It seems like somebody started a thread called "were any of the final appealants actually innocent" and I remember disagreeing with most of what that poster had to say about it, but I can't find that thread. I believe that most of the final appealants are actually innocent and decided to do my own version. I won't try to rehash too much, but rather give a brief synopsis on each one.

1. Glen Consagra ~ haven't watched this one in years and am fuzzy on the details, but I could go either way on this one.

2. Michael Scott Martin ~ debated quite a bit here on the forum and I've always leaned towards innocence. I have huge problems with how Martin was treated during his only run in with the law previous to this incident, the credibility of the witness, and why Martin was even included in the line-up to begin with. I normally don't put a lot of stock into eyewitness accounts, but in this case there were no less than 5 people who verified Martin's alibi, several of whom hardly knew him and had nothing to gain either way.

3. Dr. John Branion ~ even if he could have made it to his residence from his office in time (which is a huge if), he would have to have alot of chutzpah to allow his child to walk in on his mother's murder like that.

4. Johnny Lee Wilson ~ innocent. not really much else to say here.

5. Patty Stallings ~ ditto.

6. Larry Race ~ debated quite a bit here on the forum. I've leaned towards innocence. Jenny Lee was known to have been a faulty boat, so it's not like Larry's version of events is hard to believe. The prosecutions version of events is, on the other hand, hard to believe as they have him putting himself at death's door and having him do Herculean tasks if what they say is to be believed.

7. Dr. Jeffrey McDonald ~ highly debated and extremely controversial. I'll simply state that Helena Stoeckly seems to have an awful lot of inside information to not be involved in this somehow. She died under suspicious circumstances.

8. Port Chicago seaman. ~ innocent. no other comment.

9. Paul Ferrell. ~ ) I'll give you this one, he seemed pretty guilty to me.

10. Don Montecalvo ~ the neighbor (Susan?) knows too much to not be involved.

11. Bird Road rapist ~ at the very least, I think most everyone agreed if he was guilty, he at least didn't act alone. Which means he was (partially) imprisoned for crimes he didn't commit.

12. Rick McCue ~ Innocent. released from prison.

13. Rolando Cruz ~ he's innocent. the guy that confessed knew too much about the crime scene to not be involved.

14. John Purvis ~ Innocent. no other comment

15. Michael Lloyd Self ~ Innocent. only reason he became a suspect was due to some highly questionable tactics by two crooked cops. forced to confess by said cops who beaten, threatened, and intimidated him. Another man confessed and he knew too much about the case to not be involved.

16. Paul Freshour ~ at the very least, he couldn't have acted alone as the letters continued even after he was imprisoned.

17. Stuart Heaton ~ I've always leaned towards innocence. only reason he was suspected was because he was a carpenter with cuts on his hand, and happened to own a red truck. DNA evidence was degraded and highly questionable. Didn't seem to know victim. Another suspect who owned a red truck had a violent past, lived in the area and intimately knew Krystal Nabb

18. Tommy Ziegler ~ I could go either way on this one as there is mountains of evidence and it's hard to balance it all. However, there did seem to be strong evidence of someone else being responsible.

19. Frederick Young ~ been awhile since I've seen this one, but I think it's Cedrick, and not Frederick, who's responsible.

20. Darlie Routier ~ much debated and highly controversial. I've had a tough time buying that Darlie was guilty, she was almost killed herself. Suspicion of guilt based on silly string video is taken out of context and not very sound to begin with. I seem to recall the presence of DNA that didn't match anyone in the house.

So IMO, practically all of them range from 50-50 to downright innocent. At the very least, I think all of them deserved new trials back in the day, particularly in the cases of Dr. John Branion (needed a transplant, denied because of his imprisonment) and Rolando Cruz (was set to be executed).

7. Dr. Jeffrey McDonald ~ highly debated and extremely controversial. I'll simply state that Helena Stoeckly seems to have an awful lot of inside information to not be involved in this somehow. She died under suspicious circumstances.

You asking for opinions or actual facts? Opinion here...

Dr Jeffrey McDonald - Innocent. He was upholding his own morals in relation to illicit drug use and drug users in the hospital and got roughed up because of his stance which unfortunately became murder in the end. There is too much evidence which was not presented to ignore and too many ifs and buts surrounding the whole case. The military definitely put it all on the QT and very hush-hush.

Hmm, yes, I think a lot of these segments speak for themselves. I will say, Consagra, I have gone back and forth on him. I will say, if he was involved he was NOT the only one involved. I guess the fact that little twerp Doug Crow was involved makes it easier for me to believe in Consagra's innocence. Kidding on that. As much as I dislike Crow, I believe the physical evidence, while very weak against Consagra, and the case in general was weak against Consagra, but I tend to lean towards that he was involved, just that he did not act alone.

As for the opinions on most of the rest of the cases, I agree with wiseguy on those. Look up the threads and see my opinions.

I mostly agree with your opinions wiseguy, except on these:

Darlie Routier and Stuart Heaton. I think they are where they belong.

Hmm, yes, I think a lot of these segments speak for themselves. I will say, Consagra, I have gone back and forth on him. I will say, if he was involved he was NOT the only one involved. I guess the fact that little twerp Doug Crow was involved makes it easier for me to believe in Consagra's innocence. Kidding on that. As much as I dislike Crow, I believe the physical evidence, while very weak against Consagra, and the case in general was weak against Consagra, but I tend to lean towards that he was involved, just that he did not act alone.

As for the opinions on most of the rest of the cases, I agree with wiseguy on those. Look up the threads and see my opinions.

Real strange thing I discovered with regard to Consagra: his attorneys (public defenders) filed a motion for post conviction relief in August 1982 and apparently went to the media with the story about how this man was innocent, the system screwed up, there was new evidence etc. etc. only to withdraw from their motion, without public explanation, two weeks later. A move that not only pissed off the DA, but the judge as well.

I sure would like to know why this was done. The only thing I can figure is that Donna recanted. Her statements were pretty much the crux of Consagra's defense. Also, if you watch the segment, Malden says that she retracted her statements, although he doesn't say when.

Here is a thread I started awhile back with links to some articles about it:

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=257982&highlight=consagra

Some interesting stuff.

2. Michael Scott Martin ~ debated quite a bit here on the forum and I've always leaned towards innocence. I have huge problems with how Martin was treated during his only run in with the law previous to this incident, the credibility of the witness, and why Martin was even included in the line-up to begin with. I normally don't put a lot of stock into eyewitness accounts, but in this case there were no less than 5 people who verified Martin's alibi, several of whom hardly knew him and had nothing to gain either way.

Oh dear, I'm over arguing about this and certainly not looking to start anything but I'm left shaking my head in disbelief. It makes me personally happy to know this guy spent 20 years in jail. ;)

Wiseguy - I think the best answer to you question is that UM did their homework in researching their "Final Appeal" cases and only profiled appealants that had a decent chance of being innocent to begin with. The only adage of "every man in prison claims his innocent" is pretty much true, but UM seemed to be able to select a lot of "Final Appeal" where the appealant's guilt or innocence truly seems to be a matter of some conjecture.

kadrmas15 - Lay off Doug Crow. He's not that bad of a guy, just takes his job very seriously and I'm not at all sure if Consagra was as innocent as UM made him out to be. As I've said many times I think he was involved in the crime but was not the sole killer. For the record, Crow is also responsible for putting Oba Chandler behind bars as well.

Michael Scott Martin - I still feel this guy is 100% innocent. I'm aware there is evidence against him as the UM segment detailed but I still can't wrap my head around the fact that MSM would be able to get five people (three of which barely knew him) to perjure themselves to protect him in a court of a law. I've shown this case a few times to my wife (who is a DA) and a couple of friends of ours who are also attorneys (both prosecution and defense) to get their thoughts and the common response I've gotten back is that MSM is either the slickest talker in the world to get all these people to come to his defense or he is actually as innocent as he claimed to be.

In terms of Doug Crow, I rip on him because he is a twerp. Yeah, he prosecuted Oba Chandler and that is great, but to be honest, a first year prosecutor probably could have got a conviction on Chandler. Doug Crow, is now the Chief Assistant State Attorney for Pinellas and Pasco Counties. My guess, is current State Attorney Bernie McCabe, will retire in 2012, he will have been State's Attorney for 20 years by then, and Doug Crow will run as his successor and win. Sad but a true reality. People love the sound bites and campaign gimmicks that people Crow will provide about how 'tough' they are even while in several instances being unethical.

I was not mad that Crow spoke against Glenn Consagra. What ticked me off though about Crow is how he sat there and tried to act all high and mighty, when he and his office were the ones that offered Consagra the plea deal to 2nd degree murder! Yet Crow tries to act like Mr. Big Shot, when he could have taken it to trial and got a conviction, well most likely, a conviction to first degree murder and Consagra would have got two consecutive sentences of 25 to life, or, possibly got the death penalty.

Now, one thing I always found interesting about that plea bargain is this: While Crow offered Consagra the plea bargain to 2nd degree murder, evidently, Crow did not make a sentencing recommendation. I think Consagra's lawyers did kind of a lousy job in this regard, in letting their client plead guilty to 2nd degree murder without a sentencing recommendation. At that time, in Florida, 2nd degree murder sentencing was VERY open ended. You could get anywhere from a couple years in prison to a life sentence WITH the possibility of parole after 7 years. Consagra was paroled in 1992, so that tells me that he was paroled the first time he was eligible but that was not unusual in Florida at that time, as in the 1980's and in the early to mid 90's, many lifers were paroled to ease prison overcrowding.

Interestingly, Florida had a very unusual sentencing statute for murder. In 1983, parole was abolished for 2nd degree murder (if the defendant was sentenced to life for that crime) and several other crimes, but yet, ironically not for first degree murder or capital sexual battery which if convicted, carried sentences of either 25 to life or the death penalty. Parole for those latter two crimes was not abolished until 1995. Like look at Thomas Drake, the crime he was convicted of, it occurred not long after the laws changed, hence why, while he got 30 years for attempted 2nd degree murder, he got LWOP for armed robbery.

I mean Crow, I do not think Crow is a bad guy, I do not know him, so I cannot say one way or the other whether he is or not. I do not doubt he is passionate about his job. I also do not doubt that getting a conviction is the first and foremost thing in his mind and not getting to the truth. I mean yeah Crow is a well known prosecutor and has won some pretty big cases. I am sure Crow has lost a murder case from time to time, but I bet he has one of the lower loss rates.

Crow though, like I said, if current State Attorney Bernie McCabe retires in 2012 as I think there is a better chance than not that he will, than I expect Doug Crow will be his successor. That is, if Crow is not appointed as a judge first by Governor Crist. Crist also appointed that dirt bag, David Rimmer up in Escambia County (Pensacola) to a judgeship recently. Rimmer was the Chief Assistant State Attorney in that area, and he was the one that was highly unethical in how he prosecuted Rick Chavis and the King brothers for the murder of their dad. Presenting two different theories to two different juries.

