Mickey Finn

13 thoughts on “Mickey Finn”

1. Well here is a link from John Glatt’s book regarding a reciprocating saw that Brad Miller purchased:

   https://books.google.com/books?id=VnW6xX4HU_sC&pg=PA273&lpg=PA273&dq=brad+miller+reciprocating+saw&source=bl&ots=kTSKpLCliw&sig=ACfU3U0RoG6IXoeKMJPjIm3F7lgxtTtFLQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9wZqdn9PiAhWBtlkKHfTOAe0Q6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=brad%20miller%20reciprocating%20saw&f=false

   1. Brad’s saw was surrendered to police, along with multiple other saws owned by people with connections to Melanie. Forensic tests were run and no positive matches were found.

   2. I’ve read some of John Glatts books and found a lot of his writing to be interesting, but not always based in fact. Hes known for only getting one side of the story and I’ve even read where he quotes things someone he has never met was thinking about. Much of his stuff is based on emotion, not fact.

   3. John Glatt is a liar: Brad Miller is a liar: the entire prosecution team headed by Patricia are liars: all the Virginia Beach police investigators involved in this case are liars. As Melanie describes the illegal police and investigators coercive tactics employed, it becomes clear that it was a concerted effort to intimate and harass everyone close to Melanie McGuire. These are all public servants who get their paychecks from taxpayers. Instead of getting up off their asses and conducting a thorough investigation, they took the easy way out by focusing all their attention and valuable State resources on McGuire to the exclusion of anybody else. As Maria posted, John Glatt sat in that courtroom and couldn’t (or wouldn’t) get the facts right. Glatt makes a living as a supposedly expert crime writer. Wherever there’s a high profile case you’ll find him there. There’s no money for him if writes the truth, half truths and ignoring the facts are his style. A review of Brad Millers trial testimony will clearly reveal that the reciprocating saw was first discovered by the authorities, NOT HIM! On the stand, he attempts to convince his audience, “after doing my due diligence (when Melanie tried to do her due diligence with the erroneous ez-pass charges, she was accused of covering up a crime) I remembered I bought some saws, at Home Depot, around the same time period of the crime, so I brought it to the attention of the police.” LIAR!!!!
      The truth is, when those detectives showed up in the hallway of the RMA offices and dragged his ass downtown for questioning he was being taken in as an accessory to 1st degree murder. Brad Miller was then granted immunity, after that, he became the prosecutions fair-haired boy.That’s when him and the prosecution concocted his, “I brought the Home Depot purchase up first.” During his testimony the defense discovered, and Miller admitted, that he LIED under oath to the grand jury, which is a clear violation of his immunity agreement, but the judge denied the defenses request for impeachment. Parenthetically, a review of judges legal reasoning and logic for refusing to impeach, is simply outrageous and would make one wonder how this guy ever got to wear a black robe.
      The biggest liar in this case and an embarrassment to the AG’s office is the lead prosecutor, Patricia Prezioso. She makes it clear, from the gate, “Does the State have any evidence that the crime was committed in the Woodbridge Apt.” She answers her own question. “NO.” But yet, she spent 90% of her closing argument to the jury arguing how the crime was committed in that apt. More importantly, she sent a forensic team into that apt 5 times! What did she expect to find on the 5th sweep that they didn’t find on the 4th? How was she able to authorize State funds to do all these useless searchers? and how much did these 5 searches cost NJ taxpayers? Then she tells us at trial, ” I dont have to prove the crime was committed in the apt.” Really! the indictment charges Melane McGuire with committing the crime in the Woodbridge apt. Not so sure the law allows such a broad interpretation. What amazes me and is also very disturbing is, a review of the trial transcripts will clearly reveal that this prosecutor was speaking outta both sides of her mouth and this poor excuse of an impartial jury bought this crap, hook, line and sinker.

      1. Lots of interesting points here but we agree that the lack of crime scene is so troubling that is should have given the jury pause. Regardless of what your opinion is of her guilt or innocence, it is almost impossible that this crime happened in the Woodbridge apartment. The story offered in summation by the prosecution is simply not supported by any facts and it is very troubling for us.

2. I couldnt see what you were referring to, it said you had reached your viewing limit for this book. That being said, I have read a couple of Glatt’s books. I found them to be full of inconsistencies, half truths, opinions of what could have happened, and a lot more emotion than truth.

3. The more episodes I listen to the more I feel her whole case was botched .speculation circumstantial evidence list goes on..she needs a new trial! I see enough reasonable doubt!

   1. I agree. It was permeated with reasonable doubt, and the seven hours of missing footage on that tape is very suspicious in my opinion. Did the prosecution suppress that because it wasn’t in their favor?? I really feel that she had ineffective counsel.

4. I have always thought there was more than reasonable doubt on this case, but what I often tell friends is … if you get the wrong, rabid detective; the wrong, rabid prosecutor; and the wrong, rabid judge … you are most often toast. They get righteous indignation disease and tunnel vision as they ruthlessly attain their beloved conviction even as they see important evidence points away from their prisoner of choice. We MUST have some accountability for prosecutors, detectives, and judges!

5. Maybe Brad Millers worked with the prosecution because he thought she was guilty and wanted to help. Melanie is sooo guilty and their are to many coincidences would have to happen and work against her all at the same time for her not to be guilty.

   1. If you really go deep into the case I think you will at least see reasonable doubt, holes in the prosecutions case, etc. it almost couldnt have happened like they said it did.

6. Bravo! Great work so far. I had never heard of this case until I started following your podcast. To say that I am intrigued is an understatement.

   Will you be posting any reading resources, i.e., trial transcripts, web searches, etc.?

   Thanks!

   1. We are going to try and post as much as we can. Right now the focus is on the podcast, we all have day jobs and our time is limited. We’ll be able to build out the website once the editing work slows down. Thanks for listening!

Comments are closed.