Darlie Routier: Almost 20 Years in Prison

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.

Were Darlie's injuries self-inflicted?
Were Darlie's injuries self-inflicted?


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.

How do you feel?

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

  • 35% Yes, she is guilty!
  • 65% No, I think there is doubt and I could not convict her.
5832 people have voted in this poll.

What the Jury Didn't Know

Darlie's Injuries

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.

"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

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!

An Incomplete Picture

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.

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!

Comments 1618 comments

SClemmons 21 minutes ago


I too feel that Darlie Routier is unequivocally guilty of murdering her two sons. After studying this case for several years there's no doubt in my mind that she did this.

I know you feel the same way, but your personal attacks on Polly really aren't doing anybody any good. She's firm in her stance as are you in your stance and neither one of you are going to convince the other any differently.

I realize that you haven't used any profanity towards her, but calling her a liar is definitely not respectful. You have some great points and contribute a lot of food for thought, at least you have with me, but I think you've made your point regarding Dr. Santos' and the nurses testimony. Re-posting it time and again just isn't productive.

How about we move on to another area of focus on the case?

Everton 18 hours ago

REPOST After Polly Deleted it. 2nd Time

Don't worry folks. THIS IS WHAT DARLIE DENIERS DO. Polly, the author of this ridiculous article continues to delete the testimony of Dr. Alejandro Santos. I have posted it 3 times and she keeps deleting it. Also, check out nurse Denise Faulk. She testified that darlie described "wrestling" with a man the night of the murders. But of course darlie LATER CHANGED HER STORY guessed it, "I can't remember"

Polly will again most likely delete this post too, but I will repost it again if she does. Don't worry folks.


In part, Nurse Denise Faulk testimony reads:

18 Q. Okay. And as she was there on her

19 right side talking to you, did the subject of why she was

20 there and what had happened to her come up?

21 A. Yes, it did.

22 Q. How did it come up?

23 A. I had asked her if she remembered

24 anything that happened.

25 Q. Okay. And, was she able to relate to

1 you what happened?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Okay. What did she say, or where was

4 she when this all started?

5 A. She said that she was downstairs in

6 her house, sleeping on the couch. And her two boys were

7 downstairs and they had been watching TV, a big screen

8 TV. And that what started waking her up was her little

9 boy started crying.

10 Q. Okay. Did she say where her husband

11 was when all of this was going on?

12 A. She said that he was upstairs with the

13 little baby.

14 Q. Okay. So she had been downstairs with

15 her two boys watching TV?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And then what woke her up was her 5

18 year old crying?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. Then what did she say happened?

21 A. She said that her -- she felt a

22 struggle like at her neck.

23 Q. Okay.

24 A. And the man started wrestling with

25 her.

1 Q. Okay. Did she say where she was when

2 this struggle at her neck and the wrestling occurred?

3 A. She was on the couch.

4 Q. Okay. What's the next thing that she

5 told you?

6 A. She said that she started yelling and

7 that he ran off and he had dropped the knife and she

8 picked it up.

9 Q. Okay. Did she say which way that he

10 ran?

11 A. No, sir.

12 Q. Okay. Did she describe to you where

13 she went to pick up the knife?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Did she tell you anything that

16 happened when he was running away after she yelled out?

17 A. She said that he ran into a wine rack

18 holder.

Everton 18 hours ago

Hey Sandy. That is yet another Polly lie. Polly has NEVER ANSWERED my points or questions. She just deletes them. Why on earth do you think she continues to delete. If she could answer me intelligently.......she would. LOL.

If you read this before Polly deletes it, and Polly insists that she "already answered" my questions, ask her to "just repeat" for you the answer to:

1) Why do you continue to call darlie's wounds as defensive wounds EVEN AFTER the doctor who examined her the night of the murders testified the wounds were NOT defensive.

2) Regardless of which nurse saw darlie cry, and which nurse didn't remember seeing darlie cry (As if that mattered even a little bit), why did she tell nurse Denise Faulk that she had "wrestled" with a man the night of the murders, but then changed her story 4 days later to "I don't remember?"

3) Why has darlie Routier HERSELF never claimed that she was drugged by an intruder, yet you believe that she was drugged by an intruder. Despite the fact that there is no testimony or physical evidence to support this theory.

Then after you get her to acknowledge that was NO DRUGGING, ask Polly:

4) If we believe darlie's story, why did darlie not notice her 5 year old son as he BLED OUT OF 6 STAB WOUNDS crying for help, and THEN choose to walk away from her dying son?

5) If we believe darlie's story, why did she not scream for help during this fight with the intruder, and more specifically why did she not scream even an "ouch" when she was stabbed in the arm that went all the way to the bone?

6) If we believe darlie's story, why was there a reason to clean blood off the the kitchen sink handles and the floor as Damon was still alive bleeding on the floor?

7) If we believe darlie's story, darlie was asleep on the couch with a slit throat, and a stab wound to the bone on her forearm. How could anyone with those injuries be laying down on the couch not leave appreciable amounts of blood on the couch?

8) If you believe the bloody fingerprint was that of the "real killer," then you must by definition believe that the killer was not wearing gloves and he has at least some blood on his hands. How can the coffee table be the absolute LAST THING that he touched in the crime scene? Not the door, the wall, the door-handle, the window, the KNIFE, the gate latch, or even the SOCK? Did he touch the coffee table with a bloody hand and then float away?

And part 2 of this question if again they think the killer didn't wear gloves. Why did he not leave any DNA from his hands (oils, skin, hair) in any of the 100 samples collected? Remind Polly that a court in Texas DID allow for testing in 2015. The results came back with no non-Routier DNA in the sample tested at the request of the defense.

9) If we believe darlie's story, when was darlie ever close enough to DEVON (the one that was already dead) for for his blood the be SPLATTERED onto both the front and back of her shirt? (remember, darlie supposedly never touch Devon throughout this whole thing)

10) If we believe darlie's story, why did she awaken to "mommy mommy" coming from a 5 year old who has been stabbed 6 times, including in the lungs, but did not awaken to the crying out Damon undoubtedly made while he was being attacked with a knife?

11) If we believe darlie's story, darlie had a fight unarmed against a man with a knife in one hand, yet she received more punches than stabs? The intruder did all that bruising with one hand, since the other hand had a butchers knife in it?

12) If we believe darlie's story, why is darlie's blood not found on the boys, but the boys' blood is found on her?

13) If we believe darlie's story, and darlie was in shock when she told the 911 operator about messing up the fingerprints on the knife which should have been the LAST thing on her mind. darlie told AT LEAST the 911 operator, Officer Wadell (1st responder), Detective Jim Patterson, Dr Patrick Dillawn, Nurse Christopher Wielgosz, Nurse Jody Cotner that she messed up the fingerprints of on the knife. That is at least 6 separate individuals on 6 different occasions within a span of 4 hours. If darlie WERE guilty, would you expect her to do something different other than planting the idea about how her fingerprints got all over the murder weapon?

