Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | RSS | Ways to Listen
13: Listen to Melanie’s answers to your questions in part 1 of our question & answer episodes.
If you have a question to ask and didn’t hear it in this episode, you have one more chance! Be sure to submit it to us by 7/31/19 by emailing us at tips@directappealpodcast.com or leaving a voicemail at (732) 510-0996
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
- Special thanks to Alan Tockerman
- Editor-At-Large: Adam Curry
- Photo credits: Joshua Davis under cc license 2.0
TUNNEL VISIONED initial police investigations into murder too often go after the most probable perp … a close family member gone wildly wrong… but this narrowing in thought is one of the main roads to wrongful convictions in our country.
Even though a family member or someone close is the most probable perp, THAT MEANS ONLY THAT … but it turns out it is also often the easiest solution for the police and prosecutors. To the state it becomes preferable to a difficult, nebulous, very possibly to be unsolved, mysterious murder. They and the prosecutors then find tidbits of “evidence” and develop the infamous “just so” story of events, and the whole investigation and preponderance of media get momentum in that direction … and it does seem possibly true.
I do believe the police and prosecutors at least initially, and usually, believe their version. However, the story becomes an obvious house of cards that has tumbled to open and acute minds … especially as time goes on. A lot of times a big clue is the over-emphasis on damaging the accused reputation in the media with sensationalist stories (e.g., sexual impropriety). A picture becomes painted that the defendant is a putrid person, and it would be a travesty if the defendant was found innocent … and so the jury and public fall in line. Another clue is the almost ridiculous lack of solid physical evidence when inspected closely and without bias. They twist and obfuscate the evidence …
Wow, what a lousy defense effort for $500,000 to $1,000,000 dollars! One can see what the wrongfully accused (and wrongfully accused are inherent in our system) are up against … for it seems as though the prosecution must have spent the equivalent of much more than that (e.g., just the number of witnesses and tests). And imagine this … many wrongfully accused have just a public defender against the prosecutions vast resources on highly publicized cases. Even if not indigent, many families know that a “good” lawyer will cost their family all of its money and more … most likely more than originally estimated … and not guarantee anything. This only changes if your family is wealthy … and then the tests, expert witnesses, and other investigative costs are incidental and can easily keep up with the prosecution’s resources.
Kudos to Melanie … it seems she has somehow kept her head up, stayed tenacious about her innocence, and helps others in prison.
Very well written. I’m curious as to what your opinion is regarding this alleged accomplice or accomplices that are still out here running free? Part of the McGuire case is a “cold case.” I haven’t seen any follow-up actions by the State or any TV shows investigating this aspect of the case. Any thoughts on that?
Thanks. No, no knowledge and not really interested in accomplice idea …since I am of the opinion Melanie was firmly in the “not guilty” column in a fair trial.
I agree. 12 years later and no accomplice. So in essence, they’re letting someone get away with murder. Their is no accomplice in my opinion. It was a ploy to give their “story” more credibility and secure a conviction against Melanie McGuire. They even stated that Melanie couldn’t have done this crime by herself. Now that they won a conviction it seems they have no interest in pursuing their so called “accomplice” theory. That’s why it would’ve been great if someone from the prosecution team would’ve participated in this podcast and shared an update on this.
What I find odd is that, as I understood the Hosts, the judge was concerned enough about defense experts that he offered her counsel to apply for public funding for her experts upon request. Defense counsel/ Joe Taco turned it down. I wonder if that is because he did not want judicial or public scrutiny into how much he spent on experts & what he paid himself. The we learn in most recent episode Joe even outsourced writing up the closing summation- WTH!?
Such a great interview. I am not convinced that Melanie did not have something to do with this murder, but there was enough reasonable doubt that she should not have been convicted, esp for life, in the way she has. I’m glad that she is hopeful and appreciates the exposure this podcast is giving her. She seemed delighted with the questions.
Does she ever get to talk to her children now?
I saw on the website https://murderpedia.org/female.M/m/mcguire-melanie-photos-2.htm Is it true they found $30,000 in cash is her apartment when the police did a search?
@jim it sure is. Don’t you find 30k in cash suspicious? Did you also read the official appeal documents that were posted. It’s a very lengthy court response to her appeals. In it you see the details of her being in Atlantic City making calls from his cell phone sending texts pretending to be him. Their was evidence of this found the year following the murder prior to her arrest but she first immediately acted suspicious when she was trying to get the ezpass charges removed. She called several times over a .90 charge. She also used a wrong email for one of his work supervisors and Bill knew the correct one and would never contact him this way to say he would be out from work. She was texting his friends. She even called herself from his phone. This was all during these 3-4 days following the murder She was not making these trips to AC looking for Bill because she was worried. She was making it appear like he wasn’t missing by using his phone that was left in his car. One of the trips she realized got caught on the EZ pass transponder that’s what caused panic over that. They also had her admitting to some of this on wire taps.
