Updated Thursdays

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Fal·la·cy, NOUN



A mistaken belief, esp. one based on unsound argument.
A failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.
Synonyms
mistake - error - fault - delusion - sophism


Eric said...
This is all bullshit. Just red herring defense tactics that weren't relevant to the case whatsoever. That's why the judge denied it. Even if it was allowed, it would not have changed the jury's opinion. The jury in the civil trial heard some of this bullshit, and they still decided Carlos was guilty. Ponder that for a moment.

 Incandesio said...
I'd rather ponder your claim to know what would and would not have swayed the jury.
Now I'm pondering the possibility that you're actually a psychic;

I pointed out on the last post you commented on that the civil jury was handed a case that was already decided; if what SPM has written is true, they weren't allowed to decide whether or not Carlos was guilty, only what he should have to pay under the assumption that he was. 25k, a paltry amount, x 0. That's not exactly a ringing indictment of a dangerous child molester.

Eric said...
Is 25K really a paltry amount? What kind of bankroll do you have?

Anyway, no, I don't think Carlos is telling us the whole truth, as per usual. According to this Chron article (http://www.chron.com/entertainment/music/article/Family-of-South-Park-Mexican-victim-awarded-1935238.php), "the jury last week unanimously concluded that Coy acted with malice when he molested the girl."

So that should tell you right there that the jury agreed that he was guilty. And think about it, if the jury truly believed he was an innocent man like Carlos claims, then they could have awarded the family zero dollars.

"Eleven of the 12 jurors voted to spare Coy from paying any punitive damages."

At least one juror thought he should have been punished further. Personally, I think he had already been punished enough. I can understand making him pay for past and future therapy (hence the 25K), but there is no need for punitive damages since he had already been sentenced for 45 years, an adequate punishment. I think most of the jury thought the same.

But this is what I find most interesting. In a civil trial, the defendant is required to take the stand. He can't hide behind his lawyer. I would be fascinated to read the transcripts from the civil trial when Carlos took the stand. I would be fascinated to read his deposition too. Think about the goldmine of information we could obtain from that. Finally a chance to read his side of the story, since he hasn't been willing to tell us for over 11 years now. Did he actually admit his involvement? Or did he continue to deny the allegations? Even if the judge ruled that they had to presume he was guilty, Carlos still had the right to deny that and say he was innocent. We need those transcripts, Incandesio. Can you get them?


Once again, I find myself drawn into a discussion of the civil trial by the actions of Eric, this blog’s #1 most-beloved gadfly.

He’s left variations of this argument on a few different posts, and I asked him to go ahead and sum it up for me, which he has not done; he’ll have to be happy with my translation of his arguments:

Argument #1: Two juries decided Coy was guilty, the criminal jury and the civil jury! Coy is obviously lying when he says that the civil jury was forced by the court to view him as guilty!

Dude...in the article you quoted, the defense attorney says “They had to presume some level of actual damages” (emphasis mine.) But okay, we know that you believe defense attorneys are a bunch of unprincipled scumbags.

From the jury instructions signed January 28, 2005:

Mr. Coy has previously been convicted of aggravated sexual assault on [Jane Doe], and that conviction is now final. As a result, the Plaintiff is not required to produce any evidence of Mr. Coy’s liability for actual damages, and the only issues for your consideration are those set forth in Question 1...

...Question 1: What sum of money, if paid now in cash, would fairly and reasonably compensate [Jane Doe] for her injuries, if any, that resulted from the occurrence in question?

There you have it, Eric. You propped up your fallacious and unsupported argument with the assertion that Coy is not “telling us the whole truth, as per usual”, without bothering to do the minimal amount of research it takes to uncover these same documents, thoughtfully provided free of charge by Harris County.

The civil jury convicted him of nothing. They were specifically instructed not to let ‘bias, prejudice, or sympathy’ affect their decisions; they were only allowed to answer the questions put to them using the evidence provided.

I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who draws a wrong conclusion from legal documents through misunderstanding; I’m a reasonably intelligent person, but half the time it’s like swimming through pudding trying to comprehend the meaning behind all the legalese and lawyer-speak; but for you to come over here dropping obviously, demonstrably wrong arguments on post after post like so many dog turds across my lawn...I don’t like it, Eric. Do better.


