That guy is totally innocent!! It was funny hearing 1999 in the segment. I tried finding information but couldn't.

I imagine that in 1999, he was up for parole and he was granted. However, you can go to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's website and contact information via e-mail.

What case was he again? The name sounds very familiar.

Chelle

He was a guy that was accused of robbing a gas station? in Texas. He was on probation for another crime he had commit (he ate some food from a grocery store and gave them money to pay for it, but he was drunk and pulled a knife when they were going to make him stay there to wait for police) so they sentenced him to life without parole until 1999. There were I believe 2 eyewitnesses that pin Martin at the crime.

However, 70 miles away, 5 eyewitnesses claim Martin was at his house all day, fixing his car. At the time the crime was commited (7:00PM) he was watching Battlestar Galactica.

I actually have the video on my DVR, and whenever I can find my audio splitter i'll be uploading the video files for this week and sending them to EoF for his website.

He was a guy that was accused of robbing a gas station? in Texas. He was on probation for another crime he had commit (he ate some food from a grocery store and gave them money to pay for it, but he was drunk and pulled a knife when they were going to make him stay there to wait for police) so they sentenced him to life without parole until 1999. There were I believe 2 eyewitnesses that pin Martin at the crime.

However, 70 miles away, 5 eyewitnesses claim Martin was at his house all day, fixing his car. At the time the crime was commited (7:00PM) he was watching Battlestar Galactica.

I actually have the video on my DVR, and whenever I can find my audio splitter i'll be uploading the video files for this week and sending them to EoF for his website.
I absolutely believe that this is one of the rare guys who is innocent. Could you tell me how to find his website? I would like to help if there is any way possible. I know him personally.

Thanks.
Brainphy

You know him? Did he get out of prison? Please tell me. I would like to know.

Well did he get his parole revoked in 1999? I'm asking because from what you said that's what I get from it but considering he's innocent IMO, it's just wrong to let an innocent man rot away in the cage for a crime someone else committed.

bump

In order to attain information on criminals in Texas jails, you have to e-mail some people. The main site is in my second post. I don't know him, but I remember the case well because he could not have done this.

I was talking to brainphy. I did e-mail the texas jails but they never replied. Brainphy claims to know him.

I was talking to brainphy. I did e-mail the texas jails but they never replied. Brainphy claims to know him.
Yes, he was paroled in 1999 and lives just south of Dallas with his wife whom he married in Feb. 2005. He has worked for the same company since he was released in 1999. And, by the way, he of course has not been in any trouble. Leads a serene and peaceful life. He doesn't seem too bitter but would like to be exonnerated.

By the way, I would love to find out when his episode appeared so I can try to buy a copy. Anybody know? Thanks

Thank you very much brainphy. I'm glad justice was served. How did you find out about this site? The chance of meeting someone who knew him is a billion to one.

bump

By the way, I would love to find out when his episode appeared so I can try to buy a copy. Anybody know? Thanks

Special 4, I believe. I found my audio splitter so I will now begin the grueling process of transferring the episodes over from my DVR to the PC. I can send you the Lifetime Special 4, though it is missing an entire segment. It was a wanted, and both were apprehended, so yeah.

I'll send them to EoF and if anyone wants them, I'll be happy to get it to you. It's going to take a few days of work to transfer the episodes, though.

Thank you very much brainphy. I'm glad justice was served. How did you find out about this site? The chance of meeting someone who knew him is a billion to one.
George asked how I found this site. I know Mike, and I recently found out that he was on one of the Unsolved Mystery shows a very long time ago. So I decided to see if I could purchase the episode somehow and see it for myself. He is a very nice guy and is a family member.

Goofyman, my daughter did some research and claims that he was in episode # 5 which she says aired on 2-5-88. I would like to buy it. Do you know how I could do this?

Thanks, everyone for supporting Mike. I realize that probably 99.9 % of people in prison are guilty, but I do believe that there are rare exceptions, and I do believe that Mike is one of them.

Brainphy

If you can hold on for a bit, this segment will be coming soon to my site.

If you can hold on for a bit, this segment will be coming soon to my site.
Thanks! Please let me know. I sincerely appreciate it.

If you can hold on for a bit, this segment will be coming soon to my site.
Just curious, did you ever get the segment with Mike Martin on your website? Brainphy and I both know him personally, and would like to see his segment. I did some research, and it is special number 5.

Did you know that misidentification and false confessions are the biggest causes of miscarriages of justice? Not least because the courts put a lot of faith in eyewitnesses. There have been cases where juries have accepted the most preposterous of identifications, and the identifications placing Scott at the scene of the crime were anything but.

But was it really Scott they were identifying or someone who just looked very much like Scott? Such cases are not unheard of. "Not Guilty" by Jerome and Barbara Franks cites the case of Nancy Louise Botts. In 1934 she was convicted of cheque fraud, based on the identification of seven witnesses. Two years later it was established that the crimes were committed by a woman who looked so much like Nancy they could almost have been identical twins.

Finally, besides the identification witnesses, is there any evidence linking Scott to the crime?

Did you know that misidentification and false confessions are the biggest causes of miscarriages of justice? Not least because the courts put a lot of faith in eyewitnesses. There have been cases where juries have accepted the most preposterous of identifications, and the identifications placing Scott at the scene of the crime were anything but.

But was it really Scott they were identifying or someone who just looked very much like Scott. Such cases are not unheard of. "Not Guilty" by Jerome and Barbara Franks cites the case of Nancy Louise Botts. In 1934 she was convicted of cheque fraud, based on the identification of seven witnesses. Two years later it was established that the crimes were committed by a woman who looked so much like Nancy they could almost have been identical twins.

Finally, besides the identification witnesses, is there any evidence linking Scott to the crime?

good post.

some of my longest posts have been about this case, this post will be an example, as I feel very strongly that Michael Scott Martin is innocent. I will stick to stuff I haven't mentioned before in this post, but if you do a search, you will find alot of other reason why I think he is innocent.

As I have touched upon before, I have had to pick someone out of a lineup before. As I recall it, they either had already apprehended someone or had a very good idea who it was, but wanted me to identify this person to sort of "clench" it. I was pretty confident that I could pick this person out of the photographs. When I looked at the photographs, I was surprised and somewhat disappointed in myself because I realized that I didn't get as good a look at this person as I thought, and I couldn't pick them out. I think they eventually had enough on this person to go forward, and they ended up taking a plea bargain, but it was still a little discouraging.

Now how does this relate to this case? I feel that, while I don't think the police pressured Doyle to pick someone out, he still felt some pressure, possibly pressured himself, to pick someone out of the stack, because if he doesn't, the police might think he is an uncredible witness. I know I've mentioned before that Doyle transitions from uncertainity to certainity about Michael being the guilty party.

But herein lies a problem. The segment shows Doyle setting aside Michael's photograph even before he has a chance to look at most of the stack. That is definitely not something a credible witness would do. This might seem like a bizarre analogy, but I think it proves my point: I was taking an algebra test a few weeks ago, and some of the questions were multiple choice. I noticed that two of the answers seemed the same, and thought it was an error on the test. After looking very closely, I realized that the two answers had a very slight difference. What I am getting at is that while Michael's photograph may have looked like Doyle's assailant, it was a mistake for Doyle not to look at the rest of the photographs.

Showing Doyle a stack also seems a bit weird. Most times, it's a lineup, or the photographs are spread out on a table, so that the person looking at them can scan them and look at all of them at the same time, as opposed to looking at them one by one. This is a bizarre method of showing someone photographs: Doyle should look at all of them, but if he goes through the entire stack and comes back to one, they might wonder why he didn't pick that out in the first place. I just don't like the method of showing him a stack instead of a spread.

Now, it would be different if the 5 witnesses all claim they saw Michael in different parts of Fort Worth (one saw him at the mall, one saw him at the cleaners, etc.) but that all 5 people see Michael at the same place (his house), gives more credibilty to the 5 witnesses.

I have to ask myself how did Michael, whose only offense up to this point is more or less a drunk and disorderly, get put in a stack of photographs of armed robbers? I have a hard time believing that someone whose only offense was related to intoxication/pressure from the supermarket people, even becomes a suspect in an armed robbery case. he hasn't committed these types of crimes before, and doesn't have a long criminal record either.

I have to ask myself how did Michael, whose only offense up to this point is more or less a drunk and disorderly, get put in a stack of photographs of armed robbers? I have a hard time believing that someone whose only offense was related to intoxication/pressure from the supermarket people, even becomes a suspect in an armed robbery case. he hasn't committed these types of crimes before, and doesn't have a long criminal record either.

Drunk and disorderly....geez, try assault with a two deadly weapons... :rolleyes:

Drunk and disorderly....geez, try assault with a two deadly weapons... :rolleyes:

being that the state let him go without him serving any time makes me believe they weren't too worried about it. not only did he not harm anyone, he didn't even attempt to harm anyone. and, as he stated, he fired WAY over their heads.

assault usually means that physical contact would have had to occur, which didn't happen.

being that the state let him go without him serving any time makes me believe they weren't too worried about it. not only did he not harm anyone, he didn't even attempt to harm anyone. and, as he stated, he fired WAY over their heads.

assault usually means that physical contact would have had to occur, which didn't happen.

