Darlie Routier

I clink on it and it opens the PDF for the DNA tests?
Ok maybe NZ can't get it.
DF, out of curiosity, what do you think of the case?
Charlie Wilkes cogently argues she is guilty, so I regarded that as a difficult hurdle for innocence, but I see she is an IA promoted case, which suggests she should be innocent.
 
Ok maybe NZ can't get it.
DF, out of curiosity, what do you think of the case?
Charlie Wilkes cogently argues she is guilty, so I regarded that as a difficult hurdle for innocence, but I see she is an IA promoted case, which suggests she should be innocent.

I do not want her to be guilty but I don't see any way that it is someone else. If the DNA tests had shown somebody else, especially the railroad murder, would have of course changed things.

I do think there is/was something wrong in her head. I would likely to see her somehow get off death row.

Edit: The PDF report is the DNA report on various items all showed that she was almost certainly the contributor and there are some minor contribution which were consistent with her husband.
 
Last edited:
I do not want her to be guilty but I don't see any way that it is someone else. If the DNA tests had shown somebody else, especially the railroad murder, would have of course changed things.

I do think there is/was something wrong in her head. I would likely to see her somehow get off death row.

Edit: The PDF report is the DNA report on various items all showed that she was almost certainly the contributor and there are some minor contribution which were consistent with her husband.
Nobody should be on death row, least of all those that killed their own children. But the case seems open and shut. Jeremy Bamber deserves a thread here, in a case where it is possible he is in jail for a crime perpetrated by his sister. Her children were shot dead.
 
Last edited:
Start here. There is lots of info about the crime all over the internet.

Darlieroutierfactandfiction.com

I'd rather not. The woman who runs the site has a tendency to state false or incorrect information as fact. In one of her "myths" she stated Darlie never got towels for specifically Devon. There is photographic evidence that there was a towel that came from the Routier home laying right beside Devon's body (later photographed on the table in the living room).

She then changed the site to state that while there was a towel there it was left there by a paramedic, Kolbe. She states that Kolbe testified he left a rag behind. What she doesn't tell her readers is that he also testified that when he entered the home he went straight to Devon, determined he was already dead, provided no first aid and then moved to Damon. He also testified he did leave a "rag" behind. It was a 3x3 sterile gauze pad that he had used on Darlie and left it on the porch. I pointed out to her that she was again misleading her readers and she refused to correct it. To my knowledge she still hasn't.

I sent her a detailed list describing how each and every one of her myths is factually incorrect (citing the trial transcripts and/or photos). Clearly she isn't concerned about making sure her readers get accurate information.
 
Last edited:
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.

The difference between her wounds and the boys' wounds is that Darlie was an adult with the ability to better defend herself vs. two small boys with a lesser ability. Damon was attacked from behind which means he couldn't put up any defense.

I'll get to the sock later.
 
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.

Based on the evidence at trial Darlie was attacked first. She was most likely unconscious when the boys were attacked, not sleeping.
 
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.

Hamilton testified he arrived on the scene around 8:30 a.m. and began dusting, starting with the window including the window sill. Then he worked his way from there into the house. Linch testified he arrived a few hours later that day. He testified to seeing the "fine layer of dust" on the window sill. The obvious question is how did he see this fine layer of dust a few hours after it had been dusted for fingerprints.

Regarding the screen fiber, Hamilton (who dusted the window first) moved from there dusting along the way. Per his testimony he suddenly could not remember what, if anything, he had dusted in the kitchen but didn't think he dusted the knives in the butcher block. Linch later testified when he analyzed the knives only two knife handles in the butcher block had been dusted.

He has since signed an affidavit that when he received the butcher block and knives all the knives (handles and blades) had already been dusted. If there were no possible issues with contamination why did the prosecution go to such a great effort to hide the fact Hamilton dusted the knives at the scene?

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.

Not quite. Luminol reacted to something on the countertop. There was no follow-up test done to determine if what was reacted to was blood. For all we know the luminol reacted to bleach which is a very common cleaner used in kitchens. If you look at what the prosecution claimed is cleaned up blood and bloody footprints on the floor you will see (via photos from prior to luminol testing) that these blood drops and footprints were already visible.

