Thursday, May 17, 2018

Statement Analysis: Darlie Routier Husband Darin


Question for analysis:  Did Darlie Routier have assistance in committing this murder from her husband?

Does Darin Routier show guilty knowledge of the crime?

Did he help her kill the children?

I. The Statement
II. The Statement with Analysis 
III. The Conclusion 



I. The Statement

Read the statement through to get an overall impression of the husband's statement knowing it was given to police after a traumatic event.  Although we don't know what was discussed prior to writing this Statement, we do know he was interviewed first. We then should consider reducing sensitivity indicators, while continuing to look for signals of deception. 

We were watching TV in the Roman Room (Living Room SW Corner of House) watching[illegible] movie on HBO (Satellite). Baby Drake had fallen asleep about 10-10:30. I took him up to bed in parents room. Put blanket on him and turned out lights. I went down stairs to talk to Darlie. We talked about the boys not being able to start base-ball yet because we were so busy with the baby right now. We talked about the business, bills, and how Darlie was having a hard time with taking care of the baby’s (all) today. Darlie said she wanted to sleep on the couch because she would sleep better because the baby would keep her awake. The boys were asleep with pillows and blankets on the floor. Devon was asleep face up in front of TV and Damon was asleep between couch and coffee table by the couch mom was. So I went upstairs to get her a blanket and pillow and came back downstairs to cover her up. We talked a little more
Page 2
about her going to Cancun with some friends across the street and I gave her a kiss goodnight. Told her to dream about me and went upstairs around 1:00am.I went and turned on TV in our room and watched for 10 to 15 min. and took my glasses off and turned TV off. I could not go to sleep for a while but finally I fell asleep. Uncontisly (sic) I heard a noise and then Darlie screaming loud. She was yelling Devon! Devon!! Oh my God Devon! I woke up quickly and grabbed my glasses on the night stand and ran downstairs as fast as I could. Going into the Living Room (Roman) I ran over to Devon laying on the floor where he was when I saw him last and nealed (sic) down over him
Page 3
to see if he was hurt and then looked at the coffee table to see it tipped over on him. When I looked again at his chest there were two holes in his chest with blood and muscle piecing (sic) out. I slapped his face to get him to say or look at me. No response. I started CPR and when I blew into his mouth air came out of his chest. I blew 5 or 6 times and held my hand over the holes on his chest. Then when that didn’t work I blew into one of the holes in his chest. I looked over at Darlie and she was on the phone calling 911. I 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.
Page 4
I noticed my wallet left on the floor and all I could think to do was to go [redacted] holler for help. I needed someone to help [illegible] and [illegible] the paramedics when they arrived. I went downstairs ran out the house and ran across the street to [redacted] and[redacted] door. I banged 5-6 times as hard as I could until [redacted] comes to the doors 1st and when I told them that Devon and Damon were stabbed they were in shock and ran over with me to the house and that was when they were putting Damon on a stretcher. I knew that
Devon was dead before I ran across street and Damon had no pulse but the paramedic carried him out in a blanket out the front door. I ran out yelling that we have to find
Page 5
who did this and [redacted] told me that Darlie was cut too! I never knew that she was hurt yet she had blood all over her from the neck down to the bottom of her nightshirt. She was standing in the door way with the paramedics said she needed to go to the hospital. So we helped her onto the stretcher and she said “Darin you have to promise me we will find this man! He killed our babys.” I walked back into house pushed my way through the police and saw the knife on the bar in kitchen w/blood all over it. [illegible] went to garage and door[illegible] to look at the window that the police had said he entered and I went out of the house and walked across the street and neighbors were there to
Page 6
comfort me and ask me about what happened. I sat for a minute on a curb and walked over to the ambulance where Damon was and asked paramedic was he alive and they said no. I was in shock. [redacted] told me to with Darlie in the ambulance. So I got in and they threw me outand said they needed to work. So then they asked me questions (fire dept) (SS# + address + name) and I asked what hospital and no one knew. So found out where Darlie went (Baylor Dallas) and drove over to the hospital. At hospital I was questioned by Det. Frosch for hours.

