Updated Thursdays

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Comments 2

Today we have more from Eric, whom I first replied to in Comments. This is the first half of my reply to several of his posts. He makes a lot of points here, and he's kind of jumping all over the place, so if I missed one, let me know.

Eric said:


Sorry for returning so late.


I haven't read the transcripts, I'm also going off what I've found online. I'm still hoping Carlos will show us all of her testimony, but I have a hunch he won't.

Great, so we're working from the same information. The doubt I feel regarding his conviction is rooted in Harris County's history of false convictions; in the scandals of the Children's Assessment Center, the public humiliation they suffered when the crime lab was shut down. Where is your faith in their veracity coming from?

[The statement “news reports of her testifying, three times, that she couldn’t really remember the assault.”] is incorrect. I think what you are referring to is when the prosecutor asked her "Do you remember it clearly?", and she then said "No." There is a big difference between saying you don't remember something clearly than saying you don't really remember something at all. Do you see how you're twisting her words around to fit your agenda? Not cool.


Aw, gosh darn it. I work so hard to be cool, and then I go and screw it up. No, what I said was not incorrect. Here's the article: http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/2002_3544250/girl-says-alleged-assault-by-rapper-wasn-t-a-dream.html
Let me give you a play-by-play.
During the prosecutor's initial questioning, the girl states that she doesn't remember the incident and it could have been a dream. The exact phrasing of the question and answer are not quoted in the article, but it says she 'wasn't sure what had happened and thought it could have been a dream.'
That's statement number 1.
The prosecutor follows up with this: “Do you remember it clearly?”
The girl says “No.”
That's statement number 2.
From the article: Under cross-examination by defense lawyer Chip Lewis, the girl again said she was not really sure what had happened because she might have been dreaming.
That's statement number 3.
She wasn't sure what happened; she expressed doubt about whether it happened in reality, or in a dream. Show me where I said she couldn't remember it 'at all', because I don't think I've said that. The news articles are fairly clear about her statements that she couldn't remember it well, or clearly, and that she wasn't sure it had happened, so I'm going to go ahead and stick with 'she couldn't really remember the assault.'

Her testimony was obviously strong. She gave a step by step account of what happened that night. This is confirmed in multiple articles. To this day Carlos has not done that.
There are a few articles that mention how confident she was on the stand, how clear and precise her testimony was. How is that possible if she couldn't remember it clearly? If she couldn't remember it clearly, how could she testify about it so clearly? If she's fuzzy on the details to the point where she's saying that it might very well have been a dream, how was she able to give a concise, step-by-step account of what happened?


This is a very libelous assumption.
I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as a 'libelous assumption.' You can have a false assumption, which is what my opinion might be, or a libelous statement, which it is not. A very libelous statement would be “Such-and-such manipulated her into lying, and that's why she says she can't really remember,” assuming it was false. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. I pointed out that, generally speaking, coming up with details about an event you didn't experience can be difficult, which is non-specific and very true.
The inference that I make, that she was unsure of details because she wasn't assaulted, might be libelous, except that I'm assuming that she actually believed the story and, in good faith, simply admitted she couldn't remember it clearly. So instead of saying something defamatory (i.e., she was lying) I'm saying she was confused.
My question is, why jump straight to a civil suit? Are you going to sue me out of my decrepit house and all the crappy possessions therein?
Do you have proof that she was told to repeat a fabricated story? Of course you don't.
Of course I don't; if I did, the tagline of the blog wouldn't be 'Searching For The Truth Behind Carlos Coy's Conviction', it would be 'The Story Of How My Awesomeness And Insight Saved Carlos Coy From Continued Wrongful Incarceration.' or, alternately, 'How I Proved That Harris County Wrongfully Incarcerated A Famous Rapper, But Still Refuses To Admit Wrongdoing And Release Him, A La Michael Morton.'
A little wordy, perhaps. I'll keep working on it.
And she didn't just repeat the basic gist of a story. She gave a step by step account of what happened that night. Everything from the dinner, to playing with Carley, to Carlos ordering them to dance, to Carlos caressing her, to the assault, and to the drive home. She described the assault in detail, testifying what he was doing with his left and right hand, the licking, and she even testified she was covered in slobber afterwards. You need to ask Carlos for the entire transcript though. That would help clear this up even more.
You didn't get all this from 'South Park Monster'. Either you're embellishing what you've read in news accounts, or you have information I don't, so I can't really reply to it. How about sharing?

