DARLIE ROUTIER’S IRONIC POLYGRAPH

Both Darin and Darlie Routier took Polygraph tests regarding the murders of Devon and Damon.

Routier supporters have always focused on the fact that Darin Routier failed his polygraph test. And one can only wonder why…

However, there is little mention of Darlie’s polygraph test – and the irony surrounding it!

Routier’s mother, Darlie Kee, brings a whole new meaning to ‘the lie’s of the polygraph’ during the Robert Riggs interview –

THE ROBERT RIGGS INTERVIEW CAN BE SEEN HERE

The following is the work of Pamela Lakes Collins, who has studied the Routier case for many years –

Darlie Routier secretly took a lie detector test before the murder trial that sentenced her to death.

It’s results were never made public.

Defence attorneys usually don’t hesitate to release a polygraph test when it’s inconclusive or confirms their clients are telling the truth.

Bill Parker, a private investigator/polygraph examiner who consulted for Rowlett police on the case, says the covert test probably indicates Routier flunked.

Bill Parker: I feel that, I believe that logic would dictate to us that had she done well on any of the issues in the polygraph examination we would have all heard about it long before now.

As Routier prepared for her appeal, her mother, Darlie Kee blatantly lied about the polygraph her daughter had taken.

Darlie Kee: She wanted to take a polygraph, she wanted to do hypnosis…

Robert Riggs: Did she ever take a polygraph?

Darlie Kee: No, she never took a polygraph.

The Robert Riggs interview, shows that Routier’s court appointed attorney obtained a sealed motion for a polygraph shortly before jury selection began. The judge ordered the Dallas County jail to allow the polygraph test without the knowledge of the district attorney’s office.

According to jail records, on Friday October 4th, during the afternoon, Routier was moved from her cell in the Lew Sterrett Justice Center, through the basement sally port, into a room at the Crowley Courts Building. It was in there that she was given a polygraph exam which lasted six hours. Routier’s mother met with her daughter within minutes of finishing the polygraph.

Robert Riggs: Wouldn’t she have told you that she did something like this?

Darlie Kee: I believe she would’ve, yes.

Robert Riggs: Then… why don’t you think she did?

Darlie Kee: I don’t know…

Robert Riggs: Routier’s mother says Doug Parks, the court appointed lawyer at the time, did not tell the family about the polygraph. Parks declined to discuss the polygraph, citing attorney/client privilege. Parks filed this bill with Dallas county four days after the polygraph requesting a one thousand dollar payment for five hours of confidential consultation. In a follow-up letter on the bill to the county auditor, Parks wrote: “This is still a sensitive issue and identification of the consultant would violate an attorney/client privilege.”

Under a recent court ruling, polygraph evidence is not always inadmissible in court. Investigator Bill Parker says if Darlie Routier truthfully answered the questions about the murder of her sons then she should authorize the release of her polygraph test charts and results.

Many thanks to Pamela for the above information. It is important to highlight these type of issues in the Routier case, especially since they lead to the truth, something that appears to be pushed to one side by Routier supporters.

Based on Routier fans usual passionate support, should Routier have passed her polygraph, it is certain that the family and supporters would have rejoiced in the public eye, regardless of questions surrounding inadmissibility!

If Routier’s own mother lied about her taking the test, and, in Routiers own words ‘the results were inconclusive’, what does one take from that?

Another lie, another cover up by the Routier clan, another irony that does not go unnoticed…

BLOOD EVIDENCE DOES NOT LIE

Out of all of the damning evidence pointing to Darlie Routier,  the blood evidence alone was overwhelming in proving guilt. The blood evidence showed that Darlie Routier lied about a mystery intruder, and all of the blood evidence pointed to her being the killer of her two sons, Devon and Damon.

The following blood evidence information is the work of Christine Fougere who has extensively studied the Routier case over a number of years. All of the information can be validated from legal documents pertaining to the case.

