Okay, this might seem a little bit silly, but I think they overlooked a simple solution to this case, or is just me: Michael's neighbor claims he and Michael were watching BattleStar Galactaca at 7:00 in Fort Worth - right as the gas station was getting robbed 70 miles away in Garland, TX. Why not just ask him what the episode was about? Surely he would have remembered.

I am torn on this one, I think I would lean slightly towards Michael being innocent. As it stated, 3 of the 5 witnesses who say they saw Michael in Fort Worth barely knew him, and would have nothing to gain or lose by stating he was there. Plus, the prosecutor says he's not sure if they got the right man, which I think is signifcant, particularly after all these years. I don't think Doyle the attendant and the police officer who claim it was Michael are intentionally lying, but perhaps it was somebody who looked alot like Michael. Texas is a pretty large state.

It stated Michael had a clean record until he was 26, when the grocery store incident took place (it was seven months before the robbery and Michael hadn't been accused of anything in between those two incidents). While I don't excuse Michael for what he did at the grocery store, I don't think he would have done it if he was sober. I'm curious to know if the person who robbed the gas station seemed drunk.

I have to admit that I laughed at the part where the supermarket clerks go after him with brooms. I mean, good heavens, Michael has got a knife AND a gun, and they're going after him with brooms? Most companies now have a no-chase policy, maybe times were just different back then.

Nothing like a Final Appeal case to get a nice juicy conversion going, or most likely an arguement between Kardrmas and someone. I wouldn't say that asking him what's Battlestar Galatica is about would solve this mystery. I of course go the other way, he was very guilty. The two eyewitness testimonies in my opinion are far, far more credibile that those of five of his mates. I believe "Doyle" is right in saying that if someone sticks a gun to your head, you will never forget the person that does it. Also Martin is a lair. He states that "I never robbed no-one and I never will". Hello, he was convicted of aggaravated assualt with a deadly weapon whilst fleeing the scene of the convience store..after stealing chips and a polish sausage. How dumb is he? Also he stats that he was just a kid when this happen... he was 26 years old in 1979, he is well and truely an adult at the time. At 26, unless you are ********, you know right from wrong and obviously threatening people with guns and knifes is not right.

I think someone posted and said he was released after 20 years, fits perfectly for me. I am actually happy knowing he spent that time in jail.

You might have something there wiseguy but at the time (at least in the arresting officer's mind) Mike had so much going against him that whether or not he remembered the content of a particular tv show would have been a trivial fact (He could have also learned of this later after the fact)

Mike Martin though was 100% innocent and I think just fell victim in this case to two unfortunate set of circumstances which led to him having to serve out a full twenty year prison term for a crime he didn't commit.

1) His prior arrest which although was entirely of his own doing, I believe should not have been allowed into evidence in this case as the case should've been tried on the facts and even the prosecutor admits in this segment that he didn't have the greatest case against Martin.

2) Location: We have to remember that Mike Martin was convicted in the state of Texas which from everything I know about law enforcement is one of the hardest states to get a guilty verdict overturned. Perhaps I'm wrong but I think if Mike Martin was convicted in another area of the country perhaps he might have gotten an appeal.

I really feel for Mike Martin because while much like wiseguy I can't condone his actions at the grocery store but really I think everyone has done some stupid things between the ages of 16-25 that looking back on it later they wished they hadn't done. If Martin hadn't pulled the knife and gun on the clerks I think it could've been written off as some immature action by an intoxicated person in a supermarket but once he pulled the weapons out he landed himself in a whole other degree of trouble.

I have no doubt in my mind that Mike Martin had nothing to do with the gas station hold up and Doyle the attendant was probably either too proud or too self rightious to admit he had fingered the wrong man. As far as the police officer claiming he saw Mike Martin ride by him in his car minutes after the robbery...come on from what I saw from Martin's mugshot, he looked like almost every other young male in the late 70s with the long hair and the beard...the officer could've seen anyone, I think he just had Mike Martin on the brain and convinced himself he saw him.

So in my mind at least I feel its really a travesty of justice that a man spent 20 years in prison for basically stealing a polish sausage at a grocery store.

Jeez!

For what it's worth, I found some news articles on Newsbank indicating that a couple of the five witnesses who testified on Martin's behalf failed polygraph tests. I personally don't put a lot of credence in polygraph testing, but if this information was mentioned in court, I believe it could have biased the jury even more.

Hey Space Invaderz it will not start an argument. I personally do not agree with your opinion and I believe that Michael Scott Martin is probably innocent. I know you are probably just shocked that I have come to that conclusion. I will have to watch the full segment before I can say for sure that I think he is innocent but judging from what I have read here it seems likely he is. I mean the prosecutor even admitting he might have got the wrong guy? I mean if you have a prosecutor admitting that you know there is trouble because usually a prosecutor would never publically admit that. Also I wonder why is it you believe the people that think Martin is guilty and find them more credible as eyewitnesses than the people that saw Michael in Fort Worth that didnt even know him? I mean the people in Garland didnt know him either but I guess I just find that strange how you would instantly assume that the eyewitnesses who pointed the finger at him are more reliable than the ones that didnt point the finger at him. You do realize the justice system isnt 100 percent right, right?

I mean I would love to think everyone in prison and everyone ever charged with a crime and convicted of a crime was guilty but that isnt the case. People are wrongfully convicted all the time. I am glad that Michael got paroled and was able to move on with his life. However he will have a felony record the rest of his life that he probably doesnt deserve and wrongfully has.

I do not think the eyewitnesses that fingered Michael were lying. I do think they were probably mistaken and just thought it was him and either couldnt believe they were wrong or were too proud to admit they were wrong and got an innocent man put in prison. It is also possible the people in Fort Worth that some of them were mistaken as well and saw someone else. However I wouldnt assume one group of eyewitnesses, the group screaming guilty was somehow more credible than the group that would have confirmed an alabi for Michael. Garland is on the complete opposite end of the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area from Fort Worth. Garland borders on the northeast side of Dallas. However as we now know eyewitnesses are becoming more and more uncrediable. Especially since Michael Scott Martin looked like so many other young men of the period he could have been mistaken for someone else. I mean maybe he did it, however it is just as likely if not more likely he didnt do it based on the evidence.

So in my mind at least I feel its really a travesty of justice that a man spent 20 years in prison for basically stealing a polish sausage at a grocery store.

Jeez!

Let's not forget he was waving a knife and a gun around. So if you wanna put it that way, you can't walk into a grocery store, steal items, flash two deadly weapons around and not expect a massive jail sentence when you get caught.


Hey Space Invaderz it will not start an argument. I personally do not agree with your opinion and I believe that Michael Scott Martin is probably innocent. I know you are probably just shocked that I have come to that conclusion. I will have to watch the full segment before I can say for sure that I think he is innocent but judging from what I have read here it seems likely he is. I mean the prosecutor even admitting he might have got the wrong guy? I mean if you have a prosecutor admitting that you know there is trouble because usually a prosecutor would never publically admit that. Also I wonder why is it you believe the people that think Martin is guilty and find them more credible as eyewitnesses than the people that saw Michael in Fort Worth that didnt even know him? I mean the people in Garland didnt know him either but I guess I just find that strange how you would instantly assume that the eyewitnesses who pointed the finger at him are more reliable than the ones that didnt point the finger at him. You do realize the justice system isnt 100 percent right, right?

So you haven't even seen the case yet? Nice! Martin got 5 of his mates to say he was at home at the time of the robbery, I don't believe that for a second. The getaway car was parked at Martin's old residence (from the interview you'll see he isn't too bright). Most importantly Doyle the attendant, indentified Martin as the robber and his parol officer (I think it was him) from his first offense saw him fleeing the area of the crime. I'm also sure that to the generation of 2037 we'll all look the same. I do know that the justice system isn't 100% and I'll name a few that I think are innocent from other Final Appeal's; Michael Self, Johnny Wilson, Rolando Cruz, Frederick Young but Michael Scott Martin isn't one one of them in my opinion. He's a theif, a liar and he doesn't fool me.

Space Invaderz:

You were certainly right in alluding that one incident could be viewed by two different people in complete opposite ways. To that end, I did a little research for you tonight and probably also because I wanted to see if I could gauge for myself some more insight on a part of this case that has always troubled me.

I stressed previously that Mike Martin landed himself in a whole other degree of trouble when he pulled the weapons on the clerks. However tonight, I would like to focus on what happened prior to Mike Martin pulling those weapons and the possible inappropriate behavior of the store management in escalating that situation.

----

Tonight I had to stop by my local grocery store up here in Long Island, New York and over the years I have become friends with the store manager. Having this case on my mind today I casually decided to ask her if she thought the behavior of the management was appropriate.

While I'll preface all of this by saying two things

1 - We don't know the exact context of the confrontation between the clerks and Martin. Therefore we don't know if Martin did something to escalate the confrontation (such as refusing to pay for the items initally) or not.

2 - Every store has its own policy in regards to customer behavior and we don't know the policy of the store that Mike Martin was in that night but I thought you'd all find some of the things I learned tonight quite interesting:

------
ISSUE #1: We would all assume that consumation of food in a grocery store would happen after the customer has paid for the item and is off the premises.

However I found out tonight that this is a slippery slope at best for management at grocery stores. My friend said that in both supermarkets she managed at in the past (and these were two different chains) the management were allowed to confront/insist/ask/ the person if they intended on paying for the opened item (usually the item is a small liter bottle of soda or a bag of chips) but they are not allowed to call the police or take any type of steps to accuse the person of shoplifting until the person leaves the store without paying for the item or shows intent on leaving the store without paying for the item.

This is key to the Martin case because IF the manager and clerks threatened to call the police on Martin before allowing him a chance to pay for the opened items, according to my friend their actions were inappropraite as in that case Martin had not left the premises nor shown intent that he wasn't going to pay for his opened items.

