Christa Pike was a very young woman who would take part in a brutal crime that would leave another young woman dead and Christa sentenced to die. According to court documents Christa Pike was part of Job Corps when a rivalry began with the victim which would end with Christa Pike smashing her head in with a rock. Christa Pike would be charged and convicted and sentenced to death row in Tennessee
Christa Pike 2022 Information
Alias: PIKE, CHRISTA
TOMIS ID: 00261368 Birth Date: 03/10/1976 Race: W Sex: F
Pike became jealous of 19-year-old Colleen Slemmer, who she thought was trying to “steal” her boyfriend from her; friends of Slemmer deny the accusations. Along with friend Shadolla Peterson, 18, Pike planned to lure Slemmer to an isolated, abandoned steam plant near the University of Tennessee campus.
On January 12, 1995, Pike, Shipp, Peterson, and Slemmer signed out of the dormitory and proceeded to the woods, where Slemmer was told they wanted to make peace by offering her some marijuana.Upon arrival at the secluded location, Slemmer was attacked by Pike and Shipp while Peterson acted as lookout. Per later court testimony, for the next thirty minutes Slemmer was taunted, beaten, and slashed, and a pentagram was carved in her chest.Finally, Pike smashed Slemmer’s skull with a large chunk of asphalt, killing her. Pike kept a piece of her victim’s skull.
Pike began to show off the piece of skull around the school, and within thirty-six hours the three were arrested. The log book showed that the four of them left together and only three returned. They also found the piece of skull in Pike’s jacket pocket. The girls’ rooms were searched and a copy of the Satanic Bible was found in Shipp’s. Pike insisted they were merely trying to scare her and it got out of control.
Christa Pike More News
A federal judge has refused to overturn the death sentence for Tennessee’s only female condemned prisoner.
Christa Gail Pike is one of Tennessee’s most notorious prisoners, garnering headlines for the trouble she has caused while on death row.
In a written ruling issued Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Harry S. Mattice Jr. said the 40-year-old inmate failed to show that her constitutional rights were violated during her 1996 trial when she was sentenced to death.
Pike, who is originally from West Virginia, was 18 years old when she tortured and murdered a fellow Job Corps student on the University of Tennessee’s agricultural campus in 1995, according to authorities.
Prosecutors said she killed Colleen Slemmer because the student was a rival for her boyfriend’s affections.
Slemmer was just 19 years old when Pike, boyfriend Tadaryl Shipp and friend Shadolla Peterson lured the victim to a remote area on the agricultural campus.
In his written ruling, Mattice cited chilling details from the crime that had been detailed in a Tennessee Supreme Court opinion issued in 1998. Pike told authorities that, armed with a box cutter and miniature meat cleaver, she beat and repeatedly slashed Slemmer as the teen begged for her life. The girl’s partially clothed body was discovered the following day. Someone had carved a pentagram into her chest.
“This is not a case where (Pike’s) conviction was only weakly supported by the record,” Mattice wrote.
Pike’s lawyers had argued that her prior attorneys were ineffective at trial and should have presented more evidence of mitigating circumstances in the case. They challenged the decision to allow cameras in the courtroom before the trial, resulting in widespread publicity of the case before a jury could be seated. They also raised questions about whether her attorney had a conflict because he asked Pike to sign media rights away to her story. The lawyer, according to the opinion, said he wanted to write a book telling Pike’s side, but never did.
Pike’s new defense also said she should not be put to death because she has organic brain injury, bi-polar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. After Pike’s conviction, a neurologist would later say that the frontal lobes in Pike’s brain are not put together properly. That portion of the brain, the doctor testified, regulates the ability to make moral and ethical decisions.
It’s not clear if Pike will appeal the ruling. The inmate’s attorney did not respond to messages seeking comment.
Pike made headlines in 2012 after a guard and a New Jersey man plotted to break her out of prison. While on death row in 2001, she tried to strangle another female inmate to death with a shoe string after a fire was started at the Tennessee Prison for Women. She was later convicted of the attempted murder of the inmate.
Kimberly Cargill did not want another woman testifying against her in a child protective case so she murdered her. According to court documents Kimberly Cargill would convince the victim to come over so she could be hidden and that way not have to testify against Kimberly Cargill. In the end Kimberly Cargill would murder the woman. Kimberly Cargill would tell authorities that the victim was driving with her when she went into a seizure and died however that did not explain why the victims body was doused in gasoline and set on fire. Kimberly Cargill was convicted and sentenced to death and remains on Texas death row
The U.S. Supreme Court is refusing to review the appeal of a woman on death row for the 2010 slaying of her developmentally disabled babysitter.
Kimberly Cargill, 50, of Whitehouse in East Texas, was convicted in 2012 in Smith County. The high court refused to review her case Monday.
Cargill was sentenced to death in 2012, after she was found guilty of murdering her mentally-challenged babysitter, Cherry Walker, in 2010.
According to a previous search warrant, affidavits indicate authorities believe Cargill may have killed Walker in order to prevent her from testifying in court. In 2010, Cargill was facing a felony “injury to a child” charge regarding her four-year-old son, who Walker babysat at the time.
When Cargill was arrested for the charge, she posted bond a day following her arrest. Court records showed Cherry was subpoenaed to testify in Cargill’s custody hearing June 23, but Cargill told her not to and that she would “hide her out at her house.”
According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Walker suffered a seizure and quit breathing while she and Cargill were driving. Cargill then drove Walker to a county road where she doused Walker with lighter fluid and set her clothes on fire.
Cargill was sentenced to death in May of 2012.
Kimberly Cargill More News
An East Texas mother now awaits her execution date for capital murder.
Thursday night, a jury recommended 45-year old Kimberly Cargill be sentenced to death by lethal injection. On May 18, Cargill was convicted of the 2010 murder of her mentally challenged babysitter, Cherry Walker. Prosecutors say Cargill dumped Walker’s body and set it on fire because Walker was scheduled to testify in Cargill’s child custody hearing.
After two years of preparation, four weeks of jury selection and 18 days of trial, the attorneys for both sides were finally able to comment on the case and the verdict that is intended to cut Cargill’s life short.
Kimberly Cargill knows her fate. The verdict was something Cargill and her attorneys didn’t want to hear, but said they wouldn’t criticize either.
“A lot of decisions she has made for the last two decades have been fueled by her personality disorder. We’re not trying to excuse anything she’s done for the last 20 years, just put it in context,” said one of Cargill’s defense attorneys, Brett Harrison. Kimberly Cargill was also represented by Jeff Haas.
Throughout the trial, jurors heard Cargill’s family testify to heartbreaking stories of abuse. Three of Cargill’s four sons testified that Cargill would frequently choke, kick and hit them. They told jurors they often feared for their lives. Her sons testified that Cargill had the locks changed on their bedroom doors so she could lock them inside.
Cargill’s ex-husbands also took the stand. A couple of those ex’s told the jury Cargill would have them wrongly arrested by making up stories of assault. One of Cargill’s ex-husbands testified that, though she never admitted to it, Cargill set his apartment on fire.
