I want to take a minute and consider John Nova Lomax one more time. You’ve read the article South Park Monster. You’ve seen how the case and the people involved in it are portrayed.
In one of his answers, Coy says that Mr. Lomax was in attendance every day of the trial. If that’s true, how was he able to see what he saw, hear what he heard, and still write that eight page article?
There was no mention of Susan Szczygielski admitting that she hadn’t read her own patient’s medical history before making her pronouncement, but Lomax goes to the trouble of contacting a clinical director of TDCJ’s sex offender treatment program in Huntsville; asking her to weigh in on how she believes a man she has not studied, and probably has never even met, is a pedophile, and likely to become a violent one.
There is no mention or explanation of the time period between the supposed crime and the report that was made. Where the hell does Officer David Milligan, who apparently took the initial report from the mother without ever speaking to the child, factor into all this? Don’t look for an answer from the Houston Press, it’s not there.
There was no mention of Officer Ruiz’s botched first interview, or the statement that was discarded because apparently a 10th grade education renders a person completely unable to communicate in writing.
He describes Jill Odom’s testimony as ‘damning’…but doesn’t back it up. The only quote from her is this: "If I needed something, he would get it".
He states “Odom said the rapper may not have known her specific age.” and then tries to disprove it by claiming that Coy used to pick her up from school, with no proof offered.
If he was sitting in that court room then he knew that this little girl had been prescribed a seriously powerful drug for problems that started months before the reported incident, but that never made it into the article.
He would have seen the prosecution try to paint these symptoms as a direct result of abuse; he would have watched as the therapist was confronted with evidence that it just wasn’t true.
A story from the Houston Chronicle states :
Defense lawyer Chip Lewis said he was curious about how the jury reached a verdict 20 minutes after returning from lunch, after having spent hours in deliberation over two days.
The alternate juror told him the jury had been leaning toward acquittal, Lewis said.
"It certainly makes you raise your eyebrow and wonder what the quick change was," he said
So, even the jury that convicted him wasn’t initially convinced by the prosecution’s case. They spent days in deliberation and were leaning towards acquittal until apparently something happened to change their minds over lunch.
How could a reporter, or a journalist, or whatever the fuck this guy is, get a story like this dropped in his lap and stick with whatever line he got from the corrupt DA’s office? What editor read this and thought “Yeah, that sounds like the whole story. Print it.”?
Next time you pick up a copy of The Houston Press, think about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment