Melanie Q&A (part 2)

17 thoughts on “Melanie Q&A (part 2)”

1. For those of you who believe in Melanie’s innocence, we ask you to please donate to the fund to help pay for the private detective who is currently working on fully investigating this crime. Please share with anyone who may want to help! Thank you so much. Melanie is heartened by the support she is receiving!

   https://www.supportful.com/b96f6be6-d765-4ea1-b448-0abc7248ce61

2. I know this isn’t specific to this episode, but as I was binging this podcast a few things came up that didn’t make sense to me (maybe I missed these things being addressed though).
   1. Melanie said she took cash out of the bank account right away but she left some in for Bill. How much cash did she take out? And how did she not know that Bill wasn’t spending any money out of the joint account? Did she conveniently remove herself from the account?
   She said she didn’t cancel the lunch meeting with Selene because she needed a loan from her (where did all the money go?). Yet she used her Amex card to pay for that lunch. Seems weird for a friend to let her pay for lunch when she knows she’s in need of money.

   2. Related to the internet browser history and the searches for “suicide,” I don’t think anyone mentioned that these searches could’ve been done in order to fake Bill’s suicide. Maybe Melanie initially thought she could stage a suicide but then changed the plan. This would make sense with the other search history regarding overdoses, etc.

   Just some thoughts. Can’t wait to hear your final thoughts.

   1. @Meghan
      On what podcast did you hear Melanie say that she needed a loan from Selene? Maybe I missed that.

      1. It was on this podcast, on the first Q&A episode around the 10:30 min mark. She was asked why she didn’t just cancel the lunch meeting when she realized she had forgotten about it instead of driving two hours from the furniture stores to make it.

         1. @Meghan
            Ok.

3. Why would it matter how much money she took out. As for knowing whether Bill took money out, she would know that if the balance was down and she knew that she hadn’t withdrew any money. As for the lunch with Selene maybe she insisted on paying for the lunch since Selene was helping her out financially. Maybe the cost of the lunch wasn’t all that much.
   Selene was giving her a good chunk of change so I’m sure she felt the lunch was the least she could do.

   1. It would matter if she took out quite a bit of money but had already run out and needed more from Salene. It makes me wonder if they got an account from her about where she spent the money. The info could help or hurt her depending on what she spent the money on. It also doesn’t make sense to be looking to buy furniture when you need to borrow money from a friend.

      If she had access to the bank account, she would be able to see that Bill wasn’t spending any money which should’ve raised a red flag for her that he might not be okay. And also, proof he most likely wasn’t gambling unless he had cash stashed somewhere. Which would go against her story.

      Your point on buying the lunch makes sense, that could be her way of saying thank you to Selene, I suppose. It still seems a little weird to me.

4. As for the computer searches there’s no way to prove whether it was Bill or Melanie.

5. And let’s not forget the “poison your wife” searches. What would have been her plan there? If she planted that search, she would have made damn well sure they “found” it and presented it in court. She didn’t because she didn’t know about it and her defense team did a crappy job.

   1. Let’s say the searches were only Bill’s … he happens to be plotting to kill his wife and then ends up being murdered himself by someone other than Melanie, basically a random person? That seems like too much of a coincidence to me considering all other info.

6. IMO, this podcast is a sort of “look-back piece” on the evidence that the prosecution used to convict an innocent woman. The Mcguire’s financial records never became an issue at trial. This was not a murder-for-hire case nor was Ms McGuire planning on fleeing the law. Ms McGuire’s money or lack of it adds nothing to her guilt or innocence.

   The evidence at trial clearly established that the State could not prove who was doing those computer searches. All the evidence related to those searches, was speculative, at best. I, for one, do not believe that Melanie conducted any of those searches because Patricia Prezioso said so. If you believe her, you must also believe, that Melanie left a trail of evidence leading right to her front door. Even an amateur criminal knows better than to buy a gun in their own name. And who is this criminal that would keep a decomposing body for days and then drive 7 hours on major roadways with body parts to be thrown over a bridge railing? Who, in their right mind would believe this crap? Sadly, there’s an answer to that question, the 12 idiots on the McGuire jury, that’s who!

   I’m more concerned with issues related to, how did Brad Miller get away with lying under oath? How did lying Lori Thomas’s testimony end up in the jury room?
   How did that Flamingo video end up in evidence, when even the judge admitted that the images were so “grainy” you couldn’t tell if it was a male or female? