Sunday, May 13, 2018

Anonymous Author Identification: Darlie Routier 911 Call

  



We can solve a case before an investigation even begins.  When 

done properly, this is an amazing time saver and guides the 

investigation to the guilty and teaches them not only "who" did 

it, but when it was done and even why it was done. This is all 

before an investigation even begins. 

In one 911 call, murder-suicide was concluded.  Two investigators

with more than 20 years of homicide investigation testified. 

The 911 caller was cooperative, helpful and passed his polygraph.

The coroner and District Attorney were satisfied with the forensics
and the conclusion of the investigators. 

The 911 call revealed the caller did it, when he did it, and even 

his motive. 

It took several years but the language does not lie. He was convicted readily in the deaths. 

We can murder and we can commit arson, but it is almost impossible to lie. 

This is why formal training not only secures justice, but it yields
time savings methods, accuracy and promotion for investigators.  I knew the caller killed them because I listened to him tell me so.  I began with believing that he did not, and he talked me out of this position.  Then, he told me what time he did it, and eventually, he told me why he did it. 

The single greatest path to follow is the language.  

I have great confidence in the polygraph.  When administered with the subject's own words, it is fool proof.  I did not hesitate to oppose its results and the forensic results.  Why not?

Because the subject guided me.  I believed him and his words guided me to the truth.

I have only gone against a polygraph result twice. The other time was a child molestation case where the subject passed the polygraph, was permitted to move back into the home where he re-offended upon the child. 

The polygraph was not administered with his own words, but the polygraph examiner's words.  

The polygraph examiner was not a child molester and did not have any connection to the wording.  He projected his own subjective dictionary upon the suspect.  Had he used the suspect's own language, the suspect would have failed. 

Darlie Routier 


I first analyzed this years ago, not being familiar with the case. 

Recently, I analyzed her statement to police to see if it would affirm 

the analysis of the 911 call. 

Here is a short analysis of the 911 call from the perspective of 

"Anonymous Assailant" for the purpose of learning the identity of 

the person who stabbed Darlie Routier's sons to death.  

This is the Analytical Question:

What do we know about the killer, according to the words of 

the  eye witness? 



Darlie Routier claimed that an unknown assailant entered into her

 home and stabbed her and her two sons, resulting in the deaths of

 the boys. 

Because of this, we should analyze the 911 call with the 

presupposition of truth:  the caller does not know the identity of 

the murderous intruder. 

We then see if the subject will affirm our presupposition, or if 

the subject, Darlie Routier, will "talk us out of" this belief. 

911 Calls are not a separate science, and "check lists" are useful to

introduce instruction, but only in basic "101" lessons.  Human 

nature is far too complex and there are a number of statements we 

use in training to show how a check list will yield a false 

conclusion. 




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"

 (longer sentences or even paragraphs) 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.  


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

This is to ask, "What happened?"

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

a.  Note that "somebody" is to conceal the gender of the attacker.  The gender is already known. 
b. Note "came here" is changed to "broke in"; one cannot "break in" unless one "comes here" first.  This is unnecessary information and the first signal of Narrative Building, which police routinely call, "story telling."

Next, we look to the principle of "Linguistic Disposition" in identifying an anonymous author. 

What we know about the killer is what Darlie tells us.  What she thinks of him, her disposition towards him, is vital.  Anything less than negative (he killed her sons and tried to kill her) is a "Positive Linguistic Disposition" in the Greater Context of this murder. 

The only acceptable disposition by a mother of a man who killed her children is negative. 

We now 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 noted 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. 


"They" can be singular in some context, but since we begin with the presupposition that she is telling the truth, we now are concerned that there is more than one killer, unknown gender.


If there is only one, "they" is the second use of gender neutral pronoun.

Pronouns are instinctive.  This means we use them without pausing to think which to use.  When we are alone, we know not to use "I", for example,  

In a 911 call, a biological mother of dead or dying children, has concealed the gender of the killer:  twice. 

The analyst should now consider that the caller knows who the killer is, but does not wish to reveal the identity. 

