Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Darlie Routier and Passivity of Language

Darlie Routier is on Death Row, awaiting execution in the State of Texas.

As we have seen in other cases, Darlie has her own 'following' of sorts; those who believe that she did not murder her own children.  They are a small, but vocal group, who protest not so much the death penalty, but her conviction. 

Statement Analysis deals with the "Unexpected" in language; that is, we presume innocence on the part of the subject (speaker), not as a moral or legal issue, but to guide us.

We put ourselves, in innocence, into the shoes of the subject, and ask ourselves,

"What would I say?"

This is "the expected."

If you were shopping in Walmart for groceries and your three year old wandered off, what would you do?

You would likely leave off the grocery shopping, and both look and call out to your child.  This is what is expected.

What is not expected is what Statement Analysis is confronted by. 

We would not expect you to:

a.  finish your grocery shopping
b.  check out
c.  drive home
d.  unpack the groceries
e.  call out to your missing 3 year old.

In fact, Behavioral Analysis of the above would conclude that you are not all that interested in finding your three year old missing child. 

The "Expected" versus the "Unexpected" is no different in 911 calls. 

In an extreme emergency, we expect to hear priority:  

if your child was missing, we would expect you to tell the 911 operator that your child is missing before you say much else.  It would be your priority. You likely wouldn't have the time, or the wherewithal to discuss the weather, or even have the presence of mind to give a polite greeting:  you'd be far too upset and would get to the emergency as quickly as your brain could process the words.  

If you called 911 to report your missing child, and it was not your priority, the language would suggest as much.  

Darlie Lynn Routier (born January 4, 1970, Rowlett, Texas),  was convicted of murdering her young son Damon, and is currently on death row awaiting execution by lethal injection. Two of her three children, Damon and Devon, were stabbed to death in the  home on June 6, 1996. 

Darlie Routier was accused of killing both children but was only prosecuted for the murder of Damon, the younger of the two murdered boys. 

She claimed that an intruder came in and stabbed her, and them.  

Do the words of her 911 call bear this out?

I have been asked to revisit this case and the best place to begin any case is from the beginning:  the initial call to police. 

Put yourself, as reader, into the shoes of Darlie Routier.  You and your children have just been violently attacked by a stranger. 

What would you say?  This is the "Expected."


 When you hear (or read) something that is surprising to you, this is called the "Unexpected."

The unexpected raises red flags.  We do not conclude guilt or deception on a single indicator.  We allow the subject's own words to guide us. When we are confronted with the unexpected, we "red flag" the language. In an emergency call:

 These red flags include:

*the call begins with a greeting.  This is not expected in an emergency, nor is overly polite language expected.  There should be urgency.  For an example of greetings or inappropriate politeness (giggling) in serious 911 calls, see:  Tiffany Hartley, Sergio Celis and Adam Baker.  This may even suggest that, psychologically, the caller wants to be "friends" with law enforcement and appear cooperative. 

*the caller disparages or blames the victim.  See Adam Baker. 
*the caller asks for help for self, and not for victim. See Sergio Celis. 

We note the order of the 911 call as priority.  

For an example, see the 911 call analysis of Misty Croslin's report of Haleigh Cummings (5) being missing.  In the call, Misty Croslin establishes her own alibi before reporting the child missing. 

 911 calls are sometimes labeled  "Excited utterance" as a way of recognizing the Free Editing Process; that is, the person is speaking "extemporaneously"; that is, choosing one's own words, freely, rather than repeating back the words of another.  This makes the order important in the analysis.  
***********************************************************************************************************
Statement Analysis of the call is in bold type with emphasis of italics and underlining added.  The color blue is used to show extreme sensitivity and the color red is used to indicate deception.  

What do Darlie Routier's words tell us?

00:00:00 911 Operator #1 ...Rowlett 911...what is your emergency?

This is the best question. Some departments ask, "Where is your emergency?" still, though the address should come up from the call, but cell phone usage has caused more to have to ask for location instead.  Just that this needs debate shows one thing:  Rush for it is an emergency.

The question allows the subject to report exactly what is wrong.  The subject (Routier) must choose where to begin her account.  It is expected that the victims' needs is first.  In Statement Analysis, we presuppose innocence and truth; therefore, when the "expected" is not heard, we are confronted by the "unexpected" and stop, pausing to take notice. 

00:01:19 Darlie Routier ...somebody came here...they broke in...

00:03:27 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am...
00:05:11 Darlie Routier ...they just stabbed me and my children...

Please note that in a statement, order shows priority.  This is especially evident in a 911 call as the first things reported are the most important.  Here is the order:

1.  Somebody came here
2.  They broke in
3.  They just stabbed me
4.  and my children.

Please note that the most important priority for the caller is that police believe that somebody (singular, gender neutral) came to the caller's home.  The investigator should wonder why the children being stabbed would not be first. 

Someone cannot stab her children unless they first come in.  Listen to her words.  Let her guide you.  For her, it is a priority that she communicate to police that someone entered her home.  This comes even before her own bleeding child. 

We also note that "somebody" being gender neutral may be an attempt to conceal identity.  

Why is it important (a priority) that she first establishes that somebody "came" here?  For someone to stab them, he would have to be there.  

  With bleeding children, why would it matter if they broke in or entered through an unlocked door?  The priority is that someone "came" and that they broke in.  

Unnecessary language:  When language is used that it unnecessary, it is deemed "doubly" important to the analysis.  From the subject's first statement to the operator, we find her priority is to make sure they believe someone "came" there, and broke into the home.  This has, from the beginning, raised suspicion as to why this would be necessary for the subject, since it is utterly unnecessary language.  

If you and your children were bleeding, what would be the first thing you say?

Maternal Instinct:  help for my child.

It would be of no consequence if they came in, or broke in:  your child is bleeding.

