The Best Defense

22 thoughts on “The Best Defense”

1. I’ll start with my favorite one. In Newark he’s going to take out a gun and confront or “scare” the people stealing the headlights. Yeah ok. Then if he doesn’t got shot first, and shoots someone over headlights he goes to prison for being a felon with a weapon. I can’t believe I’m even entertaining this ridiculous theory to this extent since I know Newark well and I know he’s not going strapped to Newark over headlights please. The only thing that would even make sense is if he even filled out police reports for the six times his headlights were stolen. Since that was never mentioned I’ll assume he didn’t. Such BS.

   Next BS does she think that Joe really is going to risk the case and his legal oath to do the best by his client because she has psycho analyzed him as being “to proud” to admit he financially could not. I don’t think so. Furthermore, I think that when your client becomes unable to pay during any phase a representation her lawyers would have to ethically let the court know. The court could then technically appoint them as/pay them public defender fee. For her lawyer to say I’ll just pay pick up this tab and you pay me back does not even sound ethically correct or within the standards. Her lawyers have great reputations before and after her I don’t think they would ruin their careers. More BS from her.

   Next BS maybe she didn’t have a lot of witnesses because their weren’t MANY that would do more more good then harm. Your only going on her words. You don’t think her lawyers properly vetted these witnesses. They might have had something to contribute to her defense but maybe would also had knowledge that would be more hurtful.

   He might have ran off on his ex did some of the same things but one major thing is different. He didn’t end up dead. So they weren’t that similar.

   She has had a lot of time to and make up stories but when you take everything she says and look at individually it’s major mental gymnastics that one must achieve.

   Also if she didn’t kill him then who did? She’s never EVER mentioned once about finding the real killer who is still out there getting justice for her husband. Why is that? It’s not always what she’s says but what she doesn’t. Those are some of her words. The question is rhetorical to me because she knows who killed him she did. What do you think? It’s strange that she never has and certainly strange that she isn’t doing it on this platform.

   I’ve never watched or listened to REAL wrongful conviction/exoneration story where the wrongfully convicted does not mention not only justice for themselves but for the victim even while going thru the process of their freedom. She’s looking for legal loopholes I don’t hear her proclaiming innocence/exoneration. I think that’s behavior of am guilty person not an innocent one. Thats my observation what are your thoughts?

   1. Hey Allison, your latest comment sounds like the same logic that those 12 jurors used. Are you one of the jurors? Once you answer that, I got a few questions for you.

      1. @DFC40 no I was not one of the jurors. I am from NJ and did follow the case closely at the time. Questions?

2. My first thought is that you seem extremely angry and really hate Melanie. The neighbor who heard the argument should have been able to testify to that and to all extent possible. But the main thing that will always stick with most people is that there is no way in hell that that murder happened in that townhouse… it is not possible. The State made up a case and a theory and that is beyond wrong. I think when a person is murdered they need to look into all the people that they had associations with and not just focus on one person.

3. Well I know some personal insight into the case so I think these are questions that I had interest in the hosts addressing and if that comes off as angry I don’t mind being called that. The neighbor didn’t know even know exactly where this argument was coming from and maybe was vetted by her lawyers and deemed she could would be more prejudicial then probative to their defense. I think her value was very minimal. I do agree with you that I don’t think the dismemberment of the body took place at her apartment. Not possible to get rid of all that evidence and the noise. Maybe the initial murder took place there at the most but no dismemberment or dragging suitcases. I think the case the state had the correct person but no their theory on where and how parts of it executed were not 100% correct. How can they be unless the prosecution was there but I agree they could of made a better theory of the execution of the crime. I guess it doesn’t matter if she dismembered him in her apartment or in the woods their case in chief that she murdered him. Beyond a reasonable doubt they proved that years ago to me. They took their time to charge her over a year so maybe they did look into other associations, maybe not. Who do you think did it?

4. I have no idea who could have done it. He was a gamble… it could have been any number of people it could have been people that he owed money to a loan shark..who knows? I just think that while there are some things that make her look guilty I think that there was enough reasonable doubt to find her not guilty.

5. @DFC no I was not one of the jurors. I am from NJ and did follow the case closely at the time. Questions?