ISSUE #2: The segment clearly shows that Martin "paid" for his items. The reason for the quotes is we don't know if Martin actually threw down enough money to cover the two items he was accused of stealing.

I would wager that the polish sausage and the bag of chips probably cost under $10 (by today's prices). Therefore it becomes crucial to know whether Martin threw down a $5 or a $10 bill. If the amount he threw down covered the opened items and the management was still trying to take punitive action against him they may have again overstepped their bounds.

According to my friend in a dispute with a customer over opened merchandise, once the item is paid for it effectively ends the "debate". The only exception would be if prior to paying for the item Mike Martin threatened the staff with harm, then there would have been cause for further punitive action (such as calling the police) related to that infraction (the threats)

There also seems to be some question as to the confrontation itself between Martin and the management. According to my friend the standard policy if a customer is creating a "disturbance" in the store the management has the right to ask that customer to leave or have them escorted the from the premises. By causing a distubance I mean getting into a loud verbal confrontation with another customer or employee. A physical confrontation or destruction of store property falls under a whole other protocol of action but as far as we know Mike Martin's confrontation at least initally did not fall into this catagory.

Even if he did cause a distubance, Mike Martin was all too willing to leave the store after he paid for the items. My friend found it very bizarre that management was insisting he remain on the premises because for just a basic disruptance management should've been all to eager to allow Martin to leave the store and be done with the matter after he paid for the items. If the way the segment depicts the chain of events is correct, then by today's standard's management had no right to insist Mike Martin remain on the premises/continue the confrontation after he paid for the items in question.

Finally I would be remiss in not adding that I showed this case to my wife tonight who is a D.A. and we both much like wiseguy have some serious questions regarding "the broom incident" and when and under what circumstances did Mike Martin draw his weapon. I'm not going to get into that in depth at this time, but we both question whether UM's portrayal of this crucial part of the action is accurate because the reactions of the staff are so bizarre in relation to the event that preceded it (Mike's apparent drawing of his knife).

------
I'd like to wrap this up by saying something to those people who might find the logic expressed in this posting to be somewhat circular. I have spent almost my entire adult life around lawyers on both sides of the table.

While incidents (such as this one) may seem like black & white cases of innocence vs. guilt it is crucial for me to stress that from what I've seen and heard from lawyers in the past fifteen years, when a case is brought to trial it is very rarely as "clean cut" as you or I might think.

Therefore it is my conclusion based on what I've seen in this segment that if Martin only boobed when he pulled the weapons on the clerks (and even that might be questionable if the UM is even slightly inaccurate as to how they portrayed that part of the confrontation) - From talking with my wife and the my local grocery store manager there are serious questions in my mind if management did not initally overreact to Martin's actions on the night in question and may have been guilty of inappropriate actions themselves.

Nice post DarkDante, I agree with most of it on the whole but there are a few "if"'s in there. Understandably I mean. You are right in saying we don't know exactly how accurate the recreateation is and how there are a lot of little things we don't know for sure; the management may have acted inappropreately but there also might have been a sign in the store saying something like "Any items consumed before payment will be dealt with by the police". Things like that we just don't know. Martin in his interview, never really talks about his first offense other than how he was a kid (:rolleyes: oldest kid I ever known of) and shouldn't have done it. Another thing I wonder is that if the chips and sausage only cost $10 by today's prices why wouldn't he just pay for them like the rest of us would have. I think we all feel the same that the ultimate esculation was when Martin pulled out the knife, once that happened it becomes a very serious offense.

I would wager that the polish sausage and the bag of chips probably cost under $10

I thought I was the gambler around here

Excellent post Dark Dante. I can't believe I totally forgot about this: one of my relatives was a department manager in a grocery store in Texas at one time. She said that not only was it common for people to eat in the store, but people would make and eat entire sandwiches in the store. She told me this around 1994 and I remember it so well because I recall getting a good laugh out of it. I think it just depends on the area you live in, I had never heard of that here in Michigan, but I guess it's common in Texas.

The only items Michael was accused of stealing were the potato chips and the polish sausage, and he has everything else on the check-out stand. The manager comes up before the cashier has completed the transaction, so he didn't even give Michael a chance to tell the cashier "ring me up for a bag of chips and a polish sausage." You are totally correct Dark Dante, this is highly questionable by the store management, and as a former supervisor of cashiers for a supermarket, I think I can vouch that this is a tad suspect on the part of the store management.

I've always wondered how Doyle picked out Michael in the stack of photographs. I believe what usually happens is that they put mostly career criminals in there with a few outliers, and Michael was probably one of the outliers, and Doyle picked him for some reason. The segment shows Doyle picking out the third photograph - Michael. I wonder if Doyle went through the photographs several times, or picked him out the first time. I have had to pick people out of lineups before, and there is a certain pressure to doing it. One gets the impression that the criminal is somewhere in that stack, and if you don't pick out a photograph, you worry that the police officer will think you were a totally uncredible witness. Interesting to note that initially Doyle says "I THINK that's the guy." and then the police officer replies "You think that's the guy, or are you sure that's the guy?" Doyle: "I'm sure that's the guy."

When I worked at the grocery store, there was a no-chase policy, and that was that. If someone walked out of the store with merchandise, we did not chase them, period. As I said, I think times were different back then, but going after somebody that pulled a knife would have been potentially harmful to one's self/coworkers and the customers in the store.

As far why the robber left the getaway car at Michael's former residence, it could have just been a coinicidence. The robber probably just took it with the intention of only having it for a little bit as an attempt to throw the police off, as he figured they would have been zeroing in on that type of vehicle. I remember when the D.C. area sniper attacks were going on, they had an idea what type of vehicle was used for the assualts, but they told the public not to focus on that one type of vehicle, because you never know.

Michael has been out for 8 years now, and to my knowledge, has not been in trouble again. If the belief that most criminals are career criminals is true, then I am now even more inclined to believe Michael is innocent.

Interesting to note that initially Doyle says "I THINK that's the guy." and then the police officer replies "You think that's the guy, or are you sure that's the guy?" Doyle: "I'm sure that's the guy."

In the recreateation that is how it goes, when Doyle is interviewed in person and on camera he says "I'm still sure they put the right man in jail. There's no doubt in my mind then and no doubt in my mind now".

I'm also wondering why Michael would supposedly not pay for the Polish sausuage and potato chips, but pay for everything else. I think Dante might have touched upon this earlier, it's not like the sausage and chips were exactly big-ticket items.:lol:

^ Yeah I didn't mention that but that was very interesting about him allegedly not paying for those two items but everything else. I'm not sure I necessarily buy into that. I want to talk a bit more about this care especially the second part involving the various witnesses but I don't have time to do that right now cause I'm heading out:

But I did want to clear up two points in the segment.

1) Regarding Mike Martin's comment that he never stole anything in his life in which Space Invaderz stated was a lie. Its important to note that Mike Martin was never convicted of shoplifting but of assault with a deadly weapon. So that leads me to believe that Martin did throw down enough cash to cover the two items in question because if he didn't, why didn't the store attach a shoplifting charge to the assault charge or were we just not told about it or perhaps that charge was dropped as part of a plea to Mike Martin pleading guilty to the assault charge? - I just don't know.

Whats crucial to remember though is if Martin did in fact pay for his purchases before the altercation and did not rob the gas station as he claims then yes he never did steal anything in his life. Its a bit of circular logic but if his statement is correct its also the truth.

2) Anyone else find it a bit bizarre that "Doyle" desired to protect his anonymity so greatly? - I mean he states very clearly that he believes the man who robbed him is behind bars. Why then when he was inteviewed is he hiding in the shadows with his identity only revealed as "Doyle" (which could even be an alias?)

I mean if Mike Martin actually robbed him what does he have to fear...Martin was locked up at the time. Perhaps he wanted to hide his identity from Martin's friends but I would bet a doughnut they already know what he looks like because I'm sure "Doyle" testified against Martin at the trial right?

The fact that "Doyle" is so secretive causes me to wonder a bit if he really is convinced he put the right man in jail or is he still afraid that the man who held him up was still roaming the streets at that time.

2) Anyone else find it a bit bizarre that "Doyle" desired to protect his anonymity so greatly? - I mean he states very clearly that he believes the man who robbed him is behind bars. Why then when he was inteviewed is he hiding in the shadows with his identity only revealed as "Doyle" (which could even be an alias?)

I mean if Mike Martin actually robbed him what does he have to fear...

Or perhaps he just wanted to put the robbery in the past and get on with his life, and not be bothered by further questioning by friends or others who might know him. I got the impression from some of his comments that the experience was traumatic and I'm guessing it is something he would rather forget.

Or, could he being fearing reprisal by Michael Scott Martin's family, friends and supporters?

Not saying you're wrong, Dante. Just offering a different slant.

^ Yeah I didn't mention that but that was very interesting about him allegedly not paying for those two items but everything else. I'm not sure I necessarily buy into that. I want to talk a bit more about this care especially the second part involving the various witnesses but I don't have time to do that right now cause I'm heading out:

But I did want to clear up two points in the segment.

1) Regarding Mike Martin's comment that he never stole anything in his life in which Space Invaderz stated was a lie. Its important to note that Mike Martin was never convicted of shoplifting but of assault with a deadly weapon. So that leads me to believe that Martin did throw down enough cash to cover the two items in question because if he didn't, why didn't the store attach a shoplifting charge to the assault charge or were we just not told about it or perhaps that charge was dropped as part of a plea to Mike Martin pleading guilty to the assault charge? - I just don't know.

Whats crucial to remember though is if Martin did in fact pay for his purchases before the altercation and did not rob the gas station as he claims then yes he never did steal anything in his life. Its a bit of circular logic but if his statement is correct its also the truth.

