Darlie Routier: Wrongfully Convicted of Murdering Her Children
Devon and Damon Routier were murdered in 1996 and their mother Darlie was convicted of the crime.
The Darlie Routier Case
On June 6th, 1996, someone brutally murdered two little boys and got away with it. Their mother, Darlie Routier, has been fighting to get off of death row for over 25 years.
The Murders
At around 2:30 a.m. on the morning of June 6, 1996, Rowlett, Texas homemaker Darlie Routier awoke on her family room couch to see the silhouette of a man walking away from her in the dark. Groggy and confused, Darlie instinctively followed the man through her kitchen toward the utility room that leads out to a garage.
As the man made his escape, he dropped a large butcher knife onto the floor. Darlie picked up the knife without thinking about it and headed back to the family room where she and her young sons had fallen asleep. Her husband, Darin, and seven-month-old son Drake were asleep in an upstairs bedroom, unharmed.
She turned on the lights to find that she and her children had been stabbed and were soaked in blood, thus beginning the worst nightmare and biggest fight of her life.
The Arrest
Twelve days later, on June 18, 1996, Darlie was arrested. She was tried for the murder of her youngest son, 5-year-old Damon, found guilty, and, on February 4, 1997, sentenced to death. Although her older son, six-year-old Devon, died as well, the prosecution claimed that they only charged her with Damon's murder because, as a child under the age of six, his murder qualified for capital punishment under Texas law.
They also stated that had Darlie been acquitted of Damon's murder, they could have then charged her with Devon's murder, doubling their chances of a conviction—hmmm, perhaps their case was not as strong as they would like us to believe?
What the prosecution does not say is that there was no evidence of Devon's blood present on the knife that was recovered from the Routier home; only Damon's and Darlie's blood were present.
To this day, they cannot prove that Devon was attacked with the same knife, and many speculate that there were indeed two intruders in the house that night, one who brought his own knife and one who used the butcher knife from the kitchen.
Even now, over 25 years later, Darlie Routier still maintains her innocence, asserting that someone broke into the home and attacked her and her children.
Darlie Routier with Damon (left) and Devon (right)
Because of what happened to that woman in Texas.
— John Ramsey, when asked why he obtained legal counsel after his daughter JonBenet was murdered
More Information About the Routier Case
- Darlie Routier: Myth vs. Fact
This article will address several misconceptions—as well as mistruths—surrounding the highly debated case of Darlie Routier.
The Routier Home at 5801 Eagle Drive: Devon and Damon called it the "Home Alone House." The neighborhood children called it the "Nintendo House" because of the elaborate game room made just for kids.
Why Darlie Seemed Suspicious
The police and lead prosecutors Greg Davis and Toby Shook claimed that the crime scene was staged and that Darlie inflicted her injuries upon herself. Their reasoning for this conclusion included the following factors and pieces of evidence, some of which, admittedly, did not look good for her:
- The murder weapon came from the house.
- No valuables were taken.
- Blood spatter analysis was inconsistent with Darlie's version of events.
- Drops of blood from the boys, which were consistent with castoff from the blade, were found on the back of Darlie's night shirt.
- A large amount of blood was found in front of the sink, indicating she stood there bleeding for some time.
- Fibers believed to be from a sliced screen were discovered adhering to a bread knife from the kitchen.
- A diary entry from May 3rd of that year indicated that Darlie was contemplating suicide.
- The Routiers had significant financial problems, including a substantial drop in income from the previous year, credit card debt, a late mortgage payment, and back taxes owed to the IRS.
- Darin had applied—and been turned down—for a $5,000 loan on June 1st.
- A videotape of a graveside birthday celebration for Darlie's late son showed Darlie smiling, chewing gum, and spraying "silly string" while singing "Happy Birthday."
Darlie's "Superficial, Self-Inflicted Wounds"
Darlie's Differing Accounts of the Attack
During the police investigation, one of the mistakes that hurt Darlie the most was giving several accounts and timelines of how the events occurred.
