Framed - Episode Four: Deception

本站添加: 2026-05-10

[00:00:00]Episode 4, Deception.

[00:00:16]I can't say with any certainty what changed during a three and a half year investigation that led to Kit's arrest.

[00:00:24]That's partly because I could not get anyone from the Christian County Sheriff's Office to talk to me, including Detective Scott Smith. There were, however, forces that aligned to bring about that result.

[00:00:37]Calvin and Pam Phyllis's son, Matt, and Cal's sister, Diana, were a constant presence in the investigation.

[00:00:46]They believed that Kit Martin was solely responsible for the murders.

[00:00:50]They knew that Calvin was anxious over having to testify in K's court marshal.

[00:00:56]They had heard from friends of the family who claimed that both Calvin and Pam had made statements along the lines that if anything should happen to them that police should look at their neighbor Kit Martin.

[00:01:08]That type of claim is known as hearsay evidence and is not usually permitted in court proceedings since it cannot be verified with cross-examination with the person who made the statement.

[00:01:20]Ultimately, four people provided hearsay evidence, but none of them provided evidence or statements that Kit ever issued a direct threat.

[00:01:29]>> I want to talk about November 2015.

[00:01:32]Um, did you find out that he was murdered?

[00:01:38]>> Uh, yes.

[00:01:39]>> Okay. And prior to his murder, you had conversations with him?

[00:01:44]>> Yes, I did. Do you remember when was the last time you had a conversation with him prior to his murder? And >> judge, you would object to your set.

[00:01:53]>> Overall, >> I'd say it was approximately 2 weeks, somewhere like that beforehand.

[00:02:02]>> And did he mention something to you that alarmed you?

[00:02:05]>> Uh, yes, he did.

[00:02:07]>> What did he say to you?

[00:02:09]He uh he said point blank that that get Martin was going to kill him.

[00:02:16]>> Matt and Diana were doing what any family member of a murder victim would do when there seemed to be no progress in a case. They pressured authorities through correspondence and put up billboards offering an award for information. Matt even offered to pay for evidence to be tested.

[00:02:35]Now, I think you told us [clears throat] that you were very frustrated that there had been no arrest in this case.

[00:02:49]>> I think anybody who has an experience where their family members are taken the way that mine were would be frustrated.

[00:03:02]you were upset.

[00:03:07]>> I would like justice for my parents and there's a lot of people in a 700 person town that are terrified. I think everybody wants justice. That would be a normal statement, >> but I'm asking about you.

[00:03:24]>> Sure.

[00:03:25]>> So, the answer to that is yes.

[00:03:27]>> I would absolutely like justice for my parents. Yes.

[00:03:29]>> My question was you were upset.

[00:03:32]This isn't fast. I understand that.

[00:03:35]Right. But upset. Yeah. Of course.

[00:03:40]>> And you were upset enough that you started, for example, a letterw writing campaign.

[00:03:45]>> Sure.

[00:03:47]>> And you had people write letters to everybody you could think of that would be in a position of power.

[00:03:52]>> Sure.

[00:03:54]>> To try and move the case along, right?

[00:03:58]>> To try to get focus on the case. Yeah.

[00:04:01]and to try and get an arrest.

[00:04:03]>> Sure. Of course.

[00:04:05]>> You offered a reward.

[00:04:07]>> We did for information. That's right.

[00:04:10]And >> the reward was is Was it $100,000?

[00:04:13]>> It's either 100 or Yeah, I think that's right. So, we offered a reward. We put up a billboard for information.

[00:04:21]Information leading to arrest. We would we would pay.

[00:04:28]We did everything we could. You tried to hire your own lab.

[00:04:34]>> So, Kentucky State Police uh worked with any labs? I can't hire a lab. It's not how it works.

[00:04:41]>> You tried to hire your own lab, though, did you not?

[00:04:45]>> Kentucky State police would interact with the lab. I can't. They have to interact with police. Does that make sense?

[00:04:52]>> It makes sense. But I was asking you a simpler question.

[00:04:54]>> Okay. You tried to hire a lab to conduct tests in this case.

[00:04:59]>> That is correct.

[00:05:00]>> Okay.

[00:05:03]>> The information about Matt offering to do lab testing says something about his desperation as well as the lack of initiative by investigators. Remember, Cal's sister, Diana, turned over the shell casing to the police on April 16, 2016.

[00:05:21]Yet, the casing was not tested until December 2018, almost two and a half years later.

[00:05:29]Why the delay in such an important piece of evidence?

