Michael Carson

[kyleb]

Carson's recantation is one of a myriad or reasons Ellington jumped at the chance to accept the Alford pleas.

That's obviously false, as when the prosecution presented an overview of the evidence at the Alford plea hearing they included "Regarding Mr. Baldwin, he allegedly made a statement while he was in juvenile detention to another detainee in Craighead County."

Anyway, unless Carson ever provides a reasonable explanation how he came to know about the castration if not from Baldwin and for what motivated him to claim otherwise, his Hollywood recantation doesn't hold nearly as much water as his sworn testimony, particularly when his recantation was given to filmmakers who can't even bring themselves to honestly portray such simple matters of fact as how long Misskelley was interrogated for before confessing.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

That's obviously false, as when the prosecution presented an overview of the evidence at the Alford plea hearing they included "Regarding Mr. Baldwin, he allegedly made a statement while he was in juvenile detention to another detainee in Craighead County."

Anyway, unless Carson ever provides a reasonable explanation how he came to know about the castration if not from Baldwin and for what motivated him to claim otherwise, his Hollywood recantation doesn't hold nearly as much water as his sworn testimony, particularly when his recantation was given to filmmakers who can't even bring themselves to honestly portray such simple matters of fact as how long Misskelley was interrogated for before confessing.

Kyleb, I swear I was just looking at that document!

I don't think many are very familiar with what was said in chambers before the open court hearing. The in chambers part wasn't part of the video hearing that we saw on TV or even on YouTube.

25 Regarding Mr. Baldwin, he allegedly made a

27
1 statement while he was in juvenile detention to
2 another detainee in Craighead County.
3 And with Mr. Misskelley, he made statements
4 to law enforcement officers after he was
5 Mirandized, implicating himself in these crimes.
6 The facts from Mr. Misskelley's statement and
7 what we allege Mr. Baldwin's statement to be are
8 consistent with the actual evidence in the case
9 and we'd ask you to consider those as well.

More telling is what Bragga says here:

9 The brief statement before, Your Honor, we
10 think, in -- in conjunction with the Arkansas
11 Supreme Court's decision on the direct appeals
12 makes it abundantly clear that there's
13 sufficient evidence on which the defendants
14 could be convicted; they were convicted.
15 So I think the basis for an Alford plea is
16 there. I -- I would just worry about going too
17 much into controverted facts for the reasons
18 stated by Mr. Hendrix.

He seems to know they would be convicted which is totally different from what supporters believe.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Alert!!!

Lawyers have been known to lie when it is beneficial to their clients.

I tend to believe Joyce Cureton who was there and who said that Jason didn't "confess" to Carson.

 

[reedus23]

He seems to know they would be convicted which is totally different from what supporters believe.

Some take legal buzz words way too literal. If they didn't say they thought they had enough to convict, the judge would never have approved the plea deals. He would have tossed the case all together. And NO lawyer knows if they'll get a conviction before a trial. They obviously believe they can get one or they wouldn't bring charges but to say they knew they would be convicted is complete malarky. And yes, I read the conference held in chambers. It was to make sure everybody knew exactly what their roles were and what they had to say, i.e. make sure you get all your buzz words on the record.

 

[kyleb]

He seems to know they would be convicted which is totally different from what supporters believe.

Well Braga obviously knew "that there's sufficient evidence on which the defendants could be convicted" which is obviously why he advised offering the Alford plea deal rather than trying to get the convictions vacated on the grounds of insufficient evidence as he did in the case of Martin Tankleff.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Braga thought that they could (not would but could) be convicted. He didn't know that they would be convicted. Big difference, IMO.

 

[Cappuccino]

:scared:

Well Braga obviously knew "that there's sufficient evidence on which the defendants could be convicted" which is obviously why he advised offering the Alford plea deal rather than trying to get the convictions vacated on the grounds of insufficient evidence as he did in the case of Martin Tankleff.

Ellington simultaneously thought they could be acquitted, as he made abundantly clear in his press conference after the Alford pleas.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

:scared:

Ellington simultaneously thought they could be acquitted, as he made abundantly clear in his press conference after the Alford pleas.