II. Statement With Analysis



We were watching TV in the Roman Room (Living Room SW Corner of House) watching[illegible] movie on HBO (Satellite). 

The subject begins his statement on the night in question. This is expected. 

We will keep watch of the form of the statement, knowing that reliable statements will have the majority of information being the murder, itself. 

Note the pronoun "we" is used, showing unity between them.  "TV"is often found in a statement when someone is not alone. 


Baby Drake had fallen asleep about 10-10:30. 


It is interesting to note the name used for the child; "Baby Drake" by the father.  This should be seen not only in the Greater Context (murder) but in the lesser contexts of both the sentence and in comparison to Darlie's. 

Note the sentence is short.  Short sentences are often the most reliable. 

I took him up to bed in parents room. 

This is a very strong sentence.  Note it begins with "I" and is also very short. 

It is very likely to be reliable. 

Put blanket on him and turned out lights. 

Notice two things here:
a. reduced commitment to covering the child with a blanket
b.  the turning of the lights out. 

It would be interesting to learn if "lights out" is his normal vernacular instead of "lights off", given the greater context. 

That he includes two unnecessary elements (covering and lights) would warrant exploration of his own background, including possible post trauma. This could be present trauma from the murders, or could be possible childhood abuse in his background.

That he includes "lights out" could also indicate a failed attempt at romance with Darlie. 

This is for exploration, yet not vital to the analytical question of guilty knowledge. It does, however, give us insight into their relationship. 

We note "we" turning to "I" becomes reliably strong and is taken in the lesser context of shorter sentences.  We now note the pronoun missing over a specific action. 

I wonder if he struggled to remember, "did I really cover him?" or "did I use the right blanket?" "Did I cover him completely?", (etc) , due to the dropped pronoun indicating a reduced commitment. 

Consider the "lights" as it might relate to sexual intimacy (in the negative) with what follows: 


I went down stairs to talk to Darlie. 

Here he has the need to explain to us why he went downstairs.  When taken with the "lights out", it may further affirm that he wanted unity and sexual intimacy with Darlie but there was a negative atmosphere he was dealing with.  This would be consistent with her statement about having to do everything while he was out with her sister. 

They seem to address this congruently: 


We talked about the boys not being able to start base-ball yet because we were so busy with the baby right now. We talked about the business, bills, and how Darlie was having a hard time with taking care of the baby’s (all) today. 

The description is of what might cause "lights out" in marital relations; busy, bills, baby, etc. 

Note he recognized her complaint from her statement about having to take care of dinner for "all" (re-read her statement at this point). 

Yet, it is the pronoun "we" which tells us his linguistic disposition towards Darlie at this point of the statement. In his verbalized perception of reality, he saw them as "we", but there may have been an unspoken rejection of amorous activity he sensed.  This can produce the language we see above, as he works from memory of what happened. 

He is reliving or recalling it as it progressed. Thus far, there is no indicator that he has moved away from experiential memory. 

He may have wanted Darlie to come upstairs to bed, hence his need to explain why he came down to talk to her: 


Darlie said she wanted to sleep on the couch because she would sleep better because the baby would keep her awake. 

This was not likely a very heated argument but one in which he accepted her reason for them being apart.  Note the soft communicative language. 

He tells us it was Darlie's decision to sleep on the couch (location of sleep noted) and voiced no objection.  Consider this, again, with the unnecessary detail of him turning the lights off. 

The boys were asleep with pillows and blankets on the floor. Devon was asleep face up in front of TV and Damon was asleep between couch and coffee table by the couch mom was. 

Note the absence of qualifying or unnecessary language.  In the context of the murder, he now gives the positions. The "boys" are given specific names. 