[00:05:33]For one, the police were skeptical enough about that evidence that they decided to give Diana a polygraph test, which according to defense attorney Tom Griffith, she failed.

[00:05:46]There is also a chain of custody issue since the evidence was discovered by a family member and not the skilled police investigators who presumably searched the house for evidence.

[00:05:58]The delay also calls into question how that one piece of evidence became the backbone of their entire case.

[00:06:05]Matt and Diana's pressure campaign eventually reached as high as Kentucky Attorney General Andy Basher, who was in a tight primary race for governor, which he eventually won by a few thousand votes.

[00:06:19]Did solving a cold case help Andy Basher win votes in the primary and later the governor's race? Before an arrest is made, evidence is presented to a grand jury.

[00:06:31]That hearing took place on May 10, 2019, the day before Kit's arrest. The only person to testify was Detective Scott Smith, who by this time was leading the investigation into the triple homicide.

[00:06:45]At that hearing, Detective Scott Smith gave false testimony regarding cell phone location data.

[00:06:57]After explaining details of the crime, like the fact that the car was [music] burned in the early hours of November 19, the following exchange took [music] place with the questions being asked by assistant attorney John Hec. Note, the reference [music] to Assistant Attorney General Prather is incorrect.

[00:07:17]Heck. Okay. And was the statement given to you by people close to Christian Martin as to where he allegedly was that evening? Smith. Yes, there was. What were you told? I [music] was told that he was at home, had been all night long, never left, was sitting on the couch watching TV.

[00:07:37]Was that consistent with the FBI's [music] finding as to where his phone was? Smith? No, it was not. Heck, [clears throat] where did the FBI [music] say his phone was that evening?

[00:07:48]Smith. On Rosetown Road. Heck. And is that the location where [music] the car was burned up? Smith, that is correct.

[00:08:04]None of what Smith said about Kit's phone in the FBI report was true. He continued to make false statements regarding Pam's phone. Heck, based on [music] the FBI analysis, is there any reason for you to believe that Christian Martin had possession of that phone?

[00:08:20]Smith. According to that, it would be a good assumption [music] that he had it.

[00:08:24]Had Pamel Phillips's phone. Yes. Heck.

[00:08:28]And what is it that makes you reach [music] that conclusion? Smith. The FBI's report shows that the phone the morning that the vehicle was [music] found, Pamela's phone, was taking a route toward Fort Campbell, where Major Martin worked.

[00:08:47]It's no wonder that the grand jury found reason to indict Kit. Detective Scott Smith's false testimony would not be discovered for many months, months in which Kit was incarcerated.

[00:08:59]Here's what defense phone expert Jonathan Ree had to say about Smith's false testimony at the grand jury proceeding.

[00:09:13]In general, my review of the above information shows that Lieutenant Smith's grand jury testimony is often not supported by the cast reports, is misleading as it relates to the actual data, contradicts the data, and excludes evidence in the report which refutes his testimony. Additionally, in a few areas, the cast report itself may have been prepared or manipulated in a manner that conceals important information that conflicts with the grand jury testimony.

[00:09:50]The report goes on to say that any statements or claims that a device had to be in a very specific location, narrow area, or along a particular roadway are unfounded and show a distinct lack of knowledge, understanding, or honesty about the underlying data.

[00:10:14]The defense would file several motions to dismiss based on the false testimony.

[00:10:20]Each were dismissed by Judge John Atkins due to the fact that they still had the shell casing that matched Kit's gun.

[00:10:28]Here's what Detective Smith had to say about his grand jury testimony during crossexamination by defense attorney Tom Griffiths.

[00:10:37]sought cell phone evidence in this case.

[00:10:43]I want to ask you about that now, >> right?

[00:10:49]>> You're referring to the downloads of the cell phones themselves or >> cell phone location >> if you would be more specific, sir. As far as referring to phone record based off the phone records or off the phones themselves, >> off the phones, the phone records, cell towers, location.

[00:11:14]>> Yes.

[00:11:21]And in fact, you testified before the grand jury in this case.

[00:11:27]>> Yes, sir, I did.

[00:11:30]And when you testified before the grand jury in this case, you didn't inform them that the DNA results from Mr. Martin came back in.

[00:11:42]>> No, sir, I did not.

[00:11:45]>> You didn't inform them that there were no fingerprints?

[00:11:48]>> No, sir, I did not.

[00:11:51]But you did suggest that there was cell phone evidence that put him someplace that was incriminating in this case.

[00:12:05]>> Yes, sir. I did. Along with the evidence involving the Glock 45 that was recovered from his safe and the shell casing matching up.