14) If we believe darlie's story, she followed after the intruder who broke the wine glass on the kitchen floor. darlie was supposed to be behind the intruder with her bloody footprints, yet her footprints were found to be underneath the broken glass. Meaning she had to have walked through the kitchen BEFORE the intruder broke the glass. How is that possible?

Follow up on this question. If there was blood on the floor before the intruder ran out through the kitchen, that would indicate the intruder would have some blood on his shoes from stepping in the blood. Why did the killer leave any bloody shoe prints of any kind?


I have making these points and asking these 14 questions clearly and without using bad language or rudeness. Polly has presented NO answers to these questions with any sort of logic or reason. Polly will DEFINITELY delete this comment, Not because of "rude"ness or vulgarity. She will delete this comment because it exposes her to reality. It is nearly impossible to come to terms with the fact you are arguing on behalf of a baby-killer. But, that is EXACTLY what Polly does.

Everton 20 hours ago

REPOST after Polly deleted it. 6th time.

Polly, the author of this article, tries to control information and suppress truth. This post will have no profanity or threats, but Polly will delete it because she cannot answer any of the substance. She has deleted before, and she has promissed to delete again.

If you are reading this now, but come back and notice this comment deleted, it is because Polly deleted it. Ask yourself what that says about her, and the truthfulness of ANYTHING WRITTEN BY POLLY. Whether you believe darlie is innocent or guilty, nobody can believe that Polly's behavior is acceptable.

Polly slaps up a picture and says 'Look there, defensive wounds. That means darlie is innocent'. But, what Polly WON'T do is refer back to the testimony from the doctors treating darlie AT THE TIME this picture was taken.

I refer you to the testimony of Dr. Alejandro Santos. He is the doctor at Baylor Medical Center that treated darlie the night of the murders, and it was he who noted the severity of the knife slash to darlie's neck. Polly loves to state over and over how close darlie was to dying. Well, she says that BASED off of Dr. Santos' observations. (Bet you never even knew his name did you Polly. smh)

Dr Santos testified at trial Jan 9, 1997, and his testimony can be viewed free of charge just by googling the case transcripts.


In part, his testimony is as follows:

Q. Okay. This wound to Mrs. Routier's

16 forearm here in 28-A, is that the kind of defensive wound

17 you usually see?

18 A. No. That is not a --


20 MR. JOHN HAGLER: Excuse me, your

21 Honor. At this time we would object to this line of

22 questioning.

1 THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.


15 Q. Here in 28-A, is that the type of

16 wound that you usually see in what you call a defensive

17 wound?

18 A. No, that's not a typical defensive

19 wound.

20 Q. And why is that?

21 A. Again, it's a deeper wound, because I

22 examined that wound. It's not a slash wound, like a

23 knife cutting cross, it's a stab wound. It usually would

24 be, as I said, the defensive wounds would be more on this

25 part of the forearm and they would be across the other

1 way, typically.

2 Q. When a person puts their arm up?

3 A. Right.

4 Q. Okay. Now, let me show you what's

5 been marked as State's Exhibit 28-D, a large photograph

6 of a palm of a hand and fingers; is that right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Okay. Do you see some, what could be

9 cuts there on the fingers?

10 A. Yes. Appear to be some slight

11 injuries there to those fingers.

12 Q. Okay. Is that what you would call a

13 typical defensive wound you see on the hands if someone

14 is being assaulted by a knife?


16 MR. JOHN HAGLER: Same objection, your

17 Honor. Same objection, your Honor.

18 THE COURT: I'll overrule the

19 objection. Go ahead.

20 MR. JOHN HAGLER: Could we have a

21 running objection?

22 THE COURT: Oh, yes, running

23 objection.

24 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, would you

25 repeat the question?


2 Q. Is this the type of cut that you would

3 classify as the defensive wound that you usually see

4 there that's on the hands?

5 A. No. Normally they would be larger.

6 Q. Okay. Larger, deeper wound?

7 A. Yes. Deeper.


9 MR. TOBY L. SHOOK: We'll offer

10 State's Exhibit 28-D.

11 MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: No objection.

12 Subject to the earlier objection.

13 THE COURT: I assume it's the same

14 objection?

15 MR. JOHN HAGLER: Yes, your Honor.

16 THE COURT: All right. Overruled.

17 State's 28-D is admitted.



4 Q. Now, I want to show the photographs to

5 the jurors. Could you point out the injuries you might

6 see there to the hand.

7 A. Normally, typically defensive wounds

8 you would see puncture wounds to the hand, to the palm

9 and to the fingers here. And they should be deeper

10 wounds if someone is trying to stab you.

11 Q. Could you point on the photograph

12 where these -- there's some maybe cuts located on the

13 fingers?

14 A. The injuries I see here are this

15 middle finger, and on this ring finger here, but they

16 appear to be small.


18 (Whereupon, the following

19 mentioned item was marked

20 for identification only

21 as State's Exhibits 52-A,

22 B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I,

23 after which time the

24 proceedings were

25 resumed on the record

1 in open court, as

2 follows:)



5 Q. Okay. Doctor, let me show you some

6 other photographs which have been marked as State's

7 Exhibit Nos. 52-A, 52-B, 52-C, 52-D, 52-E, 52-F, 52-G,

8 52-H, 52-I, and I don't need to offer that.

9 A. Okay.

10 Q. Do those photographs -- first of all,

11 are those photographs of Darlie Routier and injuries

12 there to her body?

13 A. Yes, they are.

14 Q. In some of the photographs she's in a

15 pink shirt. And specifically State's Exhibits 52-F, 52-G

16 and 52-H, are those taken at the hospital?

17 A. Yes, they are.

18 Q. Okay.


20 MR. TOBY L. SHOOK: Your Honor, we'll

21 offer State's Exhibits 52-A through I.

22 MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: No objection,

23 Your Honor.

24 THE COURT: State's Exhibit 52-A, B,

25 C, D, E, F, G, H and I are admitted.


So fellow readers and case followers, what do we have here? Polly has decided to take the evidence and selectively present it in order to manipulate people's ideas about this case. 1) Clearly the jury saw these pictures (refuting the myth that they never saw pictures of darlie's injuries) and 2) Clearly, the question of the nature OF those wounds was argued in court and judged NOT to be defensive in nature by the jury.

Now ask yourself why would Polly CHOOSE to do that? These transcripts are readily available online, yet she ignores the expert testimony about the idea of "defensive wounds" and then has the audacity to declare police misconduct and perjury by the hospital staff.

Everton 20 hours ago

REPOST after Polly deleted 1st time

Hey Polly, Like I said keep deleting these posts that are NOT "rude" and contain NO profanity or name-calling. As you can see people are reading the testimony and it cannot be suppressed.

As a matter of fact, every time that you delete my comments, when I repost them they get put right at the top of the page. So thanks lady.

To answer your question Miss Linda, I have followed this case for about 2 years, and I am an Actuary (maybe that's why I am so logical). Despite Polly's noise in this regard, I have seen EACH of the videos posted here LONG BEFORE I ever set eyes on this page. That is why I know that she has selected these videos with a Pro-darlie bias.

