Jim Bolding

In his most recent letter, SPM quotes the investigating officer in his case, Heidi Ruiz, when she mentioned the founder of the HPD lab’s DNA section, a Mr. Jim Bolding. The decision whether or not to collect evidence was based on this guy’s training. Bolding, the lab director, was a key figure for many years and is mentioned repeatedly in the report issued by an independent investigator back in 2005.

Bolding appears to have been a self-taught serologist, and lacked the necessary education in statistics to effectively perform DNA analysis. Because of his recommendation the lab began storing evidence in rooms without temperature controls.

“Over the many years that Bolding remained in charge, the serology department became marked, according to Bromwich, by a "disregard for scientific integrity." Analysts beneath Bolding often neglected to test evidence that was presented to them; the tests they did perform were "generally unreliable." They misinterpreted, misrecorded, misreported the results. The investigator even found a case in which Bolding seemed to have committed "outright scientific fraud and perjury."”

A federal jury found that the city showed ‘deliberate indifference’ to the problems at the crime lab when they awarded George Rodriguez $5 million for the false evidence which led to his conviction.

A key piece of the case against Coy –namely, any shred of physical evidence- rested in the hands of an officer who, by her own admission was trained “year after year” by this guy.  

http://www.chron.com/default/article/5-million-award-bittersweet-for-wrongly-convicted-1720657.php

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/05/us/new-doubt-cast-on-testing-in-houston-police-crime-lab.html

http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-11-27/news/deadly-evidence-at-the-crime-lab/

The Never Ending Letter (Part 2.c)

Continued from Part 2.b

Even in their closing arguments, the D.A.’s had to admit that they should’ve collected evidence. It was something that couldn’t be denied, so it was only smart to say so.

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 17 of 31 pgs. 95-96)

(By D.A. Andrews-Closing Arguments)

                Let’s talk about the panties. Mr. Lewis wanted me to address that question. Why didn’t we get the panties. All I can say is maybe we should have. Maybe in an abundance of caution the cops should have gotten the panties. Maybe there would have been DNA. Most probably there wouldn’t have based on what they knew at the time, there was touching.

                Their own expert didn’t come in here and tell you there would have been massive amounts of DNA like Mr. Lewis said she would have. She said, “You never know. It’s uncertain. Not likely.”

                So, what, it doesn’t change the fact that (Jane Doe) came in here and told you the truth. Doesn’t change the fact that with her testimony by itself we have satisfied our burden of proof because she’s credible, because we all know that she was telling the truth about what happened.

__________

                Well done, Ms. Andrews. All those debate competitions you had in high school and college have done you a service. But if I may slice through your horse manure, I’d be much obliged.

                First of all, why would Chip say there would be massive amounts of DNA on panties that have been washed? No, he had an expert testify to the fact that it was still possible to collect DNA from washed clothes. The massive amount would have been if the panties had not been washed.

                You also forgot to mention the sheets, Ma’am. The original story was that I had done this for “about a minute” and the child felt slobber on her. Even one drop of saliva on those sheets would have produced thousands, if not millions, of DNA cells. Seems you only addressed the addressible while dressed in that silly dress the color of caviar dressing. What? I’m not being silly.

                You also said, “....it doesn’t change the fact (Jane Doe) came in here and told you (the jury) the truth.”

                If truth can change, Ms. Andrews, then my dream is to, one day, be a Chinese man. But it doesn’t change, even if I owned a convenience store and kicked people out for looking at magazines and not buying them. “You no buy, get out!”

                Anyway, the facts I’ve shown on this letter, so far, should set off alarms as to the real story of my case. But I still hear questions, questions like, “But why, Carlos? Why would the system be so interested in destroying you? Don’t they have enough real child abuse cases than to help fabricate one? Almost everyone accused of these crimes say the same type of shit. Why should we believe you?”

                Those are good questions, and I’ve explained in a previous letter (go to SPM Responds Part 8.e ) the relationship I had with the authorities in Houston. I was blowing up like a bomb in my town, I was the fastest growing rap artist in the nation, and I was using my new found power to fuck with the cops. I never realized how vulnerable I was making myself if I were ever to get into a legal problem.

                At every concert I had the crowd chanting “fuck the police!” and HPD despised SPM. I despised them just as well, for the times they violated my rights, all the times they treated me less than human, all the times they abused the badge on their uniform. I guess I didn’t make it clear that my beef was only with those prejudiced dicksuckers, those hateful hoes, those cowards that hide behind their authority. I admire good cops, in fact, there’s nothing more honorable than to put your life on the line for another person. But the fact remains, I was at war with Houston authorities, and when they had someone with a story that could potentially end my reign, they did backflips to make that story work. You should read that previous letter to get an idea of the situation.

                On the other hand, I’m not asking you to believe me about anything. I’m asking you to believe the facts, because those don’t lie. I wouldn’t believe me either, or anyone found guilty of hurting a child. That’s because I used to think like you, that American courtrooms operated with unconditional integrity, they seek the truth one hundred percent of the time. In some cases, that’s not true, my friends, and that’s why there’s tons of people in this place for crimes they didn’t do.

                Not long ago, a man was given life in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. In fact, he was in jail during the time the crime took place, so there’s no way he could have done it. He was later exonerated, thank God, but guess whose courtroom he was found guilty in? That’s right, the same judge’s courtroom where I was found guilty. And those are the kind of results you get when you have a judge who does all he can, uses all his body language, spoken language, to help D.A.’s win their cases. Not every defendant is guilty, and that’s not how a judge should look at the person sitting on the left side of his courtroom.

                When Chip told me our judge was Ellis, he said, “They gave us the worst possible judge in the system.”

                I didn’t understand what he meant, I thought a judge was a judge, a neutral official that made sure everyone got a fair trial. But instead I saw a man who made clear to everyone in that jury box that he was against me. That kind of demeanor influences a jury, they pick up on it. They believe that the judge knows more about the case than them, so they follow his lead.

                Judges are supposed to be randomly picked for cases, but it was no random coincidence that we were given that judge. The system was afraid of Carlos Coy, not because they believed I was guilty, but because I had the power to influence an entire generation, and my message was anti-authority, was everything they feared.

                Honestly, who can blame them for their concern? I was a bald-faded, pants saggin, pot smokin, ex-drug dealer gangster rapper. Being a Mexican from an all-Black hood probably didn’t help either. I’m not pulling the race card, here, because anyone who knows me, knows I’m color blind. But there’s powers in this country that can stop a man dead in his tracks, and I wouldn’t have believed it myself until I saw all the crooked shit they did to win this case.

                There were no Mexicans in my jury, no hispanics at all, and that should’ve told me I was in a predicament. There was one black man in my jury, and he was the only one fighting for me. That’s why the verdict took three days. That man told my lawyer that he knew I wasn’t guilty, but he was tired of arguing so he agreed with the rest of the jury. He said that he needed to get home that evening and get ready for his daughter’s graduation, that’s why he gave in. Chip told me that, and I told Chip to get an affidavit from the man, saying what he told Chip. But I don’t know what happened with that. I think the man said those things because he thought it would get me a new trial. Maybe it would have, I don’t know.

                But I ain’t trippin, trust me. They did nothing but save my life, and Jesus is still king.

                Damn, I done got religious on ya ass!

                Clearly, I was doomed from the beginning. Even before the trial began, the judge decided he would give the jury his own definition of “reasonable doubt.” It was this long speech, full of negative connotations that worked against me. Let me give you a few paragraphs of his efforts.

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 7 of 31 pg. 100)

                                                                THE COURT: Now, the point being beyond a reasonable doubt is not 100 percent sure because of the fact that the only way anyone knows something 100 percent sure is if you see it with your own eyes.  .  And, obviously, if you’re a witness on the case you can’t be on the jury. That would get a little strange, right? “Call your next witness!” “I call Juror No. 8.”  No.  No.  No.

                The jury has to be someone who is impartial and knows nothing about the case of their own knowledge and so, therefore, beyond a reasonable doubt is not 100 percent sure.

                Now, we know the ceiling basically. It’s not 100 percent sure. Now, there are some things, again, that we know that it’s not.

__________

                I underlined the “not 100 percent sures” so that you can see that he’s trying to drill this message into their heads. Of course, he’s right, you can’t be 100 percent sure, but to say it three times, in three consecutive paragraphs, is sending the jury a message. The message is clear: “You guys will not be 100 percent sure about this case, but don’t let that stop you from convicting this person.”

                His entire hour, or two hour, oration was nothing but rhetoric concerning not having to be absolutely sure, not having to believe it 100 percent.

                A few pages before this testimony, he asked a prospective juror a few questions.

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 7 of 31 pgs. 95-96)

                                                THE COURT: What do you do for a living, Mr. T--?

                                                PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Logistics management.

                                                THE COURT: Computers?

                                                PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir transportation.

                                                THE COURT: Transportation, all right. Mr. T--, beyond a reasonable doubt, what does that mean?

                                                PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Beyond a reasonable doubt means there’s no shadow of a doubt in your mind at all.

                                                THE COURT: Okay.

                                                PROSPECTIVE JUROR: All doubt is gone.

                                                THE COURT: All right. Let’s work on that.

__________

                And work on that he did. He pounded away at the answer Mr. T—gave: “All doubt is gone.” But what he did more than anything, was to make it abundantly clear that he didn’t want the defendant to win. It was unbelievable, but I still wasn’t worried because I didn’t believe I would actually lose.

                Later in the trial, Chip asked if he would give the jury the original definition of “reasonable doubt”, the one that was made specifically for trials. Chip asks, “Yes, Your Honor. We would ask that the reasonable doubt instruction be included in the charge...”

                The judge’s response was simply, “That will be denied.”

               All right. Let me get back on track.

As you know, Chip made Ruiz admit that she should have collected those garments, those sheets, and really anything that any cop would have, should have collected to help her case. He did this right in front of the jury, but it wasn’t enough. The little girl’s story left such a deep impression on them, they couldn’t or wouldn’t process the telltale signs of dishonesty. Jane Doe was an extremely smart child, and after seven months of practice, her narrative was well executed.

                Me, I didn’t even take the shit serious. I was working on a movie script during the trial! We were in preproduction for my first film, a story about my life, and I didn’t want this bullshit to distract or delay progress. My underestimation of the situation was probably the D.A.’s greatest weapon.

                Okay. Earlier I told you that lies, if you look close enough, will always have cracks. You’ve seen some of those cracks, even if you thought they were small. I said some, though, could be as wide as rivers, which brings me to this point.

                Ya see, our critic hung to his claim that Jane Doe’s story made “logical sense” and that’s why the jury believed her. Let’s take a look at that logical sense, if ya don’t mind.

                In the trial, Jane Doe described, exactly, how she was laying on the bed, which was like someone would normally lay. She said she was on her back, next to my daughter. There was even a diagram that showed the bed and her position. In fact, let me go to the page right before her story of the “assault”, where she explains how she was laying.

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 11 of 31 pg. 89)

(D.A. Oncken questioning Jane Doe)

                Q. Yeah. How were you laying?

                A. On my back.

                Q. On your back. Do you want to turn the doll back over so I’ll remember how your were laying?

                A. (Witness complies)

__________

                Ya see, my daughter’s bed was so high that we had to buy her a foot-stool just so she could get on it. But that was the bed she wanted and, of course, I bought her whatever she asked, save the baby giraffe.

                In Jane Doe’s story, she explains how I got on my knees, used one hand to pull her panties, and the other hand, she couldn’t see.

                Let me enclose a picture of the bed, the same picture that was shown to the jury. I only have a copy of the transcripts, so I apologize for the picture being in black and white.

                Notice how much higher the bed is that my daughter’s double drawers on the side. It’s a small but tall bed. If you don’t know, I’m only five foot five, so even if Jane Doe had been laying on her “back” at the very edge of the bed, I still wouldn’t have been able to get on my knees, extend my neck over her leg, and commit this crime. But she wasn’t at the edge, according to her own story, she was fully on the bed next to my daughter. Even if I were six-foot-tall, this crime would have been physically impossible to commit.

                To top it off, they said I was masturbating, which means I would’ve had to be even further away from the bed.

                If I, or my lawyer, or anyone would have caught this impossibility, I would not be in prison today. Chip could’ve brought that bed into that courtroom, had me kneel down, and show how there was no way I could have done this.

                On a previous letter (go to SPM Responds Part 8.b ) I showed you how Jane Doe didn’t know if the assault “could be a dream, or something like that.”

                I can’t say I know, exactly, where or how this story came about; whether a “dream”, or “hallucinations” as her medical record suggested, something she was told to say, something she saw, or, God forbid, something she actually experienced in her life. All I can say is that when you make up something, you can see the whole scene in your mind.

                She could picture me getting down on my knees, then picture me get up and walk away. A picture in your mind doesn’t have to abide by any rules, everything runs without a hitch. The truth, on the other hand, must abide by the rules of logic. The story sounded good, that’s for sure, especially to the jury, but all the practice in the world can’t make the impossible possible.

                That. my friends, is a crack as wide as the Mississippi, and it buries the notion that Jane Doe’s testimony made logical sense.

                What’s funny is that I thought no one caught this flaw, but apparently the D.A. did. Probably, after Oncken saw the diagram on the film projector that they had in the courtroom, she realized the impossibility of the story. Because, even after the child said I got on my knees, Oncken tries to suggest tat I was standing. Let’s revisit that.

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 11 of 31 (pg. 91)

(D.A. Oncken Questioning Jane Doe)

                Q. Okay. And you said he was standing or what was he doing on the side of the bed?

                A. On his knees.

                Q. On his knees at the side of the bed. And when he had the panties pulled to the side like that, what did he do?

__________

                Oncken immediately goes back to the shock value of the “assault”, getting the child to repeat the sexual act, which was a good tactic on her part because it kept the jury too appalled to think about anything else.

                Like I said, at the time, the story was very believable, and I told you I’d show you proof of how this family was rehearsing with the D.A.’s during numerous private meetings.  If I interrupt the following testimony, I’ll start back up from the exact point I left off.

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 10 of 31 pgs. 119-129)

                                                (Chip Lewis questioning Mary Doe [child’s mother])

                Q. Ms. Doe, your first phone call to the authorities in this case happened, I guess, late Sunday night or early Sunday morning?

                A. It was late.

                Q. But it was – when we go from Saturday to Sunday, the day after this allegedly happened, right?

                A. Correct.

                Q. Okay. After that point in time, can you estimate for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury how many times you have – you, in conjunction with Jane Doe, have met with either the police or D.A. in this case?

                A. About four times.

__________

                Interruption number one. You’ll see that this was a lie, there were additional meetings going on. You’ll also see how persistant Chip had to be to get Mary Doe to reveal this lie.

__________

10 of 31 pg. 120 cont’d

Q. Okay. About four. Tell me which four times you remember.

                A. With the police.

                Q. Okay. That night?

                A. That night.

                Q. A patrol officer came to you, correct?

                A. Correct.

                Q. Next?

                A. Officer Ruiz at Southeast.

                Q. Okay. At Mykawa?

                A. Correct.

                Q. Who went to see Officer Ruiz?

                A. Me, my sister, (John Doe-child’s father) and Jane Doe.

                Q. And you met with Detective Ruiz alone?

                A. Yes.

                Q. Just you three. No one from HPD or no prosecutor or nothing like that, just y’all – you four?

                A. Yes.

                Q. Correct?

                A. Right.

                Q. All right. When was the third meeting?

                A. At the Assessment Center.

                Q. And who all was present for that?

                A. Me and John Doe and Jane Doe.

                Q. And who did you meet with at the Assessment Center?

                A. Officer Ruiz.

                Q. Okay. The meeting, the second meeting you told me about at Mykawa Road with Detective Ruiz, do you remember the date of that?

                A. The date?

                Q. Yes, ma’am.

                A. No. I know the day.

                Q. Okay. Approximately how long after the Monday – Jane Doe went to Texas Children’s on Monday, September the 3^rd, right?

                A. It was a week.

                Q. The following Monday?

                A. Correct.

                Q. So, approximately – I’m not trying to pin you down, but about September the 10^th?

                A. No.

                Q. Okay. When? Before the 10^th? After the 10^th?

__________

                I apologize for this boring line of questioning. I try not to put you guys to sleep, but Chip is trying to show how they took their time in calling the police, in getting the girl checked out, in getting her interviewed. In fact, after the child told her mother I touched her, the family went to the movies that day. Then, later that night, they allegedly called the police. It’s all in the transcripts if you doubt me. That’s why they claimed she had taken a shower and her clothes were washed before anyone could test for evidence. Here’ what the nurse said at the Texas Children’s Hospital:

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 12 of 31 pg. 69)

                Nurse: ...and because she had indeed taken washed her clothes and had taken a shower, I didn’t think there was anything we could use as far as a kit except for just doing an external exam, which you don’t open a kit for an external exam.

__________

                It’s no coincidence that all evidence was snuffed out before anyone could test anything. They didn’t make evidence available to the doctors, the cops made bogus excuses as to why they didn’t collect any, and the D.A.’s backed it all up with clever rhetoric.

                Let me get back to Mary Doe, and the proof that this family was doing a whole lot of rehearsing.

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 10 of 31 pg. 122-129)

                A. It was before the 10^th.

                Q. So, less than a week after she went to Texas Children’s?

                A. She went to Texas Children’s on Monday.

                Q. The 3^rd?

                A. The following Monday I took her.

                Q. Okay. So, approximately, September the 10^th?

                A. Correct.

                Q. All right. How soon after that meeting on the 10^th did y’all go to the Assessment Center?

                A. The following week.

                Q. Do you know what day of the week?

                A. It was a Monday.

                Q. So, approximately the 17^th?

                A. No. Maybe. I’m not – I don’t know my days. I was confused, I was sick.

                Q. In terms of less than a week, more than a week, what do you think?

                A. It was about a week.

                Q. So, it would have been somewhere around the 17^th?

                A. Could be.

                Q. And you’ve described four meetings, when was the fourth?

                A. I’m sorry.

                Q. You described – you said about four times. We’ve talked about three. What’s the fourth one?

                A. With Officer Ruiz?

                Q. You tell me.

                A. Officer Ruiz. Then I met up with Denise. (Note: “Denise” is D.A. Oncken.)

                Q. Okay. When was that?

                A. I can’t recall.

                Q. Okay. It was after – after the meeting at the Assessment Center?

                A. No. It was the same day – yes, it was different days.

                Q. Okay. When was the first one – the first one was where you wrote in your own writing, correct?

                A. Correct

                Q. When was that?

                A. That was the day I took Jane to the police station in Bellaire.

                Q. The day you went to Mykawa Road?

                A. Yes.

                Q. The second statement was when you were at the Assessment Center, correct?

                A. Correct.

                Q. Okay. Now, after your meeting with Ms. Oncken at the D.A.’s office, is it at that time or after that that Jane starts going to counseling at the Assessment Center?

                A. I can’t recall.

                Q. Okay. Do you know how long after you originally met with the police that she started going to the Assessment Center?

                A. Maybe about a week.

                Q. Okay. And how often did she begin going?

                A. Once a week.

                Q. Is it the same day every day?

                A. Yes.

                Q. What day?

                A. Mondays.

                Q. And how long does she go?

                A. For an hour.

                Q. And the counseling that she attended at the Assessment Center, is that group or alone, one on one?

                A. Alone, except one time.

                As you can see, Jane Doe was going to the Assessment Center every week, since September. The trial didn’t take place till seven months later. The D.A. was also making personal visits to the family’s homes. They were practicing, preparing the child for trial.