Anyway, back to the final appeals. In looking at a lot of these cases, the same common denominator seems to be present in most, if not all of them. Shoddy police work and tunnel vision by cops and prosecutors. I mean in Branion's case, you had the prosecutor, in essence admitting that he was 'not sure' how involved Branion was in his wife's death. That in and of itself is unethical as a prosecutor has to believe a defendant is guilty in order to prosecute him. Now, what would clinch it, in whether it was unethical or not, was how the prosecutor argued the case. That is not clear from the segment. Did he argue that Branion himself was the murderer? Or did he argue that Branion was the one that set the whole thing up? The prosecutor himself admitted he had his 'doubts' as to whether Branion himself personally, could have killed his wife. So if he argued to a jury that Branion had himself killed his wife while having doubts about whether Branion really did that, that is unethical. I mean, Branion might have had his wife killed, that part I do not know. But I am pretty sure he could not have himself personally killed his wife based on the timeline.

Michael Scott Martin, this guy got railroaded big time. I mean, seriously, first off, you had a biased police detective, who had worked Martin's previous case. So as a result, Martin was nothing but convicted felon scum to him. Everyone makes a big deal off of Doyle's eyewitness identification. However here is an interesting question. If Michael Scott Martin's photo had NOT been in the spread, would Doyle have picked a photo in the spread? I have always wondered this, about how really reliable eyewitness testimony is. I mean, I would imagine getting robbed at gun point would be the most scary and stressful experience of one's life. I mean, not to make fun of Doyle, but you could have basically told the guy Donald Duck was the one that robbed him and he would believe it. It seemed to me that the Garland Police were telling Doyle that they thought that Michael Scott Martin did it. This is a common police practice of trying to in essence dupe a witness into saying a guy did it when the witness might not truly be sure, but when you have the cops in essence telling you a guy did it, suddenly it becomes a bit more convincing.

Now, the biggest thing with this case, I mean to me, the prosecutor did not seem unethical. It did seem to bother him that he did not have a clincher, something that would make him 100 percent sure of things. But it seems his doubts did not really began to emerge about Martin's guilt until several years after the fact. It seemed the more he thought about it, the less convinced he was of his case. Plus, I think the jury was prejudiced against Martin because he was on probation for assault with a deadly weapon and assumed, oh, well he must be guilty if he had a prior record for that. That is why I have a bit of a problem with the 'prior bad acts' evidence, particularly in a circumstantial case like the robbery trial was. I mean a jury was out 15 minutes? I mean, that is kind of disturbing. They listen to all that evidence and they are out 15 minutes?

Space Invaderz why do you think Martin is guilty? Why? Because the cop said he was? You had 5 people, not just one person, 5 different people saying that at the exact moment that the gas station was being robbed in Garland, Michael Scott Martin was at a house in Fort Worth, now this was on the west side of Fort Worth if I remember right. Now, Michael Scott Martin, at the time of the robbery was according to these witnesses, at a house that was oh, 50 to 60 miles west of Garland at the exact moment this robbery was happening.

I mean, whoever robbed this gas station, okay, they walked up to the station. Meaning that someone either dropped them off there or by there or they walked there from their own residence. I mean, how else would they get there? Then, whoever stole Doyle's car, drove it to an apartment complex where yes Michael Scott Martin had once resided as I am sure hundreds of other people had too over the years, including some that probably had criminal records. So whoever stole Doyle's car, drove it to that apartment complex but then how did they escape from there? How did Martin get back over to Fort Worth? I mean it would take probably an hour,, maybe a little more to drive from Fort Worth to Garland, and another hour maybe a little more to drive back, depending on what roads you took and what time of day it was. So that would be roughly a 2 to 2 and a half hour round trip time. Yet no one other than these two sees Martin there? I mean, it just does not add up. I mean, the cop acted like he would blame every hold up on Michael Scott Martin and act like every robbery since Bonnie and Clyde was done by him. That cop was emotionally involved and had no business being involved in that case. As for, Doyle, I think Doyle was just mistaken. I think he truly believed Michael Scott Martin did it, but I mean, witnesses over the years have pointed at a guy and said 'that man raped me' and it turned out that it was not the right guy. Look at Tony Miller and the guy that was actual robber in his case, while not exactly looking alike, but in the heat of the moment, they look enough alike you could mistake one for the other.

you're right about that Kadrmas. I have so many problems with the lineup of photos.

1. Why is Michael Scott Martin, who has never robbed anyone in his life, being put in a stack of photographs with robbers? Shouldn't people who have been known to rob be the the ones with photograps in there? What was he even doing in the stack to begin with?

2. Doyle does NOT look at all of the photographs.

3. Doyle says "I think that's the guy" then a few seconds later says "I'm sure that's the guy." The biased police officer then pathetically tries to back up Doyle by saying something to the effect of "I wish all of my witnesses were as focused as Doyle." Eh. Don't get me wrong, I feel bad for Doyle, but I have some issues with how he selected MSM.

Yes wiseguy, I mean, the photo spreads, I don't know, I mean in theory they are good, but it is something I wonder that if you took 6 random photos and stuck them in the spread, and left the suspect out, would the eyewitness still pick one of the photos? I think more often than not the answer is yes. Here is my opinion as to why that is this case. It is because, when a cop shows you a spread, well, the spread from what I understand is usually 6 photographs, the eyewitness instantly assumes that the suspect is one of the 6 people in the spread.

A fine example of this, is David Dowaliby. I mean in his instance, in the spread, the cops were aware that the eyewitness claimed that the suspect he saw had a large nose. So the cops blew up Dowaliby's picture so his photo was the largest photo in the spread, thus by default his nose was the largest photo in the spread and that is why the witness picked Dowaliby's picture out. He saw that Dowaliby had the largest nose so he picked him out for that reason, not because he saw Dowaliby. I have seen other instances of this, where particularly if a witness claimed that defendant was bigger as in there were features on their face that were bigger, or even just making the photo itself bigger, I have heard this has happened where cops have made the picture of the suspect they want bigger to make it stand out to the witness and make it more likely that the witness will pick it even though they are not even sure that is the person they saw!

Another common tactic by police is leading comments or leading questions. Like, while a cop could not tell a witness to pick a particular photo out, he can say things like, 'that is the guy...right?'I mean what is a witness supposed to say to that? When a cop says that, it implies that the cops 'know' that that is the suspect thus the eyewitness is more likely to pick the photo out that the cops are implying but not formally saying they want.

Also, as we saw in the Michael Scott Martin case, basically, Doyle was not really sure, he kind of pointed at Michael Scott Martin's picture but did not say 'that is him' then the cop leads him and says 'do you think that is the guy or do you KNOW that is guy?" and then implies that he cannot arrest Martin unless Doyle says he KNOWS it was Martin that he saw. A reasonable person would pick up on this enough to feel pressure to pick the guy and say that it is him, not that you think it is him or that it might be him but that it IS him.

There are a lot of issues that stick out about the Michael Scott Martin case in my opinion. In a case where one of the main sticking points is whether or not Michael Martin was someone who had predisposition for committing crimes, the incident at the supermarket is fascinating.

From watching the segment I believe the acts that Michael Martin committed during the supermarket incident were not the acts of a criminal but instead the acts of an intoxicated individual who was provoked by the supermarket employees.

I think everything points to the supermarket employees spotting an intoxicated individual in their store consuming food he hadn't yet paid for and then contacting the authorities more than likely to have him removed from the premises.

My question is whether or not prior to the incident at the checkout counter where Martin was informed that the authorities had been contacted, did the staff attempt to confront Martin over the unpaid items or ask him to leave the store. Interestingly enough, the way the UM segment portrays the supermarket incident is that Martin and his buddy were in fact grocery shopping on the evening in question and weren't just aimlessly wandering around the store in a drunken stupor, pulling items off the shelves and consuming them. Now they did consume a bag of potato chips and a polish sausage but they also had a basket full of other items that they were taking up to the counter to check out.

Martin is portrayed as having checked out all of his items at the counter before being confronted by the store manger that he still has two items (the potato chips and polish sausage) which he hasn't yet paid for. Martin first denies having any other items but once he is informed that the authorities have been contacted he throws down more money to cover the unpaid for items. The key thing to remember is that it seems that the authorities were contacted before Michael had even checked out the items in his basket.

At this stage the manager and several store employees try to stop Martin from leaving the store and that is when the incident resulting in the pointing of knives and shooting of pistols occurred.

My feeling is Martin's actions on that night were not that of a criminal but of an intoxicated individual who found himself in an adversarial situation and reacted irrationally as most intoxicated people would do. It didn't help matters that Martin had two weapons close at hand, but it's also unfair to condemn him for having those weapons either as I wouldn't be surprised if the knife was a pocketknife and quite frankly a lot of people carry guns in the the glove compartment of their car for protection. I don't think Michael should be condemned for having either item close at hand.

The thing about the supermarket incident that I feel is unfortunate is that it painted Martin as someone with a criminal predisposition. I'm not condoning Martin's actions on that night by any stretch of the imagination but I also see it at face value for what it is as I detailed in the previous paragraph. Therefore I personally have a hard time making the jump from

Michael Martin - Twenty six year old welder who on a night where he was intoxicated found himself in an adversarial situation where he made some poor choices in how he handled the situation

to

Michael Martin - Twenty six year old welder who held up a gas station, tied up the attendant and then fled in his car.

To me it's too much of a jump.

From what I gathered about that incident, it was not totally clear based on the segment, but it appears that the cops were called BEFORE Martin got to the check out line. It also appears that he was not aware the cops were called until after he got to the check out line. He tries to rectify the situation by paying for the food he had been snacking on and the employees refuse and tell him that the cops have been called and that he will be arrested and they try to prevent him from leaving and that is when he pulled the knife out. Then he and his friend left the store, went to Martin's car, and that is when he pulled out a pistol and fired it into the air.

Martin never called the incident 'a prank' like the cop falsely tried to portray. Martin was not minimizing what he did, he was just saying he did not know why he reacted like that. The problem in this situation and something that tends to get misunderstood, Michael Martin appeared to be heavily intoxicated on the evening in question and thus, while what he knew what he was doing was wrong, he was not purposely trying to hurt anyone. He was very drunk and irrational and wanted to get out of the situation. He tried to pay for the food he had consumed in the aisles and the employees refused because for some reason they wanted him arrested. Why they were so hell bent on that, I do not know. I used to work at a grocery store and if a guy was willing to pay for food he had been snacking on, while it is not encouraged that people snack on food before they pay for it, as long as they pay for it, it is generally considered to not be a criminal offense as that is technically not stealing as long as you pay for it.

Basically, these employees made the mistake of treating an irrational person like he was rational. Thus to him (Martin) their behavior came off as cocky, threatening and being drunk he was probably paranoid too and thought everyone was out to get to him, that kind of thing. All these employees did was escalate the situation by trying to prevent him from leaving and then top of that following him to his car.

I mean, I am not sure what it is with Texas, but I will say, it is not a place you want to commit a crime intentional or otherwise. For some reason, in that state, they just want to arrest everyone for everything. I mean, Martin was on probation, assault with a deadly weapon, gets 4 years probation, yet he is convicted of armed robbery and because he was on probation for another felony gets a life sentence? I mean, it does not make a whole lot of sense. In Minnesota, if Michael Scott Martin had done the same stuff here, we would not even be talking about him. He might have got prison, but it would not have been a life sentence. I am not even sure if he would have been convicted had this crime been in Minnesota, but who knows? I do know for sure though he would not have got a life sentence here, he would have got maybe a couple years in prison.

good points Dante and Kadrmas, I would add the following:

1. While it is practically unheard of in northern states, it is common in Texas for people to consume stuff while in a supermarket and pay for it and the check-out line. I have a cousin who worked at a supermarket and Texas and she said this was fairly common practice. So the employees were fired up over nothing.

