Updated Thursdays

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

What's on your calendar?

If you follow the blog Facebook page, you may have seen these graphics posted:

It looks like they were created in conjunction with the Free SPM group here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/430324587056440/

This is not connected to the blog at all, but if you have any skills or experience with this sort of thing, why not contact the group and offer to help? I would love to see this get off the ground, and I know that y’all would as well. I applaud anyone who wants to get involved in this case, using whatever skills they possess. Many hands make the burden light, etc etc.  https://www.facebook.com/events/330196240468665/

It has been pointed out that Oct 5 is a Sunday, and the courts will be closed. While this is true, if participation is enthusiastic enough, there may be news coverage. I think that putting public pressure on the county would be extremely beneficial, whereas the court employees themselves have little-to-no power over the situation; the point is to be heard by the judicial system, and media coverage may be the most effective route.

If you plan on attending, I also would urge you to be respectful of your surroundings, your fellow protesters and by-standers. I'll try to keep y'all updated if there's any more news.

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Contest Winner

Congratulations to Raymond Samano! Everyone else, thanks so much for playing.

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Contest 3

Time for another contest from SPM; my apologies for not posting this earlier. You can see that this was meant to be posted up in June, so the legal letter he mentions has already been posted as 'The Never Ending Letter' parts A, B, and C. As always, you must be 18 to play, and if you don't have a blog account with an email address, that means I can't contact you. The first person to guess correctly will win.


            Dang, that last contest was way too easy. Now, I’m beginning to remember that I may have, already, had a verse (or something) that defined “The D.O.P.E.” as the dopest on planet earth. Did I?

            I’m going to have to think of something a little trickier. Still, I congratulate Francisco Perez for being the quickest on the draw, and shooting down the mystery in record-breaking time. You sly devil, you!
            Well, I finally got to writing the legal letter I promised you months ago. I’ve got the rough-draft already done, it’s thirty-two pages long. Now, I just need to type it up and mail it to the one-and-only, Incandesio The Great. That’s her new name (as far as I’m concerned.)

            So, that will be in the mail in about 3 days. Don’t miss it.

            You know, Francisco asked me a few questions after he won the contest. Great questions, by-the-way. His questions gave me the idea that that’s what everyone should do when they win a contest. Francisco asked these questions at the same time he gave his address to Incandesio.
            So, for the next contest, if you win, ask me two or three questions and I’ll answer them in the letter I write you. But, if you don’t mind, share my answers with the rest of SpmAftermath.com. Also, please give me the names of the two additional people you would like me to sign an autograph for.
            Again, if you win, as you send your address to Incandesio, ask me two or three questions so my letter to you will be exactly what you want. Also, include the names of the two additional people you’d like me to sign an autographed picture to.

            With that said, how bout we do another contest. Okay, if I bought a pitbull, I’d name him “Scary Loco.” The question is, why would I name him that.
            Hint: If I had a club, I’d name it
            “L.A. SYCO ROC.” lol!

            That was funny. Well, on my next Fam letter I’ll be giving you an update on The S.O.N., and it will be good news. Until then, I’ll leave you in a dark, cold world of doubt and distrust.A world so lonely that you reach out for help only to grab a handful of taunting winds that chill your bones.
(Sorry, I’ve been practicing my somber prose.)

            Well, Fam, it’s always two scoops of love and two tons of loyalty. I’ll write you more in just a bit.

Con Todo Mi Amor,


Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Thoughts and Questions

I have been thinking a lot about SPM’s assertion in his last letter, that because of the height of the bed in question the crime he was convicted of would have been physically impossible to commit. Not so much the mechanics of the situation, as without an accurate measurement it would be impossible to verify the claim; but about whether or not having something like that, some sort of concrete proof of his innocence, would be enough to get him a new trial.

In Herrera V Collins (1993), the Supreme Court ruled that, as long as all the justice system’s duck were in a row, that every ‘i’ was dotted and every ‘t’ was crossed, being factually innocent wasn’t enough to overturn a death sentence.

It looks like this was revised in 2013, when they decided that "actual innocence ... serves as a gateway through which a petitioner may pass"; that’s mighty nice of them. However, the burden of proof is very high. If Coy could prove that he was physically incapable of committing this assault, it might be enough.

            Another question, though, is why it was not brought up at trial. The defense presumably had access to both the bed and a tape measure, and this point should have been introduced at trial. Would the appeals court decide that, because the defense had access to a potential proof of innocence but didn’t bring it up during trial, they forfeited the right to use it? It’s possible.

            A final question, which would not be considered by the Supreme Court, is how the fuck did we wind up with a series of laws so convoluted that we can even entertain the thought that an innocent person may be permitted to die in prison because they received a technically perfect trial?

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Jim Bolding

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

The Never Ending Letter (Part 2.c)

Even in their closing arguments, the D.A.’s had to admit that they should’ve collected evidence. It was something that couldn’t be denied, so it was only smart to say so.
Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts Volume 17 of 31 pgs. 95-96)
(By D.A. Andrews-Closing Arguments)
                Let’s talk about the panties. Mr. Lewis wanted me to address that question. Why didn’t we get the panties. All I can say is maybe we should have. Maybe in an abundance of caution the cops should have gotten the panties. Maybe there would have been DNA. Most probably there wouldn’t have based on what they knew at the time, there was touching.
                Their own expert didn’t come in here and tell you there would have been massive amounts of DNA like Mr. Lewis said she would have. She said, “You never know. It’s uncertain. Not likely.”
                So, what, it doesn’t change the fact that (Jane Doe) came in here and told you the truth. Doesn’t change the fact that with her testimony by itself we have satisfied our burden of proof because she’s credible, because we all know that she was telling the truth about what happened.
                Well done, Ms. Andrews. All those debate competitions you had in high school and college have done you a service. But if I may slice through your horse manure, I’d be much obliged.
                First of all, why would Chip say there would be massive amounts of DNA on panties that have been washed? No, he had an expert testify to the fact that it was still possible to collect DNA from washed clothes. The massive amount would have been if the panties had not been washed.
                You also forgot to mention the sheets, Ma’am. The original story was that I had done this for “about a minute” and the child felt slobber on her. Even one drop of saliva on those sheets would have produced thousands, if not millions, of DNA cells. Seems you only addressed the addressible while dressed in that silly dress the color of caviar dressing. What? I’m not being silly.
                You also said, “....it doesn’t change the fact (Jane Doe) came in here and told you (the jury) the truth.”
                If truth can change, Ms. Andrews, then my dream is to, one day, be a Chinese man. But it doesn’t change, even if I owned a convenience store and kicked people out for looking at magazines and not buying them. “You no buy, get out!”
                Anyway, the facts I’ve shown on this letter, so far, should set off alarms as to the real story of my case. But I still hear questions, questions like, “But why, Carlos? Why would the system be so interested in destroying you? Don’t they have enough real child abuse cases than to help fabricate one? Almost everyone accused of these crimes say the same type of shit. Why should we believe you?”
                Those are good questions, and I’ve explained in a previous letter (go to SPM Responds Part 8.e ) the relationship I had with the authorities in Houston. I was blowing up like a bomb in my town, I was the fastest growing rap artist in the nation, and I was using my new found power to fuck with the cops. I never realized how vulnerable I was making myself if I were ever to get into a legal problem.
                At every concert I had the crowd chanting “fuck the police!” and HPD despised SPM. I despised them just as well, for the times they violated my rights, all the times they treated me less than human, all the times they abused the badge on their uniform. I guess I didn’t make it clear that my beef was only with those prejudiced dicksuckers, those hateful hoes, those cowards that hide behind their authority. I admire good cops, in fact, there’s nothing more honorable than to put your life on the line for another person. But the fact remains, I was at war with Houston authorities, and when they had someone with a story that could potentially end my reign, they did backflips to make that story work. You should read that previous letter to get an idea of the situation.