For example, the interview with Sylvia Chase is actually a 2 part story posted 3 years before this updated story. This updated story minimizes the investigators' segments and spends most of the video describing irrelevant 'weeping darlie' moments. Polly will NEVER put up the Warner Herzog documentary; because it breaks down darlie's inconsistent statements sequentially and thoroughly. Nor will Polly post Forensic Files Episode season 4 episode 1; which details the blood splatter evidence, and really does a good job dissecting and analyzing the crime scene.

Polly has made it QUITE CLEAR that she will delete any testimony from the trial, while at the same time directing people to read Pro-darlie propaganda books that have a FINANCIAL MOTIVE to cast doubt in the Routier case.

As a matter of fact Miss Linda. If you read this, and as you can see I have not cursed, was not "rude", and did not call names, and Polly deletes this message, THAT should tell you all that you need to know about our distinguished author and what she feels about truth.

Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 20 hours ago from US Author

Sandy-I have put links and videos of why I think what I think. I have put testimony here of the nurses and the doctor, what they said when Darlie came to the ER and what they said in the courtroom, completely different statements. Which would you believe. I have answered Everton's questions and he is hateful and disturbing and he has had his say here. Go on down if you want to read it over and over, but I don't. I can't see how my opinion would bother anyone but as I say I put my reasons here and that is just too bad if you don't want to go to the trouble to read or watch it. You are not going to take my word anyway so why should I repeat what is here for you to read or watch? What is it you want?

Sandy1814 22 hours ago

This is ridiculous guys. Everton you are coming across as petty and annoying.

Pollyannalana you are coming across as even more petty and way more annoying. Not to mention weak. You know so much about this case yet instead of shutting down Everton's testimony with intelligent answers you just delete and block? What kind of stuff is that?

Everton go to some other anti Darlie site. We get your points. Move on. For what it's worth you make some great points and are quite persuasive. The fact that Pollyannalana never can answer you without getting all worked up and deleting you out shows that you must really unsettle her. But enough already.

Why do either of you two care so much anyway?

Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 27 hours ago from US Author

More Than That- It makes perfect sense that Darin was behind it and I agree she nor anyone could slice their own neck and although Darlie did look pretty guilty at times talking and the way she acted I do think Darin was most likely driving her crazy and who knows what drugs he made sure she had before she went out, It would be easy and no one in the family suspected him and of course he had to get the blame on her or he was a goner! Hope he still will be before it is over. The new book about Darlie even talks about two crooks in that area that night and one of them saying he stabbed kids but I have no idea why no one is checking that out but the one talking is now dead but that still leaves one if he could be made to talk. There is still an outside chance we could find out something.

Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 28 hours ago from US Author

Yes, Miss Linda, I read all I can and watch and at first thought she was guilty but now I do not and if you will notice most who think she is (that come here anyway) have this mean attitude I just cannot figure. They will not watch or read anything else and I wish a lawyer would visit here because I am sure a lawyer could tell us how well cops and a courtroom can make innocent look guilty, I mean we all know it happens or people in Texas would not be getting out of prison and collecting millions for being framed.

Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 28 hours ago from US Author

OK CJ you have had your say. I get all my facts from articles and videos, most which are here but ones who want Darlie guilty will never look at those. I just remind you bigger and much smarter people than me (and you) have changed their mind about Darlie and I only delete comments that repeat and are long and drown out and many HP made me delete so you keep it clean and sane if you want it here and do not call anyone names...least of all me. If you don't like it don't come back.

SClemmons 33 hours ago


Here’s my position on this. A lot of the conversation you and I have had trading ideas, thoughts, opinions, and various reasons as to why she is guilty or not guilty has been solely based on conjecture, and I admit, I’m guilty of this too. And that of course is what makes this hub interesting and fun to take part in. We all get a shot at playing sleuth, and I’ve read some really good ideas, points, and opinions from both sides of the guilty or not guilty groups.

I agree, the video’s you recently posted do indeed have some interesting points. Polly, I really am an open minded person, and occasionally I’ll read an idea from a “Darlie is innocent” supporter such as some of your opinions. I’ll sit back and think, hmmmm, that’s a good point, I never thought about that. Then I try to plug that opinion into the physical evidence at the crime scene and her testimony and it doesn’t ever work out. There was nothing found at the crime scene to suggest that anyone else forcibly entered that living room or exited the living room through the utility room. It always comes back to Darlie, whose fingerprints and DNA were all over the place. Believe it or not, when I first began studying this case I too thought she was innocent.

The following issues are what convince me of her guilt, outside of her constantly changing stories of the events.

1. During the call to 911, she almost immediately mentioned her fingerprints being on the knife to the 911 operator. Who thinks about evidence and clearing yourself with your children lying in puddles of blood in front of you with one of them still alive and struggling to breathe? The 911 operator even stated that raised a red flag with her and that she’d never heard someone say that when reporting a violent crime concerning family members.

2. If an intruder did this, how in the world did he/she brutally stab three people, go through the utility room, through the garage, across the concrete driveway, down the alley, and travel all the way to the place where the sock was recovered without one drop of blood or any other evidence being found? You asked me the same question presuming Darlie had done it. Well how did this supposed intruder do it? How could the supposed intruder not have blood on them? Why wasn't any of Darlie's blood found on the sock?

3. Would someone who just stabbed three people really stop to latch the back gate as they were fleeing a crime scene? And in Darlie’s own testimony in court, she said there was a trick to latching it because there was string holding it up making it uneven and it scraped the ground. Something only Darlie or Darin would have known how to do in a hurry.

4. What was the purpose of the break-in and stabbing? Nothing was stolen, her jewelry was right there in plain sight on a counter. As soon as you break in a house to rob it and you see people sleeping in the living room, you quietly back out and hit another house, not stab them to death and risk murder convictions on top of breaking and entering; even the dumbest of criminals are smarter than that.

5. This supposed intruder must have had gloves on, no other prints were found, and why no male foot prints in the blood on the floor, or anywhere in the house or outside of the house? Only Darlie’s.

6. This is not to mention the cast off blood on her shirt, or how she walked through the kitchen with the broken glass without cutting her feet, or all the stationary blood drops of hers in front of the sink indicating that she stood there for some time. Why did she only clean her own blood off the sink and counter?

7. Why did she immediately administer first aid to herself (the wet towel) instead of the boy’s? Why did she, according to Darin and the first cop to arrive, not go near the boys as they were dying?

8. Why were life insurance policies on the boys and a handwritten will in Darlie’s writing found beside the couch by police?

I still maintain that the so-called defensive bruises on her right arm were self inflicted on the bed rail of her hospital bed. Is it just coincidence that the bruises are limited to her right arm and her left arm was the one handcuffed to the bed rail which would limit her ability to slam it down on the rail?

I’m curious as to how you explain away these actions. What kind of loving, caring mother that you’ve mentioned she was, does these things? Sure, she was freaked out and excited, but a mother that truly loved her children that just got stabbed and were lying on the floor would be right down there with them to the last minute and mostly likely have to be pried away from them, but not Darlie!

