Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Darlie Routier Emergency Call Analyzed



What does Darlie Routier's 911 call tell us about the crime? 


People rarely lie outright.  They often use "technically true" 


statements, while carefully leaving out critical information in 

order to deceive.  

Passivity or "Passive Voice" 

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 look for truth versus deception, and "linguistic disposition."

What is the caller, Darlie Routier's Linguistic disposition towards the killer?

The linguistic disposition is the words the subject (caller) uses to identify the killer.  This is a technique in identifying the author of anonymous threatening letters and ransom notes. 

We expect it to be...as expected:  negative. 

For example, in an armed robbery, if we hear, "A gentleman just asked me for my money..." we would wonder why the subject identified someone who stole from him, while armed (traumatizing) as a "gentleman", which is a polite term. 

Expected Versus Unexpected 

We hold this same principle and expect the mother of two stabbed children to immediately report what happened and urgently (priority) ask for assistance for them.  

Besides this, we use  "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 things we do not expect to hear in an emergency. 

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


emergency, nor is overly polite language expected.  There should 

be urgency, not in voice inflection, but in words.  The priority 

should be clear:  get help for the victims.  For an example of 

greetings or inappropriate

politeness (giggling) in serious 911 calls, see:  Tiffany Hartley, 


Sergio Celis and Adam Baker.  


We do not expect to hear:  

*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.  


We look for a mother's instinct to take over when her children are under threat. 

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 and for us to hear her. This is indicative of "scripting" language for police.


  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.  Not that the kids must survive, but she continues to press, to the 
police on recording that she does not know who did it.  

Q.  How many times will she need to say she does not know who the killer is before it is realized that she does know who the killer is? 

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...

Deity noted. 



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...


Please consider the 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 targeted to be 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. She is working on solving the case for them while her sons are dead or dying and she is dying. 


She portrays herself as "good mom", scripting for the recording, but here we have:

The Ingratiating Factor

This is, within analysis, the noted need to be seen as aligned or even a part of the "good guys" (law enforcement).  She is telling them how "we" (herself with them) could have caught the killer, but alas, the prints are damaged by her. 

The Ingratiating Factor is an important tactic in the Interview, and it is in the need to ingratiate herself into police (including the intuitive pronoun) that, as part of the overall analysis, establishes her status as "guilty caller" in the 911 Emergency Call.

Instead of raging about her children, or the killer being loose, she is, via pronoun "part of the investigator team" who immediately tells them: you won't be able to get fingerprints because mine are there. 

This is something very important to her while her children are bleeding out or dead. 


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. To "walk" is a deliberate action; no longer breaking in and quickly tearing ("cutting") her children, this was, in the language: 


methodical. 

We are to believe her. 

The killer did not run, but walked. 

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 even  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




Statement Analysis Conclusion:   Deception Indicated:  the 911 caller knew the identity of the killer when she made this call. 


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.  

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

What a coincidence - I happened to see the corresponding episode of Forensic Files just today (S4E1, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ff_ln9LR_wI). Because of this blog I was able to see through it all right off the bat, just based on the snippets of the 911 call played in the bumper at the beginning of the show.

Anonymous said...

Karen = neighbor Karen Neal, a Registered Nurse.

Dawnabelle said...

A woman doing that to her kids...My heart is breaking.

I know when I lie. I watch myself do it. I lie for a safety reason, or to keep an investigation intact. I would lie to my sister, and tell her she looks great. This woman, this lie reveals something incomprehensible to me.

Truth might be harder. Could I tell the truth if it would hurt someone I care about? Yes. Would I tell the whole truth even if it cost them something? Yes. Would I want to do that with them sitting in the room with me? Maybe not. If they were listening I might not lie or talk. I'd wait.


When I read about this happening in the world. I'm wrecked. It's evil. I will fight evil even when it hurts to do it. I'll fight through my tears.

Lucia D said...

I wonder if she is a sociopath? People do not come much more evil than this.

Anonymous said...

It is bizarre. I have to wonder if people with sleep problems can act like that.

Her husband maintained her innocence. Even neighbors saw a car casing the place prior to the murder.

A bloody sock and a couple unknown fingerprints were found at the house and in the area.

A lot of people walk into burglary scenes knowing beforehand not to do so. Even doctors get too excited to help their own children after a bloody accident.

tania cadogan said...

Off topic



CANTON, Ohio – A man whose wife was accused of killing their 5-year-old daughter in a fit of anger has been sentenced to 12 years in an Ohio prison.

The Repository in Canton reports 35-year-old Liang Zhao (Lee-AHNG' zow) was sentenced Wednesday in Canton. He pleaded guilty last year to charges including obstructing justice and corpse abuse.