Argument #2: 25K is a perfectly reasonable amount for damages! How can you say it’s “paltry”? What are you, some kind of rich fuck?!?

 Ha ha, my bankroll; it's more of a bankflat, actually. But my use of the word paltry has nothing to do with what I have, and everything to do with what the family's lawyer expected to get. I'll talk about that in a minute.

You quoted a newspaper article: "the jury last week unanimously concluded that Coy acted with malice when he molested the girl."

So that should tell you right there that the jury agreed that he was guilty. And think about it, if the jury truly believed he was an innocent man like Carlos claims, then they could have awarded the family zero dollars.

In answer, I draw your attention to this portion of the document mentioned above:

A “yes” answer must be based upon a preponderance of evidence. If you do not find that a preponderance of the evidence supports a “yes” answer, then answer “no”.

Is it possible to commit the aggravated sexual assault of a child without malice? No, it’s not. The jury was instructed not to look at the case as a whole, but to focus in on each question and answer it without regard to the outcome.

Is it possible for a molested child to have suffered no harm? No, it’s not. Because they had to treat the conviction as an accurate account of what had happened, they were legally obligated to compensate for the suffering that would have occurred. Interestingly enough, by finding malice, they opened him up to sky-high exemplary damages.

I notice that you take the argument of the Doe family’s lawyer for your own; that, since Carlos Coy was already sentenced to 45 years, they felt he didn’t need to be punished anymore. But the fact is, that same lawyer expected this lawsuit to have a major payout.
In the Civil Case Information Sheet, filed 9-4-2002, he clearly stipulated that he was seeking damages over $100,000. According to Coy, when his lawyer explained that he would automatically be presumed guilty and recommended he settle:

“I know you don’t want to hear this, but you may want to think about giving them an offer to avoid taking this to court. I think you should talk to your brother and come up with something that’s good for you. I understand that you don’t want to give these people a dime, but you’ve got to weigh out the situation. You could lose everything you’ve ever worked for, and then some.”

The next weekend, I spoke to Tudy. I explained that the fight would be lost even before we put the gloves on. We decided that the smartest thing to do was to make an offer. This was one of the lowest points in my life; having to pay people money who didn’t work for it, and for damn sure didn’t deserve it. We agreed that $300,000 was more than fair, and something we could handle.

A week later, Tudy wrote me and told me that our lawyer gave their lawyer the offer, and their lawyer started laughing. There would be no deal and the trial was locked in.”


He laughed at the idea of $300,000. The Cause of Action, a copy of which is attached to the Defendant’s Amended Motion to Release Documents filed on 8-3-2004, states:

“...Plaintiffs suggest such punitive damages should greatly exceed any actual damages by as much as tenfold.” (emphasis mine)


If my reading of the Texas Civil Code section 41.008 is correct, there was no cap on the amount of damages, so, yeah, compared to what the Doe family’s lawyer apparently thought this case was worth, 25K is a minimal amount.

Really, the exemplary damages seem like the only part of the settlement for which the jury was allowed to make an informed decision; the only time they were asked to consider (from the aforementioned document):

a. the nature of the wrong

b. the character of the conduct involved

c. the degree of culpability of the wrongdoer

d. the situation and sensibilities of the parties concerned

e. the extent to which such conduct offends a public sense of justice and propriety

f. the net worth of Carlos Coy

They were ordered to answer in dollars and cents; their answer, as we know, was zero. A big ol’ goose egg.

Argument #3: Eric really, reeeeeally wants to read what Coy said during the civil trial and asks, “We need those transcripts, Incandesio. Can you get them?”

We need them? Eric, as much as I adore the idea of playing your pal Gal Friday on this Epic Journey into The Goldmine of What You Believe Might Have Been Said, I have to wonder why someone who professes to have so much interest in and knowledge of this case is so unfamiliar with the facts of it.

I mean, you’re willing to dig up an ancient, dust-covered, barely coherent accusation made by an anonymous poster on an obscure brown-pride forum to support your views, but you can’t be bothered to take a look at the easily-available government documents that would prove your entire premise is bullshit, and willfully ignorant bullshit at that.