For Darlie Routier, the priority is not such.  We listen; we do not interpret.  

1.  Someone came here
2.  Someone broke in
3.  I am stabbed

These three things come before her own child's condition. Before this case was even investigated, something was terribly wrong. 

00:07:16 911 Operator #1 ...what...

00:08:05 Darlie Routier ...they just stabbed me and my kids...my little boys...

Follow the pronouns: 

Please note that pronouns are instinctive and universal.  Children, from the earliest days of speech, learn and use pronouns properly.  As humans, we are experts at using pronouns, which is why we conclude deception most easily from pronoun usage. 

Here, she says "they" just stabbed me (naming herself first) and "my kids".  Please note that she began with "somebody" (singular) and moved to plural ("they").  Pronoun usage should be consistent.  

Why is it not "he" or "this guy" or "this man"?  Even if "they" could be referencing a single person (not plural), why is there no gender attached?

Remember, a stabbing is very personal.  It is up close.  

We already have indications of deception even as the call has just begun.  

Change of language. 

When language changes, there should be a reason found within context. Emotion is the number one impact upon the change of language.  "I heard someone knocking at my door.  I saw a man..."  In this sentence, "someone" changed to "man."  
Question:  What caused the change? 
Answer:     She saw him.   

The change in language is justified by the context.  Here, we do not see any apparent reason to change "my kids" to "my little boys" in the context.  When someone is not working from memory, the language often changes. 

00:09:24 911 Operator #1 ...who...who did...

We may assume that this question, interrupted, would be the natural, "Who stabbed your little boys?"

00:11:12 Darlie Routier ...my little boy is dying...

The question is not answered.  In Statement Analysis, we do not judge the tone or inflection.  We do not need to know if she sounded upset or not.  We need only to know her words.  The teaching from LSI is this:

"The subject is dead; the Statement is alive", meaning that we are only listening to the words she uses, not how they are expressed.  This is not about being persuaded with tone.

The brain is choosing its words in less than a microsecond.  We are listening. 

We note that the subject did not answer the question, making the question "sensitive" to her. 

00:11:25 RADIO ...(unintelligible) clear...
00:13:07 911 Operator #1 ...hang on ...hang on... hang on
00:15:03 Darlie Routier ...hurry... (unintelligible)...
00:16:01 911 Operator #1 ...stand by for medical emergency
00:18:11 Darlie Routier ...ma'am...
00:18:19 911 Operator #1 ...hang on ma'am...
00:21:26 Darlie Routier ...ma'am...
00:23:00 911 Operator #1 ...unknown medical emergency... 5801 Eagle Drive...
00:24:00 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
00:26:24 Darlie Routier ...ma'am...
00:27:12 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am... I'm trying to get an ambulance to you... hang on a minute...
00:28:20 RADIO ...(siren)...


00:29:13 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...my babies are dying...

Please note that the language has changed again to "my babies"; We must always note the context.  
"Babies" is associated with death.  "my babies are dying"  
Please note the ability to accept "dying"; rather than maternal denial which would deny such.  If her babies are dying, why did she being the call with:

1.  Someone entered
2.  Someone broke in
3.  Someone stabbed me

and then on to her children. 

This is a very strong indication that Darlie Routier is concealing the identity of the attacker. It is passive language. 

00:30:12 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...

00:31:09 911 Operator #1 ...what's going on ma'am...

The question is asked:  "What is going on, ma'am?" while emergency services is en route.

00:32:13 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible) ...oh my God...
00:33:49 RADIO ...(tone - signal broadcast)...
00:34:01 Background Voice ...(unintelligible)...
00:35:20 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible) thought he was dead ...oh my God...
00:39:08 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...
00:39:29 Darlie Routier ...I don't even know (unintelligible)...

Every word is critical.  Here, she now says she does not "even" know, with the extra word "even" used for emphasis.  Does she not know?  She reported that "somebody" came to her home, and "they broke in" (which is not in chronological order) and "they stabbed me" and "my children"; so she does know what is going on. 

00:40:22 911 Operator #1 ...attention 901 unknown medical emergency 5801...
00:42:23 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...
00:43:15 Darlie Routier ...I don't even know (unintelligible)...
00:44:04 911 Operator #1 ...Eagle Drive ...Box 238 ...cross street Linda Vista and Willowbrook ...attention 901 medial emergency...
00:49:28 Darlie Routier ...who was breathing...

"I don't even know...who is breathing" may be the interrupted sentence.  Since it is expected that she would know her son's identity, this does not make sense to us.  

00:40:10 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...
00:51:15 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible) are they still laying there (unintelligible)...

If "they" are her sons, she reports their body posture as "laying there"

00:51:19 911 Operator #1 ...may be possible stabbing ...5801 Eagle Drive ...Box 238 ...cross street Linda Vista and Willowbrook...
00:55:06 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...what do we do...

The subject has not asked for specific help for her son.  Note what do "we" do, not what she, herself, should do to either stop the bleeding or help with the breathing issue.  We look for instinctive maternal reactions for life; helping, healing, etc.  This is not evidenced here. 

The brain knows what it knows.  Thus far, we have seen that her children are not her priority, but her story is. 

Next we see that she is not asking for help for them, and it is already late in the call.  For mothers, this is the first thing sought. 

00:57:17 911 Operator #1 ...time out 2:32...
00:58:26 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...
00:58:28 911 Operator #1 ...stamp me a card Clint...
01:01:02 911 Operator #1 ...80...
01:01:16 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
01:02:13 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...
01:03:05 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
01:04:07 911 Operator #1 ...need units going towards 5801 Eagle Drive ...5801 Eagle Drive

01:04:07 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...my baby's dead...

Note again that "baby" is associated with death.  Before her "babies" were "dying"; here, her "baby" is dead.  We note the absence of maternal denial again, and she has accepted that at least one "baby" is dead. 

