Michael Carson

[Compassionate Reader]

IIRC, the defense wanted the records unsealed so they could investigate Carson's credibility since he was being used as a witness against Jason. I don't believe that the defense was allowed access to the records, so all they could do was "speculate" about what they had heard to be true.

 

[Mary456]

IIRC, the defense wanted the records unsealed so they could investigate Carson's credibility since he was being used as a witness against Jason. I don't believe that the defense was allowed access to the records, so all they could do was "speculate" about what they had heard to be true.

You haven't read the trial transcript.

I would encourage you to do so.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Yes, I have. And the pre-trial hearings. And the Pasdar depositions. And the Johnny Preston letter. Michael Carson is not a reliable or credible witness. There is nothing in the trial transcripts that can make him credible. It was the prosecution's last ditch effort to find something on Jason because there was nothing. The fiber evidence is flimsy at best, even Davis and Fogleman said so. Jessie's confession was supposedly inadmissible. So, they got this story from a drug addict. I don't buy it. Nothing in Carson's story matched the evidence at the scene, either. There was no sodomy or oral sex. It was a wild story. Maybe he wanted the reward. Maybe, like I said before, he was in trouble again. I can't prove that that is the case, but nothing proves that it isn't the case. In short, I don't believe Michael Carson. Period.

 

[Mary456]

Yes, I have. And the pre-trial hearings.

No, you haven't read the pre-trial hearings.

If you had, you'd know that Judge Burnett wouldn't allow Carson's medical history to be admitted at trial, because it was confidential, between a client and counselor.

And that is exactly the same reason why he wouldn't allow Damien's history of mental health to be admitted into evidence.

 

[Mary456]

I need to make a correction.

The admissibility of Michael Carson's medical history was discussed in chambers, out of the presence of the jury.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I did read the pre-trial hearings. I never mentioned Michael Carson's medical history. I only discussed his credibility which has nothing directly to do with his medical history. I'm getting tired of being told what I have and have not read. I have read extensively on Callahan's, and my reading comprehension skills are adequate to understand what I read. Please don't continue insulting me by trying to tell me what I have or have not done. We may interpret what we read differently, and obviously we both think we are right. I'm not saying that you haven't read the transcripts; I'm only saying that we see things differently. It's like the eyewitness example I've discussed. Two eyewitnesses to the same crime will differ in what they see in some ways, sometimes in important ways. That is even more possible with written transcripts.

 

[Mary456]

IIRC, the defense wanted the records unsealed so they could investigate Carson's credibility since he was being used as a witness against Jason. I don't believe that the defense was allowed access to the records, so all they could do was "speculate" about what they had heard to be true.

The defense had all of Michael Carson's records; they were forwarded to them accidentally.

Judge Burnett would not allow them into evidence, just as he would not allow Damien's extensive mental health problems into evidence.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

All that means is that the defense was unable to use his records to attack his credibility which kinda lends support to the defense assertion that he was not a credible witness. Burnett also disallowed the testimony of the drug counselor who told the defense that Carson's story was something he (the counselor) had told him (Carson). It tends to support the notion that Burnett was leaning toward the prosecution throughout the trials. In my opinion, and you will probably disagree, many of Burnett's remarks, especially at the pre-trial hearings were disrespectful of the defense counselors. Often, he wouldn't even let them finish a question or a point before he cut them off. At least that's the way I interpreted his actions.

 

[Rebdot]

I agree completely.

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.

:clap: I see the point your trying to make here.

 

[iluvmua]

Michael Carson passed his Poly, Jason Baldwin refused to take one.

If Jason Baldwin is innocent as supporters claims, Why would he refuse to take a polygraph test?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Michael Carson passed his Poly, Jason Baldwin refused to take one.

If Jason Baldwin is innocent as supporters claims, Why would he refuse to take a polygraph test?

Polygraphs are notoriously inaccurate. I'm sure that his lawyer told him to refuse. Refusal to take a polygraph proves nothing.

