- 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
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!