The Infamous Case of Darlie Routier

September 9, 2024

In this episode, Payton and Garrett take a deep dive into the controversial case of Darlie Routier, exploring the evidence, theories, and the heated debates surrounding this puzzling story.

Listen on Apple Podcasts

Listen on spotify

No items found.

Case Sources

AUDIO TRANSCRIPT

You're listening to an Oh No Media podcast.

Hey, everybody! Welcome back to the podcast. This is Murder with My Husband. I'm Payton Moreland.

He's the husband. And I'm the husband.

We gotta give you a big, chunky, fat thank you for selling out all our merch. It's gone, like, the freaking wind, and honestly, I think it's because this is the best drop we've had, as far as quality, and it's wearable. It seems like you guys really do like the basics—things that are a little more simple and public-friendly.

Public-friendly, yeah.

So, we'll keep that in mind. And we're not just talking about Murder with My Husband—Payton's Into the Dark merch sold out as well!

Wait, if you're listening to Murder with My Husband right now and you don't know, I have a solo show called Into the Dark. It's true crime with a little bit of ghosts, hauntings, dark spooky stuff—everything mysterious and creepy.

This is true, and it's really good. You should go check it out. I'm proud of Payton; she's done a really, really good job over there.

Thank you! Again, it's Into the Dark. It's my solo show, and if you didn't know, now you do. And if you want bonus content—that means all of the shows ad-free, plus bonus episodes twice a month, full-length episodes—check out our Patreon. You can also check out Apple subscriptions, Spotify subscriptions—anything. You can get all that for a low price of... I don't know. Go check it out!

Anyways, that's what we've got going on. I just got back from the gym, and I hate to say it, but not gonna lie, I'm getting a little bit bigger. I just feel like complimenting myself because it's okay to love yourself and compliment yourself.

Yeah, you tell 'em!

Is this your 10 seconds?

I don't know if it's my 10 seconds, but it feels like it should be my 10 seconds.

Okay, keep going.

Well, Payton and I went to Vegas. We got drunk, blacked out on the street, and ended up—no, we went to the Bruno Mars concert. We had a good time! It was actually really, really fun. We spent money that we shouldn’t have, but we did it anyway because life is too short to die with a bunch of money in your savings. You know what I’m saying?

Hot take right there!

No, I’m good at saving. I understand all that. We have money saved, I’m just saying I don’t want to die with all this money in my bank account. So you gotta calculate it just right. It was a good time. Payton and I had fun.

If you aren’t following us on Instagram, or Payton on Instagram. Payton looked incredible. I don’t know, you’re gonna have to go look. She looked really pretty—she looked really sexy in some of her photos, so go check them out. I don’t know if I can say that on the podcast, but I just did.

It's your podcast!

It’s my podcast. So, we had fun. Honestly, the Bruno Mars concert was great. We hung out. I actually really do enjoy going because Payton and I love good food—like, good food, expensive food. So, it’s fun to splurge and spend money on that. And that was our Vegas trip.

I’m going to let you know right now that we went to Zak Bagans' Haunted Museum.

Oh my gosh, I forgot about this!

It’s a three-hour tour—very intense, very dark. I didn’t know what to expect going in because I did no research. I thought there was going to be a little true crime memorabilia, a little haunting here, haunting there. No, we won’t go back unless they invite us personally. I basically entered a Conjuring movie—that’s how it felt. But we’re not going to talk about any of those details here on the podcast because we discuss that stuff over on our Twitch stream.

We stream on Twitch every single Thursday at 5:30 p.m. PT. You need to join—it’s live! We talk true crime, we talk about our lives, we watch videos, react, hang with chat, listen to music, and we’ll talk about Zak Bagans’ Haunted Museum. So, check that out!

Good catch, Payton, I forgot about that! We have a lot to tell, so we will talk about it tomorrow. Today is Wednesday while we’re recording, so you know what? We’ll save it for the next stream. If you’re listening to this, you can join us this Thursday where we’ll tell you everything that happened in the Haunted Museum.

Love you all! Thank you for supporting us, and let’s hop into today’s case.

Okay, before we get into the episode, I do need to give you a trigger warning. This episode features discussions of violence against children and child death. If that’s not something you're interested in, this is going to be a heavier one. Feel free to go back and re-listen to your favorite episode. This case also involves suicidal ideation, so please listen with care. It's not super graphic and doesn’t go into heavy detail, but there are children victims, and I just wanted to give you a heads-up.

I can’t stand that. I mean, I can’t stand any of it, but I really can’t stand that. People are so messed up. You know what, I’m just going to say this before I even get into the little spiel I wrote: this case is a little more infamous. Some of you might have already heard of it. Garrett won’t know about it, but the name might sound familiar to you.

