Darlie Routier asks for DNA testing

I want a re do. She really deserves all the dna testing they can do to really come to a conclusion in this case. One that isn't silly string related for petes sake. This case so reminds me of WM3; just get er done mentality.
Wow and wow on the results.
That sock. That sock has so bothered me and I don't think that a woman; could slit her own throat. I just don't. If ever a trial needed a do over, it's this one. Death is Different, dare I say it.......HJBP did and often.
 
I want a re do. She really deserves all the dna testing they can do to really come to a conclusion in this case. One that isn't silly string related for petes sake. This case so reminds me of WM3; just get er done mentality.
Wow and wow on the results.
That sock. That sock has so bothered me and I don't think that a woman; could slit her own throat. I just don't. If ever a trial needed a do over, it's this one. Death is Different, dare I say it.......HJBP did and often.

The prosecution is in a no win situation at this point. The new law dictates Darlie is entitled to all the DNA testing she wants. Now it's just a matter of the prosecutors and defense agreeing to certain conditions of the testing. The unidentified limb hairs already support her actual innocence claims.

I'm not certain how to view the shirt testing evidence. Most of the numbers in the report are the same as the numbers used at trial. If so, 24T8 is really going to screw the prosecutions case. If that blood stain is actually Darlie's and not Devon's... Wow. Gene Screen screwed the pooch big time.
 
Come on... You know limb hairs are frequently blowing through the Texas winds. I heard Rowlett is notorious for being polluted with them. That and deer hair.

:floorlaugh: The deer did it! I'm giggling because I'm a long tall Texan that puts out feed for the local deer and I have a few regulars that practically knock on my door if I don't have it out in time! But I've never had one pull a knife on me yet lol.

I haven't followed the case closely, so totally uneducated response, but I never thought she did it. I'm glad to hear that for once my instincts may have been right!
 
Were deer known to wander into Rowlett where Darlie lived? I believed the verdict, but if all 3 hairs are from the same person then am not going to argue about further testing especially if a limb hair was inside the sock. A limb hair, one of several from the same person even being in the house and ending up outside the sock would cause me some problems if I were on a jury. I googled and read that there are 3 hairs not from family. A pubic, facial, and limb hair.
 
Were deer known to wander into Rowlett where Darlie lived? I believed the verdict, but if all 3 hairs are from the same person then am not going to argue about further testing especially if a limb hair was inside the sock. A limb hair, one of several from the same person even being in the house and ending up outside the sock would cause me some problems if I were on a jury. I googled and read that there are 3 hairs not from family. A pubic, facial, and limb hair.

Hi neighbor!:seeya: Honestly, I don't know jack about this case and I haven't read through all of the released DNA evidence posted above. Great point about the three hairs, I'm going to peruse all the above info now.
 
I've never been convinced either way, but always hoped she didn't do it. Such a sad case. Maybe this latest info will be enough to get the Innocense Project involved. I want to see everything reviewed. I have a feeling her family hasn't had the resources or support needed for a thorough and timely review. I didn't read every word of these latest documents, but on the surface, it seems as if this DNA testing has been going for many many years. That's just not right.

So many things about this case have bothered me since the beginning. Chief among them was the presumed and allowed "expert testimony" of small town cops.
 
I don't think Darlie will be granted a new trial because the point will be moot. She just proved her innocence and maybe she will be FREED. With all the testing that is to be done if she is forced into another trial I would let the judge decide because 12 people may fall for the same BS again but a judge won't.

The case is complicated and comments made on tape to TV shows by Waddell will be used to impeach him and blow his testimony out of water.

Other blood splatter experts will show because of the size and lack of pattern the Bevel drops as I will call them are false junk science.

Darlie's blood being under the boys blood on her shirt will show she bled first before coming into contact with the boys blood.

Her lawyer will not object to the silly string tape so he will be allowed to submit the tape of her near collapse at the graves.

The doctor will be asked to clarify what is superficial.

The nurses will be asked to describe the steps of grieving and her being "flat" is denial.

Need I go on?
 
