Michael Scott Martin - guilty?

[justins5256]

Thought this was interesting and wonder why it wasn't mentioned on UM. It certainly would tip the scale if it turned out his witnesses were all liars.

Paper: The Dallas Morning News
Title: DALLAS COUNTY CASE TO BE FEATURED ON TV PROGRAM
Date: November 3, 1987
Section: NEWS
Page: 18a

NEWS BRIEFS The NBC television program Unsolved Mysteries is planning
a feature on a Dallas County man sentenced to life imprisonment in 1979
after his conviction for aggravated robbery. Michael Scott Martin, 34,
whose mother lives in Carrollton, was convicted of robbing a Garland
service station attendant. Martin had five witnesses who testified he
was elsewhere at the time, although attorney Brad Lollar, who
prosecuted the case, said all the witnesses failed polygraph tests.
Jan Lonsdale, field producer for the program, said the show selected
the Martin case because both sides were so adamant about their
positions. The segment will likely be aired early next year, Ms.
Lonsdale said.

Section: NEWS
Page: 18a
Column: METRO REPORT

Copyright 1987 The Dallas Morning News Company

[SP4CE INV4DERZ]

This is no surprise to me. You're kidding if you believe 5 of Martin's mates over the guy who got the gun shoved in his face and Martin's parole officer. <--this not aimed at JS

[DarkDante]

I still say the guy is innocent as hell. I've gone back and forth on others (like Glenn Consagra for instance) but I still feel that Michael Scott Martin is innocent.

The polygraph information is interesting although as I recall the segment mentioned that several of the witnesses barely knew Michael Martin as he had just moved to that neck of the woods I think a month before he was arrested.

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by Space Invaderz

<--this not aimed at JS

LOL.

I'll admit I'm on the fence about this one. I do find it interesting that the jury took only twelve minutes to convict despite the fact that Martin's defense put on five alibi witnesses. I can't help but think that there must have been some serious credibility issues with Martin's alibi witnesses for the jury to disregard their testimony in this manner.

On the other hand, what was his motive? Was he really that hard up for money and temporary use of a vehicle?

[DarkDante]

One thing that has always bothered me about this case is Michael Martin does not seem like a criminal to me. Now at first a statement like that might seem a bit laughable but I believe what we have here is a guy who got drunk with a friend one night and raised a little hell at a grocery store. I can think of several people I know in real life who due to consumption of alcohol have done stupid things and they certainly aren't criminals.

I've also discussed previously about how the employees of the supermarket that Martin was in on the night of his original offense might have exacerbated the situation but the point I want to make here is I have trouble making the connection between a drunken guy creating a ruckus at a grocery store and a criminal holding up a gas station.

I'm not saying it isn't possible but as JS said what was Martin's motive for holding up the gas station. For me it doesn't fit his pattern of behavior, the guy as far as we know had a clean record prior to the grocery store incident and also was placed on probation after that incident knowing that if he got into trouble again, the consequences would be severe.

Now for most people the threat of jail time would be enough of a deterrent to keep us on the straight and narrow for awhile which confuses the hell out of me as to why almost immediatley after being put on probation would Martin commit an offense that was basically a hundred times worse than the offense he was put on probation for?

I mean he certainly knew what he was looking at if he had gotten caught so for me I can't fathom why Martin would roll the dice so to speak and rob a gas station while on probation. He is either one of the stupidest people walking this earth or as I believe was not involved at all in the gas station robbery.

[wiseguy182]

One of my favorite cases, and some of my longer posts have been about this segment. (which will include this post.)

Some of what I write below has already been mentioned, by myself or others, and some of the stuff is new. However, I feel all of it is important.

First, I strongly believe that Michael did not go into the grocery store with the INTENT of causing any crimes. He was drunk and I will admit that he did not react appropriately at all. However, as a former grocery store employee/supervisor I can tell you that that particular store did some very questionable things (giving chase, not allowing Michael to pay for the goods)

Second: I am in no way trying to knock Doyle, the gas station attendant. He went through a very truamatic experience that would no doubt have a huge impact on anyone. However, there are a number of things that make me doubt his credibility as a witness. First, when he picks out Michael from the stack of photographs, he puts Michael's picture down VERY SLOWLY. This indicates to me uncertainly. Furthermore, Doyle says...

"I THINK this is the guy.
Police officer: "you think that's the guy, or are you sure that's the guy."
Doyle: "I'M SURE that's the guy."

This is questionable. Doyle transitions from uncertainity to absolute certainity in a matter of seconds.

I have had to pick out somebody from a stack of photographs before. I don't want to say that the police officer put pressure on me to pick somebody out of the group of photos, but I got the impression that the guilty party was in the group. I was disappointed in myself because I was not able to pick out the person in the group. Perhaps that is what Doyle went through. He might have gotten the impression that the person was for sure in the stack, and might have felt stressed to pick somebody out.

