Happy Thanksgiving

I recieved a call from SPM this evening; he's doing well, and wanted to wish us a happy Thanksgiving. No case updates, but we did have an interesting discussion about the election results. He's not a Trump fan.

Unfortunately TDCJ's restrictive new social media rules currently prevent me from posting a transcript or letter to y'all, but I do want to let you know that you can stay up to date on Carley Coy's activities at Dope World Entertainment on Facebook and Youtube.

Everybody have a safe and happy weekend, and hold your family close.

Hiatus

Temporary hiatus; I will update if I get any news.

Time

Sonia Cacy, who we heard about a while back, has been declared actually innocent. You can read her story here. Although she was released from prison after 6 years, it's been almost 18 since her wrongful conviction. She was fortunate to have a team of forensic scientists working to prove her innocence, as they eventually did.

For those of you hoping for Dope House updates, you can follow Carley Coy's continuing efforts here.

No Post

No post tonight; have a happy and safe Halloween!

Short Post

The New Yorker published a really great article about an investigator who specializes in possibly wrongful convictions. Take a look...

Oh For Fuck's Sake

Once again, a major Texas city’s crime lab shows that it can’t be trusted to ‘science’ correctly. Out of Austin:

The Austin Police Department held a late-afternoon press conference Friday to announce a late-afternoon Friday news dump kind of thing: The department's crime lab, shuttered since June after consultation with the Texas Forensic Science Commission and the American Society of Crime Lab Directors, didn't shut down voluntarily because a supervisor had succumbed to cancer. Rather, it closed after the FSC and ASCLD discovered a string of issues with the way APD was conducting DNA analysis – methods that may have affected a number of sexual assault trials in Austin over the past decade.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2016-09-23/crime-lab-cover-up/

Happy Birthday

No post today, but I do have a couple of videos for you; Carley Coy dropped her first album through Dope World Entertainment:

https://youtu.be/rD6SHm9Mc1M

...and Quota released a track, Fly so Fly, featuring Carolyn Rodriguez:

https://youtu.be/NMv9ajnA-wI

Daniel Villegas

Just a short post today; Daniel Villegas, of El Paso, TX was tried twice and eventually convicted of shooting three teenagers back in 1993, killing one; released on bond after a judge threw out his conviction in 2014, he is now attempting to sue the city. He's currently awaiting a third trial, as the current DA believes they have the right individual.

Villegas and his backers claim that the police investigating coerced him into confessing, and his civil suit is now on hold until a criminal trial can be completed. The confession has been thrown out and it will be interesting to see if the El Paso DA carries this to trial.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/26/el-paso-da-race-highlights-1993-double-murder-case/

http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/09/14/exonerees-civil-suit-on-hold-pending-retrial.htm

Public Service Announcement

I have received a few comments complaining about recent blog content; specifically, an excess of my own writing and a lack of letters from Carlos Coy. I want to address these because y’all are my readers and I’m sorry you’re feeling frustrated.

This blog has never been the place to go for the latest on SPM’s music, information about Dope House, or even updates from Carlos Coy. I have never promised that because I can’t; my interest is in his case, and that’s what the blog is about. Consolidating information, highlighting problems with the Harris County justice system, and answering those who think Coy is guilty are the primary reasons it exists. When I started out, there was very little information and it was spread pretty randomly over the web. Now, most of it is here. I can’t describe the joy I feel when I stumble across an argument and see people using information they found here to make their point; it tells me that the blog has made a difference, and that is extremely cool.

TDCJ recently instituted a No-Social Media policy; it’s very broad, and everyone who communicates with an inmate has to figure out what is and isn’t permitted. This is going to be established by trial and error, over time. While we wait for that to happen I don’t expect to receive much content from SPM. My goal has been to keep this blog updated weekly just to keep the information circulating, to keep the conversation going. When I write about exonerees from across Texas, that’s what I’m doing.

This may not be information that you feel you need, and that’s fine; if you can articulate good reasons for your belief in Coy’s innocence and an understanding that the court system responsible for his conviction has a history of wrongful convictions, then the blog’s purpose has been served; you don’t need to read it. I always publish Coy’s posts under a recognizable heading (Letter from SPM, Dear Family, etc.) so that those of you who only stop in for his writing have an easier time deciding if they want to waste a click or not.

(Tl;dr: I don’t guarantee content from Carlos Coy, about Dope House, or music. Do as you will.)

Thanks for reading and whether you come back here or not, thank you for spreading the word.

Arguments 6

…aaaaand another one. I'm sorry, Linda, but now I'm getting bored. You won't engage on anything substantive, you're still circling around that "how-why" sinkhole without addressing my responses with anything more convincing than your beliefs, and you stopped sweet-talking me with those demeaning little nicknames. I just don't know if this is meant for the long-term, Linda.

Another lie worth mentioning is the "lost affidavit" lie. Coy claimed on this blog that there was a black man on the jury who believed he was innocent, but was forced to vote guilty. The man supposedly submitted an affidavit, but the affidavit was mysteriously lost. I guess no lawyer or investigator bothered to follow up on this mystery. I can only wonder why. Do you find this story suspicious? 

I’m looking at the post you’re referring to, and you’ve either got the lousiest memory of all time, or you’re lying about Coy lying in order to prove to me that he’s a liar. I’m not sure which seems more reasonable, so I’m going to go with ‘lousy memory’. Perhaps you should take that into consideration the next time you expect me to take your word for something.

What Coy actually said is that a juror mentioned this to his lawyer in passing, and Coy suggested he get an affidavit, and then didn’t hear anything more about it.

More to come... 

I can hardly wait.

Also, I've already explained the dream testimony to you. She never said the whole thing might have been a dream. You are taking it out of context again, either out of stubbornness or desperation or both.

I’m using the context I have, which is the viciously derogatory piece by the Houston Press. I could rely on your explanation, which was that she only thought it might be a dream while it was happening, but you can’t even accurately recreate what I’ve written here on the blog.

