The CLEAN UP of the Routier Kitchen Sink

From the early days of the Routier case the Rowlett Police Department, as well as the Dallas District Attorneys office, has promoted the theory that Darlie Lynn Routier is guilty of the murder because they can provide us - the jury and/or the public - with evidence of a cleanup: hence a "staged" crime scene.

I take issue with this theory on many counts, and my intent is to explain here what these are, and why.

First let us view pictures of the Crime Scene, specifically those of the kitchen itself. For the purpose of this analysis I will refer to the kitchen picture below.

Please notice the details in this picture. The backwash is clean to the extent that there is a reflection of the faucet. The grout, in all places, is completely white, from the area immediately behind the faucet and sink, and proceeds to be reflected on both sides of the kitchen window. To the left side of the sink we see 2 sponges, 1 blue and 1 yellow. To the right we have a roll of paper towels - not a new roll, nor a finished roll. In the window we have various glass bottles containing liquids, as well as 2 plants inside pots lined with the type of paper material we are all familiar with - if only by viewing it at our local grocery stores. The plant on the right has foliage that extends to the bottom right hand corner of the window ledge itself.

There is a plastic cup, which appears to be of the type provided at sporting events and saved as a souvenir. To the left there appears to be normal content found near any kitchen sink of a family of 5 after a clean up of a dinner meal. There are articles to the right, discounting the paper towels & holder, which are placed here by the police and used to collect evidence. A flashlight, a roll of tape, tweezers, and what appears to be a transparent article for which there is black writing. I cannot read what is written on this article, but it clearly does not belong to the Routier's.

Inside the right sink appears to be the nipple of a baby bottle. The ring that holds the nipple in place is purple. The outside ledge of the sink has what appears to be deluded blood.

What I wish to scream from the roof tops is the fact that there is NO BLOOD in any of the places I would expect to find blood IF what the Rowlett PD, and Dallas DA's office proclaims is true.

The spray of blood that would be projected to extend at least to the other side of the sink is nowhere to be found. There is no blood on the plant foliage - no blood on either the blue or yellow sponge's. No blood on the ordinary kitchen items used and then cleaned after dinner the night before. The pots in which the plants reside have no spot of blood, not even in the wrinkles of the paper surrounding them, nor in the curves of the white pot containing the plant seen to the left window sill. No blood in the grout in the entire area which Ms. Routier is said to have slit her throat so deeply it came within 2mm of one of the most important arteries that supply blood to the brain. How can this be?

If there is even the slightest possibility of finding such a clean up why was Luminol sprayed in front of and inside the sink but not the backwash, the windowsill, the outside pots containing plants with plenty of foliage? Why were the dishes to the left of the sink not so much as shown in any picture to show the cast off blood inside, around, or on the underside? Why is my attention directed to the one place Darlie says she was, and substantiated by her husband in going back and forth from the kitchen sink with towels to help her sons? In the Arrest Warrant Jimmy Patterson, the lead detective who took advantage of his 5th Amendment Privilege at trial, states: "Although attempts had been made to clean the counter top and sink, tests with Luminol revealed blood on the top of the counter in front of the sink." Ladies and gentlemen, LOOK AT THE CRIME SCENE photo above. Does one need Luminol to detect blood on the top of the counter in front of the sink?

In the crime scene photos we see further substantiation that supports the testimony of both Mr. and Mrs. Routier. We see towels littering the living room area where the body of Devon laid dead, and where Damon was removed. We see towels where Officer Waddell and Lt. Walling testify they both saw Ms. Routier. Yet, we are expected to disregard all this support and solely focus on theory plucked from the minds of investigators to support their supposition of Ms. Routier's guilt. Why? The answer seems to be that scientific forensic testing answered this question - but did it really?

According to Officer David Mayne's testimony (Vol 33) he arrived on the scene at approximately 4:15 AM - almost 2 hours after Darlie engaged the recorded 911 call. By that time Sergeant David Nabors had knowledge of the bloody sock found in the alley, 75 yards away (almost the length of a football field) from the Routier home. It was Officer David Mayne that photographed the sock. It was Sergeant David Nabors that performed the luminol testing to the sink.