Blood Evidence by Christine Fougere

Kitchen

CSI’s noticed a tiny amount of blood in the sink. A presumptive test proved this was blood. However, the sink and the counter surrounding it were free of blood. In front of the sink, blood on the top of the counter there and blood dripped down the cupboard door below the sink aroused their suspicion, hence the luminol. Please note, only blood will show up on a presumptive test for blood. IOW, bleach cannot take the place of blood in a presumptive test.

Luminol proved blood was rinsed down the sink and wiped up from the counter on the sides of the sink, the taps and spout.

Blood dripped on the inside of the cupboard door proved to be Darlie’s.

Blood drops on top of blood drops on the carpet in front of the sink indicated someone bleeding standing there with little to no movement.

Luminol used on the floor showed someone had cleaned up bloody footprints.

Direct bleeding round blood drops proved someone bleeding was walking from the kitchen to the utility room and not running as Darlie described. The blood drops would have had tails had she been running.

Mixed stains of Devon/Damon found on the sink backsplash.

The vacuum cleaner found in the kitchen had bloody footprints underneath it and Darlie’s blood on the top in patterns showing she was moving, not using the vacuum as a crutch.

Wheel marks from the vacuum found in the blood in the kitchen.

No water or dilution of the blood was found on the kitchen floor.

Living Room

No appreciable blood was found on the couch or the pillows where Darlie said she was stabbed.

No cast-off of Darlie’s blood indicating Darlie was fighting with a knife weilding stranger.

Damon’s bloody handprint was found on the carpet where he was first stabbed.

Damon’s bloody handprint and butt print on the couch indicating he was moving.

Damon’s blood trail indicating he moved from where he was first stabbed to the opposite wall where he was found.

Blood on the wall where Damon was found indicated he was stabbed again by someone bleeding. (dna tests show the blood was Darlie’s).

A bloody imprint of the knife on the carpet was found near Devon’s body. The small blood pool there indicated someone bleeding from the arm was standing there, the blood dripped down over the hand and onto the knife. Blood pooling at the tip of the knife indicates a large concentration of blood flowing down the knife.

The Night Shirt

Several cast-off stains in Devon’s blood were found on the front and the right shoulder of Darlie’s nightshirt.

Several cast-off stains of Damon’s blood were found on the back of Darlie’s nightshirt. Damon’s cast-off blood was found on top of Darlie’s blood, as well.

No dilution of the dna and no water was indicted on the night shirt.

Cast-off blood as the word implies is cast-off the murder weapon as it is in motion. It will have tails which point to the source of the blood. The tails on Darlie’s shirt pointed upward towards the source of the blood.

You cannot transfer cast-off blood stains, the blood seeps into the weave of the article it stains. A transfer stain sits on the top of the article and does not penetrate.

The Sock

The sock contained three pure stains of Devon and two mixed stains Devon/Damon.

Miscellaneous

No blood was found on the utility room floor where Darlie says the intruder dropped the bloody knife.

None of Damon or Devon’s blood was found on the hem of her nightshirt.
No blood was found past the utility room.
No blood was found on the window, frame or screen.
No blood on the fence or gate
No blood was found anywhere outside the Routier home.

Darlie’s blood was found dripped on the appliances in the Utility room yet she swears she did not go in that room…only to the door.

Several bloody towels were found throughout the area. However no one believes these towels were used on the boys, but used to clean up blood.

Devon’s body was covered in blood. This does not indicate a towel was used on him as it would have removed the blood from his chest.

NO towel was found on Damon’s back and no indication that a towel was used on him.

More Blood Evidence

Let’s look at the fingerprints and what we know. What we do know right now is it’s expert against expert. I think we can come close to proving those prints do not belong to an intruder.

There are two partial patent (bloody) fingerprints left at the crime scene.
Darlie’s defence claim these prints do not match her or anyone in the home at the time of the crime, nor do they match any of LE or the first responders. These prints are touted as the evidence that will set Darlie free once they are run through the FBI database, AFIS.

