The first four episodes of The Last Defense examine the criminal case established against Darlie Routier. The first episode depicts how a housewife in Dallas was sentenced to death for the malicious homicide of her two sons. Routier’s husband narrates the events as they unfolded from his perspective. The second episode shows the beginning of the trial as Darlie narrated the events from firsthand experience. Several defense experts were also interviewed to present their theories regarding the murder. In the third episode, the prosecutors played a video that showed Darlie having fun while at her sons’ gravesite. The fourth episode discusses how defense attorneys planned to issue a retrial based on alternative murder theories. Furthermore, the episode reveals the agony experienced by the couple while Darlie was on death row. The paper will discuss the circumstantial evidence that was used to prosecute and convict Darlie.
One of the most disturbing pieces of evidence concerned the nature of the wounds suffered by the victims. The coroner, Janice Townsend-Parchman, used her expertise to show that the boys suffered deep, savage wounds. Contrariwise, Darlie’s cuts were classified as hesitation wounds. The prosecution claimed that the defendant’s wounds were probably self-inflicted to fool investigators and support her theory that there had been an intruder. Hence, this piece of evidence portrayed Darlie as cold and calculating. The evidence was circumstantial since it was possible that the assailant had inflicted mild wounds on Darlie as he tried to escape from the house.
The prosecution also claimed that Darlie never inquired about the condition of her children. Larry Byford, a paramedic, was in the ambulance together with the defendant and her stricken sons. The paramedic testified that Darlie seemed unconcerned about the welfare of her children. The prosecution alleged that her lack of deep concern was a manifestation of her guilt. Nevertheless, the evidence is circumstantial since the defendant probably knew that the boys were already dead. The prosecution also failed to consider the possibility that Darlie was in a state of shock and paranoia. She could not be judged for her emotional reaction to the death of her sons.
Besides, the prosecution recruited a fingerprint expert, Charles Hamilton, to provide incriminating evidence. Charles testified that the only prints found at the scene were those of the boys and their mother. Thorough examination of the scene could not yield external fingerprints from possible intruders. The evidence was circumstantial since the attacker could have used gloves or other means to clean his prints. Indeed, the lack of fingerprints was not conclusive enough to imply that there were no other people at the crime scene. The officers could also have missed different sets of fingerprints during their investigation of the scene. Incorrect storage of samples could explain the adverse findings.
Another piece of evidence used to convict Darlie was the blood analysis. A blood expert, Tom Bevel, provided testimony concerning the blood found at the scene. The blood on the defendant’s shirt was rightly identified as belonging to Darlie’s sons. The blood expert claimed that the blood splattered on the defendant’s nightshirt while she stabbed her children. Although the garment could have been sprayed in the manner described, other possibilities could not be eliminated. In fact, the blood on the shirt could have gushed while the defendant raised her children as they lay stricken on the floor. Futile attempts to stop the bleeding would definitely cause blood to be sprayed onto Darlie’s nightshirt. Therefore, the evidence presented regarding the blood analysis was clearly circumstantial.
Additional circumstantial evidence was provided concerning the conduct shown by Darlie while at the hospital. Some nurses testified that the defendant was not appropriately grieved after her sons were pronounced dead. The nursing professionals also stated that Darlie’s main concern was explaining how her prints came to be on the knife. She frequently claimed to have picked the knife off the kitchen floor rather than having used it to stab her children. The evidence provided by the nurses was circumstantial since people expressed grief in different ways. In this respect, it was insensitive and irresponsible to allege that someone was not remorseful based on his or her lack of emotion. Some people chose to wail and weep loudly while others seemed quiet and pensive. Since each person had a unique emotional makeup, it was unrealistic to expect that everyone would react in a similar manner.
The state of denial caused some people to act as if the tragedy had not occurred. Moreover, the explanations given by Darlie could not conclusively prove that she had committed the crimes. The defense team could argue that Darlie suddenly realized that she would be blamed for the death of her sons. Attempts to explain one’s innocence could never be misconstrued to show that the individual was guilty. The nurses were unqualified to provide testimony regarding the defendant’s state of mind. Consequently, evidence regarding the defendant’s demeanor while at the hospital was inadmissible.
The prosecution used the Routiers’ vacuum cleaner to build their case against Darlie. Some blood spots were found on the vacuum cleaner while additional amounts of blood were found under the cleaner. The prosecutors claimed that the vacuum cleaner was moved after the crime occurred. In this regard, they claimed that blood could not have been found at the bottom of the implement if the item had not been moved. The presence of blood on the cleaner proved that it had been near the scene when the crime occurred. Nonetheless, it was impossible to prove that the object had been purposely moved to conceal the crime. Even if the defendant moved the cleaner, it did not automatically mean that she committed the crime. Hence, the blood evidence from the vacuum cleaner was purely circumstantial.
Furthermore, the prosecution enlisted testimony from a qualified trace-evidence expert, Charles Linch. The expert witness stated that it was practically impossible for someone to leave the crime scene without leaving behind a trail comprising of the victims’ blood. Investigators showed that they had not found any drops of blood outside the home of the Routiers. The evidence from the trace-evidence expert was circumstantial since it did not consider all possibilities. As a matter of fact, an intruder could have discarded the soiled garments after leaving the house. If the murder was premeditated, an intruder may have carried a backpack to carry his bloodied clothes. The intruder could have stabbed the boys while holding them away from him. In this manner, the perpetrator may have avoided the splattering blood. Therefore, the trace-evidence expert’s assertions could be disproved through alternative reasoning.
Evidence from Al Brantley, a special agent with the FBI, discounted possible theories of rape or robbery. The window screen that was apparently cut could have been easily detached by the assailant. Robbery was disproved as a theory since the defendant’s expensive pieces of jewelry were left behind. If the intruder wanted to rape Darlie, he would have used her children to leverage the defendant into submission. Brantley theorized that it was highly unlikely for the rapist to murder the children in such a brutal fashion. The special agent claimed that the stabbing was perpetrated by someone with a personal connection to the boys. A stranger could hardly have wielded the knife so savagely against young children. The evidence was circumstantial since the special agent could not testify concerning the perpetrator’s mental state or intentions. Although it was unlikely for strangers to hurt children with such brutality, it was not beyond the realm of possibility.
Circumstantial evidence was presented regarding the defendant’s actions after the crime. For instance, the prosecution alleged that Darlie provided conflicting statements to police officers. Since the defendant’s dog failed to bark at the assailant, it was presumed that there were no strangers in the compound on the night of the murders. Prosecutors claimed that Darlie cleaned her kitchen in an effort to conceal blood stains. The latter pieces of evidence were circumstantial since the intruder could have lulled Darlie’s dog. Although the dog routinely barked at strangers, it could not be proved that the animal always acted that way. Darlie’s attempt to clean her kitchen could not be misconstrued to show her guilt. Rape victims also tried to shower after experiencing assault even though they knew that such an action would eliminate the intruder’s evidence. Consequently, the episodes reveal plenty of circumstantial evidence that was presented against Darlie.