Maternal denial is critical.  In missing child cases, an innocent mother will not reference her child in the past tense, as if dead, even often under the pressure of mounting evidence, early on in the case.  For some mothers, it may take years, if at all.  

Here it is instant. 

01:07:08 Darlie Routier ...Damon ...hold on honey...
01:08:11 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...
01:08:22 911 Operator #1 ...hysterical female on the phone...
01:10:03 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible)...
01:10:10 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...
01:10:26 911 Operator #1 ...says her child has been stabbed
01:11:28 Darlie Routier ...I saw them Darin...

The name "Darin" is here introduced.  Thus far, her children have not had their names used.  This is not expected.  Motherhood is highly personal, therefore, we expect to hear the pronoun, "I" often, and we expect to hear a mother use her children's names.  

Please note the complete sentence:  "I saw them Darin; oh my God...came in here" is reiterating that which is unnecessary:  that "they" came in there.  Why does she need to report that she "saw" them since they stabbed her and the children?

This indicates the need to persuade, rather than report. 

In this 911 call, Darlie Routier has the need to persuade police and Darin that people "came" there.  This is a strong indication that no one came there and she is deceptive. 

01:12:21 Darin Routier ...oh my God ...(unintelligible) ...came in here...

01:14:10 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...I need you to calm down and talk to me...
01:14:24 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
01:16:25 Darlie Routier ...ok...
01:16:26 SOUND ...(unintelligible)...
01:17:12 911 Operator #1 ...twice Clint...
01:18:26 Darlie Routier ...didn't you get my address...
01:20:19 911 Operator #1 ...5801 Eagle...


01:22:00 Darlie Routier ...yes ...we need help...

Note help asked for "we" here.  She continues talking to Darin.  She is bleeding and has just reported that she and her sons are bleeding, dying.  Note what is on her mind: 

01:22:03 RADIO ...(unintelligible) will be enroute code...
01:24:20 Darlie Routier ...Darin ...I don't know who it was...

By using Darin's name repeatedly, it is a signal that she wants his attention.  She has not asked for his help with the boys' breathing or bleeding issues, but has focused on "they" who "came" here.  Here she now emphasizes that she doesn't know their identity.  This is what comes out of her mouth rather than talking about how to stop the child's bleeding, or to get her other child, whom she declared dead, to breathe.  This is a strong indicator that her priority is convincing both police and Darin that someone came there.  

Why would a stabbing victim need to persuade police and a person present that someone actually came and did this?  She is attempting to persuade, while being recorded, both police and Darin that someone came there.  It is her priority; not the children.  

"I don't know who it was"

Most mothers would now say, "Who cares who it was!  How do I stop the bleeding?"  The emergency is that children are bleeding.  Yet, even in this most extreme of circumstance, it is important to her that she convince anyone that can hear her that she does not know who did this.  

This leads to the question:  Why?

Why does she use passive language to conceal the identity of the assailant?

Why does she have the need to declare that she does not know the assailant?

Why is her priority not the children?

01:24:23 911 Operator #1 ...2:33 code...
01:26:15 Darlie Routier ...we got to find out who it was...

Repetition indicates sensitivity.  Here, she continues her repetition of "who" the assailant is.  The identity of the killer is more sensitive (important) to Darlie Routier than the condition of her children.  

01:27:12 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am...
01:28:04 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am listen ...listen to me...
01:29:27 Darlie Routier ...yes ...yes ...(unintelligible)...

01:30:23 RADIO ...(unintelligible) I'm clear ...do you need anything...

01:32:08 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...
01:32:20 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...
01:34:00 911 Operator #1 ...(unintelligible)...
01:34:22 911 Operator #1 ...do you take the radio Clint...
01:35:23 911 Operator #2 ...yes...
01:36:12 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...
01:36:25 911 Operator #1 ...I...ma'am...
01:38:03 Darlie Routier ...yes...
01:38:17 911 Operator #1 ...I need you to ...
01:38:23 RADIO ...(unintelligible) start that way (unintelligible)... will revise...
01:39:28 911 Operator #1 ...I need you to talk to me...
01:41:21 Darlie Routier ...what ...what ...what...
01:44:25 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
01:44:28 Darlie Routier ...my babies are dead (unintelligible)...

"Children" and "little boys" were stabbed; but "babies" are dying or are dead.  This should cause investigators, particularly any investigative psychologist, to go into the topic of motherhood with her in the questioning. 


01:46:20 RADIO ...go ahead and start that way ...siren code 4 ...advise...
01:47:10 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible)...


01:48:03 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible) do you want honey ...hold on (unintelligible)...

This appears to be directed to one of the children.  She does not use the child's name.  

Guilty parents will sometimes distance themselves from the child by avoiding the child's name.  See the analysis of the Baby Lisa case from St. Louis in which the mother, Deborah Bradley, appeared almost unable to use Lisa's name.  

01:49:17 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...I can't understand you...
01:50:21 Darlie Routier ...yes...
01:51:18 911 Operator #1 ...you're going to have to slow down ...calm down ...and talk to me...
01:52:19 Darlie Routier ...I'm talking to my babies ...they're dying...

Consistent use of "babies" with death.  She has declared them both "dying" and "dead"


01:55:03 911 Operator #1 ...what is going on?

The expected response is that her children are bleeding, or having trouble breathing.  The question is posed to her again.  She has been talking to Darin, and to at least one of the children. We expect to hear her ask for guidance or help on how to stop the bleeding, or how to keep the child breathing: 

01:56:29 Darlie Routier ...somebody came in while I was sleeping ...me and my little boys were sleeping downstairs... 

