Updated Thursdays

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Weekend Reading 37

We have another video, made by SouthParkMex713; if you want to be the first to see these, subscribe to his channel! This is made up of a few quotes from SPM's last letter, to give people an idea of the kinds of shit that went on during the trial. Please, feel free to spread it around on Facebook, Twitter, etc. If one person sees the video and is inspired to look into the case a little deeper, that's a win.


Also, I have been looking for footage of SPM's trial; apparently part of his sentencing and the punishment phase of the trial were recorded. If you have it, or know somebody that does and would be willing to share it digitally, drop me a line at the blog email.

OR, if you are amazing at searching, check out one of these news footage archives:

http://imagesource.cnn.com/imagesource/content/home.action

http://www.itnsource.com/en/

http://www.abcnewsvsource.com/

http://www.nbcuniversalarchives.com/

I have been searching, but no luck so far. If you have a minute, enter in a few words and see what you can come up with. If you find footage of the trial that's not available on You Tube, please send me the information so I can look into getting ahold of it.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

SPM Responds (Part 8.e)


Continued from part 8.d
Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 62-63)



Judge: All right. Ms. (Doe), what we’re to do is we’re going to start the movie and what I’d like for you to do for me, is when it gets to the part where it stops – where you stopped watching, I want you to turn to me and say, now. Can you do that for me?



Jane Doe: Yes.



Judge: Okay. Can you hear it, okay, (Jane)?



Jane Doe: Yes.



     ([Jane Doe] in presence of attorneys and court watching movie, “Scary Movie.”)



Judge: That’s all you saw?



Jane Doe: This isn’t the one I seen at my house.



Judge: That’s not the one you saw at your house? Have you ever seen this?



Jane Doe: Yes.



Judge: Did you see the whole thing?



Jane Doe: Yes.



Judge: So, that’s a problem. Okay.



(Movie stopped)

Judge: Thank you, Ms. (Doe), you may step out in the hallway.



Chip: Judge, that raises another question which I’m pretty sure the movie that she’s seen part of is “Scary Movie 2” and while she’s here, I don’t know if it wouldn’t just be worth doing exactly what you’ve done –



Judge: Well, I guess we can ask her. I mean, I don’t know.



---

Never in the trial had I seen this judge more distraught. His words were coming out in a muddlement of spits and spurts, as if he’d just been told his nuts needed to be removed. Listen to his very next words (on the same page, 63): “I don’t – I mean, we can’t read her mind and, you know, a ten-year-old –“



            He was completely stunned. I just wish someone would have asked him, “Why the fuck are you so shaken up? You’re supposed to be neutral.” But don’t worry, as you’ll see in future letters, the judge made up for his slip-up as the trial went on.



            The most eye-opening thing he said, and I’m sure you noticed it, too, came after the child told him that she saw the whole movie. His response, “So, that’s a problem.”



            The question of all questions is, why would the truth be a problem? His statement defines what this trial was about; a task to keep the truth hidden. Those words slipped out of his mouth in the stupor of being caught off guard, but they are an admission to the fact that he was on the D.A.’s side. In fact, he was their secret weapon.



            I’m going to show you how they proceeded to handle this “problem”, but first let me say this.

            As I read these transcripts, I’m blown away at how sharp and persistent Chip was. He even knew that they probably had convinced the child that it was “Scary Movie 2” that she had seen all of, and Part One that she only saw five minutes of. And he was right. Not that I’m riding his jock, but I do feel bad because, before going through all these transcripts, I felt that he didn’t give it his all. I see, now, that he did. But no lawyer should have to defend an innocent man against such unfair forces that pyramided to the judge himself.



            Chip was a fairly new attorney at the time but came highly recommended. He’s, now, considered one of the best trial lawyers in the nation, and still hasn’t lost a case since losing mine. But the deck was stacked too high in my case, and I didn’t help. I wasn’t even paying attention to all this shit. My dumb ass was at the table revising the script for the film I was working on. Dope House was in preproduction on a movie called “SPM”, which was about my rise in the rap industry. I guess we can add a whole new ending to that one.



            I’ll start back on the same page, which is Chip requesting that the child come back to the stand.



Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 63-64)



Judge: I don’t - - I mean, we can’t read her mind, and you know, a ten-year-old - -



Chip: I’m frankly satisfied with the Court asking her the question. There’s more than an abundance of material to support the position that we’re taking. So, if we could - - if the Court could ask her if the other movie was “Scary Movie 2” and how much she’s seen.



Judge: Okay. Bring her in.



     Ms. (Doe), I need to ask you a question. All right. You said that you had already seen this movie, the whole thing; is that right?



Jane Doe: Yes.



Judge: Do you have any idea what movie - - the one you said you only watched part of it - - do you have any idea what movie that was?



Jane Doe: Yes.



Judge: Can you tell me what it was?



Jane Doe: It was part two.



