Now that you have the background of the story, and a glimpse at the 911 call, let’s go over some of the evidence used in court. I think, to try and stay focused, I’ll take one piece of evidence at a time. We’ll look at it from the view of the prosecution and the defense, then I’ll give my view. You can decide for yourself how you want to view everything. This post will not deal with whether or not the evidence was handled properly (that’s coming soon), just the evidence itself, from different views.
I’d like to start with the evidence the prosecution used to say that Darlie murdered her two children because they were in the way of her “lifestyle”. The prosecution claimed financial and marital problems as well as post-partum depression drove Darlie to murder. How many of us have these issues occur to us at least once in our lives? I’d imagine quite a few.
First, let’s look at the financial problems. According to the prosecution, Darlie was used to the finer things in life. The Routiers’ had a $250,000 home, expensive cars and toys, and Darlie was always fashionably dressed with nice jewelry. The prosecution claimed that Darin’s business was faltering, they were financially strapped and behind on house payments. These so-called facts are disputed.
As far as the business went, Darin had $26,000 on the books and said business was stable. He did acknowledge that there were good weeks and bad weeks, but this can be said of most businesses, no matter the product or service. Even big corporations have bad quarters; it doesn’t mean financial despair. Besides, Darin made circuit boards for computers. We all know computers are here to stay. I can not believe that business was “bad”.
The prosecution also tried to claim that the Routiers’ were behind on their house payments, and used this as evidence. However, from what I’ve been able to find, the only house payment that was late was June’s payment. I would think this would be understandable, considering their sons were killed just days before the payment was due. Who would worry about a now insignificant house payment after a tragedy like this? No one in their right mind. I find it absolutely disgusting that the prosecutor would use this against a person who had just lost their children! It proves NOTHING!!!
The Routiers’ bank account was another piece of evidence used to show financial problems. On the day of the murders, they had less than $2,500 in their savings account. However, the day of the murders is what the prosecution focused on. As a juror, I would want to know about the account before and after, as well. So I watched… I will touch on what I found when I get to “Trial Errors”.
The prosecutor also claimed marital problems contributed to Darlie’s mental state. She had been suffering from post-partum depression since the birth of their then 7-month-old son, and occasionally had trouble sleeping. Because of this, Darlie and Darin sometimes slept separately. This is reason to assume marital problems? Really Mr. Prosecutor? I’ve had back surgery, and quite often can’t sleep in the bed very long. More times than not, I will end up in the living room sleeping on the recliner. Does this mean my marriage has problems? NOT. Sometimes, life happens.
This is the first part of the evidence that I wanted to go over. I wanted to touch on “lifestyle” evidence first, because I don’t see it as solid. I generally look at this part as “puzzle pieces”. They fall into place, or not, after the rest of the evidence is gathered. In this case, I don’t think the pieces fit. You can decide as we uncover the rest of the evidence.
Most of the information in this part I actually got from a show made for TruTV called “The Investigators”. It was Season 4, Episode 10, and it originally aired Thursday, April 29, 2004.
About Me
- Sharon's spot
- I am a die-hard Cubs fan. I also love NHRA, a John Force Racing fan. I have very strong opinions about our legal system, and am very passionate about injustice. I want to do my part.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Deep in the Heart of...Injustice - Part IIa: The 911 Call
I found a really good site last night that had the transcript and the audio for the 911 call. I would very much like you to visit the site below, and check out this transcipt. It does not have the analysis, which I think is better, but I believe there is a little more detail to the transcript. I also believe if you check out both sites, you may have different opinions on each one.
I was impacted a great deal by the audio, hearing the emotion and hysteria. After listening to the call, I felt horrible for Mrs. Routier. Please check it out by clicking below:
911 call
I was impacted a great deal by the audio, hearing the emotion and hysteria. After listening to the call, I felt horrible for Mrs. Routier. Please check it out by clicking below:
911 call
Monday, February 7, 2011
Deep in the Heart of...Injustice - Part II: The 911 Call
Let’s begin…at the beginning; the 911 call placed by Darlie Routier the morning of the fatal stabbing. I am using an analysis from Statement Analysis
I encourage you to visit this site and read the entire analysis. These are the personal opinions and represent only the author of this analysis. I will give my opinion at the end. I believe this analysis was also conducted on words alone, no verbal. In Statement Analysis, they listen and analyze, they don’t interpret.