[00:12:14]>> But that wasn't what I asked you about.

[00:12:16]I said, "In front of the grand jury, you testified under oath that there was cell phone evidence that put him in an incriminating location, didn't you?" I >> answered your question. Yes, sir, I did.

[00:12:32]>> But today, you know that that information, that testimony was incorrect.

[00:12:41]That information come from a report that I had received from the FBI on a down, not from the download, but from the telephone records from AT&T placing the phone in the area off of the position of the cell phone records.

[00:13:00]>> But today, you know that that information is incorrect. today. I know from new technology that's been developed and the phone has since been downloaded that the phone was not there.

[00:13:11]Yes.

[00:13:13]>> But that testimony you gave before was in front of a grand jury under oath.

[00:13:17]>> Was prior to the information I have received now? Yes.

[00:13:25]>> You didn't go back and fix it.

[00:13:29]>> Go back and fix what, sir? the fact that you got a charge and an indictment based on false information.

[00:13:36]>> I got an indictment based off of a a firearm in a shell casing that was found at the scene and at Mr. Martin's home.

[00:13:47]As the date for the murder trial drew closer, the attorney general's office knew that they had huge holes in their case that were not easily explained.

[00:13:56]So, they approached Kit's defense team with an unusual offer. Here is Kit's parents, Marty and Jane, and his sister, Amanda, and her husband, Carl, talking about the prosecution's offer.

[00:14:09]>> Before Before we went to trial, there was a a plea deal.

[00:14:15]>> Yes.

[00:14:15]>> Tell me.

[00:14:16]>> We did not know that. We knew nothing about that until we were during the trial. Chris finally told us about the plea deal.

[00:14:23]>> Yeah.

[00:14:25]>> What did he tell you?

[00:14:26]>> He said, "Oh, by the way, they offered me a plea deal." What was like seven to 13 years or something, hun?

[00:14:31]>> Yeah. If he plead guilty >> if he plead guilty. You can offer that.

[00:14:35]This is the my brother's character. He goes, "I wish I'd done it, but I hadn't." He didn't even say that. He goes, "I'm not going to plead to anything I have not done."

[00:14:45]>> And how on earth can you offer somebody that when it's such supposed to be such a serious case? I mean, you know, >> when you sit there and you think it's a triple murder, the potential of being put to death is is huge.

[00:14:59]>> And yet you sit there and think, "Okay, seven years, man, I did it. I'm gonna I'm gonna take it, you know." But no, that's his principle.

[00:15:07]>> That's his principle.

[00:15:07]>> That's been him his entire life. He can lie about nothing >> and he won't lie about anything.

[00:15:13]>> The the whole thing with the plea deal was they didn't have any evidence. They didn't have none. That case should have been thrown out.

[00:15:20]>> And all the evidence that they did have was found by the by the >> damn sister.

[00:15:27]>> Despite the weakness in their case, the prosecution had several advantages. For one, most people, including jurors, have a bias towards a defendant's guilt even before the trial begins. That's because few people believe the prosecutors will put an innocent person on trial.

[00:15:45]The next advantage is they get to present their case first.

[00:15:50]The prosecution began by telling jurors basic facts about the crime. The defendant had the means to commit the murders, the things necessary to carry out.

[00:16:06]Calvin was killed by multiple bullets shot into his chest and neck.

[00:16:12]45 caliber bullets.

[00:16:16]Pamela Phillips was killed by multiple gunshots to her brain and heart with a 22 caliber firearm.

[00:16:26]Edward Danzero was also murdered with a 22. There were at least two gunshots to his brain. His blood was [clears throat] in a pool in the backyard of the Phillips home.

[00:16:48]Did you detect an odor of any kind?

[00:16:52]>> Yes, ma'am. Um, whenever I >> We're going to going to object to that question.

[00:17:01]>> Oh, we covered this yesterday.

[00:17:04]Whenever I approached the vehicle, uh, especially on the rear passengers area, I detected a odor of kerosene.

[00:17:15]>> And how are you familiar with what kerosene smells like >> from childhood experiences growing up with a kerosene heater in the residence?

[00:17:24]>> Exhibit 25.

[00:17:28]>> Area of the vehicle. The license plate of the vehicle is laying here in the mud at the rear of the vehicle.

[00:17:36]Uh you can see the water around the vehicle and tell the distance of how far it was off the actual trial portion of the roadway.

[00:17:46]>> Now the mud we see there. Uh what had what was the weather? It appears to be sunny that morning.

[00:17:54]>> It was sunny on the 19th. Yes, ma'am.