                On the other hand, I’m not asking you to believe me about anything. I’m asking you to believe the facts, because those don’t lie. I wouldn’t believe me either, or anyone found guilty of hurting a child. That’s because I used to think like you, that American courtrooms operated with unconditional integrity, they seek the truth one hundred percent of the time. In some cases, that’s not true, my friends, and that’s why there’s tons of people in this place for crimes they didn’t do.
                Not long ago, a man was given life in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. In fact, he was in jail during the time the crime took place, so there’s no way he could have done it. He was later exonerated, thank God, but guess whose courtroom he was found guilty in? That’s right, the same judge’s courtroom where I was found guilty. And those are the kind of results you get when you have a judge who does all he can, uses all his body language, spoken language, to help D.A.’s win their cases. Not every defendant is guilty, and that’s not how a judge should look at the person sitting on the left side of his courtroom.
                When Chip told me our judge was Ellis, he said, “They gave us the worst possible judge in the system.”
                I didn’t understand what he meant, I thought a judge was a judge, a neutral official that made sure everyone got a fair trial. But instead I saw a man who made clear to everyone in that jury box that he was against me. That kind of demeanor influences a jury, they pick up on it. They believe that the judge knows more about the case than them, so they follow his lead.
                Judges are supposed to be randomly picked for cases, but it was no random coincidence that we were given that judge. The system was afraid of Carlos Coy, not because they believed I was guilty, but because I had the power to influence an entire generation, and my message was anti-authority, was everything they feared.
                Honestly, who can blame them for their concern? I was a bald-faded, pants saggin, pot smokin, ex-drug dealer gangster rapper. Being a Mexican from an all-Black hood probably didn’t help either. I’m not pulling the race card, here, because anyone who knows me, knows I’m color blind. But there’s powers in this country that can stop a man dead in his tracks, and I wouldn’t have believed it myself until I saw all the crooked shit they did to win this case.
                There were no Mexicans in my jury, no hispanics at all, and that should’ve told me I was in a predicament. There was one black man in my jury, and he was the only one fighting for me. That’s why the verdict took three days. That man told my lawyer that he knew I wasn’t guilty, but he was tired of arguing so he agreed with the rest of the jury. He said that he needed to get home that evening and get ready for his daughter’s graduation, that’s why he gave in. Chip told me that, and I told Chip to get an affidavit from the man, saying what he told Chip. But I don’t know what happened with that. I think the man said those things because he thought it would get me a new trial. Maybe it would have, I don’t know.
                But I ain’t trippin, trust me. They did nothing but save my life, and Jesus is still king.
                Damn, I done got religious on ya ass!
                Clearly, I was doomed from the beginning. Even before the trial began, the judge decided he would give the jury his own definition of “reasonable doubt.” It was this long speech, full of negative connotations that worked against me. Let me give you a few paragraphs of his efforts.
Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts Volume 7 of 31 pg. 100)
                                                                THE COURT: Now, the point being beyond a reasonable doubt is not 100 percent sure because of the fact that the only way anyone knows something 100 percent sure is if you see it with your own eyes.  .  And, obviously, if you’re a witness on the case you can’t be on the jury. That would get a little strange, right? “Call your next witness!” “I call Juror No. 8.”  No.  No.  No.
                The jury has to be someone who is impartial and knows nothing about the case of their own knowledge and so, therefore, beyond a reasonable doubt is not 100 percent sure.
                Now, we know the ceiling basically. It’s not 100 percent sure. Now, there are some things, again, that we know that it’s not.