You go on to talk about neutral, untainted interviews. I agree, they are important, and as far as we know all of the interviews with this little girl were neutral and untainted. There is no evidence she was even asked any leading questions on the stand or in police interviews. Incandesio, it seems to me that you are assuming things that aren't even true.


As far as we know...” I think it's mighty big of you to give the State so much credit when a man's freedom is at stake, but me, personally? I know no such thing. I know that the reason kids are supposed to have the initial interview with a trained specialist is because it is so easy to screw it up. I know that the reason they are supposed to be recorded is because it is so easy to misrepresent what was said, to lean on a kid, knowingly or not, to get the story you want to hear. I know that there have been a few high-profile cases, and even more quietly resolved, less-publicized cases in which these problems lead to wrongful convictions. You can read through the blog for a few of them.

The circumstantial evidence did indeed qualify as such, that's why it was allowed into Court. A child therapist who interviewed the victim is allowed to state her opinion on the matter. A police officer is allowed to do the same.


I already explained to you what circumstantial evidence is; it's evidence by inference. A + B could probably equal C. What you're referring to as circumstantial evidence is hearsay evidence, which is not allowed in any type of criminal case except molestation cases. Why? Because it's notoriously unreliable.
Just because the opinion comes from the mouth of a state-sanctioned expert doesn't make it reliable, especially when those experts are unfamiliar with what seems to be extremely pertinent aspects of the case, like the child's medical history.

Imagine if you or someone you love was sexually assaulted, and there was no physical evidence or witnesses. You would still want the perpetrator brought to justice, right? Would it be fair for you to be ignored? If you give an accurate account of what happened that logically makes sense, I'm sure you would want to be believed too.
No. No, I'm not going to imagine it was me, because I am willing to admit that I have no idea how I would react if I thought my child had been molested. I'd like to think I would calmly and rationally wait for the facts to come in, but I don't know that I would. I think it's very likely I would become completely unhinged, lose my grip on reality and abandon all pursuit of justice in favor of a burnt-earth campaign for retribution. THAT is the whole reason for an impartial, 'proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt' justice system to exist, to protect people from the blind fury of their fellow human beings.
But since you're obviously into cerebral exercises, imagine it was you being tried, just your word against that of a little girl, with “no physical evidence or witnesses.” Can you imagine watching as the state, with more money and influence than you'll ever have, tore you down piece by piece and took away everything that ever mattered based on the “accurate account of what happened that logically makes sense”, given by someone who can't even say with 100% certainty that it wasn't a dream?
Have you ever been punished for something you didn't do, Eric? Any event, even something from your childhood. Do you remember the feelings of helplessness and rage that resulted? Now, think of that undeserved punishment being meted out not just against you, but against your family, your children, your friends, your livelihood.
Imagine that, for just a minute, and then really consider if you're willing to give the state carte blanche to inflict that kind of suffering on an innocent person.
Ethical standards and laws being broken? Show me where in the Carlos Coy case where the prosecution broke a single law. Show me the underhandedness involved. You will not be able to.
Uh, no shit. Not yet, anyway. See the previous paragraph about proof & taglines.
So what do I have? I have a strong feeling, like Heidi Ruiz. I have an opinion based on incomplete knowledge of the child's symptoms and history, like Susan Szczgielski. I have inferred from the past behavior of the Harris County D.A.'s office, much like the inferrence drawn from witnesses against Carlos Coy by the jury, that there has been a miscarriage of justice.
If that's enough to justify the original court case, I'd say it's enough to justify the struggle for a new trial.
 ***
 
This will be continued in another post, as Eric wrote quite a bit more. As I mentioned in the last post I love talking about this case, so if you have a new argument or disagree with what I've written, please let me know!

28 comments:

Angela Niño said...

Incandesio, again great job. Eric, I don't know Incadesio personally but, I am working on getting her a copy of the transcripts so all of you can shut the fuck up already. Look at all that she has uncovered with just dedicating her time and effort. Imagine how big of a hole she is going to blow in the former DA (and everyone else that was involved in the case) ass when we get the transcripts in her hands.

Anonymous said...