---



If you remember, she said it was Part One that an “adult” said was “too nasty” to watch. Now she’s saying it was Part Two that was cut off, which makes less sense because if Part One had all these sex scenes, why would they cut Part Two short and let her see all of Part One? It’s just a traffic jam of programmed lies, and I doubt she saw five minutes of any movie. But so much went on behind closed doors that we’ll never know the truth behind this child’s testimony.



            I can tell you one thing that I know: Jane Doe said that her cousin, (G), was in the same room as her father, (John Doe), about to watch a movie. How they convinced her of that is mind-boggling, because there’s no [possibility] (G)’s mother (who is Mary Doe’s older sister) would ever let her daughter be in the same house as John Doe, much less in the same room. Mary Doe’s family despised John Doe because of the domestic terrorist that he was. There’s a reason why Jane Doe was diagnosed with tension headaches since the age of two, since she was able to relate that her head hurt. There’s a reason she developed insomnia, photophobia, phonophobia and was on anti-depressants at nine-years-old, (eight months before she allegedly made these claims of an assault.) In my criminal trial, the judge broke his back keeping those reasons hidden, among other things. He helped make this family look like a group of God-fearing Christians, who played Monopoly on Saturday nights and prayed before each meal. But in civil court, the civil judge was more fair, and so more of the truth was exposed.



            All I’m saying is that there’s no way her five-minute-story about her cousin and dad and family all watching a movie could be true, yet she believed it was. The D.A. walked her through a step-by-step account of a non-existant event, and the child didn’t miss a beat. But if you look a little closer, you can see evidence of foul play. Because when you program information,all that’s there is what was programmed. With that said, let’s revisit her five-minute-story.



1.)    She doesn’t remember when she watched the movie.

“Jane, you saw this movie awhile back.”

2.)    She does remember every person in the room.

Information entered.

3.)    She doesn’t remember exactly who said the movie was “too nasty.”

“Jane, if you’ll remember we said the movie was too nasty.”

4.)    She does remember how long the movie played.

Information entered.



She only knew the information given to her, but it’s common sense how easy it would be to remember the person who got up and said “No, you can’t watch this.” That was the main act of what this scene was about. But that’s just my view, man. There’s no way I can tell you “I know” what happened. All I can do is show you what happened in court and allow common sense to speak for itself.



            The main reason I showed you this ordeal, this plot, this scheme was to give examples of how, first of all, they could completely control this child’s testimony when given enough time, how the judge and D.A.’s worked as a team in my trial, how the puppet master could make the child believe a story that wasn’t true, (which was the point Incandesio’s letter brought up.)



            Now, we’ll go back to this “problem” that the judge brought up while thinking out loud; this pesky problem of the truth popping up on them. First, I’ll need to rewind the trial to where Jane Doe and her mother were called back to court to find out how much of the movie the little girl saw. That’s when she said she saw about five minutes of “Scary Movie.”



            Well, after she got off the stand, the D.A. called her mother, (Mary Doe), to the stand. I didn’t show you that testimony in its chronological order because I began comparing the eerie similarities of the “about-five-minutes” story to the “about-one-minute” story. So, let’s go back to where Oncken puts Mary Doe on the stand and asks about “Scary Movie.” Remember, this was done without the jury present.



Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pg. 44)

D.A. Oncken: Okay. And do you recall whether or not - - and do you recall when that might have been that you watched the movie?



Mary Doe: I can’t recall.



D.A. Oncken: No idea?



Mary Doe: No idea.



D.A. Oncken: Okay. And do you recall if you watched the entire feature or not?



Mary Doe: No, we did not.



D.A. Oncken: Okay. And why did you not watch the entire feature?



Mary Doe: I didn’t really care for it. I thought it was supposed to be a funny movie. It turned out it was some funny movie but not all of it, so I turned it off.



---

            On the next page we see Chip getting a turn at questioning Mary Doe about “Scary Movie.”

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 45-46)

Chip: Ms. (Doe), you testified that you don’t really recall seeing this movie?



Mary Doe: I do recall.



Chip: Okay. Who rented the movie?



Mary Doe: I did.



Chip: Where did you rent it.



Mary Doe: Blockbuster.



Chip: Which one?



Mary Doe: Telephone.



Chip: Telephone and what?



Mary Doe: Bellfort.



Chip: Telephone and Bellfort?



Mary Doe: Correct.



Chip: So, you have a regular account there?



Mary Doe: Yes, I do.



Chip: Now, you don’t recall exactly when you watched this movie. Was it - -



Mary Doe: No, because I watch a lot of movies.



Chip: Was it more than a year ago?



Mary Doe: I can’t – I cannot say that.



Chip: All right. Was it within the last three years?



Mary Doe: I cannot say that. I don’t know.

---

It makes sense to say that Mary Doe must have been told, “If something comes up that’s not in the story we rehearsed, or you forgot what we rehearsed, just say you don’t know or can’t remember.” And Mary Doe, even to a fault, stuck to that formula.

Chip exposes that by showing how she remembers seeing the movie, remembers that she didn’t care for it and turned it off, remembers that she’s the one who rented it and where she rented it, but, oddly enough, can’t remember if she saw it within the last three years.