My question to you Polly, in all due respect, is what part of the physical evidence in that house absolutely convinces you that an outside intruder did this? You simply cannot let emotions make a decision. You can’t presume she’s innocent because she seems like a nice person and is convincing when interviewed, or because it seems impossible that a mother could do this to her own children. I’m referring strictly to the physical evidence found at the crime scene, the very things that convicted her outside of her story twisting and bouts of sudden amnesia on the witness stand when caught in a lie.

Funny how almost every time she’d state “I don’t remember” to a question when being cross examined on the witness stand by the prosecution, it involved something about the crime that she had already told the hospital staff about. And when that was pointed out to her by the prosecution, knowing she had been caught in a lie, she’d just start crying.

Darlie Routier hung herself on the witness stand. Her own defense attorney later stated that was a mistake putting her up there.

If we do look at Darlie’s emotional state in the hospital after the attack, which again has nothing to do with the physical evidence on the scene , and cannot be denied, (There was no Mark Fuhrman there planting evidence) I’m sure she did get tearful at times, and I’m sure she actually regretted doing what she did. I have no doubts that she loved her boys but her prior emotional state is known from her own testimony and her diary entries. She was depressed, she considered suicide at one time, and they were near bankruptcy. She felt that her looks were fading with her weight gain and she just wasn’t as happy as she was when things were at their peak with the business. I think things built up to the point where in her mind she somehow blamed the presence of her two oldest sons for being the reason behind her life spiraling down. She snapped, killed them and staged the crime scene. And again, I’m sure she regretted having done that after the fact. Her regrets of killing them would make it easy to get convincingly upset and emotional and say how much she loved them and missed them to the hospital staff, media, police, and the court.

The problem is, NO ONE can explain how all her various stories and theories about what occurred do not match with what was found at the scene. She wasn’t convicted on hearsay or conjecture, she was convicted on her story of what happened not matching up with the physical evidence and the fact that the evidence continually points to her only as being the killer. The evidence is indisputable, no matter how many bizarre twists and reasons the Darlie supporters give for things being as they were at the crime scene !

SClemmons 33 hours ago

Misslinda, in response to your question, no, I'm not an attorney, I'm a Physician Assistant (PA) and I volunteer with a rescue squad as a paramedic. My wife is an emergency room nurse and we've been following the case since it occurred.

More Than That. 37 hours ago

Her sister says that she knows that they were there trying to celebrate the boys birthday and that they did not wanted to be a sad visit but a birthday celebration even when it was sad for everybody. I have seen the father talking about when it happened and I see more love for his wife than sadness for the lost of the boys. I think that he find someone to rob the house and everything ended up wrong. For a person to cut his own throw is very hard; she could make other types of injures if she wanted to simulate that she was a victim too but that was not the case. I think that it was a rob that go wrong... they even find a finger print that match non of them, is that not evidence that it was somebody else and not a mother that got not worth from doing something like that. Everyone has different form to dill with lost from others that we love and with the lost of our own life. To put her to death they needed more proves ! and there are more proves for her husband who was the one trying to get money and is proven that he was planing something that could ended up like this, of curse he don't want to really testify because he knows what happened to his wife been innocent and if he said that part of the story he will be the one in jail.

MissLinda 40 hours ago

Wow lots to read here. Question for Pollyanna, SClemmons, Everton, and Hangmanj. How long have each of you followed this case? Pollyanna have you read or seen any videos that make Darlie out guilty? SClemmons, Everton, and Hangmanj are any of you lawyers?

CJ Monsta 2 days ago

Everton.....dude.....give it a rest. Darlie supporters don't deal with facts and evidence. Pollyanna has deleted and blocked many comments over the years. Did u think u was the first bro? She is ignorant of key elements of the case and makes stuff up. She is going to delete this comment because she has buried her head in the sand and cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction. I must say that it is refreshing to see somebody call her out on here constant lying and bull. Couple years ago she was blaming the husband, soon she will be blaming Professor Plum in the Study with the Candlestick. she will blame literally anybody except Darlie Lynn Routier. LOL

Detox4Life 2 days ago

Hey Everton. Where can I find the transcripts online? and Pollyannalana where did you get the videos that you posted from? I remember seeing a documentary where the blood splatter expert basically wore a shirt similar to Darlie's, stabbed a doll or something with simulated blood inside it, and he pretty much duplicated the exact blood splatters on the front and back of her shirt. Have you seen that one? Are all these videos in one place? Thanks

Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 2 days ago from US Author

Gustaf - That is your right and as I have said I at first agreed with you and did think she was guilty until I looked at a lot of other opinions and thoughts and I hope you will too. I have put many here and they are so very interesting I hope everyone will at least read or watch them.

Gustaf 2 days ago

I dont know about that Pollyann. She took the sock down the alley before she cut herself. Thats pretty obvious. When you think about it the sock should have had at least some of Darlie's blood on it. Most of the blood at the crime scene was hers, but somehow none got on the sock in the alley? Sounds way too fishy

And don't give me that excuse that Darlie was not in her right mind. There can be no excuse for a mother holding a towel on her own neck wound while doing nothing physical to help the boys. What could possibly have happened to her brain 4 hee to act like that?

Like i said. She acted like a guilty person would act that night. Thats what i believe. She told many lies to the police, and even the prison guards and other inmates in jail and prison think she did it. Bill Parker said Darlie routier is one of the most cold-blooded people he has ever interviewed. And he says he's "completely absolutely convinced" that Darlie did it after meeting with her. Toby Shook called Darlie a psychopath. It's much easier to believe them than it is to believe a parent would apply first aid to themselves and do nothing to help her 5 year old as he cried crawled and bleeded out right in front of her. Not buying it folks.

Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 2 days ago from US Author

SClemmons-although this is not the article I was looking for about how Darin was obsessed with Darlie's looks (especially breasts) it is mentioned here and many more things with much information about how this writer Barbara Davis (writer of the book Precious Angels of Darlie's sons) once against Darlie and being at the trial, later changes her mind and is a witness to what I have said here about the defense photos not being seen at that trial! Only the throat photo she says. Many interesting things here and so this covers all I promised and anyone reading this and the link above and the added videos at the end should have a real blow to your thoughts if you were against Darlie unless you are just not going to change your mind regardless. There is too much to not give so much doubt to this sentencing! Some very interesting videos and articles. Please enjoy! I did!

Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 2 days ago from US Author

An interesting read here about the doctors testimony! Yes he changed his mind about what she said and how she looked and how she acted. Wonder why? Which should we believe? The doctor in the hospital or the one who had his memory refreshed by the police! Same with the nurses. She was hysterical and screaming but in testimony she was flat and unemotional. Do we believe what they saw fresh in writing or what they later recalled after being questioned by police? Clearly Darlie was framed in so many ways!

Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 3 days ago from US Author

SClemmons - I will find what I found about the timeline on the injuries to Darlie, the cut to her throat...anyway she could not have helped from bleeding on the run with the sock and the little boy could not have still been alive after 10 minutes from the stabbing which means she had to have been cutting and wounding herself first. All that does not work out. I will find the video and include it here within a few days and look into the doctor question too.

I am not one bit like Darlie was, but Darlie was a young woman trying to please her husband who was obsessed with her looks (I will include a video on that too!) so that is not unheard of. From all we know she was only his

Hope to be back by weeks end if not sooner.

Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 3 days ago from US Author

Gustaf - Sometimes we should try putting ourselves into someone else's shoes. Look at what all happened to Darlie, we all have eyes and can see that. It appears that for whatever reason and maybe a doctor or nurse could answer that she was just not her normal self waking up from that and seeing a man leaving the room, really? In my right mind I would have started screaming right then or ran for cover or help, I may not have thought of anyone else. We just don't know unless it happens to us but she is screaming about her babies in just minutes. I don't claim to know her mind or anyone's in that position but still no one has answered how she could do all that was done and the reasoning behind running the sock down the alley but spilling no blood and doing it in less than 2 minutes didn't someone say she would have had to after stabbing the one whose blood was on the sock and their death.

I think this case is way bigger than it looks and I know that Texas law has a lot to do with blocking much anyone tries to do and it is their call on much that i don't see how but it is true, shockingly. Hope to get into that more a little later.

SClemmons 3 days ago

Polly, hope the pain from your recent surgery eases off.

In response to your comments on my post.

Darlie being portrayed as a floozy was no-doubt a prosecution move to downgrade her credibility and portray an immoral character, (a common courtroom tactic) but that information that they expounded on was not made up, it was true.

It's well known that she opted for breast implants, and not only for enhancement, but the largest size available. She bleached her hair, wore heavy makeup, and wore revealing low cut tops while out in public. Testimony from friends revealed that she openly flirted with men in front of Darin at parties and various get-togethers. That of course doesn’t make her a “floozy” or a murderer, but it does bring her level of vanity and character into question. My wife doesn’t dress or act like that in public, and I’m most confident you don’t either.

A trial reporter wrote how during her testimony and media interviews she spoke in this "obviously put-on, pitiful little girl voice." But in normal conversation she sounded nothing like that. I've noticed that myself on YouTube in her interviews, just like when she cries during interviews, she doesn't shed a tear. I've never seen anyone do that before with the exception of my son when he was 3-years old and trying to BS me to get his way about something. The only video where I saw her genuinely crying was when she was arrested.

In regards to the planting of the sock that you mentioned, I don’t understand why there is a timeline question or mystery as to why Darlie’s blood doesn’t lead a trail to the location where it was found. It’s simple, Darlie ran the sock to that location in her scene staging efforts after she stabbed her children, and before she returned to the kitchen to cut herself at the sink where she made feeble attempts to wipe up the excess blood as discovered with the luminal. Then, she called 911.

Or what I tend to believe, Darin ran it to the location in assisting to cover for Darlie while she cut herself at the sink, and then she called 911.

Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 3 days ago from US Author

Lucy? Are you also Linda with the same question? I will get to it as soon as I can. Both my hands are like boils from surgery and I am doing the best I can with all that I have to do but I will get to this as soon as possible. Sure look like defense wounds to me I must say though and if he didn't think they were defense wounds why did he not call the police? Everyone seems to have all the answers....poor Darin....I should not accuse him even with all the reasons to, should I? Why does that make so many so mad? I just have to wonder.

Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 3 days ago from US Author

Everton there are your rude and harsh remarks and I hope you said all you want to say because you are now banned from this hub.

I said I will comment on the doctors remarks after I have a chance to read them and I will.

I am master of my domain and you more than insult me so there everyone has read what you have to say and they will have to wait a little longer for my response but you will waste your time coming back.

I am woman, hear me roar! End of story...for you.

SClemmons 3 days ago

A Powers - "Why hasn't the Innocents Project looked into Darlie's case?"

They did in 2006 and rejected it. My guess would be too much solid evidence.

A Powers 3 days ago

Why hasn't the Innocents Project looked into Darlie's case?

Gustaf 4 days ago

the main problem I have with the Darlie Routier case is that I can never get past the idea of a mother waking up and discovering her kids brutally murdered in front of her, yet she never applied first aid or even touched the boys as they lay there dying. I know my first reaction to my daughter being stabbed would be to stop the bleeding and comfort her. Darlie seems to do the exact opposite of what she should do. She got a towel and put it around her own neck while Damon crawled across the floor bleeding? Something aint right with that.

Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 4 days ago from US Author

MissLinda it was Everton's and it was because it is my article and I will be treated respectful no matter what my opinion. He has had his say and he is not about to listen to any other opinion so what more is there. I am not filling this up with pages of BS from big shots. It doesn't take long drawn out hateful spews to ask a question and since yours was not and I am interested to take a look at that I will and get back as soon as I can. I am having some serious pain from carpal tunnel surgery in both hands so I can just say as soon as I can and I will make an effort to find that to read today.

Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 4 days ago from US Author

SClemmons, you clearly do believe she is guilty and I admit you have some good points which is the way she talked and acted. Unlike her normal self too, right? I say she was either in an insane state (and i do not really believe that) or she was helped along by the real murderer to look as guilty as possible. He was her husband, she trusted him, how easy would that have been and doesn't that answer how the law was able then to take his son though Darlie was behind bars? Yes 12 people got her for murder and we all know with much help with the cops besides Darlies weird behavior. They had to make her look like a fluzzy first of all and they played dirty all the way through and everyone knows that, You nor anyone has explained the timeline either it would have taken Darlie to do all this and run down an alley without leaving blood of hers trailing to throw down a sock. Any decent lawyer would have gotten her off Scott free.

SClemmons 4 days ago

LucyTee51 said: "I have been reading this back on forth and I was honestly beginning to think SClemmons and Everton was working for Darin's best buddy team."

Lucy, I assure you I'm not "working" as you phrase it, for anyone. I don't know Darin Routier anymore than I know you. In fact, although I don't think Darin planned or committed this crime, I do think he helped cover it up and knows that Darlie did this.

I also don't know Everton, but I will admit I agree with many of his points and share in his feeling that Darlie Routier is 100% guilty of murdering her children.

MissLinda 4 days ago

I am calling "bull" on you Pollyana. I specifically asked you to comment about the doc's testimony. I know that you took down the post from Hangmanj or Everton [ I cannot remember who put it up]

Do you deny taking it down?

Everton 5 days ago

Lucy, you have to understand that Polly is manipulative. If you think darlie routier is innocent, you should be able to explain why reasonably and rationally. But Polly has NEVER demonstrated a capacity to do that. The doctor that TREATED darlie, not some guy who wrote some book about the case, said the wounds were NOT defensive. Period.

Polly is in the business of making up evidence. She did it by making up the idea that darlie was drugged the night of the murders, and NOW she is making up the idea that darlie had defensive wounds when she was seen by the doctors.