No matter how many episodes of Murder with My Husband we do, there’s one thing we will never fully comprehend, and that is exactly what it’s like to be in the shoes of a victim’s family. If there’s one thing I’ve learned and can certainly sympathize with, it’s that people grieve in all different sorts of ways. But in today’s world, when a case is so public, that grief can, at times, wrongfully be put under a microscope.

Did you cry enough at the victim’s memorial? Were you seen laughing in public? Did you write a book and profit off the loss? Every little thing you do may be judged by the court of public opinion—especially when you are already the subject of suspicion.

We’ve seen this with husbands, where everyone thinks the husband did it until the real killer is found. Or more recently, with the Bryan Kohberger Idaho 4 murders, where the surviving roommates were put under a microscope. What we know so far is that they aren’t suspects.

Sometimes, one wrong move or one unconventional expression of grief, no matter how big or small, can be weaponized against someone—whether they’re guilty or not.

Okay, so in the mid-1980s, in the town of Leck, Texas, there is a 15-year-old girl named Darlie Lynn Peck who has just moved to town with her mother and her stepfather. When her mother gets a job waiting tables at the Western Sizzlin', Darlie frequently stops by to visit her.

The Western Sizzlin'—it sounds like a small-town version of Sizzler.

It does! So, the teenager is visiting her mom at work, and that’s when Darlie catches the eye of a 17-year-old boy named Darren Routier. Darren was taken with Darlie. I mean, they’re 17 and 15, meeting at the restaurant, and he's immediately drawn to her bright blonde hair and trendy clothes. They start dating, and four years later, they tie the knot in the garden room at his parents' home in Texas.

The newlyweds, ready to spread their wings, decide to move together to the Dallas area, more specifically to Rowlett, Texas. Darren started his own electronics company, which took off over the next few years. By the early '90s, Darren and Darlie were able to afford their own little dream house. As more money came in, the more they spent: a hot tub for the backyard, a Jaguar to drive to work, and a 30-foot boat to take on the nearby lake.

Holy—what are they doing for work?

He owns an electronics company!

Holy crap!

Darren is sporting diamond watches and rings, and Darlie gets herself a pair of 36D implants because, you know, everything is bigger in Texas.

Damn!

So, by 1995, Darren’s company was bringing in half a million in sales a year, and he was taking home $125,000.

Time out—he’s taking home $125,000, and you’re telling me they’re getting all that stuff?

It’s 1995 dollars.

I guess that's true. That’s going to be, like, maybe $250,000 today?

Probably more, honestly. So yeah, six figures in 1995 is still a lot. I mean, I know six figures have changed, but even today, that’s quite a bit.

This isn’t a finance podcast, but good to know they had enough money for implants, a boat, a car, a Jaguar, and a house.

And a house! They aren’t like some of the people we’ve covered who are wealthy but drowning in consumer debt.

These people seem to be doing well.

So, the Routiers were doing well for themselves, which was great because by that time, they had expanded their family to include three little boys. Devon, at this point in 1995, was five, Damon was four, and they were soon going to welcome their new baby, whom they planned to name Drake. So, Devon, Damon, and Drake.

Darlie seemed to love being the cool, stay-at-home mom. She always welcomed the neighborhood kids over to play video games in their fancy Nintendo room. She would cook for her neighbors who were going through hard times. It was even said that she helped make a mortgage payment for a friend who was battling cancer.

But in 1996, things hit a speed bump for the Routier family. Darren's business started to decline, and he was behind on payments. He owed the IRS thousands in back taxes. Despite the financial strain, Darren and Darlie managed to stay strong together and weather the storm. Darren even started a new side business, taking people out on his boat—a great option if you're not ready to sell the boat.

Yeah, I guess it works. If you can't get rid of the asset, at least make it a little bit profitable.

Exactly. And Darlie kept up appearances, still wearing the face of a perfect wife and mother. As far as anyone could tell, Darlie and Darren’s marriage was stronger than ever.

On June 5, 1996, the now six-year-old Devon and five-year-old Damon were enjoying their summer break from school. The 26-year-old Darlie let them stay up late playing in the hot tub while she tended to her seven-month-old baby, Drake. Afterward, she put the baby to bed in the crib in her room. Meanwhile, Damon and Devon made a blanket fort in the living room, where they eventually fell asleep for the night.

It sounds like the perfect summer night.

It really does. Darlie and Darren stayed up talking until around midnight. Then Darlie said she was going downstairs to sleep with the boys. She mentioned that she couldn’t sleep well with the baby stirring in the crib next to them and preferred to keep an eye on Damon and Devon while Darren kept an eye on Drake.

And yes, if you’re confused, this family does have a lot of D names. They’re full of D’s.