Zhao's wife, Ming Ming Chen, was sentenced last year to 22 years in prison after pleading guilty to involuntary manslaughter and other charges in a plea deal. Authorities say Chen repeatedly hit Ashley Zhao in a fit of anger and that her husband helped hide the body.

The body was found hidden in the family's North Canton restaurant after Ashley was reported missing last January.

A message was left Wednesday at the office of Zhao's attorney.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/10/man-sentenced-in-connection-with-5-year-old-daughters-death.html


Not long enough by far

ima.grandma said...

Hobs, what is repository?

Anonymous said...

Ima-the Repository is a newspaper/news site.

Anonymous said...

12 years sounds light for a murder of ones own child.

In Darlies case, death row is too much. It sounds as if she was having a depression episode after birth. There is more craziness than meanness.

Anonymous said...

Darlie was no Andrea Yates, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Reread the 911 call and analysis.

ima.grandma said...

Thank you, anon@9:13, for the answer.

peaky petal said...

This is great work, thank you Peter. I’d love you to take a look at this case; it’s an unsolved case of a missing toddler in New Zealand from the 1970s. In a recent podcast about the mystery, I was disturbed when a man interviewed about his possible involvement stated “Well I don't see the point in any of this because for the simple fact is they chucked my name in the hat, I wasn't even involved in it”. Involved in what? Does this indicate that the man is aware of what happened? The full transcripts have just been published: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11969632

Anonymous said...

I reread the analysis. Having said that, I know a lot of people that talk the same way over not as stressful situations as being stabbed.I am taking into consideration the area of the USA in which the crime occurred.

The use of "babies" is repeated. It's even used in Darin's written statement. I've heard men use that term to describe their 10-13 year old sons.

Switching from somebody,he, to they seems normal too...especially the use of they when they know in their own mind they are talking about a singular person.

It's often difficult to nail down a place to eat with people like that because they do, in fact, exist...I've heard it too many times.It makes your head spin but you learn to live with it.

The analysis is probably spot on, but not good enough for a death row conviction, imo.

She was only charged with one murdered son? Not enough evidence for the other? Why not? Surely they scoured the area after such a heinous crime. The second knife didn't just poof itself into thin air...and the sock found in the alley is odd.

The thing that stood out was the dog not barking. But, I recalled they had an upstairs and perhaps the dog was sleeping in the room with Darin and the baby.

Nothing stolen? Hmmm...points to an inside job. But, also not everything is about gaining property from others.

Texas has/had more than its share of psychopaths.While it may be true that Darlie is one of them, there were also accounts of someone seen in the area matching the description she gave of her attacker.

Too much doubt to place her on death row. Texas, like Florida, often seeks to capitalize off abductions and homicides to make it seem like they are tough on crime when in fact it produces the opposite.

Anonymous said...

Darlie not "mean"

sell that to the little boys as she plunged the knife into them.


how low some people value human life . the same person would be screaming for the death penalty had she killed a cat

Peter Hyatt said...


Anonymous 8:05

When we deal with regionalism, the principle of "change of language" remains in effect.

No matter what the phrase or word, a change represents a change in the brain's perception of reality.

Peter

Bingo said...

She never asks what she can do to save her children. She accepts they are dead or dying without asking what she can do to assist them. She is way too adamant about not knowing who is was that stabbed them all. Her alibi is more important than her dying offspring.

But I am a robot! said...

Wow, if I didn't live down there when this happened and closely follow it since, this would read like a grossly exaggerated example story in which Peter crammed in as many SA guilty language factors as possible for his character Darlie, then went back and added a few more.

Quoting Peter:

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.

Her third priority seems to be emphasizing that she is also a victim, which is likely why she named herself before her dying/dead/going to die babies.

I don't know if it was more of her terrible alibi building, her sociopathy, or both.

More inconsistency: how would she possibly know they hadn't touched anything else at all in the home when they got in, broke in, brutally stabbed her two boys in the same room, then nicked her up a bit, all of which she reportedly slept soundly through?

The ingratiating and attempts to help solve the case are ridiculous enough; lamenting that it now cannot happen because she grabbed the knife (while her young children bled out unattended) defies a basic level of intelligence and common sense.

One minor note: the plural "them" has long been misused when someone doesn't know the gender.
In this case, it reads more like her many attempts to conceal the attacker's female gender and not implying multiple suspects.

I've read a lot of this case over the years including the pro-Darlie blogs proclaiming her innocence.
The dozens of comments of people who dispute her obvious guilty knowledge and send money/gifts despite hearing or reading her words in the 911 call are boggling!