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. Who is Eric? I have 2 daughters of my own and if there was any accusations of rape/molestation you best believe I would be furious. And we can't say what we would do but any logical human being would want the facts. Either you thought you were dreaming or you wouldn't. With no physical evidence? And to top it off he has a daughter of his own. If we are basing this case on merit and not evidence he has his own daughter would that make any sense to molest her friend. For a famous Latino rapper that could have any woman he wanted. Like I said with 2 daughters that I have and one of there friends came over and I was accused of molesting one of them and then for her to say well I can't recollect of it was a dream or not. Would be insane. Then I would be in jailed for 45 years. That's a good way to get back at one of your enemies. Let me send my daughter to his house we can half ass a story of rape. And then he will do life. Sounds legit huh?

Anonymous said...

i believe hes innocent, the only thing i cant understand is while he was out on bail supposely him and his homeboy met up with some underage girls in new caney, even if he didnt do nothing with them why put urself in that position. i still think hes innocent of the crime hes in prison before, now whether ppl think he should be in prison because he got a 13 yr old pregnant then so be it but im sure that doesnt deserve a 45 yr prison sentence

Anonymous said...

The fact is when they "said" the little girl had bruise and abuse in some kinda way did they take any pics? No. why cuz they waited 10 days to file rape charge against carlos.now you tell me that! Why would u wait 10 days to file after the "assault" that tells me the parents wasn't worried about it till the 10th day! Here another question how do they know that carlos did it? It could of been the little girl father that had mosleted her! That what I would look into if he could be the victim of mosleting his little daughter..then blame it on carlos! Here another fact the jury that was in that court room where profiling and just criticizing his race by looking at the man. On other note did they even let carlos speak in then court room and let him told his story? That what I wanna know! Why didn't they let him speak if it was an only private court with no video recording? Something don't sound right if and only they didn't want anyone to know what really happen in the court room...... and. Eric I don't know you but u seem like u are rasict and selfish type of person and I'm sure u are white Cuz that how much of type of person you are to judged ppl. And if u say u can judged that person how or what u like I'm going to have to disagree with u!! The only man can judge is the man above and only him if it wasn't for him we wouldn't be here on the planet. So basiclly all this nonsense is bullshit and in court there job is to lie and not even let the truth get in the court room that how they want the system to be and they want it that way ..let's just say that the system like to be a dirty little bitch and everyone like how she work the dirty case ....so in the mean time do some more reading and searching for the truth not the answer.

ADawg.

Anonymous said...

They should interview the girl now or give her a polygraph test to see if she changes her story or see if her parents made her lie about the assault
!
FREE SPM

Eric said...

The things I miss while I'm gone.

Great, so we're working from the same information. The doubt I feel regarding his conviction is rooted in Harris County's history of false convictions; in the scandals of the Children's Assessment Center, the public humiliation they suffered when the crime lab was shut down. Where is your faith in their veracity coming from?

False convictions sometimes happen. Not just in Harris County, but throughout the country. They are rare though, and just because it has happened before it doesn't mean it happened here. I am not aware of any "scandals" the CAC was involved in. Nothing comes up on Google either. Maybe provide me a link? Regardless, even if some "scandal" did happen, are we going to assume every case the CAC has done is false? Where is your faith in Coy's innocence/wrongful conviction coming from, when Coy hasn't even given us his own side of the story?

Aw, gosh darn it. I work so hard to be cool, and then I go and screw it up. No, what I said was not incorrect. Here's the article: http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/2002_3544250/girl-says-alleged-assault-by-rapper-wasn-t-a-dream.html
Let me give you a play-by-play.
During the prosecutor's initial questioning, the girl states that she doesn't remember the incident and it could have been a dream. The exact phrasing of the question and answer are not quoted in the article, but it says she 'wasn't sure what had happened and thought it could have been a dream.'
That's statement number 1.
The prosecutor follows up with this: “Do you remember it clearly?”
The girl says “No.”
That's statement number 2.
From the article: Under cross-examination by defense lawyer Chip Lewis, the girl again said she was not really sure what had happened because she might have been dreaming.
That's statement number 3.
She wasn't sure what happened; she expressed doubt about whether it happened in reality, or in a dream. Show me where I said she couldn't remember it 'at all', because I don't think I've said that. The news articles are fairly clear about her statements that she couldn't remember it well, or clearly, and that she wasn't sure it had happened, so I'm going to go ahead and stick with 'she couldn't really remember the assault.'


