Darlie Routier asks for DNA testing

Awe, your right, I guess this was a long time ago now, wasn't it? Hey, I'm all for it. Whether it was or wasn't tested previously, it should be. They need to get it done and over with. Enough of this BS , IMO . Oh, btw, didn't mean to step on any toes. ;)

I agree. Test it all and hurry the hell up.

Darlie's defense has been delaying and delaying and delaying for 5+ years ago. DNA testing was ordered over five years ago.

They have been taking their sweet time b/c they were waiting for the statute to change so that she'd be entitled to more thorough testing than was originally granted.

Yes, testing capacity was no where near as advanced in 1996 as it is now. I'm not anti DP, but I feel that granting the gov't the authority to take a persons life comes with great responsibility. And if there's evidence to test - test it! It gets out of hand when a defendant uses it to delay the inevitable for decades but that's a side effect of our sloooowwww justice system.

But rambling aside - get to it Darlie! Stop delaying it and test the damn evidence!
 
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.

ITA Val. My sister and I were once hired to clean a home that was a "potential crime scene". After the EMTs, and LE had been through the place, (which we had cleaned on a regular basis beforehand) we came in and were staggered by the amount of blood we had to deal with. In this case, as it turned out the woman did have a stroke and fell, hitting her head on her toilet and bleeding profusely all over and tried to clean up her own blood while still bleeding. There were bloody footprints (her own) all over.

After cleaning up the house, my sister and I looked at the bottoms of our shoes. We hadn't worn shoe protectors. Although we had tried our darndest, we had blood and gray hairs on the soles of our shoes. We wiped them off with white paper towels and not only blood and gray head hairs, but short (2 inch) brown hairs, very dark pubic hairs, and pubic looking gray hairs came off.

Hairs are so easily transferred on socks and shoes. I would never look on that as a preponderance of evidence. You have to (like any other crime) look at ALL of the evidence as a whole. A stray hair or two on a sock means nothing.
 
<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:

What a brilliant post! Thank you for that.
Personally I have always doubted Darlie´s guilt, and it is clear she did not have a fair trial.
The sock in the alley was the factor that made me heavily doubt that she did it.
 
In one of the John Douglas books I have read. He writes of being absolutely convinced a man killed his wife because the murder weapon came from the home.

When the true perp was found he learned that the man learned while incarcerated that bringing a weapon to a crime scene shows premeditation and can garner an offender more time in jail. In his future crimes he always used weapons from the victims homes. He has spoken about this case and does not believe Darlie is guilty either.

The only "problem" with this is that despite Hollywood movie knifings, using a kitchen knife offensively is equally likely to injure the assailant, as well as the victim. Kitchen knives are made for cutting,slicing and paring. They work poorly when used to stab people as they lack the guards necessary to prevent the users hand from alipping onto the blade and being cut.

So an assailant seeking to use kitchen cutlery, instead of an offensive weapon designed for stabbing, risks leaving his/her DNA on the scene as well as wounding themselves in a manner which the police would be able to identify them by.
 
The only "problem" with this is that despite Hollywood movie knifings, using a kitchen knife offensively is equally likely to injure the assailant, as well as the victim. Kitchen knives are made for cutting,slicing and paring. They work poorly when used to stab people as they lack the guards necessary to prevent the users hand from alipping onto the blade and being cut.

So an assailant seeking to use kitchen cutlery, instead of an offensive weapon designed for stabbing, risks leaving his/her DNA on the scene as well as wounding themselves in a manner which the police would be able to identify them by.

Except kitchen knives are used to stab people all the time.

The knife being from the house is a wash for me. Could go either way.
 
I ain't gonna yell. I think she's innocent too. Plenty disagree... Those happens to be the same people who lie about things like bruises. Fact, both arms were bruised. Fact, the IV was in her left arm interior crease of elbow.... She had bruising to BOTH arms, backs of both hands and abrasions to the interior part of arms.

