GUILTY TX - Emma Thompson, 4, dies with STD, skull fracture, Spring, 27 June 2009

[believe09]

I think you have summed up this case nicely OG-but I also wonder about these men who were never taught that beating up someone who is so dramatically smaller than you makes you NOTHING.

 

[Belinda]

I despise defense attornies. I know I shouldn't, but when I see them sticking up for some piece of scum that murdered a baby, I just see red.

 

[LCoastMom]

This is an old article. I just wanted to show Coe's previous history. This jury won't see these.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6555444.html

Awaiting trial
CPS investigated Coe as a possible perpetrator three times — in 2005, 2006 and 2007 — all involving the son of another girlfriend. He has been indicted on charges of injuring that child; the case has yet to come to trial in Montgomery County. The indictment accuses Coe of striking the boy on the head and body with his hand in July 2007, according to prosecutor Frank Barnett.

In January 2005, CPS first investigated injuries to a Magnolia boy, then 5, which included two black eyes, bruising on one cheek, a bruise on his back and a light bruise on one of his buttocks, said CPS spokeswoman Gwen Carter. Coe was living with the boy and his mother.

When CPS discovered the boy's injuries, he was removed from the home.

“What we found was his injuries were not consistent with the explanation given” for how they occurred, Carter said. The case was closed in August 2005 when the mother reported her relationship with Coe had ended.

Same boy, three times
Coe came to CPS' attention again in 2006 when more injuries on the same boy were reported.

This time, the child had bruises to his face, ears, shoulders and chest, as well as a busted lip. He told caseworkers another child at school hurt him and he had fallen, but he also said Coe had twisted his ears. Coe and the child's mother denied bruising the boy, Carter said.

CPS concluded no abuse occurred and closed the case.

“Looking at it, I think there's some follow-up that should have been done,” Carter said of the case. “Just reading this, I think there's some things the caseworker should have gone more in depth with, knowing the history.”

Coe appears for the third time in March 2007 when the agency investigated a complaint of physical and emotional abuse to the same boy, then 7. Again, more bruises.

CPS discovered the boy living with Coe, along with a 2-year-old girl that Coe had fathered with the boy's mother. The agency took custody of both children, who later went to live with grandparents.

more at link...

Yes, both children went to live with grandparents who also did nothing to protect the children or at least the girl - child, as he continued to sexually abuse her. She was 4, too. Where are those charges?

Somewhere this summer I read an interview with the judge who made multiple decisions to allow Coe to remain free. It sounded like he is in bad shape. He explained the reasons for each case and to be honest, based on what he knew his decisions were not all wrong; including Coe being nailed on charges in another county - that should have earned him more jail time.

We need a national data base, if a judge does not have access to information from just a few miles away - how can they make a true judgement involving someone who is well known for their very bad behavior? These bad behaviors don't go away, they MOVE AWAY! Emma would be alive today if someone; CPS perhaps? had done their job.

The bottom line was Emma was failed by her mother - who allowed this KINKY GUY access to her daughter.

Wasn't it Emma, who was supposed to be examined by a doctor, who was trained to see past the denial? He 'wasn't available' so instead, she was taken to another hospital, where she was examined by a doctor who found no evidence of abuse?! Emma denied any abuse in front of her mother - she only said; "Luke holds me hard." Luke? who's Luke?

 

[believe09]

I admire Coe's defense attorney for providing a vigorous defense. However-Coe should then live next to him and his minor children if he has any should he (Coe) be freed as a result of the vigorous defense. JMVHO-illogical, but very honest.

 

[Belinda]

I admire Coe's defense attorney for providing a vigorous defense. However-Coe should then live next to him and his minor children if he has any should he (Coe) be freed as a result of the vigorous defense. JMVHO-illogical, but very honest.

Amen, sister!

 

[LCoastMom]

'Emotion and not facts'
Coe's attorneys will try to keep hundreds of Emma's autopsy photos from being seen by the jurors.

Defense attorney Rick DeToto said prosecutors hope to convince jurors of Coe's guilt with hundreds of autopsy photos that have nothing to do with Emma's sexual assault.

"I think they're trying to overwhelm a potential juror with emotion and not facts," he said. "There's no DNA on Emma. It's a situation where they're saying something bad happens and he was there."

Barnett is confident she can prove Coe is guilty.
"Yes, I believe he's guilty and yes, I believe I can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt," she said.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7198047.html

If she can and this is a BIG if, I want to know why she didn't prove Abby was just a guilty!

