Drake Routier - Darlie Routier's son

Sydney Mines, Canada

#181 Feb 9, 2011
Phyllis in Az wrote:
I lived in Dallas and also lived in Rowlett, where Darlie lived...I know first hand about the "small town" cops and how fast they can draw a conclusion...they want to make a name for themselves...they tramped thru Darlies house and destroyed evidence that would have helped her case..the woman is innocent, but Greg Davis was a glory hunter, looking to make a name for himself in Dallas, and he wanted to see Darlie in prison.I hope Darlie gets her freedom, she deserves it.
NO they did not. Darlie and her attornies have never ever stated the crime scene was contaminated. That house was locked down right away. Sorry but you can't scapegoat Davis for Darlie's crime. She committed the crime, no one else. Open your eyes

Sydney Mines, Canada

#182 Feb 9, 2011
There is no mention of the stab wound to her arm that splintered bone and caused marrow to leak out. To me that isn't superficial not it something I would think could be self-inflicted.
Too bad you weren't aware of the evidence before you made this post. Darlie's arm bone was not splintered nor was there marrow leaking out, where did you get that, listening to her family eh? Read the medical testimony by the doctors who treated her. It's the doctors who called the neck wound superficial. They also testified that normally Darlie would have been treated in the emergency room and sent home. That it came close to the carotid artery only means Darlie went a little deep with the knife.
So you believe that the dusting brush contaminated the bread knife in the butcher block. There were two pieces of evidence on that knife..a fibre from the screen plus rubber dust. So the cop who was dusting the window and the garage and the kitchen carried that screen evidence on the brush and only dropped it on the knife? Ridiculous. Microscoptic tests confirm the screen fibre on the knife and the screen match. The technicians could find nothing else in the Routier home that matched that fibre. I won't bother with the rest of your post. Darlie's letters mean nothing to me, she's nothing but a liar anyway. She was lying in those letters to her family because evidence was surfacing that was incriminating to her. She lied her head off on the stand during her trial. It's the physical evidence, the blood evidence that says she's the killer. Darlie committed this crime, she had a fair trial.
Oh but I will comment on Judge Royal's comment about the evidence and how appalling it is that a federal judge would make this public comment when he of all knows the state is not required to prove a motive or even to show a motive. They don't know why Darlie killed her kids any more than any of us do.

Sydney Mines, Canada

#183 Feb 9, 2011
But you bypassed all the testimony about evidence. blood evidence especially. YOu are incorrect about the screen fibres, there was no contamination as I explained in my last post. How did the intruder get through the broken gate without making any noise? The gate dragged on the ground. HOw did he get out without climbing over the fence or setting off the lights that are on motion detector? No blood or scuff marks on the fence indicating he climbed over it. And why is there no blood outside the house?

If Darlie was holding up her arms to ward off blows, hence those bruises, how likely is it that the intruder would miss her face and her head?

Perhaps you might learn something about this case before you take on Jr Detective.
Junior Detective