The Table

There is a partial patent fingerprint in blood on the sofa-back table. I believe this print is Darlie’s

What we know about this print is:
It’s small
It has a whorl pattern
It’s a partial print and according to the experts unidentifiable
It can be used to exclude

According to the crime scene and blood evidence, it is unlikely it belongs to one of the boys.

Both Devon and Darlie have a whorl pattern, but we know Devon died where he lay which was not in the vicinity of this table so I believe we can rule out Devon as the bearer of this print.

Damon does not have whorl pattern so I believe we can rule out Damon as the bearer of this print.

This print is too small to fit the over 6 ft, 200lb man Darlie described according to the state.

Fingerprint expert for the state *(James Cron) has not excluded Darlie as the bearer of this print. Cron did state it was possible the print belonged to a juvenile due to the smallness of it’s ridges.

This print was descibed by an anthropoligist (Dr. Jantz) as having a 60% chance of it being an adult woman and a 40% chance of it being an adult male. He ruled out Devon and Damon. Although his findings were not accepted by the court, I think it we can use them.

Langenberg and Lohnes findings were not accepted by the court as well. We’d have to read Judge Francis’s decision on those. They exclude Darlie has having made this print.

*Many have discounted James Cron as a fingerprint expert but I believe if you read his credentials you will see he is well schooled in this discipline…it’s what he did for 20 years.

The Utility Room Door

We know there is also a partial patent print on the door leading to the utility room. There is also blood running down the door. We know the latent print found underneath it is Darin’s, not so surprising since he lived in the house. We are only concerned with the patent fingerprint.

We know Darlie said the intruder left by this door and that she followed him to the door.

Why isn’t there any blood on the garage door? He had to go right through that door after leaving a bloody print and a blood run on the other door.

The alleged exit window was only inches from the ground. That means whomever left by it had to step up to get out. If he had hands so bloody he left that print, how did he get out the window without leaving one speck of blood on the window, the frame or on the outside or on the floor below the window,on the animal carrier and the large cage beside it?

Had he had time to wipe his hands on his clothes, why no transfer stains anywhere?

I think we can speculate that had the intruder had that much blood on his hands that he leaves one print on one side of the house (the table) and the other bloody print with a blood run on the opposite side of the house, there should be a blood trail from the table to the door.

The only blood trail is from Darlie and she puts herself in that vicinity.

Once again, it’s the blood that tells the story and it doesn’t lie…

Many Thanks to Christine Fougere for the blood evidence facts.

It is only by reading the real facts, such as the above work by Christine, that interested parties to the Routier case learn the real truth. Passionate supporters of Routier continue to lie, or at the very least are frugal with the truth.

Daily we see more stories, changes of stories, and even more bizarre explanations for Routier’s claims of ‘innocence’.

Unfortunately for this murdering mother those false claims can be checked and her guilt clearly seen in the mountain of evidence against her.

NO DOUBT ABOUT THE UNUSUAL OCCURRENCES IN THE DARLIE ROUTIER CASE!

Routier supporter’s claim that the police never investigated certain ‘unusual occurrences’.

The police investigated everything and anything that related to the murders of Devon and Damon. The supporters bring up the following points to confuse unsuspecting newcomers, and try to cast doubt on Darlie Routier’s conviction –

On June 6, Sally Bingham reported to police that she was a neighbor of the Routier family. She described being awake at 1 to 1:30 a.m. the morning the murders took place. Bingham stated she “kept seeing car lights driving through the neighborhood”. Her bedroom had a bay window. The vehicle made several trips down the street before Bingham finally got up and looked outside to see a white vehicle. The only other description of the vehicle was “celebrity-type.”