I don’t need the civil transcripts. Your obsessive desire for them appears to spring out of  nothing more than voyeuristic avarice; if you got them, I suspect you would read them the same way you read this blog, discounting what does not support your opinion as lies and imagining “context” that makes supporting evidence seem more damning than is reasonable.

Eric, you may accuse me of faking these documents; if that has occurred to you, I sincerely invite you to abandon your penchant for sophistry and actually do some damn research. We both know that you’re smarter than the average bear and if I can find these documents, then so can you.

38 comments:

Angela Niño said...

Incandesio pulled TKO!

Anonymous said...

Talking about a tko round one in 15 sec its a records great job incandesio u coundent make more clear than that

Incandesio said...

Angela, Anon, I really appreciate the kind words!

Gil Breed said...

Gave it to em like a champ lmao

Meskinkid said...

Damn written words caused more damage than physical violence lol eric got told. Mayne thats why I dont like arguin with smart people lol unless I know im right.

Valluco said...

25 questions on my dresser, yes sir. ( 25 Questions for Spm)

1. Is your 3rd wife born yet?
2. Did lobo get his raise?
3. Are you still married to the streets?
4. Are you still stronger then the law?
5. Tupac or Biggie?
6. Is your mom still saving aluminum cans?
7. Did you throw away your gats?
8. Are you a bird or a plane?
9. Who had you running thru the ghetto?
10. Who's over there?
11. Does anything still go on your block?
12. vogues or 24s?
13. How did you get your revenge, cranium or chest plate?
14. Who are you currently married to Mary Jane, the streets or Gina?
15. How sweet was your revenge?
16. What you go to the valley for?
17. Did you find your charger?
18. Did you win the Cannibus cup?
19. Where are you from; City of Dank, South Park, Revellie Park, Houston, Houstone or Hillwood?
20. I heard you were a baker. What kinda cookies and cakes do you make?
21. Do you still remain malicious?
22. Do you have a 4th wish?
23. Are you the son of a gun or the son of norma?
24. Did you find the blunt? I got one in case you still looking.
25. Is 13 your number from the right team? if not. How long was 13 your number from the right team?




ps. Somebody please deliver this message to Sp

Anonymous said...

incandesio is it true that if carlos would of said he was guilty he would of only revieved 5 yrs instead of 45 -hector

Incandesio said...

That what he said:

"When the DA offered five years for both Jane Doe’s and Jill Odom’s case, I told my lawyer, “I’ll take ten years for my son, but I won’t say I did something that I didn’t do.” "

You can read the whole letter here: http://www.spmaftermath.com/2012/11/spm-responds-part-10a.html

Eric said...

TKO'd in only one Round? Nah, this is gonna go the full 12.

"A “yes” answer must be based upon a preponderance of evidence. If you do not find that a preponderance of the evidence supports a “yes” answer, then answer “no”.

Is it possible to commit the aggravated sexual assault of a child without malice? No, it’s not. The jury was instructed not to look at the case as a whole, but to focus in on each question and answer it without regard to the outcome.

Is it possible for a molested child to have suffered no harm? No, it’s not. Because they had to treat the conviction as an accurate account of what had happened, they were legally obligated to compensate for the suffering that would have occurred. Interestingly enough, by finding malice, they opened him up to sky-high exemplary damages."


The fact of the matter, the jury could have answered "No" to those questions. You're trying to make it sound like the jury was forced to answer "Yes", but that's simply not the case. If they truly believed he was innocent, or if they didn't believe the girl's story, they could have shown their disdain by answering "No". That to me would be the clearest indicator that the jury believed him to be an "innocent man" like Carlos claims. The argument that the jury not awarding the family for exemplary damages proves that they believed Carlos was innocent is the only fallacy I see here. Do you not see how dubious that logic is? There are reasonable explanations for not awarding the family exemplary damages. I mentioned the main one already, but I think the net worth of Carlos should also be questioned. The family lawyer said Carlos didn't have any money left. I guess good ol' Chip drained that pedo's bank account. How sad.

Eric said...

"I don’t need the civil transcripts....blah blah blah..."

