To Love and to Kill (36 page)

CHAPTER 105

IT TOOK TWO
years before the Florida Supreme Court would find the time to hear Emilia Carr's case. Christopher Quarles stood and argued Emilia's appeal first thing Monday morning, February 3, 2014. At this time, the state supreme court was made up of seven justices: Ricky Polston, Barbara Pariente, Fred Lewis, Peggy Quince, Charles Canady, Jorge Labarga and James Perry. Quarles was allowed, as was the attorney general's office (AGO), a time limit of thirty minutes to present his case. Quarles and James Purdy, a Seventh Judicial Circuit Court public defender, had meticulously prepared (and filed) what was a 108-page brief on Emilia's behalf. They cited dozens of case histories throughout the country relating to Emilia's. The brief was full of factual detail consisting of specifics relating to Emilia and how the jury had reached a guilty verdict.

In that brief, Emilia's lawyers focused mainly on Emilia's testimony and her account of what happened, which she had not varied from or been swayed to change since her conviction and sentence. Emilia stood behind the story that yes, she had repeatedly lied to Detectives Buie and Spivey, but she had only done it out of fear of losing her children and the intimidation she felt in the need to come up with information that the two investigators pushed her to find out.

The fact of the matter was that she had no involvement in Heather Strong's demise,
the brief stated in the first paragraph.

The lawyers went on to write that Emilia “did not even see” Josh Fulgham on that night in question and they “never discussed” having Heather Strong killed.

As to Spivey's report detailing the account Emilia gave about witnessing Heather in the chair dead and Emilia feeling for a pulse:
Emilia never saw Heather in the trailer either dead or alive. In fact, she did not even know who had actually killed Heather.

The next argument presented in the brief was interesting. In total contrast to the state's “theory,” Quarles and Purdy contended that Emilia had never attempted to “blame” James Acome's friend and James Acome for Heather's death:
Rather, Carr was attempting to blame Josh Fulgham and his mother.

This was a new revelation—it had never come up before this brief.

So, then, why had Emilia mentioned James and his buddy, to begin with?

She only referred to Acome and [his friend] during her conversation with Michelle Gustafson in an attempt to persuade Gustafson that she was on Josh Fulgham's side,
the lawyers wrote.

The brief described a narrative history of Emilia's life and her role in the Yera family as its golden child—and how she had been subjected to a childhood of absolute shame and shuffling around from one home to the next. For the first time, the sexual abuse inside the Yera home was outlined and explained in detail:
At the age of five, Emilia Carr was removed from her home by state authorities, due to her father and grandfather's sexual abuse of her sibling.... The family [without Emilia's sibling] . . . reunited after they moved to Boardman. . . .

Emilia's sister, the girl taken from the home, lived nearby with her grandmother. Throughout those early years of childhood, Emilia's sister “was taken for visits” over to the Boardman home:
Each time, she was repeatedly exposed to her perpetrator . . . .

The doctor brought in to explain this during the penalty phase of Emilia's trial:
[He] explained that Emilia's family situation affected Emilia's development as a person.

Emilia was ultimately “molested by both her grandfather and father,” the lawyers argued:
She had early memories of the grandfather fondling her genitals and asking her to perform certain sex acts in exchange for money. As she developed, her breasts were routinely fondled by her father. She remembered showering with her father and being forced to wash his penis. The abuse finally stopped when Emilia stepped up to protect her little sister.

Essentially, Quarles and Purdy had learned something from Terry Lenamon's win and how Lenamon was able to get jurors to understand that abused children without sexual boundaries, if the condition is left untreated, grow into adults who view the world in an entirely different manner. Betrayal and jealously are not mere emotions that can be dealt with by working through them, as most healthy people do; they are controlling aspects of the abuse victim's life, leading to a host of emotional problems.

The overall arching theme of their argument, after setting the stage with a defendant growing up in a terribly unhealthy and abusive environment, became clear when the lawyers wrote that Emilia's trial, based on what they now knew, was “unfair.”

Why?