 

[IWannaKnow]

Could someone explain for my poor, feeble brain why Coe's history is not admissible in court for basically the exact same crime as his previous crimes?????????? Why is showing predilection inadmissable? If it is illegal to molest little girls, and you can prove that a person likes to molest little girls because they have in the past, isn't that an indicator of their future behavior????? WHY IS INFORMING THE JURY OF THEIR PAST BEHAVIOR PREJUDICIAL - AREN'T WE SIMPLY INFORMING THE JURY ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF THIS INDIVIDUAL???? If a little girl is dead, covered with bruises and lacerations and Coe was the last adult person with her why are the autopsy photos inadmissible?????? If you cannot be judged on your past behavior, why do they keep a record of speeding tickets and traffic violations? By this logic, I shouldn't be speeding any more, or parking in the wrong place....:waitasec: What am I missing here?

TIA to anyone who can make me understand this....I know this doesn't apply to just this crime, but I really cannot understand this "principle".

 

[believe09]

Could someone explain for my poor, feeble brain why Coe's history is not admissible in court for basically the exact same crime as his previous crimes?????????? Why is showing predilection inadmissable? If it is illegal to molest little girls, and you can prove that a person likes to molest little girls because they have in the past, isn't that an indicator of their future behavior????? WHY IS INFORMING THE JURY OF THEIR PAST BEHAVIOR PREJUDICIAL - AREN'T WE SIMPLY INFORMING THE JURY ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF THIS INDIVIDUAL???? If a little girl is dead, covered with bruises and lacerations and Coe was the last adult person with her why are the autopsy photos inadmissible?????? If you cannot be judged on your past behavior, why do they keep a record of speeding tickets and traffic violations? By this logic, I shouldn't be speeding any more, or parking in the wrong place....:waitasec: What am I missing here?

TIA to anyone who can make me understand this....I know this doesn't apply to just this crime, but I really cannot understand this "principle".

Prejudicial. And I agree it is. BUT-he should have to own up to it anyway because that is what my moral compass tells me. So you can see why I am not a defendant in this trial...I have a moral compass.

All defense attornies try to keep autopsy and crime scene photos out of the trial. For the same reason. It is a standard plea. Only INCREDIBLY rarely does that happen. Because the jury has a need, for the most part, to see what the results of the crime are. The only case I can remember where they were kept out, I believe the SJC overturned the ruling. IIRC. I am a little foggy today.

I dont get the rationale behind the charge. We are all struggling regarding it, we are all struggling with Abby's charge as well. I wish the media would take an interest and explain it in words of one syllable to me.

 

[CuriousTwo]

Pediatrician testifies in toddler rape case
Updated at 05:11 PM today

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7670008

HOUSTON (KTRK) -- Another day of disturbing testimony in the trial of a man accused of beating and sexually abusing a 4-year old girl, who later died from her injuries.

This morning, the girl's pediatrician testified about Thompson's injuries, and said she does not believe the defense's claims that the girl's injuries were caused by a so-called "straddle fall."

[snipped]

 

[CuriousTwo]

Crime scene investigator Mark McElvaney described what he found at the girl's house the morning after she died -- blood spots and smears through the two story house. He also described a second visit to the home in July 2009, to go through garbage found in the garage, including a pair of toddler girl's underwear.

[snipped]
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7667794

 

[IWannaKnow]

Prejudicial. And I agree it is. BUT-he should have to own up to it anyway because that is what my moral compass tells me. So you can see why I am not a defendant in this trial...I have a moral compass.

All defense attornies try to keep autopsy and crime scene photos out of the trial. For the same reason. It is a standard plea. Only INCREDIBLY rarely does that happen. Because the jury has a need, for the most part, to see what the results of the crime are. The only case I can remember where they were kept out, I believe the SJC overturned the ruling. IIRC. I am a little foggy today.

I dont get the rationale behind the charge. We are all struggling regarding it, we are all struggling with Abby's charge as well. I wish the media would take an interest and explain it in words of one syllable to me.

Thanks believe, for trying to penetrate my thick skull, but I still cannot see how retelling someone's adjudicated criminal history is prejudicial. They did it - judges and juries decided they did. What is prejudicial about that (it is illuminating history to me)? The fact that the jury might get a clear idea of what kind of person they are? Shouldn't that play into a decision? You do the crime, you do the time - not this "he who has the best defense attorney laughs last" crap. :banghead: I could NEVER be a defense attorney If someone like Coe walked into my office, I would be hard pressed not to do him bodily damage - rather than defend him. :croc:

Can you tell me of a situation where a criminal was unfairly prosecuted because the jury knew about his/her previous criminal history? I'm not trying to be difficult, I really do what to understand the basis for this travesty.

