Tuesday, June 10, 2014
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.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
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
Friday, May 30, 2014
Weekend Reading 85
As has often been stated, I’m not here to provide music or merchandise; I’m here because of the injustice I see in Coy’s trial, and no other reason. I always have, and always will, encourage anyone who wants to speak out about the case to do so; every voice helps.
That being said, please be cautious where you get your Dope House news and/or gear from. Whether you’re looking for music updates or just want to support Dope House Records, please ensure that you’re dealing with a reputable source or an artist that you recognize.
While I do try to share images and pages that I believe will be of interest to SPM fans, the blog is not affiliated with anyone or anything. I am as far out of the loop as it is possible to be in regards to DHR, and that’s how it should be.
Caveat Emptor
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
The Never Ending Letter (Part 2.a)
A while
back I wrote you a letter called “The Neverending Letter Part One” which mainly
probed an argument that Incandesio had with one of our critics. They were
debating a situation that occurred in my civil trial. That same letter showed
how the child’s story made a significant change from what she said in criminal
trial as to what she said in civil trial. I meant to write an immediate follow
up letter but I’ve been so caught up in the tasks of releasing The S.O.N. that
I haven’t got around to it till now. Let me remind you of how the child’s story
changed, and then I’ll go from there.
Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts
Volume 11 of 31 pg. 93)
D.A. Oncken: Okay. And how long did he lick you?
Jane Doe: About a minute.
D.A. Oncken: About a minute. And did he stop after
about a minute?
Jane Doe: Yes.
D.A. Oncken: Yeah. And what did he do when he
stopped?
Jane Doe: He told me not to tell nobody.
D.A. Oncken: He told you not to tell anybody?
Jane Doe: Yes.
Civil Trial
(Court Transcripts
Volume 4 of 9 pg. 49)
Their Lawyer: How long – was it just, like, one lick
or was it a long time or what?
Jane Doe: It was one lick.
Their Lawyer: And is that when he left after that one
lick?
Jane Doe: Yes.
Their Lawyer: And then, you went to use the restroom?
You remember that?
Jane Doe: Yes.
__________
For the record, I
didn’t do this for one second or one thousandth of a second. I did not commit this
crime. But what’s important to know is that, till this day, she’s sticking to
the “one lick” story as opposed to the “about a minute” testimony. Also, right
before the civil trial began, during her deposition under sworn oath, she told
my civil lawyer that the assault happened for “one second.”
The reason this is a game
changer is because the “one lick” testimony destroys the story she said in
criminal trial, the same story that convinced a jury I committed this
unthinkable act, and the story that left me with forty-five years in prison.
There’s two scenarios that may
have cause this profound change. Either she feels that “one lick” makes her
story less of a lie, which possibly helps her deal with her own guilty
conscience, or, she simply forgot what she said in the criminal trial.
Our beloved critic repeatedly
said that I was “afraid” to show you the girl’s original story. He said because
she was “believable”, because she was a “credible witness”, and because her story
made “logical sense.”
On previous letters I showed you
how credible this child was, how she could be used to say just about anything
they wanted her to. (Go to SPM Responds (part 8.b) , SPM Responds (part 8.c) , SPM Responds (part 8.d) , SPM Responds (part 12.a) , and SPM Responds (part 12.b) )
I showed you on a previous
letter her medical history, how she was seen for “sleeplessness/insomnia,
headaches, and possible hallucinations...” How she was prescribed
antidepressant medications, Elavil, and was diagnosed with photophobia and
phonophobia. All this was discovered eight months before she spent the night
with my daughter, and claimed I did this thing. And, with all respect, had I
known this child suffered from all these mental disorders, she would not have
been spending the night with my baby.
But our critic was right about
one thing, her story was believable. It convinced twelve jurors that I did this
crime. And with the judge noticeably on the D.A.’s side, using his power to
assist them, well, that didn’t help justice prevail either. The most
significant claim our critic made was that Jane Doe’s story made “logical sense.”