This response truly shocks me. Not to mention, it makes me highly suspicious. You claim you are seeking justice, trying to find the truth, whatever. You want to prove Carlos is innocent, you want him to receive a new trial, etc. But you don't care to discover his side of the story? Say what?!

Maybe you're scared what you might find. Or maybe you've already read the civil transcripts, and you know Carlos admitted his involvement. That might hurt your stance a little bit, haha.

As for me obtaining the transcripts, I believe it costs money to order those transcripts. I'm not going to waste my money on this idiot's case. He was already found guilty, so I don't have to prove anything. If Carlos and his supporters want to prove his innocence, the ball is in their court. It is their job now to prove his innocence, but I don't think it's going to happen.

Incandesio, am I correct to assume that you yourself have not obtained any of the transcripts? You're his main crusader of hope, trying to prove he deserves this and that, but you haven't even ordered the transcripts from his trials? Shame on you.

Anonymous said...

Fuck you Eric you sure don't waste money on transcript but u sure waste time on spm blog time is priceless so thank you for spending time on the blog and posting your non sense shitty comments .shame on you


blaze956

Eric said...

I come here once or twice a month to pluck the wings off some flies. I am a true crime aficionado. This is one of several cases that I debate. I enjoy intelligent discussion. You should try it sometime.

Incandesio said...

Heh heh heh...Whenever my phone notification goes '*ding*ding*ding*' non-stop for an hour I know Eric's out there, somewhere, completely losing his shit. :-D

I'll write up a reply to this later; today's my anniversary!

Anonymous said...

Incandesio congrats on your anniversary , and let Eric aka Mr.crime.aficionado on a coma ,guess the tko was not enough for this fucking douche bag, HELLO NO EVIDENCE,

ps: a gift to u from spm s.o.n. snippet /single on May 3 2013 u know u be bumbing his muzic that's y u come and get the 411 once or twice a month so u can be update on Carlos coy projects ,plucking wings off some flys s.m.h. is that all u got intelligent yeah what eves... that's what my little boy would say cause messing with miss incandesio is like messing around with an American Bold Eagle .....


blaze956

Eric said...

Incandesio, you should be glad I come here. Without me you would just have bunch of replies that say, "hell yea, free los!! la raza united like a chucho! incandesio, you dun gunna be my bottum bitch 2nite!"

Incandesio said...

Eric; regarding your first reply...This the equivelant of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling. I feel like I did an adequate job explaining it to you, but I(still!) can't understand it for you.

Regarding your second reply: again, a principle I have unsuccessfully tried to explain to you before. If you were to present me with conclusive evidence of Carlos Coy's guilt, that still wouldn't change the problems I see with his criminal trial. My belief in his innocence makes my argument more pleasant, but it's not what defines it.

As you say, he was already convicted, and you don't have to prove anything; perhaps you should reflect, then, on why you're so desperate to validate your feelings with unsupported accusations and imagined proof.

Your prissy attempt at a 'Shame on you' notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure that if my interests and needs ever coincide with yours, that'll be a sign that I'm doing something very, very wrong.

Regarding your third reply: Of course I'm glad you come here! Did you not see your official designation as the blog's Most Beloved Gadfly? You hold a special place...maybe not in my heart, but definitely in one of my vital organs; the spleen, perhaps?

Incandesio said...

Blaze956:

Thank you very much for the kind words, I really appreciated your comment!

Eric said...

I think the feeling is mutual. I understand your arguments, the problem though is that they are wrong. Do you at least understand my arguments? The jury in the civil trial could have answered "No" to those questions, and/or they could have awarded the family an extremely low amount, as low as $0. That's not difficult to understand, right? Claiming that Carlos won the civil trial or that the jury believed him to be an innocent man is a straight up lie.

I know you want him to receive a new trial, but I still haven't seen any harmful errors in the original trial. The Supreme Court obviously didn't either since they affirmed his conviction.

Now, you not caring to see the original transcripts is something I don't understand at all. You have no interest in reviewing the transcripts? Even though you claim to have so many problems with the original trial? That makes no sense to me, and it makes me wonder what ulterior motives you may have.

Incandesio said...