[The] State successfully convinced the judge to exclude relevant, critical evidence relating to Josh Fulgham's relative culpability in the murder . . . [and] by stretching the rules of evidence, the jury was not given an accurate picture of Josh Fulgham's more important role in the murder of his own wife,
the brief stated.

Josh had carefully planned and carried out this murder, dragging Emilia, kicking and screaming, into that diabolical plot against her will.

Equally as compelling was Quarles and Purdy's explanation of why the supreme court should toss the entire verdict out and start over: Emilia and Josh should have been tried together.
[Because Emilia's] trial was severed from her codefendant, evidence of Fulgham's actions was improperly introduced by the State at the guilt phase.

Furthermore,
[Emilia couldn't] confront that evidence, thus violating her constitutional right to confrontation.

Facing the justices, Quarles said, “I think the evidence is very clear that Joshua Fulgham is more culpable. He had the motive, he hatched the plan, he brought the victim to the scene of the crime, and it's
very
unfair [that] . . . he is serving a life sentence when she is sentenced to death.”

There could be no truer argument in the face of the law at this stage.

Justice Charles Canady spoke up at one point, making a comment about Emilia having an IQ of at least 125, as opposed to Josh being “intellectually challenged.” Canady wanted to know what Emilia's lawyers thought about that.

They stood firm on the ground of that accusation never being proven or established with any professional validity.

Then the AGO spoke, sticking to the core foundation of the state's case against Emilia: “In the actual commission of the crime, Miss Carr was heavily involved in what was going on,” Assistant Attorney General Sara Macks explained.

That fact had been substantiated not only by the evidence, and some of what Josh and Emilia had talked about on the phone, but by Emilia's own admissions to Michelle Gustafson.

Period.

Macks went on to say that there was no doubt a premeditated plan between Emilia and Josh to begin a life together, and the means to that end was getting rid of the source of their problems: Heather.

Each convicted murderer could now go back and claim, “Oh no, we weren't planning to kill her, but only scare her. And all the conversation about getting rid of
‘that bitch,'
well, that was just ‘smack talk.'” But the end result here, despite how Emilia and Josh wanted to portray their roles, was that Heather was murdered, and both Emilia and Josh had admitted to playing a part in that murder before and after it took place.

Bringing up a valid point, Justice Jorge Labarga asked why the judges in both cases did not get together and wait until both verdicts had been reached before sentencing them after receiving
both
jury's recommendations.

Macks said there was a delay for over a year in Josh's trial.

Quarles argued that Emilia's participation in the crimes and her murder trial should have never been “a death case,” to begin with, and should never have been tried as such.

The justices said it would be some time before their ruling.

CHAPTER 106

ACCORDING TO JOSH,
although he said he “tossed all of the letters away” out of anger and resentment, Emilia kept trying to contact him after they were both sentenced and incarcerated.

I wondered how this was possible, seeing that prison-to-prison correspondence between prisoners is not allowed.

But Josh insisted that Emilia used a friend as a third party to accept and then redistribute the letters. Nevertheless, Josh wrote,
It just shows you that Emilia still tryes [
sic
] to keep in contact with me, and yet she tells people it is me who writes to her.
He wrote that
[I] respond to her letters sometimes just for entertainment.

In several of those letters, Josh claimed, Emilia asked him to write to the governor and tell him that there was a “mother of four on death row that is innocent.”

Josh thought this request was funny, writing to me,
There might be a mother of four . . . on death row that is innocent, but it is
not
Emilia. . . .

The media made a “big deal” out of a letter Josh was able to get to a man who had been sentenced to life in prison. Josh reached out to the man after hearing how upset he was by the sentence. In his letter to that man, Josh said how living life behind bars wasn't so bad, actually, because you could get
Playboy
magazines, watch TV and get an MP3 player and download music, he pointed out.

The press and the SAO had a field day with this, claiming Josh was spitting in the face of the justice system and laughing at his sentence, thus mocking those jurors and the judge who had spared his life. And rightly so, it certainly seemed, with the wording Josh chose in that letter, he was gloating.