__________

10 of 31 pg. 126 cont’d

                Q. Okay. One time it was group?

                A. Yes.

                Q. All right. Was that on a Monday also, Ms. Doe?

                A. I can’t recall.

                Q. The – and she’s been doing that regularly since this date, since back in September of last year?

                A. Yes, unless she’s sick.

                Q. Okay. At any of the times that you’ve taken her to the counseling center – the Assessment Center that is – had you met with anybody related to this case, the D.A.’s office or the police department?

                A. I’m sorry, what was your question?

                Q. At any of the trips that Jane has made to the Assessment Center, for her counseling, have you had any conversations, had any meetings with anybody from the D.A.’s office or the police department?

                A. No.

                Q. All right. So, it’s your testimony that after you and John Doe and Jane went to Ms. Oncken’s office there had been no other meetings?

                A. With Ms. Oncken?

                Q. With Ms. Oncken or anybody from her office or anybody from the police department, meetings about this case.

                A. No.

                Q. There have been none since then?

                A. No, just about the court.

                Q. I understand. I’m not asking about the subject matter. We’ll get into that. I’m talking about the number of meetings. Was this meeting back at Ms. Oncken’s office? The last time you met with anybody from the D.A,’s office or the police department about this case?

                A. No.

                Q. Right. Tell me what other times you now recall?

                A. I don’t know as far as the date.

                Q. Okay. About how long ago?

                A. A few months ago. A month, couple of weeks.

                Q. Do you remember where any of those meetings took place?

                A. Yes, at her office.

                Q. And who attended – how many of those meetings were there at her office, not counting what we’ve called no. 4?

                A. How many meetings?

                Q.  A month, couple of weeks.

                Q. Do you remember where any of those meetings took place?

                A. Yes, at her office.

                Q. And who attended – how many of those meetings were there at her office, not counting what we’ve called no. 4?

                A. How many meetings?

                Q. Yes, ma’am.

                A. I can’t recall.

                Q. More than one?

                A. Maybe more than one.

                Q. Okay. More than two?

                A. No, about two?

                Q. All right. Of those two meetings only, who attended the first one?

                A. The first one?

                Q. Yes, ma’am.

                A. John Doe and Jane and I.

                Q. And that’s not the one we’ve already talked about?

                A. Yes.

__________

                Mary Doe understands the question that Chip’s asking, she’s no dummy. She’s being elusive to the question because she doesn’t want to answer, nor commit perjury by lying. By this time, Chip gets visibly frustrated and pins Mary Doe down to the question at hand.

__________

10 of 31 pg. 128 cont’d

                Q. All right. Let’s get past that meeting. I want to talk about meetings that you have had since John Doe, you and Jane initially went and met with Ms. Oncken. How many meetings have there been since then?

                A. I can’t recall.

                Q. Okay. And do you know – do you recall there have been meetings?

                A. Yes.

                Q. Okay. And you have no recollection of how many meetings there have been.

                A. I don’t count them.

__________

                She won’t even give an estimation as to how many additional meetings they had. She would rather say, “I don’t count them”, than to give a roundabout figure. Because if she lied, it would be perjury and if she gave a figure, it would be more than she wanted the jury to know.

                I admit, she definitely avoided Chip’s inquiry for a good while, cleverly going back to the initial meeting with the D.A. But the question that should stand out is, why was she so stubborn about admitting to the additional meetings? The answer is obvious, when you’re doing something wrong, you try to hide it. They were up to no good, and she knew it. During those private meetings, Mary Doe was thinking about the paycheck she would get in civil trial, and the D.A. was thinking about destroying the gangster rap star that was taking over the city. But they both fell short. The civil jury awarded the family peanuts, and the D.A.s didn’t destroy, but made me stronger.

                This letter reveals crucial information, crumbling the story that has me in prison. But I’ll continue to show you many more facts, there’s a lot more to expose. And if any critic,any hater, any hater professional...If any person at all wants to challenge anything I’ve said, or anything about my case, please don’t hesitate. I’m kind of lazy and I can definitely use the motivation.

                Before I go, let me say that I’m not trying to portray myself as some angel or saint. I’m far, far, from that, my friends. But I’m not the man the State of Texas wants you to believe I am. They want to end SPM but the silly rabbits only saved my life. I’ve come to realize that I’ll always have opposition. Since the day I was born, I’ve had people wishing me the worst. But if everyone loved, we wouldn’t know what love is. If everyone was brave, we wouldn’t know what brave meant. Weakness defines strength, and if it’s your job to hate, well, it’s your job. As odd as it sounds, I thank you because God shows us how to make stairs out of haters, stairs that lead to higher ground. Ya see, in 2002, they called me a monster. But, in 2014, a monster is what they created.

Con Todo Mi Amor,

Los

Lazy-Ass Excuses

There will be no post this week, ladies and gentleman; I sincerely apologize. SPM's Neverending Letter will continue on 6/19.