I don't know why he was let go with basically only a slap on the wrist (I've thought about this before) but you're kidding if you think there is nothing wrong with flashing a knife and a gun around..and because he fired it WAY over their heads as you put it is absolutely no excuse.

case closed.

I'm not sure how this makes it case closed?

No you were saying that Martin's only offense was being drunk and disorderly, that's what I was arguing.

Two "supposed" eyewittnesses? How much more can you be an eyewitness to a crime if you have the criminal and his gun pointing at you? The other witness was a policeman. Up against five people "that bearly knew him"..yeah right.

Answer me this; why does Martin say he was just a kid when talking about the orginal assualt (or just being drunk and disorderly #cough#) and says it was just a adolencent stunt? The man was 26 years old then, so it proves that he is dumb as dogsh1t. No wonder the getaway car was parked outside his old residence, he put it there.

26 years old is still relatively young. otherwise, that makes me old. :)

what we're left with is Michael having one offense up to the robbery, and no known offenses after his release in 1999, I think it was. The supermarket incident, while it certainly doesn't make Michael a pillar of society, doesn't make him the world's worst criminal either. Keep in mind he was getting harassed after being accused of something he hadn't even done yet. I don't condone the supermarket behavior, but the flare-up probably wouldn't make page D12 of the local news on a slow day.

26 years old; you know right from wrong and you can't use pathetic excuses.

I didn't say he was the world's worst criminal, I personally think 20 years is about right for what he did. That's part of what jail is about, rehabilitating. It doesn't surprise me he hasn't been in trouble since because he knows one stuff up and he'll be going back there.

I would say pointing guns and knifes at people a big deal. Maybe that's normal where you come from but here it's a serious offense.

Did you know that misidentification and false confessions are the biggest causes of miscarriages of justice? Not least because the courts put a lot of faith in eyewitnesses. There have been cases where juries have accepted the most preposterous of identifications, and the identifications placing Scott at the scene of the crime were anything but.

But was it really Scott they were identifying or someone who just looked very much like Scott. Such cases are not unheard of. "Not Guilty" by Jerome and Barbara Franks cites the case of Nancy Louise Botts. In 1934 she was convicted of cheque fraud, based on the identification of seven witnesses. Two years later it was established that the crimes were committed by a woman who looked so much like Nancy they could almost have been identical twins.

Finally, besides the identification witnesses, is there any evidence linking Scott to the crime?


You don't even have to closely resemble someone to be mistakenly identified as them. The same book cites cases where the wrongly identified person and the true criminal did not look much alike, or even remotely alike. I have read similar cases in other books.

By the way, the Nancy Botts case set a precedent: Nancy Botts became the first person in the State of Indiana to receive compensation for wrongful imprisonment. This was because her case was particularly heartbreaking: she had a miscarriage, developed a heart condition and became an invalid.

Yes I agree, I have seen many examples where a person was wrongfully identified in a police lineup or by a witness. In fact, some of these wrongful identifications, the person who actually did the crime did not look even somewhat close to the person that was wrongfully identified.

A question I would like an answer to assuming Martin is innocent - why did the robber park Doyle's car outside Michael Scott Martin's old apartment? Seems like a pretty big coincidence.

A question I would like an answer to assuming Martin is innocent - why did the robber park Doyle's car outside Michael Scott Martin's old apartment? Seems like a pretty big coincidence.

Yeah but for me its still a coincidence despite the size of it. Realistically the robber could've parked his car outside of any apartment complex he wanted after the robbery. I'd actually put more weight upon the fact that the detective claimed he saw Michael Scott Martin in the area of the crime shortly after the crime was committed. This was a man who was familiar not only with Martin's car but also had spent enough time with Martin so that he'd be able to recognize his face.

I still have a hard time believing that he Martin would be successful in getting that many people to lie for him though. I mean I understand the one guy who was his friend but a couple of those people didn't even know Mike. I don't know I've just never been able to discount every one of those people as liars.

Well my opinion on Martin is the same as always..

I would like to know though, to the people that think he was just "drunk and disorderly" at the supermarket, what exactly is your definitation on being "drunk and disorderly". I would think something along the lines of causing some property damage, being loud and threatening maybe but I'd say that sticking a knife in someone's face followed by pistol is beyond being "drunk and disorderly". I wonder how exactly he got a gun in the first place but that's another matter.

I've also brought up the fact the getaway car was parked at Martin's old residence, co-incidence.. highly unlikely as the guy is as dumb as dog****. Blah, I can't belief that some people support an idiot and a known history of being "drunk and disorderly".

ps. Also want to shout out to the man Doyle, hope he has been able to put this out of his mind and move on. You would think he has but well you never know.

I'm going to have to agree with NA4STER. I'm leaning more towards guilty.

The two eyewitnesses who did ID Martin seem more credible to me.

The car being parked at his old residence - he could have easily parked his getaway car there without looking suspicious since he had just moved out very recently.

The incident at the supermarket proves nothing, but it raises some serious questions about his character.

Wow, looks like someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning! In any event, regardless of Martin's drunken rampage that does not automatically mean that he was guilty of robbing a gas station at gunpoint. The evidence just was not there. I mean, I suppose with any one of us we could take stupid things, mean things, illegal things, we did over the course of our lives and label just about anyone as a rotten human being because they did stupid stuff. How could Michael Martin be robbing a gas station when he was 70 miles away at the time it was happening? Why would Martin abandon Doyle's vehicle at his old apartment complex? Further, how would Martin get home if he left his only transportation at a completely different location from where he was living? How would he have got back home? How did he even get to the gas station in the first place?

By the way Justin, I was not referring to you, in terms of my comments about a certain poster waking up on the wrong side of the bed. I do not have an issue with you or your comments even though I happen to disagree with your assessment. However you at least explained your stance and did not take to calling people childish names.

Wow, looks like someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning! In any event, regardless of Martin's drunken rampage that does not automatically mean that he was guilty of robbing a gas station at gunpoint. The evidence just was not there. I mean, I suppose with any one of us we could take stupid things, mean things, illegal things, we did over the course of our lives and label just about anyone as a rotten human being because they did stupid stuff.

I don't think anyone is saying that he is automatically guilty of robbing the gas station because of the supermarket incident. It doesn't look good, and may have had a hand in convicting him. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I feel the information about the supermarket shouldn't have made it to the jury as it is extremely prejudicial.

How could Michael Martin be robbing a gas station when he was 70 miles away at the time it was happening?

You're assuming his alibi witnesses are telling the truth. There are two witnesses who place him at the scene of the robbery. Apparently the jury found them more credible.


Why would Martin abandon Doyle's vehicle at his old apartment complex? Further, how would Martin get home if he left his only transportation at a completely different location from where he was living? How would he have got back home? How did he even get to the gas station in the first place?

The segment doesn't really give us enough information to figure this out. In the reenactment, they show the robber walking in to the gas station on foot. He later takes Doyle's car and drops it off in front of Martin's old apartment. I think it's reasonable to assume that Martin or an unsub (assuming Martin is innocent) had another car parked at the apartment complex so he could switch out. Thereby not driving his own vehicle to the scene of the robbery.

Did the segment mention the distance between the gas station and the apartment complex? I honestly don't remember. I wonder if he could have walked on foot and stolen Doyle's car to make a fast getaway.

By the way Justin, I was not referring to you, in terms of my comments about a certain poster waking up on the wrong side of the bed. I do not have an issue with you or your comments even though I happen to disagree with your assessment. However you at least explained your stance and did not take to calling people childish names.

It's cool. I didn't think that was addressed to me.

This will probably make some people mad, but I thought it was kinda funny when NA4STER told WiseGuy "I would say pointing guns and knifes at people a big deal. Maybe that's normal where you come from but here it's a serious offense".

Now I don't know where NA4STER is from, but WiseGuy is practically in Detroit. (I was born there and have lived all around there.) Pointing guns and knives at people in detroit IS normal.

Heck, the mayor's wife got away with murdering a hooker at the mayor's mansion and the mayor did a couple months in jail last year for other crimes.

Look up Kwame Kilpatrick. When your mayor is that pimpin, you are expected to flash your weapons in public.

Well the prosecution had the victim of the robbery and a police officer as their witnesses that claimed they saw Martin. I really do not know why people would lie for Martin. I am not accusing Doyle of lying, but looking at the time line I feel he was mistaken but that is just my opinion. The police officer,I will not accuse him of lying but he was well known to have a personal dislike of Michael Martin, so who knows? I guess the only one that truly knows whether or not he did the robbery is Michael Martin. I mean I can see why the jury convicted, especially back then. That does not mean that I agree with their verdict but I can see why they did what they did. The prosecution at least in terms of reputations of their witnesses, they had the better witnesses as I said, the robbery victim and the police officer. Whereas Martin's witnesses were his friends and new acquaintances. I certainly have considered that all of Martin's witnesses could be lying but I really do not get why the new acquaintances especially, would lie for him? But again, just because the jury voted to convict does not necessarily make it the right decision.