                I underlined the “not 100 percent sures” so that you can see that he’s trying to drill this message into their heads. Of course, he’s right, you can’t be 100 percent sure, but to say it three times, in three consecutive paragraphs, is sending the jury a message. The message is clear: “You guys will not be 100 percent sure about this case, but don’t let that stop you from convicting this person.”
                His entire hour, or two hour, oration was nothing but rhetoric concerning not having to be absolutely sure, not having to believe it 100 percent.
                A few pages before this testimony, he asked a prospective juror a few questions.
Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts Volume 7 of 31 pgs. 95-96)
                                                THE COURT: What do you do for a living, Mr. T--?
                                                PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Logistics management.
                                                THE COURT: Computers?
                                                PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir transportation.
                                                THE COURT: Transportation, all right. Mr. T--, beyond a reasonable doubt, what does that mean?
                                                PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Beyond a reasonable doubt means there’s no shadow of a doubt in your mind at all.
                                                THE COURT: Okay.
                                                PROSPECTIVE JUROR: All doubt is gone.
                                                THE COURT: All right. Let’s work on that.
                And work on that he did. He pounded away at the answer Mr. T—gave: “All doubt is gone.” But what he did more than anything, was to make it abundantly clear that he didn’t want the defendant to win. It was unbelievable, but I still wasn’t worried because I didn’t believe I would actually lose.
                Later in the trial, Chip asked if he would give the jury the original definition of “reasonable doubt”, the one that was made specifically for trials. Chip asks, “Yes, Your Honor. We would ask that the reasonable doubt instruction be included in the charge...”
                The judge’s response was simply, “That will be denied.”
               All right. Let me get back on track.
As you know, Chip made Ruiz admit that she should have collected those garments, those sheets, and really anything that any cop would have, should have collected to help her case. He did this right in front of the jury, but it wasn’t enough. The little girl’s story left such a deep impression on them, they couldn’t or wouldn’t process the telltale signs of dishonesty. Jane Doe was an extremely smart child, and after seven months of practice, her narrative was well executed.
                Me, I didn’t even take the shit serious. I was working on a movie script during the trial! We were in preproduction for my first film, a story about my life, and I didn’t want this bullshit to distract or delay progress. My underestimation of the situation was probably the D.A.’s greatest weapon.
                Okay. Earlier I told you that lies, if you look close enough, will always have cracks. You’ve seen some of those cracks, even if you thought they were small. I said some, though, could be as wide as rivers, which brings me to this point.
                Ya see, our critic hung to his claim that Jane Doe’s story made “logical sense” and that’s why the jury believed her. Let’s take a look at that logical sense, if ya don’t mind.
                In the trial, Jane Doe described, exactly, how she was laying on the bed, which was like someone would normally lay. She said she was on her back, next to my daughter. There was even a diagram that showed the bed and her position. In fact, let me go to the page right before her story of the “assault”, where she explains how she was laying.
Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts Volume 11 of 31 pg. 89)
(D.A. Oncken questioning Jane Doe)
                Q. Yeah. How were you laying?
                A. On my back.
                Q. On your back. Do you want to turn the doll back over so I’ll remember how your were laying?
                A. (Witness complies)
                Ya see, my daughter’s bed was so high that we had to buy her a foot-stool just so she could get on it. But that was the bed she wanted and, of course, I bought her whatever she asked, save the baby giraffe.
                In Jane Doe’s story, she explains how I got on my knees, used one hand to pull her panties, and the other hand, she couldn’t see.
                Let me enclose a picture of the bed, the same picture that was shown to the jury. I only have a copy of the transcripts, so I apologize for the picture being in black and white.

