Letter to Pat Lykos 9

It’s the first of the month, time for another letter to Lykos. I found this article in which 10,000 police officers are talking shit about Lykos, claiming she’s soft on crime and is making the citizens of Houston unsafe.

Why? Because she's made it harder for police to obtain bullshit convictions. As Minister Robert Muhammad puts it:

"They now have to prove and obey the law, and every DA should've been doing that from the very beginning so they've lost their privileged position and the gold old boy system…”

So please, take a moment of your day to write and let Lykos know that we see what she’s doing, and we appreciate it. If you’re going to be more likely to support her bid for re-election if she considers our case, let her know.

She obviously can’t count on the support of 10,000 police officers, so why not gain the support of HPD’s natural prey? Men and women of every color who live under the shadow of the state’s power, who know that all it takes to put them in prison is a crooked cop and the testimony of a crack head with nothing to lose. 

I want to stress that this is not about trading Carlos Coy’s freedom for votes. That would be yet another massive perversion of the system. What we’re asking her to do is prove to us one more time that she believes in the rules of due process; in everyone’s right to a fair trial.

Pat Lykos is a Republican. Republican’s bread and butter is the image that they are tough on crime. Pat Lykos has given a frank “Fuck you” to those who would use the courts as a corrupt conviction mill in order to make themselves appear ‘tough’. That’s not an easy thing to do, nor is it considered very smart politically. Let her know that you appreciate her efforts.

The Honorable Patricia R. Lykos

1201 Franklin, Suite 600
Houston, Texas 77002-1923

Ma’am,

I’m writing today about the case of Carlos Coy, #908426.

I saw an article in the Houston Press the other day about a group of police officers that claimed you were soft on crime and I just wanted to take a moment to tell you that the average citizen sees what you are doing, and appreciates it in a way that few HPD officers ever will.

You have restored accountability and honor to the DA’s office after Rosenthal’s disgraceful behavior. Unfortunately memories can be short, and what better way to remind people of the foolishness that you ended than by recommending a new trial in one of Rosenthal’s most notorious cases?

Carlos Coy was convicted with no physical evidence, no witnesses except the 9 year old girl who testified that the episode may have been a dream; the mother of this child, who held a grudge against Coy, and a few state’s experts, one of whom claimed her ‘feelings’ about the matter amounted to proof of his guilt.

Please give us justice, and remind the citizens of Houston how far we have come since 2008.

Me, my address, blah blah blah.

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/111129-officers-say-da-pat-lykos-has-dropped-the-ball-on-crime

SPM Responds (Part 1)

This blog is all about providing context; context to the trial, the accusations, and the opinions of the press. All of what I write is my opinion, and most of that is formed by guessing about the motives and thoughts of a man I’ve never met. We have some contact through letters, but it just didn’t occur to me to talk to him before posting about the comment ‘I would have went to jail for fucking all those little young bitches’. I (wrongly) assumed that if after ten years there wasn’t an official explanation published, that there simply wasn’t one.

I’m going to get shit wrong sometimes, but I am not afraid to correct myself; here is Carlos Coy’s response to my post South Park Monster #1. I appreciate him sending it.

 

…I want to talk about your letter, and how you took on some of the things written in the article called ‘South Park Monster’ by John Nova Lomax…

…There was a woman, I forgot her name. I even forgot how I met her. All I know is that I was about 21 years old, and she was about 38, and I wanted to have sex with her. Then again that was usually the case when I either knew, worked with or walked by a woman.

This woman was a red-haired white lady who ran an organization called No More Victims. It was mostly to protect battered women but she had her hands in anti-drug programs and helping the incarcerated. Somehow we met, somehow she was impressed with me and somehow I would talk to groups of people with her, as a representative of No More Victims. There was no paychecks but if I could only find out if the carpet matched the drapes I’d have been alright. (It’s an old red-head joke. Never mind.)

            One day she took me to a state jail in downtown Houston. I was going to talk to about 35 men who were soon to go home. We walked in, walked through security doors, walked through more security doors and were then escorted to a room full of men. The red head introduced me and I began talking to the men about life. I told them to find good people to befriend, to let go old friends who were prone to trouble, to care about themselves. I told them about my life.

           I said “Fellas, I was no Einstein myself. In fact I failed 9^th grade twice till I decided to drop out before I failed thrice. I was seventeen and one more year would have would have put me in prison for fucking a classmate.”

            There was a roar of laughter and what I said had just popped in my head. My whole speech was unrehearsed. But I said the joke in a way that the inmates understood the funniness of it. The joke was that I’d be a fucking grown man in the ninth grade. It had nothing to do with fucking fourteen year old girls. In fact when I was seventeen years old, I couldn’t buy a piece of pussy…

So ya see, Incandesio, it was a joke that went really well when I first said it. I had it set up right, and I said it right. Years later, still remembering the success of this joke, I tried to use it again during this interview with the Houston Press. But, instead of saying “classmates” to show the comedy of an adult in ninth grade, I said “all these little young bitches” which doesn’t sound cool.