2. I've worked nights at a hotel for many years. I deal with drunks on a fairly regular basis. I can only recall one occasion where I called the police on a drunk individual (he threatened me). You don't call the police because somebody in your place of business is drunk, they have to do something more to warrant calling the police.

3. The store employees never gave Martin an opportunity to pay for the eaten items. You can't steal something if you're still in the store.

4. I used to work at a supermarket as well and there was a diabetic lady who sometimes had to eat something right away if she had a diabetic reaction or something, and then paid for it later. I think that could have happened here, not out of the realm of possibility

5. with all that being said, the store employees seemed to have a personal bias against Martin, for whatever reason or were just getting worked up over nothing. I think this is evidenced by the fact that they not only chased him (which was a huge mistake), but went after him with brooms (which I must admit I laughed at).

I mean, I am not sure what it is with Texas, but I will say, it is not a place you want to commit a crime intentional or otherwise. For some reason, in that state, they just want to arrest everyone for everything. I mean, Martin was on probation, assault with a deadly weapon, gets 4 years probation, yet he is convicted of armed robbery and because he was on probation for another felony gets a life sentence? I mean, it does not make a whole lot of sense. In Minnesota, if Michael Scott Martin had done the same stuff here, we would not even be talking about him. He might have got prison, but it would not have been a life sentence. I am not even sure if he would have been convicted had this crime been in Minnesota, but who knows? I do know for sure though he would not have got a life sentence here, he would have got maybe a couple years in prison.

Well the bottom line for me is that if Martin is innocent (as I think he is) then this case to me is extremely scary. It is a cut and dry case of a miscarriage of justice where a man lost twenty years of his life due to a crime he didn't commit and a trial where he should have been found innocent.

I remember telling a friend once who was heading down to Texas on vacation not to consume any potato chips without paying for them, because they sentence people to life for doing that down there. :lol:

Well, yes, this is a scary case. It is not just limited to Texas, I mean there is crap this happens like this in every state to one degree or another. However the reason I point out Texas is that is where this situation went down. But yeah, I will say, no matter how minor, if you are going to do something illega, do not do it in Texas! They arrest you for EVERYTHING down there or so how it seems no matter how minor the case may be. Like there was a sting I was reading about where Houston P.D. was arresting people for public intoxication in a bar! What a shock. The charges were later thrown out on all the arrestees as it was revealed that while it was illegal to be drunk outside the bar, it was not illegal to be drunk in the bar.

However it depends on where you are at in Texas. I do know that under Texas law, it is a felony to serve or sell alcohol to a person that is obviously intoxicated. Now this law does not seem to be enforced much in terms of on the premises sales, as in bars, restaurants, etc. However gas stations and liquor stores and the like tend to be more on guard there because they are afraid the cops are doing a reverse sting on them, thus, if you are drunk in Texas, good luck at going to a gas station or a liquor store and trying to buy booze, I am sure people get away with it but more often than not you will be refused.

In Minnesota that is a misdemeanor so generally people will sell to you even if it is obvious you are drunk. In Minnesota, people get arrested for public intoxication too but not nearly as often. You have to be pretty belliegerant for them to arrest you here. Usually you will only get arrested for that if you are picking fights or threatening people and even then a lot of times, the cops will just tell you to go home and sleep it off. However in Texas, they arrest people for misdemeanor public intoxication all the time. I was reading, where one dude, was in a hotel, he was drunk and left his hotel room to get more ice, and someone saw him stumbling a bit and called the cops to have him arrested.

But what disturbs me about the Michael Scott Martin case, well, it just seems the jury did not even consider the possibility he was innocent. I mean they were out 15 minutes. Basically, in my view, once they found out he was a convicted felon, that was it. I mean from that instant, he was nothing but trash to them so they assumed he was guilty because he had been convicted of a weapons charge before. Basically they were convinced he should be in prison for life because he was a convicted felon, that is basically what it came down to here and it is sad and scary. I think had the prior bad act evidence not came in, the result might have been different. Of course, this case was hardly the first screw up from a Dallas County Jury. Just look at the oh, I don't know, 30 or so men proven innocent of rape alone in Dallas County in the last few years, all of whom were found guilty by a jury. Some serious problems in Dallas County, Texas that is for sure.

Space Invaderz why do you think Martin is guilty?

I'm over arguing about this

Fair enough, at least for once you quit while you were ahead.

With Michael Scott Martin, I just don't know. I could certainly see how he could be innocent and it seems like there is a lot more evidence pointing in that direction.

However, according to this article I found, Brad Lollar said that all of MSM's alibi witnesses failed lie detector tests (a fact not mentioned on UM). Here is a link to the exact article: http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=201760&highlight=Lollar

Then we have the fact that Doyle's car was abandoned in front of MSM's old apartment. No real way to square that away.

The detective was also certain he saw MSM in Garland after the robbery. Though I will concede that he could have some credibility issues, as there was some notion of him having an axe to grind.

Hmm, well, to 'fail' a so called 'lie detector' test though I myself do not find overly credible. Was Doyle ever given one? In any event, the problem with the polygraph test is this. It is much more easy to be telling the truth and fail the test than it is to be lying and pass the test. Truth be told, this is because polygraph tests do not detect lies, they detect physical responses to questions. Under the common reasoning that if you sweat too much or if your heart rate or blood pressure are too high than you must be lying. So, how credible that can be found is a bit of a stretch. In fact, the test is so inaccurate that most states the only way the results can be admitted, I believe even in Texas, the only way they can be admitted is if both prosecutor and defense sign off on it. Naturally it would make one side or the other look bad, thus they are almost never admitted as evidence.

In terms of the car, as explained above, I mean, why in the heck would Michael Scott Martin, had he robbed this gas station and expected to get away with it, why would he park the car right outside of his old apartment complex? In any event, how many people lived in the apartment complex over the years? I would assume hundreds, and I would also assume at least some of whom, like Michael Martin, also had criminal records. The detective did have credibility issues, period. That one is not even up for speculation, he did. One of these real know it all types, thought Michael Scott Martin was behind every robbery in the area since Bonnie and Clyde, also a self righteous type, liked to think he had put every gangster since Legs Diamond behind bars.

Fair enough, at least for once you quit while you were ahead.

Let's not get too cocky yeah


Just curious to know how come most of you aren't willing to accept (particularly) Doyle's and the cop's eyewittness accounts but will swear by 3 of the 5 people "who bearly knew him"? ... As in, if they "bearly knew him", how could they be given credibilitily to their ID of Martin if they hardly even know who he is?

I don't think the cop was biased towards Martin, he just recognised him from the previous incident only a month before.

In terms of the car, as explained above, I mean, why in the heck would Michael Scott Martin, had he robbed this gas station and expected to get away with it, why would he park the car right outside of his old apartment complex?

He is about as sharp as a bag of wet hair.

Well when we are talking about the eyewitness accounts of both Doyle Lovelady and Dennis Wheatley I have to take into account the circumstances of both those identifications.

Doyle's identification came under a time when he was literally in fear of his life. I know he claims that "when someone sticks a gun into your ribs you never forget who it was" however the amount of stress he must have been under during the time he allegedly was with Michael Martin must have been immense. Doyle's attacker tied him up, threatened to kill him twice and then bashed him over the head with the gun. While it's possible that Doyle might have had all his faculties about him at the time to later make a positive identification it's just as possible that he had more pressing matters on his mind during his time with his assailant then gathering information so he could later make a positive identification.

As far as Dennis Wheatley goes, I actually find his identification of Martin at the intersection to be somewhat credible. We have to remember that Wheatley had spent a significant amount of time with Martin in the months leading up to the gas station robbery and that does give his identification of Martin at the intersection some credibility. However on the other side of the coin the interaction between Wheatley and the man he later identified as Martin was brief at the intersection. Wheatley literally saw a man he thought was Martin in the getaway car as it sped by him at the intersection. Not exactly the best scenario for anyone to make an identification.
================
For me the differences between Lovelady & Wheatley's identification and those of Martin's friends are the circumstances in which those identifications were made. Both Wheatley and Lovelady's identifications were borne out of situations where they were either under great stress or it was just a very brief fleeting encounter. When Martin's friends claim they were with him at the time of the offense, they weren't under any amount of stress that we know of and were just going about their daily activities and happened to run into Martin apparently around the vicinity of his house.

To me I find Martin's witnesses to have been put in far less stressful situations to make a positive identification of Martin. They weren't trying to ID a guy speeding past them at an intersection or trying to ID a guy who had a gun stuck in their ribs. They based their identification on normal, everyday interactions with Martin. To me that makes their identifications somewhat more credible than that of Lovelady's and Wheatley's.
==================
Another thing that I think Martin had going against him in this case as far as identifying him is his appearance. Judging by the photo of Martin in the police lineup, he looked like the stereotypical blue collar biker dude of that era. Now if the UM segment is accurate, then Doyle's assailant wore a baseball cap and sunglasses. Not the best disguise but enough of a disguise where the assailant's profile was hidden basically from the nose up. Doyle couldn't see his assailant's hairstyle nor could he see his eyes. To me that is a significant part of someone's profile and leads me to have serious doubts of Doyle or anyone else for that matter being able to positively identify the assailant as Martin.

Martin's appearance also brings into question Wheatley's identification of him at the intersection. While I do believe Wheatley's account is more credible than that of an average witness due to his history with Martin, it is possible he saw someone in that getaway car who wasn't Martin. This is made all the more probable by Martin's appearance which as I've already stated was a very much in line with how bikers of that era looked.
=================
Finally I've noticed that when Martin's case is discussed for some reason his intelligence is something that is brought up. It's a fair point and I'll admit that Martin probably wasn't a Rhodes scholar by any means. However when discussing Martin's intelligence the biggest question that sticks out to me is not the issue with the getaway car and the apartment but whether or not it's reasonable to believe that Martin would've been stupid enough to have committed this crime in the first place given the circumstances.

- Martin was sentenced for the supermarket incident on 7-8-79. I assume that at his sentencing either his attorney or the judge (probably both) went over with him the terms of his probation and what would happen if he was in violation of his probation. The gas station robbery took place on 7-14-79, five days after Martin's sentencing for the supermarket incident. To me that is an awful brief period of time between the two events.

- I would have a much easier time believing that Martin robbed the gas station if it had taken place a year, maybe even six months into his probation. But five days? The terms of his probation was fresh in his mind, he knew the consequences that would result from him violating that probation and he decides to take this huge risk five days later and rob a gas station for a couple hundred dollars? To me that would be the action of a truly stupid individual given the circumstances. Michael may have not been a Rhodes scholar but I have a hard time believing that Martin who by all indications (aside from the supermarket incident) was a solid citizen who held down a job, a home and was in the process of putting down roots in a new community would've done that. For me the dots just don't connect on that one.

Yes, well, good point Dark Dante on Michael's intelligent. I agree, the guy is not or did not come off as the sharpest knife in the drawer, I do not think anyone disputes that. However I will say, even a person of low intelligence, I mean, there is no way a real criminal is going to steal a car after just robbing someone and drive it right to their old apartment complex, especially when they know they have been on probation for only 5 days and not expect to be caught. I mean, why would Martin not do this gas station robbery somewhere else? Why drive all the way over to Garland? Is there not any gas stations in Fort Worth to rob?