One problem with that is that we’ll never know what her first version of this
“assault” was, which is the most important version to know. The investigating
officer, a rough-looking white woman named Ruiz, said that the equipment used
to record Jane Doe’s first interview malfunctioned. Ruiz also said that Jane
Doe’s mother’s first outcry witness statement was too hard to read so she
(Ruiz) tore it up. If you believe such coincidences, more power to you. But
it’s obvious to me that the child’s first statement wasn’t good enough for a
possible conviction, and neither was her mother’s first statement. Something
didn’t make sense, and the family was sent back home for a few days to get
their shit together. (Go to SPM Responds (part 4.a) and SPM Responds (part 4.b))
I can’t be sure whether the
system knew Jane Doe’s story was bullshit, or they just wanted to believe it so
bad that they helped make it believable. It was a well-rehearsed spectacle,
seven months of rehearsals to be exact, and I’ll show you the evidence, in
this letter, using court transcripts, of how this family was rehearsing
with the D.A. But one thing about lies, if you look close enough, you’ll find
cracks. Some cracks are microscopic, but some can be as wide as rivers.
Let me say that Jane Doe’s
performance on the stand was long and drawn out. There’s pages and pages of
questioning that pertain to what she did that day, where she ate, what she ate,
what school she went to, what sports she liked to play. They did this lengthy
sequence of true events so that when they finally got to the bullshit, it would
blend right in with all the truth. I’ll show you everything about this trial,
how they said I touched her inappropriately, how they said I told her I would
buy her anything she wanted. It’s so easy to see the mistakes in their
testimony, the proof of their rehearsals. As I continue to write these legal
letters, I’ll cover every aspect of this trial, every attempt they made to make
me look guilty. I use the word “they” because what came out of that child’s
mouth was a team effort, and I’ll prove it. Like I said before, I was killed by
a thousand ant bites, and I’m going to show you every bite, one by one. I’ve
got absolutely nothing to hide, and everything to reveal. Today, I’m taking you
to the biggest ant bite of all. I’m going straight to the aggravated sexual
assault, the very act I was charged with, and found guilty of. Here’s the story
I was supposedly too afraid to show you, and I apologize, ahead of time, for
the graphic nature of this testimony.
Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts
Volume 11 of 31 pgs. 90-95)
(D.A. Oncken questioning Jane Doe)
Q.
Okay. And how did he get – how did he get – how did he get from Carly’s side of
the bed to your side of the bed?
A. He
walked around.
Q. He
walked around the bed?
A. Yes.
Q.
Okay. And what did he do when he walked around to your side of the bed?
A. He
got on his knees and he pulled down the cover, he pulled up my shirt and he put
my panties to the side and he licked me.
Q. What
was he licking you on?
A. On
the private part.
Q. Your
private part. And, (Jane), could you show me on the doll, you said that he
pulled – he did what with your shirt?
A. He
pulled it up
Q.
Okay. Could you show me with the doll?
A.
(Indicating)
Q.
Okay. And then – and then what did he do?
A. He
pulled my panties to the side.
Q.
Okay. Could you show me how – this doll has panties on, right?
A. Yes.
Q.
Could you show me how he did that?
A.
(Indicating)
Q.
Okay?
MS.
ONCKEN: Your Honor, if the record could reflect the witness is pulling the
panties of – on the anatomical doll away from the female sexual organ of the
doll.
THE
COURT: The record will so reflect.
Q. (By
Ms. Oncken) Do you want to hold it? Okay, so he pulled it like that. Did he
hold it like that?
A. Yes.
Q.
Okay. And you said he was standing or what was he doing on the side of your
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?
A. He
licked me.
Q. On
your private part?
A. Yes.
Q. And
could you show me with the panties to the side what part he was licking you on?
A.
(Indicating.)
MS.
ONCKEN: Your honor, if the record could reflect the witness has pointed to the
female sexual organ of the anatomical doll.
THE
COURT: The record will so reflect.
Q. (By Ms. Oncken) And, (Jane),
what was he licking you with?
A. His
tongue.
Q. His
tongue. And what did you think when he was doing that?
A. I
was shocked.
Q. You
were?
A. Yes.
Q. Has
anybody ever done anything like that to you before?
A. No.
Q. What
did you do – other than being shocked, what did you do?
A.
Nothing.
Q.
Okay. Now, did he say anything before he did that?
A. No.
Q. He
didn’t. And what did it feel like when he was licking you?
A. Wet.
Q. Wet.
And did you feel anything else?