Miamisburg, OH

#184 Feb 9, 2011
Sinsaint wrote:
Junior Detective, I do so hope you stay that way.
1) Much of the information you are using as your citing material comes from a book that the author, Barbara Davis, no longer stands behind.
2) Your lack of understanding the wording of an appeal filing is glaringly apparent. Darlie cannot dispute the substance of the evidence because that would require proof from her that the evidence or test results are faulty. She can't really do that when she can't do her own testing. And she has filed appeals disputing some of the evidence and those appeals were reject without even a stated reason why.
One I can think of right off the top of my head was an issue revolving around a kitchen knife that the prosecution claimed had screen fibers on it. What the prosecution didn't mention is that the knife in question had been dusted for finger prints along with the window ledge where the screen had been cut. Darlie can't attack the sunstance of this evidence unless she has proof it's faulty and she can't get the proof if she is denied the opportunity to have it tested. The judge denied the request because he felt dusting powder particles are larger than screen fibers which is probably true but not the issue being raised. Cross contamination was the issue, not what the fibers were.
Also, rather than quote from a book I will quote from a court ruling on the subject of Darlie being allowed to have items tested...
"The parties should also be advised, persuant to the Supreme Court's holding in House v. Bell, discussed in this Court's Order on August 2, 2006, once the state courts have finally resolved petitioner's request for DNA-testing, this court will entertain a motion permitting petitioner to obtain DNA-testing of any material currently in existance which petitioner identified in her motion for reconsideration and which the state courts have refused to make available for such testing. As best this court can tell from the information before it, the state courts required more than four years to rule on petitioner's initial request for DNA-testing. This court will not require a period even vaguely resembling four years to rule on a similar request...."
Which in a nutshell means that if the state court didn't soon rule to let Darlie have these items tested the appeals court would. They later did just that. To date the DA has not turned over the requested items for testing. What I found strikingly odd in that ruling was that the DA is now trying to claim that any male DNA found at the scene would just suggest Darlie had an accomplice. I guess this was news at even that court since they said, and I quote "the theory underlying the prosecutions case against petitioner is as convoluted and counter-productive as any death penalty case to come before this court." The appeals court also noted that Darlie's neck wound was, in fact, "perilously close to being fatal" and lends credence to the fact that it was not superficial of self-inflicted. There is no mention of the stab wound to her arm that splintered bone and caused marrow to leak out. To me that isn't superficial not it something I would think could be self-inflicted.
3) There is a little something in the law called "disclosure." Look it up if you have to. In layman's terms it means that if you intend to use something as evidence you must disclose that evidence to the other side prior to using it. Darlie knew about these letters prior to using it. It wasn't a Perry Mason moment. The reason why it may have seemed that way was because every time she tried to explain that she was "told by..." it was objected to due to the Hearsay rules. She wasn't allowed to testify about what other people were telling her. And yes, she did say she saw the guy. She said that from the beginning. Her assuming that the guy she saw that night was one of the men she was being told about is completely reasonable.
Since you took up so much room, I will respond to your post in a new post.(J.D.)
Junior Detective

Miamisburg, OH

#185 Feb 9, 2011
Response to Sinsaint, post # 179:
(1) Much of the information I cited comes from the Barbara Davis book that she no longer stands behind. My response: Not correct. Barbara Davis did not discredit her book, as you so often suggest; rather, she recanted only her central thesis, that there was no intruder and Darlie committed the crime. She did so after Christopher Wayne Brown showed her photographs that he convinced her that the jury had not seen. The problem is that all of those photographs were admitted into evidence and seen by the jury. In any event, Barbara Davis printed a number of observations in Precious Angels that have not been challenged: that the Routiers were running out of money, that the bank sought foreclosure of their house on or around May 23, 1996, and that Darlie wrote a "suicidal thoughts" entry in her journal dated May 3, 1996 that was read to the jury at Darlie's trial. You mean to tell me that none of that is true? Barbara Davis did not recant any of that. The reason I cited Barbara Davis is that she had the best insight into Darlie as any one who wrote a book in this case and her recantation, whether it is heartfelt or phony, is so limited that it does not change anything that I wrote that relied on Precious Angels.

(2) My lack of undestanding of the wording of an appeal, apparently a reference to my citing of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision of May 21, 2003, 2nd paragraph, Routier v. State, where it says, "appellant (Darlie) does not challenge the legal or factual sufficiency of the evidence." I have been an attorney in the legal profession for more than 20 years and have edited over 16,000 court opinions from every state and many of the federal courts, and have written 25 appellate briefs myself. People tell me, "that doesn't mean that Darlie admitted to the crime" and "it doesn't mean anything," but it would not be in the opinion if it did not mean something. People contend that there is a ton of great evidence that Darlie is innocent. What I have said about that comment is that she and her attorneys have conceded (not admitted mind you) that they have not produced substantive evidence of her innocence; that is why she and her attorneys attacked only whether she got a fair trial, in other words the procedural aspect of the case, and are out still on a snipe hunt trying to find evidence of the intruder she allegedly saw. You said she can't really attack the substance of the conviction when she can't do her own testing, but that of course is false, because she had the right to cross-examine those individuals who testified about the testing. Too, she was not entitled to do her own testing because she did not have the burden of proof at trial, the State did.

(3) "There is a little something in the law called "disclosure." Look it up if you have to." (Regarding the letters produced during the cross-examination of Darlie showing that she told relatives or friends that she knew Glenn Mize "is" the intruder, in one letter, "Gary Austin" is the intruder in another letter, all before testifying on the stand that the intruder, six feet tall and about 200 pounds was not anyone she knew.) No, you look it up. The state is only required to disclose exculpatory evidence to her and those letters were by no means exculpatory. What Darlie did was make three different statements of fact on three different occasions about who the intruder was. Her statements about what other people were telling her were not hearsay because those statements were not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, which is hearsay, but to show why her identifications of the intruder varied. But, in any event, why would what other people told her be "completely reasonable" as you say when those other people never saw the alleged intruder? The cross-examination of her showed that she was lying, plain and simple, because all of those statements are statements of fact, and, not as you suggest, statements of opinion.
Junior Detective

