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.