2) Anyone else find it a bit bizarre that "Doyle" desired to protect his anonymity so greatly? - I mean he states very clearly that he believes the man who robbed him is behind bars. Why then when he was inteviewed is he hiding in the shadows with his identity only revealed as "Doyle" (which could even be an alias?)

I mean if Mike Martin actually robbed him what does he have to fear...Martin was locked up at the time. Perhaps he wanted to hide his identity from Martin's friends but I would bet a doughnut they already know what he looks like because I'm sure "Doyle" testified against Martin at the trial right?

The fact that "Doyle" is so secretive causes me to wonder a bit if he really is convinced he put the right man in jail or is he still afraid that the man who held him up was still roaming the streets at that time.

Some good points there, Dante. Some of that kind of ties in to what I was trying to get at above regarding the outliers in the photographs: I have to wonder why Martin's photograph was even stuck in that stack at all: since the gas station was robbed, it would seem like they would focus on people who have robbed before. I think Michael's picture was just stuck in there as sort of an outlier to get a thorough mix of people, but it ended up being the one picked.

Here's what I think happened: Somebody looking like Michael drove by the police officer shortly after the station was robbed. The police officer later found out about the robbery. Thinking that Michael was in the area at the time of the robbery, stuck the photograph in the stack to see what happened. Doyle perhaps was under pressure to pick a photograph out for fear of being dismissed as a unreliable witness, picked Michael's picture.

I do sympathize with "Doyle" (given that his name was in quotation marks in the segment, I would imagine it is an alias.) Somebody did rob him, and I would imagine that was a tough thing to go through. I do have some questions about his selection of Michael's photograph, but I do sympathize with "Doyle".

Regarding Mike Martin's comment that he never stole anything in his life in which Space Invaderz stated was a lie. Its important to note that Mike Martin was never convicted of shoplifting but of assault with a deadly weapon. So that leads me to believe that Martin did throw down enough cash to cover the two items in question because if he didn't, why didn't the store attach a shoplifting charge to the assault charge or were we just not told about it or perhaps that charge was dropped as part of a plea to Mike Martin pleading guilty to the assault charge? - I just don't know.

Whats crucial to remember though is if Martin did in fact pay for his purchases before the altercation and did not rob the gas station as he claims then yes he never did steal anything in his life. Its a bit of circular logic but if his statement is correct its also the truth.

Yeh, we just dont know know for sure. It think the prosecutor said something about it being a bit outrageous to not pay when being asked to for eating potato chips and a polish sausage. So maybe he refused? All Martin said in the interview that he was sick of being hassled by the manager. Anyways I think this is all being a bit too technical.


Or perhaps he just wanted to put the robbery in the past and get on with his life, and not be bothered by further questioning by friends or others who might know him. I got the impression from some of his comments that the experience was traumatic and I'm guessing it is something he would rather forget.

Or, could he being fearing reprisal by Michael Scott Martin's family, friends and supporters?

What he said :nod:

I have to admit that I laughed at the part where the supermarket clerks go after him with brooms. I mean, good heavens, Michael has got a knife AND a gun, and they're going after him with brooms? Most companies now have a no-chase policy, maybe times were just different back then.

I just watched this case again, never noticed this before. Nice pick up!

Even though 3 of Michael's 5 witnesses failed the polygraph, that still doesn't mean that Michael is guilty. We do not know if Michael persuaded his neighbors to mention that they saw him or not. They could have just come up with that on their own as an attempt to try to help save Michael and Michael wouldn't have had any involvement in it. I'm not sure I entirely believe that Michael barely knew 3 of the 5 witnesses, but it still isn't enough to sway me the other way on this one.

Space Invaderz, what happened to the avatar of the same name? That was really cool. Call me old-school, but I'll take Atari over PlayStation any day.

Even though 3 of Michael's 5 witnesses failed the polygraph, that still doesn't mean that Michael is guilty. We do not know if Michael persuaded his neighbors to mention that they saw him or not. They could have just come up with that on their own as an attempt to try to help save Michael and Michael wouldn't have had any involvement in it. I'm not sure I entirely believe that Michael barely knew 3 of the 5 witnesses, but it still isn't enough to sway me the other way on this one.

Space Invaderz, what happened to the avatar of the same name? That was really cool. Call me old-school, but I'll take Atari over PlayStation any day.

Well this is no surprise to me to hear rumors about some of the witnesses failing polygraph tests (has this been comfirmed?), you know I simply don't believe them at all. Nor do I believe 3 of the 5 "bearly knew" Martin. And that geeky Battlestar Galagtica guy has "BS" written all over his face in the interview he gives.

Anyways...moving on.....
My avatar, well this one suits my current mood.
My screen name isn't actaully taken from the game Space Invaders but I did play it alot... hmmm type Jules Jordan Space Invaderz in google and err you'll see :winkgrin

Hi. My name is scott. I have been trying to find a copy of special #5 since the middle of 2005. The reason I have been searching for a copy is because back in 2004 mike martin started dating my aunt and in 2005 they got married. I personaly believe he is innocent. I happen to know that a couple of the police officers involved in his case had a grudge against him because he once got into an arguement with them. Then the robbery happened and he fit the discription... I did not know mike back in 1979 when this crime was commited. But I do know him now. He is a christian man. A god fearing man. A hardworking man. While he was in prison he refused to be put in general population because he wanted nothing to do with the people their.I forget the exact number but while he was in prison he earned either 4 or 5 individual master degrees. He was released on parole for good behavior in 1999 and has to check in with his parole officer twice a month ( I think its twice a month) I must add that even his parole officer believes he is innocent. He now works at an airplane parts manufaturing plant. He was recently promoted to supervisor. I noticed one of the previous posts saying that mabye the reason that "Doyle" was in the shadows when he was interviewed was because he feared some sort of retaliation from friends family and supporters of mike. I can honestly although "doyle" might feel this way, Mikes family or friends are not that type of people. Although I cant vouch for his other supporters because I dont know them. anyways. If anyone know where I can find a copy of unsolved mysteries special #5 or if you have an extra copy or something please email me at scottlenig@verizon.net

thankyou very much! on a side note my username "mmnbm" stands for Mike Martins Nephew By Marriage

IIf anyone know where I can find a copy of unsolved mysteries special #5 or if you have an extra copy or something please email me at scottlenig@verizon.net



I sent you an email...:)

Scott,

I just want to say that my heart has always gone out to your uncle Michael Scott Martin. My wife (who is a DA) and myself have always felt personally that your uncle's case is one of the true miscarriages of justice that we've ever seen. I don't know if you are familiar with the UM show except for Michael's case but they have done a lot of what they call "Final Appeal" segments over the years and Michaels' case is the only one where I am 100% convinced that the person that was incarcerated was one hundred percent innocent. I hope Michael is doing well :)

I sent you an email...:)


Oh crap you did? I must have missed it... Yikes. Any possibility in you sending me another with info on how or where to find special number 5?


As you can tell I have not checked this board in quite a while... Hopefully you see this soon...
Thanks

Since I am here, I might as well post an update on How Mike is doing.

As stated in a previous post. I am his nephew by marriage... I wont go into all that detail as it is provided a few posts up by me.

Anyway, as you can imagine he never had a chance to have kids of his own, however his step daughterr ( 29 years old) Has given birth to a girl in February 2008. I do not want to give away specifics for the safety of my baby cousin though....For obvious reasons...

Anyway, he is the proudest grandfather you will ever see. He loves her so much and is so kind.

Something that I did not mention before is that Mike is an AMAZING painter/artist. I mean AMAZING. This is a guy who could quite everything he is doing and get rich off of simply selling his paintings... that is how good they are. I wish I had some pictures to post but I do not...

While I can not say for certain that he is innocent of this crime, I can honestly say I believe him when he says he did not. Regardless of whether or not he did it, I can honestly say that this man would not now do such a thing... He used his time in prison very wisely getting 4 masters degrees. Unfortunatley he can not put them to good use because he was in prison...

Mike is a good man, who at the most did not do it and at the very least learned his lesson and will not do it again.

For anyone who is interested I have found documentation of an appeal attempt from 1986. Here is the link. It contains alot of legal talk but it goes into detail about different aspects of the case, the prior charge against him and other things...

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

This thread reminded of an effort I made some years ago to find the exact episode of Battlestar Galactica that aired on the day of the robbery. Unfortunately, the robbery occurred over the summer, July 14th to be exact, so the season was over and the episode they watched must have been a repeat.

Yeah, I have too much time on my hands, :lol:

Wow, I just realized that today is the 30th anniversary.

Yeah, I have too much time on my hands, :lol:



That's ok, that means you have more time to spend with us!:crazy:

Anyway, it looks like I am finally going to get a copy of special #5 thanks to crystaldawn.

I am so happy, It took me quite some time. I have been looking for one since I first met him and heard about his past from my aunt. So that would be about 5 years.... And you thought YOU have alot of time on your hands...

I had not even heard of this case untill I met Mike and at first when he told me, that he did not do it, I thought "yeah yeah, that's what they all say".

But over the years, I have done all kinds of research and talked to lots of people and I am convinced he is innocent. he openly admits to the armed robbery he commited before this case, and he talks about being arrested for smoking weed after getting back from Vietnam.

One of the cops that arrested him is the one that testified against him in tis court case. While he was in jail for the drug charges he got into a heated argument with this cop. Apparently both were yelling and cussing like a couple of kids.

Then when he was arrested for the armed robbery that he admits to guess who he got to deal with again? It was more of the same.

The potential for corruption is there with this cop testifying against Mike. The case can be made that this cop "had it out" for mike considering the two clearly did not like each other...

I don't know, it is most certainly an intruiging case. to say the least. Finally getting my hands on this footage is yet another chapter in my effort to research and investigate.

