Darlie Routier

With regard to the sock, it would have taken a female Olympic runner approximately thirty seconds to get the sock to its location. An average female runner would take about one and a half minutes. Would be out of breath as well and likely unable to speak on the phone.
 
Ok, I read up a little bit more. Here is what I am curious about, that bruising on her arm. She doesn't' know how that happened. I have worked with battered women and haven't seen bruising that severe after some brutal attacks. If she was sleeping during her attack, how would that be defensive?
 
Personally, it's the sock. Not so much because it doesn't fit. Former FBI agent Brantley and Tom Bevel both testified about why that sock would be there. Brantley's theory was the sock could have been placed there to dispose of it. In order for that to be the case Darlie would have needed a reason to think the sock would incriminate her in the first place. The sock did come from her house but so did the murder weapon and she made no attempt to dispose of that. And yes, the sock did eventually show that her DNA was on the sock but in order for Darlie to have feared that possibility she would have needed to know that DNA could be detected in sources other than blood such as saliva or skin cells. Darlie doesn't strick me as being all that intelligent nor is there any indication she had even a remote interest in things like DNA or crime scene investigations. Plus, she was highly familiar with that neighborhood. If she wanted it disposed of and never found I'm fairly certain she wouldn't have left it laying out in the open.

Tom Bevel had an alternate theory that Darlie planted the sock there to stage the scene. As part of staging the perpetrator will typically break things, move things, hide things, etc and then weave them into his or her story. Using the sock as the staged item she wanted to use to bolster her story she would have said something like... I remember there was a sock on the hand he was holding the knife with, he put a sock in my mouth or I saw him grab a sock in the laundry room as he was leaving the house... Then when the sock is found she will hope the cops view it as a piece of evidence that confirms her story. The problem is she never mentioned the sock at all. I don't think Darlie would have taken such a huge risk to plant it and then not bring it up.

Since neither theory seems to fit I'll revert to if she planted it how did she do it? Damon had only nine minutes to live after he was attacked so that is our timeframe. Darlie was on the phone for 5 minutes 38 seconds (it should be noted that the entire time she was on the phone she was in the presence of Darin, office Waddell or officer Walling so no staging could have been done during that time). A paramedic testified Damon died roughly 1 minute after he arrived. 6 minutes 38 seconds minus 9 minutes is 2 minutes 22 seconds.

In that 2 minutes and 22 seconds she would have needed to go 150 yards round trip to put the sock there, clean the countertop, clean the floor, run the vacuum cleaner across the kitchen floor, wipe off a bloody handprint on the couch, put her own blood on her pillow and blanket, deposit a bunch of wet rags in the living room and hallway, break a wine glass on the floor and then pick up a few pieces and put them in an ice bucket and the tabletop of the wine rack without getting any blood on those pieces. I have trouble believing she could have done all those things in that amount of time.

There seems to be no explainable reason why she would take the sock down there nor does seem to be enough time for her to do it in so we have to consider what else could explain how the sock got there. And intruder discarding it there after he fled the scene seems to be the most reasonable explanation.
That seems satisfactory analysis. Back in the MacDonald thread Charlie Wilkes says

"Darlie Routier's husband was upstairs with the baby, so she'd have had to kill him too.

Beyond that, I don't know. One would have to understand the reason why she killed her two sons, and I don't. I think it's glib to speculate that she wanted to get rid of the expense, but it is true that she and her husband, who maintained the trappings of an affluent lifestyle, were about to face the humiliation of bankruptcy. Also, she had been struggling with her weight and taking diet pills."

Can you balance out what Charlie said there?
 
Ok, I read up a little bit more. Here is what I am curious about, that bruising on her arm. She doesn't' know how that happened. I have worked with battered women and haven't seen bruising that severe after some brutal attacks. If she was sleeping during her attack, how would that be defensive?

She didn't sleep through the attack. Most likely she woke up to the attack, started fighting back and then passed out (unconscious).
 
That seems satisfactory analysis. Back in the MacDonald thread Charlie Wilkes says

"Darlie Routier's husband was upstairs with the baby, so she'd have had to kill him too.

Beyond that, I don't know. One would have to understand the reason why she killed her two sons, and I don't. I think it's glib to speculate that she wanted to get rid of the expense, but it is true that she and her husband, who maintained the trappings of an affluent lifestyle, were about to face the humiliation of bankruptcy. Also, she had been struggling with her weight and taking diet pills."

Can you balance out what Charlie said there?