If anyone knows the answer, I want to make sure about the hairs. Have they proven by mitochondrial dna that the limb hair found in the sock is from the same person who left the other hairs in the home, or is that going for further testing?
 
If anyone knows the answer, I want to make sure about the hairs. Have they proven by mitochondrial dna that the limb hair found in the sock is from the same person who left the other hairs in the home, or is that going for further testing?

Cami, who no longer posts here I guess, has made a sound argument that the two hairs in this report are of the pubic hair and facial hair found at the scene. Darlie and Darin have been ruled out as contributors. The limb hairs have yet to be tested.
 
YES!!!! There will be true justice served one day!!!!

Merry Christmas, Darlie. Some of us have believed in your innocence from the beginning. :seeya:

I've never believed in her guilt. She was young, dumb, naïve, had poor legal representation, and a lot of people were jealous of her, but she was never a double murderer. I've kept quiet because of the " strong feelings" here, especially, but since my local newspaper printed a whole new series on the TRIAL, I've known justice wasn't on the table.
The judge slept, the Silly String video was botched by her attorneys, and she was a victim of PTSD, thus, her testimony was not valid.

Her neck wound could not have been inflicted by a medical person and come closer to her major blood vessels. The wound was meant to kill, and her defense wounds were REAL. No one would sit or lie through that kind of pain- inducing bruising and cuts. She was fighting.

Keep fighting Darlie. One day, you will be exonerated. I believe. :loveyou:

Note: No disrespect is meant to those who believe in her guilt. This is simply one case where I could not go along with public opinion for several reasons, some stated above, some not stated. I hope we can all get along despite differences of opinion. :)
 
:floorlaugh: The deer did it! I'm giggling because I'm a long tall Texan that puts out feed for the local deer and I have a few regulars that practically knock on my door if I don't have it out in time! But I've never had one pull a knife on me yet lol.

I haven't followed the case closely, so totally uneducated response, but I never thought she did it. I'm glad to hear that for once my instincts may have been right!
I have always followed this case and have always believed she was innocent.. But sadly I must admit that due to the years and years of evidence being hashed and rehashed repeatedly that her guilt was just so damn certain.. Well, it honestly made me really not rely on my instincts near as what I used to.. Just due to this case, alone I have always felt that if my gut could be so very wrong about continuing to see her as not being guilty for such a heinous crime that overwhelmingly and repeatedly was "proven" TO SO VERY MANY PEOPLE that Darlie was absolutely guilty.. It has honestly made me NEVER EVER be reliant on my own gut instincts ever again..

So, not that it means a damn thing, but I must be honest and admit that I, too would have a renewed sense of my instincts not being the "damaged goods" I've felt they were since this case..

But on a different note.. A note that actually does matter..
if this testing does bring about truth that has been hidden away all these years, then I must say that these boys as well as their momma, Darlie, DESERVE TO HAVE JUSTICE SERVED FOR WHAT'S BEEN CRUELLY TAKEN FROM THEM ALL!
YES!!!! There will be true justice served one day!!!!

Merry Christmas, Darlie. Some of us have believed in your innocence from the beginning. :seeya:

I've never believed in her guilt. She was young, dumb, naïve, had poor legal representation, and a lot of people were jealous of her, but she was never a double murderer. I've kept quiet because of the " strong feelings" here, especially, but since my local newspaper printed a whole new series on the TRIAL, I've known justice wasn't on the table.
The judge slept, the Silly String video was botched by her attorneys, and she was a victim of PTSD, thus, her testimony was not valid.

Her neck wound could not have been inflicted by a medical person and come closer to her major blood vessels. The wound was meant to kill, and her defense wounds were REAL. No one would sit or lie through that kind of pain- inducing bruising and cuts. She was fighting.

Keep fighting Darlie. One day, you will be exonerated. I believe. :loveyou:

Note: No disrespect is meant to those who believe in her guilt. This is simply one case where I could not go along with public opinion for several reasons, some stated above, some not stated. I hope we can all get along despite differences of opinion. :)

^^^What she said!!! ^^^

I believe there are more of us than what anyone thinks..jmo.. Many who have believed that Darlie didn't kill her boys, but as you so respectfully, and much more eloquently than I could ever say, the extreme, strong stances have made it a case that some of us have purposely avoided even so much as dipping a toe into the, at times, heavy, torrential rains of drama, so to speak...

