SPM Responds (Part 4.a)

SPM answered both of last month’s questions; I’m going to break it up into pieces to ensure ease of reading. Here is the first part of his answer to the question “Do you believe your conviction was part of a conspiracy?”

Your second question spoke of a possible conspiracy. I don’t think it started as a conspiracy, but it developed into something so underhanded that it could be defined as such.

            I’ll prove my point by using the official court transcripts. The transcripts show exactly what was said and done in my trial.

            A nine-year-old little girl allegedly told her mother that I touched her private area. This little girl’s parents were old friends of mine. I sold crack with her father till he got hooked on it, and, sadly, I had an affair with her mother while her dad was in prison for a crack pipe.

            Trust me, I know that was a shit-sorry thing to do, but it happened, and it wasn’t all my fault.

            There was even a time when her mother, who I’ll call “Mary Doe”, thought that she (the little girl) was my daughter. If you ever listen to the song, “When Devils Strike”, it talks about the exact situation.

            Me and the child’s father were once good friends, but I got involved in music and we grew apart. Mary Doe continued to be close friends with my wife.

            There’s much history between my family and theirs, but I’ll make this as brief as I can. I’m writing a book on all the facts of my case, where our history is laid out. But on today’s answer, I’ll spare you the book.

            The little girl, who I’ll call “Jane Doe”, was spending the night with my daughter at our new home. This was the night she allegedly said I assaulted her.

            I knew Jane Doe had come from a chaotic environment, but I never thought about how that could affect her. She seemed kind to my baby, who was only seven at the time, so I didn’t mind their friendship. What I didn’t know was that Jane Doe suffered from serious mental disorders. Not that she was born that way, but the hell she lived through most certainly made her that way. If I’d known she had all these disorders, with all respect, she would not have been spending the night with my daughter.

            I’ll go to the transcripts to show you a few things about her condition. Keep in mind that January 30th, 2001, was eight months before the event of her making these claims. Here’s my criminal trial lawyer, Chip

Criminal Trial

Court Transcript Volume 9 of 31, Page 24

Chip: Your Honor, I’ll make a tap into the record. I’ll do it by summary for the record. The records of Texas Children dated January 30^th, 2001, state that (Jane Doe) was seen for sleeplessness/insomnia, headaches and possible hallucinations…

______________________________

The D.A. had a therapist (from the Children’s Assessment Center) get on the stand to talk about some symptoms Jane Doe was experiencing, as if they were the result of the sexual assault I was being accused of. The therapist told the jury things like how she had become sensitive to loud noise. How she didn’t even like gym class because of all the “screaming and yelling” the kids did. But the therapist never took the time to read Jane Doe’s medical history. Here’s Chip questioning the therapist, and showing her some medical records.

__________

Criminal Trial

Court Transcript Volume 17 of 31, Pg. 14

Chip: And you’re aware in this letter that you glanced at the referring neurologist made a diagnosis of (Jane Doe’s) photophobia and phonophobia. Did you see that when you glanced at the letter?

Therapist: No, I did not.

Chip: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?

Judge: Yes.

Chip: Let me direct your attention to this. I believe it’s the second full sentence beginning right here above my finger and I’ll let you read that to yourself.

Therapist: (witness complies) Yes.

Chip: So, you are aware that –Well, let’s for the ladies and gentlemen, when was this letter written?

Therapist: January 31^st, 2001.

Chip: So, that was almost nine months or eight months before September the 1^st.

Therapist: Yes.

Chip was basically telling this woman, “These symptoms you’re talking about weren’t from this so-called assault. This stuff was going on way before she made these claims.

            Photophobia is a disorder where a person has an irrational fear of bright lights. Phonophobia is an irrational fear of loud noises. These are the types of disorders that war veterans get from experiencing ungodly events.

            Let me show you a few things a doctor said who saw Jane Doe. Again, this doctor’s apt was eight months before this event took place.

Criminal Trial

Court Transcripts Volume 17 of 31 Pg. 13

Dr. Lee: The impression was that we felt she had muscle contraction headaches, which is another word for tension headaches and that she appeared to have some degree of insomnia…

On the next page, the doctor was asked what caused tension headaches.

Criminal Trial

Court Transcripts Volume 17 Pg. 14

Dr. Lee: A lot of things. Probably number one is any kind of stress or anxiety.

The next page tells what kind of medication they put her on.

Criminal Trial

Court Transcripts Volume 17 of 31 Pg. 15

Dr. Lee: I thought that probably the best thing to treat her with would be Elavil. Elavil is a form of anti-depressant.

I’d like to take you to my civil trial real quick. Just to let you see how my civil lawyer, Brock, puts this:

Civil Trial

Court Transcripts Volume 6 of 9 Pg. 42

Brock: …How many 9-year-olds have to go through a bunch of tests because they have a 2-year history of headaches, they have a history of insomnia, and at the conclusion of all these tests, how many 9-year-olds end up where the folks at Texas Children’s Hospital and the Baylor College of Medicine are prescribing anti-depressant medication for 9-year-old girls?

The problem in my criminal trial was that the judge didn’t allow Chip to talk about anything having to do with the child’s home environment. He said it wasn’t relevant. So the jury heard nothing revealing about this family. They probably believed they were church-going Christians like Mary Doe had told them.

            Without Chip being able to show the home conditions causing Jane Doe’s disorder, his point was missing important pieces.

            Look how easily the D.A. chalks off her photophobia and phonophobia.

Criminal Trial

Court Transcripts 17 of 31 Pg. 119

DA: So what that she’s light sensitive and sound sensitive when she gets these headaches. That’s common.