The other possibility is that she did not see the "person" enough to know if the person was alone or with someone else, and to discern if the person was male or female. 

We allow Darlie, herself, to answer this possibility  for us. She was there and she holds the information for us, if we listen. 

Statement Analysis teaches how to listen. 

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, particularly given the injury status. 

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" (plural, gender neutral) after "someone" (singular, gender neutral) 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:  In the above sample:  What caused the change? 
Answer:     She saw him.   

The change in language is justified by the context.  


Here with Darlie Routier, we do not see any contextual 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?" This is caused by the natural reaction the operator has to a desperate caller concealing the gender of the killer. 

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

The question is not answered.  

Is she too upset to answer questions?  With this question, we will, again, rely upon her to answer it for us. 

 For now, we will stay in principle unless we see in the call that she is not answering questions due to the trauma. 

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.  


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


Question:  Why would the identity/responsibility of who stabbed her and her children be 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 risk.  "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.  

Note the inclusion of Deity as a course of following principles of Statement Analysis. 

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...

Interesting that the operator call it is a possible stabbing. 

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 to administer anything she knows about first aid, or to ask how to help stop the bleeding, etc. 

Note the inclusion of Divinity continues.  

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 risk; here with the end of risk, which is 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. 

Premeditation can by-pass this powerful denial, as can self preservation, such as Kate McCann. 

She should be in "emergency mode" of heightened alertness due to increase in hormonal activity, for the sake of her sons. 

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.  

Intended and Unintended Recipient in Statement Analysis 

Here is a brief introduction to a principle in Statement Analysis.

An "intended recipient" is the person whom is being addressed.  The "unintended recipient" is the person or persons that the subject is desiring to impact, even while addressing someone else. 

For example:

When Casey Anthony and Cindy Anthony were talking at the jail, they were video taped and the video was played on television that night. 

Eventually, they began to address the video (police, public) while talking to each other. 

The "intended recipient" of Cindy, for example, is Casey.  While saying something like, "but you don't know where Caylee is, honey..." she is talking directly to Casey (intended recipient) while her words are meant to reach the public and police to exonerate her daughter.  The terms "intended" and "unintended" are technical terms.  We know that the "real" audience was the Nancy Grace Show, the public, and police.  This is a form of "scripting" language. 

Another example:  in the 911 call shooting of his wife, former Chief of Police Will McCollum said, "are you breathing, dear?" into the phone, to be recorded by police, while his wife lay bleeding out next to him.  

As Darlie speaks to Darin, she says into the phone, 

  "I saw them Darin; oh my God...came in here" is reiterating that which is unnecessary:  that "they" came in there.  


"Them" is plural and it continues to conceal the gender. 

Her mistake is in that she "saw" them; which now removes the possibility that she could not see well enough to determine gender. 

This means she is deceptively concealing the identity of the killer. 

Scripting and Unintended Recipient:

Why does she need to report that she "saw" them since they stabbed her and the children?

Her priority is herself.  

Need to Persuade (NTP) does not exist in an emergency assault unless...the subject really does need to persuade something. 

In this 911 call, Darlie Routier has the need to persuade police and Darin that people "came" there.  


This is an 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 also accept, "I need help to know what to do for my son..."

An exception is found when a medical professional calls 911 and knows what she is doing in administering first aid. 


Next note whatever is on her mind it is important enough to talk about.  The expectation is that the boys' condition is the top priority.  Thus far, it is not the linguistic priority of Darlie Routier: 

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 for the "unintended recipient", the police. She wants to be heard.  She is communicating, which answer our question that was posed to her as to the 
"who did this?" above. 

  What she is about to say to him is very important in her scripting. 

She has a message to deliver. 

She is delivering it to Darin ("intended recipient") and to the police (unintended recipient). 

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" (plural and gender neutral) who "came" (unnecessary wording and emphasis) 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 another  indication that she knows who did this and has an acute need (context) to conceal the identity. 

 This is what comes out of her mouth rather than talking about how to stop the child's bleeding, or to get her other child, whom she declared dead, to breathe.  This is a strong indicator that her priority is convincing both police and Darin that someone came there.  

