Talk:Darlie Routier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute [Claims of innocence][edit]

She is a convicted murderer, that is a fact. Outside of fleeting mentions of her innocence claims, her claims should not be elaborated on, and this should not be a forum for Routier's supporters.

The bottom line here is that she is guilty, and she has been convicted of murder. Wikipedia deals with factual information. If any notable events occur that result in a retrial, then the entry should be revised.

This is not the place for amateur Poirots. User:Makeitrain states that "The claims should speak for themselves" and that "Any further argument based upon them should take place in a court, then described in the article", in essence suggesting that the claims should remain in the entry but, the arguments against these claims should not be. These claims come from Routier's supporters, not from anyone with training in police procedure, or forensics- in short people who are not qualified to formulating such theories. Both Routier's insistence of innocence and arguments against have no place here. She is the convicted murderer of one of her children. Even that fact is used by the conspiracy theory/Darlie is innocent bunch. Just for the record, they held out the second charge in order to try Routier again in the case of a surprise 'not guilty' verdict, a common practice in cases like this.

Posting any specific, unfounded claims by supporters, regardless of their validity or lack of, have the effect of using this article to "throw" these "theories" out there

If there was credible, verifiable evidence of a miscarriage of justice here, and there is not, then that information should be posted, otherwise we have wholly unqualified people attempting to make something devious out of innocuous actions like the police moving crime scene evidence (standard crime scene behavior), or insisting that because one of Darlie's self inflicted, superficial wounds on her was very close to artery (few other than those with medical training, or physiology, would even realize that an artery was located in this spot), so therefore, it had to be inflicted by the intruder who was nice enough to only inflict superficial wounds on her, after "he" butchered her two sons.

Specifically citing unsubstantiated claims, essentially creates a situation where other posters will refute them. To cavalierly state that "people should know they are just claims" is just an attempt to circumvent Wikipedia policy regarding unsubstantiated information. If this sort of 'wink and nod' approach is allowed her, then the same warped logic could be used to have paragraphs in Tom Cruise's entry regarding alleged homosexual tendencies (there just theories, right?, People should be aware of that) or half a page of right wing ravings on President Obama's entry claiming he is Muslim, I'm sorry but this is the area we are entering if the Routier article is allowed to become a Sam Sheppard style defacto personal web page, which is the direction it is heading.

We have a woman, who is a convicted murderer, who claims innocence (which many criminals do every single day), and whose supporters offer unqualified opinions and theories in place of facts.

This article should be re-written in an objective way, without the conspiracy theories included.

Many murderers claim innocence or madness, especially sociopaths who can not take for their actions.( (talk) 05:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

This section is clearly written/edited by someone having such a bias against Ms. Routier that they're shadowing the article to include unsupported refutation of any claims of innocence made. The claims should speak for themselves. Any further argument based upon them should take place in a court, then described in the article. Debate on something that could or could not take place in the future is irrelevant: the event to take place (i.e., testing of the claims of innocence in a court) will play out on its own regardless of previous debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeitrain (talkcontribs) 10:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I edited the article to try to make it sound less biased, but it may still need work. I added some "citation needed" tags to the article, but only to the statements most in need of citations. The entire article is currently unreferenced and needs significant style editing. I will work more on this when I have more time. Andrea Parton (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe that the comments show bias. The WIKI is supposed to be an article not a forum for the defense or the prosecution. Stating both sides of an argument shows unbiased results. There is nothing that is listed in the article that was not substantiated. There are several biased incidents that could have been used such as the conversation with the police by Mr. Routier at the hospital regarding his wife's breasts or the statements by neighbors that indicated Ms. Routier did not allow her children inside the house to play for fear of them creating a mess and the children were most often seen running around the neighborhood. Then there was the rumor given regarding the relationship with Ms. Routier's sister and the argument that ensued because of it earlier in the evening. The bruises on her arms in pictures could have also been from the children fending off attack would be unqualified and unsubstantiated speculation that could constitute bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the comments do not show bias. They are simply claims that have been made by Darlie Routier's family, and they are correctly attributed as such. Most adults would understand that family members of someone accused of a crime would have a biased view of the accusation, and allow for that bias in reading their claims. The claims are not presented as generally accepted facts but simply as claims by someone connected with Ms. Routier. This case is controversial, and I have seen some rather emotional arguments made by both sides elsewhere on the internet. It is reasonable to present correctly attributed claims made by those connected with the case, so long as they are properly attributed. Eljefe3126 (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem is, the info on the case is very sketchy and uninformative. Other websites have much more factual information than this one does. As I read the article it simply feels as if someone has gone through and biased it for Darlie. Perhaps two sections could be added, one for the defense's case and one for the prosecution, which would seem to work better than having rebuttal comments included with almost every accusation. There is little info concerning the claims of "amnesia" and key prosecutorial evidence concerning blood spatter, tracks and other evidence. As far as claims of innocence, of course that deserves a section, but the bottom line is Mrs. Routier was convicted in court of law, she is guilty, so it isn't biased to refer to her as such and reference evidence that contributed to the verdict. It only makes sense that the article would show some bias, as she was convicted of the crime. Supertheman (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Quote"This section is clearly written/edited by someone having such a bias against Ms. Routier that they're shadowing the article to include unsupported refutation of any claims of innocence made."