Anyhow, no matter the outcome these latest steps being taken are ONLY RIGHT, and sadly, should've been long since done, completed, and over with..but as the old, used up cliché says, "it's better late than never.."
 
Interesting case. I wonder if some of the belief in her guilt has been due to the fact that there are a lot of female posters here, and females tend to react more strongly to a possible scenario of a mother killing her children. (Also the Casey Anthony effect...it has caused a lot of anger and I've definitely seen that anger get played out in other cases, although I realize this case predates that one.)

I've also been one of those lurkers who assumed that with all the strident voices, she probably did it.
 
<mod snip>

There are also some outspoken posters still posting on the case from the area. This is their right, but I'm from the area as well and I don't have a one way viewpoint of the case.
When my local newspaper, the Hood Country News, did a 10 part expose' on the BEHAVIOR of those who mattered at the trial ( judge, jury, defense team and prosecution) my eyes were opened to the fact that Darlie, despite being her own worst enemy back then publicity- wise, DID NOT get a fair trial by due process of law.

Here are some of the procedural errors as I see them. Again, IMO.

1) Parkland doctors and nurses charted things about Darlie being upset, depressed, crying. Somber mood. Even suicidal because her sons were dead. The charted documentation IS the final word. At trial, most if not all of them lied, couldn't remember, " didn't mean what they had charted" or had different " recollections" than what was charted. I'm sorry, but what you record at the time of the incident is Canon. It stands and would have stood in court if her defense lawyers had been any good.

2) The Hood County News spoke with DARIN'S aunt, who had a journal from the trial. She was not allowed to write down what was said but could write her impressions of the courtroom. She noted how many times after lunch the judge went to sleep. It was over 40 times with testimony and examination and cross- examination of witnesses still going on. He was not presiding over the court. Again, Darlie was denied basic lack of due process due to inadequate courtroom procedure.

3) Rowlett PD was highly influenced by the Susan Smith incident in SC, IMO. She drowned her two little boys so she could have an affair with a man who didn't want the children around. Despite evidence of break- ins in Darlie's neighborhood, no one searched for an intruder. The focus was on Darlie before the blood had dried.

4) The crime scene was, of course, highly emotional. I read the autopsy reports for the two boys. Sentiment was extremely high that justice be done. Darlie was the easy target due to her youth, her relationship to the boys, her proximity to them that night, and things she said while in a pain- and painc induced state. IMO, Darlie had severe PTSD from seeing her boys cut to pieces, from her own assault in the living room with the knife wounds, the extreme bruising to her hands and arms and cuts there as well. Also, her panties were missing and she didn't know how or why. That's why her words were not always exactly the same She didn't KNOW who did this to her and her boys.

5) Darlie bore the brunt of criticism for everything from getting towels for the boys like a paramedic asked, to putting one on her own bleeding neck wound, to telling the 911 dispatcher after she called 911 and the DISPATCH said " Don't touch the knife" and Darlie replied " I already did". Darlie didn't initiate the talk about the knife, the dispatcher did. It's in the transcripts.

6) The Silly String video was part of a much longer video where the famiy came to remember one of the boys on his birthday. He had recently been buried. Darlie had cried and cried at the scene, but that part was cut out and not shown to the jury. MANY jurors have said that if they had seen the entire video, it would have made a difference. Might have changed their minds. This is another failure of Darlie's defense team.

7) Rowlett needed to solve this case and Darlie was the easiest person to pin it on because of Susan Smith, because she tried to live above her means. because she was seen as a tacky young bleached blonde with big implants. and because she often said things without thinking. She was very young, and immature. She was NOT a murderer, though, IMO.
Darin's testimony at trial hurt Darlie's case. He was rude at times, impudent, not well- spoken or well- mannered at all. Darlie was in no condition to testify emotionally ( again, I believe she had PTSD for years from trauma related to her own attack by a stranger that night as well as her boys dying in front of her) but her attorneys allowed both to make the situation for Darlie a lot worse through their own testimonies.