I'm busy reading the threads on here. It's laughable what is passed off as fact on here. And people just eat it up.... Unreal.

What's unreal is the handful of Darlie supporters who show up with the same drivel every year or so.

It might be new to you - but I guarantee it's been covered.

Please keep reading and utilize the search function. Every point made by Darlie-ites has been addressed and debunked ad nauseum.
 
What's unreal is the handful of Darlie supporters who show up with the same drivel every year or so.

It might be new to you - but I guarantee it's been covered.

Please keep reading and utilize the search function. Every point made by Darlie-ites has been addressed and debunked ad nauseum.

Thank goodness you let me know. I was under the impression we could discuss things that, although addressed ad nauseum, still have been debunked.
 
Except kitchen knives are used to stab people all the time.

The knife being from the house is a wash for me. Could go either way.

Most stabbings are non-fatal. Using a kitchen knife would be the work of amateur or someone too lazy to bring the right tool for the job.

And I have always considered Darlie Routier to be guilty as a killer wouldn't attack and murder the children without also killing her. And not stealing anything.
 
Most stabbings are non-fatal. Using a kitchen knife would be the work of amateur or someone too lazy to bring the right tool for the job.

I'm afraid that's utter nonsense. Have you ever looked into the Craig Price cases?

And I have always considered Darlie Routier to be guilty as a killer wouldn't attack and murder the children without also killing her. And not stealing anything.

See above.
 
Most stabbings are non-fatal. Using a kitchen knife would be the work of amateur or someone too lazy to bring the right tool for the job.

And I have always considered Darlie Routier to be guilty as a killer wouldn't attack and murder the children without also killing her. And not stealing anything.

Sorry not true.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/27/justice/new-york-mass-stabbing/

Do you know how many people are killed by stabbing a year?
 
Sorry not true.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/27/justice/new-york-mass-stabbing/

Do you know how many people are killed by stabbing a year?

Again, most stabbings are not fatal unless the perperptrator:

  1. Intends them to be
  2. Fails to contact medical assistance for the victim
  3. Is very "lucky."

A kitchen knife is a TOOL, not a weapon. It's single edge and lack of hand guard will allow for its wielder to injure themselves as often as they injure a victim.
Criminals who use knives are well aware of their limitations and the majority who intend to use one will select or bring a weapon which they know will both "do the job" and not wound themselves.
 
I'm afraid that's utter nonsense. Have you ever looked into the Craig Price cases?



See above.

A single case is representative of just that: A single case.

If Craig Price was skilled enough in the use of a knife to both use a single edged kitchen knife and not injure himself while doing as such, he would be an outlier, not a common example.

Anyway, killing the children and not ensuring that the adult(s) who are physically capable of:

  1. Injuring or killing you
  2. Identifying you

Makes no rational or logical sense.

That the Routiers are oddly unconcerned that the "assailant" who murdered their children doesn't seem to be worried that they'll identify him, speaks volumes more about this case than I ever could.
 
A single case is representative of just that: A single case.

If Craig Price was skilled enough in the use of a knife to both use a single edged kitchen knife and not injure himself while doing as such, he would be an outlier, not a common example.

Anyway, killing the children and not ensuring that the adult(s) who are physically capable of:

  1. Injuring or killing you
  2. Identifying you

Makes no rational or logical sense.

That the Routiers are oddly unconcerned that the "assailant" who murdered their children doesn't seem to be worried that they'll identify him, speaks volumes more about this case than I ever could.

I do agree with you - this case makes no sense whatsoever, hence the interest from both sides of the argument.

An intruder 'should' have done a far better job, and in the same vein, Darlie 'should' have been able to cover her tracks better (if she did it of course).

I do take issue that a single case is not justified reason to see this as yet another rare case.

All though there is a norm to however assailants conduct their crimes, it is by no means gospel that they should be conducted in that manner every time.

