Darlie Routier asks for DNA testing

[Val830]

Please supply the link for the June 2015 DNA results you mention. I cannot find it.

You cannot find it because it's been sealed by the Court.

The Dallas County website uploaded the latest DNA status report and then took it down. Shortly thereafter, an Order sealing all future DNA results came up in its place.

Luckily we got the test results before they were taken down.

 

[Madeleine74]

Yes, you are right. I should never use the word never. I read about him in a book, and what happened at the Routier house is very much what he did.

My apologies.

Here's a quote from one of his attempted murder rampages according to police records;

"The child was unable to speak. The knife had severed her windpipe and grazed the sheathing of her carotid artery. She had come within a millimeter of Katy Harris' fate. "

Sound familiar?

Nope. Doesn't sound anything like the crime scene at Routier's house. The boys were the target. The boys were sleeping. Sells was a sexual predator. No sexual assault took place -- not on the primary targets, the 2 boys, and not on Darlie. Sells was not considered a suspect in the Routier boys' murders, though people have desperately attempted to try and point the finger at Sells, just as you're doing now.

 

[Val830]

One thing though. you are right now that she has been convicted, she will have to prove her innocence. It is no longer involves reasonable doubt. It pretty much now means all doubt. I know Texas will eventually execute her because her being dead will end the investigation of police corruption. It's like the Willingham case where Texas knowingly executed an innocent man, because of an expert witness who lied.

Also, Texas has convicted another person of murdering his ex girlfriend while he was in prison. I guess they let him out on good behavior so he could commit this murder.

The police so screwed up the Routier case. It is hard to believe anything they say.

Barbara Davis wrote a book saying Darlie was an evil murderer. But, a freelance photographer showed Barbara Davis photos he took that night, and they did not match the crime scene photos the police presented at trial. That is why Barbara Davis wrote a second book, saying she is innocent. That she was railroaded. The police got mad with her, sent police to her house, shot and killed her son, and claimed when they entered the house he had a gun.
What are the odds someone walks around in the house, and the police forcefully enters the house and within seconds shoots someone who has a gun in his mother's house.
Again, I believe they went there to kill Ms. Davis.

Wait. You think that the corruption and frame-job of Darlie Routier is so important to Texas that they went to Barbara Davis's house to murder her because she changed her mind?

She writes trashy true crime novels and has no authority or power over anyone in law enforcement. Really?!

 

[Val830]

Yes, you are right. I should never use the word never. I read about him in a book, and what happened at the Routier house is very much what he did.

My apologies.

Here's a quote from one of his attempted murder rampages according to police records;

"The child was unable to speak. The knife had severed her windpipe and grazed the sheathing of her carotid artery. She had come within a millimeter of Katy Harris' fate. "

Sound familiar?

Did Tommy Sells also wash the murder knife, wipe the blood out of the sink, float through the air so as not to leave any footprint in all that blood, arm his victim before slowly exiting the house, and courteously lift and shut the dragging gate behind him?

Nonsense.

 

[lucchesicourt]

The doctor said the wound was suoerficial to the carotid atery. That means it was close to the carotid artery. It wasshallow enough not to touch the carotid atery. It was 2 mm away. It was not a superficial wound. The fact you have NO scientific background, only have used the word in a single context to mean a minor or shallow result is quite obvious.

You are exactly the type of person the prosecution was looking for. Someone who can be mislead easily by the terminology.

 

[blefuscu]

The doctor said the wound was suoerficial to the carotid atery. That means it was close to the carotid artery. It wasshallow enough not to touch the carotid atery. It was 2 mm away. It was not a superficial wound. The fact you have NO scientific background, only have used the word in a single context to mean a minor or shallow result is quite obvious.

You are exactly the type of person the prosecution was looking for. Someone who can be mislead easily by the terminology.

How do you know what my background is?

Anyway, two doctors testified that the wounds were not serious and the ME said that in her opinion the wounds were self-inflicted. If you focus only on the wounds then you ignore all the other evidence that proves she did it.

 

[Madeleine74]

What's interesting is that every.single.witness is being painted as part of some conspiracy. When every witness is called a 'liar,' when every witness called by the state is accused of colluding to "railroad an innocent person," that's tin foil hat level of cray-cray.