All confirmed evidence information that is court on record. Why would Melanie mention these details. This is just one example of many examples of the circumstantial evidence against her. The hosts don’t even bother to look at it and the podcast has become a complete misrepresentation of this case.
It could have been anybody using his phone to make calls to throw suspicion off of themselves. She explained why she wanted to get the E-ZPass charge removed. You just want her to be guilty so all you do is look at the negative. Let’s see what the future holds. You may be surprised. A thorough investigation could show who the real killer or killers were.
You are a nasty person. I am entitled to my opinion. What credentials do you have that make you an expert?? In my opinion SHE IS INNOCENT.
Allison, you have just exposed yourself as the liar that you are.
Please provide any official document which shows that $30,000 was found or recovered in Melanie McGuire’s Woodbridge Apartment. When you fail to do so, as you will, an apology is expected.
You’re a liar, spreading lies, I asked you for official documents, you cannot produce one piece of evidence that was produced at trial, under oath, of the existence of $30,000 being found in the Woodbridge Apt. Dont tell me about what some writer said on a website. As I have said numerous times, you just love drinking that kool-aid. I end where I began,
YOU’RE A LIAR
This sounds pretty personal to you. How are you connected to this case?
Yeah, $30,000 … and they also found out she had sex outside of her marriage. Both proof of murder on their own, right? SEX AND MONEY AND PUBLICITY.Then they said, “Gotcha!” and contacted the press. Anyone want to bet that Jim knows Allison?? They both follow the “just so” story of the prosecution very well.
.38 purchased 2 days before he disappears along with rare wadcutter bullets. The lengthy explanation from the manufacturer obtained by the state in responding to her appeal, that her specific gun model was made with either 5 or 6 is plenty sufficient to satisfy me. Otherwise we need to believe that the morning after closing on the house (which Melanie has said Bill was super into and devoted to and was his “thing”) he packs up three suitcases and takes “his” new gun and goes AWOL. Then, amazingly he is shot with wadcutter bullets, but not, apparently, by his gun (if it MUST have had 5 lands and grooves).
Her behavior surrounding the trips to Atlantic City and Delaware is damning. She’s going to find him on the same day she obtains a restraining order? And she “moves” his car as a prank? And takes a late night taxi back because she’s sleepy, and then feels refreshed and decides to take another taxi to go right back to get her car??? (there were no record of fares between nj and atlantic city that night, but c’mon, we knew that). And that car has a syringe of chloryl hydrate and hotel brochures laid out on the passenger seat? She spends the 29th, 30th, and 31st at the Red Roof Inn, paying cash for her room. I’m sure she has some fanciful explanation for why the hotel, but paying cash? Where are her kids during this time? I guess she just plopped them with the grandparents. Husband surfacing chopped up in suitcases and she is trying to get .85 cent ez pass charges removed. The phone calls “he” made (but he never actually spoke to anyone, or left a message). I could go on but I’ll stop here.
(Oh, Allison, I think I read the 30K in cash was found at her parent’s house, along with one of Bill’s casino membership card.)
@Diana awesome post and great points you made. There are many more that weren’t even mentioned in this podcast. You need to do some major mental gymnastics to consider even several of these circumstances or “coincidences”. Yes while she was living with her parents that’s police did a surprise raid and that’s where they found 30k cash and his casino card. Also correct that yeah night she shot him she just dumps the kids off at her parents and stays at the red roof inn for 3 nights near her apartment. When the she was not at work these days, no kids, she was busy dismembering. The official court document of appeal is long and grueling to read because she raised sooo many issues. Every and any issue (which she shouldn’t have done all at once) if you get the time go thru it and read the testimony. They caught her using his phone pretending to be him so no one would think he was missing the first few days. She was calling herself. Lots of little extras in there. Actual evidence of phone records. You know the ones that she says on the podcast that the prosecutors just never got. She doesn’t know why. She was emailing his bosses to say he wasn’t coming into work using the wrong email address. Those are just a few things. Legitimate evidence not opinions. The podcast does not attempt to confirm anything. This non biased podcast. I was told by the host that this was going to be non biased and show both sides equally when it started. Not only is that untrue but they don’t confirm anything. Just call it what it is we want to free her. It’s being falsely represented and that’s wrong and reckless with a victim.
Where can you stay in a hotel for cash with no credit card? I’ve never seen a hotel where you could do that. Diana, Allison and Jim, you all sound particularly bitter. Most of the comments on these podcasts have been fairly neutral, taking one side or the other, but without anything really invested. Who are you people, really? You sound like this is very personal and one sided to you. Not like the rest of us true crime fans that really want to hear the whole story to get the truth. You play off of each other very well, whats going on? You have the courage to get indignant and rude but not quite enough courage to do it honestly? Hmmmm.
Can we try to stick to the case and stop the name calling? These comments are getting very hostile and they aren’t serving anyone.
Melanie McGuire, like so many before her, was wrongfully convicted based solely on circumstantial evidence. There was a lot of DNA that was found with the victim’s body that did not match her, her family members, or suspected accomplices. An investigation needs to be done in order to find the killer and/or accomplice(s). It’s almost a guarantee they are the ones whose DNA was left behind with the victim.
The medical examiner testified that Bill’s legs were “fresh” when the first suitcase was found on May 5th. He was not killed April 28th-30th. Bodies decompose. Imagine what that decomposition would have been like had the body been put in a car trunk in May (hot weather) and driven 6+ hours to be dropped off a bridge. There has never been a timeline that makes sense.
Eddie,
I would like to do that but for months now this one troll has been doing that to me and I was taking the high road and decided to get on the low road after months. Its only so much abuse I will tolerate. I’ve had enough this week. I’ve previously asked this troll to stop and be civil respect each other. I’ve emailed the hosts about it. This troll continues so I decided to give it back. I remember you and I had a conversation once and that was all that was needed. Go back and look at the posts from months ago where I’m attacked when answering someone else’s question. Like be attacked constantly. He’s trolling me for months this week I gave it back to him. I did go to the hosts to inform them how this troll was attacking anyone pro guilt well before this week and asked for some decorum and common respect to be implemented on this page. Most other podcast pages have that and it’s really becomes a cool environment more like a community. I’ve had opinions in the majority, the minority before and everyone’s opinion was treated with respect agree to disagree remain respectful. In environment like that more dialogue happens, ideas get exchanged and you can learn from each other. Sometimes even opinions change. I wish this was ran better. I would of just stopped listening and participating because of it but I have a connection to this so I need to follow it.
If you are so sure your opinion is right why do you need to listen to a podcast that only seems to upset you? If you are so sure you are right why are you so defensive and angry? If you know the whole story so well, why listen? Just walk away. Being so emotional and forceful isnt going to win anyone over and very few people agree with you at all. If you could control your emotions maybe you would see that maybe you were wrong and Melanie is innocent. We can all see at least the possibility. Most of us can see it as fact. Melanie is innocent. She was railroaded. I dont know who killed Bill because it was never investigated but it wasnt Melanie and it wasnt in that apartment.
I agree Eddie. And you are absolutely right about the name calling on hostile comments. Allison needs to calm down. Her hatred for Melanie is overwhelming.
I never said he was killed April 28th-30th. What I said was, that was the prosecution’s timeline for the murder. If that’s the prosecution’s timeline, then Melanie could not have committed the crime. You’re correct, the difference in decompositions throws the whole prosecution’s theory out the window. When Melanie says Bill left the apt, she is telling the truth. The murder happened somewhere else.
I wasn’t saying you said that he was killed by the 30th. That was the prosecutor’s story and it makes no logical sense.
Allison is it really necessary for you to call people names that are commenting on this podcast just because they have a different opinion than you. Totally unnecessary and mean spirited. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean you have to go that route.
Tracey,
No it’s not necessary but for months now that person has been doing that to me and I was taking the high road and decided to get on the low road after months. It’s not necessary but after months I’ve had enough this week. I’ve previously asked this troll to stop and be civil and stop and respect, emailed the hosts about it. So I decided to give it back.
Exactly right. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And no one should be made to feel that they are not intelligent because of that opinion.
Is the moderating done by the hosts or someone else? I wrote a comment last night that hasn’t shown up.
Hi Diana, moderation is done mostly by me (producer), Hosts do respond when they can. We all have day-jobs and are trying to keep up with the volume. Comments are only approved on the first one, we are re-evaluating our policy and will post one shortly.
DFC40
I was trying to find out if it was true about the $30,000. According to the website, Michael McCormick at trial stated they found the $30,000 in the apartment. Was that part of his testimony?
Jim,
That was evidence collected while the police searched her parents house. It was collected and submitted into evidence. You read that in official court appeal document about evidence presented. That’s not a question that 30k was found in her during the search warrant. Speculation can be made what 30k in cash was doing hidden but yes that was evidence money trial to her. Scott Peterson had 10k and changed his appearance OJ Simpson had 10k and a disguise in the bronco during the chase. It’s brought up in trial to state of mind. Jurors can use it for interpretation. This is a normal question you asked but people like Dominick think 30k get very defensive at any question asked.
The 30k could have belonged to Bill. In any event if there was 30k that was found it didn’t mean that she was trying to do anyting ominous with it. The State’s whole case was presented on a made-up theory. They had proof of nothing. You obviously are very close to the case in that you either are a relative of Bill McGuire or you were an enemy of Melanie. In any case 30k being found whether it was found or not found is proof of nothing. Bill was a big Gambler that 30k could have been his winnings from something that he was keeping hidden. Melanie probably didn’t know anything about that money.
Your question is, was $30,000., found in Melanie McGuire’s Woodbridge Apartment?
The answer to that question is NO! Anyone who tells you different is a LIAR!
Whoever is telling you that, just ask them to produce for you or direct you to the trial transcripts where somebody or anybody testified under oath that $30,000 was found in her apt.