This was a completely made-up story, and if it wasn’t obvious enough, I’m about to prove it.

As you know, Jane Doe came back and said she saw all of “Scary Movie”, thus causing the “problem.” So what they did was regrouped, came up with a new plan, and once the jury was present, they executed a fresh story, which, I believe, this testimony took place the next day.



Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 16 of 31 pgs. 37-40)

D.A. Oncken: And specifically, have you seen the movie entitled Scary Movie. And that would be the first one that came out?



Mary Doe: Yes I have.



D.A. Oncken: Okay. And do you recall if you saw that one at the movie theater or home rental?



Mary Doe: I recall, now, that it was at the movies.



D.A. Oncken: Okay. So, by and large, the four that I’ve asked you about, Scream 1, Scream 2, I Know What You Did Last Summer and Scary Movie the first one, you believe you watched those at the movie theater?



Mary Doe: I believe so.



D.A. Oncken: Okay. Now, I know this is difficult; but do you have any idea at what point in time you might’ve watched these, what year you might’ve watched these?



Mary Doe: I can’t recall.



D.A. Oncken: Okay. Now, let me ask you some questions about when you would go to the movie theater and watch these particular four movies that we’ve just described. Would your children always accompany you?



Mary Doe: Yes.



D.A. Oncken: Okay. Is going to the movies like something ya’ll usually do for entertainment?



Mary Doe: Yes. And we go skating. We go swimming. We go to the baseball games, basketball games.



D.A. Oncken: So, it’s just one of many things you do for entertainment?



Mary Doe: Yes.



D.A. Oncken: And when you take the children to the movie, could you describe to the members of the jury what your kids do during the movie. I mean, do they sit there the whole time and intently watch the film; or what do your kids do during the movie?



Mary Doe: They’ll watch it, and they’ll go buy popcorn. They’ll go to the rest room.

D.A. Oncken: And let me ask you specifically, when your daughter (Jane Doe) would go buy food or popcorn or go to the restroom, would you always go with her each time or would she go by herself or with other family negligence; or how would that work?



Mary Doe: Most of the time, with me or with family members. Sometimes she would go by herself to the rest room.



D.A. Oncken: And would ya’ll do this during the course of the film, the feature film?



Mary Doe: Yes.



D.A. Oncken: So, you wouldn’t do all the rest room, all the popcorn and drink and food-getting prior to the movie?



Mary Doe: No. Not at all the same time.



Chip: Objection, your Honor. This is leading.

Judge: Sustained.



D.A. Oncken: So, Miss (Doe), in regard to those four movies that I asked you about, do you recall whether or not there was any explicit language, any type of cuss words or foul language in those movies?



Mary Doe: Somewhat.



D.A. Oncken: And what do you do about your children listening to foul language that’s in movies?



Mary Doe: I just tell them, try not to hear it or see it: and my kids don’t know bad words. They don’t say bad words.



D.A. Oncken: They don’t use them?



Mary Doe: They never use them.



D.A. Oncken: What about your daughter, (Jane Doe)?



Mary Doe: Never.



D.A. Oncken: Certainly not to you?



Mary Doe: Exactly.



D.A. Oncken: Miss (Wrong last name) - - I’m sorry. Miss (Doe), in regard to those movies I have named, Scream 1, Scream 2, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Scary Movie the first one, what about anything that is explicit, sexually, in there?



Mary Doe: They always cover their face. I tell them, and they do it on their own, also.

---

It’s weird because this same D.A., same judge, court reporter, bailiff all know what Mary Doe said a day earlier, when the jury was out. But that was just a chance to get their shit straight. Then, once the jury’s in, they say whatever’s best to say.



            The theater story, which offered longer restroom breaks, longer food fetches and closer supervision as it applies to making sure the kids covered their eyes and ears, was the better option. It’s all made up as they go along; it has nothing to do with the truth, and the judge just sits there, knowing it’s all bullshit.



            So, that was the best they could do about the “problem”, that’s what the jury heard. They had no idea of everything that happened before this story became what was presented to them.



            And yes, they were allowed to watch “Scary Movie”, which, obviously, didn’t make much of a difference, but they were only allowed to see parts of the real movie that played in that courtroom.

            I’ll finish by reminding you that this was only a taste of how these people operated. For an innocent man to find himself in a prison cell, a lot of things have to go wrong, and a lot of wrong things have to go on. I’ll continue to show you the truth, using the official court transcripts, because it’s important to me that you know who I am, and who I’m not.

Sunday, June 24, 2012

Kenneth Wayne Boyd


Via Grits for Breakfast:


In 1999 Kenneth Wayne Boyd was convicted, along with three others, of a triple murder in Shelby County. One of the victims was a 13 year-old girl.

Boyd recently filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus, saying that his trial was tainted by evidence that had been hidden, witnesses that had lied, and jailhouse ‘snitches’ that were, apparently, high on crack. Shockingly enough, a District Judge agreed that this may have been slightly against normal TDCJ policy, and recommended he be freed and given a new trial.

