting the screen. As such, we cannot be sure that it was.

Luminol discovered blood cleanup on the counter surface all around the sink, as well as cleaned up drips of blood on the floor in front of the sink where someone apparently stood in one place for some time dripping blood. There was no appreciable amount of blood found on the couch, where Darlie claimed to have been when the intruder inflicted her injuries. Detectives theorized Darlie inflicted her wounds to herself while standing in front of the kitchen sink. There was one child's handprint in blood on that couch, but it had been cleaned up and was discovered with Luminol.

I am wary of prosecutor's claims of a clean-up. In Knox's case there was claim of a clean-up, but we know that no clean-up took place. A cleanup here does not make sense to me: Darlie called the police, there is no doubt a murder took place. Why would Darlie, or anyone for that matter, clean up the sink, or a bloody child's handprint? How would this make Darlie look more innocent?

Darlie's wounds were of a completely different severity than those of her sons, in the opinion of the medical examiner who performed Devon's autopsy and also examined Darlie.

This can be explained if Darlie fought back.

The one son was already dead at the time the husband reached him, the other barely alive at all, with just a hint of a pulse. When the police arrived, they instructed Darlie to put pressure on the wound of the one barely alive son, She ignored the request.

Unfortunately, I have seen some good reasoning from the defense that the police involved in the investigation could not be trusted. I hate making this kind of argument, because it does come off as a "conspiracy theory". But, to me, the story told by the first responder seems to contradict what is heard on the 911 recording.

It seems she had ample time to clean up and stage the scene. I am sure this was part of it. Thank god it didn't succeed in getting her off.

Here are a few more tidbits:

"They" vs "he":
In the 911 call, Darlie said, "They came in and..."
By the time detectives arrived, this had become "He...," as she changed her story to a single attacker.

The supposed exit of the intruder was through the utility room and through the garage, yet there were no lights on and it was said to be a type of obstacle course to get through there, an unlikely means for escape without leaving bloody evidence. There was no blood in the garage nor on the fence an intruder would have had to have passed to escape that way. Also no blood on the difficult-to-open gate through which an intruder would have exited. Flower beds between the garage and the gate were undisturbed. The garage door was closed and locked from the inside.

Bloody bare footprints from the kitchen heading into the family room belong to one set of feet which matched Darlie's. There were no bloody prints leading to the utility room and none in the utility room or the garage.

Darlie's inability to explain what happened is one of the indications of guilt. Yet, in my view, it is also explainable in that someone experiencing a traumatic experience may also forget details.

David

 

[David Sugar]

This is an interesting post, because it represents the polar opposite of how I look at a criminal case.

I always start by asking myself, "what happened here? What kind of crime was this?"

This one had to be one of two crimes:

- A deranged, random intruder.

- Maternal filicide.

I think it was more likely the latter, because the kids had multiple stab wounds in their chest and abdomen, whereas Routier had a non-fatal stab wound in her neck. It sounds like a self-inflicted wound to create a cover story, c.f. Michelle Kehoe or Diane Downs.

On the one hand we have a random intruder; on the other hand we have a mother who has never been violent before, and who has been described as a good mother by friends. I see both of these cases as being extremely unlikely. I cannot really say one is more likely than the other.

To me, the (though limited) signs of an intruder, Darlie's injuries, and the fact at least one of her sons was still alive when the police got there point me more toward her innocence.

And, as you say, Routier's story is problematic. She says she slept through this. That is hard to believe.

BUT, where was Tommy Lynn Sells when the Routier murders went down? The basic scenario, as described by Routier, is not without precedent.

I can't say for sure with Routier. I think she probably did it.

I cannot say for sure Routier is innocent. I think she probably did not do it, though.

David

 

[Samson]

On the one hand we have a random intruder; on the other hand we have a mother who has never been violent before, and who has been described as a good mother by friends. I see both of these cases as being extremely unlikely. I cannot really say one is more likely than the other.

To me, the (though limited) signs of an intruder, Darlie's injuries, and the fact at least one of her sons was still alive when the police got there point me more toward her innocence.



I cannot say for sure Routier is innocent. I think she probably did not do it, though.