A Neurologist doesn’t diagnos someone with photophobia and phonophobia because they had a headache. Jane Doe didn’t have a headache every time she went to gym class. She associated the “screaming and yelling” with something much more grim then just kids having fun. The D.A. simply lied to the jury and they accepted it.

            What’s crazy is the D.A. was the one who brought up these symptoms in the first place. Remember, she had that therapist explain to the jury how the child was experiencing all this bad stuff. But once Chip showed them that Jane Doe had been diagnosed with these disorders several months before, well, now, it’s no big deal. Now, it’s “common”.

            In my civil trial, (which was where this family took me to sue me for money), things went much differently. The judge in that trial was fair. He allowed us to talk about some of the things that went on in this child’s life. How else can you know about someone, especially a nine-year-old little girl, if you don’t know a little about where she came from, who her parents were, how she was raised?

During the punitive stage f the civil trial, which was where I could have lost everything I owned, the jury saw another side of the story and awarded the family “zero dollars.”

            I lost my freedom in criminal trial, but thankfully in civil trial, (which is all about money), I didn’t lose what I had worked so hard for.

            Now, let me get to the more “underhanded” part of my answer.

            Jane Doe was the alleged “victim”, and her mother was the alleged “outcry witness”. The outcry witness is the first person the child tells her story to.

            It’s very important to know exactly what was said to the outcry witness because she’s the person who heard the first story. It’s also very important that the police do a video-taped interview with the child to get her story on record.

            The police officer in this case was a rough-looking white woman named Heidi Ruiz. I can imagine her excitement at the chance of helping to take down SPM, this popular rap artist who hollered “fuck the police” at all his shows, who already had two major stand-offs with police outside Dope House Records, (both televised), who’s history with cops began at ten-years-old, when I caught my first felony. Long story short but the charge was arson.

            So Heidi Ruiz allegedly tells Mary Doe to bring Jane Doe to the police station so she can do the interview, and also get the outcry witness statement. Ruiz claims that during the interview, Jane Doe changed her story and said I “licked” her private part. Now the charge changes from Indecency with a Child to Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child. Now I face 5 to 99 years in prison.

            Just to be clear: Jane Doe initially told her mother that I touched her sexual organ. That was the story. Then, supposedly tells a total stranger that I licked her sexual organ. But lets find out what happens with that original interview, and also with the original statement. Here’s the D.A. questioning Ruiz.

Criminal Trial

Court Transcripts Volume 11 of 31 Pg. 175

D.A.: Officer Ruiz, pursuant to your conversation with (Jane Doe), did you videotape that interview with her?

Ruiz: I videotaped the interview with (Jane Doe).

D.A.: And was the equipment working that day?

Ruiz: No, it wasn’t working.

Ruiz claimed that the sound wasn’t working on her equipment. Let’s skip a page to see what happened with Mary Doe’s statement.

Criminal Trial

Court Transcripts Volume 11 of 31 Pg. 177

Ruiz: I got (Mary Doe) to calm down enough to start writing a statement and when I came back to check on her she was visibly upset, still continuing to write her statement. Came back to check on her a few minutes later and she had finished her statement. It was- - her ability to write was not there.

Chip: Your Honor, I’m going to object. This is narrative.

Judge: Overruled.

D.A.: Officer Ruiz, when you said it was a terrible statement, is that because of the educational and communication ability and her writing ability.

Ruiz: I would say it’s a combination of both, her being extremely upset and then also she - - I believe she made it through the tenth grade in high school.

The problem was not Mary Doe’s tenth grade education. She went to school for longer than I did and could write just as well as any normal person. The problem was not her being too upset to write a proper statement. To the jury it may have sounded good, but they could have easily given her more time to write another statement.

            The problem that day was the story. Something wasn’t making sense so they wanted to do it again. But they had to come up with reasons as to why they couldn’t use the child’s first interview, and why they couldn’t use her mother’s first statement. The two most important parts of this case were conveniently snuffed out on the same day.

Let’s go to the next page:

Criminal Trial

Court Transcripts Volume 11 of 31 Pgs. 178-179

D.A.: Okay. Was it just hard to read what she was writing incomplete sentences- -

Ruiz: Incomplete sentences, scratch outs, a lot of it didn’t make sense.

D.A.: All right. So, what did you- - what did you decide on that day in regard to getting a statement from her and also pursuant to your problem with the recording equipment, the videotape equipment not working?

Ruiz: I learned that later in the afternoon.

D.A. Okay.

Ruiz: And when I sat down to transcribe information that (Jane Doe) had provided me, I discovered that the audio portion of the video audio tape was not working. So, I contacted one of the forensic interviewers at the Children’s Assessment Center and scheduled an appointment for her to be interviewed there. I didn’t want to risk interviewing her again and our equipment not working again.

            And I also scheduled an appointment to take a statement from (Mary Doe) that was legible.

This Children’s Assessment Center (C.A.C.) isn’t as legitimate as it may sound. In my book you’ll see how these professionals use all their knowledge and education to do what the D.A. tells them to do.

            So Ruiz scheduled another videotaping and another statement to be done three days later. Before we go to what happened at the C.A.C., I’d like to just comment on what Ruiz says:

“I didn’t want to risk interviewing her again and then our equipment not working again.”

            Huh? Why not just check the equipment to see if it works? If it works it works, if it doesn’t it doesn’t? What’s this business about a “risk”? But the jury in my trial were like twelve baby birds, swallowing anything these people dropped down their throat.

Continued in Part 4.b