            Plus, I’m 28 years old during this interview which is less forgivable than if a 21 year old (that looks 17) says it. It was a failure the 2^nd time I said it and John Lomax, and the D.A.s had a gem of a statement in their quest to destroy me. 

If all goes as planned, there will be more from SPM starting around mid-December. We're working on a question & answer feature for the blog so y'all can ask questions about his case and have them answered. Stay tuned.

Weekend Reading 21

"By now we should all be aware that you don't walk out of a courtroom knowing the truth. You walk out of the courtroom with a verdict. There is a big difference."

I highly reccomend "The Defense Rests" , the blog of  Houston defense attorney Paul B. Kennedy.

Grand Juries

Before you can try a felony case in Texas, you have to take your evidence before a Grand Jury. Only prosecutors are allowed to present evidence when trying to get an indictment, and they're presenting it to the regular people that make up the G.J.; the prosecutor decides what witnesses to call, and what evidence to present. In the indictment process, the prosecutor is NOT required to include any evidence that would be favorable to the potential defendant. The accused is not allowed to testify in front of the G.J. unless the prosecutor allows it, and he is NOT allowed to have his lawyer present if he does. After weighing the evidence, the Grand Jury decides whether or not there is a good reason to take the case to trial.
"The indictment is termed a "true bill" against a prisoner; a decision not to indict is termed a "no bill."

So the D.A. gets to say whatever the hell they want, and call whatever witnesses they want. This might have been the police officer who swore up and down that Coy was 'grooming' his daughter for assault, then later admitted this was nothing but her opinion, worth no more than mine or yours. It could have been Susan Szczygielski, who decided that it just wasn't possible that an assault DIDN'T happen, and therefore didn't follow up on the possibility that the complainant had a nightmare because of the sex scenes in the movies they had watched that night. It could have been the mother who sued for cash after the criminal trial.

Confronted with all this information, most of it probably bullshit, most people would say to themselves "Yeah, it sounds like it might be possible. We'll send the case to trial and if he's innocent, it'll come out in the end." But once that indictment comes down, look out. In Rosenthal's Harris County, the fact that you'd been indicted was proof enough that you were guilty.

For some reason, the year after Pat Lykos took office, cases deemed to be not worth a trial skyrocketed.

However, a KHOU-TV investigation has discovered the number of no-bills issued in Harris County has spiked upwards by more than 40 percent between 2008 and 2009, when first-term District Attorney Pat Lykos took office.

…For instance, the number of no-bills for aggravated sexual assaults of children under 14 jumped by 26 percent, moving from 39 no-bills in 2008 to 49 no-bills in 2009.

Over the same time period, the total cases presented to a grand jury for that crime remained roughly flat as well.

So the Grand Juries were presented with the same number of cases each year, but were 26% less likely to find them believable than under Rosenthal.

Was it a massive change of the culture at the DA’s office? Were the citizens that made up these Grand Juries beginning to realize the corruption they had been permitting? What changed, and how can we fucking live with ourselves without at least a small review of WHY?

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jlg01

http://www.khou.com/news/harris_county_grand_juries_reject_increasing_number_of_criminal_cases-93376954.html

The Question

The question is not why would they lie; the question is, did they lie.

Despite the assurances from professionals and law enforcement that ‘people don’t lie about abuse’, the exonerations just keep stacking up.

Montgomery County:

Robert Wayne McCulloch was convicted in 2000 of Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child. His adult stepdaughter apparently made a believable case to the police, a Grand Jury, and finally a regular trial jury that he had assaulted her ten years before, when she was a child. The jury sentenced him to 10 years probation, and McCulloch stayed out of trouble. He stopped associating with friends and family, lost a successful business, a girlfriend, everything. He withdrew from life to keep out of prison.

Early this year his accuser came to his house and apologized; asked forgiveness and recanted her story. The Montgomery County DA’s office began the process of vacating his conviction, which will allow him to be a normal person once more, if that’s even possible after living so long with a false conviction.

It can be hard to prove a crime happened ten years ago, even with some amount of physical evidence. How the hell was this woman able to convince three groups of people (who are ostensibly seeking only justice) to convict a man of an old, imaginary crime with no evidence of any kind?

Knowing what we do, that the innocent are imprisoned for this type of crime more often than anyone wants to believe, we need to demand a higher standard of proof. Not just for the protection of the adults involved, but also for the children who accuse them.

Imagine for a moment, growing up knowing that you had put your father, brother, or uncle in prison for the rest of his life because of a lie that, as a child, you barely had the capacity to understand? Imagine the damage done to the relationship with the adult who, perhaps unknowingly, helped encourage and coach you in a lie? What does that do to a person’s psyche, their outlook for future relationships?