Why would a stabbing victim need to persuade police and a person present that someone actually came and did this? 


 She is attempting to persuade, while being recorded, both police and Darin that someone came there.  

It is her priority; not the children's survival.  

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 must, even if repetition is needed, convince police and her husband that she does not know the identity of the stabber. 

1.  It is unnecessary information 
2.  It is her priority when her children should be her priority 
3.  She avoided answering the question above
4.  She has used language of concealment

She now wishes to persuade police that she really wants to know who did this. 

It is unnecessary information. 

She wants police to believe that she does not 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.  

I don't know if she is offering "honey" or calling someone "honey."  The former may be an attempt to portray herself as a loving mother, just as the latter is flagged in Statement Analysis for a bad relationship.  We especially never want to hear terms of endearment in a domestic assault or homicide.  Again, see Chief William McCollum's 911 call. 

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...

The operator recognizes the scripting that she is talking to others, into the phone.  

01:52:19 Darlie Routier ...I'm talking to my babies ...they're dying...

It is to say, "Don't you see/hear what a good mother I am?"


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 

In recent "fake hate" cases, an analyst wrote to me asking, "Is everyone asleep when the hate begins?" humorously. 

The alibi building is seen in the priority:  "I could not have possibly done this, do you know why?  It is because I was sleeping!"  

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 and it is singular. 

Because no one came there, broke in and stabbed, the language does not come from experiential memory. This is the incongruence or the "smell test" that investigators sometimes state.

Language that proceeds from experiential memory flows. 

By now, she would know if "somebody" (singular) is a man or a woman.  

The use of the gender neutral confirms that she is concealing the gender of the assailant.  The analyst now knows:

1.  Darlie Routier is concealing the identity of the killer
2.  The killer is not a male 
3.  The killer did not come here nor break in, but the female killer has always been here. 

These are facts known by her words only. 

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.  


She is not speaking from experiential memory and is giving the killer a "positive linguistic disposition" in anonymous identification. 

In other words:  the subject has a positive view of the killer of her children. 

This is how we identify anonymous authors:  via linguistic disposition.  Authors do not like to condemn themselves.  In theft cases, they may use soft language, "the person who did this was stupid" but will avoid harsh language.  They do not like condemning themselves. 

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". 


Masking Language

"We are a group of bad hombres and we are all ready for us to do bad things to you" in an anonymous threat tells you:

the author is singular, very much alone, and the author is not hispanic. This is an example of masking. 

The concealment of the gender and now the use of male confirms for us why the gender was concealed. This is called "masking language" of an identity which she kept anonymous for the first part of her story. 

Next, he is not "a man" or a "killer" but he is "random to me", with the additional and unnecessary word (in context) "some": 

 He is "some" man.  

She wants the audience (both husband and police) to know that she does not know who the man is who just killed her babies.  Even though she has introduced him before (sans gender), the killer has been identified several times.  There is no need to attempt to persuade us that he is only "some" man, that is, an unknown man. 

This is an indicator of deception: 

The assailant has already been introduced as "somebody"  and "they" 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 affirms that the killer is female. 

What do we now about the killer?

1.  The killer is a female
2.  The killer acted alone
3.  The killer has been in the house the entire time
4.  The killer is known to Darlie
5.  Darlie does not want to tell police who the killer is
6.  Darlie has a positive opinion (linguistic disposition) of the killer.

 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  which is positive. 

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. 
Note term of endearment in a domestic 

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.  This is why she was able to process their deaths so quickly, coupled with the priority of not getting caught. 

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.  

How many times must she say, "I don't know who did this?" before someone asks, "Why are you trying to convince me you don't know who did this?"

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, even though "he" caused her "babies" to be "dead."  


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 even though her own children are dead
d.  The killer planned to kill the children
e.  The killer did not plan to kill Darlie
f.  The killer did not have to come to the house
g.  The killer was already here and did not have to break into the house to accomplish this

Darlie will not condemn the killer. 

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 her to help the children.  