Where on the Murderpedia page does it say anything about $30,000 being found in the apartment?
I have heard many times that lawyers tell clients, even innocent clients, to have liquid cash on hand in case bail money is needed. When someone is trying to pin a crime on you, you need to have whatever cash you have at the ready to avoid dealing with a bail bondsman. It is not unusual for innocent people to be prepared, because lawyers tell advise it. In our system, they always go after the spouse and spouse’s family first.
Exactly. They always look at the spouse. I think it probably would have been a good idea to look at his friends his gambling associates, his coworkers. Instead they focus on one person. They wanted it to be her. And they made it her. So wrong on so many levels.
Great point, Eddie. I don’t read anything into her supposedly having $30k cash, at her parent’s home, a year plus after the incident. It is no secret she borrowed or was gifted money from friends/supporters once she was under police scrutiny. She also had the expensive family law case going on & knew an arrest could be on the horizon. How crappy if the cops kept it as “evidence.” It is not illegal to have large sums of cash.
They were trying to nail her parents, which they never did. Not one shred of real evidence there. If their had been, the prosecutor would have embellished it like she did so many other things.
I thought the podcast said the state /PP actually presented a grand jury indictment against her stepfather. The GJ FAILED to indict bc there was insufficient evidence.
@Allie, Allison.
So, you filed a complaint with the hosts. That’s funny because the other night I printed out all the exchanges that took place between us and am preparing my own complaint. However, the destination of my complaint is not directed to the hosts of this podcast.
Just so you know, my cell phone is equipped with a Forus FSV-U2 recorder. When “restricted” calls appear on my screen, it triggers the recorder. Stalking is a 3rd-degree crime in this State.
However, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because you keep reminding us that you have a “close connection” to this case. We all do. I have no idea who you are. You may or may not be related to the victim or you may be a close friend, in any event, I am not taking a chance of offending or causing any unnecessary or additional discomfort to the victim’s family or any of his friends. That’s never been my intention. I am responsible for everything I’ve said on this board, how people understand it is a different ball game.
You can advise me on this board or at my email address.
@DFC I didn’t file any complaint. I emailed Meghan earlier this week. I didn’t mention you or anyone by name (but I consider you the most aggressive but your not the only one) I addressed the overall way the webpage had become and how I thought it could be better for everyone including the purpose of what has told me she wanted to achieve with the podcast. I just said “trolls” and “people” are not using decorum and common respect on the podcast webpage. I’ll tell you what I told suggested to her. Ive listened to many true crime pods and their is a decorum and just a simple rule set that all opinions posted most be respected by others and of course are welcome for debate and questions but it’s basically an “agree to disagree” as adults in a respectful manner as everyone is entitled to their thoughts and opinions. I’ve been in the majority and the minority of the opinions of other podcasts. Just having this standard and not allowing disrespect actually created a a community like atmosphere which is really cool. People with different viewpoints actually end up talking to each other a lot more to find out their viewpoints and you can actually learn a lot from speaking with others with opposites opinions. You can still disagree with respect. That’s always been my experience on podcast webpages while discussing very polarizing and sensitive information such as murder like this one. I myself have actually changed my views on certain issues and seen others as do so as well when opposites sides actually engage in with each other. Does not happen often but it has and you it’s interesting to learn why someone sees something so very opposite from the way that you do. I think it’s much more interesting that fighting and attacking each other (and yes I know I’m guilty of doing that now also ) People share their information on what they know and how some people were able to obtain information just makes everything more interesting. Moves the case forward. Their is usually a moderator or the host reviews comments to make sure everyone is being respected. I emailed her that because I said the page has become disgusting it’s a bunch of insults and attack’s on each other and it’s not moving the podcast forward forward for her agenda just people attacking each other and I said that I was in the minority of guilty and I felt like I cant express it I’m
Constantly attacked and I had enough after weeks of it and wasn’t putting up with it anymore. I would no longer even be listening to this podcast anymore or podcast but I only am because of my personal reason. That is exactly what it was. At DFC as I told your at your very first time you question me I had no intention or idea that this was going to be a hostile forum. It shouldn’t be. For everyone that is on the side of innocence you really are missing opportunity of information and ideas by spending time arguing on the boards. I’ve found some of my best information or weakest areas of a case from those who thought the person I swore was innocent was guilty. When someone is convinced deeply of guilt they can easily say all evidence points towards the guilt. The weakest of the evidence if any would be fill
in the blank. When you feel so strongly that someone is innocent you can see nothing but doubt, and corruption in everything merited in logic or not. It’s human nature. You can feel free to report or record anything I don’t have to hide I didn’t make any call. Maybe it’s time we all acted as adults. Or at least tried to.
@Allison
I have been posting comments on the evidence in this case since 2007. I have participated in many discussions regarding the evidence with many people who believe Melanie is guilty. When I confront these people with the actual evidence, they fall apart like a 3 dollar watch and leave the discussion. I got into a discussion with a lawyer about the evidence and 3 comments into the discussion, he refused to participate and left. Why? Why do most people involved in the discussion of this case just get up and leave? To me the answer is obvious, they have no vested interests in the case, they just don’t care, to most people its simply a matter of not having anything better to do. Those people bother me.