So, Darlie curled up on the couch next to the boys, who were sleeping in their fort, and fell asleep. But just before 2:30 a.m. on the morning of June 6th, Darlie woke up to every mother’s worst nightmare.

Her middle son, Damon, just five years old, was standing over her, saying, "Mommy, Mommy." That’s when she says she saw a man fleeing her home through the utility room and into the garage.

In a daze, Darlie jumped up and followed the stranger until she noticed a knife on the floor. So, she picked up the knife, looked down, and realized she was covered in blood—her own blood. Darlie’s throat had been slit.

Holy crap.

And she had no idea.

No idea? Oh my gosh.

At this point, she rushed back to check on the boys, only to find that both of them had suffered injuries as well. Her six-year-old son, Devon, was already dead.

Oh my God.

Damon, her five-year-old, was still breathing. Darlie screamed at the top of her lungs for her husband, who rushed downstairs and called 911. Both he and their seven-month-old baby, Drake, were unharmed and unaware of what had happened downstairs. They had just woken up to the chaos.

Within three minutes, police and paramedics arrived and rushed Darlie and Damon to the hospital. Sadly, Damon did not survive the ambulance ride—he passed away before they arrived. Both sons, just five and six years old, had been murdered.

For the next two days, Darlie remained hospitalized. Aside from several bruises, she had two stab wounds on her right forearm. The cut on her throat was the most serious, coming within two millimeters of her carotid artery. However, Darlie survived her injuries, and once she was well enough, the police were eager to ask her about everything she remembered from that night.

While sedated in the hospital, Darlie did her best to recount the events. The problem was that, whether due to the drugs, shock, or another reason, she couldn’t provide all the details the police were hoping for. She told them how she had slept downstairs with the boys that night, woken to find Damon standing over her asking for help, and saw a man run out through the garage. She even remembered some details of the attacker’s description: a white man with long hair, wearing a baseball cap, t-shirt, and jeans.

This is heartbreaking.

But the police had a few problems with Darlie’s account. For one, they couldn’t understand how she didn’t wake up until after the stabbings, especially considering she had somehow managed to sleep through both of her sons being attacked and her own throat getting slit. She didn’t realize she was hurt until after she had chased the killer out of her home.

Then there was something Darlie mentioned during the 911 call. Darren had called 911, and in the midst of the chaos, Darlie found it important to tell the operator that she had picked up the knife from the floor and placed it on the counter. The police thought this was strange, as it seemed like she was explaining why her fingerprints would be found on the weapon.

Oh no, this doesn’t sound good.

It’s frustrating, right? But she didn’t clarify it. The police just found it odd that she mentioned it at all.

That's a good thought. I don't think this would be the top of mind for most mothers on a 911 call.

Yeah, like, hey, I don't even think that they would mention that they moved the knife, you know what I mean? So, police are like, "It's a little weird, but how are you supposed to know?"

Then there's also a few other things police learn as they begin the investigation that seem like red flags too. Apparently, one of the first officers to arrive at the crime scene said Darlie was holding a rag to her own bleeding neck while her son was bleeding out with stab wounds in front of her. When a nurse told her in the hospital that Damon had also passed, she exhibited a "flat affect." She didn't burst into tears; she didn't scream—nothing. They said, "Hey, your other son died," and she just kind of sat there.

But look, I think it's fair to say that no one ever knows how they're going to react in these situations. Shock can do some really wild things to the nervous system, and sometimes it takes time for those things to process, especially when you're fighting for your life with your own injury. So, I don't know that these witness statements are evidence of anything really other than a mother just dealing with the worst possible nightmare.

But I will say things begin to look worse and worse for Darlie, even as she recovers and more time passes. The investigation continues, and over the next week, police questioned both Darlie and Darren three times separately. Investigators say Darlie's story changes every single time she is questioned. For starters, now that she is out of the hospital, she seems to recall the attack differently to each person she speaks to. Every different officer hears a different explanation.

First, she claims she remembers struggling with the assailant on the couch. At first, she's like, "No, I just woke up and he was running out of the house." Then she's like, "No, I do remember struggling with him on the couch." And then the next time she's like, "No, we struggled in the kitchen," and then it’s back to the couch, but he was running the knife over her face.

All my faith and trust is completely gone from this girl.

Though she says she only got a good look at him once he moved away from her, not while he was standing over her. And here's the other thing that's pretty troublesome: Darlie said that she slept downstairs with the older boys because she would wake up to the slightest movement of her baby in a crib. Remember, this is what she explains, but she didn't wake up to her kids being stabbed?

So, police have to look for evidence of this intruder. I mean, they have to run with the story that the witness is telling them, which is that there was an intruder. But do you? Because if she becomes a suspect, you have to investigate every option; you can't just narrow in on one because you're suspicious.