                Notice how much higher the bed is that my daughter’s double drawers on the side. It’s a small but tall bed. If you don’t know, I’m only five foot five, so even if Jane Doe had been laying on her “back” at the very edge of the bed, I still wouldn’t have been able to get on my knees, extend my neck over her leg, and commit this crime. But she wasn’t at the edge, according to her own story, she was fully on the bed next to my daughter. Even if I were six-foot-tall, this crime would have been physically impossible to commit.
                To top it off, they said I was masturbating, which means I would’ve had to be even further away from the bed.
                If I, or my lawyer, or anyone would have caught this impossibility, I would not be in prison today. Chip could’ve brought that bed into that courtroom, had me kneel down, and show how there was no way I could have done this.
                On a previous letter (go to SPM Responds Part 8.b ) I showed you how Jane Doe didn’t know if the assault “could be a dream, or something like that.”
                I can’t say I know, exactly, where or how this story came about; whether a “dream”, or “hallucinations” as her medical record suggested, something she was told to say, something she saw, or, God forbid, something she actually experienced in her life. All I can say is that when you make up something, you can see the whole scene in your mind.
                She could picture me getting down on my knees, then picture me get up and walk away. A picture in your mind doesn’t have to abide by any rules, everything runs without a hitch. The truth, on the other hand, must abide by the rules of logic. The story sounded good, that’s for sure, especially to the jury, but all the practice in the world can’t make the impossible possible.
                That. my friends, is a crack as wide as the Mississippi, and it buries the notion that Jane Doe’s testimony made logical sense.
                What’s funny is that I thought no one caught this flaw, but apparently the D.A. did. Probably, after Oncken saw the diagram on the film projector that they had in the courtroom, she realized the impossibility of the story. Because, even after the child said I got on my knees, Oncken tries to suggest tat I was standing. Let’s revisit that.
Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts Volume 11 of 31 (pg. 91)
(D.A. Oncken Questioning Jane Doe)
                Q. Okay. And you said he was standing or what was he doing on the side of the bed?
                A. On his knees.
                Q. On his knees at the side of the bed. And when he had the panties pulled to the side like that, what did he do?
                Oncken immediately goes back to the shock value of the “assault”, getting the child to repeat the sexual act, which was a good tactic on her part because it kept the jury too appalled to think about anything else.
                Like I said, at the time, the story was very believable, and I told you I’d show you proof of how this family was rehearsing with the D.A.’s during numerous private meetings.  If I interrupt the following testimony, I’ll start back up from the exact point I left off.
Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts Volume 10 of 31 pgs. 119-129)
                                                (Chip Lewis questioning Mary Doe [child’s mother])
                Q. Ms. Doe, your first phone call to the authorities in this case happened, I guess, late Sunday night or early Sunday morning?
                A. It was late.
                Q. But it was – when we go from Saturday to Sunday, the day after this allegedly happened, right?
                A. Correct.
                Q. Okay. After that point in time, can you estimate for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury how many times you have – you, in conjunction with Jane Doe, have met with either the police or D.A. in this case?
                A. About four times.
                Interruption number one. You’ll see that this was a lie, there were additional meetings going on. You’ll also see how persistant Chip had to be to get Mary Doe to reveal this lie.
10 of 31 pg. 120 cont’d
Q. Okay. About four. Tell me which four times you remember.
                A. With the police.
                Q. Okay. That night?
                A. That night.
                Q. A patrol officer came to you, correct?
                A. Correct.
                Q. Next?
                A. Officer Ruiz at Southeast.
                Q. Okay. At Mykawa?
                A. Correct.
                Q. Who went to see Officer Ruiz?
                A. Me, my sister, (John Doe-child’s father) and Jane Doe.
                Q. And you met with Detective Ruiz alone?
                A. Yes.
                Q. Just you three. No one from HPD or no prosecutor or nothing like that, just y’all – you four?
                A. Yes.
                Q. Correct?
                A. Right.
                Q. All right. When was the third meeting?
                A. At the Assessment Center.
                Q. And who all was present for that?
                A. Me and John Doe and Jane Doe.
                Q. And who did you meet with at the Assessment Center?