03:41:20 911 Operator #1 ...there's nobody in your house ...there was ...was...

The confusion is justified:  "they" and "somebody" and "some man", etc. 

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.  This would be a natural wonder in trauma.  "Why? Why??"

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 because it does not flow 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. More importantly:  it shows us how in tune Darlie Routier was on this call. 

While her two sons lay bleeding out life, Darlie Routier has the presence of mind to remind police that she was sleeping, (repeatedly) 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. This is to show a human connection with the inanimate object by the one speaking. 


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


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 knew the intention of the killer 
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. 


Anonymous Identification 


We return to our premise of presuppositional thinking:  we pre suppose that Darlie Routier was a victim of an anonymous killer who entered her home, killed her sons and attempted to kill her. 

The "anonymous killer" is given to us, word by word, by the person who was present for the murder. 

1.  She concealed the killer's gender.
2.  She concealed how many killers there were.
3.  She unnecessarily told us that the killer came there before he broke in to the house
4.  She then revealed that the killer was male.  The masking indicates the contrary.,
5.  She then revealed the male killer was alone.
6.  She then revealed there was more than one killer.
7.  She then revealed knowledge of the killer's intention
8.  She thinks highly of the killer
9.  She linguistically connects herself with the weapon used 
10. She uses scripted language 
11. Her priority is self preservation 

Darlie Routier, the mother of the dead children and the caller of 911 is the killer.  

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

https://moonbattery.com/race-card-foiled-by-bodycam-footage/

Race Card Foiled By Bodycam Footage

happyuk said...

I would like to start a discussion about a RESIGNATION LETTER given by a QC (Queen's Counsel) Ms Susan O'Brien who was working as a chairwoman on a child abuse inquiry and was later sacked for making inappropriate" comments concerning the survivors of child abuse:

This is the resignation letter:

http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0050/00502669.pdf

She later (unsuccessfully) tried to claim 500,000 pounds in damages from the Scottish Government.

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/former-child-abuse-inquiry-chair-susan-obrien-loses-damages-claim-against-scottish

A bid to remove her was initiated by a series of letters from a senior psychologist and expert in child trauma, Dr Claire Fyvie, head of service at the Royal Edinburgh Hospital’s Rivers Centre, expressing concern over a number of comments made by O'Brien.

The comments were made during meetings that seemed to trivialize a survivor’s experience by saying abuse at a boarding school might have been “the best thing that ever happened” to the person. She is also alleged to have said a teacher charged with indecent exposure may just have had “a hole in his trousers”.

What I would like to find out is is Ms O'Brien being deceptive in her rebuttal? In particular, the bit where she insists the comments "were acceptable in the context in which they were made".

What does this mean?

Also in the resignation letter:

"The author based this claim on two remarks which had been made by me in passing at a private training session on 22 February 2016 . The first remark was intended to highlight the variety of responses which survivors have to their own experience, including coping 2 strategies which they may use when dealing with it. I accurately reported, without endorsing, what a survivor had said to me about his attitude to his own abuse. The second remark was a reference to newspaper reports of a recent trial, which quoted criticism of the Crown said to have been made by the presiding Sheriff. He had decided to grant an absolute discharge in a case where a teacher had been charged with indecent exposure. The reports wrongly suggested that that there had been no facts indicating that a serious offence had been committed. The writer’s complaint arises from a misunderstanding of what I knew about the case at the time, and my purpose in referring to it when discussing the reports with legal colleagues who had been prosecutors"

Is this a example of word jugglery from a highly intelligent, yet manipulative individual who is trying to disown her original comments?

Any feedback and discussion much welcome.

Anonymous said...

https://www.rt.com/news/426598-kadyrov-france-paris-attacker/

Chechnya leader Kadyrov schools French authorities on Not taking action against a KNOWN problem.

Mike Dammann said...

I would be very interested in reading a reliable psychological analysis of her. Whenever a woman killed her children, one would expect a history of mental illness and sexual abuse in her own childhood. None of what I have seen here strikes me as an indicator of such.

She appears extremely cold, calculated and most of all premeditated (prepared).
I am not just referring to her murderous and self-harming act, but every interview she has given.

As for her husband: There is something that seems very off regarding him as well. In an interview he claimed likely a stalker of hers did this as "she is so attractive". That and other comments made shift from what should be the priority which is his two sons being dead and honoring who they were.

She speaks of the dead boys more or less like they were props regarding how much of an impact they had on others. How much joy they gave them and others. Not about how they must have suffered having had their lives end the way they did.

The husband also appears to lack fatherly instinct. Putting myself in his shoes, I would of course have a much harder time being objective than us. Yet one would think that no matter how much he loved his wife and "how attractive she was", that the safety of his surviving child would be most important and at least from that standpoint having her in prison would be expected to wind up looking like something reasonable considering the overwhelming evidence that indeed his wife was the one who took the lives of his 2 boys.

Anonymous said...

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article210902319.html

A good Democrat stopping evil policing. Bipartisan cooperation.

Peter Hyatt said...

Mike Dammann said...
I would be very interested in reading a reliable psychological analysis of her. Whenever a woman killed her children, one would expect a history of mental illness and sexual abuse in her own childhood. None of what I have seen here strikes me as an indicator of such.


Check her statement given to police. I agree about her history.

Women who kill children do not suddenly wake up to commit such an unnatural crime.

Peter

Lucia D said...

I watched Werner Herzog's documentary about Darlie on death row. Werner is against capital punishment. The most interesting part of the interview was when he told Darlie (I'm paraphrasing) that even though he didn't believe in the death penalty, it didn't mean that he had to like her. Darlie just nodded like she completely agreed, wtf.

Mike Dammann said...

I have looked up the "suicide note" written in Darlie's diary before the killing of her children.
Darlie writes in her diary:

"Devon, Damon and Drake,
I hope that one day you will forgive me for what I am about to do. My life has been such a hard fight for a long time and I just cannot find the strength to keep fighting anymore. I love you three more than anything else in this world and I want all three of you to be healthy and happy, and I don't want you to see a miserable person every time you look at me. Your dad loves you all very much and I know in my heart he will take care of my babies, please do not hate me or think in any way that this is your fault. It's just that I--"

Here are a couple of things that stood out to me:

"Devon, Damon and Drake,
I hope that one day you will forgive me for what I am about to do. My life has been such a hard fight for a long time and I just cannot find the strength to keep fighting anymore."

She is working her way towards something not yet having told us what she is about to do. She also leaves out her husband.

"I love you three more than anything else in this world and I want all three of you to be healthy and happy, and I don't want you to see a miserable person every time you look at me."

This part is confusing. She puts "I" first and "love you three" right after. I actually hate to say it, but according from what I believe I have picked up, she is not lying here. But right after that, she mentions something indicative of her making this all about herself and her own image. "and I don't want you to see" is not saying "I am not a miserable person". She is expecting the kids to see her as something that she isn't. Her ego and own self-image appear to take over whenever she decides to express love.

Mike Dammann said...


"Your dad loves you all very much and I know in my heart he will take care of my babies,"

Here she goes again with "babies". Introducing risk. She changes her language from mentioning the boys by name "Devon, Damon and Drake," to "you three" and then to "my babies" making it 3rd person. This shows growing distancing. And whenever there is distance created, be it later by their deaths or them "dying", she appears comfortable to make them "her babies".

Here she indicates that she will not take care of them, but I still cannot consider this a suicide note. a) It is part of a diary, not ready for "publication". b) the upcoming ending is interrupted showing that the thought of actually going through with suicide is being interrupted. The father again is not addressed directly by her showing that likely she feels no intimate connection to him. She likely has no faith in him in terms of finding a solution for their financial situation. But as a father she has a strong belief that he does love the kids and wants the best for them.

"please do not hate me or think in any way that this is your fault. It's just that I--"

This part is critical to me. She again makes it about herself not wanting to be hated. But mostly "think in any way that this is your fault" is not saying "it's not your fault". She cannot say that because she does not believe it. She is telling them again to think something that she cannot get herself to confirm with certainty.