So, Darlie says that he escaped through the utility room and out of the garage. As far as they can tell, there's no blood in the garage. There's not even signs that someone went crashing through there on their way out. What they do find, however, is that there is a screen on the window in the garage, and it is sliced open.

It looks like someone came in through here, but actually, it doesn't look like someone came in through here because the dust around the window sill looks untouched—almost like someone sliced the screen and then went, "Oh, there we go," now it looks like someone came in here. If someone did crawl in through this window, you would think that the layer of dust would be disturbed because there was an obvious layer of dust, and it was not touched.

So, detectives also say the way the slit is made on the screen is very odd. It's a t-shape, which would have made it really small for a grown man to fit through. There’s also the fact that nothing is missing from the house—nothing stolen whatsoever. So, whoever broke in here just wanted to kill two little kids and the mom, then leave for no reason at all.

And if this person did come into the home with the intention to kill, why wouldn’t they have brought their own murder weapon? Because the murder weapon was one of the family's own kitchen knives.

Yeah, I forgot about that part too. This is a kitchen knife that police later said had a small fiber on it, and it appeared consistent with the fibers on the sliced window screen. Which, you're like, okay, except for—if they grabbed the knife while they were in the house, how did they use the knife to slash the screen to get in, right? So, that actually tells you that someone slashed that screen from inside the house using the knife they got inside the house.

Why? I mean, I think we know where this is going. Why? Why? Tell me why! I need to know why!

But, okay, let's get back to the blood for a second because Darlie’s story actually doesn’t line up with where investigators found bloodstains in this home. And I’m going to tell you now that the crime scene in this case is imperative—like, this is the biggest piece of evidence they have. They go so hard investigating this home.

So, when they do a luminol test, there is no blood in the utility room where Darlie said she pursued her attacker—where he ran through. And apparently, they don't find any on the couch where Darlie says she was attacked, where her throat was slit. There is no blood.

There is, however, a lot of blood in the kitchen sink, and the stains look smeared, like someone had attempted to wipe them up with a towel after the fact. Now, that, combined with the fact that Darlie never mentioned to police that she had even gone to the sink while she was bleeding, makes them wonder: is it possible that Darlie attacked her sons?

So, there was no blood on the couch, no blood in the utility room, no blood in the garage, and then she walked over to the sink and slit her own throat to make it look like she had been attacked as well?

Oh my gosh, I assume this—yes, first of all, it is possible. And second, I assume this has to be for... I would say money. But the reason I would say no is because it seems like it would have been if it was for money. 'Cause it seems like he was the one running most of the businesses and in charge of the finances. I could be wrong, though, so I’m a little confused.

Okay, well, just from an outside perspective—pretend you’re someone who doesn't know this case...

Police are also suspecting that Darren did this. He's upstairs—he could have come down and killed those kids and sliced his wife's throat, and then—

Yeah, but no—oh, okay, okay. Anyways, the only reason I'm saying that is because these are more context clues from how you're telling the story. We haven't really talked about Darren at all; we've kind of just been... see, now you're smiling a little bit, and now it's confusing me.

Oh, I'm not smiling! I just—I just love—I just like hearing how your brain works.

Okay, I didn’t know if that smile was like, "Oh, you just wait—get freaking ready for this."

No.

Okay, anyways, those are my thoughts on that. Let’s get back to the case.

So, they go to the doctors, and they're like, "Hey, we've reached a point in this investigation where we’re starting to wonder—is it possible that she slit her own throat?" And doctors were like, "Uh, okay, yeah, they could have been self-inflicted." They say aside from the throat injury, the stabs to her arms were very superficial. So, yeah, it could be.

Okay, but there was one thing the police found that does not make sense at all with any theory. It was a detail that actually strongly supported that Darlie was telling the truth.

Oh, great.

In an alley about three houses away from the Routiers was a tube sock with a few drops of blood on it, and it included both of the boys' DNA, and not Darlie’s.

Oh, so it does seem like someone ran out of the house. I'm just railing on her, and if it’s not her, I’m going to feel bad, so maybe I should probably shut my mouth.

Okay, and you have to think—if Darlie had planted the sock there, like if she really went out, killed her sons, and then went out as part of a cover-up, then why wasn’t her blood on it as well? And also, okay, maybe she did it before she cut her own throat, but even then—like, you just kill your boys and then run several blocks away? I mean, I guess it's possible, but it’s just... To kill your own kids is next-level. Next-level devil.

I want to point out—if your theory is, okay, she stabbed the boys, ran a couple blocks away, planted that sock to make it look like someone had actually run out, ran back, grabbed the knife, slashed the window, then went to the sink and cut her throat—Damon was still alive by the time the ambulance got there.

