ActivismEconomyGovernmentMilitarySocial IssuesUS PoliticsWorld Politics

Darlie Routier: Twenty Years on Death Row

Updated on January 15, 2017
Pollyannalana profile image

Polly is far from politically correct when it comes to justice. Truth means more to her than making fans; saying what they want to hear!

Joined: 7 years agoFollowers: 1,027Articles: 14

Met as Young Teens

Darin was 17 and Darlie only 15 when they met.

Darlie Routier is an American woman from Texas who was convicted of murdering her 5-yr-old son, Damon. Her other son was also killed, though she was only tried for Damon's murder.

Some say there is more to this trial than the official investigation showed.

These three children were Darlie's only claim to financial gain as anyone knows. Worth much more to her alive than dead if that was her purpose.
These three children were Darlie's only claim to financial gain as anyone knows. Worth much more to her alive than dead if that was her purpose. | Source


How long would it take to make all these wounds?

Were these wounds self inflicted?
Were these wounds self inflicted? | Source

Darlie has no history of mental illness. She was not abusive to her sons. She was faithful to her husband and there is no fact from anyone saying differently on any of this.

Darlie moved to Lubbock as a teenager with her mom and stepdad. She met Darin in a Western Sizzlin' where her mother worked and so did Darin as a cook. He was 17 and she was 15 and they married four years later.

After moving to the Dallas area he began his own small company that tested electronic components and when he became a success in the early nineties, they bought a nice house and spent thousands getting it just how they wanted. Darin bought a thirty-foot cabin cruiser and a 1982 Jaguar. They went a little wild with their money and Darlie bought new boobs and flashy jewelry.

The neighbors never saw them as wild though. She had kids in and baked cookies for them. Those kids stood up for her against the accusation that she killed her sons. Darin and Darlie helped out a cancer patient neighbor with a mortgage payment and seemed to have a heart. Whose idea was that, I don’t know, but Darlie was baking the cookies.

All of a sudden their business went downhill and they got behind on their bills it is claimed. They owed $10,000 in back taxes and $12,000 on credit cards. Darin and an incomplete diary entry show Darlie was considering suicide a month before the murders. It was a fleeting thought apparently. My doctor once asked me if I had ever thought about suicide and my answer was, "Hasn't everyone?" He laughed, for it is true. Maybe to different extents but if you know the word you have thought about it. If you have something you just think you can't face you may think about it, so I consider that pretty normal and nothing to even consider in anyone's sanity.

She had gone through the birth of a third baby and was trying to get off a little extra weight and at that age I think many of us go through a little something anyway. Like did we make the right decisions in life, have we chosen the right path? Thirty is coming up and to twenties that looks old! It is nothing serious but a little something as I say, and combined with all else going on with her she probably was suffering not abnormally from slight depression. That does not a murderer make.

Looking happy as always.
Looking happy as always. | Source

What the Jury Didn't Know

Darlie's Injuries

How do you feel?

Do you think without a reasonable doubt that Darlie is guilty?

See results

Never brought to the attention of the jury were other things of alarm and great importance, including the pictures of Darlie's cuts and bruises on her arms taken when she was hospitalized the night of the murders. One juror told reporters he would never have voted to convict if he had seen the photographs. I would be sure others would have agreed. That is when I knew without a doubt! These are defense wounds, clearly. Yes, there were photos of the wound but this juror and the author who at first had Darlie guilty but changed her mind later said these really bad bruised photos were never seen by them. They did see the silly string plenty though which was an illegal entry into this trial!

"When they arrested Darlie, we just pretty much lost it," says Darin, and says they have never been able to grieve for their children but it is Darlie's husband and mother who have steadfastly continued the fight. They have appeared 10 times on nationally televised talk shows, printed up bumper stickers and have a toll-free phone number ( (888) 883-FAIR) appealing for donations and information that could help "find the real person who attacked Darlie and murdered her children." They have gathered support. Right now, they say, freeing Darlie is the only fight that counts.

Drake Routier looks just like his mother. The blue eyes, wide face, and his mother's mouth. The court took Darin's custody of the child, who was 7 months old at the time of the murders, simply because he defended Darlie! This is Texas law? His parents were allowed to raise the baby and he was given rights to visit him but still! Does this horror never end? If Darin is guilty of nothing how could they take custody of his child from him?

Darin and Darlie moved into her mother's home after the murders and lost the $200,000 house they built, also their 35-foot cabin cruiser, '86 Jaguar, plus some. Legal fees and bad publicity about the case ruined him financially. His electronics business, bringing a salary of $500,000 in 1995, lost 14 of its 17 clients and all its employees.

Are Her Injuries Authentic?

Click thumbnail to view full-size
She was a genius if she planned this one. So real looking.  Did she do this?Or this?Why would she put a planned bruise here, I wonder?Seems like a slight turn would be a clearer picture, doesn't it?
She was a genius if she planned this one. So real looking.
She was a genius if she planned this one. So real looking.
Did she do this?
Did she do this?
Or this?
Or this?
Why would she put a planned bruise here, I wonder?
Why would she put a planned bruise here, I wonder?
Seems like a slight turn would be a clearer picture, doesn't it?
Seems like a slight turn would be a clearer picture, doesn't it?

One-sided Testimonies

There were many bad testimonies from people making Darlie look bad. There were no testimonies of the people who saw her much differently. Darin and Ms. Kee claim Darlie's trial mocked the judicial system. Evidence that would have cleared her was never presented, witnesses who could have contradicted the prosecution's assertions never testified, forensics testing was botched, and depositions were distorted.

Unidentified Fingerprints

Forensic fingerprint tests done after Darlie's trial still show that she is innocent of the crime for which she was convicted. A bloody fingerprint taken from her living room coffee table did not belong to anyone living in her home, and two more fingerprints in the utility room and door leading to the garage in which Darlie thinks the murderer escaped the Darin's home after attacking her and her two sons. No matter, repeated requests, the Court will not grant the evidential hearing necessary to investigate and evaluate this evidence.

Taken from the utility room door is a patent bloody fingerprint—this is the first one. Forensic fingerprint analyst Glenn Langenburg proved positively Darlin is excluded as the owner of this print. Darlin's exclusion as the source of this print indicates that an unknown third party not only deposited this print, but deposited it in blood, on the night of the murders.