Bingham says she saw a WHITE vehicle. Supporters focus on the mysterious black vehicle. There could have been any number of white or black vehicles travelling past the Routier home that night. It was a suburban neighbourhood and one would expect vehicles to travel along the roads around and through it. Police checked out all reports and there was no link to the murders. All of the evidence pointed to Darlie Routier.

On June 7, Betty Jung reported that her son saw a suspicious looking man in the morning wearing blue jeans, a white t-shirt, and a black cap. He was also carrying a knapsack. A note on the memo states, “probably same person Officer Caillet questioned on 66 at Barretts”. The sighting took place at the Rowlett Vet Clinic, located about 3 miles west of the Routier home.
An additional lead sheet described a man fitting the same description, carrying a backpack, near I-30 and Dalrock. The tip was dated June 6, 1996, 4 p.m. It described the sighting as taking place at 5 a.m. I-30 was located south of the Routier home about 2 and a half miles away.

Was the person observed in these two separate sightings the same individual? Who did Caillet question?

The man was wearing a white T-shirt, and not a black one, as Routier claimed the mystery ‘intruder’ wore. What is suspicious about a man walking down the street wearing jeans? This description accounts for millions of males daily walking down the street. Everybody questioned were excluded by the Police. Had those people have come under suspicion they would have been arrested.

Also on June 7, Jonathan Hartley called police to report that the Dallas Morning News mail carrier had threatened him. He stated the man’s name was Ray Clemons and suggested that police look into him. Hartley lived on 8301 Eagle Drive, approximately 285 feet from the Routier home.

These two men had indulged in altercations before. Johnathan Hartley had persistently complained about the news carrier. It had been an ongoing personal intercation, and had no connection to the Routier murders whatsoever.

Kory Keith lived in the neighborhood and contacted police on June 7 to report an incident that occurred during the week before the murders. He described returning home at 2:30 to 3 a.m. and seeing an older style mini van driving slowly down Eagle Drive. He described the occupants of the van as “shining lights on houses”. The van left the area as Keith approached. He tried to turn around to get a better look at the van, but was unable to locate it once he did. The only other description of the van was that it was possible light tan in color. The driver appeared to be a white male in his 20s. No description was given for the passenger.

This occurred a week before the murders, again it was not the mysterious black vehicle that supporters focus on. What was the relevance of this sighting? It was checked out and there was none.

Julie Clark was another person who contacted the police the day after the murders. She described herself as a close friend of the Routiers when she testified at Darlie’s trial. She indicated that on the day of the murders, a woman who cleaned Darlie’s house saw a black vehicle.

The mysterious black vehicle again. It had no relevance to the murders. A black vehicle was reported, and in the trial testimony it can be seen that the vehicle was still present AFTER the murders at 7.30 the following morning. This was checked by police and had no link to the murders.

The sighting of the black car was reported by the woman’s daughter, Barbara Jovell, as well. Jovell’s mother reportedly saw a black 2-door sports car driving slowly down the alley located behind the Routier home. The vehicle stopped in the alley and was described as having a dark complexion. When Jovell’s mom went into the garage the vehicle was driven away.

How many black cars in the neighbourhood? All were checked and had no links to the murders. But all of the physical evidence pointed to Darlie Routier as the murderer.
On June 8, John Reed contacted police to report that the day of the murders he was in the front yard, cleaning up. His two grandchildren were with him and they saw a white male sitting in a “faded blue older model 4 door car.” He described the man as “suspicious”. The distance from the address indicated on the telephone memo and the Routier home is 0.4 miles.

Now a faded blue car, again a different car. All, if not most residents who lived in the neighbourhood owned a car. They also had people visit who would be driving cars. Seeing cars around the neighbourhood is not suspicious, it is normal.
On June 9, Bill Knuth contacted police and gave information about seeing a vehicle “cruising his neighborhood the evening of the murders”. Knuth said the driver was a young white male who was acting suspiciously. The car apparently stopped near the Routier’s corner house around 7 to 8 p.m. He was unable to get a license plate number, saying only that the vehicle he observed was either a Geo Storm or a Dodge Neon. The vehicle had 2 doors, a hatchback, and was either blue or purple.