Ha Tracy, that is hilarious! NA is from Australia. I do not think Wiseguy was writing off what Martin did in that drunken incident. It was stupid and wrong and Martin deserved to be punished for that. However some people automatically jump to conclusions and assume that Martin must be guilty of armed robbery because of the earlier incident. That is all Wiseguy was trying to point out, that he was not going to rush to judgement on Martin and NA flipped out about it.

This will probably make some people mad, but I thought it was kinda funny when NA4STER told WiseGuy "I would say pointing guns and knifes at people a big deal. Maybe that's normal where you come from but here it's a serious offense".

Now I don't know where NA4STER is from, but WiseGuy is practically in Detroit. (I was born there and have lived all around there.) Pointing guns and knives at people in detroit IS normal.

Heck, the mayor's wife got away with murdering a hooker at the mayor's mansion and the mayor did a couple months in jail last year for other crimes.

Look up Kwame Kilpatrick. When your mayor is that pimpin, you are expected to flash your weapons in public.

Yeah, I know someone who used to carry a gun around with her at all times. She had a concealed weapons permit. I don't recall what the exact charge was against Martin. He pulled a knife on a cashier after being accused of shoplifting and then fired a gun in the air to frighten two bag boys who were chasing him out of the store. I dunno. Under the circumstances, I think it's pretty serious.

Didnt Martin plead guilty to Aggravated Assault? Like I have said, I am not trying to minimize what Martin did in that instance. He should not have done it, he deserved to be punished for it. However at least one poster implied that because Martin had that prior felony conviction that he for sure must be guilty of armed robbery.

I don't know what to make of this case. I have a hard time believing that all those people, some of whom barely knew him, would perjure themselves for him. I do personally know the man who prosecuted the case. He is an excellent lawyer of very high integrity. After prosecuting for several years, he became a defense attorney, and, eventually became the chief public defender, which made him my boss when I worked in Dallas. I have nothing but respect for him. In the UM segment, even he himself said that the case had always gnawed at him. He honestly did not know 100% for himself whether he was guilty, but he did believe there was sufficient cause to prosecute him and put the issue to a jury, which is what he did.

As for why the jury believed what they did, I don't think it is that complicated an issue. Juries routinely discard alibi witnesses. Dallas County has had more post-conviction DNA exonerations than any other county in the country. Part of that is because the local crime lab always kept the physical evidence forever and so very old cases still had evidence to test years later. Part of that is also because the recently elected DA has made a proactive effort at re-investigating old cases where there were substantial questions about guilt, and not routinely opposing requests for post-conviction DNA testing as his predecessors had. But part of that is also because the attitude in Dallas was to prosecute regardless of compelling evidence of innocence, and juries routinely convicted based on the victim's testimony alone, even in the face of numerous alibi witnesses. Unfortunately for Martin, and many others, his case is not one where there would be DNA that could exonerate him.

I re-read everything in this and the other Michael Scott Martin thread and I have to say that I just don't know.

I don't understand what his motive would have been. How much money did the robber really take anyway? I'm guessing gas station holdups typically don't result in huge payoffs. So he basically picked up a few bucks and had temporary use of a car.

It has also been pointed out that he had a clean record prior to this and the supermarket incident. 26 seems awfully late in the ballgame to decide to pick up a gun and go rob someone. Not saying it's impossible, but it seems odd that there is no criminal history here aside from the supermarket incident, and whose to say he wouldn't have gotten into trouble at the supermarket if he hadn't been drunk?

As has already been mentioned, some of his alibi witnesses didn't know him very well. A poster has said in the past that all the witnesses were friends of MSM but I don't think this is the case as he just moved there and some of these people barely knew him.

I have had a knife held to my throat before. The assualter and me were the only 2 people around at the time. With that being said, what Martin did at the supermarket is obviously not very pleasant, but not the hugest of huge deals. There were alot of people in the supermarket at the time. He took the knife out and waved it someone's face, but he never held it to anyone's throat or touched anyone, or threw it at anyone. Firing 2 gunshots into the air is meaningless to me. I guess if that were something to get worked up about, whenever somebody fires a shot into the air to start a race, they should be considered a shady character.

Martin did not shoplift. The supermarket did not give him enough opportunity to pay for the items. As Justin said, it's pretty rare that somebody waits until 26 to decide they want to be a criminal.

Doyle is NOT, I repeat NOT a credible witness.

First of all, Doyle doesn't even bother to look at all of the photographs. He looks at a few of them. You remember when you were in school and the teacher said during a multiple choice test to look at all of the answers because, even while one answer may seem right, another one may seem even more right? Same thing applies here. Martin wouldn't have even been in that lineup if the supermarket hadn't irritated him. And just how exactly does somebody that's never committed a robbery get put in a stack of photographs with people that have committed robberies?

Doyle also fluctuates from "I think that's the guy" to "I'm sure that's the guy.", in a matter of 3 seconds. Doesn't sound very reassuring to me.

Who am I going to believe? 5 witnesses, three of whom barely know Michael and have no horse in this race, or 2 witnesses that include Doyle, who I just said is very uncredible, and a potentially biased police officer? Not much of a contest here.

Doyle is NOT, I repeat NOT a credible witness.

First of all, Doyle doesn't even bother to look at all of the photographs. He looks at a few of them. You remember when you were in school and the teacher said during a multiple choice test to look at all of the answers because, even while one answer may seem right, another one may seem even more right? Same thing applies here. Martin wouldn't have even been in that lineup if the supermarket hadn't irritated him. And just how exactly does somebody that's never committed a robbery get put in a stack of photographs with people that have committed robberies?

Doyle also fluctuates from "I think that's the guy" to "I'm sure that's the guy.", in a matter of 3 seconds. Doesn't sound very reassuring to me.


You had made a similar comment before on one of the other threads. While I agree with what you are saying, I might point out that it is nearly impossible to know if what was shown on UM was exactly what went down when Doyle was interviewed at the police station. I don't disagree with your analysis. Doyle making that sudden decision after looking at just a couple photos in a stack is pretty suspect. But it's a reenactment, so I personally wouldn't make that a point in my argument since we can't say for sure that the incident was portrayed accurately.

The car still bugs the Hell out of me. Criminals often hit in their comfort zone. I can picture a scenario where MSM drives his own car and parks in front of his old apartment - the place he just moved out of, so his car being there wouldn't necessarily look out of place, and he is familiar and comfortable with the area. He then hoofs it to the gas station, commits the robbery, and takes Doyle's car back to his old apartment and switches cars. Now, if all this is true, he probably figures that he committed a perfect crime that is untraceable to him. He had no way of knowing that Doyle would finger him in a photo lineup. Without that identification, Doyle's car being found in front of MSM's old apartment wouldn't look suspicious at all. The cops would have no reason to connect the car being there to Martin. Even if they did, he had an alibi because he had moved away before the robbery took place. The only thing the Martin supporters can say about the car being found there is that it is a coincidence.

You had made a similar comment before on one of the other threads. While I agree with what you are saying, I might point out that it is nearly impossible to know if what was shown on UM was exactly what went down when Doyle was interviewed at the police station. I don't disagree with your analysis. Doyle making that sudden decision after looking at just a couple photos in a stack is pretty suspect. But it's a reenactment, so I personally wouldn't make that a point in my argument since we can't say for sure that the incident was portrayed accurately.

The car still bugs the Hell out of me. Criminals often hit in their comfort zone. I can picture a scenario where MSM drives his own car and parks in front of his old apartment - the place he just moved out of, so his car being there wouldn't necessarily look out of place, and he is familiar and comfortable with the area. He then hoofs it to the gas station, commits the robbery, and takes Doyle's car back to his old apartment and switches cars. Now, if all this is true, he probably figures that he committed a perfect crime that is untraceable to him. He had no way of knowing that Doyle would finger him in a photo lineup. Without that identification, Doyle's car being found in front of MSM's old apartment wouldn't look suspicious at all. The cops would have no reason to connect the car being there to Martin. Even if they did, he had an alibi because he had moved away before the robbery took place. The only thing the Martin supporters can say about the car being found there is that it is a coincidence.

I dont' know, I just don't think MSM is stupid enough to park the car at his former apartment complex.

I was asked to pick someone out of a lineup once. They pretty much knew who it was, but wanted to see if I could pick them out, just to be sure. I was under the impression that the person was one of the 8 photograhps. with MSM, they had aboslutely no suspect going into the lineup. It's also interesting to note that the police officer does not tell Doyle that they have no suspects, so Doyle may be under the assumption that the robber is in the stack of photographs, thus putting pressure on Doyle to pick someone out.

there really isn't a whole lot to tie Martin to the crime scene. All we really have is a Doyle's eyewitness account (which I think is bunk as I stated above), the supermarket incident (which I think is largely overexaggerated as I said above), and Doyle's car being found at Martin's former apartment complex. There is nothing to tie Martin to the gas station.

The only thing the Martin supporters can say about the car being found there is that it is a coincidence.

MSM parking the car at his former apartment complex is only slightly smarter than parking it at his own house.

I should also note that why on Earth, of all the places to committ a robbery, would MSM pick the one city in the world where he has a past offense and where the police know him?

By the way Justin, I was not referring to you, in terms of my comments about a certain poster waking up on the wrong side of the bed. I do not have an issue with you or your comments even though I happen to disagree with your assessment. However you at least explained your stance and did not take to calling people childish names.

Picking fights again hey, piss off.


It has also been pointed out that he had a clean record prior to this and the supermarket incident. 26 seems awfully late in the ballgame to decide to pick up a gun and go rob someone. Not saying it's impossible, but it seems odd that there is no criminal history here aside from the supermarket incident, and whose to say he wouldn't have gotten into trouble at the supermarket if he hadn't been drunk?

It's not acceptable for Martin to say on camera something like "I was only 26 years old then, I shouldn't have been shooting up the town" and what did he call it, an adolesent stunt? All this was after the fact was well. Come on, a 5 year old knows that's wrong.

Doyle is NOT, I repeat NOT a credible witness.

How is Doyle not a credible witness? Despite how it may have appear in the reactment, look what he said on camera. He was as sure then (87/88) as he was back then (79) that there's not doubt in his mind they got the right person. That's almost 10 years after the event. He was there. right there in the center of it. He knows.

How is Doyle not a credible witness? Despite how it may have appear in the reactment, look what he said on camera. He was as sure then (87/88) as he was back then (79) that there's not doubt in his mind they got the right person. That's almost 10 years after the event. He was there. right there in the center of it. He knows.
Have you read anything at all about the unreliability of eyewitness identification? Being right there, in the center of it, often leads to false identifications for many reasons (the trauma of it, weapon focus, etc.) Doyle's account is exactly what eyewitness after eyewitness has said in cases where people were later proven absolutely innocent on the basis of DNA evidence. The fact that, on camera, he is saying that he is as sure now as he was when he first saw the picture does not mean at all that he originally said he was absolutely sure. Confirmation bias plays a huge role. The victim picks someone out from a photo or live lineup, initially not positive in their identification. The officer tells them they need to be sure. The victim says he or she is sure. Then, the person is charged, and all the feedback they receive from the police and prosecutors is that they have picked out the right person. By the time the case gets to trial, they are more sure than ever that the person they picked out is the right person. I don't think Doyle is a liar at all. But the reliability of his identification is certainly questionable.

A great example of these problems with eyewitnesses was the story of Jennifer Thompson and Ronald Cotton, which was featured on Frontline several years ago. She was raped. She picked Ronald Cotton out of a photo lineup. By the time the case got to trial, she was absolutely positive it was him. He was convicted. It was reversed on a "technicality." At the retrial, his attorneys pinned the blame for the rape on another man who had allegedly confessed to others in prison that he was the one who had raped Jennifer. He was called to testify, but denied any involvement. When Jennifer saw him at the retrial, there was no doubt in her mind that he was NOT her rapist. Cotton was convicted again. Years later, DNA evidence showed that Cotton was innocent and that the other man was, in fact, the rapist. Jennifer accepted that she had made a mistake. She was very honest in saying that she now believes absolutely that the other man is the person who raped her, and that Ronald Cotton is innocent. And yet, she said that when she relives the rape in her mind, she still sees Ronald Cotton's face. Once she had identified him from the photo, and seen him in court, the face of the person she picked out replaced the face of the actual perpetrator in her memory of the event. That is what happens.

Of course, we don't know for sure that this is what happened with Doyle. But, the fact that Doyle now says that he is absolutely positive and that he always has been does not make his identification reliable.

Space Invaderz, I was not picking a fight. You were for some reason calling Michael Scott Martin all kinds of terrible names when you had zero evidence to back it up. Eyewitnesses are notoriously wrong. There have been women that have been raped that pointed out a defendant and said 'that is the man that raped me' and they were wrong! I would imagine being raped is the most traumatic thing someone can go through so naturally in the heat of the moment certain things might have been overlooked. Just like I imagine it would be traumatic to be the victim of an armed robbery. Doyle shifted from saying he had a little doubt to saying he had zero doubt. Well which one is it, a little or not? That is a big leap from saying you think Michael Martin was probably the one that robbed you to saying it was for sure him. Eyewitnesses get things wrong, prosecutors get things wrong, juries get things wrong even forensic evidence can be wrongfully interpreted. AGain you continue to insist that Michael Scott Martin is a downright miserable human being and for sure guilty because of an earlier, unrelated crime. Yeah it was wrong, I am sure Michael Scott Martin knew it was wrong to pull a knife and fire a gun into the air. He was held accountable for that and deserved to be held accountable for that. The only reason his photo was in the photo line up was because the cops believed he did it from the start. Cops often do this to trick people into falsely identifying someone. Also, when a witness is handed a photo spread or a stack of mug shots to look through they often believe (correctly) that the person that the cops suspect of the crime, that their photo is in the spread. So they look for the closest match and pick the photo.

Have you read anything at all about the unreliability of eyewitness identification? Being right there, in the center of it, often leads to false identifications for many reasons (the trauma of it, weapon focus, etc.) Doyle's account is exactly what eyewitness after eyewitness has said in cases where people were later proven absolutely innocent on the basis of DNA evidence. The fact that, on camera, he is saying that he is as sure now as he was when he first saw the picture does not mean at all that he originally said he was absolutely sure. Confirmation bias plays a huge role. The victim picks someone out from a photo or live lineup, initially not positive in their identification. The officer tells them they need to be sure. The victim says he or she is sure. Then, the person is charged, and all the feedback they receive from the police and prosecutors is that they have picked out the right person. By the time the case gets to trial, they are more sure than ever that the person they picked out is the right person. I don't think Doyle is a liar at all. But the reliability of his identification is certainly questionable.

Well of course I've heard of false eyewitness identification, it's a human factor but how do you know it applies here? So if you are implying that here and questioning Doyle then can you really be sure about anything at all? I still don't see how you can say that Doyle is not a credible witness here, heck you might as well ask the cash register then.

What I'm also finding amuzing is how Doyle is being questioned and discreditied but Martin's 5 (I call them) "friends", well 3 of them "barely knew him" if you believe it, have not had their crediblitly questioned. Why is that? Well if they are as it's being said "barely knew him" then they are the ones more likely to have mis-identified Martin.


Space Invaderz, I was not picking a fight.

Well I hope you weren't and lets leave it at that then.

? Well if they are as it's being said "barely knew him" then they are the ones more likely to have mis-identified Martin.

They were all neighbors as I gather it, which means that, while they didn't know Martin very well, they knew he lived nearby and would know if he was tooling around his house all day or not.

It's interesting to note that all 5 witnesses place Martin at the same place, whereas Doyle has Martin taking the car and the police officer has him on a motorcycle.

BTW, that could be significant. Why wasn't the motorcycle ever checked out? If Martin owned it, wouldn't it be at his house or would have been located by now?

Wasnt the cop on a motorcycle but Martin was allegedly (according to the cop) driving a blue camaro? Or was it a firebird?

The cop who allegedly spotted MSM was on a motorcycle, iirc.

I don't know guys, I think this one has been discussed to death, and I really doubt these posts are going to change anyone's minds. This is also, unfortunately, one of those cases that we have very little info on outside of the UM segment, so it makes debate difficult because every possibility has been dissected and discussed over and over. I could believe that MSM is innocent, but I'm just not as sure as I am in other cases like say Patty Stallings, Johnny Lee Wilson or Michael Lloyd Self.

EDIT - Hey, anyone wanna take the opposing position in any of those three that I mentioned? That would make for some good discussion.

that's what I thought. I initially didn't want to get involved again, but somebody decided to bring it up again.

it wasn't me. Just saying... :)

well some new stuff on this one.

1. here's an article, and while alot of it is legal talk that I don't understand too well and other parts i don't agree with, if you scroll down to number 15, it says that Doyle did not immediately select Martin's photograph, but rather, "studied two photographs in particular.", which we don't see in the segment. It also mentions that Martin agreed to a search of his house, and that the police did not find anything to take out of the house.

http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/796/813/252127/

2. The prosecuting attorney on the program admits that "he doesn't know if Michael Scott Martin is guilty" and that "it bugs me we don't have any physical evidence." Isn't this telling? The man who played a large role in getting Martin convicted, now has significant doubts?

3. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that despite ZERO physical evidence and 5 defense witnesses, the jury took only FIFTEEN MINUTES to decide to put Martin behind bars for life and wait 20 years before possibility of parole, based solely on witness identification that is very sketchy (see above)?

4. Here's one bit I missed in all my previous viewings of the segment. Stack says it really quick, and it's easy to miss: "Dennis Wheatfield asked to be assigned to this case." Now why would that be? Why would somebody asked to be put on a specific case? Is it because Wheatfield has a bias against Martin? I think so. Interestingly, it says in the article I provided a link to above, that some think Martin got off easy for the supermarket offense, despite the fact he got 4 years probation, so perhaps Wheatfield wanted to see Martin pay here because he thinks he got off easy on the supermarket incident.