911 calls are often called an “excited utterance”. This means that a person’s sensitivity is so strong that the calls are often entered into evidence.
The first statement Darlie made to the 911 operator was “…somebody came here…they broke in…”. Since a 911 call represents a state of “excited utterance”, the order is critical. It displays what is most pressing on the mind of the caller. Since words are chosen in less than a microsecond, first statements are most important. With this being the case, Darlie’s main concern seemed to be ‘someone broke in’ rather than ‘my children are hurt‘. She also changed from “somebody” to “they” in one statement, both of which are gender neutral.
Her next statements referred to the attack. “…they just stabbed me and my children…”. It is highly unusual that the mother would name herself over the children. It is also odd the she would not identify the assailant by gender, since she herself was stabbed.
She also made statements changing them from ‘children’ to ‘kids’ to ‘my little boys‘ to ‘my babies‘. There seemed to be no change in reality to justify the change in language; this indicates deception.
Darlie stated to the operator “…my little boy is dying…”, indicating she knew the extent of the wounds. Operator originally called this out to emergency personnel as an unknown medical emergency; not a possible stabbing.
About 30 seconds into the call, Darin Routier, Darlie’s husband, entered the room. His identity was unknown to the operator. The operator again announced an unknown medical emergency and it came to light that one of the children was breathing. Finally the 911 operator reported a possible stabbing.
More than a minute into the call, Darin’s name finally entered the conversation. Darlie told him “…I saw them Darin…”, “…Darin…I don’t know who it was…”, “…we go to find out who it was…”. She still didn’t identify gender, and she reverted back to singular instead of plural with who “it was” rather than who “they were”. Was she trying to conceal the identity of the attacker?
While the ambulance was en route, the 911 operator attempted to gather more information. Darlie then stated “…somebody came in while I was sleeping…me and my little boys were sleeping downstairs…” Once again, it was singular and not plural. She also seemed to make it a point to explain that they were sleeping. This appeared to be persuading, not reporting.
Finally, a little over two minutes into the call, Darlie stated “…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…”. She gave the gender, but “some” would indicate an attempt to conceal identity. After what “some man” had done to Darlie and her children, as a protective mother, one might expect to hear much harsher language to describe her assailant.
At some point, the operator asked Darlie “…who’s there with you…”? Darlie’s response, according to the transcript, was “…Karen…(unintelligible)”. The operator asked again “…is there anybody in the house…besides you and your children…”? Darlie responded “…no…my husband he just ran downstairs…he’s helping me…but they’re dying…oh my God…they’re dead…” She had already said “Karen”, but when asked again, just her husband was there.
Almost three minutes into the call, Darlie told the operator “…I feel really bad…I think I’m dying…”. She asked repeatedly “…when are they going to be here…”? Darlie then stated “…I gotta just sit here forever…oh my God…”. Having to “sit” usually indicates anger or impatience. Some would expect a mother not to complain about having to “sit” but to complain about the lives of her children. She also stated “I” gotta just sit, which indicated a personal inconvenience. Most bleeding mothers would expel their own blood while helping their children.
Darlie continued the contradiction. She stated “…they killed our babies…”, even though she had already identified “some man”. The excited utterance continued when she stated “…no…he ran out…uh…they ran out in the garage…I was sleeping…”. She seemed to correct herself on the number of intruders, but returned to “I was sleeping”. It was not a response to a direct question.
After being told by the operator not to touch anything, Darlie stated “…I already touched it and picked it up…”. When an activity is mentioned more than once, it is highly sensitive. It appeared her fingerprints on the knife concerned her. This is not expected from an innocent victim who’s children are dying before her.