Miamisburg, OH

#186 Feb 9, 2011
Response to Sinsaint, post # 180:

Once again, Barbara Davis did not discredit her entire book as you suggest, rather she discredited only its conclusion that there was no intruder and Darlie committed the crime. You really do not understand Barabra's book, Precious Angels. Barbara correctly concluded that there was no intruder--the "intruder" or "phantom" is an old trick that goes back more than 50 years; it is so old that it has been around longer than Darlie and Darin have been alive although neither Darlie nor Darin understand that. What Barbara Davis got wrong was the reason for the killing and Barbara did so because Barbara does not have any experience analyzing crime scenes. She guessed in her book that Darlie killed the boys because they were in the way of the lifestyle Darlie wanted to lead, but that does not involve the sudden or relatively sudden, unexpected, and personal loss of control that are the hallmarks of rage killings, as are those two killings. No, Darlie killed them because she suddenly, unexpectedly, and personally lost control over Darin the ATM machine Routier and found out she was headed back to that difficult childhood she had escaped from while the two boys were getting to stay at the wonderful "Nintendo House" she had created for them. However, nobody has discredited other things that Barbara has said, such as the Routiers running out of money, the bank sending them a foreclosure notice on or around May 23, 1996, American Express asking them for immediate payment of slightly less than $ 1000 via a letter on or about May 9, 1996, and that Darlie verbally exploded outword at the boys at American Pawnshop in Garland (testimony of clerk Kay Norris) or shoved Devon's face in a cake at the park on Devon's fifth birthday in retaliation for him squirting her (testimony of Eileen Schrimer). You act as if nothing Barbara Davis said could be true and that is simply not the case.

Once again, you bring up the letters she wrote that were used to impeach her during cross-examination. Rather than rehash those, and once more bring up her contradictory statement on cross-examination, I will defer to what I said in my post # 185 on this point.

You, as most supporters tend to do, try and bring up the Silly String tape and hint that maybe that was the reason for her conviction, but the Silly String tape doesn't tell us much. You also say, "I won't even go into the two hours of illegally obtained footage that showed the occasion was also very solemn and that Darlie was disraught and emotional." That is good because I am not aware that there was ever any ruling that part of the tape was illegal; indeed, the ruling in Kee v. City of Rowlett, 247 F.3d 206 (March 28, 2001) by the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, was that neither Darlie Kee nor Darin Routier's statutory or constitutional rights had been violated regarding the gravesite evidence gathering. What you are apparently confused about is references around the time of trial regarding the tape's legality. Too, you don't seem to understand that the prayer service wasn't shown even though the State did not object to it being admitted because the defense did not move to have it admitted, which is a common mistake of her supporters. I love the way people act like had that been admitted it would have made a difference.

You also don't seem to grasp that the real reason she was convicted was her performance on cross-examination because the cross-examination showed that she would say just about anything. She was quite clearly lying, and the impeachment of those two letters was simply devastating.

You can be as harsh as you want to be with me, but it still does not change the fact that if the current testing does not produce some evidence of an intruder, that will spell the beginning of the end for Darlie. I also predict that there are at least two people who are already well aware of what those test results will be, that being Darlie and Darin.

United States

#187 Feb 14, 2011
One question: If Darlie cut her throat over the kitchen sink, why was the couch and pillow that she was "sleeping" on taken into evidence? And why was the couch given back to the Routier's as if it were not evidence? I have seen pictures of this couch and it is covered in blood.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#188 Feb 15, 2011
Thanks Jr Detective for the info.

Sydney, Canada

#189 Feb 21, 2011
Bugs17578 wrote:
One question: If Darlie cut her throat over the kitchen sink, why was the couch and pillow that she was "sleeping" on taken into evidence? And why was the couch given back to the Routier's as if it were not evidence? I have seen pictures of this couch and it is covered in blood.
Would you possibly have a link to the photo of the couch all covered in blood? The testimony of the blood technicians does not back up your contention the couch was full of blood. Actually, very little of Darlie's blood was found on the couch. NOne was found where she said she lay sleeping when cut, nor were any cuts or knicks found in the couch (from the knife). What was found was Damon's tiny bloody handprint and his butt print where he fell against the couch after being stabbed.
Junior Detective