Josh told me that his intention was never to delight in the fact that he had beaten the system and escaped a death sentence. He was simply trying, as an elder con of sorts, to explain to this guy that there were rules and “dos and don'ts” associated with now being a member of the “chain gang.”

I wanted to encourage him,
Josh wrote.
That's all.

It was Brad King, according to Josh, who facilitated that onslaught of media coverage over the letter.

Josh went on to explain that he had no idea why his case was chosen to be what he called a “big story” in the media at the time it was tried. He didn't understand why he was turned into, again, by his account, a “superstar” criminal. But he suspected that for prosecutor Brad King:
I gave him a case wrapped in a gold box, so he makes it looks like he done all this hard work to put a murderer away.

Brad King did his job as a public servant and law enforcement officer of the court.

In the end, contradicting an earlier statement, Josh Fulgham said the jury in his case got it right:
I am wrong for what I done and I will pay for my part. . . .

Regarding Emilia:
If [she] was innocent, I would not have her sit on death row or even in prison at all. But Emilia is just as guilty as me, if not more.

There is one everlasting truth in this story, a slice of reality that cannot be denied: Despite the problems she had throughout her life, what she did personally, how she interacted with her family, the men she chose to have in her home, Heather Strong was an innocent victim, viciously murdered by two people she somewhat trusted not to take things as far as they did. Heather will never get a chance to soar like the eagle she dreamed herself to become one day. She will never be allowed to change her life's path. She will never have the chance to hold her babies and smell that sweet, rosy, cherubic, baby powder aroma of childhood on their skin. She will never have the opportunity to love again. And maybe the worst fear Heather had all her life is now a reality: Her children are without a mother, a woman who loved them more than they will ever know.

That
is the tragedy here.

EPILOGUE

THERE'S SOMETHING TO
be said for remorse, at least when it pertains to a convicted murderer admitting his or her role in the crime and sharing genuine sorrow. Remorse, in this manner, can only be defined as a deep regret for one's actions. Yet, within that regret, one who is truly remorseful must also express some form of repentance for the wrong he or she has committed. There has to be a sense of guilt and an understanding that a great moral wrong took place, and he or she is sorry for it and is willing to take responsibility.

It's rare that a writer/researcher/crime expert hears an ounce of true remorse from a murderer. I've hardly ever experienced a convicted murderer sharing true remorse, in some twenty-five nonfiction crime books that I have written. I have interviewed dozens of criminals and murderers, even serial killers. This is why, for me, when I hear it from the mouth of a convicted, admitted murderer, it not only stands out, but I need to take a step back and evaluate the validity of that so-called remorse.

Thus, the question presents itself: Is Joshua Fulgham truly remorseful? (We cannot evaluate Emilia because she still claims no involvement.)

I think this case proves that remorse, when it is genuine, can go a long way in the feelings of a community put in a position to judge innocence and guilt, life and death. You show a jury you're truly remorseful, absolutely sorry for what you did—and let's be clear, I don't feel Josh actually did that as well as he could or should have—and the jury will give you the benefit of the doubt. Rightly so, they won't let you off the hook, but they might just allow you to live because, in the end, most people, when given the opportunity, will forgive.

 

 

I DO NOT
yet have a Florida Supreme Court decision in Emilia's case at the time of this writing—and I feel bad for that as a writer publishing a book about this case. In my humble opinion, sticking my neck out, I believe after reading and studying her case, reviewing all of the documents and conducting interviews with many of the people involved, the Supreme Court will likely rule in Emilia's favor and kick the case back to the lower courts, where she will either fight for another trial (which she shouldn't) or accept a life sentence (which she should).
³

There is a “Free Emilia Carr” Facebook page, with 177 members (as of this writing). The photos on the page tell a story. In the various photos of Emilia wearing orange johnnies, we see a seemingly sad, lonely, innocent-looking young woman in prison. At times, she's standing behind a cartoonish background or a white wall, sometimes smiling, sometimes looking coyly (maybe even sexily) into the camera lens. Sometimes she's posing as if for a fashion shoot, but also, more sobering, at times looking through those looking back, as there seems to be a devilish gaze absolutely present in Emilia's stare.