They are now separating (geographically) and she is "mom" in his language. 


So I went upstairs to get her a blanket and pillow and came back downstairs to cover her up.

He is sensitive about coming back to her.  That he would both get her a blanket and cover her is supported by the pronoun to follow: 


 We talked a little more about her going to Cancun with some friends across the street and I gave her a kiss goodnight. 

The conversation still had the pronoun "we" here.  I would have liked to ask him if he has sought to try, one more time, to get her to come upstairs for romance. 


That he gave her a kiss tonight is noted.  This came from the sentence with "we" and it is about her being able to get away for vacation. 

This is following the acknowledgment of her doing for others. He signals that the relationship was not deteriorating to the point of divorce.  Yet, he likely did not get her to come upstairs and "turn on the lights" even with the attention of getting her a blanket, (for the purpose of covering her) and kissing her. 

Failure may be affirmed by the dropped pronoun here, which is not his baseline pattern: 


Told her to dream about me and went upstairs around 1:00am.

This is the language of disappointment. 

He had acknowledged what a tough time she was having as a mother, did not debate her about location of sleep and attempted to be helpful. 

He may not have known at the time of the statement that she was under suspicion as it does not show thus far, yet in telling police that she was having a hard time, and she needed a vacation, he is giving information freely. 

That it went from "said" to "told" may indicate an increase in the tension from disappointment.  He has talked to her as "we" until 1:00am.  He now does give up and go upstairs.  We listen here, in particular, for reliability versus deception as the time of the murder commences: 

I went and turned on TV in our room and watched for 10 to 15 min. 

"TV" is often mentioned in a statement when one is with another person.  Why does he include this when he is alone?  This may be similar to "coffee" in statements (social drink) where one is alone and is actually thinking about being alone.  

He may have hoped to have fallen asleep in her arms rather than using the TV.  He may have preferred to have fallen asleep in the psychological status and safety of "we."  Without, he may struggle. 


and took my glasses off and turned TV off. 

I could not go to sleep for a while but finally I fell asleep. 

Uncontisly (sic) I heard a noise and then Darlie screaming loud. 

The event is critical here. 

If he has guilty knowledge of it, we expect to see a temporal lacuna or skip in time.  

Instead, he "finally" fell asleep. 

Then we have a word (?) with "I heard a noise..."

This is a description of an event that one struggles to perceive due to sleep. 

Those who are deceptive here often use a phrase to skip over time to persuade their audience that they could not have been involved.  Such may be,

"and the next thing I know..."

There is no skip of time for him. 

This is a very strong signal to indicate he was asleep.  

He tells us so, but without persuasion.  

He tells us so without skipping over time.  

Note the verb change here may suggest ongoing impact: 


She was yelling Devon! Devon!! Oh my God Devon! 

What follows in the expectation of truth is a rude awakening and confusion.  

This is our expectation.  

We also want to see the pronoun "I" in his description.  We do not want to see the pronoun "you", as if this is an universal event common to all.  This type of psychological distancing is not expected in a reliable statement. 

I woke up quickly and grabbed my glasses on the night stand and ran downstairs as fast as I could. Going into the Living Room (Roman) I ran over to Devon laying on the floor where he was when I saw him last and nealed (sic) down over him
to see if he was hurt and then looked at the coffee table to see it tipped over on him. 

That he needs to explain why he kneeled down over Devon is contextually reliable.  He woke up "quickly" attempting to gain his bearings, he would not know what had happened to Devon. 


When I looked again at his chest there were two holes in his chest with blood and muscle piecing (sic) out. 

The language indicates experiential memory. 


I slapped his face to get him to say or look at me. 

Here he explains why he slapped a child.  This is appropriate for a father to do.  

Next note the short sentences, past tense commitment and the lack of qualifying anything. 


No response. I started CPR and when I blew into his mouth air came out of his chest. I blew 5 or 6 times and held my hand over the holes on his chest. Then when that didn’t work I blew into one of the holes in his chest. 