   1. Allison, by claiming that you have “followed” this case closely, I’m assuming you’re referring to reading what was published in magazines, newspapers, internet posts and the televised trial on Court TV. I, on the other hand, have studied and researched this case from the day that Ms McGuire was convicted. I consider any media coverage of this case as secondary information because it is purely subjective and tainted. I am a paralegal and have formed my opinions on all the official documents and trial transcripts. I have studied exactly what the jury heard, I don’t need Glatt or CNN to tell me what to think.
      I could spend all day responding to your many posts on this site, but just a few points will suffice.
      Your comments on Joe Tacapino are simply wrong. He started his career as a prosecutor and when it dawned on him that he could not support his playboy lifestyle on a government salary he went into criminal defense. He entered the McGuire case, Pro Hac Vice. He had no NJ license to practice law so he needed Steven Turano to vouch for him.
      Fast-forward to 2016 for a moment. In the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, case No.14CV749-LTS-FM, the Honorable Laura Taylor Swain issued a MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dated, March 31, 2016, and on page 3 of that Order we read:
      “On March 12, 2007, federal prosecutors subpoenaed Tacopina’s financial records, and Tacopina himself came under investigation. Tacopina was thus conflicted out of further representation of Kerik. Tacopina thereafter became a cooperating witness against Kerik, engaging in multiple proffer sessions in which he provided the U.S. Attorney with information to assist in the prosecution of Kerik.”
      Your hero Allison, and the one you claim is an “ethical” professional, sold out his client, as we say in Newark. Rewind to 2007.
      Where was “Joe” on March 12, 2007? We now learn that he was right in the middle of the McGuire trial. Does he inform Ms McGuire that he himself is under investigation? NO! Does Steven Turano inform Ms McGuire? NO! Don’t you think a defendant has the right to know if a lawyer’s loyalty becomes divided when the stakes are life imprisonment? Would you want a lawyer representing you who was accused of selling-out a former client and under investigation by the Feds? STRIKE ONE Allison.
      Then, Tacopina wants a new “retainer agreement” and when is this agreement dated? March 2007! Because of his own pending doom in New York, he changed his trial strategy. His plan was to get outta the McGuire case as quickly as possible. He rushed through the trial. He used that excuse about “no money” to hide his own illegal activities in New York. Joe Tacapina is a cop at heart, he’s a con-artist with a license, he sold out Kerick and he sold out Melanie McGuire.Glatt published in his book, that the trial prosecutor, Patricia Preioso, “never” heard of Joe Tacopina despite the fact that both of them worked in New York. I’m not buying any of that crap, are you? A review of his performance at the McGuire trial will clearly reveal that he was pulling punches. Him and Turano failed to object at critical points in the trial, so says the Appellate Division in their opinion.
      Since you claim to know this case “personally” Allision, How is it that you failed to mention that it was the McGuire family that put up the first website, “MELANIE MCGUIRE WRONGFULLY CONVICTED” seeking information on the real killer?
      You also missed the fact that this Podcast has a tip line for the same information, which again is coming from the McGuire side. Why hasn’t the victims family been screaming for justice? Where is this accomplice(s) that the prosecutor promised to deliver? They had over 12 years to produce. STRIKE 2 ALLISON.
      I noticed that all of your posts lack logic, but at the same time, you have no problems pointing out, what you claim is “BS.” Wasnt it you who put forth the theory, that Brad Miller was working with the prosecutor because he knew Melanie was guilty so he decided to roll-over to help her!!!! WOW! Talk about BS!
      STRIKE 3

      1. DFC40,
         You need to calm down. I don’t if your new to public forums but people state opinions, ideas and sometimes they differ. Its called having dialogue and you can agree to disagree with me that’s fine. I know that everyone including myself can get really passionate about their views and opinions which is understandable as it’s a serious subject. I typed my opinion that you didn’t like. That’s fine that’s your opinion I respect that and I respected you. Furthermore, I didn’t demand to know if you were on a jury, insult your opinion or assume where you got your opinions from. I sense some anger issues with serious self righteous attitude.
         I was not rude to you once. You were RUDE WITH YOUR CONDESCENDING, JUVENILE ANTICS “STRIKING” that behavior won’t be tolerated on here again.

         1. If anybody needs to calm down, it’s you. I can’t understand your response because there are missing words and some of your sentences are unintelligible.FYI, I know exactly what forum I’m in and have been posting on various sites regarding this case since 2007. First of all, you did not respond to my comment but rather, sidestepped it. You went off in a completely different direction. I have no time to be following you into another rabbit hole. Secondly, your response is full of emotions and lacks objectivity. I don’t debate with emotional people who get their feelings hurt. Thirdly, I take this case very very seriously. There is an innocent woman wrongfully convicted sitting in a prison cell, 2 young children grew up with no mother or father, believing that their mother murdered their father, if you’re a mother, you can certainly relate to the trauma that these children went through which will probably affect the rest of their lives.
            Lastly, I have read every single post written by you on this site, you did not respond to my original comment because you cannot defend your position. You can’t defend your position because you accept and repeat whatever the media tells you about this case, you have not done any independent research on this case. This is not a forum for pillow talk or shooting the breeze around the office water cooler. The stakes are too high here.

6. Great podcast! This episode does a lot to bring to light what experts can do to help a defendant. Listening to the surgeon was fascinating, as was hearing the other experts Meghan and Amy spoke to in previous episodes. The jury did not hear enough.

