Darlie Routier asks for DNA testing

[Linda7NJ]

She is GUILTY! The DNA test will mean nothing to me. A single piece of hair found on the carpet? Please! A single piece of facial hair? Give me a break!

Some insignificant speck of dna on a shirt? Won't mean a thing to me.

 

[NewMom2003]

I am undecided on Darlie, its one of those crimes that are so horrific its almost impossible for my mind to fathom a parent butchering their babies. I cant wait to hear the results.

That is how I feel too Michelle. I'm glad they are doing these tests. Now maybe we will have a definitive answer in this case.

One question (I haven't read the links) Is her defense team/family paying for these tests or are we, the taxpayers of Texas paying for them?

 

[NewMom2003]

I'm NOT singling ANYONE out BUT...for those of you who say you can't see a parent (especially a mom) doing something SO vicious...yeah, well it happens EVRY single day. Moms KILL...more often than we'd like to believe. WS is proof of that.
It happens.
As a parent, NO, I can't concieve of another parent doing this, but the truth is it happens everyday, regardless of what I think/hope/wish for.
There is SO much over-whleming evidence against Darlie...Yep it haunts me at night to envision a mom doing this...but, it happens...far too often than we'd like.
Men are no longer the only boogey-men out there.

White Rain, you are right. We see this everyday at WS and I guess we shouldn't be shocked at the brutality of this murder. The reason I'm on the fence in this case is there is no clear motive (in my mind). The life insurance policies of the boys was barely enough to bury them. If she didn't want to be a mother, then why was one child left alive? That's the part I have a problem with.

 

[MrsMush99]

What I'm wondering is why the judge wouldn't allow testing on two bloody fingerprints that were found?? Why not get it all done in one shot? If those fingerprints didn't belong to anyone in the house or anyone involved in the investigation, shouldn't they be tested??

 

[MissieMt]

I'm all for the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing but this lady has been proven guilty, and it is time to move on. But maybe thats just the Texan in me-the victims do not get to die peaceful deaths due to old age and (right or wrong) we don't like to give those on death row that chance either.

 

[cami]

And what if the DNA tests show some unknown male DNA is present? Would it change anybody's mind? Would it sway anyone here even for a moment? No, the excuses are already coming out. Some neighbor kid. Next it would be Darlie's secret lover. Or the builder. Or the plumber.

No, it won't change my mind. There is more than enough evidence to prove Darlie committed this crime, these tests are just a tiny bit of it.

 

[cami]

Hey Cami thanks!! The pubic hair was found in the kitchen uh? Wasn't Darlie found to be without her panties on. So therefore IMO, it would make sense that this hair would be hers. All of the blood on the shirt, I would love to have all it tested. I am willing to bet money on it belonging to all three just as the murder weapon does. I thought they tested the sock and found the salvia belonged to Darlie and the hair was some type of animal hair.

I agree with Jeana and have said it before, test it all. All she is doing is delaying her death sentence which isn't fair to the boys imo.. She will be proven guilty AGAIN. And then hopefully justice will be served soon.[/QU

They have tested them all, they want them subjected to more up-to-date testing. They found the boys blood on the sock and Darlie's dna, there was one blood spot that didn't type I think if I remember the testimony..it was miniscule.

The pubic hair was probably brought in from the outside. I don't place much value on this hair. It could have come in on anyone's shoe..even Darlie Kee's. And yes the sock was on the ground where it p/u the deer hair...

They are looking for a Y chromozone in the blood.

 

[whitywendy]

I was confused about the palm print. I thought it was THE fingerprint on the table they were trying to get tested. Wonder why they didn't allow it to be tested. Any theories? DP-you are always good at this-do you have any theories as to why they didn't allow testing of the print?

Stella - I read the "opinion" and in regards to the palm print, Darlie had every opportunity to test this during the original trial which she did not, through fault of her own according to the courts. She also had to prove that the new DNA techniques available today would result in more "info" being pulled from the new testing. It was determined in trial that this palm print most likely belonged to a child. The ME did not take palm prints prior to releasing the bodies. So therefore the courts do not feel that the testing of this palm print will change the previous results in any significant way. They go on to say pretty much the same thing about the knife in regards to her having every opportunity to test these items and she chose not to during her trial AND that DNA testing back 96 had the capability to determine different types of blood - ie Darlie's Damon, Devon's and that as of now retesting would not change the outcome of those test.

I hope I made some sense.

 

[dasgal]

And what if the DNA tests show some unknown male DNA is present? Would it change anybody's mind? Would it sway anyone here even for a moment? No, the excuses are already coming out. Some neighbor kid. Next it would be Darlie's secret lover. Or the builder. Or the plumber.

Hey lady.

If's it's unknown DNA on her shirt, then I'd say, "yeah well it might be time to eat a big steaming helping of crow."