Cargill’s sister testified that Cargill was clever and manipulative. She told jurors Cargill was, “the devil.” But, when Cargill’s sentence came down, Cargill’s sister closed her eyes.
Cargill’s mother testified that Cargill sometimes lost her temper and liked things to be her way. Cargill’s mother said she once heard that Cargill wanted to kill her. Though, despite their rocky relationship, Cargill’s mother clearly still loved her daughter and wanted to see the best in her.
“I’ve never come across another defendant like Kimberly Cargill,” said Smith County District Attorney Matt Bingham. Bingham says for more than 15 years he has been prosecuting people who have done horrible things to others.
“To have someone so narcissistic, someone that is so manipulative and cunning… she is the first and hopefully the last.”
It’s a case prosecutors say will always be close to their hearts.
“When the issues at hand are something that I have worked my whole life to try to stand up for, people who don’t have a voice, then it’s passionate. It’s the best part of my job to speak for victims who can’t speak for themselves and it has been a real honor, a real pleasure,” said Smith County First Assistant District Attorney April Sikes.
The Smith County District Attorney’s Office says despite everything that has happened, they feel like they’re making a difference.
“She didn’t get away with it. The victim and the family got as much justice as we can give them under the system. She’s not going to get out and hurt any of her children again and Kimberly Cargill will hurt nobody else and that’s what makes it all worth while,” said Bingham.
When Cargill’s verdicts were read, she stood in the courtroom emotionless. For most of the trial, Cargill silently sat next to her attorneys. She cried at least twice; once when one of her sons was on the stand and again when the State showed jurors photos of the crime scene.
Cargill did take the stand once, in the first phase of the trial, when the jury was deciding on her guilt. She testified that Walker died of a seizure, Cargill panicked, dumped her body and set it on fire to destroy evidence.
Cargill wasn’t able to destroy it all. Investigators found a coffee creamer at the crime scene that had a profile matching Cargill’s DNA.
Though a mechanism of death was never determined, the pathologist who conducted Walker’s autopsy told the jury Walker died of homicidal violence. The pathologist said she thought she found evidence of asphyxiation, but couldn’t be positive because Walker’s body had already begun decomposing.
After 241st District Court Judge Jack Skeen accepted the jury’s verdicts, he formally sentenced Cargill to death.
Walker’s step-mother Rueon Walker took the stand and spoke to the courtroom, and then spoke to Cargill directly.
She said, “Mrs. Cargill, this is what I want you to know. Cherry loved you. She did not deserve the terrible thing you did to her.”
Rueon also said she and Cherry’s father, Gethry, did not hate Cargill, but did hate what she did.
“We have to accept what God has allowed. He allowed this to happen for a reason and we accept that. We don’t hate you because we’re not made out of hate. We only have love and pity and compassion for you,” Rueon said.
Smith County District Attorney Matt Bingham says Cargill is one of two Smith County women convicted of capital murder in about the least 15 years. He says the other woman pled guilty, and he believes Cargill may be the only Smith County woman to receive the death penalty. Because Cargill received the death penalty, her case will automatically be submitted to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Brittany Holberg was convicted of a brutal murder and has spend the last two decades on Texas death row. According to court documents Brittany Holberg would murder an elderly man in his home by stabbing him repeatedly, blows with a hammer and a foot long lamp pole was shoved down his throat. Brittany Holberg would soon be arrested, convicted and sentenced to death
Brittany Holberg was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for the robbery-murder of eighty-year-old A.B. Towery, Sr. Towery was walking back to his apartment after purchasing groceries on the afternoon of November 13, 1996, when Brittany Holberg asked to use his telephone. When Towery allowed the appellant to enter his apartment, a struggle ensued in which Towery sustained fifty-eight stab wounds and multiple blunt-force trauma injuries. Brittany Holberg used several items in the apartment as weapons, including a cast iron skillet, a steam iron, a hammer, a paring knife, a butcher knife, and two forks. Additionally, the appellant shoved a lamp base five inches down Towery’s throat.
Brittany Holberg—a severe drug addict—was high on crack cocaine when this attack occurred. After the attack, the appellant showered, changed into some of Towery’s clean clothes, and fled the scene with $1,400 in cash and prescription medications, both stolen from Towery’s apartment. Later that evening, she purchased more cocaine using a portion of the cash she had stolen earlier. Towery’s son, Rocky Towery, discovered his father’s body at 7:45 a.m. the following morning in a supine position with the lamp base lodged in his throat, a knife stuck in his abdomen, and his father’s wallet lying on top of his body.
Brittany Holberg More News
Brittany Holberg’s confession to the 1998 slaying of an Amarillo man and a litany of drug-addicted or marginally credible witnesses plagued her defense team as it prepared the trial’s punishment phase, an attorney testified Thursday.
On March 13, 1998, a Randall County jury found Brittany Holberg, now 40, guilty of capital murder in the Nov. 13, 1996, slaying of A.B. Towery Sr., 80.
Towery had been beaten and stabbed nearly 60 times in his apartment. Investigators found Towery slumped against a closet with a lamp pole partially shoved down his throat.
In May, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ordered a Randall County court hearing to take testimony from Holberg’s former defense team about how they gathered possible mitigating evidence in the case and to investigate claims that her attorneys “threw” the trial, allegations her lawyers denied.
Brittany Holberg, who was sentenced to death in 1998, was arrested Feb. 17, 1997, outside a McDonald’s restaurant in Memphis, Tenn., after “America’s Most Wanted” aired multiple segments on the slaying.
Candace Norris, one of Holberg’s former attorneys, said Holberg confessed to Memphis authorities after she was arrested there, called her mother and possibly implicated herself in the killing.
“She had given a confession to this, and this was a big problem,” Norris said of the defense team’s trial concerns.
Leslie Kuykendall, an assistant attorney general, also asked if Holberg also made a “confession of sorts” to her mother, and Norris replied that she had.
The defense, Norris said, later opted to not to call Holberg’s mother, a Potter County jailer, as a punishment phase witness, in part, because the woman appeared to be more concerned that her testimony would conflict with vacation plans
Frequently Asked Questions
Brittany Holberg Photos
Brittany Holberg FAQ
Brittany Holberg 2021
Brittany Holberg is currently incarcerated on Texas Death Row For Women
Why Is Brittany Holberg On Death Row
Brittany Holberg was convicted in a brutal murder
Brittany Holberg More News
After a knee injury Holberg became addicted to painkillers. This led to the use of street drugs, a habit she supported with sex work. Holberg claims she was introduced to Towery by a fellow prostitute named “Green Eyes”, but investigators were not able to verify her claim. During the trial, Defense Attorney Catherine Brown Dodson argued that Towery was wrongly portrayed as an innocent elderly man, and that Holberg acted in self defense when Towery attacked her. Dodson said A.B. Towery became angry and violent when he found a crack pipe on Holberg. She told the jury that Towery struck Holberg twice in the head with a metal pan while her back was turned, and then threatened her with a knife. Holberg reacted by stabbing him with her own knife, and the fight escalated until Holberg put the lamp post in his mouth to attempt to end the struggle. Holberg believed she would have little legal recourse, because of her status as a drug-abusing prostitute, and fled to Tennessee.[3] Despite her self defense claim, after the murder she showered, then exchanged her bloody clothes for some of his clean clothes. She also robbed him of $1400 that was in his wallet.