Yeah, how? How in all that time, if that is actually how it happened, how is he still alive? And why, if she killed them, would she call 911 while one of the kids was still alive?

I couldn’t be on a jury. You could convince me of anything. I could be convinced of both sides.

Well, so could the police, because they’re like, this just does not make sense.

It doesn’t. Also, like, how would she know the police would even find the sock? It was blocks away. They were just doing a routine search of the area and happened to stumble upon it. There’s a chance they might not have even walked that way.

So, that, combined with the fact that witnesses said Darlie would never in a million years hurt her children—like, every witness they talked to was like, "This Darlie wouldn’t kill her children." And there was a dark car that had been seen casing the house in the weeks leading up to the tragedy. So, police talked to the neighbors, and they're like, "No, there has been a dark car kind of hanging around this house."

So, police are like, "Oh, is Darlie telling the truth after all?" How could a mother do something so diabolical to her own children? It just does not make sense. But the problem was, it doesn’t seem like Darlie knew she was being watched closely by investigators. At this point, they don’t know where to turn, so they’re keeping all eyes open.

When Devin’s 7th birthday came around—eight days after the murders, which would have been his birthday—Darlie made a decision that would call her entire character into question for the entire True Crime community and police. She and some friends and family—and this was major news, like Nancy Grace-level news—went to Devin’s grave to throw him a birthday party. Eight days after he was murdered, and after her throat was slit, they went to the grave.

They take a video while they’re throwing this party at the grave. They’re singing "Happy Birthday," and someone is caught on video, and it happens to be Darlie. She is literally dancing around, spraying Silly String on Devin’s grave.

Okay, it’s just weird. I’m trying to really think about this from the standpoint of—one, it’s freaking insane and crazy. Two, grief and trauma can also make you do freaking crazy and insane things. So, does it make sense? No. Could it maybe be possible if you had so much trauma? Sure.

Well, Darlie is obviously confronted about this because everyone is like, "This is wildly inappropriate. This should not be happening." And Darlie claims—no, she tells people this is something she knew Devin would have wanted. That he was looking forward to his birthday, and this was her way of celebrating his life.

Yeah, okay, but obviously, this does not look good to anyone watching that video when it is leaked to the news and media. Everyone is like, "Whoa, your son was murdered eight days earlier, your throat was slit, your other son was murdered, and now you’re dancing, spraying Silly String, laughing, and singing 'Happy Birthday' on his grave?"

What many people didn’t know was that, at this point, Darlie is also on a cocktail of painkillers, antibiotics, and antidepressants, which could have severely altered her sense of judgment. Not only that, but she’s also in trauma, she’s in crisis—there’s a lot going on, man, a lot going on.

So, when asked to respond to the media about the video, Darlie said—and I’m going to quote this exactly—she said, "I did the only thing I knew to do to honor him and give him all his wishes because he wasn’t here anymore. But how do you know what you’re going to do when you lose two children? How do you know how you’re going to act?"

Yeah, so Darlie’s act of grief was seen as an act of guilt by the public. At this point, the public really starts to point the finger at her. They believe she murdered the kids, and they don’t even know the full case investigators were building against Darlie at this point. They don’t even know the evidence they have against her; they’re just so concerned about this video that they’re like, "Hey, this is weird."

But they’re actually about to find out because just four days later, on June 18, 1996, Darlie Routier was arrested for killing her two sons.

Okay, so you’re not being left out of the loop here. The police, with what they have, is mostly circumstantial evidence. There are no witnesses, no confession, and only a few tiny drops of Devon and Damon’s DNA on the back of Darlie’s nightgown. And the police are saying, "Look, their DNA is on her." But, of course, duh—it’s her children. What they do have is a video of a grieving mother behaving in a way they don’t see as appropriate.

Because of the public outcry, they decide they have enough. That video would ultimately play a major role in determining Darlie's fate. And that’s hard because we know a lot more now about mental health and trauma than we did back in 1996. People, especially in traumatic situations, do things that don’t always make sense when trying to cope with their emotions. That video is so tricky because at that time, it was probably an even bigger deal than it might be now.

But to be honest, I still think it would be a big deal today. I mean, not to name names, but there was an influencer who got mildly canceled for dancing in a hospital while her kid was in the NICU.

So, Darlie gets arrested, but here’s the thing investigators just couldn’t figure out, even after arresting her: What motive did Darlie have for killing her two oldest children and leaving her husband and baby upstairs untouched?

That doesn’t make sense. As far as anyone knew, Darlie had no history of prolonged mental illness, no history of sexual abuse, no run-ins with the law, and no extramarital affairs. There was a life insurance policy on the boys, but it only amounted to $10,000, which wouldn’t even cover funeral expenses. If it was about money, it wasn’t much. Plus, the life insurance policy on her husband Darren was $800,000. If she were going to do it for money, it would’ve made more sense to kill him.

So, this is confusing.

There was only one thing from Darlie’s past that even hinted at any violence. It was a diary entry she wrote on May 3, 1996, about a month before the murders. Most of her entries were upbeat and positive, but this one set off alarm bells. It read, "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 can't find the strength to keep fighting anymore."

According to Darlie, she was considering suicide that day. That's what she was writing about, and she actually wrote about this and then called her husband, Darren, who rushed home to comfort her. She reached out for help, and he came home. So this diary entry actually has a reasonable explanation that has evidence before the murders happened. Darren said, "No, this is real; she really was going to take her life that day."

According to Darren, that was the only time Darlie had ever experienced suicidal thoughts that he was aware of. Darlie claimed this was due to her period, which hadn’t returned after the birth of her third child, so her hormones were everywhere, you know, postpartum. But by the end of the month, Darlie seemed to kind of be back to herself. The postpartum had kind of gone away a little bit. She and Darren even took the kids to a Renaissance fair at the end of May. The whole family dressed up.

Yes, Darlie was certainly eccentric, which may have been the character trait that urged her to even celebrate her late son’s birthday with Silly String, but for anyone who knew Darlie, even the neighborhood kids who used to come over and play Nintendo with her boys, Darlie just would never do something like this.

Darlie’s trial began on January 6th, 1997. She was only being tried for the death of her son, Damon, because Devon’s trial would be held separately. They decided to treat them as two separate victims, and from what I could tell, this was a strategic move on behalf of the prosecution. If they convicted her for just Damon’s death, she would be eligible for the death penalty.

In a nutshell, this was the theory that the prosecution was pushing at trial. I’m going to tell you the evidence they had against her. They claimed that on the morning of June 6th, Darlie cut the garage window screen with a knife from her own home to make it look like an intruder had entered the home. She then went back into the living room and stabbed her two sons. After doing this, she ran down the street, 75 yards away, to place that tube sock there with her son's blood on it. She then came back, went over to the sink, and slit her own throat before screaming for her husband and calling 911.

To try and prove that Darlie was the kind of mother who would do something like this, at trial, they pointed to... Remember, they are in Texas in 1996, okay? So this is the prosecution’s evidence. They mentioned her breast implants. They mentioned the fact that she doesn’t go to church. They mentioned the fact that she went out with her girlfriends the night before, which was on Mother's Day, instead of spending it with her family.

I’m going to say, if that’s the criteria for a murderer, a lot of you listening are going to be murderers. Okay, we’re in trouble! The thing is, I bet to an extent that is totally going to work where they’re at, which is horrible. And there is some circumstantial evidence, yeah. But of course, the real kicker, the huge nail in the coffin, is the video. They play it for the courtroom, for the jury. It's of her spraying Silly String on her son’s grave, celebrating eight days after he died.

But Darlie’s defense team comes in, and they make a really strong case for her. They called to the stand a psychiatric expert who interviewed Darlie for 14 hours after her arrest and said Darlie is telling the truth about the events.

So, she gets arrested, a psychiatric expert comes in, interviews her for 14 hours, and goes on the stand and says she’s telling the truth. It was possible for her to forget what had happened that morning due to traumatic amnesia and then slowly start remembering the events, even if they were cloudy and she wasn’t really sure what they were.

They also called the chief medical examiner, who said Darlie’s wound was not only nearly fatal but deep enough that it came within 2 millimeters of her carotid artery. They’re basically saying she couldn’t have done it herself because she wasn’t educated enough to know how to cut herself that way. And also, who's going to cut their own throat that hard unless they were actually trying to kill themselves, right?

The chief medical examiner testifies that her wounds are not consistent with the superficial, self-inflicted wounds he had seen in the past. He basically says if this was a self-inflicted wound, it would be the most extreme case he’d ever seen. But this kind of goes against what Darlie’s doctors, who treated her, said. They believed the wound could have been superficial, so it's something to take with a grain of salt.

Then, there was the knife. After it was tested for DNA, it only came back with Damon’s and Darlie’s blood on it—not a drop of Devon’s blood. This made the defense wonder if there were two murder weapons. What happened to the weapon that killed Devon? They speculated that the murderer may have brought their own weapon, which could have broken while killing Devon. So, they went and grabbed one from the house to kill Damon and Darlie. It’s complicated because the house weapon doesn’t have Devon’s blood on it. Did someone take the broken weapon with them when they fled or switch to a different weapon in the middle of the attack?