The prosecutor in his case claims that this is being brought up to stop her from winning the position of District Attorney. Assuming that’s true, how tragic is it that a possibly innocent man had to wait for justice until it might help someone out politically?

Kenneth Florence, Shelby County's current assistant district attorney reviewed the order.

"Our job is to see that justice is done and not to secure convictions," Florence said.



But I doubt Boyd cares why his writ was accepted, as long as it is. He’s served 13 years for a murder that took place at a time he says he wasn’t even in the city.

The order cites a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct including suppressed items of evidence and false testimony. These are some of the same issues that led to the appeals court throwing out Boyd's co-defendant, Rodney Moore's life conviction.

I find this case interesting not just because it’s recent, but because Boyd seems to have been ‘killed by thousands of ant bites’. No one instance of prosecutorial evil was singled out, just a myriad of small misbehaviors that added up to a wrongful conviction. As we learn more about SPM’s case, remember that it’s not hopeless; men are walking free all over Texas as the wheels of justice grind slowly along.

As Kenneth Florence said, "Our job is to see that justice is done and not to secure convictions,"
Justice was not done in Coy vs. Texas. A man was convicted of a crime that was not proven, but we see similar cases, that took place around the same time, being fixed. Now is not the time to get frustrated, or give up; don't look at the time he's served and say "If something were going to happen, it would have happened by now."

I could tell you that getting a new trial for Carlos Coy will be easy, but that would be a lie. I could tell you it's going to be quick, but that would be a lie, too. The Innocence Project exonarees served an average of thirteen years before their release. I see several years of this struggle stretching away into the future, with an uncertain outcome. If you can't deal with that, then I'm sorry. Go find an internet petition and sign it 'til your fingers bleed. But if you want to help, write a letter to the D.A., and then get comfortable. This is going to take awhile.

http://www.ktre.com/story/18852597/could-a-convicted-murder-soon-be-back-on-the-streets

http://www.shelbycountytoday.com/article12.php

http://www.innocenceproject.org/about/Mission-Statement.php/

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

SPM Responds (Part 8.d)


Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs.48-54)

Judge: Does the Defense have anything else on this issue?

Chip: Just a little bit, Judge. I would ask Ms. Andrews a question - - just for the record, not in front of the jury. I’d like to supplement the record with what we talked about earlier.

D.A. Andrews: Am I under oath? Am I testifying, what?

Judge: You are an officer of the court.

D.A. Andrews: All right.

Chip: Yesterday afternoon per the Court’s conversation, Ms. Andrews and I had a conversation; is that right?

D.A. Andrews: Yes.

Chip: I called you a little after 4:00 and I was actually on hold and you said that you were just about to call me, right?

D.A. Andrews: Right.

Chip: Because you had just spoken to (Jane Doe).

D.A. Andrews: Within an hour, yes.

Chip: And (Jane Doe) - - you had asked the question - - you represented to me you had asked the question of (Jane Doe) had she seen “Scary Movie,” correct?

D.A. Andrews: Yes.

Chip: And her answer to you was, yes?

D.A. Andrews: Yes.

Chip: That’s all I have, Judge.

Judge: All right. Is there anything you want to add to the record, Ms. Andrews, or not?

D.A. Andrews: No.

Judge: Okay. So, the Defense is offering Defense 7 and what says the State?

D.A. Andrews: The same objection as before. I think only the part that this child actually watched would be relevant.

Judge: All right.

Chip: May I briefly respond?

Judge: Yes.

Chip: Your Honor, first of all, taking (Mary Doe’s) testimony at face value, which I’ve struggled with greatly and I’ll address that very briefly in a minute.

     The first 30 minutes of this movie, with the summary that I’ll be glad to provide the Court and the State, is full of very explicit sexual acts. In fact, the acts of oral sex – if the Court remembers watching the movie, the timing, I’ll be glad to give the exact times – have been repeated a few times by then. 


     More importantly, it does not strain at all this Court’s sense of reason to realize what’s happening here. We had an understanding yesterday that Ms. Andrews, who as I said in the Court’s presence I trusted to ask the question and deliver the answer that the child gave, and she did.

     It was unequivocal, yes. There was not, “Yes, but I didn’t see all of the movie.” And I trust exactly what Ms. Andrews has told this Court today. This is what she told me yesterday was the girl’s answer. Today the girl says her answer was, “Yes, but I didn’t see it all.” This is obviously a product of coaching on either her mother’s behalf or someone’s behalf because what happened was, Judge, after these movies were delivered, everybody found out what was in this movie – all of us that hadn’t seen it – and to say it is graphically sexual is an understatement, as this court is now very well aware.

     It’s extremely obvious with the inconsistencies in (Mary Doe’s) recall, that what is going on here is an attempt to obscure from the jury what should properly be before them. As this court very astutely pointed out yesterday when the objection was made by Ms. Oncken to, “Well, we don’t know if she’s seen the whole movie or what she’s seen.”

     It defies logic to assume when someone answers as she did with me on the stand and as she did with Ms. Andrews when asked the pointblank question that, yes, you’ve seen the movie. That’s the entire movie.

     Their argument goes more to weight. They’re perfectly entitled to do exactly what they just did, Judge, to offer either this young girl or her mother to make the point to the jury that they didn’t see this whole movie.

     And I think it’s obvious to this Court and all of its intuitive power with what you’ve seen going on here, that this entire movie should be played and their objection is not as to admissibility. It’s not legally sufficient. And this Court should not grant it as to relevance, certainly.

     It goes more to the weight of this evidence and they’re free and able – they’ve just proven they’re free and able to put their spin or explanation on it. But to backtrack and allow for this more than suspicious – I don’t believe in coincidences, Judge, -- I don’t believe in coincidences. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we’ve had a turnabout since 4:00 o’clock yesterday when Ms. Andrews and I spoke and she related the truth to me, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. She asked this girl the pointblank question. The girl said, yes, with no qualms, none.

     I think it is manifestly unjust to not play this video in its entirety to the jury as it is legally relevant. And the objection the State makes only goes to the weight, not admissibility, Your Honor.

D.A. Andrews: Judge, may I respond?

Judge: Okay.

D.A. Andrews: First of all, I think the Court in its own wisdom and common sense – I can tell you that we – I also did not ask the follow-up question not realizing at that moment, “Did you watch the whole thing?” She’s a ten-year-old child. You know how they answer questions. You see it all the time. And a lot of times if you don’t specifically ask the question they don’t volunteer the information. I did not realize until after I talked to her mother, you know, did y’all watch “Scary Movie”, and she volunteers the information. It’s just how it came about. 

     I don’t think that this is relevant in the part that the child did not watch. I don’t see how that is any way relevant and I don’t see how they have established any foundation for offering the jury – I mean, if that be the case, then why don’t we offer every rated R movie because she might have seen those since she can’t remember titles.



---

I’m going to interrupt Andrews to make a few points. First of all, the woman should’ve kept her mouth shut because everyone knows she’s in the middle of another low-down deed. But she decides to exploit the fact that the judge has a ten-year-old daughter of his own. That’s why she’s saying things like, “…the Court in its own wisdom” and “You know how they answer questions. You see it all the time.” She’s comparing Jane Doe to the Judge’s daughter to stab at his soft spot. It’s nauseating, but there’s no bottom to where these people will go. 




 Her biggest mistake, though, is how she puts herself in this plot. Listen to her last words, before I interrupted: “…since she can’t remember titles.”
     I want you to think about those words because nowhere in the transcripts, up to this point, does it say or suggest anything about Jane Doe not being able to remember titles. What Andrews did was, absent-mindedly, give us a piece of how they convinced the child that she only saw a part of the movie. 

     “No, Jane, you’re not remembering your titles correctly. You saw all of ‘Scary Movie Two’, not ‘Scary Movie One.’ Of Part One, you only saw about five minutes, remember?”
     “I think so.”

     “Good.”

I’ll continue from where I left off.
---

Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 54-56)

D.A. Andews: I mean, I think it’s just getting too far afield at that point. Certainly, you know, the one she’s seen, the Defense has argued they’re relevant and the Court has allowed that evidence in. But the part that she hasn’t seen I don’t believe are relevant.

Chip: Very briefly, tort, Your Honor. Ms. Andrews makes a point. This young girl has obviously been talked to. She’s obviously been coached. She can be led to say just about anything you want her to say. She’s a very intelligent young lady for ten years old. Especially when the question is asked unequivocally, the answer is given unequivocally. 

     The Court’s statement yesterday when we visited, “This is exactly right. It runs against common sense to suggest when I say I’ve seen a movie, I haven’t seen the movie.”

     Furthermore, one other very, very critical point that Ms. Andrews makes, we’re not offering the laundry list of movies. We’re offering the identifiable movies that we know have been seen for the specific purpose of supporting our theory that this girl did not get this idea of a sexual molestation from Carlos Coy from the act. She got it from a lot of different sources.

     And to prevent the jury from seeing this is really to hide the jury’s eyes from what is relevant and admitted exposure on the facts of this girl, Judge.

     I don’t think it at all should cause this Court any hesitation, that Ms. Andrews reported the answer that I thought we got from the stand. That’s what this whole circus became about is I made a representation to this Court that I was confident she had seen “Scary Movie” and that’s the question that she was answering.

     And I think to backtrack from that right now is to allow post - - activities to invade what the jury should have seen and keep them from seeing very relevant and probative evidence.

Judge: Anything else?

Chip: No, sir.

Judge: All right. I think this Court is required to make its decision based on fact rather than innuendoes. Having said that, I believe the jury is entitled to see the portion of the movie that the child saw. I believe that will be defined by the child herself.

     So, we need to put in - - and for purposes of the record - - that sorry movie and let her watch it until she tells us that that was the part that was cut off, whenever that is. And then whatever portion that is will be recorded in terms of figuring out where that is and I’m going to require that whatever the portion is that that be recorded on another tape so that there is no possibility that the jury, in it’s deliberations or otherwise, might view the balance of the tape which was not viewed by the child.

