To Love and to Kill

by M. William Phelps

  He never wanted any of it to “come up” during his trial, but his cousin had his “defense team convinced.”

  It was here, in that same letter, where I experienced the flip side of Joshua Fulgham: an explosive, angry man who could turn on a dime. Josh said he didn’t “want any of it to come up” in this book, as if he had some sort of control over the content of my writing.

  The sexual abuse allegation is beyond Josh’s control. It was part of Josh’s trial—a major argument on the part of his defense team. For him to now come forward and claim it was nonsense is noble and honest, but it doesn’t change the outcome of what happened to Josh during the penalty phase of his case.

  Further, Josh took the moment to show me that part of him I knew was always there, simmering underneath all his previous letters, just waiting to burst. In all of our correspondence, Josh had been rather cordial and open. He told me things that, after I researched, I found to be honest answers to my questions. I had promised Josh that I would tell his story how it was told to me by him; but, of course, I would also use the record and conduct my own interviews and investigation into the factual side of this story as uncovered by law enforcement. In my view, when a jury convicts, the record becomes “fact.” I have found that most juries and investigating law enforcement agencies display integrity and conduct honest investigations for the greater good of the case. In that respect, I found nothing out of whack here in either Emilia’s or Josh’s cases. The truth is funny that way: As you wade through the research later, after all is said and done, an ultimate reality rises to the surface without much effort, and that truth becomes utterly and indelibly obvious—as long as you’re willing to accept it.

  Getting back to that last letter from Josh, he wrote about a “feeling” he’d had, whereby I had “trashed” him in my book “so bad that it really doesn’t matter.”

  What proved to me then that there was another side of Josh was how he attacked Heather and her family in an extended rant. Up on his soapbox, Josh wrote, [The] local media made it look like Heather was a loving caring mother and just left a PTA meeting. However, he complained, they made him look like the “big bad mean abusive husband.” He then lashed out furiously at Heather’s family, calling them all by different, vulgar, disparaging names, accusing them of all sorts of personal shortcomings and the most egregious and morally deplorable crimes imaginable.

  The tirade Josh went on in this letter lasted for three, single-spaced pages, ending with a final page of Josh saying how he “thought” that being “honest” with me throughout our correspondence would have generated some sort of loyalty on my part. He felt that I would not take sides or bring up certain aspects of his case that the court and media, by his estimation, had made into a big deal.

  After I saw what you had to say in this letter you sent it is likely not [going to happen], he added.

  The letter I had sent Josh after learning of the supposed sexual abuse was fairly straightforward:

  I have a few final questions for you.

  Sexual abuse mentioned during your trial? You never talked about that with me. Please tell me about it. It is very important to your overall story and my readers understanding who you are and how your life turned out the way it did.

  While I had his attention, I thought I’d ask several additional questions about Emilia to help me understand the relationship between them a bit better:

  Emilia has a “Free Emilia” Facebook page—what are your thoughts on that?

  One final question: Did Emilia ever mention to you that her father and uncle sexually abused her? If so, what did she tell you?

  And then I concluded with a few final thoughts:

  I wanted to thank you for your honesty. It really comes through in the book. You won’t like everything written about you, but let me say that your voice is loud and clear and all over this book!

  It was that one combination of words: You won’t like everything written about you. . . . That observation rattled Joshua Fulgham to his core. No doubt about it. I could picture his mind racing after reading it. He began right there to project and predict the future. He felt like I had betrayed him—and we know how Josh deals with feelings of betrayal.

  Concluding his letter to me, Josh asked if I could send him a few more copies of my books (I had sent him several already after he requested). He also said he’d be happy to answer any more of my questions, even if I didn’t send him the books.

  I drafted a response to Josh, signed the letter, sealed it in an envelope, but then I never sent it. Picking the letter up, walking it over to my office mail slot, I thought: You know, this guy, despite any remorse he’s shown and how open and honest he actually was with me, is a vicious murderer who took the mother of his children away from them—and not only made Heather Strong’s entire life a miserable hell all those years she stayed with him, but then made the final moments she spent on this planet even worse. All of that happened before he violently killed her in a most painful manner, in addition to having her romantic rival standing by and helping out....

  I took that letter, walked it back over to my files on the case and slipped it into a folder, where it sits today. This son of a bitch doesn’t deserve a response from me! I thought.

  CHAPTER 104

  REGARDLESS OF WHAT Josh later wrote to me years after the penalty phase of his case concluded, the jury bought it during his trial and spared his life. In a total contradiction to the outcome of Emilia’s case, the jury believed Josh Fulgham deserved to live out the remainder of his days behind bars.