Eric, the arguments you made, that I answered, were that TWO juries convicted Coy, that 25k in damages with 0 for exemplary was perfectly reasonable, and that I should get you the transcripts you so covet.

I showed you were wrong; I backed my point up with quotes from, and filing dates of, the appropriate public documents. Then I berated you for not doing the most basic research which could have prevented you from making a foolish argument over and over again.

Since you apparently can't admit that you were a) wrong, and b) publicly and humiliatingly wrong, you're trying to change the discussion into whether or not the award of '0' proves anything, which is an argument that no one is making. You can infer what you like from it, but it doesn't prove anything except that the jury, after carefully considering the nature of the crime, the sensitivity of the child, the amount of outrage against the public good that was committed, and the net worth of Carlos Coy, decided that he should be punished to the extent of 0 dollars.

Do I understand that you are trying to attribute to me a foolish argument that you can easily refute? yes, I do. However, I reject your entire premise and can only chuckle at your ham-handed attempts to set me up with a straw man.

I am not surprised that you do not understand why I do not feel your burning desire to read the civil transcripts, and thus I feel no need to reiterate the reasons I posted earlier. I would, however, be fascinated to hear what you think my 'ulterior motives' are. You like to concoct fantastical stories to explain things that don't agree with your worldview, and I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Eric said...

Incorrect. I never used the word "convicted". I said two juries agreed that he was guilty of molesting the girl. This is obvious based on the answers to those questions. You are only the one who is trying to attribute me to arguments that I'm not making. Like always, I have debunked you in each and every point.

Wow, Incandesio, you were right about one thing though. I should have gone to the Harris County website sooner. I just went there and looked at some of those documents. It looks like you skipped a very important part of Question 2, and you definitely did it deliberately. Let me educate your ignorant readers.

Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that the harm to (the victim) for which you awarded damages resulted from the conduct of Carlos Coy?

“Clear and convincing evidence” means the measure or degree of proof that produces a firm belief or conviction of the truth of the allegations sought to be established.

“The conduct of Carlos Coy” means the unlawful and intentional or knowing aggravated sexual assault of Olivia Stout for which Carlos Coy has previously been convicted.

Answer “yes” or “No.”

Answer: Yes.


Game. Set. Match.

Eric said...

Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that the harm to (the victim) resulted from malice?

“Clear and convincing evidence” means the measure or degree of proof that produces a firm belief or conviction of the truth of the allegations sought to be established.

“Malice” means: (a) A specific intent by Carlos Coy to cause substantial injury to (the victim); or (b) An act or omission of Carlos Coy;

(i) Which when viewed objectively from the standpoint of Carlos Coy at the time of its occurrence involves an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others; and

(ii) Of which Carlos Coy had actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceeds with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others.

Answer “Yes or “No”

Answer: Yes


Why did you omit this, Incandesio?

Incandesio said...

Oh, Lord have mercy.

Forgive me for mis-paraphasing my original paraphrase of your original argument. I said, you said(in essence), "Two juries decided Coy was guilty, the criminal jury and the civil jury! Coy is obviously lying when he says that the civil jury was forced by the court to view him as guilty!"

I showed you that the jury was, in fact, prohibited from deciding his guilt, and told to come with a sum to award for actual damages. You choose to view their award of money as evidence that they saw him as guilty.

I pointed out to you that, by finding malice based, presumably, on their orders to consider his conviction valid, they opened him up to un-capped exemplary damages.

Then, you start arguing (with yourself, apparently) that no one could possibly view that as meaning anything.

And now you're asking me why I didn't include more text from the documents that, if viewed in whole, simply serves to reinforce my point that they were only allowed to consider the questions individually, and not the case as a whole.

Incandesio said...

Dadgummit, I cut the main point out of my own reply! :-)

Let's try this again:

+++
I pointed out to you that, by finding malice based, presumably, on their orders to consider his conviction valid, they opened him up to un-capped exemplary damages. +These damages came to a grand total of 0 dollars.+

Then, you start arguing (with yourself, apparently) that no one could possibly view that as meaning anything.

And now you're asking me why I didn't include more text from the documents that, if viewed in whole, simply serves to reinforce my point that they were only allowed to consider the questions individually, and not the case as a whole.
+++

Addendum:

You really should read through all the documents available online, especially the court's charge to the jury. It's pretty impressive.