Yes, I knew this was the article you were referring to. You said it yourself though: "The exact phrasing of the question and answer are not quoted in the article.."

Without knowing the context, we can only speculate. We really need Carlos or someone to provide us with the transcripts to clear this up. The dream bullshit has been going around for far too long. My opinion is that she said something along the lines of "I didn't know what was happening because I was so scared. It was so scary I thought maybe I was dreaming." Have you ever experienced something so traumatic, something so frightening, that for a second you thought maybe you were dreaming? I believe that is the context of what happened here. Mr. Lewis tried his best to twist her words around, but it didn't work. Also, you missed the most important part of that article:

During follow-up questioning, Oncken asked the girl to define a dream. The child described it as something that happens while a person is sleeping and is not real.

"What Carlos did to you - is that something that really happened?" Oncken asked.

"Yes," the girl said.

"Were you dreaming about this?" Oncken asked her.

"No," the girl answered.


The girl clarifies herself, and she makes it clear she wasn't dreaming.

Eric said...

There are a few articles that mention how confident she was on the stand, how clear and precise her testimony was. How is that possible if she couldn't remember it clearly? If she couldn't remember it clearly, how could she testify about it so clearly? If she's fuzzy on the details to the point where she's saying that it might very well have been a dream, how was she able to give a concise, step-by-step account of what happened?

My thoughts exactly. We need to see the transcripts to clear this up. I believe the scenario that I provided above will prevail.

I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as a 'libelous assumption.' You can have a false assumption, which is what my opinion might be, or a libelous statement, which it is not. A very libelous statement would be “Such-and-such manipulated her into lying, and that's why she says she can't really remember,” assuming it was false. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. I pointed out that, generally speaking, coming up with details about an event you didn't experience can be difficult, which is non-specific and very true.
The inference that I make, that she was unsure of details because she wasn't assaulted, might be libelous, except that I'm assuming that she actually believed the story and, in good faith, simply admitted she couldn't remember it clearly. So instead of saying something defamatory (i.e., she was lying) I'm saying she was confused.
My question is, why jump straight to a civil suit? Are you going to sue me out of my decrepit house and all the crappy possessions therein?


You know what you were inferring. You were inferring that she lied, was manipulated, fed information, etc. It was maliciously defamatory. You have no business even inferring that because there is no evidence whatsoever that she was coerced in any kind of way. She did in fact come up with specific details about the event, so again you are way off base here. Your civil suit question has me confused...not sure what your house or possessions have to do with this.

Eric said...

Of course I don't; if I did, the tagline of the blog wouldn't be 'Searching For The Truth Behind Carlos Coy's Conviction', it would be 'The Story Of How My Awesomeness And Insight Saved Carlos Coy From Continued Wrongful Incarceration.' or, alternately, 'How I Proved That Harris County Wrongfully Incarcerated A Famous Rapper, But Still Refuses To Admit Wrongdoing And Release Him, A La Michael Morton.'
A little wordy, perhaps. I'll keep working on it.


Then you need to shut the fuck up about it then. Once again, you have no business even implying that she lied about anything when no proof of that exists and when Carlos himself hasn't even given us his account of things. Also, the Michael Morton case happened in Travis County, not Harris.

You didn't get all this from 'South Park Monster'. Either you're embellishing what you've read in news accounts, or you have information I don't, so I can't really reply to it. How about sharing?

I believe most if not all of that can be found in South Park Monster. Another good article is this one though: http://rapidric.blogspot.com/2007/08/part-1-rise-fall-of-south-park-mexican.html
http://rapidric.blogspot.com/2007/08/part-2-rise-and-fall-of-south-park.html
http://rapidric.blogspot.com/2007/08/part-3-rise-and-fall-of-south-park.html

I think it's mighty big of you to give the State so much credit when a man's freedom is at stake, but me, personally? I know no such thing. I know that the reason kids are supposed to have the initial interview with a trained specialist is because it is so easy to screw it up. I know that the reason they are supposed to be recorded is because it is so easy to misrepresent what was said, to lean on a kid, knowingly or not, to get the story you want to hear. I know that there have been a few high-profile cases, and even more quietly resolved, less-publicized cases in which these problems lead to wrongful convictions. You can read through the blog for a few of them.

