Darlie Routier's murder conviction is, over twenty years later, out of the public consciousness. Supposedly the Routier case was solved and, sadly, there has been ever more shocking crimes. Still, at the time, it was a double child murder shot heard around the world. It seems most folks thought Darlie was guilty, she got the death sentence, case closed.
The Last Defense re-opens the events and trial that put Darlie Routier on death row. It's surprising that several forensic experts, far surpassing any layman's knowledge of the crime, believe Darlie was wrongly convicted. Now, two decades on, this show is going to make you rethink what you thought you knew. To do so this can't be amateur assemblage of over zealous prosecutors and talking heads. It isn't. The Last Defense makes a compelling case expertly presented that there was a huge police/legal system rush to judgement and a well orchestrated character assassination of Darlie Routier carried out in the courtroom with the help of a salivating press.
The tragedy of the brutal murder of two small children is not to be forgotten in all of this. This is the kind of case everyone wants the guilty party to removed from society with swift and severe justice served. The question is was the actual killer convicted? Judging by so much of what is brought to light here there is more than just a little doubt. First, it seems Darlie had no reason or predilection to commit any crime, certainly one that involved her children. Second, Darlie seems more guilty of a child-like mentality than either mental illness or insidious criminal smarts. Bottom line, she likely couldn't have staged the crime scene the prosecutors are saying she manufactured. It's clear she doesn't have the intent or skill as one imagines even a simple crime she might stage would be the easiest case to crack, probably ever. The girl had no intent, no motive, and couldn't have pulled the crime off without direct and concrete evidence seems obvious. In reality all the supposed scientific evidence presented to the jury in a super conservative Texas town (a town almost guaranteed Darlie was going to be convicted) is pseudo science plain and simple. Add to this the strange fact Routier's celebrated ,and well-paid, defense attorney decided to not bring in his own rebuttal experts, even after he'd paid them to find holes in the prosecution's science, absolutely stupefies.
The show brings up a fact: this was a quite unfair trial and outcome based on the the unproven science and questionable facts. A total conviction by character assassination within a climate of bias which this created. One must hope people given the death sentence are convicted not by bias and only by irrefutable evidence leaving no reasonable doubt. Isn't this the way the U.S. criminal justice system is suppose to to work? If The Last Defense does nothing else it plainly shows how a conviction, and death sentence, can be hijacked. If Darlie was guilty, which seems highly doubtful, it's clear she wasn't convicted based on guilt of the crime itself. Disclaimer: I'm writing this after seeing three episodes of The Last Defense and will add to this review if anything further revealed actually links Darlie to the commission of the murders. I recommend seeing this series as it is professionally produced and raises serious questions regarding the death penalty. This is a well above average crime documentary.
