Q. Why did you write this book?
A. I wrote this book because I believe an innocent man is serving a life sentence for crimes he did not commit.
Q. How did you learn about this story?
A. I first became aware of this story when Kit Martin was arrested at the Louisville International Airport and charged with the murders of three of his neighbors. I was a pilot for American Airlines at the time. When the news broke, the early reports were that Kit was an American Airlines pilot. Only later did I learn that he was actually a pilot for PSA Airlines, an American Airlines Regional Carrier.
The next time I heard about this story was after his conviction. At the time, I couldn’t understand what could have prompted someone with such a promising future to throw away their career and life.
Three months later, Dateline aired an episode about the case titled The Evil That Watches. Even though the episode was heavily slanted toward the efforts of family members to have someone arrested and charged for the murders, with the evil in the title referencing Kit, I sensed that there was more to the story.
I then spent the next couple of months watching the murder trial, which Court TV had covered and had online.
Q. Can you summarize the charges against Kit Martin?
A. Kit was charged with killing his neighbors, Calvin and Pamela Phillips and Ed Dansereau, on November 18, 2015. Kit was a suspect early on because Calvin was set to testify in a court-martial trial, which was scheduled to occur on December 1, 2015. Calvin was killed in the morning, and Ed and Pam were killed that same day in the afternoon around 5:30 p.m. Early the next morning, around 2:00 am, the bodies of Ed Dansereau and Pamela Phillips were driven to a farm field where the car was set on fire.
Q. What convinced you that he was innocent?
A. As the prosecution began their case against Christian Martin, my initial reaction was that, okay, he’s guilty. But as they neared the end of their presentation to the jury, it was obvious to me that they hadn’t proved anything. Instead, they used deception throughout the trial.
This is one instance where, had there not been cameras in the courtroom, I would have accepted the guilty verdict with no questions asked.
Q. Can you give specific examples of why you believe Kit Martin is innocent?
A. I’ll give you eight very good examples. You pick one, and I’ll expand on it. Here they are:
- Before an arrest can be made, there is a grand jury hearing. The lead detective in the case gave false testimony at the grand jury hearing
- There was a two-year gap between the arrest and when the trial began. As the trial date neared, the prosecution knew they did not have a case. So, they offered Kit a plea deal of 5 to 13 years if he pled guilty to complicity to commit murder. Why would you offer someone you believed killed three people 5 to 13 years unless you knew you couldn’t prove your case? Kit turned them down, telling his attorney that he wasn’t going to plead guilty to something he didn’t do.
- Once the trial began, the prosecution used deception throughout the trial, going as far as selectively editing security camera footage to show gaps where he could have committed the various crimes.
- Kit had an alibi. Not only did he have alibi witnesses, he had security camera footage that tracked his movements on the day of and the day after the murders.
- Six weeks after the murders, Kit’s ex-wife, Joan Harmon, who threatened to ruin Kit’s life and career if he divorced her, walked into an AT&T store asking for help getting into a phone. The phone belonged to one of the murder victims.
- The prosecution’s closing argument was a total mischaracterization of the evidence that had been presented at trial.
- The prosecution’s theory, developed the night before closing arguments and presented to the jury for the first time the next day, is not credible and not supported by the evidence.
- The one juror I did manage to speak to confessed to introducing evidence during deliberations that was not presented at trial, misunderstood basic facts about the case, and seemed clueless when I gave him the prosecution’s theory.
Q. Okay, that is a lot to sort through. Why don’t you tell me the one thing you believe supports his innocence?
A. Everything about this crime points to there being more than one person involved in the murders. Two different weapons were used to kill the victims. Two bodies, with one weighing over 200 pounds, were loaded into a vehicle. Lastly, two vehicles were removed from the crime scene. Even the prosecutor admitted that there was circumstantial evidence that more than one person was involved. Yet, in six years they could not identify an accomplice. So, if you know that two people were involved, and you can’t tie your suspect to another individual, why are you charging him with murder?