IIRC, Ellington thought that they would be acquitted!

 

[Cappuccino]

I can still hear him - "its very likely, I mean we would put on the best case we could, but its very likely that these three could very possibly be acquitted", or words to that effect.

I think Ellington was scared to take it trial, MOO.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I stand corrected. However, it seems to me that Ellington was pretty sure that the three would be found not guilty.

 

[kyleb]

Braga thought that they could (not would but could) be convicted.

Right, because he was aware of the fact that "there's sufficient evidence" by which to do so, just like he said, and just like all the other parties agreed to in point 7 of both the plea agreements for Baldwin and Echols and for Misskelley.

I think Ellington was scared to take it trial, MOO.

Of course he was, any prosecutor would be scared of such a well funded legal team. But back to the topic at hand, Carson's vague Hollywood recantation obviously wasn't a factor in Ellington's decision seeing as how that didn't come out until after the Alford plea deal and Carson's per-recantation account was listed among the evidence at the hearing.

 

[Cappuccino]

Of course he was, any prosecutor would be scared of such a well funded legal team.

No prosecutor worth his/her salt would be scared of taking a triple child murder to trial if they had compelling evidence. What's the worst that could happen - they lose the case? Big deal, its not like they would get lethal injection for it.

But back to the topic at hand, Carson's vague Hollywood recantation obviously wasn't a factor in Ellington's decision seeing as how that didn't come out until after the Alford plea deal and Carson's per-recantation account was listed among the evidence at the hearing.

Good point. Even without Carson's backtracking as far as he could without incriminating himself, the case was already so weak that Ellington was scared to take it to trial. Or even to an evidentiary hearing.

Ellington was afraid to take this case in front of any judge who was genuinely impartial. That wasn't because of the wm3's funds, it was because he knew that this case couldn't be won unless the defense was inexperienced and under funded, like the original defense were.

 

[kyleb]

No prosecutor worth his/her salt would be scared of taking a triple child murder to trial if they had compelling evidence.

Sure, as if nobody's ever been acquitted despite compelling evidence of guilt, which all parties agreed existed in this case when they signed the Alford plea deals.

Even without Carson's backtracking as far as he could without incriminating himself, the case was already so weak that Ellington was scared to take it to trial. Or even to an evidentiary hearing.

It's not Ellington who wanted to skip the evidentiary hearing, let alone who offered the plea deal, and Carson incriminated himself as a liar regardless of how lame his recantation is, though he was surely paid well for doing so.

 

[Cappuccino]

Sure, as if nobody's ever been acquitted despite compelling evidence of guilt, which all parties agreed existed in this case when they signed the Alford plea deals.

So if there was compelling guilt here, and Ellington had taken it to trial, and lost because of the miracle, superhuman dream team on the defense side, what would have been the harm? Its not like he had lethal injection hanging over his head if he lost.

And an Alford plea doesn't mean the defense agree that there is compelling evidence of guilt either. It means the defense agree that evidence exists which may lead a jury to convict even though the accused maintains their innocence.

It's not Ellington who wanted to skip the evidentiary hearing,

No, it was the defense - they wanted to skip the evidentiary hearing and go straight to trial.

let alone who offered the plea deal,

Wrong - it was Ellington who offered the plea deal as a counter offer to skipping straight to trial. He offered to let them go with time served in return for a guilty plea. The defense then counter offered again with an Alford plea. But it was the prosecutor who initially suggested the idea of avoiding a trial with a plea deal.

and Carson incriminated himself as a liar regardless of how lame his recantation is, though he was surely paid well for doing so.

Was he really? I'm sure you have evidence for Carson being paid for his lame recantation, otherwise you would hardly state it as if it were fact. Let's see that evidence.

 

[kyleb]

I didn't claim Carson was paid as fact, but rather used the term surely to qualify it as speculation. I'd actually used the term likely at fist, but went back and edited it in light of the fact that the people behind the movie have plenty of wealth to share with whomever pleases them. Best I've been able to tell they never even disclosed the total budget for WoM though, let alone who got what.

But as for your claim that Ellington "offered to let them go with time served in return for a guilty plea" which you've stated as fact, I don't suppose you've can provide any evidence for that?