There is nothing in the sentence structure to indicate deception. 

The scene is a rude awakening and it is confusing, yet he does not feel the need to make either claim. 

This is very important. 

This is the "psychological wall of truth" that experiential knowledge produces.  

He has no need to persuade that he was sleeping, nor does he have the need to artificially claim shock, surprise, horror, etc.  What he describes is what happened and it is horrible in deed.  It has no need of persuasion to an audience. 


I looked over at Darlie and she was on the phone calling 911. 

I 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.

The reliability continues, and the stronger "told" (communicative language) is appropriate in the context. 



I noticed my wallet left on the floor and all I could think to do was to go [redacted] holler for help. 

It is very likely that he looked for his wallet here.  

What does this suggest?

It suggests that he believed an intruder had done this and considered theft. 

He failed to help his children and here he wants help for the paramedics: 

I needed someone to help [illegible] and [illegible] the paramedics when they arrived. I went downstairs ran out the house and ran across the street to [redacted] and[redacted] door. I banged 5-6 times as hard as I could until [redacted] comes to the doors 1st and when I told them that Devon and Damon were stabbed they were in shock and ran over with me to the house and that was when they were putting Damon on a stretcher. 

He wrote, "I told" which is the appropriate stronger communicative language. 

He includes the emotional state of the neighbors here. 

Why?

This should be understood in the lesser context as well as the greater. The lesser context is him "Banging" on the door "as hard as he could", and very likely felt frustration in convincing the neighbors to react.  

This is a description of an event which indicates his own emotion, yet he feels no need to tell us his own "shock" here?

Why not?

Because it is unnecessary.  

Had he included it in the narrative, so soon after what took place, it would appear that he had a need to persuade police he was shocked or surprised, suggestive of the opposite. 

This is a good example of reliable reporting even in a traumatic event. 


I knew that
Devon was dead before I ran across street and Damon had no pulse but the paramedic carried him out in a blanket out the front door. 

The dead victim, to him, is "Devon", which indicates the lack of processing. The need to say "I knew" also indicates a lack of processing. He is still "Devon" to him, even admitting he is dead. 

He had attempted to revive his sons, even in a bizarre manner (blowing into the chest) yet they remain, to him, "Devon and Damon", with Damon not having a pulse. 

I ran out yelling that we have to find who did this and [redacted] told me that Darlie was cut too! 

This comes after asserting one child dead and the other without a pulse.  It comes after "noticing" his wallet.  

There is, in his verbalized perception of reality, a brutal killer on the loose.  This is a natural paternal (protection, provision, procreation) reaction.

Note the psychological closeness of "this" in context:  "this" is the killing; not the killer. 



I never knew that she was hurt yet she had blood all over her from the neck down to the bottom of her nightshirt. 

Recall he was interviewed (see last statement) and at the time of this writing, knew she was cut. 


She was standing in the door way with the paramedics said she needed to go to the hospital. So we helped her 

He sees himself united with paramedics/police/authority. 

This is very different than one who has the need to see himself united to police, via the "Ingratiation Factor" in Statement Analysis. This is his reality.  He does not suspect his wife. 
  




onto the stretcher and she said “Darin you have to promise me we will find this man! He killed our babys.” 

He quotes Darlie.  That the "man" would need to be found is normal (expected) except that in her 911 call, she deliberately concealed both gender and the number of assailants involved. 

Next, we have the unnecessary putting of blame upon "this man" is not expected. 


Note, if the quote is accurate (he was on high hormonal alert), the word "this" is assigned to the "man", with "this" indicating closeness, rather than the disgust of "that killer."


I walked back into house pushed my way through the police and saw the knife on the bar in kitchen w/blood all over it. [illegible] went to garage and door[illegible] to look at the window that the police had said he entered and I went out of the house and walked across the street

At the time of this statement, he does not suspect Darlie but an intruder and quotes police.  His brusk demeanor is the opposite of ingratiation.  



 and neighbors were there to

comfort me and ask me about what happened. 