She continues with the sensitive repetition (deception indicated) of the arrival to her home of assailant or assailants.  Now she continues with more detail:  "while I was sleeping"
Please note the singular "somebody" which is also gender neutral. 
By now, she would know if "somebody" (singular) is a man or a woman.  The use of the gender neutral suggests that she is concealing the gender of the assailant.  
Note "little boys" and not "babies";  they are still alive and not associated with death in her account, so they are not "babies"

Please note that as she has continued to attempt to persuade that someone came there, she has indicated that the topic of someone going there is "sensitive"; to the point of deception.  This indicates that no one came there.  

"While I was sleeping" is alibi building.  She could not 'possibly' be involved because she was sleeping. 

Recall the 911 call of Misty Croslin.  Before she reported that 5 year old Haleigh Cummings was missing, she needed to report that she was asleep.  The child was not the priority of the call. 


02:02:00 RADIO ...(unintelligible) I'll be clear...

02:02:20 Darlie Routier ...some man ...came in ...stabbed my babies ...stabbed me ...I woke up ...I was fighting ...he ran out through the garage ...threw the knife down ...my babies are dying ...they're dead ...oh my God...

Note that now she gives us the gender:  "man".  He is "some" man.  This is an indicator of deception: 

The assailant has already been introduced, twice, as "somebody" and now should be "the" man; not "some" man.  This is an indicator of deception
that he is "some man" is deceptive and indicates withholding of the identity of the assailant.  He should be "the" followed by "man" but more likely harsher terms.  

Without knowing the case, the reader should now understand that Darlie Routier does not want police to know who stabbed her children.  

Next, we note the chronological order:  When someone speaks from memory, chronological order flows easily.  

1.  The most important issue to her is found in the repetition of the word "came" as it is used repeatedly.  Since he would have to have "come" there in order to do all these things.  
2.  Now she changes the language and order from "stabbed me and my children" to "stabbed my babies" with the word "babies" associated with death (above) coming before herself.  
3.  She now adds in that she was stabbed and then she "woke up"
This suggests, by her words, that he had already come, broken in, and stabbed the babies as she slept through it all, and was even stabbed before she woke up.  

When someone is lying, it is difficult to keep track of the chronology of the story because it does not come from memory. 
4.  "I was fighting" rather than "I fought"
5.  He ran through the garage
6.  He threw the knife down
7.  my babies are dying
8.  they're dead

The fact that he "came" there is first, and the babies are last.  Note the continued change from "dying" to "dead"; neither are expected in maternal denial.  

Note that the babies being dead is repeated. 

02:14:23 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...stay on the phone with me...
02:16:11 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...
02:17:06 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...
02:17:29 911 Operator #1 ...what happened (unintelligible) dispatch 901...
02:20:15 Darlie Routier ...hold on honey ...hold on...

Note that the absence of the children's names. 
Note "hold on" is present tense, as if alive and not dead. 

02:22:01 911 Operator #1 ...(unintelligible) who was on (unintelligible)...
02:22:26 911 Operator #2 ...it was (unintelligible) the white phone...
02:23:08 Darlie Routier ...hold on...
02:25:26 911 Operator #2 ...they were wondering when we need to dispatch ...so I sent a double team...
02:25:28 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...oh my God...
02:28:08 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...thanks...
02:28:21 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...
02:29:20 SOUND ...(unintelligible)...
02:30:01 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...
02:30:20 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am...
02:31:06 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
02:31:14 911 Operator #1 ...who's there with you...
02:32:15 Darlie Routier ...Karen ...(unintelligible)...

Note "Darin" was first name introduced, and now "Karen" is introduced into her language.   This was not lost on the operator who will now ask who is in the house: 

02:33:15 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am...
02:34:06 Darlie Routier ...what...
02:38:11 911 Operator #1 ...is there anybody in the house ...besides you and your children...
question asked: 

02:38:11 Darlie Routier ...no ...my husband he just ran downstairs ...he's helping me ...but they're dying ...oh my God ...they're dead...

Note that her first response is "no" since she already said that "somebody" who later became "some man" already "ran" through the garage and dropped the knife. 
Now it is "my husband" (after "no") ran.  
Note that she said he is helping, but again "they're dying" and "they're dead" with acceptance of finality.  

02:43:24 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...ok ...how many little boys ...is it two boys...
02:46:06 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...
02:46:25 Darlie Routier ...there's two of 'em ...there's two...
02:48:18 RADIO ...what's the cross street on that address on Eagle...
02:50:15 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...who would do this...

The subject continues to press the sensitive issue of identity.  She saw "who" did this and the need to continue to repeat herself over and over shows that the sensitivity is due to decepetion. 


02:53:13 911 Operator #1 ...(unintelligible) listen to me ...calm down ...(unintelligible)...

02:53:21 Darlie Routier ...I feel really bad ...I think I'm dying...

This is critical.  She reports how she feels, and it is "bad", qualified by "really".  
But it is her next sentence which shows deception:

"I think I'm dying" shows weakness.  She only "thinks" that she is dying, but knows that the "babies are dying".  This should lead investigators to check her wounds versus the wounds of her "babies", with hers being much less, so much less, in fact, that she would not have the same certainty of death that she had for her babies. 

An innocent mother would not accept her babies "death", even in panic.  This is the maternal instinct in language.  It is the same instinct Solomon appealed to in the Bible when he called for the custodial dispute to end in death, knowing the maternal instinct of the biological mother would prevail.  

Darlie Routier knows that she is not dying.  Darlie Routier knows her children will die, or are dead.  She accepts the unacceptable.  This is an indicator of guilt, just as it is when a child is reported kidnapped or missing and the mother references the child in the past tense, as if dead.  It goes against instinct and is indicative of guilt. 
See Susan Smith, Casey Anthony, Billie Jean Dunn, Rebecca Celis, Deborah Bradley; as well as fathers, Sergio Celis and Justin DiPietro. 


