Customer Reviews

Flesh and Blood (True Crime)

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(16)

 

 

I really liked this book. Despite the "poor Darlie" supporters who bashed this book, I picked it up and thought it presented a good overview of the case and some real insight into Darlie's character or lack thereof. She very vividly described the behavior of the Routier/Kee family during the trial. Having seen it on my local news during the trial, Ms. Springer didn't exaggerate a thing. No one in Texas had ever seen a group behave like that at trial. The tacky tatoo which Darin Routier proudly displayed ranked up there with the Silly String video. The family suddenly got religion and beat it to death by constantly singing hymns outside the courtroom. Everyone wanted to be a star. In addition, Ms. Springer obviously had some good sources among neighbors and people who knew the Routiers in Rowlett. I love the Darlie supporters who criticize the editing and minimal typos in this book but highly tout the self-published pro-Darlie Media Tried, Justice Denied which has to include some of the worst English ever published. This book is well worth reading and I highly recommend it.

I am just an average citizen who is interested in the facts about a woman who could have killed her children in cold blood. I have read much material on the case, but Flesh and Blood was the best. It is NOT biased. It states the facts ONLY. The reason some consider it biased is because all the FACTS point to Darlie as the killer. There was no bashing of the family in this book and there was also no bashing of the investigation process. There was no sarcasm and definitely no name calling. It is a great book and I strongly recommend it to the average person who just wants to know what happened the night these two innocent children were murdered. Also, I counted a total of three typos...that's it.

The difference between this novel and others like Precious Angels and Media Tried is amazing! Ms Springer is an excellent author who derserves better than the personal attacks I have seen in other reviews posted here. It is painfully obvious that some of the Routier/Kee cult with personal axes to grind are attacking a woman who is honest and forthright. It is also obvious that Barbara Davis has had a hand in some of these so called reviews. I would reccommend reading Flesh and Blood to find out the difference between good research with personal integrity and the florid and poorly researched style of Chris Brown and Barbara Davis

Patricia Springer did an excellent job of giving a first hand look at the participants in the trial and their family members as the trial progressed. So much was going on in this case that the transcripts can't depict. Her eyes at the trial helped define the characters and so far this is my favorite of the books written about this case. Bravo, Ms Springer!

This book is rather short and not too complex, but Ms. Springer does get the main points across. What convinced me that Darlie definitely did it, no question, was:

The luminol test after the murders - small bloody handprint and small butt print found on the couch, Darlie's footprints found in kitchen walking back and forth and to kitchen sink. Blood in and around kitchen sink. This was blood that was not visible to the eye. This blood had been wiped up and did not show without the Luminol being sprayed and the lights turned off. Luminol picks up a protein in blood and enables the markings to show up in the dark. What this means is Darlie was busy wiping up blood stains before she called for Daryl. If you were attacked by an intruder and your sons lay dying, would you be busy wiping blood off your couch, IF YOU WERE INNOCENT? No, you wouldn't.

Also, the fact that the "intruder" broke in the house by slashing the garage window screen from the INSIDE (the window sill of which the dust had NOT been disturbed), with a knife that was in a wooden block in the KITCHEN.

To some of the nitpickers, it makes no difference to the story which lawyer made the opening statement, or whether Darlie had an abortion - permission only given by her husband after she agreed to have breast implants. Permission is not required by husbands in Texas, but anyone can see that she has had implants. For Daryl to be bragging about the size of Darlie's breasts to the police when his sons were stabbed to death, shows where his priorities lay.

Past history on Darlie included sexual abuse by a step-father, and narcissistic, histrionic behavior - she could not stand it when she lost the spotlight to Daryl at his graduation party, so she left, then came back hysterical, claiming to have been attacked, in order to get some attention for herself.

Darlie needed help, but never got it. She didn't get what she needed from her dysfunctional family, who also need help. The only way Darlie will ever be free in her own mind is to admit her guilt. She probably never will, because she is afraid of losing the support of her family members.

Daryl has also failed a polygraph, so there is probably more to this story.

