MARK LUSFORD'S "CHILD PORN" ???

The Couey Trial
Court TV's Jami Floyd on the case of John Couey, convicted of murdering Jessica Lunsford
March 9, 2007

Question from Suzanne: I was appalled by your comments on the Lunsford's home life. Old news and after what this family has been through ... to dredge that up again was just sick. Sensationalism ... anything for news. No one comes from a perfect family except for maybe you. That family has suffered enough.

Jami Floyd: First, you have every right to be appalled - that is your First Amendment right. Mine is to say what I said in The Last Word. I don't come from a perfect family, which, if you were listening, you would have heard me say in TLW. I stated very clearly that no family is perfect. Third, the issues I raised have been raised in court on the record (though not before the jury). We tell our viewers all the time about stuff that is not before the jury. Hell, we tell you all the time about stuff that isn't even on the record. This stuff is. So ask yourself: why aren't the other anchors talking about it? Maybe its because of the concerns you express, but there is also a desire in this country to cover stories in a way that makes everything clean and simple - black and white - and that assumes viewers who aren't sophisticated enough to handle the truth, which is always -- in every family -- more complicated. I don't make those assumptions about my viewers. I assume they want to hear the truth. If they are appalled, that is fine, but at least I've done my duty as a journalist and as a citizen who wants to honor a little victim, who had a very hard life -- even before she saw that monster coming from across the street. And, btw, there is a LOT more I could have said but didn't.

Question from sharon: Jami, can you expand on the backstory of Jessica Lunsford's home life?

Jami Floyd: Suffice it to say, that a review online of the coverage, including fine outlets like the St. Petersburg Times, and even coverage Nancy Grace gave to the story back when Jessica was missing, will have further detail for you. My point was only to remind people that things are not always what they seem. People's motives are complicated and viewers should be critical of the way in which we TV-types present the facts.

Question from tara: Jami, welcome. How quickly do you think the sentencing phase will go with Couey, and do you think it will be the DP?

Jami Floyd: Death for sure. No doubt about it. No doubt. Beth has reported the sentencing phase will take ten days to two weeks. I predict a shorter deliberation time than even for the verdict.

Question from Lori: Jami_Floyd, if that's true that Mark Lunsford took his daughter from her mom, then why didn't she legally take action? You know there are always two sides to a story.

Jami Floyd: Yes! There are always two sides to a story! That was my point. Her side is that they had an acrimonious divorce after a seven-year marriage and a stormy relationship that went back ten years all told. She left him a few times, but he always persuaded her to come back. Finally she left the state altogether. He didn't want to break up (again, her side of it), and when Jessica was a year or so old, persuaded Angie to let him take her out for her birthday. Angie says he never brought her back, took her to Florida and named his mother the legal guardian. Now, he may have had good reason. Maybe there was something untoward going on in Angie's home or, maybe, as Angie suggests, it was just sour grapes. I don't know, but these are the questions reporters ask. To answer your second prong: she says she did fight for custody but ran out of money before she could pursue the case to fruition. So that's her side of the story. For his part, Mark won't talk about it, except to say they were estranged.

Question from gandme: Jami, do you know what Couey meant when he stated he wouldn't have done it if his sister had loved him more? I find that disturbing.
Jami Floyd: It is one of the more bizarre and disturbing things about the case. He had had an argument with his sister that day -- the day Jessica went missing, I believe, perhaps the day before. But police think that was some sort of triggering event. Still, that's pretty much all we've heard about the meaning behind the statement. I think we'll hear a whole lot more about it next week.


Question from uma: Was porn found on Mark's computer?

Jami Floyd: There was an argument in court, again out of the presence of the jury, about porn found on the computer. So yes, according to the court record and the police reports, there was porn on the computer in the Lunsford home, BUT there is no way to know who put the porn there. It could have been spammed. It could easily have been downloaded by another member of the family. We don't know the extent of it, in terms of the volume, how MUCH porn, but we do know that the judge considered it, and ruled it inadmissible in the Couey case. I agree, btw. Not at all relevant for a jury to hear that, but it is relevant for those of us who want to understand the entirety of Jessica's life. Mark, btw, is not at all happy that this part of the case is being discussed on Court TV (on Closing Arguments) and apparently on the boards. But, despite Suzanne and others who think it unfair to victims to talk about the totality of the circumstances, I believe our duty is to give you the facts rather than advocate for the victims (or the defendants, for that matter).

Question from TLC: Was it child porn or adult porn?

Question from hello: QUESTION: was it kids porn? and thanks.

Question from lynn: Was it child porn?

Question from LJ: Was it child porn?

Jami Floyd: That is the allegation, yes. I haven't seen the evidence. I can only tell you what is in the public record. That's why the qualified response.

Question from nyparrot: Jami: Do you believe we will ever find a cure for a person like Couey...or is life in prison and the DP the only cures for child rape and murder?