5. Martin suffers because everyone connected to this case is either 1. A moron (the jury, supermarket workers) 2. Biased (Wheatfield) or 3. Uncertain (Doyle)

6. According to the above article, it appears MSM's defense was really inept, doing things such as not providing a closing argument.

btw, Doyle's real name is actually Doyle, so this is another instance of UM not doing a good job of protecting someone's identity :rolleyes:

Well I don't think they ever said they were using an alias for Doyle. Usually Stack would say, "Whom we'll call...." but they just referred to him as Doyle in the segment. But as for the case I think the biggest piece of evidence in favor of Michael Scott Martin is the fact that he fought and fought and still to this day proclaims his innocence. $400 is not a lot of money in todays standards and if guilty don't you think he would have owned up by now? Why still fight to be exonerated if you were guilty for something you've already been paroled for?

they called him "Doyle", so the parenthesis usually indiciate an alias. They did the same things for "Debbie" and "Carol", among others, and I'm assuming those weren't their real names.

I just rewatched this one online again to refresh me. While I'm glad he got out in '99 it's a shame that he was even convicted in the first place, and sadly I guess that means the UM segment didn't work.

Since I first saw it, I never thought he was guilty. Maybe the guy wasn't a pillar of society back in 1979, but even as a kid I never understood why the opposing side of the argument (i.e. his neighbors, 3 of whom were just acquaintances and would conceivably have no reason to lie) was barely if at all considered. When law enforcement, judges or juries start getting "tunnel vision" in cases, that can be really dangerous and this is a perfect example.

Especially being in a very right wing state, I think the supermarket incident played a role in him getting convicted, especially so quickly. What kind of jury finds someone guilty after just 15 minutes? That seems ridiculous. No question what he did was wrong (which he even admits) and he should've had SOME punishment for it, but I think that unfairly biased the jurors. After that, they probably just decided they didn't like him and figured "If he pulled a knife in a store, chances are he could've done this too."

Someone mentioned the car (belonging to Doyle, the gas station attendant who was robbed) being left at Michael's old apartment complex he had just moved out of. I admit that's interesting and it does potentially look bad in his favor, but I believe it really was a coincidence.

Remember he lived 70 miles away. Assuming he was the suspect, how exactly did he get back home? Hitchhiking.

I think Doyle just didn't want to be identified on camera(that's why he appeared in silhouette) and did not reveal his last name.

I feel like the actual robber got off the hook and will probably never get caught. The fact that they never recovered any money or lack of physical evidence just makes it harder. This is like the "Tom Johnson" computer case(yes different circumstance). We don't even know if Tom is still alive or not. Same with the robber. Now if we had a gay robber rape Doyle that would be a different story

I just don't see how five separate people would say Michael Martin was 70 miles away on the date this crime was committed. They have no reason to lie, only 2 of the 5 had actually known Martin, so what would be their reason for lying? And they couldn't have been mistaken of the date. All five corraborate each others accounts. This one has always been a no brainer for me.

D'oh! I hate when my replies are at the end of a page since it tends to get lost in the shuffle easier. :lol:

I agree though, I think it was a huge mistake entering the supermarket incident into the trial (esp since it was just a few months ago at the time). That gave everyone tunnel vision and probably just figured it was in his character to rob the gas station, so they wouldn't even give anything else a chance. Martin himself admits what he did was wrong and I think he should've had SOME punishment for it...but I always believed the guy was innocent. The neighbors are a huge part of it, and that's a good point about there being no mismatches between ALL of their stories.

Remember he lived 70 miles away. Assuming he was the suspect, how exactly did he get back home? Hitchhiking.

If MSM committed the robbery, I always figured he drove his own car to his old apartment complex, parked there and either hoofed it or took public transportation to the gas station (unfortunately, the segment makes no mention of the distance between the gas station and MSM's old apartment complex). The re-enactment also shows the robber just walking up to the gas station, so it's not really clear just how he got there. He then used Doyle's car to get back to the apartment complex and switched out.

It's not that bad a plan if you think about it. He wouldn't want to drive his own car to the gas station, as it could be identified. Also, if Wheatley hadn't "seen" MSM on the road that day, then Doyle's abandoned car being found at MSM's old apartment complex wouldn't mean anything as the investigators probably would have considered it a random place for the perp to drop off the car.

^ Good point Justin. I admit the car is the one thing that bugs me, and even though I'm more on the side of Michael being innocent, it's not something you can just explain away.

I always got the impression his old apartment complex was right in the vicinity of the gas station (in Garland), but it could've been somewhere inbetween there, or it could've been even right around where he lived currently in Fort Worth. That might've been a little oversight on UM's part, but I wish they'd explained that.

This just occured to me, but I wonder if the robber may have been, say a friend or an acquaintance of MSM's (either with or without his knowledge they were going to do it), that would both explain how he was at home the whole time, but also why Doyle's car was at his old complex.

^ Good point Justin. I admit the car is the one thing that bugs me, and even though I'm more on the side of Michael being innocent, it's not something you can just explain away.

The car has always bothered me. There is also a newspaper article with a quote from Brad Lollar about all 5 of MSM's witnesses failing polygraph tests.

Regardless, I did skim through the link posted by Wiseguy and, in my opinion, it does sound like Martin could have had a better defense, even though the appellate court felt his defense was sound from a legal standpoint.

My main gripe is probably just a hindsight is 20-20 hypothetical type scenario, but I wonder if MSM would have been convicted if his defense had sought to suppress his previous conviction by filing a motion in limine to block that information from entering the record. The fact that Martin was involved in a prior incident is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he was guilty of robbing the gas station. However, it is prejudicial as Hell, in my opinion.

I also gather from the appeal brief that Martin's defense wanted to "be honest". That's honorable. However, the attorneys have a duty to do what is in the best interest of their client. Suppressing the prior conviction might have been a better strategical approach. Not entirely honest, but it could have saved an innocent man from sitting in prison for 20 years. What's the lesser of two evils? Again, the hindsight thing.

The car has always bothered me. There is also a newspaper article with a quote from Brad Lollar about all 5 of MSM's witnesses failing polygraph tests.

If this is true then there goes Martin's whole defense. Without those five he's guilty IMO. Is it possible it was a misquote or Lollar just had his facts wrong? I can't imagine five people lying for him under oath...what would be in it for them?

I understand that some of us think the supermarket incidient is a big deal, and others not so much. but regardless of how you feel about that, I would hope most of us agree that the supermarket incident would not have happened if

1. MSM was not drunk
2. The supermarket manager didn't wrongfully accusse MSM of shoplifting, and on top of that, didn't call the police when no crime had been committed.
You can't shoplift something if you're still in the store.

And after considering that, what is the likelihood he would committ the robbery?

The supermarket thing was just so blown way out of proportion. This was a normal man that got drunk one night and was hassled by supermarket employees (I mean, jeez, they went after him with brooms for crying out loud!) Can anyone really say the supermarket employees were sane when they were going after him with brooms?

Now here's the point I want to make. The guy offered to pay for the sausage and chips. Is the manager REALLY going to be so dink as to call the police when MSM offers to pay? Hasn't this guy got bigger fish to fry?

And just what exactly are the police going to do? "yeah, we got a guy who is trying to pay for his purchases, request backup". Puh-leeze. Heck, they probably would have just ignored that call altogether.

I understand that some of us think the supermarket incidient is a big deal, and others not so much. but regardless of how you feel about that, I would hope most of us agree that the supermarket incident would not have happened if

1. MSM was not drunk
2. The supermarket manager didn't wrongfully accusse MSM of shoplifting, and on top of that, didn't call the police when no crime had been committed.
You can't shoplift something if you're still in the store.

And after considering that, what is the likelihood he would committ the robbery?

The supermarket thing was just so blown way out of proportion. This was a normal man that got drunk one night and was hassled by supermarket employees (I mean, jeez, they went after him with brooms for crying out loud!) Can anyone really say the supermarket employees were sane when they were going after him with brooms?

Now here's the point I want to make. The guy offered to pay for the sausage and chips. Is the manager REALLY going to be so dink as to call the police when MSM offers to pay? Hasn't this guy got bigger fish to fry?

And just what exactly are the police going to do? "yeah, we got a guy who is trying to pay for his purchases, request backup". Puh-leeze. Heck, they probably would have just ignored that call altogether.

I understand he was intoxicated but he still didn't need to fire a gun in the air, especially if he was already at his car out of the supermarket.

I understand that some of us think the supermarket incidient is a big deal, and others not so much. but regardless of how you feel about that, I would hope most of us agree that the supermarket incident would not have happened if

1. MSM was not drunk
2. The supermarket manager didn't wrongfully accusse MSM of shoplifting, and on top of that, didn't call the police when no crime had been committed.
You can't shoplift something if you're still in the store.

And after considering that, what is the likelihood he would committ the robbery?

The supermarket thing was just so blown way out of proportion. This was a normal man that got drunk one night and was hassled by supermarket employees (I mean, jeez, they went after him with brooms for crying out loud!) Can anyone really say the supermarket employees were sane when they were going after him with brooms?