                A. Officer Ruiz.
                Q. Okay. The meeting, the second meeting you told me about at Mykawa Road with Detective Ruiz, do you remember the date of that?
                A. The date?
                Q. Yes, ma’am.
                A. No. I know the day.
                Q. Okay. Approximately how long after the Monday – Jane Doe went to Texas Children’s on Monday, September the 3rd, right?
                A. It was a week.
                Q. The following Monday?
                A. Correct.
                Q. So, approximately – I’m not trying to pin you down, but about September the 10th?
                A. No.
                Q. Okay. When? Before the 10th? After the 10th?
                I apologize for this boring line of questioning. I try not to put you guys to sleep, but Chip is trying to show how they took their time in calling the police, in getting the girl checked out, in getting her interviewed. In fact, after the child told her mother I touched her, the family went to the movies that day. Then, later that night, they allegedly called the police. It’s all in the transcripts if you doubt me. That’s why they claimed she had taken a shower and her clothes were washed before anyone could test for evidence. Here’ what the nurse said at the Texas Children’s Hospital:
Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts Volume 12 of 31 pg. 69)
                Nurse: ...and because she had indeed taken washed her clothes and had taken a shower, I didn’t think there was anything we could use as far as a kit except for just doing an external exam, which you don’t open a kit for an external exam.
                It’s no coincidence that all evidence was snuffed out before anyone could test anything. They didn’t make evidence available to the doctors, the cops made bogus excuses as to why they didn’t collect any, and the D.A.’s backed it all up with clever rhetoric.
                Let me get back to Mary Doe, and the proof that this family was doing a whole lot of rehearsing.
Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts Volume 10 of 31 pg. 122-129)
                A. It was before the 10th.
                Q. So, less than a week after she went to Texas Children’s?
                A. She went to Texas Children’s on Monday.
                Q. The 3rd?
                A. The following Monday I took her.
                Q. Okay. So, approximately, September the 10th?
                A. Correct.
                Q. All right. How soon after that meeting on the 10th did y’all go to the Assessment Center?
                A. The following week.
                Q. Do you know what day of the week?
                A. It was a Monday.
                Q. So, approximately the 17th?
                A. No. Maybe. I’m not – I don’t know my days. I was confused, I was sick.
                Q. In terms of less than a week, more than a week, what do you think?
                A. It was about a week.
                Q. So, it would have been somewhere around the 17th?
                A. Could be.
                Q. And you’ve described four meetings, when was the fourth?
                A. I’m sorry.
                Q. You described – you said about four times. We’ve talked about three. What’s the fourth one?
                A. With Officer Ruiz?
                Q. You tell me.
                A. Officer Ruiz. Then I met up with Denise. (Note: “Denise” is D.A. Oncken.)
                Q. Okay. When was that?
                A. I can’t recall.
                Q. Okay. It was after – after the meeting at the Assessment Center?
                A. No. It was the same day – yes, it was different days.
                Q. Okay. When was the first one – the first one was where you wrote in your own writing, correct?
                A. Correct
                Q. When was that?
                A. That was the day I took Jane to the police station in Bellaire.
                Q. The day you went to Mykawa Road?
                A. Yes.
                Q. The second statement was when you were at the Assessment Center, correct?
                A. Correct.
                Q. Okay. Now, after your meeting with Ms. Oncken at the D.A.’s office, is it at that time or after that that Jane starts going to counseling at the Assessment Center?
                A. I can’t recall.
                Q. Okay. Do you know how long after you originally met with the police that she started going to the Assessment Center?
                A. Maybe about a week.
                Q. Okay. And how often did she begin going?
                A. Once a week.
                Q. Is it the same day every day?
                A. Yes.
                Q. What day?
                A. Mondays.
                Q. And how long does she go?
                A. For an hour.
                Q. And the counseling that she attended at the Assessment Center, is that group or alone, one on one?
                A. Alone, except one time.
                As you can see, Jane Doe was going to the Assessment Center every week, since September. The trial didn’t take place till seven months later. The D.A. was also making personal visits to the family’s homes. They were practicing, preparing the child for trial.

