Continued from Part 2.a
It’s obvious that not even Ruiz, the investigating officer, believed this “assault” took place. If she would have, then she would’ve, at least, attempted to collect evidence. “Slobber” means excessive saliva, and saliva is full of a person’s DNA. That’s why physical evidence is so important, because you can’t argue with DNA.
Here’s D.A. Oncken questioning Ruiz about evidence. (Note: For the record, there was no evidence in my trial. I was convicted solely on rehearsed testimony.)
(Court Transcripts Volume 12 of 31 pgs. 6-9)
Q. Okay. All right. And did you also – have you also at some point reviewed medical records from Texas Children’s Hospital in regard to a neurological visit with a neurologist that the child had back in January of 2001?
Q. Okay. So, you’ve reviewed all of these records. Has any of that changed your opinion in regard to your decision that was made in regard to filing charges?
Mr. Lewis (my lawyer): Objection, Your Honor. We covered this in ruling earlier as to opinion testimony from this witness.
The Court (the judge): Overruled.
Q. (By Ms. Oncken) You can answer the question.
A. I believe charges of aggravated sexual assault of a child by contact with the Defendant’s mouth and the complainant’s vaginal area should have been filed.
Q. All right. Now, Officer Ruiz, we talked a little bit about the recovery of clothing of the child. And I believe yesterday your testimony was is that at the time when you asked the mother about the location of the clothing, specifically the panties of the child, your indication was what at that point in time?
A. I had been advised that they had been washed.
Q. Okay. Was there any reason to recov – recover the washed clothing at that time?
Q. And why is that?
A. Based on the training that I have received regarding DNA, when an article of clothing is washed the DNA is washed away from it as well.
Q. Now, Officer Ruiz, having learned what you did in regard to your decision as far as filing charges of aggravated sexual assault, Defendant’s mouth contacting child’s sexual organ, what about any type of recovery of the bed clothing where the offense occurred?
A. That was a judgment call and based on my investigation and having learned from speaking with the complainant’s – I’m sorry, the Defendant’s daughter, that the Defendant had actually slept in that bed, I determined that there – it would be unuseful to have that bed clothing recovered. It would be impossible for me to explain where the evidence came from and the time frame.
Q. So, in other words, you would expect to have found some evidence from him in that bed having the information you did that he slept in that bed?
Q. After the offense occured?
You’ll see, when Chip questions Ruiz, that even after washing clothes DNA can still be found. But let me go to what Ruiz said about her talking to my daughter, and learning that I had slept on that bed, and that’s why Ruiz felt it was useless to collect the bedding.
First of all, I never once slept in my daughter’s bed. If I did, who gives a fuck, but I never have. Her bed was too small and way too high off the ground. When I sleep, I move around like crazy. I’ve kicked my wife many times, elbowed her, sometimes I wake up on the floor, or on the opposite side of the bed. It’s just the way I sleep. But here’s my point:
Over a month after I was accused of this assault, these low-down tramps snatched my baby from her elementary school. She was only six-years-old, and it was the most terrifying moment of my life. My wife called me screaming, “They took Carley! They took Carley!”
I was, like, “Who!? Who took her!?”
When I realized it was the D.A. and Ruiz, I felt some relief, but my wife was still hysterical. I said, “Gina, calm down. The stupid bitches probably just want to question her.”
And I was right. These hoes questioned my baby for almost two hours, trying to get her to say anything that would help their fraud-ass case, anything that would make me look bad.
My baby told them that she didn’t like when I got on top of her and sucked on her nose, or her arm, and that I would bite her shoulders, or something like that. She said she didn’t like my beer breath. lol!
First of all, I would kiss her on the nose, I would kiss my wife’s nose, and my little boy’s. I love a cold nose, it’s a habit I have. I used to kiss my mom’s and my sister’s nose, when I was a kid.
Also, sometimes when I played with my baby, I would act like a ferocious animal, growling and then attacking. I would shake my head, rubbing my face into her shoulder or neck. She would laugh, then yell for Mommy. But I never actually bit my baby, are you nuts? But Carley was only six-years-old, surrounded by a pack of dogs encouraging her to say something, anything bad about me.
They used what my baby said to say that I was “grooming” her for a future assault. Evidently, child molesters do a thing called grooming, in which they prepare a child to be molested, and their goal was to make me look like a child molester.
When I heard their “professional”, some dumbass psychiatrist, say that I was grooming my daughter, tears of rage began to run down my face. How dare they stoop so fucking low.
Chip got their professional to admit that I did nothing out of the ordinary, nothing a normal parent doesn’t do when playing with their kids. Let me show you that real quick.
