15 Years Later–Did Darlie Routier Kill Her Sons? (Part 5)
Reposted from ZeroGossip.com
Darlie Routier on Death Row–Guilty or Innocent? Defense Closing Arguments
In today’s entry, Darlie’s defense makes their last plea for a not guilty verdict to the jury. Her team includes attorneys Curtis Glover, Richard Mosty and Douglas Mulder…all will make closing arguments beginning with Attorney Glover. He implies the Rowlett Police Department needed the help of an expert to help them deal with this type of crime scene and called in a retired sheriff from Dallas. His quick assessment that there was no intruder, Glover says, kept law enforcement from looking at anyone but Darlie. He suggests that if Darlie’s injuries were fatal, her husband Darin would be the defendent.
18 MR. CURTIS GLOVER: Ladies and
19 gentlemen of the jury, my thanks along with the other
20 counsel in this case, for your very courteous attention,
21 lo, these many weeks.
22 As Mr. Shook said to you, we really
23 have imposed upon you, but you occupy a position in our
24 society, which is probably the most important, in that
25 you are a barrier between what could possibly be in a
1 democracy, tyranny. And you make that decision, and you
2 keep that tyranny away.
3 And, as we go through this case, and
4 we talk about the responsibilities of the government or
5 of the State when they bring charges like this, you will
6 see the importance of your position.
7 You know, Judge Tolle gives you a
8 charge here, it’s your guide as to the law that will
9 guide you in this case. He tells you, and I think the
10 most important thing that he tells you, is that in any
11 criminal case, charges are brought by the State. They
12 have the burden of proof, that burden never shifts.
13 And you know there is no burden on the
14 defense to do anything. They are to prove her guilt
15 beyond a reasonable doubt and if there is a reasonable
16 doubt as to any element in this case, the Judge is
17 telling you, you resolve that in behalf of the defendant
18 and say by your verdict not guilty.
19 Now, you know, you can go through this
20 evidence and you can say, well, you know there was
21 confusion about this. Or where was that witness? There
22 was confusion about this particular evidence that raised
23 a reasonable doubt in my mind.
24 Judge Tolle is telling you, you
25 resolve that reasonable doubt in behalf of Darlie Routier
1 and say by your verdict not guilty. I don’t care whether
2 there was one or there are a thousand, the Judge is
3 telling you you resolve those in her behalf.
4 Let’s go on and look at the evidence,
5 and I am just going to speak with you just very briefly.
6 Let’s get to Mr. Cron. He was the
7 bearded man who was a retired deputy Sheriff in Dallas.
8 He came out to the scene of this devastation very quickly
9 that morning. He was put in charge, if you please, he
10 tried to avoid that position, but he was put in charge.
11 He waltzed through that house, folks, and in 20 minutes
12 without knowing anything — not knowing the result of any
13 DNA, not knowing the result of any fingerprints, not
14 knowing the result of anything, he waltzes through there
15 and says, “There was no intruder.”
16 The die was cast. She became the
17 focus of everything. They wouldn’t listen to anything
18 else from anybody. There was no — nothing about black
19 cars, they were secretly laying their ground work to go
20 after her, and they did.
21 Now, what kind of flawed investigation
22 is this, where the conclusion comes up front? He
23 concluded it, folks. He said, “There is no intruder.”
24 So, that’s either Darin or her. And we know by the
25 evidence in this case, that only 2 millimeters she was
1 away from death, and if she had died, according to Mr.
2 Bently (sic), and according to Cron, do you know who
3 would be on trial here? Mr. Bently (sic) says the
4 intruder knew those children, the intruder, Darlie.
5 But I can’t point the finger at
6 anybody, but the person that killed those children knew
8 Darin is just 2 millimeters away from
9 being tried himself for this death. If she had died
10 there on that couch, who would be out here being tried?
11 Darin, according to the FBI. So how plausible is Mr.
12 Bently’s (sic) conclusion about all of this.
13 Mr. Bently (sic) comes down to Dallas
14 to lend sophistication, if you please, to what Mr. Cron
15 has decided after 20 minutes.
16 Mr. Cron waltzes through there and he
17 says: “Oh, yes, there is a torn window there, that is
19 But then experts come out there and
20 they say, “The cut came from the outside, Mr. Cron.”
21 “Well, that’s all right. We will
22 overlook that.”
23 And then, as time goes by, they find
24 fingerprints down here, and do you remember when Mr.
25 Frosch, who is sitting out here on the front row, who
1 never mounted that witness stand, came in here and gave a
2 demonstration of going through the window? Went right
3 through it very quickly. He is a big man. And he put
4 his hand, folks, exactly where those prints were found.
5 Exactly where those prints were found.
6 Now, of all the fingerprints that they
7 attempted to find in that place, that was the most
8 significant. They found very few, but that was the most
9 significant. They matched nobody.
10 Now, what does that tell you? Well,
11 they want to dismiss that, and try to infer to you, that
12 perhaps those were children’s fingerprints. But isn’t it
13 interesting that Mr. Frosch put his hand right down there
14 where they were, as he went through there, without any
15 trouble, I submit to you, right through that window, and
16 you saw it.