Space Invaderz, it has nothing to do with the fact of not accepting, that is the point you seem to be missing time and time again. Okay, I do not think either the cop or Doyle were 'lying' when they said they said it was Martin. The cop has some credibility issues due to the fact he had arrested Martin for a previous felony and was thus biased against him. However I do question how Doyle could tell it was Martin when the robber had on a baseball cap and sunglasses, thus pretty much disguising his face from the nose up. I mean at that time, most young men had long hair, especially in the blue collar crowd, thus it was not unusual for a young man to have long hair like Michael Scott Martin did. I mean to say it was Michael Scott Martin because he had long hair and a prior felony conviction, you would see a lot of young men be suspects.

Again, we took the word of 5 people, it was actually 5 people, 3 of whom barely knew him but saw him in an unstressful situation at a house, where he was working on a motorcycle and watching TV. I mean, okay, unlike the cop and robbery victim, you would have to believe that ALL 5 of these people were intentionally lying. Only 2 of those 5 were even friends with him, thus you would have to believe that not only were his 2 friends lying but 3 people who barely knew him and had no reason to lie to protect him were also lying. I mean, if I am watching TV, waiting for a certain program to come on because it only comes on at a certain day at a certain time, I would think I would know whether a guy had been there watching it with me, sitting next to me on my couch or not. Especially when these folks were interviewed like what was it? The day after this robbery happened? I mean, by Doyle's admission, he never saw his robbers eyes or the top of his head. I just say his i.d. was not enough to make an arrest or should not have been and certainly should not have been enough to get a conviction.

But you should be proud space invaderz, the 12 jury members all sided with you. They believed the cop and the robbery victim even though there was no more evidence they were right than Martin's 5 eyewitnesses were but I guess that is what happens when people confuse the law and shift the burden to a defendant to prove his innocence and that if he can't then he must be guilty.

another thing that nagged me: it wasn't as if Doyle, upon seeing Martin's photograph, immediately exclaimed "that's the guy", but rather puts down his photograph very slowly, separating it from the pack, thus indicating more uncertainty.

here's something new: I know in addition to line-ups, they sometimes have the suspects speak, so that a voice identification can be done as well. Now, Michael Scott Martin had a REAL distinctive voice with a very thick southern drawl. I would be highly interested to see if Doyle could have picked out Martin's voice from a lineup. I'm dying to know those results.

Yes, Michael Scott Martin, the way he spoke, I am not sure he was a native Texan. Texan's, their drawl tends to be different from other southerners. In fact, most if not all southern states, while they all have accents, they vary to different degrees. Like you can tell if someone is from Louisiana or you can tell if someone is from Texas, more often than not, based on the accent.

But again, the problem I have with the photo spreads, are concerns that I presented earlier in the thread. I mean, obviously, a witness would assume that in a 6 photo spread, that the suspect is one of the 6 people in the spread. Now, what a cop will tell a witness is, this cannot be a could be, I think it is, or a maybe, I need you to say, that is the guy. That puts a witness under a tremendous amount of pressure and like I said, some cops are very good at making it very obvious who they want you to pick. Again, they cannot actually tell you outright, I want you to pick the guy in the 3rd photo, from the right on the top row, they cannot tell you that, but they can make subtle comments and making leading comments.

This actually happened in another case, on UM. Dennis Perry, another innocent one, his photo back in 1985 WAS actually in the photo spread, and none of the witnesses picked it out. Then 17 years later, one of the witnesses did pick it out. The thing was video taped and the witness seemed to do what Doyle did in MSM's case, kind of pick up the picture but not actually say, that is him, but kind of say like, well that might be him, kind of thing, and the cop said, well that is the guy..right? I mean talk about leading a witness, what else was she supposed to say? No? By the cop saying that in that way, he gave her the impression, without saying the words, but a reasonable person would think, the cop thinks Dennis Perry did it.

another thing that nagged me: it wasn't as if Doyle, upon seeing Martin's photograph, immediately exclaimed "that's the guy", but rather puts down his photograph very slowly, separating it from the pack, thus indicating more uncertainty.

Well that's how the re-enactment goes, that's not what was said when Doyle himself had the camera on him.

Michael Martin's an interesting one, given the (apparent) paucity of evidence against him. I generally put little faith in eyewitness testimony and certainly am a bit troubled when that's the only thing the case goes on. I find it interesting that the DA seems to have similar doubts.

I am surprised the prior conviction got in, given that its prejudicial effect far outweighs, IMO, its probative value (interestingly, you get the impression the DA was also surprised he got it in). The short deliberation is also odd: I'd have to conclude Morris' witnesses had zero credibility before the jury.

Overall, I'm on the fence. I can't scream this is another example of Texas "justice," but nor am I wholly comfortable with the verdict.

Hmm, well, to 'fail' a so called 'lie detector' test though I myself do not find overly credible. Was Doyle ever given one? In any event, the problem with the polygraph test is this. It is much more easy to be telling the truth and fail the test than it is to be lying and pass the test. Truth be told, this is because polygraph tests do not detect lies, they detect physical responses to questions. Under the common reasoning that if you sweat too much or if your heart rate or blood pressure are too high than you must be lying. So, how credible that can be found is a bit of a stretch. In fact, the test is so inaccurate that most states the only way the results can be admitted, I believe even in Texas, the only way they can be admitted is if both prosecutor and defense sign off on it. Naturally it would make one side or the other look bad, thus they are almost never admitted as evidence.

In terms of the car, as explained above, I mean, why in the heck would Michael Scott Martin, had he robbed this gas station and expected to get away with it, why would he park the car right outside of his old apartment complex? In any event, how many people lived in the apartment complex over the years? I would assume hundreds, and I would also assume at least some of whom, like Michael Martin, also had criminal records. The detective did have credibility issues, period. That one is not even up for speculation, he did. One of these real know it all types, thought Michael Scott Martin was behind every robbery in the area since Bonnie and Clyde, also a self righteous type, liked to think he had put every gangster since Legs Diamond behind bars.

Not sure on the polygraph stuff, honestly, just posting that article as I found it interesting. It could indicate his alibi witnesses were liars. I doubt it was admitted in the trial.

Well, the car issue to me is as follows. I say, if Michael Scott Martin was the robber, why not park his getaway car outside his old apartment? Criminals tend to strike in areas they are comfortable with. I think it's safe to presume that Michael Scott Martin was obviously familiar with the area. So he parks his car there. Hoofs it to the gas station, commits the robbery, and then uses Doyle's car to get back to the apartment and switches out. If you think about this, it's not that far fetched. He's not going to drive his own car to the scene of the robbery. Sure, the police will find Doyle's car at MSM's apartment after the fact, but how will they connect it to MSM? Like you said, hundreds of people probably lived at or around that complex. I don't think MSM's name would have even come up in this investigation if Doyle had not identified MSM's photo so the fact that the car found there was moot without Doyle's identification. It would have meant nothing. It's also a good location to switch because MSM has just moved from the area. If anyone saw him, he's not "out of place" there, know what I mean?

I think someone who knew MSM previously posted here once and said that the detective had some falling out with MSM in that they argued over marijuana legalization prior to the gas station incident. I'll have to see if I can find the post. So, that incident may prejudice the detective against MSM.

EDIT: the post I mentioned about the pot debate is in this thread...

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=192872&highlight=vietnam

yes, I realize this supports the "innocent" argument. I just feel we should get everything out on the table. Not hold back anything.

egswanso raises a good point. Really, what proof was there that Martin did this? A couple of eyewitness accounts that are very sketchy and that Doyle's car happened to be at his old apartment complex. that's it.

Hmm, yes, the evidence was not strong enough for a conviction, especially not in 15 minutes. That is one I can still not get over, to be that sure to convict a guy in 15 minutes. I have a friend here in Minnesota who was acquitted of auto theft in 15 minutes but to have someone convicted in 15 minutes? Wow.

But yes, to me, I mean I guess, I do not really understand why Michael Scott Martin was even a suspect in this case? Why his photo even put in the spread to begin with? I am sure Doyle did not say 'Michael Scott Martin robbed me, so put his photo in the spread'.

To be honest, I am kind of wondering how the cop would even know that Michael Scott Martin lived in that apartment complex? I mean so Doyle's car was found there, then the cop either knew before hand or subsequently found out that Michael Scott Martin had lived there and from that moment it was over. It seems as soon as that cop caught that case he was going after Martin no if's, and's or but's. He was probably mad that Martin got probation instead of going to prison so decided to nail Martin once and for all.

I mean, to me, the evidence is pretty circumstantial. You have a cop who was known to have a grudge and a personal dislike of the defendant. Then you have that same cop basically browbeating Doyle into saying it was Michael Scott Martin that did it. I just have questions with the way this whole investigation was handled.

I do not really understand why Michael Scott Martin was even a suspect in this case? Why his photo even put in the spread to begin with? I am sure Doyle did not say 'Michael Scott Martin robbed me, so put his photo in the spread'.

The impression the segment left was that the only reason MSM became a suspect was because the detective claimed he saw him driving in Garland, and this impression is confirmed by the trial reporter, Martin v. State, 623 S.W. 2nd 391, 394 (Tex. Ct. App. 1981):

The victim of the alleged robbery, a Garland service station attendant, testified to the facts of the offense committed by one brandishing and striking him with a handgun, whom he identified in court as appellant. The robber acquired keys to the victim's car and fled the scene; the automobile was soon abandoned near the Willows Apartments where appellant had previously resided. Appellant mounted a defense with fifteen witnesses, including himself. He denied committing aggravated robbery and presented alibi testimony to the effect that at the time he was at his residence at Lake Worth in Tarrant County with two housemates who confirmed that. On rebuttal, Garland Police Officer Dennis Wheatley, who coincidentally had investigated the earlier 1979 offense in our Cause No. 66,173 and knew appellant on sight, testified that about thirty minutes after the robbery he was on his way to the station house and saw appellant driving an automobile (which he would later see again parked next to the Lake Worth residence). At the station Wheatley heard of the robbery and a description of the suspect: he assembled a photographic array of pictures of five males, including appellant. The next day the victim recognized appellant and picked his picture from the array.

The point of identification was one Martin's counsel hammered at during the trial, albeit without success:

As to the identification procedure, not only did counsel make no objection when the State briefly questioned the victim about his selecting appellant's picture, but also he interrogated at length about it. He brought out, among others weaknesses, that the victim first failed to identify anyone from the photographs, but after they were reshuffled a selection was made. His cross-examination of Wheatley was also detailed in this respect, and it was counsel for appellant who in front of the jury obtained from Wheatley the five photographs, had him identify them and offered them in evidence. All this was no doubt to permit counsel to argue, as he did, that Officer Wheatley was more interested in getting a quick identification to confirm his suspicion the appellant committed the offense than he was in making an investigation "to solve the robbery." While the State might have been barred by a bolstering objection from questioning Wheatley in that manner, [citation omitted], that rule does not impede a criminal trial lawyer in determinedly pursuing a defensive theory of mistaken identification. Ineffectiveness is not shown when the tactic is unsuccessful... Id. at 395.