[00:17:56]>> Uh what was the weather on the 18th? The 18th it poured down rain. It rained all day long and it was cold on the 18th.

[00:18:06]>> 47.

[00:18:08]>> This is a Toyota Tacoma pickup trucking Tennessee license plate boy S2 545.

[00:18:23]And I can't tell what type of plate it is, but this vehicle was registered to the defendant, Christian Martin.

[00:18:33]>> And how did you obtain that?

[00:18:36]>> Obtain the vehicle?

[00:18:38]>> Yes.

[00:18:38]>> It was obtained from a search warrant.

[00:18:48]>> Exhibit 48.

[00:18:50]>> This would be the driver's side.

[00:18:53]from the rear to the front of the Toyota Tacoma.

[00:19:02]Exhibit 49.

[00:19:04]>> This is a photograph from the inside uh of contents inside the Toyota Toyota Tacoma. Uh a box of PMC 45 auto rounds. also a camouflaged AR style magazine for a 22 caliber.

[00:19:26]>> How was it that the defendants name surfaced?

[00:19:32]>> The defendant's name surfaced in this investigation on November 19th of 2015.

[00:19:40]Midafter afternoon, uh we learned that Mr. Phillips, the owner and husband of Pam Phillips, the owner of the car. Uh Calvin Phillips was the owner and residents of 443 South Main Street, Pinbrook, uh was a w a critical witness and a federal court marshal against the defendant.

[00:20:04]>> The jurors now know that Calvin Phillips was killed with a 45 caliber gun and that Ed Danzro and Pam Phillips were killed with a 22 caliber gun.

[00:20:14]They know that kerosene was used to set Pam's car on fire after he got stuck in the mud.

[00:20:20]Jurors also learned that Calvin Phillips was a critical witness in a court marshal trial involving the defendant, Christian Martin.

[00:20:29]Lastly, jurors saw a picture of Kit's truck that showed both 45 caliber and 22 caliber ammunition.

[00:20:36]It was this picture that led at least one drawer to believe that Kit had the special ammunition that was used to kill Calvin Phillips.

[00:20:45]>> I believe that a partial box of that ammunition was found in his vehicle, if I'm not mistaken.

[00:20:52]>> The next sequence of clips consists of a series of images that have nothing to do with the crime, but are instead used to suggest kill.

[00:21:01]>> This is Comw exhibit 87.

[00:21:04]>> Yes, ma'am.

[00:21:06]This is of the defendant's residence at 458 South Main Street. This doorway here will leads to the back porch. This is like a dining room area here with kitchen off to this way. Uh hallway leading to the front door going down this way.

[00:21:30]This rug here uh had been sprayed with blue star. It had uh a faint uh reaction in this area and was later cut and sent to the lab for analysis.

[00:21:48]>> Exhibit 90.

[00:21:50]>> And these are the two 5gallon blue kerosene containers. uh when they were sprayed with blue star they also had uh fluoresence on the handle area of both canisters. If you could direct your attention to the television screen and are these the two kerosene cans you just described on the other screen?

[00:22:16]>> Yes ma'am.

[00:22:20]>> And you said the blue star was applied to >> to both of them.

[00:22:29]It was applied to both of them, but the areas that were rest were around the handles of both paras.

[00:22:39]Thank you.

[00:22:41]>> For the record, none of the items discussed by Detective Scott Smith came back with any incriminating DNA evidence.

[00:22:49]For one, the images were taken in August of 2016, some nine months after the murders. Kit wasn't even living in the house at that time. As for the possible blood on the handles of the kerosene containers, Kit says it was most likely animal blood.

[00:23:07]3 days later, another series of images were shown to the jurors, which were not connected to the crime, but also gave an impression of guilt.

[00:23:17]just a a fire pit in the backyard of 480 South Main. Uh just with burnt debris around it. Uh these logs appear like sit around to sit on or something. Not sure what it is.

[00:23:35]>> And this is the defendant's backyard, correct?

[00:23:38]>> Yes, sir.

[00:23:45]Uh these are on the back back steps going into the back of 480 South Main Street the defendants on. Uh these were I think they were muck boots. I'm not sure. Muck style boots uh with looks like some dried mud around the outside of them. [snorts] This is a closet. Little pantry closet.

[00:24:18]Something in the kitchen area.

[00:24:23]Appears to be an AR style 22 caliber rifle in this picture right here. Spray painted camera.

[00:24:39]This is 145.

[00:24:49]Uh, this is leading out of the kitchen going down a hallway towards the steps.

[00:24:54]There's a table on the side. And this is a handgun that was inside of this flowered purse.