Back at the time of the robbery, asking MIchael Martin what the episode of Battlestar Galactica was about might have been a good idea, but after 31 years, I seriously doubt that he (or anybody) would remember.

IIRC, Michael Scott Martin was convicted of this crime back in 1979. The UM Segment on this case first aired in 1988 I believe. 4 out of the 5 defense witnesses appeared on camera (almost ten years later, mind you well after MSM was already convicted and serving his sentence) and stuck with their original testimony in 1979. What could they have possibly gained in doing this back in 1979, not to mention appear on camera 9 years later and rehash some more of the same lies? Even if Martin coaxed them into lying for him back in 1979 (how he would have been able to do this to three people who barely knew him is beyond me, but I digress), would they have been that loyal to him to continue to lie for him almost a full ten years after the fact?

Biased cop.... Eyewitnesses pinned against each other and a prosecutor that isn't sure. Hmmmmm he should not have been convicted in this
The LEA were doing their job, but there was clearly not enough evidence to secure a conviction in my opinion. The prior crime is what got him convicted.

This case stands out because (along with the Frederick Young case), it's one of the only Final Appeal segments involving a crime where no one actually got hurt. However, it deserved to be profiled on UM because the appellant was given a ridiculously large sentence. Martin had done almost nine years by the time the UM segment aired, so even if he was guilty, he probably should have been released by then.

This case stands out because (along with the Frederick Young case), it's one of the only Final Appeal segments involving a crime where no one actually got hurt. However, it deserved to be profiled on UM because the appellant was given a ridiculously large sentence. Martin had done almost nine years by the time the UM segment aired, so even if he was guilty, he probably should have been released by then.
True what Martin did at the supermarket was dumb and someone could have been hurt luckily no one was.


Not the same type of case but the robbery sort of reminds me of the Miami rapist case as well. Law enforcement cornered on the very first lead and used only eye witness testimony that was not 100%

I have a lot of empathy for the falsely accused.

Long story short... When I was in High School there was a series of bomb threats. Being a weird kid that loved computers and had funny colored hair of course it must have been me. I took 3 polygraph tests and I answered every question has honestly as I could. I still managed to fail 2 out of the 3. Witnesses came out of the woodwork placing in me in several different places at different times.

Fortunately I was never fined or jailed though I could have been. I was cuffed arrested in the middle of AP English in front of my entire class and spent hours and hours being interrogated several times over several days. I can understand why someone like Johnny Wilson or even Jesse Miskelly of the WM3 would confess to a crime they didn't commit just to end the interrogation.

The Bird Road Rapist case is heartbreaking.

I have a lot of empathy for the falsely accused.

Long story short... When I was in High School there was a series of bomb threats. Being a weird kid that loved computers and had funny colored hair of course it must have been me. I took 3 polygraph tests and I answered every question has honestly as I could. I still managed to fail 2 out of the 3. Witnesses came out of the woodwork placing in me in several different places at different times.

Fortunately I was never fined or jailed though I could have been. I was cuffed arrested in the middle of AP English in front of my entire class and spent hours and hours being interrogated several times over several days. I can understand why someone like Johnny Wilson or even Jesse Miskelly of the WM3 would confess to a crime they didn't commit just to end the interrogation.

The Bird Road Rapist case is heartbreaking.

I'm so sorry that happened to you. That must have been awful to go through. Thank God you weren't made to pay fines or serve time.

I think a lot is made out of MSM's comment about pulling an "adolescent stunt". He's not saying he was an adolescent, just that he was doing something a dumb teenager would do and that he regretted it. Was he drunk at the time of the grocery store incident, I don't remember?

I think a lot is made out of MSM's comment about pulling an "adolescent stunt". He's not saying he was an adolescent, just that he was doing something a dumb teenager would do and that he regretted it. Was he drunk at the time of the grocery store incident, I don't remember?

I agree; it kind of hit me that way initially too, but I also feel he was describing the foolishness of his actions, not giving himself an excuse.

And yes, I'm almost certain he was intoxicated at the time. I'd have to watch it again to be certain, but I'm like 99% sure that he was.

I'm so sorry that happened to you. That must have been awful to go through. Thank God you weren't made to pay fines or serve time.

I think that had more to do with luck than anything else.

This was in the late 90's and I used to build computers and those were seized. I had several soundboards with voices like Donald Duck or Arnold Swartzwhatever for making prank calls and kept a journal that mainly revolved around chicks I liked and music. The fact that I encrypted the journal was huge to them. Yeah, I made prank calls to friends but none of the bomb threats were committed using a soundboard. I was into metal and punk rock and this being the tail end of the 90's Satanic Panic I was also asked to explain the meaning of metal lyrics of the CDs they had confiscated. To the forensic computer examiners all that was fairly damning.

Fairly normal activity viewed through a suspicious lens can be a powerfully convincing and dangerous weapon.

So yes... Acting like a tool over a sausage and waving a weapon around does not mean that the same person robbed a convenience store.

I'm trying to find the UM segment so I am operating from memory at the moment but I believe I remember he was witnessed working on a motorcycle or a car. Is that correct?

The fact that his sentence was so stiff almost leads me to believe that the judge may have had it in for him. Did he get the max possible? Was anyone on the prosecution team involved in the previous sausage kerfluffle?

one of my relatives was a department manager in a grocery store in Texas at one time. She said that not only was it common for people to eat in the store, but people would make and eat entire sandwiches in the store.

In 1998 when I had my first job, I would literally open a box of twinkies and eat them in the super market every week when I'd go to buy stuff for my lunches for the week. The managers were so accustomed to this that after a few months, they moved the Hostess section closer to the entrance of the store.

The first time I did it, no one said anything to me. I just went up the counter paid for the bread and other stuff and have the cashier scan the box of twinkies and the other unopened box.

I'm hard pressed to believe the store would be upset over a bag of chips and polish sausage. Heck, I've seen people use hair gel to fix their hair in a store, put the gel back, and then walk out past security. I vaguely remember this case, but I've always felt Michael was innocent. The witnesses who say he was working on his bike and watching Battlestar Galactica seemed pretty convincing to me. But that's me. I haven't seen the segment since Lifetime in the late 90's. I remember, because I brought out the box of recorded episodes of Battlestar Galactica on VHS.

I'm hard pressed to believe the store would be upset over a bag of chips and polish sausage.

Tell me about it. That scene always seemed unbelievable to me. So Michael buys the rest of the items, but decides to steal a polish sausage? He had even offered to pay for it. And it's not officially theft until he leaves the building with it, which never happened. And they were upset to the point where they chased him with a mop and broom? I challenge anyone to not laugh at that part.

I wonder if he put the sausage in his coat for convenience. This happens to me a lot: I will go in a store to buy one item or a few items that are easily carryable. Before I know it, I have a whole armfull of stuff and realize I should have gotten a basket or cart. Your arms are overflowing and you have to juggle them to either get to the check-out lane or to the front to get a basket/cart. Now I've never stuffed anything in my jacket, but maybe he just did that so he wouldn't drop anything.

Now if he stuffed the sausage down his pants...

I think a drunk MSM encountered a manager on an ego trip and it was just a powder keg ready to explode.

Sorta OT

I just started a medication that has the side effect of dry mouth. While I was at the grocery store a couple days ago, I was so uncomfortable and thirsty that I considered grabbing one of the single bottles of water they have in the cooler, drinking it while I continued my shopping, then pay for it with the rest of my stuff at the register.

But I actually thought about this case and had visions of an overreacting staffer accusing me of theft, calling the cops, me having to explain that I wasn't stealing the water and planned to pay for it, detaining me long enough to ruin the perishables in my shopping cart, so I just decided it wasn't worth risking it.

I guess that's another life lesson I learned from UM. Don't consume the supermarket products before you pay for them cuz you'll go to jail! lol

He did a few dumb things but I've always felt he was innocent. Maybe he can clear his name once and for all.

Nothing like a Final Appeal case to get a nice juicy conversion going, or most likely an arguement between Kardrmas and someone.

I laughed.

It's entirely possible that MSM and his friend were drunkenly fooling around in the store, which irked the manager. Either way, it was a stupid thing for MSM to do.

Identification error is one of the most frequent causes of false imprisonment. So I do not feel happy with this man's conviction, especially when he seems to have a sound alibi. Some other cases that stick in my mind:

Adolf Beck (case led to creation of Court of Appeal in Britain).

Nancy Louise Botts (case so heartbreaking she became first person in Indiana to receive compensation for false imprisonment).

Clifford Shepard and Betty Lester (two wrongful convictions, plus a third wrongful arrest for Shephard that was dismissed at the grand jury stage).

Robert McGlaughlin (received largest compensation in US for false imprisonment, which got him into the Guinness Book of Records).

Robert Dillen (not convicted thanks to competent lawyer).

Todd Neely (convicted despite cast iron alibi).

I'm a few years late to this party, but I just started watching Unsolved Mysteries on Amazon and I have to say that the Michael Scott Martin should never have been convicted of the gas station robbery. I suspect that, contrary to the way the witness interview was reenacted, the detective probably led "Doyle" in pointing out Michael Martin's picture. That kind of thing has happened before and I'm almost certain it happened here.

I believe that Michael Martin was the victim of lazy police work, a vindictive detective, and a prosecutor who was trying to get another "win". In short, he got screwed. And as far as trying to clear his name goes, that's hard to do when you are a convicted felon who can't get a high paying job in order to afford a GOOD lawyer. Better to make the best of whatever life he has left and move on.

I wish Michael Martin all the best in his life and am sorry for his having to suffer the injustice he has.

