Darlie Routier asks for DNA testing

[Val830]

Hi Val! And welcome to WS!! As you can tell, we welcome ALL opinions here. Thanks for sharing yours.

Thank you for the welcome!

 

[Val830]

I am no DNA expert.

I just re-read the DNA results of those hairs in the status report.

It looks to me that they do NOT match each other.

So are there two intruders? Or does one hair belong to an intruder and the other transfer, contamination, artifact, etc? If one of the hairs is transfer, why is anyone sure that both aren't?

I am severely underwhelmed by the significance of these results.

 

[Sinsaint]

I am no DNA expert.

I just re-read the DNA results of those hairs in the status report.

It looks to me that they do NOT match each other.

So are there two intruders? Or does one hair belong to an intruder and the other transfer, contamination, artifact, etc? If one of the hairs is transfer, why is anyone sure that both aren't?

I am severely underwhelmed by the significance of these results.

Where are you getting that the hairs were compared to each other and not an match?

 

[CathyR]

If you read the blood test results from the nightshirt there is a MIXTURE of blood on her shirt.

That it is a mixture and not a total therefore a complete match to her. The blood does not belong to Darin or the boys.

This is what will be amplified to be compared to the hairs and profiles that came up not matching her.

The BLOOD means the attacker did bleed at the scene it it doesn't completely match Darlie's blood. The boys and Darin are ruled out as contributors.


Ok the super Darlie theory is older than you have been posting here. No one can explain how Darlie got the sock outside without leaving a blood trail from what is obviously a bloody scene. Her blood is UNDER the boys blood in tests already done by the State long ago, this proves that she was bleeding before the boys so how did she accomplish that super feat of controlled bleeding?

Lab techs wear long sleeved lab coats for a reason, there are protocols for DNA testing procedures to avoid contamination and they don't put their arm into a sock to get a sample. If they did then it shows shoddy handling of the evidence . Those labs have special air handling units . To avoid cross contamination.


If the police or lab people or police are the actual contributors then it we already know that they did not bleed on the shirt.


As far as the actual markers go not enough of them matched Darlie to ignore.

In your theory, Darlie can change her DNA ( there are many places on that shirt that are of her and her alone). She can plant socks and open gates run down alley without leaving a single drop of blood or smudge.


Regardless of the limb hairs being presumptively excluded if they match the blood DNA on her shirt. You have better evidence to submit to CODIS , there is no law governing what the prosecution can do with that evidence as there is no case against anyone but Darlie any future prosecutions are exempt from the ruling and it may help catch a killer. Don't be so stuck on the DDI theory that YOU CAN'T SEE, the test results are that are very telling.What is the most important interest for the State anyway? PREVENTING any other human or animal to be tortured or killed at the hands of this person.

If the prosecution claims contamination then ALL THE BLOOD evidence must be withdrawn as it show that the lab did not follow protocols. IF THEY CONTAMINATED TWO MAJOR PIECES OF EVIDENCE THEN ALL THE RESULTS CAN BE IN QUESTION. THE POLICE ARE IN TOTAL CONTROL BY CHAIN OF CUSTODY, AND THE PROSECUTION CANNOT USE EVIDENCE THEY CLAIM IS CONTAMINATED!

You can't have it both ways.

Read at the bottom of page 3 and on. it identifies the blood sampled from the shirt and show major from Darlie and minor contribution from ?. It means that there is an area where more than Darlie's DNA is found. A ? contribution. The one thing it does not reveal is if the type of ? contribution is from blood, saliva, epithelial, sweat, body oils.

Since the lab that did it contains the data base for all HR DNA on file. Then without question I am assuming they ran it as the point would be moot and a waste of the courts time to have to order further comparisons to that data base, it makes sense to do that before submitting any findings to the court as those records would need to accompany the results if a 1st responder was the source, before even submitting these findings to the court. There doesn't have to be a court order for that is it supposed to be automatic. 1ST Responders all submitted their profiles way back when the players haven't changed just the playing field.

UNT will do the amplification and a hearing is to be held in January. The family and supporters believe this cannot be ignored .