The "claims" are what are "unsupported refutation" of the established facts. They don't merit inclusion in a Wikipeda article based on established, and they certainly have no merited consideration in the judicial system.

It's not a matter of bias, it's a matter of fact, and Wikipedia is predicated on factual information, not conspiracy theories, and ubsubstansiated claims of innocence. She has been convicted of murder. She is a convicted murderer, and barring some highly improbable events, she will not be vindicated. All you have here is a convicted murderer claiming innocence, and people who have no qualification in forensics or detective work advocating for someone and citing half truths, outright lies and utter nonsense.

Her claims of innocence have been refuted by court after court and her appeal process is effectively at its end.

So let's some it all up, shall we:

Darlie Routier was convicted of killing her son, and was found guilty based on the evidence. That's a fact.

All she has is a claim to innocence, but nothing to back it up with. Her supporters cite minutea that they claim must mean something, but numerous courts have found her claims frivolus, and totally lacking in merit.

There is no "debate here. She is a convicted murderer. That is not bias, that is fact.

A crazy killer claiming innocence just means a crazy killer is claiming innocence, nothing else, that she claims innocence, as do many other murderers who can't take repsonsibility for their reprehensible actions, does not mean that a serious debate must be undertaken. The debate has already ended.

Wikipedia is not a community forum for conspiracy theories. You could claim Hitler is innocent too, but I would not waste time with it.

Quote:" Perhaps two sections could be added, one for the defense's case and one for the prosecution"

There was already something like that outside of Wikipedia, it was called a trial, and it's ended and she was found guilty, however some of her supporters/conspiracy theorists are acting as if nothing was settled when it was.

The verdict was rendered, and now we have people posting specific weasaly claims of innocence and want the totally unsubstansiated claims to have equal time with established facts, in short using the board for a discussion forum. The discussion is already over.

To be posting unsubstantiated claims alongside real evidence is to attempt to negate the trial itself and re-frame it as some kind of denial of justice.

The claims of innocence and the convoluted cited reasons to believe it are the ramblings of the killer's family, and people who are not qualified or versed in understanding evidence, let alone claims that have been essentially laughed out of court each time they were presented on appeal.

You have evidence vetted by law enforcement, physicians, criminal prosecutions and legal scholars on one side and ravings of a sociopath that have the backing of Routier's family and that of ill informed misfit conspiracy theorists. I'll go with the earlier bunch!( (talk) 10:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia deals with matters of fact.
It is a fact that the Routier murder case is controversial, with hundreds of people still actively researching and commenting on the case years after the events.
It is a fact that many of these hundreds of people believe that Darlie Routier did not get a fair trial and was wrongly convicted.
It is a fact that Darlie's family members have made the assertions contained in the article.
These are simple facts. In a sense, this is similar to stating in an article about the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination that "many people dispute the findings of the report and believe that Kennedy was murdered by a conspiracy that may have included the Mafia, the Cuban government under Fidel Castro, the US CIA, or some combination of these organizations". That is a fact. It doesn't matter that Kennedy was almost certainly murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone, that no convincing alternate explanation of the assassination has emerged over more than 40 years, or that such people are almost universally denounced as "conspiracy theorists". It is simply a fact that they exist, and that there are many of them. Similarly, it is a simple fact that many people believe Darlie Routier was wrongly convicted, no matter how strongly you believe otherwise. So long as the material is presented and correctly sourced as assertions by those who believe the conviction was incorrect, this does not stray from Wikipedia's charter as an encyclopedia of fact.Eljefe3126 (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Recap of book[edit]

I just finished reading "Hush Little Babies". The book made me curious, so I Googled it, and ended up here. This article seems to be largely a recap of that book. Georgejdorner (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


The crime for which Routier was convicted is "capital murder," not "first degree murder," under the Texas Penal Code. I am unsure about the "penalty" label. On the one hand, the punishment for capital murder in general is either death or life imprisonment. On the other hand, she was in fact sentenced to death.Johnm307 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Time since arrest and murder[edit]