Anonymous said...

ok eric so what if olivia stout came on this blog and said the assault did not happen, would u still claim that hes guilty. i know if olivia stout came out publicly and said that it wasnt true that prolly still wouldnt help carlos get out of prison. but shes old enough. i would like to hear what she has to say about what really happened.

Anonymous said...

In order to have an intelligent discussion, you must be intelligent first. You, obviously, get your information from newspapers and don't actually do more research. Newspapers are like a dirty surface of info that YOU barely scratch and if you base all of your "intelligent discussions" on that kind of information, then you must be debating with Gomer Pile. If you really enjoyed debating and proving facts, then you would actually dig deeper for real information. You're also what i like to call a "puppet". You say you won't waste your money on transcripts but you'll waste your time on free media that can say what they want, truth or lies, to form a view on something?? Puppet. To achieve anything, mentally or physically, you must put in effort and work. FREE SPM!!! (and fuck eric)-beanieman

Anonymous said...

"The average man can't prove of most of the things
that he chooses to speak of and still won't research and find out the root of the truth that you seek of."-Damian Marley

Eric said...

Don't shove words in my mouth. I never said Carlos was lying about the jury being "forced" to view him as guilty. I said Carlos is lying about the jury believing him to be an innocent man. Let's try this again.

1. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that the harm to (the victim) for which you awarded damages resulted from the conduct of Carlos Coy?

Jury Answer: Yes

2. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that the harm to (the victim) resulted from malice?

Jury Answer: Yes

The jury was presented with these two questions. Incandesio, do you understand that the jury had the right to answer "No" to these questions? The fact that the jury answered "Yes" to these questions is a pretty clear indicator that they believed he was guilty as sin. Do you understand that? Carlos claiming that the jury believed him to be an "innocent man" is a bald faced lie.


Eric said...

I can't believe I'm being criticized for not obtaining the transcripts. I'm not the one with the blog making bullshit claims about injustice and unfair trials. The blame should be put on Incandesio. It's shameful that she has the nerve to claim that the original trial was unfair, but she hasn't even reviewed the transcripts. Then she gives a response that makes no sense whatsoever, especially considering her position. There is no excuse for her to not obtain those transcripts. The same goes to all of you supporters out there as well. You want to prove some injustice occurred? Get the transcripts, and post them online. Unfortunately for you, it's going to backfire, and you might come to a full understand on how Carlos was found guilty.

Eric said...

Beanieman, enlighten me. Tell me about the deep research you have done regarding this case. Have you ordered the transcripts? If not, why?

Incandesio said...

Eric, what you continually, willfully fail to see is that the jury was told to consider his guilt as an established fact; if the action took place, then there must have been harm, there would have had to have been malice.

And I don't believe Carlos Coy ever claimed it was a fact that the jury refused to punished him because they believed he was innocent, but that it was his opinion.

Try to keep up, please.

I really don't know how I can break it down any further for you; the family was not required to offer any proof of the truth of their claims. After that has been established, things like harm and malice are logical to infer. My goal is to bring that accepted conviction into question.

If you don't want people to ridicule you for not getting the transcripts, stop saying things like "Well, if we could see the transcripts, I think we'd find (insert something that supports your point)." I've always been up-front about the fact that I can't afford to get a copy of the relevant, criminal transcripts, so your slack-jawed bewilderment that I have no interest in the transcripts from an extraneous case is more an indicator of your projected narcissism than my intentions.

After all, if it interests you, it logically follows that it interests everybody, everywhere, right?

Incandesio said...

Eric, re your 5:19:

Dude, you JUST NOW bothered to look up the public records of the civil trial, and only because I brow-beat you into it. Let's not get too full of ourselves, hmm?

Anonymous said...

eric sounds like he likes his ankles behind his neck...

Anonymous said...

You must want to be enlightened to gain knowledge. If anything, my last sentence in my reply above should enlighten you. I've been a long time SPM fan but, child molestation is sickening so i look at this with an unbiased mind and heart. Yes i've done research about this trial. Using that info and using my knowledge of how some people will do anything to gain something, even ruin lives, i came to an educated conclusion. Your problem is being able to look past the surface of things. FREE SPM!!!-beanieman

Eric said...

