Probability

If you haven't heard the latest release from The S.O.N., go here to check it out: https://soundcloud.com/DopeHouseOfficial

I’m digging into the mailbag for today’s post; there are a couple of things that I’ve wanted to go over again and this letter just ties them all together so neatly.

Hello, I have a question. Did spm testify at his criminal trial or civil trial? I have read through much of your blog, and I can't seem to find a mention of it. If he did, is there a transcript of it?

There are transcripts of each trial, but I have not seen them. If you've read through much of the blog, you know this. 

I just reread "South Park monster" and it says he testified after being convicted. Was this during a sentencing phase? Where can this transcript be found? Maybe you've seen it. I have to be honest, I was a fan of the music, but I find that I can't bring myself to listen to it anymore. You know the joke about jail? Everyone's innocent.

The argument you’re making here is one of probability; very useful when looking at, say, the prison system as a whole, but absurd when you’re looking at an individual case.

For example: let’s say you fill a room with 99 dogs, and one child; the probability of the child being a dog is high, if you just look at the numbers. Saying, “The room is full of dogs” is statistically likely to be a true statement.

But, judged individually, it’s ridiculous. The fact that there are 99 dogs in the room has no bearing on the fact that the child is a child. Proximity to the dogs doesn't make the child one of them. The probability of the child being a dog cannot be considered factual if you make even the tiniest effort to investigate.

Now I understand that there are wrongful convictions. I do. But there is something that strikes me as false when I read a small comment that spm makes in one of his letters. He says that his calls were suspended because he " supposedly had marijuana in his system". But he himself has said in other letters that he recently stopped smoking, even behind bars.

All I or anyone else can ask you to do, when it comes to determining Coy’s guilt or innocence, is to make a personal decision. If the thought that he lied about smoking weed three years ago make you believe he’d lie about molesting a child, then I can’t argue against that. That’s your decision based on your observations and feelings, and I respect it. That’s why I do not argue that he is innocent on this blog. I have no more evidence of his innocence than I do of his guilt.

I believe he’s innocent, but that’s just one person’s opinion. What I can argue, and I believe I will eventually be able to prove, is that his trial was not just; it was not impartial. He was not allowed the presumption of innocence, as so many men accused of harming children are not.

 I'm sorry that this email has become so long. I really just wanted to ask a question but all this just poured out. I want you to know that there are Mexican male readers who try to look objectively and not just yell "free spm!" in the comments after every post. Thank you for reading this if you did. 

I love talking about this case; I have been talking about it for a long time now, and I will continue to do so because it interests me. I would never expect anyone to make a decision about Coy’s case based on race. I am not a Mexican male; I don’t expect TDCJ to just “free SPM.” I want him to have a new trial governed by the protections set in place to protect individual liberty. I don’t want that for him because we’re similar in any way, or because of his music or fame; I want it because the encroachment against his liberty threatens mine.