To Love and to Kill (35 page)

From the way Holmes described Josh's childhood, the kid didn't have a chance of growing into a healthy adult or a productive member of society.

After being prompted, Holmes explained exactly what type of sexual abuse Josh had endured: “[His abuser, a female, would] ... provide him with cigarettes and ask him to perform oral sex on her. He recalls her pressing his head down there and feeling very,
very
claustrophobic.”

As the testimony continued, Holmes described a young man who, basically, would not and could never be normal. Over time, Josh even developed an internal problem with women in general. And as soon as Josh was old enough and strong enough to control females himself, he found he had no choice in the matter but to lash out and commit acts of violence against those females who crossed him in any way. As that narrative played out in his life with Heather, Emilia Carr came along, a woman with above-average intelligence—and the puppet had now met his puppet master. Holmes said Josh's IQ tests showed him scoring in the neighborhood of 80, thus putting a 40-plus-point difference between him and Emilia.

“Anything below seventy,” Holmes clarified, putting Josh into an intellectual context, “is considered mental retardation.”

The doctor then suggested that because Josh had been in a sexual relationship between the ages of six and twelve—which was, in reality, abuse—he was stuck there, emotionally and educationally. And because of this, Holmes reiterated, when he met Emilia and she began to manipulate him with what Josh himself described as “the best sex of his life,” taking total control in the bedroom, well, Emilia had hit on the core weakness within Josh emotionally—one she was able to exploit any way she wanted.

It was a solid, well-studied, well-researched argument.

Brad King did not have much in the form of cross-examination for Dr. Holmes. He focused on the idea that Josh's substance abuse and his personality disorders did not excuse first-degree murder.

Josh wasn't “mentally retarded,” King seemed to get across under cross-examination questioning, as had been suggested by the defense. It was ridiculous and the absolute wrong message to share with jurors.

Beyond that, King argued the validity of the testing done of Emilia, trying to say she was not as smart as the doctor had assessed. Moreover, there had been testing done on Josh while he was in juvenile detention long ago and very little of it backed up Holmes's findings. In fact, Josh had never mentioned being sexually abused.

Over and over, Lenamon objected, hammering home one core issue, like any good defense attorney should: There were no grounds for King to be making such accusations as challenging the doctor's study and research. A lot of it was objective evidence, clinical.

Unimpeachable.

The objections alone wore Brad King down.

In the end, Dr. Heather Holmes presented a compelling argument that she was not about to back down from, no matter what Brad King tossed at her. King would have to bring in his own experts to criticize her work—which he wasn't prepared to do, of course.

During closing arguments a day later, the state contended the opposite of what Lenamon and Alavi had sold so well during the defense's penalty phase case. King and company told jurors not to be fooled by a carefully constructed defense narrative. The truth was, Joshua Fulgham actually had manipulated Emilia
and
Heather—and he did it solely because he wanted money to bail himself out of jail and hire a good lawyer. Josh made this clear, Hooker and King both said at times, not only during many of those prison calls to Emilia and Heather, but also when he spoke to his mother, Judy Chandler.

“‘I'm gonna kiss Emilia's ass to get that money,'” the state quoted Josh as saying during one call to Judy. The money in question was Emilia's tax return. “‘I need help. I need to work. I need to see my babies. I just got to get out.'”

Lenamon and Alavi staunchly objected to the admissibility of several recorded conversations before and after they were played by the state. The exchange between the lawyers was a bit emotional and nasty as they argued about it for more than an hour.

The main thrust of Lenamon and Alavi's objection during the state's closing was that Brad King and the state could not have it both ways. King could not argue
now
that Josh had manipulated Emilia when, during Emilia's trial, King had argued the exact opposite—that it was Emilia who manipulated Josh.

The state's positions in both trials contradicted each other. Lenamon would not stand by and allow King to do this.

The objections and counterarguments by King went nowhere. The jury, of course, could not
un
hear something it had heard from the SA, and Lenamon knew that.

Nonetheless, King finished his closing by telling jurors not to believe Josh Fulgham, an admitted murderer and liar.

Lenamon stuck to the same theme he had during the entire penalty phase: Josh had admitted guilt; he was remorseful; he only wanted the jury to understand that he was not in control of himself during those moments of terror for Heather inside that trailer because he had been severely abused and did not know how to handle rejection, betrayal or jealousy.

“That man there,” Lenamon said, pointing to Josh, who sat with a glaze of demoralization on his face, staring straight ahead, with a look of abstract nothingness about him, “he
deserves
to die in prison.”

It was a bold statement made by a seasoned defense attorney, and Lenamon let it hang in the courtroom for a brief period. He wanted jurors to take it in. He knew that in giving the jury “an out,” a way to feel good about sentencing Josh to life, each juror could walk away satisfied that justice had been entirely served.

Concluding, Lenamon projected his ideal outcome to jurors: “He's going to die in prison, as opposed to being
killed
by the state of Florida.”

Would everything Terry Lenamon and Tania Alavi had done, however, be enough to save Josh Fulgham's life?

CHAPTER 103

JOSH TOLD ME
that the sexual abuse argument presented by his lawyers during the penalty phase was a total fabrication made up by someone in his extended family.

When me and my cousin were young,
Josh wrote to me in a final letter between us,
we experimented and tryed [
sic
] some sexual things.

That same cousin, Josh went on to proclaim, got into some trouble one day when she was young:
[She] took that little bullshit we were doing and made it out that [someone else in our family] was doing shit to us.

Regarding his cousin, she wrote:
[She] lived that lye [
sic
] for so long and used it as a crutch for her fuck-ups and she has now convinced herself that it really all did happen.

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:

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:

And then I concluded with a few final thoughts:

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?