02:55:06 RADIO ...228...
02:56:06 911 Operator #1 ...go ahead...
02:58:12 RADIO ...(unintelligible) address again (unintelligible)...
02:59:12 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
02:59:22 Darlie Routier ...when are they going to be here...
03:00:22 911 Operator #1 ...5801 Eagle Drive ...5801 Eagle Drive...
03:03:28 Darlie Routier ...when are they going to be here...
03:03:29 911 Operator #1 ...going to be a stabbing...
03:05:20 Darlie Routier ...when are they going to be here...
03:06:20 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...they're on their way...
03:08:00 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

03:08:08 Darlie Routier ...I gotta just sit here forever ...oh my God...

Note body position mentioned.  This is associated with an increase of tension for the subject, herself.  

03:11:14 911 Operator #1 ...2:35...

03:12:05 Darie Routier ...who would do this ...who would do this...

Since she "saw" who did this, she knows the answer.  She repeats the question as a point of sensitivity.  This is yet another indicator that she knows the answer and wants to persuade the police that she does not. 

The greater the need for persuasion, the easier it is to discern deception.  

03:13:09 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...
03:14:26 911 Operator #1 ...(sounds of typing on computer keyboard)...
03:16:08 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...how old are your boys...
03:18:20 Darin Routier ...what...
03:19:03 911 Operator #1 ...how old are your boys...
03:20:04 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
03:20:21 911 Operator #1 ...no...
03:21:01 Darlie Routier ...seven and five...

The answer, "seven and five" comes from memory.  Most children will always give the chronological order of their children.  

03:22:17 911 Operator #1 ...ok...
03:23:08 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...oh my God ...oh ...he's dead...
03:29:02 911 Operator #1 ...calm down ...can you...
03:29:03 Darlie Routier ...oh God ...Devon no ...oh my God...

Note that "Devon" is now mentioned for the first time, in the negative, "no"


03:30:27 SOUND ...(dog barking)...
03:35:02 911 Operator #1 ...is your name Darlie...
03:36:11 Darlie Routier ...yes...
03:36:26 911 Operator #1 ...this is her...
03:37:09 911 Operator #1 ...is your husband's name Darin...
03:38:22 Darlie Routier ...yes ...please hurry ...God they're taking forever...
03:41:20 911 Operator #1 ...there's nobody in your house ...there was ...was...

03:44:05 911 Operator #1 ...you don't know who did this...

Note that the Operator #1 has been listening to her repeat "who did this" over and over 
03:45:19 Police Officer ...look for a rag...
03:46:11 Darlie Routier ...they killed our babies...

Note that the "somebody" (singular, gender neutral) became "some man" (note lack of article, and now introduces gender, and is singular)
now becomes "they"

Deception indicated

She is unable to stay consistent with singular or plural attackers.  Here, they are plural. 

03:48:03 Police Officer ...lay down ...ok ...just sit down ...(unintelligible)
03:51:11 911 Operator #1 ...(sounds of typing on computer keyboard)...

03:52:13 Darlie Routier ...no ...he ran out ...uh ...they ran out in the garage ...I was sleeping...

Note the order:

1.  He ran out
2.  They ran out
3.  I was sleeping

Deception indicated

She is unable to keep her story straight.  Is it one man?  Is it "they", plural?
She is unable to keep her chronological order straight because it does not come from experiential memory.  

03:54:09 911 Operator #1 ...(unintelligible)...
03:56:19 Darlie Routier ...my babies over here already cut ...can I (unintelligible)...
03:59:29 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible) phone is right there...
04:01:28 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible)...
04:03:01 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

Darlie Routier has shown her priority is to prove that someone came and did this.  Alibi building is priority.  She now has the presence of mind, while "thinking" that she is dying, to instruct police on how to conduct their investigation:  


04:05:02 Darlie Routier ...ya'll look out in the garage ...look out in the garage ...they left a knife laying on...

Darlie Routier is directing the others on how to proceed with the investigation.  

This is a need to control.

Guilt is often seen by the need to control; especially information.  This is why someone like Billie Jean Dunn went on The Nancy Grace Show so many times, in spite of being roasted by Nancy, and lie after lie unfolding.  There is a desperate need to control, and in this desperation, deception becomes evident. 

She instructs them twice to look in the garage.  This is important to her.  

Note that "They" is plural and note that "some man" left a knife. 

04:08:21 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
04:09:19 911 Operator #1 ...there's a knife ...don't touch anything...

This would not normally be a non issue, especially since she is "sitting" there and "thinking" she is "dying", but given her repetition, the 911 Operator is acutely aware that something is very wrong with this caller, so the operator says what would not seem necessary:  don't touch the knife. 


04:11:18 Darlie Routier ...I already touched it and picked it up...

This means her DNA will be on the knife. She not only "touched it" but she "picked it up."

This is unnecessary information.  If she "picked it up", she would have had to touch it.  The repetition indicates sensitivity.  She needs police to know:

Not only was I 'sleeping' and am withholding the identity of the assailant, but I already contaminated the crime scene, so don't bother with the DNA testing...

Not very clever. 


04:12:05 RADIO ...10-4...
04:15:20 911 Operator #1 ...who's out there ...is anybody out there...
04:16:07 Police Officer ...(unintelligible)...


04:17:06 Darlie Routier ...I don't know ...I was sleeping...

Ignorance of the attack due to sleeping is part of the alibi building in her story. 

04:18:14 911 Operator #1 ...ok ma'am ...listen ...there's a police officer at your front door ...is your front door unlocked...
04:22:11 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
04:22:15 Darlie Routier ...yes ma'am ...but where's the ambulance...
04:24:21 911 Operator #1 ...ok...
04:24:23 Darlie Routier ...they're barely breathing...

Note that previously they were "dying" and "dead", but here, they are "barely breathing" but instead of asking for instruction on how to help them breath, or to stop the blood, she kept repeating how she did not know "who" did this.  