Those are the many faces of Emilia Carr. She is an enigma. In listening to all of the prison phone calls between Emilia and Josh, you truly get a sense of who this woman is. Her true character comes through without Emilia trying. In my opinion, Emilia wanted Heather out of the picture so she could be with Josh, a man who—truth be told—never loved her and never would. Emilia felt Josh would protect her. She needed that. She felt Josh would take care of her. She needed that, too. And also that Josh would provide for her, an important element of this story from Emilia's point of view. Emilia was kind of bouncing through life at the time, not really knowing what would come next. Josh was Emilia's savior. It was one of the reasons, I believe, she purposely got pregnant with his child. I say
one
of the reasons, because the other was to throw that pregnancy in Heather's face. Heather was a woman Emilia clearly viewed as her rival and someone whom Emilia hated with an intense passion.

The “Free Emilia Carr” Facebook page is filled with stories of DNA exonerating the innocent and tales of men who died on death row before being able to prove their innocence. It's also filled with foul language and nasty remarks pointed at Emilia that, as of this writing, the webmaster has been cleaning up and deleting, encouraging posters to keep the discourse clean and civil.

Emilia's sister Milagro posted a rather simple, yet revealing, message back on July 19, 2013:
Help free my sister.

Within those four simple, sad words lies another characteristic at the heart of this story from Emilia's perspective: her family.

I reached out to Emilia's Facebook community and asked for comments, interviews, etc., posted my e-mail address and encouraged anyone, within reason, to become a voice in this book.

Not one person contacted me.

Likewise, Emilia sent me phone numbers of family and friends. I left messages—on those numbers that were actually active; many were not—but nobody ever called me back.

Emilia initially said she did not want to talk to me. She referred to me as part of the vast conspiracy of evil media out in the world that had judged her and made her life hell by publishing erroneous accusations about her. I have yet to correspond with a convicted murderer who has not made this same allegation. (Josh did it in the end, too!) Emilia specifically mentioned a television series that profiled her case and said the show painted her as a wicked, twisted murderer. She said she wouldn't be a part of me doing the same thing.

But there was something I felt in that first letter from her. I could tell she wanted to continue talking to me, but she just needed a little prodding.

So I explained in a second letter that I have never been part of “the media.” I'm not a reporter. And she shouldn't confuse me with being a member of any news group or media outlet. I told her I was a book writer/investigative journalist doing my own thing—answering only to my editor—and that if she wanted to speak about her case without “the media” getting in her way, this was her chance. Probably her last chance. I had offered the same to Josh. (I offer the same to any convicted murderer I write about.) I told Emilia I would not censor her story or turn it into something it's not. I explained how I thought there was more to her story than what had been reported. I called it a “much bigger story” than anybody was likely aware of by simply reading news accounts or watching crime television. In her first letter to me, Emilia had mentioned several instances from her case—she referred to them as “what the hell” moments—that did not make sense. She did not elaborate.

In my second letter to her, I wrote:

Finally I concluded by telling Emilia to reach out to all of her supporters and to have as many as she'd like contact me. I wanted their input. I wanted Emilia's complete story from friends and family. I should note that as I got deep into my research, within Emilia's background, I could not find any history of violence or odd behavior or anything resembling a woman who would go on to commit a murder with another person. Generally, when you unpack a murderer's life, there are shimmering (and often shivering) moments of a person who you later could see killing another human being. “Aha” moments, for certain. I'm not talking psychopath stuff, like with serial killers or mass murderers, spree killers and the like: maiming and torturing animals, setting fires, bullying kids to the point of violence, stockpiling weapons in their bedroom closet, YouTube manifestos and so on. But there are glimpses into that later behavior, such as perpetrating child abuse, violent spats with significant others, assault charges, not being able to hold down jobs, even theft and a total disregard for any type of authority. We see a lot of this in Josh's case. Yet, as I looked into Emilia's background and squeezed out the details of her life, I could not come up with anything even remotely resembling that of a twisted, evil person who had the wiring that would lead ultimately to the circuitry of a killer. It's not unheard of, of course. But it is rare not to find anything of significance.