If she was being manipulated, she probably wouldn't have said anything about a dream at all. Have you thought about that?

Just for a second, listen to what you’re saying: If her testimony was manipulated, it probably wouldn’t have changed. So…If it wasn’t manipulated, it probably would change? No, wait, because you’ve maintained that her testimony has been consistent, and therefore must be true. So if it changes, it’s true, and if it doesn’t change, it’s also true.

That’s a pretty sweet con you got there; heads you win, tails I lose.

As for the civil trial, how can a jury unanimously agreeing that he was responsible for the crime and ordering him to pay 25K be seen as a victory? I read what Coy said about it on here. He stated that the jury believed him to be an innocent man, which is just delusional and dishonest. If the jury believed him to be innocent, they would not have agreed that he was responsible for the crime, and they would not have ordered him to pay any money. It's that simple. 

Coy said the civil jury was not asked ‘Did he do this?’, but ‘How much damage (monetarily) would this have caused?’ If that’s question that’s being asked, ‘Innocent’ is not a possible answer. They would have had no discretion with that question because no one would ever argue that being sexually assaulted doesn’t cause any damage. They came up with a number that seemed reasonable for that type of suffering.

The second question, though, was something along the lines of, ‘how much damage(monetarily) will Jane Doe sustain going forward?’ and their answer to that was ‘0’. It’s possible that the jury was just a set of heartless bastards who couldn’t fathom the permanent damage that a molested child suffers, but I suspect it’s more likely they felt that she didn’t sustain any damage at all because nothing happened.

I have worked with the Harris County system for a long time, and when I speak about the system, I am certainly speaking about Harris County as a whole. Can the same be said of you? You are the one who seems to be focused on a couple outlier cases. Do you call that looking at the system as a whole? As of said, the cases you have mentioned are not only irrelevant to Coy’s case, but the offenders in some of those cases haven’t really been proven innocent. Also, some of the cases you have referenced weren’t even tried in Harris County or relevant to Harris County at all. When you think about it, the arguments you are using could be applied to all criminal cases. With your logic, we probably shouldn’t even be having trials and all offenders should be released. Just because a person has been proven innocent, doesn’t mean all convicts are innocent. Hopefully you can agree with that.

With my logic, every case should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The ‘outlier cases’, as you call them, represent years of suffering inflicted without good cause; whether the sufferer is innocent or guilty cannot and does not excuse the state from providing justice.

You would dismiss those who haven’t “really been proven innocent” as unworthy of mention, but you forget that they should never have been required to prove their innocence in the first place. It’s enough that the state did not truly have enough to prove them guilty.

If that logic were (gasp!) “applied to all criminal cases”, the justice system would be operating the way it should be.

Even though Coy was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, I now understand that you are operating under a different burden of proof. Your standard is you want Coy to be proven guilty beyond all possible doubt, which can’t be done. There were only two people in the bedroom that night, and physical evidence couldn’t be recovered.

Wasn’t recovered, not “couldn’t be recovered”. That’s an important distinction; like an initial statement that does not exist, versus one that has been destroyed. Like the difference between might have been real, and might have been a dream. I’m just asking that we hammer out these little niggling questions before the conviction, rather than afterwards.

I’m not sure this case will ever be solvable for you, but if you want to argue that anything is possible, then so be it. However, you have to look at what’s most reasonable and realistic. The girl told a credible story. I judged her demeanor, and I watched the way she spoke. I heard the strength in her voice when she detailed the crime. She presented a story that made sense logically and realistically. She held up strong under both direct and cross examination. Parts of her story were corroborated by her family members, such as the dinner conversation Coy had with them after he drove the girl home. Finally, her story was never contradicted by the defendant. His lawyer tried to poke holes in her story, but even he couldn’t contradict it, and not for lack of trying. The defense was hopeless against a truth teller, and when Coy took the stand during the sentencing phase, he couldn’t even provide an account of what happened that was credible. You should also find out what happened during the civil trial. I didn’t attend the civil trial, but I know Coy was forced to take the stand. From what I’ve heard, his story had more holes than Swiss cheese, and he made a total and complete ass out of himself.

And coming from such a stellar beacon of truth and accuracy such as yourself, how can I doubt it? It’s crazy to think you might have seen what you wanted to see, like when you read the blog and see “Coy (or I) said [awful thing]”, and then it turns out that he didn’t, he said something related but totally different, and then you move on to something else when I point it out. That would be just looney.

“You toss out little crumbs that make you seem authoritative but can’t back them up with anything substantive.”

I’m pretty sure you must be talking about yourself because you haven’t provided anything substantive at all. The same can be said for the man that you represent. I have probably already shared more information than I should have, and I certainly am not going to provide you with confidential documents that are not part of the public record. That would be illegal for me to do. The only thing I can do is encourage you to obtain the transcripts, which you are obviously reluctant to do. But hey, at least I am brave enough to use my full name on here. Can the same be said of you?

I link to all the articles and documents I post about which is, as far as a blog goes, pretty substantive. It’s why I don’t claim that Coy has said this or that unless it’s in a conversation posted on the blog. I don’t expect people to just take me at my word, I want to provide back-up for what I say. I’m sorry you don’t share my passion for sourcing.

My name's not hard to find...periodically someone who disagrees with me will figure it out and I get a nice little death/rape/ass-whipping threat on my Facebook page...It's just good to know that people still care enough to send the very best, you know?

As for Coy receiving a new trial, on what basis? You admit you’re not an expert, you admit you didn’t attend the trial, and you admit you haven’t read the transcripts in their entirety. So what in the world are you basing your opinion on? Why in the world do you think his trial was unjust when you don’t even know what happened during the trial? Are you aware that all of his appeals have been denied? Do you know something that the appellate courts don’t know? Has Mr. Coy himself provided any kind of credible explanation to you? Has he said anything more to you other than, “I didn’t do it”?

Um, the court of appeals that refused to order a retrial for a man whose lawyer literally slept through his trial? Cockrell vs. Burdine, take a look at it.