Case in point... There is a picture of a very uncleaned, blood footprint with a ruler sitting beside no less. Later there is another picture of this same exact footprint with luminol all over it. It was visible before they dumped luminol all over it but everyone thinks "gee, if it's got luminol all over it they must not have been able to see it before." Give me a break. Nothing in the kitchen was cleaned up and that's obvious just by looking at the pictures. There was no blood found on any of the cleaning supplies under the sink and the sponge on the sink was dry.

The supposedly "cleaned up" handprint of Damon on the couch has two problems. One, we already know the crime scene crew has some issues with determining if blood has been cleaned up. Two, there would be no motive for Darlie to clean it because it wasn't incriminating to begin with. If you believe Darlie did clean that print off the couch, what reason do you think she could have had for wiping it up? Late spring cleaning?

As for no appreciable blood being found on the couch, her blood was found on the pillow and blanket she was laying on. Not only was it on the pillowcase, it had soaked through to the pillow underneath which means the source of that blood was resting on that pillow for a considerable amount of time. If you look at her shirt you can also see that her blood had pooled to the left side of her shirt and then ran down her back which indicates she was laying on her left side at some point. Not a single person on the scene testified to seeing Darlie laying down and her shirt was cut off of her prior to her being put on the gurney. If the prosecution's theory is correct that she stood at the sink and cut herself she would have need to do a back bend while standing there as well. I'm fairly certain we can all agree she probably wasn't working on her gymnastics skills while she was cutting herself.

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.

Darlie is an adult who had a far better ability to defend herself. The boys were far smaller and had a lesser ability to do so. Obviously their injuries would be more severe.

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.

This information came from officer Waddell. He can be heard on the 911 call telling Darlie to "sit down... lay down..." What you will never hear him telling Darlie to do on that 911 call is to help her son in any way. Officer Waddell's initial report did not mention anything about Darlie refusing to help her children or any other oddities in her behavior. After he was told Darlie was the suspect he amended his report. He suddenly remembered all these details that never came up in his initial report. It should be noted, officer Waddell has been on countless TV shows claiming Darlie stabbed the boys with so much force the knife tip went through and damaged the cement floor underneath. This obviously isn't true as the autopsy reports clearly state neither boy had any stab wounds that went the entire way through their bodies.

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.

Nope. The coroner initially stated Damon could have lived much longer than five minutes. The prosecution knew this would be a huge problem for them as the 911 call lasted almost six minutes and the paramedics testified he died within a minute of them entering the house, meaning there would have been zero minutes for Darlie to do all the cleaning and staging she supposedly did. So, the coroner changed that time to nine minutes. That gave her a little over two minutes to stage everything, including the sock, and inflicting all her injuries. She never would have had the time to do it all.

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.

They vs. he? She running around frantically on adrenaline and you're going to critique her dialect? That's about as bad as noting that she brought up her own injuries before mentioning her children were injured as well... "They just stabbed me and my children." Judge Judy would be horrified. It's my children and I. She can also be heard begging the dispatcher to tell them to hurry because her "babies are dying" and then pleading with Damon (the boy she refused to help) numerous times to "hang on baby... hang on honey..." I can total see how Waddell, who would have been standing right there listening to her thought she was unconcerned about her children.

The cops who helped test those lights couldn't get them to turn on until they got to the hot tub which is further into the yard than the door. And there was no obstacle course out there. There were two or three toys, not near the window and it was a straight shot from the window to the gate. There wouldn't have been any need to run through the mulch. The gate was never tested for blood until June 11th which was a few days after a heavy rainstorm and it was only a visual inspection. "Nope, no blood here. What's next?"

Why would you expect to find an intruder's bloody footprints leading to the utility room or in the garage? Darlie was attacked on the couch. There would have been no blood of her's on the floor for him to walk through. Devon never moved from where he was attacked and it would have taken a considerable amount of time for enough blood to get onto the carpet for him to walk through. Damon was attacked where the two couches meet. He didn't move to the entryway until later, after any intruder would have been gone. There wouldn't have been any blood to walk through ergo no reason to think the absence of any bloody footprints means anything.
 
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.