However, me and you got into a very heated discussion over the location of the 30K. When you discovered that you made a mistake, I thought you’d be leaving, just like the rest. But you didn’t, you’re still here. Instead you took the time, did some research and reversed your position.
Ok, so you’re not some fly by night person with nothing better to do. You’re an advocate for friends or family members of the victim or your own personal convictions regarding Melanie’s guilt. I get that.
I, on the other hand, am in the other camp. I am entrenched in my belief that the State of NJ did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Chances are, we’ll never agree. My biggest problem with STATE vs MCGUIRE is not with the people who post comments contrary to my position. My problem is with the manner in which Ms McGuire was convicted. Why?
Because if they did it to her and get away with, any one of us could be next.
@DFC40 ~ We have commented on many of the same boards since way back when. Including the “TOPIX” board. For some reason, that board is no longer in existence. I do remember you well and we’ve interacted a few times because I believe we both are passionate about our beliefs that Melanie McGuire was railroaded. I also remember your support and kind words to me after my young niece was murdered. I have followed this case hoping that something would change to benefit Melanie. The prosecution took a watermelon and squeezed it through a tiny keyhole and made it seem like it fit very easy to the jury. Through the years I’ve tried to have an open mind and listened to the reasoning of many commenters as to why they believe she is guilty and some of it is just over the top and because they want to see someone suffer in jail.
Common sense…the prosecutor said the murder and dismemberment happened in the Woodbridge apartment. “What goes with a celebration? A glass of wine with a little extra kick to it” (meaning the chloral hydrate) but no chloral hydrate found in his system…
A green pillow was supposedly used as the silencer…but no proof of this was ever shown, not even gun shot residue…
His body was kept on ice in the bathtub/shower stall…where did she get these multiple bags of ice from? Wouldn’t someone have noticed this and come forward with info that a petite woman was buying an excessive amount of ice. How many trips would she have had to make to carry that amount of ice to her car? Then she would have to make multiple trips to bring the bags of ice into her apartment. Wouldn’t one think that someone in the apartment complex parking area would notice her bringing in an excessive amount of ice?
As per her coworker, Lori, “the apartment/bathroom smelled like a morgue”…a morgue smells like formaldehyde…not bleach…how do I know…I worked at a Health Sciences Center/School of Medicine/University hospital over a 14 year period and not once did the morgue ever smell like bleach.
Then their’s the reciprocating saw and Bill’s body being dismembered in the shower/bathtub. The bathroom and the apartment was looked at 5 different times. Not one mark from the saw in the shower stall…no blood…no human tissue…You would have to have nerves of steel to saw/dismember someone that you know in your own attached apartment home without your adrenaline pumping, your hands shaking and possibly sweating profusely and leave not one mark from the reciprocating saw or any other DNA on any of the bathroom surfaces.
Seriously, it is just common sense that the murder did not happen there and people fell for this absolutely crazy story. If it didn’t happen there, then that means everything that is assumed thereafter means absolutely nothing. It is a fictional story…a theory that the jurors were told were facts and they believed this wacky story. I truly cannot fathom this still after all these years. And yes, if they did it to her, they can do it to anyone. That is a very scary thought. So many people spending a major portion of their lives in prison only to be exonerated for crimes they didn’t commit.
@Tracy
Well, hello Tracy. Yes, I do remember you. When I read your comment here where you described that tragic event that you and your family went through, you came to mind. I spent a lot of time on that “Topix” board, I think they abandoned it due to a lack of interest. It’s still out there but they changed the format.
I don’t buy any of that crap that the prosecutor said about the crime scene in the Woodbridge apartment either. Did you hear the podcast where Melanie’s mother says, that she was the one who cleaned up the apartment and it certainly didn’t look like a crime had been committed there? Guess what? 5 searches by a team of forensic investigators backed up her story. Have you ever heard of a prosecutor who sends a team of CSI’s into the same area, 5 times and then has the audacity not to accept the results of those investigations? When she stood there before that jury and said, “I submit to you ladies and gentlemen that this crime took place in that apartment” what she was really saying was, “I don’t give a crap what the forensics reveal, I’m telling you the crime was committed there.” and her 12 disciples just sat there and swallowed this crap, hook, line and sinker. How in the world can you sell a theory, in a criminal trial, when the very science you selected doesn’t back it up? One of the most famous sayings attributed to Abraham Lincoln is about deception: “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” Hopefully, through these podcasts, we will prove that “you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
@DFC40,
I will always correct a something that I said because it’s was a said a mistake not out of maliciousness. I don’t like when anything is stated incorrectly and left that way because it’s not fair to anyone involved even if it’s someone I don’t like and makes the records inaccurate. I did originally read that the money was found at her parents house and knew that but I was typing quickly or didn’t state that specifically (which is also being an accurate) and I appreciate you bringing that to my attention so I was able to correct it.