Now here's the point I want to make. The guy offered to pay for the sausage and chips. Is the manager REALLY going to be so dink as to call the police when MSM offers to pay? Hasn't this guy got bigger fish to fry?

And just what exactly are the police going to do? "yeah, we got a guy who is trying to pay for his purchases, request backup". Puh-leeze. Heck, they probably would have just ignored that call altogether.

Excellent points. I think MSM and the employees were both a little wrong, certainly he wouldn't have done what he did in the first place without them egging him.

Not to defend Michael being drunk in public, eating some chips off the shelf and probably being just generally rude and disorderly, but two wrongs don't make a right. He didn't deserve already being treated like a criminal, and I get the impression the manager and the employees were overzealous, almost vigilante types, even if they had good intentions. I think if MSM paid for what he ate, the manager should've let him and his friend leave with a warning and not threatening to call the cops. All that did was escalate the situation since he was already drunk, it made him madder (explaining why he shot the gun in the air and pulled the knife).

Make no mistake, he was clearly wrong for that...but as you said, if the manager had just been a little calmer in the first place, it never would've happened. I've worked retail for years, and they've always said that the best thing do to is to NOT be a hero, comply with robbers, and if someone is beliggerant, do whatever it takes to diffuse the situation so they'll leave peacefully. If I was waiting on 1979 MSM I'd just say "Good enough man" when he gave me the money. ;)

I think the story of the five witnesses for MSM has been covered and the pros cons of it, as well as the groecry store incident, so lets talk about the robbery itself.

One thing I haven't seen discussed on here is how likely is it the store clerk could have been mistaken?

This robbery was in broad daylight from what I understand..... but the store still could have been dimly lit, the robber if the reinactment was correct wore a cap pulled low and dark glasses, the guy running the store was probably afraid for his life and not really in a good state to take in facial details, and undoubtedly the robber warned him not to look at him.

In that situation, In my humble opinion its definitely possible someone could mistake an identity if the robber resembled MSM at least somewhat.

I think Doyle just didn't want to be identified on camera(that's why he appeared in silhouette) and did not reveal his last name.

I feel like the actual robber got off the hook and will probably never get caught. The fact that they never recovered any money or lack of physical evidence just makes it harder. This is like the "Tom Johnson" computer case(yes different circumstance). We don't even know if Tom is still alive or not. Same with the robber. Now if we had a gay robber rape Doyle that would be a different story

I've always thought that if it wasn't Martin, it may have been some junkie who needed quick cash to either pay off a dealer or support his habit.

Because when you think about it this is a pretty ridiculous crime. Commiting a felony in broad daylight with little effort to conceal your identity in a state where armed robbery can land you two decades in the can for a few hundred dollars in cash. Thats pretty absurd, of course you could say he got away with it assuming it wasn't MSM. But its only sheer luck that he did, assuming he wasn't trying to specifically set Martin up and the whole thing was a conspiracy.

I believe that if MSM is innocent, then there are two possibilities: the actual robber was a drug addict who needed quick cash, or the whole thing was devised as a setup to nail Martin, where Doyle, the robber, and possibly even the gas station attendant were all in on it.

Which brings up another question, was Michael Scott Martin ever known to do drugs? Because when you have an armed robbery for a small amount of cash more often than not its drug related, and that the only thing that makes sense that Martin would suddenly commit a crime like this having no record.

I think Doyle just didn't want to be identified on camera(that's why he appeared in silhouette) and did not reveal his last name.

I feel like the actual robber got off the hook and will probably never get caught. The fact that they never recovered any money or lack of physical evidence just makes it harder. This is like the "Tom Johnson" computer case(yes different circumstance). We don't even know if Tom is still alive or not. Same with the robber. Now if we had a gay robber rape Doyle that would be a different story

I've always thought that if it wasn't Martin, it may have been some junkie who needed quick cash to either pay off a dealer or support his habit.

Because when you think about it this is a pretty ridiculous crime. Commiting a felony in broad daylight with little effort to conceal your identity in a state where armed robbery can land you two decades in the can for a few hundred dollars in cash. Thats pretty absurd, of course you could say he got away with it assuming it wasn't MSM. But its only sheer luck that he did, assuming he wasn't trying to specifically set Martin up and the whole thing was a conspiracy.

I believe that if MSM is innocent, then there are two possibilities: the actual robber was a drug addict who needed quick cash, or the whole thing was devised as a setup to nail Martin, where Doyle, the robber, and possibly even the gas station attendant were all in on it.

Which brings up another question, was Michael Scott Martin ever known to do drugs? Because when you have an armed robbery for a small amount of cash more often than not its drug related, and that the only thing that makes sense that Martin would suddenly commit a crime like this having no record.

It was probably a junkie who needed a quick fix. As for Doyle, it's easy to understand how he could have mistaken someone...when someone holds a gun to your face you don't really want to take the time to study details about the person. And like I've said before, if MSM was guilty why not just own up today and admit he made another "adolescent stunt"? There was only $400 taken and Doyle wasn't physically harmed in anyway (at least not presented in the UM segment).

I also believe Michael is innocent.

I agree with what both oldschooler and wiseguy are saying. The manager was a way out of line, trying to call the cops when MSM was trying to PAY for his purchases...I mean REALLY!? I'm sure every supermarket, and convenience store has had a drunk come in and eat off the shelves. Most wouldn't pay, but this guy was trying to pay.

Afterward, he did plead guilty to his charges and accept the punishment for his actions. Once he completed his punishment, he stayed out of trouble.

Are these really the actions of a man who is ready to rob someone at gunpoint?

As you may know, this is one of my "pet" cases on here, mostly because I believe Martin was railroaded, big time. This is one of a few cases I recently sent my sister a copy of (she's a fan of the show) and she just let me know her thoughts on the case.

She made a good point about how unlikely it was that Martin would commit another crime in a town he had just done so, and especially, wearing no mask. Now granted criminals do dumb things some times, but would Martin really be that stupid?

She made a good point about how unlikely it was that Martin would commit another crime in a town he had just done so, and especially, wearing no mask. Now granted criminals do dumb things some times, but would Martin really be that stupid?

I also find it unlikely that:

-Martin would let himself be seen by the arresting officer from the previous incident at the grocery store.
-Martin would leave his vehicle behind at the apartment complex where he used to live.
-Martin would be able to coax 5 people (3 of whom were strangers to Martin) into lying for him to make up an alibi for the date in question.

I've always thought this one was the most obvious case where police just rushed to a judgement (IIRC, the officer requested to be put on this case because of his previous case with Martin), and the prosecution also rushed to judgement. Even the prosecutor admitted on air that he wasn't sure that they had the right guy behind bars.

Love your quote by Mean Gene BTW, wiseguy.

thank you and right on. I love that quote because it's probably the most wonderfully random thing I've ever heard in my life.

But yeah, to expand on the point, if Martin wanted to rob a gas station and could pick any city, why would he settle on one where he had just had a previous incident. And with no disguise. It just doesn't make sense.

She made a good point about how unlikely it was that Martin would commit another crime in a town he had just done so, and especially, wearing no mask. Now granted criminals do dumb things some times, but would Martin really be that stupid?

Not to mention that he lived 70 miles away! If Martin was guilty, this means he would have taken a long trip to his former town for the sole purpose of robbing a gas station, stole a vehicle from the crime scene to make his getaway, and then dropped said car off at the same apartment complex he used to live at even though he still had a 70-mile trip to get back home.

The arresting officer also claims he saw him riding a motorcycle, right? Did they actually assume this was Martin's mode of transportation from Fort Worth to Garland? That he took a 140-mile round trip on a motorcycle out in the open for the express purpose of committing a crime which would net a few hundred bucks at the most?

The case for his guilt just gets more ludicrous the more you think about it.

"Put that cigarette out!" - Mean Gene Okerlund

While we're on the subject, this is actually one of my pet unsolved mysteries: who the hell was Mean Gene talking to when he yelled this?

While we're on the subject, this is actually one of my pet unsolved mysteries: who the hell was Mean Gene talking to when he yelled this?

I think I can solve this mystery. It bothered me for years and years, because I've always assumed that he was legitimately yelling at someone who was smoking backstage at a WWF event. It was only a few years ago that I watched the event again and it dawned on me...he's actually yelling in "kayfabe", pretending that someone was there smoking, because of the way that Heenan, Mr. Perfect, and Ric Flair were celebrating. It was Mean Gene's brilliant straight man comedic timing, IMO, that made him shout it out as if others were there in the background celebrating with Flair for winning the title.

I have nothing to add to this conversation except that I agree with the assessment that MSM is probably not guilty, and that I'm a teeny bit excited that Cars and wiseguy actually agree on a case. :D

I think I can solve this mystery. It bothered me for years and years, because I've always assumed that he was legitimately yelling at someone who was smoking backstage at a WWF event. It was only a few years ago that I watched the event again and it dawned on me...he's actually yelling in "kayfabe", pretending that someone was there smoking, because of the way that Heenan, Mr. Perfect, and Ric Flair were celebrating. It was Mean Gene's brilliant straight man comedic timing, IMO, that made him shout it out as if others were there in the background celebrating with Flair for winning the title.