A. His
slobber.
Q. His
slobber. Anything else?
A. No.
Q.
Okay. And how long did he lick you?
A.
About a minute.
Q.
About a minute. And did he stop after about a minute?
A. Yes.
Q.
Yeah. And what did he do when he stopped?
A. He
told me not to tell nobody.
Q. He
told you not to tell anybody?
A. Yes.
Q.
Well, now, let’s back up just a minute. When he was licking on your private
part where were his hands?
A. One
of his hands were where my panties were and the other I don’t know.
Q. You
didn’t see where the other hand was?
A. No.
Q. And
you said that after he stopped doing it he told you not to tell?
A. Yes.
Q. Was
he talking very loud when he said that?
A. No.
Q. Was
he whispering?
A. Yes.
Q.
Okay. And did he say anything?
A. No.
Q. Did
he say anything else to you then?
A. No.
Q. What did he do after he said
that and after he stopped licking.
A. He went to his studio again.
Q. So, he got up off the floor –
from kneeling on the floor and then went to his studio?
A. Yes.
__________
After
the jury heard these detestable details, they were staring at me like I didn’t
deserve to breath. They were totally smitten by the girl’s story, and who can
blame them? The slobber she felt, the shock she felt, the one hand on her panties
and the other where she couldn’t see. “How would a nine-year-old even know oral
sex existed if this didn’t happen?” they must have thought.
On
a previous letter (go to SPM Responds (part 12.b)) I showed you the pornographic material this child had access to. I showed you
the testimony of how her mother caught her younger brother and older brother
trying to watch a porno.
When
the D.A. asked her mother if she had a talk with her kids about the incident,
she said, “No, I was embarrassed.”
When
the D.A. asked , “And do you know where Jane Doe was when they were caught
trying to put that in?”, her mother responded, “I don’t recall.”
D.A.: She wasn’t in the room was
she?
Mother: I don’t believe so.
__________
How can you not be
absolutely sure whether your baby girl was in a room where her brothers were
trying to watch a porno? And why would you be embarrassed to talk to your kids,
you’re a grown-ass woman? These are babies (her youngest son was about
five-years-old at the time) “caught” trying to watch poisonous shit. On the
other hand, think about that for a moment.
To be embarrassed about
something, there must be something to be embarrassed about. Something
was on that screen, those kids saw something. Why else would she have been
embarrassed?
The jury should have been able
to use this incident in assessing the situation, but, if you’ll read my
previous letter on this, you’ll see how the judge wouldn’t allow Chip to tell
the jury they could consider this evidence in their decision process.
If you’re new to this blog, go
back and read how this courtroom operated, how this judge operated. Every
attempt Chip made to explain the environment Jane Doe was raised in, was hid
from the jury.
The “slobber” testimony caused the
most gasps in the audience, and in the jury box, and was probably the most
impactful detail in her story. It was a detail the D.A.’s brought up multiple
times during the trial.
Now that she’s saying it was
“one lick”, her first story makes no sense, unless I just spew excessive saliva
on her for one second. Why would anybody do that?
I don’t know what went on behind
closed doors, I don’t know how these pieces of shit operated, but I showed you
how easily these people could twist and turn this child’s testimony. By the end
of this letter you’ll see clear and convincing proof that this story was
bullshit, but, for now, let’s probe a few things.
Notice how Jane Doe knew exactly
what to say when the question was asked, “And what did it feel like when he
was licking you?”
“Wet.”
“Wet. And did you feel anything else?”
“His slobber.”
__________
Her answers were
automatic, she sounded like a programmed robot, and that’s probably why the
judge wouldn’t allow any news cameras in my trial. They had something to hide,
and that something was all the underhanded shit that went on. But it’s in these
transcripts, and that’s a beautiful thing.
Jane Doe, also knew what to say
when the D.A. asked, “Well, now, let’s back up just a minute. When he was
licking on your private parts where were his hands?”
“One of
his hands were where my panties were and the other I don’t know.”
That question and answer was to
imply to the jury that I was masturbating while assaulting her, but, of course,
she couldn’t see that because she was allegedly laying on her back on the bed,
and I was allegedly on my knees on the side of the bed. Later in the trial, I
remember the D.A. pointing at me, saying, “That man who masturbated while
assaulting Jane Doe!”