But would it really mean anything at all if it was the limb/pub hair? It didn't mean anything the first time around. It's the same type of transfer you could find in anyone's home.

The sock? If it was still inside the house when found, that might mean something. But since it was found in an alleyway, full of trash cans from all the neighbors, trace dna could easily, and most logically be argued as transfer.

The "flakes" of brown stuff in the kitchen? It's already been tested as not being human matter. If it is retested an miraculously becomes "human", then maybe there is a reason for pause. But it won't be.

And what if all the tests come back the same? Will that stop the excuses made by her family and fans? Not in a million years. She will got to her death with people wailing and screaming that no mother could do that.

 

[kgeaux]

I'm all for the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing but this lady has been proven guilty, and it is time to move on. But maybe thats just the Texan in me-the victims do not get to die peaceful deaths due to old age and (right or wrong) we don't like to give those on death row that chance either.

Well, she has been proven guilty in a court of law, so the "innocent until proven guilty" part has been taken care of!

HOWEVER, I am ALWAYS suspicious when prosecutors fight so hard to prevent DNA testing. It always makes me believe they don't have faith in what the results will be. I am in Louisiana, and I know that men have walked out of Louisiana as well as Texas prisons when DNA was found to have come from someone else. Should they have just "moved on" when they were found guilty? Or should a person be able to fight a miscarriage of justice?

I think any defendant should be able to defend themselves with the best possible effort, so as long as there is DNA, let them at it. So much is at stake here. It's the difference between "guilty" and "not guilty" between "fresh air" and "jail cell." It's a difference between justice and injustice.

 

[whitywendy]

Hey lady.

And what if all the tests come back the same? Will that stop the excuses made by her family and fans? Not in a million years. She will got to her death with people wailing and screaming that no mother could do that.

IF and that is a big IF the results come back in her favor, proving that someone besides her killed her kids, I WOULD BE ONE OF THE FIRST TO SEND HER A LETTER OF APOLOGY. In the same if the results just prove we were right all along, then will anyone of the Pro-Darlie's apologize to us for being so ugly....NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

[dasgal]

I don't think "them" apologizing to "us" is even a realistic want. How many of us would apologize to them after all.

But just as you say you would write Darlie a letter of apology, I also think it would be a nice notion if some of them also wrote the same letter of apology to the investigators and prosecution if it's just another round of proof that there was no one there but Darin, Darlie, and the kids.

 

[mollymalone]

They've done the right thing in agreeing to test but I'm of the opinion that it won't change anything, not one iota of change to show that someone else did this.

The court also said that the case against her was still strong. Allowing the testing puts a full stop to any question remaining about those items.

Darlie and her supporters will in future have to allow that the court DID do something Darlie asked for. Whether or not they'll accept the findings if it comes back as not helpful to her or make excuses for it remains to be seen, but it's a likely consequence.

 

[whitywendy]

I agree with you Molly.. They will shout that the tests were "altered" with OCIMO

 

[StellaTraver]

I don't think "them" apologizing to "us" is even a realistic want. How many of us would apologize to them after all.

But just as you say you would write Darlie a letter of apology, I also think it would be a nice notion if some of them also wrote the same letter of apology to the investigators and prosecution if it's just another round of proof that there was no one there but Darin, Darlie, and the kids.

Yes! What about if she knows she is in fact guilty and stringing everyone along that she just writes a public apology? I would be happy with that.
I would really love for this testing to find evidence of her innocence, but have learned not to hold my breath.

 

[Jolynna]

I'm all for the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing but this lady has been proven guilty, and it is time to move on. But maybe thats just the Texan in me-the victims do not get to die peaceful deaths due to old age and (right or wrong) we don't like to give those on death row that chance either.

The innocence project proved mistakes have been made.

That we don't know Darlie's motives means nothing to me. I think lots of times we never know the whys when the guilty party doesn't talk. There is no way for most of us to be able to understand or identify with that kind of thinking either.

If the science exists to prove justice was served...yes, do it.

IMO

 

[Jeana (DP)]

From juniordetective--I think the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals made the right decision to order DNA testing of certain items. I am writing to address one part of that court's opinion where the court talks about the strength of the State's case. The court found it odd that Darlie would volunteer that she had handled the murder weapon

and thereby had probably ruined "any prints the intruder may have left." The reason I am writing about that observation is that the killings occurred more than 12 years

ago and I still have not seen even one person put that statement in the proper context. Now, I am not talking about when Darlie was on the phone with 911, the dispatcher said not to touch anything, and Darlie responded that she had already picked up the knife. I am talking about, according to one poster, the statement that Darlie completely volunteered about a minute and 10 seconds later where she blurts out that she had touched the knife and if she had not done so, "maybe we could have gotten some prints." You have to remember that her two children are right there, both of them have been stabbed multiple times, and one is still alive so that maybe he can be helped. I know some posters have said, "why would you even care about getting prints on the knife given the horror right before you?" The almost singular response has been that she wanted to explain why her prints would be found on the knife. Well, from outward appearances, she is concerned about why her prints would be found on the knife. Indeed, she stated the line about picking up the knife and thus not being able to get the intruder's prints several times, including when she was in the hospital after the killings.

