Is there even a case against Baldwin?

[Ausgirl]

Right. So Anne Tate is crazy, and Carson is just an honest soul who came to be corrupted by WM3 supporters.

:bananalama:

 

[kyleb]

Tate's argument lacks reason, and I've never imagined Carson any angel, but at least he hasn't been so dishonest as to claim the prosecution bribed him into testifying like Baalberath's legion of chubacabras have.

 

[reedus23]

Tate's argument lacks reason, and I've never imagined Carson any angel, but at least he hasn't been so dishonest as to claim the prosecution bribed him into testifying like Baalberath's legion of chubacabras have.

Bottom line is Carson's word is worthless. And that's due to his own words, not the words of others.

 

[Ausgirl]

And let's not forget where Danny Williams says Carson got those words from:

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/d_williams_affidavit.html

 

[kyleb]

Williams' certainty in his 2004 affidavit is belied by his interview with Davis two weeks before Carson testified:

Davis: Okay, and specifically if you recall what was it that you had discussed with Michael previously before he went to the police about satanic killings

Williams: We were talking about the conversation I believe was initiated um, we were talking about detention, and the kind of kids that were in detention, and uh, we got to talking about the West Memphis case, and I told Michael either that, I don't remember if I told him that this allegedly happened in this case or in a lot of satanic related killings that um, the scrotum or testicles are cut the victim, that blood is used in the significance, um that sometime they use the scrotum to drink blood from their victims and I don't remember, I think I remember something about um, the victims might have been allegedly their skin removed, um, other than that I'm not

Davis: Okay

Williams: Real sure

Davis: So you indicated that you may have mentioned to Michael that either, would it have been specifically in regard to this case or as a general rule that skin was removed from victims in satanic killings?

Williams: I believe that the skin be removed I believe was related to the West Memphis case

Davis: Okay, now the part about, about, the testicles being removed, the scrotum being removed, the penis uh cut off is where did you get that information from? When you told him or mentioned it to him?

Williams: I couldn't be sure, I attended a um, um, several workshops over the past years, one of these was in Austin, one of them was in Oklahoma, um where the, the satanist belief that all the power comes from sexual organs and the blood, but as far as being specific on where I got that I'm not sure

Davis: Okay, and so would what you said to him, was it in regards to it was specifically happened in the West Memphis case or was in general that what happens sometimes satanic murders?

Williams: I couldn't be sure of that we were talking about both together like you know, um, in my mind the statement was, was made or close statement I said something like, you know I don't know these kids are accused of it but, in a lot of cases or a scenario is this, or a scenario is that uh, but, as far as saying this happened in the West Memphis case I couldn't, I don't remember.

 

[reedus23]

Williams' certainty in his 2004 affidavit is belied by his interview with Davis two weeks before Carson testified:

So he supplied Carson is what they say?

 

[kyleb]

Clearly not, as Williams didn't even claim to know one of the boys had been castrated, and was under the mistaken impression that they'd been skinned.

 

[Ausgirl]

Think back to a casual conversation you had with another person a year ago, on some controversial topic -- can you be SURE you recall every word you said? Is your recall accurate? Would you bet your right hand on that?

Perhaps the --important-- thing here is that Williams clearly recalls having had a conversation with Carson regarding details of the crime, and clearly felt very sure in himself that Carson was lying in statement re Baldwin's confession, and felt bad enough about that to report it to authorities right away.

And Carson recanted. And Anne Tate thought it was all BS.

Seems to me like the scales are tipped firmly to the side of "confession never happened", here.

 

[kyleb]

Think back to a casual conversation you had with another person a year ago, on some controversial topic -- can you be SURE you recall every word you said?

It's not a matter of recalling every word, nor that of a year.

Perhaps the --important-- thing here is that Williams clearly recalls having had a conversation with Carson regarding details of the crime

No, in Williams 1994 interview with Davis he clearly didn't recall discussing any actual details of the murders with Carson, let alone what Carson previously said Baldwin told him, which is obviously why Williams was never called to testify at Baldwin's trial or for an appeal.

And Carson recanted.

Yeah, after Baldwin was already out of prison Carson gave a vague recantation without explaining any motivation for lying nor explaining where he got his information from if not Baldwin, and did so to filmmakers who presented lies to fill in that former gap while glossing over the latter, filmmakers who couldn't even bring themselves to be even remotely honest about such simple matters of fact like how long Misskelley was interrogated for before confessing.

Seems to me like the scales are tipped firmly to the side of "confession never happened", here.