     In order to accomplish that, since I don’t have any video equipment, I’m going to request that the D.A.’s office, since they’re in this building, and since Gary Johnson has the equipment to accomplish this, who is an employee of the D.A.’s office, I’m going to request that the D.A.’s office accomplish that mission.



---

The judge is so confident that the child is going to stop the movie at around five minutes, that he’s already assigned a man, Gary Johnson, to record that short piece.

     He thinks he’s just fucking over us again, totally ignoring all that Chip said. He mentions that he’s required to make his decision based on fact not innuendos, but the fact is that Jane Doe said she watched the movie. 

     While he’s making arrangements to record this piece of the movie, Chip makes a heads-up request to keep anyone from telling the Child’s family about what’s about to happen. Being more than alert, Chip realized the possibility of Jane Doe actually believing she was telling the truth.





---
Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 58-59)

Judge: All right, since she’s already down here and I want to accomplish this today as opposed to disrupting tomorrow, my suggestion is when the jury finishes watching the first movie, then we can put on testimony to clarify the admission of the portion of – well, actually, in order to do that we need to get the tape itself. We need to have whatever we’re going to admit.

Chip: We have their copy.

Judge: But I mean the redacted portion is what I’m talking about.
 Do we have any other video machines besides the one that they’re looking at?


Bailiff: I can get one.

Judge: Can you round one up for us?

Bailiff: Yes, sir.

Chip: In the interim, Your Honor, I would ask the Court, in an abundance of caution, to not allow anybody to have contact or explain other than this Court what’s about to happen.

Judge: That’s fine.

---

Chip made sure the D.A.’s didn’t get a chance to talk to the family before the viewing of the movie, which was a brilliant move. But isn’t it sad how he had to guard them from even speaking to this family? Is it not sad what these people could do with just a few minutes behind closed doors?
    
     Before the girl comes in to watch the movie, let me verify what I said earlier, about the judge having a daughter the same age as Jane Doe. Next page:
---

Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 60-61)

Judge: …My instruction being to basically watch the movie until – up to the portion that you saw and to notify the Court when that portion ends. And then, obviously, if that is less than thirty minutes, if the Defense wants to offer additional information for purposes of the record, we can do that.
     And wherever we are – because one of the things about ten-year-olds that I have found from my own ten-year-old is the estimates of time are not very accurate. So, we’ll find out what she sees. It may be 30 minutes. It may be five minutes. And then we’ll take it from there. Okay?
---

On the next page, Jane Doe comes in to view the movie.

Continued in part 8.e

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

To the kid who knows who he is:




I’m fine, thanks for asking, and I enjoyed your friendly email very much.

You’re defending your dad; that's commendable, honorable. Under normal circumstances, I would have just ignored you, and that would be the end of it. But in the midst of your temper tantrum you wrote this:



…ima tell you one time delete that fucking blog, or I promise you I'll find your deformed ugly duckling looking ass and hunny that's a Fuck promise…



I will not delete this fucking blog. I will not delete one goddamn word.



Your father, who is by all evidence a grown-ass man, chose to comment here. He came into my virtual house and basically shit all over my digital carpet. Go ahead and read over my replies to him. I did not insult him, I did not call him names, and I did not impugn his reputation or skills as a rapper. I dissected what he said and showed that his argument was factually weak and emotional; I did it quietly, and more respectfully than most people would have.



As far as I can tell, he took it like an adult and decided it wasn’t worth his time to come back.



Now, I imagine most people reading this will understand that you were trying to defend your dad; I think they’ll respect that. Here’s what I’m going to do. As you may have noticed, I haven’t mentioned his name one time in this post. Let me explain why. If you Google his rap name, the blog post I wrote using his words comes up near the bottom of the first page. If you leave it alone, I have no reason to ever mention him again. Eventually my page will drop lower and lower on the Google rankings, until it won’t come up on a casual search. I have no control over this, it’s just how Google works.



However, continue to send me letters, continue to threaten me, and I will continue to write about it. Eventually, his name will have more hits on this blog than anywhere else, and whenever someone searches for information about him, this blog’s going to be one of the first things they see. Again, I have no control over this. It’s the magic of fucking Google.



So, the ball is all yours. Take it and go home.

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Letter to Pat Lykos 21


It’s the middle of June, time for another letter to Pat Lykos. I’d like to bring her attention to some of the new facts that have been revealed in SPM’s letter. Please, write to the District Attorney this month! Mail out a copy of this letter, write one of your own, or print out one of the downloadable flyers on the sidebar and send that.



Although letters from those of you in Houston are needed, letters from anywhere in the world will help. They don't need to be long, or grammatically perfect, they just need to be sent. Let the D.A.'s office know that our eyes are on them, and we want to see justice.



District Attorney Patricia Lykos
1201 Franklin St
Houston, Tx
77002



Ma’am,



I’m writing today about the case of Carlos Coy, case #908426.