Damn, that’s a whole lot to do
during a one lick assault. That’s why I tell you, the story she’s sticking to
now, destroys the story I was convicted of.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Talking Points 4
I received a 42(!)
page legal letter from Coy, which I will start posting next week. Before we get
to that, I want to talk a little bit about the media coverage of the case. The
papers that covered the case most extensively were the Houston Chronicle, which I refer to often, and the Houston Press, which I use less because of the horrific revisionism in the piece, ‘South Park Monster’. I just don’t trust what they printed.
Most
of us don’t give a shit about court cases that don’t involve us, and even if
they do spark our interest it would be unusual for us to sit in on one. We rely
on the media to let us know if something when there’s a giant clusterfuck going
on, we expect to be told when there’s something to be outraged about.
Most
of the coverage of Coy’s case focused on the enormity of the accusations
against him, and very little on the trial. They didn’t go into a lot of detail
about how the prosecution was proving it’s case. I’ve uncovered a little bit of
it, and Coy has gone into more detail with the transcripts. This is 12 years after the height of the
publicity...What could have been reported while the trial was still going on?
How could uncovering this stuff have made a difference in the outcome?
Keep
that in mind over the next few weeks, as you read Coy’s new legal letter. These
inconsistencies could have, should have,
been publicized years ago.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Talking Points 3
Another subject that may come up
when discussing Coy’s case is his son with Jill Odom, who was 14 when she gave
birth; there is a lot of misinformation floating around the web about this, and
I think it’s important to know what Coy says about the issue.
There’s just not a lot of
documentation about what happened; even the atrociously incomplete ‘South Park
Monster’, ostensibly the all-encompassing bible of the trial, only mentions her
briefly. To the author’s credit, he does admit that Odom testified Coy may not
have known her age.
He dismisses this with the
accusation that Coy supposedly picked her up from her middle school, a charge
that Coy denies. Lacking any reliable news sources on the subject, I have
compiled most of Coy’s posts on the subject.
Don’t be afraid of this aspect of
the argument; it happened, and ignoring it or denying the truth is not going to
make it go away. You can see my opinion here:
In the end, you’re going to have to
examine the situation and come to your own decision about it. If you’re not
sure what you think about, don’t feel compelled to discuss it or excuse it.
This is not what Coy was convicted of and has very little to do with the case,
all things considered.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Letter to Devon Anderson 8
Time for another letter to the DA. There's a lot of shit going on right now that's extremely relevant to this case; let's make sure that Harris County hears about it. As always please feel free to copy this letter, write your own, or just send one of the blog flyers on the toolbar to your right.
The Honorable Devon Anderson
1201 Franklin Street, Suite 600
Houston, Texas
77002-1923
Ma’am,
I'm writing to you today about the case of Carlos Coy, #908426.
A statistical study using a
survival analysis model calculated the likelihood of exoneration of the prisoners
currently on death row; removing the possibility of a prisoner being removed
from death row, and therefore losing the exhaustive review process inherent to
a death sentence revealed a statistical likelihood of about 1 in 25 eventually
being exonerated.
It is sobering to imagine that we
have executed innocent people, and this study highlights the fact that many of
these individuals, who may eventually have proven their innocence, see their
sentences reduced to life in prison. Once this is done the government no longer
reviews their cases, so the circumstances which make it most likely that the
truth will eventually be found are lost.
You know more than most people the
exhaustive reviews and appeals that the justice system provides to prisoners
sentenced to die. If it’s possible that 1 in 25 of them are actually innocent,
what must the margin for error be in cases in which there is no
government-funded review?
In a case like Coy’s, where there
was never any physical evidence, where the testimony against him was confused
and contradictory, does it not seem that the likely hood of a wrongful
conviction would be greater than 1 in 25?
Ma’am, I believe that if you take
the time to consider his case you too will see that there is no evidence that
justice was served. Please, order a review of his case. Give Coy a new trial,
one free of the whiff of corruption that so thoroughly permeates his current
conviction.
http://www.newsweek.com/one-25-executed-us-innocent-study-claims-248889
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/Study-1-in-25-death-cases-likely-innocent-5435706.php
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/study-25-death-cases-innocent-23503280
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)