Darlie Routier

[Howl]

In June, 1996, two little boys were murdered with a knife and their mother's throat was cut; she was stabbed as well.  Darlie Routier was the mother.  Police and the prosecutor decided she had committed this crime and she went to trial, not in her town near Dallas/Ft. Worth, but in little Kerrville, TX, a deeply conservative small town. 

Darlie Routier was convicted of murdering one of her sons in 1996 and has been on Death Row since.  She has steadfastly maintained her innocence. 

I just watched a special on 20/20 and am convinced that an innocent woman has been on Death Row in Texas for 21 years and many other people are convinced as well.  

The night of the murder, a bloody sock (white athletic sock, not a child's sock) with blood from one of her little boys was found a few blocks from her house.  Nine years ago her appeals attorney began fighting to have the sock tested for DNA.  For nine years that request has been blocked. 

The Innocence Project is now involved.  The original prosecutor remains convinced that they put away the right person. 

I keep coming back to the Michael Morton case in Williamson County, TX just north of me.  Michael Morton was exonerated by DNA and he was freed in Oct. 2011, after 25 years in a Texas prison, falsely convicted of murdering his wife.  A bloody handkerchief found in a field behind the house shared by Michael Morton and his wife was finally tested for DNA, which led to the real murderer, and also solved another murder in Austin that took place in roughly the same time frame. 

The fight to get that handkerchief tested for DNA lasted FIVE LONG YEARS. 

The Williamson County DA who originally tried the case, Ken Anderson, ultimately lost his law license and went to jail for 10 days over hiding exculpatory evidence, IIRC, not related to the handkerchief. 

 

[Evangeline]

This case has never made sense to me. The lack of motive has bothered me from the first time I heard about it. I'm just not convinced either way. 

[Briefly]

I have seen a couple of different tv shows about her.  I really have no idea how I feel, on one hand she could well be guilty.  But then again, she may not be.  It's possible that she was not the most attentive mother, which I am only saying because of the Forensic Files episode which made her look guilty.  But that fact, IF true, does not make her guilty.  But if there is any chance that she is not guilty, then every test possible needs to be done because an innocent person should not be imprisoned.  And especially not on death row.  

[Howl]

The show I watched implied that she was convicted after being portrayed by the prosecution as a flashy blond with a boob job, which didn't go over well in the small and extremely conservative town three hundred of miles from her home. 

Her defense attorney was good, but missed some cues, and there was no defense presented at trial against the blood spatter evidence, although viable alternative interpretations were possible.  There were fiberglass fibers found on a kitchen bread knife used to cut a fiberglass window screen, but it's likely that there was contamination from the brush used for dusting for fingerprints, which was used to dust the window sill where the screen was cut as well as the knife block where the knife was stored.  

In addition, the case went to trial in a matter of months, leaving the defense a ridiculously short period of time to prepare.  Typically, defense attorneys have at least a year to prepare for a death penalty case. 

[JenniferJuniper]

I'm like 71.8% convinced she's guilty.   Way too much reasonable doubt to execute someone.  That bloody sock.... and the husband never set quite right with me.  

[nausicaa]

3 hours ago, JenniferJuniper said:

I'm like 71.8% convinced she's guilty.   Way too much reasonable doubt to execute someone.  That bloody sock.... and the husband never set quite right with me.  

This is one of those cases where she may be guilty, but she definitely deserves a new trial. The trial was rushed, poor transcription, and that damn silly string video is completely immaterial. 

[Glasgowghirl]

I don't support the death penalty in any circumstances. There are definitely too many doubts in this case. I am not sure either way if it was her alone that killed Damon and Devon, she knows more about what happened or she is completely innocent. All evidence needs re examined and advances in DNA technology in the past 25 years may show that some else was the culprit, while I'm sure those who prosecuted her are convinced they have the right person behind bars that doesn't mean that they are. I watched a documentary here a few weeks ago on the murder of UK television presenter Jill Dando and the man convicted of her murder was convicted because one speck of gun residue was found in his coat pocket that matched the murder weapon, eight years later he was acquitted because the threshold for conviction had changed and the circumstancial evidence they had was disproven. I think sometimes in high profile cases prosecutor's cling to the slight shred of evidence in the hope of a conviction. 