Hamilton testified he arrived at the house a little before 9:00 a.m. and began dusting for prints soon after, starting with the window. Linch testified he arrived around 12:30 p.m. that day and observed a "fine layer of dust" on the windowsill. I guess Hamilton put the dust back on the windowsill once he was finished.
 
If she is innocent, it is a strange case, but still one of the major problems with the police and prosecution generally is that they don't examine evidence with an open mind but instead look to prove guilt.
 
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.

Why are you assuming the attacker didn't cover her mouth before he started attacking her? Sells covered the mouth of his victim before he attacked her so she wouldn't be heard screaming. You are also assuming the children were attacked first then Darlie. Testimony at trial proves this assumption is incorrect. First, Bevel testified that Darlie had to have already been bleeding when Devon was attacked. Second, the coroner testified Damon lived no longer than nine minutes after his attack (initially five minutes). If she were attacked last then Damon would have been dead by the time paramedics arrived.

Factoring these two facts into the equation the most plausible theory that fits with the physical evidence is that Darlie was attacked first. Her mouth was most likely covered as the intruder would not have wanted her to scream out and wake up the boys on the floor or her husband who was asleep upstairs. During the struggle a lampshade and flower vase got knocked over which would have woken up the boys. At this point he had already cut Darlie's neck, she had passed out and he assumed she was dead.

Now he has one or both boys awake who might start screaming and could possibly identify him. With Darlie's blood still on the blade he attacks Devon. Darlie is laying on her left side, blood pooling to her left and down her back as Devon is attacked. Cast-off of Darlie's blood mixed with Devon's lands on her back. Damon sees his brother being attacked and goes to his mother thinking she can protect him (if Darlie were the attacker he would have ran toward the stairs to get his father, not further into the room where he would have been cornered). The intruder stabbed Damon in the back while he was standing near Darlie's feet. He then walked away thinking all three were dead or dying. Darlie woke up (came to) as the intruder was walking away through the kitchen. She walked after him. From then on is documented in the 911 call.

The prosecution's theory has her running around stabbing herself, stabbing her children, cleaning up blood off the floor, cleaning blood off a couch, knocking things over, taking a sock 75 yards down the alley, running a vacuum cleaner, breaking glass, putting some of that glass in an ice bucket for no apparent, reason, cleaning the sink and counter tops, putting wet rags all over the place, doing a back bend at some point... It becomes a bit too much to believe at some point.
 
Last edited:
If she is innocent, it is a strange case, but still one of the major problems with the police and prosecution generally is that they don't examine evidence with an open mind but instead look to prove guilt.

"There was a lack of evidence connecting a suspect to this. All we had was a scene and victims and therefore one of the victims became the suspect. We didn't start looking at the mother until, uh, twenty thirty minutes in when I told them, I said 'something's wrong with this scene.'"

-James Cron

The Investigators - A mother on death row
TruTv original air date - April 29th, 2004
 
If the prosecution used junk science in any way to convict her, Texas does have a junk science statute which can be used to get a new trial.
 
I take almost no stock in how emotional somebody appears to be.
I hate when that is used as evidence, I admit.
Edit: That is actually for either side just like I take no stock in lie detectors for either side.

Also, nurse handwriting is not much better than doctors :(

I agree. Judging someone based on the emotion they display isn't a good indication of anything. The issue here is why the nurses wrote that she was tearful, sad, frightened but then testified that she wasn't. It's almost as if their testimony had been coach at a mock trial to make Darlie look as bad as possible.
 
My whole issue is if we can reasonably (not possibly) get someone else into the house and committing the crime.

Look, I consider if she is guilty that there was something mentally wrong with her and that should be a reasonable argument for not executing her. I think it is probable that she also tried to commit suicide at the same time.

I am anti Death Penalty but would not feel bad if or when Charles Ng is executed. I would feel that her execution is different.

Sammie Luckus Cook, Jr.