Over four minutes into the call, the operator finally tells Darlie “…ok ma’am…listen… there’s a police officer at your front door…is your front door unlocked…”? Darlie responded “…yes ma’am…but where’s the ambulance…”?
Less than five minutes into the call, the police officer told Darlie “…nothing’s gone Mrs. Routier…”. “…(unintelligible) the problem Mrs. Routier…”. Seconds later, the operator told Darlie “…ok…listen ma’am…need to…need to let the officers in the front door…ok…”
Darlie then made a statement hard to believe: “…God…I bet if we could have gotten the prints maybe…maybe…”. Her concern became fingerprints. A mother in the middle of an emergency of this nature should be concerned only with the welfare of her children.
As the statement continue, Darlie tells her husband “…somebody who did it intentionally walked in her and did it Darin…”. Focusing on the intent of the assailant is another indicator of deception, and this could have been a truthful statement. Many statements can be completely truthful, just missing information. Darlie told Darin what would be obvious, but also attached motive.
Darlie also stated “…there’s nothing touched…”. People are usually expected to report what did happen, not what didn’t happen. Even if accurate, this is another indicator of deception. How can anyone be sure what didn’t happen?
According to Statement Analysis:
It would appear that the focus of this 911 call is:
1. He entered
2. They broke in
3. He stabbed me; they stabbed me
4. He stabbed children; they stabbed children
5. I was asleep
6. I touched the knife
It appears that Darlie is withholding the identity of the assailant, and has intimate knowledge of the crime. Darlie appears to be more concerned with building an alibi than the welfare of her children.
Police would do well to focus on this 911 call.
Now I'd like to express my opinions.
Although there are a few statements in this 911 call that I have to agree are suspicious, I don’t believe it’s fair to judge someone solely on their words. Anyone can sit in their calm, undisturbed world and say “I would never say that”, or “The children would be my first concern”. While I, also, believe that of myself, I have never been, and hope I never am, in that situation. I’ve never had to wake up to an intruder and deal with the after-math, and without having been in that situation, I will not sit here high and mighty, and say for a fact what I would or wouldn’t say. While I understand that a state of “excited utterance” does need to be considered, it also needs to be remembered that everyone reacts to stress differently.
Let’s try looking at this from another view: someone who just wants to know the truth. I do have a problem with the first statement she made being about the intruder(s) and not her children. I do feel very strongly that I would scream something about helping my children, but I just can’t say it factually without being there. I do have a problem with Darlie’s changing from singular “somebody” to plural “they”, but I won’t condemn her on that one aspect. There is always the possibility of confusion in the moment. Maybe she just wasn’t sure.
According to Statement Analysis, it is highly unusual that the mother would name herself over the children, but I completely disagree. We often speak the way we do out of habit, and I’m speaking from experience. There are certain things that I say the same, no matter the situation. Unfortunately, most of us don’t really use proper English. If we did, we would always put ourselves last in an order. “She and I” went… “The kids and I” all like… This is not the way most of us speak. I, myself, am horribly guilty of “Y’all wanna go shoppin’?” Oh my high school English teacher would cringe. I, myself, give no weight to her saying “me and my children”. That may be how she spoke all the time.
It does seem a little suspicious that she wouldn’t know the gender of the assailant since she, herself was attacked. That would have been personal enough, I would think you could determine gender. However, later in the call Darlie does state they had been asleep. If this is the case, that may have hindered a gender determination. I know when I wake up, it takes me about 30 minutes of being up to function. I could probably walk out of my bedroom first thing, and walk right past an intruder, and never know it if they didn’t attack. Maybe she just doesn’t snap to reality that quick.
There are several instances where Darlie used different terms to refer to the children; my “children”, my “boys”, my “kids”, my “babies”. According to Statement Analysis, when language changes, there must be a change in reality. Since there seemed to be no change in reality, these changes were determined to be deceptive. Really? I think this is stretching. I have many friends that refer to their children as “kids” just because it’s easier, but different emotions make them use different terms. Let’s face it, when they’re sick or hurt, they’re our “babies” even if they’re twenty years old.