- In the first account, she awoke to see a man standing at the edge of the couch, walking away from her toward the kitchen.
- In another account, she was awakened by Damon pushing on her shoulder, saying, "Mommy."
- In yet another account, she was awoken by the sound of breaking glass.
- In one account, she fought with the intruder.
- In another, she has no memory of fighting with him.
So which one is true? All of them, most likely. Let's be real about this: Darlie did not "sleep" through Devon and Damon being stabbed and her own assault. She was in and out of consciousness, and for the time that she was conscious, she would have been in fight-or-flight mode.
A 2008 study showed that short-term stress can damage the brain, taking minutes—not months—to impact neurons responsible for learning and memory. Scientists at the University of California, Irvine, found that acute stress activates selective molecules called corticotropin-releasing hormones. Like cortisol, these hormones disrupt the process by which the brain collects and stores memories.
It is not unlike being injured and knocked out during a car accident. When you wake up, you may know intellectually what happened, but have no memory of the crash itself.
You might believe you remember the screech of brakes, the smell of burnt rubber, the smashing of metal upon metal, the windshield shattering—when in reality, this "memory" does not exist at all. It's simply the brain's powerful way of attempting to align known facts with what you believe must have happened.
Traumatic Amnesia or Selective Amnesia?
What Darlie initially relayed to the police, her family, and the media was most likely disjointed fragments of memories assembled to the best of her ability. Did she struggle with the intruder? According to her arms, she certainly did.
If she was laying on the couch, and a man with a knife mounted her, the first thing anyone would do would be to raise their arms up defensively, thus accounting for the black-and-blue bruising up and down her arms.
Some people theorize that the bruising was a result of Devon kicking at her while she was stabbing him, since he did show signs of defensive injuries. At the time of his death, Devon weighed 46 lbs. I'm not saying it's impossible for his kicking to have caused that bruising, but it is improbable. Aside from his weight, the attack on Devon was brutal and swift.
If Devon had caused that kind of bruising, he had to have been kicking at her inner arms for a prolonged period of time—a period of time that was longer than his actual attack.
If Darlie is only able to relay bits and pieces of what happened, then obviously there is certain information, perhaps vital information, that is missing. How can the crime scene and evidence be expected to match her story when she can provide part of the narrative?
When someone comes up with a cover story, they've usually got their details in order before they start talking. They already know exactly what they're going to say, and they don't deviate from it. The fact that Darlie's story did change somewhat is a powerful indicator that she is actually telling the truth, or as much of it as she can remember.
The same reasoning applies to Darlie's interchanging usage of the pronouns "he" and "they." This is actually quite common when victims refer to an unknown assailant or assailants. A liar already has their story prepared in their mind. They know whether they are going to say it was one person or two, a man or a woman, etc.
In Darlie's case, she probably subconsciously realized there had been more than one person, but since she only has a memory of seeing one of them, her confusion is understandable.
Officer Waddell's Testimony
There are a multitude of problems with the police investigation, the prosecution's case against Darlie, and the resulting conviction. I'm going to outline some of those concerns in this article.
My biggest concern is the outright lies told by Officer David Waddell, the first law enforcement officer on the scene. Waddell testified that when he first pulled up to the house, he saw a man (Darin Routier) coming out of the front door into the yard. Waddell stated that he approached the man, gun drawn, and asked Darin to identify himself.
I do not believe this happened.
I don't believe that Waddell encountered or spoke to Darin when he first arrived, and here's why: If you listen to the 911 call, at the 3:29 mark, Darlie asks Darin if the children are dead. His reply cannot be heard; he may have answered non-verbally with a nod, but he's in the room with Darlie when she asks the question.
It can be reasonably assumed that his reply is affirmative, since she immediately becomes even more hysterical and screams, "Oh my God!"
