I received a 42(!) page legal letter from Coy, which I will start posting next week. Before we get to that, I want to talk a little bit about the media coverage of the case. The papers that covered the case most extensively were the Houston Chronicle, which I refer to often, and the Houston Press, which I use less because of the horrific revisionism in the piece, ‘South Park Monster’. I just don’t trust what they printed.
Most of us don’t give a shit about court cases that don’t involve us, and even if they do spark our interest it would be unusual for us to sit in on one. We rely on the media to let us know if something when there’s a giant clusterfuck going on, we expect to be told when there’s something to be outraged about.
Most of the coverage of Coy’s case focused on the enormity of the accusations against him, and very little on the trial. They didn’t go into a lot of detail about how the prosecution was proving it’s case. I’ve uncovered a little bit of it, and Coy has gone into more detail with the transcripts. This is 12 years after the height of the publicity...What could have been reported while the trial was still going on? How could uncovering this stuff have made a difference in the outcome?
Keep that in mind over the next few weeks, as you read Coy’s new legal letter. These inconsistencies could have, should have, been publicized years ago.