"It's just that I--" is the sentence she then begins but will not end. She probably had a desire to get more honest than she wound up allowing herself to be. Beginning the next sentence with "it's just that" is like saying "do not think in any way that this is your fault, BUT..."

once again indicating that there is blame to come. I look at this note as her working her way through suicidal ideation likely leading towards her recognizing just how much indeed she considers this to be someone's fault eventually blaming the boys enough to where the thoughts of suicide are being abandoned and replaced by the plan to murder her boys.

My conclusion based on her note:

She is about to do something significant which she wants to be forgiven for without specifying the upcoming action.
She is disconnected from her husband emotionally and doesn't have a desire to address him.
She loves her children, but that love is overshadowed by her ego and what comes with it. Which includes how people look at her being the main focus.
She blames them for her misery.
She considers suicide but does not continue to commit to it.

What starts as a note indicating thoughts of suicide gets interrupted right after the tells us whose fault she actually believes her self described misery to be.



Disclaimer: The above is my opinion and my opinion only and why it is my opinion has been explained within the content of this reply

Skeptical said...

Her use of they and we bothers me. Could she have been referring to her husband and herself? Is there any indication they were complicit in the attack and attempted cover up?

trustmeigetit said...

I’m watching one of the forensic shows on the case.

After being mad they lied and said Darlie said she woke after feeling a knife to her neck. I have not heard her ever say that. Not on the 911 call or her statement.


By the detective is on here and he said when he walked in, Darin said to him “I can see why someone came in, a good looking blond with 38DD (breasts)”. This is alarming! And it’s he first time I have heard this.

Your kids are laying on the floor... one is dead, another was so badly cut that your CPR attempts just had air/blood spraying our... and your wife, while you may not know is guilty at this time, is cut up and covered in blood and this is what you say?

This has me questioning the dad a bit. I know a Darlie did it. But I really wonder now what he knew.

Hey Jude said...

That's on YouTube somewhere Anon - I have heard him say that, too.

----


Darin's statement to police:

https://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/darin-statement-june-8-transcribed-final1.pdf

Mike Dammann said...

What is where on Youtube?

Hey Jude said...

Mike Dammann - here is where the homicide investigator quotes Darin saying he can see why someone came in - it's about five minutes in.
My response was to Trustmeigetit but I see I addressed it to Anon.

https://youtu.be/agx7iWjpEBg

Elsewhere there is a clip in which Darin is interviewed, and he says something along the lines of maybe someone noticed Darlie, as she was so beautful, and had followed her from the salon, or somewhere - I can't find that one, but it's somewhere on YouTube.

Anonymous said...

Your dad loves you all very much and I know in my heart he will take care of my babies, please do not hate me or think in any way that this is your fault

She frames the words "your fault". She blames them.

Lucia D said...

It is strange how both parents consistently call their sons babies, when they are well beyond that stage. Perhaps a distancing technique, avoiding calling them boys, or by their names?

Mike Dammann said...

Darin himself did not refer to them as "babies".

Lucia D said...

Oh, but he did.
ran over to Damon laying on floor in hallway between wall and side of couch. He had no pulse but I could not see any injuries. Police came in and I told them that my babys were stabbed and she told them that he went out of the garage. I ran upstairs to put my pants on. I looked over and Drake was crying and I felt [illegible] he was ok.
Darin does use that same language as Darlie, in referring to their sons. maybe parroting her language.

Mike Dammann said...

Sorry, Lucia. I searched his statement for "babies" not considering his spelling.

Peter Hyatt said...

Lucia,

we may do this in training for the deeper analysis you're seeking. We will begin with each name of the child and the context. I think you'll enjoy it.

Peter

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Dammann said...

Very interesting. She did state
"
I put the knife on the counter and ran into the entrance, turned on a light and started screaming for Darin, I think I screamed twice and he ran out of the bedroom with his jeans on and no glasses and was yelling, what is it, what is it. "

Mike Dammann said...

So the question now is not only why there is a discrepancy, but why both felt the need to mention it.