17 They want to dismiss the sock up the
18 alley. They want you to infer, that through all of this
19 melee out there, that Darlie Routier runs up the alley,
20 and plants a sock with the blood of both of the children
21 on it. How preposterous.
22 If you are going to create a scene,
23 and they have to have an answer for everything. Any time
24 the scene gets confusing, they say, “That’s staging.”
25 You will recall Mr. Waddell, the first
1 officer on the scene. He testifies, you know, in lock
2 step with the position that the State has got to take to
3 back up Mr. Cron, his conclusion that she did it. She
4 wasn’t upset.
5 You heard her husband talk about it,
6 he said it was chaos. It was absolutely maddening, what
7 was going on there. She was from one child to the next,
8 running around the room. The paramedics are pouring in
9 there, they don’t even know how many people came in
11 The scene, and they keep talking about
12 and using the word contaminated, the scene becomes
13 contaminated. The scene gets disrupted from the way it
14 was at the time the crime occurred. And police officers
15 do that to it. They want to come in and say that because
16 the vacuum sweeper was over her foot, that she staged all
17 of that, her print. Or the glass down there on the
19 The first man on the scene, Mr.
20 Waddell says, “That vacuum sweeper was not in the way.”
21 That is something, folks, you would
22 have seen. A vacuum sweeper standing in an area of
23 importance in that house, would have gotten your
24 attention. Think about your vacuum sweeper being turned
25 over in your kitchen. If you were a police officer
1 walking in there, you would have noticed it.
2 Mr. Waddell says, “I didn’t see a
3 vacuum sweeper.” And if you want any of this evidence
4 read back to you, as to the importance of that statement,
5 ask the reporter to read that back to you. She can do
7 Mr. Walling mounts the witness stand:
8 “I didn’t see any vacuum sweeper.”
9 Darlie gets on the witness stand and
10 says, “I was using it as a prop. I was standing there
11 trying to hold myself up.”
12 I want to talk with you just about one
13 more subject, and then I’m going to sit down.
14 You are going to have a question in
15 your mind as to what you think went on out there that
16 night when this happened. And I’m going to submit to
17 you, that it’s a reasonable deduction from the evidence
18 that you heard, that that TV was on in there, and you-all
19 know from experience, the kind of light that a TV
20 creates. It’s a dimming, and it’s a bouncing type of
21 light. A person standing outside of that house could
22 have seen that. They could have seen the silhouette of a
23 woman lying on that couch, little knowing that there are
24 two small children laying on the floor, and I can’t put
25 myself, and neither can you, into the mind of a crazed
1 maniac, because that is what it would take to do this.
2 But that person stealthily went into
3 that house, with the intention of going after her, gets
4 in there and sess the reflections on the floor of those
5 two small children, and they want you to believe that
6 that would have been a noisy affair.
7 How many movies have you ever seen
8 where one adult dispatches another, without even
9 virtually a sound. It can be done, folks. And you are
10 talking about two delicate little boys laying there on
11 the floor.
12 Do you think an adult male or males,
13 for that matter, could not have come up very stealthily,
14 and leaned over each one of those kids and pinned them to
15 the floor, and children are hard to wake up, and hold
16 them down with their hand over there mouths, or whatever
17 is necessary to keep them from making noises, and plunged
18 that knife into them, and that child would never have
20 It’s like killing an animal and
21 holding it down, and it could have been done without a
22 bit of noise, and then move on next to the other child
23 before you go for what you are ultimately in there for.
24 The other adult. And stoops down over Damon, most close
25 to her, and does the same thing. And do you think an
1 adult male or males couldn’t have held a little child
2 down? It can be done, folks.
3 Use your common sense as he has asked
4 you to do. Then he moves on to her, and cuts her throat.
5 I don’t know what his intentions were, but her panties
6 were gone. She said that.
7 We can’t account for the mind of a
8 person like this. Damon wakes up. Damon is not dead,
9 and he comes over. And you say, “Why doesn’t she hear
10 all of this?”
11 Well, he is stealthily killing those
12 two kids, and I don’t know what he did to her, but I
13 submit to you the account that she gave of what she felt
14 in her mind as she came up off of that couch was one of a
15 person who was in a complete fog. She said, “I don’t
16 know, I just followed him out.”
17 The inside of her mouth was cut when
18 she got to the hospital. Maybe he stuck something in her
19 mouth. Maybe she momentarily lost consciousness as a
20 result of being smothered. I submit to you that is
21 probably what happened.
22 Maybe he did beat on her, she doesn’t
23 know. She said, “I didn’t even know that I had been
24 beaten on until these bruises showed up.”
25 THE COURT: You have used 10 minutes,
1 Mr. Glover.
2 MR. CURTIS GLOVER: Thank you, Judge.
3 I’m going to sit down now, folks. But
4 just as they say, and I adopt that, use your common
5 sense. This woman did not kill those two little
6 children. There is no evidence here whatsoever to
7 indicate that she would ever have had that kind of a
8 mentality, quite the contrary.
9 And I will ask you sincerely from my
10 heart, to find her not guilty.