 

[believe09]

Thanks believe, for trying to penetrate my thick skull, but I still cannot see how retelling someone's adjudicated criminal history is prejudicial. They did it - judges and juries decided they did. What is prejudicial about that (it is illuminating history to me)? The fact that the jury might get a clear idea of what kind of person they are? Shouldn't that play into a decision? You do the crime, you do the time - not this "he who has the best defense attorney laughs last" crap. :banghead: I could NEVER be a defense attorney If someone like Coe walked into my office, I would be hard pressed not to do him bodily damage - rather than defend him. :croc:

Can you tell me of a situation where a criminal was unfairly prosecuted because the jury knew about his/her previous criminal history? I'm not trying to be difficult, I really do what to understand the basis for this travesty.

It has to do, IIRC, with the prior history trumping the evidence in the case. For example, if you knew this dude had a history of beating and raping children, all evidence in this case is almost immaterial. You are going to assume he did it going into deliberations because that is how he rolls. I agree that priors should be allowed-career criminals should be identified as career criminals regardless of what the crime is. BUT, there are many precedents-for example in the OJ Trial, Nicole's 911 calls regarding his overt domestic violence assaults were not allowed. Because it was the same victim-I mean you are going to assume OJ would have slit his wife's throat because it was a natural progression from his prior behavior. IIRC, the jurors were SHOCKED to hear the tapes post acquittal. And angry.

 

[believe09]

Crime scene investigator Mark McElvaney described what he found at the girl's house the morning after she died -- blood spots and smears through the two story house. He also described a second visit to the home in July 2009, to go through garbage found in the garage, including a pair of toddler girl's underwear.

[snipped]
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7667794

OMG-I am so, so glad she is beyond the reach of Abby and Coe now.

 

[IWannaKnow]

It has to do, IIRC, with the prior history trumping the evidence in the case. For example, if you knew this dude had a history of beating and raping children, all evidence in this case is almost immaterial. You are going to assume he did it going into deliberations because that is how he rolls. I agree that priors should be allowed-career criminals should be identified as career criminals regardless of what the crime is. BUT, there are many precedents-for example in the OJ Trial, Nicole's 911 calls regarding his overt domestic violence assaults were not allowed. Because it was the same victim-I mean you are going to assume OJ would have slit his wife's throat because it was a natural progression from his prior behavior. IIRC, the jurors were SHOCKED to hear the tapes post acquittal. And angry.

Thanks believe, but that is just so WRONG! :snooty: I understand they have a right to a fair trial, but I don't think that omission of important facts like their prior history is necessary for that. A person is not a single event in time, they are a collection of traits and behaviors which lead them to do certain things....clearly I wouldn't make an exemplary juror.

FWIW I DO think OJ did it - glove be damned.

 

[Paintr]

I wish there was more coverage of this trial! Wasn't Emma's older half sister due to testify?

 

[believe09]

Yes, Paintr. I am very very curious, because I think that defense is pointing to her in some fashion given she was in the house.

 

[believe09]

Thanks believe, but that is just so WRONG! :snooty: I understand they have a right to a fair trial, but I don't think that omission of important facts like their prior history is necessary for that. A person is not a single event in time, they are a collection of traits and behaviors which lead them to do certain things....clearly I wouldn't make an exemplary juror.

FWIW I DO think OJ did it - glove be damned.

O/T there was no question. The gloves didnt fit because they were caked with blood and they shrunk as leather will do when saturated and then dried. He had no incentive to put them on UNLESS they did not fit.

But the lack of priors concerning Nicole-man, that was what hurt the case IMO as well as the cops whose records were tinged. Unfortunately...the statute is REASONABLE doubt, not ANY doubt.

 

[Paintr]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7672086

On Thursday, the jury watched videotaped testimony from Thompson's 11-year-old sister. She says on the day Emma died, she heard a loud bang from the kitchen. The sister saw Coe with Emma who was bleeding from her head.

 

[believe09]

There goes the fall from the toilet theory. The crime scene was the kitchen?

ETA: so he bashes her head in and then sends her for a nap. Uh huh.

 

[ziggy]

What a horrible case! I'm in law school taking Evidence now and we are in the midst of this character evidence stuff and why it's inadmissible. I am the only person in the class that says they want to go into prosecution - everyone else wants to work for the defense or the ACLU. My professor is a seated judge and he's great - but as much as I "get" why these things are prejudicial, I still have a hard time accepting it in cases like this, my God!

I think things are bound to change when it comes to sexual preditors though. Things are slow to change, but we must be able to show past bad acts of a sexual nature when trying these guys.

I should take this case into those wet behind the ears kids who think they want to be defense attorneys. It would be tough to defend a guy like this.