Darlie Routier: Innocent or Guilty?

Rowlett, Texas. On February 4, 1997, Darlie Routier was sentenced to death by lethal injection for allegedly murdering her 5 year old son Damon (her other son, Devon, was also killed, but it never reached trial). She says they were attacked by an intruder, and she indeed had a hospital stay. Still, due to certain forensic experts, she was convicted for the alleged murder.

Why is it that, despite her conviction, I still take care to say "alleged"? It's because, frankly, the guilty verdict is on the questionable side.

Prosecutors claim blood evidence shows Darlie as the culprit, but the efficacy of such evidence has come under scrutiny in recent years. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences even refers to excess faith in blood spatter analysis as the "CSI effect" (after the TV show, which depicts forensic science as almost infallible).

While skepticism of the experts doesn't instantly discredit the case (and the verdict), it opens the door a crack for reasonable doubt. Actually, there are other factors, too, including how the jury was shown a news broadcast which may have severely biased them against Darlie.

As Hood County News put it: "Newscasts showed Routier and other family members holding a birthday party at the children's grave to posthumously celebrate Devon's 7th birthday, just eight days after the murders. She was shown smiling and laughing as she sprayed Silly String on the graves in celebration of Devon's birthday, singing 'Happy Birthday.'"

Obviously, some might see that and say, in so many words, "Hmm, Darlie doesn't seem very sad for someone who recently lost two sons!" However, I would say it may be taken out of context, and perhaps should have never been regarded as evidence of any kind. For one thing, the birthday party was a family event, and Darlie may have just been celebrating the lives of her children — albeit in a way that some might find odd.

Think silly string means someone is callous, uncaring? Well, consider how some funerals are carried out in New Orleans, where (after an initial period of mourning) the gatherings are eventually treated as celebrations. More generally, one can consider how everyone reacts to loss differently. Some people don't cry at funerals, or don't attend them whatsoever. People react to death in countless ways.

Another interesting aspect of Darlie's story? Look at what the Prosecution considers to be superficial wounds. Examining the pictures myself, I must say the wounds don't look particularly minor, nor do they appear easily self-inflicted.

While everyone has their own opinion, placing someone on Death Row isn't a minor thing. If someone is put on Death Row, or generally imprisoned, or placed in any sort of legal limbo, the evidence ought to be strong. Also, a case should not rely simply on whether someone is perceived as missing the deceased thoroughly enough.

By itself, the birthday party footage is the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence, no better than hearsay. If the jury sentenced Routier to death on that alone, they clearly made the wrong decision.

Evidence Omitted?

Also, quite fascinatingly, ABC News says the jury never saw a different part of the video, where Darlie is seen weeping and praying over the loss.

According to that same article, one Juror says he regrets his decision, and that the photos of Darlie's wounds were also never shown to the jury; "I don't know who did it, but Darlie Routier didn't do it."

The Question of Motive

On top of this, why would Routier have murdered her children? Well, the popular theory is that the children were "hampering her lifestyle," and that she was "living large." When her husband's computer business went under, she is said to have devised the murder plot to ease the financial burden.

Some claim she staged it to look like a man broke in, killed her children, and also tried to kill her. Aside from whether or not Darlie appeared to love her children, this alleged plot stands as just that: Alleged. After researching the case, there appears to be no evidence that such a plot was devised. It is merely conjecture.

Also, the given motive doesn't entirely make sense. People struggle with money problems all the time, and killing one's children doesn't guarantee that their situation will improve. In fact, sometimes it's arguably more beneficial financially to have children, as it increases the likelihood of state or charitable aid (or so I've heard).

Unexplained Evidence

To complicate the case further, how about a piece of unexplained evidence? Namely, a bloody fingerprint left at the scene. Prosecutors originally said it belonged to a child. However, after Devon and Damon's bodies were exhumed, the prints were revealed to not be theirs. Were they Darlie's? Apparently not.

As the ABC News article notes: "A forensic expert says the adult fingerprint does not belong to Routier, her husband Darin, the children or any of the investigators and emergency personnel on the scene of the slayings."

In Summation

Darlie Routier has repeatedly said, "I did not murder my children. I had nothing to do with this." While many accused murderers claim innocence, this case clearly demands a more critical eye. Even if one doesn't believe Darlie Routier, they should at least recognize the evidence to convict her as being questionable. If this case doesn't deserve a closer look, I don't know which one does.