I'm a few years late to this party, but I just started watching Unsolved Mysteries on Amazon and I have to say that the Michael Scott Martin should never have been convicted of the gas station robbery. I suspect that, contrary to the way the witness interview was reenacted, the detective probably led "Doyle" in pointing out Michael Martin's picture. That kind of thing has happened before and I'm almost certain it happened here.

I believe that Michael Martin was the victim of lazy police work, a vindictive detective, and a prosecutor who was trying to get another "win". In short, he got screwed. And as far as trying to clear his name goes, that's hard to do when you are a convicted felon who can't get a high paying job in order to afford a GOOD lawyer. Better to make the best of whatever life he has left and move on.

I wish Michael Martin all the best in his life and am sorry for his having to suffer the injustice he has.

Welcome! We're happy to have you here! :wave:

Although... I *will* say that some of the best trial attorneys I've seen were public defenders. ;)

I know I'm very late to this, but something about this case always bothered me, and that's "Doyle's" comment about never forgetting the face of a person who pulled a .45 on you. In my line of work, I have had two guns aimed at my face.

The first one was on her property, so I didn't need to identify her, but I did need to go to court as an eyewitness. I didn't realize until I was in the courtroom that while waiting for things to get started, I had been sitting on a bench across from the woman who had been holding the gun. I would never have been able to pick her out of a lineup, because I was focused on the gun, not her. All I could have ever said is "she was a black female in her late 30s, early 40s, average height, overweight, with braids" but I wouldn't know her face if she was standing in front of me.

The second time, it was "a white man in his 60s, maybe 70s, slim and about 5'8"-ish maybe with white hair and glasses" but again, NO face. I know everyone doesn't handle things the same, but when you're not used to having a gun in your face, in my experience, that's what you're focusing on.

So my guess is possibly Michael Martin had a similar build, color, age, hair, etc, to the guy who robbed the store, and "Doyle's" mind filled in the gaps because he wanted the person who terrified him to get caught. And I just don't get why they used the grocery store event as evidence, because there's miles of difference between pulling a knife when confronted over some potato chips and a sausage, and walking to a gas station with a gun and the intention of robbing the place.

I know he served his time and it's pretty much over (except for the time he lost), but this case just never sat right with me.

I believe that Michael Scott Martin was wrongly convicted and I believe the truth lies with the officer who requested to handle the case.

I know I'm very late to this, but something about this case always bothered me, and that's "Doyle's" comment about never forgetting the face of a person who pulled a .45 on you. In my line of work, I have had two guns aimed at my face.

The first one was on her property, so I didn't need to identify her, but I did need to go to court as an eyewitness. I didn't realize until I was in the courtroom that while waiting for things to get started, I had been sitting on a bench across from the woman who had been holding the gun. I would never have been able to pick her out of a lineup, because I was focused on the gun, not her. All I could have ever said is "she was a black female in her late 30s, early 40s, average height, overweight, with braids" but I wouldn't know her face if she was standing in front of me.

The second time, it was "a white man in his 60s, maybe 70s, slim and about 5'8"-ish maybe with white hair and glasses" but again, NO face. I know everyone doesn't handle things the same, but when you're not used to having a gun in your face, in my experience, that's what you're focusing on.

So my guess is possibly Michael Martin had a similar build, color, age, hair, etc, to the guy who robbed the store, and "Doyle's" mind filled in the gaps because he wanted the person who terrified him to get caught. And I just don't get why they used the grocery store event as evidence, because there's miles of difference between pulling a knife when confronted over some potato chips and a sausage, and walking to a gas station with a gun and the intention of robbing the place.

I know he served his time and it's pretty much over (except for the time he lost), but this case just never sat right with me.

I've often wondered if there ever even was a robbery, that the whole thing wasn't staged to frame him. But then again what was the motive? I can't help but wonder because it seems there was no other witnesses other than Doyle the cashier, and the police officer who allegedly saw Martin leaving the scene. Apparently this happened in broad daylight, but it was in the summer around 7. This gas station was right in downtown Garland and no one else saw it? Makes you wonder.

But lets say it did happen for the sake of argument. From what I understand it was close to closing time, around 7 o clock I believe. In Texas, the Sun stays up late in the summer so it could have been still light, but I'm betting close to closing time there may have been no lights in the store and it was dimly lit. Combine that with that the robber was apparently wearing a cap and sunglasses, he could have easily been mistaken. That seems early for a gas station to close, but this was in 1979 so there were probably a lot of gas stations that operated closer to banker's hours in those days.

I've often wondered if there ever even was a robbery, that the whole thing wasn't staged to frame him. But then again what was the motive? I can't help but wonder because it seems there was no other witnesses other than Doyle the cashier, and the police officer who allegedly saw Martin leaving the scene. Apparently this happened in broad daylight, but it was in the summer around 7. This gas station was right in downtown Garland and no one else saw it? Makes you wonder.

But lets say it did happen for the sake of argument. From what I understand it was close to closing time, around 7 o clock I believe. In Texas, the Sun stays up late in the summer so it could have been still light, but I'm betting close to closing time there may have been no lights in the store and it was dimly lit. Combine that with that the robber was apparently wearing a cap and sunglasses, he could have easily been mistaken. That seems early for a gas station to close, but this was in 1979 so there were probably a lot of gas stations that operated closer to banker's hours in those days.

I find appeals to Occam's Razor are frequently overused but...seriously an elaborate conspiracy to frame him robbing a gas station? Come on.
I think the evidence is pretty clear, eyewitnesses at the scene place him there, and the only people who place him elsewhere have ties to him.

I find appeals to Occam's Razor are frequently overused but...seriously an elaborate conspiracy to frame him robbing a gas station? Come on.
I think the evidence is pretty clear, eyewitnesses at the scene place him there, and the only people who place him elsewhere have ties to him.

Two of the five witnesses barely knew Martin, and the other three didn't have strong enough ties to where you would think they would lie for him. Is it possible yes. Likely? that's very debatable.

As for the witnesses at the scene, eyewitness testimony at an actual crime scene is notoriously unreliable. People are scared and only see the perps for a couple of minutes tops. The gas station attendant had a gun in his face and the robber could not have said more than a few words to him. Plus he was supposedly wearing dark glasses and a cap. Since it was about closing time I'm betting the store was dimly lit on top of that.

No physical evidence ever connected Martin with the crime scene either.

I'm not definitively saying Martin was innocent, but there was more than enough room for reasonable doubt here any way you flush it.

Two of the five witnesses barely knew Martin, and the other three didn't have strong enough ties to where you would think they would lie for him. Is it possible yes. Likely? that's very debatable.

As for the witnesses at the scene, eyewitness testimony at an actual crime scene is notoriously unreliable. People are scared and only see the perps for a couple of minutes tops. The gas station attendant had a gun in his face and the robber could not have said more than a few words to him. Plus he was supposedly wearing dark glasses and a cap. Since it was about closing time I'm betting the store was dimly lit on top of that.

No physical evidence ever connected Martin with the crime scene either.

I'm not definitively saying Martin was innocent, but there was more than enough room for reasonable doubt here any way you flush it.

I'd say, no matter what, there's not enough here to overcome reasonable doubt.

But.. To play both sides. First, going back to the OP's 16 year old point.. This happened in 1979.. The UM episode was 1986 (I think).. the odds of someone remembering what that BG episode was about.. I just don't think that kind of minutia from the day would stick in someone's mind a few months later, much less many, many years later.

It bothers me that the cop asked to be assigned to the case. He had made up his mind already it seems to me. So.. That's not really a person you want leading the investigation.

"Doyle" had better be convinced. Can you imagine living with yourself if you weren't certain?

I lean towards him not doing it.. But, regardless.. I can't see the reasonable doubt barrier being overcome.. And the fact that 12 people took 15 minutes to find him guilty.. Really bothers me.

All that being said. Eyewitness testimony back in the day carried far more weight than it does today. Today, we all know how unreliable it is. But, that's just something we've learned in the past.. 40 years or so. Not defending it, but.. It does help to explain it.

I believe that Michael Scott Martin was wrongly convicted and I believe the truth lies with the officer who requested to handle the case.

the prior hot dog robbery and detective/victim combo testimony won the case. we know that people make mistakes and have agendas and false perceptions of reality. that's what makes us human. the detective, while being credible, should have also been seen as biased and mistake prone. The difficult part for me are the amount of people who placed him very far away from Garland, TX at the time of the robbery. that should have countered the other eye witness testimony and more credible evidence should have been required.

the prior hot dog robbery and detective/victim combo testimony won the case. we know that people make mistakes and have agendas and false perceptions of reality. that's what makes us human. the detective, while being credible, should have also been seen as biased and mistake prone. The difficult part for me are the amount of people who placed him very far away from Garland, TX at the time of the robbery. that should have countered the other eye witness testimony and more credible evidence should have been required.

If this crime occurred today, the detective, who requested to be the lead detective on the gas station robbery due to a prior arrest with Martin, would have been heavily scrutinized by any defense attorney worth their salt. As a matter of fact, the detective himself claimed to have seen Martin near the area of the robbery on the day it occurred. So why was he not treated as a witness? There was obvious bias there.

The State's case at the original trial was simply Doyle testifying that Martin was the one who robbed him. Then the defense put the 5 witnesses on the stand who alibied Martin, and Martin also testified on the stand. Then the state called the detective as a rebuttal witness. The weight of a cop's testimony was much heavier back then than it is now.

If this crime occurred today, the detective, who requested to be the lead detective on the gas station robbery due to a prior arrest with Martin, would have been heavily scrutinized by any defense attorney worth their salt. As a matter of fact, the detective himself claimed to have seen Martin near the area of the robbery on the day it occurred. So why was he not treated as a witness? There was obvious bias there.