Darlie’s statement, “…my little boy is dying…”, could indicate that she knew the extent of her son’s injuries. It also could be a way of trying to hurry the process of dispatching the paramedics. After all, the operator originally called this out as an unknown medical emergency, and I really have to wonder WHY?!? Though ’emergency’ was used in the call, I believe it might have been a little more serious had the operator said possible stabbing, especially if the possibility of children was added. Let’s also remember the police arrived before the paramedics, and I don’t think this call showed much concern for the children from the officer.
Finally, the operator reported a possible stabbing.
The operator attempted to collect more information while waiting for officers and paramedics to arrive. While Darlie’s statements about she and the boys sleeping were analyzed to be persuading, not reporting, I can see the opposite. In Darlie’s mind, maybe she thought she gave all the information. The operator is trying to gather MORE information; some might see this as more information. Should Darlie have just kept repeating what she had already said?
Once the gender of the assailant was revealed, Darlie’s use of “some man” cam into question. As far as a protective mother using harsher language, that COMPLETELY depends on the person and their beliefs. From what I understand, Darlie is a devout Christian and wishes no ill will. I have met several people that feel this way. If she was truly a Christian at the time of the attack, bad language may have been a “no-no”. When I was growing up, my mom was (and still is) a very strict, devout Christian. The word “poop” was literally not allowed.
When Darlie was asked who was with her, the analysis says her response was “Karen”. When asked again if there was anybody in the house besides herself and the children, Darlie seemed to be deceptive. She now reported only her husband who had just ran downstairs. I wonder if she really said “Karen” the first time. “Karen” and “Darin” sound A LOT alike.
About half way through the call, Darlie began telling the operator that she though she, herself, was dying. She made the statement “…I gotta just sit here forever…”, which was taken to indicate anger or impatience and a personal inconvenience. Depending on the amount of blood she had lost, she may have been dying. Once again, without being in that situation, I can’t imagine what I would be thinking or feeling. I have seen instances when a parent if of no help to a child, some just because they panic.
When the operator told Darlie that the officer was at her front door, she began asking where the ambulance was. She asked this more than once. I believe that shows some kind of concern. After the officer had already spoken to Darlie, the operator told her again to let the officers in the front door. How would an officer have been speaking to her if they weren’t already in the front door. Just an example of miscommunication.
Darlie then made statements about prints that disturb me. I do have to wonder how any mother in this situation could possibly worry about prints. The reason I do not know how I would act in this situation is because I can understand someone’s head being very foggy. However, is one’s head is foggy, I don’t know how they could have the mindset to think about prints. The only thing that should in any way have been on her mind, besides her children, is her own blood loss.
I don’t understand the where the deception is in Darlie telling Darin the someone did it “intentionally”. The analysis reports the deception is in focusing on the intent of the assailant, and attaching motive. Where is the motive? Every legal book I’ve ever read, every legal show I’ve ever watched and every professor in every legal class I’ve ever taken taught me that motive is reason, not intent. I think, with these injuries, that intent to harm was clear. Motive is the reason behind the intent, not the intent itself. At least that has always been MY understanding.
I have now explained why I feel the way I do about certain points in this 911 call. I do agree that some statements Darlie made really can’t be defended, but if we all had to pay for things we said wrong in the heat of a moment, there would be a lot less people walking among us. I just don’t think that anyone should be condemned primarily on statements made in a stressful moment. Investigate the statements? Yes, of course. Investigate them thoroughly and fairly. However, a determination of guilt should not be rushed to based on a 911 call. It should be a basis for the investigation and linked in with other EVIDENCE.
Once again, please visit the website above and read the entire analysis. Analyze and interpret what you will from it. Please, just keep an open mind as my research continues. The next part should begin dealing with evidence, and each topic will be looked at from both sides. My mind can be changed, too, but I stand by the fact that this doesn’t even need to be about guilt or innocence. I just want to show that there were errors made (I believe numerous) in the case and Darlie Routier deserves a new trial. If guilt is proven, so be it.