11 Thank you.12 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Glover.
13 Mr. Mosty.
Defense Attorney Richard Mosty, who made the opening statements on Darlie’s behalf 3 weeks earlier then addressed the jury. While it’s not the defense’s job to prove what happened, he suggests an intruder…perhaps a drug crazed intruder is the actual culprit. He shows his aggrevation that no one investigated the “black car” seen near the Routier home and the tactics police used at the boys’ gravesite ceremony. Officers planted a bug near the grave to hear what the Routiers, especially Darlie, were saying. When questioned about this tactic, the officers took the 5th…not wanting to incriminate themselves. You’ll also see a reference to the Coolio rap song “Gansta’s Paradise” which was played at the boys’ memorial. While not understanding the lyrics, the Routiers said it was Devon and Damon’s favorite song. Unorthodox and unusual…yes. But they claim they wanted to make the memorial a celebration of the boys’ lives.
14 MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: May it please
15 the Court? Counsel.
16 Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I
17 will just very briefly echo the thanks that you have been
18 given by the other counsel and, well, you know that we’re
19 thankful for your service.
20 And, I will apologize to you, if at
21 any time you think that I have wasted your time. If you
22 think I have wasted the Court’s time, I apologize to the
23 Court. If you think I have wasted the State’s time, I
24 apologize to the State.
25 But I’m going to expend every ounce of
1 my energy to defend a principle I believe in, and someone
2 I believe in. And I will never apologize for my faith
3 and my belief in those principles.
4 But if I have done that too much, in
5 time-wise, I apologize. I’m sorry.
6 I want to — there is no way that you
7 can cover everything, but I want to focus back on a
8 couple of things. My opening comments, do you remember I
9 said, and this is the phrase that I used: “By all
10 accounts this is an attentive, doting mother whose focus
11 is her children.” And ladies and gentlemen, you have not
12 heard one word contrary to that.”
13 Even Basia, the one who comes down
14 here says, she is faithful, they have a faithful
15 marriage, they have a good marriage. She is attentive to
16 her children. She is interested in her house. She is
17 caring about her physical appearance. She wants her
18 house clean. She had lots of kids in the house. All of
19 these things is (sic) undisputed. They could not produce
20 one person from Rowlett, Texas who said to the contrary.
21 Not one.
22 And yet, then they say that there is a
23 psychotic killer on the loose. Claimed to be psychotic.
24 And how many times did Mr. Shook say, “It doesn’t make
25 sense. Why did this happen?”
1 You know, that is the State’s
2 obligation. They can not give you an explanation of what
3 happened. They can not tell you what happened. They
4 don’t know. And it’s not our obligation to prove that.
5 It seems to me like when you go back,
6 in this kind of case, and me not being able to cover
7 everything I wish I could, but I know I’m going to
8 forget, and there are some things I’m going to cover, and
9 I’m going to sit down, and I’m going to remember things I
10 should have.
11 But it seems to me that a jury in this
12 case would sit down and very carefully and deliberately
13 go through the evidence, and look at some of these
14 things. Some of these things have been pointed out to
15 you quickly. And you need to get these pictures up and
16 look at them, and I will point out a couple of things as
17 we go through.
18 I said in opening statement that
19 Darlie Routier was in the cross hairs immediately. You
20 know that is true. Within 20 minutes.
21 You know, I want to get Mr. Cron in a
22 room quietly, and I want to say to him, “Who do you think
23 you are? Almighty judge, jury and executioner? Who do
24 you think you are? That you walk in within 20 minutes,
25 and determine that this scene, that you know who is
1 guilty. You don’t know what the condition of anything
2 is. You don’t know what the story is. You don’t know
3 what the things were like when it happened. You don’t
4 know about fingerprints. You don’t know about DNA. Who
5 do you think you are?”
6 And from that moment, this case and
7 the Rowlett Police Department was irretrievably,
8 irreversibly, irrevocably focused in the cross hairs on
9 Darlie Routier. And Cron said, incredibly I thought, “I
10 didn’t need to pick up the glass. I didn’t need to go to
11 the FBI and see how much force it would take to break.
12 Maybe we could have determined how it broke. I didn’t
13 need to do that. I didn’t need to check officers feet
14 for glass, because I knew there wasn’t an intruder. I
15 didn’t need to pick up rags by the children’s body
16 because I knew that there wasn’t an intruder.”
17 It seems to me like the first thing
18 that you would do, if you walked on a scene, and you
19 said, “This scene is not like another scene I have been
20 to.” What would you do? I would say, “Wait a minute,
21 boys. This is the case we better be careful about. This
22 one is unusual. This one is different. This one doesn’t
23 fit the pattern.”
24 And you know, that in the mind of a
25 crazed criminal, in the mind of a drug crazed lunatic,
1 what is going to make sense? And so, why don’t you back
2 up and say, “This is a case in which we need to leave no
3 stone unturned. Let’s do this one carefully. Let’s
4 don’t decide in twenty minutes that we know what
5 happened.” But they did.
6 And then, what does the State do? The
7 State, rather than bringing you hard facts, rather than
8 bringing you hard facts, brings you opinions that cannot
9 be tested. I’m not talking about medical opinions, based
10 on medical testimony, I’m not talking about scientific
11 opinions based on scientific testimony, I’m talking about
12 opinions that can not and will never be tested.