Keep in mind, Darlie is on the phone with 911 and Darin is attempting to perform CPR on Devon, who is not breathing. The CPR is taking place in the Roman room (family room, den, whatever you want to call it), which is toward the back of the house, past the kitchen area. Look at the floor plan of the Routier's first floor to get a better idea of where they were positioned.
Now, at exactly 3:41 into the call, Waddell enters the home; you can actually hear the door as he enters. So riddle me this: How is it possible that Darin can make it all the way through the house, out the front door, into the yard, wait for Waddell to get out of the police car, walk up to him, and ask him to identify himself ... in the span of 12 seconds?
In response to this point, the "guilters" (those that believe in Darlie's guilt) will be quick to point out that Waddell's version of events is backed up by the eyewitness testimony of Darlie's neighbor across the street, Bill Gorsuch ... but it isn't.
Testimony of Bill Gorsuch
Bill Gorsuch was a neighbor who lived across the street and worked nights. He usually came home between 1:50 and 2 a.m. He testified that on the morning of June 6, 1996, he had just settled into bed and drifted off when his sleep was broken by some kind of noise or commotion. He did not become fully awake, nor did he look at the clock.
A short time later, he was fully awakened by the sound of Darin yelling. This time, he looked out the window and saw Darin running from the front yard, past the fountain and to the sidewalk, yelling, "Someone just stabbed my wife and kids!"
When questioned about the time at which this took place, Gorsuch testified during direct examination that he looked at the clock and it was 2:40 a.m. He reiterated the time during cross-examination, and was adamant that his clock is set for the actual, precise time, and not a few minutes fast as some people are prone to do.
He testified that he saw Darin and Officer Waddell together in the yard, and saw them go into the house together. He also stated that he never actually saw the police officer get out of the car.
I do not doubt Gorsuch's testimony; to me, it proves that when he saw Darin and Waddell go into the house, it was several minutes after Waddell first arrived. Darlie's 911 call came in at 2:31 a.m. You hear Waddell come into the house at 3 minutes and 41 seconds into the call, meaning he was inside by 2:34 a.m.
It is known that Darin did go outside to get help from Karen Neal, another neighbor across the street who happened to be a nurse. That is when Gorsuch saw Darin and Waddell outside, at 2:40 a.m. Darlie had already ended the call with 911 by that time, so obviously, this is not when Waddell first arrived on the scene.
I'm stunned that Darlie's lead defense attorney Doug Mulder did not immediately jump on this discrepancy ... but I have long suspected that Mulder may have purposely "thrown" this case, for reasons known only to him.
Questioning of Bill Gorsuch by Mr. Toby L. Shook
Q. So it's clear, did you—were you able to determine what time it was when you woke up with Darin yelling?
A. It was approximately 2:40.
Q. Okay.
A. I have a clock, an alarm clock beside the bed, and, as I recall it was around 2:40.
Q. Okay. Did you look at the clock when you woke up?
A. Yes.
Q. At 2:40 in the morning?
A. Yes.
Questioning by defense attorney Mr. Doug Mulder:
Q. Okay. All right. Now, you were first awakened, and like you said, you didn't understand what the noise was, but apparently you drifted back off to sleep?
A. Correct.
Q. And then were awakened—what awakened you the second time, do you know?
A. Darin yelling.
Q. Okay. And, is that when you looked at the clock?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Okay. Is your—you know, sometimes I'll set my clock a little bit fast just so that hopefully I get where I'm supposed to be on time. Do you set yours right—I bet you set yours right on the money, don't you?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay. So, it was 2:40 you're telling us?
A. Yes.
Q. A guy like you would keep an accurate clock, wouldn't he?
A. I suppose so, yes.
Q. All right. And, you're telling this jury that it was 2:40 when Darin started to yell?
A. Correct.
It is my personal belief that the noise Gorsuch first heard, before coming fully awake, was the sound of Darlie screaming out the front door for Karen Neal.