8) The bloody sock in the back alley way has always been used to point to Darlie's guilt. IDK why as it is believed that the sock did not come from the home. Also, it appears that the perp. put the sock over their hand to keep from cutting it. Not sure if it worked. Now it may be the piece of evidence which points to her innocence because of the unmatched foreign hairs not belonging to any one in the household. It is the smoking gun in the case, not anything Darlie said, and should be the piece of evidence which sets her free.

I have heard that the one living son, now grown, has leukemia. This breaks my heart. He was a small baby in a crib, not yet walking, when his brothers were killed. Darlie had no time with him when he was a baby because of the legal proceedings against her. Now it may be too late.

<mod snip>

The only way this case can be looked at fairly is with truly open eyes and minds. With hearts that hurt but bear no ill will.

Praying for justice for Darlie, and for Drake's health. :loveyou:
 
Interesting case. I wonder if some of the belief in her guilt has been due to the fact that there are a lot of female posters here, and females tend to react more strongly to a possible scenario of a mother killing her children. (Also the Casey Anthony effect...it has caused a lot of anger and I've definitely seen that anger get played out in other cases, although I realize this case predates that one.)

I've also been one of those lurkers who assumed that with all the strident voices, she probably did it.

Maybe, maybe not. But I believed from the get go that Susan Smith was as guilty as sin. But I have always believed in Darlie's innocence. :) And like Jana, I'm not posting that to start a debate, just posting my opinion.
 
<modsnip>

There are also some outspoken posters still posting on the case from the area. This is their right, but I'm from the area as well and I don't have a one way viewpoint of the case.
When my local newspaper, the Hood Country News, did a 10 part expose' on the BEHAVIOR of those who mattered at the trial ( judge, jury, defense team and prosecution) my eyes were opened to the fact that Darlie, despite being her own worst enemy back then publicity- wise, DID NOT get a fair trial by due process of law.

Here are some of the procedural errors as I see them. Again, IMO.

1) Parkland doctors and nurses charted things about Darlie being upset, depressed, crying. Somber mood. Even suicidal because her sons were dead. The charted documentation IS the final word. At trial, most if not all of them lied, couldn't remember, " didn't mean what they had charted" or had different " recollections" than what was charted. I'm sorry, but what you record at the time of the incident is Canon. It stands and would have stood in court if her defense lawyers had been any good.

2) The Hood County News spoke with DARIN'S aunt, who had a journal from the trial. She was not allowed to write down what was said but could write her impressions of the courtroom. She noted how many times after lunch the judge went to sleep. It was over 40 times with testimony and examination and cross- examination of witnesses still going on. He was not presiding over the court. Again, Darlie was denied basic lack of due process due to inadequate courtroom procedure.

3) Rowlett PD was highly influenced by the Susan Smith incident in SC, IMO. She drowned her two little boys so she could have an affair with a man who didn't want the children around. Despite evidence of break- ins in Darlie's neighborhood, no one searched for an intruder. The focus was on Darlie before the blood had dried.

4) The crime scene was, of course, highly emotional. I read the autopsy reports for the two boys. Sentiment was extremely high that justice be done. Darlie was the easy target due to her youth, her relationship to the boys, her proximity to them that night, and things she said while in a pain- and painc induced state. IMO, Darlie had severe PTSD from seeing her boys cut to pieces, from her own assault in the living room with the knife wounds, the extreme bruising to her hands and arms and cuts there as well. Also, her panties were missing and she didn't know how or why. That's why her words were not always exactly the same She didn't KNOW who did this to her and her boys.

5) Darlie bore the brunt of criticism for everything from getting towels for the boys like a paramedic asked, to putting one on her own bleeding neck wound, to telling the 911 dispatcher after she called 911 and the DISPATCH said " Don't touch the knife" and Darlie replied " I already did". Darlie didn't initiate the talk about the knife, the dispatcher did. It's in the transcripts.

