Online Killers (12 page)

A psychiatrist who interviewed Darlie for 14 hours after her arrest said that she was telling the truth about the attacks; that her loss of memory about certain details that night was the result
of traumatic amnesia, which can occur after emotionally overwhelming events.

Vincent DiMaio, the chief medical examiner in San Antonio and the editor-in-chief of the prestigious
Journal of Forensic Medicine Pathology
, testified that Darlie’s injuries were not at all consistent with the self-inflicted wounds he had seen in the past. He said that the cut across her throat, in particular, was hardly “superficial,” as the prosecutors alleged.

Mulder produced notes taken by the nurses at the hospital that said that Darlie was “tearful,” “frightened,” “crying,” “visibly upset” and “very emotional” on the night she was brought in.

However, countering this, one of the prosecution’s expert witnesses aggressively promoted the theory that Darlie was guilty, and in the end the evidence, however circumstantial, was too much for the jurors—even if they could not figure out how the sock found its way into the alley.

During their deliberations, the jury watched the Silly String video a reported seven times.

Perhaps Mulder made a mistake in not introducing another videotape, secretly recorded by the police, that showed Darlie weeping over her sons’ graves.

Perhaps the outcome would have been different had he found more expert witnesses to counter the prosecution’s experts. But, even then, it’s hard to see how a jury would have gotten over the finely honed image of Darlie as a mentally unbalanced, gum-chewing bleach blonde who seemed to be unmoved by, if not outright exhilarated over, the deaths of her children.

After the trial, it was proved that Darin Routier was looking for someone to burglarize the house before the murders. “Never,” Darin argued. But, according to an affidavit given by Darlie’s
stepfather, Bob Kee, Darin said in the spring of 1996 that he had a plan in which he and his family would be gone from the house and that a “burglar,” hired by him, would pull up with a U-Haul truck, remove household items and keep them hidden until the insurance company paid the claim. All that was needed, Darin said, was someone to do the job.

Initially, Darin poured scorn on the suggestion that he wanted someone to burgle his house to cash in on the insurance. But finally he had to admit that he had worked out another scam a couple of years before the murders in which he had had his car stolen so that he could collect the insurance money. Darin says that he did not arrange for his Jaguar to be stolen, but he admitted saying to the person who he believed eventually stole the car, “It wouldn’t bother me if it was gone.” Darin would not deny that the person who broke into his house and murdered his sons could have been someone who had heard him discuss his would-be insurance scam. But he said he had no idea who that person might be—and, if such a crime did happen, it was without his assistance.

“Why would I do that if I had my kids and my wife downstairs?” he said. “That’s the craziest story I have ever heard.”

When he was told that the complete truth might help get his wife a new trial, he insisted that he wanted to do what he could for Darlie. “But I don’t want to end up with some kind of bullshit charges brought against me either,” he volunteered. “I don’t want to help her at the expense of my life.”

But what if Darlie really did it and Darin was her accomplice in covering it up—a scenario that prosecutors say they have also considered?

What if Darin came downstairs, saw what his wife had done to the boys and then planted false clues to try to keep her from
being arrested? Because he had no blood on him, he could have taken the sock down the alley without leaving a trail. He could have been the one who carefully cut Darlie’s throat and inflicted her other wounds, after convincing her that the cops would be more likely to believe her story if she had also been stabbed.

Or maybe Darlie, who was in such a delicate emotional state only a month before, decided after one of her fights with Darin to murder the boys and then kill herself—only she couldn’t quite bring herself to commit suicide.

What if Darin came downstairs, begged her to put the knife down and then planted false clues and staged a crime scene before having her call 911? Darin said all the speculation is outlandish, and that he still believes an unknown assailant came into his house. “I love my wife and I loved my boys,” he has said. “My God, I loved them. How did this ever happen?”