There is a whole lot of circumstantial evidence against Darlie, and yet there is that element of doubt and that she may just be telling the truth.

The fact she and Darin seem to both have personality disorders to the extreme doesn't help the matter. Darlie showing all the signs of a narcissist and Darin being down right inappropriate and inconsistent with his comments.

The whole thing stinks of answered questions.
 
There is a whole lot of circumstantial evidence against Darlie, and yet there is that element of doubt and that she may just be telling the truth.

What doubts do you have? (Honest question, not sarcastic)

... and why all the [modsnip] damn 'D's? Nobody has explained that to me yet!
The Duggars were taking all the J's? LOL. I would assume since they were both D names, they just decided to continue that. I wonder what the cat was named.
 
What doubts do you have? (Honest question, not sarcastic)

I've read, and reread the court transcripts and I don't buy into the fact that commentators suggest her testimony was damaging. OK, the latter half where the letters she wrote to relatives (from prison I may add) where brought up by the state was an obvious surprise to her and he council judging by the defences request for a mistrial soon after.
But the rest of it, she seems to hold her own - she gives a much more solid performance that Darin for instance, who is constantly reminded by the judge to simply answer the questions - Greg Davis does a stirling job with Darin. Toby Shook on the other hand met his match with Darlie in my humble opinion - his leading questions (that Mulder constantly failed to raise objection to) went nowhere and he had to change his path on may occasions.

I'd like to know more about Gary Austin and Glenn Mize. Particularly Austin. Did they both have concrete alibis?

The Duggars were taking all the J's? LOL. I would assume since they were both D names, they just decided to continue that. I wonder what the cat was named.

Along with Darlie, Darin, Devon, Damon, Drake, Darlie Kee, Dana, Danielle and Deon, we've also got Domain, the yappy dog! :)
 
Not sure about an alibi, but Darlie admitted on the stand during cross examination that the 'intruder' was not Glen Mize. The prosecutor brought Glen into the court room and had Glen stand with the cop that Darlie originally said resembled the 'intruder's' shape. Glen was much shorter and thinner. Also during cross, she admitted that even though she wrote in multiple jail letters that she 'knew who did it' and that Glen 'did it' and 'was evil,' it was not true and she was only writing what other people had told her. She also seemed shocked that her private jail mail was read and asked how the prosecution got the letters.

Who was Gary Austin? I can't remember. I know either Glen or Gary lived in the house where the sock was found but I can never remember which one it was.
 
Not sure about an alibi, but Darlie admitted on the stand during cross examination that the 'intruder' was not Glen Mize. The prosecutor brought Glen into the court room and had Glen stand with the cop that Darlie originally said resembled the 'intruder's' shape. Glen was much shorter and thinner. Also during cross, she admitted that even though she wrote in multiple jail letters that she 'knew who did it' and that Glen 'did it' and 'was evil,' it was not true and she was only writing what other people had told her. She also seemed shocked that her private jail mail was read and asked how the prosecution got the letters.

Who was Gary Austin? I can't remember. I know either Glen or Gary lived in the house where the sock was found but I can never remember which one it was.

Gary lived in the house that the sock was left in (along the pathway according to Darlie) - although I find this confusing. It is reported that this house had the same layout as the Routier's but as far as I can see, it's a bungalow. Maybe it has the same downstairs layout?

Anyway, Gary's wife suggested she saw Gary at between 2.30 and 2.45 fully dressed having just come in from outside.

I can't find anything that relates to Gary's testimony (if there is any) or any interviews he had with Police.
 
I'd like to know more about Gary Austin and Glenn Mize. Particularly Austin. Did they both have concrete alibis?

Please link me to the MSM, LE reports, or trial transcripts that puts makes these names available for sleuthing.

Thanks,

Salem
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
185
Guests online
3,443
Total visitors
3,628

Forum statistics

Threads
595,469
Messages
18,025,071
Members
229,659
Latest member
erinicole93
Back
Top