The scientific results are what they are. Or is it also alleged that the lab(s) also colluded to try and make this otherwise innocent woman appear guilty? There may be differences in opinion on what the evidence indicates and what it shows, but the jury is presented with both the state's position and the defense's position and in the end each side argues their position.

In the end a jury of 12 is tasked with the job of determining what is true, what is not true, what weight to give the evidence, what witnesses to believe, not believe. This is a jury selected by both the defense and the state, not just one side. Both defense and state said they agreed with the jurors chosen to sit on this panel. This is as fair and impartial as the process can be -- both sides help make the selections.

This is the system we have in place. If you know of a better system for litigating criminal cases, then please do share.

 

[lucchesicourt]

Well, if you look at the expert witnesses record in previous trials, and the poor job they have done, really makes you doubt them being expert witnesses.

How I know you do not have any scientific idea of what superficial to the carotid artery means in in zoology 2. If you don't know that, you have absolutely no biologically laboratory experience. Depending on how you hold your neck, turned to the side exposes the carotid artery closer to the surface of the skin. But, it does not make it a superficial wound.

Also, if you look at the wound it is directly in line with the puncture wound. You cannot make a slice and a puncture in the shoulder in one swipe by your own hand. That is physically impossible. But, Darlie has exactly this wound.

Now, if you used a sock on one hand, and not the other, then the hand without the sock could leave a print. It is not likely he put both hands in the same sock, because they did not find another sock, right?

I guess you do not need any solid evidence she did it? The only evidence you need is whatever anyone says. I am looking for SOLID evidence. You are talking about killing someone who may not be guilty. But, obviously expert witnesses with bad records on evidence is acceptable to you.

What witness saw Darlie do it that is able to testify, what solid evidence do they have Darlie did it (such as blood all over her from Devon and Damon, Darlie has been eliminated as a person who left the bloody fingerprint.

"A fingerprint was left on the crime scene in the victim's blood. The prosecution has stated that: the fingerprint belonged to Devon or Damon Routier; and that the fingerprint does not have enough detail to be identified. Both claims are false. Updated testing has excluded all members of the Routier family"

[video=youtube;mNBq8lbvzfo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNBq8lbvzfo[/video]

 

[lucchesicourt]

At least I am not making up stories about things like Darlie has not been eliminated as the person who left the print.

You just don't vare who you execute as long as someone dies for this murder, guilty or not.

I have lots of knowledge in laboratory science and the way the evidence was presented in court, had NOTHING to do with any scientific evidence. It all had to do with was building a case to convict someone of the murder. They just chose it to be Darlie, because they had no one else to accuse.

The garbage produced by the prosecution is ridiculous.

 

[lucchesicourt]

That forensic expert, Tom Bevel, has since been linked to several wrongful convictions, or to convictions that are widely questioned – like Horinek’s.

https://hcnews.com/pages/justice_fo...ith-states-version-of-events-in-routier-case/

He'll say anything for a buck. How can an expert be such a screw up?

 

[Madeleine74]

The lab results are the results. Bevel didn't make those up.

Witnesses are asked questions on the stand. Their only job is to answer the question truthfully. The jury decides the outcome of a trial and what evidence to believe or not believe and how much weight to give it, not people on the Interwebs.

Routier is taking full advantage of the multiple layers of appeals available to her. Her fate is in the hands of judges, not Internet posters. And it wasn't Internet posters who caused her to be convicted. It was a jury of 12, selected by her defense and the state, and the jury decided unanimously whether the state met their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[lucchesicourt]

https://hcnews.com/pages/justice_for...-routier-case/

Read the whole article.

You will maybe understand why I tend to think this was a rehearsed act to get Darlie convicted.

Why would you have a rehearsal otherwise?
That is just WRONG?

 

[lucchesicourt]

Madeleine, I am NOT disagreeing with the lab results. Everyone else is. There is no blood evidence on ANY of the lab results that has any 100% proof of Devon's or Damon's blood. Only the word possible to be Devon's or Damon's, that there was not enough to get results. So, I agree with the lab results. Madeleine, I am addressing her nightshirt only.

 

[Madeleine74]

Both sides in a criminal case will examine witnesses beforehand. Standard stuff. What you call "rehearsals" is not unusual and is not nefarious, though you try to make it so.