13 How much of the State’s case is
14 opinion? Cron’s opinion? Well, we have got to back that
15 up, so let’s get Mr. Bevel in.
16 Before I leave Cron, what is the one
17 word that never, never came out of his lips? Sock. In
18 the entire time he testified, he never said the word
19 sock. Do you know why? Because he can’t explain it. He
20 can not possibly explain the sock, so he didn’t even
21 mention it. It’s like the glass, the wine glass, if it
22 doesn’t fit with my conclusion, I’m pushing it away. I’m
23 never going to bring it to a jury.
24 So we bring in Bevel. And Bevel is
25 the blood guy. And do you remember when I was down here
1 (Demonstrating on the floor), and I said — well, first,
2 he draws his opinion. And then he comes up with this
3 video, and I encourage you to look at that video, because
4 contrary to what Mr. Shook says, in that video, where he
5 is doing like this (Demonstrating), those blood spatters
6 are long, and there is clear directionality to them. As
7 bad as that video is, you can see that.
8 And remember, he says that Devon’s
9 stain, he can’t tell if it’s going up or down. So what
10 conclusion do you draw? But think about it. I’m down
11 like this, and you remember I had my pen, I actually had
12 the court reporter’s pen, this green one, and I had like
13 this, and I said, “This one is going this way and that is
14 consistent with that?”
15 “Well, yeah, that’s okay.”
16 “And this one is going like this, and
17 that is consistent with that?”
18 “Well, yeah, that’s okay”.
19 “And this one is over here, as to —
20 like that?”
21 “Yeah, that’s okay.”
22 They are all consistent. There is
23 nothing that he said that wasn’t consistent, except in
24 his judgment, in his opinion.
25 And remember what consistent means.
1 It means I cannot exclude it as a possibility in his
2 judgment. He can’t explain how a bleeding person could
3 get to that wine rack without getting blood on it. He
4 can’t explain it.
5 He can’t explain how a bleeding person
6 can get to the vacuum cleaner without getting blood on
7 it. He can’t explain how someone picks up the vacuum
8 cleaner three times, a woman, three times, and doesn’t
9 have blood over here, where he picked it up. He didn’t
10 want to admit that, do you remember? He didn’t want to
11 admit where he picked it up. He can’t explain that.
12 But then, he can explain a knife being
13 laid down. Now think about that for a minute. Get the
14 pictures out. You will see that that stain has a bend to
15 it that goes with the knife. And he described laying it
16 down. He described it as laying it down and leaving a
17 trail, and then laying it down.
18 Ladies and gentlemen, if that is true,
19 this trail goes straight. It does not go with the
20 curvature of the knife.
21 The other thing is, it was laid down
22 left-handed. There — look at the photographs. It’s
23 right next to a chair. A right-handed person couldn’t
24 have gotten there to do that. It was laid down
25 left-handed. And he goes and he tells you — remember
1 back, the State says, there is no — that this scene is
2 not disrupted.
3 Bevel describes for you blood runs.
4 Do you remember? Gravity blood runs.
5 Ladies and gentlemen, take State’s
6 Exhibit 11. And I’m just going to demonstrate this for
7 you, but do it for me. Over here on this coffee table,
8 there is a blood run. There is a place where the blood
9 has run. You see what I am talking about? I may get in
10 trouble for breaking this. It’s on the coffee table
11 right there. There is a blood run. That coffee table is
12 askew, there is a blood run there. I’m not going to be
13 able to get it back to you. It’s number 11.
14 How does that blood run? If Darlie
15 Routier is standing there, there is going to be a drop.
16 However, if she bleeds there, or someone bleeds there, I
17 don’t think that blood was identified, and that coffee
18 table is laid over, then the blood is going to run.
19 That evidence shows you, that at one
20 point, that glass top table was off of the pedestal.
21 That is how the blood ran. And it gets back up sometime.
22 But the State, and Mr. Bevel don’t
23 want to talk about that, because that doesn’t fit with
24 their theory. Bevel, you know, and you can give them
25 credit for this sock stuff, Bevel said that the sock,
1 that is disconnected or disassociated evidence, I can’t
2 remember what he called it. They said, “Mr. Bevel, if
3 you were going to disassociate something, would you
4 disassociate a sock?”
5 Of course not. You would disassociate
6 a murder weapon. But that is how the State — when
7 something doesn’t quite go right, we wiggle it, to try to
8 make it meet our preconceived answer.
9 And Charlie Linch — and again, to
10 some extent I have got to include Charlie Linch in this
11 question of opinions, where I say opinion that is
13 I don’t quarrel with what Charlie
14 Linch said his job was. You remember. He said, “My job
15 is to tell you what I see, and to leave it to you
16 lawyers,” — he told me this — “to leave it to you
17 lawyers to figure out what it means.”
18 That is what he said. You all
19 remember it. Sort of a humorous moment. And, of course,
20 he was describing, in some of that, the fiberglass. And
21 remember, that his fiberglass experiments in all of his
22 experiments, he got three to four times more glass rods
23 than he found on this knife. He said, “I can’t marry
24 those two. I can’t bond them together. There could be
25 any number of other things.”
