Basic Trendy

Darlie Routier: A Case Of Crime And Explanation

Darlie Routier was sentenced to murdering her two children, Devon (6 years old ) and Damon (5 years old ), in 1997. She called the police late at night contending an intruder had come into her home, injured 2 of her children, and cut her throat. The cut on her throat came within 1/16 of an inch of her carotid artery. Upon examination, police pinned her as the killer.

Darlie Hair

Darlie Routier - Wikipedia
Pic: Wikipedia

At the house, the screen of one of the windows had been cut open, and that was the supposed entrance point of the intruder. On the screen, they see blonde hair (Darlie had blonde hair) and thought that Darlie had been the one to cut it herself, staging the crime. They later found out that the hair pertained to one of the LEOs. Police also found a sock I think a few blocks away which had included a stain of both Devon and Damon’s blood. They also found skin DNA from Darlie. On of the doors of the home (I believe, the door to the garage), there was a bloody fingerprint of an unknown person. There is a fingerprint of Darlie’s on the knife, but she contended to have picked up the knife after the intruder dropped it on his way out to protect herself in case he came back.

Story By Darlie

Death Row Stories': Darlie Routier | CNN
Pic: CNN

Her story of events goes somewhat like this. She woke up the man trembling over her. At that point the man turned and scrambled out the door, leaving the knife behind. As I said, she pulled the knife for safety off the ground. She then found both of her children and called 911. Initially, she didn’t even know she was injured. One of the questions, in this case, is how she could have not woken up to being attacked the way she was. Her husband says that he assumes she was asphyxiated when she was initially attacked leaving her oblivious for a period.

Here is what the trial had in their case against her:

She had a “birthday party” for the oldest boy, Devon, who would have turned 7 years only three days after the killing. In the video, she is chuckling and trying to have a good time. I find this to be preposterous. Everyone feelings differently, and nobody is a mind reader. This was a try to cloud the minds of jurors. If you listen to her explanation, it sounds plausible. And the prosecution turned this into something that it was not. She had already sent out birthday invitations and gotten everything for the party before the night of the murders and agreed to go through with it. Why she did this is nothing to believe in my opinion. She had her reasons.

Motive:


I find this to be the most foolish claim of theirs. They claim she was tired of her children intruding on her life and agreed to kill them for their $5000 life insurance policy. That’s just stupid.

  • Hospital workers: claim she did not seem to be indicating much emotion and was withdrawn. Once again, everyone grieves differently, and this does not prove ANYTHING. This kind of stuff should not even be permitted in court IMO, because it’s just a try to sway people from the facts.
  • The sock: there was a sock found in an alley by the house which included a stain of blood. It was substantiated that it was both Devon and Damon’s blood. This doesn’t prove anything. They claim she planted the sock, but have no information to prove this.

Here are the main points as to why I think that this was an intruder and not her:

  • There was a bloody fingerprint of an anonymous person in the doorway. Where could this have come from if not an intruder?
  • She had very heavy wounds on her body, mainly her arms. She was accused of having cut her own throat in a try to stage the crime, but what about the bruises? How would she have staged that? It was a serious cut to her, one that I don’t think she gave herself. I don’t think she would be able to bruise herself like that.
  • There is no explicit evidence that points to her

Writer’s Opinion

All in all, I think that at the very LEAST there was beyond a reasonable suspicion, and therefore she should not have been sentenced. That is MY conclusion, take it for what you will. I am making this post to see what other people’s opinions on this case are. If you want to read more about the case, here is a link to a site with more background.

Source: Reddit

Share if you like it

5 comments

  1. I have always found her story intriguing. The jurors were never shown the pictures of her bruises which were pretty bad. The prosecutor showed the birthday video at the grave but left out the amount of time that she and her family sat and mourned over her sons prior to the singing and silly string. I don’t believe she did it. I never have. The crime scene was also contaminated by all of the people in her house just like in Boulder with Jon Benet except at Darlie’s there was blood evidence being tracked everywhere! There should be another trial with ALL of the evidence submitted. How the hell did she get the sock so far away from the house? And then there is the fingerprint. They did not prove her case beyond a shadow of a doubt.

  2. You have so many “facts” wrong! This whole article is trash. The one fingerprint found has no male DNA. Explain that.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.