When I first wrote this post some five years ago, I had more questions than answers. My knowledge of the case came primarily from news reports and the Dateline episode The Evil That Watches. I wrote the post hoping someone could fill me in on the missing pieces of the story not covered in those early sources. Rather than wait for answers, I decided to go digging myself. I watched the entire trial on the Court TV website. By the end of the trial, I was convinced that the state of Kentucky had convicted an innocent man.
I had been looking for my next writing project. I was certain that another author had to be working on a book. I decided to reach out to Kit. When I learned that there was no book in the works, I knew what my next project was going to be. A little more than two years later my book, I Will Ruin You: The Twisted Truth Behind the Kit Martin Murder Trial was released.
The book has done reasonably well, but Kit is still serving a life sentence. In the meantime, true crime podcasters started picking up on the story. There were two types of podcasters: one group relied on news reports and other YouTube videos that all painted Kit as a monster. They were riddled with factual errors. The second group referenced my book as a source. Those podcasts did a much better job of telling the story, but they didn’t move the needle.
I had a hard drive full of content – courtroom testimony, recorded interviews, audio, documents, images, and more. Why not put out my own podcast? I thought. The result is the five-episode documentary/podcast, Framed: The Kit Martin Story, now on YouTube.
You can learn about the book, the podcast, and all related posts to this story on my website www.Emilio Corsetti.com.
3 Responses
The dog tag didn’t even have the correct name on it. The dog tag had no finger prints and zero DNA. It had to have been wiped clean, or potentially made just to plant. It also didn’t have the silencer on the tag. It was definitely planted.
Which shell casing? There were two found. If it’s the one found on the back porch, the family actually called a politician before calling law enforcement. The sister that found the shell casing couldn’t pass a lie detector test about where it came from.
I had more, but as I read further, I saw your update. So I removed most of what I stated.
the shell casing was ‘pristine’ even though it had lain out in the elements for a long time. the ex had access to spent shells. if kit had loaded his gun, his fingerprints/dna would have been on the casing. there was zero dna evidence at the crime scene. the ex and her sheriff deputy son both took the fifth. how did the ex get the phone that belonged to one of the victims? these are just a few of the holes in the case.
Why did the judge accept the shell casing evidence in the first place, the witness testimony, but exclude the polygraph results of said witness? This piece of “evidence” couldn’t follow the proper chain of custody bc it was never even established, a fact by itself that should’ve excluded it from the trial.
Evidently the police thought it could’ve been planted evidence so a polygraph examination was conducted and ultimately failed. So what was the point in administering it then, confirmation bias? So if she passed then he’s guilty, if she failed then he’s still guilty bc she’s simply nervous and stressed creating a false response?
Furthermore, how it even possible for police and forensics to miss such a vital, key piece of evidence twice!? The 2nd time they would’ve been desperate and determined to uncover , thoroughly searching with a fine tooth comb.