I respect the fact that you are your side you are passionate about your position beliefs. I get that because I am the same way just on the opposite side. I fiercely stand by views as do you but I never wanted to it to become, nasty or hateful because it doesn’t need to.
When you say how are you referring to the prosecution or the evidence? I think her attorneys did a really good job and by no means were they ineffective. I can not and will not believe money ran out and if it did when or Joe didn’t write his closing because I have never seen any verification of that. If I see that I properly confirmed my mind may change on my opinion of him but I still think he was effective. I personally have no problem with a circumstantial case. Circumstantial cases can be very compelling and their was sooo much of it in this case a lot of little pieces that when you put it all together it’s so overwhelming. I don’t completely agree with how prosecutor handled some things it came off as overreaching when she didn’t even need to do that. It was nothing in the egregious category by but she was on the line a few times and it how I think she could of done it. I can actually be objective I also thought a few times she didn’t press the defense enough on motions they wanted.
I think how she got convicted was there was just so many pieces of circumstantial evidence. This podcast has barely touched on 40%. Each site or article hasn’t presented everything, chronically and clearly in my opinion. So even though the prosecutor couldn’t say when or where exactly he dies which legally she doesn’t have to but she shouldn’t of speculated the dud. I think I’m the juries mind it didn’t matter if she didn’t it this night, that morning, but the overwhelming evidence proved to them beyond a reasonable doubt she was guilty. She was reasonable for the result. That’s my opinion of how they were able to convict her. That is just me speculating I have no idea what the jury though and never looked for or even know if any did press.
I really did appreciate this post and it was nice hearing your opinions and thoughts.
@Allison
That’s fair, the record is now corrected.
Briefly, on your other points, as you know, Joe Tacopina is not one of the people on my Christmas card list. My biggest problem with him is that he did not inform Melanie and her family that he was facing a potential conflict of interest. I find it very suspicious that the Feds dropped those charges on him right in the middle of the trial. Those charges could have been dropped before the trial or after the trial. The timing is troublesome for me. I believe he was hamstrung at that point. He should’ve informed Melanie and her family but he elected to play the hand out.IMO, if he did make them aware, I have no doubt, Melanie and her family would’ve dumped him and that would mean, giving back money. Was his representation effective? For me, that’s debatable.
As for the prosecutor, in this case, I am not a lawyer, whatever I think or write about her performance means nothing. It takes a lawyer to point out mistakes in another lawyer. However, when her peers condemn her trial performance, that speaks volumes to me. In Melanie’s direct appeal, a 3 judge panel, wrote in their opinion that the prosecutor “overstepped her bounds” when she referred to evidence, not in the record. As you correctly pointed, circumstantial evidence can be very compelling. The State’s case against McGuire was purely circumstantial. How is it, that 3 Superior Court Judges turned a blind eye to this prosecutor’s misconduct by calling it, “overstepping her bounds?” You would think, that a case that is built purely on circumstantial evidence, the Court would condemn such behavior by a prosecutor.
That doesn’t sit well with me.
There’s a great wall of silence in this case. It is written in the US Constitution, that a defendant in a criminal trial is entitled to a jury of his peers. By extension, anybody serving on a jury is defending the US Constitution just like those soldiers risking their lives on foreign soil, same thing. Its an honor to be called upon to serve your country. Not so with the McGuire jury. They performed a civic duty but somehow, I get the feeling they’re ashamed.
That said, I too enjoyed exchanging ideas.
I am not close to any litigants in this case for the record. I just noticed it back in its massive publicity days, and thought the evidence brought against Melanie was lacking.
Although I fully disagree with Allison on the merits of this case, and fully think she is the one with cognitive dissonance, I do agree she has been harassed a bit too much. So let’s tone it down. In fairness, it is the direct appeal podcast, so one might expect more supporters of wrongful conviction to participate.
However, with that being said, on most “crime sites”, podcasts, etc … it is the ravenous and massive attacks on the accused and anyone supporting them that experience a barrage of attacks. I mean, Allison must know this, since she has stated she commonly goes to true crime blogs, forums, sites, etc. I don’t mean that there aren’t any where there is comradery and decorum on both sides … but try going to Yahoo or something and read the vilification for yourself. It must be refreshing to those close to Melanie, or her cause, to hear people rationally claiming and explaining reasons for calling this a wrongful conviction.
And for Allison to say she has inside information, yet not divulging it in the forum, is an old trick most of us just don’t “buy”. Bring it on, or don’t mention it – that is an appalling tactic. I mean, does anyone really think ANY evidence would prove to Allison that Melanie is innocent, or that she had an unfair trial? Yet, I know my mind could be turned with solid evidence.