David

Ampulla de vater has impressive detail supporting her claim. How do you counter the evidence that suggests such variability in the blood evidence?
I have long been troubled by both implausible accounts of the Bain family slaughter. Both of only two possibilities seem implausible, yet the blood evidence points to the son, and this is supported by the computer timing.

 

[phiwum]

The probability of guilt, given a list of evidence e1, e2, ..., en each with an associated probability of guilt of p(ei) can be calculated as:

p(e1)*p(e2)*...p(en)/(p(e1)*p(e2)*...p(en)+(1-P(e1))*(1-p(e2))*...(1-p(en)))

.4*.35*.25*.4*.6*.55*.6/(.4*.35*.25*.4*.5*.55*.6+.6*.65*.75*.6*.4*.45*.4)
= 0.17 17% probability of being guilty or 83% probability of being innocent.

I don't think I'm following your reasoning. Would it also be the case that the probability of innocence would be calculated as follows?

(1 - p(e1))*(1-p(e2))*...*(1-p(en))/(p(e1)*p(e2)*...p(en)+(1-P(e1))*(1-p(e2))*...(1-p(en)))

And should the sum of these two probabilities be equal to one? They don't seem to sum to one.

When you multiply the probabilities, are you presuming that these bits of evidence are independent? Is this a reasonable presumption?

Am I missing something?

 

[David Sugar]

I don't think I'm following your reasoning. Would it also be the case that the probability of innocence would be calculated as follows?

(1 - p(e1))*(1-p(e2))*...*(1-p(en))/(p(e1)*p(e2)*...p(en)+(1-P(e1))*(1-p(e2))*...(1-p(en)))

And should the sum of these two probabilities be equal to one? They don't seem to sum to one.

When you multiply the probabilities, are you presuming that these bits of evidence are independent? Is this a reasonable presumption?

Am I missing something?

Yes, that is the case, your formula calculates innocence, and the sum of the two should be 1.

You caught an important piece of information---this assumes that the bits of evidence are independent---if they are not, then more calculation with conditional probabilities are needed.

see http://www.paulgraham.com/naivebayes.html

chance of guilt: .4*.35*.25*.4*.6*.55*.6/(.4*.35*.25*.4*.6*.55*.6+.6*.65*.75*.6*.4*.45*.4)
= 0.179906542

Change of innocence:
.6*.65*.75*.6*.4*.45*.4/(.4*.35*.25*.4*.6*.55*.6+.6*.65*.75*.6*.4*.45*.4)
= 0.820093458

Chance of innocence+guilt = 0.179906542+0.820093458 = 1.0


PS: looks like I had a typo in my original post.

David

 

[Desert Fox]

I consider mathematically trying to determine guilt about as useful as "Eyes for Lies."

 

[12AX7]

I consider mathematically trying to determine guilt about as useful as "Eyes for Lies."

Agree.

Maybe we can get some phrenology measurements while we're at it.

Ampulla of Vater: Great posts!

 

[jhunter1163]

I didn't know anything about this case beforehand; after reviewing the information presented in this thread pro and con, were I on the jury I would vote to convict. The undisturbed layer of dust on the windowsill is persuasive to me; an intruder, if he existed, would have to disturb that dust while entering. The sock was probably planted before the crime, and the bloody footprints are pretty damning.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

On the one hand we have a random intruder; on the other hand we have a mother who has never been violent before, and who has been described as a good mother by friends. I see both of these cases as being extremely unlikely. I cannot really say one is more likely than the other.

Both have precedents (cf. Suzanna Simpson and Tommy Lynn Sells), both are rare, and this had to be one or the other.

Above you note that the nature and limited extent of Routier's injuries could be explained if she defended herself. She deprived herself of this explanation with her statements, however, presumably because her husband was upstairs at the time of the murders, so she could have called out for help.

So, if this was someone like Tommy Lynn Sells (cf. Julie Rea Harper, who is undoubtedly innocent) we have to contemplate a scenario where the intruder forced his way in, found a woman and two children sleeping, stabbed both children repeatedly in the chest and abdomen without waking up the woman (or the man who was sleeping upstairs), and then stabbed the sleeping woman once in the neck before running off.

I'm not buying it. It is implausible on the face of it, and it doesn't appear to match the blood evidence at the crime scene. At the same time, I can't say it's impossible or that the blood evidence is infallible.