So,
you now have an idea of the environment that Coy was indicted and eventually
convicted in; what was he actually convicted of?
One
count of ‘Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child’. After all the indictments, the
rumors being thrown around, and the allegations made during his trial, he was
only ever convicted of that one thing.
Many,
many people I have come across believe that the ‘Aggravated’ part means he did
something especially vicious, but in Coy’s case, it was because the supposed
victim was under 14.
(section
22.021)
From
the Habeas Corpus:
While sitting on the bed, [Coy]
inappropriately touched and rubbed [the complainant]. After this incident, the
complainant left [Coy]’s bedroom.
The children eventually entered the
daughter’s bedroom. Both children climbed into bed and began watching
television. After [Coy]’s daughter fell asleep, [Coy] entered the room, sat on
the bed, reached under the covers, and again inappropriately touched her.
Eventually, [Coy] sexually assaulted the complainant by causing her sexual
organ to come into contact with his mouth. The complainant testified that [Coy]
persisted in this conduct for approximately one minute.
The complainant did not, after this
incident, stay overnight at [Coy]’s home as planned, but returned home. The
following morning, she informed her mother what occurred at [Coy]’s home, and
the authorities were contacted to investigate the incident.
So not only was he never accused of violence but, as
we know from Coy’s letters, the child's story changed over time. Initially, she accused Coy of touching her; after the unrecorded interview with HPD
Officer Heidi Ruiz, she began to say she was licked for a minute; at the civil
trial, it became only one second.
You
hear a lot about the women brought in to testify against Coy during the
sentencing phase of his trial, and as far as I can tell Coy was indicted for
each of those allegations, which means that he could have been tried for them,
but never was. For all the prosecution’s bluster about getting a life sentence,
Coy says: When
the DA offered five years for both Jane Doe’s and Jill Odom’s case, I told my
lawyer, “I’ll take ten years for my son, but I won’t say I did something that I
didn’t do.”
If
they truly believed he was a danger to children, why even offer him that deal?
If they believed the young women who brought their stories into court, why did
they never pursue those cases? Even the one case that offered proof, that of
Jill Odom, was never prosecuted.
Maybe
there’s another explanation, but from where I’m sitting it just looks like
someone wanted to get headlines, and jumped on the most sensational case with
both feet, evidence be damned.
3 comments:
Thats what I say, if they honestly believed that he was that cruel like they said he was why even bother offering him 5years?? Comonn that just doesnt make any sense. Free los!
If he had taken the 5years and served his time,couldn't of he gone back to court and proof he was innocent .
JC: No, I believe that when you plead guilty, you waive your right to appeal.
Post a Comment