The second print taken from this door is a latent print located below the patent bloody fingerprint. Latent print consultant Robert Lohnes checked this print in 2003 and said that it matched the second finger joint of Darin Routier on the middle finger of the left hand.

In addition, Langenburg currently is conducting a second examination of the bloody fingerprint on the utility room door to determine whether Darin Routier can also be excluded as the source of this print. If, as Darlie expects, Darin Routier is not the source of this print, Darlie definitively will have demonstrated that an unknown third party deposited two separate fingerprints, one of them in the victims' blood, while fleeing the scene on the night of the murders.

Other Unexamined Elements

Who Had the Most to Gain?

Insurance Scam Attempt

Darin Routier has admitted to trying to arrange an insurance scam, which included someone breaking into their home. He has admitted that he had begun the initial steps to arrange a break-in, but that it was to be done when no one was at home. No jury has heard this admission.

Surely any law would be all over this, how many ways could this be the answer? Maybe not even the way Darin meant it to be but caused with unlawful schemes. I could understand them suspecting him, I really could, and why don't they? I don't believe Darlie would even suspect him, but if I were Darlie I would have to give that some serious thought, but I think Darlie is as I say so much like my own daughter. Either a lack of intelligence or too much into her self, which does not equal a murderer. I keep waiting for my daughter to change and act more mature, but I suspect like Darlie it is just who she is. No changing.

"Birthday Party" Footage

The "birthday party" film that was viewed by the jury that made me think that is a killer, showed Darlie dancing on the graves of her son along with other family members, but did not show the hours previous to that scene when Darlie sobbed and grieved over the graves with her husband Darin. Why was the entire footage not shown?

Black Car on Night of Crime

Neighbors saw a black car sitting in front of the Routier home a week before the murders took place. Other neighbors saw that same car leaving the area on the night of the murders.

Missing or Damaged Evidence?

There was talk the police did not protect the evidence as they gathered it, possibly damaging its origins. Is this true? The investigators told the press that the screen was cut from the inside though it was later proven in court to be cut from the outside. Hm? Police investigated this? The investigators took the fifth amendment—what were they afraid to say? You know without doubt they are hiding something. How are law witnesses allowed to take the fifth? On their deathbed will just one of them spill the truth?

Where Was Darin?

When the paramedics arrived at the scene they said that Darin Routier was outside, but Darin was inside trying to save his children, so who was the man they thought was him? It was reported the testimony of the nurses was coached and rehearsed in mock trials by the prosecution prior to their testimony.

Cut in Darlie's Neck

Saying the cut in her neck was 2mm of the carotid sheath but external to the carotid artery was what Darlie's operating surgeons reported, and that the necklace she had on blocked the cut from going deeper, showing the seriousness and unlikelihood that Darlie did or even could have done this herself.

Found Hair

There was a pubic hair found in the living room. Whose? Did debris on the knife in the kitchen get debris on the knife from police in the kitchen investigating the murder, or did it come from the screen door?

Darin's Jeans

Darin's jeans had blood on them. Why did no one look into this? (Dear God! He is walking around free, he looks the more guilty of the two!) Sometimes I think children could run this world better. Does nothing enter the court's mind about this? Is it too late because they would be hanging themselves? Are they just that lazy? So they just pick someone so it's over?

Mistakes in the Court Report

The court reporter made mistakes in the manuscript so was there an improper read-back of testimony? Why is prosecution not forced to turn over evidence they have that should be available to both sides? Gee, anyone who watches TV knows this rule.

Reluctance for DNA Testing

WHY? DNA testing could put many of these questions to rest. Why is there such a reluctance to do the testing? Many, such as people interested in writing Darlie's story have come to her side and since then have run into convenience problems seeing her or were simply blocked!

Reasonable Doubt

An Incomplete Picture

Video shows....

Darlie changed hands to slit her throat?

Nurses had two different testimonies.

Claims certain photos were not seen in trial.

Bloody fingerprint not identified.

Missing transcripts from court papers...words changed to change meanings.

It is impossible to believe how much trouble the legal system will go to to make things turn out the way they want. Just knowing the jury did not see this picture is enough to get the woman a new trial, but no. Not only did she lose two children murdered but she cannot get back her youngest son. So one day she may get out and a big settlement. What about the ones who do things like this? Shouldn't they be locked up? I think so!

My View of Her Changed As I Got More Evidence

When I saw Darlie dancing around her children's graves, spraying silly string, laughing and acting so happy I thought, "of course she killed those babies," and I was filled with hate, seeing her acting this way and those babies of hers, murdered and in the ground beneath her.

I can't say that I accept this behavior even now but people are different and I know they are. It still doesn't make them guilty of murder. I really felt so guilty the more I listened, read, and learned. I am not the only one with a change of mind.

With Darlie, what I did not see was the same as what others did not see: Proof. How long will our rotten dirty judicial system keep getting by with having their say, right or wrong and hiding information to make things go the way they want? Why do they continually do this? What I and the jury did not see was Darlie's horrible cut and bruised black arms and hands: defensive wounds, without a doubt.

I have read many true crime books and this is almost a common thing, it has happened so often. The law wants to solve a crime so quickly some idiot decides how it happened and then makes sure it looks that way.

The Elements of Doubt

There are many things missing in this case.

  • Darin's admission of an insurance scam attempt.
  • The screen that was mis-reported as being cut from the inside.
  • Possible improper read-back of testimony to the jury by the court reporter
  • Apparent conflict of interested with the attorney that represented Darlie Routier at trial had an apparent conflict of interest, because he was said to have had a prearrangement with Darin Routier and other family members not to pursue any defense that could implicate Darin. This attorney supposedly stopped key experts for the defense from finishing forensic examinations.
  • The pictures of Darlie's cuts and bruises on her arms which were taken when she was hospitalized the night of the murders.
  • The prosecution's refusal to provide access to any evidence in their custody in the case.
  • No DNA testing.
  • Some writers who have interviewed Darlie Routier have decided to help her fight to get a new trial. Since reporting their opinions on her situation, they report that their ability to visit her has been blocked or made so inconvenient that little can be accomplished.
  • During the trial investigators invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination during cross examination, preventing the defense from rebutting their testimony. Why? This alone would be reason for disbelief and a new trial!