Another vehicle in the neighbourhood. Because all or most people who lived in the neighbourhood owned vehicles.

On June 17th, Officer Needham described a report police received of a black Nissan with an identified Texas license plate was observed in the area of the Routier home. Officer Needham and Detective Latham also saw this vehicle. The lead sheet states, “Owner had been in the area after the murders – sight seeing.” No further information was given about the owner of the car or whether police established the individual had an alibi the night of the murders.

This was checked out by Police and had no link to the murders.

Perhaps one of the stranger vehicle sightings was reported by Bob Salsey. He first called into the police department on June 8. He was a delivery person for the Daily Business News and delivered the paper across the street from the Routier home at 12:30 a.m. the night of the murders. In the first description it says, “did not see anything suspicious”. The following day, Detective Needham spoke to Salsey. He reiterated that he was in the area the evening of the murders at about 12 to 12:30 a.m. However, this time he said he saw a white car in the driveway of the Routier home. It was described as a suburban type.

Nothing strange about this. Again it was checked out. There was nothing to back up or suggest that a white vehicle had been present in the Routier driveway. There were ulterior motives for this call.

POTTER GIVES THIS INFORMATION SOME 6 YEARS LATER!!!
In 2002, Darlene Potter gave an affidavit describing an unusual sighting during the early morning hours of June 6. Potter was returning to her residence after visiting her daughter in Cleburne, Texas. Sometime after 2 a.m. she reported that she had reached Dalrock Road, north of Highway 66 “approaching the ‘S’ curve.” As she approached the curve she slowed considerably because she was pulling a trailer behind her van. She stated the following: “I suddenly saw a man walking on the edge of the left side of the roadway headed in the same direction I was going. He was about six feet tall, medium build, had shoulder length brownish hair which was messed up, wearing a black t-shirt. He was barefooted.”

Potter then observed a second man walking on the left edge of the road as well. She described the second man as wearing a light colored baseball cap, a white shirt, and blue jeans. She said he was tall and stocky, standing at about 5’8?.

In reference to the second man, Potter added, “As I approached this man, he stepped from the side of the road as if he were walking toward my vehicle. I was just starting to accelerate slowly from out of the curve at this time and when I saw the man stepping towards my car, he looked in the direction of the first man. I then looked in my mirror again and saw the first man shaking his head as if to say ‘no’ to the second man”.

The sighting stood out in her mind because one of the men was barefooted and also because it occurred so early in the morning. It made her uneasy because she lived in the area. She returned home and tried to sleep. About 45 minutes later she said she observed a small dark-colored car driving through the field next door to her home. She said it appeared as if it were riding its brakes. No address is given for Potter so it is difficult to determine which field she was referring to or how far she lived from the Routier home.

The sighting of the two men on foot happened approximately 0.6 of a mile from the Routier’s residence.

Neither of the men described by Potter fit any description of an ‘intruder’ given by Darlie Routier. There were many people in the neighbourhood who were out that night. Many cars and many people going about their business. None have ever been linked to the Routier murders. The only evidence that links to the murders is the mountain of evidence against Routier herself.

Conclusion

The above descriptions of occurrences suggest there was normal activity going on in the neighborhood at the time of the murders, as the police and prosecutors considered and checked out. There was nothing in the above reports that linked anybody else to the murders of  Devon and Damon.

All of the ‘unusual’ occurrences that are put forward by supporters can be checked on the court record and other documents on the case. In doing this one can clearly see the lies and propaganda by supporters. The only sinister occurrences are the unending lies sprouted forth by supporters to try and cast doubt on Routier’s  guilt.

A thorough and absolute investigation took place in the Routier murders. The only evidence the investigators ever found all linked together and pointed to Darlie Routier for the murders of her sons Devon and Damon.