In 2015, James Farren, the district attorney of Randall County, stated that due to the legal complications involving the Holberg case and the resulting legal expenses—he estimated the cost was about $400,000—and time expended, he would pursue life imprisonment without parole for future capital murder cases unless exceptional circumstances occur.[5]
Melissa Lucio is on Texas Death Row for the murder of her two year old daughter. According to court documents paramedics showed up at the household and found the victim not breathing with no pulse. Lucio told the paramedics that the child had fallen down the stairs. However at the hospital the doctors found that the young child had been severely abused including a broken arm, bite marks on her back and bald spots on her head as well as countless other wounds.
When questioned by police Lucio said her child had fallen down the stairs and that the other children were responsible for her other injuries. Melissa Lucio would be convicted and sentenced to death
Melissa Lucio was charged with capital murder for the death of her two-year-old daughter, Mariah. A jury convicted Melissa Lucio of this offense, and the trial court sentenced Melissa Lucio to death pursuant to the jury’s answers to the special issues at the punishment phase. Melissa Lucio raises fourteen points of error on direct appeal. Finding no reversible error, we overrule these points of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
The evidence presented in this case shows that, at about 7:00 p.m. on Saturday, February 17, 2007, paramedics were dispatched to an apartment where Melissa Lucio lived with nine of her children and an adult male named Robert Alvarez, who was the father of at least seven of these children and whom Melissa Lucio referred to as her husband. (1) One of the paramedics (Nester) testified that, when the paramedics entered the apartment, they found Mariah unattended and lying on her back in the middle of the floor not breathing and with no pulse. Nester observed that appellant’s “distant” and not “overly distressed” behavior was “so far out of the ordinary” that he “put it into the report.” Nester also testified that he “noted the fact that [appellant] was not-she wasn’t even within arm’s reach of the child much less trying to gasp [sic], hold her, or trying to do anything to hold them [sic].”
Melissa Lucio told police and paramedics at the scene that Mariah had fallen down some stairs. Mariah was transported to a hospital emergency room where she was pronounced dead. The condition of Mariah’s body indicated that she had been severely abused. There were bruises in various stages of healing covering her body, there were bite marks on her back, (2) one of her arms had been broken probably about two to seven weeks before her death, and she was missing portions of her hair where it had been pulled out by the roots. The emergency room physician (Vargas) testified that this was the “absolute worst” case of child abuse that he had seen in his 30 years of practice. Vargas also testified that his emergency-room visual and manual inspection of Mariah indicated no apparent signs of a head injury.
The chief forensic pathologist for Cameron and Hidalgo Counties (Farley), who conducted Mariah’s autopsy on Monday, February 19, 2007, testified that Mariah’s cause of death was “blunt force head trauma,” which would have occurred within 24 hours prior to her death, and it would have been immediately apparent that Mariah was in distress and in need of medical attention. Farley testified that Mariah suffered “multiple contusions” to her head area and that “blunt force head trauma . . . basically means, beat about the head with something-an object, a hand, a fist, or slammed.” Farley testified that these injuries would not have been caused by falling down some stairs and that this was the most severe case of child abuse she had ever seen.
On the night of February 17, 2007, several investigators questioned Melissa Lucio for about five hours, beginning at about 10:00 p.m. This interview was videotaped and was admitted into evidence in three separate DVDs (State’s Exhibits, 3, 4, and 5). Appellant initially told the police that Mariah had fallen down some stairs on Thursday night, February 15, 2007. For about three hours, appellant denied any knowledge of how Mariah became so badly bruised and suggested that her older children could have been responsible.
Texas Ranger Escalon began to question Melissa Lucio about two and one-half hours into the interrogation. Escalon testified at trial that, while he observed other investigators questioning her, he could tell from appellant’s demeanor that she was “beat” and that she was “hiding the truth.”
Q. [STATE]: Now, Officer, as you went in, you waited for a pause before you went in and you introduced yourself?
A. [ESCALON]: Yes, sir. I did.
Q. Can you describe to the jury how you go about doing that?
A. Well, my initial observation-that’s when the investigation starts, is when I walked into the room and I see the investigators interviewing the suspect.
I’m just observing right now, trying to soak it all in, and see what we have, and try to get a better idea about this lady. And I observe her, how she’s answering these questions, her demeanor, how she’s standing. All of that is telling me-it’s like a picture, almost-I’m observing everything, and that is already feeding me-that’s already telling me what I’m dealing with. Okay? And then I see the investigators and I’m just making note-I’m am [sic] making note-you know: Okay. This is what I have.
Q. What type of demeanor would you describe her having?
A. When I walked in, she was not making eye contact with the investigator. She had her head down. So right there and then, I knew she did something. And she was ashamed of what she did, and she had a hard time admitting to officers what had occurred. That’s what crossed my mind. And I knew she was beat. I knew-when I say she was “beat”-she was giving up. She wants to tell because she’s giving that slouched appearance-you know: I did it. I’ve given up. I need to interview her, visit with her a little more. That’s what I sensed. And I get that because of my experience in law enforcement, and my experience in interviewing people. Every time it’s pretty much similar, in demeanor, in people and that’s what I have experienced.
Q. Have you had other types of experiences in your experience as a trooper and investigator in interviewing people?
A. That’s one of the most common clues you would call-that you see-somebody with their head down, and like their shoulders are slouched forward, and they won’t look at you. They’re hiding-hiding the truth. (3)
Escalon testified that Melissa Lucio began to “open up” with him after about 20 minutes of questioning. Appellant’s recorded statement reflects that she told Escalon that she, and only she, had been “spanking” or “hitting” Mariah since sometime in December 2006. Appellant stated that Alvarez never “hit” or “spanked” Mariah and that Alvarez was unaware of most of the bruises on Mariah’s body. Melissa Lucio also stated that none of the other children “beat” Mariah and that no one except appellant “beat” Mariah. Appellant also stated that Mariah had been in her care for at least the previous three days. The jury also saw appellant on the videotape demonstrate with a doll how she abused and “spanked” Mariah.
Melissa Lucio also stated that she would “hit” Mariah when appellant got mad. Melissa Lucio also described how she pinched Mariah’s vagina and how she would sometimes grab and squeeze Mariah’s arm. Appellant described how she bit Mariah twice on the back at different times about two weeks before Mariah’s death. Appellant said that on one occasion she bit Mariah on the back for no reason while she was combing Mariah’s hair. Appellant said, “I just did it.” Appellant also stated that she would “spank” Mariah several times “day after day.”