[00:25:07]And these photos that I've shown you, these are inside the defendants home, correct?

[00:25:12]>> Yes, sir.

[00:25:23]>> 146.

[00:25:27]Uh this was a rifle that was rifle and case and ammo that was found in a cellar underneath the uh dining room table in the defendant's kitchen.

[00:25:40]Straight underneath the table. You have to move the table, move the carpet away, and it reveals a door that goes down into this area.

[00:26:15]147.

[00:26:20]It's a uh a handgun in a black nylon case in a front office uh behind a large computer screen. This is the handgun >> 148.

[00:26:44]This is the same closet that that AR-15 style 22 in the kitchen was found. Uh believe this is a small caliber handgun up on the shelf in that same closet.

[00:27:16]149.

[00:27:22]This is a uh this is a bed. This is some kind of a case that slides up underneath between the box spring and the bed. This is a large caliber handgun 1911 style. A spare magazine. And I believe this is a green flashlight. This was an upstairs back bed that would be looking over that fire pit area back in the back of the house and 150 and 151.

[00:28:06]Uh this is a century safe.

[00:28:09]It was found in the upstairs kind of a den area. Had some couches and stuff around in it. And this was a closet uh there.

[00:28:22]>> So this safe was located where?

[00:28:26]>> It's upstairs and it looked like it was set up like a little den area. Had some couches and stuff around in it and it was a closet in that den area. And this is in the defendant.

[00:28:37]>> Yes.

[00:28:52]This is uh just a little higher picture of the same thing. This is that century safe. Uh this is just a variety of different ammunition that's stored above it. you know, from 22s to 45 calibers.

[00:29:06]Uh, same thing.

[00:29:09]>> 22s.

[00:29:11]>> Yes.

[00:29:14]Wide range of ammunition.

[00:29:24]If jurors were expecting to later find out that some incriminating evidence had been found in this fire pit, they would have been disappointed. The fire pit was used to burn paper products once a week.

[00:29:37]They used the logs to sit on when they roasted marshmallows. It was not an attempt by Kit to destroy evidence.

[00:29:44]Then there is this picture of the muddy boots which would not normally seem out of place considering that they had farm animals on the property and kitwalked the dogs by the railroad traction through open fields. In this instance, however, the muddy boots suggest a connection to Pam's car stuck in the mud. The truth is the boots weren't even kits. They belong to Laura's son, Austin.

[00:30:09]What about all those guns and ammunition?

[00:30:13]None of it was proven to be tied directly to the crime, not even the Glock 45.

[00:30:18]Some of the guns could not be excluded, but there was no positive match to any of Kit's guns or ammunition.

[00:30:27]Kit told me that the reason he had so many guns in his house is that he considered himself a prepper, someone prepared for any social unrest or other national calamity.

[00:30:39]Deceiving jurors with incriminating images does not rise to the level of prosecutorial misconduct.

[00:30:46]But what if they took things a step further and showed clips from Kit's security camera footage that showed gaps long enough for him to have committed the murders.

[00:30:58]Barbara Whed the following clip of Kit entering his house at 4:17 p.m. on November 18, 2015. The time stamp is off by 1 hour.

[00:31:15]>> [music] >> The next time you see movement from Kit is at 7:29 p.m. as he enters the house from the backyard.

[00:31:39]They never showed this clip of Kit going out to the backyard at 7:23 p.m.

[00:31:54]The jurors had heard earlier from testimony from Marlene Lorac that the murders likely occurred around 5:30 p.m.

[00:32:03]The three-hour gap in Kit security camera footage gave him plenty of time to have committed the murders and also clean up the crime scene.

[00:32:12]Whe Smith once again teamed up to show another mysterious gap. This time, Kit exits the back porch and enters the backyard at 7:37 p.m.

[00:32:25]The next time Joel will see Kit is at 11:43 p.m. as [music] he exits the house and enters the backyard.

[00:32:42]They never showed him coming back into the house from the backyard, intentionally leaving a 4-hour gap where Kit could have gone across the street, loaded bodies into Pam's car, and continue cleaning up the crime scene.

[00:32:56]The reality is that at 7:37 p.m., Kit left his house and walked to the Dollar General store, which was four blocks away. Here is Kit returning from the Dollar General store at 7:50 p.m.

[00:33:16]It would be another 6 days before Whies and Smith's deception was uncovered by assistant defense attorney Olivia Adams.

[00:33:24]>> Same thing as earlier. I drew I've drawn a box around the clips that we've discussed. Okay. Can you summarize the activity in the box for me?