If proper procedure hadn't been followed, I'm sure Chip Lewis would have been all over it. There is no evidence of any foul play, so you can't just assume it. I'm getting tired of repeating that.

I already explained to you what circumstantial evidence is; it's evidence by inference. A + B could probably equal C. What you're referring to as circumstantial evidence is hearsay evidence, which is not allowed in any type of criminal case except molestation cases. Why? Because it's notoriously unreliable.
Just because the opinion comes from the mouth of a state-sanctioned expert doesn't make it reliable, especially when those experts are unfamiliar with what seems to be extremely pertinent aspects of the case, like the child's medical history.


Absolutely. The jury doesn't have to believe an expert, and obviously this jury was aware of that. Chip vigorously cross examined all of the experts, and he brought the girl's medical history into it, including her documented sleep disorders. Chip made it clear they didn't have to believe the experts, but it didn't matter. The girl's testimony, backed up by the testimony of experts, was too much, and it couldn't be contradicted. The jury decided it was all true.

Eric said...

But since you're obviously into cerebral exercises, imagine it was you being tried, just your word against that of a little girl, with “no physical evidence or witnesses.” Can you imagine watching as the state, with more money and influence than you'll ever have, tore you down piece by piece and took away everything that ever mattered based on the “accurate account of what happened that logically makes sense”, given by someone who can't even say with 100% certainty that it wasn't a dream?
Have you ever been punished for something you didn't do, Eric? Any event, even something from your childhood. Do you remember the feelings of helplessness and rage that resulted? Now, think of that undeserved punishment being meted out not just against you, but against your family, your children, your friends, your livelihood.
Imagine that, for just a minute, and then really consider if you're willing to give the state carte blanche to inflict that kind of suffering on an innocent person.


I have often envisioned myself being falsely accused of a crime and being on trial for it. I have more faith in the justice system than you do though. I believe the truth would set me free. I probably don't have enough money to hire Chip Lewis, but I don't think I would need a high profile lawyer to defend myself. If I am truly innocent, I believe my testimony and my credibility would prove my innocence. It's also very difficult for someone to falsely accuse someone and get away with it. It's hard for them to keep their story straight. This is why Michael Jackson's accusers failed in their trial. The "victim", and his family members kept contradicting themselves. They were not credible. Also fortunately for me, I have never impregnated a 13 year old, nor have I ever slept with anyone underage. So I would not have to worry about additional witnesses or charges that would come back to haunt me.

Uh, no shit. Not yet, anyway. See the previous paragraph about proof & taglines.
So what do I have? I have a strong feeling, like Heidi Ruiz. I have an opinion based on incomplete knowledge of the child's symptoms and history, like Susan Szczgielski. I have inferred from the past behavior of the Harris County D.A.'s office, much like the inferrence drawn from witnesses against Carlos Coy by the jury, that there has been a miscarriage of justice.
If that's enough to justify the original court case, I'd say it's enough to justify the struggle for a new trial.


No, it doesn't justify anything. Your "hunch" is off base, and nothing supports it. Are you really doing this for free, Incandesio? What a waste of time and energy. There are a lot more notable people/things than this no name rapper who is only notable for eating out a nine year old. I really think you should reconsider your stance and take up a new hobby.

Incandesio said...

Aw, you missed me That's cool. :-)

So far, your basic strategy has been to

a) not read the information I've gathered into the blog

b) decide this unread information is wrong and/or meaningless

c) tell me to shut the fuck up and stop asking questions.

One of us definitely needs a new hobby. Why don't you update yourself, at least familiarize yourself with the position of your opponent, and then we can continue?

DVD520 said...

Incandensio I think I was reading the transcripts back in 2010-2011. If Im correct the transcripts were a bit long right. Im pretty sure I was reading them.

Incandesio said...

DVD520: 6,000 pages; can I ask where you found it?

Eloy j. said...

Incandesio, I just wanted to share with u these lyrics from Carlos...it makes sence.." You seen me and didn't believe me, now look The World is listenin', the movement is here, the day is here. We ain't stoppin' homie! We just gettin' started! I see you jealous, hateful people wishin' the worst for us You'll pay like the last ones did! You'll pay for my freedom! We'll never be the same! You'll never catch up! I fight hate with love!"