Was This Just a Witch Hunt?

My take on the case

Wake up. Watch your back. It could be prison, pain, mental, or physical cruelty that Darlie will get them for. The list goes on and they know it, and besides that, people like me who will not let anyone forget how accountable they are and how often.

Look at Jon Benet Ramsey, her justice, her family, her poor mother. All those years with their eyes never looking anywhere but at mourning parents. Now does anyone think of the father, the brother? Does anyone think their lives will ever be normal? How different is this case?

Someone runs in and makes a Great Basil Detective decision and that's it! Look no farther. The whole force there should have been fired. They ruined three peoples' lives and found no justice for Jon Benet. Big surprise.

We know there is no justice and we know it a little more every day. What is wrong with these people put there to protect and help us? Do they need testing? Who are they? Did they come from prisons as someone in California says theirs do? Maybe we should be investigating them. It certainly looks that way.

There are so many and I think I would believe here is a case Darlie has against them for sure. They are covering their butts, with no compassion or interest in finding the true criminal.

They just don't want it found out they were wrong and if they do, they may have to pay big, which someone above them is warning them about. But for them, they should have to pay or go to jail, just like what they have put this woman through. If she is innocent, they are guilty, but what ever happens to them, they have committed a crime and are still committing it right now as far as I am concerned.

I am sure the law would force them to turn over evidence . . . or will it go so long it all just gets lost? We have heard that one too many times, huh? Hopefully their hands will be forced eventually and that is when we should demand true justice. They have no evidence against this woman. She at least deserves a new trial with all the evidence. If she were a rapist she would get it!

Look at that woman's wounds. The jury never did. I am not sure whoever her lawyer was shouldn't be charged. Look at all he failed to bring up or show that jury. Isn't that alone enough for a new trial?

We seem to have either many ignorant or crooked people in this case, and even if Darlie gets her new trial and is proven innocent and compensated (and how is that possible?), these people will never have to pay.

They may give them a vacation with pay until everyone forgets. There is so much of the judicial system in all of America that needs a serious investigation of why they are the way they are and in my opinion, much of America needs a clean sweep.

Some Things This Video Covers

No witness

No motive

Bloody fingerprint reality

Two who say dark wounds not shown

Darin failed polygraph saying he did not stab Darlie

Darlie unaware few minutes that she is even wounded

A must watch!

Darin Describes How Cops Ruin Crime Scene

Compare emotions of each parent as they speak of their sons.

Problems with this case!

Older video but full of reasonable doubt!

Facts for doubt

Doctors and Nurses Have Two Stories

Something to watch a little newer until I can get back with more but claiming here there are more than 30,000 mistakes in trial transcripts and just how close Darlie was to death. Plus some.

Darin says coffee table is bent over. No evidence of this so why does he say this?


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 47 hours ago from US

      Lainie - That is your right. I have been watching it from the start too and even thought Darlie guilty at first. I watched both parents talk about their kids and I can see the love Darlie has and whether Darin had anything to do with it or not he talks about his dead boys with such cold feelings he could have been talking about a couple of dead puppies. He even laughed while talking about air blowing out one's chest. I honestly cannot stand to look at him or hear him talk. I guess we all just follow our own convictions. I am sure we will never change the others mind.

    • Lainie Kaye 2 days ago

      I have been following this case since the first news reports, having been living in another suburb of Dallas at the time.

      The no DNA test comment is NOT true. When the Dallas County DA decided to allow DNA testing on cases of people already convicted of crimes Darlie's was one of the cases.

      After reading everything I could find about the case I have found nothing that leads me to believe that she is innocent. All I can say about the articles and YouTube videos is "same ****, different day". Her supporters are beating a dead horse.

      Quite a few people, myself included, believe that she killed them to hurt Darin. He wasn't giving in to her attempts to manipulate him, as he had in the past and she was furious with him.

      The day I will believe that she is innocent is the day when someone else steps forward with a verifiable confession of their own guilt.

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 4 days ago from US

      lindaf- Yes I have always brought up them taking Drake, I do think they found out more on Darin but they had gone so far against Darlie they would have been in all kinds of trouble so they have warned him surely letting him know they knew something and not to fight it or why wouldn't he have?

      Bruising will get worse in a few days so that doesn't seem suspicious to me. Hot baths could make it worse or come out more. Looks absolutely like defense wounds to me. I do think Darin tried to make Darlie look guilty or why would he not have stopped her from acting like such a fruitcake? What all was behind that I just have no idea but I do not understand anyone in the family not doing something or wondering why she was acting that way. If she had been anything less than the perfect mother I think her mother-in-law would have said so and she never has believed Darlie did it. Maybe she knows something too.

      Wallace has not been back and he really doesn't need to. Like I ever believed he was a lawyer. What was he when he came in Raja's name? lol

    • lindaf3 5 days ago from Amsterdam, The Netherlands

      Thanks! Will take a look at it. By the way.. Where did Wallace go? ;) lol.

      Would like to point out to something.. Darlies bruises showed up much much later.. The theory most of the haters use is that she did it herself, slamming against a hard surface( ??!!) or that Darin did beat her up because he knew what she did (??!!) To be honest. Do those two theories make any sense? I don''t think so. My personal thought: Darlie acused Darin and THEN he beated her up! That's the only logical thing here. Mayby she did see him as a suspect.. Beside that terrible crime, Darlie and Darin have something hide.. And my strong feeling is that they hide something because of Drake, the remaining son. I think Darlie is afraid that something could happen to Drake aswell. I also believe that those who worked on that case, knew this 20 years ago. Thats why Darin never got Custody of Drake...

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 5 days ago from US

      I so wish I had more time to get more of this in. Anyone who looks into this at all has to have some doubts! If you have never read the book Dateline; Purgatory you really should! They talk about a couple of prisoners who just could have been who Darin hired to do the break in and the one prisoner that I assume did the killing of some kids that night is having a bad time mentally but he dies (maybe committed suicide) but as of the reading there was one of them alive still and wouldn't it be great if finally some truth would come out and we find out they were the ones. Anyway if you get to read it (there is an article on it at HP probably in the ads here) the book it has dozens of very interesting things!