I think Hush Little Babies was better written although I also liked this book as well. Hush Little Babies appeared to be somewhat more objective to the extent that it set forth the State's position and Darlie Routier's position. This book seemed to have little criticism of the State while portraying Darlie's family as a bunch of loose cannon nut jobs with extreme tunnel vision. There were a few typographical errors and some factual errors (Darlie's birthday at least twice was set forth as January 1st, which apparently is Darin Routier's birthday while Darlie's birthdate most often has been given as January 4, 1970). However, I believe both books were worth reading. I don't believe that either book gave any really great insight as to why Darlie killed the two boys although the reader in each instance is left with some intriguing possibilities.

this book is very good. ms springer gave a very good account of what happened in the trial. i knew Darlie briefly. i am friends with people who knew her well. things in this book were told to me from these friends. it was eerie reading it in print! sadly, most have all but forgotten the 2 precious lives that were lost. ms springer reminds us. also, she gives an update of how persons arriving at the scene of the murders have coped with those horrible memories. i now wish i had not wasted my money on the don davis book.

VERY TALENTED WRITER, YOU REALLY FEEL YOUR AT THE CRIME SCENE, WITH THE GREAT DETAIL. DEALS WITH ALOT OF THE COURT CASE, WHICH I FOUND TO BE VERY INTERESTING. FOUND OUT A FEW THINGS THAT I DIDNT IN OTHER BOOKS. (HUSH LITTLE BABIS). IM STILL CONVINCED SHE DID IT. READ THIS ONE YOU WONT BE DISAPPOINTED. HARD TO FIND HOWEVER, GET A USED COPY, I DID;

If you read all of the reviews for this book on amazon, you will notice the only person who didnt like it was a Darlie family member. Enough said about the quality of the read.

I have probably spent 30-40 hours in independent research outside of this book and I think that the author wrote as unbiased a book as possible under the circumstances. It must have been difficult for Springer to finish this book without having disdain for the woman. That is only human nature not, IMO, bias.

There are areas that I would have like to have read more detail on if I was a juror, but she accurately portrayed the arguments of Routier's defense - even when they didnt make sense.

If you are commited to finding Darlie innocent, then read the other book's blatant attempt geared toward outright propaganda and misinformation. If you want insight into a sick person with both sides of the argument, then read Flesh & Blood.

This book is fascinating when read in tandem with Don Davis' book on the same subject. Although both books are poorly written and edited, they provide an excellent example of how perception influences representation and how representation in turn influences perception (as suggested by the reviews of these books). Springer's problems arise from her book's many errors, most of which seem to derive from her not having had access to the family. She is far too inclined to skewer the Routiers with words like "smug" and "boasting." Her attempts to be literary far out-strip her skill (not to mention her spellchecker). Don Davis, on the other hand, writes a dull, just-the-facts-ma'am sort of book. The great flaw of his book is that --while he appears to be factually accurate -- he is highly selective in the facts he chooses to share, conveniently omitting those most damaging to Routier. He seems afraid to show all the evidence, which clearly supports Darlie's guilt, although I would not have considered it a death-penalty crime. It's always the same in these cases: some convenient stranger has done the crime for no discernible reason, the killer's stories change from day to day, and those on the killer's side are clueless about forensics and take refuge in an imaginary system in which every cop and every prosecutor is evil and corrupt, and also incompetent and stupid. Does this sound familiar? No, I don't mean O.J. I mean the case of Diane Downs, the Oregon mother convicted of shooting her three children. She was the subject of Ann Rule's _Small Sacrifices_, a much better book than Springer's or Davis', on a much more complex and moving case. (So moving, in fact, that I have wondered ever since what has become of brave little Christie Downs, and the prosecutor who first convicted the mother and then adopted the child.) Strangely, although both the Routier authors discuss mothers who kill their children, neither mentions Downs or the Rule book -- perhaps because both occasionally appear to be re-writing Rule. Strangely, the one thing I find to support the idea of Darlie Routier's innocence is that the children were stabbed, a far more personal and violent method than shooting or drowning, and an unlikely way for even the most heartless mother to dispose of her children. But perhaps her plan required more time than a noisy shooting could provide. At any rate, these books are worth reading not for what they reveal of the sad values of the Routiers and their tragedy, or any supposed miscarriage of justice, but because they offer the clearest possible example of the Rashomon principle that everyone who experiences an event tells a different story. Perhaps that is why truth seems to hover around physical evidence and around people who can keep their stories straight. (original review 1999)