[00:33:33]>> Yes, ma'am. Exhibit [clears throat] 173 is for 7:36 p.m. on November 18th.

[00:33:39]Mr. Martin walks out of the house.

[00:33:42]Defense exhibit XX. 7:36 P. On 11:18, Mr. Martin walks out of house. Defense exhibit XX 750P. On November 18th, Mr. Martin walks inside.

[00:33:56]>> Okay. So, at 7:36, Mr. Martin's leaving the house, walking outside, and at 7:50, Mr. Martin's walking back inside.

[00:34:07]Correct.

[00:34:08]>> Yes, ma'am.

[00:34:09]>> Now, look at your at your cheat sheet that I made for you there, the one we can continue to reference.

[00:34:15]>> Did you show the jury the clip of Mr. Martin walking outside at 7:36 p.m.

[00:34:24]>> Are you referring to exhibit 173?

[00:34:27]>> Yes, sir, I am.

[00:34:29]>> Yes, we showed the jury that.

[00:34:32]>> Did you show the jury Mr. Martin returning or coming inside at 7:50 p.m.?

[00:34:40]>> No, ma'am. We did not.

[00:34:42]>> So, you never showed him returning. You just showed him late.

[00:34:47]>> Yes, ma'am.

[00:34:52]Lieutenant Smith, was it your idea to only show fragments of videos to create a story that fits your narrative?

[00:35:00]>> No, ma'am. If it was up to me, we played the whole surveillance video.

[00:35:04]>> Thank you very much. Nothing else.

[00:35:08]>> Here is what our one juror had to say about the deception.

[00:35:12]Okay. At at one point in the trial, the prosecutor and the lead detective, Scott Smith, they manipulated security footage to try to show gaps in the defendant security footage where there were no gaps, but where the gaps aligned with the times where these different crimes were committed.

[00:35:36]and it wasn't brought out until like 3 or 4 days after they tried to do that, but they were caught trying to manipulate the security camera footage.

[00:35:46]Did you give any weight to that?

[00:35:49]>> The fact that they were trying to manipulate it?

[00:35:51]>> Yeah.

[00:35:53]>> Um, do you remember them manipulating it?

[00:36:00]Um, I remember it being brought up and you know, I I I felt that that was improper and I'm glad that they were caught doing that and it was straightened out.

[00:36:15]>> Okay. Do you know why they would go to that length to manipulate footage to make it look like there were gaps when there were none? Well, it's not at all unusual for anybody in our government to manipulate any kind of facts to their advantage, to the government's advantage. That's not at all unusual.

[00:36:34]>> Okay. Well, it it is kind of unusual to to put forth >> false evidence in front of a of a jury.

[00:36:42]>> I realize that.

[00:36:43]>> All right. That's it's not only improper, it it it rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct. All right.

[00:36:51]>> Correct.

[00:36:53]To muddy the waters even further, the prosecution had a witness testify that he had seen Kit the weekend before the murders out by Rosetown Road where Pam's car was found.

[00:37:08]>> You already told us that you uh weren't familiar with the murders back in 2015.

[00:37:15]>> Yes.

[00:37:18]Isn't it true that you actually only came forward with this statement uh a little while ago?

[00:37:27]>> Well, only reason I came forward cuz somebody contacted me. I never talked about it. I didn't know if he killed the people or not. All I know I seen him a couple days before.

[00:37:38]My my question to you was these murders happened back in 2015. And am I correct that this year in 2021, a few months ago, that was the first time you talked to anybody about this?

[00:38:00]>> Maybe I only told one person that I seen somebody back here and that was brother.

[00:38:09]You talked to the police?

[00:38:11]>> I talked to the police after somebody he contacted me. I don't know how I got to be here.

[00:38:17]>> You don't know how you got to be here?

[00:38:18]>> No.

[00:38:20]>> But you talked to the police in March of 2021. Does that sound right?

[00:38:24]>> Yes, sir.

[00:38:28]>> And when you talked to the police in March of 2021, you actually said that you saw a guy.

[00:38:36]>> Yeah.

[00:38:37]He didn't know the name.

[00:38:39]>> I didn't know his name.

[00:38:41]>> Right.

[00:38:43]>> You said it was a guy with a bright yellow shirt.

[00:38:46]>> Yellow shirt. Blue J.

[00:38:49]>> Besides the questionable timing of this testimony, there was a logic problem.

[00:38:55]What the prosecution is implying with this witness and would later claim was Kit planning for all contingencies is that Kit was out at Rosetown Road casing the area in case he needed to burn a car.