The Never Ending Letter (Part 2.b)

Continued from Part 2.a

               It’s obvious that not even Ruiz, the investigating officer, believed this “assault” took place. If she would have, then she would’ve, at least, attempted to collect evidence. “Slobber” means excessive saliva, and saliva is full of a person’s DNA. That’s why physical evidence is so important, because you can’t argue with DNA.

                Here’s D.A. Oncken questioning Ruiz about evidence. (Note: For the record, there was no evidence in my trial. I was convicted solely on rehearsed testimony.)

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 12 of 31 pgs. 6-9)

                Q. Okay. All right. And did you also – have you also at some point reviewed medical records from Texas Children’s Hospital in regard to a neurological visit with a neurologist that the child had back in January of 2001?

                A. Yes.

                Q. Okay. So, you’ve reviewed all of these records. Has any of that changed your opinion in regard to your decision that was made in regard to filing charges?

                                Mr. Lewis (my lawyer): Objection, Your Honor. We covered this in ruling earlier as to opinion testimony from this witness.

                                The Court (the judge): Overruled.

                Q. (By Ms. Oncken) You can answer the question.

                A. I believe charges of aggravated sexual assault of a child by contact with the Defendant’s mouth and the complainant’s vaginal area should have been filed.

                Q. All right. Now, Officer Ruiz, we talked a little bit about the recovery of clothing of the child. And I believe yesterday your testimony was is that at the time when you asked the mother about the location of the clothing, specifically the panties of the child, your indication was what at that point in time?

                A. I had been advised that they had been washed.

                Q. Okay. Was there any reason to recov – recover the washed clothing at that time?

                A. No.

                Q. And why is that?

                A. Based on the training that I have received regarding DNA, when an article of clothing is washed the DNA is washed away from it as well.

                Q. Now, Officer Ruiz, having learned what you did in regard to your decision as far as filing charges of aggravated sexual assault, Defendant’s mouth contacting child’s sexual organ, what about any type of recovery of the bed clothing where the offense occurred?

                A. That was a judgment call and based on my investigation and having learned from speaking with the complainant’s – I’m sorry, the Defendant’s daughter, that the Defendant had actually slept in that bed, I determined that there – it would be unuseful to have that bed clothing recovered. It would be impossible for me to explain where the evidence came from and the time frame.

                Q. So, in other words, you would expect to have found some evidence from him in that bed having the information you did that he slept in that bed?

                A. Right.

                Q. After the offense occured?

                A. Correct.

__________

                You’ll see, when Chip questions Ruiz, that even after washing clothes DNA can still be found. But let me go to what Ruiz said about her talking to my daughter, and learning that I had slept on that bed, and that’s why Ruiz felt it was useless to collect the bedding.

                First of all, I never once slept in my daughter’s bed. If I did, who gives a fuck, but I never have. Her bed was too small and way too high off the ground. When I sleep, I move around like crazy. I’ve kicked my wife many times, elbowed her, sometimes I wake up on the floor, or on the opposite side of the bed. It’s just the way I sleep. But here’s my point:

                Over a month after I was accused of this assault, these low-down tramps snatched my baby from her elementary school. She was only six-years-old, and it was the most terrifying moment of my life. My wife called me screaming, “They took Carley! They took Carley!”

                I was, like, “Who!? Who took her!?”

                When I realized it was the D.A. and Ruiz, I felt some relief, but my wife was still hysterical. I said, “Gina, calm down. The stupid bitches probably just want to question her.”

                And I was right. These hoes questioned my baby for almost two hours, trying to get her to say anything that would help their fraud-ass case, anything that would make me look bad.

                My baby told them that she didn’t like when I got on top of her and sucked on her nose, or her arm, and that I would bite her shoulders, or something like that. She said she didn’t like my beer breath. lol!

                First of all, I would kiss her on the nose, I would kiss my wife’s nose, and my little boy’s. I love a cold nose, it’s a habit I have. I used to kiss my mom’s and my sister’s nose, when I was a kid.

                Also, sometimes when I played with my baby, I would act like a ferocious animal, growling and then attacking. I would shake my head, rubbing my face into her shoulder or neck. She would laugh, then yell for Mommy. But I never actually bit my baby, are you nuts? But Carley was only six-years-old, surrounded by a pack of dogs encouraging her to say something, anything bad about me.

                They used what my baby said to say that I was “grooming” her for a future assault. Evidently, child molesters do a thing called grooming, in which they prepare a child to be molested, and their goal was to make me look like a child molester.

                When I heard their “professional”, some dumbass psychiatrist, say that I was grooming my daughter, tears of rage began to run down my face. How dare they stoop so fucking low.

                Chip got their professional to admit that I did nothing out of the ordinary, nothing a normal parent doesn’t do when playing with their kids. Let me show you that real quick.

