Michael Carson

New Posts

Mary456

Mary456

Active Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
595
Reaction score
100
Website
www.justinrossharriscase.com
The Dog Gone thread is sort of all over the place, so I thought a new thread might be in order.

Compassionate Reader: "The information on Carson starts at the bottom of page nine. It discusses his unreliability and his drug informant status in CA."

That page is missing from Callahan's, but I found it elsewhere:

Petitioner has learned during his post-conviction investigation that Carson, who left Arkansas after the trial and continued operating as an informant in CA between his controlled substances arrests, often sought assistance and counsel from Arkansas authorities even while located out of state.

Here's my question again, CR. Where is the documentation to support these allegations (actually, Baldwin's lawyers didn't even use the word "alleged" in the Writ. They stated it as fact).

If he was arrested multiple times in CA for PCS, there's a record of it. Who did he contact in Arkansas for assistance? When? Assistance with what? Is there a letter or a phone call to support this?

I'm sure you can see the problem here. This is nothing more than an unsubstantiated rumor, repeated so many times that it has gradually been accepted as truth.

Let's put this on the other foot for a moment:

John Fogelman, quite by accident, has learned that Jason Balwin repeatedly molested young boys before May 5, 1993.

What would your immediate reaction be? Be honest now :)
 
My reaction would be that since juvenile records are sealed and we have no documentation, other than the word of attorneys, to support the statements about Carson, the same would be true about any allegations about Jason prior to May 5, 1993. I would want to place Fogleman on the stand, under oath, to support the allegations, which is what will probably happen about the Carson situation if a new trial is ordered by the evidentiary hearing. However, unlike Carson, there have been no allegations about Jason. If there were, they would have surfaced long before now.
 
Lawyers are officers of the court and there are penalties for just making stuff up in a pleading. That doesn't mean they are infallible or always ethical, and of course one should expect a lawyer to view information in the light most favorable to his client.

Of course, the assertion may prove wrong. But if the pleading mentions "numerous arrests", then I expect the writer has records of those arrests, and if it claims Carson remained in contact with Arkansas LE, then I expect the writer knows someone has alleged as much.

CR is right, of course, that ultimately that information should be tested under oath (and therefore threat of perjury charges) and cross-examination.

In the meantime, however and though it is less than unassailable fact, it is something more than internet rumor.
 
Sorry, Mary, but I don't buy it. Did you know that there's a witness (Johnny something or other) who now says that Carson admitted to him that he (Carson) was lying about Jason making a statement? If I can find a link on that one I'll post it. It just goes to show that rumors abound. As this case heads to the evidentiary hearing, we'll all hear things on both sides that could be something or nothing. I guess we'll just have to wait for the hearing for it all to be sorted out.
 
Compassionate Reader said:
Sorry, Mary, but I don't buy it.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the allegation that Jason molested little boys prior to May 5th, 1993?

I don't know if it's true or not. Could be just a rumor, and really means nothing until, as you say, the accuser makes a sworn statement in a court of law, subject to cross examination.

But in the meantime, what's wrong with a little character assassination based on things we've "heard" after the trial?
 
Since there's no real evidence against Jason, I guess "character assassination" is all you can do. The hearing, I'm sure, will clear up many things.
 
Compassionate Reader said:
Since there's no real evidence against Jason, I guess "character assassination" is all you can do. The hearing, I'm sure, will clear up many things.
Click to expand...

Agreed. So until the hearing takes place, it's ok with you if I repeat what I've heard about Jason molesting little boys prior to May 5th, 1993?

Because I did hear it somewhere.
 
So, you're conceding that there's no evidence against Jason and that those who still believe he's guilty of murder must resort to rumor and innuendo? I must say that's pretty lame. Sounds a lot like the WMPD IMO.
 
Compassionate Reader said:
So, you're conceding that there's no evidence against Jason
Click to expand...

Do you mean that there's no evidence that Jason molested little boys prior to May 5th, 1993?

I agree. There's no evidence to support that allegation without a sworn statement in a court of law, subject to cross-examination.

Just as there is no evidence to support the allegation that Michael Carson testified because he had a lot to gain, was an informant in CA, sought assistance and counsel from Arkansas authorities, and was arrested multiple times for PCS.

But until/if those accusers (defense and prosecution witnesses) make a sworn statement, in a court of law, subject to cross-examination, it's just rumor.