6) The Silly String video was part of a much longer video where the famiy came to remember one of the boys on his birthday. He had recently been buried. Darlie had cried and cried at the scene, but that part was cut out and not shown to the jury. MANY jurors have said that if they had seen the entire video, it would have made a difference. Might have changed their minds. This is another failure of Darlie's defense team.

7) Rowlett needed to solve this case and Darlie was the easiest person to pin it on because of Susan Smith, because she tried to live above her means. because she was seen as a tacky young bleached blonde with big implants. and because she often said things without thinking. She was very young, and immature. She was NOT a murderer, though, IMO.
Darin's testimony at trial hurt Darlie's case. He was rude at times, impudent, not well- spoken or well- mannered at all. Darlie was in no condition to testify emotionally ( again, I believe she had PTSD for years from trauma related to her own attack by a stranger that night as well as her boys dying in front of her) but her attorneys allowed both to make the situation for Darlie a lot worse through their own testimonies.

8) The bloody sock in the back alley way has always been used to point to Darlie's guilt. IDK why as it is believed that the sock did not come from the home. Also, it appears that the perp. put the sock over their hand to keep from cutting it. Not sure if it worked. Now it may be the piece of evidence which points to her innocence because of the unmatched foreign hairs not belonging to any one in the household. It is the smoking gun in the case, not anything Darlie said, and should be the piece of evidence which sets her free.

I have heard that the one living son, now grown, has leukemia. This breaks my heart. He was a small baby in a crib, not yet walking, when his brothers were killed. Darlie had no time with him when he was a baby because of the legal proceedings against her. Now it may be too late.

<modsnip>

The only way this case can be looked at fairly is with truly open eyes and minds. With hearts that hurt but bear no ill will.

Praying for justice for Darlie, and for Drake's health. :loveyou:
We posted our thoughts about the same time. :)
 
Two limb hairs that don't match the Routiers is NOT proof there was an intruder.

Not even close.

They have not been tested against the police, EMTs, family members, CSI, lab workers, etc. We have no idea if those hairs belong to Officer Waddell or James Cron or any of the other people known to be in the house. Law enforcement DNA is included in CODIS so I imagine they can be cross-referenced that way. But that hasn't been done yet.

Further, there's confusion about the source of those hairs. They may be from the sock or they may be from the home. Two random hairs in a home prove that someone was in a home at some point or possibly someone they knew carried their hairs into a home. Two random hairs do not prove Darlie did not stab her sleeping children.

Dozens of samples from the night shirt point right back to Darlie too. That means nothing?

I just read in this thread that the 2 hairs match each other. How do we know this? I read the report and it didn't say that - though it's possible I missed it.

Last, the Courts have already ruled, pre-emptively, that she will require a lot more new evidence than a random hair or two - even if they indeed came from the sock. It's in the 2008 Decision/Order for new testing.

This is in no way, shape, or form, enough evidence to warrant her release or even a new trial.

Testing is not complete. I'm very much looking forward to her excuse when the screen fiber is re-tested and it's known with even more certainty that she indeed cut that screen.

Oh - and hi everyone. I have never posted in Websleuths before - I post on other crime forums and have been reading here for ages.
 
2008 Decision/Order granting DNA testing:

Page 9:
Furthermore, because it was eventually located outside the Routier residence, the presence on the tube sock of human hairs from someone unrelated to the Routier family would have very little probative value. Those hairs could have come from a person or other source completely foreign to the interior of the Routier home long after the tube sock was removed from the Routier home.

Page 15:
“Under such circumstances, even if petitioner can establish that a male unrelated to her immediate family was present on the night of her sons’ murders, that fact will need to be joined with considerably more “newly discovered evidence” before petitioner can satisfy the “actual innocence” standard outlined above.”

She needs much more than to be entitled to any relief. And it's a bit early to claim this proves there was an intruder - considering these hairs have not been tested against law enforcement yet, don't ya think?

http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Legal/Habeas/081105.pdf
 
Two limb hairs that don't match the Routiers is NOT proof there was an intruder.

Not even close.