(Court Transcripts Volume 22 of 31 pg. 65)
Q. Now, you’re talking about when he was on the floor with her playing and wrestling, he was on top of her?
Q. And that during these playing and wrestling he sucked on her arm and nose?
A. Yes. That’s what I recall.
Q. And she made the statement that his breath would smell of beer and she wanted him to stop when he did that?
Q. So, she would call out to her mom, “Mom make him stop”?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. You would agree with me, wouldn’t you, Doctor, that that type of activity is just as consistent with normal parents playing with their children?
A. Yes, it could be.
I’m glad Chip got that straight because I literally wanted to tear that hoe limb from limb. Let’s get back on track.
Ruiz said she didn’t collect the sheets because my daughter told her I had slept in that bed. How they even got her to say that, I have no idea, but that’s probably one of the reasons they took her that day. They knew they would need an excuse as to why they didn’t even try to collect evidence. They needed her to say I slept in that bed. But this is how you know Ruiz was full of shit: Because whether I slept in that bed or not, they didn’t question my daughter till almost two months after I was accused of this crime.
Cops don’t wait six or seven weeks before they decide to collect evidence. They begin immediately, that same day, because every second is precious. Ruiz is saying she didn’t do it because of what she heard in an interview that took place a month and a half later? Please, woman.
Unfortunately, no one picked up on this bullshit. I guess, being in the heat of a trial, things just go over your head.
Here’s Chip questioning Ruiz about the same subject of evidence the D.A. asked her about.
(Court Transcripts Volume 12 of 31 pgs. 29-34)
Q. Based on your understanding and your experience with DNA are you familiar with the expert’s ability to differentiate between the type of cells that they are testing? For instance, a blood cell versus a skin cell versus a saliva cell?
Q. They can do that, right?
Q. So, under your explanation if – if we tested these undergarments and there were only skin cells of Carlos Coy in the mix what would that tell you?
A. Well, if there were only skin cells then that was all that was recovered at the time.
Q. Okay. Now, let’s go to a different question. Let’s say you found some saliva cells in there, what would that tell you?
A. In the mix of the wash?
Q. His saliva cells, yeah.
A. It would tell me that either they were on some garment within that wash.
Q. Right. Now, you would agree with me, wouldn’t you, Detective Ruiz, that that would be pretty good evidence for these ladies and gentlemen in this case?
MS. ONCKEN: Objection, Your Honor, invades the province of the jury.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (By Mr. Lewis) Detective Ruiz, as a detective you want to get all the evidence you can, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Would you agree that if you had that evidence Mr. Coy’s saliva cells within a garment tested of Jane Doe’s, that would be beneficial to your investigation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you decided not to do those tests?
Q. And it’s you who’s in charge of ordering whether or not those tests are done?
Q. Not the patrol officer, this was your case, right?
Q. Now, I believe if you go a little bit further on this DNA knowledge of yours that you talked about your decision, your judgment call not to recover the bedding?
Q. Okay. And I believe if I understand your testimony it was your decision, your judgment call not to do it because you had learned that later that night Carlos slept in the same bed with his daughter, right?
A. Based on the idea that the Defendant had access to the household for a number of days,
Q. Okay. Now, let’s go ahead and let’s go back to what I was asking you just a second ago, the differentiation between cells. You knew that it was Jane Doe’s allegation that Mr. Coy had left quite a bit of saliva – slobber on her, right?
Q. Talking about again the ability to differentiate between skin cells and saliva cells, you could have recovered that bedding for a differentiation DNA analysis, correct?
A. I would think that that would be a stretch.
Q. Okay. Let’s talk about that stretch. If you had tested the bed and the DNA experts had told you that they had isolated saliva cells of Carlos Coy’s on that bed, would that have been good evidence for your investigation?
A. I don’t think so - -
MS. ONCKEN: Objection, your honor, it calls for speculation on the part of the witness.
MR. LEWIS: Investigation, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.
A. I don’t think so. I wouldn’t be able to determine if he sneezed, if he wiped his face and wiped the covers.
Q. (By Mr. Lewis) Well, let’s think about that for a second, Detective Ruiz. You’ve seen – let me show you Defendant’s Exhibit No. 3. Look at that real quick.
A. (Witness complies.)
Q. What size bed did that appear to be to you?
A. Looks like a double bed.
Q. Assume with me, if you will, and I’ll make this our bed. And let’s put these pillows up here for the orientation.
Assume with me that Jane was laying in the bed like, you know, we normally would suspect somebody laying in the bed. And if the allegation, as I understand it, this would, you know – so, let’s just say for the purposes of this argument that would be where her body parts that are in concern would be and that would be the area that she says there’s a lot of slobber.
If you had that bedding and you tested it, the experts could tell you exactly where the stain they tested was, right?