I encourage you to visit this site and read the entire analysis. These are the personal opinions and represent only the author of this analysis. I will give my opinion at the end. I believe this analysis was also conducted on words alone, no verbal. In Statement Analysis, they listen and analyze, they don’t interpret.
911 calls are often called an “excited utterance”. This means that a person’s sensitivity is so strong that the calls are often entered into evidence.
The first statement Darlie made to the 911 operator was “…somebody came here…they broke in…”. Since a 911 call represents a state of “excited utterance”, the order is critical. It displays what is most pressing on the mind of the caller. Since words are chosen in less than a microsecond, first statements are most important. With this being the case, Darlie’s main concern seemed to be ‘someone broke in’ rather than ‘my children are hurt‘. She also changed from “somebody” to “they” in one statement, both of which are gender neutral.
Her next statements referred to the attack. “…they just stabbed me and my children…”. It is highly unusual that the mother would name herself over the children. It is also odd the she would not identify the assailant by gender, since she herself was stabbed.
She also made statements changing them from ‘children’ to ‘kids’ to ‘my little boys‘ to ‘my babies‘. There seemed to be no change in reality to justify the change in language; this indicates deception.
Darlie stated to the operator “…my little boy is dying…”, indicating she knew the extent of the wounds. Operator originally called this out to emergency personnel as an unknown medical emergency; not a possible stabbing.
About 30 seconds into the call, Darin Routier, Darlie’s husband, entered the room. His identity was unknown to the operator. The operator again announced an unknown medical emergency and it came to light that one of the children was breathing. Finally the 911 operator reported a possible stabbing.
More than a minute into the call, Darin’s name finally entered the conversation. Darlie told him “…I saw them Darin…”, “…Darin…I don’t know who it was…”, “…we go to find out who it was…”. She still didn’t identify gender, and she reverted back to singular instead of plural with who “it was” rather than who “they were”. Was she trying to conceal the identity of the attacker?
While the ambulance was en route, the 911 operator attempted to gather more information. Darlie then stated “…somebody came in while I was sleeping…me and my little boys were sleeping downstairs…” Once again, it was singular and not plural. She also seemed to make it a point to explain that they were sleeping. This appeared to be persuading, not reporting.
Finally, a little over two minutes into the call, Darlie stated “…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…”. She gave the gender, but “some” would indicate an attempt to conceal identity. After what “some man” had done to Darlie and her children, as a protective mother, one might expect to hear much harsher language to describe her assailant.
At some point, the operator asked Darlie “…who’s there with you…”? Darlie’s response, according to the transcript, was “…Karen…(unintelligible)”. The operator asked again “…is there anybody in the house…besides you and your children…”? Darlie responded “…no…my husband he just ran downstairs…he’s helping me…but they’re dying…oh my God…they’re dead…” She had already said “Karen”, but when asked again, just her husband was there.
Almost three minutes into the call, Darlie told the operator “…I feel really bad…I think I’m dying…”. She asked repeatedly “…when are they going to be here…”? Darlie then stated “…I gotta just sit here forever…oh my God…”. Having to “sit” usually indicates anger or impatience. Some would expect a mother not to complain about having to “sit” but to complain about the lives of her children. She also stated “I” gotta just sit, which indicated a personal inconvenience. Most bleeding mothers would expel their own blood while helping their children.
Darlie continued the contradiction. She stated “…they killed our babies…”, even though she had already identified “some man”. The excited utterance continued when she stated “…no…he ran out…uh…they ran out in the garage…I was sleeping…”. She seemed to correct herself on the number of intruders, but returned to “I was sleeping”. It was not a response to a direct question.
After being told by the operator not to touch anything, Darlie stated “…I already touched it and picked it up…”. When an activity is mentioned more than once, it is highly sensitive. It appeared her fingerprints on the knife concerned her. This is not expected from an innocent victim who’s children are dying before her.
