15 Years Later-Did Darlie Routier Kill Her Sons? (Part 3)
Reposted from ZeroGossip.com
Darlie Routier on Death Row–Guilty or Innocent? Defense Opening Statement
Why Darlie is believed to be innocent.Defense Attorney Richard C. Mosty represented Darlie Routier in her murder trial. With 20 years of experience going into the trial, he set out to prove Darlie’s life revolved around her children. And that while not perfect, she is not the psychotic killer Assistant District Attorney Greg Davis was making her out to be.
Darlie Routier with her sons
MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: May it please the Court, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. I think that when we talked to all of y’all, that at some point, one of the defense lawyers, Mr. Mulder, or myself, or one of us, probably said to every one of you, that one of the things that we hate about a criminal case is, that the State always gets to go first. And that, we think first impressions are important, and that we would like to go first, and we would like to tell you our story. But we’re not allowed to do that because of the rules.
The State — and the indictment was read to you, and you were all told that the indictment is no evidence of guilt. It means nothing. And the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof that the State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Darlie is guilty. And so, we don’t get to go first. And, I just say that, to remind you again of that, as I talk about what the evidence is going to show, and what Mr. Davis did not tell you, about what the evidence is going to show. Always remember that we’re going to get our chance, it’s just not going to be the first chance.
Now, what the State has said, is that a person who has witnessed their two children being stabbed to death in their own home, and their own knife, their own throat slashed, that that person’s account, given right then, and under the terror of that moment, that that account is by itself, and that they will take that by itself, and prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that Darlie is guilty. That’s what the State’s theory is. Is, that this person who was traumatized by her children being killed in front of them, made statements that prove her own guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And I submit to you, when we — when I talk about the evidence here, and when you see the evidence, you will see that that isn’t what happened.
Darin and Darlie Routier are a young couple. It struck me, that Mr. Davis talked about them not having a savings account. I hope I never get tried over how much money —
MR. GREG DAVIS: I’m sorry. Your Honor, I’m going to have to object to the personal comments of Mr. Mosty. If we could just stick with what the evidence will show, please.
THE COURT: Sustained. Just stay on the evidence, please.
MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: Darin and Darlie are a couple that met in West Texas, in Lubbock. And the evidence will show, that they eventually settled, and they were trying to get ahead. They’re in their mid 20’s. Trying to get ahead, and ended up moving to Rowlett, which is just northeast, you would say, in Dallas. And they did find some success, and they wanted to get ahead. And Darin started a little business, and it gained some success. And they bought a nice house. And they had two beautiful children when they moved in the house, and later a third. And you will see, that house will be brought to you. And you will see a description of that house. And you will go upstairs, and you will see bedrooms decorated with Mickey Mouse wallpaper, with children’s stuff, Mickey Mouse bedspreads, another bedroom that is decorated very neatly with the other child’s stuff in it. You will see a house that is a family, in a fairly up-scale, I would call it, neighborhood, a neighborhood unlike you will find one in Kerrville. And you will see this attention to children. That you will see that this lady’s life, focused around her children. She helped her husband at the store some, at the business some. But her life focused around the children. And you will see, by all accounts, from friends, neighbors, family, that she devoted everything to those children. That that’s what she lived around. In fact, as Mr. Davis pointed out, she was a light sleeper. So concerned, as a mother, about an infant baby that if the baby just moved, she was worried about her baby. And that’s the life that you’ll see.
And then the State suggests, that in a blink of an eye, this lady changes from a doting mother of three babies to a psychotic killer. And not only a psychotic killer, but a forensic expert, an expert in crime scenes, such that she could stage this whole crime scene. You will see from the evidence the type of wounds that Darlie Routier had. You will see a stab wound, defensive in nature, to her right shoulder. And the State will suggest to you, that that’s self inflicted, or that it’s staging. One of the facts that you did not hear from Mr. Davis is that there is a bloody sock found 75 yards down an alleyway that has these boys’ blood on it. And that somehow this doting mother, turned psychotic killer, went and dipped, just ever so slightly, an amount of her children’s blood in that sock and then ran 75 yards down the alleyway, and planted it, while her husband is upstairs asleep. And the children have been stabbed and are dying in the living room. The State — what happened, at 6:00 o’clock, or by 6:00 o’clock, and I submit the evidence is going to show you earlier than that. By 6:00 a.m., on June 6th, the Rowlett Police Department had decided that Darlie Routier was guilty, and they never ever blinked from that. They never turned back. They never looked any other direction. They developed tunnel vision. And the only thing they could take — maybe it’s more like a rifle scope. That they had focused the cross hairs on Darlie Routier, and they were never going to take them off of her.
Now, I don’t quarrel with police officers going out and doing a good job and finding a suspect, and focusing on that suspect. But I do quarrel, when they only focus on that suspect.