I'm not certain what Charlie was talking about. If the theory is she wanted to rid herself of her burdens the biggest one would have been the baby. If she wanted money Darin would have been her target as he had a fairly large life insurance policy on himself and Darlie would have collected SSI benefits for herself and the children after his death.

I'm never sure where this facing bankruptcy information is coming from. They had $2,400 in the bank the day of the murders. Four days later they had $8,000 in the bank. Darin had somewhere around $30,000 worth of customer billings on his books. They may have been playing fast and loose with their money but there is nothing to indicate they were on the verge of bankruptcy.

ETA: I went to the Jeffrey MacDonald thread to try to see the context of Charlie Wilkes (paraphrasing) "Darlie would have had to kill her husband too" statement. I'm guessing he is saying in order for Darlie's case to be exactly like MacDonald's case she would have need to kill Darin and Drake as well. If he's saying in order for Darlie's story about an intruder to be true everyone in the house would have been killed, that would be absurd. Darin and Drake were upstairs sleeping quietly. An intruder probably wouldn't have even realized they were up there unless they went up there to look.
 
Last edited:
Just to dispel the bankruptcy myth...

https://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/bank_statement.jpg

Does it look like they were hurting for money?

It depends on what their expenses were. Especially with your own business, you have to pay Uncle Sam. They lived in a large house and could have had a mortgage of several thousand dollars. Maybe they even missed a payment and had to double up. It is more complex of an issue than just looking at one bank statement, IMO.
 
It depends on what their expenses were. Especially with your own business, you have to pay Uncle Sam. They lived in a large house and could have had a mortgage of several thousand dollars. Maybe they even missed a payment and had to double up. It is more complex of an issue than just looking at one bank statement, IMO.

True. But the only two things that ever came up regarding their finances that even suggested they might be having money issues were the missed house payment and not being approved for a $5,000 loan. The Past Due notice for the mortgage was in the garbage because it had already been paid. If this were untrue the state would have refuted it. Since they didn't the mortgage payment must have been a non-issue.

Being denied a $5,000 personal loan isn't anything uncommon either. It would have been an unsecured loan to a guy who was self employed with a relatively new business.

If the Routiers were on the verge of bankruptcy or about to lose their home the prosecution would have presented evidence to prove that at trial. They didn't.
 
True. But the only two things that ever came up regarding their finances that even suggested they might be having money issues were the missed house payment and not being approved for a $5,000 loan. The Past Due notice for the mortgage was in the garbage because it had already been paid. If this were untrue the state would have refuted it. Since they didn't the mortgage payment must have been a non-issue.

Being denied a $5,000 personal loan isn't anything uncommon either. It would have been an unsecured loan to a guy who was self employed with a relatively new business.

If the Routiers were on the verge of bankruptcy or about to lose their home the prosecution would have presented evidence to prove that at trial. They didn't.

Prosecution will often blow financial issues out of proportion. . . . Debra Milke has a small life insurance policy for her son through work. Suddenly that became a motive to have her son murdered.
 
Prosecution will often blow financial issues out of proportion. . . . Debra Milke has a small life insurance policy for her son through work. Suddenly that became a motive to have her son murdered.

So true. In Darlie's case not a single witness testified that Darlie was complaining about financial issues, foreclosure or possible bankruptcy. One is supposed to infer that a late mortgage payment (that had been made) and being denied a personal loan meant her financial world was falling apart. The truth of the matter is their bank account had a substantial amount of money it, Darin had quite a bit of money due to him that he hadn't billed his customers for yet and overall, Darin's business had been consistently earning more money each year. Killing her kids over financial issues is a pure myth.
 
So true. In Darlie's case not a single witness testified that Darlie was complaining about financial issues, foreclosure or possible bankruptcy. One is supposed to infer that a late mortgage payment (that had been made) and being denied a personal loan meant her financial world was falling apart. The truth of the matter is their bank account had a substantial amount of money it, Darin had quite a bit of money due to him that he hadn't billed his customers for yet and overall, Darin's business had been consistently earning more money each year. Killing her kids over financial issues is a pure myth.
I am being persuaded I must say, but have not looked closely enough.
You would be interested in the not dissimilar Mark Lundy case which is heading for another appeal.
Poor coot was accused of killing his family for a miserly 200k which would not go close to settling a land deal he was trying to put together.
 