Comforting neighbors are now "ask me"; that is, they are asking him what happened.  It is here that processing of a traumatic event verbally begins. 

We now look for the location of emotions. 

In reliable statements, the emotions come after the event rather than during the event, as we so often find in artificial editing in which the guilty subject wants to convince us of certain emotions. 

I sat for a minute on a curb and walked over to the ambulance where Damon was and asked paramedic was he alive and they said no. I was in shock. [redacted] told me to with Darlie in the ambulance. So I got in and they threw me outand said they needed to work. So then they asked me questions (fire dept) (SS# + address + name) and I asked what hospital and no one knew. So found out where Darlie went (Baylor Dallas) and drove over to the hospital. At hospital I was questioned by Det. Frosch for hours.

The emotions are in the "after" portion of the statement and were provoked by the "asking" of neighbors. 

Although this is a side note to the analysis, even having to recount what happened to the neighbors could have reduced the ill effects of trauma upon the brain.  This processing, even under the circumstances, could mean that the psychological scarring that he suffers from, could have been worse. 


III.  Analysis Conclusion

Veracity Indicated.

The subject does not show guilty knowledge of the crime. He reports, in spite of the trauma, from experiential knowledge. 

The form dedicates most of the information to what happened to his children; consistent with the formula for reliability.  It is most unlike Darlie's. 


Police were correct in charging Darlie alone, as her statement and her 911 call indicate guilty knowledge of the crime, and her own personal responsibility. 

For training in deception detection, please visit our web site. 

We have seminars for law enforcement listed, as well as seminars for the private sector. 

Our "Complete Statement Analysis Course" is done in your home, at your own pace. 

17 comments:

trustmeigetit said...

I have wondered about dad. The cops said he told them someone probably broke in because his “pretty blonde wife with 38DD’s”.

He also said it again in one of the videos o saw of him. Not the 38DD part but that she was the motive.

Thoughts on that?

Bobcat said...

That his statement is in effect 'contaminated' by the questioning makes it very difficult.




Anonymous said...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dixon-high-school-shooting-mom-of-suspected-gunman-says-he-was-bullied-and-beaten/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab5i&linkId=51839864

Peter Hyatt said...

Trust,

he is a strange guy. I kept a limit on the analysis, but it could have gone further. Other analysts will go much deeper but for the sake of a blog entry, this is to answer the question, "does he have guilty knowledge of the crime."

He doesn't.

But in terms of his profile:

For starters, he was married to Darlie Routier. This is where he found himself and what he was attracted to.

Then, look at his bargaining with her.

Then consider the comment about his wife's chest. Dare I say, Darlie was his kind of woman?

Peter

Lucia D said...

OT Nev Schulman of MTVs Catfish, has been suspended from his show due to allegations of sexual misconduct. A former guest on the show alleges that knowing she is a lesbian, Schulman repeatedly made passes at her and sexually harassed her. Does he make a reliable denial?

"The behavior described in this video did not happen and I'm fortunate that there are a number of former colleagues who were present during this time period who are willing to speak up with the truth," he said. "I have always been transparent about my life and would always take responsibility for my actions — but these claims are false."



He begins without using the pronoun I, distancing himself from the denial. Rather it was "the behavior" that did not happen, in the negative, making his behavior sensitive to him. Then he states that he "has always been" transparent. Am I correct in the belief "always" is as unreliable as "never"? Also that he "would always take responsibility" in the future conditional tense. He never states, I did not sexually harass Ms, Morgan". This is not a reliable denial. But Peter, does it rise to the level of an unreliable denial? I am still uncertain of the difference.

trustmeigetit said...

I agree with thinking he is innocent of the crime or knowledge.

