A simple solution to the Michael Scott Martin case?

[wiseguy182]

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

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

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

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

[SP4CE INV4DERZ]

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

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

[DarkDante]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeez!

[justins5256]

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

[kadrmas15]

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

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

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

[SP4CE INV4DERZ]

Originally Posted by DarkDante

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

Jeez!

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

Originally Posted by kadrmas15

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

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

[DarkDante]

Space Invaderz:

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SP4CE INV4DERZ]

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

[Awsi Dooger]

Originally Posted by DarkDante

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

I thought I was the gambler around here

[wiseguy182]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SP4CE INV4DERZ]

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

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

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

[wiseguy182]

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

[DarkDante]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by DarkDante

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

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

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

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

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

[wiseguy182]

Originally Posted by DarkDante

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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