Q. Okay. So, if you got a result back that says there was Carlos Coy’s saliva in this specific area of the bedding that might be something that would be positive to your investigation, true?
But, as you know, Ruiz chose not to collect, or even try to collect anything at all. The “slobber” testimony was simply used for it’s shock value, and it worked, but they knew there would be no slobber. They knew if they had tested those garments, those sheets, or even that bed, and found nothing, they wouldn’t have a case against me. That’s why they didn’t do it. Here’s how Chip summed it up in his closing arguments.
(Court Transcripts Volume 17 of 31 pg. 77
Chip: But if they don’t get it, if they don’t bring it to you, if they don’t test it, they’ve still got a case.
After Chip basically forces Ruiz to admit that she should’ve tested for evidence, the D.A. asks her some follow up question for damage control.
(Court Transcripts Volume 12 of 31 pgs. 47-50)
BY MS. ONCKEN:
Q. A few more questions, Officer Ruiz
Officer Ruiz, in regard to this case or other cases in which you have had the concern in regard to gathering any crime scene evidence, have you had an opportunity to speak with any of the experts in the Houston Police Department Crime Lab?
A. I have received training year after year from Jim Bolding – he’s the Director over the HPD Crime Lab – regarding DNA and evidence collection.
Q. And have you also spoke with him individually either in person or on the phone?
A. Numerous times.
Q. Officer Ruiz, I believe you testified previously that you’ve investigated hundreds of child sexual abuse cases; is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Have you ever had an instance in which there had ever been any type of DNA evidence recovered in any case where there has just been touching a garment?
Q. Officer Ruiz, do you, pursuant to your experience and training, once a suspect has learned that the police department is aware of the crime and is investigating, have you ever had any circumstances where – where evidence has been destroyed before the police is able to get to it?
MR. LEWIS: Objection, Your Honor.
A. Numerous times.
MR. LEWIS: Objection, Your Honor. Your Honor, can the witness be instructed to stop – she’s very familiar with the procedures when I stand up she knows I’m going to object.
MS. ONCKEN: I’m going to object to counsel’s sidebar.
MR. LEWIS: That’s the second time.
THE COURT: Hello, wait. Make your objection. I’ll rule on it. When he stands up to make an objection, you stop talking. Okay, go ahead.
MR. LEWIS: Objection, Your Honor. That – that question assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (By Ms. Oncken) Officer Ruiz, in regard to the bed clothing at the suspect’s house, you indicated on cross examination that – that you were aware that the Defendant had spent the night in that particular bed at least on the night that the offense occured, later that night after the offense occurred; is that correct?
Q. And had spent the night in bed with his daughter, Carly Coy? (Note: Her name is spelled Carley)
Q. And you don’t know during the night where the defendant was sleeping on the bed, you don’t know if he slobbered, if any of that happened?
A. That’s correct.
At the time, all this sounded legit to the jury, but I want you to take a close look on how these snakes operate.
D.A.: Have you ever had an instance in which there had ever been any type of DNA evidence recovered in any case where there has just been touching a garment?
Notice, the D.A. didn’t ask about saliva, which is what the evidence would be. She asks about “touching” and Ruiz answers “Never” and they move on.
Aggravated Sexual Assault is not a “touching” charge. It’s an assault that carries five to ninety-nine years, and that’s the kind of time they wanted me to face. But the only way I could face such time, with them having not a trace of evidence, (their own doctors checked Jane Doe and verified there was no sign of penetration, or of anything at all), would be to say it was an oral sex assault. Ya see, with allegations of oral sex, there wouldn’t need to be any signs of anything, yet I would still face five to ninety-nine, which I received a good chunk of.
So, again, the D.A.’s question and Ruiz’s answer on “touching a garment” may have been true and accurate, but it wasn’t the evidence Ruiz needed to collect, or try to collect. The evidence was DNA from saliva, not from touching. But the question and answer was done so fast, nobody thought twice about it.
Then, they move on to the collection of bedding, which they stick to the excuse about my daughter telling them I slept on that bed. If we had only asked Ruiz, “Hold on a minute, you guys didn’t interview Carley Coy until a month and a half after these charges were filed. Are you saying you waited six weeks before you thought about the sheets?” That would have left Ruiz’s mouth wide open.
Another important fact is that Ruiz said she received her training from a guy named Jim Bolding. I remember that the HPD Crime Lab came under serious investigation for gross negligence and unlawful procedures. They had to close it down, and people were fired. I’m pretty sure Jim Bolding was the director at the time, but Incandesio would know better than me. Hopefully she can shed some light on that.
**Note from Incandesio: There will be more on the appalling legacy of Jim Bolding once SPM’s letter is finished. Much, much more.**
Continued in Part 2.c