I could go through the arguments for a new trial again, inconsistent testimony, lack of physical evidence, etc. but I’m pretty sure that if you didn't answer them in the first 5 posts it’s not going to happen this time, either.

I’m convinced you are nothing more than a biased fangirl who is bitter that her favorite rapper is a child molester. This is evident in how you defend this pig at every turn. I even read how you defended this pig impregnating a 13-year-old girl. You essentially argued, “Well, she was far enough past puberty to get pregnant, so I don’t see what the problem is.”

Oh, please, I dare you to link me to a post where I “essentially” said that. Please, I am literally begging you. Please please please. Allow me to see this post which, despite searching, I cannot find. Normally I can guess which posts you’re mischaracterizing by gauging the general flow of conversation, but this one is so far from anything I would ever say or think that I just can’t make the connection. Seriously, please give me the URL, or at least the post title. Totally begging you.

Just when I think you couldn’t be any more disgusting, I read something like that. You are clearly not objective, and this is not about justice for you. I think I understand now why you don’t use your real name. 

Here’s the thing; I could be the most disgusting, most biased, most bitter, most fanniest fangirl ever, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong. To imply otherwise is to employ the Ad Hominem fallacy, which, since you are so eager to accuse me of the “Red Herring” fallacy, I am sure you are eager to avoid.

Arguments 5

Linda Bailey said,

I understand your argument, but like I’ve told you, you are using red herrings and faulty comparisons. Your argument is wrong and improper. You can’t logically compare unrelated cases to Coy’s case. Do you see the fallacious reasoning there? Do you actually understand?

I understand that you are extremely reluctant to look at the Harris County justice system as a whole, preferring to view each case as a completely separate and unique occurrence with no relation to any of the others. I reject this out of hand; the Houston cases mentioned here are created in the same county; they are worked by the same team of police investigators, child therapists, prosecutors and judges; continuing to insist that each case must be judged individually insulates the bad actors from consequences, as it keeps us from seeing how many times the same story has played out.

Also, you’ve mentioned cases (such as the San Antonio Four) where it hasn’t even been proven that the convicted were actually innocent. You would get laughed out of any courtroom, or any high school debate class for that matter, if you tried presenting any of this.

I am so pleased you brought up the San Antonio 4! The outcome of their case thus far is exactly what I would like to see happen for Carlos Coy; a reset back to square one, and a recommendation for a new trial. Since that is what they received, there is no need for them to, as you say, prove their innocence. If the DA decided to bring the charges they still shouldn’t have to prove their innocence because, in theory, they are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

You say that he “might” be innocent, but then you give a percentage of zero? I haven’t been accused of a crime, nor have I been on trial for one. Coy has been accused, Coy has been brought to trial, and Coy has been found guilty. That means 100% proven.

*sigh* I would like to stop repeating myself; really, I would. However, you continue to demonstrate that you cannot or will not understand that a finding of ‘guilty’ doesn’t mean that anything has been proven. Please see the many, many cases I have referenced in previous posts, perhaps starting with Anthony Graves or Michael Morton and finishing up around Ricardo Rachell.

Without physical evidence, yes. But without solid testimony? That’s a no. How dare you even say that the victim’s testimony wasn’t solid when by your own admission you didn’t attend the trial, nor have you even bothered to read the testimony in its entirety?

How dare I? There are a lot of documents out there that aren’t transcripts, Linda; enough to form an opinion, and maybe even enough to do a little agitating for change.

Your opinion is worthless until you’ve read the transcripts.

I suspect that my opinion will always be worthless to you, unless it conforms to yours exactly.

Your excuses for failing to obtain the transcripts are just that, excuses. Very lame ones at that. Instead of playing around on the internet, you need to get into action. If money is a problem, get a real job, and start saving your pennies. I also find it hard to believe that Coy can’t send you all the transcripts. Or if he can’t do it, I’m sure one of his family members could help you out. You are able to think outside the box in other aspects of this case, but you can’t when it comes to the transcripts. Interesting…

I’m just glad you’re here to give me all of these helpful suggestions.

Once again, victim testimony is strong evidence, and I have heard the child’s testimony in person. You have not, and you haven’t even read the testimony in its entirety. I believe that automatically makes my opinion much stronger than yours.

Stronger like, if they arm-wrestled, yours would win? Your opinion might be strong, but I don’t think your facts are; you refuse to share information you claim to have. You toss out little crumbs that make you seem authoritative but can’t back them up with anything substantive. You draw yourself up on an indignant little pedestal with gender-baiting, pearl-clutching self-righteousness (including non-ironic use of the phrase, “how dare you”) and claim special knowledge without the burden of proof.

I, on the other hand, am not an expert and I don’t claim to be; everything I find goes right on the blog, along with my opinion of it. I even talk to people like you, whose idea of a debate is to tell me that I’m a disgrace to my gender, fucking clueless, etc. It’s because I believe that you are capable of seeing what I see, and I respect your intelligence enough to try to make that happen.

You state that I haven’t given any proof to prove her testimony is true, but what proof have you given that Coy is actually innocent?

No, I asked you for a reasonable basis for your belief in her testimony. You gave me ‘because I believed it’ and ‘because other people believed it’. When I pointed out that mere believability has resulted in wrongful convictions, you fell back onto your ‘how, why’ mantra.

As I said before, if I had proof that Coy was innocent this blog would have a different name. The basis for my belief in Coy's innocence is what I strongly believe was an unjust trial, a trial that mimics many that have since been over-turned. It's possible that a guilty man could have received an unjust trial, of course; in either case, it should be re-done.

In that segment from the Chron, you conveniently left out the last portion, where Denise asks the girl, “What Carlos did to you – was it a dream, or did it really happen?” And then the girl responds that it really happened. Why did you leave out that last bit? Oh right, you’ve admitted you’re a biased advocate with an agenda.

Because I wanted you to bring it up, so I could point out how her testimony changed. She went from one extreme to another pretty quickly, wouldn’t you say? If she knew it really happened why on earth would she have stated, mid-trial, that it might have been a dream in the first place?