Martin's appeal of his failed habeas petition, Martin v. McCotter, 796 F.2d 813 (5th Cir. 1986), details some of the trial testimony further. Martin's trial counsel made the calculated risk to be "open and honest" regarding the prior conviction, which was a serious one - "Martin admitted on the stand, he robbed a grocery store with a knife and gun and fired four shots at his pursuers--Martin received a sentence of only four years probation and a $2,500 fine." Id. at 817. Accordingly, he put on an alibi defense, presenting numerous witnesses re: his alibi and good character, and testified himself. His counsel crossed Det. Wheatley at length and "elicited from Officer Wheatley a number of crucial details: Martin had consented to a search of his house at which no items were taken; no fingerprints identifiable as Martin's were found at the robbery site or on the car allegedly used in the robbery; and the victim did not immediately select Martin's photograph from the photographic spread, but instead studied "two pictures in particular." Id. at 818.

Basically, the conviction came down to, as Martin's trial counsel put it, "the jury disliked, disbelieved and distrusted Martin" Id. at fn.2. It's easy for us to question this, but, I suppose, we weren't there, on the jury. I suppose if you think all Martin's witnesses lied, he doesn't have much of a defense.

I'm still on the fence, personally. It sure does seem like a-lot to discredit, but I haven't seen any of the testimony from his witnesses, so perhaps it was wholly warranted. Still...

Interesting case law, egswanso. Good find.

The more I read about this Wheatley character, the more I question Martin's guilt. Sometimes people in positions of authority just get tunnel vision.

This is a weak example, but when I was in high school I got in trouble for something extremely minor (riding the elevator to impress a couple of girls) and I had to go to the assistant principal's office. I explained myself, was honest, took the detention and moved on with my life. The guy seriously had it out for me after that. Every time he saw me in the hall he would always say "Hi Justin!" (before he didn't even know my name) and I remember he even said once "here comes trouble!" I mean, what the Hell? I was just a dumb kid, I never did anything bad in school.

Yes, that is what makes me have doubts about Dennis Wheatley's testimony. I mean, he hears about a robbery and he suddenly assumes for no obvious reason that Michael Scott Martin did it? I mean, he just seemed to have it out for Martin and had no business working the case due to his emotional involvement and his obvious dislike of the defendant.

Yes, that is what makes me have doubts about Dennis Wheatley's testimony. I mean, he hears about a robbery and he suddenly assumes for no obvious reason that Michael Scott Martin did it? I mean, he just seemed to have it out for Martin and had no business working the case due to his emotional involvement and his obvious dislike of the defendant.

Well, it's wasn't no reason: giving Wheatley the benefit of the doubt, we can presume: (1) he knew MSM had moved; but (2) saw him in town; (3) heard about the robbery; (4) heard the description of the suspect generally matched MSM.

Here's the thing, it's certainly easy to see how Doyle could be mistaken, but I find it harder to believe Wheatley is mistaken about both MSM's presence and his car, which means he's either telling the truth or deliberately framing MSM. I can accept he didn't like the guy, and agree that he shouldn't have been working the case, but can't just presume a frame-up without evidence, of which there is none.

Well, it's wasn't no reason: giving Wheatley the benefit of the doubt, we can presume: (1) he knew MSM had moved; but (2) saw him in town; (3) heard about the robbery; (4) heard the description of the suspect generally matched MSM.

Here's the thing, it's certainly easy to see how Doyle could be mistaken, but I find it harder to believe Wheatley is mistaken about both MSM's presence and his car, which means he's either telling the truth or deliberately framing MSM. I can accept he didn't like the guy, and agree that he shouldn't have been working the case, but can't just presume a frame-up without evidence, of which there is none.

Much like you I do regard Wheatley's identification of Martin at the intersection as credible. However, just taking into account the brevity of that encounter and the fact that Martin resembled the way most bikers of that era looked, there is a reasonable possibility that Wheatley saw someone else besides Martin at that intersection.

If Wheatley's encounter with the man he believed to have been Martin had been under circumstances where we could say without a shadow of a doubt that he had a sufficient amount of time to identify Martin, then I would feel a lot more comfortable as far as regarding Wheatley's identification as airtight.

As it stands right now, I feel Wheatley identification is credible but I'm not at the point where to me it discredits the testimony of Martin's eyewitnesses.

Much like you I do regard Wheatley's identification of Martin at the intersection as credible. However, just taking into account the brevity of that encounter and the fact that Martin resembled the way most bikers of that era looked, there is a reasonable possibility that Wheatley saw someone else besides Martin at that intersection.

If Wheatley's encounter with the man he believed to have been Martin had been under circumstances where we could say without a shadow of a doubt that he had a sufficient amount of time to identify Martin, then I would feel a lot more comfortable as far as regarding Wheatley's identification as airtight.

As it stands right now, I feel Wheatley identification is credible but I'm not at the point where to me it discredits the testimony of Martin's eyewitnesses.

Agreed; the nature of the encounter seems short enough and MSM generic-looking enough that Wheatley could simply be mistaken. Whatever his level of certainly, it was enough that 12 jurors believed him and determined all of MSM's witnesses were lying because of him.

Thinking about this case some more, it really seems that, in hindsight, MSM and/or his counsel made a huge mistake by testifying. Without that, I don't think the prior act comes in, and without that, I think it far less likely there's a conviction. Impossible to say, of course, but clearly the jury though MSM was a bad guy (no doubt b/c of his prior acts) and thought he and his friends liers for it. Of course, maybe if MSM doesn't take the stand, prior act still comes in, or there's a big, unexplained gap that could be worse, but still, seems like a big do-over, were that possible.

Anyone want to see what Tommy Zeigler looks like these days? He looks like he is kind of roughing it too. He is now 64 years old. But I guess 33, going on 34 years on death row will do that you. Feel bad for the guy but not much can be done unless someone steps up. http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ActiveInmates/Detail.asp?Bookmark=1&From=list&SessionID=335328880

Anyone want to see what Tommy Zeigler looks like these days? He looks like he is kind of roughing it too. He is now 64 years old. But I guess 33, going on 34 years on death row will do that you. Feel bad for the guy but not much can be done unless someone steps up. http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ActiveInmates/Detail.asp?Bookmark=1&From=list&SessionID=335328880

I'm torn on the Ziegler thing. It is a fantastic coincidence that a "robbery" was happening at the exact same time as his family was at the store. I know the life insurance he was to claim on his wife wasn't staggering, but I thought it was a sizeable enough portion in 1975

Jeffrey McDonald - Innocent. I believe him. Too much goes in his favour and to tell you the truth there was never ANY motive for him to kill his wife and two little girls. Although I can see both sides of the equation. One thing that bothers me is that in his UM interview his voice quivers on the verge of crying yet there is no emotion or tears welling up in his eyes. Strange. Oh well.

Guilty without question (IMO):

-Glen Consagra
-Dr. John Branion
-Larry Race
-Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald
-Paul Ferrell
-Darlie Routier
-Stuart Heaton

Guilty with some doubts:

-Dan Montecalvo
-Frederick Young

Innocent with some doubts:

-Rick McCue
-Tommy Zeigler

Innocent without question:

-Paul Freshour
-Michael Lloyd Self
-Rolando Cruz
-Luis Diaz
-John Purvis
-Johnny Lee Wilson
-Michael Scott Martin
-Patricia Stallings

Almost 50/50

Guilty without question (IMO):

-Glen Consagra
-Dr. John Branion
-Larry Race
-Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald
-Paul Ferrell
-Darlie Routier
-Stuart Heaton

Guilty with some doubts:

-Dan Montecalvo
-Frederick Young

Innocent with some doubts:

-Rick McCue
-Tommy Zeigler

Innocent without question:

-Paul Freshour
-Michael Lloyd Self
-Rolando Cruz
-Luis Diaz
-John Purvis
-Johnny Lee Wilson
-Michael Scott Martin
-Patricia Stallings

Almost 50/50

Well, TheCars1986, I mean it in the nicest way possible, but I am definitely in some disagreement with what you've listed here. I do mostly agree with your IWQ list with the possible exception of Paul Freshour. I used to think that Freshour was definitely innocent, but then I read something (I think it's on the "Did Paul Freshour admit to being the Circleville Writer" thread) posted by someone claiming to be a family member, and this person said that Freshour was a nasty, hot-tempered and abusive person, and the poster said that he/she feels pretty confident that PF was the Circleville Writer. Now, I don't know whether or not this poster is of good credibility, but the posting seemed thorough and explanatory enough that I wouldn't necessarily disregard it from the get-go.

Also, I have never believed that Frederick Young is guilty. He seems so much more real and sincere than his brother, and Chris Ross, who was also involved in the robbery, claims that Cedrick, not Frederick, is who he was with that night, and he would likely have nothing to gain by saying this, because he was already in jail serving a 20 year sentence at the time he was interviewed in the segment. Also, as in the Michael Scott Martin case, I personally feel that there could have been some bias against Frederick for his past minor legal scrapes, because 68 years is an unusually steep sentence for an armed robbery where nobody was killed or even seriously injured, and I also don't get why the prosecutor would try to break the whole thing down into 6 separate charges and attempt to have sentences averaging 10-12 years each attached to each one. That is pretty overly excessive for the circumstances. Also, from the way that the victim, Deborah Haney, spoke of Cedrick/Frederick in court, it sounded more like they were casual acquaintences rather than close friends, saying "I see him around from time to time," and I think it may be possible that she might not have known that whichever one she runs into from time to time had a twin brother at all, or at the very least, never saw them together.

Also, I have always believed nothing but the best about Dr. John Branion. In the segment, the forensic pathologist, the Trentos (the husband-and-wife PI's or something-or-others who were personally following the case), and even a neighbor who barely knew him all presented some pretty solid testimony that made it look pretty impossible for things to have happened the way they did, one of the main things for me being that there simply was not enough time for him to pull off everything the way that it allegedly happened. Also, this is another one of those cases where you have several people who don't know each other saying things that contradict the allegations of murder, so it at least seems unlikely to me that they could all be lying in sync with each other without slipping up somewhere along the way. Also, something that another poster mentioned that doesn't add up for me is that he would deliberately walk into the house with his kid if he knew what he was about to encounter. Also, you have to remember that not only on the day of the murder itself, but also pretty much the entire 60s in general, Chicago was one of the most explosively racist cities in the country, and because of Dr. Branion's association with the Black Panthers, and also because he was a close personal friend of Dr. Martin Luther King, these things no doubt made him one of the more prominently disliked black men in the city. And finally, as far as him fleeing to Africa (which, for many people, is something that casts doubt upon his innocence), my reaction to that is that I can certainly understand him wanting to get somewhere far, far away, because with the way that most of Chicago's white population probably felt towards him, he might have ended up getting lynched or something like that if he'd just decided to stay put.

I'm on the fence about Larry Race, but I think there is more of a chance that he's not guilty, and some of the statements made by the oh-so-lovable prosecutor in this case are nothing less than ridiculous.

I'm not going to go into any more lenghthy explanations for now, but as I said, I do agree with your IWQ list except for Freshour. And as far as the rest of the people you mentioned, this is how I feel about them:

Glen Consagra: Really not sure either way.

Dr. Jeffrey McDonald: I agree that he probably is guilty.

Paul Ferrell: I never saw this one, so I can't say.

Darlie Routier: I've always been pretty intrigued by this one, and there's a fair chance that she's guilty, but I'm not as dead sure about that as some people. I think there are some doubts worth getting to the bottom of.

Stuart Heaton: Questionable, but I never felt strongly that he was guilty, and there are some circumstances in this case that I think support the possibility of innocence.

