Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Darlie Routier: Analysis of Her 911 Call

As requested:  The conclusion of the analysis is at the bottom of the page.  


In statement analysis, we view "passivity" in language as to conceal 

identity and/or responsibility. 

"The gun went off" is an example of passivity or "passive voice" in 

language.  It distinctly avoids telling us who pulled the trigger. 

Appropriate Use


"There were rocks thrown" is to use passivity in language.  

But what if this person, standing in a crowd, did not know who 

it was that threw the rocks?  This would be considered an appropriate use of passivity. 

When a person uses passive voice when active voice is called upon,
we need to be looking for one to be concealing identity and/or
responsibility.  

This 911 call is a good example to learn from.  


Darlie Lynn Routier (born January 4, 1970, RowlettTexas),  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. 


Only the DNA of Damon and his mother were found on the kitchen knife at the scene. The murder weapon in Devon's death has never been identified. Darlie Routier sustained knife wounds,  which prosecutors claimed were self-inflicted.  


Does the language bear this out?

In Statement Analysis of 911 calls, we have not only the same

 principles used in all statements, we have the additional 
observations as researched by Susan Adams.  This included other "expected" versus "unexpected" scenarios of a 911 call, where red flags were issued to alert the police that the caller may have guilty knowledge of a domestic homicide.  These red flags include:

*the call begins with a greeting.  This is not expected in any 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.  

*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. 


 Courts call 911 calls "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.  

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

a.  Note that "somebody" is to conceal the gender of the attacker.  
b. Note "came here" is changed to "broke in" 

We have someone, not male nor female who came here, who 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. 


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.  


Note that second in her priority is that they (plural) broke in to the home.  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.  


It is interesting to note that she lists herself before her children. This is not something we expect a mother under an emergency attack to say. 

She lists herself before the children, making herself a priority in language over the children.  

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.  


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 subject is dead; the Statement is alive", meaning that we are only listening to the words she uses, not how they are expressed.  

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.  This is not expected.  

We expect to hear a mother list her children before herself, as they are more important and we expect her to be in shock and denial, refusing to accept her children dying.  

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. 

"even know" shows that the word "even", as a dependent word, means she is thinking about something else while using this word. 

What might she be thinking of at this moment?

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.  

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. 


As a mother, we expect "what do I do?" as mothers take full charge over their children.  

Note the inclusion of Divinity.  

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. 

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. 


What has caused Darlie Routier to accept her child's death?
Even if the child was, in fact, dead here, we do not expect to hear her accept this. 

We have two elements:

natural maternal denial;
time for processing information. 

She should be in "emergency mode" of heightened alertness due to increase in hormonal activity.  

01:07:08 Darlie Routier ...Damon ...hold on honey...

Here she addresses the child directly.  


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. 


"them" is plural.  

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.  

Expected is that her children need help, yet she has declared one of them to be dead already.  



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.  What she is about to say to him is very important 

She has a message to deliver. She is delivering it to Darin and to the police. 

Since "they" came into her house and stabbed her children and herself, what is this important message that she must deliver, calling him by name, unnecessarily, for emphasis?

 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. 

She has a need for Darin and police to know that she does not know who did this. 

This is  a very strong indication that she knows who did this. 

 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.  

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 important to Darlie Routier than the condition of her children.  

She wants police to believe that she does not know them;
She wants police to believe that she wants to know them. 

This takes precedence over asking what she should do to save her child (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 and her own abuse history.  

Here she has now declared that her children are beyond the need for help; "my babies are dead."  

This is to accept the unacceptable by an injured mother.  It is narrative building; that is, what police often identify as story telling. 

It is her priority; not gaining medical help for them (they are dead in her language) nor help for herself.  Her priority is to make sure police know:

she does not know who did this.  


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.  The child may still be alive and not "dead" as she declared.  

She does not use the child'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"and when they are in this state, they are "babies"; that is, 'risk.'


She appears to use scripting language.  

Because her priority is not knowing "who" "they" are, we should pay careful attention to her linguistic disposition towards the brutal killers who came in to her home and stabbed her children and herself.  


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... 

Alibi Building

She continues with the sensitive repetition of the arrival to her home of assailant or assailants.  Now she continues with more detail:  "while I was sleeping" which addresses time.  

She could not possibly have done this because she 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.  