 

Proof of motive is not necessary in the proof of a crime, and the absence of any discoverable motive is of little consequence in deciding whether or not the prisoner committed the crime. Darlie Routier killed her children for whatever motive—murder for insurance was never one of them—and her guilt is overwhelming.

At the beginning, I asked the reader to stand back to look at a somewhat incomplete painting of homicide which had been designed to fool the eye. We then moved closer to examine how the exercise had been completed and learned much. Various areas of the canvas were missing or deliberately obscured by the perpetrator—all attempts to show us a picture that didn’t really exist. A murderous
trompe l’oeil
indeed!

Yes, the couple had spats from time to time, but most couples have those and they make for healthy, open relationships. This couple were devoted to each other, despite the curtain-twitchers
who claim otherwise. Of course, they might have discussed paying someone to rob their home for insurance purposes, but killing Darin, who was asleep close to Drake, for insurance reasons was the last thing on Darlie’s mind.

The suicide note in Darlie’s diary proves that she was falling apart at the seams a month before the murders. Her words are sad, and perhaps those of a sincere woman. But was this yet another warped way of getting attention, for she wrote the letter then telephoned her husband begging him to come home? When he did, she showed him the letter and he comforted her, giving her the reassurance she craved.

Darlie Routier was, and still is, a very materialistic woman with an underlying sense of low esteem. Her ego was fragile. To compensate for this, she indulged in expensive trinkets, clothes and other excesses, which others would describe as “showy.” She dyed her hair to match the color of her dog. She was an attention seeker who years beforehand had claimed she had been raped to gain the sympathy and attention of her peers. She had her breasts enlarged to a size that would outdo most raunchy centerfolds. All of these were props to support her own self-admitted inadequacies.

She knew there was no way out of the financial abyss into which they had plunged. They always say that a flame burns brightest before it goes out, and Darlie certainly burned bright, with high spirits, during the week before she killed her children. This was Darlie Routier to a T: showy on the outside, now a psychological wreck inside; a woman who needed sympathy and attention.

It was an inescapable fact that the Routiers were on the verge of bankruptcy. The IRS demanded hefty tax arrears. They owed their bank and credit card companies a small fortune. And the
bank had refused them the lifeboat of a $5,000 loan. They would lose the house. All that they had worked so hard together for would soon be lost, probably forever.

Darlie Routier once prided herself on her beautiful figure, but now she had put on weight she could not lose. She admitted to suffering from postpartum depression and her periods had stopped completely, and as every woman knows, the symptoms can become mentally debilitating. Society has witnessed time and again a parent killing their children in moments of deep despair.

Darin Routier is an extremely intelligent and mentally well-balanced man. His work in the electronic industry demands that he is methodical and thorough. Indeed, until he fell into financial difficulties, he was highly successful and motivated.

From their history together, we know that Darin was emotionally far better equipped to handle the family financial crisis than his materialistic and showy wife. Sadly, this case has the indelible stamp of “familicide” writ large throughout.

Having filled in all of the missing pieces, we now suggest that Darlie Routier′s mind had become a pressure-filling cylinder and the relief valve finally closed shut. In effect, her mind blew.

We do not believe that she had ever seriously considered suicide. She loved herself far too much to do that. The note and phone call to her husband were simply an attention-seeking exercise.

If there was a motive, as cold, dispassionate and brutal as this may seem, I believe that Darlie Routier killed her two sons and then mutilated herself to gain sympathy and attention as her materialistic world collapsed in ruins.

The murders were premeditated, and the intruder scenario was hastily invented with little thought to careful planning, as has been proven. In all that followed the stabbings, we can picture a cold-blooded, calculating woman meticulously rearranging her home, taking care not to damage the items she held so dear to her heart: she could easily destroy her sons’ lives, but not a spot of blood should contaminate the couch on which she slept or the flashy jewelry she wore.