In the Divorce section there is the following: "He went on to say that they decided on the divorce to move on from the "limbo" they've been in for the 18 years since her arrest and conviction." Even as of the writing of this comment (which is occurring a year after the referenced article) it's only been 16 years since the murders happened, according to the intro of the article. I'd edit this but I'm not familiar with this case, and not sure if I'm overlooking something that would make that quote make more sense.-- (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Old Unsolved Mysteries Segment Mentioned Serial Attacker In The Area.....Request Help For Information[edit]

I just rewatched an old Unsolved Mysteries segment that mentioned that there was a man in the area that was committing attacks similar to this case. The man would break into homes, attack the family with their own knives from their kitches, and would wear a sock on his hand in order to try to prevent leaving fingerprints. It was theorized that perhaps the Routiers were victims of this man. When the police were asked about any possible connection they just gave this wishy-washy reply, which is consistant when a conviction has already been obtained. If this is true then this is evidence indicating Darlie Routier was innoccent. Perhaps someone reading this can locate additional sources and update the article?BoyintheMachine (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


This article has been edited into virtual incoherence and minimal substance--all with no discussion whatsoever. It's one thing to correct facts or enforce NPOV, but simply removing whacking great chunks of information is not the answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, people are making huge changes that affect the entire article without even a fig-leaf of discussion.

"Neutrality" is not some sort of prophylactic against being made to look bad. It's simply not possible to discuss the crimes committed by a convicted murderer in a way that doesn't make her look bad to some degree. She wasn't dabbing away tears during her testmony--she had a complete breakdown, which is recorded in the transcripts. If you have a problem with the word "crumbled", that's fine: but the solution to a word you find "unneutral" is not to find the wishy-washyest word you can think of to offset it--that is equally weaselly. The reality is that she broke down on the stand.

"Became tearful" is a pretty clear assertion to me, but I'm open to tweaks of that. I view myself as part of a very large team trying to make these articles the most encyclopedic that we can. Often we won't get it right on the first shot.
I can agree with your first couple of statements - and we could include them as long as we can quote reliable sources that have said the same thing. We just do not apply any interpretation, original research or synthesis of sources in the encyclopedia. Being at the trial and seeing her crumble, then writing that without a source, would be one example of original research. Everything contentious, especially about a living person, should have a reliable source inline in the article. (You don't want to sign into Darliepedia one day, do you? :) These policies protect us.)
Crumbled, to me, is vague and seems to endorse a particular view without the facts (did she cry? double over sobbing? get really rattled and stutter? change her story?). WP:WTW, one of our guidelines that people are reluctant to compromise on, says we should avoid words that are "flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view." One way we get around that (to an extent, with some balance) is through direct quotes.
Also remember to put four of these ~ signs at the end of your talk page posts so that we can figure out who is talking to who with each post. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 01:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The other thing to consider is how to restructure the article so that it is easier to read. Currently we have a photo of the Mountain View Unit in the trial section, which is not the appropriate place. We have a couple of very short sections that would be better merged into other sections. I tried to do that, but it was reverted. It is possible that retitling some of the sections would help the organization, but I don't want to force this on anyone if the majority doesn't find this article to be disjointed, random and confusing like I do. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 01:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I was the one that reverted you edit, but only because it created confusion by conflating Darlie's websites and David Camm's "Innocence Investigation" with Darlie's actual appeal process. I think you are right that there needs to be an edit, but I think that a chance that big should have some discussion about how to do it. I totally agree with you about the disjointed and random quality of the article at present, and welcome any attempt to fix that. (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. Really, neither of the websites meet the standards set by WP:ELNO and (especially) WP:ELBLP. Per those guidelines, they don't belong in the article, whether in the External links section or in the body. Usually we wouldn't even mention an official website in the body of the article unless there is independent third-party coverage of the site, like a newspaper report that describes how the site is important on its own.
The Camm assertions don't appear in the linked article, unless I'm missing something. Even if we're able to properly source it, if Camm's work isn't related to helping her discover evidence for an appeal, is it really of encyclopedic value? I don't think anyone would mistake Camm for a court official, but are we saying that this work isn't all related to trying to get her out of jail on appeal? EricEnfermero HOWDY! 01:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No prediction of future events[edit]

My edit reflected the CURRENT status of the case--ie that questions of legal error and the quality of the investigation have been settled by the court. It makes no prediction about what the outcome of ongoing DNA testing will be.