It’s almost like her testimony’s not solid, like it could be…I dunno…manipulated.

As for the lies that Coy has told, let’s see. He is lying about being innocent in this case.

I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

He told his fans he had been a drug dealer for years, but on the stand he said he had only been a drug dealer for a few months.

I don’t really involve myself in the music side of his story, but I will tell you something I’ve figured out after years of research: from what I understand rappers often use hyperbole, symbolism, and even out-right literary devices. Either that, or we’re going to have to address the issues of him shooting the tooth fairy, stealing a dead man’s Kenneth Coles, snatchin yo’bitch, and murdering various and sundry microphones.

He also said on the stand that he never slept with any of the girls who testified against him, but now on this blog he admits that he probably did.

Nope; I assume you’re referring to this post.

He has also stated many times that he “won” the civil case, when he lost.

Seeing as how the jury was required to consider him guilty and he might have been hit with a million-dollar judgment as a result, I would say the resulting verdict of 25K was absolutely a win. He spoke about it at length here on the blog.

I also read something on here where he says he has Directv in his cell, which is something else that made me laugh out loud. Through your communications with him, have you noticed any discrepancies that I’m missing?

Yeah, that was right after he got moved to Ramsey; according to TDCJ’s website some cells do have televisions, so it’s not out of the realm of possibility; he and I have discussed a few current events that he saw on TV, and since he’s in adseg I don’t think he’s watching it in the dayroom.

Until you’ve read the transcripts, I’m afraid there isn’t much point in this blog. You can say, “Well other people have been wrongfully convicted before, so MAYBE Coy was wrongfully convicted too”, but you can only say that for so long.

…and yet here you are, eating your heart out to argue with me; looks like I am making an impact.

You need actual substance to back your position up, and sadly you have nothing. Obtain the transcripts. Read them. Learn the truth.

I have an opinion about the truth; what I’d prefer at the moment is justice.

Arguments 4

Linda Bailey said,

A rehash isn’t really much of an argument. It’s the same bullshit, you’re just presenting it in a new form. You can explain something as much as you want, but it doesn’t mean you’re right or that you’re winning an argument. It just means you’re rehashing the same bullshit.

…Or it means that you keep saying, “I don’t understand X”, and I’m trying to help you understand. Sharing my thought process and arguments is what this blog is all about.

The statements the victim made were consistent, so I could pick any one that I want. I know you’re in denial about it, but that’s the truth, so come on back down to reality.

The DA mentioned the changes between the police report and her testimony during closing arguments.

Something tells me you haven’t even seen the official reports, so once again, maybe it’s time to do some more homework. But hey, let’s just stop and think for a moment. If her story was so wildly inconsistent then how in the world did she convince a police department, a district attorney’s office, two juries (criminal and civil), and the appellate courts that he was guilty? How does that happen? Why didn’t the juries notice the problems that you claim? Have you heard the expression the truth always seems to rise to the top?

How, how, why, how…You keep repeating these questions and I continue to explain that it has happened before; repeatedly, blatantly, in defiance of all good reason, it happens. I cite these other cases in an effort to help you understand that the police can be misled, the prosecutor can be misled, even the child therapist can be misled, and then they turn around and mislead the jury; sometimes it’s honest but mistaken zeal, sometimes it’s misconduct, sometimes it’s the fault of the parents, but it happens; it’s more likely to happen in a case resolved without physical evidence, and without solid testimony, which describes Coy’s case to a T. When I point this out you fall back on your “How, why, how”…and we find ourselves back at the beginning of your self-imposed circle of ignorance. While I would like Harris County to examine all such cases, Coy’s is one of the few that provides multiple media accounts, public documents, etc.

Side note: I have never heard the expression, "The truth will always rise to the top". Perhaps you're conflating "Truth will always out" with "The cream will always rise to the top".

“Might” be innocent you say. That’s good. So you acknowledge the possibility that he “might” be guilty? What percentage do you give it?

You want me to put a random number on it, so I guess the same percentage I would give to the idea that you committed an identical crime; 0% until proven.

Anyway, the way you drew your “reasonable conclusion” is not the right way to go about doing it. Obviously it’s too late to attend the trial, but you can read every page of the transcripts, and that’s what you need to do. By reading the transcripts, many of your questions will be answered, which is why I’m encouraging you to do so. Also, maybe you will discover errors that happened within the trial or perhaps you will discover some sort of Earth-shattering bit of information that might help free your hero. I doubt you will be able to find anything, but give it a shot.

I surely do appreciate your encouragement.

Why are you having trouble obtaining the transcripts?

Because I don’t have the money to pay for them.

Have you tried calling the courthouse?

I certainly have; you can read about my first effort here on the blog!

Also, aren’t you working for Coy?

Oh that’s right, you don’t read the blog. No, I don’t work for Coy. I have not accepted, and will continue not accepting, anything for my efforts here.

Don’t you communicate with him on a regular basis?

Irregularly at best.

Doesn’t he send you transcripts from time to time? Maybe you should ask him to send the transcripts in their entirety.

Assuming he was able keep the entire transcript in the cell with him, I wouldn’t ask anyone to send me thousands of pages for free; not the courts, and not Coy. Your sense of entitlement on my behalf is heartwarming, though.

I believe this is important because the homework you have done so far is incomplete. Without the transcripts, your blog is a pointless, lost cause. This is honest advice that I’m trying to help you with. I’m also hoping you will discover the truth once you read everything that happened in the trial.

As do I. Your obsession with assigning me 'homework' is getting a little worrisome. Perhaps you see yourself as my teacher, but you haven't imparted any information to me.

I have not intentionally sidestepped any questions, but I believe there are some questions that you need to learn the answers to on your own.

You’ve answered very few of them; I asked you for a solid basis for your belief in Coy’s guilt; you say you believe the child’s testimony. I pointed out that her testimony changed; you say that all the people who mattered believed her testimony. I pointed out multiple cases in which “all the people who mattered” believed in someone’s guilt, and yet were proven wrong. You continue to talk about how believable the testimony was.