Routier and her supporters will need a lot more than twisting of the facts to make any impression on an already sickened public!

NO DOUBT IN DARLIE ROUTIER’S CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

THE TRUTH OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

The continuing antics by supporters of Darlie Routier leave more then a lot to be desired, especially when confusion of facts tumble down to blatant lies. The focus on the case has somewhat shifted of late, to the ridiculous and impossible claims by the Routier clan.

The focus now lies not on Routier herself, but more on the propaganda spread by her supporters, which does little more than highlights the clear and convincing evidence of her guilt. For the past 16 years Routier and her supporters have spewed propaganda relating to the physical evidence against this murdering mother.

One of the greatest spiels is that Routier was ’convicted on circumstantial evidence’. One of their favourite lines is ‘The prosecution’s case against Darlie Routier, presented in court in 1997, was based on circumstantial evidence. ‘

Circumstantial evidence is any other evidence where there is not an eye witness. Most cases are based on circumstantial evidence, and always have been. It is nothing new, or unusual, or sinister, as suggested by the Routier clan.

Circumstantial evidence is not just pulled from anywhere, it is not unsubstantiated evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence which may allow a judge or jury to deduce a certain fact from other facts which can be proven.

It is the burden of the prosecutors to show, through a set of circumstances that link, that their theory of what took place is the only logical explanation and that the circumstances can be explained by no other theory.

In some cases there are small amounts of circumstantial evidence that can not be explained easily, or do not fit together to form a pattern, or link to a lead to the perpetrator.

In Routier’s case all of the circumstantial evidence pointed to Darlie Routier, and linked together to tell the story of how a mother killed her two young sons, Devon and Damon.

Conversely, in circumstantial evidence cases, it is the job of the defence to show that the same circumstances could be explained by an alternative theory. In order to avoid a conviction, all a defence attorney has to do is put enough doubt into one juror’s mind that the prosecution’s explanation of the circumstances is flawed.

However, this did not happen in the Routier case. The defence had nothing of evidential value to put forward, because there was none. Although the defence tried to put forward the theory that an intruder had committed the murders, they had no evidence of an intruder, not one tiny piece of evidence even pointing to an intruder.

Darlie Routier helped convict herself further when she took the stand. She had written to various people from prison , telling them that she knew who the alleged ‘intruder’ was. She even named some people. Her letters were nothing more than barefaced lies, and she was caught out at trial in the lies she had written, to family members and supporters.

Routier stood in court and actually asked if it ‘was legal’ to intercept her prison post. The resounding laughter from the court reduced Routier to tears, together with the realisation that she had been caught out in her ploy to deter people from the truth of her guilt.

The prosecution proved Routier’s guilt using circumstantial evidence. That is very important, because it means there was enough evidence, that linked together to tell a story, evidence other than an eye witness, that linked Routier to the murders.

And so, although people may be sceptical when they hear ‘circumstantial evidence’ sprouted aloud by supporters, all it really means is that there was enough evidence against Routier to prove her guilt.

Sometimes people get lucky and there is not enough circumstantial evidence, or it can not be linked. In the Routier case, there was a mountain of circumstantial evidence, including physical evidence that all linked to prove her guilt.

And so Routier remains one of the unlucky ones, and remains what and where she deserves to be. A murdering mother on death row…

NO DOUBT IN THE DARLIE ROUTIER CASE!

There are many who believe that the state of Texas got it right when they prosecuted Darlie Routier for the murder of  Damon, one of her two young sons brutally stabbed to death on 6th June 1996.

The evidence that was shown at trial, together with the evidence that has slowly emerged over the years supports the prosecutions theory that Routier killed her two young sons.

Routier and her supporters are quick to try and place doubt into the minds of newcomers to the case, who are treated like idiots and fed propaganda. New supporters who are taken on board are then gently led into writing to Routier, and some go as far as sending her their hard earned money.