Dan Montecalvo: Another one that I haven't seen, so I can't comment on it.

Rick McCue: For a long time I believed he was innocent, until I read a fact-based thread exposing him as someone of extremely bad character, guilty of fraud and rape. Despite this, there is still no solid evidence that he did it, so at this point I really don't know what to think.

Tommy Zeigler: Not sure, but I've leaned more towards guilty. His story has a lot of inconsistencies in it, and if nothing else, he definitely had opportunity given the time and place of the murder (because it was his store, he and his family were among the only people that would have access to it after hours).

Just my thoughts.

Also, I have always believed nothing but the best about Dr. John Branion. In the segment, the forensic pathologist, the Trentos (the husband-and-wife PI's or something-or-others who were personally following the case), and even a neighbor who barely knew him all presented some pretty solid testimony that made it look pretty impossible for things to have happened the way they did, one of the main things for me being that there simply was not enough time for him to pull off everything the way that it allegedly happened. Also, this is another one of those cases where you have several people who don't know each other saying things that contradict the allegations of murder, so it at least seems unlikely to me that they could all be lying in sync with each other without slipping up somewhere along the way. Also, something that another poster mentioned that doesn't add up for me is that he would deliberately walk into the house with his kid if he knew what he was about to encounter. Also, you have to remember that not only on the day of the murder itself, but also pretty much the entire 60s in general, Chicago was one of the most explosively racist cities in the country, and because of Dr. Branion's association with the Black Panthers, and also because he was a close personal friend of Dr. Martin Luther King, these things no doubt made him one of the more prominently disliked black men in the city. And finally, as far as him fleeing to Africa (which, for many people, is something that casts doubt upon his innocence), my reaction to that is that I can certainly understand him wanting to get somewhere far, far away, because with the way that most of Chicago's white population probably felt towards him, he might have ended up getting lynched or something like that if he'd just decided to stay put.

Dr. Branion is probably the most complex Final Appeal case for me because I've always had a gut feeling that he hired someone to kill his wife. However, the prosecution never presented this theory and charged him with committing the murder himself, which of course, would have been practically impossible. For that reason, he should have been acquitted. However, if he did hire someone to murder his wife, I won't shed any tears for him serving his final years in prison even if he was "wrongfully convicted" from a legal standpoint.

I kind of feel the same way with Glen Consagra, who may not have technically pulled the trigger to murder both his victims, but I believe he was involved in their deaths somehow and probably deserved his time in prison.

Dr. Branion is probably the most complex Final Appeal case for me because I've always had a gut feeling that he hired someone to kill his wife. However, the prosecution never presented this theory and charged him with committing the murder himself, which of course, would have been practically impossible. For that reason, he should have been acquitted. However, if he did hire someone to murder his wife, I won't shed any tears for him serving his final years in prison even if he was "wrongfully convicted" from a legal standpoint.

I kind of feel the same way with Glen Consagra, who may not have technically pulled the trigger to murder both his victims, but I believe he was involved in their deaths somehow and probably deserved his time in prison.

Interesting, as I always felt both cases were very similar in that regard. You just stated it better than I ever could. In both cases, Consagra and Branion may not have been technically guilty of what they convicted of, but they probably had a hand in the crimes and were guilty of "something".

Also, I would imagine both of the accused just said "I'm innocent" and there wasn't enough evidence to charge anyone else, so the DA had no choice but to charge them as though they pulled the triggers themselves. Perhaps the DA was hoping they would roll on their accomplices, but, for whatever reason, it didn't happen.

Dr. Branion is probably the most complex Final Appeal case for me because I've always had a gut feeling that he hired someone to kill his wife. However, the prosecution never presented this theory and charged him with committing the murder himself, which of course, would have been practically impossible. For that reason, he should have been acquitted. However, if he did hire someone to murder his wife, I won't shed any tears for him serving his final years in prison even if he was "wrongfully convicted" from a legal standpoint.

I kind of feel the same way with Glen Consagra, who may not have technically pulled the trigger to murder both his victims, but I believe he was involved in their deaths somehow and probably deserved his time in prison.

Well, I suppose it's possible that he hired someone to kill his wife, and I don't want to say that either of us are either right or wrong, because there's almost no chance that we'll ever really know, but I never got that vibe off of him, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, I'm always a bit leery about people being found guilty in cases that involve any kind of racial or otherwise personal bias that doesn't actually have anything to do with the case at hand.

Guess I should have elaborated as to why I felt the appellants were innocent/guilty so here goes:

Consagra - he plead guilty for one (basically letting the "real killers" get off) and never once fingered "the real killers" at his trial when he had the perfect opportunity. Consagra also was the only one who had a known beef with the victims, and was overheard threatening to kill them shortly before the murders. And before their bodies were found, Consagra made no attempt to reach out to the authorities. Why would an innocent man sit by and let his friends killers roam the streets?

Branion - I think he masterminded his wife's death. It's just too coincidental that on the day he decides to pick his son up from school (mentioned in the UM segment as "rare") he also has a lunch date with another woman around the time his wife gets murdered. Oh yeah, and he also fled the country shortly after her murder. The "sodium nitrate" test he requested was a ruse because he knew he could pass that (since he hired someone to kill his wife), but why wouldn't an innocent man submit to a polygraph? Not to mention Branion's wife was not sexually assaulted and nothing was missing from his residence...in other words this was a hit. One that was planned by Branion, IMO.

Race - I've discussed this in another thread, and I just think there are waaaay to many "misfortunate events" that happened on the night Race's wife died for his story to be true. UM also left out the fact that Race says when he swam back to his boat he passed out for five whole hours. Five plus hours passed before Race made any attempt to find his wife or seek help. Sound fishy to anyone else?

MacDonald - I was on the fence after watching the UM segment. But then I read "Fatal Vision" and watched a 48 Hours Mystery special and they completely changed my mind. This guy is a sociopath. He moved away and lived the life of a jet-setting playboy for 9 years after his wife and two young daughters were viciously slaughtered by "drug crazed hippies". That entire time he made absolutely no effort to reopen the case and have the "real killers" caught. Ironically the fact that he did nothing angered his stepfather to the point of suspecting that MacDonald was guilty, and his stepfather was the one who pushed to have the case reopened and that is when MacDonald's lies began to shine through (and ultimately got him convicted). If you google "Jeffrey MacDonald magical mystery tour" you'll see a whole lise of his lies.

Ferrell - this guy is just an idiot. He never once stated ANYTHING that would prove his innocence or even question his guilt in the UM segment. He would provide ridiculous answers to questions an innocent man would have logical answers for. Example: he was asked why blood was found in his trailer and he responded, "I don't know maybe someone who lived there before me cut themselves shaving."

Routier - same as MacDonald, I was on the fence until I researched more online and watched a 48 Hours Mystery special. Then there's the fact that no viable suspect other than Darlie has ever surfaced after all of these years, nor has there been anyone other than her who would have had motive to slaughter her two young boys. No intruder (who I'm assuming was there to sexually assault Darlie, at least that's what the theory for the "Darlie is innocent" crowd is using) is going to break into to someone's house, use their weapons, and then find two young boys sleeping on the floor and simply slaughter them. The fact that this "intruder" took the time to kill 2 young boys and attempt to kill their mother is just to risky for an outside assailant, IMO.

Heaton - I always thought he was innocent until new DNA tests were done in 2001 which narrowed down the DNA match and showed that Heaton was in fact the killer.

Montecalvo - I've always thought that Montecalvo was involved in the planning of his wife's death, and that he and his neighbor were working in tandem. Remember in the UM segment how the neighbor says, "I shot Dan" yet he swears that the person who shot him had a moustache? Doesn't that seem like a quid pro quo? Almost like the neighbor is saying there's no way Dan was involved, yet Dan's also saying that there's no way the neighbor was the one who shot him. That's always struck me as odd. There's always been some doubt about his guilt. For one he was shot, and the neighbor flat out says on UM that he wasn't involved. Unless of course they were working together I don't see why she would have any reason to lie.

Frederick Young - I always thought he was innocent, until researching his record while he was incarcerated. He's had repeated disciplinary violations (including masterbating in front of a female guard) and I think that speaks volumes about his character. Although he's got the ultimate defense: it very well COULD have been Cedric Young that was with Chris Ross. Ross himself said it was Cedric and I can't think of a viable reason as to why he would lie. I still tend to lead towards guilty however.

Cruz, Diaz, Stallings, Purvis, Wilson - these were pretty much all exhonerated and updated on UM. We all know they were all innocent.

McCue - the testimony from McCue's friends and Lulu (the woman he was charged with murdering) all agreed that it was impossible for McCue to have committed this crime in the small time frame. However, years later McCue was conning the elderly in a "driveway paving scheme" and he also plead guilty to sexual assault. That certainly would warrant some doubts about his innocence.

Zeigler - the story is too complicated one way or the other. My gut feeling is innocent, but the complex theory of his innocence is enough to cause doubt IMO.

Martin - the five eyewitnesses who placed him 70 miles away at the time the crime he was convicted for was committed. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Freshour - he simply had the least motive in writing the letters and I've always felt Freshour was set up as a "fall guy".

I'm always a bit leery about people being found guilty in cases that involve any kind of racial or otherwise personal bias that doesn't actually have anything to do with the case at hand.

This was a predominatly black area in which the crime was committed and where Branion lived. I don't see how race could have played a part at all in this case. I simply think the state knew before hand that they had a circumstantial case, and figured they could secure a conviction easier if they said he was the triggerman rather than the mastermind of a murder-for-hire.

Montecalvo - I've always thought that Montecalvo was involved in the planning of his wife's death, and that he and his neighbor were working in tandem. Remember in the UM segment how the neighbor says, "I shot Dan" yet he swears that the person who shot him had a moustache? Doesn't that seem like a quid pro quo? Almost like the neighbor is saying there's no way Dan was involved, yet Dan's also saying that there's no way the neighbor was the one who shot him. That's always struck me as odd. There's always been some doubt about his guilt. For one he was shot, and the neighbor flat out says on UM that he wasn't involved. Unless of course they were working together I don't see why she would have any reason to lie.

Another reason to suspect him was the witness (an old drinking buddy, IIRC) who testified that Montecalvo had asked him if he wanted to be involved in a scheme in which they heavily insure one of their wives, bump her off and make it look like an accident and then split the money. When the witness balked at the idea, Montecalvo claimed he was joking.

On UM, Montecalvo denies this convo ever took place and said the witness was a liar.

Frederick Young - I always thought he was innocent, until researching his record while he was incarcerated. He's had repeated disciplinary violations (including masterbating in front of a female guard) and I think that speaks volumes about his character. Although he's got the ultimate defense: it very well COULD have been Cedric Young that was with Chris Ross. Ross himself said it was Cedric and I can't think of a viable reason as to why he would lie. I still tend to lead towards guilty however.

I've seen his record as well, but in fairness to him, being wrongfully incarcerated for 68 years with no hope of ever getting out can make a person do crazy and twisted things, especially when they've got nothing left to lose, so I've never let his disturbing behavior have much bearing on whether he or not he is guilty.

Personally, I think this is the one Final Appeal case where even if the subject was guilty, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to let him out now since 20 years seems like a reasonable enough sentence for an armed robbery where no one got hurt or killed. If Race, Consagra and Ferrell can get released, I don't see why Frederick should stay locked up for the rest of his life.