[00:39:10]But if the murders of Ed and Pam were unplanned as argued in court, there would be no need to search for a burn site in advance.

[00:39:20]When you add it all up, the offer of a plea deal, the introduction of incriminating images, manipulating security camera footage, and questionable testimony, it becomes obvious that the prosecution knew that there were problems with their case.

[00:39:38]Kid had alibi witnesses. The ballistics evidence could not positively tie any of Kit's guns to the crime.

[00:39:47]and their explanation for the dog tag evidence was implausible.

[00:39:53]Their one ace in the hole was a charge of complicity.

[00:39:58]They planned to tell the jurors that Kit had an accomplice.

[00:40:03]>> So, the renewed motion for directive verdict is denied.

[00:40:07]>> I have another part of the motion. Oh, >> I'm sorry.

[00:40:09]>> Sorry. It relates to every single count where our client is charged u under alternative theories of liability. um acting alone or in complicity with others.

[00:40:19]>> Uh there is there has been no evidence throughout this entire case of anyone else's involvement in this matter.

[00:40:26]Commonwealth has alleged that our client acted alone.

[00:40:30]They've alleged in the indictment that he acted alone or in complicity with others, but that's the last time we've heard about any other person's involvement in this case. I have done some research uh and I haven't found a whole lot of cases because I don't think this has ever happened. Every time there's a complicity uh case, there is an identifiable person, usually by name, usually it's a codefendant. Occasionally, it's an unknown person, but they do know the of the existence of that other person. Um I'd like to tender these Well, these are my only copies. Um >> well, let's hear from the Commonwealth.

[00:41:07]Yep. You rais a good point. What about that council? Um, there hasn't been any mention of uh what could somebody that could clearly be denominated as an accomplice in this case, although there the indictment originally charged complicity. Uh, what grounds are there to give instruction on complicity?

[00:41:31]>> Well, there's circumstantial evidence.

[00:41:33]There's circumstantial evidence that there would have been another person involved with the fact that there are two bodies that were transported from the home to put in the car, transported out to the burn site.

[00:41:55]Um, and there is the case law has stated that the that an accomplice does not even have to be named or indicted um with the principal, >> but they have to exist.

[00:42:22]The judge ruled against the prosecution by not allowing the mentioning of complicity in the jury instructions.

[00:42:29]But Whley's admission that there was circumstantial evidence that there was more than one person involved in the crime speaks volumes about their case.

[00:42:40]She did not mention that two weapons were used. She also did not mention that two vehicles were moved from the crime scene.

[00:42:49]The entire trial was covered by Court TV. When it came time for Whe to give her closing argument, she used a PowerPoint presentation to highlight key points in the trial.

[00:43:02]Whley went through each bullet point and tried to make her case for a guilty verdict.

[00:43:07]But when she reached the point where she cannot explain how Kit alone could accomplish all that took place, she conveniently skipped over it.

[00:43:17]It was the one part of her presentation that did not fit the evidence.

[00:43:22]>> Mike Litrol told you that there was no activity on the phone from 11:27 p.m. to 7:39 a.m.

[00:43:36]There was no activity on the phone.

[00:43:44]The activity stopped at 11:27 when he set the alarm on the phone for 1:10 a.m.

[00:44:00]to the tall gun.

[00:44:05]Military precision highly thought of thought. so highly of himself. [clears throat] Sense the ringtone is top gun. Top gun indeed.

[00:44:21]Top marksman.

[00:44:29]That's [clears throat] the last activity on the phone until 7:39 in the morning on the 19th.

[00:44:37][snorts] At 1:10 a.m.

[00:44:45]was the was the alarm was set and that's when the B the rest of the cleanup was done.

[00:44:58]The expected the contingency that Pam was going to come home early and taken care of cuz he had gone back to finish the job on the cleanup and probably set another fire uh before she would come home.

[00:45:20]But she came home much earlier. 5:00 5:20 5:15.

[00:45:31]That's when the bodies were driven out on Rosetown Road in Pam's car.

[00:45:40]But it had been raining and there was mud out there and that burn pile where he was aiming to go, it didn't make it.

[00:45:49]got stuck in that mud and little a pool large pool of water.

[00:45:57]It got stopped before it was stuck before he was even halfway in the burn pile. Had he made it to the burn pile, which he knew full well was out there.

[00:46:08]That part was sunk down in that sinkhole that the beavers made, but it didn't.

[00:46:19]So, it was out there at 2:10 a.m. when Earl Jet heard the explosion.

[00:46:30]Jorers would have to piece together the prosecution theory in deliberations.