As much as Routier supporters spread propaganda and manipulate the facts, to confuse newcomers to the case, there are still clear points that highlight the mountain of evidence against Routier.

Assistant District Attorney Greg Davis was adamant that the crime scene inside the Routier home was staged and that the sole person responsible for the murders of Devon and Damon was none other than their own mother. It now appears that more recent evidence shows this to be true.

Many people believed this theory when it was presented because there was no getting away from the physical evidence against Routier. As much as she and her family and supporters lied, the truth of her guilt was right there in the evidence, and still is today.

What has become clearer over the past 16 years are the lies and manipulation techniques used by Routier and her supporters to claim ‘innocence’.

The lies, contradictions, changes in her story, and manipulation of the facts also tell a sorry tale – Darlie Routier will try anything to cop a chance at a new trial.

Routier and her supporters continually exaggerate or twist the facts to gain public support, and unsuspecting newcomers are duped into supporting a child killer, some even sending money to the Darlie Routier fund for ‘new testing’, or commissary goods in prison.

All of the claims of  Routier’s evidence of  ‘innocence’ have proved to be false, and include the following –

‘LIFE THREATENING’ INJURIES

The injuries Darlie Routier sustained can still be shown to be what they were, superficial and self inflicted, even though supporters have lied about this, and photographs have even been doctored and put on the internet, together with other propaganda pertaining ‘innocence’, the truth still shines through.

Darlie Routier’s superficial self inflicted injuries are constantly pumped up by passionate supporters, and claimed as ‘life threatening’!

The ‘life threatening’ injuries are a complete lie.

Had she have sustained life threatening injury, Darlie Routier would have immediately been
transported to hospital. As it was, Routier stayed at the house, where she killed her sons, and talked to the investigators, and others, for some time before she was eventually taken to hospital.

She remained in hospital for a couple of days, her superficial neck wound closed with steri strips. She would have been released sooner, but the doctors kept her in for a day because of the trauma of Devon and Damon being murdered. They did not realise at the time that she was the murderer, of course.

And so Routier spent a relatively short time in the hospital. Had her wounds been life threatening, or as serious as her supporters claim, then Routier would certainly have spent much longer in hospital than she did.

THE FINGERPRINT CONFUSION

There is absolutely NO evidence to suggest someone outside of the Routier family entered that house during the early morning hours of June 6th, 1996, before police responded to Darlie’s 911 call.

In the call Routier stated that she had already picked up the murder weapon and that ‘we could have gotten the prints maybe’. Her statement was a past tense statement. One might well ask how she knew there were no prints on the knife that could have been ‘gotten’!

Fingerprints at the crime scene included a single bloody fingerprint, sometimes referred to as a fingerprint or a partial palm print, (and used by supporters to cause confusion) was left on the glass table in the Routier’s family room the morning of the murders.

At trial, James Cron testified there was not enough detail to make an identification. He suggested the print was left by one of the two young boys.

In an attempt to put an end to speculation that the bloody print taken from the glass table belonged to one of the boys, the children were exhumed, after getting permission from the family, for fingerprints to be taken. This had not been done at autopsy because at that time it was a general rule to take footprints of children, and not fingerprints.

The children had been buried together, holding hands. The parents had placed knives in the coffin, and the song ‘Gangsters Paradise’ by Coolio, was played at the funeral. This was a funeral for two children aged 6 and 5 years respectively.

Richard Jantz had also conducted an analysis of the print taken from the glass table, and although Jantz’s report supports the defense’s contention that the print did not belong to either of the Routier children, it also DID NOT exclude Darlie Routier as the source of the print.

Pat Wertheim then concluded that all of Darlie’s fingerprints were excluded except the ring finger of her right hand, which is probably, and the most likely explanation for the print.

And so two little boys were exhumed, their tiny hands cut off, and fingerprints taken, so that Routier could get another shot at freedom. It seems that Routier will go to any lengths, however ghoulish or horrendous, for some kind of chance at a new trial.