  It was a shock to nearly everyone close to this case, with the exception of Lenamon and Alavi, who were, by and large, the reigning champs at saving people from death row in the state of Florida. And, to be clear, Lenamon and Alavi never knew that Josh’s cousin—if we believe Josh—had made all of that up. They conducted an investigation and used the results of it to fight for their client’s life.

  As the verdict was read, “sighs of relief,” reported one media source, could be heard inside the courtroom.

  No doubt Judy Chandler was among those breathing a bit easier as she learned her son would not be placed on death row.

  Josh bowed his head after the verdict echoed throughout the courtroom. It was a comforting feeling, more than sheer relief or victory. Josh was thankful it was all over, for one. Two, obviously, he wouldn’t be executed. Josh couldn’t say it enough: He was sorry for what he had done. To that end, should a remorseful man, who had admitted his role in a murder, be condemned to death? Josh had wanted death long ago. Now, though, he was thankful to be alive.

  For Terry Lenamon, his record was now nine out of eleven times he was able to convince a jury to save a life. Those aren’t bad numbers if you consider the alternative.

  Something that had bothered Lenamon going in was the lack of willingness on the state’s part to cut a deal for life without parole. The way Lenamon saw it, the state could have avoided the entire cost, both financially and emotionally, of another murder trial and penalty phase.

  “But, on the other hand, I understood why Brad King went forward,” Lenamon commented. “He had to.”

  The state wound up not arguing for the judge the “override” the jury’s recommendation. Soon the judge affirmed the jury’s verdict and Josh was sentenced to two consecutive life terms. There was no chance he would ever see the four walls and oak desk of the state parole board or a door leading to the outside world. Josh claimed he was happy with the sentence. He believed he deserved it.

  Walking out of court, Brad King disappointed reporters when he said he was not going to make himself available for comment.

  What life in prison did in Josh’s case, however, was open up a host of questions surrounding Emilia’s death sentence. Emilia’s new lawyer, a guy who had once represented Aileen Wuornos, came out swinging after Josh’s verdict. Volusia County public defender Christopher Quarles was happy to see a jury in basically the same case vote for life, especially after a jury had voted for
death under the same set of mitigating circumstances and, presumably, less evidence. It would prove to be a great point of contention to argue in front of the Florida Supreme Court.

  “I like this development,” Quarles told the Ocala Star-Banner on April 23, 2012. “I’m just not sure what I’m going to do with it. I think it’s relevant. I think I’ve got some good issues already, but you can never have too many. . . .”

  Quarles had practiced law for over thirty years. It was the first time during any of those three decades inside a courtroom, he explained, that he had ever seen two defendants in the same case receive such categorically different sentences.

  After Josh’s verdict came in and his life had been spared, Terry Lenamon had some rather strong opinions regarding the outcome of Emilia’s case and Emilia’s former defense team: “I truly believe that her lawyers did a horrible job. Had I represented her, she would have gotten life.”

  There was a sense of compassion in Lenamon’s tone. He wasn’t gloating or ruffling his feathers. It wasn’t about that for the experienced lawyer. In fact, Lenamon respected those lawyers who had represented Emilia. But he was seriously concerned regarding the way Emilia’s case had been tried from the beginning, and more so where the state’s desire to seek the death penalty was concerned.

  “For one,” Lenamon added, “you never, ever put your client on the stand. Never!” Furthermore, he said, how could a mother of four, whose codefendant played an equal role in the murder, be sentenced to death for that same crime? Both Josh and Emilia had been found guilty of the same charges: first-degree murder and kidnapping. It made no sense to Lenamon. And he hoped, he said, that the appellate court would see the problems with Emilia’s case, especially during the penalty phase, and reject that decision to put her on death row.

  “Emilia Carr was sexually abused,” Lenamon said passionately. “Sexually abused!” It should have been a major part of Emilia’s death penalty phase argument. Lenamon had proved in Josh’s case that what had allegedly happened to Josh as a child made the difference. In addition, in Emilia’s case, the abuse was a matter of public and court record. Yet the abuse was never put front and center and ardently argued as a mitigating factor leading to her committing the crimes.

  The major problem for Emilia, of course, was that she was still saying she’d had nothing whatsoever to do with the planning of or murdering of Heather Strong.

  Zero responsibility.

  Zero remorse.

  Zero empathy.

  How could any lawyer defend that?

  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 i
s 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.