The first witness was Virginia Smith. That was not her true name, but she testified that it was the name which she wanted to go by for this trial. At the time of the offense, Virginia Smith lived in an apartment complex in Dallas. Virginia Smith testified that April 13, 2000, was a day that she will never forget. She got to her apartment about 5:30 p.m., changed clothes, and went to check the mail. When she got back to the apartment, she opened the patio door and started cleaning the kitchen. While she was putting up the dishes, she heard a noise from the patio. Then she saw a man standing in her living room. She made a positive identification of appellant as the man who came into her apartment and assaulted her.

Virginia Smith said that she asked appellant what he wanted and that he kept telling her to “shut up.” Virginia Smith testified that appellant grabbed her by her arm and pulled her into her bedroom. Then he took her into the bathroom. Appellant closed the bathroom door, and Virginia Smith could hear him in the kitchen going through the drawers. When he came back to the bathroom, appellant had Virginia Smith's purse and a knife. He told her to give him all the money that she had. Virginia Smith said that appellant had the only sharp knife which she had in the apartment. After he took all the money from her purse, appellant told Virginia Smith to get undressed. Virginia Smith started crying, and appellant poked her with the knife until she complied with his demand. Virginia Smith identified the pictures which showed the way she looked when the police came to her apartment later that night....

Proof at Punishment Phase

Six other victims of aggravated sexual assaults testified at the punishment phase of trial. There was DNA evidence from each of those assaults which matched the DNA evidence from appellant.   These witnesses will be identified by the pseudonyms which they used during trial or by initials.

“Amy Harrison” testified about events on February 15, 1995, when she was subjected to two acts of aggravated sexual assault by an unknown man. The police took her to Parkland Hospital for the rape kit examination.

"Mary Smith” testified about events on December 18, 1995, when she was subjected to an aggravated sexual assault by an unknown man. The police took her to Parkland Hospital for the rape kit examination.  

M.C.R. testified through an interpreter about the events on March 28, 1996, when she was subjected to an aggravated sexual assault by an unknown intruder (in the presence of her five-year-old daughter). The police took her to the hospital for an examination.  

“Joanna Smith” testified about events on May 7, 1996, when she was subjected to a series of aggravated sexual assaults by an unknown intruder. The police took her to Parkland Hospital for the rape kit examination.

 “Beth Smith” testified about the events on May 19, 1996, when she was subjected to a series of aggravated sexual assaults by an unknown intruder. The police took her to the hospital for a rape kit examination.

“Mary Becker” testified about the events on May 6, 2000.   These events occurred 23 days after the offense for which appellant was convicted.   After he committed several acts of aggravated sexual assault, appellant fell asleep in Mary Becker's apartment. Appellant was arrested after she was able to escape and call the police. The police took her to the hospital for the rape kit examination. The police detective put appellant's photograph into the photographic lineup which he showed to Virginia Smith.



During the mid-to-late '90s, police were convinced that not one, but several, serial rapists were terrorizing northeast Dallas. Ultimately, a 34-year-old man named Ollie Ray Diles, who had been labeled "The Box-Cutter Rapist" after victims described the weapon used to subdue them, was caught in 1997, convicted for three sexual attacks and given three life sentences. Next to be apprehended was Sammie Luckus Cook Jr., 31, who was linked by DNA evidence to as many as 15 rapes dating to 1995.

The litany of details provided by Cook's victims was numbing: Their assailant, each reported, had worn a bandanna over his face and either gloves or socks on his hands to prevent leaving any fingerprints. Purse straps, belts or electrical cords were used to bind their hands and feet, and they were threatened with a knife or scissors. In one case, a woman told of coming out of her bathroom to find a man holding a kitchen fork to the throat of her 6-year-old daughter. The mother managed to grab the youngster but was eventually raped as the terrified child looked on. Another had been eight months pregnant at the time of her attack.
 
If I missed it early, sorry, but I assume one of your arguments is that the murdered wore socks over his hands as cheap gloves? It is not completely unreasonable.
 
As always websleuths has an enormous amount of material on this case. The autopsy photo of one of the boys showed someone had held him on his stomach and drove a knife six times(I think it's hard to see) all the way through him. John Douglass would call this overkill and I agree.

Whatever happened it was an 'emotionally powered act of violence as JD would say) . How that fits in I have no clue.

Nope. Read the autopsy report. None of the wounds on either boy went the entire way through the body.
 

Back
Top Bottom