ETA: Likewise, passing a polygraph proves nothing.

 

[Mary456]

Polygraphs are notoriously inaccurate. I'm sure that his lawyer told him to refuse. Refusal to take a polygraph proves nothing.

ETA: Likewise, passing a polygraph proves nothing.

That's a sweeping overgeneralization, imo.

For instance, let's say there's a good bit of evidence pointing to John. John fails a polygraph. The police will keep John on the front burner as their investigation continues.

Now, let's say there's very little evidence against John, and he passes a polygraph or two with flying colors. John goes on the back burner for the time being.

Detectives don't suggest that a polygraph 'proves' a suspect is innocent or guilty. It's not a crystal ball. It's simply an investigative tool, one of many police use to help solve crimes.

 

[Nova]

Michael Carson passed his Poly, Jason Baldwin refused to take one.

If Jason Baldwin is innocent as supporters claims, Why would he refuse to take a polygraph test?

Because he's smart and listened to his lawyer.

EVERYONE should refuse to take polygraph tests. They've been around for 100 years and still aren't admissible in court. That ought to tell us all something.

 

[Nova]

That's a sweeping overgeneralization, imo.

For instance, let's say there's a good bit of evidence pointing to John. John fails a polygraph. The police will keep John on the front burner as their investigation continues.

Now, let's say there's very little evidence against John, and he passes a polygraph or two with flying colors. John goes on the back burner for the time being.

Detectives don't suggest that a polygraph 'proves' a suspect is innocent or guilty. It's not a crystal ball. It's simply an investigative tool, one of many police use to help solve crimes.

One doesn't pass or fail a polygraph as if it were a pop quiz composed of true and false questions. Polygraphs are "interpreted" and courts continue to recognize that those interpretations are too subjective to be reliable.

LE uses polygraphs to "clear" people they already believe to be innocent, and to bluff and intimidate suspects they believe to be guilty.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

This article may help. It discusses false/coerced confessions, confessions of the mentally challenged (the one cited had an IQ of 69) and polygraph-induced false confessions:
http://www.cwsl.edu/content/benner/False Confessions and Constitution.pdf

 

[Nova]

This article may help. It discusses false/coerced confessions, confessions of the mentally challenged (the one cited had an IQ of 69) and polygraph-induced false confessions:
http://www.cwsl.edu/content/benner/False Confessions and Constitution.pdf

As a reading of that article shows, JM was a classic case! Low IQ; told he had flunked a polygraph that, in fact, he had passed; unable to produce a story that remotely corresponded to the forensic evidence (not even the limited evidence that existed at the time).

 

[gryncher]

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.

My God - you will invent ANYTHING to deflect the truth!!!!

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I didn't invent anything. One of the lawyers made this assertion during the Rule 37 hearing.

 

[gryncher]

I didn't invent anything. One of the lawyers made this assertion during the Rule 37 hearing.

You are inventing reasons you think he lied. He had NOTHING to gain by lying on the stand. He passed 2 polygraphs. Damien failed.

BTW - polygraph results ARE admissible as evidence in some States. They are not the throw away you claim them to be.

Of course if Damien had actually passed his - and Carson failed, you'd be shouting that from the rooftops.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

As I have stated before, liars can pass polygraphs because they are adept at lying. Often innocent people, who are not in the habit of lying, fail polygraphs for a variety of reasons, the primary one usually being that they are nervous when the polygraph is administered because they know they are innocent but fear that the machine might not accurately portray their truthfulness. This is why most states do no admit polygraphs. A lot of it has to do with the training required of those who administer the polygraphs. The states that admit polygraphs must have a lot of requirements for those who administer them to make sure that they are as objective as possible. Generally speaking, polygraphs are very subjective instruments whose interpretation can differ depending upon who is reading them and reporting their results. The defense wanted to present a true polygraph expert at trial to give a different interpretation of the results of Jessie's polygraph. Burnett disallowed his testimony, but some of it is available in the recently-released Rule 37 abstracts.