[Howl]

If the sock is tested for DNA and it comes back to someone in the DNA database who reasonably could have committed the crime, she may be freed without a new trial.

At least that's what happened to Michael Morton.  The DNA result and the person it led to exonerated Michael Morton; there was no need for a new trial. 

I keep coming back to the defensive wound on her arm and the incredible bruising on her arm from her bicep almost to her wrist and the force it would have taken to create that bruise.  Her throat was slashed and and the cut came within a millimeter or so of cutting her carotid artery.  

These things, as well as some of the other evidence presented in the Dateline show, led me to believe she didn't commit the crime. 

[Bobology]

I have always believed Darlie is innocent mostly because of lack of a legitimate motive and her husband's unwavering support. The stilly string video did her in, and I don't understand why it was even admissible because it had nothing to do with the crime, with any cover-up or with someone confessing in secret at the gravesite. 

Susan Smith did it. Andrea Yates did it. Josh Powell did it, and many others have. So while it is possible Darlie did it, nothing in the media has convinced me she did.

[Petronella]

I just watched a short documentary about the case and it makes me boiling mad.

A bunch of old white men in power were opining about "what a mother would do" and concluding that Darlie was not doing "what a mother would do" and I hate them all.

The act on which they were basing their suspicions? That on the 911 call she mentioned that she had picked up the bloody knife. They were aghast that a ***mother*** would mention such a petty detail.

My first thought: you then used her fingerprints on this knife to convict her so YES IT'S PRETTY IMPORTANT

Then the documentary played what was on the 911 recording just before she said she had picked up the knife: IT WAS THE 911 OPERATOR TELLING HER TO NOT PICK IT UP. Darlie was just responding to the operator bringing up touching the knife.

Argh. SO MAD!

The video also pointed out how this came shortly after the Susan Smith case, so people were primed to suspect Darlie.

I don't know enough details to say she for sure didn't do it, but their reasons for saying she must have done it are bullshit. And the youtube comments beneath the first video are a mob of ignorant people (who evidently haven't even watched the documentary, based on what they're saying) blathering about motherhood and evil and their own bloodlust against her.

Worth a watch:

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by Petronella

[Glasgowghirl]

22 minutes ago, Petronella said:

I just watched a short documentary about the case and it makes me boiling mad.

A bunch of old white men in power were opining about "what a mother would do" and concluding that Darlie was not doing "what a mother would do" and I hate them all.

The act on which they were basing their suspicions? That on the 911 call she mentioned that she had picked up the bloody knife. They were aghast that a ***mother*** would mention such a petty detail.

My first thought: you then used her fingerprints on this knife to convict her so YES IT'S PRETTY IMPORTANT

Then the documentary played what was on the 911 recording just before she said she had picked up the knife: IT WAS THE 911 OPERATOR TELLING HER TO NOT PICK IT UP. Darlie was just responding to the operator bringing up touching the knife.

Argh. SO MAD!

The video also pointed out how this came shortly after the Susan Smith case, so people were primed to suspect Darlie.

Worth a watch:

 

Convicting people based on people's opinions, even if they are considered experts in their field is not great. Here in the early 2000s mother's had their murder convictions quashed because they were convicted on the basis that them losing more than one child to SIDS meant that they were likely suffering from Muncheusan by proxy. 

[nausicaa]

On 5/18/2019 at 9:53 PM, Howl said:

If the sock is tested for DNA and it comes back to someone in the DNA database who reasonably could have committed the crime, she may be freed without a new trial.

At least that's what happened to Michael Morton.  The DNA result and the person it led to exonerated Michael Morton; there was no need for a new trial. 

I keep coming back to the defensive wound on her arm and the incredible bruising on her arm from her bicep almost to her wrist and the force it would have taken to create that bruise.  Her throat was slashed and and the cut came within a millimeter or so of cutting her carotid artery.  