 

[reedus23]

any prosecutor would be scared of such a well funded legal team.

I don't think scared is the right word. No DA is scared of other lawyers. I suspect they'd never get the job they have if they went around scared of supposed "high priced" lawyers. I will agree that he was probably more realistic about his chances given the more experienced attorneys he'd be facing and a Judge that from all accounts was more impartial. Add to that the fact that satanic panic had subsided and was not going to help carry the day and he reached the conclusion that the odds of prevailing at the evidentiary hearing were less than 50% and winning at trial probably less than that and therefore agreed to release unto the public what you call "child murderers".

 

[reedus23]

I didn't claim Carson was paid as fact, but rather used the term surely to qualify it as speculation. I'd actually used the term likely at fist, but went back and edited it in light of the fact that the people behind the movie have plenty of wealth to share with whomever pleases them. Best I've been able to tell they never even disclosed the total budget for WoM though, let alone who got what.

But as for your claim that Ellington "offered to let them go with time served in return for a guilty plea" which you've stated as fact, I don't suppose you've can provide any evidence for that?

So were Burnett and Fogleman and Driver and on and on also surely well compensated for spouting their lines and therefore less believable as well?

 

[UdbCrzy2]

~~snipped for space~~

Of course he was, any prosecutor would be scared of such a well funded legal team. But back to the topic at hand, Carson's vague Hollywood recantation obviously wasn't a factor in Ellington's decision seeing as how that didn't come out until after the Alford plea deal and Carson's per-recantation account was listed among the evidence at the hearing.

The defense was extremely well funded, but had very bizarre ideas and they couldn't keep their theories together. First it was Bojangles, then Byers and claimed it was his bite marks and now turtles and the wolves/dogs and today it's Terry Hobbs. What a joke!

I actually believe that many people were paid off to take the side of the guilty. I guess money CAN buy you almost anything that you desire except for the truth.

The truth is that the WM3 were proven guilty in a court of law by two juries and then when given a chance for a new trial decided to instead plea guilty to murdering 3 children.

That speaks volumes to me. Oh yeah, I know they maintained their innocence, but that's because they get a big bundle of money coming in to play innocent.

I hope one day that someone like Misskelley or Domni comes out with a tell all book.

There are not many people who would want to associate themselves with 3 convicted multiple child murderers who later plead guilty, I know I wouldn't.

Even the attorney Paul Ford said that he wasn't sure that Baldwin was innocent. That's his own attorney saying this.

 

[gheckso]

So much spin :facepalm:

 

[shadoworder]

~~snipped for space~~




The defense was extremely well funded, but had very bizarre ideas and they couldn't keep their theories together. First it was Bojangles, then Byers and claimed it was his bite marks and now turtles and the wolves/dogs and today it's Terry Hobbs. What a joke!

I actually believe that many people were paid off to take the side of the guilty. I guess money CAN buy you almost anything that you desire except for the truth.

The truth is that the WM3 were proven guilty in a court of law by two juries and then when given a chance for a new trial decided to instead plea guilty to murdering 3 children.

That speaks volumes to me. Oh yeah, I know they maintained their innocence, but that's because they get a big bundle of money coming in to play innocent.

I hope one day that someone like Misskelley or Domni comes out with a tell all book.

There are not many people who would want to associate themselves with 3 convicted multiple child murderers who later plead guilty, I know I wouldn't.

Even the attorney Paul Ford said that he wasn't sure that Baldwin was innocent. That's his own attorney saying this.

Thats completely incorrect, they were never given the chance because when the Defense asked to skip the evidentiary hearing and go straight to trial, Scott Ellington, the prosecutor, refused. The question to be asked is not why the WM3 took the Alford plea, but why the prosecution accepted it. They were under no obligation to take it, and had all the time in the world to prepare for a retrial of what was/is the most infamous murder in Arkansas history. The truth is that Scott Ellington knew the original convictions were a joke, and that he would get slaughtered in a new trial.Not to mention how Arkansas would be sued back to the stone age. He opted for the Alford plea, which he described as a "lucky break for me" after they were released.