    • lindaf3 6 days ago from Amsterdam, The Netherlands

      exactly! But that table was NEVER tipped over as you can see in the official crimescene photos. So why did Darin make this up?? Thanks for watching Polly. Me and another woman from Canada worked on those 2 videos.

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 6 days ago from US

      I found a video where Darin does say the coffee table is tipped over. Added link of that at end of article for anyone who wants to hear itfor themselves.

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 6 days ago from US

      Lindaf- Thanks. I checked out your video, we seem to see it much the same.

    • lindaf3 7 days ago from Amsterdam, The Netherlands

      to Wallace: Pollyannalana is not me. Check my youtube account belindaf3. Thanks. Comming from Holland. You should know better, because my englisch isnt 100% correct. Now I really doubt that you are a lawyer.. Stop being so rude.

      Like I said, go to my youtube account belindaf3. (with two new videos about the Injustice in the Darlie Routier case)

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 7 days ago from US

      Wallace- I hope she comes back to set you straight not that you would believe but everyone can believe I have better things to do and only comments pertinent to this article (and I am sure nearly half are against Darlie if not more and I have not deleted them) will be OK'd to remain and no more nuts coming in as several people just harassing. I am deleting those since you and Raja at least are the same person and prob more as I said previously. Perhaps she read your comment before I deleted it. I don't know, I don't care.

      I welcome people such as lindaf with real additions to the conversation and would be researching what she had to say right now if not for people like you taking up my spare time. But no more. Hope you had fun. It is over.

      And yes, as soon as all have had several days to read this I will delete it too. I have no room for nuts in my life and that is not going to be what this article is about.

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 7 days ago from US

      lindaf - Wow, thank you for that. This wife is a girl

      friend from the time before Darlie? I half recall something about the glass breaking and wondering about it, (seems it was about what he heard first I had questions) need to find all my notes on this and get them into this article and I do appreciate help as you have given.

      I heard somewhere too if not in these comments that he bought a million + house with his new wife while his one son was suffering with cancer and he would not help him. No idea if that is true and guess it is just hearsay if not actually in the news somewhere. Still...if true would say a lot about him.

    • lindaf3 8 days ago from Amsterdam, The Netherlands

      one more thing for tonight..

      Darins new wife is his old girlfriend by the way ...

    • lindaf3 8 days ago from Amsterdam, The Netherlands

      This is also interesting: Darin said that he came down and Darlie was at the bottom of the stairs. He said that he pushed past her to get to Devon. So why isn't there puddles of blood anywhere near the landing of those stairs? She never went near those stairs to even get Darin. This also proves she couldn't have seen him come out of his room...but a mixture of Devon and Damon's blood was found on the railings of the stairs....

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 8 days ago from US

      lindaf- I really think Darlie loved Darin so much she never considered he could be the guilty one and I do believe he fed her so much BS and possibly even caused her to act the way she did through drugs (albeit legal) and/or add to that keeping her traumatized and talking crazy and why not if he had anything to do with it whether he meant his sons to be killed or not.

      He kept her satisfied behind bars that he really loved her while he got to be a star (although still I remind everyone they took his kid on what grounds?) and by the time he built up his riches and remarried I am sure Darlie is rethinking a lot! Hope we get to hear those thoughts soon.

      You make some great points that if I had heard I have forgotten.

      Thanks, I will look into that more and add those points here!

    • lindaf3 8 days ago from Amsterdam, The Netherlands

      to Wallace: you really missed some pieces in this case. When you look at Darlies first statement about the events, you will notice that everything she said, fits exactly with the evidence on scene. It was Darin Routier who went back into the house again after Darlie was taken to the hospital! What did he do there? Check on the scene? Anyway. How could Darin hear faint glass breaking while beeing upstairs in a mansion like that? We are talking about glass like a wineglass, not as he told everyone a glasstable.. The sounds of those two types of glass would be so different, don't you agree? But he stated that he thought the glass table fell above Devon. He even got furter in his first statement to the police.. saying he lifted the table off of Devon!! As the official image of the glasstable shows: that table was never tipped over at all! The flower arrangement was in perfect condition. But why was he telling this? Everyone is always saying Darin protects still Darlie because of their remaining son Drake.. Couldnt this work the other way around? Darlie protects Darin, saying it wasnt him she saw..because of the third son?? Police failed to look into Darin Routier. The biggest proof of Darlie not lying at first is her nightshirt. She said she was laying on her leftside on the couch. The bloodtrail on that nightshirt backs up that statement. Blood from her neckwound went around the left side of the collar, rolling towards the backside, ending with two long blooddrops.. To get this pattern you have to lay down! Her troat was slit on that couch, not at the kitchensink. About Darin: He fed Darlie lines! To Polly: keep up the good work.

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 9 days ago from US

      Wallace- Wow, a defense attorney…you can maybe tell us all then why Darlie was tried the way she was and not as the nut it would have taken to all of a sudden, once in her life, go off like that? Everyone knows too how crazy she talked, don’t they? But no one could stop her, no one could shut her up and no one sees anything wrong with that picture, just like the cops who took the 5th for taping her illegally? That alone may have set her free if she had had a decent lawyer, but then you would know more about that than me, wouldn’t you?

      There have been so many falsely imprisoned and that is a fact even pretend to be lawyers probably know about and Texas has been out many millions settling these cases. I guess they looked pretty guilty to be convicted huh? But that shows mistakes are made as Darlies well could be. I am with so many others that will never give up on a break for her regardless of people like you and your friends.

      You have the same tracking number as Raja and most probably no doubt many of my other hecklers if I wanted to look into it but I thought I would let your comment stay since you went to sooo much trouble. Must have taken you a good while to write this up…sell yourself as a man of the law, lol. Too bad you did not think it through to know I am a bit more of a detective than you give me credit for and this article stands and 65% who comment here agree with me so your bashing will make no difference, you are just wasting your time. I would like to know though who you are all representing and why it bothers you so much? My opinion is my opinion and that is that. I have both sides in the above article which I doubt any of you have even looked at. I have looked at it all and I think she was railroaded as were many others and it doesn’t look like Darlie will get justice I do admit but those of us who believe in her will not be bullied or back down and you cannot force us. So grow up, get a life and go pester someone else. I have better things to do than filter through pranksters here. Look at all this space taken up for nothing and a waste of my time for sure.

      I will not continue to put rubbish here not even knowing who you people really are even. Friends of Darins? What? I just cannot even guess you could hate Darlie this bad, so many of you so I am guessing you are just a couple or three coming in as many so I will be taking note.

    • Wallace 11 days ago

      I feel that I can add some guidance here as a former (recovering) defense attorney. Pollyanna, in our court system, there are very strict rules regarding evidence and court procedure. No system is perfect, but we do our best to convict the guilty, and not the innocent. It is improper to consider evidence not presented in court. Period. Books, lie detector tests, unsworn interviews, hearsay rumors, and internet theories should never be used to determine a person's freedom, let alone their life. I think that you would agree that Darlie Routier should not be convicted by that kind of evidence. Well, she cannot be set free with that kind of evidence either. There are evidentiary hearings on these matters, and it is very important that we do not just 'look at everything' because the rules of evidence are put in place to protect everyone in the system

      Also, you must understand that just because a juror changes his or her mind about their verdict after the case is closed, that does not mean that the convicted person is entitled to a new trial. Frankly, what a juror says to anyone about their opinion of a case is irrelevant after the jury is dismissed, providing that there was no juror misconduct during the trial. So, literally, if one, two, or even all 12 jurors came out and publically declared their belief that Darlie Routier is innocent, that would be totally irrelevant to Darlie being on death row, and she would not be entitled to a new trial.

      And bear in mind, jurors have second thoughts on verdicts all the time. You must understand the process. After the case is sent to the jury for deliberation, there is typically an initial "poll" of guilty versus not-guilty. It is extremely rare for all 12 to agree on a verdict initially, and often verdicts are reached when the majority try to convince the minority to change their mind and vote with the majority. Putting someone in jail for years, or in this case death row, is a very significant event in most jurors' lives, and it is only natural to think and rethink ones decision for months, if not years after trial. Whether you agree with the outcome or not, if 11 jurors made the 12th juror watch the silly-string tape 8 or 9 times to get him to vote guilty, then so be it. There is nothing improper in that at all. This is a key point that you may not fully understand.

      With regard to calls for a new trial, let me be as clear as I can be. A defendant is only entitled to a new trial if he or she can show a reversible error was made during the original trial, OR if there is new evidence that would be strong enough to have influenced the original jury, or a reasonable jury to reach a different verdict.

      Pollyanna, please try to understand that this case has been reviewed by several state and federal courts for years. Her strongest case was the issue with the transcript errors, but like it or not, she lost on that issue. There was no reversible error at trial. The police officer taking the 5th amendment with regard to a video tape recording that was never even shown to the jury is totally irrelevant to the facts of the case regarding the murder of Damon Routier. Like it or not, that is just what it is.

      Concerning any "new" evidence that you have discussed in your article, please allow me to put things into proper context. And, I want to be very clear here. The only party who can raise any new evidence is Darlie Routier and her attorneys. You cannot, repeat cannot present alternate theories or unsworn statements on behalf of Darlie Routier. She, and only she can raise issues of this nature in her appeals process. She has not raised any of the theories that you have mentioned to date, and I feel that it is unreasonable to offer speculation as to what happened as a substitute for evidence. In other words, if Darlie doesn't make the argument, it cannot be made on her behalf without her consent; especially by someone who is not a witness and has no direct evidence to support their claims. It is even more unreasonable if the speculation is in direct conflict with the argument that Darlie Routier is actually making.

      So, it does not matter at all if Barbara Davis has an idea about what really happened. Nor, does it matter if Jackie Lynnley in Dateline: Purgatory thinks Darlie was drugged. Nor does it matter if Sylvia Chase has second thoughts after reading something or conducting an interview. It only matters if Darlie Routier files a petition to the court, and she or her attorney stands up and says 'Your Honor, we have new evidence to show my client may have been drugged by someone the night of the murders, and this information would have affected the original trial in a substantial manner'. Until that happens in court, people, yourself included, can speculate all they want, but they will not affect Darlie Routier's status as a convicted murderer one bit.

      I respect your belief in her innocence. There is nothing inherently wrong with reading about a case and then forming an opinion one way or another. And furthermore, you can write an article saying whatever you choose to. I will say however, that after reading your article and reviewing the information that you have chosen to present, it seems as though you may not know the case as well as you may think. But, that is just my opinion; please take no offense.

      As others have mentioned, your description of the DNA tests conducted is inaccurate. In fact Darlie Routier has won all of her hearings on this issue, and there have been at least 3 retests conducted on the collected samples by Darlie's attorneys. Unfortunately for her, the tests have only confirmed the states case.

      Black car seen in the area? - Raised at trial and irrelevant

      Darin Routier's insurance scams? - Not raised by Darlie Routier even to this day, hearsay, inadmissible, and irrelevant.

      Unidentified bloody fingerprints? - Mischaracterization of what was recovered, raised at trial and already considered by the jury, print could very well be Darlie's, no Non-Routier DNA found in print by the way.

      One-sided testimony? - Neither Darlie Kee, nor any of Darlie's friends and family were present during the crime, so their testimony would actually have been improper and grounds for a mistrial. Darin did testify and declared Darlie to be innocent. Jury rejected his opinion.

      No motive? - Most non-lawyers do not understand that motive is not a required element of a crime. A billionaire can still be guilty of robbing a store whether or not he needed the money. However, there was a motive that was established, and apparently accepted by the jury at least to some extent.

      Defense versus self inflicted injuries?- Doctor who examined Darlie Routier testified quite unequivocally that Darlie was not attacked by anyone based on where and how her cuts and bruises were made.

      Nurses conflicting with notes at hospital? - Legally irrelevant (sorry but true)

      Jury did not see pictures? - Totally 100% untrue. If Darlie could prove that, she would not get a new trial, she would be released from prison altogether immediately.

      These are just a few of the issues that I see wrong with this article. But, the other part is what is missing. There is no mention of Darlie offering different versions of her story. There is no mention of the blood evidence that placed the murder weapon in Darlie's hand while standing over the boys. There is no mention of the vacuum cleaner being rolled through the blood in an effort to stage the crime scene. There is no mention of the blood that was cleaned up at the sink before the police arrived. There is no mention of Darlie claiming to "know who did it" after she claimed otherwise. There is no mention of Darlie applying first aid to her neck wound, but not helping with any first aid to the children.