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 22 of 31 pg. 65)

                Q. Now, you’re talking about when he was on the floor with her playing and wrestling, he was on top of her?

                A. Yes.

                Q. And that during these playing and wrestling he sucked on her arm and nose?

                A. Yes. That’s what I recall.

                Q. And she made the statement that his breath would smell of beer and she wanted him to stop when he did that?

                A. Yes.

                Q. So, she would call out to her mom, “Mom make him stop”?

                A. I believe so, yes.

                Q. You would agree with me, wouldn’t you, Doctor, that that type of activity is just as consistent with normal parents playing with their children?

                A. Yes, it could be.

__________

I’m glad Chip got that straight because I literally wanted to tear that hoe limb from limb. Let’s get back on track.

                Ruiz said she didn’t collect the sheets because my daughter told her I had slept in that bed. How they even got her to say that, I have no idea, but that’s probably one of the reasons they took her that day. They knew they would need an excuse as to why they didn’t even try to collect evidence. They needed her to say I slept in that bed. But this is how you know Ruiz was full of shit: Because whether I slept in that bed or not, they didn’t question my daughter till almost two months after I was accused of this crime.

                Cops don’t wait six or seven weeks before they decide to collect evidence. They begin immediately, that same day, because every second is precious. Ruiz is saying she didn’t do it because of what she heard in an interview that took place a month and a half later? Please, woman.

                Unfortunately, no one picked up on this bullshit. I guess, being in the heat of a trial, things just go over your head.

                Here’s Chip questioning Ruiz about the same subject of evidence the D.A. asked her about.

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 12 of 31 pgs. 29-34)

                Q. Based on your understanding and your experience with DNA are you familiar with the expert’s ability to differentiate between the type of cells that they are testing? For instance, a blood cell versus a skin cell versus a saliva cell?

                A. Yes.

                Q. They can do that, right?

                A. Yes.

                Q. So, under your explanation if – if we tested these undergarments and there were only skin cells of Carlos Coy in the mix what would that tell you?

                A. Well, if there were only skin cells then that was all that was recovered at the time.

                Q. Okay. Now, let’s go to a different question. Let’s say you found some saliva cells in there, what would that tell you?

                A. In the mix of the wash?

                Q. His saliva cells, yeah.

                A. It would tell me that either they were on some garment within that wash.

                Q. Right. Now, you would agree with me, wouldn’t you, Detective Ruiz, that that would be pretty good evidence for these ladies and gentlemen in this case?

                                MS. ONCKEN: Objection, Your Honor, invades the province of the jury.

                                THE COURT: Sustained.

                Q. (By Mr. Lewis) Detective Ruiz, as a detective you want to get all the evidence you can, right?

                A. Yes, sir.

                Q. Okay. Would you agree that if you had that evidence Mr. Coy’s saliva cells within a garment tested of Jane Doe’s, that would be beneficial to your investigation?

                A. Yes, sir.

                Q. But you decided not to do those tests?

                A. Right.

                Q. And it’s you who’s in charge of ordering whether or not those tests are done?

                A. Yes.

                Q. Not the patrol officer, this was your case, right?

                A. Correct.

                Q. Now, I believe if you go a little bit further on this DNA knowledge of yours that you talked about your decision, your judgment call not to recover the bedding?

                A. Right.

                Q. Okay. And I believe if I understand your testimony it was your decision, your judgment call not to do it because you had learned that later that night Carlos slept in the same bed with his daughter, right?

                A. Based on the idea that the Defendant had access to the household for a number of days,

                Q. Okay. Now, let’s go ahead and let’s go back to what I was asking you just a second ago, the differentiation between cells. You knew that it was Jane Doe’s allegation that Mr. Coy had left quite a bit of saliva – slobber on her, right?

                A. Correct.

                Q. Talking about again the ability to differentiate between skin cells and saliva cells, you could have recovered that bedding for a differentiation DNA analysis, correct?

                A. I would think that that would be a stretch.

                Q. Okay. Let’s talk about that stretch. If you had tested the bed and the DNA experts had told you that they had isolated saliva cells of Carlos Coy’s on that bed, would that have been good evidence for your investigation?

                A. I don’t think so - -

                                MS. ONCKEN: Objection, your honor, it calls for speculation on the part of the witness.

                                MR. LEWIS: Investigation, Your Honor.

                                THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

                A. I don’t think so. I wouldn’t be able to determine if he sneezed, if he wiped his face and wiped the covers.

                Q. (By Mr. Lewis) Well, let’s think about that for a second, Detective Ruiz. You’ve seen – let me show you Defendant’s Exhibit No. 3. Look at that real quick.

                A. (Witness complies.)

                Q. What size bed did that appear to be to you?

                A. Looks like a double bed.

                Q. Assume with me, if you will, and I’ll make this our bed. And let’s put these pillows up here for the orientation.

                Assume with me that Jane was laying in the bed like, you know, we normally would suspect somebody laying in the bed. And if the allegation, as I understand it, this would, you know – so, let’s just say for the purposes of this argument that would be where her body parts that are in concern would be and that would be the area that she says there’s a lot of slobber.

                If you had that bedding and you tested it, the experts could tell you exactly where the stain they tested was, right?