Darlie Routier’s latest hearing centered not on fingerprint evidence but on the thousands of errors made by the original trial stenographer. She and her internet supporters claimed that she could not receive a fair consideration of her appeal because the transcript was tainted. However, months of reconstructive work brought the transcript up to scratch, and on this basis the judge ruled against the appellant.

The rest is history, but the full picture certainly explains why the dog didn’t bark in the night.

Inmate #999220, Darlie Routier, is at Texas Department of Corrections, Mountain View Unit DR, 2305 Ransom Road, Gatesville, TX 76528, USA.

—SUSAN GRAY, TO THE AUTHORS

 

 

As most people will agree, the feeling of emptiness when one has been rejected by a loved one may be misinterpreted as a need to go shopping or as a need to eat. The need for companionship and love and the sense of loss that is now associated with this need may be too painful to scrutinize consciously. The person engages in unrelated behavior that results in a temporary reduction of the feelings associated with loneliness and tends to bring pleasure. Feeling good about one thing masks the pain being felt elsewhere.

We will soon learn a lot about Susan Gray (not her real name) and how, spurned by three husbands, she found herself
in an internet chat room unknowingly talking to a sexual predator. We will learn even more about the man himself—and it is a story that provides a salutary lesson to women looking for relationships in the chat rooms of the world.

Susan Gray and at least two other British women fell for a smooth-talking American on the internet. During a five-week visit he raped all of them—there were probably others too—and Susan almost lost her life. Later in this book we encounter two men, a London doctor and a U.S. mechanic, who did.

Susan was born 47 years ago in Maidstone, Kent. Today a tall, natural blonde with blue eyes, she could readily be described as “classy” and “hot stuff,” and the combination of her slim figure with sexy clothes, short skirts and high-heeled black boots has always drawn admiring glances from men and women alike.

Intelligent, house-proud and generous to a fault, Susan has a teenage son, although, sadly, by the age of 40 she had three failed marriages behind her.

“I guess I was a bit possessive,” she explained. “Maybe I was insecure knowing that my husbands and other lovers knew that I was not getting sexual satisfaction from the relationships. I don’t understand it at all, but I admit I was a bit of a control freak and very jealous.” She added, “Yes, I have always been generous to my men. Perhaps I was trying to buy their love. I seem to have attracted the wrong men.”

Susan was always on the move—and she still is. Unable to put down roots as each relationship fell apart, she would diligently pack all her possessions into cardboard boxes and find somewhere else to live. Gradually, almost step by step, she gravitated to Fareham in Hampshire, where she shared rooms with two other girls above a café in West Street.

Within 18 months, Susan moved again, then again, and then, in 2001, she rented a two-bedroom cottage in Emsworth, in the same county. The former coach house, with its ivy-covered wall-enclosed garden, she decorated tastefully. Now unattached, she started working as a sales and promotion agent for a national company. With her winning ways, she was soon easily earning £900 (US$1,350) a week with commission.

Susan prided herself on her cooking and loved entertaining, so before long she had spent £1,000 on a dinner service and new cutlery. She discarded her old wine glasses and bought new ones. A new dining table and chairs followed, then she treated herself to a new wardrobe.

Now settled in, she took stock of her life. The cottage was cute, with a cozy living room, a fireplace, a dining room where Susan had her computer workstation and a kitchen looking onto the garden. A narrow staircase with a low beam—“one has to mind your head,” she said when we visited her—led to the two bedrooms. The only inconvenience was the location of the shower room and toilet, which was reached via the kitchen—a small price to pay for such an idyllic home.

Susan’s daily routine was simple. She would work five days a week, occasionally on a Saturday, then shop for dinner, after which she would stroll down to the seafront and take in the air. On Sundays she made a point of feeding the swans on the nearby millpond, then driving over to see her mother for lunch.

In June 2001, a girlfriend, Carol, called on Susan, bringing a few bottles of wine. After dinner, she introduced her host to the website Absolute Agency. Carol was a regular visitor to the site’s chat room, and she told Susan that perhaps they could have “a little fun.”