The jury may have been told to presume his guilt based on his conviction in the original trial, however, the jury had every right to reject that presumption of guilt if they didn't find the evidence/testimony convincing. Why do you think the jury was presented with Yes or No questions? I'm going to ask you this again even though I know you'll just dance around it. Do you understand that the jury had the right to answer "No" to those questions?

It appears that the family did present evidence in the civil case. The victim took the stand again, and at least one therapist from the criminal trial testified in the civil trial.

I never thought to look at the civil documents because the main focus has always been the criminal case. I'm glad I did though. I'm not sure why you encouraged me to find the civil documents since I just found more information to debunk you, not to mention I found information that you were deliberately concealing from your followers.

As for the transcripts, no, I don't see how it's my responsibility to order them. I'll tell you what though. I plan on making a trip to Houston in a few weeks. If you want, we can go to the courthouse, we can order the transcripts, and we can split the cost 50-50. Afterwards, we can go drink some martinis. Sound good?

Incandesio said...


Yup, that's how I hide things. By posting about them on my blog.

Keep reading the civil trial documents; eventually you'll figure out why I not only am not hiding them (which would be difficult, considering they're on a public website not under my control), but actively encouraged you to find them. Nose to the grindstone, etc.

This is the second time you've tried to meet with me, Eric; you have accused me of being a liar, a pedophile enabler, a paid hack, a 'bottom bitch' (whatever that may be), and now you want to go halvsies on some legal documents and then take me out for martinis, the Official Cocktail of the Insufferably Pretentious Under-25 crowd?

I'm going to go with...no.


And seriously, dude, martinis? Let me recommend a few nice bourbons for you: Four Roses, 1792, Fighting Cock, and Old Crow. Stop drinking nasty shit.

Eric said...

You didn't post those specific questions on your blog. I had to post them for you, and then you hemmed and hawed, just like Carlos did when he took the stand during his punishment phase.

It's nice to meet a chick who can drink her whiskey. My apologies for assuming you were more of a girly girl. It was a friendly offer to show that I have no bad feelings towards you.

Your unwillingness to order the transcripts speaks volumes about your true agenda though. If you truly cared about ensuring that the trial was fair, that justice was served, etc, you would get the transcripts, especially since I offered you a great deal. It's obvious now that your true objective is simply to spread Dopehouse propaganda. I believe strongly that you are being paid by them, if not with money, maybe with concert tickets. Who knows. All I know is that you don't care about the truth or justice. That is more than clear at this point.

Incandesio said...

So when I conceded the finding of actual malice in the original post, you felt instead of agreeing that they had found it, I should've argue with you? I'd already read it beforehand and didn't realize you would be so excited to have an actual court document to back up your point. For once.

As far as what it tells you about the mindset of the jury, all I can tell you is to keep reading what's available, keep looking into civil trial law, and eventually maybe you'll get why I had, and have, no fear of you seeing the public documents.

I'm glad you have no bad feelings toward me but, really, why would you? I approach you as a fellow sentient being, who is capable of growth and learning. I make multiple good faith efforts to explain complex legal concepts like the inevitability of emotional damage as a result of predetermined assault; you, on the other hand, continuously accuse me of lying, of being paid, and basically being an atrociously vile human being who only wants to see evil men freed so that they can continue to victimize the innocent.

You can't even believe I'm intelligent to understand the concept of a 'yes' or 'no' question without your help; if you did, you might start to wonder why I, as fellow thinking creature, am urging you to consider how an order from the court to view the crime as fact could influence the answer to the aforementioned question.

So, while I'm glad you're pleased to meet a chick who can drink her whiskey, I'm afraid I have no desire to drink it with you. It's not bad feelings on my part, it's just good taste.

OGP said...

I think i can help, even from way over yonder in Colorado... my name is Jorge Perez, i have big help, that i would love to introduce You too.....i would give U my #, but not here... When it's possible for U, please find me on Facebook..... GOD bless and for the Haters Carlos Coy is free on the inside, thanks be to JESUS CHRIST...