                A. Yes.

                Q. Okay. So, if you got a result back that says there was Carlos Coy’s saliva in this specific area of the bedding that might be something that would be positive to your investigation, true?

                A. Yes.

__________

But, as you know, Ruiz chose not to collect, or even try to collect anything at all. The “slobber” testimony was simply used for it’s shock value, and it worked, but they knew there would be no slobber. They knew if they had tested those garments, those sheets, or even that bed, and found nothing, they wouldn’t have a case against me. That’s why they didn’t do it. Here’s how Chip summed it up in his closing arguments.

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 17 of 31 pg. 77

Chip: But if they don’t get it, if they don’t bring it to you, if they don’t test it, they’ve still got a case.

__________

After Chip basically forces Ruiz to admit that she should’ve tested for evidence, the D.A. asks her some follow up question for damage control.

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 12 of 31 pgs. 47-50)

BY MS. ONCKEN:

                Q. A few more questions, Officer Ruiz

                Officer Ruiz, in regard to this case or other cases in which you have had the concern in regard to gathering any crime scene evidence, have you had an opportunity to speak with any of the experts in the Houston Police Department Crime Lab?

                A. I have received training year after year from Jim Bolding – he’s the Director over the HPD Crime Lab – regarding DNA and evidence collection.

                Q. And have you also spoke with him individually either in person or on the phone?

                A. Numerous times.

                Q. Officer Ruiz, I believe you testified previously that you’ve investigated hundreds of child sexual abuse cases; is that correct?

                A. That’s correct.

                Q. Have you ever had an instance in which there had ever been any type of DNA evidence recovered in any case where there has just been touching a garment?

                A. Never.

                Q. Officer Ruiz, do you, pursuant to your experience and training, once a suspect has learned that the police department is aware of the crime and is investigating, have you ever had any circumstances where – where evidence has been destroyed before the police is able to get to it?

                                MR. LEWIS: Objection, Your Honor.

                A. Numerous times.

                                MR. LEWIS: Objection, Your Honor. Your Honor, can the witness be instructed to stop – she’s very familiar with the procedures when I stand up she knows I’m going to object.

                                MS. ONCKEN: I’m going to object to counsel’s sidebar.

                                MR. LEWIS: That’s the second time.

                                THE COURT: Hello, wait. Make your objection. I’ll rule on it. When he stands up to make an objection, you stop talking. Okay, go ahead.

                                MR. LEWIS: Objection, Your Honor. That – that question assumes facts not in evidence.

                                THE COURT: Overruled.

                Q. (By Ms. Oncken) Officer Ruiz, in regard to the bed clothing at the suspect’s house, you indicated on cross examination that – that you were aware that the Defendant had spent the night in that particular bed at least on the night that the offense occured, later that night after the offense occurred; is that correct?

                A. Correct.

                Q. And had spent the night in bed with his daughter, Carly Coy? (Note: Her name is spelled Carley)

                A. Correct.

                Q. And you don’t know during the night where the defendant was sleeping on the bed, you don’t know if he slobbered, if any of that happened?

                A. That’s correct.

__________

At the time, all this sounded legit to the jury, but I want you to take a close look on how these snakes operate.

D.A.: Have you ever had an instance in which there had ever been any type of DNA evidence recovered in any case where there has just been touching a garment?

                Ruiz: Never.

__________

                Notice, the D.A. didn’t ask about saliva, which is what the evidence would be. She asks about “touching” and Ruiz answers “Never” and they move on.

                Aggravated Sexual Assault is not a “touching” charge. It’s an assault that carries five to ninety-nine years, and that’s the kind of time they wanted me to face. But the only way I could face such time, with them having not a trace of evidence, (their own doctors checked Jane Doe and verified there was no sign of penetration, or of anything at all), would be to say it was an oral sex assault. Ya see, with allegations of oral sex, there wouldn’t need to be any signs of anything, yet I would still face five to ninety-nine, which I received a good chunk of.

                So, again, the D.A.’s question and Ruiz’s answer on “touching a garment” may have been true and accurate, but it wasn’t the evidence Ruiz needed to collect, or try to collect. The evidence was DNA from saliva, not from touching. But the question and answer was done so fast, nobody thought twice about it.

                Then, they move on to the collection of bedding, which they stick to the excuse about my daughter telling them I slept on that bed. If we had only asked Ruiz, “Hold on a minute, you guys didn’t interview Carley Coy until a month and a half after these charges were filed. Are you saying you waited six weeks before you thought about the sheets?” That would have left Ruiz’s mouth wide open.

                Another important fact is that Ruiz said she received her training from a guy named Jim Bolding. I remember that the HPD Crime Lab came under serious investigation for gross negligence and unlawful procedures. They had to close it down, and people were fired. I’m pretty sure Jim Bolding was the director at the time, but Incandesio would know better than me. Hopefully she can shed some light on that.

**Note from Incandesio: There will be more on the appalling legacy of Jim Bolding once SPM’s letter is finished. Much, much more.**

Continued in Part 2.c