The thing you have to remember when you are dealing with Darlie is that you are dealing with a world-class manipulator and the line about not being able to get any prints is evidence of that. Yes, outwardly she is concerned about her prints being on the knife. But that is a cover for what she was actually concerned about. She was not

concerned about whose prints would be found on the knife, she was concerned with whose prints would not be found on the knife. What she has tried to get us to believe is that if she had not picked up the knife, the intruder's prints could have been recovered from the knife. Apparently the surface of the knife was not conducive to getting prints in any event, but her explanation assumes that there actually was an intruder. If there was no intruder, then no such prints could have been deposited on the knife. Since Darlie knew that once the knife was tested it would not show prints from an intruder, she steered us towards the only other plausible explanation: that the intruder's prints were on the knife and she absentmindedly wiped them away by picking up the knife. You have to be careful folks, you are dealing with a person who knows exactly which buttons to push to get what she wants, and she has fooled a lot of people by making them believe that the intruder existed and she unfortunately wiped away evidence of that. I have read comments from people that say the 911 call is evidence of her innocence, but to me, she is setting up her defense during that call (such as

telling Darin that "someone came in here and intentionally did this!" as if Darin would have otherwise concluded that someone accidentally did it.) The defense has never given us any reason to believe that there was any intruder.

The Routiers had no choice but to push for the DNA testing, but now they are in a tough spot: DNA testing can not show the existence of that which never existed in the first place. From what I have read, while exonerations through DNA testing make all of the headlines, the vast majority of DNA tests only show what is already known, that the right person is behind bars. The Routiers have to hope for what other people seeking DNA testing have wished for: that the test somehow gets screwed up and helps the defense rather than the prosecution. I don't think that will happen in the Routier case.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

ITA with Jeana on this. The DNA testing should be the last irrefutable physical evidence in the case.
Jeana, I know how passionately you believe that Darlie and Darlie alone is guilty. It takes a very fair- minded person to post what you have about this new development in Darlie's case, a factual statement of what the DNA will or will not do.
When I received the email notification from the Routier family website ( I don't know exactly HOW I got signed up for those), you were the first person I thought about and I wondered what your reaction would be.

You have shown immense grace in your post. Stating the facts of what the DNA testing may or may not prove dispassionately is such an admirable quality. This is an emotional case for most of us. Because I believe Patsy Ramsey killed JonBenet in some sort of rage situation, I definitely believe that mothers who are not insane can and do kill their children. In nice neighborhoods. In the middle of the night.

Jeana, I have a question for you. What if at least some of the tests come back positive for Darrin Routier? Will the courts consider this significant evidence only if it comes from a source foreign to the household?

I know my indecision about which parent killed the boys and inflicted Darlie's wounds is not a popular one here, but I have what I guess could be called " reasonable doubt" that all that happened to three members of his family and how he could possibly not be deeply involved. I have read the court transcripts and all of the documentation, but just like the doubts most have in the Ramsey case, it has always been impossible for me not to wonder why zero in on her alone and not consider him as a viable suspect.
Thanks,
Maria

Thanks Maria. Although I'm 100% for the death penalty, I think the state should test every bit of possible evidence available before its even considered. I'm not in too big of a hurry to have anyone executed.

About Darin, he was in the house. It wouldn't be unusual for his DNA to be on anything that came out of the house. I don't think they are going to put him on trial for anything that could come out of these tests, but I'll bet they'd like to. It would depend on what the DNA evidence is and where its located. If his blood is found, then BINGO! However, I don't recall him having any cuts or scratches on him during the interview, so I don't think they'll find that. His hair or his saliva, why wouldn't we sort of expect to find those things? He lived in the house too and it was his sock. I think he's always been a suspect, but being a suspect can't put him on trial. They need to be able to convict him and I don't see how they could, especially if Darlie sticks to her story.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Hi Jeana,
I believe the "bloody fingerprint" is a new one. There is another new item too, but I'm not sure what it is.

Apparently there are other items that they wanted tested, that won't be, for whatever reason.

Sorry, I haven't been keeping up the last few years.

The report said they're only testing the sock and her nightshirt, not the fingerprints.

Good to see you around here!!!

 

[Alcina]

I came to this site believing Darlie was innocent. I think I wanted her to be, more than anything. After being told to read the transcripts, then reading EVERY single post here, I truly believe she is where she needs to be. With that said, I am glad this is happening. IMO, it will be the last nail in her coffin, so to speak.