Gorsuch also testified that when he saw Darin and Waddell together, no other police or paramedics had arrived at the scene yet. However, Matt Walling, the second officer on the scene, actually parked his vehicle in the alleyway behind the Routier's house; Gorsuch would not have been able to see the car from his vantage point.
The ambulance that was directly in front of Walling parked along a curve on Eagle Drive, across from the Routier's house and directly underneath where Gorsuch was standing. He may not have been able to see the ambulance from his bedroom window.
Waddell's Incentive to Lie?
Let's say that Waddell is correct when he says that he saw a man come out of the front door and into the front yard when he first pulled up. That much I believe; I also believe that in the time it took to park the vehicle, step out, draw his gun, and walk from where he parked to where the man had been standing, he lost sight of him.
He enters the Routier home and is immediately bombarded by two hysterical parents screaming (Darin: "Look for a rag!"; Darlie: "They killed our babies!") and a bloodbath of two butchered little boys. He may have been an experienced police officer, but he was still a parent, and I believe the man just plain froze.
I do not fault him for that; he is human. I do not fault him if his memory of the events is not accurate, linear, and chronological; under those chaotic and traumatic circumstances, I would not expect them to be.
What I do fault him for is his perjury and outright character assassination of Darlie during his testimony. He testified that he repeatedly instructed Darlie to put towels on Damon while he was standing right beside her; why do we not hear him say this on the 911 tape?
His testimony states: "I thought if she was worried about fingerprints on a knife, she could certainly take care of her kids." He's obviously trying to paint her as an uncaring mother, and that comment should have been stricken from the record as speculation.
He also claims that Darlie described to him how she struggled or fought with the intruder by the kitchen bar, but that conversation never took place. Every word spoken between Darlie and Waddell is recorded on the 911 call, and she never once says anything to him about a struggle. She mentions a struggle early in the 911 call to the dispatcher, but that is before Waddell arrives.
So why is he testifying under oath about a conversation that never happened? No, there's no recording of anything that was said after the 911 call ended, but according to Waddell's own words, this whole exchange took place during the first few minutes of his arrival, while Darlie was still on the phone.
See his direct examination testimony from the August 26, 1996, hearing of a motion to hold Darlie without bail below (most important lines bolded):
Q. Okay. Did you have a conversation with Mrs. Routier?
A. I talked to her briefly, yes.
Q. Okay. Could you tell us what that conversation was?
A. I believe the first thing I asked her was, who had done this. When I asked her that, she told me that he was still—somebody was still in the house. And then I directed my attention—she pointed to the garage, and told me that somebody had ran out into the garage. I stepped over, to look into the garage, just to see if I could see anybody, and told her to apply some pressure to the first child's wounds.
Q. Did she?
A. No.
Q. What did she do?
A. She sat down on the floor right where she was standing.
Q. Well, after you told her to apply the pressure, and she sat down. What happened next?
A. I walked back over to where she was, and I asked her again who had done it, and if there had been any problems in the house, or if they had had any problems with anybody that she might think would have done it, and she told me no, and she kept telling me, that the guy was still in the house. She told me that she had fought with somebody in the kitchen area, and that after she fought with him he had ran out into the garage and dropped the knife somewhere in the kitchen, between the kitchen and the garage, and that she had went and picked up the knife, and laid it on the counter, which was, she pointed to the counter, and the knife was sitting there. And she told me that she probably should not have done that, because she messed up the fingerprints on the knife. I told her not to worry about that. I said, "Get down and help your little boy there, and I will keep an eye on the garage."
And here's a little snippet from his cross-examination during the same hearing:
Q. Um-hum. (Attorney nodding head affirmatively.) Now, you and Officer—you were there first, Officer Walling arrived in about three or four minutes; is that correct?