04:26:17 Darlie Routier ...if they don't get it here they're gonna be dead ...my God they're (unintelligible) ...hurry ...please hurry...
04:31:13 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...they're ...they're...
04:32:18 Police Officer ...what about you...
04:33:06 911 Operator #1 ...is 82 out on Eagle...
04:34:18 Darlie Routier ...huh...
04:35:12 Darin Routier ...they took (unintelligible) ...they ran (unintelligible)...
04:36:28 911 Operator #2 ...(unintelligible)...
04:37:08 Darlie Routier ...we're at Eagle ...5801 Eagle ...my God and hurry...
04:41:03 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
04:41:22 911 Operator #1 ...82 ...are you out...
04:42:25 Police Officer ...nothing's gone Mrs. Routier...
04:44:10 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...oh my God ...why would they do this...
04:48:03 RADIO ...(unintelligible) to advise (unintelligible) 200...
04:50:18 Police Officer ...(unintelligible) the problem Mrs. Routier...
04:50:21 911 Operator #1 ...what'd he say...
04:51:29 Darlie Routier ...why would they do this...
04:53:08 Darlie Routier ...I'm (unintelligible)...
04:54:07 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...listen ma'am ...need to ...need to let the officers in the front door ...ok...
04:59:11 Darlie Routier ...what...
05:00:04 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am..
05:00:22 Darlie Routier ...what ...what...
05:01:15 911 Operator #1 ...need to let the police officers in the front door...

The operator got her attention with "listen, ma'am" and prepared Darlie to know they were coming in the front door.  Darlie said, "what? what?" so the 911 operator repeated that the police were coming in the front door. 

What reaction did this trigger in Darlie Routier?  Please take careful note of what is of concern to her, while her children are "barely breathing":  

05:04:21 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible) his knife was lying over there and I already picked it up...

She is concerned, not about her children's lives, but upon communicating that evidence is contaminated.  

She does not express concern for her children, but about her fingerprints and DNA being on the knife:  

1.  It is "his" knife.  This gives ownership of the knife to the "somebody" and "some man".  Note that it is singular, even though she has said, "they" did this. 

2.  Note "knife was lying".  This brings us to a basic teaching in Statement Analysis. 

Principle:

When an inanimate object is reported to by "lying, standing, sitting" etc, the passive language suggests that the subject placed it there. 

Knives cannot "lie down", nor "stand" nor "sit"; so when this language is employed, it is a verbal signal that the speaker (subject) is responsible for the placement.  This is commonly seen in murder weapons and in drugs. 

"The drugs were sitting on the cabinet" is an example.  

3.  "already" attempts to shift blame:  it was already touched by her before the operator warned her.  

Did she do this while she was "sleeping" or was this part of the "I was fighting"?

Deception indicated

She has established that when her fingerprints are found on the knife, that it was already addressed.  The mother's instinct should be on the children, which it is not.  This mother's instinct is self preservation and alibi building, and an attempt to persuade all that someone did this, and it was not her. 

The need to deceive is an indicator of guilt. 

05:08:19 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...it's alright ...it's ok...
05:09:20 Darlie Routier ...God ...I bet if we could have gotten the prints maybe ...maybe...

She is dying from being attacked after watching her sons dying from being attacked yet uses the language, "I bet", indicating a disconnect (a linguistic disconnect) from the attack reported. 


05:13:18 Police Officer ...(unintelligible)...
05:14:18 RADIO ...82 ...we'll be (unintelligible)...
05:17:12 Darlie Routier ...ok ...it'll be...
05:18:08 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...hang on ...hang on a second...

She next turns to Darin and has the need to attempt to persuade him of the same:  

05:19:09 Darlie Routier ...somebody who did it intentionally walked in here and did it Darin...

1.  "Somebody" returns to the gender neutral.  Deception indicated.  Once someone has been identified by gender ("some man") returning to gender neutral is an indication of attempt to conceal identity. 

2.  "intentionally"  This is an unnecessary word and shows that she knew the killer's intent.  It indicates planning. 

3.  "walked"  the inclusion of the killer's body posture ("walking") indicates an increase in tension for the subject at this part of the story. 

Her willful attempt to persuade that someone came in indicates that the killer was there all the time. 

Her attempt to conceal the identity of the killer indicates knowledge of the killer's identity. 

The identity of the killer causes an increase of tension. 

The mother accepts the children's deaths, even while they were still breathing. 

The mother's concern is her alibi and not the welfare of the children.  Her assertion of them being dead is strong, but of her dying it is weak.  This shows intimate knowledge of the stab wounds' impact upon the victims; something the killer would know.  

The mother knows the intentions of the killer. 

05:20:19 911 Operator #1 ...82 ...10-9...
05:21:23 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
05:22:28 911 Operator #1 ...received...
05:23:05 Darlie Routier ...there's nothing touched...
05:24:12 911 Operator #1 ...ok ma'am...
05:25:13 Darlie Routier ...there's nothing touched...
05:26:20 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
05:28:00 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...
05:29:08 Police Officer ...(unintelligible)...
05:29:23 RADIO ...received...
05:31:19 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
05:33:25 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...is the police officer there...
05:35:14 Darlie Routier ...yes (unintelligible)...
05:35:23 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...go talk to him ...ok...
05:38:03 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

Total length of tape is 5:44:28



The analysis conclusion of the call is now given.  This is without any investigation, nor interest in the evidence, DNA testing, interviews, or anything else about the case.  It is just about the genesis of the case; the initial telephone call placed to police:   

Deception Indicated:  the 911 caller knew the identity of the killer. 