Melissa Lucio stated that Mariah was “sick” on the day that she died, but that she was afraid to take Mariah to the doctor because of all the bruises on her. Appellant also stated that Mariah would not eat and that her breathing was heavy. Melissa Lucio said that Mariah slept all day on February 17, 2007, and that she would lock her teeth together when appellant would try to feed her. This was consistent with “blunt force head trauma” symptoms that Farley described.
Q. [STATE]: If the child suffers the type of brain injury that you’ve identified on this exhibit, would this child be able to sit up, eat Cocoa Crisps, and things of that nature?
A. No. Usually with this kind of hemorrhage, the child has some type of immediate sign. Most of the time, they say they’re very tired. They may seize and get very tense, and then relax, and get very tense, and then relax. People may not realize what it is, but sometimes parents will realize that that’s a seizure, and they’ll say, they’re seizing. Yet, they’ve never had a seizure before.
The other thing they will tend to do, is, the pressure increases because the brain will start to swell. They might start to vomit. And so if an ER doctor sees them, they may think they have a gastrointestinal virus, or something. But they’re vomiting because of the pressure in the head. So seizing-lethargy being very tired. Coma is very consistent. Abnormal respirations-they’re breathing a little funny. They take a big breath, and then they sit. And then it might go out. And then-ten seconds later, maybe another breath. So the breathing starts to also be affected as the brain starts to swell.
Q. Like on this type of injury, how far back would those symptoms had [sic] been known to somebody that is watching the child? At least since the inception, or when?
A. It’s usually fairly quickly after the fatal blow occurs that they’ll start to have the symptoms. And the first symptom is, they’re usually, they’re tired. They can’t keep awake. That’s the lethargy. They just can’t get them up-can’t get them awake. They won’t eat or drink, usually. And if they do, they vomit it.
Q. Do they ever suffer a condition where they can’t open their mouth-where their jaws are locked?
A. If the jaws are locked, that’s probably a seizure. Because things tighten up and you have muscles here that tighten and relax, tighten and relax, but it shouldn’t stay that way, indefinitely.
Escalon also testified that, when he questioned Melissa Lucio, he did not know, but he suspected, that Mariah had died from a fractured skull. Escalon can be seen and heard on the videotape informing appellant that an autopsy would be performed on Mariah and asking appellant “if they’re going to find a fractured skull.” Appellant replied that an autopsy would show that Mariah did not have a fractured skull, and appellant denied hitting Mariah in the head. Escalon also testified at trial:
Q. [STATE]: Now when you’re going through the interview with her, did you know the cause of death-the exact cause of death at that point?
A. [ESCALON]: No, sir. I did not.
Q. Based upon your experience of being a police officer or a ranger, and a DPS trooper, did you have a suspicion of what that cause of death was?
A. Yes, sir. I did.
* * *
Q. What had you suspected occurred here to the child?
A. Head trauma.
* * *
Q. And I think at one point she admits to all of the [visible] injuries except for the scratch on the face and one on the heel?
A. Yes.
* * *
Q. Now in the video, there is no actual-she doesn’t actually say that she in one direct blow, or one direct shot, hits Mariah on the head, or the head area other than general spanking. Is that true?
A. Yes, sir.
* * *
Q. [DEFENSE]: Okay. But the head trauma you didn’t learn until, when you went into the autopsy, when you found out there was brain hemorrhage, and that’s what killed this child. Not the beatings, and the black and blue marks all over her body?
A. [ESCALON]: Again, when she was telling me what she did to that child, led [sic] me to believe based upon my experience the head trauma was very suspicious in this case.
* * *
Q. The emergency room doctor, yesterday, stated that you couldn’t see that there was brain hemorrhage, and that the brain hemorrhage was something that wasn’t noticeable until later on.
A. There’s other signs of trauma that can cause bleeding inside of the brain. It doesn’t have to be visible. Other signs of shaking-hitting.
A police officer (Villarreal) testified that he allowed Melissa Lucio to make a cell-phone call to her sister while he was transporting appellant to a dental office for a dental mold. Villarreal testified that Melissa Lucio appeared to be agitated and that he heard her say during the telephone call, “Don’t blame Robert. This was me. I did it. So don’t blame Robert.”
The defense presented the testimony of a medical expert (Kuri), who seemed to testify that Mariah’s fatal injuries could have been caused by a fall down the stairs.
Q. [DEFENSE]: And your testimony, basically, is that the falling down the stairs is consistent with-just as consistent with the cause of death of this child as what the State is trying to suggest as the beating?
A. Well, we received a patient-a body that have [sic] a severe head injury. It was not caused by a simple force. It was caused by a serious force. So what type of serious force? But she-the mother hit her against the wall or somebody else? I am not saying the mother. But any person that would have caused her, okay, or fell, that’s trauma. See? There’s trauma on the head. What produced it? I don’t know. I don’t think-in the head, it is specific. There is no doubt that she died because of the hemorrhage that was produced by the trauma. Now, if you ask me the question: Which would be the type of trauma? So, if she fell from the stairs and rolling, if that’s how she died? That could be one. Hitting against the board? Yes. Hit by a strong force? Too. It could be.
During closing jury arguments, the defense argued that the jury should acquit Melissa Lucio because she was guilty only of “injury to a child” for the nonfatal injuries that she inflicted upon Mariah before the fatal injuries that Mariah suffered for which appellant disclaimed responsibility. The defense also claimed that appellant was guilty only of “injury to a child” for failing to get medical attention for these fatal injuries. (4) The defense thus claimed that Melissa Lucio did not cause any of Mariah’s fatal injuries. The defense also questioned whether the State’s evidence excluded the possibility that these fatal injuries were caused by Mariah falling down stairs.
[DEFENSE]: Now, in the opening remarks that we made in the beginning of the trial after you were all seated here, I told you my client is not up for “Mother Of The Year.” I told you that my client is guilty of injury to a child. She is and she has admitted that. The question here before you is whether or not on February 17, 2007, Melissa Lucio intentionally and knowingly killed Mariah Alvarez. That’s the issue. That’s the issue. Not whether she beat her. Not whether she broke her arm. Not whether she’s a lousy mother or didn’t provide for her children. That’s not an issue. The issue is whether or not she killed Mariah on the 17th of February, 2007.
* * *
This whole case revolves around this video. This video is real important. If you have-if you cannot remember it all, play it again. It’s a long, long video. And I’m sorry for that. But this is the key to everything in this case. (5)
* * *
Folks, the State wants you to believe that that’s a confession. Does the State know at the time of the video, the caused [sic] of death of Mariah? No. They don’t know the cause of death of Mariah until the next day when they go do the autopsy. They learn after the autopsy that Mariah died from brain hemorrhage. Blunt force trauma to the head. That’s when they first know about it.
She confessed to what? She confessed to bruising that child from head to foot. She confessed to neglect. She didn’t confess to murder.