The jury wasn't rehearsed. They are the ones who count as they are the sole triers of fact. They were called to duty by random selection and questioned through a voir dire process by both sides, and each side got to exclude jurors. The panel of 12 are jurors are selected by both sides and take an oath to follow the rules. Do you not understand this?

 

[Madeleine74]

Madeleine, I am NOT disagreeing with the lab results. Everyone else is. There is no blood evidence on ANY of the lab results that has any 100% proof of Devon's or Damon's blood. Only the word possible to be Devon's or Damon's, that there was not enough to get results. So, I agree with the lab results. Madeleine, I am addressing her nightshirt only.

There is nothing that excludes Devin or Damon's blood on the nightshirt, and in fact, they could be included as contributors. BTW, nothing is 100% in DNA testing. DNA results are always about statistical probabilities, always. The probabilities may be astronomically high to the point where it would be ridiculous to try and claim anyone else but the person deposited their DNA on an item, but even in those cases the results are given in court as probabilities.

When there is a major and minor contributor to any stain, the lab results point that out. The fact is there were stains in which one or the other boys could not be excluded. DNA testing is a process of exclusion as much as inclusion.

It is up to the jury to determine how much weight (if any) to give to any evidence presented to them. Your agreement with a position or interpretation of a lab results matters not one bit, nor does mine. The only people whose opinions mattered were the 12 jurors. That's it. THEY were the only triers of fact in the case, the only ones who could convict Darlie.

 

[lucchesicourt]

Yes, but you are not suppose to be in the same room in front of other witnesses. It is suppose to be a one on one meeting with the prosecutors. Other witnesses being present is a rehearsal. Not an examination of a WITNESS. That is what is wrong. Doctors and nurses were in the same room.

 

[Madeleine74]

you are not suppose to be in the same room in front of other witnesses.

According to what law or state statute? Please provide the rule that limits witness examination. Did the defense cross examine each witness on the stand? Then the jury heard both sides. Was any witness tried for perjury in this case, as a result of their testimony in this case?

This issue, if it came up on appeal, did not get Darlie off death row. Higher level judges look at issues presented to them.

 

[lucchesicourt]

No sexual assault, because the police lost the rape kit test. A rape kit test was done. Where the H*** is it. The defense never had it. So, who lost it?

Yes, there is 100%. The blood on Darlie's nightrshirt is hers 99.999999% almost 100%. Now, the Devon's and Damon's blood on the nightshirt is 0% guaranteed to be theirs.

So, if I was to ask you whose blood is on the hightshirt who would you say is the most likely. And, would you say you are 99.9999% positive that Devon's and Damon's blood is present? I sure wouldn't. The only blood I am sure is on the nightshirt according to the lab tests is Darlie's.

 

[Madeleine74]

I wouldn't say. The lab would say and the lab would give the probabilities. The jury then decides what to do with that information.

 

[Zzzz]

I don't understand this debate about the witnesses and interpretation of lab results.

1) As noted in a previous post, the original 1997 trial included lab results that showed DNA evidence of Damon and Devon's blood spatter in four places on Darlie's nightshirt. Nobody on either side disputed that. How the blood got on the nightshirt was debated during the trial by both sides. So to say the boys' blood is not on the nightshirt goes against what Darlie's own defense has testified to. The current lab results are for completely different spots on the nightshirt - we can always keep stalling by testing new and different spots.

2) Doug Mulder was chosen by Darlie's family specifically because his defense was successful in getting an obvious murderer, Walker Railey, set free. What Railey did was almost as heinous as what Darlie did - and there's no doubt nor debate nor controversy among crime watchers that Railey did strangle his poor wife - but Mulder still got him off. In Darlie's case, if any of the witnesses or lab results or videos were not credible, Mulder would have been arguing loud and clear for the jury to hear. To say 20 years after the fact that witnesses lied and Mulder did nothing to dispute those lies is just a fishing expedition.

3) Even assuming Mulder did fail in his job, Darlie's side has had full access to the legal appellate system. And multiple appeals have failed. The appellate courts have absolutely no reason to frame Darlie if she is truly innocent. Many death row convictions have been overturned in Texas, with some regularity. The most recent one was just a few months ago.