Other fingerprints included two fingerprints taken from the utility room door, leading to the garage of the Routier home. One print was made in blood and the other was a patent print. The patent fingerprint below the bloody print was identified as matching the middle finger of Darin Routiers left hand.

So that left just one fingerprint unaccounted for.

The bloody fingerprint on the utility room door, could not be identified as Routiers, but that is not to say it is not hers.

In the new testing being undertaken, it is highly likely that results will show the print does indeed belong to Routier, especially since blood trails to and from that print are Darlie Routiers blood.

If an intruder had left the print with that much blood on him, it is highly likely that he would have left blood at the exit or outside the house, and yet none was found. This included no blood on the garage door, where Routier testifies she saw the intruder exit to and ‘the garage door close’.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

The prosecution’s case against Darlie was circumstantial, meaning that there was no direct eyewitness. A majority of cases are based on circumstantial evidence. ‘Circumstantial’ means any and all evidence other than a direct witness to the crime. The stark reality concerning the circumstantial evidence against Darlie Routier was that it all linked together to form a chain of evidence pointing to her guilt.

THE TIMELINE

Supporters claim that the prosecutions theory of a staged scene is not possible since Routier would not have time to ‘stage’ a scene to mislead investigators. This wild claim of a timeline is based on the minutes that Damon would have lived after having been brutally stabbed. The understanding from doctors’ testimony is that it would have been about nine minutes. However, there was no timeline, since Routier had as much time as she needed to stage the scene. After her husband, Darin, had retired to bed, Darlie Routier had ample time to plan and set the scene. Damon’s fatal stabs [he was attacked twice] came after Routier set everything else into play. The so called ‘timeline’ is non existent, and another supporter ploy to try and cast doubt on Routier’s conviction.

NO STRANGE OCCURRENCES, JUST MISCONSTRUED FACTS

Mary Rickells, a neighbour, testified that she was watching television around 1:30 a.m. when she heard banging on her door. She at first thought it was her husband returning from work. However, she became suspicious when she heard the sound of wood splitting and a loud cracking noise. She turned on her porch light and saw two men, neither of whom fitted the description of Routier’s ‘intruder’. The men then ran from Mary Rickels house. Even though the wood of her door had been split, and she was alone with her daughter, and on medication for various illness, Mary Rickels did not telephone police. Instead she returned to finish watching a horror movie. A little later the same men returned and tried to break into Mary Rickels bedroom window, and she testifies that again she turned on the light and they ran off. Rickels again did not call police.

The mysterious black car that Rickels says was parked across the road was still present at 7.30am, after the murders of Devon and Damon, and was not connected to them in any way.

Likewise, other ‘strange occurrences’ were reported to police, who checked them out and found no links to the murders, and nothing suspicious. These ‘strange occurrences’ can sometimes cause confusion when supporters manipulate the details and misconstrue the facts.

WILL DARLIE ROUTIER CONTINUE TO PAY FOR HER CRIME?

Since Routier’s  conviction in 1997, her defence has tried everything possible to bring about a new trial. However, the courts are not fooled lightly, although they have been extremely fair in granting Routier chances, even with the overwhelming evidence of guilt against her.

NEW TESTING

DNA testing using newer techniques was approved in April of 2012, and the court ordered the materials be delivered to the Department of Public Safety Laboratory no later than the 23rd of May.

The court ordered that the testing take place in a ‘timely and efficient manner‘.  Far from showing Routiers claim of ‘innocence’, the testing should prove once and for all what a manipulative liar Routier truly is.

Two little boys died horrific deaths and their mother is on death row for the crime, her punishment for brutally murdering Devon and Damon.

There is overwhelming evidence of Routier’s guilt, and lots more information worth reading on the case.

The very best sources to read about this case are the court documents, since none of the websites run by her family and supporters are at all accurate, and range from manipulation of the facts to outright bare faced lies.