One of the major problems I have with her analysis is she finds little ‘tidbits’ of info and calls them suspicious, and possible circumstantial evidence for murder. That is what the prosecution has done in stringing its “just so” story together. Then in court the prosecution concentrates on a “timeline”, proving that it “could be done” the way they have suggested, etc., and people think that has proven murder beyond a reasonable doubt. AND, as has been said in posts here, they irresponsibly ignore direct evidence like DNA on the bags. AND, they insist the murder was done in the apt., yet find NO evidence of such after 5 serious searches. Where is the justice in that?
In science we say that you need to be careful because you will find “what you shine your flashlight on”. Although it may be interesting, and possibly reveal a common truth, you might be missing major evidence by narrowing your sights so narrowly. Here, IMO, they did that too quickly, and would not consider other possible scenarios and suspects.
I believe Allison (and a couple others) are more connected to the prosecution side of this than they are willing to admit. Uninvolved listeners do not get this ugly about it.
Jake,
Thanks for your psychological diagnosis and analyzation of me while stating I’ve been harassed to much. Your passive aggressive and sarcasm is quite sick and you just sound like an asshole who thinks their being funny but you need to try harder.
Secondly, I was not talking about “yahoo or something” I specifically said crime podcasts webpages so get it straight. Furthermore I never said I have “evidence”. Ive stated have a personal connection to this case and know things about those involved before there ever was a murder. I’ve specifically kept it vague because I want to keep it private for many reasons. It’s a highly sensitive matter and it also involves other people as well and it’s not something to be shared on the internet with the world and especially not with people like you. I don’t need to justify this to you because I don’t give a f if you believe me or not. I’m not trying to sell you anything so I don’t give a f*ck if you don’t “buy” it.
I’ll answer your question to everyone No. There is NO information that would make Allison believe that Melanie is innocent or received an unfair trial. NOTHING WILL make me believe that. That is my opinion that I’m entitled so instead of being disgusting and giving out diagnosis just be respectful of it as I respect yours.
Wow, I didn’t think you would say those things. I think we can rest our case against Allison’s reasonableness and rationality.
Jake,
Your are not funny and please refrain from commenting about me from this point on. To avoid any confusion please stop mentioning my name in any of your future posts, or refer to me in any of you future posts. I’ve had enough of your antics and I don’t want to engage with you and no longer want you to be part of your commentary. Thank you.
And her connection somehow. Who are you Allison?
Allison,
No, I won’t stop replying to any posts you make that I consider wrong or feeble in content. This is a debate – you get hurt sometimes if you are sensitive. Please stop calling me names and using swear words that are wholly inappropriate.
Thank you.
With any type of discussion where people have opposing points of view, there’s always going to be back and forth, but it should always be done respectfully. While I would agree that there were some actions by Melanie that didn’t really make sense there were other actions that one can question that she did have a logical explanation for. But regardless of whether one thinks that some of her actions made her look guilty I think everybody would have to agree that a crime scene was fabricated by the State. They had no evidence whatsoever that the murder was committed in that town house yet the prosecutor was able to get up in front of the jurya until a complete fabrication. There was no DNA evidence no evidence at all. It’s hard to believe that they were able to get an indictment. With the people who believe that some of Melanie’s explanations for things seem odd there is a ton of things that the State presented that are beyond odd and do not make sense whatsoever. Also I think it is evident that she did not have proper representation. I think everyone would agree that Melanie deserves a new trial. To send someone to jail for the rest of their natural life on sheer speculation simply shocks the conscience.
I find the evidence of Melanie’s guilt to be overwhelming. If the same case were tried 10 times before 10 different juries, I would expect the same result each time. By Melanie’s own admission, the defense did not have a “story.” We are now in “what if” land: What if Melanie took the stand in her own defense? What if Melanie’s mother was called as a witness? What if Melanie’s plastics expert had one more day to prepare? This makes for good message board conversation and debate, but it is all speculation.
Two things struck me about the interviews with Melanie. First, except for the Q&A, Melanie spoke without interruption – she was not challenged at all. Second, because Melanie didn’t testify, nothing she said in those interviews was evidence at trial. She says that Bill asked her to purchase the gun, that he hit her the night of the closing, that she took a cab to/from AC, and that she went furniture shopping in Delaware. Did the jury hear any of this? Unless it came from another defense witness, no.
Finally, defendants often claim actual innocence when appealing criminal convictions. Appellate rules normally require that this evidence must not have been available to the defendant at the time of the trial. Since the verdict, has Melanie and her defense team uncovered any new evidence (emphasis on “new”) that would undermine the court’s confidence in the verdict reached by the jury?
@Gatsby
I enjoyed reading your comment. I could be mistaken, but you sound like you’re familiar with criminal law, possibly a lawyer. I am copying and pasting a comment that I wrote about a month ago. I would appreciate your opinion.
My question here is directed to lawyers who have participated or will participate in this podcast series.
Joe Tacopina was admitted into the Melaine McGuire murder case Pro Hac Vice. The attorney who vouched for Tacapina, was Stephen Turano. Turano had to submit an affidavit that Tacopina was in good standing in order for him to practice law in the State of New Jersey.