      It just seems to be a very conclusion-based article in that you declare Darlie to be innocent, and then you present only things that that allow a reader to reach that conclusion, rather than presenting the whole case, and let Darlie's innocence (if it is there) emerge.

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 2 weeks ago from US

      Felicity - I just don't see why you waste your time here. There are plenty of anti- Darlie articles out there. Go find you one. If you read more words than I said here then please don't say what you think I meant or it will not be put in, being no part of what this article is about. Only comments pertaining to the article are pertinent. Only those who disagree or want to say why will be kept. This article is for grown ups and silliness will not be put here whether that is to your (and those like you) liking or not. Maybe we can get this back to an adult conversation now.

      It also appears you and Yvette may be the same person, possibly friends of the one person if not the one person I have banned. I will have to look into that further.

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 2 weeks ago from US

      Raja - Your statement is a lie and anyone can read to see that it is. I sure do say things about people that are true about people coming in to comment who do not even read the article or comments to know why I say what I say but I do not simply make it up. Now no more of your lies about me will go into these comments whether you or any of your friends think that is fair or not. This is not a put down Polly comment box sorry to inform you so enough is enough unless you have any ideas or facts to add.

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 2 weeks ago from US

      Yes Yvette that is true. people do go off and do things like this but they get tried in a different way. If Darlie went off it was the only time in her life, no witness to it ever happening before or since then she should have been tried accordingly as I have mentioned several times here in comments.

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 2 weeks ago from US

      Carmen I do not plan to waste my time answering the same accusations over and over to nitwits who cannot or will not read. So this is it for you. I based that assumption on new information brought up in the book Dateline: Purgatory. Time has not stopped and there is new information whether anyone want to look at it or not. I happen to be one of the ones that do! Now put that in your smipe and poke it!

    • Felicity4ever 2 weeks ago

      Amen George. I get so sick and tired of Darlie Routier supporters making things up and then getting nasty with you if you dont go along with their make-believe. Some of the stuff in the article is actually true, but the other 80% comes straight out of Sesame Street. Smh

    • Raja 2 weeks ago

      Don't take the rudeness personally George and Laura. Pollyannalana gets nasty with anybody who think Darlie is guilty. Calls us lazy, hateful, mean, ignorant, foolish, stupid, and all kinds of nasty and degrading things. Don't let that get to you.

    • Yvette 2 weeks ago

      Hey Paula and and Laura. Im with you on Stacy Barker. Twin case of a mother who snapped and killed the babies just like Darlie. There are dozens of cases like this every year. Ever heard of Manling Williams?

      She snapped just like Darlie did, and then acted like an intruder came in and did it. Only difference here is she killed her husband as well as the babies.

      My point is that moms can act loving one day and then snap and kill the next day. It doesn't matter how many times you all have pointed this out Pollyann, or to any other Darlie fanatic. They just refuse to understand (not believe) that mothers do in fact kill their kids for selfish and petty reasons.

    • Robynbaxter 2 weeks ago

      Ummm...Excuse me Pollyanna, but I do not need you to explain the Diane Downs case to me. Thank you very much. I am quite sure that Damon and Devon were every bit as scared as Diane Downs' kids were as Darlie came down at each of them with that knife. Ok? As several people have pointed out, you do not know the Routier case well enough to even write an article about it without making up "facts" to support your conclusion of Darlie being innocent. There was blood splatter evidence that showed Damon got up from where Darlie stabbed him, and was trying to get upstairs to his father Darin. But of course, your article would never discuss this part of the case because it would steer people to the truth of Darlie's guilt.

      And don't talk to me about motive. If you would read the transcripts of the trial instead of watching a few Youtube clips, you would see that there was indeed a motive that was established by the prosecution. A motive strong enough 4 a 1st degree murder conviction, and the death penalty. Darlie is an evil psychopath who can kill anyone to get what she wants or if she gets angry enough. Maybe the boys didn't clean up their toys earlier that day. Maybe she was trying to punish Darin somehow. Point is it doesn't matter. She did it!

    • Carmen-W 2 weeks ago

      Thank you George. I said the same thing earlier; Pollyannalana is making up a whole bunch of things related to this case. If you read the comments back a few weeks someone pointed out that Darlie herself, her trial lawyers, her appeal lawyers, or even her family have never claimed that Darlie was drugged the night of the murders. So we are supposed to ignore Darlie's version of what happened and believe Pollyannalana's make-believe version? No, Pollyannalana just created that whole fantasy idea.

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 2 weeks ago from US

      SClemmons - You see the same nicks in the first photo and it would be more bruised later so looks plausible to me and she had no idea she was going to be arrested so what would be the point? Everyone admitted Darlie and Darin talked openly to the police with no idea anyone was looking at them. In some of these videos they do ask of all these things Darlie supposedly set up to look innocent why did she not use any of them to try to prove her innocence? They are all there like the sock in the alley with everyone else talking about it, not Darlie.

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 2 weeks ago from US

      I pointed out George that the theory of Darlie being drugged came from the book, Dateline; Purgatory; I didn't just dream it up! It makes perfect sense to me and it answers a lot of questions and would have been very possible and cannot be ruled out since she was not tested for her sore mouth in the hospital or to see if she had been drugged, which they really should have done. She had a sore mouth for several days and it was not her trying to make up an excuse for anything. It was people simply looking back at things of what might have happened.

      I don't care if anyone buys any of my ideas or not and you have a right to yours, you just have no right to demand I change mine. I laugh at that idea. I am way too conservative for that! I have a mind of my own and if that offends any of you then so be it.

    • SClemmons 2 weeks ago


      Referring to your second photo of her bruised arm (not the top photo of her with little superficial arm scrapes in the hospital bed) it was taken on June 18 in a clinic when she went to get her sutures removed. That was 10 days after she was discharged from the hospital and the same day she was arrested.

    • George 2 weeks ago

      Hey Miss Pollyann, why are you being so rude? Laura has just as much right to her opinion to the case as you do. She and several other people are correct about parts of this case when they point out facts to compare against your fiction. You are in fact "making things up" with not a care in the world as the consequences of your actions.

      For example, you claim that there was insufficient DNA testing done in this case? The reality is that the were over 100 DNA samples tested in 1996 that all pointed to Darlie's guilt. And just last year 2015, there was another round of DNA tests that the defense wanted done, and got permission to do from the courts. The results were sealed by the court (per Darlie's request. hmmm I wonder why), but they were leaked to the media indicating once again there was no intruder. You made up this nonsense about there being "reluctance" to test the DNA out of thin air 1000% pure Pollyanna imagination.

      Another example, is this idea that Darlie was drugged by some intruder the night she killed the children. I thoroughly enjoyed watching whoever it was break this matter down point by point in the comments. Darlie has never claimed to have been drugged and neither has her legal team either in 1996 or to this very day in 2016. You, and whomever else MADE THAT UP out of thin air.

      Another example is this idea that the "jury never saw" this and that. I don't care what Charlie Samford (the juror who changed his mind) said. The pictures are marked and entered into evidence. The pictures are referred to at trial by the attending doctors. The pictures are referred to at trial by the prosecution. And......get ready 4 it..... the pictures are referred to at trial by Darlie Routier herself. Each injury was labeled, discussed, diagramed, and presented in court to the jury. Can you explain how an image was marked "State's Exhibit XYZ" but yet somehow not shown to the jury? That makes no sense whatsoever. You know it, and we all know it. Yet you continue to make things up about the jury not seeing all of the evidence.

      Darlie's whole defense was in effect 'Hey look at my injuries, this proves that I was attacked by the real killer, and I am innocent.' The prosecution then argued to the jury 'Hey don't believe Darlie when she says that she was attacked. Look at this proof that we have that each of her injuries were self inflicted, and did not come from some attack from an intruder.' I ask you how in the world can anybody continue to push this false narrative that the jury never saw the full extent of Darlie's injuries when this issue was argued for days on end in court? Stop making things up about the case.

      Somebody said that they can tell that you have never bothered to read the case transcripts (with the corrections made), and I agree 1000%. You should read the case and stop going to pro-Darlie media outlets for your information.

      And whenever someone comes to this page and points out any of your inaccuracies or inconsistencies you become rude and nasty to that person and then you delete and moderate comments. You only do that because you are trying to hide the truth. Why else would you just manufacture case elements and then exaggerate other elements of the case to make Darin look guilty? You are in love with the idea of Darlie being innocent, and you do not care one thing about the truth.

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 3 weeks ago from US

      Although there are doubters here, more than 50% of my readers believe Darlie to be innocent or at least think there is room for a reasonable doubt, which should give Darlie a new trial at the very least. The top video is an excellent watch for all that has happened and gives thoughts to both sides. Hope you enjoy it or at least give it a try if you do believe in any sort of justice.

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 3 weeks ago from US

      Your comment does not show until I approve it and no I am not here as often for health reasons so because you do not see your comment does not mean it has been deleted. Only one person now is on my delete list which is my option. I will have to check further to see if you can leave links. Perhaps it would be best to leave them not link-able, so they can just be copied and pasted for a search...if you want it to stay... for I will do whatever HP rules or prefers. This is a very well read hub with many reads and I am working on making it better....easier to follow and read with more clues for interest to consider...such as how Darlie would have had to have used her opposite hand to slit her throat along with many other discrepancies I think will make a fantastic study.

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 3 weeks ago from US

      Penny, when there is doubt then there is reasonable doubt, isn't there? There are many questions here and I have them and so do many others and that is my/our right. So what?

      What about Darin's shirt? Ever thought about that even once? No one talks about that do they? He was said to have gotten blood on it trying to revive but is that really how he got it? Why are there no questions about him? The only one with something to gain where they usually look first. The one they later after Darlie was behind bars took his baby from. (Why? How could they do that?) Forgive me for having a brain and thinking independently;but it is who I am and you have plenty of the info out there the law wants you to have, why would I fill my personal hub with that. I am out to show a different look. Duh.

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 3 weeks ago from US

      Thank you Tina and I hope whoever did kill those children never enjoy another holiday. I believe Darlie did and does love her children and was manipulated and drugged to act the way she did. But more on that later.

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 3 weeks ago from US

      Laura, Carmen, do your own hub, nothing to me. This is my opinion and I base it on information I have obtained not out of the blue sky but some people are too lazy to watch or read and/or are so one tract mind it doesn't matter what anyone says. I will try to put in better order what I have with simpler labels for the like minded but if you don't like it, I just don't care. You think I will close the article because you disagree? Where are you from? This is my article and my opinion and now we have yours! Duly noted.

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 3 weeks ago from US

      Robyn - Diane's daughter was afraid of her. Diane had a motive to get rid of what stood between her and the man she thought she would get with their deaths. What was Darlie's motive? Who would get rich from her death?

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 3 weeks ago from US

      SClemmons - Is that a hospital bed at the top with Darlie and her wounds and cuts (and bruises) in that picture showing clearly? What is not to see?

    • SClemmons 3 weeks ago


      She was in the hospital a little over 72 hours, June 6,7,8. Dr. Santos testified that those bruises should have appeared in 24-48 hours and they weren't there when she was discharged on June 8.

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 3 weeks ago from US

      SClemmons - How long was Darlie in the hospital?

    • Tina 3 weeks ago

      I wish the whole Routier family has a blessed holiday. Hopefully the truth will be known and Darlie can celebrate with her family soon.

    • Carmen-W 3 weeks ago

      Lol. I agree with you Laura Good; the author is making all of this up. There is no untested DNA. The injuries were determined to be self inflicted by EXPERTS and not somebody who is only looking at pictures. The testimony was not one-sided, i mean how stupid is that? Darlie testified in her own defense. I mean Duh. Smh.

      There was no intruder. No bloody footprints except for Darlie's. No unidentified fingerprints. No insurance scam that relates to THIS case. The blood evidence against Darlie is overwhelming. And the author here just made up this list of nonsense. Looks like nobody is buying it; least of whom is the state of Texas.

      Anybody else notice how this article does not address the 3 different versions of the murders that Darlie has told over the last 20 years. But spends time talking about the silly string tape? Pretty sure Darlie lying to detectives is worthy of a paragraph or two, but hey, who am I to talk? Just crazy on steroids.