A. I guess, I'm not sure on how long it took him.
Q. Okay.
A. I assumed it was two to three or four minutes, somewhere in that area.
Q. Now, was this during the time that you said that you wanted Mrs. Routier to administer first aid.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And this is the time when you told her to do that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did you ever tell her to do that after Sergeant Walling arrived?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Okay. Did Sergeant Walling ever tell her to administer first aid?
A. I don't know what he told her.
Q. Well, were you there with him in her presence before the paramedics arrived?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you remember Sergeant Walling telling either of the Routiers?
A. I don't know what Sergeant Walling told either one of them.
Q. Okay. Did he tell them anything?
A. He could have.
Q. But you don't remember that part; is that right?
A. Right.
Q. Okay. You remember practically every word that Mrs. Routier said to you, but not much that Sergeant Walling said; is that right?
A. I didn't say that either.
Q. Well—
A. I remember some things that she told me.
Q. Did—everything she told you, did she tell you that before Sergeant Walling arrived?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. So nothing you have testified to here today, about what she said to you, happened after Sergeant Walling arrived?
A. The best I can remember, no.
It should be noted here that at the end of the 911 call, somewhere between 2:36 and 2:37 a.m, the dispatcher tells Darlie there is a police officer at her door and to let him in. The officer, of course, is Matt Walling.
Now, one might ask why Waddell would lie; what does he gain? Consider this: If Waddell truly did see a man come out of the front door and into the yard when he first arrived and lost sight of that man while getting out of the car and walking up to the house, then it is a reasonable assumption that the person Waddell saw was one of the intruders/killers.
Imagine the fallout if the public got wind of the fact a child killer literally slipped right under Waddell's nose. The Rowlett PD was under tremendous pressure to solve this case and solve it quickly. There were millions of dollars worth of investments and development tied up in this desirable little crime-free community. They could not have an unsolved double homicide of two young children and the general public panicking about a lunatic on the loose.
Waddell was transferred out of Rowlett shortly after the murders; he was with the Plano PD when he came back several months later to testify in the trial. Could it be that his superiors strongly encouraged him to tweak his testimony to support the department's need to portray Darlie as the killer?
Perhaps he was offered a choice: Stick to the script and receive a nice transfer and promotion, or tell the truth and stand in line at the unemployment office.
The "guilters" would chuckle at the insinuation of a "conspiracy" ... but is it really such a far reach? No more so than the idea of Darlie as the killer, in my opinion. I would probably roll my eyes at the conspiracy claim, too ... if this happened in any other state.
The first floor layout
The Unidentified Fingerprint Left in Wet Blood
If you're familiar with this case, you already know that a fingerprint, State's Exhibit 85-J, was discovered at the crime scene—found on a glass coffee table behind one of the sofas. The print could only have been left while the blood was still wet, meaning that whoever left it was present at the time of the murders. Look at the sketch of the first floor above to see exactly where the print was lifted.
This fingerprint did not match one single person who was known to be in the house that night; it did not belong to any of the Routiers, nor did it match any of the police officers or paramedics (all were printed to rule them out).
Since Damon's fingerprints were not taken prior to his burial, and he had not yet started kindergarten, there were no prints of his on file to compare to the unknown sample.
Fingerprint expert Jim Cron stated on the witness stand that "it could be a print from a juvenile." This has been debunked by at least three other experts, but you don't need to be an expert to see that it is way too big for a five-year-old child's finger.
Of course, the "guilters" took that and ran with it. Because it couldn't be matched to anyone else—and with Cron's statement that it "could" be a juvenile print—it suddenly became proof positive that Damon must have left that fingerprint. It makes sense, right?
Wrong.
The exhibit below shows a "DNA map" of blood trails belonging to each of the injured Routiers. Darlie's DNA trail is shown in green, Devon's in yellow, and Damon's in red. Look at all the red spots that indicate where Damon went in the family room. As you can see, the child went nowhere near the coffee table where the print was located.
Conclusion: The fingerprint left in wet blood belonged to one of the killers, not to Damon.