The State's case at the original trial was simply Doyle testifying that Martin was the one who robbed him. Then the defense put the 5 witnesses on the stand who alibied Martin, and Martin also testified on the stand. Then the state called the detective as a rebuttal witness. The weight of a cop's testimony was much heavier back then than it is now.
Absolutely. UM did well to feature bad police work, perhaps before it was hip to do it.

I'd say, no matter what, there's not enough here to overcome reasonable doubt.

But.. To play both sides. First, going back to the OP's 16 year old point.. This happened in 1979.. The UM episode was 1986 (I think).. the odds of someone remembering what that BG episode was about.. I just don't think that kind of minutia from the day would stick in someone's mind a few months later, much less many, many years later.

It bothers me that the cop asked to be assigned to the case. He had made up his mind already it seems to me. So.. That's not really a person you want leading the investigation.

"Doyle" had better be convinced. Can you imagine living with yourself if you weren't certain?

I lean towards him not doing it.. But, regardless.. I can't see the reasonable doubt barrier being overcome.. And the fact that 12 people took 15 minutes to find him guilty.. Really bothers me.

All that being said. Eyewitness testimony back in the day carried far more weight than it does today. Today, we all know how unreliable it is. But, that's just something we've learned in the past.. 40 years or so. Not defending it, but.. It does help to explain it.

Furthermore, something I pointed out years ago was that this crime was pretty ridiculous when you think about it. Anyone who commits armed robbery in a state where you can get sent away for at least 20 years for $400 is either pretty stupid or pretty desperate. Sounds like something a junkie who needed a quick fix would do.

I just wonder was Michael Scott Martin known to be on drugs or was this known to be a big problem in Garland, TX at the time? And if he wasn't know to be on drugs we know Martin was not exactly a rich man, but was his financial situation at the time so dire that he'd risk a robbery like this? Even knowing he was on probation?

Furthermore, something I pointed out years ago was that this crime was pretty ridiculous when you think about it. Anyone who commits armed robbery in a state where you can get sent away for at least 20 years for $400 is either pretty stupid or pretty desperate. Sounds like something a junkie who needed a quick fix would do.

I just wonder was Michael Scott Martin known to be on drugs or was this known to be a big problem in Garland, TX at the time? And if he wasn't know to be on drugs we know Martin was not exactly a rich man, but was his financial situation at the time so dire that he'd risk a robbery like this? Even knowing he was on probation?

drugs were most likely related to the robbery.Garland is a major suburb of Dallas. Some of the area is good, but other parts not so much. Not related, but Garland is close to another segment that was featured a few years later, Roxanne and Christopher Jeeves. and we know that segment was related to violence and drug activity. The problem with the MSM segment is the distance between the gas station in Garland and MSM's home. it was witness vs. witness with no hard evidence. as many already have said this case would not hold water today. or at least one would hope...

drugs were most likely related to the robbery.Garland is a major suburb of Dallas. Some of the area is good, but other parts not so much. Not related, but Garland is close to another segment that was featured a few years later, Roxanne and Christopher Jeeves. and we know that segment was related to violence and drug activity. The problem with the MSM segment is the distance between the gas station in Garland and MSM's home. it was witness vs. witness with no hard evidence. as many already have said this case would not hold water today. or at least one would hope...

Yeah, I'm sure today drugs are a pretty big problem there, but you got to remember this was 1979 which was a little different to say the least. But it may be immaterial, even then every town had at least a few junkies so it could have been drug related either way.

But in Michael Scott Martin's case, he had just upgraded his living situation by moving into a house. So I have to figure his financial situation could not have been that desperate where he would risk a robbery like this for a relatively paltry sum when he knew he could get 20 to life for it. And he only had one incident on his record, which was the grocery store incident we all knew about. No doubt that was a dumb thing to do, but it was a considerable jump from that to armed robbery. I personally felt the store manager got a little overzealous by trying to detain Michael and his buddy even after they paid. But its hard to tell as we don't know what all was said and what led up to it. I personally think it was just one of those things that escalated way further than what it needed to due to poor handling of the situation by both Michael and the manager, fact that Martin had never been in trouble with the law prior to this leads me to think that. Sounds like he and his buddy just got drunk and did something stupid, but we may never know for sure.

Yeah, I'm sure today drugs are a pretty big problem there, but you got to remember this was 1979 which was a little different to say the least. But it may be immaterial, even then every town had at least a few junkies so it could have been drug related either way.

But in Michael Scott Martin's case, he had just upgraded his living situation by moving into a house. So I have to figure his financial situation could not have been that desperate where he would risk a robbery like this for a relatively paltry sum when he knew he could get 20 to life for it. And he only had one incident on his record, which was the grocery store incident we all knew about. No doubt that was a dumb thing to do, but it was a considerable jump from that to armed robbery. I personally felt the store manager got a little overzealous by trying to detain Michael and his buddy even after they paid. But its hard to tell as we don't know what all was said and what led up to it. I personally think it was just one of those things that escalated way further than what it needed to due to poor handling of the situation by both Michael and the manager, fact that Martin had never been in trouble with the law prior to this leads me to think that. Sounds like he and his buddy just got drunk and did something stupid, but we may never know for sure.

A lot has changed in that area since 1979, particularly the area is much bigger. but drugs were a big problem then and they still are now. Sadly I don't know what has really changed on that front other than maybe people are more educated of the dangers of drug activity.

I think the prior weapons charges are what really hurt MSM's reputation. I would have argued that it had nothing to do with the gas station robbery, but that was certainly in the jurors heads.

A lot has changed in that area since 1979, particularly the area is much bigger. but drugs were a big problem then and they still are now. Sadly I don't know what has really changed on that front other than maybe people are more educated of the dangers of drug activity.

I think the prior weapons charges are what really hurt MSM's reputation. I would have argued that it had nothing to do with the gas station robbery, but that was certainly in the jurors heads.

Just rewatched the segment. Apparently Michael Scott Martin worked as a welder. Which in Texas in 1979 probably meant on oil pipelines. I know for a fact those guys get paid pretty well and sure they did even then. Plus it fits as Martin owned a motorcycle, a Camaro, and had apparently just moved into a house out of his apartment.

That to me casts even more doubt on his guilt in this case. Can't help but doubt he would have taken such a huge risk for $400. Certainly seems strange like I said welders get paid a whole lot better than most people think.

I have far too much time on my hands, but I did come across this (https://www.ultimate70s.com/seventies_history/19790714/television) website, which shows the prime time network television show listings on the date that the robbery that Michael Scott Martin was convicted of. Battlestar Galactica did air a repeat episode on this date at 8:00 p.m. I'm assuming these listings are all in eastern standard time...meaning that it would have been 7:00 p.m. in Lake Worth, TX when this aired and would have been physically impossible for Martin to have been the one to have committed the robbery in Garland, TX.

I guess it's real easy after a prosecutor like that to f**** someone over like that and than years later amazing has his doubts, "if he's guilty". What a bunch of crap. He knows he is innocent, but oh well, the jury made their decision. :mad:

I lived and worked in Texas in 1979. A Polish sausage and large bag of chips would have cost around $2 at a grocery store $2.50-$2.75 at a convenience store. Yes guys on lunch break would build sandwiches in the stores and eat them in line. Mothers would grab fruit or snacks and feed their kids while shopping. And would pay for them with the rest of the groceries. Everybody was pretty honest.

It was drill baby drill in 1979. Welders with any ability were raking it in. I have to agree robbing a gas station for $400 wouldn't be worth the risk when you could clear that in 3 days.

I was in Garland once.I stopped to top off because gas was sold by by last number on your plates odd or even and I wouldn't be able to buy the next day. It was not self service and had old pumps. The attendant did not reset the pump to zero and filled my tank. I got into an arguement and he called the cops. I had to pay the full amount on the pump even though I pointed out my tank didn't hold that much empty! And they called me a hippie. I told one of the cops in my Guard unit about the incident. He had heard about price gouging and another incident like mine. But he was a Ft Worth cop. Don't know if it was the same gas station. I did hear that the disreputable gas stations received threats.

I think he was probably framed. "Doyle" probably has a guilty conscience. Was he actually robbed? Was it a junkie? Was it a disgruntled customer getting a 2nd amendment refund?

In any case Micheal Scott Martin paid the price.

I lived and worked in Texas in 1979. A Polish sausage and large bag of chips would have cost around $2 at a grocery store $2.50-$2.75 at a convenience store. Yes guys on lunch break would build sandwiches in the stores and eat them in line. Mothers would grab fruit or snacks and feed their kids while shopping. And would pay for them with the rest of the groceries. Everybody was pretty honest.

It was drill baby drill in 1979. Welders with any ability were raking it in. I have to agree robbing a gas station for $400 wouldn't be worth the risk when you could clear that in 3 days.

I was in Garland once.I stopped to top off because gas was sold by by last number on your plates odd or even and I wouldn't be able to buy the next day. It was not self service and had old pumps. The attendant did not reset the pump to zero and filled my tank. I got into an arguement and he called the cops. I had to pay the full amount on the pump even though I pointed out my tank didn't hold that much empty! And they called me a hippie. I told one of the cops in my Guard unit about the incident. He had heard about price gouging and another incident like mine. But he was a Ft Worth cop. Don't know if it was the same gas station. I did hear that the disreputable gas stations received threats.

I think he was probably framed. "Doyle" probably has a guilty conscience. Was he actually robbed? Was it a junkie? Was it a disgruntled customer getting a 2nd amendment refund?

In any case Micheal Scott Martin paid the price.

I'm from the area, don't live there anymore. I worked at Carswell AFB, it's actually called Ft Worth JRB/NAS, but I will never call it that because it is an Air Force base historically. The navy really don't even fly jets there unless something has changed recently.