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.   Article do not lie.  When articles are 'confused', deception is likely present.  


That she felt the need to conceal the gender to now suggests that the killer is female. 

 Yet we note 
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.  

Her linguistic disposition towards the killer:  soft  

This is always important.  


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:  Is there anybody in the house besides you and your children?

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.  

Darlie continues to assert, in repetition, that her children are dead, while giving linguistic indications that they are both not dead yet.  

This suggests planning.  It is taken together with her priority and her alibi building as one overall narrative that she must stick to. 

She did not intend to injure the children; she intended to kill them.  

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...

not "I have two" or "my sons", but "there's two of them" is to distance herself from her own children.  


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. 

note the need to persuade what she called attention to by using Darin's name earlier:   that she does not know the identity of the killer.  

This need to persuade via repetition tells us that she knows the identity of the "person", and the "person" is female, of whom she has no linguistic animosity towards.  


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".  


Darlie Routier did not intend suicide.  



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 language position mentioned.  Is she growing impatient?  
"I" just gotta sit here showing concern for self, but not her children who are "dead" already.  

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. 

There is no "why?" asked, but "who" again.  The identity of the killer is very sensitive to Darlie. 

Thus far, her language has revealed:

a.  She knows the killer
b.  The killer is female
c.  She does not think negatively about the killer
d.  The killer planned to kill the children
e.  The killer did not plan to kill Darlie

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 parents 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...

Here she continues to invoke Deity, though not asking the operator what she should do to save her child, and we have her declaring one of them to be 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", as, perhaps, the one she referred to with "he's dead", accepting the death.  



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...

Here is the first "hurry" that she uses. 

We expect to hear impatience and helps specifically asked for on behalf of the victim; that is, directly for the victims. 

she has to "sit there forever", showing impatience, but does not ask, specifically, for help for the children. 

She does not ask for first aid directions for the children.  


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"

This "person" is now "man" and "they"

                           Deception indicated


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


Darlie Routier is lying about who killed her children.  

Darlie Routier has given indication that the killer is female. 

Darlie Routier has shown a soft disposition towards the female killer.  

Darlie Routier does not ask why her children were killed.  

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--alibi for Darlie should be unnecessary unless she has a need for an alibi

Deception indicated


She is unable to keep her story straight.  

Is it one man?  
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)...

"babies" are not just "cut" but have "already" been cut.  This speaks to timing.  


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...

She instructs them twice to look in the garage.  

This is important to her.  This takes precedence, linguistically, over the children of whom she did not ask for first aid directions to save their lives.  

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. 

While her two sons lay bleeding out life, Darlie Routier has the presence of mind to remind police that she was sleeping, and that her fingerprints will be on the knife that was just used to kill her children.  


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.  

How important is it to her?

a.  Count the number of times she repeats it.  
b.  Then count the number of times she asked for help for her children.  

Subtract b from a and you will see priority.  

What is most important to us we dedicate our words to.  

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...

We have seen the denial of maternal instincts and we have seen the natural denial of negative results.  


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)...

Here she speaks of the killers, again, who are without description, but plural.  




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 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".  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:   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.
3.  The caller cannot keep her pronouns or articles straight.  
4.  The caller cannot keep the chronology of her story consistent. 
5.  The caller has intimate knowledge of the killer's intentions and thoughts. 
6.  The caller is more concerned with evidence pointing to her than her children's lives. 

Deception is indicated in this call by Darlie Routier.  


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.  

13 comments:

Anon "I" said...

I am surprised that the operator didn't ask more about the condition
of the children or instruct her in any way to assist her children.
The woman is koo-koo, but even an attempt to turn one of the children
on their side to APPEAR to be helping MIGHT have given one of the
children a chance to survive. It's very unlikely, but a slim possibility.
How can a mother do these things? I can't begin to fathom what it
would take to be so evil.

Horse Chestnut said...

Off Topic:
Peter, I don't know if you saw this or if you would even find it interesting:
https://crimewatchdaily.com/2016/05/09/will-recently-discovered-video-help-find-missing-florida-girl-isabel-celis/

Horse Chestnut said...

Peter:

Fake hate?

'I feel sorry for people who do experience this. I now know how they feel, and that's why I want to spread the word on why you shouldn't treat people like that.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4030206/Build-wall-Trump-daddy-Group-high-school-students-leave-rude-note-instead-tip-Filipino-IHOP-waitress.html#ixzz4Slhr04B3
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Distancing language?