They have DNA tested the sock. The blood belongs to her two sons and the inside toe of the sock contain skin cells from Darlie.

The severe bruises on her underarms did not begin to appear until several days after the attack. She had time to bash her arms against a wall or kitchen table to create them. The smaller bruises already had begun to appear when she was in the hospital (as bruises tend to do on fair-skinned people).

Her story of how she slept through the attack and then her five year old son, who would have had both lungs punctured at that point, quietly walked over to her in the other room and woke her up and then followed her to the back door strains credibility. And there's zero blood evidence to suggest he did this while bleeding out from his fatal wounds. 

There is no blood on the couch where she claims she was stabbed. 

The top comment on this Reddit thread gives a good run down of reasons why she is likely guilty (not the ridiculous Silly String video or her boob job):

https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/ahq30m/the_case_of_darlie_routier_and_why_i_doubt_her/

That being said, she does deserve a new trial. The police and lawyers were incompetent. But that doesn't make her innocent. 

I am really surprised at some of the posts here. There's a lot of really damning evidence against her and she's changed her story multiple times. 

Edited May 20, 2019 by nausicaa

[Petronella]

8 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

I am really surprised at some of the posts here. There's a lot of really damning evidence against her and she's changed her story multiple times. 

My indignation comes not from certainty of innocence, but from the reasons so many people cite as to her guilt, which have little to do with evidence, but are judgments of women and mothering.

Thanks for adding more info.

[Briefly]

10 hours ago, nausicaa said:

They have DNA tested the sock. The blood belongs to her two sons and the inside toe of the sock contain skin cells from Darlie.

The severe bruises on her underarms did not begin to appear until several days after the attack. She had time to bash her arms against a wall or kitchen table to create them. The smaller bruises already had begun to appear when she was in the hospital (as bruises tend to do on fair-skinned people).

Her story of how she slept through the attack and then her five year old son, who would have had both lungs punctured at that point, quietly walked over to her in the other room and woke her up and then followed her to the back door strains credibility. And there's zero blood evidence to suggest he did this while bleeding out from his fatal wounds. 

There is no blood on the couch where she claims she was stabbed. 

The top comment on this Reddit thread gives a good run down of reasons why she is likely guilty (not the ridiculous Silly String video or her boob job):

https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/ahq30m/the_case_of_darlie_routier_and_why_i_doubt_her/

That being said, she does deserve a new trial. The police and lawyers were incompetent. But that doesn't make her innocent. 

I am really surprised at some of the posts here. There's a lot of really damning evidence against her and she's changed her story multiple times. 

That does sound like she is guilty.  The dna evidence is what I was wondering about.  After reading what you posted about the bruises and the lack of blood on the couch, not to mention her son's injuries and how he could have walked - I think she is guilty.

[Bobology]

Apparently I haven't seen all the programs or read all the articles. My 'innocent' belief is based on what I've seen and read. I'm open to 'guilty' at this point, but it's just so difficult to fathom. I will say I've personally twice had a big ol' bruise that took about 2-3 days to be noticeable... they were both very deep bruises and I was surprised at first that only a small amount of redness showed on my skin. 

[Aine]

I've read and watched and followed this case for awhile and I can't find any reputable source saying that her DNA has been found inside the sock. Can someone direct me towards that if it does exist?

The counter to the sock being "planted", which seems like an odd thing to plant if you were going to plant anything while you have a cut in your next millimeters from your carotid and are on the phone to the police fairly quickly, is that it is entirely possible someone stripped their clothes or at the very least some blood soaked running shoes and socks as they left the house and dropped a sock by accident in that process. It would make total sense that it would have Devon and Damon's blood on the sock in that case. These were violent attacks and I know it takes very little liquid of any type to soak through the netting of my running shoes.

The silly string was also taken completely out of context.