Over four minutes into the call, the operator finally tells Darlie “…ok ma’am…listen… there’s a police officer at your front door…is your front door unlocked…”? Darlie responded “…yes ma’am…but where’s the ambulance…”?
Less than five minutes into the call, the police officer told Darlie “…nothing’s gone Mrs. Routier…”. “…(unintelligible) the problem Mrs. Routier…”. Seconds later, the operator told Darlie “…ok…listen ma’am…need to…need to let the officers in the front door…ok…”
Darlie then made a statement hard to believe: “…God…I bet if we could have gotten the prints maybe…maybe…”. Her concern became fingerprints. A mother in the middle of an emergency of this nature should be concerned only with the welfare of her children.
As the statement continue, Darlie tells her husband “…somebody who did it intentionally walked in her and did it Darin…”. Focusing on the intent of the assailant is another indicator of deception, and this could have been a truthful statement. Many statements can be completely truthful, just missing information. Darlie told Darin what would be obvious, but also attached motive.
Darlie also stated “…there’s nothing touched…”. People are usually expected to report what did happen, not what didn’t happen. Even if accurate, this is another indicator of deception. How can anyone be sure what didn’t happen?
According to Statement Analysis:
It would appear that the focus of this 911 call is:
1. He entered
2. They broke in
3. He stabbed me; they stabbed me
4. He stabbed children; they stabbed children
5. I was asleep
6. I touched the knife
It appears that Darlie is withholding the identity of the assailant, and has intimate knowledge of the crime. Darlie appears to be more concerned with building an alibi than the welfare of her children.
Police would do well to focus on this 911 call.
Now I'd like to express my opinions.
Although there are a few statements in this 911 call that I have to agree are suspicious, I don’t believe it’s fair to judge someone solely on their words. Anyone can sit in their calm, undisturbed world and say “I would never say that”, or “The children would be my first concern”. While I, also, believe that of myself, I have never been, and hope I never am, in that situation. I’ve never had to wake up to an intruder and deal with the after-math, and without having been in that situation, I will not sit here high and mighty, and say for a fact what I would or wouldn’t say. While I understand that a state of “excited utterance” does need to be considered, it also needs to be remembered that everyone reacts to stress differently.
Let’s try looking at this from another view: someone who just wants to know the truth. I do have a problem with the first statement she made being about the intruder(s) and not her children. I do feel very strongly that I would scream something about helping my children, but I just can’t say it factually without being there. I do have a problem with Darlie’s changing from singular “somebody” to plural “they”, but I won’t condemn her on that one aspect. There is always the possibility of confusion in the moment. Maybe she just wasn’t sure.
According to Statement Analysis, it is highly unusual that the mother would name herself over the children, but I completely disagree. We often speak the way we do out of habit, and I’m speaking from experience. There are certain things that I say the same, no matter the situation. Unfortunately, most of us don’t really use proper English. If we did, we would always put ourselves last in an order. “She and I” went… “The kids and I” all like… This is not the way most of us speak. I, myself, am horribly guilty of “Y’all wanna go shoppin’?” Oh my high school English teacher would cringe. I, myself, give no weight to her saying “me and my children”. That may be how she spoke all the time.
It does seem a little suspicious that she wouldn’t know the gender of the assailant since she, herself was attacked. That would have been personal enough, I would think you could determine gender. However, later in the call Darlie does state they had been asleep. If this is the case, that may have hindered a gender determination. I know when I wake up, it takes me about 30 minutes of being up to function. I could probably walk out of my bedroom first thing, and walk right past an intruder, and never know it if they didn’t attack. Maybe she just doesn’t snap to reality that quick.
There are several instances where Darlie used different terms to refer to the children; my “children”, my “boys”, my “kids”, my “babies”. According to Statement Analysis, when language changes, there must be a change in reality. Since there seemed to be no change in reality, these changes were determined to be deceptive. Really? I think this is stretching. I have many friends that refer to their children as “kids” just because it’s easier, but different emotions make them use different terms. Let’s face it, when they’re sick or hurt, they’re our “babies” even if they’re twenty years old.