1.      She’s believable.

2.      She’s believable because I believe her.

3.      She’s believable because others believed her.

Nowhere in there is proof, or even support, for your assertion that her testimony was true, and yet you deny I should question whether or not she was truthful.

With the dream testimony, the victim stated that when Coy started assaulting her, she thought at first that she might be dreaming. Not that she was actually dreaming, she just couldn’t believe what was happening to her. This was all clarified on the stand.

And yet the Houston Press, in the most unflattering portrayal of Coy possible, was compelled to include this:

During initial questioning by prosecutor Denise Oncken, the girl said she wasn't sure what had happened and thought it could have been a dream.
"Do you remember it clearly?" Oncken asked.
"No," the girl replied.
Under cross-examination by defense lawyer Chip Lewis, the girl again said she was not really sure what had happened because she might have been dreaming. During follow-up questioning, Oncken asked the girl to define a dream. The child described it as something that happens while a person is sleeping and is not real.

Taking the stand and testifying can be a daunting task, even for an adult. Can you imagine what it takes for a 10-year-old child to do that? Once again, why do you think the jury believed her? It’s because she was telling the truth.

Again, your argument for truth reliant on belief.

I have been a child therapist for over 20 years. In that time, I have seen hundreds of trials, which I’m willing to bet is more trials than you have ever seen. It’s hard for me to take your criticisms of Harris County seriously since I know you are inexperienced and ignorant with the legal system.

Oh far, far more trials than I’ve seen; all I know is what I read in the continual parade of wrongful convictions emanating from that city like a disease. Maybe it’s not worse there than it is in any other place, but that doesn’t make what’s happening a good thing. It just makes it far too common.

Perhaps your many years on the “good guy team” has blinded you to their faults.

Oh, and you are also simply a biased advocate with an agenda.

Yup.

I also checked your profile, and I was astonished to see that you are a female. How can you disgrace your own gender like this by wrongfully defending this pig?

Wow; you’re going to spend so much of your comment urging me to better myself, educate myself, and think more logically, but then end it with a sloppy, sappy appeal to my genitalia…I mean, sure, I could fly into paroxysms of rage directed at any individual shoved into my path, accusing him of the most heinous of crimes with no proof, and demand that he be locked away for the rest of his natural life based solely on emotion on account of my gender, but it looks like you’re doing enough of that for the both of us.

Almost forgot. Another question you asked was why shouldn't we believe Coy, and I almost spit my drink out in laughter when I read that question. He's a proven liar, hon. How long have you been communicating with him? Have you been able to verify any of his outlandish stories? Surely you've noticed some discrepancies in regards to his side of the story? If not, then I feel sorry for you.

Alright, I don’t believe I’ve asked you a single question during this whole reply; let’s see if you’ll answer one. What has Coy lied about?

Arguments 3

Linda's back!

My dear, your post is largely a rehash of what you’ve already mentioned.

Are we using terms of endearment to condescend to each other now? Well, sweetheart, that’s what an argument is. I lay a groundwork and then bolster it with supporting points. If you don’t understand why something is relevant, I explain it.

Not much new ground to cover, but I will clear up a few things.

The solid basis for my belief that he is guilty is based on the child’s testimony. My belief is not based on what other people think, although all the people who mattered believed he was guilty as charged.

That’s lovely darling; which version of her testimony do you believe to be absolutely true? The initial report, the unrecorded/destroyed statement at the HPD station, her statements during the criminal trial, or her testimony during the civil trial?

It appears the solid basis for your belief that he is innocent is mostly based on unrelated cases from the past. Your argument is essentially, “Well, I can’t prove it, but in these other unrelated cases that have nothing to do with Coy or the victim, these other victims may have lied about their story, so that must mean Coy’s victim is also lying!” I don’t think I even need to address how flawed and ridiculous that argument is. If that’s the best you can do, then your movement is in serious trouble.

Obviously I can’t prove it, Pookie, or this blog would be called, “The Totally Awesome Story of How I Single-Handedly Freed a Falsely Convicted Rapper dot com.” All I can do is look at the facts of the case as they’re presented to the public, compare them to similar local cases, and draw the reasonable conclusion that Carlos Coy was convicted under circumstances that mirror other cases in which the defendant was eventually shown to be innocent, and therefore might be innocent himself.

There is nothing wrong with questioning something. But if you decide to question something, then you need to do your research. By your own admission, you haven’t done your homework. How can you even pretend to know anything about this case if you didn’t attend the trial, and you haven’t even read the transcripts? I’m surprised you haven’t at least obtained the transcripts since you are obviously so passionate about this case. I believe that should have been the very first step of your “mission”.

Honey-pie, my homework is all here on the blog for anyone to see and draw their own conclusions. Your dismissal of the opinion of anyone who hasn’t read the transcripts AND attended the trial is a little amusing, unless you have a time machine in which you can provide me with that opportunity. I would like to have the transcripts, but I’m not ashamed of my inability to obtain them; there’s been enough news coverage and publically available court documents for any inquisitive mind to reach a conclusion on this case.

I’m sorry to say this to you, but yes, you are a victim blamer, and you sadly do not have a clue. You are calling the victim a liar, and you haven’t even done your homework. Instead of me enlightening you, I suggest you enlighten yourself. Obtain the transcripts. Do your homework. You will learn actual facts instead of unverified nonsense and harebrained assumptions

Oh, puddin’; asking questions doesn’t make you a victim-blamer. Even if I had called Jane Doe a liar, which I don’t believe I ever have, it would not follow that I would be blaming her for what she claimed happened to her. I was going to write here about what the definition of ‘blame’ is, and then gently explain that ‘blaming’ someone and ‘questioning’ someone are two totally different things, but I feel like that’s too easy. Just…you know…get a dictionary.

You have sidestepped all of my questions to you, as well as avoiding any defense of your assertions. You insisted that context would change my mind about her testimony that the whole thing might have been a dream, and yet refuse to share what that context was. You won’t refute my statements that we can draw conclusions about the Harris County justice system based on their handling of similar cases, petulantly insisting that everything is totally unrelated. Care to fix any of this, or are you just going to stick by your claims that I haven’t done my homework?

Arguments 2

Linda Bailey said…

I cannot comment on the efforts of HPD because I have never been involved in that particular process. Although I can say whether or not the police try to collect DNA depends on the type of abuse that occurred, how much time has passed between the abuse and the outcry, and whether or not the victim has taken a bath. You need to understand though that DNA is not required for these cases. I can also say your claim that the accusation changed significantly is definitely wrong and dishonest. That I can speak to, which I will discuss later.

Everyone charged with a crime deserves their day in court. No argument there, and Mr. Coy certainly had his day in court, and he lost. The police did not believe him, the prosecutors did not believe him, the judge did not believe him, and the jury did not believe him. They all believed the child. I believe that should give you some pause.

Allow me to reassure you; it most certainly did. It was my surprise and disappointment at his conviction (years after it happened) that led me to look into the case more deeply. I’m not an SPM super-fan, or regular fan, or any kind of hardcore rap fan. The lack of any concrete, convincing evidence is the basis for my belief in his innocence, not a knee-jerk reaction to a bad thing happening to a person I like. Do you have a solid basis for your beliefs, other than the rubber-stamp of a local court system known for convicting the innocent?

This child never told any crazy stories about being flown to Mexico or seeing witches. Obviously if a child tells a nonsensical or impossible story like that, I would not believe the child. That was not the case with this child though.

I am glad to hear you would not believe such crazy stories, but that does not change the fact that people did, and do. Innocent men and women were sent to prison for years based on exactly those kinds of stories, and no one batted an eyelash about it. The correlation here is that the intuition that you claim helps you infallibly identify victims of abuse is less trustworthy than you imagine, and we know it because of those cases.

You have used a variety of fallacies in your arguments, mainly red herrings and faulty comparisons. You mention these other unrelated cases as if it proves something in regards to Coy’s case. Regardless of the validity of the cases you mentioned, they are irrelevant to the case in question. You are trying to distract attention away from Coy’s case by redirecting the argument to different cases. Very cute, but erroneous and dishonest.

I’m sorry you are not able to comprehend how a thriving culture of convict-at-any-cost could possibly have affected Coy’s trial. Your assertion that he is guilty because the police, prosecutors, judge & jury believed him to be is exactly why it’s necessary to consider the endless parade of cases in which a man was universally believed to be guilty, and yet was innocent. Harris County has a truly atrocious track record of false convictions. This matters precisely because so many people, like yourself, are willing to acquiesce to the judgment of the system without stopping to consider how many times that system has been wrong. 

You again mention something about how the child’s story “fluctuated wildly”. You of course do not provide any examples, but it does not matter because I know personally that your claim is wrong. The child has always maintained that Coy was the attacker. She has always maintained that the attack happened in his house, in his daughter’s room on her bed. She has always maintained what specific sex act Coy did to her. She has always maintained what happened before the assault, such as Coy making her dance, touching her on the bed, etc. She has always maintained what happened after the assault, such as the ride home, him telling her not to tell, him speaking with her family, etc. I read a piece on your blog where Coy states that the victim changed how long the assault lasted. Not that we should believe anything Coy says…

Sorry, I have to interject here; “Not that we should believe anything Coy says?” Why shouldn’t we? In my view his guilt is far from settled, which means that his assertions of innocence may be true.

In regards to your insistence that the child has maintained the same story throughout I would like to point out that in the transcripts we’ve seen on the blog, even the prosecutor mentions the fact that the initial accusation was only touching. Of course you are familiar with this, as you continue to assure me that you are very familiar with the case. The difference there is not insignificant to the justice system, which differentiates between ‘Indecency with a Child’ (2-20 years) and ‘Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child’ (5-99). Because HPD destroyed the initial statement and did not record the first interview properly, we don’t know exactly when that changed to licking, but change it did, and it makes a world of difference.

…but even if that were true, it is insignificant. Due to the passage of time, it is possible the child’s memory has faded in that regard. The fact of the matter is that she still maintains the assault occurred, and that is all that really matters.

So it’s not important for the details of her story to remain consistent, as long as she continues to say that something happened? Oscillating between five minutes of rape, a minute of rape, and a second of rape doesn’t make you even a teeny bit incredulous?

Your comment about the “dream testimony” also demonstrates your ignorance on this case. If you heard the testimony yourself, you would understand the proper context of the dream statement. Coy’s lawyer tried to spin it, but everyone saw through it. Once again, there is a reason why the jury chose to convict him, and it certainly was not because of “malleable testimony”. It was powerful testimony that everyone knew was the truth. I wish you could have seen the doomed expression on Coy’s face when the child was testifying. He knew he was done, as did his lawyer who even complimented the child’s testimony.

If I’m ignorant, enlighten me. What was the proper context?

I see no justifiable reason for you to believe that Coy is innocent.

That does not surprise me; my initial stated assumptions about you, as a sef-identified member of the child abuse system is that you are part of a group of earnest, educated individuals whose zeal to protect children may lead to the (accidental) conviction of innocent men and women, Your first assumptions about me, as you initially stated, are that I am a rape apologist, that I’m a victim-blamer, that I don’t have a fucking clue, and that I should be ashamed of myself. As satisfying as a little reactionary foot stomping can be, perhaps your tendency to stigmatize people who disagree with you is clouding your vision.

I can see this situation from your point of view; I have sympathy for your surprise that someone would defend a man convicted of this type of crime, your concern for victims who may be discouraged by someone questioning their stories, your outrage that someone would question something that you personally and intimately believe to be true. Is it possible for you to see it from my point of view? Can you articulate what my point of view is?

Were you there every day of the trial? Have you read every single page of the transcripts? If your answer is no to those two questions, then your assertion that Coy is innocent is very flimsy at best.