For you to believe Polly, you have to believe that the Dr Alejandro Santos 1) Saw darlie the night of the murders, examined her, and then declared her wounds to be defensive. 2) Then Dr. Santos decided that the victim of this knife attack should be framed to take the fall for the murders, for some reason. 3) Then Dr. Santos decided to commit perjury, get on the stand and LIE by saying the wounds were actually NOT defensive, EVEN THOUGH he really thinks that she has defense wounds, and is innocent of the crime. Does that make sense to ANYBODY? No of course not. And THAT is why Polly deleted the post containing Dr. Alejandro Santos' testimony.

To put this into perspective, Dr. Alejandro Santos would have to believe darlie were innocent if he thought the wounds WERE defensive right? I mean it would prove there was an intruder who attacked her, and darlie would therefore be innocent. But, Polly wants you to believe that this doctor decided to give false testimony (lying about the nature of her injuries) in order to convict a woman who he actually believes is innocent. Why would ANYBODY, let alone a DOCTOR who doesn't even know darlie, knowingly decide to jeopardize their professional career, compromise their morals, and risk jail by committing perjury to put a person that he believes is actually innocent on death row?

What nonsense.

Watch to see if Polly deletes this posting for calling her out. I know I will.

Parker West 5 days ago

Darlie was the same type of uncaring superficial parents who would always meet her needs first, not those of the little kids and then the baby. Susan Smith in SC, The set-up fee and the state price you pay in some states. Start by finding out abouttrainort, finding the wagon that went into the

LucyTee51 5 days ago

I tend to think Darlie was convicted because of the media and I pray for her to be strong until the truth comes out about Darin. I have been reading this back on forth and I was honestly beginning to think SClemmons and Everton was working for Darin's best buddy team. But Pollyanna, I actually read that post that everton did about the doctor. That is I read it before you took it down. I was really hoping that there was another side to look at that you could share with the rest of us since you know the case so well. But I am incredible shocked to see you not respond to the doctors' opinion. I read that man's words myself and he said they were not defense cuts. But bigger than that why did you delete the doctors' testimony preventing others from reading it? Do you approve all comments that people leave? God Bless

Everton 5 days ago

I just noticed something. Pollyanna, the author, posted a picture and declared darlie routier "clear" defense wound.

I then posted direct testimony from Dr Alejandro Santos. He testified at trial on Jan 9, 1997. And he is the Doctor that treated darlie the night of the murders. The doctor testified that he would NOT describe darlie's injuries as "defensive" which contradicts Polly's assertion that they were "defensive"


I wonder if you have the audacity to delete THIS comment for calling you out Polly. All readers take note if she deletes this post after you have read it.

Now ask yourself WHY ANYONE would delete a post containing sworn testimony from a DOCTOR? The answer is clear. Polly read that testimony the CLEARLY INDICATES that darlie's wounds were NOT defensive according to the doctor who examined her, and performed surgery on her, but look what she decided to do.

She decided to try and SUPRESS sworn testimony from a DOCTOR from you the reader, by deleting the posting. You see, Polly doesn't like to put out ALL information and let the truth emerge. She wants to CONTROL what information we consume, thereby manipulating debate. A normal person would analyze if it makes sense to believe Silvia Chase OVER Dr Alejandro Santos, and I think we would all agree that is pretty silly to value the former or the latter. But Polly has made it clear by her deleting the posting, that she is not acting normally.

And remember, Polly wants you to read the latest darlie book. Dateline: Purgatory and believe that an unarmed ninja broke in, drugged darlie, killed the children, and then floated away leaving no blood, hair, or DNA behind. Oh yeah, and decided leave the murder weapon but take a sock. But Polly DOES NOT want you to read the sworn testimony of the SAME doctor that saved darlie's life when he operated on her the night of the murders.

I'll stop posting here, I'm sure Polly will delete this post because she lacks the courage to let it stay up.

Everton 5 days ago

Hey Polly, to answer your questions..........

And by the way, notice how I do this directly and without the fear the you have for answering MY questions.

1. She killed her children because she is a sociopath, who lacks the human and motherly empathy of normal people. Very much like a serial killer, she does not value life the way that most of us do. Just like susan smith, her personal relationships meant more to her than the lives of her own children. I have said before, mothers killing their children is not even that uncommon; there are about 100 cases EVERY YEAR in the USA.

2. This may surprise you Polly, but most people do not have good reasons to kill; especially mothers who kill. susan smith NOR susan eubanks had insurance on the children that they killed. I don't believe she killed Devon and Damon 'for the money' but rather she killed them out of the rage that she had for them. She blamed her children for her own life falling apart. Remember that her life was in shambles to the point that she was considering suicide a month earlier.

3. I think the fact that darlie injured every part of her body EXCEPT her face explains why she was both self-absorbed and capable of CONSCIOUSLY and PURPOSELY choosing how she would injure herself.

4. I believe it, the investigators believe it, and the jury members ALL believed it during the trial. Most case followers believe it. That was easy, lol. And, by the way, she planted the sock in the alley BEFORE she slit her own throat Polly. That's why there is no blood trail.

5. You have a very underdeveloped knowledge of how the law works. darlie Routier plead straight NOT GUILTY. She had the choice to plea not guilty by reason of insanity, but she rejected that. The second answer to this question is that we do not retroactively declare people to be insane for the purpose of reducing sentences and punishments. If somebody commits a rape, we don't say 'Hey, a sane person would not have raped that woman, so that must mean the defendant MUST have had a bout with temporary insanity'. EVERY murder can be characterized as a temporary lapse in judgement, wouldn't you say? Anyway, that is not how the law works.

6. Darin WAS the first suspect. It wasn't until darlie started telling different stories, getting caught in lies, and telling investigators that "If I did it, I don't remember," that police recognized darlie was the real killer.

7. We don't "look at all this again today" because AGAIN....that is not how the system is supposed to work. We don't try, try, and retry cases over and over again until a person is found not guilty. If she were found not guilty in 1997, would you want the other side to "look at this again" to keep arresting and trying darile over the last 20 years? No, the case was settled in 1997. The way to overturn a wrongful conviction is through the APPEALS PROCESS. darlie has raised many, many, many issues in appeals over the last 20 years and has lost every one. INCLUDING btw Polly the 2015 DNA TEST of that unidentified bloody fingerprint which did NOT identify any non Routier DNA.

8. You should have the intellectual integrity to take new information and balance that against your current understandings. It's like arguing with somebody that it is Friday, when the other person insists that everything they have read in the last 24 hours suggests it is Thursday.

SClemmons 5 days ago


In response to your open questions addressed to everyone. All 8 of those questions will most likely never be answered. The answers to those questions given by anyone would be purely speculative with no supporting definitive facts. In other words, considered hearsay in a courtroom.

All 8 of those questions that have people thinking and doubting her guilt, have completely disregarded the physical evidence found on the scene. There is mention in your questions of the one unidentified print, that by no means suggests that it belongs to the “true” killer which would automatically make Darlie innocent. I’m sure there is an unidentified print in mine and your own respective homes that could not be identified. This doesn’t mean there was killer in either house. If I remember correctly, in this past DNA round with the crime lab, it was surmised that this “mysterious” finger print, although unable to be positively identified, was most likely a child’s print due to its size.