MR. GREG DAVIS: I’m sorry, I have got to object to this as being argument. It’s not what the evidence is going to show.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: It is, Judge.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: I’ll tell you exactly what I’m talking about. There’s a description given that night by a neighbor, of a black car, that is at the scene at the time of the screams. And, by the time the sirens start going off is gone. That car is gone. And there will be no indication in the evidence that the Rowlett Police Department ever did anything to find that car. And that black car is a mystery to this day. By 6:00 a.m., the Rowlett Police Department had focused on Darlie Routier, and that was it. All of the investigation, the evidence that you’ll see from then on, talks about, focuses on Darlie Routier. And one of the things that you will see, as they have pointed that rifle scope at Darlie, is that the State’s evidence, and the State’s theory has changed, and it changes.
The State’s case that Mr. Davis has described, and will present, is not what the evidence will show they were focusing on back in June, because the June investigation has fallen apart. And let me just go through a few of them, because I won’t be able to remember them all. This business — and some of these Mr. Davis didn’t mention. The mulch. He said one of the reasons they knew Darlie was guilty was because the mulch outside of this window had been undisturbed. Well, the evidence will show you, in fact, there is no mulch outside of this window. The mulch is over there. So of course it wasn’t disturbed. The evidence the State relied upon, in June, this is in June, was that, for instance, there’s no blood from the assailant, from the true murderer, that goes out the kitchen and through the garage, as they decide there should have been. Well, the State’s own evidence — the State’s own witnesses will testify that they would not expect this assailant, this murderer, who is still on the streets, to have much blood on him. So the fact that he didn’t leave a blood trail through the garage means nothing. It means absolutely nothing. The State says that she didn’t try to help her children. You will see that’s false. And one of the things that’s very interesting is, that you will see this Officer Waddell who came in, and he’s the one who’s going to say, “I came to the scene –“. This is a trained, police officer, trained in first aid. “I came to the scene, and I told her to help her child but she didn’t.” And we’re going to ask him, “Officer Waddell, while you were there, why didn’t you go help the child?” He’s criticizing the mother, who has had her children butchered, and he doesn’t go and help the children. But that’s somehow evidence of Darlie’s guilt.
Darin Routier holds a photo of the couple’s surviving son Drake
There’s some of these things that are fairly incredible. One of them is, that the officer says that one of the reasons he knows that Darlie is guilty very early on, is that there is no high velocity blood in the kitchen. High velocity refers to the, — and you will hear some of this, how fast the blood is moving when it hits an object. And he says he knows Darlie’s guilty because there’s no high velocity blood in the kitchen. Ladies and gentlemen, you will not find any person who testifies in this case, who will say that there should have been high velocity blood in the kitchen. They will say there would never have been high velocity blood in the kitchen, because high velocity blood relates to gunshots. And everybody knows there weren’t any gunshots that went off in this house. So, this high velocity blood, which they know, proves Darlie is guilty, is nothing. It means nothing. It is nothing.
One of the kingpins of the State’s case came in. That in this window, which is cut — and you’ve got to remember, ladies and gentlemen, when you see this, this window is maybe this high off the ground. It’s not as high as my boots. I could step over it like that. But this window that was cut, didn’t have any dust disturbed on the windowsill. Ladies and gentlemen, you will see it. And if someone is down, and they step like that, they can step over that windowsill. It’s right down on the ground. So the fact that dust is undisturbed means nothing. But they have more than that, they had a hair in the window. And as you climb through, the State’s theory being, that she climbed through, and a piece of hair was pulled. And it was tested, and it was shown to be pulled out of someone’s hair. And it was blonde. And it was bleached. And the State concluded that it belonged to Darlie Routier. The State’s witness testified previously that that hair was consistent with Darlie Routier. Well, that was a great theory back in June. However, now, when the hair is tested by DNA, and you will hear this evidence, that hair belonged to a Rowlett police officer. So, it’s a blonde hair that proves Darlie is guilty in June, and it’s a blonde hair that means nothing now. But that’s the change of the theory. And the State’s theory has evolved like that. It has changed over and over. It’s gone so far, that after — the evidence will show you, that even after you were selected on this Jury, the State has continued to go back, and continued to go back, to try to find some tests, to try to find something, to try to pull up something, to prove that Darlie Routier is guilty, because she is the only person in their cross hairs. And, that these tests have been done, up as late as last Friday. Continuing to do tests to keep the rifle scope pointed on Darlie. And you will see, through all of this, that things have changed. And the State’s theory has changed. And the reason is, that when the blonde hair falls through, then they have got to do something else. When something falls through, they have to move to something else. And you will see, we will bring you that pattern.
And I don’t think the evidence will ever show you, I think we told all of you this: That your job is not to solve this case. Because I don’t think the evidence will tell you what really happened. That the evidence here will ever tell you what really happened at 5801 Eagle Drive. And that’s a shame. But the evidence will leave those gaps in it. It will leave those holes in it.
And we submit, we know, that when you have heard it all, you will understand, that this lady is an American mother, just like any other number of American mothers. She’s not perfect. Never said she was. Nobody is ever going to say she was. But the description of becoming a psychotic killer, will not be borne out in the evidence. It will show, that she is an American mother, just like any other mother. And when you have heard all of that, although you won’t know what happened fully, at 5801 Eagle, you will know that the evidence does not prove, that Darlie Routier committed this crime.
In Part 4–The Prosecution Closing Arguments