As we become more familiar with the transcripts in this case, I find myself continually surprised at how the conviction appears to have been crafted with no regard to justice. The judge attempted to exclude evidence, a movie that the child had seen, that portrayed the same sexual act Coy was accused of performing on her.



Although she had not mentioned seeing the movie in court, the prosecutors were told by the judge to ask her if she had seen it; they contacted the defense attorney and said she had. In court later, apparently after discovering what was in the movie, the judge decided not to admit it. The prosecutors claimed that the child’s mother told them she had not seen the movie, only the first five minutes. This was later proved false in court, in front of the judge, but not the jury.



Ma’am, this does not appear to be the pursuit of justice, but of expediency. Please, take a look at the trial transcript, Volumes 14 & 15, and see what you think. I am committed to gathering and spreading information about this trial, which I hope will eventually lead to a new trial for Mr. Coy. I do this because I sincerely his first was a miscarriage of justice. Please help us; look into this case, and see if it was motivated by a desire to find the truth, or to gain a conviction.



Me, my address, blah blah blah.


Wednesday, June 13, 2012

SPM Responds (Part 8.c)






That’s where the plot began. Let’s skip a page where we see Oncken joining Andrews with the same idea:


Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts Volume 14 of 31 pgs. 87-88)



Chip: I do have a witness to represent they are the movies that are titled, that there’s nothing in them, et cetera, et cetera.



Judge: Well, the movies are what the movies are. You don’t need a witness to testify that they’re movies.



Chip: The copies I have, I don’t want there to be a question about Authenticity, Your Honor.



Judge: Okay. Well - -



D.A. Oncken: Bottom line, there has been no testimony from the child that she watched the entire movies and that she even saw those parts. Defense didn’t establish that in the child’s testimony.



Judge: Well, but, okay, common sense, she said she watched the movies. I mean, do you seriously want her to come in and say “I saw this part and not that part”? Is that what your plan is?

            I mean, she said she saw the movies. That means she saw the movies. That’s what common sense language grammar means, she saw the movies. So if they want to offer the movies on their theory, I think they’re entitled to do that.

            The question is do you want to watch them before he offers them to see if you have any objections to them? Yes? No?



D.A. Oncken: I think we have to, Judge.



Judge: Okay. Bring the jury out. They get to go home, obviously.





            It sounds like the judge was on our side in this situation. He got dead on the D.A.’s ass for even thinking of such a stupid plan. But that’s why he got on their ass. It would have been stupid to have the child say she only saw certain parts. It would have shown the jury how this child could be manipulated to say anything they wanted. The judge was like a coach, making sure the D.A.’s didn’t do anything that would lose the game.

But, at this time, they don’t know that “Scary Movie” has the specific act of oral sex. Let’s go to the next day, after the judge and D.A.’s have seen the movies. (Note: Scary Movie is identified as Exhibit 7, Scream is exhibit 8, Scream Two is Exhibit 9, and I Know What You Did Last Summer is Exhibit 10.)


Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 4-5)



Judge: All right. In the recess from yesterday, the Court, under duress, watched these movies. Defense 7, 8, 9, and 10 in their entirety. It will take some time, I’m sure, for the Court to recover from that event, but in any event I did watch each of the movies in their entirety.

            And has the State watched the movies as well?



D.A. Andrews: Unfortunately, yes.



Judge: What says the State as to exhibits 7, 8, 9, and 10?



D.A. Andrews: As to 7, we would object as the witness, at least on the record, did not indicate she had seen the movie. Her mother indicated they put the movie in, saw that it was innapropriate and took the movie off. So, I actually don’t think that the record reflects that the witness viewed “Scary Movie.”





Chip trusted the D.A.’s to ask Jane Doe if she saw the movie. She said she did. But since it was done outside of the courtroom, (Off the record), they’re using that against him. The judge agrees with the D.A. and is going to allow them to question the child on the stand. Everybody’s knows what’s going to happen; the little girl is going to come in and say she only saw part of the movie. Chip is so furious he can barely keep his cool. Remember, the jury is not there to see this.


Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 16-18)



Judge: Well, my suggestion is I’m admitting 8, 9, and 10. The jury can start doing that and then we can get whoever we need to get up here to clear up - - whatever was seen on Defense Exhibit No. 7 and go from there.



D.A. Andrews: And are we going to do that outside the presence of the jury?



Judge: Yes



D.A. Andrews: Okay.



D.A. Oncken: So you want the - - just for clarification, Judge, you want the child so that either the State or the Defense can ask the question specifically about the movie “Scary Movie”; is that right?



Judge: Right.



D.A. Oncken: Is that what we’re limiting the question to?



Chip: I have no intent to ask her anything. I thought we cleared this up yesterday when the Court asked the State - - the State called me and unequivocally told me she had seen “Scary Movie”.



D.A. Andrews: That’s what she said to us.



Chip: Well, what are we doing here?



D.A. Andrews: Well, after we talked to her, sent her back to school, we talked to mom.



Judge: So, why are we afraid to ask her the question?