* * *
But I want to go back to the video because the video says a lot. The video is very important. Study that video because that’s where the [sic] all of the key is [sic]. Melissa Lucio said things. She didn’t have an attorney. Nobody is there to coach her and tell her what to say or how to say it. She’s there on her own. She has got Salinas, Cruz, Banda, Villarreal, and Escalon. Five law enforcement officers throwing questions at her. She’s there on her own. Nobody is helping her.
And she has told everything she knows and nobody is listening. She is telling us much: I beat this child. I neglected this child. I hurt my child, but I didn’t kill her. I didn’t hit her in the head. So how did she get the brain hemorrhage? Fell down the stairs. She fell down the stairs. Melissa Lucio says she fell down the stairs. What evidence does the State have to prove to you that this is not possible, that it didn’t happen? They don’t have anything.
* * *
And there’s a reasonable doubt, and that is the possibility of falling down the stairs.
The State argued that the evidence and inferences from the evidence that appellant abused Mariah show that it was appellant who inflicted Mariah’s fatal injuries.
[STATE]: What injuries did the child have, if not a brain injury? Well, they tried to differentiate between: Well, you know what? I may have caused 110 bruises. I may have caused two or three bites on the body. I may have twisted the arm and broken it. But you know what? I never hit her on the head. Is that reasonable? Is that reasonable? That child was slapped, according to Dr. Farley, that child was hit across the head and that’s what caused the brain hemorrhage. It wasn’t. Because the evidence was inconsistent because of the abuse that this child had taken.
* * *
But the bottom line is she committed the acts which led to the cause of [Mariah’s] death. This child had bruised kidneys, a bruised spinal cord and bruised lungs. How do you do that? I mean, what force does it take somebody to cause such devastating injuries to a child and then say: You know what? I never touched her across the head. That’s just totally-totally unbelievable.
* * *
You can draw inferences from the evidence, ladies and gentleman. And the inference is clear that she caused those injuries because it’s consistent. It’s consistent with her behavior. It’s consistent with her pattern of conduct towards this child. If this child had just come in with a head injury and nothing else, you might have said: You know what? It may have been a fall.
The State presented evidence at the punishment phase that Melissa Lucio has a prior driving-while-intoxicated conviction. The State also presented evidence that appellant committed several disciplinary violations in the county jail such as fighting with and having verbal disagreements with other inmates, possession of contraband, unauthorized communication with another person, and being disrespectful to a guard. The defense characterized these incidents as minor. The State also presented the testimony of a criminal investigator (A.P. Merrillet) for the State of Texas Special Prosecution Office, who testified about the opportunities that a life-sentenced Melissa Lucio would have to commit criminal acts of violence in prison. Merrillet also testified that he had prosecuted many prison guards for having consensual and nonconsensual sex with female inmates. The defense elicited testimony from Merrillet on cross-examination from which a jury could conclude that there would be a low statistical probability that a life-sentenced appellant would be dangerous in prison.
The State also presented the testimony of Estrada, who was a Child Protective Services (CPS) case worker. Testifying under a grant of transactional immunity because “[t]here was talk about [CPS] being indicted” as a result of Mariah’s death, Estrada testified that CPS removed Mariah and all of the other children living with appellant from appellant’s home for physical neglect and negligent supervision just after Mariah was born on September 6, 2004, and placed them in foster care. (6) Appellant visited Mariah while she was in foster care. CPS returned Mariah and eight other children to appellant’s home on November 21, 2006. Appellant told the police, during her recorded statement, that she was not close to Mariah because CPS removed Mariah from her home three weeks after she was born.
Estrada also testified about the various contacts that CPS had with Melissa Lucio between December 21, 1995, and Mariah’s death on February 17, 2007. Estrada testified that the CPS investigated various allegations, usually involving allegations of neglect and neglectful supervision, in 1995, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. Estrada testified that appellant often tested positive for cocaine and that two of appellant’s newborns tested positive for cocaine during this period of time. (7) Estrada testified that “since ’04 [appellant] had about 17 or 18 positives and about 11 negatives.” The defense suggested, through its cross-examination of Estrada, that CPS should not have returned the children “to a parent who tested positive for drugs 18 times and negative for drugs 11 times.” (8)
Estrada also testified that Melissa Lucio tested negative in the two drug tests that were offered between November 2006 and February 17, 2007. In her recorded statement, appellant told the police that she had not used drugs since February 2006, but that Alvarez had recently begun using crack cocaine. The police found paraphernalia for smoking crack cocaine in a search of appellant’s apartment after Mariah’s death. Farley testified that Mariah had cocaine in her blood at the time of her death. Other evidence was presented that Melissa Lucio received about $5,000 per month in welfare benefits most of which the State claimed appellant used to support a cocaine habit. (9)
Melissa Lucio presented the testimony of two mitigation experts (Villanueva and Pinkerman). These experts testified, based primarily on appellant’s statements to them after the charges in this case had been filed, that appellant was depressed and that she was a battered woman and had been sexually abused as a child. For example, Villanueva and Pinkerman testified,
Q. [DEFENSE]: Was she-is there any indication that she was ever abused as a young child?
A. [VILLANUEVA]: Yes, she was. She was sexually abused by one of her mother’s lovers, a live-in lover, and it lasted for approximately two years, the duration that he was in the home.
* * *
Q. [DEFENSE]: Is there any kind of abuse by her first marriage?
A. [VILLANUEVA]: Yes. Her first husband, which was her only legal marriage, Mr. Lucio, he was an alcoholic. And he was emotionally and verbally abusive most of the time and physically abusive when he was drunk. But being an alcoholic, that was quite active. There was also a very manipulative relationship there with her sister-in-law Sylvia, who introduced her to cocaine. She was 16 years old.
* * *
Q. [DEFENSE]: And your findings in this case?
A. [PINKERMAN]: In the part of the assessment with the intelligence test, the other part is more of a personality test to determine my general diagnostic impressions. And my general diagnostic impressions of her were that she was overutilizing a lot of repression and denial. And repression to the point where, again, a disconnect between thoughts and feelings or experiences and feelings. And I saw that in both her test behavior and in my observations that I reported earlier.
In assigning diagnosis to her, what I identified is that she had a presentation consistent with major depression with prior substance abuse which was in remission. But maybe most importantly post traumatic stress disorder in how she, I guess, psychologically was organized. And those are the three major areas of concern that I saw with her. She was also, and I also acknowledged it in a different report, the victim of prior physical and sexual abuse both as an adult and as a child.
Villanueva also testified that Melissa Lucio “has no history of aggression at all as a child, adolescent or through her entire CPS history, which was a good part of her adult life.” Pinkerman testified that there is a low probability that appellant is a risk to reoffend “in a prison setting.”
Q. [DEFENSE]: And what did you use to reach that conclusion. [sic].
A. [PINKERMAN]: Her presentation in the interview, the history that I had before me, her description of the history, the psychological testings like I’d done with her in my formal psychological evaluation, and then the large body of literature both in the psychological literature and in the State Department of Corrections literature that talks about the different levels of risk for offenders within a prison population. Because when I’m looking at the risks, I’m not considering getting the parameters of the present circumstances any issue of risk to the community. That is often not a part of my assessment.
Q. And your opinion then, sir, is what?
A. Her risk-there’s-okay. I’ll try to just answer your question. There’s a low probability that she’s a risk to reoffend-
Q. Okay.
A. -in a prison setting.
During its initial closing jury arguments, the State emphasized the “horrific” circumstances of this offense, appellant’s “history” of violence against Mariah, and appellant’s misbehavior in the county jail in arguing that “[t]his isn’t going to end with Mariah. This is going to continue.”
[STATE]: The defense argued at the beginning of this trial that Mariah died of injury to the child. She was beaten. Now, the first expert told you that the defendant-there is no history of aggression at all. She’s obviously wrong. That’s not what the defense told you. That’s not what the [police] video shows. And she demonstrates on that video how she hit that little girl time and time again. There is history of aggression. Mariah’s death is proof of that. What can you conclude from the first expert’s testimony? She is simply wrong. She got it wrong.
The next expert tells you: No history of violence. Again, remember what [appellant’s lawyer] told you? She’s guilty of injury to a child. She’s guilty of beating that little girl. Well, obviously this expert got it wrong, too.
* * *
What can you conclude? Look at Mariah. You’ve seen the photographs. No history of violence? Really? Are we talking about the same person, the same defendant? They got it wrong.
I want to talk to you about Mariah and the nature of this crime against her. Because we’ve all seen the photographs. We heard from Dr. Vargas who told us it’s the worst he’s ever seen in his 30 years. Dr. Farley told us the same thing. Worst case of child abuse ever in our community. Look at this little girl. Look at her. She was defenseless, innocent. Her daughter.
The nature of this crime speaks for itself. She was beaten to death. This is not one time. Deliberate acts, over, and over, on this poor little girl. This is a crime of hatred. A crime of violence. Not just one time. Not an accident. The manner of death of which this little girl died is also tragic. It’s also horrific.
There’s many of you on this jury that work in the medical field and can understand the suffering that she endured from her little brain swelling. Dr. Farley told you that brain swelling inside her head, went into her spinal cavity, she would have suffered. She would have trouble breathing. She would have seizures and just lay there. She let her lay there and suffer.
A very painful cruel death. That is what is so horrific about this case, that this little girl laid there in that bed when she could have simply called for help, taken her to the doctor, done something to protect this little girl. The manner of death in this case is so horrific because she suffered for so long, this little baby girl. It was simply torture and cruel.
* * *
And I want you to look at Melissa Lucio jail record because this jail record speaks to you about the type of person that she is. And in the short time that she’s been in jail she has had physical altercations, verbal altercations, been in possession of contraband, unauthorized communication, inciting a riot, and confrontational towards the staff. What does that tell you about the type of person that she is now? And that’s only here in our jail. Imagine what she’s going to be like when she gets to Huntsville or wherever she ends up. Look at these records, because they records [sic] speak for themselves.
Melissa Lucio is like a dog that bites a human person. Once that dog bites, they will always have-there will always be a probability that it will bite again. Same thing with this defendant. Her record speaks to you: This isn’t going to end here. This isn’t going to end with Mariah. This is going to continue.
The defense argued during its closing jury arguments that the State did not present “one scintilla of evidence as to future dangerousness.”
[DEFENSE]: The first question has to do with future dangerousness. What have we heard one scintilla of evidence as to future dangerousness of this person?
We had the guy, Mr. Merrillet, or whatever his name was, from Conroe. If you take his own statistics, he never spoke about Melissa specifically. Never once did he talk about her. In fact, he came up here and told you, I’m not going to talk about her. I don’t know her life. So he gives statistics.
What are the statistics he gave us about the future dangerousness of criminals in general? He told us there are 12,000 female inmates in the Texas Department of Corrections as of 2007. That’s 12,000. How many assaults were there in that population? Seventeen. That is one one-hundredth of a percent.
What else do they bring you here? They bring you the jail records. This is one thing where I agree with the State. Please, look at Melissa’s jail records. Look at them. They bring to you that Melissa Lucio was in a dorm with eight people and they found tattooing equipment above the lights. None of the girls would admit to having been the owner of it. So that is evidence of future dangerousness? Oh, but she was in a fight. Look at the fight. You all look at them. I saw you all looking at the records. She got in blocked punches in one of the fights. The other one, the girl hit her. Please. There’s not a scintilla of evidence of future dangerousness, much less beyond a reasonable doubt.
What else do they bring here of future dangerousness? To answer question number one, Melissa Lucio’s got a past history, a criminal history. What was that? A DWI. If we poll the people in this courtroom today sitting here, throughout this courtroom there would be a good number of folks who’ve gotten a DWI. It doesn’t mean that they are a future danger.
What didn’t they show you? They didn’t show you one past act of physical abuse to any children. Not one. They didn’t show you one past act where she’s ever been charged with a crime involving any physical harm to anyone else.
* * *
Is there a probability of continuing acts of violence? Probably not. We’ve heard that from the State’s main person who they bring down because just from the statistics, there’s no probability. We heard it from Dr. Pinkerman who also said there’s very little probability that she would ever do anything of violence.
During its final closing jury arguments, the State emphasized appellant’s behavior in the county jail and her abuse of Mariah over a period of time in support of its argument that appellant “has already shown a tendency to be violent . . . to be abusive, to be aggressive and to injure innocent people.”
[STATE]: This wasn’t an isolated incident where she lost it and she killed this child. Melissa Lucio made this child suffer. Every time she injured this child she had to have gotten some pleasure from it because she didn’t do it one time. She did it over a period of weeks and probably months.
Is this a person that you want out there in a society of prisoners? She has already shown a tendency to be violent, ladies and gentlemen, to be abusive, to be aggressive and to injure innocent people. She’s just as likely to go after the innocent-other innocent individuals, people that may be within the prison system. Because Mr. Merrillet has told you that they don’t classify them by capital murder. They can put him [sic] in with a burglar, with somebody who’s writing hot checks. She can victimize other individuals.
* * *
Try to marginalize her behavior in jail now. That’s what we’re being accused of. We’ve looked at the little things to show a consistent pattern. Even now when she’s caught in jail, awaiting trial, whatever rules she can still break, she’s still breaking them.
Her own people say, she has a history of that. She’s not going to change her stripes. Is she going to do that automatically because you spared her? No. She’s never going to changer her stripes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Melissa Lucio Photos
Melissa Lucio More News
Sabrina Van Tassel had no interest in making a documentary about Harlingen resident Melissa Lucio, the first Latina to be sentenced to death in the state of Texas. From what the filmmaker had read, Lucio — who was found guilty in 2008 of killing her 2-year-old daughter Mariah — was an abusive mother who confessed to a horrific murder.