IMO even if UNT cannot get much more than the DPS labs did then the fact that some of the DNA cannot be totally contributed by Darlie is pretty strong evidence!:moo:

 

[Val830]

Where are you getting that the hairs were compared to each other and not an match?

I am getting it directly from the status report. Since it does not say those two samples match each other, it would be the duty of those making that claim to provide proof.

I don't get my information from what other people on message boards say. I get my information directly from the source - before it's altered by propagandists and made out to be something without proof.

That status report only contains information that the samples exclude Darlie & Darin. The testing was via mitochondrial DNA, which by default, means Darlies children, mother, sisters, are also excluded.

They were not tested against law enforcement or anyone known to be at the scene. Nor does that report state that the two samples matched each other. If you have proof that they do, I'd be happy to read it.

 

[CathyR]

Read the results starting at the bottom of page 3 about the blood and the major and minor contributors.

 

[fruity]

I agree with you Val. I'm underwhelmed. It doesn't prove anything to me at this stage. It may lead to more later and I will be keen to read and accept more convincing proof.

I'm coming from the pov where I originally thought she was innocent, then I was convinced by other evidence that she did it. I'm happy to change my mind with scientific proof and evidence. Unfortunately this doesn't do it for me.

 

[CathyR]

I am getting it directly from the status report. Since it does not say those two samples match each other, it would be the duty of those making that claim to provide proof.

I don't get my information from what other people on message boards say. I get my information directly from the source - before it's altered by propagandists and made out to be something without proof.

That status report only contains information that the samples exclude Darlie & Darin. The testing was via mitochondrial DNA, which by default, means Darlies children, mother, sisters, are also excluded.

They were not tested against law enforcement or anyone known to be at the scene. Nor does that report state that the two samples matched each other. If you have proof that they do, I'd be happy to read it.

Where you get the information it wasn't compared to 1st responders?

Are you like me assuming they didn't. I am assuming they would as it would be stupid not to.

 

[Val830]

So you're just assuming the lab would have run those samples through CODIS?

Quite an assumption to make considering the report says no such thing.

Testing is not complete - hence a "status" report and not a "final" report. There is plenty more testing yet to occur. This status report merely shows what's occurred so far.

"Older than I've been posting here" - well I'd hope so considering my first post HERE was today. I'm not new to the Darlie Routier boards and I've heard all the arguments before and I, personally, remain unconvinced of her innocence. I really don't care to convince anyone of anything. I've been researching this case for a long enough time to be confident in her guilt. If she's got the evidence to prove her innocence, she can produce it. I doubt she cares if she convinces me of her innocence, but she's gonna need a hell of a lot more than these two hairs for a new trial or any other relief.

I would love to read the lab reports that state those two hairs are from the same source, that they came from inside the sock, and that they exclude all law enforcement and anyone else known to be in the house that night.

The sock came from inside the house. If the intruder picked it up while he was there and used it, then the fact remains the sock came from inside the house and could have hairs from before 6/6/96. The housekeeper did laundry I'm sure. It really doesn't matter what anyone on the Internet thinks - the Court has already concluded she needs MORE than some hairs on the sock.

If every murder investigation with an unidentified hair at the scene proved the suspect is innocent, we'd have very few people in prison. Murderers don't tend to sterilize their crime scenes and autoclave their weapons before committing their crimes.

 

[Val830]

Where you get the information it wasn't compared to 1st responders?

Are you like me assuming they didn't. I am assuming they would as it would be stupid not to.

And I'm sure it will be. Testing is not complete. This is only a status report. And it specifically states that Darlie & Darin are excluded as contributors. It does NOT state that they have been compared to anyone else. If it's not in the report - there's no proof it happened. Labs don't take it upon themselves to test everything completely. They run the tests that they're hired to run. And, according to the report, it's only been compared to Darlie & Darin.

Read the report. It's in one of the appendices. It's very short and only states that the two hairs exclude Darlie & Darin.

 

[txsvicki]

Testing the limb hair from unside the sock at the same would haved saved lots of time. Is there a root on all 3 hairs? Is the limb hair inside the sock already ruled out as darin or darlie? I'm too dumb to decipher dna stuff.