1 He looked at one circuit board. He
2 didn’t test any circuit boards, he said he picked up one.
3 He didn’t test it.
4 But then, what Charlie Linch said is
5 fall in lock step with the State. He comes up with an
6 opinion, that is not verifiable, that is not
7 scientifically or medically recreatable (sic), he comes
8 up with a theory that this must be posed.
9 Well, when did Charlie stop being an
10 observer of details, and start being an advocate for the
11 State? When did he stop? And that is where you get into
12 these opinions.
13 And then, to cap it off, the State
14 brings a bureaucrat from Washington, who has been to one
15 murder scene in his life.
16 First, the State sends him what they
17 want. Their reports of these officers, who are not under
18 cross examination, these officers who didn’t make a
19 report sometimes, who made supplemental reports. The
20 only person in this courtroom who has got to have a
21 perfect story is Darlie Routier.
22 All of these officers can make
23 supplemental reports, and they can forget who picked up
24 the sock, they can do all of this stuff, and it’s simply
25 a mistake. I mean, you know, memories are like that.
1 But Brantley comes down and gives you
2 a mail-in verdict. The State has mailed him what they
3 want in Washington, they know the lady is indicted, he
4 knows that Cron has said she is guilty. They send him
5 the tests that they want to send. They send Dallas
6 Morning News articles along with it, and he mails back a
8 That is the antithesis of the jury
9 system. He comes down here and he says, based on what I
10 have looked at, all he did was get under oath and deliver
11 the State’s final argument for them. That’s all he did.
12 He — could I hire that guy? No. He works for the
13 FBI. Can you challenge that? No, not based on reason.
14 He thinks the room is not askew enough
15 for him. Well, he didn’t no this coffee table had been
16 knocked over. The trash cans are knocked over, but not
17 enough to suit him.
18 And again, saying why did something
19 happen? Or is this — I wonder why? What is the reason?
20 That is not proving facts beyond a reasonable doubt.
21 It’s an untested opinion.
22 Judge Barton who was the judge before
23 Judge Ables. I don’t know how many cases I have tried in
24 this courtroom, but I will never forget this: When a
25 jury was let go, no matter what time of night it was, and
1 Judge Barton worked long hours. We had lots of verdicts
2 at midnight. And he would invariably bring the jury in,
3 and they were tired and they were worn out, and the
4 lawyers were tired, and the lawyers were worn out, and
5 Judge Barton would invariably tell them this story that I
6 thought was silly, and I thought, “Judge, come on.”
7 And he would say, “Ladies and
8 gentlemen, in this country you have the right to
9 participate in the jury system. People, ordinary
10 citizens have the right to participate in the jury
11 system. And so long as that happens,” he would tell
12 them, “there are going to be fallibilities, because
13 people are fallible. And the system is not perfect
14 because people work in it. Juries work in the system.”
15 But he said, “The only perfect system
16 is one in which the people are not allowed to
17 participate. In which the government chooses to decide
18 who is charged, and what evidence, and who is guilty, and
19 the people are not allowed to participate.” And so he
20 would say, “Be thankful that you live in a system where
21 the people can participate.”
22 And I say, thanks to Judge Barton. It
23 took me a long time to learn the importance of that, but
24 I know it.
25 You know what Brantley didn’t talk
1 about? That black car. Is there one lick of evidence in
2 the record that anybody ever looked for that black car?
4 It’s described by Basia, it’s
5 described by Halina, it’s described by the Neals, and
6 Nelda Watts described it to Mr. Patterson. Four times
7 that black car shows, sitting in the driveway, watching
8 the house, and there is not one lick of evidence about
10 The State wants to disconnect that,
11 like they want to disconnect the sock, because they can’t
12 explain it. They can’t explain a pubic hair, they can’t
13 explain a fingerprint. They can’t explain those things,
14 so they want to say, this is a confusing situation. It
15 doesn’t make sense. It’s their obligation to make it
16 make sense.
17 Like Mr. Shook said about motive,
18 people want to know why. Do you know why people want to
19 know why? Because some things don’t make sense. It
20 makes no sense that this lady would change from a good
21 mother, a doting mother to a psychotic killer.
22 So that lack of motive, that lack of
23 reason creates hesitation. That is what reasonable doubt
24 is described as, hesitation when you are acting on the
25 most important things in life.
1 The State tries to bring in, for
2 instance, these records. Again, go look. Mr. Davis —
3 the State has tried to mislead you on some times, and
4 call them on it.
5 Mr. Davis offered the May through —
6 or the January through May bank statements and said, “You
7 are three thousand dollars less in deposits than in your
8 withdrawals.” Well, of course, in June, that situation
9 reversed itself.
10 But you know what they forgot to tell
11 you? You know what he forgot to point out to you? Is
12 how much money the Routiers took out of that business,
13 for their own uses. More than five thousand dollars a
14 month in draws from the Routiers.
15 Look at it if you want to. That is
16 the average. Fifty-two hundred dollars. Plus, another
17 thousand. They paid for the Nissan, four hundred dollars
18 out of there. They paid for the boat, $344, their
19 insurance was $272. Over that period of time they were
20 taking sixty-seven hundred, forty-one hundred,
21 fifty-three hundred dollars out. And do you know the
22 month of May, the month of the May, draws of seven
23 thousand dollars. Do you know why? Do you know why
24 these things were in the trash can? Because they have
25 been taken care of. The draws are seven thousand dollars
1 a month, plus another thousand on cars and payments like
3 The reasons — add it up. I can’t
4 remember what it is, it’s something like thirty-five
5 thousand dollars that the Routiers took out of that
6 business, and the State misleads you about these records.
7 That, you know, someone contemplating
8 an important event. Like someone who is going to kill
9 their children is going to get these records out. Well,
10 they didn’t even get them out. They are dog and cat
11 records, there are life insurance papers, there’s old
12 notes, there’s a letter from a lawyer months before about
13 a will. Those are all of what is sitting up there, and
14 that is what is sitting here. The State doesn’t want to
15 talk about those, because they can’t, they don’t get
16 anywhere, they are innuendo.
17 Did you hear some of the innuendo
18 about, “Do you take your children to the pawn shop?”
19 “Gangsters paradise.”
20 What do you think Mr. Davis would say
21 if Mrs. Routier played her favorite song at her
22 children’s funeral? What do you think he would say? He
23 would say, “You care so little about your children, you
24 won’t even play their favorite song.” Who do you think
25 you are?
1 The State — another thing the State
2 doesn’t want to talk about. The towels. The State
3 doesn’t want Darlie Routier over there by the children.
4 Well, ladies and gentlemen, look at Exhibit 56. It’s got
5 blood by Devon’s body. Blood drops. Whose blood is
6 that? It’s Darlie Routier’s. If she didn’t go to help
7 Damon — Devon, how did that blood get there?
8 The State doesn’t want her bringing
9 towels. Look at Exhibit 79. It’s the towel drawer.
10 It’s open. You see the kind of towels that are in
11 evidence. There is blood on the drawer. Whose blood is
12 it? It’s Darlie Routier’s. If she didn’t get towels to
13 help the children, how did the blood get there? If she
14 didn’t take the towels, do you think she stood in the
15 kitchen and threw them to Darin? How did the white
16 towel, this isn’t it — they didn’t pick up the one by
17 Devon. How did the white towel get over there? How did
18 those towels get to Devon, by his hand?
19 THE COURT: You have used 25 minutes,
20 Mr. Mosty.
21 MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: I’m going to
22 talk briefly about — and Mr. Mulder will cover this
23 more, the knife wound, and I’m going to relate this to
24 Mr. Brantley.
25 Did you notice how Doctor DiMaio
1 described those wounds? And how they came down, and then
2 in a continuation. And common sense tells you, and
3 anybody who describes these, sees how you would do that.
4 And the length of the knife, think
5 about that. How could someone cut, in the manner that
6 Darlie is cut, up, a right-handed person? Look where the
7 knife has to be. And how do you get this wound over
8 here? It doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make common
9 sense and that is medical, that is a medical opinion.
10 It’s not some witchcraft opinion from the FBI
11 headquarters, it’s medical. How do we get these bruises?
12 The State — if Darlie Routier was out
13 in a long black veil at the grave site, they would say
14 she is faking it. If she had a perfect story, they would
15 say that is too good. There is no way that it can fit.
16 There is no way this knife wound can fit logically.
17 There is no way the sequence of events can fit logically.
18 And what did the State do through all of this? I cannot
19 imagine someone being more under a microscope than Darlie
20 Routier has been.
21 She started at 6:00 A.M. when they go
22 down there, and she is on a disinhibiting drug. I submit
23 they knew that, and they thought they are going to go
24 down there to the hospital and they are going to find out
25 what went on. And then to be good guys they go and visit
1 her on the 7th. And then, on the 8th they come and they
2 get another statement, 10 pages.
3 Remember, ladies and gentlemen, when
4 you talk about these bruises, how did she leave the
5 hospital? In the escort of the Rowlett P.D. She goes —
6 and all of these bruises are described by any number of
8 And then after that, they see her
9 again on the 10th, take pictures again, talk to her again
10 and then: Who do you think you are? To go out and put a
11 bug on a grave site in hopes that you will get a
12 confession. Who do you think you are?
13 You know the only person who needed a
14 lawyer, who needed to claim a lawyer in this case, you
15 heard him, was Officer Patterson.
16 If you are going to ask me about that,
17 I’m going to talk to a lawyer. The audacity to do that
18 at a funeral service, at a prayer service for children.
19 And then, to bring in the closer, Mr.
20 Parker. Three hours, close the deal for us. Close the
22 Mr. Parker says, “Well,” — in that
23 deep voice — don’t you know how he came across to Darlie
24 Routier. He says, “She didn’t deny it.”
25 “Well, Mr. Parker, she told you
1 somebody else did it, didn’t she?”
2 That is denial. And after three hours
3 in there, you know, can’t you see her saying, “Man, leave
4 me alone. You accused me, you told me you thought you
5 (sic) were guilty, you told me you looked at all the
6 evidence, you told me all that, leave me alone.”
7 Now, then beyond that, they copy all
8 of her jailhouse mail. And through all of that, through
9 everything, microscopically that they have done to Darlie
10 Routier, what is the one thing that they have failed so
11 miserably to do? Get the confession that they wanted.