I can see very close loved ones being unable to accept she could do this despite overwhelming evidence, but complete strangers?!

Alibi building, ingratiating with LE, invoke deity... too many other blatant red and blue flags to list.
If we were playing SA Bingo, whoever got Darlie's card would win the blackout in a landslide!

mom2many said...

"Darlie Routier ...no ...he ran out ...uh ...they ran out in the garage ...I was sleeping..."

If she was sleeping, how could she know they ran out in the garage. "Out in the garage" itself is an odd phrase. Out of the garage would be my expected.

mom2many said...

"In the garage" implies the subject didn't leave the premisis.

Lucia D said...

What sticks with me is from one of the Discoery ID shows. The blood spatter evidence on the back of her shirt. Showing she stabbed and brought the knife up repeatedly over her shoulder, leaving cast off blood on herself:( Darlie is a monster

voici je said...

an important thing is missing in that 911 call....why didnt we ear Darin asking what to do to help with childrens?...and when Darlie was "attack" by an intruder...she must have scream?... that didnt wake up Darin?...but when the "intruder" ran out...and Darlie scream Darin Darin Darin....he ran down the stairs?...and in that same moment...why and how she already know Darin wasnt attack first?...because she knows it !...i think ||Darin woke up in that killing event...this is why we dont ear him talking over Darlies voice in the 911 call..he wasnt -on panick mode -. he go to neighbor to make sure he has an alibie...### Darin said that he did CPR and blood was coming out of his son lung....i never saw him with blood on his t-shirt or beard that night...there are photographs when paramedics leave the house...and Darin is wearing an immaculate white t-shirt...

But I am a robot! said...

Thanks, voici je; you bring up some great points about Darin. Darlie's instant realization he hadn't been attacked is another of many solid points against her, but I was always curious why Darin wasn't looked at more closely.

I wonder what the surviving son (Drake?) really thinks as to both parents' involvement.

He would be about 22 now; he has a memorable and less common name (not going to be hundreds of Drake Routiers' life events clogging up the search results).

I wonder if he believes his mother's claim of innocence or suspects his father knows more than he claims.

lynda said...

Drake Routier was diagnosed with cancer but is recovering

Here is also a short vid of him discussing his mother

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3yw06e

But I am a robot! said...

Thanks, Lynda, and welcome back!

Anonymous said...

"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."

Eh? If I woke & discovered the family jewels stolen I think it would be safe to assume the burglars broke in 'while I was sleeping'. Or did I nick 'em myself? Did my comment give the game away?

I find this slightly ludicrous. Having read a few of these blogs I've purposely checked my own language. I must be public enemy number one because I'm always flipping pronouns, using names, not using names in the same sentence. I've also (not 911)made calls & forgotten the most important piece of information to relay.

Condemning someone for their speech u der extreme circumstances, whether they turn out to be guilty or innocent is just wrong.

Anonymous said...

"The Discovery Channel" - Must be true then.

Dyuti Mittal said...

I read a comment that said - 'She never asks what she can do to save her children. She accepts they are dead or dying without asking what she can do to assist them.' A person in trauma of having just had someone break into her house and found her children 'seemingly' dead or bleeding to death, may not have the presence of mind to necessarily check if the kids attacked are still alive or just bleeding - sometimes the horror of the situation can also make you believe the worst and convey the worst so that the quickest action is provided. Also, if she had to stab her kids, she could have done so without slashing her neck to make her story more convicing and putting her life through danger, because just killing two souls can be explained very well with fabricated lies or stories without harming yourself. I feel like she can be given benefit of soubt for most of what she said in the 911 call. Yes a person can also be confused about the sequence of events sometimes, because they are in shock and trauma and as she claimed, she was subconsciously woken up by the sounds or the murderer while still rtying to process what was going on. Atleast while making the 911 call, one needn't always care for the exact sequence even if they make collect or reflect upon it carefully later - because in that instance getting help is your focus. I find a lot of the arguments your blog puts up to make her sound guilty and defensive just as much a guess as her not being guilty and being genuine can be. So I woukld sincerely not request you to colour people's perceptions with your "judgement" and make it very clear that your analysis is just an opinion. I still believe she may be more innocent than likely to be guilty because there should be no reason why any mother who claims she loved her children, who acted normal all her life and who's family and friends claim she was normal, loving and dedicated as a mother and wife do so. If she so wanted to not have these kids and wanted her blond bombshell freedom and lifestyle, she would have aborted them while she was conceiving them or got them killed much sooner - why even raise them all this while and do everything to lovingly raise them up until? And yes, a mother or person for that matter can choose to react in many ways to suffering, grief or death - there is no thumbrule and not following thumbrules or generalizations doesn't make someone a sociopath. Sometimes people are so composed, they may be shocked or paining within but be so composed they do not shed a tear, and they may also want to get over the grief as soon as possible to live normally or they may want to celebrate the birthday of a dead son at his grave days after his death if they think that is what would please him, if they think seeing them smiling would make him happy - it's not necessary someone will be revelling in tears to reflect grief, and she even did so in her interviews, all of which seem quite genuine from her end. It can be very sad when someone who loves someone they have just lost and is griving is then arrested and charged for having murdered them for lack of evidence to prove otherwise. I would think she is innocent unless there is any very solid and precise evidence that proves otherwise, which this 911 call or any of the evidence the court had provided in this case, does not manage to suffice for. Hope you can be more understanding of that.