10 of 31 pg. 126 cont’d
                Q. Okay. One time it was group?
                A. Yes.
                Q. All right. Was that on a Monday also, Ms. Doe?
                A. I can’t recall.
                Q. The – and she’s been doing that regularly since this date, since back in September of last year?
                A. Yes, unless she’s sick.
                Q. Okay. At any of the times that you’ve taken her to the counseling center – the Assessment Center that is – had you met with anybody related to this case, the D.A.’s office or the police department?
                A. I’m sorry, what was your question?
                Q. At any of the trips that Jane has made to the Assessment Center, for her counseling, have you had any conversations, had any meetings with anybody from the D.A.’s office or the police department?
                A. No.
                Q. All right. So, it’s your testimony that after you and John Doe and Jane went to Ms. Oncken’s office there had been no other meetings?
                A. With Ms. Oncken?
                Q. With Ms. Oncken or anybody from her office or anybody from the police department, meetings about this case.
                A. No.
                Q. There have been none since then?
                A. No, just about the court.
                Q. I understand. I’m not asking about the subject matter. We’ll get into that. I’m talking about the number of meetings. Was this meeting back at Ms. Oncken’s office? The last time you met with anybody from the D.A,’s office or the police department about this case?
                A. No.
                Q. Right. Tell me what other times you now recall?
                A. I don’t know as far as the date.
                Q. Okay. About how long ago?
                A. A few months ago. A month, couple of weeks.
                Q. Do you remember where any of those meetings took place?
                A. Yes, at her office.
                Q. And who attended – how many of those meetings were there at her office, not counting what we’ve called no. 4?
                A. How many meetings?
                Q.  A month, couple of weeks.
                Q. Do you remember where any of those meetings took place?
                A. Yes, at her office.
                Q. And who attended – how many of those meetings were there at her office, not counting what we’ve called no. 4?
                A. How many meetings?
                Q. Yes, ma’am.
                A. I can’t recall.
                Q. More than one?
                A. Maybe more than one.
                Q. Okay. More than two?
                A. No, about two?
                Q. All right. Of those two meetings only, who attended the first one?
                A. The first one?
                Q. Yes, ma’am.
                A. John Doe and Jane and I.
                Q. And that’s not the one we’ve already talked about?
                A. Yes.
                Mary Doe understands the question that Chip’s asking, she’s no dummy. She’s being elusive to the question because she doesn’t want to answer, nor commit perjury by lying. By this time, Chip gets visibly frustrated and pins Mary Doe down to the question at hand.
10 of 31 pg. 128 cont’d
                Q. All right. Let’s get past that meeting. I want to talk about meetings that you have had since John Doe, you and Jane initially went and met with Ms. Oncken. How many meetings have there been since then?
                A. I can’t recall.
                Q. Okay. And do you know – do you recall there have been meetings?
                A. Yes.
                Q. Okay. And you have no recollection of how many meetings there have been.
                A. I don’t count them.
                She won’t even give an estimation as to how many additional meetings they had. She would rather say, “I don’t count them”, than to give a roundabout figure. Because if she lied, it would be perjury and if she gave a figure, it would be more than she wanted the jury to know.
                I admit, she definitely avoided Chip’s inquiry for a good while, cleverly going back to the initial meeting with the D.A. But the question that should stand out is, why was she so stubborn about admitting to the additional meetings? The answer is obvious, when you’re doing something wrong, you try to hide it. They were up to no good, and she knew it. During those private meetings, Mary Doe was thinking about the paycheck she would get in civil trial, and the D.A. was thinking about destroying the gangster rap star that was taking over the city. But they both fell short. The civil jury awarded the family peanuts, and the D.A.s didn’t destroy, but made me stronger.
                This letter reveals crucial information, crumbling the story that has me in prison. But I’ll continue to show you many more facts, there’s a lot more to expose. And if any critic,any hater, any hater professional...If any person at all wants to challenge anything I’ve said, or anything about my case, please don’t hesitate. I’m kind of lazy and I can definitely use the motivation.
                Before I go, let me say that I’m not trying to portray myself as some angel or saint. I’m far, far, from that, my friends. But I’m not the man the State of Texas wants you to believe I am. They want to end SPM but the silly rabbits only saved my life. I’ve come to realize that I’ll always have opposition. Since the day I was born, I’ve had people wishing me the worst. But if everyone loved, we wouldn’t know what love is. If everyone was brave, we wouldn’t know what brave meant. Weakness defines strength, and if it’s your job to hate, well, it’s your job. As odd as it sounds, I thank you because God shows us how to make stairs out of haters, stairs that lead to higher ground. Ya see, in 2002, they called me a monster. But, in 2014, a monster is what they created.
Con Todo Mi Amor,

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.