Guess I should have elaborated as to why I felt the appellants were innocent/guilty so here goes:

Consagra - he plead guilty for one (basically letting the "real killers" get off) and never once fingered "the real killers" at his trial when he had the perfect opportunity. Consagra also was the only one who had a known beef with the victims, and was overheard threatening to kill them shortly before the murders. And before their bodies were found, Consagra made no attempt to reach out to the authorities. Why would an innocent man sit by and let his friends killers roam the streets?

Branion - I think he masterminded his wife's death. It's just too coincidental that on the day he decides to pick his son up from school (mentioned in the UM segment as "rare") he also has a lunch date with another woman around the time his wife gets murdered. Oh yeah, and he also fled the country shortly after her murder. The "sodium nitrate" test he requested was a ruse because he knew he could pass that (since he hired someone to kill his wife), but why wouldn't an innocent man submit to a polygraph? Not to mention Branion's wife was not sexually assaulted and nothing was missing from his residence...in other words this was a hit. One that was planned by Branion, IMO.

Race - I've discussed this in another thread, and I just think there are waaaay to many "misfortunate events" that happened on the night Race's wife died for his story to be true. UM also left out the fact that Race says when he swam back to his boat he passed out for five whole hours. Five plus hours passed before Race made any attempt to find his wife or seek help. Sound fishy to anyone else?

MacDonald - I was on the fence after watching the UM segment. But then I read "Fatal Vision" and watched a 48 Hours Mystery special and they completely changed my mind. This guy is a sociopath. He moved away and lived the life of a jet-setting playboy for 9 years after his wife and two young daughters were viciously slaughtered by "drug crazed hippies". That entire time he made absolutely no effort to reopen the case and have the "real killers" caught. Ironically the fact that he did nothing angered his stepfather to the point of suspecting that MacDonald was guilty, and his stepfather was the one who pushed to have the case reopened and that is when MacDonald's lies began to shine through (and ultimately got him convicted). If you google "Jeffrey MacDonald magical mystery tour" you'll see a whole lise of his lies.

Ferrell - this guy is just an idiot. He never once stated ANYTHING that would prove his innocence or even question his guilt in the UM segment. He would provide ridiculous answers to questions an innocent man would have logical answers for. Example: he was asked why blood was found in his trailer and he responded, "I don't know maybe someone who lived there before me cut themselves shaving."

Routier - same as MacDonald, I was on the fence until I researched more online and watched a 48 Hours Mystery special. Then there's the fact that no viable suspect other than Darlie has ever surfaced after all of these years, nor has there been anyone other than her who would have had motive to slaughter her two young boys. No intruder (who I'm assuming was there to sexually assault Darlie, at least that's what the theory for the "Darlie is innocent" crowd is using) is going to break into to someone's house, use their weapons, and then find two young boys sleeping on the floor and simply slaughter them. The fact that this "intruder" took the time to kill 2 young boys and attempt to kill their mother is just to risky for an outside assailant, IMO.

Heaton - I always thought he was innocent until new DNA tests were done in 2001 which narrowed down the DNA match and showed that Heaton was in fact the killer.

Montecalvo - I've always thought that Montecalvo was involved in the planning of his wife's death, and that he and his neighbor were working in tandem. Remember in the UM segment how the neighbor says, "I shot Dan" yet he swears that the person who shot him had a moustache? Doesn't that seem like a quid pro quo? Almost like the neighbor is saying there's no way Dan was involved, yet Dan's also saying that there's no way the neighbor was the one who shot him. That's always struck me as odd. There's always been some doubt about his guilt. For one he was shot, and the neighbor flat out says on UM that he wasn't involved. Unless of course they were working together I don't see why she would have any reason to lie.

Frederick Young - I always thought he was innocent, until researching his record while he was incarcerated. He's had repeated disciplinary violations (including masterbating in front of a female guard) and I think that speaks volumes about his character. Although he's got the ultimate defense: it very well COULD have been Cedric Young that was with Chris Ross. Ross himself said it was Cedric and I can't think of a viable reason as to why he would lie. I still tend to lead towards guilty however.

Cruz, Diaz, Stallings, Purvis, Wilson - these were pretty much all exhonerated and updated on UM. We all know they were all innocent.

McCue - the testimony from McCue's friends and Lulu (the woman he was charged with murdering) all agreed that it was impossible for McCue to have committed this crime in the small time frame. However, years later McCue was conning the elderly in a "driveway paving scheme" and he also plead guilty to sexual assault. That certainly would warrant some doubts about his innocence.

Zeigler - the story is too complicated one way or the other. My gut feeling is innocent, but the complex theory of his innocence is enough to cause doubt IMO.

Martin - the five eyewitnesses who placed him 70 miles away at the time the crime he was convicted for was committed. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Freshour - he simply had the least motive in writing the letters and I've always felt Freshour was set up as a "fall guy".

We obviously have varying opinions that we will no doubt stick to no matter what, which we're entitled to do, but I wanted to mention one other slight detail about the Branion case.

I don't think there is anything suspicious about the lunch date. It was mentioned in the segment that the woman was Branion's wife's sister or cousin (I don't remember which), so for that reason and also because of Shirley, an affair would seem unlikely, and I think that the purpose of the lunch date could have been that Branion may have been seeking the sister/cousin's help in planning a nice Christmas surprise for his wife, which would make sense since this took place just a few days before Christmas. Just specualtion on my part.

Jeffrey MacDonald-guilty

Paul Freshour-innocent.i think he was set up by his ex wife and ex SIL.

Stuart heaten-new dna techniques proved him guilty.

darlie-guilty

JMO.

Personally, I think this is the one Final Appeal case where even if the subject was guilty, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to let him out now since 20 years seems like a reasonable enough sentence for an armed robbery where no one got hurt or killed. If Race, Consagra and Ferrell can get released, I don't see why Frederick should stay locked up for the rest of his life.

Yes, I think Fred should have been released a long time ago. No one in the robbery was hurt, and the mere fact that he had an identical twin (one of whom their own mother had trouble distinguishing) should have been enough "resonable doubt" to at least question Chris Ross and/or Cedric.

I don't think there is anything suspicious about the lunch date. It was mentioned in the segment that the woman was Branion's wife's sister or cousin (I don't remember which), so for that reason and also because of Shirley, an affair would seem unlikely, and I think that the purpose of the lunch date could have been that Branion may have been seeking the sister/cousin's help in planning a nice Christmas surprise for his wife, which would make sense since this took place just a few days before Christmas. Just specualtion on my part.

I don't think this was Branion's attempt at an affair, because Branion himself admitted to having an adulterous affair that had been going on for years prior to his wife's death (according to Branion, his wife knew about it the entire time). I think the purpose of this lunch date was so Branion could establish an alibi. He would also have a corroborating witness to confirm that alibi. But if you remember, the UM segment says that his lunch date cancelled at the last minute. I believe Branion then figured the next best thing would be to go pick up his son from school (again to establish an alibi). I remember the school officials thought it was odd not only that Branion was picking up his son, but he was also picked up earlier than usual. IMHO, Branion was simply biding his time before he went home to "discover" his dead wife.

Yes, I think Fred should have been released a long time ago. No one in the robbery was hurt, and the mere fact that he had an identical twin (one of whom their own mother had trouble distinguishing) should have been enough "resonable doubt" to at least question Chris Ross and/or Cedric.



I don't think this was Branion's attempt at an affair, because Branion himself admitted to having an adulterous affair that had been going on for years prior to his wife's death (according to Branion, his wife knew about it the entire time). I think the purpose of this lunch date was so Branion could establish an alibi. He would also have a corroborating witness to confirm that alibi. But if you remember, the UM segment says that his lunch date cancelled at the last minute. I believe Branion then figured the next best thing would be to go pick up his son from school (again to establish an alibi). I remember the school officials thought it was odd not only that Branion was picking up his son, but he was also picked up earlier than usual. IMHO, Branion was simply biding his time before he went home to "discover" his dead wife.

Well, I guess we'll never know. To me he just doesn't seem like a murderer, but I'm no genius or psychic, so I could very well be wrong.

Guilty without question (IMO):

-Glen Consagra
-Dr. John Branion
-Larry Race
-Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald
-Paul Ferrell
-Darlie Routier
-Stuart Heaton

Guilty with some doubts:

-Dan Montecalvo
-Frederick Young

Innocent with some doubts:

-Rick McCue
-Tommy Zeigler

Innocent without question:

-Paul Freshour
-Michael Lloyd Self
-Rolando Cruz
-Luis Diaz
-John Purvis
-Johnny Lee Wilson
-Michael Scott Martin
-Patricia Stallings

Almost 50/50

How about Steve Shores? Have you seen that one? Or Tony Miller? I say "innocent with some doubts" on Shores and "innocent without question" on Miller.

Personally, I think Michael Scott Martin should be moved to at least "innocent with some doubts" based on Wheatley's testimony and every single one of his alibi witnesses failing the polygraph.

We'll probably disagree but I would recommend Thomas Drake as "guilty with some doubts". Just keep him off the "innocent without question" list and all will be well. :)

How about Steve Shores? Have you seen that one? Or Tony Miller? I say "innocent with some doubts" on Shores and "innocent without question" on Miller.

Personally, I think Michael Scott Martin should be moved to at least "innocent with some doubts" based on Wheatley's testimony and every single one of his alibi witnesses failing the polygraph.

We'll probably disagree but I would recommend Thomas Drake as "guilty with some doubts". Just keep him off the "innocent without question" list and all will be well. :)

Steve Shores and Tony Miller were both innocent without question, IMHO. As for Drake, I'd put him on the innocent with some doubts list. And the testimony about Martin's five witnesses who failed polygraph tests was never brought up in the UM segment...and he himself flat out says he isn't sure about the case anymore because of the five witnesses who were so sure that they placed Martin 70 miles away at the time the crime was being committed. And I think Martin certainly would have gotten out a lot sooner if he had admitted guilt (it was a robbery for $400), but the fact that he staunchly maintains his innocence to this day is very telling, IMO.

Steve Shores and Tony Miller were both innocent without question, IMHO. As for Drake, I'd put him on the innocent with some doubts list. And the testimony about Martin's five witnesses who failed polygraph tests was never brought up in the UM segment...and he himself flat out says he isn't sure about the case anymore because of the five witnesses who were so sure that they placed Martin 70 miles away at the time the crime was being committed. And I think Martin certainly would have gotten out a lot sooner if he had admitted guilt (it was a robbery for $400), but the fact that he staunchly maintains his innocence to this day is very telling, IMO.

Steve Shores I wasn't entirely sure about. I find it awfully convenient that he "came clean" when he did - post conviction. It's like the prosecutor in the segment said: Shores stuck with the story about the dental problems keeping him home until after he was convicted. Then he suddenly changes his story to say he was present when the crime was committed, but he was a witness. It just doesn't seem "right" to me. I'd love to know what new evidence eventually got him exonerated. I'd also like to know if Shores was affiliated with the El Rukns before the Hestor murder. I got the vibe from the witness testimony that Shores may have been a gang member himself. Those witnesses could have been the real killers though. I don't know. Just some issues that need clarification before I can say "innocent without question".