Chip: Exactly, I trust - -



Judge: Why are you afraid to ask her the question?



Chip: I’m not, Judge. This is a waste of time. I’m getting the runaround after the Court gave a perfect directive and Ms. Andrews followed it and I trust her, just like I trust you.



Judge: Well, I had no reason to believe she may have only seen a portion of the movie until this morning.



Chip: Yes, you did. You made the statement yesterday when Ms. Oncken made the objection about we don’t know what part she’s seen or not seen. And you said the Court - - and we could go back in the record - - I trust - -



Judge: So, I can’t change my mind is that what you’re telling me?





Twenty-four hours earlier, this judge thought it was absurd when the D.A. suggested that the child may have only saw parts of the movies. Now that he knows what’s on “Scary Movie” he’s allowing the D.A.’s to do their dirty deed.

            This is just one example of how these people worked together. This went on while the jury was somewhere else thinking these D.A.’s were heroes, this little girl and her family were saints, and the judge was as honorable as his title read. But what happened behind their backs told the story of who these people were.


Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 27-30)



Judge: Okay. We’re outside the presence of the jury. I have requested the complainant and her mother come to court to clarify the testimony as it applies to Defense Exhibit No. 7, which is the movie titled “Scary Movie.”

            The State having objected so, therefore, again being outside the presence of the jury, State call their witness for purposes of this hearing outside the presence of the jury.



D.A. Oncken: The State Call (Jane Doe).

Judge: All right, welcome back, (Jane Doe). We need to ask you a few more questions. Ms. Oncken.



D.A. Oncken: Thank you, Judge. Hi, (Jane Doe), how are you today?



Jane Doe: Fine.



D.A. Oncken: Okay, I want to ask you a couple of questions about some movies that you’ve watched. Specifically about a movie by the name of “Scary Movie”. Do you remember that movie?



Jane Doe: Yes.



D.A. Oncken: Yeah. And you remember when you watched it?



Jane Doe: No.



D.A. Oncken: Was it a long time ago?



Jane Doe: Yes.



D.A. Oncken: Okay. And do you remember who you watched it with?



Jane Doe: I watched it with my dad, my mom, my brothers and my cousin, (G).



D.A. Oncken: Okay. And do you remember if you watched the whole movie or part of the movie or do you remember?



Jane Doe: I only watched a little bit of it.



D.A. Oncken: And why did you only watch a little bit of it?



Jane Doe: Because they said I couldn’t watch the movie because they said it was too nasty.



D.A. Oncken: Okay. And your dad said that?



Jane Doe: I’m not sure.



D.A. Oncken: You’re not sure who said it?



Jane Doe: No.



D.A. Oncken: Okay. Was it an adult that said it or a kid?



Jane Doe: Adult.



D.A. Oncken: Adult. Okay. And the only two adults that were there were - -



Jane Doe: My mom and dad.



D.A. Oncken: Do you know how long you watched the movie?



Jane Doe: About five minutes.



D.A. Oncken: About five minutes. So, not long, huh?



Jane Doe: No.



D.A. Oncken: Anything else, Judge?





            If the jury had been able to see how easily this child’s testimony could be changed-up, I wouldn’t be in prison today. You’re going to see that she did watch the entire movie. You’re going to see what is most amazing about this ordeal, and that’s that this child really believed this event happened.

            Not to stray from my point, but another disturbing reality is how her chemistry with the D.A. on this “about-five-minutes” story, is eerily similar to their chemistry on the assault story.



Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts Volume 11 of 31 pg. 93)



D.A. Oncken: Okay. And how long did he lick you.



Jane Doe: About a minute.



D.A. Oncken: About a minute.



Jane Doe: Yes.



D.A. Oncken: Yeah. And what did he do when he stopped?



Jane Doe: He told me not to tell nobody.



D.A. Oncken: He told you not to tell nobody.




Jane Doe: Yes.



Now that we know her story changes during her civil disposition, we know that this, too, was made up. And whoever did whatever they did  to orchestrate these stories, should seriously go hang themself. And I’m sorry that you have to read my personal feelings, but I guess it helps as I revisit this trial. For that matter, I’m sorry you have to read the graphic nature of this bullshit assault. In my up-coming letters, you’ll see everything this child said about this alleged crime. Most remarkably, you’ll see how, according to her story, this assault would have been impossible to commit.

            The question right now is, how do I know that Jane Doe really believed she sat with her cousin, (G), her parents, her brother and only saw five minutes of “Scary Movie?” It’s because Chip didn’t give up on this. He kept pushing the issue till he forced an error.

            The “five-minute-story” stageplay had been impressively put together in less than twenty-four hours. But with any rush-job, the likelihood of mistakes increases.

            The mission was clear: Have the child say she only saw the first five minutes. The mission was accomplished, but how it was accomplished must have not been important to anyone. To me, to you, to the judge and possibly to the D.A., it appeared that the child had been told to simply lie. You’ll see how having that belief put a banana peel on the judge’s path.

Continued in part 8.d