Darlie Routier, You're So Vain

I feel compelled to write about this girl. I don't know why other than the whole ordeal has bothered me since I first heard about it back in June of 1996. I'm sure you know who I'm talking about. She is the person who was convicted of brutally stabbing to death her two young sons in Rowlett, Texas.

First of all, let me start this off by saying what you may already know - that I'm a certified shorthand reporter, although a non-practicing one since before the birth of our daughter in 2005, but I have still kept my license up. I started practicing court reporting in January of 1994.

I can't remember the year this happened, but I went to a Tarrant County Court Reporters Association meeting where Sandra Halsey, the court reporter for the entire Darlie Routier trial gave a presentation. She brought in blown-up, poster-sized pictures which had been marked as evidence in the trial. For some reason, the only picture that really stands out in my mind is the picture of the alleged murder weapon - the knife.

I remember this court reporter, who later lost her license because of all the errors she made in the transcript and was actually jailed for a while because she didn't have the transcript ready in time, I remember her talking about how the Leeza Gibbons show had contacted her and wanted her to be on the Leeza show. I remember Ms. Halsey saying that Darlie Routier was definitely guilty. It wasn't until later on that I realized during the time this court reporter was out giving presentations about the Darlie Routier murder trial, she had not finished the transcript. Darlie Routier received the death penalty. When someone receives the death penalty in Texas, and maybe, in fact, anywhere, the court reporter knows that they'll have to produce the transcript of the trial. Why was this lady out giving speeches when she should have been working on the transcript?

Fast forward a few months or a year or something like that. I'm at another court reporter seminar, this time in Dallas or Richardson or somewhere. Doug Mulder, Darlie's criminal attorney is now giving a speech or talking about the Routier trial. I can't remember what all he talked about. In fact, I don't remember him talking about the Routier case that much. I know he was kind of bragging about all the individuals he had "gotten off" in other criminal cases.

Near the end of the seminar, I grew enough juevos to raise my hand and ask him a question. The question was this: What percentage of people that you've represented and "gotten off" have gone on to re-offend? In a typical lawyer-like fashion, he skirted the issue and talked in circles for a while and never actually answered the question.

I just watched a show on the Biography channel the other day. I had seen it before, but watched it again anyway. The show was called Notorious and the subject for this show was Darlie Routier. They showed brief interviews with Mr. Mulder. And during one of those interviews, Mr. Mulder said something that really stuck out in my mind. He said he didn't think the video of Darlie Routier shooting Silly String and chewing gum and singing Happy Birthday over her sons' grave would have any affect on the jurors. Can I just say, What the hell were you thinking, Mulder?

Fast forward another year or a few months or something. I'm at another court reporters seminar in Fort Worth. This time the presenter or speech-giver or whatever you want to call it was Darlie Routier's appeal attorney Stephen Cooper. His main focus was all the errors in the original trial transcript - 33,000 errors to be exact. We're not talking about all little, tiny, minor errors. We're talking about where a yes should have been a no. I remember one of the questions was: Was the door to the garage locked? The trial transcript answer said, Yes. In actuality the person had said, No. That's a pretty big mistake, especially when someone's life is on the line.

I also remember Mr. Cooper saying that the prosecution contended that Darlie didn't have any defensive wounds, i.e., bruises, et cetera. At least one of the jurors in the case does not remember seeing any pictures when Darlie was in the hospital immediately after the attack that showed any type of bruising. Look at this:


I must say, I didn't hear all the evidence everyone had to present, but in actuality, I don't think the 12 jurors who gave Darlie the death penalty heard or saw all the evidence there was to be seen. I think the police, the detectives, the crime scene guys all went into the Routier house with the idea that this crime was committed by an intruder, someone who did not live inside the home. But I believe that they quickly changed their thinking and started trying to make a case against Darlie. Why? I don't know. One of the articles I read on the web was entitled, Guilty By Default, and for some reason or another I tend to agree with that.

Darlie Routier is very vain. She's got fake boobs, fake hair and no telling what else is fake on her. Does the fact that she's vain mean she loves her sons any less than a non-vain person? Does the fact that she's vain mean she's a murderer? I don't think so. I think if anyone deserves another trial, it's Darlie.



******UPDATE*****
Please read the comment section.