Well that reminds me of a great song.

 

[reedus23]

Like it or not, at best, Carson's word is worthless at this point. So without Carson, what evidence is there against Baldwin that ties him to these crimes? For the life of me I can't think of anything. There was an argument made that Domini was Jason but the actual evidence presented was that it was Domini. A knife in the lake behind Baldwin's place that supposedly belonged to someone else and not even to Baldwin himself if I remember correctly. Anything else at all against Baldwin?

 

[Ausgirl]

:nevermind:

 

[kyleb]

Like it or not, at best, Carson's word is worthless at this point.

Even the words of those who've changed their stories are worthy of consideration with respect to what is evidenced for those of us who are interested in better understanding the truth, regardless of how much you or anyone else likes to do otherwise.

Well, if we're reduced to communicating via youtube links..

You got a mouse in your pocket there, or just an aversion to acknowledge the majority of my post which wasn't a YouTube link?

 

[Ausgirl]

or just an aversion to acknowledge the majority of my post which wasn't a YouTube link?

:yes: Yup.

 

[gheckso]

Did the defence have this Williams statement? I remember reading it was only added to callahans recently.

Some discussion here for anyone intetested.Link

 

[reedus23]

Even the words of those who've changed their stories are worthy of consideration with respect to what is evidenced for those of us who are interested in better understanding the truth, regardless of how much you or anyone else likes to do otherwise.


You got a mouse in your pocket there, or just an aversion to acknowledge the majority of my post which wasn't a YouTube link?

Go ask Ellington if he'd ever consider using Carson as a witness. His credibility is shot to hell and any rational person would acknowledge that. You can consider whatever you like but giving it any weight is ridiculous. I get why some cling to it though because there is literally nothing else pointing to Baldwin.

 

[reedus23]

Did the defence have this Williams statement? I remember reading it was only added to callahans recently.

Some discussion here for anyone intetested.Link

I haven't read your link but I don't think so and it was considered enough of an ethical violation that a complaint was lodged. Going off the top of my head so could be wrong.

 

[kyleb]

Go ask Ellington if he'd ever consider using Carson as a witness.

Ellington can't use Carson as a witness as he already accepted Baldwin's guilty plea, and arguing as if that weren't the case is ridiculous, as is presuming it your place to tell me what to do.

I haven't read your link but I don't think so and it was considered enough of an ethical violation that a complaint was lodged. Going off the top of my head so could be wrong.

I'm nearly certain you are wrong on that.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Did the defence have this Williams statement? I remember reading it was only added to callahans recently.

Some discussion here for anyone intetested.Link

This situation is still up in the air AFAIK. The link provided above is the last word I've heard, but IMO this is a very relevant point. If Jason's attorneys didn't know of Williams' statement before the trial, that is, at the very least, some sort of disclosure (or discovery) violation, isn't it? I'd really like to know about this whole situation!

 

[kyleb]

From Williams' interview with Davis:

Davis: Okay, and this the scenario would be that Michael told you he made these statements and then you called Paul Ford? Is that, is that accurate?

Williams: Yes

Davis: And told Paul Ford that if his name appeared on a witness list that he might want to talk to you about what had gone on?

Williams: That's correct

Davis: Did you explain to Paul Ford why it was you felted it was necessary for you, for them to contact you should his name appear on a witness list?

Williams: Yes I did

Davis: And, and what did you tell him generally?

Williams: I told him that I had meet with Michael sometime in December and I felted very uneasy and very bad that I had discussion some rumors or facts about this case and some things I had heard, about um satanic related killings and that, what Michael had told me uh, strongly indicated to me that he had basically repeated what I had told him to the police and I felted pretty guilty that testimony was going to be used

 

[Compassionate Reader]

That is still not proof that Ford had the actual statement made by Williams. That statement should have been provided as part of the discovery process. If Ford was totally aware of the Williams situation and didn't contact him, IMO that's just further proof of insufficient counsel. It does nothing to make Carson's statement credible, IMO.

Since Carson's statement is the only real piece of "evidence" against Jason, if Carson isn't credible, the the State's case against Jason collapses. Carson's recanting of his original testimony is just one more piece of the "maggot sandwich" that Ellington admitted he had to eat wrt this case, and it is one of the primary reasons, IMO, that Ellington was anxious to settle the case without a new trial - he knew he'd lose and that loss would be disastrous to his political aspirations! For Ellington, that's all this case appears to be - a means to an end. He doesn't seem to care about justice (or the truth) at all; he's only interested in his political career. That's really sad.