Last edited:
I am being persuaded I must say, but have not looked closely enough.
You would be interested in the not dissimilar Mark Lundy case which is heading for another appeal.
Poor coot was accused of killing his family for a miserly 200k which would not go close to settling a land deal he was trying to put together.

I stick with death penalty cases mostly. Not that every wrongful conviction isn't a travesty but with a clock ticking on these people...
 
I stick with death penalty cases mostly. Not that every wrongful conviction isn't a travesty but with a clock ticking on these people...
Ironically the death penalty for Lundy would mean he would be free now. The money and effort available for research seems to get proof of innocence across the line.
What is the current status of Routier's appeal process?
 
Ironically the death penalty for Lundy would mean he would be free now. The money and effort available for research seems to get proof of innocence across the line.
What is the current status of Routier's appeal process?

Look at Damian Echols, the state had no real evidence of guilt yet tried to execute him multiple times. I would not trust that death penalty cases are any more likely to get proper scrutiny than a non death penalty case.
 
Look at Damian Echols, the state had no real evidence of guilt yet tried to execute him multiple times. I would not trust that death penalty cases are any more likely to get proper scrutiny than a non death penalty case.
I have a hunch that with local conditions Lundy would never swing, but I could be wrong. It is very easy to prove his innocence, because he was 150 km away when his wife and kid were axed to death. The state had to create multiple impossibilities to lock him up, and currently the FDA are unaware of a crime being committed in Texas to manufacture evidence. The DP would get that investigation rattling along with conscientious objectors. The internet is an omnipotent disseminator of truth. The government agencies are still in denial, but the Avery case is blowing things sky high.
I like to think we are doing our little bit here and elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Look at Damian Echols, the state had no real evidence of guilt yet tried to execute him multiple times. I would not trust that death penalty cases are any more likely to get proper scrutiny than a non death penalty case.

Or Rodney Reed. Texas is itching to execute him even though it is well known a cop/convicted rapist killed Stacey Stites. Another cop may have even been murdered to cover it up. Or John Thompson. He was set to be executed in three weeks when his attorneys discovered the DA hid exculpatory evidence. When confronted and told he needed to fess up to the judge who presided over the case he told them he wanted a few weeks to think it over.

This is, unfortunately, the kind of crap people on death row face.
 
Ironically the death penalty for Lundy would mean he would be free now. The money and effort available for research seems to get proof of innocence across the line.
What is the current status of Routier's appeal process?

DNA testing has been done. There is no ruling yet on her appeal.
 
Or Rodney Reed. Texas is itching to execute him even though it is well known a cop/convicted rapist killed Stacey Stites. Another cop may have even been murdered to cover it up. Or John Thompson. He was set to be executed in three weeks when his attorneys discovered the DA hid exculpatory evidence. When confronted and told he needed to fess up to the judge who presided over the case he told them he wanted a few weeks to think it over.

This is, unfortunately, the kind of crap people on death row face.
Another case that I have studied is Richard Glossip. He appears innocent by all the usual patterns, no motive or opportunity, which the convicted killer had in spades. Mary Fallin is another Madame Defarge. Plenty of those, I hope that cold hearted executioner faces judgement day.
I would be interested in opinions on Glossip here despite there being a thread somewhere.

In fact here it is if anyone knows any more.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=298247
 
Last edited:
Another case that I have studied is Richard Glossip. He appears innocent by all the usual patterns, no motive or opportunity, which the convicted killer had in spades. Mary Fallin is another Madame Defarge. Plenty of those, I hope that cold hearted executioner faces judgement day.
I would be interested in opinions on Glossip here despite there being a thread somewhere.

In fact here it is if anyone knows any more.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=298247

I've read about him before. Innocent with zero chance to prove it.
 
This Darlie Routier case is another great injustice and serious injustice in America. It's a few years since I investigated the case, but to my mind, then, the husband obviously did it, and he got away with it because of bungling Texas detectives and shady lawyers in Texas, who jumped to conclusions. Divorce had been planned, and the husband was involved in insurance scams.

As far as I can remember there were several irregularities, like for some reason the court transcription clerk for some reason inaccurately transcribed the court proceedings.

There seem to be unseemly wrangles between the forensic experts involved with the case. One of them was Terry Laber who was also also involved in the Jeffrey MacDonald gross miscarriage of justice case. Laber has an affidavit on the internet expressing his objections to the forensic prosecution evidence in the Darlie Routier case:

www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/WritAffidavits/laber.html

There is some background information to the Darlie Routier case from the internet which for some reason I can't link to this forum:

"Shortly after Horinek was convicted and sent to prison, Bevel, a sought-after trial witness whose home base is Oklahoma City, traveled to Kerrville, Texas.