I feel sorry for people who DO Experience this? --- which doesn't include her? ... why you shouldn't treat people like THAT?

Or am I reading this incorrectly?

tania cadogan said...

Not once did she ask for help on how to keep her sons alive.
No demands as to how to stop the bleeding.
No pleas as to what position they should be placed in to aid breathing.
No description of where they are bleeding from, such as his throat or his chest.
No description of what their condition in such as going blue/grey, their breathing is weak.
No descriptions of how much blood there is.
No description as to their temperature such as cold.
No pleas to tell her what to do to keep them alive.

It is all about this vague gender-less person becoming persons before becoming a person again, occasionally becoming a male/

It is all about her and that she was sleeping.
She feels like she is dying.
Explaining away any incriminating evidence before it is even mentioned or talked about.

Guilty as heck and she should have been executed years ago.

lynda said...

"She did not intend to injure the children; she intended to kill them."

That is one chilling statement. Chilling.

I have seen the photos of Darlie's bruising on her arms. It is massive. Black. It looks like a ballbat was used to beat her arms and it is the underside of her arms. What could she possibly have done to cause these injuries to herself? How demented, and then to slit her own throat.

And people actually say that Papini "wouldn't cut her hair or break her nose". Please.

PETER - so when an inanimate object is being referenced, it would be expected or not flag as sensitive to say.."The knife is ON the kitchen floor," as opposed to "the knife is LYING on the kitchen floor?" Inanimate objects should be "on" something..yes?

I find this interesting because I know I have said "It's sitting on the counter" "It's laying right in front of you." There was no reason at the time that I said that, that would need to be fabricated/deception..so why did I say that? I know I have said that in response to someone asking where something was. Is there anytime where you could say sitting, laying, lying..and just have it be "normal" language?

Anon "I" said...

Lynda- Bruising could have been caused if she slammed her arm down on a hard surface.
Do you know if she had any back wounds? I'm thinking one might beat themselves pretty
hard to avoid a prison term for murder of two children.

scarlet said...

Not only to avoid prison, but also death. She is on death row. And she should have been put down years ago. Along with Susan Smith, Alice Crimmins (who served only a few years), Diane Downs, Charles Lindbergh, Andrea Yates, Casey Anthony and many more.

Peter Hyatt said...

When we value life at its highest, we recognize that to illicitly take a life (murder) means the forfeiture of one's own life, and carry out this sentence in a just and timely manner, it is a powerful psychological deterrent for future murderers to restrain themselves.

How many have died due to this bizarre refusal to honor life, while defending the butchery of body parts of children by Planned Parenthood, or its inherent racist origin and practice?

Absurdity as a result of elevation of emotion over reason.

In the United States, should a man kill your child, you will be forced, against your will, to pay for the killer's food, housing, clothing, medical, dental and psychological care.

This may be imposed upon you for 50 years.

Your child will never experience a single good day, while his killer gets 3 meals a day.


Peter

lynda said...

Anon @ 7:57

I don't believe she had any back wounds. You can find her pics on the net. We know she did it to herself, she must've been in a FRENZY to do so. *shiver*
That's why it amazes me that people are saying in the Papini case that "she wouldn't do that to herself."
People have done FAR worse to themselves.

Anon "i" said...

Yes, Lynda, you are right. She might have medicated herself to dull the initial pain while damaging her own body.

trustmeigetit said...

True.. Jeffrey Macdonald even punctured his lung...

trustmeigetit said...

I'm still haunted by her spraying silly string over the graves while snaking her gum and smiling... like pure evil..

Those poor children....

Anonymous said...

Rowlett is a quiet, family suburb near Dallas. The thought of a brutal child killer on the loose gave many of us in the area nightmares. It just seemed impossible that an average young mom could do such a vicious, bloody thing to her own small children AND that the dad heard nothing the whole time upstairs. After reading this analysis though, she does look guilty. I don't understand why the 911 operator never got more info on the injury locations, or gave first aid instructions. Note the dad, Darin, who walked free, isn't screaming for her to get first aid directions from the operator. Why not? I feel the 911 operator did a terrible job-- she knows there is a stabbing and she keeps focusing on the robbery. It's sickening to think those boys might have lived if they had gotten proper first aid in time.