Then, Van Tassel met Lucio and her family. Her opinion immediately changed
“I was the very first journalist they had ever met in their life,” Van Tassel said about her new documentary The State of Texas vs. Melissa. “No one wanted to hear [Melissa’s] side of the story. Right away, I knew there was really something wrong with this story.”
What Van Tassel began to unravel was a complex narrative that many believe involves an unfair trial, a forced confession, incompetent lawyers, incomplete witness testimony and a district attorney who was later sentenced to 13 years in prison for bribery, extortion and racketeering.
Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned Lucio’s conviction. The state appealed the decision and the hearing was delayed by the pandemic. For now, Lucio waits behind bars. Will her overturned conviction be upheld, or will she have to make a final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and hope it hears the case?
The State of Texas vs. Melissa is currently streaming on VOD platforms.
What ultimately drew you to Melissa’s story?
My instincts told me that [Melissa Lucio] wasn’t the kind of person who could [kill her child]. I called her lawyer and she said she knew Melissa was innocent, but there was nothing they could do. She said I was too late and that [Melissa] was going to be executed within nine months to a year. So, I asked her to send me all the paperwork on her trials, and I started reading. I made calls to people and they would be like, “Oh, why are you interested in Melissa Lucio? Why her?” Melissa Lucio [represents] everything society despises — she’s a woman, Hispanic, poor, she has 14 children. Her life was worth nothing to them. It was like, “Ugh, let her rot in Hell.” That’s the reason I decided to tell her story.
Do you hope this film can help Melissa’s case moving forward?
Definitely. So far, every single news article has helped her. From the very beginning of this project, I was like, “This woman is innocent. What am I going to do? Go back to my life and forget about her?” What you see in the film are facts that have been presented at court and during her appeals. That’s enough evidence for her to get a new trial. Even if she had done what she’s accused of, she shouldn’t be on death row.
How would you describe Melissa when you interviewed her in prison?
She was very calm. Melissa is a very nice person. She is loved by other inmates and by the guards. She doesn’t get into fights. She is the best kind of inmate. She’s very lenient and truthful. The very first time I met Melissa, she told me that she doesn’t deserve to be on death row but she deserves to be where she is because she didn’t protect her daughter like she should have.
What is the current family dynamic between Melissa’s children since one of them, Alexandra, is accused in the film of being the actual perpetrator of the abuse of Mariah?
It’s kind of a mess. All the older siblings stick to the story that Alexandra had some issues with Mariah. Of course, Alexandra doesn’t see the same thing. There are one or two siblings who grew up with Alexandra who have her back. I interviewed most of [Melissa’s children] and none of them ever said, “We saw our mom [hit Mariah].” All the older kids are still very close to Melissa. They write to her and strongly believe she is innocent. They also believe they are third-class citizens who will not get justice because nobody is interested in their family.
Are you worried about Melissa’s case because of what is currently happening with the U.S. Supreme Court?
We are very worried because Donald Trump has appointed right-wing judges who are in favor of the death penalty and who tend to not want to deal with these cases. And in Texas, they execute. It’s not like in other states where you have years before the execution goes through. In Texas, it can go quite fast. That’s why I want to make a lot of noise about her story. Melissa wouldn’t be on death row if she wasn’t poor or Hispanic. There is already something wrong with the U.S. justice system. It is unjust and unfair. But if we execute Melissa , there is really something wrong with the U.S. justice system.
Darlie Routier was convicted of the murders of her two young children in a case that still has many people shaking their heads. According to Darlie Routier someone broke into their home and murdered her children and attempted to kill her however police believe that the stranger story was a fabrication and Darlie Routier murdered her children. Routier would be convicted and sentenced to death
If it hadn’t been for that crazy Silly String, Darlie Routier might be a free woman today.At least, that’s what many people believe about the notorious Rowlett woman now on death row after savagely stabbing her 5- and 6-year-old sons 20 years ago Monday as her husband and 7-month-old son slept upstairs.
Shortly after the murders, NBC5 (KXAS-TV) captured video of Routier — with bleached hair, smacking gum and giggling — spraying Silly String on her sons’ graves. Jurors in Kerr County watched the video at least seven times before convicting Darlie Routier of capital murder in 1997 for the deaths of one of the boys.”They ended up deliberating on the Silly String,” her mother, Darlie Kee, told The Dallas Morning News this week. “Silly String is not a lethal weapon.”Routier’s family says the Silly String, provided by Darlie’s sister, was part of a birthday celebration. Her oldest son, Devon, would’ve turned 7 that day. The party followed a prayer service for both Devon and his younger brother Damon, but TV cameras didn’t capture the tears, Kee said, only a frolicking Darlie Routier. Kee maintains her daughter’s innocence, saying an intruder killed the boys. And even two decades later, there are lingering questions in some minds about Routier’s guilt.
Some point to a bloody sock found in the alley behind the family’s home as proof Darlie Routier was telling the truth about an intruder. Others don’t believe Routier is innocent but wonder if she really acted alone. And many people still have a hard time believing that a young mother could butcher her babies in cold blood.Prosecutors in the case believe the matter is settled, but it continues to wind its way through the state’s appellate court system.
No date has been set for Darlie Routier’s execution.Her attorney and family say they believe new DNA testing will prove that someone else was in the home that night 20 years ago. They say the pending tests could give Routier, now 46, a chance at a new trial.This is not solved,” Kee said. “They have not found who killed my grandsons. That person is still walking the streets.” The case of a suburban mom fatally stabbing her young sons and then faking her own attack to cover the crime made national news in June 1996.
Photos of Devon and Damon Routier, wearing matching white jackets and bowties, peppered TV screens and newspapers. And people had suddenly heard of Rowlett, then a town of 35,000 people.Police were called to the Routier home on Eagle Drive around 2:30 a.m. on June 6, 1996. Devon, 6, was already dead when paramedics arrived. He had been stabbed all the way through his torso.Damon, 5, was gasping for breath. He had been stabbed in the back and died shortly after.“It just tears at your heart, what those two boys went through that night,” said lead prosecutor Greg Davis. “Even 20 years later, it’s hard to think about the suffering they went through. It’s something you never forget.”Routier had stab wounds on her right arm and a slash across her throat, within 2 millimeters of her carotid artery. She was taken to the hospital, where she underwent surgery.She told police that Damon woke her up and she saw a man leave through the garage. The screen over a window in the garage had been slashed.But detectives quickly suspected someone inside the home killed the boys, and medical professionals said Routier’s wounds appeared self-inflicted.
Police, doctors and nurses who talked to Darlie Routier after her sons’ murders described her as unaffected by their deaths.She didn’t appear to be grieving. The Silly String video played into that narrative.Friends, family and former neighbors described Routier as a good mother. She had no reason to kill her baby boys, they said.But that Silly String video painted a different picture. It showed a gleeful woman literally dancing on her slain babies’ graves. She was charged with two counts of capital murder days later.