Here's the article on the MSM witnesses failing polygraphs, as quoted by Brad Lollar. First post in the thread I started back in 2007 (I can't believe it's been so long)

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=201760&highlight=michael+scott+martin

Also, I forgot to mention the car issue. That fact, coupled with Wheatley's testimony is hard to ignore.

Martin not admitting guilt over the years, to me, is a non-issue. If he was, in fact, innocent, I can't imagine that he would plead "guilty" just because it might mean less time. So, he goes to trial, gets convicted and sent to prison for 20 years. While he's filing appeals, it's probably a good idea to maintain innocence or at least not comment on the case. Then he gets paroled. I guess he could come clean today and it wouldn't matter, but why? Since he's been telling everyone who will listen that he's an innocent man, he would look terrible in the eyes of his family, friends and supporters if he just up and admitted he was a liar all those years. There really is no reason for him to ever admit guilt, IMO. For what it's worth Paul Ferrell and Glen Consagra never admitted their guilt either, even after they were released and could have come clean.

If you want to say he's "innocent with some question", I could probably live with that. But I don't think it's a great idea to ignore these issues.

Since Tony Miller has been mentioned, I thought you all might like to see this mugshot I came across of him from 2001.
http://www.bustedmugshots.com/ohio/toledo/morgan-anthony-miller/25078681

Not to worry, his only offense was driving without a license and I believe he just paid a fine.

Steve Shores I wasn't entirely sure about. I find it awfully convenient that he "came clean" when he did - post conviction. It's like the prosecutor in the segment said: Shores stuck with the story about the dental problems keeping him home until after he was convicted. Then he suddenly changes his story to say he was present when the crime was committed, but he was a witness. It just doesn't seem "right" to me. I'd love to know what new evidence eventually got him exonerated. I'd also like to know if Shores was affiliated with the El Rukns before the Hestor murder. I got the vibe from the witness testimony that Shores may have been a gang member himself. Those witnesses could have been the real killers though. I don't know. Just some issues that need clarification before I can say "innocent without question".

IIRC, one of the witnesses who testified at Shores' trial (saying that she saw him shoot Hester) recanted her testimony and actually said that the El Ruk'n gang members who were present were the ones responsible. She claimed she lied out of fear. Shores "coming clean" after being convicted simply could have been because, like he said, he was legitimately scared for his family. Didn't his sister get murdered shortly after the trial?

Also, I forgot to mention the car issue. That fact, coupled with Wheatley's testimony is hard to ignore.

Martin not admitting guilt over the years, to me, is a non-issue. If he was, in fact, innocent, I can't imagine that he would plead "guilty" just because it might mean less time. So, he goes to trial, gets convicted and sent to prison for 20 years. While he's filing appeals, it's probably a good idea to maintain innocence or at least not comment on the case. Then he gets paroled. I guess he could come clean today and it wouldn't matter, but why? Since he's been telling everyone who will listen that he's an innocent man, he would look terrible in the eyes of his family, friends and supporters if he just up and admitted he was a liar all those years. There really is no reason for him to ever admit guilt, IMO. For what it's worth Paul Ferrell and Glen Consagra never admitted their guilt either, even after they were released and could have come clean.

If you want to say he's "innocent with some question", I could probably live with that. But I don't think it's a great idea to ignore these issues.

Wheatley is hardly impartial in this case. He was the one who actually requested this case. Which for one is odd, since he previously was the arresting officer for Martin's previous offense. As for the five eyewitnesses failing polygraphs, I still don't see why Lollar didn't bring that up in his interview. He specifically stated he wasn't so sure anymore because "Doyle" was sure he was robbed by Martin, while the 5 witnesses were sure he was 70 miles away at the time of the robbery. Also, the UM segment was filmed years after the actual robbery took place and of the 5 eyewitnesses, only two of them knew Martin personally. Why would the other 3 (presumably neighbors of Martin's two friends) continue to lie for him even after he was convicted? This was close to ten years after the fact, why continue to lie? Couldn't they simply say, "I don't want to discuss that case" if they were in fact lying?

As for the car issue, remember the case of Niqui McCown? Her car was found abandoned at her ex-boyfriend's apartment complex and he instantly became a suspect. Turns out it was a remarkable coincidence. I think that's the same thing that happened with this case.

Tommy Ziegler-Probably innocent. Some of the evidence not mentioned on UM is intriguing.

Jeffrey MacDonald-Innocent, though I can understand why some would think he's guilty.

Larry Race-Innocent. Not even a question. I mean, seriously, what. Even if he did let his wife drown, that's not so much murder as it is being an *******.

Darlie Routier-Extremely mixed feelings on this one. The evidence and holes in her story makes since that she would've did it, but part of me thinks it's definitely possible that she wasn't responsible. Also, the photo of her in the hospital doesn't look like she had "minor" injuries. I'll have to rewatch this segment and look into it, i'll get back to yall later.

Glenn Consagra-When I saw it, I thought innocent. Need to rewatch this one.

Frederick Young-Definitely innocent, no question. Is he out yet?

Dan Montecalvo-The whole "murder-for-money" thing makes sense, but the whole being shot in the back thing gives me doubt.

Michael Scott Martin-Probably innocent. Why would you drive that far just to rob a gas station? Also, the witnesses help too.

Thomas Drake-In need of a rewatch as well.

Guilty without question (IMO):

-Glen Consagra
-Dr. John Branion
-Larry Race
-Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald
-Paul Ferrell
-Darlie Routier
-Stuart Heaton

Guilty with some doubts:

-Dan Montecalvo
-Frederick Young

Innocent with some doubts:

-Rick McCue
-Tommy Zeigler

Innocent without question:

-Paul Freshour
-Michael Lloyd Self
-Rolando Cruz
-Luis Diaz
-John Purvis
-Johnny Lee Wilson
-Michael Scott Martin
-Patricia Stallings

Almost 50/50

Wow, this is from 4 years ago, and my mind has changed considerably on these. I now believe, aside from the obvious exoneree's (Stallings, Diaz, Cruz, Purvis, Wilson), that only Paul Freshour, Rick McCue, and Michael Scott Martin were/are innocent. All of the others profiled on UM, save for Frederick Young who I'm 50/50 on and Steve Shores who I'm 75/25 on, are guilty as sin.

Cars, I'm on board with you for most of these too.
I tend to think Fred is guilty and tried to use the twin defense - I could see there being a technical loophole where you could say it was ONE of them, but you couldn't prove which one, but he's not innocent.

Rick McCue - I think he's more guilty than innocent.

Larry Race and Glen Consagra - guilty guilty guilty.

Final appellants I strongly feel are guilty:

-Jeffrey MacDonald
-Darlie Routier
-Stuart Heaton
-Glen Consagra
-Tommy Zeigler

Guilty with some doubts:

-Paul Ferrell
-Steve Shores
-Rick McCue

Innocent with some doubts:

-Dan Montecalvo
-John Branion
-Larry Race
-Frederick Young

Strongly feel are innocent:

-Paul Freshour
-Michael Lloyd Self
-Rolando Cruz
-Luis Diaz
-John Purvis
-Johnny Lee Wilson
-Michael Scott Martin

Appellants I know are innocent:

-Patricia Stallings

Guilty with some doubts:

-Steve Shores
-Rick McCue

Curious why you feel these 2 are guilty.

Curious why you feel these 2 are guilty.

Shores: the Alford plea.

McCue: later events that reflect a propensity toward sexually violent behavior.

Again, there is a degree of doubt accompanying each of those.

ETA: I should elaborate on Shores. I'm not sure the prosecution ever had enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, so I'm at a loss as to what other compelling reason he would have had to enter such a plea if he were in fact innocent. CRicci would probably know.

Shores: the Alford plea.

ETA: I should elaborate on Shores. I'm not sure the prosecution ever had enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, so I'm at a loss as to what other compelling reason he would have had to enter such a plea if he were in fact innocent. CRicci would probably know.

For what it is worth, I was always bothered by the timing of Shores' decision to supposedly come clean. Didn't he maintain until his conviction that he was at home recovering from dental surgery at the time of the murder? Then, after the judge found him guilty he changed his story to say he was just a witness and that Bo and Blood framed him?

Yeah, yeah, I know he claims the El Rukns were gunning for him.

Still, the other side of the argument could be that he was guilty, stuck to the at home recovering story like glue until that failed, and then changed up his tactics AFTER he got convicted an realized no one bought his original claims.

That just always seemed super suspicious to me.

Regarding the Alford plea, I thought they offered him a sweet deal like "time served" or something where he was released from prison. I thought that was the only way he would get released so he took it. Of course, it has been a few years since I watched and dissected this one.

Here's my two cents...

Johnny Lee Wilson, Luis Diaz, John Purvis, Patricia Stallings, Tony Miller and Rolando Cruz were all officially exonerated, so I think they’re definitely innocent.

Innocent: Tommy Zeigler, Michael Scott Martin, Frederick Young, Rick McCue (he’s a scumbag, but I don’t think he’s a murderer). I’d place Paul Freshour in this category as well, though his story wasn’t technically a Final Appeal segment.

50/50: John Branion is the most complex to me, as I don’t think he committed the murder himself, but I have a feeling he hired someone to kill his wife. Larry Race I’ve gone-and-back forth on. I lean towards guilty, but I really don’t think you could ever convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. I only saw the Thomas Drake segment once several years ago, but I could either way on that one.

Never actually seen the Michael Lloyd Self or Steve Shores segments, so I don’t have fully formed opinions on those.

Guilty: Stuart Heaton, Darlie Routier, Jeffrey MacDonald, Dan Montecalvo, Paul Ferrell, Glen Consagra (though I’m not sure he acted alone)

For what it is worth, I was always bothered by the timing of Shores' decision to supposedly come clean. Didn't he maintain until his conviction that he was at home recovering from dental surgery at the time of the murder? Then, after the judge found him guilty he changed his story to say he was just a witness and that Bo and Blood framed him?

I believe he said he did have dental surgery that day, and then during the trial told his attorney that he and another friend were riding bikes around the area and witnessed the murders. This friend testified at a post-conviction hearing and his account matched what Shores had told his attorney, although the friend says he didn't recognize the man that shot Garrison Hester. The friend also testified, under oath, that he didn't come forward with this information after Shores' arrest because he was scared of retaliation from the El Rukn gang. Plus, there was a witness sitting in a car who testified that the man who shot Garrison Hester had a darker complexion than the witness's girlfriend. Shores was considered "medium to light complexion". This witness could not pick Shores out of a lineup. This witness also testified that he had never seen Steve Shores before in his life prior to the trial.

Yeah, yeah, I know he claims the El Rukns were gunning for him.

They threatened Shores at a lounge the day after Hester's murder, and also 2 of his sisters both testified to being threatened by the gang.

Still, the other side of the argument could be that he was guilty, stuck to the at home recovering story like glue until that failed, and then changed up his tactics AFTER he got convicted an realized no one bought his original claims.

That just always seemed super suspicious to me.

What's always been suspicious to me is the weight of testimony placed on two "former" gang members as opposed to a man who had 2 jobs and no criminal record at that time. Plus Shores initially told the cops that, although he claims he was recovering from surgery the whole day and night, he suspected "Bo" was the murderer. When the police questioned "Bo" and "Blood", and also the female witness (questioning lasted over 2 days total), this is when all of a sudden the implication of Shores came out. Seems awful fishy to me that none of these witnesses came forward to implicate Shores until they found out that Shores was blaming "Bo".