12 Get the confession that they bugged graves for. Get the
13 confession that they brought the closer in for. Get the
14 confession that they read the jail mail for. They didn’t
15 get any of it.
16 You know, and here is a lady sitting
17 in jail, whose investigators and lawyers are out there
18 and they are trying to say, “You know, gosh, we’ve got a
19 lead.” And she gets beat up over that? Good night.
20 But they never, ever, got what they
21 wanted. And they never, ever have brought you an
23 Mr. Brantley, Mr. Mulder said, “Mr.
24 Brantley, from all the way from Washington, here is your
25 chance. Tell me what happened.”
1 He couldn’t do it.
2 “Tell me how it happened.”
3 He couldn’t do it. He didn’t know.
4 There are things he said he didn’t know. He didn’t know
5 DNA results for one thing. He didn’t know when the
6 children died, or how long they died, even though the
7 autopsy report was available to him.
8 He didn’t want to know. He was
9 afforded the opportunity to set it out, and through this
10 trial, no one has done it. And I submit to you that they
11 never will.
12 There is no way I can cover what I
13 would like to cover. But, it is so important that you go
14 back and you look at the evidence, at the hard facts, at
15 the verifiable medical evidence, at the verifiable
16 scientific evidence. You know, all of the State’s case
17 of opinions, of maybe’s, of could be’s, of could have
18 been, should have been, would have been. That is not
19 proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
20 This is not a could have, should have,
21 would have. This is not a case where you say, “Well, if
22 she didn’t do it, who did?”
23 This isn’t a multiple choice test, or
24 as we used to call them multiple guess. This isn’t
25 multiple guess. This isn’t a question of you solving the
1 case. I think we talked to every one of you on the jury
2 about that. You are not here to solve the case.
3 This is a question of, has the State
4 brought you hard evidence, verifiable evidence that would
5 cause you not to hesitate in your life. That is the
6 definition of reasonable doubt. Not to hesitate to make
7 that decision. If you hesitate, then you have got a
8 doubt based on reason. Not opinions, not just, “Oh, I
9 think this, or that is consistent with this, or this is
10 consistent with blood going that way, this blood drop
11 could be going up or down, that table is not messed up
12 enough.” Proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
13 And I say to you, that when you are
14 back there and you are debating this thing, and you move
15 from subject to subject, remind yourself, remind your
16 fellow jurors. We have to test this piece of evidence
17 against the presumption of innocence. Every piece of
18 evidence, test it against the presumption of innocence.
19 Every time you are in a conversation
20 with your fellow juror, you seem to hesitate about that.
21 You seem to have reasonable doubt about that. Work
22 through it, and think about it.
23 There is no explanation, the State has
24 failed miserably, as Mr. Davis said in the beginning,
25 “We’re going to tell you why this happened.” They didn’t
1 do that. They proved it’s just the contrary.
2 A mother, that there is no explanation
3 and they will never give you one, and they will never
4 give you an explanation of what happened that night. You
5 know, and I bet the officers who walked on the scene when
6 Charles Manson had butchered those people said, “I have
7 never seen anything like this.”
8 And as Cron said, the FBI, who
9 fingered Richard Jewell, I bet there are a few places
10 they would say, “I have never seen anything like this.”
11 In closing, I’m going to — I want to
12 quote two things.
13 Justice Brandeis was one of the
14 eminent Supreme Court Justices for many years, and he
15 wrote, in 1928, nearly 70 years ago, in a case called
16 Olmstead_versus_The_United_States, “They, the makers of
17 the Constitution, conferred as against the government,
18 the right to be let alone. The most comprehensive of
19 rights, and the right most valued by civilized men. The
20 greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious
21 encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning, but without
23 They don’t like Darlie Routier. They
24 don’t like the lifestyle she led. They have to try to
25 trash her with breast implants.
1 Why did they do that? They want to
2 trash her, because they can’t explain it.
3 THE COURT: You have used 35 minutes
4 Mr. Mosty.
5 MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: She had the
6 audacity — she had the audacity to express herself the
7 way she really is, and the audacity to not fit what the
8 State — what the government wanted her to do, and to be
9 the victim of a crime that doesn’t fit what somebody in
10 Washington thinks it ought to look like.
11 Learned Hand was a Justice of the
12 Supreme Court for many years, and he made a statement
13 that I have adopted as my own. It was first written —
14 the quote was first written by Oliver Cromwell to the
15 Church of Scotland in 1650.
16 And he is writing to the Church of
17 Scotland over, at that time a religious issue, and he
18 says: “I beseech ye, in the name of God, that ye may be
19 mistaken.” And Learned Hand, in his articles, Life and
20 Morals and Ethics in Public Life, made this quote: He
21 said, “I beseech ye, in the name of God, that ye may be
23 I should like to have every school
24 begin, I should like to have every legislative body
25 begin, and yes, I should like to have every court begin
1 with this statement, “I beseech ye, in the name of God,
2 that ye may be mistaken.”