“The defense claimed she was grief-stricken and shocked,” prosecutor Davis said. “The video shows she wasn’t either of those.”The Silly String video became a key part of Darlie Routier’s trial, which was moved to Kerrville because of heavy pretrial news coverage in North Texas. Prosecutors described Routier as materialistic and self-absorbed. They used her bleached hair and breast implants as examples of that. Routier’s appellate attorney, Stephen Cooper, said prosecutors focused more on judging Routier’s character and grief than on physical evidence in the house, which he said pointed to an outside assailant.”She was portrayed as this bleached blonde with enhanced breasts, living beyond her means,” Cooper said. “She did have bleached hair. She did have breast enhancements. That doesn’t make you kill your kids.”To get a death penalty, you need stuff like Silly String and character assassination.”
In the 20 years since Devon and Damon’s deaths, Routier’s family hasn’t been able to fully grieve for the boys.“I want my daughter home,” Kee said. “And then we’ll grieve together for Devon and Damon.”Kee regularly visits her daughter at the Mountain View Unit in Gatesville. She plans to be there Monday, on the 20th anniversary of the boys’ murders.She won’t be allowed to hug or touch her daughter. They’ll sit separated by a pane of glass. Darlie Routier declined interview requests for this story. Kee says she never once questioned her daughter’s innocence. She and her family believe prosecutors wronged Routier, who has not been able to hug or touch her now 20-year-old son, Drake, since her conviction.”How do they give Drake his entire childhood without his mommy except through glass?” Kee asked.Drake lives in Lubbock with his father. Darlie and Darin Routier divorced in 2011. Neither Darin nor Drake could be reached for comment, but Darin Routier has previously said he believes his ex-wife is innocent.After the murders, Drake was put in the custody of his paternal grandparents. But he lived with several relatives over the years.At 17, he was diagnosed with leukemia. He is still undergoing cancer treatment but is expected to survive, Kee said.”I think it bothered him the first time he was able to talk to his mother on the phone was to tell her he had cancer,” she said.
For 20 years, the gist of Darlie Routier’s story has remained the same: she woke up to a man in her home and chased him out through the garage.But to prosecutors and other skeptics, some of Routier’s details of the attack don’t add up. How could Routier, a purported light sleeper, not wake up while her sons were brutally attacked and her own throat was slashed? How was she able to fight off an attacker but not notice her children were bloody on the floor?And why would an innocent woman mention to a 911 operator that she touched the butcher knife and hoped police could still pull fingerprints of the assailant?In the days after her sons’ deaths, Darlie Routier and her husband gave interviews to local media. She talked to nurses in the hospital. She talked to police.Each time, her story was a little different, said attorney Toby Shook, who served as a prosecutor on the case. Shook is now a Dallas criminal defense attorney.
When Darlie Routier took the witness stand, she testified all day before a standing-room-only crowd, claiming she suffered traumatic amnesia.”She said she couldn’t remember and slept through the murder,” said Shook, who cross-examined Routier. “But whenever she needed to explain the evidence, she had a good memory.”She claimed a vacuum sat atop her bloody footprints because she had trouble walking and needed to use it as a cane.”That made no sense because her legs worked just fine,” Shook said.She said her blood was around the kitchen sink because she applied wet towels to her boys’ wounds. Prosecutors said Routier probably cut her own throat over the sink. They described her injuries as superficial.”If she had been attacked, her injuries would have been far, far worse,” Shook said.
Darlie Routier and Rowlett are still linked. News crews and people with cameras still visit the two-story red brick house on Eagle Drive, which looks mostly the same as it did that night.Bleau Hartley and his family still live down the street from the Routier house. He remembers seeing police carrying out the kitchen sink, where they said she washed the knife used to kill the boys.”We were all freaking out. She came over to my neighbor’s house that day and said, ‘Somebody killed my kids,’ and we believed her,” Hartley said. “Why would you think a mom would do that? You wouldn’t.”
New people eventually moved into the house and asked Hartley to put in tile for them.”When I got there and started surveying, you could actually still see the chips in the concrete where the knife hit, you know, when she did it,” he said. “And I said, ‘Nope, this is too weird.’”New people have moved into the neighborhood, which was rocked recently by a rare December tornado. Like many people nationwide, those in the neighborhood now disagree on Darlie Routier’s guilt.”I’ve seen the documentaries and the news, and I think she’s innocent,” said Karl Hust. “The husband upstairs, asleep and doesn’t hear anything? I think he had something to do with it.”When he tells people he’s from Rowlett, people ask if he knows about her or believes she’s innocent.But others, like Patsy Thomas, studied the case after moving into the neighborhood and believe Darlie Routier did it.”Every time I go by that house, I get sad,” Thomas said. “And there’s not a time I round that corner when I don’t think about those children.”
Darlie Routier’s supporters often point to a bloody sock found in the alley about 75 yards from the family’s home.The sock had blood droplets from both Damon and Devon. Her supporters believe the sock proves that there was no way Routier killed her sons, stabbed herself, cut the window and had time to run barefoot down the alley all while leaving no blood trail of her own.
The medical examiner testified Damon could have survived about eight minutes with his wounds. Because Routier’s 911 call lasted nearly six minutes and the boy was alive when paramedics arrived, many believe it would have been impossible for Darlie Routier to stage the crime scene and take the sock to the alley.Lloyd Harrell, a private investigator who worked on Routier’s defense team, still questions how Routier was able to cut her own throat at the angle it was slashed and stab herself in her dominant right arm.And, he said, the way Routier described waking up sounds more like “coming to” after passing out, not sleeping.
Routier’s defense and appeals attorney have also pointed to an unidentified bloody fingerprint found on the coffee table in the family room.But prosecutor Davis said Routier’s supporters cherry-pick pieces of evidence to support their theory that she’s innocent.“It’s important to know the totality of the evidence. The totality of the evidence is what convinced the jury,” he said.Cooper, Darlie Routier’s appellate attorney, said he understands why a jury convicted her, even though he believes she’s innocent.“Everyone wants to get vindication for these kids getting slaughtered in their own home, and I get that,” he said. “Jurors want to believe their government has got the right person.”It’s unclear how long the additional DNA testing will take or whether Routier will ever get another trial. The State Court of Criminal Appeals upheld her conviction in 2003.Davis, who has prosecuted more than 20 death penalty cases in Dallas, Collin and McLennan counties, said it’s unusual that Routier still remains on death row. He said most of his cases have been resolved after 10 years.“The defense has yet to poke a credible hole in the case. That speaks to the strength of the evidence before the jury,” he said.But that hasn’t stopped Routier’s family and friends from standing behind her.
Darlie Routier is currently incarcerated at the Texas Death Row For Women
Why Is Darlie Routier On Death Row
Darlie Routier was convicted in the murder of two of her children
Is Darlie Routier Innocent
This is one of the murkiest death row cases especially involving a female defendant. I doubt Texas will ever execute her as there are just too many doubts surrounding the case
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