They also brought up the window screen and window sill as another piece of evidence being used against her. Detectives found that the dust on the window sill had been undisturbed. They also found a blonde hair that they initially said was Darlie’s. However, when tested, the hair belonged to one of the investigators at the scene—a crime scene investigator had gotten their hair on the window sill. It wasn’t Darlie’s.

An expert also explained that the dust being undisturbed made sense because the window was only 10 inches off the floor, meaning someone could have easily climbed in and out without even touching the window sill. They wouldn’t need to jump up or leave any trace. And if you're going to murder someone, you’re going to try to touch as few things as possible, right?

Then came one of the most controversial pieces of evidence at the trial: the sock. The prosecution argued that Darlie planted the sock as a way to make it look like an intruder had fled the home after the attack and dropped it. However, the defense argued there was no possible way that could have happened, and here's why.

Damon was still alive when the paramedics showed up, but the medical examiner said Damon could only have lived for a total of nine minutes after sustaining his injuries. Darlie was on the phone with 911 for almost six minutes, which means the 911 call was placed three minutes after Damon was stabbed.

It would have been impossible for Darlie to stab her son, run 75 yards with his bloody sock, leave it in some alley, run back to the house, then cut her own neck, and still have Damon be alive. The defense argued that there wasn’t enough time for her to do all of that, injure herself, and then call 911. Plus, there was no blood trail showing she had hurt herself before the call.

The defense came through with solid evidence, questioning how Darlie could have staged this. If she were planning this all out as part of a cover-up, they said she made a crucial mistake. Would she really have called 911 with one child still alive, who could possibly go to the hospital and live, only to say, "My mother stabbed me"? Why would she call the police with a witness still alive if she were guilty?

And if she was guilty, wouldn’t she have turned on the Waterworks for the nurses and doctors at the hospital when they told her that her son had died? If she were guilty, she would have had a typical "Oh my God!" reaction rather than the flat, shocked response. The defense argued that the way Darlie had been acting—the Silly String at the gravesite, her muted reactions—did not match the behavior of a calculating murderer. In fact, they suggested she was simply in trauma, reacting in her own way.

However, here’s where the defense made a major mistake: they allowed Darlie to take the stand in her own trial, which rarely happens. She was not a persuasive witness in her own case. She would cry at odd times, and the prosecution slammed her during cross-examination, calling into question her inconsistent stories and her inability to remember the events.

But the final nail in the coffin was the prosecution showing the jury the Silly String video, which they reportedly played more than seven times during the trial. What the video conveniently didn’t show was that, prior to spraying Silly String, witnesses at the gravesite said Darlie had been weeping uncontrollably over her son’s grave. They had tried to turn things around and celebrate the boys' lives in a positive way afterward.

By February 1st, closing statements were made, and the jury returned with a verdict. Darlie Routier was found guilty of murdering her 5-year-old son, Damon. Three days later, she was sentenced to death by lethal injection. She was then sent to await her punishment at the Patrick O'Daniel Unit in Gatesville, Texas.

But as you know, this wasn’t the end of Darlie’s story, because it was not considered a very strong trial.

You kind of freaked me out a little bit—not by a long shot! See, Darlie’s lawyers had been fighting with appeals and asking for further reviews of evidence ever since the trial, and they've made a few strides.

In May 2000, Damon and Devon's bodies were exhumed to pull fingerprints in order to rule out an inconclusive print found in the home. What they discovered was that the print wasn’t a match with anyone in the family, supporting the idea that an intruder may have been in the home that night. Additionally, some of the jurors admitted after the trial that they felt they might have made a mistake in deciding Darlie was guilty. They came forward, saying, "Maybe we made a mistake."

A new witness also emerged. I'm not sure how long after the verdict this was, but someone came forward to say they had been withholding information because they were afraid for their life. They had witnessed something that night but were too scared to come forward. Now that Darlie had been convicted, they felt compelled to speak up. The witness claimed they saw two men walking by the side of the road near the home after the boys were killed. One man even loosely matched the description Darlie had originally given to the police.

And there was another thing the police failed to consider: a series of rapes and violent attacks happening around the Dallas area at the time. The assailant would enter unlocked homes, attack victims with knives found in the homes, and wear tube socks over their hands to avoid leaving fingerprints. Sound familiar?

Since 2008, Darlie's team has been pushing for evidence to be reexamined using improved DNA technology, and in 2018, those requests were finally granted. However, as of 2024, the results of those tests are still pending. Yes, she’s still in prison.

Darlie is currently sitting on death row. Her husband and now 29-year-old son, Drake, have faced their own challenges. Aside from fighting for his mother, whom he believes is innocent, Drake has also had to battle leukemia. Thankfully, his cancer went into remission in 2018.