The language of the 911 call shows:

1.  The caller has guilty knowledge of the murder of her children.
2.  The caller has the need to persuade police that someone came to the home, indicating that it is likely that no one came into the home. 
3.  The caller cannot keep her pronouns or articles straight, indicating deception. 
4.  The caller cannot keep the chronology of her story consistent, indicating that it did not come from experiential memory. 
5.  The caller has intimate knowledge of the killer's intentions and thoughts. 
6.  The caller is more concerned with evidence pointing towards her than her children's lives. 
7.  The caller of this 911 call is more concerned with building an alibi than saving her children.  

Deception is indicated in this call by Darlie Routier.  The employment of passivity of speech is used to conceal the identity of the killer. 

The language shows that she, Darlie Routier, is the "somebody" who knifed her children.  The language shows that her wounds were not lethal, but her "babies" wounds would indeed be; that is, known at the time of this call. 

Darlie Routier has guilty knowledge in the 911 call made in this domestic homicide.  

Darlie Router's words reveal that she, herself, is the killer of her own children.  

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Caller: “Mom? This is Mark Bingham.”

Caller: “I want you to know that I love you. I’m on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb.”

Alice: “Who are these guys?

Caller: (after a pause) “You believe me, don’t you?

Caller: “Yes, Mark. I believe you. But who are these guys?

Alice Bingham attributed the strange introductory sentence to her son being flustered. But if Mark chose his mother to call, over all other people in the world, would he be likely to make such a mistake? Would thoughts of his mother not be uppermost in his mind, no matter what happened in the passenger compartment? A caller can only make such a mistake if he or she is thinking of something entirely unrelated to the reason for the call or the person being called and that can hardly have been the case in the alleged circumstances.

Instead of answering the mother’s question, the caller seems uncertain. Mrs. Bingham has just asked “Who are these guys?” and the caller answers with another question. Does she believe his previous sentence? The caller, who may have lost confidence in the call, terminates the conversation (possibly pounding his forehead in silent frustration).


(from flight 93)

john said...

...he ran out through the garage ...threw the knife down .

..ya'll look out in the garage ...look out in the garage ...they left a knife laying on...

Operator #1 ...there's a knife ...don't touch anything..

Darlie Routier...I already touched it and picked it up...

Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible) his knife was lying over there and I already picked it up...

Operator #1 ...is there anybody in the house ...besides you and your children...
question asked:

Darlie Routier ...no ...my husband he just ran downstairs ...he's helping me ...but they're dying ...oh my God ...they're dead...


Why didn't her husband her the screaming and shouting?

Where where the children when they were stabbed?

She tell us "someone/they/man ran out through the garage ...threw the knife down".

If ""someone/they/man/his" dropped the knife in the garage, was the garage close by?, could she see through to the garage to locate the knife?. If she went to find the knife why? Her priority should of been her children. Why would she pick up the knife before tending to her children.

Pronouns alone without all the other linguistic indicators show deception.

Anonymous said...

Sounds as if she is responsible. However, the death penalty is too steep for someone this delusional. Was she on meds? Even her husband didn't divorce her afterwards. He must have beleived her story. Maybe they thought they knew who the killer was.

It is for this reason I always put away kitchen knives prior to bedtime. I recall someone telling a similar story about how her sister was stabbed by an intruder with a knife she'd left on the counter.

Niall MacDougall said...

WOW! Thanks for this post! It shows how accurate the science of statement analysis is.Straight from the horses mouth! I have just finished reading ''I know you are lying'' by Mark Mclish,it was an EXCELLENT read.Does anyone know of any other great books on my knew growing interest on Statement analysis?????

Anonymous said...

Has Darin made any statements? Does anyone have any opinion on if he was involved?

Anonymous said...

One bloody footprint says it all...this would already be solved if California investigators were at the helm.

Murder for mediabillia. This is why one should never, ever, under any circumstance, hand over their auto to a Texan!

Saint Theresa said...

What does that mean??

Anonymous said...

Evidence overlooked in Darlie's case: bloody fingerprints (two); blood on Darins jeans belonging to no one murdered in their home; black car seen loitering around the place in the week prior; tube sock found in alley belonged on one murdered boy; pubic hair found in room.

The woman admitted she was suffering from depression. That doesn't make her a psychotic murderer though she may have had those thoughts. I would wonder had she taken something to sleep or had been drinking.

The bruises are consitent with a terrible blow. Unlike the porn star that was beaten by the martial artist, this was a very hard blow. Perhaps she hit the table during the attack. It isn't unusual for this type of bruise to take a couple days to surface.

If her boys had been playing outside, they may have attracted the attention of a young pedofile who was mainly attracted to the boys. Why the mention of burlary for insurance money is idocy at best when they had nice cars that could be taken in any parking lot.

Both sound like nut jobs. However, where there's one, there's others. It's Texas. It's the 90s. It's a diversion from Waco, Murrah bombing, and Ramsey case. She's attractive, they appear to be living the dream, when whammo...it's time to pay the piper and show America what lurks behind that perfect world wall.

Death penalty cases will draw the most media,experts, and book deals. It wouldn't be in anyone's best interest to give her a fair trial. It is preferrable to change the system than save the person.

It doesn't add up. The creepy Texans that drift northward are exactly like this. They end up where everyone finds this perfectly acceptable and long to be like them.

They must have got on the "list." Explaining how one ends up on the perfecting list is another thing. When someone claims they'll have you killed, you have 3 hours to prepare!

Anonymous said...

I found a comment on another blog on the subject and the person referred to the death role subjects associated with the West Memphis Three. He/she made 13 "Z"s in the comment. These are the crime followers and the type that set people up so they can be the "expert." Most likly a candidate for legalized drugs, and beleiver in all things mythical.

A knife and screwdriver was found in a neighbor's back yard, and again, the strange car casing the place.

Whenever there's that one footprint, you know it's a con job. Whenever I find them I get rid of them. You never want to see just one footprint! It's a sign of conspiratal extortion and conflict intended to fill someone's wallets with their proffering of what "really happened."