 

[Val830]

I have poured over this latest report for an embarrassing amount of time in the past two days. Here is what I've determined.

1. The two limb hairs DO NOT MATCH EACH OTHER. The hairs are labelled--10-2589-1A and 10-2589-1B. Look at the status report on under Appendix A. The DNA sequences are different. Hence, they do not match each other. They DO exclude Darin and Darlie (and by default, her biological children).

2. They are NOT the sock hairs. Page 6, Item #2, of DARLIE's latest motion for DNA testing states that the limb hairs from the sock have not yet been tested - she filed this motion this past November, only a month ago. The lab report is dated January 11, 2013 - TEN MONTHS before Darlie motioned to the Court for permission to test the sock hairs.

3. These two hairs HAVE NOT been compared against law enforcement, lab techs, EMTs, or any of the people known to be in the home. Further, considering #2, these hairs were probably just collected from inside the house. You show me a house without an unidentified hair or two and I'll show you a recluse, hermit, or a person suffering with a severe case of OCD. Two hairs in a house do not prove an intruder stabbed Darlie and her children.


Any claims that these hairs came from inside the sock are unsubstantiated. Any claims that these hairs match each other are blatantly false.

 

[Val830]

This is not my work, it is Cami's.

This is taken from the original lab report and the new status report.

These are the two hairs referenced in the new status report:

10-259-1A Microcentrifuge tube labelled - 1879-5034B

10-259 -1B Microcentrifuge tube labelled - 1879-5035C


This is from the original lab report:

1879-5034 is the pubic hair - shaft

1879-5035 is a facial hair, which had the result 18,28--doesn't match any of the Routiers.


I glean from this that the pubic hair shaft did not match any of the Routiers (but the root is another story) and we know the facial hair didn't match them.

I have attached the original lab report with the numbers, as you will note, 5034 is the shaft of the pubic hair and 5033 is the root. Specimen 5035 is the facial hair.

THESE HAIRS ARE NOT THE LIMB HAIRS FROM THE SOCK. These two hairs are a pubic hair and a facial hair from the crime scene - aka inside the Routier home. And they DO NOT MATCH EACH OTHER.

I have attached the original lab report to this post. Compare it to the new status report.

 

[cami]

I wonder why the normal "Darlie done it" mob isn't here contesting the results yet. They were all foaming at the mouth that the results weren't released because they probably proved she did it. The results seem to say otherwise and now everyone is just so awkwardly silent? I don't get it.

Pipe in... Let's hear the arguments that Darlie was loaning out her socks. Or Texas limb hair storms. Or some random person walking the alley that night who had nothing to do with crime just happened upon the sock, tried it on, decided it wasn't a good fit or too stained for his liking so he just left it there. Something? Anything?

Oh no worries Sinsaint we're here and we know these hairs do nothing for Darlie, they are not limb hairs from the sock. It would behoove you to read the documents carefully and match the specimen numbers with the original DNA item numbers from 1996 which are on Darlie's website. That's what we did and that's how we know the two hairs tested are a facial hair and a pubic hair and they do not match each other. It states that clearly in Appendix A page 1 and 2 of the latest report.

Sorry but this is not enough to grant Darlie any relief or a new trial.

 

[Val830]

I'm just curious how anyone could read the new status report and come away with the conclusion that the hairs were from inside a sock or that they matched each other.

The documents posted in the beginning of this thread as proof of that say nothing of the sort. It's like the old game of telephone. One person posts a 40 page document and makes up what it says, the next person glances at the doc but doesn't actually read it, but they repeat the false conclusions of the original poster.

Next thing you know, it's all over the Internet repeated ad naseum by other people who couldn't be bothered to read the report.

It took me a whopping 15 minutes or so to read it and to know that what's being claimed by Darlie supporters is a bunch of BS.

 

[Steel86]

The documents posted in the beginning of this thread as proof of that say nothing of the sort. It's like the old game of telephone. One person posts a 40 page document and makes up what it says, the next person glances at the doc but doesn't actually read it, but they repeat the false conclusions of the original poster.

Next thing you know, it's all over the Internet repeated ad naseum by other people who couldn't be bothered to read the report

.


