Truth:
No. Michael has never once confessed to the crime! In fact, every time he was asked about this, including in the interview with Detective Williams on January 24, 1997, Michael steadfastly maintained his innocence.
Michael was coerced to write a statement that he WITNESSED the crime. He did so under intense pressure and threats while in an intense interrogation, and after passing a lie detector test that he knew nothing about the attack.
Lie #2
Did Michael fail a polygraph test?
Truth:
No. Michael PASSED the only polygraph test he was ever given. This is one of the most blatant and troubling lies that the state is pushing in this case. The contemporaneous WSPD documentation unequivocally backs up Michael's consistent claim that he took only one polygraph test, that it happened on July 22, 1996, that it was given by Detective Lonnie Maines, and that Detective Maines scored the test as "truthful."
Lie #3:
Did Jill Marker identify Michael in a line-up prior to the trial?
Truth:
No. On October 31, 1996, prior to Michael being charged, Jill Marker was presented with a line up in which Michael’s photo appeared, Jill Marker DID NOT identify Michael. In fact, she identified another suspect as being in the store that day (this suspect was a white male whom the police mysteriously stopped investigating six months earlier.)
This other suspect was known to have been paying unwelcome visits to Jill at the Silk Plant Forest store, and when questioned about it by police, he lied to them. He was polygraphed and was scored as showing "a great amount of deception." Other witnesses in the store about 90 minutes before the attack identified this suspect as being there then.
There was no written documentation of the October 31, 1996 line up session with Jill, in violation of police procedure at the time. We only know about the session because a videotape of it surfaced a couple of years ago.
Detectives held a subsequent identification session with Jill on September 4, 1997, which was just prior to trial. By that time, Michael’s photo had been widely shown in the media. Nevertheless, contrary to the state’s assertion, this event also resulted in Jill Marker failing to identify Michael. This is known because the detectives by their own admission in their own documentation were attempting to repeat the procedure, setting the same photos in a different position on a bulletin board to help Jill better see the photos, when Jill Marker grew frustrated and ended the session. It is not disputed that Jill was left very nearly blind by the attack, and eventually became totally blind. No videotape was made of the September 4, 1997 session. In the its independent review of the matter, the Silk Plant Forest Citizens Review Committee also concluded that Jill Marker never identified Michael in any police line up. This completely undermines a central claim the state made in successfully denying Michael a new trial. In the January 2009 MAR hearing, the state argued that breaches of Michael's discovery rights in not disclosing Jill's failure to identify Michael on Oct. 31, 1996 were immaterial because, the state claimed, she identified him later on September 4, 1997. We now know for a fact, and the review committee found, that Jill was unable to identify Michael both times. None of this was ever disclosed to the defense, and more importantly, to the judge and jury who saw a theatre of an identification in court at trial in December, 1997.
Four days later (September 8, 1997), Michael's name was added to a civil lawsuit filed by Jill's family while the criminal trial was pending. This was the lawsuit that was settled later for $9.25M by the insurance company for the shopping center. According to North Carolina law, the key to the shopping center's liability would be a failure to provide a standard of security. This rested on Jill's attacker not being a person Jill knew was stalking her, but had to be a person engaged in a random act of violence, for example, an attack by an unknown person associated with a random robbery. If a known suspect (such as the known white stalker who was identified to be in the store 90 minutes earlier,) were confirmed to be Jill's attacker, it would not help the civil case the family was pursuing. However, if Michael, or another random person was identified (or further yet, convicted in the criminal case,) the shopping center could be liable to Jill for a huge award. After Michael's conviction in December, 1997, the insurance company moved to settle.
Lie:# 4:
Was Michael a violent felon prior to this event?
Truth:
No. Michael had a history of misdemeanors, generally involving petty shoplifting or possession of a small amount of marijuana. He was never a violent felon. In fact, his previous girlfriends all said he was gentle. He did plead guilty to misdemeanor assault on a female, the result of a domestic dispute years earlier in which his girlfriend at the time admitted later that she was under the one who was violent with him, as she was under the influence of alcohol.
Lie #5:
Was Michael a user of serious drugs?
Truth:
No. Michael was never a user of drugs more serious than marijuana or beer. By his own admission, Michael drank beer and smoked marijuana regularly, including on the day that he was intensely interrogated by Detective Williams, wrote out a statement fed to Michael by Detective Williams stating Michael witnessed the crime, and subsequently lost his freedom (January 24, 1997.)