Darlie’s husband, Darren, has been placed under media scrutiny as well. There were rumors that he might have helped Darlie, which could explain how everything unfolded. He has had to deal with accusations, many of which stem from an alleged insurance scheme that Darren supposedly devised.

It’s wild, right? Despite it being 2024, Darlie remains in prison. There are still plenty of people who believe she's guilty, largely due to that infamous video of her spraying Silly String. When it aired, the public's perception of her was terrible. They thought, "This mom is horrible; she must have killed her son." But if you take away that video, there’s not much solid evidence. Yes, her story changed. She said she woke up, but there was no blood on the couch where she claimed she was stabbed. And the blood in the sink—why was there blood in the sink, and why did it look wiped up?

Now that you’ve heard the details, I’m curious—what do you think?

According to witnesses, Darren's plan was to hire a burglar who would steal some things from the home. He would claim the loss through insurance, take the payout, and then get his stuff back when the dust settled. Some people wonder if Darren had actually hired someone to do this, and the man hired to do the burglary actually came in and attacked the family. But Darren insists no such plan was ever created.

In 2011, Darren and Darlie mutually agreed to divorce, but he still completely believes that she's innocent. Darlie says there isn't a minute that goes by that she doesn't think about her sons. Sometimes she looks around her cell and wonders how on earth she is in prison. The answer to that might lie in that video—those 30 seconds where Darlie chose to spray Silly String on her son's grave. I don't know, man. She chose to grieve in a way that just didn’t sit right with the world.

As of this recording, Darlie still hasn’t stood trial for Devon's murder—a trial that, if ever granted with today's forensic technology, could prove she’s innocent or that she’s managed to fool everyone who’s believed in her innocence all of these years. There is DNA being tested in this case, and as of 2024, it is still pending. No, there’s no way it’s still pending; they’ve tested it anyway.

And that is the Routier case. It’s a little infamous because it is known as the case of the mother who killed her sons and then sprayed Silly String on the grave. So I'll just say one more thing about it before we wrap it up: even if she was guilty, even if she is guilty in my mind, there is still not enough evidence to find her guilty or convict her.

Does that make sense? Your team should try her for Devon’s murder and test the technology. Test this technology and find evidence to prove whether she’s innocent or guilty. But all this circumstantial evidence—it’s just not fair. That wasn’t a fair trial; that wasn’t justice. We took a video that can be interpreted in many ways. If you don’t understand mental health, it wasn’t a fair trial in my mind.

There are going to be people listening to this who think she’s guilty, for sure, 100%. I’m sure there’s probably more that we didn’t cover. There’s likely way more to this. We covered the main stuff. I will say that any evidence-wise is just going to be circumstantial, and it’s so hard.

Your thoughts?

I think she was convicted based solely on the way she acted after the murders, not on actual evidence from the night of the murders.

That is still evidence; I mean, it’s still circumstantial evidence. It is odd behavior, but I think there could be reasons for that behavior.

I am not saying she is innocent or guilty. She is guilty in the eyes of the law; she has been convicted. I do think saying, "Yes, we will finally test this DNA in 2018," and it being 2024 with the results still pending—that is bonkers. If someone is innocent and there is DNA that could be tested to prove it, or if there's someone sitting in prison with DNA to be tested that could prove they might be innocent, and it's taking that long, it's just unacceptable. Like, that is years of someone's life. There needs to be a system—and maybe there is—where you could transfer that DNA to a private party and pay your own money to get it tested. They wouldn’t allow it because, honestly, they want to control it, and it’s messed up.

And, well, because of the lawsuit—think of the lawsuit. If the DNA proves her innocent but there’s someone else’s DNA attached to this crime scene, like you said, rightfully so, the lawsuit would be through the roof. People would be fired, reputations would be ruined. There would be so much going into it. The last thing they want is this DNA to be tested. Guess what? It’s someone’s life. I don’t care. It is somebody’s life. I do not care. They want to convict people who kill people.

Yeah, I mean, someone’s life, man. Also, a baby that she had to raise from prison. I know it’s just—there’s so much. I can’t—after losing her two sons, if she is innocent, it’s insane.

I mean, I’m not taking one side or the other. I tried to include evidence from both sides. Garrett was fully convinced that she did this until I told the other side of the evidence. So I tried to include both, but it is a controversial case.

Honestly, let us know in the comments what you think. Your thoughts on this—if there were theories that you felt were left out, just try to remain respectful of the victim’s family members. But yeah, it is a case that raises the question: Is she sitting in prison innocently, or did she kill her two sons?

We will see you guys next time with another episode.

I love it.

I hate it.

Goodbye.

‍

Sorry, no sources available yet.