No and no. Should I now shut up and sit down? Shall I refrain from questioning the experts, who have only my best interests in mind? Should I just ignore a case that seems to me to illustrate all the worst aspects of our justice system?

Arguments

We received an interesting visitor the other day who claims to be a child therapist, so I thought I’d do a response here; her first foray onto the blog was pretty standard: I’m a horrible fucking person who should be fucking ashamed of themselves, fuckity fuck fuck fuck…so that’s nice. After I explained that neither I nor this blog are pro-rape, she wrote back with a longer attempt to show me the error of my ways, which I always appreciate. Her comments are in bold, my responses are not.

Linda Bailey said...

This is such a horrible blog. The owner of this blog doesn't have a fucking clue. No woman or child deserves to be raped. I see that the owner of this blog is the type that always blames the victim. It doesn't matter what the situation is, no woman or child deserves to be violated and have the rest of her life ruined by nightmares, being afraid to be touched again, PTSD...on top of not being believed. This blog truly does a disservice to women and children everywhere, and the owner of this blog should be ashamed.

Linda,

It's interesting that you would ignore the entire premise of the blog, which is that Carlos Coy was falsely convicted, in order to imply that I'm making excuses for rape. As you can see from the many, many stories presented here, Texas has a habit of falsely convicting innocent men and women, refusing to believe them when they state their innocence, ruining their lives and very possibly causing PTSD by imprisoning them until, years later, they are exonerated.

At what point am I allowed to question a glaringly false conviction? Does any individual who makes an accusation deserve to be believed despite obvious inconsistencies in their testimony and the evidence presented? Or do you prefer that we that we just blindly accept the imprisonment of innocent men, women and children in order to avoid making their accusers uncomfortable?

Linda Bailey said...

There are people who have been wrongfully convicted who deserve support; however, the man you represent is not one of them. I'm a child therapist from the Houston area. I'm very familiar with the case in question.

I’m thrilled to hear it. It saves me time if I don’t have to link back and forth to show the basic outline of the case, so I will take you at your word.

You have to understand how these cases work. With a child molestation case, you usually have the child molester and the victim alone in a bedroom. There aren't going to be any witnesses or surveillance cameras around. Most of the time DNA can't be recovered either, especially if it's a delayed outcry. If the child waits days, weeks, months, or years before he/she tells anyone about the abuse, then there is just no way DNA can be recovered.

Especially if there’s not even the slightest effort to do so; remember, Jane Doe made her outcry immediately, and was interviewed by an HPD officer. The only delay was on the part of the Houston Police, who waited 7 days to bring her and her mother (the outcry witness) in to make a statement, then trashed that statement and brought her in to the CAC 3 days later to make new statements. The accusations changed significantly between day 1 and day 10, as I’m sure you are aware.

So all we have is the child's word. Should we simply ignore the child's outcry? Should we simply let these child molesters get away? Of course not.

Is my other option to simply imprison anyone who’s accused regardless of guilt or innocence, because we don’t want the bad ones to get away? Our justice system is predicated on Blackstone’s Formulation, that it’s better for the guilty to go free than for the innocent to suffer. That’s why there should be an investigation, an attempt to gather DNA, and at least a cursory examination of whether the accusations are consistent.

You yourself admit that there are people who have been wrongfully convicted; do you refuse to believe that any of them have been wrongfully convicted of ‘icky’ crimes, like sexual assault if a child?

The fact of the matter is, the child is a witness to the crime. Like any witness, the child deserves to be heard in a court of law. It then becomes a jury's province to determine how credible the child is. A victim's testimony is evidence, and it can be very powerful evidence. Have you ever listened to a child's testimony in a case such as this? I have. More times than I like to think about.

When you listen to these children recount the abuse, you know they are telling the truth. There is simply no way they are fabricating these stories of perversion and horror.

Is there any way a story about being flown to Mexico to be raped by soldiers and returned before Mom picks you up from daycare, of murdering and eating babies, of seeing witches fly and being flushed down toilets to secret sex abuse rooms could possibly be fabricated? I assume, as a therapist, that you are also familiar with the ‘satanic panic’ that resulted in so much misery for so many falsely accused people.

The therapists, police officers, and judges in those cases were no less educated than you, no less earnest. They truly believed that, as you say, there was ‘simply no way they are fabricating these stories of perversion and horror’…yet now almost all of those imprisoned have been exonerated and released.

Do you know how to judge credibility? You can tell by the way they speak, their demeanor, their body language, etc. Your own experience, intuition, and common sense can tell you when something rings true or not. Do you have children of your own? If so, I'm sure you can tell when they are lying or telling the truth.

You have great faith in your powers of intuition; I have no doubt that those involved in the above mentioned moral panic felt the same way, as did those involved in convicting the San Antonio 4. Those women have been released and are well on their way to exoneration, despite the jury in their case being convinced by experience, intuition, and common sense that the accusers had been subjected to horrific abuse, including being injected with drugs and raped with a knife. None of these things were proven, but they were believed.

Yes, false accusations can happen, but it's not simply, "any individual who makes an accusation" can do this to someone. These children are extensively interviewed by police, therapists, and prosecutors. Then the child must testify in front of a jury with the child molester present in the courtroom. Do you have any idea how much it takes to go through all of that? That's a lot of hoops and hurdles to surmount. The rare false outcries are weeded out way before the case makes it to trial. In my experience, about 6-8% of the children I interviewed were lying, and it was usually because of a custody dispute that was happening between the parents.

Police, therapists, and prosecutors, all of whom, I have no doubt, have only the best intentions. I would agree that those involved in the justice system truly believe they are helping children, but that help can become dangerous when their ‘gut feeling’ tells them that they have the right guy despite what the evidence says. As you are so familiar with the case, you know that Coy has stated he and Jane Doe’s mother were romantically involved; does that raise the possibility, in your mind, that the accusations may have been false?

Or what if the child was being abused, but was encouraged to name Coy as her attacker because of his notoriety? The case of Ricardo Rachell comes to mind. He was convicted of an attack on a little boy and spent 6 years in prison. It’s likely he was identified because his face, disfigured years earlier, gave the victim’s mother the creeps.