OT: Didn't Gene Okerlund mention that members of the media were in attendance as Jack Tunney presented Flair with the WWF Championship? Of course no media was covering the event as they never do when it comes to professional wrestling but it makes Gene's cigarette comment a little more understandable if taken in that context.

To be fair though this isn't even close to Okerlund's most memorable moment on PPV, anyone remember Summerslam 1989 when he was interviewing Rick Rude and the Summerslam sign collapsed behind him? Okerlund "F-bombed" the world before the cameras quickly cut away. This of course was only to be seen on the PPV and deleted entirely from every subsequent home video release of the event since.

I have nothing to add to this conversation except that I agree with the assessment that MSM is probably not guilty, and that I'm a teeny bit excited that Cars and wiseguy actually agree on a case. :D

I noticed that too.

uh-oh, I'm getting out of here...:lol:

OT: Didn't Gene Okerlund mention that members of the media were in attendance as Jack Tunney presented Flair with the WWF Championship? Of course no media was covering the event as they never do when it comes to professional wrestling but it makes Gene's cigarette comment a little more understandable if taken in that context.

To be fair though this isn't even close to Okerlund's most memorable moment on PPV, anyone remember Summerslam 1989 when he was interviewing Rick Rude and the Summerslam sign collapsed behind him? Okerlund "F-bombed" the world before the cameras quickly cut away. This of course was only to be seen on the PPV and deleted entirely from every subsequent home video release of the event since.

yeah, Gene addressed the "members of the press". I've heard various theories before, but I gotta wonder if Gene was either doing it for the attention, or because he was trying to get one of them to bust up on live television. I have the infamous F-bomb on a dvd somewhere. Heenan cracks up to the point he drifts off-screen. There's also an interview at Wrestlemania VI where Gene tells Heenan: "I can't believe you had the bal...the nerve..." and Heenan seems taken aback somewhat. Kinda similar to how Tim Conway would ad-lib in order to get his castmates...particularly Harvey Korman, to crack up on the Carol Burnett show.

Then again, it could be because he hates smoking. I've heard Vince has a hardline stance against cigarettes.

OT: Didn't Gene Okerlund mention that members of the media were in attendance as Jack Tunney presented Flair with the WWF Championship? Of course no media was covering the event as they never do when it comes to professional wrestling but it makes Gene's cigarette comment a little more understandable if taken in that context.

I honestly think he was saying it to create the illusion that Flair had a whole entourage of people in the back celebrating with him. I went back and rewatched it, and you can actually see flashbulbs going off, so this goes along with the "media attendance" Okerlund spoke of earlier.

I have nothing else to add except that I'm delighted to see that so many UM fans here are also wrestling fans.

Same here. :)

I honestly think he was saying it to create the illusion that Flair had a whole entourage of people in the back celebrating with him. I went back and rewatched it, and you can actually see flashbulbs going off, so this goes along with the "media attendance" Okerlund spoke of earlier.

well Flair liked to have the ladies around...

I have nothing else to add except that I'm delighted to see that so many UM fans here are also wrestling fans.

Me too. The 92 Rumble is my all time favorite.

Me too. The 92 Rumble is my all time favorite.

Yeah it's arguably the best Rumble ever although it's also the end of an era. Although many of them hung around for several months after that, the 92 Rumble was the last major event that featured the wrestling superstars of the eighties. By the end of 1992, most of those guys were all gone making way for the wrestlers that were going to define the nineties. So for me the 92 Rumble as great as it was, will always be somewhat bittersweet.

PS: Maybe we should move this discussion elsewhere as we are getting very much off topic here.

PS: Maybe we should move this discussion elsewhere as we are getting very much off topic here.

True enough. I suggested a wrestling board here on SO in the "Site Feedback and Suggestions" forum just last week. Nothing has become of it yet, however.

PS: Maybe we should move this discussion elsewhere as we are getting very much off topic here.

I was just getting ready to ask whether or not anyone thought Michael Scott Martin could have lasted in the Rumble as long as Flair did.

To get back on-topic, I find it interesting that this is one of the only UM Final Appeal segments (along with the Frederick Young case) where the appellant was incarcerated for a crime in which no one actually got hurt.

But it definitely deserved its spot on the show because Martin was given that ridiculous life sentence for the crime. By the time the segment aired, he'd already been in prison for 8 years. If he actually was guilty, I'd say that's probably a reasonable enough sentence for him to have served before they let him out.

To get back on-topic, I find it interesting that this is one of the only UM Final Appeal segments (along with the Frederick Young case) where the appellant was incarcerated for a crime in which no one actually got hurt.

But it definitely deserved its spot on the show because Martin was given that ridiculous life sentence for the crime. By the time the segment aired, he'd already been in prison for 8 years. If he actually was guilty, I'd say that's probably a reasonable enough sentence for him to have served before they let him out.

Serving 8 years in prison was definitely a reasonable sentence, if he was guilty. I always thought his insistence of innocence even after he was paroled was very telling. You'd think if he truely was guilty, he'd just admit it in an attempt to get out of prison earlier.

As I've contended from the start one issue that always stuck out to me in this case was the short amount of time that lapsed between MSM being put on probation for the first offense and the execution of the second offense.

For me at least it doesn't jive that someone who has just been placed on probation to go out and commit another offense within two weeks of being placed on probation.

Taken together with wiseguy's points about the location of the gas station that was robbed has always caused me to lean towards Martin being innocent in this matter.

As I've contended from the start one issue that always stuck out to me in this case was the short amount of time that lapsed between MSM being put on parole for the first offense and the execution of the second offense.

For me at least it doesn't jive that someone who has just been placed on parole to go out and commit another offense within two weeks of being placed on probation.

Taken together with wiseguy's points about the location of the gas station that was robbed has always caused me to lean towards Martin being innocent in this matter.

Right. Plus, he would have to know that they come down much harder on a person for their second offense -- especially with this being Texas.

I am not saying that Martin is innocent. It could be that he is guilty. It is just that I have read so many cases where people were wrongly convicted because they were wrongly identified. In fact, eyewitness error is the biggest cause of wrongful convictions. Sometimes the eyewitness is lying, but more often they are mistaken. The human memory is not a camera - memory can fade, become distorted, coloured, or tainted by prejudice, emotions or suggestive identifying techniques. False memories can also be created - false memory syndrome.

Also, being convinced that you have identified the right person does not mean that you have. For example, in 1928 Benjamin Collins was convicted of purse-snatching. The case against him was the identification from five women. But as he was being sentenced, the purse-snatcher struck again. The police found all the property supposedly taken by Collins in the man's apartment and he confessed. Collins was exonerated, but three of the five women still identified him as the thief; the other two thought they might have been mistaken.

Furthermore, it may be that you have identified a person who bears a striking resemblance to the actual criminal. For example, in 1934 Nancy Botts was convicted of passing forged cheques. Seven merchants identified her as the criminal. But two years later, it was established that the true criminal was a person who resembled Botts so closely they could almost have been identical twins.

The resemblance does not even need to be striking; there have been cases where the convicted person and true criminal only bear some resemblance to each other - or even no resemblance. For example, in 1955, Dorothy Moerer was identified as a cheque forger, and then charged with further offences following her release. But then she was proved innocent. The only resemblance between her and the true forger was that they were short and heavy-set. The same went for two other women who had been wrongly identified as the same criminal.

Some criminals get away with a long crime spree because they seem to have doubles. This was the case with Ed Sullivan and Theodora Sullivan, 'The Phantom Forgers', who got away with passing dud cheques for over 10 years in the 1930s because they 'seemed to have so many doubles'. An innocent couple, Clifford Shephard and Betty Lester of New Jersey, were wrongly identified twice of passing dud cheques that were passed by the Sullivans and served two prison terms. Shephard was charged with a third offence but not indicted because he had been in prison at the time. He fought a 15 year battle for exoneration. Another couple in New York state were wrongly identified as the Phantom Forgers as well, but it sounds like that case was sorted pretty quickly. Ironically, the guy in that case was a forger in his own right.

A question I would like an answer to assuming Martin is innocent - why did the robber park Doyle's car outside Michael Scott Martin's old apartment? Seems like a pretty big coincidence.

Good question. Has anyone looked into who was living at or near that apartment at the time?

Serving 8 years in prison was definitely a reasonable sentence, if he was guilty. I always thought his insistence of innocence even after he was paroled was very telling. You'd think if he truely was guilty, he'd just admit it in an attempt to get out of prison earlier.

Arthur Allan Thomas (double murder) and Peter Ellis (child abuse) are two NZ cases where the defendants always claimed they were innocent. And in protest of their innocence, they both refused to accept parole. Thomas was eventually pardoned, but Ellis is still fighting for exoneration.

I have heard that justice can be hard in Texas, but the sentence does sound excessive. Maybe it was Martin's pleas of innocence at his trial that had the judge handing out such a harsh sentence? Or maybe he just had the bad luck to have a harsh judge?

