Updated Thursdays

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

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 3rd, 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.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Reporters are NOT necessarily interested in gathering up facts unless they match up with the reporters preconceived ideas. A little pressure here or there about a reporter's career and objectivity goes out the window.

Coy may be the reprehensible reprobate the DA's office portrayed him as, however, the inconsistencies in this case make even a casual observer like me question what happened. Is Coy the perv that needed to be put away or was this a railroad job because someone decided for whatever reason that he needed to be brought down a peg?