QUESTION# 1. Is it ineffective assistance of counsel, if a lawyer fails to inform a client, the Court and the attorney attesting to his standing, that he would be conflicted if required to proceed with a defendant’s defense?
QUESTION# 2. Is it ineffective assistance of counsel if the attorney who certifies that outside counsel is in good standing and during the course of a murder trial learns that circumstances surrounding the original affidavit have changed?
Any criminal defendant on trial for his/her life would be deprived of their constitutional right to a fair trial if such were the case.
You ask the right questions. And I see the logic in your ultimate conclusion if the answer to one or both of your questions is “yes.” But it depends on the facts of each case, and specifically if the defendant suffered any prejudice at trial. (I know, I know, if ‘ifs and buts’ were candy and nuts, we’d all have a merry Christmas.)
ANSWER TO QUESTION #1: Great question, but what is the conflict here? The claim that the revised retainer agreement disincentivized Tacopina from zealously representing his client? Both the trial court and the Appellate Division found that “there is no legal authority that supports [defendant’s] argument that a retainer agreement of this sort creates a conflict of interest and rises to the level of constitutional ineffective assistance of counsel. . . . Moreover, [defendant] is unable to show that she suffered any prejudice from the retainer agreement.” (Quoting Aug. 7, 2017 Appellate Division opinion.) I believe the NJ Supreme Court just recently denied Melanie’s petition for certification, shutting the door on this argument, at least at the state court level.
ANSWER TO QUESTION #2: Another great question, but, as a technical matter, I believe Tacopina was in “good standing” at the time of the trial, though I could be mistaken. To be in “good standing” means that you have not been suspended or disbarred by your state bar association. You could be in the process of a nasty divorce or personal bankruptcy – or even accused (but not convicted) of something ugly – and still be in “good standing.”
As the appellate attorney said in the final episode, now that Melanie has exhausted all state court appeals, she can file a habeas petition in federal court. A federal court may be more receptive to these constitutional arguments, but federal courts apply the same strict standard. As the good folks at the Innocence Project state:
“[T]he standard set in the landmark decision in Strickland v. Washington creates an extremely high burden on the defendant to establish ineffectiveness. In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set a two‐prong test to determine ineffectiveness ‐ the counsel’s representation must fall below an objective standard of reasonableness, and there must be reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Further, in evaluating the performance of counsel, the Supreme Court stated that courts “must be highly deferential…A court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.””
Hope this was helpful.
@Gatsby: Yes, your comment was helpful. However, I neglected to give you the facts as they relate to your question. You asked if McGuire had ever filed a motion for newly discovered evidence. In the middle of her PCR the following facts were revealed. In my opinion, this was clearly new evidence. However, her PCR counsel did not present it to the Court. Both of my previous questions are based on the following facts. This is an excerpt from a comment that I submitted to another person on this board.
“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.”
[ ], and the one you claim is an “ethical” professional, sold out his client, [ ]. 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?”
The foregoing facts are the backdrop to the new retainer agreement. In and of itself the new retainer agreement doesn’t rise to the level of ineffective assistance. But when you look at the circumstances that prompted it, a different picture emerges.
In my opinion, the foregoing clearly fits within the newly discovered evidence rule. But like I said, her PCR counsel did not or would not bring it to the attention of the court.
Given these facts, surrounding Tacopina’s representation of McGuire, would you agree, that she was deprived of a fair trial? Doesn’t an attorney have an obligation and a duty to at least inform a client if he knows a potential conflict of interest exists?
Thank you for your time.
Before I answer, let me give two big qualifiers. First, I do not (and may never) know the record of this case as well as you do. Second, I would not call myself an appellate lawyer.
“Don’t you think a defendant has the right to know if a lawyer’s loyalty becomes divided when the stakes are life imprisonment?” Yes, absolutely. But based on the facts you gave me, I do not see any divided loyalty here. Tacopina wasn’t dating the prosecutor, working for Bill’s sisters, or suing the trial court judge. According to the trial court judge, Melanie had the benefit of an aggressive and zealous defense team.
“Would you want a lawyer representing you who was accused of selling-out a former client and under investigation by the Feds?” No. But, even if true, those facts, standing alone, do not meet the two-part Strickland test – the representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and there is a reasonable possibility that, but for the unprofessional errors, the result would have been different.
You may believe this standard is obscenely high and terribly unfair. And that’s not an unreasonable position to take. I suppose the argument in support of the standard is this: there are 100 million cases filed in our courts each year – half are traffic related. And while only a fraction go to trial, do we want to open the door to “collateral attacks” on the lawyers if the alleged misconduct did not have a direct impact on the verdict?
A new site has been set up to raise funds to fully investigate this crime. For those of you who believe in Melanie’s innocence, we ask that you please contribute to this fund. All donations are gratefully appreciated.
https://www.supportful.com/b96f6be6-d765-4ea1-b448-0abc7248ce61