The source provided is NOT non-neutral--it is the transcript of the official court record. That it is hosted on a non-neutral site is irrelevant--the document contains no editorial content and is itself neutral. (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as WP:CRYSTAL , it says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place."

My post satisfies all three criteria: It is the only chance Darlie has of a new trial (notable): it is a court ordered process that is already underway (making it almost certain to take place), and no date for completion was specified or even suggested. (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

We can't say that DNA will be the only chance for retrial. No one can know whether there is something else that could represent a basis for retrial. We could report that a certain neutral, independent and reliable source says DNA is her best chance, but it's not our job as an encyclopedia to come to that conclusion independently. You're right that neutrality is not the biggest problem with the passage. WP:BLPPRIMARY is a bigger problem here. We really try to limit the use of primary sources like court documents and we don't rely on them in biographies of living people. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 02:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I would argue that we CAN say that DNA is the only chance for retrial Darlie has exhausted ever other legal avenue open to her. Her appeals are used up, her writ of Habeas Corpus has been denied. The ONLY legal process still in play is the DNA testing. However I concede that there is probably a way to word the the passage in a way that sounds less like speculation, but it would seem to me that the solution that problem is to EDIT the information, not simply delete it. I'd welcome your help with that, since you seem to have a good feel for what would work. As to the use of primary sources, I have no objection to the source being removed if that makes people happier PROVIDED the information is not then deleted under the pretext that it is unreferenced or uncited. The previous assert (completely unreferenced) about the defense claims has been allowed to stand unmolested--the same should apply to the court's response to those claims (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Once again, if you have a problem with two words in an edit, the proper response is TO REMOVE THE TWO WORDS, not arbitrary delete the entire passage. You seem to be trying to provoke an edit war over this by simply deleting legitimate edits instead of trying to improve or even discuss them67.193.142.207 (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your understanding initially and I hope I haven't upset you too much by aggressively defending some of WP's key policies like WP:BLP. My advice, as stated above, would be to locate a reliable source that reports on what her remaining legal avenues are. Right now there is no defense for having any of the DNA/only chance assertions in there. We can't even defend that DNA is an option for her, because we haven't sourced that. After finding a source that discusses her remaining legal options, we can come up with phrasing based on (but not identical to) that source. If I missed some primary source information or some contentious unsourced information, you would be supported by policy (WP:BLPPRIMARY or WP:BLP) if you removed it or inserted a reliable source. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 03:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
With the external link issue, that's pretty clearly spelled out in policy to me. WP:ELPOINTS (#2) and WP:ELNO (#11) were the basis for removing the links. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 03:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Eric. I'm sorry if I seem a little exasperated, but I do realize that you are not a jerk and are not trying to push for an agenda.

I have edited to remove the suggestion that this is the only chance and replaced it with the neutral statement of fact that the DNA testing is the only currently active legal process in the case. Again, if removing the source will solve the WP:BLPPRIMARY issue, by all means remove. However I strongly object to any attempt to remove information in a way that suggests that the defense claims have not been dealt with by the courts when they have--exhaustively. The only other NPOY solution would be to remove the "Claims of Innocence" section altogether, and I think we both know that the result of THAT would be (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It's no problem. I appreciate your efforts to fall in line with policy and continue working on the article. I think the easiest thing is just to say that DNA testing is pending as of _______ and stick a reliable source (like a newspaper article) on that. If that newspaper also says that DNA is the only avenue that the legal team is pursuing, we could include that as well. Thinking about the key WP policy of verifiability, I think it's going to be hard to prove that DNA is all that the lawyers are pursuing. As a separate issue, we try not to use current or currently in any article (WP:WTW) because it's hard to keep anything 100% current. We prefer "as of _______ (date)". Not to kill you with acronyms, but there is more info on basic WP referencing at WP:REFB.EricEnfermero HOWDY! 03:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I've asked Pamela if she knows of a suitable article for the source. If anyone has one, it would be Pamela. (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Why only tried for one death?[edit]

Routier's case isn't one I've studied much, but I'm considering working on this page next and was baffled by the lead section. I thought maybe it was a typo, but I looked it up and indeed an article confirmed that she was only tried for one of the deaths. Didn't two of her sons die? Why was she only tried for the one? Bali88 (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The younger son's murder qualified as a capital crime, therefore there was no need to try her for both. (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Life in Prison[edit]

i've read CNN's web page the state offered her life in prison if she dropped her appeal and admitted to her children's murder. Routier refused. is it true? should i add this information her article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hebele (talkcontribs) 18:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Darlie Routier/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 07:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 12:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

New DMN story[edit]

Not sure if this is good to add to the article but here is a recent DMN article:

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Darlie Routier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)