I don't know if she's innocent or guilty but what I do know is there are way too many questions around the integrity of the investigation, the district attorney's office, and the resistance from the state to have evidence retested now that DNA technology has improved for her to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in my opinion.

The lack of motive, the fact that her wounds were not consistent with self-inflicted wounds, the problematic investigation, the emotionally manipulative prosecution, and the fact that one of the most convincing 'expert' witnesses cited by the jury was a blood spatter 'expert' and blood spatter is pseudoscience and thoroughly debunked all lead me to think that this is a miscarriage of justice if judged on the evidence presented. Additionally, she had no criminal record, she was an involved mother, and it wasn't some premeditated plot that the boys wanted to sleep downstairs that night and she fell asleep on the couch. If she did this because she didn't want to be a mother anymore (and there is no indication beforehand that was the case), why not kill Drake too? Why not Darin? Why slash yourself within a millimeter of your carotid and not finish the damn job?

Also, Darin Routier has always been evasive regarding questioning relating to his financial dealings, the loans he took out and from whom, and other business/money related questions. 

I will not sit here and say she is innocent but I think I've seen and read just about everything out there on this case due Pamela Colloff and Skip Hollingsworth sparking my interest years ago and when it comes to justice, I do not think the evidence presented at the trial or since proves her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

I will always go back to Blackstone's ratio on any case that did not meet its burden of proof: "Better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer."

https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/maybe-darlie-didnt-do-it/ This article got me interested in the Routier case back when I was in high school and I've been following it ever since. I strongly believe that based on the evidence presented at trial and the pseudoscience presented to the jury as fact that she should not have been found guilty. I won't argue strongly that she is innocent but it is not the duty of the justice system to "find innocence. It is to find guilt and that burden was not met.

[Briefly]

22 hours ago, Aine said:

I've read and watched and followed this case for awhile and I can't find any reputable source saying that her DNA has been found inside the sock. Can someone direct me towards that if it does exist?

 

The silly string was also taken completely out of context.

 

I did some google searching and can't find anything other than articles stating that the dna testing is being done and will be finished up sometime this year.  The most recent I found was from November, 2018.  So I guess that it hasn't been finished up because the results would have been made public at some point.  So I'm back to not really having any idea.

The silly string video was possibly just a way of acknowledging the boy's birthday, like the family claimed at the time. Tasteless?  Yes, but people do things in different ways.  But I do agree, it was not viewed kindly by the general public.

[JermajestyDuggar]

Here’s the deal... I think she’s guilty. 

HOWEVER the reasons why she was convicted are bullshit. Just because she’s bleach blonde with a boob job and sprayed silly string on his birthday at their grave is not a reason to convict. That’s total crap.

I think she should be in jail for life, not the death penalty. 

[Briefly]

I turned on Forensic File reruns tonight and the episode about this is on.  I did some research, and the dna results have still not come back.  Here's an interesting article that has a little more information than the show does.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2018/06/12/did-darlie-routier-kill-her-kids-doubts-remain-20-years-later

I do think she's guilty.

[JermajestyDuggar]

On 7/9/2019 at 7:18 PM, Briefly said:

I turned on Forensic File reruns tonight and the episode about this is on.  I did some research, and the dna results have still not come back.  Here's an interesting article that has a little more information than the show does.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2018/06/12/did-darlie-routier-kill-her-kids-doubts-remain-20-years-later

I do think she's guilty.

I swear I’ve watched that episode at least 10 times. 

[Pecansforeveryone]

I have also heard that a motive was not merely financial. It has been suggested that Darlie was overwhelmed to the breaking point of caring for three young children. I don't like one bit how certain images and details were used to smear her. However, being overwhelmed to the breaking point is also a credible motive in my mind. 

[Bobology]

5 minutes ago, Pecansforeveryone said:

I have also heard that a motive was not merely financial. It has been suggested that Darlie was overwhelmed to the breaking point of caring for three young children. I don't like one bit how certain images and details were used to smear her. However, being overwhelmed to the breaking point is also a credible motive in my mind. 

