Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | RSS | Ways to Listen
11: Financial documents reveal suspicious transactions in and out of the McGuire’s joint bank account while lab reports reveal untested DNA and hair and police reports raise shocking new accusations. The prosecution alleges that two anonymous letters containing information about Bill’s murder were written by Melanie while Melanie’s camp denies that she wrote these letters. The experts on each side battle it out but who will the jury believe?
If you have any information regarding this case, you can submit it by emailing us at tips@directappealpodcast.com or leaving a voicemail at (732) 510-0996. If you have a question to ask Melanie, be sure to submit it to us by 7/31/19 and we may select it for a future episode.
Credits:
- Hosted by: Meghan Sacks and Amy Shlosberg
- Produced by James Varga
- Written by Meghan Sacks
- Recorded, mixed, and edited by Justin Kral at JC Studios
- Music and underscore by Dessert Media
- Legal Counsel: Barry Janay
- Producer-at-Large Adam Curry
- Special thanks to Alan Tockerman
- Photo credits: Joshua Davis under cc license 2.0
While there are certainly some things that any one of us would raise an eyebrow at in Melanie’s story (particularly related to her actions after Bill left), it seems entirely unconscionable — not to mention unethical — to have a multitude of evidence that was simply not tested. The whole “take what benefits us and leave out what doesn’t” method of prosecution makes my stomach turn.
That leads me to a question for the listeners who are more well-versed in the practice of law than I am: Couldn’t Melanie’s defense have opted to test said evidence? I assume its existence wasn’t withheld by the prosecution, because then we’d be talking about some major Brady violations. This may just bring us back to Tacopina’s unwillingness to do the job properly…but couldn’t a case then be made for ineffective assistance of counsel? From my understanding, Melanie & her team did attempt this in PCR, but they were unsuccessful. What might they have needed to be successful in this pursuit? Or is it entirely dependent on the subjectivity of the judge? Thanks in advance to anyone who may be able to answer these queries!
I agree with what some have said in that I haven’t heard enough to convince me of Melanie’s complete innocence, but I absolutely believe there was more than enough reasonable doubt in this case that the woman should never have been convicted.
If you have time, check out all my posts, on this site, under DFC40. I have studied this case since 2007. My opinions are from a legal standpoint. I have read the transcripts and everything in my comments can be verified.
Hope this helps.
It is unfathomable to me that they would not do forensic testing on the other hairs that were found in the suitcases. It’s like if they weren’t Melanie’s the State didn’t care. As for the dog hair Melanie’s parents nor Melanie had a dog at the time yet there could have been other people in his life that had a dog. The mob letter was ridiculously written and Melanie being from New Jersey would have known that a mob guy would never talk like that nor write some 4 Page letter. This obviously was written by somebody else and I think it was done to make it look like Melanie was trying to get off the hook. Also she never called him Billy Mack I think they needed to look into not only Bill’s associates as far as gambling was concerned but maybe look at people that he was friends with. A whole case was built around this woman with no forensic evidence at all. I think it’s pretty clear to everyone that there’s no way in hell that the murder was committed in that townhouse. yet the prosecutor was allowed to get up before a jury and tell them a whole fabrication about how it was done in the town house and how she carried everything out…just ridiculous. I’m not an attorney but I would have to think that there should be some law against presenting information to a jury that you’re basically making up out of your head. Also I have always thought that since his body was found in Virginia that they should have really investigated the people in Virginia that he may have known.
@Julie …Couldn’t agree more
Melanie did not receive a fair trial. Trial by media, sensationalism, bad police work, bad prosecutorial conduct, and poor helmsman(judge). I have been telling people for years that if you get the wrong detective, the wrong prosecutor, and the wrong judge … you literally do not stand a chance. And unfortunately, it happens inevitably. And by “wrong” here I mean low empathy for defendant’s rights/potential wrongful convictions and/or low I.Q.
They use the forensics and their vast resources unfairly, and will purposely obfuscate the truth to “win”. Time and time again … because … they have total immunity from the very law they say they uphold.
Regarding Melanie not taking the stand- I think she would have had a lot of credibility issues with a jury. She had a long term affair with her boss which she kept hidden from her husband (and possibly co-workers?) for years. She admits she committed perjury in a drivers license revocation case some years earlier, and maybe the prosecutor would have had a way to bring that up at this trial.Also, this may be a minor point, but she obtained a PA drivers license using a false address (the license she used when she bought the gun). I never heard an explanation why she lied and got a PA license. If I had to guess, they registered their cars at her aunt’s address in PA to get cheaper insurance since NJ has high rates. That is technically insurance fraud. I think Bill had his license revoked in NJ but wasn’t that years earlier? Melanie could have registered the cars in NJ, where they actually lived. The jury may not have seen her as an honest, credible person.
Also, could you address the issue of attorney-client privilege and whether it prevents Melanie’s former attorneys from discussing the case? For example, if she told them something unfavorable would they be allowed to reveal that? If they are bound by privilege then I think it is unfair for the hosts to keep saying that the attorneys wouldn’t speak to them. Maybe Melanie can sign a waiver of the privilege and we can hear the attorneys’ perspective on some of these trial issues!
I agree that based on some of her past history it probably was a good idea not to put her on the stand because you never would know how the attorneys can turn things around. Patty Prezioso is a very good prosecutor and would have destroyed her instantly whether she was telling the truth or not. That’s why a lot of times defense attorneys will advise their client not to testify. As for her attorneys being able to be interviewed for this podcast or anything else they certainly would be able to do that. However they would not be able to reveal anything she told them confidentially as that would be a violation of attorney-client privilege. However, anything that came out at trial they certainly would be able to discuss. Anytime you watch shows where they talk about a past murder usually both sides do get interviewed. I think her attorneys don’t want to be interviewed because they know that they didn’t give her the defense that they should have.
Right Julie, but it seems if she went on the stand, she would have been able to explain her history of lying for Bill, just as many women in abusive relationships do. This pattern explains buying a gun for him.
I just found this podcast and am so dumbfounded. How on earth was she found guilty when there are so many “what ifs” and things that just don’t add up? I’m also listening to a podcast on the disappearance of Susan Powell. I am equally dumbfounded that her husband was not arrested; prior to the catastrophic events that played out. It just shows the swing of “justice” is dependent on the main characters and their opinions (cops, law, etc)
I have replayed your podcasts many times and it’s very clear she was doomed from the start. I truly hope your podcast brings change to Melanie’s situation and she is able to get the fair, unbiased trial, she deserves.