   And reasonable doubt? Yes, it’s there. No crime scene? Come on. If this case had been investigated thoroughly, one could have been uncovered. The body washes up in Virginia but it seems nothing was done to pursue any real investigation in VA. I don’t believe for a minute someone in NJ would drive down to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and throw off three suitcases, with our without an accomplice. It makes no logical sense. Who did he know in VA? Has anyone investigated that?

   As far as the comment about McGuire not going on about finding the “real killer,” well, I just had to laugh. First, that phrase smacks of OJ and has long been joke fodder among talk show hosts and the like. Had she talked about finding the “real killer,” those invested in and believing in her guilt would be the first to start screaming that she is being fake. She can’t win either way. Second, the podcast is set up so that we hear SHORT CLIPS taken from a series of telephone interviews. We aren’t hearing the whole thing, so we don’t know what she has said about getting justice for her husband. We are hearing what the producers of the podcast used in order to tell their story and highlight problems with the prosecution’s case. Even if she doesn’t mention finding the “real killer” at all, that means nothing. Being wrongfully convicted and having your freedom and children taken away would certainly make anyone a little self-centered, don’t you think? Her priority has to be getting this travesty of a conviction overturned.

   1. Eddie,

      Good point on the looking for the real killer. I didn’t think about it that way but I agree it’s a lose/lose no matter what decision was made. I totally remember OJ and those optics were terrible he was
      like mocking the situation. Then as only OJ could he topped himself by writing the book titled if I did it. I hear he is frequently using the knife emoji now on Twitter. The gift that keeps giving.

7. Well said DC40 and Eddie. It’s amazing with everything the Tacopina was involved in and everything that was going on when they were supposed to be representing her and all of his illegal activities that her appeal for ineffective counsel did not go anywhere. I hope to God that there is a lawyer out there or some Innocence Project that will take this case and free this woman. and you’re right Eddie why didn’t they look in Virginia where the body was found. He had friends in Virginia so why didn’t they investigate these people??

   1. Julie, during Melaine’s Post Conviction hearing before Judge Ferencz, the judge did grant Melanie’s lawyer, one Lois DeJulio, a court-appointed lawyer, a motion to investigate Tacopina’s shenanigans. However, Lois and Ferencz, worked together in the PD’s office and are close buddies. I was at the hearing when the Judge said, “I don’t want to hear what lawyers do outside of this courtroom.” When you read between the lines, this Judge did not want any circus media outside of his courtroom, plus, he was real close to retirement. Lois clammed up and left the McGuire case that day. The Judge denied the motion for post-conviction relief without even conducting an evidentiary hearing. He too left the case. The Melanie McGuire case stinks to the high heavens with political corruption.

      1. Are you a journalist, body language expert, family member in denial, or just a groupie of hers? Once you answer that, I got a few questions for you.

         1. I am a paralegal engaged in the study of law. If you’re looking for the truth you can ask me any questions regarding State vs.McGuire. If you’re looking for some feel-good therapy, I’m not the one.

8. DC40 it’s sad but true. The State will stick together because they never want to admit that they were wrong or that anything wrong was done. Instead they can lay their heads on pillows at night knowing an innocent woman was stripped of her life and her children and will die in that godforsaken place when they know damn right well that she didn’t do it. I pray that there is a lawyer out there that would be willing to take this case pro bono to save this woman’s life or an Innocence Projectroject will get involved. A thorough investigation would reveal who the real killer or killers were. I wouldn’t be surprised if these exact people aren’t
   keeping a real close eye on this podcast.

   1. The irony is, you know where you’ll find the prosecutor and everybody connected with the prosecution and investigation of this case on Sunday morning? In Church!
      I share your sentiments.

9. Why is it so hard to believe that Bill just got himself in a mess … with debts, drinking, and the wrong people? Then, he is closing on a big house, out bragging about it, and gets whacked.

   The prosecution “cheated” in colloquial terms, but that is too often allowed in our system. They, the detectives, and the judge should be seriously reprimanded … and that is the main reason they keep the lid on it. Truth be damned in the “Just Us” system.

10. Allison, I am with you on your thoughts about this case. I definitely think Melanie murdered Bill.

    1. Nice to see someone else is also looking at both sides and going on logic.

11. To be honest, I can’t say for sure if Melanie is guilty or not….but I do believe there was enough reasonable doubt for her to be found not guilty. One big thing that bothers me is that I think we can all agree Bill was not cut up in their apartment. There is NO WAY she would have been able to rid the place of all forensic material and when they checked the hotel and her parents house, nothing as well. It is the prosecution’s job to tell us a story and this story stinks. The prosecution also says that she would have needed an accomplice yet in all that time they found squat?! That’s hard for me. I think the jury wasn’t completely convinced of her guilt but to them, who else could have done it? That’s really where the defense dropped the ball. Plus, there seemed to be many opportunities to poke holes in the prosecution’s story that just wasn’t done. Does this come down to Joe T.’s problems and wanting out so quickly? Maybe. It’s just sad that Melanie (whether guilty or innocent) didn’t get the defense she deserved.

Comments are closed.