A Handwriting Analyst Isn’t a Detective

The Noise

A YouTuber claims I “didn’t study the case,” “spread misinformation,” and “lost credibility” because I didn’t name an insider who spoke to me decades ago. He seems to think I should've watched every documentary, vetted every claim she made, and practically delivered a verdict on Darlie Routier’s guilt.

Let’s be clear: that’s never been my role.

Here’s what I actually do - and have since 1987:

• Examine handwriting for rhythm, pressure, spacing, fragmentation, trauma markers, and more.
• Document those findings in a structured report.
• Submit that report to the proper legal or law-enforcement authorities.
• Step away.

Boom. Done.

I don’t follow true crime fandom.

I don’t dig through police files.

I don’t watch Silly String footage.

Those are the jobs of detectives, prosecutors, and documentarians — not handwriting experts.

What Actually Happened

Decades ago, after a bookstore presentation I gave near Dallas, a soft-spoken woman approached me. She said she was 67, retired, and had worked as a hairdresser in the Rowlett area for years. She shared that there were things weighing on her that she hadn’t told anyone — because she didn’t feel safe talking to people locally.

Her claims came from longtime salon clients. She didn’t give her name, at the time, I didn’t press. With her permission, I took notes and promised to forward what she said — along with a brief handwriting analysis — to the appropriate authorities.

That was my entire involvement.

No theory. No drama. No fanfare.

Nearly 30 years have passed. She’d now be in her 90s, or possibly deceased. But I documented everything at the time and blogged about it publicly in March 2002, complete with a photo of my handwritten notes.

What I Did NOT Do

• I did not investigate the woman’s claims — that would’ve overstepped my professional and ethical boundaries.
• I did not withhold her claims — that would’ve been irresponsible.

So I did the only thing that was both ethical and correct: I passed them on to the people whose job it was to determine their accuracy.

Why Background Doesn’t Matter

Handwriting reveals how someone processes trauma, identity, stress, etc. — not what happened at a crime scene.

Watching dramatized footage would only bias my objectivity. I avoid outside influences on purpose.

That’s not laziness — that’s scientific discipline.

The Criminology Misconception

Some say, “But you’re a criminologist — you should study the whole case.”

Let’s clarify:

Criminology is the academic study of crime systems, offender behavior, public policy, and social trends — depending on the concentration or track.

My track did not include watching Netflix documentaries or debating YouTubers or Reddit theorists. So unless a video contains a handwritten document, it’s irrelevant to the work I do.

Why Comments Are Off

Two reasons:

1. I don’t like digital noise.

On pretty much every platform I use, I turn comments off whenever possible. I don’t need the clutter, the notifications, or the emotional labor of babysitting people who get offended by everything.

2. I’m working real cases in the real world.

Most comments come from people who didn’t even read, listen, or understand. They skim, react, and project. I don’t have the time — or interest — to keep repeating myself to people who already made up their minds.

Turning off comments is a professional boundary.

It helps me stay focused, protects my time, and preserves energy for my official involvement in cases.

If someone can’t handle disagreement without turning it into a personal attack, they’re not ready for this kind of content.

Not everyone will agree with you — and that’s okay. Disagreement doesn’t make someone your enemy.

So, if you truly don't understand my line of work or you're truly interested in learning, take a class with Karen Weinberg at www.docu-forensics.com.

But let’s be honest — most of my critics wouldn’t even bother.

They’re too busy claiming things like:

“You Spread False Info!”

Let’s apply basic logic:

• Were you at the crime scene?
• Were you in the bookstore with me that night?
• Did you meet the insider woman who spoke to me?
• Did you hear her firsthand claims?

No?

Then you don’t know if she was lying — and neither do I. That’s exactly why I didn’t validate or discredit her. I simply passed her claims to the people whose job it was to investigate.

That’s called ethics.

🧭 Why I’m Sharing This Again — and More Openly

In February 2025, I published an article titled Did Texas Get It Wrong? followed by No — I Didn’t Call Darlie Routier Innocent or Guilty. I referenced my brief involvement in the case but held back from sharing full details.

Even though I originally blogged about it back in 2002, I stayed quiet for years — out of caution, ethics, and concern about how people might twist it. And I was right.

But after those 2025 articles were published, a longtime attorney I’ve worked with saw some of the drama unfold and reached out. His advice was simple:

“If the original post already exists and since you’ve never claimed - and are still not claiming the woman’s story as fact - then it’s time to resurrect it. People need context in today's world.”

So here we are.

Not because I suddenly want to rehash this case.

But because people are misrepresenting the truth as I lived it — and I won’t let my silence fuel false narratives.

📌 Note on Timing & Platform

A version of this article was originally written and published publicly in 2002 on my long-standing WordPress blog.

I’ve been in the process of closing that decades-old site and gradually relocating the content to more centralized platforms like Vocal, Substack, and Medium.

During that transition (which, yes, has taken years — because it’s not a top priority), I temporarily set posts to private to avoid confusion. However, based on the advice of that same attorney, I’m now reposting it here.

To support that transparency, I’ve also reactivated the original blog site — though I don’t know how long it will remain active due to the ongoing relocation of content. So, to set the record straight, here’s the original 2002 post:

👉 I'm a Handwriting Analyst, Not an Email Whisperer (2002)

This same attorney advised me not to respond to anything else regarding this topic. And he’s right. Not everything needs a response - especially when the truth is already documented.

Oh, and by the way —

I have the email. I have the screenshot. A prominent forensic expert I’ve known for decades — who also owned a business in Rowlett at the time — confirmed she was told the exact same things.

So no, I didn’t “make it up.”

I just didn’t chase it.

I did what professionals do: I documented it, forwarded it to the proper authorities, and moved on.