Anonymous said...

Not sure about you guys but I've been accused of things that I've never done and believe me being truthfull does not help one bit if you got no proof of it! Seems to me that they convicted carlos not because he was guilty but because he didn't have enough proff to make a case for himself and therefore the jury felt like without it, the girls case seem more plausable. Amerikkkan justice for sure!

Anonymous said...

Y'all don't get it? Do y'all spm ain't gettin ima fan but we need to stop waitin for him to come home he aint appeal got denied so let's realize son of Norma been supposed to come out forever! Still hasn't dope house website shitty it's still has last chair violinist on front page and who knows of this guy even talks to spm! Dopehousr died when spm went to Prison Arthur Coy does the worst job of keepin Dopehouse alive y'all be real open ualls eyes

Anonymous said...

I sure did have to open my eyes, but to read your comment. Son, you need to use Commas ( , ) and Periods ( . ). Instead of making an argument about something you know nothing about, you should learn about Grammar. "Y'all" have a good day

Incandesio said...

Anon 3:59:
I can tell you for sure that I have never, ever, spoken to Carlos Coy...But I'm going to go ahead and keep doing what I'm doing; not because I know it will work, but because it's the right thing to do.

Anon 10:33:

You're awesome.

Incandesio said...

Eloy j:
Thanks for posting those lyrics, they are very motivational!

Eric said...

Incandesio, you should start a blog for Jerry Sandusky. They didn't have any physical evidence in his case either, and I think he claims he was framed by "the man" too. The arguments you use for Coy's case can also be used for Sandusky. Scary thought.

Incandesio said...

So that's a 'no' to my request that you familiarize yourself with my postion, I take it?

What similarities do you see between the Sandusky case and Coy's case? I'm fascinated by your association of the two.

Eric said...

I'm not sure what your position is anymore.

Similarities between the Sandusky case and Coy case:

1. No physical evidence.

2. Convicted based on testimony from victims.

3. Multiple charges against both.

4. Both defendants claim their accusers are lying.

5. Both defendants claim their accusers just want money, attention, etc.

6. Both defendants have family members that reported pedophile like behavior.

7. Both defense attorneys argued that prosecutors had concocted a conspiracy against the defendants among the victims.

8. Both defendants will most likely spend the rest of their lives in prison.

Incandesio said...

Eric:
Well, if you ever become interested in discovering my opinion, you can find it all laid out on the pages of the blog, with everything I've found that supports it. If I present new information, I try to make sure I can back it up.

You gave me some similarities that you see between the Sandusky case and Coy’s case. Here are a few key differences that I can see just from a very brief glance at the other case:

Sandusky was accused by multiple plaintiffs, about abuse that occurred over a period of 15 years; they described a similar pattern of grooming.

Sandusky, in what seems to be acknowledged as the classic pedophile method of operation, had an obvious avenue to gain access to his victims, the Second Mile program; apparently he used it extensively.

There was at least one eyewitness to abuse (McQueary), possibly more(an unnamed janitor).

One of Sandusky’s adopted children accused him of abuse.

There was evidence, in the form of emails, that there had been some kind of active cover-up on his behalf.

Sandusky was found guilty of 45 of the 48 charges.

He was sentenced to 60 years for 45 counts. Coy got 45 years for 1 count. Even allowing for the differences in location, either Sandusky got off easy or Coy got the book, the shelf, and the librarian thrown at him.

In the future, it may become apparent that Sandusky’s trial was unjust, and if that happens I hope he gets a new one; however, given what I’ve seen from one evenings research, that doesn’t appear to have been an issue.

Chikanita713 said...