Rachell was eventually freed because DNA, the existence of which was never communicated to his defense attorney, proved he was innocent. Despite the ‘hoops and hurdles’, he was wrongfully convicted. The attack was real, but the child testified that an innocent man had carried it out.

As far as inconsistencies, people are not robots. When recounting a story, it is normal for certain details to vary due to the limitations of human memory. This applies to everyone, especially children since their minds have not fully developed. In regards to this case, it is my understanding that the core of the child's story has always remained consistent. Maybe some minor details have varied, but the who, what, when, where, has always stayed the same.

Then I am afraid your understanding is wrong; the child’s story fluctuated wildly before, during, and after the trial. There are a lot of resources here on the blog, perhaps you should look into that.

I really do wish you were in the courtroom the day this child testified. Perhaps if you were there hearing it for yourself, you would realize that this child was telling the truth, and that Carlos Coy is exactly where he belongs.

She must have been very convincing, despite testifying repeatedly in court that she might have dreamed the whole thing. Not having been there, however, I can only look at the circumstances of the case, the testimony that has been made public, and think, “If they could convict a man on no more than that, who on this earth is safe?”

In the end, that’s what this blog is about; if they can convict Carlos Coy on nonexistent physical evidence, malleable testimony, and nothing else, who will they come after next? How many other men and women have been crushed by this non-stop urge to believe the children, evidence be damned?

Sonia Cacy 2

Prosecutors have recommended that Sonia Cacy, whom we talked about back in June, be declared ‘actually innocent’ by the Court of Criminal appeals.

Great news for her, albeit 20 years late.

Kerry Max Cook 2

I found an update for the Kerry Max Cook case; the judge who heard his claim of actual innocence recommended that it be denied. For a case that’s dragged on and been tried and re-tried repeatedly since 1977, that sucks. The judge did admit that while a jury seeing all of the evidence may have found Cook innocent, the evidence produced was not enough to prove his innocence post-conviction.

            It’s up to the Court of Criminal Appeals to finalize the decision. Cook has been fighting to prove his innocence for damn near 50 years; I doubt he’ll quit now.

http://www.newswest9.com/story/32528395/judge-denies-kerry-max-cooks-actual-innocence-claim

No post

No post tonight guys; computer issues.

False Positives

There hasn’t been much in the news besides the Dallas shooting, but I did stumble across this NY Times story on the notoriously unreliable roadside drug tests used by police across the nation; apparently false positives are so common that the tests are not even admissible in court which, as Reason.com points out, isn’t a big deal for the justice system as over 90 percent of the cases plea out.

            Interestingly enough, the illustrative case in the article is a woman who was pulled over in Houston, Texas.

“Based in part on the information gathered by Marie Munier, the former prosecutor Anderson hired to examine the drug convictions, we determined that 301 of the 416 variants began as arrests by the Houston Police Department, with the rest coming from surrounding municipalities, and that 212 of those 301 arrests were based on evidence that lab analysis determined was not a controlled substance, or N.C.S.”

            As has been posted many times before, no physical evidence was used to convict Carlos Coy; the case against him was put together completely on the (changing) testimony of his supposed victim and her mother by a police department, district attorney’s office and court system that has shown the most careless, cavalier attitude towards justice in the past decade and a half. It boggles the mind to think of how many innocents have served, or are currently serving, prison sentences because they were not lucky enough to have physical evidence fabricated against them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside-drug-test-sends-innocent-people-to-jail.html?_r=0

http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/11/tens-of-thousands-wrongly-convicted-base

Linda Carty

…aaaaaaand another one from Harris County. Lindy Carty was sentenced to death in 2002 for a murder and kidnapping; her post-conviction appeal, currently being heard, is based on yet more accusations of prosecutorial misconduct. From the article:

"…prosecutors Connie Spence and Craig Goodhart were accused of destroying case notes and emails, of hiding at least 18 recorded witness statements from Carty's original defense team, and of coercing testimony to ensure Carty got a death sentence. A retired DEA agent testified that he was threatened by Spence. A star prosecution witness claims the pair instructed him to lie in a series of private meetings.

Both prosecutors still work for the Harris County District Attorney's Office as supervisors."

It’s a long, very informative article that deals not just with Carty’s case, but also touches on the environment in the Harris County DA’s office in the early 2000s. I don’t know if Linda Carty is guilty or innocent, but if the prosecutors performed even half the shenanigans they are accused of then she should receive a new trial. Unfortunately, given what we’ve seen from the Harris County DA’s office during that era, the accusations are all too easy to believe.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Prosecutors-accused-of-hiding-evidence-inventing-8340431.php

TCCA Judge says wut?

I found this very cool piece about Judge Elsa Alcala (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals) and her opinions on the death penalty; although it focuses primarily on capital murder cases, it is heartening to see that even a judge on the TCCA questions the accuracy of our justice system. From the article:

Aside from the court’s well-documented missteps, there are other signs of the system’s imperfections in the wave of exonerations of Texans, such as Michael Morton, who were wrongfully convicted and sent to prison for many years, while the true criminals went free. Oftentimes, the guilty go on to commit more crimes, which was true in the Morton case in which the person who murdered Morton’s wife, went on to kill another woman.

It’s worth noting that Texas led the nation in the number of people wrongly convicted of crimes, who were exonerated in 2015, according to figures compiled by the National Registry of Exonerations. In all, 54 people were exonerated for mostly homicide and drug cases going back to 2004. New York was second with 17. False identifications by witnesses, misconduct by police or prosecutors, errors by crime labs or defense attorneys, all are among the things that can and do go wrong.

It’s no wonder Alcala is uncomfortable remaining silent. Doing so perpetuates the fallacy that the state’s death penalty is carried out fairly and justly. That might be what many wish it to be, but it is not the reality.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/opinion/texas-death-penalty-beyond-repair-so-think-about-e/nrpRR/