But it’s like he is kinda obsessed with her to the point I feel like he almost ignores the obvious truth about who she is.

Strange guy for sure.

Anonymous said...

Peter, any relevance to him noting the specific body position of his sleeping son prior to the murders and describing him as sleeping "face up"? I agree that he is being truthful in this statement but that specific detail stood out.

Peter Hyatt said...

Yes. The greater context of hi hormonal alert, biological father, vulnerability of the child’s age and the horror all speak to a vivid description.

He is speaking from recall: experiential memory. He can go from his last pre trauma mental picture of his son to the event, seamlessly.

It speaks to veracity.

He did not participate nor have knowledge of the murder.

Even w prior interview adjustments of sensitivity, trained analysts can discern. It means identifying which questions were likely asked before but there is more.

It’s too lengthy for here but his statement, post interview, reveals very likely that police did not suspect him. This is from HIS verbalized perception.

He is remarkably low on defense. He likely has guilt that triggers him to even blame himself for not covering the baby enough, or too much or possibly not pressing Darlie to come to bed w him, leaving her, too, to be unprotected.

He doesn’t show guilt, however, related to the crime.

Innocent parents find bizarre ways to blame themselves. Forever they say, “If only I had...” and can live in despair for the rest of their lives.

Peter Hyatt said...

It’s “not reliable” but very close to “unreliable.”

You correctly identify the “behavior” as separate from himself.

Next is the “sermon” about what a good guy he is.

You also ask the right question about its status. This is precisely how training produces 100% accuracy. Sober thinking.

Very good!

Peter Hyatt said...

There is a sense of denial or disbelief within his words. This is actually a signal of his innocence.

That Darkie did it is likely something that took him time to accept.

He loved her.

Peter Hyatt said...

“Darlie”

Mike Dammann said...

In her "suicide note", Darlie appears to blame the children for her situation, but not him. Which is strange to me as in situations where families have financial issues, women would be expected to blame (if anybody), the husband. It does appear though that, and please correct me if I am wrong, she does express love towards her children. Overshadowed by the blame and contempt it creates leading to a final unfinished sentence of " It's just that I--".

Here is the note once again:

"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--"

Reading this again, her self-image appears to overshadow a lot as well.
"and I don't want you to see a miserable person every time you look at me"

She is miserable, but doesn't want to be seen as such. And she asks her kids to not think of it as being their fault without actually stating that it isn't.

She does express love for her children, but none for him.

Mike Dammann said...

The " It's just that I--" following the part where blame towards the children is expressed, is extremely creepy. One can only imagine what she felt like writing next while stopping herself.

This indicates to me that her thoughts began to shift right then and there. From getting rid of herself to end it all to getting rid of who she believes to be at fault for the way that she feels.

Lucia D said...

I believe she is a liar and manipulator, and has had lots of success with it in the past. Now it's who she is. Even her supposed suicide note is self serving and an effort to manipulate others' emotions. I don't think there is much, if any, genuineness left in old Darlie.

habundia said...

It would be interesting to know how she handeled each child.
Darin only hears her scream "She was yelling Devon! Devon!! Oh my God Devon! "

She doesnt mention Damon in her call for "attention" how come?

It's good for comparison lesson to see veracity statements about knowledge or part of the senseless cold blooded murder of these two innocent boys! It's tragic, this father seems just as shocked as any father would be finding their children being brutally murdered in your own home while you slept through it......i would be in absolute shock.

Because hes telling the truth (as to knowledge and partcipation) he knows (and therefore in his verbalisation is sure police doesn't suspect him)
He knows hes telling the truth and so he's convinced police will see that truth.

Mike Dammann said...

It wasn't a suicide note. It began masked as such, but later turned into unfinished thoughts leading up towards the result of which we know her for today.

Anonymous said...

I am not familiar with this crime. Was Darlie looking for an excuse to stay with the boys she killed by saying the one she didn't kill would keep her awake?