Why do people lie? It doesn’t really matter; the fact is that they do, and knowing that should encourage us all to be a little less gullible when it comes to accusations of sexual abuse.

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cypresscreek/living/judge-overturns-conroe-man-s-child-sex-assault-conviction/article_3398e9e4-04b0-11e1-87a7-001cc4c03286.html

Weekend Reading 20

I got a great comment yesterday. Ulisses asked "Would you go to pats office personally to try to get information if i helped fund your trip?"

I really can't articulate how awesome it is when people believe so much in what we're doing that they are willing to put up money to support the movement. Several people have offered financial support, and encouraged me to 'monetize' the blog (allow advertising) to help pay for everything.

The truth is I would not feel right about making money, even to help pay for documents or travel, on the back of injustice. I just can't do it. This has to be done right, independent of any suspicion of financial gain. I don't want anyone to be able to say "Look, there's money involved; you just can't trust someone who's making a living off this!"

That's why I don't sell shirts or stickers, why I don't have my own domain name. Blogspot is free, and right now that's a price that works for me. The time I spend writing, reading, thinking and stressing over this...There's no hourly rate for that. I do it because I believe that Carlos Coy got screwed by a justice system that I trusted implicitly for a long time.

By my years of inaction I was basically giving them permission to do whatever the hell they wanted, because I thought they would do the right thing. Well, I finally figured out that they weren't, and I feel betrayed and extremely pissed off. It's not just Harris County...this bullshit is more widespread than I had ever imagined. Coy's case is well known, and I believe will generate the kind of publicity needed to encourage wide-spread change in the system. There are may be hundreds of men serving time for crimes they did not commit but Coy VS Texas will, I hope, be the key to unlocking them all.

Regarding going to Houston; I've thought about it quite a bit. At this time, there's no identifiable benefit. Pat Lykos probably would not meet with me, since I have no connection to the case. I'm not family, not a friend, not a lawyer. There's nothing I could say to her in person that I can't say in a letter. If I thought I could get ahold of certain documents by asking for them in person I would, but all that is being protected by the Family Code; none of it is available to us.

So for now, I'll keep writing. When the DA's office starts acting on this, if it will help for me to go down and discuss it in person, please believe I will be there; if I have to walk my ass up to Houston, I will. If you, like Ulisses, would like to contribute, please do it by talking with people; writing letters to the DA asking for action on the case; spread some flyers around. Buy some Dope House CD's for that friend of yours that prefers to download music instead of paying for it.

I appreciate all the support and kind words from all of you. In one of his letters SPM said "I want to thank you for caring...and then acting on that care, which action makes feelings sincere."

Please, don't be afraid to act on your feelings; let the DA and your friends know that you support Carlos Coy, and you want to see this shit re-examined.

South Park Monster (Part 4)

Lomax continues with South Park Monster, page 8:

“After sharp questioning about crack dealing and other crimes, he was confronted with the obvious: How could eight young females be wrong in their belief that he molested them or worse?”

Lomax never allows the reader to consider the question of whether or not they’re LYING. He only asks how they could be WRONG. Were they wrong? We don’t know. Obviously the DA’s office didn’t feel confident enough about any of these cases to actually take them to trial; they simply trotted out these witnesses after Coy was found guilty to try and get him as much time as possible.

Why would eight females lie? The answer, I believe, is as simple as the question “Why would one female would lie?”

Some time after Coy was arrested the first time and released on bail, a 14 year old girl came forward and said that during this time he had driven her and a friend to a hotel and she had sex with him. This assertion is presented as truth, with as many lurid details as the author can get ahold of. But no mention is made of the interesting back story, which was made public by the Houston Chronicle two months before Monster was written; ample time for Lomax to discover it & use it if he was interested in presenting a more balanced view of the case:

“A court document filed Monday by defense attorneys Lewis and Mike Ramsey said the girl's medical records show she had Chlamydia at the time of the alleged assault and that Coy has never had the disease. The girl said Coy was not using a condom during the sexual encounter, according to the document.

Coy's lawyers also said in the document the girl had previously tried to extort money from their client, had been diagnosed as bipolar and had been expelled from school for repeated disciplinary violations.

Lewis said the girl had repeatedly contradicted herself.”

So why would she lie? No one can know the specific reason, but if the document filed is true, it’s obvious that she did. I don’t know if she was one of the women used during the sentencing phase of the trial. Coy had seven indictments against him and a court date was set for all of them on May 3^rd, but by the time the trial rolled around he was down to one.

The point is that there was more to this story. There generally is, and we tend to assume that reporters, of all people, will be interested in gathering up the facts and presenting them all.

http://www.chron.com/entertainment/music/article/Bail-denied-in-case-of-rap-musician-Coy-2091807.php

http://www.houstonpress.com/2002-06-06/news/south-park-monster/