Miamisburg, OH

#190 Mar 8, 2011
AR-grits wrote:
Thanks Jr Detective for the info.
Well, let me see if I can make this a little more visual. Growing up, Darlie lived through an extreme amount of instability, and children crave stability. Her mother gave birth to her when the mother was 17-and-one-half years old. Her biological parents divorced when she was seven years old. Darlie and her mother moved around a lot; indeed, Darlie was born in Pennsylvania and wound up in Texas when she was about 14 years old. Her mother admitted that she wasn't that great of a parent. The family struggled financially to survive. Then, when Darlie was 15 years old, Darin entered her life. Although not well off, Darin, 17 years old when he and Darlie met, appeared to have a lot of promise. She couldn't wait to race away from the unstable lifestyle to the much more stable lifestyle that Darin appeared to offer. In time, Darin was bringing in more and more money. Darlie, who had learned to be extremely manipulative to get what she needed, learned that to get the main thing she needed for the stable, even carefree lifestyle she sought, money, was to manipulate Darin. Over time, she discovered that when she asked for money and he balked, all she needed to do was to issue the threat, "we need to separate." Darin learned to throw money at the problem to keep that from happening. In early to mid-1996, she became more and more despondent due to the family's declining financial picture. She even hinted at dying.

On the night/morning of the murders, she was still pressing him for money. The evidence in the case shows that she once again threatened to separate from him, so there is little doubt that she use the "we need to separate trick." However, what she meant, what she always meant by that phrase, was "hand over the money." Darin couldn't do so because he didn't have it this time; he couldn't earn it and he couldn't borrow it, so her offer to separate must have been music to his ears because if you take her statement literally, he didn't have to come up with a solution since she offered up the solution to him. He then told her she was getting thrown off the 5801 Eagle Drive gravy train and the only permanent place she could have then gone was back to that unstable lifestyle with her mother, which she wanted to avoid at all costs. That is the major loss of control that occurred--her loss of control not over the money situation, but the source of that money--that caused the rage because rage is all about a loss of control. She then stabbed the children in a jealous rage because she was having to suffer the emotional pain of returning to that unstable childhood while the boys were getting to remain in the happy "Nintendo" House that she had helped to create for them. The attack was relatively brief because the boys were not the source of the rage, the loss of control over Darin was.

Now, as you can imagine, there have been some people who have told me, "I don't like your analysis." Well, you don't have to like it. However, take a look at the suicidal thoughts entry that Darlie penned in her journal 34 days before the killings occurred. One line in particular grabbed my attention and keep in mind that the financial problems were beginning to weigh on her. "My life has been such a hard fight for long time, and I just can't find the strength to keep fighting anymore." That passage was read to the jury at her murder trial. Burn those first four words into your mind and you will likely be able to figure out what was troubling her--the thought of going back to that unstable childhood. Then ask yourself if she couldn't find the strength to keep fighting anymore because the family was running out of money. All of this from a woman who, according to her family, was supposedly having either little or no mental health problems!
eliza australia


#191 Mar 9, 2011
she is guilty as sin if there was an intruder he would have killed her so so so guilty

Charlotte, NC

#192 Mar 11, 2011
All you have to do is read the trial transcripts (they're posted online). This was a truly sad and tragic thing that happened to this family. Why are a certain few here so convinced that Darlie Routier is innocent. Haven't you heard of Susan Smith and Andrea Yates? Mothers are capable of killing their children. They have different reasons but the fact remains that they DO. I think Darlie's motive was a combination of post-partum depression and simple greed. To Darlie's "best friend", I'm sure if you didn't know her but yet the transcripts, you would agree that she is guilty.

Elizabethtown, KY

#193 Apr 11, 2011
what is wrong with you? she killed those two precious angels and your sticking up for her!! Your just as sick as she is. she should rot in hell

Hubert, NC

#194 Apr 20, 2011
i dont know who to contact if i saw darlie routier's husband at a bar and he admitted guilt to a room full of people??!!! i tried contacting her family via internet and the police by phone but no one has called me back...i dont really know the case and not from there but i am certain that i saw him at a restaurant/bar in he said he was mad his wife wanted to leave him and he couldnt afford child support but he would take care of it and he also said he fixed his wife good. please someone gimme a contact of who to speak to because i cant find anyone to listen!!! email [email protected]! !