Pat Brown said...

Excellent analysis, Peter. Darlie Routier is a psychopath who now professes she is a Christian and innocent and has a fan club trying to get her out of prison.

J. R. Robinson said...

This has absolutely nothing to do with sleep disorders. No. Not a single sleep disorder has symptoms similar to a mother butchering her children.

The sock belonged to Darin. Darin acknowledged it was his. It is believed the sock was planted to lead the investigators away from the killer. It was found 75 yatds away from the home.

No, there was no car "casing the place." That is a lie. An unidentified black car had been seen in the neighborhood a couple of times. Once it was seen as it slowed in front of the Routier home.The Routier's home was on a corner lot. Most people do slow down as they approach a road they intend to turn onto. Also, the neighbors confirmed it was common for people to slow in front of the Roitier home to view their elaborate fountain in the front yard.

There are a couple of fingerprints that the state say could not be used due to their having been smeared. The defense says their exerts claim there are 7 points and want to run it through AFIS. Darlie Kee, the mother of the killer Darlie Lynn Routier, claims that Killer Darlie has been excluded as a person who may have left that print. That is untrue. She has not been excluded. They cannot match it to anyone in the home that morning. Not the family, first responders, nor the investigators. The print is very small. DNA testing revealed no male DNA in the print or area of the print. Killer Darlie claims "the intruder" was approximately 6 foot & 200 - 220 pounds. There is No Way a man that size left that print. The prints they were unable to get viable samples from in no way prove any unknown persons were in the home that morning.

Killer Darlie wasn't "too excited to help her children" The officer told her multiple times to go help her children. She ignored him and sat calmly on the couch holding a towel to her neck. She did nothing. Later, after Killer Darlie was permitted back in her home she saw they took the kitchen sink out. At no point prior to this had she ever mentioned going near the sink. Neither did Darin in his stories to the police. Her new story puts her at the sink setting towels to put on the boys wounds. No towels/tags were found and none of the blood was diluted. Killer Darlie simply made up a new lie when she saw the sink was gone. What Killer Darlie & her family didn't know was luminol proved Killer Darlie had been at that sink. It also proved blood had been cleaned up in and all around the sink. Who cleaned up the blood.

Stop listening to her family. Stop listening to Killer Darlie supporters. They lie. They make up new "evidence" and they alter official documents to favor Killer Darlie.

http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com

J. R. Robinson said...

You are right to question the media's account. They get so many of the facts wrong.

This time they got it correct. The investigators reveal this same truth. It's very clear in the official documents and the trial transcripts.

http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com

voici je said...

i read this statement analysis again...because i miss things sometime..- i am learning english - and i realized that i forgot to mention one thing about Darin..that is not part of that 911 call...but happens in that same moment...when Darlie scream Darin Darin Darin...he woke up and get down stair...BUT...before he get to his wife..he put on jeans..glasses...and even mention that his wallet was in the parents room?..why»??..his wife was screaming his name...why was it so important for him to get dressed?...i still believe...Darlie did the Killings...Darin heard it...he is the one who step outside the house to put the sock in plain view...to say something about that sock...where did the intruder find this sock?...why didnt he covers both hands??..this story made no sens...Darlie is the killer...Darin...the lucky one..

voici je said...

i read this statement analysis again...because i miss things sometime..- i am learning english - and i realized that i forgot to mention one thing about Darin..that is not part of that 911 call...but happens in that same moment...when Darlie scream Darin Darin Darin...he woke up and get down stair...BUT...before he get to his wife..he put on jeans..glasses...and even mention that his wallet was in the parents room?..why»??..his wife was screaming his name...why was it so important for him to get dressed?...i still believe...Darlie did the Killings...Darin heard it...he is the one who step outside the house to put the sock in plain view...to say something about that sock...where did the intruder find this sock?...why didnt he covers both hands??..this story made no sens...Darlie is the killer...Darin...the lucky one..