Not to mention that he lived 70 miles away! If Martin was guilty, this means he would have taken a long trip to his former town for the sole purpose of robbing a gas station, stole a vehicle from the crime scene to make his getaway, and then dropped said car off at the same apartment complex he used to live at even though he still had a 70-mile trip to get back home.

The arresting officer also claims he saw him riding a motorcycle, right? Did they actually assume this was Martin's mode of transportation from Fort Worth to Garland? That he took a 140-mile round trip on a motorcycle out in the open for the express purpose of committing a crime which would net a few hundred bucks at the most?

The case for his guilt just gets more ludicrous the more you think about it.



Now you mention it, why would he go to so much trouble and travel just to rob a convenience store? Surely there would be ones far closer and more convenient to rob? Okay, so he might not want to rob one too close, where he might be identified, but it does seem a lot of trouble just to rob a store. And why do it anyway? So there's money involved, but Martin doesn't strike me as setting on the path to criminality. His earlier offence was due to drunkenness and foolishness.

Assuming he is innocent, it looks like the only thing that can clear him is a confession from the true robber. But I can't see that happening. The robber may not even know (or care) an innocent man went to jail because of him. Or the robber may be dead.

It's been awhile since I've seen this segment, but didn't the cop say he was sitting a traffic light when he allegedly saw Martin drive by? If Martin is guilty, wouldn't this make him one of the dumbest people profiled on UM? After seeing the officer who arrested you for a prior offense (that you were on parole for), you go hold up a gas station, and then park your vehicle at your previous residence?!

I tend to think the car being found at Martin's old apartment building was just a huge coincidence. Something similar happened in the Niqui McCown case.

It's been awhile since I've seen this segment, but didn't the cop say he was sitting a traffic light when he allegedly saw Martin drive by? If Martin is guilty, wouldn't this make him one of the dumbest people profiled on UM? After seeing the officer who arrested you for a prior offense (that you were on parole for), you go hold up a gas station, and then park your vehicle at your previous residence?!

I tend to think the car being found at Martin's old apartment building was just a huge coincidence. Something similar happened in the Niqui McCown case.

Sometimes criminals are dumb. They've even made shows and books about it, such as "World's Dumbest Criminals". Question is, are we looking at a dumb criminal or a wrongly convicted man?

None of those eyewitnesses had anything to gain by lying about MSM being home that night. And as mentioned, there is no reason at all to drive to Garland for the express purpose of holding up a gas station if you're living in Fort Worth.

I always thought that cop had it out personally for MSM. I'd be willing to bet he squealed with delight when Doyle decided it was Martin that held him at gunpoint that evening.

None of those eyewitnesses had anything to gain by lying about MSM being home that night. And as mentioned, there is no reason at all to drive to Garland for the express purpose of holding up a gas station if you're living in Fort Worth.

I always thought that cop had it out personally for MSM. I'd be willing to bet he squealed with delight when Doyle decided it was Martin that held him at gunpoint that evening.

The cop requested to be assigned to the gas station robbery, IIRC. That's pretty strange considering he was involved with the previous incident with Martin at the grocery store. This is essentially what I think happened:

Dennis Wheatley (the cop who was interviewed in the segment) probably felt that Martin got off light on his offense at the grocery store (I think he got a fine and a couple years probation). On the day of the robbery in Garland, Wheatley saw someone who resembled Martin drive by him (this may or may not have been the actual guy who committed the robbery). Wheatley then learns that a robbery had been committed at the gas station in Garland shortly before he saw the man he thought was Martin and in his mind puts 2 + 2 together and figures that since he arrested Martin previously for using a firearm, and since he think she saw him in the area right after the robbery, Martin must be guilty. He requests the case because in his mind he knows Martin is guilty. It wouldn't surprise me if Wheatley had somehow influenced Doyle to pick Martin out of the photo spread.

I don't personally think Wheatley was out to set up an innocent man, but I think he was out to "get his man" no matter what. It's happened countless times before. A law enforcement official forms an opinion and will do everything they can to prove that opinion as fact, and not be open to anything that counters their theory.

None of those eyewitnesses had anything to gain by lying about MSM being home that night. And as mentioned, there is no reason at all to drive to Garland for the express purpose of holding up a gas station if you're living in Fort Worth.

I always thought that cop had it out personally for MSM. I'd be willing to bet he squealed with delight when Doyle decided it was Martin that held him at gunpoint that evening.

I have always been one of MSM's strongest supporters and remain that way to this day. However, it should be noted that according to an article on the case all of MSM's alibi witnesses failed polygraph tests. Now polygraph tests aren't exactly the most reliable method of determining someone's reliability in the first place but it's worth noting that every single one of MSM's witnesses failed their polygraph.

I have always been one of MSM's strongest supporters and remain that way to this day.

You and me both.

I have always been one of MSM's strongest supporters and remain that way to this day. However, it should be noted that according to an article on the case all of MSM's alibi witnesses failed polygraph tests. Now polygraph tests aren't exactly the most reliable method of determining someone's reliability in the first place but it's worth noting that every single one of MSM's witnesses failed their polygraph.

That is a point. But I thought courts didn't allow polygraph tests as evidence. Leaving that aside, for what reasons could you fail a polygraph (apart from lying)? Could nerves be one?

If the polygraph tests were to be believed, Brad Lollar (the prosecutor) would have been more firm in Martin's conviction. On the UM segment he seems very unsure if they got the right man. That's telling.

The cop requested to be assigned to the gas station robbery, IIRC. That's pretty strange considering he was involved with the previous incident with Martin at the grocery store. This is essentially what I think happened:

Dennis Wheatley (the cop who was interviewed in the segment) probably felt that Martin got off light on his offense at the grocery store (I think he got a fine and a couple years probation). On the day of the robbery in Garland, Wheatley saw someone who resembled Martin drive by him (this may or may not have been the actual guy who committed the robbery). Wheatley then learns that a robbery had been committed at the gas station in Garland shortly before he saw the man he thought was Martin and in his mind puts 2 + 2 together and figures that since he arrested Martin previously for using a firearm, and since he think she saw him in the area right after the robbery, Martin must be guilty. He requests the case because in his mind he knows Martin is guilty. It wouldn't surprise me if Wheatley had somehow influenced Doyle to pick Martin out of the photo spread.

I don't personally think Wheatley was out to set up an innocent man, but I think he was out to "get his man" no matter what. It's happened countless times before. A law enforcement official forms an opinion and will do everything they can to prove that opinion as fact, and not be open to anything that counters their theory.

That cop should not have been in charge of the investigation - he was not exactly the most objective of investigators when it came to Scott Martin.

That cop should not have been in charge of the investigation - he was not exactly the most objective of investigators when it came to Scott Martin.

I agree. Someone in that department should have became suspicious when the guy requested to be put on the investigation of the robbery in Garland.

If the polygraph tests were to be believed, Brad Lollar (the prosecutor) would have been more firm in Martin's conviction. On the UM segment he seems very unsure if they got the right man. That's telling.

Who was in charge of those polygraphs anyway? The investigators? Has anyone re-tested these people on the polygraph?

Who was in charge of those polygraphs anyway? The investigators? Has anyone re-tested these people on the polygraph?

I doubt they were retested, since they considered the case closed. I've read one of Martin's appeals and it makes no mention of the witnesses failing lie detector tests. I wonder if the newspaper article got it wrong.

I doubt they were retested, since they considered the case closed. I've read one of Martin's appeals and it makes no mention of the witnesses failing lie detector tests. I wonder if the newspaper article got it wrong.

Something sounds weird about it to me. Just a feeling and could definitely be wrong, but after having found a number of inaccurate articles (John Branion is a good example) on UM cases, I think this could be a definite possibility.

Something sounds weird about it to me. Just a feeling and could definitely be wrong, but after having found a number of inaccurate articles (John Branion is a good example) on UM cases, I think this could be a definite possibility.

Even in the UM segment, Brad Lollar says something to the effect of "he's got 5 witnesses and they were all certain that they saw him 85 miles away". You'd think he would have brought up the fact that they all failed lie detector tests. Instead he sounds unsure.

Even in the UM segment, Brad Lollar says something to the effect of "he's got 5 witnesses and they were all certain that they saw him 85 miles away". You'd think he would have brought up the fact that they all failed lie detector tests. Instead he sounds unsure.

Exactly. I also just do not at all see the likelihood that five people--some of whom didn't even know MSM that well at all--would all want to cover for him by lying to police.

Exactly. I also just do not at all see the likelihood that five people--some of whom didn't even know MSM that well at all--would all want to cover for him by lying to police.

Yep. And the UM segment was filmed close to ten years after the robbery. Why the people would still lie to help out a complete stranger almost ten years after the fact makes no sense. The guy was innocent. No way in hell was he guilty, IMO.

Even in the UM segment, Brad Lollar says something to the effect of "he's got 5 witnesses and they were all certain that they saw him 85 miles away". You'd think he would have brought up the fact that they all failed lie detector tests. Instead he sounds unsure.

Is there any given reason as to why they failed? If all five failed, then I can only think that either they were all lying (and we can't see any reason why they should), or there was something wrong with the testing. And who conducted those tests anyway? Was it someone the investigating officer put in charge or someone hired by the defence?