Like Peter's blog suggests, statement analysis is biblical. What Peter does not mention is Jesus, nor other character in the Bible, ever spoke English. It is for this reason it cannot be taken as a solution or accurate science; the "science" is another form of persuasion-like subliminal distraction for instance.

If you've ever been to Texas you'd know! There is a reason Billie Jean Dunn is like she is.
This is why they allow the bikers to run the show. The cowboys are gone. This is why women must be executed.

No Texas woman is going to stand up for her. Most are just as shallow and competetive. Just the fact she mentioned she was depressed was enough to convict her and allow the investigators to throw out evidence that might prove her innocence.

The bruises on her forearm tell the story more than the knife scars. That is from slapping something hard and fast.

trustmeigetit said...

Aside from SA, the fact she picked up the knife (let's say she was innocent) is a huge red flag for me.

If you found her kids bleeding, would you be looking for a weapon or would you be doing anything to keep them alive?

She killed them!

It's sad how often parents do this.

trustmeigetit said...

I didn't notice initially that Darin (her husband) was talking to the operator as well.

Just looked at it again and he says "they took.....they ran"

Thoughts guys. Was he repeating Darlie saying "they" or do others think he was involved.

I am just reading more about this case and hadn't realized dad was home.

My home lay out makes it hard to hear from one end to the next but screams can be. I remember a time my son fell and screamed. My husband was on the other side of the home and was instantly by his side.

I just don't get how all the time it took to stab 2 kids (screaming involved) then attacked Darlie and she fought them and the husband just caught the tail end as they were running out of the home.

Am I missing something?

Anonymous said...

I agree with your analysis but I have a problem with this whole 911 call. As soon as she mentions her kids were stabbed, the operator should be asking about their condition. She should be determining whether a tourniquet is needed and whether it is appropriate to start CPR. Doing everything possible to save these children's lives is more important than gathering evidence. It bothers me a lot that this 911 operator did not even try to find out about the boys' medical condition.

Anonymous said...

Found this:
Additionally, a neighbor has now come forward saying that on the night of the murders she saw two men near the Routier home. This supports testimony by Angela Rickles who came forward after Ms. Routier's arrest and told police that two men tried to break into her home on the night of the murders. L.D. Middleton also states that on March 22, 1996 an intruder slashed a few of his window screens before finding an unlocked window over the kitchen sink. The intruder rifled through the kitchen drawers and police told Mr.Middleton, "He was probably getting a large knife in case you woke up." The Middletons live five minutes from the Routier home. They now state, "Obviously, we didn't wake up or we would both be either dead or worse, one of us might be on Death Row."


Sounds like typical Texas trash railroad work. The real killer most likely got off murdering the boys, slashing the mother was extra. Most likly they liked to scare people and found a place that scared them. My guess: someone that keeps up with crime since only two prints were found, and they had been seen casing the area prior. Younger, maybe college or high school, and hoped to target one of the families in the area. It is possible they've (or one of them) has combed through homes while the residents were asleep. Maybe rearranging or taking a minute object for terrorism purposes (very popular in my area).

The Dallas "experts" consisted of old federal agents who want to exploit crimes and mug for the cameras. The cheesy "studies" the pretended to perform were worthless, yet somewhat laughable (if such a tradgedy could be funny). They went after these people becasue they were new and dwindling money and not the old money they've always been paid to protect.

Most people in Dallas are superficial. This woman wouldn't stand out at all. Their explanations are shabby. Just pyscobabble intended to scare others away and make them feel safe and warm.

Bethany said...

Thank you, Peter, for this analysis.
The analysis you did in September of 2012 of her case was what swayed me to believe she is guilty.

This case has always baffled me. I was almost a junior in high school when it happened. I didn't want to believe that a mother could brutally murder her children- I have went as far as going through the court transcripts to try and understand the case a little more through everyone involved eyes.

As much as the "silly string" video got the most attention- it was the 911 call that got mine. Something didn't seem right. Almost sinister. I couldn't put my finger on it. Her voice?
Just. Not. Right.

I was brought to this blog from the comments section on a post defending Darlie and after reading the analysis it all made sense.

Pronouns never lie. They are instinctive. And she makes a LOT of mistakes.

I know a lot of people believe Darin was involved- but I don't believe that.
When I listened to the 911 call on YouTube - you can hear Darlie talking to the operator- and you can also hear Darin in the background yell "He's just gushing blood!" And "Can you ask them when they are going to get here?!"
His voice is frantic, as he is trying to save his son's life. My heart broke for him. You can hear the utter pain, fear and surprise in his voice. It was chilling.

But Darlie just seemed intent on making sure Darin knew "somebody" did this. Almost like he had an idea she did when he came down the stairs.

Again thank you very much!!!

Anonymous said...

Bethany, during the 911 tape you can hear Darlie tell Darin "i didn't do anything, Darin, somebody came in here". He must have known as soon as he came down the stairs that she had done it.
As for no screaming, Darlie didn't scream as she was attacked. The boys didn't scream as they were sleeping and she stabbed directly into their lungs.

Anonymous said...

Meant as Darlie WAS NOT attacked.

Peter Hyatt said...

good point.

Peter

Anonymous said...

DNA results from June 17 2015 prove her guilt again. No intruder at all. https://youcouldbewrong.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/dr-06262015103716.pdf
Her request to have them sealed. Why? Because it just proves there is zero evidence of an intruder.
http://justice4ever.com/wp-content/uploads/Darlie-Court-Order-DNA-sealed_edited.jpg

Peter Hyatt said...

her own words guided us. Thanks for the update.

Alexandru Barbu said...

She's a cold blooded killer bitch, she murdered poor kids and keeps on saying she's innocent. If you look to her interview from Herzog's film, you can clearly see she lies all the way. She has no conscience at all, how could such evil persons really exist ?!?