Anyway off my high horse now. the base is close to where Michael lived. it is very far from Garland. Today I would never want to make that drive because of traffic. but even back then it would have been a far drive. There is no way he could have been in Garland to rob the gas station if was indeed home at the time that his neighbors said he was. Doyle is not a credible witness IMO. The most credible witnesses in this case were Michael's neighbors, and the police officer. Yet all are biased witnesses that should cancel out. Even in the 80's and 90's most people knew that LE officers could not always be taken at their word, but yet so often in court they were able have a greater impact or in some cases get away with breaking the law. The polish sausage has little or nothing to do with the gas station robbery if I'm a neutral juror.

Anyway off my high horse now. the base is close to where Michael lived. it is very far from Garland. Today I would never want to make that drive because of traffic. but even back then it would have been a far drive. There is no way he could have been in Garland to rob the gas station if was indeed home at the time that his neighbors said he was. Doyle is not a credible witness IMO. The most credible witnesses in this case were Michael's neighbors, and the police officer. Yet all are biased witnesses that should cancel out. Even in the 80's and 90's most people knew that LE officers could not always be taken at their word, but yet so often in court they were able have a greater impact or in some cases get away with breaking the law. The polish sausage has little or nothing to do with the gas station robbery if I'm a neutral juror.

When he took the stand in his own defense, it opened up the prosecution to bring up the conviction for the aggravated assault. IMO, without that being brought in, he gets acquitted. The gas station robbery took place 2 weeks after Martin was placed on probation.

I lived and worked in Texas in 1979. A Polish sausage and large bag of chips would have cost around $2 at a grocery store $2.50-$2.75 at a convenience store. Yes guys on lunch break would build sandwiches in the stores and eat them in line. Mothers would grab fruit or snacks and feed their kids while shopping. And would pay for them with the rest of the groceries. Everybody was pretty honest.

It was drill baby drill in 1979. Welders with any ability were raking it in. I have to agree robbing a gas station for $400 wouldn't be worth the risk when you could clear that in 3 days.

I was in Garland once.I stopped to top off because gas was sold by by last number on your plates odd or even and I wouldn't be able to buy the next day. It was not self service and had old pumps. The attendant did not reset the pump to zero and filled my tank. I got into an arguement and he called the cops. I had to pay the full amount on the pump even though I pointed out my tank didn't hold that much empty! And they called me a hippie. I told one of the cops in my Guard unit about the incident. He had heard about price gouging and another incident like mine. But he was a Ft Worth cop. Don't know if it was the same gas station. I did hear that the disreputable gas stations received threats.

I think he was probably framed. "Doyle" probably has a guilty conscience. Was he actually robbed? Was it a junkie? Was it a disgruntled customer getting a 2nd amendment refund?

In any case Micheal Scott Martin paid the price.

Agreed. The more that I think about it, the more I'm convinced he got railroaded. Our assessments of what his financial situation might have been as a welder are probably confirmed by the fact he owned a motorcycle and a camaro, and had just moved out of his apartment into a house. That generally doesn't happen if your financial situation is desperate enough to where you'd risk going to prison for 20 years for $400. It simply doesn't add up.

The grocery store incident was just poorly handled by both Michael and the manager and escalated way beyond what it needed to. In no way do I think it means he is a robber.

As for the robbery itself, maybe it happened and maybe it didn't. It would be nice to see a google earth of where this actually occurred, even if the station is still there today, I'm sure the area is different. But from what I understand this was in a downtown area, and that no one else witnessed the robbery or apparently saw the robber besides Doyle and this cop is very bothersome. But even if it occurred it was probably just a junkie needing a quick fix who somewhat resembled Martin.

I think his life got basically ruined over this and its a shame. And these two are dirtbags who should be held accountable if they deliberately framed him. I'm not convinced they did as I don't see a convincing motive. But that no one else witnessed the robbery or saw the robber like I said bugs me.

It also bothers me the stolen car just happened to be at Martin's old apartment building. At first glance that would seem to point to him, but he no longer lived there and had no reason to be there at this point as far as I know, so even if the robber was Martin why park there now and do something else which would point to him? Makes zero sense unless someone was trying to frame him.

This was a good case for UM.

Some of the previous comments about the grocery store incident being blown out of proportion by all involved, I feel are absolutely right. If Martin and his friend paid after being confronted, they should have been allowed to leave, and asked not to come back. Doesn't at all excuse pulling a knife then shooting, even if well above everybodys heads.

I found it troubling that the officer involved in the grocery store incident ASKED to be assigned to the gas station robbery. The bias is plainly obvious.

I found it troubling, the certainty of Doyle. We all know now about weapon focus and the fallibility of eyewitness testimony, especially in times of high stress. You're focusing on the gun, not that dude's face.

Wasn't it reported that some, if not all, of Martin's alibi witnesses failed polygraphs? I wouldn't read too much into that because polygraphs are notoriously unreliable (I'd never consent to one), but multiple failures? Does make me suspicious.

In the end, he was railroaded, I think. The first incident, blown out of proportion though he acted like a freaking idiot during it. That setting up the harsh prison sentence for the gas station hold-up? The system had it in for him for one reason or another. Not the type of guy I'd want as a neighbor, but, yeah, he was screwed over.

Martin shot his gun 4 times in the direction of the grocery store workers. That is not a sane reaction from someone who, while drunk, was asked to pay for a polish sausage.

Martin shot his gun 4 times in the direction of the grocery store workers. That is not a sane reaction from someone who, while drunk, was asked to pay for a polish sausage.

Not exactly true, he shot well over their heads, clearly did not intend to hurt anyone. Yes that was his account of it but I'd say it was accurate otherwise he probably would not have gotten out and they could have gotten him for attempted murder. And as has been pointed out it was his first offense.

He also did in fact pay for the items, he only pulled the weapons after the manager and the others tried to detain him and his buddy to wait for the law to get there, which in my opinion they should not have done. They should have just let it go at that point, once he paid he had not committed a crime and there was no reason for them to be high handed like that and playing cop. Unless there was more to the story than we know and he had committed violence against one of the employees or something but there was no indication of that. There is a reason law enforcement discourages people from trying to take the law into their own hands, and at that point he hadn't even committed a crime and they tried to detain him. You'd be surprised how that can get someone's fighting blood up especially in a culture like ours where people value independence and freedom. And he was a Texan too, and especially back then they generally don't like to be told what to do. Especially by the manager of a grocery store.

To be clear, I'm not justifying his actions. I don't exactly believe that he needed to resort to a gun or a knife at that point. But he cleared pulled them to scare those guys off not hurt them. And the alcohol probably gave him short leash too. The whole thing was just stupid and bizarre and probably escalated way beyond what it needed to.

Not exactly true, he shot well over their heads, clearly did not intend to hurt anyone. Yes that was his account of it but I'd say it was accurate otherwise he probably would not have gotten out and they could have gotten him for attempted murder. And as has been pointed out it was his first offense.

UM did their best to downplay what happened. He admitted on the stand at his trial that (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/796/813/252127/):

he robbed a grocery store with a knife and gun and fired four shots at his pursuers

He also did in fact pay for the items, he only pulled the weapons after the manager and the others tried to detain him

He could have walked out or ran out to his car and be done.

They should have just let it go at that point, once he paid he had not committed a crime and there was no reason for them to be high handed like that and playing cop.

He admitted to robbing the grocery store. Something was unpaid.

To be clear, I'm not justifying his actions. I don't exactly believe that he needed to resort to a gun or a knife at that point. But he cleared pulled them to scare those guys off not hurt them. And the alcohol probably gave him short leash too. The whole thing was just stupid and bizarre and probably escalated way beyond what it needed to.

His defense attorneys at his trial didn't even make a closing argument because the jury found Martin "disliked, disbelieved, and distrusted". The details about the grocery store robbery and the light sentence he received is what swayed this jury.

When he took the stand in his own defense, it opened up the prosecution to bring up the conviction for the aggravated assault. IMO, without that being brought in, he gets acquitted. The gas station robbery took place 2 weeks after Martin was placed on probation.

I agree. and it is very convenient for the LE officer to have seen him near the scene of the robbery. it all adds up to the conviction. I should alter my statement to say that if I'm a juror and I get presented the evidence of the grocery store incident, then I'm going to be swayed by that and the eye witness testimony of the officer.

UM did their best to downplay what happened. He admitted on the stand at his trial that (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/796/813/252127/):





He could have walked out or ran out to his car and be done.



He admitted to robbing the grocery store. Something was unpaid.



His defense attorneys at his trial didn't even make a closing argument because the jury found Martin "disliked, disbelieved, and distrusted". The details about the grocery store robbery and the light sentence he received is what swayed this jury.

That doesn't make any sense though because he was not charged with robbery, he was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. I'm by no means downplaying that or saying that is not a serious offense, but it makes little sense for him to confess to robbery. And when he laid the wad of money on the counter, the manager allegedly didn't even look at it or count it, but simply tried to detain him. So there is no way of knowing if he didn't pay for everything if that is the case.

Again, I'm by no means justifying his actions he clearly went to far and resorted to weapons way to quick when he could have just left. Just saying that he clearly did not intend to hurt anyone but rather scared them off from trying to detain him. If he had shot at them instead of over their heads they undoubtedly could have gotten him for attempted murder.

Again, the whole thing was just stupid and bizarre frankly. But I am inclined to think it was just a one time drunken incident on his part since he had no police record prior to this.

Then again, Adam Emory didn't have a criminal record either but clearly was a loose cannon who blew up under the right circumstances. But I don't think Michael Scott Martin was an Adam Emory. Gut feeling is he was a down to Earth guy who did have a bit of a short leash when he was drunk and just made one stupid mistake. Not a criminal sociopath.

I mean think about it, if he intended to rob the grocery store and he had a gun in his car why didn't he take it in with him? It was supposedly in his car all along.