My point is, those questions skip over the fact that the physical evidence points to only one person, Darlie, and no one else. My other point is that out of all of Darlie’s changed and altered versions of what occurred that night over the years, not one version of her many stories match the physical evidence found on the scene. Physical evidence is just that, physical evidence, and it cannot be changed. You do not have to have an MO to convict someone, it doesn’t matter what she was thinking or why she did it, the fact is the evidence was sufficient to clearly suggest she did it, and no one else; which was enough to convince 12 jurors.

It just kills me in all these Darlie supporting documentaries how they (including the authors of these books) always say, “She still maintains her innocence to this day.” Well of course she does, how many lifers and death row inmates say they did do it? Very few. And she’s committed to her story of innocence now. Why would she break down and say “OK, I did it” ? It’s not going to change her death sentence, and that would make her all the more a monster in the eyes of the public and make worldwide headlines all over again.

Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 6 days ago from US Author

There is something very interesting in the Dateline Purgatory book that points to two men in that area that night and one saying he killed some children and having a mental problem over it and why that has not been looked into more I dod not know although that particular one is now dead the last I heard the other one is alive but things like this gone unchecked could be how crimes are never solved and there is that bloody fingerprint not identified still isn't it?

Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 6 days ago from US Author

When someone like Everton comes in and starts talking bull I just block them out. I have answered his questions to a point and as I say I have a life away from here and I do not look forward to pages and pages of the same thing over and over. He claims Darlie did not have any bruises in the hospital when you can clearly see she did. Then he claims I just ran in and added them which is ridiculous. Those photos have been there since this hub years ago! What I added was the video with Sylvia Chase. Very interesting too but will he watch it? I am sure he will not.

I would like him and anyone to answer questions for me.

1. Why did Darlie kill her children she so clearly loved?

2. What did she have to gain in any means? They had enough insurance to bury them maybe.

3. Who believes a beautiful woman so spoiled as everyone claimed would mutilate her body that way and we can see the pictures no matter what anyone says.

4. Who believes Darlie did all the running around stabbing and bruising herself, slitting her throat within an inch of her life, stabbing her two sons no one ever saw her abuse, grabbing a sock and running it down the alley and from what an investigator there said it wasn't just like through the back yard and the gate was wired!

5. If she freaked out and killed them then why was she not tried as temporary insanity?

6. Why would Darin not be the first suspect with the huge insurance on Darlie and his business in trouble?

7. Why would anyone refuse to look at all this again today to see why others like Sylvia Chase (network reporter) and Barbara Davis who wrote Precious Angels against Darlie sudden change her mind getting new information and taking a new look? Now proceeds from that book go to defense money for Darlie. Barbara had police break in her house and kill her son and just a big horrible mess that showed her how easily someone can be falsely accused.

8. Why would I having read anything new and looked at many videos changed my mind from guilty to innocent have to answer to anyone for that. Many people have changed my mins and I have gone into much of it here and if anyone really interested wanted to ask a question I would be happy to see how can to that decision but the fact is it is my decision and my right and I am not raving at anyone although I think there is more than enough room for reasonable doubt but Everton's are not taking over this article with pages and pages of demands and insults and that is that.

SClemmons 8 days ago

Laura holden: "You guys are so incompetent, that woman did not kill her kids"

How does believing Darlie Routier is guilty make those of us that think she did murder her children incompetent? What exactly are we "incompetent" of? What proof do you have of her innocence that her defense didn't have? Are you even familiar with the case? Did you read the entire trial transcripts? How do you know for a fact that her wounds weren't self-inflicted? Is that your professional medical opinion? I take it you're an MD?

And "society" didn't put Darlie Routier in prison, a jury of 12 of her peers did.

You need to have some supportive facts to your claims before you just come out insulting people right off the bat.

Laura holden 8 days ago

You guys are so incompetent, that woman did not kill her kids much easier for all these cops to put it on what's easier for them, that way they don't have their supervisor breathing down our necks. you let the killer get away ,how ignorant. There is no way that woman did that to her body . And if you would have seen her body before she had surgery then you could say OK let's take a look at this now Again society has put the wrong person in prison how incompetent

Sharon 8 days ago

I have to admit in reading the recent comments that Everton has some very good points. I, myself have no doubt in my mind that Darlie is guilty. I've studied this case for many years, read the transcripts in their entirety more than once, and read just about all of the various books supporting both sides.

It's interesting to me that the pro-Darlie supporters keep saying over and over again (including Darlie Kee) that she was convicted on "circumstantial evidence." About 95% of all murder convictions are based on circumstantial evidence. I'm not sure the pro-Darlie supporters even know what that means. Circumstantial evidence simply means there was no eye witness to the act. Very few first degree murders involve an eye witness. The evidence against her is overwhelming and her trying to explain away various pieces of evidence when challenged by both the police and the prosecution resulted in her story of the events completely changing from her original version.

When she was challenged on the witness stand in court and realized she was cornered, she would start crying and simply say she didn’t remember; very typical behavior of other guilty murderers caught in a lie, and she did this several times. Her recall and memory is selective depending on who’s asking the questions. She now seems to recall things she couldn’t recall in court and seems to have forgotten things she stated immediately after the crime took place, or has changed her story entirely. It’s a proven fact that people who constantly lie about things will eventually convince themselves that it’s the truth. This makes them totally convincing when asked questions years later because they truly believe what they’re saying.

As far as this recent discussion about Darlie on drugs, I recall seeing somewhere an actual copy of her toxicology screen that was taken with the routine lab work that’s conducted when someone is admitted to an emergency facility and prior to surgery, so it was definitely done. She was negative on trace amounts of ethanol , (alcohol) amphetamines, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, methadone, cocaine and opiates, including codeine, oxycodone, and heroin.

If she were in fact on this mystery drug that’s been mentioned in recent posts here, I would think that would all the more supportive evidence that she was capable of murdering her children that night. As hard as it is to accept, some mother’s unfortunately do murder their children. Just because she has been described as a sweet and nice person, doesn’t mean she wasn’t capable of murdering her children. Many people that testified for the defense in Susan Smith’s trial including her mother of course, said she was the sweetest person alive.

Sandy1814 8 days ago

Wait a minute. I thought she was innocent. But i never knew the doctors thought that her injuries were self inflicted. I thought the police came up with that idea. Not the doctors. This article made it seem like there was doubt but this doctor seems pretty darn sure that they were not defensive wounds.

I dunno.

MissLinda 9 days ago

I don't know if Darlie did it or not but i pray for her family. Seems like there was reasonable doubt from what i can tell and Darren should be looked at closer. New trial should happen just to make sure. But Pollyanna, why don't you answer the question about drugs and defense wounds from Hangmanj and Everton? It seems like you know alot about this case but they make some really good points that i haven't considerd. I hadn't looked at any testimony on this case b4, but the doctor did clearly say he didn't think the wounds were defense type wounds. Id really like to read your thoughts about that. Thanks and Gob Bless.

Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 9 days ago from US Author

The very first photo at the top is Darlie in hospital disproving your she did this days later theory, Everton. Defensive wounds clear to see and not only a cut to her throat that was within a breath of killing her but a stab on her arm clear to the bone!

Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 9 days ago from US Author

An added video at the end of this article is another of the ones I used to form my opinion. No reason, no motive and those who were sure she was guilty got evidence they had not seen before that changed their mind. Lie detector test showed Darin was lying and had something to do with the murders and attack on Darlie. Many things Everton, that you think I just made up.

And again I say even basing it on this and as Darlie herself said, "What sane mother would do a thing like this to her children?" If she did do it, she was not sane and should not have been tried as sane. I do not believe she did though and I think things she did and said were brought on by Darin manipulating a grieving mother possibly with drugs and words (emotions she was full of for several different reasons). It could well have been done that way although no I do not have proof and in the video where she is spraying the silly string you notice she has something in her mouth and although I do not recall where I heard this (a TV program I think) she was having trouble with her mouth still at this time and had to use whatever it was to relieve the pain.

Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 10 days ago from US Author

You sure take an unusual interest in the Everton and as I said I am through talking to you. I don't try to change your mind and there are questions you should have too. The woman who wrote a book against Darlie changed her mind, wonder why. Sylvia Chase, Network TV reporter(if you remember her?) changed her mind about Darlie after investigating her so I am not the only one. Many much smarter than I have. You seem to be working for Darin? Whatever, I think you have had your say now and you are down to simply attacking me and that will stop, now.

Everton 10 days ago

Polly, the author of this artcle, has put forth a theory for the murders that relies HEAVILY on the idea that an intruder came in a drugged darlie. This mystery drug has no name, and it has never been identified by a lab test. More importantly, darlie routier, nor her family, nor her lawyers have EVER CLAIMED that darlie was drugged the night of the murders.

Polly has taken it upon herself, reapeat UPON HERSELF, to make this claim that she bases on some book (written to make money SPECIFICALLY by casting doubt in the case by any means necessary) called Dateline: purgatory. Every reader needs to understand what Polly has done here. So let me break it down.

Polly has NO ANSWERS for darlie's behavior that points to guilt in several key events that night. So Polly fills in the holes with this well-darlie-must-have-been-drugged nonsense.

Ask Polly anything about this drug, and sit back and watch the flow of nonsense. Ask her how the drug was introduced into darlie's answer. Ask her why darlie herself has never claimed to have been drugged, yet Polly thinks she can superimpose evidence onto darlie 20 years after the answer.

What answers DOES Polly have? Well she has invented the PERFECT set of side effects to make darlie innocent. Watch this.

Polly claims that this drug affects her memory, but ONLY for 10 to 15 minutes. The drug is soooooo powerful that it would keep darlie unconscious during a STABBING so severe that the knife went to the bone, yet at the same time juuust weak enough to allow darlie to be awakened by "mommy mommy" coming from a 5 year old who has been stabbed six times including in the lungs.

Polly claims this drug is sooooo powerful that it left darlie disoriented the point that darlie was awakened by Damon BLEEDING OUT OF 6 STAB WOUNDS, but didn't notice him and chose to walk AWAY from him when obviously the normal human (let alone motherly) instinct would be to respond to the person who interrupts sleep. Yet, the drug was weak enough for darlie at the EXACT SAME TIME to notice a bushy haired, 6 foot tall man wearing a baseball cap drop a knife and WALKING away. Yup noticed the "intruder" just enough to give a vague police description, but didn't notice her son bleeding and crying out for help.

This drug was soooooo powerful that it stopped darlie from screaming for help from her husband DURING the fight with the "intruder". Yet the drug was juuuust weak enough for darlie to know to scream for help just AFTER the fight with the "intruder. "

All this would be RIDICULOUS enough IF THERE WERE a drugged darlie. But the was NO drug. Don't listen to Polly's looney toon darlie-was-drugged fairytale that is not supported by evidence NOR darlie's defense lawyers, nor darlie HERSELF!!!

But just on a logical level. Let's examine this just a little further.

IF darlie were drugged, there were 2 options; she was drugged either while darlie was asleep or while she was awake. This should be logical enough right? If she were drugged while she was asleep, she would have to be laying down somewhere right? Where and more importantly WHEN did this fight happen? She was drugged in her sleep but then wakes up AFTER being drugged, fights with a man and then goes back to sleep only to be awakened for SECOND TIME in 10 minutes by Damon???? Entirely implausible and ridiculous.

The other option is that darlie was drugged while she was already awake right? Lets break this down in 2 possibilites; drugged before the fight or drugged after the fight. If she were drugged before the fight, then why was there a fight AT ALL? In that case darlie would have been knocked out right? What fight is going to occur in that case? If darlie were drugged after the fight, then the question becomes WHY. If she was thought to already be dead after the attack, why drug her? And that also raises the question of why didn't darlie scream for help during the fight if she was not yet drugged at that point.

Polly goes on saying she has "read all there is" to read about this case, yet she consistently selectively ignores evidence in both this atricle ans the comment section. That is why she doesn't care if the evidence supports darlie being drugged or not. Burning mouth.......? Well then Polly invents this whole theory that just magically casts reasonable doubt. Not a care in the world about justice, truth, or evidence. Only concerned about darlie not being in jail.

And get your pocorn ready folks. Watch what comments come from Polly next. Haha

Everton 11 days ago

More nonsense from the author of this article. Now she claims the police messed up the crime scene? Why exactly would a police officer roll a vacuum cleaner through the blood on the kitchen?

Why would the police cut the screen with darlie's own knife?

Why would the police spray the boys' blood in a pattern that indicates darlie stabbed her sons?

Why would police clean the blood off of the FAUCETS of the kitchen sink that would later be revealed by luminol?

Why would police intentionally clean up all blood that this fantom "intruder" should have left behind?

Why did the police break in and put ear plugs in darlie's ears so that she would sleep through that attack on Devon and Damon?

Why (and how) did the police put darlie's bloody footprints UNDERNEATH the broken glass that somehow didnt cut her feet?

Why did the police have the audacity to keep a record of darlie's several inconsistent versions of the murders?

Polly dares to try and blame the police for actually investigating? How dare you Polly. Enough is enough! To even think that the police stumbled into a scene like that, and within 20 minutes ALL OF THEM decided 'hey lets frame the mother' is OUTRAGEOUS Polly. At no point did ANYBODY come out from the police and said 'Gee, i really didn't want to frame darlie, but i was pressured or forced to go along'. Not in 1996 nor at any point in the last 20 years. But Polly, you want to malign the police as "bad"?? OUTRAGEOUS!

And by the way. This is SEVEN TIMES that you have ignored the question as why darlie herself, nor her family, nor her lawyers have claimed she was drugged the night of the murders. Burning mouth or not. Even as you and some book (dateline: purgatory) continue push this RIDICULOUS theory with no evidence to support it.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article