[00:46:35]Here is what the one juror I interviewed had to say when I explained to him the prosecution theory and why it was impossible based on the phone evidence.

[00:46:45]Okay. So, but let's go back to the prosecution's theory. So, the the defendant's wife goes to tells the police that her son found the victim's phone in her front yard 30 days after the crime. So the phone has been sitting in her front yard the whole time.

[00:47:07]>> Not necessarily.

[00:47:08]>> That's the pro what the prosecution said.

[00:47:10]>> Their theory. However, I think that's highly unlikely. I think that during that 30-day period when he was free, he could have taken that phone over there in his own personal car, not Ed Danzero's car.

[00:47:24]>> Okay. Well, there's a problem with that theory. All right. There was testimony given by the defense phone expert who said that on the 19th, the day after the murders, all right, the victim's phone was in the Pinroke area. They because there's there's three it's a rural area, so they can't do um cell phone triangulation to pinpoint an exact location, but they can give a general area, right? So at 8:05 and at 8:06 a.m.

[00:48:02]that phone was in Pimroke, Kentucky. All right. At 8:07 a.m. it showed movement towards Elton, Kentucky, where the defendant's wife lived. All right.

[00:48:16]Meanwhile, Kitsbone was traveling south towards Fort Campbell that same day, like an hour later.

[00:48:27]So the phones were in separate locations. One was moving from Pinroke to Elton, Kentucky, where the defendant's wife lived. And the other phone was moving from Pinroke to Fort Campbell where he was going to work.

[00:48:42]Right.

[00:48:43]>> But not at the same time.

[00:48:46]>> Well, very close to the same time. One was One was at 8:07 a.m. and then he left at 9:00 to go to Fort Campbell.

[00:48:56]Okay, >> but here's the problem with the prosecution's theory. So, their theory is that on the night of the murders on the 18th, he drove up to the defendant's wife's house, which he didn't know where it was, but that's their theory, and he threw the phone in the front yard, and then she their son discovered it like uh 30 days later or 27 days later. So, but the problem is the one the fact that the phones were in two different locations pretty much at the same time. Later in the day, that phone hit off of a cell tower that was further east than Elton, Kentucky, meaning that it was in movement. It could not have been sitting in the front yard because it showed movement east of Elton, Kentucky.

[00:49:49]That's a question.

[00:49:52]>> Here is the defense phone expert Jonathan Ree testifying about the movements of Kit's phone and Pamela Phillips's phone in November 19th, 2015, the day after the murders.

[00:50:06]>> Uh Pamela Phillips phone starts the day on that same sector of Hopkinsville Industrial that Mr. Martin's phone started on. start on there at 8:06 a.m.

[00:50:17]and then at 8:07 a.m. there was a Nellos report from the Bumpus Mill Road site that just says that there was an activity from that phone that registered on that site to the south. And at 80, sorry, um at 8:06 a.m. There's also data records on sites to the east in Elton and around Elton. At 9:06 a.m., uh those records continue both on the Hopkinsville Industrial Site as well as the Elton site to the east.

[00:50:54]And after that >> in in general what that does point to is that the device more than likely did start moving to the east in some manner uh because there was no scenario before that which that Elton site was providing service.

[00:51:09]So, for the remainder of the day, Pamela Phillips phone remained on that Elton site all the way from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 pm.

[00:51:20]It remained on that site from 7:18, sorry, 6:00 p.m. all the way through 11:18 p.m. Um, it actually had some additional usage even further east on a site that's closer to Russellville.

[00:51:35]So rather than rather than the southerntherly course that Mr. Martin's phone took, Miss Phillips phone took a northeast or easterly direction.

[00:51:47]>> If the jurors didn't understand the prosecution's theory, how could they evaluate it? In the end, it took them only four hours to reach a verdict.

[00:51:59]Before I read the verdict, I want to inform everyone that court will not tolerate any kind of outburst or misbehavior.

[00:52:12]Uh this is a very serious matter. Everyone has treated it very seriously from the outset and now is not the time for any kind of behavior that would compromise or jeopardize the propriety of these proceedings.

[00:52:35]I have reviewed the verdicts for form and they appear to be in order.

[00:52:43]Mr. Four person asked to verdict form one.

[00:52:48]Is it your verdict? We the jury find the defendant Christian Martin guilty of murder under instruction number four.

[00:52:56]>> It is.

[00:52:58]>> In the final episode of Framed, I will address claims made by Detective Scott Smith [music] after the trial and provide an alternate theory of the crime based solely on [music] the evidence.