Hi, Val830. I was wondering if you might add some information regarding the mixtures in this status report. As I understand it, the mixtures have detected DNA PROFILES, but that does not necessarily mean that those profiles are from blood, correct? (Darlie's DNA being the major component, safe to assume that it is her blood because we know her nightshirt contained much of her blood that night?) Another poster has contended that from this status report that people can assume that an intruder bled at the scene. Is that not false information as well? I want to make sure that it is correct to say that the minor component detected in those mixtures does not say it was blood, only a DNA profile. TIA

 

[cami]

.


Hi, Val830. I was wondering if you might add some information regarding the mixtures in this status report. As I understand it, the mixtures have detected DNA PROFILES, but that does not necessarily mean that those profiles are from blood, correct? (Darlie's DNA being the major component, safe to assume that it is her blood because we know her nightshirt contained much of her blood that night?) Another poster has contended that from this status report that people can assume that an intruder bled at the scene. Is that not false information as well? I want to make sure that it is correct to say that the minor component detected in those mixtures does not say it was blood, only a DNA profile. TIA

Yes Steel86, the report states that 26 cuttings from the shirt were analyzed for DNA. It further states 24 of these 26 cuttings were primarily Darlie and the boys and Darin are excluded. Two profiles, Items 01-15 and 01-17 show a mixture of contributors, Darlie being the major contributor and the minor is u/k, Darin and the boys are ruled out. No comparison could be made on the lower component. I wonder what this means: "due to the low level of data present above our analysis threshold, no comparisons will be made to the lower component"


The original DNA testing specimen numbers for the portions of the shirt where they found the boys DNA are: 4972-T9, 4972-T10,and 4972-T9R, I don't see these numbers on this new report.

If the intruder bled at the scene, how did he get out without leaving any blood on the floor, in the garage, on the alleged exit window, window sill, screen, walkway, driveway, gate, fence?

If it is though, of course it's good for Darlie but I won't hold my breath.

Edited to add: Here's something I found Steel, this is on the new report. "01-27 cutting from Tshirt, Item 24T9, no analysis was performed on this item due to that fact that no cutting was present" I'm just speculating of course because we don't know for sure, but I wonder if this is Item 4972-T9 which is a cutting from the shirt that showed Damon's blood as well as Darlie's.

 

[Steel86]

If it is though, of course it's good for Darlie but I won't hold my breath.

Thank you, Cami. I certainly find the reports confusing, but I admit that I have not done much homework cross referencing the numbers against the original.

For me, I just needed to confirm that the DNA profile in the minor component isn't necessarily blood.

 

[Val830]

.


Hi, Val830. I was wondering if you might add some information regarding the mixtures in this status report. As I understand it, the mixtures have detected DNA PROFILES, but that does not necessarily mean that those profiles are from blood, correct? (Darlie's DNA being the major component, safe to assume that it is her blood because we know her nightshirt contained much of her blood that night?) Another poster has contended that from this status report that people can assume that an intruder bled at the scene. Is that not false information as well? I want to make sure that it is correct to say that the minor component detected in those mixtures does not say it was blood, only a DNA profile. TIA

Hi Steel.

I am not a DNA expert but I am going to say that "assuming that an intruder bled at the scene" is QUITE a stretch.

As you pointed out, DNA does not necessarily mean "blood" - and "no comparison could be made" does not mean "Routiers are excluded."

Like you said - if some of the DNA on the nightshirt is from a biological source other than blood - it will need to be cross-referenced with the EMTs, doctors, and nurses who treated her - and I am not certain that can even be done.

This is a defense-driven campaign to free Darlie based on the CSI effect and the fact that most people do not understand DNA and assume that DNA discovered = murderer.

Hers is hardly the first case to try and pull the wool over people's eyes like this.

 

[Steel86]

As you pointed out, DNA does not necessarily mean "blood" - and "no comparison could be made" does not mean "Routiers are excluded."

Wow..I just realized that the mixtures only say that Damon, Devon, and Darin are excluded from the MAJOR component, so they are not excluded on the minor component. I think maybe Cami was trying to point that out to me earlier, I must need sleep lol