    • AndreFizz 3 weeks ago

      I think the reason why this atricle is written like this, and the main reason so many are frustrated by it is that not all sources are being presented.

      If all that you know about the Darlie Routier case is from the links and videos in this article, a person might be inclined to believe that Darlie might actually be an innocent woman on death row. But that is primarily because the information on this page does not present the whole case.

      To those of us that actually know the case, this is supremely frustrating. People look at a YouTube video that is edited to look a certain way, and then they think that they know the case. I have read the court transcripts and seen several news reports and documentaries about the case.

      This article ignores large areas of analysis for this case. I'm talking like 80% of this case is not even mentioned on this page even 1 time. And most of that 80% that is not discussed here contain the elements of the case that prove Darlie's guilt way beyond reasonable doubt.

      It is obvious to me that the author has never read the case transcripts. And I find it odd to have a link that discusses nusres and doctors inconsistent statements about the number of tears they saw one night versus another night, but there is no link for the average reader to just read the transcript for him/herself.

      In fact, nothing on this entire page refers back to court testimony. Refers to 10 YouTube video and pro Darlie websites, but directs no readers to actual court evidence and court transcripts. Think about that 4 a second.

    • Robynbaxter 3 weeks ago

      Paula Steed. I came across another case just like Darlie's. Have you ever heard of Diane Downs? Another mother who killed her children, injured herself, and then blamed a random stranger who supposedly flagged her down, shot the kids, and then ran off on foot. Diane Downs also wrapped a towel around her injuries but let her kids bleed out and die. JUST LIKE DARLIE. Ugh! This woman is so evil and remorseless for what she did.

    • Michael 3 weeks ago

      Hey Paula. Stacey Barker killed her daughter just like Darlie. The main difference that I see is that Darlie stabbed each boy very violently and then laughed and sprayed silly string all over their grave. Other than that the cases are practically identical. Has anyone else read up on that case?

    • CheekyGrrl 3 weeks ago

      Pollyannalana, I don't think that you are understanding me. Dr Santos did not "change" his testimony. He is not mentioned one time in the link about doctors and nurses changing their stories. I am not talking about that issue at all. Dr Santos described Darlie's wounds as self-inflicted both the night of the murders and again on the stand.

      It seems like to me, it is either one of 2 things. Either 1 Dr Santos is lying on the stand in order to convict Darlie. Or 2, Dr Santos is wrong in his analysis.

      If Dr Santos is lying about Darlie on the stand, then that must mean that Dr Santos really believes Darlie was attacked by an intruder. Meaning Dr Santos believes Darlie is innocent. Why would he lie to put a mother on death row that he really thinks is innocent? He wouldn't, so Dr Santos did NOT lie at any time.

      If Dr Santos is wrong, which is possible I guess, what part of his testimony specifically are you saying is wrong? His testimony goes injury by injury describing why each was not defensive.

      I'm still on your side Pollyannalana, but there are a lot of good points being made in this Hub. I starting to reconsider Mrs Routier.

    • Paula Steed 4 weeks ago

      Just out of curiosity Pollyanna. I posted a case related comment about a week ago. I never cursed. The comment was 1 or 2 paragraphs; not long at all. And as I said the comment was case related and I asked SClemmons a question regarding the case.

      Now, I do not know what Miss Linda did, or what CJ Monster did, or what anybody else did. But I do know that I did not use any bad language, did not spam, and did not talk about things off topic. So why did you choose to delete my comment containing a question to SClemmons?

    • Raja 4 weeks ago

      I just found this hub. When I read it I was pretty much laughing hard at all the incorrect statements about Darin, the prosecution, Darlie's injuries, the media etc. And, the grammar is just awful, but to be expected I guess.

      But then I started reading the comments that other people have left, and I found them so reassuring. I am so glad people are rejecting this Darlie propaganda website; as they should be. Laura, Paula, SClemmons, and anyone else who has been unafraid to call out this website for twisting and manipulating the evidence, I want to thank you for speaking truth to this page full of fairytale scenarios.

    • SClemmons 4 weeks ago

      Regarding these bruises, the trial transcripts clearly describe Asst. DA Toby Shook instructing the courtroom bailiff to be sure to show the photos of her large underarm bruises to every single juror. Apparently juror Charlie Samford and this un-named female juror were asleep when these photo's were shown to the jury.

      During the trial, Dr. Alejandro Santos, the trauma surgeon that closed Darlie's wounds was called to testify. Asst. DA Toby Shook showed Dr. Santos the infamous bruise photo of Darlie's right arm (Shown below) that her supporters say prove that she fought off an intruder.

      Prosecutor: Okay. Now, you never saw any evidence of this injury to the right arm on her stay [in the hospital] on the 6th, 7th or 8th of June; is that right?

      Dr. Santos: Other than the other wounds that we talked about earlier, no, I did not see any other type of injury.

      Prosecutor: How long would it take for bruising like this to occur to the arm after receiving this blunt force trauma?

      Dr. Santos: I'd say 24 to 48 hours

      Prosecutor: Would the nurses make notes of that if they saw this type of injury?

      Dr. Santos: Yes. That's part of their duties, is to find injuries that we may have missed. And certainly something like this would be something I would expect the nurses to point out to me or to the other doctors before we sent her home.

    • RobynBaxter 4 weeks ago

      Thanks 4 the link Paula. I agree with you on Stacy Barker. These two cases are nearly identical right down to the cruelty in the murders and the premeditation from the mothers. Everybody can see how much Darlie hated her sons. Look at how hard she stabbed them. Never shed a tear in any of the interviews. No remorse. Just a evil hate-filled mother. Both of them.

    • Pollyannalana profile image

      Pollyannalana 4 weeks ago from US

      Laura- I did not mean two of the jurors testified (wrong words there) that they did not see the defensive wounds (to my knowledge) but the old man has come forward opening and unashamed and a female juror has also said so without coming forward openly. There could be more by now but last I looked into it there were two. It is their word, not mine. I do not just make things up, I want the truth too and since I believed a lie to start with is why I started looking closer. I thought she was guilty at first. Now I do not and that is my right as you can believe whatever you like and do your own hub, be my guest.

    Click to Rate This Article