3 And I should like for every jury, when
4 you are weighing reasonable doubt. When you are laying
5 the evidence against the presumption of innocence. When
6 you are seeing if you hesitate and if your fellow jurors
7 hesitate in the most important of life’s events.
8 “I beseech ye, in the name of God,
9 that ye may be mistaken.” Thank you.Attorney Mosty asked for and was granted 5 additional minutes to add to his argument. Not sure forgetting things is the best way to argue a case, especially when someone’s life is on the line, but perhaps there was a reason he chose to do this.
MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: Ladies and
13 gentlemen, I have to be a little sheepish as I come up
14 here and say that there is something that we didn’t
15 cover, and as Mr. Mulder would say, “Just a thing or
16 two.” But it is going to be just a thing or two.
17 And I want to pick up with this time
18 line that Mr. Mulder started on and lay into that.
19 You know, that from the end of the 911
20 tape at 2:37 or 2:36.44, let me call it 2:37, there is
21 another minute or so after that to 2:38, that before the
22 paramedics are in and then there’s some period of time
23 after that in the 2:38 or the 2:39 range when Damon is
24 said to be dead. So that leaves that eight to nine
25 minutes of a window, from 2:29 or 2:38 to 2:39 before
1 Damon is dead.
2 And what I want to lay for you is what
3 has to happen there. And I’m going to describe some of
4 these things.
5 Now, for the State’s theory to be
6 true — now, you know that Mrs. Routier is not stabbing
7 any children by the time the 2:31 call comes in. That is
8 when she is on the 911 and her husband is almost
9 immediately heard on the tape within 30 seconds, I
10 believe it’s maybe 38 seconds. So you know that all of
11 this has to happen then in a two or maybe three minute
12 span. And here is what has to happen.
13 Mrs. Routier has to stab the children
14 two times. Each of them multiple times, in all of this,
15 and what the State has described as, “How could anyone
16 sleep through it?”
17 And then, she has to get a smidgen of
18 blood off of each, not one, off each. And then she has
19 to go out the window, and she has got to run around
20 behind on Eagle Drive.
21 Now, you know that if somebody is
22 going to do that, they aren’t going to just bolt down
23 these three houses, they are going to have to come around
24 and look in the alley.
25 Now, she has got to go out that gate,
1 that is so hard to kick, but she had to kick it. I guess
2 she kicked it barefooted. She has to have the sock in
3 her hand and not leave any blood on the gate. She has to
4 kick it barefooted, she has to run down the alley all the
5 way down there, three houses down. More than 75 yards,
6 you know, an olympic-sprinter type. And then she has to
7 come back, and then she has to come back in the house.
8 She hasn’t been wounded at this time.
9 Now, I’m saying — I’m giving them the
10 screen, I’m not even putting this in any part of this.
11 She has to come back in, come back in the house, and get
12 the knife again.
13 Now, we know that the knife has not
14 been laid down on the carpet because she is not wounded.
15 So she has to — she has to then take that knife, and she
16 has to cut herself five times. Somewhere. And then she
17 has got to be bleeding profusely by that time. Sometime.
18 Now, at some point she has got to go
19 over and lay the knife down carefully, carefully. By
20 there. Wait a minute. I forgot something. You have got
21 this maroon pillow in evidence. You know about blood
22 spatter now. You see this blood. You see that blood
23 run. That is Mrs. Routier’s blood. She has to lay down
24 on the pillow at some point. Bleed and let that run
25 down. Maybe she cut her knife on the pillow.
1 She has to do that. Now she has got
2 to lay a blood trial. She has got to lay lots of blood
3 trails. She has got to lay one to the utility room.
4 Slowly, the State says, slowly, lay a blood trail to the
5 utility room.
6 Then she has got to come back. Now
7 she has got to go to the sink and she has got to lay a
8 lot of blood. She has got to lay a lot of blood. She
9 has got to go over to the children. She has got to lay
10 blood over by the children, because we know those blood
11 drops are there.
12 She has to knock off the coffee table,
13 slightly askew. She has got to do all of that because
14 there is blood there. She has got to knock down the
15 lamp. What else does she have to do? She is running —
16 no, no, she is not running, she is walking, she is
17 walking through the house doing this because the blood is
18 slow, the State told you that.
19 She has got to pick up the knife off
20 of the carpet. She has got to pick up the knife off of
21 the carpet. She has got to lay more blood trails. She
22 has got to get the vacuum — I guess she puts the knife
23 up there. Then she has got to get the vacuum cleaner.
24 She has got to do it three times. How many times?
25 Three. Up, down, then she has got to throw it over.
1 Then, she has got to stand over it, so
2 she could bleed on it.
3 THE COURT: You have one minute left,
4 Mr. Mosty, please.
5 MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: And all of
6 that, that is what she has got to do in all of this time
7 frame. And quite frankly, wait, she cut her shirt.
8 Don’t you remember? She cut her shirt somewhere in
10 Now, with all of that, in all of that,
11 you know, those are the things that DiMaio says are usual
12 in a statement. And all of that, what she has had. And
13 this is after Dr. Coons has described that traumatic
14 event where she wouldn’t have any memory.
15 And all of this has to happen, in
16 about two minutes.
17 Thank you.Part 1
In Part 6–The Defense Closing Arguments Continue