Additionally, the UM segment hints that the robber was not masked. Robbers that are not masked will usually tell the victim(s) not to look at them or they will shoot. So we are probably not talking about a very long time span that Doyle got a look at the robber (I would say a couple seconds tops) Furthermore, I know people who have went through incidents that are similar to this in a lot of ways. One of those people could not look at the criminals face whenever the act was portrayed on television. They were too frightened, which is understandable. This could have happened in this case. Doyle could have feared for his life if he tried to get more than a glimpse of the robber.

Michael's five witnesses appear to have some credibility issues as well. However, these 5 people have gained nothing out of this, as Michael spent the next 20 years in jail following the robbery. Furthermore, the 3 that were interviewed in the segment were not the ticked off or grieving friends or family members that you see in most segments. They had a mostly laid back approach, and that is because they really have no affiliation to Michael, and would have absolutely nothing to gain, and have not gained, from coming forward. I think the only reason they did come forward was because they felt someone was getting wrongfully accused.

The article in the first post in this thread mentioned all 5 witness failing polygraphs. Another article I read, I believe on this forum, said 3 of the witnesses failed polygraphs, so there might be a discrepancy there. There have been some shady prosecutors on UM before (the Larry Race case comes to mind), so I wouldn't be completely suprised if the prosecutor here is trying to swerve the odds in his favor.

Michael was 26 when the grocery store incident, and subsequently robbery took place. I would imagine that most criminals would have started their life of crime much earlier in that. These are troubled youths who unfortunately never get on the right path.

I am unsure if most robbers, etc. commit their crimes in places they reside or if they travel long distances. They would be gambling if they did it near their residence as the odds of being identified go up highly in this case. Michael had just moved out of the area a month prior, so he was probably aware that he stood a good chance of being identified if this happened. (since his photograph was on file from the grocery store incident.)

I am not 100% postive that Michael is innocent. However, I just wanted to post the above as i think there is a good chance he is not guilty.

[microeconomia]

This case was originally aired on February 5, 1988 "Special #5". The episode also featured the cases of Kurt McFall , and the "dynamic duo" Missy Munday and Jerry Strickland.I have always remembered that Dottie Caylor's case was also featured in this episode, but it was featured during "Special #4" originally aired on November 29, 1987. As for Michael, I have always leaned towards his innocence, but I am not 100% sure. In any case, Is it true that he spent 20 years in prison (1979-1999)?

[wiseguy182]

Originally Posted by microeconomia

In any case, Is it true that he spent 20 years in prison (1979-1999)?

yup.

[SP4CE INV4DERZ]

Originally Posted by DarkDante

One thing that has always bothered me about this case is Michael Martin does not seem like a criminal to me. Now at first a statement like that might seem a bit laughable but I believe what we have here is a guy who got drunk with a friend one night and raised a little hell at a grocery store. I can think of several people I know in real life who due to consumption of alcohol have done stupid things and they certainly aren't criminals.

You call sticking knifes and guns at people just a "little hell"?

Originally Posted by DarkDante

I mean he certainly knew what he was looking at if he had gotten caught so for me I can't fathom why Martin would roll the dice so to speak and rob a gas station while on probation. He is either one of the stupidest people walking this earth or as I believe was not involved at all in the gas station robbery.

Do you think Martin comes across as anything other than stupid when interviewed?

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

First, I strongly believe that Michael did not go into the grocery store with the INTENT of causing any crimes. He was drunk and I will admit that he did not react appropriately at all. However, as a former grocery store employee/supervisor I can tell you that that particular store did some very questionable things (giving chase, not allowing Michael to pay for the goods)

It's not real clear from the re-enactment exactly what took place here. As best we know for sure is that Martin got outrageously angry when he refused to pay for the items, not that they didn't allow him to do so. And the store may have had a policy that food consumed without payment will be dealt with by the police. We just don't know for sure.

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

Second: I am in no way trying to knock Doyle, the gas station attendant. He went through a very truamatic experience that would no doubt have a huge impact on anyone. However, there are a number of things that make me doubt his credibility as a witness. First, when he picks out Michael from the stack of photographs, he puts Michael's picture down VERY SLOWLY. This indicates to me uncertainly. Furthermore, Doyle says...

"I THINK this is the guy.
Police officer: "you think that's the guy, or are you sure that's the guy."
Doyle: "I'M SURE that's the guy."

This is questionable. Doyle transitions from uncertainity to absolute certainity in a matter of seconds.

That's how it goes it the re-enactment... however when Doyle is interviewed and on camera he clearly states that "there's no doubt in my mind then and now that the got the right person".

[DarkDante]

Space Invaderz:

Response to your 1st comment: I've seen people do worse in my own life when they are drunk. I'm not excusing their behavior or Martin's but just in my own experience, I've seen worse. Very little shocks me.

Response to your 2nd comment: I'll admit Martin doesn't come off as a Rhodes scholar by any means but I don't want to judge the guy just by the way he comes off on the UM segment. I'm in no way saying you are doing this but Tom Petty once said that a lot of people tend to judge people from the southern United States who have that classic southern drawl as being dumb due to the manner in which they speak and thats wholly inaccurate. I just think in general judging the scope of Martin's intellect is hard to do just from that segment.