And rumor, post 1993, applies to both Carson and Baldwin equally. Supporters can drag Carson through the mud based on what they've "heard", but nons can do the same to Baldwin, based on what we've "heard".

Sounds fair to me.


It goes both ways, you know.
 
chicoliving said:
Leave the rumors elsewhere please. Discuss the facts of the case etc.
Click to expand...

I agree completely.

Rumors, such as those surrounding Michael Carson, are only rumors until they're presented in a courtroom, with sworn testimony, and subject to cross-examination.

The same holds true for Jason Baldwin.

What I've been trying to get across is this:

If it's ok to denigrate Michael Carson based on nothing more than "I heard it from someone", then the same should apply to Jason Baldwin.
 
The statements about Carson are more than rumor. They were made in a legal document prepared by an attorney with much to lose if he is being untruthful. You yourself, Mary, have quoted that document. Where are the statements about Jason? You say they were made by Fogleman. Where and when were such statements made? Unless you can provide some sort of documentation, they are just rumors and therefore void of credibility. With the anonymity of the Internet, many people say many things about others. Repeating such rumors can be very injurious to innocent people. I was stating what an attorney reported in a court document. I just wish to know where you got your information. As a previous poster asked, do you have a link? Can you document in any way your allegations against Jason?
 
Mary456 said:
Agreed. So until the hearing takes place, it's ok with you if I repeat what I've heard about Jason molesting little boys prior to May 5th, 1993?

Because I did hear it somewhere.
Click to expand...

You didn't ask me and I believe you if you say you heard it.

That is not the type of thing I would repeat (or believe) without having a very credible source at hand.
 
Was Michael Carson a jailhouse snitch, just looking for a deal?

Well, let's look at the facts.* Michael Carson didn't tell police what Jason had told him (Chris's mutilation) until after he (Carson) was released from the detention center.* There was no deal for a "lighter sentence", because he'd already served his time.* He had nothing to gain.

Michael Carson passed two polygraph tests, one given by the WMPD and one given by the State Police.

After testifying, Michael Carson had no interest in speaking to the media.* Totally contrary to someone wanting his fifteen minutes of fame.

Over the last 16 years, he's only been interviewed once, during which time he stood by his testimony.*

There is absolutely no evidence that Michael Carson has had any trouble with the law since 1993/94.*

There is absolutely no evidence that Michael Carson is a police informant in another state.

There is absolutely no evidence that Michael Carson is anything other than a law-abiding citizen.

There is only one person - Jason Baldwin - who could have refuted Michael Carson's testimony, and he chose to remain silent.
 
Based on my reading in this case and others, it appears polygraph tests almost always turn out just as the examining faction want them to do.

What is your source for when Carson first told his story?
 
Nova said:
What is your source for when Carson first told his story?
Click to expand...

The trial transcript:

Q: I want to draw your attention back to August of last year. Were you in the Craighead County Juvenile Detention Facility?

A: Yes, sir, I was.

Q: How long were you in the detention facility?

A: About a week.

Q: When was it that you came forward with this information?

A: I'm not really sure. I believe it was a couple months later. I was walking from my room into the living room -- I was in my room listening to the radio -- I was walking into the living room. My dad was watching something on the case on TV. They showed Jason's face and I told him that was who I was in there with, and I told him about it, about the stuff I knew. He goes, you need to tell somebody.
 
It is possible that Carson was in trouble again when he came forward and the new charges simply disappeared because he made this statement. Since Carson was a juvenile at the time, his records were sealed. The defense discussed the fact that they couldn't verify Carson's background because of his juvenile status in Baldwin's Rule 37 documents. Again, one of the attorneys was the one who discussed Carson's drug informant status in CA and his "troubled" past with LE.
 
Compassionate Reader said:
It is possible that Carson was in trouble again when he came forward and the new charges simply disappeared because he made this statement.
Click to expand...

What????

Oh my. This is simply wild speculation.


Compassionate Reader said:
Since Carson was a juvenile at the time, his records were sealed. The defense discussed the fact that they couldn't verify Carson's background because of his juvenile status in Baldwin's Rule 37 documents.
Click to expand...

If they can't verify his juvenile status, then why are they hurling accusations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 199 more.
Total: 3,545 (members: 200, guests: 3,345)

Online statistics

Members online
200
Guests online
3,345
Total visitors
3,545
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,765
Messages
17,958,569
Members
228,603
Latest member
megalow
Back
Top