He had been hired to testify for the prosecution in the capital murder trial of Darlie Routier.

Fatal mistakes?

If Bevel’s incriminating testimony against Routier was wrong – as two other blood spatter experts believe it was – there were a series of seeming missteps that compounded the damage, putting Routier on a collision course with the state’s needle.

Routier and family members say they were overwhelmed when Routier’s young sons, Devon and Damon, were stabbed to death in the family’s home. The family quickly became entangled in a web of law enforcement and media.

The sensational crime occurred shortly before 2:30 a.m. on June 6, 1996. Darlie Routier, who sustained cuts to her shoulder, arm and throat, had been sleeping on a nearby sofa in the family’s downstairs living room while Devon, 6, and Damon, 5, slept on the floor in front of the television. Darin Routier and baby Drake were asleep upstairs. Darlie Routier claimed she had awakened to an attack from an unknown intruder, who fled through the utility room to the garage.

Within minutes of being summoned to the scene by Rowlett police, crime scene investigator James Cron said he determined that the murders had been an inside job. Attention was quickly focused on Darlie Routier, and she was arrested days after the boys’ funeral. She and family members claim that police never thoroughly investigated other possibilities, even though several neighbors had reported seeing a suspicious black car near the family’s home on several occasions just prior to the murders.

After her arrest, Routier was given two court-appointed attorneys, Doug Parks and Wayne Huff. Friends advised the family that the court-appointed lawyers should be replaced with a high-powered attorney with a reputation for winning big cases.

At that time in Dallas, there was perhaps no lawyer with a bigger reputation than Doug Mulder. Three years earlier, Mulder had won a stunning courtroom victory – an acquittal for Dallas pastor Walker Railey, accused in the attack that had left his wife, Peggy, comatose. That case, too, had made national headlines and, as with Routier, public opinion was strong that Railey was guilty.

Convinced that Mulder was the man who would save her daughter, Routier’s mother, Darlie Kee, scraped together $94,000 to hire him.

“We got money from everybody that we possibly could,” Kee said.

The deal that Kee and her son-in-law allegedly cut with Mulder may have ultimately helped seal Darlie Routier’s fate.

As part of the alleged bargain, Mulder agreed to deviate from Parks’ and Huff’s defense strategy in one key area: he would not raise reasonable doubt for Routier by casting suspicion on the only other adult known to have been in the house when the attacks occurred: Darin.

The alleged agreement to protect Darin is detailed in the writ of habeas corpus filed as part of Routier’s appeals process. The writ refers to affidavits by Kee and Darin Routier claiming that there had been such an agreement. “As a result of this promise, Darin and Kee asked Mulder to represent Ms. Routier at trial,” the writ states.

Mulder denies that there was any such arrangement.

“In fact, (implicating Darin) was the first thing that made sense to me,” he said. “But (Darlie) was adamant in her position that she saw the man from the back and that it wasn’t her husband. I couldn’t pursue it on my own.”

Parks later signed a sworn affidavit confirming that his defense strategy had been to implicate Darin in the crime. He also stated for the record that he had conveyed to Mulder that he felt that Mulder had a conflict of interest with Darin stemming from his representation of him when Darin and Kee had been accused of violating a gag order.

Kee explained why protecting her son-in-law had been part of the deal she claims was made with Mulder: “I saw what the justice system was doing to Darlie,” she said. “And I didn’t want it happening to another family member.”

Darin Routier has denied any involvement in the murders of his children. However, in July 2002 – five years after his wife was sent to death row – he signed a sworn affidavit admitting that in the months before the murders, he told “multiple people” that he wanted someone to burglarize the family’s home as part of an insurance scam. He further stated in the affidavit that Mulder had agreed not to implicate him as part of his defense of Darlie.

Another key error may have occurred when Parks and Huff were booted. The pair had enlisted forensics and crime scene experts Terry Laber and Bart Epstein of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. The men flew to Texas, where they examined evidence, met with Rowlett police investigators and inspected the Routier home.

Prosecutors with the Dallas County District Attorney’s office were preparing to claim in Routier’s upcoming capital murder trial that the injuries she incurred had been self-inflicted – a ruse to disguise the fact that it was she who had killed the children.

Laber and Epstein came to a different conclusion.........."
 

Back
Top Bottom