I REEEAALLLLYYYY like how all these people that take the time out of their day to come on your blog only talk about the facts that would make it seem like Carlos was guilty. They don't read the transcripts of the trial, and they don't read anything other than these news articles that say,"Rapper = child molester lol kay bye." Or, they come on your blog and throw up that information and leave. No one ever talks about how Carlos fucked that girls mom back in the day around the time that she got pregnant with the girl that accused him of molesting her. Why the fuck would he touch someone that might be his fucking kid. Also, her mom obviously waited 10 days ON PURPOSE to go to the police. If your child was molested, and you didn't kill the motherfucker first, why in the hell would you wait 10 days to tell anyone. Being molested myself as a child, most people don't say shit until later on in life. So if a parent is lucky enough for their child to say something right after the incident, you would think they would take care of it that instant. The police even told the mom she didn't have a case because she waited too long. When she went to CPS, the only reason why it was taken was because he had a kid with a stripper (14 year old girl). I used to think he was guilty, too. Then I did my research and realized they fucked him over. The information just doesn't add up. You can't sit here and argue with people when you've only recieved biased information. If you've only read 'South Park Monster', then you need to either: A. Read Incandesio's blog, his appeal, 'The truth behind the SPM case', Other molestation cases in texas, etc. B. Find a hobby instead of trying to prove your arguments with one or two pieces of information. Incandesio, I love your blog. You do a great job, and I thank you for providing more information on his case.

Incandesio said...

Chikanita, I really appreciate everything you said; thanks for reading!

Eric said...

Corrections:

-Coy was also accused by multiple plaintiffs. He was able to get separate trials for them though.

-Coy used Dope House Records as an avenue for victims. Victims and friends of Coy reported that he would have sex with underage girls there. He also planned on creating a dance studio for kids.

-Coy's daughter said that he would suck on her nose and arms, which is consistent with a pedophile grooming a potential victim.

-As far as the sentencing goes, different jury, different judge, different state. If the same jury that sentenced Coy had sentenced Sandusky, I imagine they would have given him a lengthy sentence as well.

Incandesio said...

-Eric, if you have any evidence of anyone else who accused Coy bringing their case to trial, I'd love to see it.

-Sorry, but are you implying that Dope House was a popular hang-out for 9 year olds? As far as the dance studio, he addressed that question in the latest response.

-It's also consistent with a parent playing with their child. I can't even begin to tell you how many fingers, toes, belly buttons and yes, even noses, I have 'eaten.'

-You imagine? Do you have any frame of reference for this, or are you just guessing?

Eric said...

-Those cases never went to trial because he got convicted for the 9 year old. We've been over this.

-I never said anything about 9 year olds hanging out at Dope House. I said underage girls. And yeah, he has changed "dance studio" to "talent program" for "young people". The premise is the same though. I know you're not this naive, Incandesio.

-No, it's not. That's not what he was described as doing. Sucking on a child is very weird behavior. His daughter didn't like it, and his own wife would have to yell at him to stop. That doesn't even compare to what you are talking about.

-I think you can use common sense here. Obviously the same Houston jury didn't convict Sandusky. That doesn't need a reference.

Incandesio said...

-When they tried Sandusky, they didn’t try him for crimes against victim #1, sentence him, and then start a new trial for victims #2, #3, #4, etc. Why would they do that? It’s cheaper and more efficient to do it all at once, and each bit of evidence works together and supports the accusations.

If I’m reading the court documents correctly, Coy had 7 indictments against him before the trial, but was only ever tried for one. The prosecutors stated outright that they wanted a life sentence, so why wouldn’t they bring all the charges at once? Why would you handicap yourself like that? With all the victims coming forward, some claiming to have been abused while he was out on bail, why not roll four or five of them into one trial, and keep a couple back just in case he got off the first time?

-Then it’s not really relevant to whether or not he molested a nine-year-old, is it? Look, you wanted an explanation for this theoretical dance studio; he gave it, and now you’re saying ‘it’s the same premise.’ Let me point something out; you accept that Coy was talking about a much broader community program, although you insist that it’s the ‘same premise’, but you’re missing a larger point here. If Coy told the Doe family that he wanted to get this kid into a talent program, and then they turned around and swore in court that he’s trying to open a dance studio specifically for little girls, what would you call that? Lying? Exaggeration? Harmless dramatic license in the interest of True Justice? Help me out, here.
A few comments up, you said “If I am truly innocent, I believe my testimony and my credibility would prove my innocence” ..and then you accuse me of being naïve with (I assume) a straight face.

-If we’re going to start convicting people using idiosyncracies that are weird to you personally, I’m guessing I’d already be in prison simply for questioning this verdict. You say “it doesn’t even compare”, but didn’t even bother to make up an acceptable context, like you did when Jane Doe’s testimony didn’t support your point. Come on, work that fertile imagination a little bit.

-I was curious why you felt the sentences were comparable given the disparity of the charges, not looking for statistics or anything.