They have not been tested against the police, EMTs, family members, CSI, lab workers, etc. We have no idea if those hairs belong to Officer Waddell or James Cron or any of the other people known to be in the house. Law enforcement DNA is included in CODIS so I imagine they can be cross-referenced that way. But that hasn't been done yet.

Further, there's confusion about the source of those hairs. They may be from the sock or they may be from the home. Two random hairs in a home prove that someone was in a home at some point or possibly someone they knew carried their hairs into a home. Two random hairs do not prove Darlie did not stab her sleeping children.

Dozens of samples from the night shirt point right back to Darlie too. That means nothing?

I just read in this thread that the 2 hairs match each other. How do we know this? I read the report and it didn't say that - though it's possible I missed it.

Last, the Courts have already ruled, pre-emptively, that she will require a lot more new evidence than a random hair or two - even if they indeed came from the sock. It's in the 2008 Decision/Order for new testing.

This is in no way, shape, or form, enough evidence to warrant her release or even a new trial.

Testing is not complete. I'm very much looking forward to her excuse when the screen fiber is re-tested and it's known with even more certainty that she indeed cut that screen.

Oh - and hi everyone. I have never posted in Websleuths before - I post on other crime forums and have been reading here for ages.

Hi Val! And welcome to WS!! :) As you can tell, we welcome ALL opinions here. Thanks for sharing yours.
 
2008 Decision/Order granting DNA testing:

Page 9:
Furthermore, because it was eventually located outside the Routier residence, the presence on the tube sock of human hairs from someone unrelated to the Routier family would have very little probative value. Those hairs could have come from a person or other source completely foreign to the interior of the Routier home long after the tube sock was removed from the Routier home.

Page 15:
“Under such circumstances, even if petitioner can establish that a male unrelated to her immediate family was present on the night of her sons’ murders, that fact will need to be joined with considerably more “newly discovered evidence” before petitioner can satisfy the “actual innocence” standard outlined above.”

She needs much more than to be entitled to any relief. And it's a bit early to claim this proves there was an intruder - considering these hairs have not been tested against law enforcement yet, don't ya think?

http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Legal/Habeas/081105.pdf

Getting the DNA testing done was a HUGE victory for Darlie and her family in and of itself.

My rebuttal as to the probable significance of the hairs found on the sock is as follows:
The limb hairs do not match Darlie or any other occupants of the house. If additional testing can find this DNA match on other items then there is absolute proof an intruder was in home. All of the limb hairs match each other so one contributor of the hairs is found on the INSIDE of the sock. You can't claim the hairs were randomly picked up from the ground where it was thrown as the sock only touched the ground on the OUTSIDE of the sock.

IMO, she will be out in 2014.

Likewise, Google Tom Bevel ( not sure of spelling, perhaps Bevill) and see how his court reputation as a blood splatter evidence expert has been discredited in the past 24 months. I don't think he is even allowed in Texas court rooms as an " expert" any longer. I've spent over a year reading about how he made up things... because of the huge fees paid to him and the almost unchallenged power he gained. The prisons are full of possibly innocent people he helped convict with his own brand of " junk science".
Blood splatter cast off can be predicted to some degree if the victim is still and there is no arterial bleeding occurring, but with any of these or other variables, it is not a static science which can be reproduced with accuracy, which is the measure of " reliable science".

JMO.
 
How do you know those two hairs match each other?

How do you know where exactly those hairs came from, especially that one was inside the sock?

I read the status report and I did not see either of those things stated there.

I may have overlooked it, but do you have proof of either of those claims?

I think a ton of misinformation about the significance of this testing is being spread right now. I keep seeing these claims but not any proof of any of it.

If she can produce multiple DNA samples matching each other and excluding law enforcement and the other people known to be in the house (Karen Neal, family members, etc), then I'll admit that's significant.

But the fact of the matter is that is a LOOOONNNGG ways from what she has now.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
223
Guests online
3,448
Total visitors
3,671

Forum statistics

Threads
591,697
Messages
17,957,684
Members
228,588
Latest member
cariboucampfire73
Back
Top