Booneville, MS

#197 Apr 25, 2011
Ii have forwarded this to someone who can help. when did this happen?where?
aislynnmondragon wrote:
i dont know who to contact if i saw darlie routier's husband at a bar and he admitted guilt to a room full of people??!!! i tried contacting her family via internet and the police by phone but no one has called me back...i dont really know the case and not from there but i am certain that i saw him at a restaurant/bar in he said he was mad his wife wanted to leave him and he couldnt afford child support but he would take care of it and he also said he fixed his wife good. please someone gimme a contact of who to speak to because i cant find anyone to listen!!! email [email protected]! !

Lavon, TX

#198 Apr 26, 2011
Now this is getting to where, i've always thought he was involved!! But i am not saying/or think she is Innocent. I truly believe both of them had something to do with it, but she was the only one that got blamed for all of it!! I talked to her many yrs. ago. when employed @ Sizzler In Lubbock,Tx. Her/Darin both worked there, they were very young and she always thought she was better than anyone else. Rude, thought she had looks, which she does NOT, but that has nothing to do with it! Hope if he did have something to do with it, he'll get what he deserves!!

Houston, TX

#199 May 3, 2011
Junior Detective wrote:
<quoted text>
Mary, are you the same Mary456 of Weblseuths.com Darlie Routier blog fame? The reason I am asking is that I posted from 2006 to 2008 through Jeana because I am using company equipment and I am not allowed to register on any websites using company equipment (I registered on Websleuths.com using somebody else's computer but I am not able to use that other computer on a regular basis.) I see that on August 5, 2010 at 3:47 am, Cami posted the "Section One--General Overview" that I drafted and sent to Jeana in 2006 as part of a four-part series on identifying the killer through the use of crime scene analysis techniques and knowledge of a long history of "intruder" cases. Is is possible for you to let Cami know I am trying to get in touch with her? I tried to send a message through Tricia Griffith at Websleuths.com , but apparently Tricia has not forwarded my message to Cami. It would help, as my explanation of the motive for the killing is different than just about everybody else's explanation, but is backed by 20 years of looking at "intruder" cases and informally studying how to analyze crime scenes. If you could help me contact Cami and let her know I am still interested in the case I would appreciate it. I had to stop posting in July of 2008 when Jeana was banned from posting further. Thank you for any assistance you can give.
I know Cami. Did you ever get the information to Cami? If not I can help you.
Junior Detective

Miamisburg, OH

#200 May 3, 2011
Jennifertx wrote:
<quoted text>
I know Cami. Did you ever get the information to Cami? If not I can help you.
Thanks for your assistance. I did get ahold of Cami and we exchanged e-mails in which I set forth my theory of the case based on considering "intruder" cases over a long period of time and more than 20 years in the legal profession. I think Cami has done more work on this case than just about anyone, so I wanted to make sure that she had a sobering technical analysis of the crime scene rather than just a lot of pure guesses, which is what we seem to get. I contend that once you put the evidence in context, the killing of the two boys who had no known enemies is not as puzzling as it seems. By the way, I think I have seen your posts over at Websleuths.com and I appreciate it that you have taken the time to post. I also hope you will keep posting, although it is getting a little tiring for me because people keep bringing up the same matters over and over (I can't recall how many times I have heard that the jury did not see all the photos, because that is not true, or that Tommie Lynn Sells, who was in prison in another state on the date of the killings, may be the actual assailant.) In any event, I appreciate your offer of assistance.
Angel of Life

Swansboro, NC

#201 May 4, 2011
Dear Children, Darlie is clearly innocent, as there is a continued obstruction of justice in this case. Any sophisticated FBI lab and analysis of all the evidence (not simply pieces of it) will clear her. Look to God for the answers, he knows the truth.
Angel of Life

Swansboro, NC

#202 May 4, 2011
Don't forget Darlie, she is still alive. God is everywhere, even in the deepest pits of Hell. The love of God has no end, Darlie and her two babies will be avenged and the perpetrator will be exposed. Go to church, for you are still kids, and prayer will protect the innocent.

Never give up hope for the victims of violent crime, including this innocent mother.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lubbock Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Trump Plans Massive Welfare Cuts Jun 25 NAME 5
News South Plains College prepares for August openin... Jun 23 nancy p 1
Violence against Nurses - Unacceptable May '17 Army Vet 1
I Can't Use My Medicare at Neighbor ER --- WHY May '17 Army Vet 1
News Lubbock again experiences appraisal increase, d... May '17 NAME 2
Self Segration Alive and Well May '17 Earl B 1
bisexual men in lubbock? (Jan '15) May '17 NAME 7

Lubbock Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Lubbock Mortgages