That doesn't make any sense though because he was not charged with robbery, he was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. I'm by no means downplaying that or saying that is not a serious offense, but it makes little sense for him to confess to robbery. And when he laid the wad of money on the counter, the manager allegedly didn't even look at it or count it, but simply tried to detain him. So there is no way of knowing if he didn't pay for everything if that is the case.


Like I said I'm by no means justifying his actions he clearly went to far and resorted to weapons way to quick when he could have just left. Just saying that he clearly did not intend to hurt anyone but rather scared them off from trying to detain him. If he had shot at them instead of over their heads they undoubtedly could have gotten him for attempted murder.

the whole thing was just stupid and bizarre frankly. But I am inclined to think it was just a one time drunken incident on his part since he had no police record prior to this.

Then again, Adam Emory didn't have a criminal record either but clearly was a loose cannon who blew up under the right circumstances. But I don't think Michael Scott Martin was an Adam Emory. Gut feeling is he was a down to Earth guy who did have a bit of a short leash when he was drunk and just made one stupid mistake. Not a criminal sociopath.

I mean think about it, if he intended to rob the grocery store and he had a gun in his car why didn't he take it in with him? It was supposedly in his car all along.

That doesn't make any sense though because he was not charged with robbery, he was charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

He was only convicted of aggravated assault. I'm assuming there was a plea deal, because he only received 4 years probation and a $2500 fine.

I'm by no means downplaying that or saying that is not a serious offense, but it makes little sense for him to confess to robbery. And when he laid the wad of money on the counter, the manager allegedly didn't even look at it or count it, but simply tried to detain him. So there is no way of knowing if he didn't pay for everything if that is the case.

I'm not going to rely on the UM re-enactment of what took place in that grocery store because it was presented in the most favorable light for Martin. And even in the re-enactment, he and his buddy were already at his car (grocery store employees were not chasing them) when he fired 4 shots in their direction.

I mean think about it, if he intended to rob the grocery store and he had a gun in his car why didn't he take it in with him? It was supposedly in his car all along.

He had his knife on him when he was in the grocery store. Why take a knife to a grocery store if you only intend to buy groceries?

He was only convicted of aggravated assault. I'm assuming there was a plea deal, because he only received 4 years probation and a $2500 fine.



I'm not going to rely on the UM re-enactment of what took place in that grocery store because it was presented in the most favorable light for Martin. And even in the re-enactment, he and his buddy were already at his car (grocery store employees were not chasing them) when he fired 4 shots in their direction.



He had his knife on him when he was in the grocery store. Why take a knife to a grocery store if you only intend to buy groceries?

Some people carry knives, particularly in high crime areas. That's not that unusual. They are easily concealed and its not illegal to carry one unless its on a plane. I don't know if you are familiar with the Dusty Harless-David Genzler case from Forensic Files (wasn't on Unsolved Mysteries), Harless was the wrestler that was stabbed by Genzler, it was later determined to be self defense but Genzler was carrying a knife too. (Which I thought was kind of unusual actually in that case since he was in a vehicle.)

But my point was, if his intent was to rob the grocery store and he happened to have a gun in his car, why not just use it? Its far easier to get people to comply with a gun in a robbery than it is a knife.

I will concede that since the store manager and the employees were not interviewed on the segment, we don't know their side of the story. If Martin was threatening employees or did anything to them even so much as a shove or a slap, then yeah I could see trying to detain him. But if it was just a matter of him eating sausage off the shelves, I personally feel like they should have taken his money and let him go and not escalated the situation unnecessarily but that's just me.

They are easily concealed and its not illegal to carry one unless its on a plane.

Actually there are many jurisdictions where various kinds of knives are not legal to carry. I'm not sure what was or was not legal in Texas when this happened, but I wouldn't assume it was legal.


But my point was, if his intent was to rob the grocery store and he happened to have a gun in his car, why not just use it? Its far easier to get people to comply with a gun in a robbery than it is a knife.

Because using a firearm in the commission of a crime often carries additional charges. Even when it does not, using a firearm is going to make the entire thing more serious in the eyes of the law. More effort will be put into solving it, prosecutors will be more eager to apply the full force of law, and judges and juries will look less favorably on it.

Actually there are many jurisdictions where various kinds of knives are not legal to carry. I'm not sure what was or was not legal in Texas when this happened, but I wouldn't assume it was legal.



Because using a firearm in the commission of a crime often carries additional charges. Even when it does not, using a firearm is going to make the entire thing more serious in the eyes of the law. More effort will be put into solving it, prosecutors will be more eager to apply the full force of law, and judges and juries will look less favorably on it.

Yeah........ but lets be honest, Martin did not strike me as the type of guy who if he was serious about robbing a grocery store was going to sit around thinking, "oh yeah I'm gonna rob this store but I better not use a gun because that carries more jail time." He seemed like more of a blue collar guy who probably only had a rudimentary understanding of the law since he'd never been in trouble with it. I just don't see him pin pointing aspects of the law to calculate how he should do this robbery if he was serious about doing it. I could be wrong....... but he didn't strike me as that type.

Plus, he apparently did not pull the knife out until they tried to detain him, and after he had paid.

I think this was just what it looks like, an alcohol impaired man who just acted stupid and the situation escalated way beyond what it should rather than a premeditated robbery they went awry.

Yeah........ but lets be honest, Martin did not strike me as the type of guy who if he was serious about robbing a grocery store was going to sit around thinking, "oh yeah I'm gonna rob this store but I better not use a gun because that carries more jail time." He seemed like more of a blue collar guy who probably only had a rudimentary understanding of the law since he'd never been in trouble with it. I just don't see him pin pointing aspects of the law to calculate how he should do this robbery if he was serious about doing it. I could be wrong....... but he didn't strike me as that type.

Plus, he apparently did not pull the knife out until they tried to detain him, and after he had paid.

I think this was just what it looks like, an alcohol impaired man who just acted stupid and the situation escalated way beyond what it should rather than a premeditated robbery they went awry.

I totally agree with XCalibur. Here are some of the laws and customs from memory:
1) Alchohol. 18 was drinking age for all alchohlic beverages.I don't remember drunk driving blood achohol limit but it was pretty high. Also everyone in the vehicle could drink including the driver as long as the driver was under the limit. No state open container law. It seemed like most of the state was buzzed. Blue collar guys drinking beer at break and lunch. Socialites or wannabees downing cocktails at lunch or early afternoon. Day drinking was the norm.

2) Firearms. Texas was still open carry. Most people that owned pistols or other firearms just kept them in their vehicles legally or not. Gunracks were popular.

3) Knives of all lengths were generally considered a tool. Laws varied and often clashed with custom. "Stockman" pocket knives, Shrade, Camillus, and others were commonly carried. Buck folding "belt pouch" knives were becoming popular. Flickit and other one hand opening devices gained popularity. The orange service survival switchblades were seen. Not only did every "country boy and blue collar worker carry a knife many had a "corn knife" or other machete type in their vehicle.

4) State, county and cities often had conflicting laws.

5) Welders wages were a combination of hourly and piecework. A piece or specific project was x amount hours using basic tools. Quality welders, compressed air chippers, grinders etc allowed a welder to complete a piece in a fraction of the allotted time. A welder who completed a 3 hour piece in 30 minutes was paid for 3 hours work.

Reflecting on that time period it really seems unbelieveable now. I still think Martin got a raw deal.

I totally agree with XCalibur. Here are some of the laws and customs from memory:
1) Alchohol. 18 was drinking age for all alchohlic beverages.I don't remember drunk driving blood achohol limit but it was pretty high. Also everyone in the vehicle could drink including the driver as long as the driver was under the limit. No state open container law. It seemed like most of the state was buzzed. Blue collar guys drinking beer at break and lunch. Socialites or wannabees downing cocktails at lunch or early afternoon. Day drinking was the norm.

2) Firearms. Texas was still open carry. Most people that owned pistols or other firearms just kept them in their vehicles legally or not. Gunracks were popular.

3) Knives of all lengths were generally considered a tool. Laws varied and often clashed with custom. "Stockman" pocket knives, Shrade, Camillus, and others were commonly carried. Buck folding "belt pouch" knives were becoming popular. Flickit and other one hand opening devices gained popularity. The orange service survival switchblades were seen. Not only did every "country boy and blue collar worker carry a knife many had a "corn knife" or other machete type in their vehicle.

4) State, county and cities often had conflicting laws.

5) Welders wages were a combination of hourly and piecework. A piece or specific project was x amount hours using basic tools. Quality welders, compressed air chippers, grinders etc allowed a welder to complete a piece in a fraction of the allotted time. A welder who completed a 3 hour piece in 30 minutes was paid for 3 hours work.

Reflecting on that time period it really seems unbelieveable now. I still think Martin got a raw deal.

I think MADD in the early 90's really had an impact on laws in Texas and around the country.

I think MADD in the early 90's really had an impact on laws in Texas and around the country.

I had totally forgotten about MADD. The pendulum swung so far away from "Wild West" Texas that the unarmed, unprotected customers were slaughtered in the Luby restruant massacre. Texas with it's macho reputation had very restrictive gun law for awhile. The drinking age went up to 21. Texas had always been a law and order state but they became extreme.

I had totally forgotten about MADD. The pendulum swung so far away from "Wild West" Texas that the unarmed, unprotected customers were slaughtered in the Luby restruant massacre. Texas with it's macho reputation had very restrictive gun law for awhile. The drinking age went up to 21. Texas had always been a law and order state but they became extreme.

I forgot about Luby's. I've only eaten there a few times. Long before that shooting there was the one at UT. and long before that there were people killing each other over land. I've always seen Texas as a place of chaos. Michael Scott Martin stealing a polish sausage and shooting up the town is just a Tuesday afternoon. Moody Blues wrote a song about that.