Darlie’s statement, “…my little boy is dying…”, could indicate that she knew the extent of her son’s injuries. It also could be a way of trying to hurry the process of dispatching the paramedics. After all, the operator originally called this out as an unknown medical emergency, and I really have to wonder WHY?!? Though ’emergency’ was used in the call, I believe it might have been a little more serious had the operator said possible stabbing, especially if the possibility of children was added. Let’s also remember the police arrived before the paramedics, and I don’t think this call showed much concern for the children from the officer.
Finally, the operator reported a possible stabbing.
The operator attempted to collect more information while waiting for officers and paramedics to arrive. While Darlie’s statements about she and the boys sleeping were analyzed to be persuading, not reporting, I can see the opposite. In Darlie’s mind, maybe she thought she gave all the information. The operator is trying to gather MORE information; some might see this as more information. Should Darlie have just kept repeating what she had already said?
Once the gender of the assailant was revealed, Darlie’s use of “some man” cam into question. As far as a protective mother using harsher language, that COMPLETELY depends on the person and their beliefs. From what I understand, Darlie is a devout Christian and wishes no ill will. I have met several people that feel this way. If she was truly a Christian at the time of the attack, bad language may have been a “no-no”. When I was growing up, my mom was (and still is) a very strict, devout Christian. The word “poop” was literally not allowed.
When Darlie was asked who was with her, the analysis says her response was “Karen”. When asked again if there was anybody in the house besides herself and the children, Darlie seemed to be deceptive. She now reported only her husband who had just ran downstairs. I wonder if she really said “Karen” the first time. “Karen” and “Darin” sound A LOT alike.
About half way through the call, Darlie began telling the operator that she though she, herself, was dying. She made the statement “…I gotta just sit here forever…”, which was taken to indicate anger or impatience and a personal inconvenience. Depending on the amount of blood she had lost, she may have been dying. Once again, without being in that situation, I can’t imagine what I would be thinking or feeling. I have seen instances when a parent if of no help to a child, some just because they panic.
When the operator told Darlie that the officer was at her front door, she began asking where the ambulance was. She asked this more than once. I believe that shows some kind of concern. After the officer had already spoken to Darlie, the operator told her again to let the officers in the front door. How would an officer have been speaking to her if they weren’t already in the front door. Just an example of miscommunication.
Darlie then made statements about prints that disturb me. I do have to wonder how any mother in this situation could possibly worry about prints. The reason I do not know how I would act in this situation is because I can understand someone’s head being very foggy. However, is one’s head is foggy, I don’t know how they could have the mindset to think about prints. The only thing that should in any way have been on her mind, besides her children, is her own blood loss.
I don’t understand the where the deception is in Darlie telling Darin the someone did it “intentionally”. The analysis reports the deception is in focusing on the intent of the assailant, and attaching motive. Where is the motive? Every legal book I’ve ever read, every legal show I’ve ever watched and every professor in every legal class I’ve ever taken taught me that motive is reason, not intent. I think, with these injuries, that intent to harm was clear. Motive is the reason behind the intent, not the intent itself. At least that has always been MY understanding.
I have now explained why I feel the way I do about certain points in this 911 call. I do agree that some statements Darlie made really can’t be defended, but if we all had to pay for things we said wrong in the heat of a moment, there would be a lot less people walking among us. I just don’t think that anyone should be condemned primarily on statements made in a stressful moment. Investigate the statements? Yes, of course. Investigate them thoroughly and fairly. However, a determination of guilt should not be rushed to based on a 911 call. It should be a basis for the investigation and linked in with other EVIDENCE.
Once again, please visit the website above and read the entire analysis. Analyze and interpret what you will from it. Please, just keep an open mind as my research continues. The next part should begin dealing with evidence, and each topic will be looked at from both sides. My mind can be changed, too, but I stand by the fact that this doesn’t even need to be about guilt or innocence. I just want to show that there were errors made (I believe numerous) in the case and Darlie Routier deserves a new trial. If guilt is proven, so be it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)