Not long after the crime the Rowlett PD was in possession of the knowledge that a bloody sock was in the alley. However, there was no visible blood, to the naked eye, going between the sock and the Routier home. Please forgive me at this junction, but isn't that what luminol is specifically for? The detection of invisible blood opposed to visible blood? Doesn't this marvelous scientific wonder enable law enforcement to investigate in ways that were impossible in years past? If this is true why then wasn't the gate, fence, driveway, and alley sprayed with this remarkable forensic investigative tool? Why was it used, instead, in a visually bloody area? I implore you, the American public, to answer this question rationally, logically, and without bias.

According to trial transcript testimony 2 of Rowlett's finest were sent down this alley on a search. This is entirely expected under these circumstances. One dead 6-year old lying at the scene, 1 5-year old had been rushed from the scene for immediate medical attention, and a 26-year old mother bleeding profusely from the neck and other areas. Of course it is logical for the entire area surrounding the scene to be searched, and that circle continue to broaden as time passes. The alley is reasonable - logical - totally acceptable.

The results of this search, nevertheless, are unreasonable, illogical, and absolutely unacceptable. Those 2 officers were looking in trash cans, even dumping the content out in their search - looking in cars, backyards, boats, and anything else located in the near vicinity. However, they literally saw knives sinking in the ground of the backyard located within arms reach of the sock containing the blood of both boys'. Yet, these officers's played both judge and jury to this evidence, and left these untouched and uncollected. Were these boys and their mother not viciously attacked with an instrument of like nature? What exactly were they looking for in this alley anyway? Why would the prosecutor send Rowlett officers back the following November to collect that evidence when it was impossible to ascertain the origins of those items eventually taken into evidence? Is this acceptable behavior from any member of law enforcement seeking to protect our communities from a deranged lunatic that has no misgivings of viciously murdering 2 innocent children in the safety of their home? I think not!

Many reading this will probably never have the time to invest reading the trial transcript. I can understand this, and sympathize. I have done this for you and wish to bring your attention to the fact that the entire kitchen sink, as well as the plumbing underneath were taken into evidence by the Rowlett Police Department. (They didn't collect evidence down the alley, or even try to discover whether their was a trail any blood to the sock - but from the beginning focused solely on collecting evidence that would prove Ms. Routier guilt to the exclusion of getting to the truth.)

The sink and plumbing were analyzed by forensic experts - not necessarily starting with David Nabors, as he was not certified for this expertise at the time of the Routier investigation. What was revealed by these forensics are interesting. However, the findings do not support the States case. In reality it supports the testimony of both Mr. & Mrs. Routier. You see, there were strains of the kitchen towels embedded in the plumbing - as well as blood which came from water running and Ms. Routier actively bleeding. The findings are not unusual, unrealistic or surprising. What isn't found, IF A CLEAN UP OCCURRED, is the material in which a clean up was made.

Our eyes are focused, each and every time on the lights going off and the sink lit up with the blue illumination of the luminol. We are not expected to wonder where the chemical analysis is of the sink itself is or whether such a report exists at all. Pictures of the content under the sink are shown in the States exhibits. We have the testimony from Charles Linch and Judith Floyd. What we don't have is the report revealing the chemical break down of Ajax or other cleaning agents under the sink. We do not have bloody prints matching Ms. Routier's on any of those items, or proof that the sponge, kitchen towel, paper towel or any other rag was saturated with cleaning agents mixed with blood. Are forensics so sophisticated it can pin-point a single rape suspect, but it cannot give us a break down of chemical agents used in a clean up of a crime scene when a clean up has occurred?

The State, in my view, has not provided us with evidence or testimony that should cause anyone to doubt Mr. or Mrs. Routier's testimony. What is found is manipulation within the body of their presentation, at trial and continued remarks giving in the post-trial interviews, of Mr. Greg Davis, Mr. Toby Shook, and all the representatives of the Rowlett Police Department, including David Nabors.

It is my opinion, and others, that this is a specific incidence of faulty forensics knowingly used by the Dallas County District Attorneys Office in order to win a conviction whether Ms. Routier was guilty or not. Justice did not matter. Closing the case and how it affected ongoing careers took top priority.

Justice was not found for Devon and Damon Routier back in January 1997. Convicting any American citizen based on character assassination and faulty forensics, and sentencing them to death is unacceptable. If you intend to seek such a sentence, Mr. American Prosecutor, we the American people demand a high standard of evidence that ties one individual, and one individual alone, to that crime. That isn't the case here in with The State of Texas v. Darlie Lynn Routier. I object! The safety and well being of all our communities have been left at risk of a horrible danger when this is accomplished. I suggest we all ponder this deeply and apprehend the consequences of these actions.