Jami Floyd: Oh my goodness. That is the hundred million dollar question. Went out last night with Jamie Wasserman - she's one of the shrinks who is on CTV all the time - and our spouses, one a criminal defense attorney, the other working in a profession having nothing to do with the law. And we spent a good part of the evening debating just that -- well, not debating but wondering that. I'm not dodging, promise. Here's what I think: no, I don't think they can be cured. People like Couey the ten percent of serious sexual predators that Mark Klass talked about on Best Defense yesterday. But I do think two things: first, not all sex offenders are the same. There is a wide range of treatability. A 19-year-old who has sex with a 17-year-old is a sex offender, I think most would agree on the easy side of the scale, and then there's Couey, and everything in between. But we are wasting resources tracking a much larger group than we should be tracking. We need to define the problem more clearly and then give law enforcement the training, tools and money to manage the most serious offenders. And here's the second thing: I think we can't fix the ones who are out there, but we CAN figure out how they got that way and reduce the numbers by getting at the root cause. Okay enough. I could go on and on, but i will say that if we're gonna lock 'em up or execute, let's be honest about that up front. We shouldn't back door our way into changing the Constitution.

Question from Lexi-Atl: If one believes, as I do, that sexual predators are 'grown', not born, what sort of behavioral earmarks should one look for in a younger, developing predator?
Jami Floyd: That's exactly what we were talking about last night. Dr. Wasserman believes it is a combination of nature and nurture, that there is something about the brains of these folks that is different, but that it is only triggered by something in their early childhood environment. She made the analogy to serial killers. As for what to look for: the damage she feels is in the frontal lobe, but you're not gonna see that from the outside! So you look for boys who have been sexually and/or physically abused as children and the earlier the abuse, she believes, the worse the damage. And you look for grooming behaviors, like we all talked about in Michael Jackson. It's a very dangerous business because we don't want to incarcerate or even get to a place where we suspect every man who is kind to children (teachers, doctors, coaches, ministers), but that's what we're coming to in this country, I fear.

Question from Renee: I am confused ... how did this man manage to dig a four-foot hole without detection while a child is missing from a home so close?

Question from DevilsAdvocate: Why didn't the scent dogs pick up her scent 150 feet or yds from her house?

Jami Floyd: Those are both excellent questions that haven't been answered and may not be. Here's another bit of behind-the-scenes: the Lunsfords apparently were considering a lawsuit against the police for failure to find Jessica while Couey says she was still alive. Now, with the prosecution going forward and with what the police say they found on Mark's computer, there is a quid pro quo of sorts: no prosecution/no lawsuit. I think the Lunsfords have a pretty good case for SOMEthing. He's digging a hole. She's in a closet in a small trailer where other adults live. Then there's the fresh earth itself. How do they not SEE that? But at the same time, Mark and his family may want to be done with the whole thing and to sue would mean dredging up the initial days during which Mark and his father were the main suspects (reminding us all why it's important to presume someone innocent until proven guilty. Can you imagine that?!).

Question from gizzmoe: Jami, do you think that Couey's family knew Jessica was there in the house? And maybe the sister had been abused along with Couey and the sister and or people that lived in the house just didn't care what was going on.

Question from tara: Why did they cut deals with the others in that trailer? The state had enough to sink Couey, I feel the others should have been charged.

Jami Floyd: I truly don't know the answer to that. I wasn't there, and I'm not going to speculate. But something very wrong was going on in that trailer beyond just what happened to poor little Jessica. Either these people are so zonked out of it that they truly didn't know or they were complicit in what went down. And if that is the case, it is curious why no prosecutions of others. Yet another area ripe for reporting...
Question from lea: Does the jury consider the retardation issue when they decide the penalty phase?

Jami Floyd: Oh, yeah. That's what the whole thing will be about.

Question from lynn: On a show a few days ago, you called the notion of good and evil "old fashioned." Do you think that this comment may have offended some viewers who believe in good and evil and if it did offend anyone, what are your comments on offending viewers with different belief systems than yourself?

Jami Floyd: I LOVE this question. Okay first, I did not say that notions of good and evil are old fashioned. I said that some people believe in good and evil and an eye for an eye approach to justice. I then went on to say that I don't agree with those folks, but I respect their point of view, especially for its honesty, about the way they would administer justice. As for whether anyone was offended, I did get a good bit of email about it, many from folks who DO believe in pure good and evil, but none of whom were offended -- they simply wanted to continue the dialogue. Now for your last point about how I feel about offending folks: that's not a simple answer. I care very much for other peoples' feelings, more than I should, but The Best Defense is a show with a mission. Nancy has a mission, and I have a mission. I try to be up front with my viewers about that mission so that they won't be too surprised by the things that come out of my mouth. I have many viewers who agree with me, and that's nice, and those who are terribly offended have every right to turn the channel, and I support their freedom to do so. But my favorite viewers are the ones who disagree, but watch anyway, because that is what democracy is all about -- thoughtful discussion of stuff that matters NOT with people who think just like you but instead with people who will challenge your ideas. That's why I love working with the other anchors here. we often disagree and that forces me to rethink my positions and either refine them or change them. So I hope that answers your question.

Court TV Host: Thanks, Jami!
Jami Floyd: Have a terrific weekend! Monday on BD: more Couey, and back to ANS... and don't forget to check out my blog on the website. Go to anchors and click on my face... :)

{How could I possibly add to a story like this? un fucking believable!!!}

http://www.courttv.com/chat/transcripts/2007/0309lunsford-floyd.html