I've watched a lot of the true crime-type programs (still do) and it is usually said that murder motives are always sex, money or revenge. This attitude totally discounts motives such as the one you've heard, and just plain ol' sociopathic-type murders that don't involve those 3 things.  Is it believed that all sociopath murders are ultimately due to weird sex urges whether or not a sex act was involved in the crime? I don't believe Andrea Yates was driven by the big 3, so how would her murders be classified? I'm just pondering...

[Pecansforeveryone]

Right, sex, money, or revenge are the only 3 motives? Like you said, @Bobology, that totally rules out serials killers and sadists who often just enjoy inflicting pain and fear on people. Plus, what if you just didn't like the person and are to much of a shit to move on and leave them be or were high/drunk out of your mind when you killed them. Sometimes the killer themselves doesn't know why they did it. It's why certain murder cases are especially frustrating as there being no clear motive even years later. 

[Dreadcrumbs]

25 minutes ago, Bobology said:

I've watched a lot of the true crime-type programs (still do) and it is usually said that murder motives are always sex, money or revenge. This attitude totally discounts motives such as the one you've heard, and just plain ol' sociopathic-type murders that don't involve those 3 things.  Is it believed that all sociopath murders are ultimately due to weird sex urges whether or not a sex act was involved in the crime? I don't believe Andrea Yates was driven by the big 3, so how would her murders be classified? I'm just pondering...

I think of those kind of murderers and people like Andrea Yates fall into categories that probably don't make up the vast majority of murderers.

ETA: No idea what I think of Darlie. But the emphasis on her appearance during the trial and the jurors watching that silly string video over and over and letting it sway them? Ridiculous. 

Edited July 25, 2019 by Dreadcrumbs

[Palimpsest]

Possibly an unpopular opinion, but I think there is room for reasonable doubt in the Darlie Routier case.  And I don't just say that because I oppose the Death Sentence.  IIRC the husband was as fishy as hell and may have been planning insurance fraud, and there was the bloody sock (the children's blood not Darlie's) found quite a long way from the house.  The timeline was off for Darlie to have stabbed the boys, planted the sock, slashed the screen to make it look like an intruder, and cut her own throat in such a short time.

So I think the jury convicted her for being a perceived bimbo and because of the silly string video.  In context (they had just had a very serious service before) I think the silly sting could have been a coping mechanism.  And presuming to judge someone's affect when they are  in a state of shock is a very tricky business.

She could be guilty as hell, but women who are accused of murdering their children are treated more harshly by the general public, juries, and by judges in the sentencing phase, than men accused of the same crime.

1 hour ago, Pecansforeveryone said:

Right, sex, money, or revenge are the only 3 motives? Like you said, @Bobology, that totally rules out serials killers and sadists who often just enjoy inflicting pain and fear on people. Plus, what if you just didn't like the person and are to much of a shit to move on and leave them be or were high/drunk out of your mind when you killed them. Sometimes the killer themselves doesn't know why they did it. It's why certain murder cases are especially frustrating as there being no clear motive even years later. 

There are any number of motives for murder.  Financial gain (or desperation), sexual jealousy, and revenge are only three.  But some serial murderers definitely murder for those reasons too.

Andrea Yates was seriously mentally ill and left untreated.  The insanity defense sort of worked for Yates.   Some people usually with a history of serious abuse can snap or go into a dissociative fugue state and react uncharacteristically violently.   But insanity and battered women defenses rarely work in practice.  For women.  For men self-defense as a reason to murder does work as an excuse more often.  Interesting, that.

Also interesting, public humiliation is a motive for murder.  It probably comes under revenge killings.  People have been known to murder, and commit mass murder, because they have been fired.  And some people have murdered their neighbors after ongoing petty vendettas over fences and barking dogs.  Motives: anger and hatred.

People murder for religious and political reasons too.  Think of all the shootings of doctors and bombings of abortion clinics.

But sadistic serial murders do it for pure pleasure and often torture their victims first.  Think Gacy and Bundy. 

Edited July 25, 2019 by Palimpsest