[wiseguy182]

Originally Posted by Space Invaderz

It's not real clear from the re-enactment exactly what took place here. As best we know for sure is that Martin got outrageously angry when he refused to pay for the items, not that they didn't allow him to do so. And the store may have had a policy that food consumed without payment will be dealt with by the police. We just don't know for sure.

It is extremely common in Texas (which is where this took place) for people to eat food in the store and then pay for it when they check-out. My cousin was a department supervisor for a grocery store in Texas and she said people would make and eat entire sandwiches in the store (she told me this in 1994 and I remember it so well because I laughed hysterically because you can't really do that in Michigan, but I guess it's common down there.)

I currently work for a hotel and it is also common for people to take things out of our little "honors bar" I guess you could call it, when I'm away from the desk, and then leave me notes saying to charge it to their room. And that's perfectly fine as well.

Michael hadn't left the store yet when the manager approached him about the situation, so Michael actually hadn't committed any crimes up to that point. Michael says that he pays for everything and is seen handing a wad of cash to the cashier, so to me it's clear that he had intent to pay the full amount. This still displeases the manager for whatever reason, and he states that he's going to call the police. Michael's feeling wrongfully accused, and IMO rightfully so. Michael acted inappropriately by drawing the knife, and then shooting the gun in the air (although I have to admit I got a couple laughs out of Michael saying "you want some of this, you want some of this" and the baggers going after him with brooms.) Now if Michael had pocketed those items, that would be stealing. But eating something in a grocery store in Texas isn't my definition of stealing.

I really don't blame Michael for being angry though. I would have been angry as well.

Furthermore, we see Michael at the check-out stand, obviously paying for at least some of the items. I don't know why somebody would pay for most of their groceries, and then leave a few out. A bag of chips and a bratwurst didn't amount to more than a few dollars back then, so it seems unlikly to me that Michael would have stolen these things.

Interestingly, had this incident not took place, and in really in all actuality it shouldn't have, Michael would not have been in the stack of photographs to begin with. This is interesting: I do know police officers sometimes put people that they figure they know didn't do it in the stack/line-up to judge the credibility of witnesses. I refer to these as "outliers". I think Michael was an outlier, but somehow got picked. He was in a stack of photographs of people suspected of armed robbery, yet he had never committed an armed robbery before. Interestingly, the police officer knows this, yet seems to agree with Doyle. (I'm not trying to bring either one of them down). Doyle says that "you don't forget the face of somebody that did that to you." and I understand where he's coming from, but as I stated above he probably didn't get a very long look at the robber, so it's very easy to make an unintentional mistake. Somebody robbed this gas station and they should have to answer to it, but I have doubts that Michael did it.

It appears I'm pretty passionate about this one, judging by the lengths of my posts on this case.

[DarkDante]

Off Topic but still kinda funny/ironic: During the original NBC broadcast of the Michael Martin segment, immediatley after this segment concludes there is a commercial for milk in which a girl tries to gain the attention/affections of a guy who is showing her no interest. The commercial progresses on as we see the girl age into a beautiful woman (due to drinking milk every day) and she eventually shuns the guy who paid her no attention when she was younger. (If you grew up in the 80s you probably remember ads like this for milk)

The ironic twist is the boy in this segment is named Michael Martin.

[SP4CE INV4DERZ]

I guess I'll leave it at that since I've already discussed this at greater lengths here before. I'll agree that this is one of the better UM and Final Appeal cases. Nice chatting guys

[justins5256]

Some time ago, I showed the Glen Consagra segment to a friend. My friend thought Consagra was guilty, largely because of Consagra's demeanor during the interview. In my opinion, Consagra does come off rather cold and the only time that he does seem to really get fired up is when he mentions his buddy who got off scott free but I digress...

I don't think we can or should judge Martin's intellect or lack thereof based on the interview. We have to keep in mind that we are only seeing select portions of a much longer interview that UM taped. It isn't fair to judge the man solely on these brief snippets that we see. Some otherwise personable people just don't present well if you thrust a camera in their face.

[wiseguy182]

Originally Posted by DarkDante

Off Topic but still kinda funny/ironic: During the original NBC broadcast of the Michael Martin segment, immediatley after this segment concludes there is a commercial for milk in which a girl tries to gain the attention/affections of a guy who is showing her no interest. The commercial progresses on as we see the girl age into a beautiful woman (due to drinking milk every day) and she eventually shuns the guy who paid her no attention when she was younger. (If you grew up in the 80s you probably remember ads like this for milk)

The ironic twist is the boy in this segment is named Michael Martin.

I don't remember that particular one. The one I remember involves a short, skinny, unmuscular lad who gets bullied in a high school gym locker room setting. He drinks the milk, and develops into a very built young man. He then "accidentally" bumps into the two guys who were accosting him previously and says something like "sorry, guys" or "excuse me, guys" and the two guys look at each other in disbelief.