In that second letter, I ended by saying:

What did Emilia have to lose in talking to me? After all, she was sitting on death row.

She wrote me back a three-page letter beginning a dialogue about her life story (all of which I included in this book). But I never heard from her again.

Part of this might be because of her being on death row. All of her letters to me were clearly opened, read, repackaged in the same envelope and sent on to me (as were many of Josh's). Emilia also mentioned that it took weeks to receive my letters.

In a final missive, which I wrote on March 25, 2014, I included the following:

I wrote out several questions. Among them:

As the end of June approached, ninety days later, I still had not heard from Emilia. Nor had I heard from anyone in her family, her friends or her supporters. Everyone from Emilia's side was entirely silent.

Josh, of course, wrote many letters describing his life, from his point of view, in great detail, save for mentioning that sexual abuse.

So I wrote back to him, asking about it—and we've already seen what his response was.

Josh also said he hadn't spoken to Michelle, his sister, since his arrest. And this troubled him. He asked me to reach out to Michelle and tell her, “I love her and miss her very much. . . .”

Emilia was convicted, I believe, on the conversation Michelle courageously recorded inside her car on the afternoon Buie and Spivey sat nearby and listened. That was the day the state's case was made and a potential life sentence turned into a death sentence.

In the end, I hope Emilia is booted from death row and placed in a maximum-security facility for women for the remainder of her life. That would be, in my personal view, a just sentence. I don't say this out of religious beliefs or personal thoughts regarding the death penalty; I say this because it is the only just sentence for Emilia. If any one of the two deserved the death penalty in this case, my belief is it should have been Josh. For my money, there was clear intent and premeditation on Josh's part. I don't believe one or the other played a more violent or bigger role in Heather's murder. They were both equally responsible. I do think, however, Josh had a plan while behind bars to pay Heather back for what she and Ben did to him. That all being said, it would still be hard for me to vote death, had I been on the jury, for a man (or woman) who had been abused sexually the way Josh (supposedly) and Emilia (definitely) had been. Once childhood sexual abuse enters the picture, accountability for later actions has to be viewed under an entirely different microscope.

What's interesting to me is that as soon as I mentioned to either Josh or Emilia that I was talking to the other, Emilia stopped corresponding with me and Josh snapped. That alone says a lot about them.

 

 

I WOULD LIKE
to end by sharing some words about Heather Strong. Here was a woman who worked her ass off as a waitress to take care of her children. Unfortunately, she had a shithead for a boyfriend/husband, a man who knew the difference between being responsible for his family, taking care of them, and just being a deadbeat drug abuser who blamed society for the shit life he
created
for himself and everyone around him. Heather kept trying to dig out from underneath the dysfunction she often found herself facing, day in and day out, when she was with Josh. When she finally found a good, honest man—Ben McCollum—who loved her and her kids, a man who wanted to take care of her and give her and the kids a normal, healthy life, Heather was emotionally ill-equipped to deal with that sort of love. As a result, she did what she always did and went back to Josh, where, as unhealthy and dysfunctional as that relationship always was, it provided that all-too-familiar (and tragic) codependency of comfort that kept Heather returning—in order to feel normal. True, honest love, like that which she shared with Ben, was not something Heather was used to or could handle. It was uncomfortable. She had no idea how to deal with it, accept it or enjoy it. Her life was a loud roller-coaster ride with Josh. When she met up with the quiet comfort Ben gave her, it was too overwhelming.

That is the lesson here for any female reading this book and realizing she might be in a similar situation. Please, I beg of you: Don't allow Heather's murder to have taken place in vain—learn from it. Get out of that unhealthy, dangerous and violent relationship and stay the hell out! Run as far away as possible. Remember, if he has ever shown you who he truly is, please believe him—because that's who he is. He will not change, despite what he promises.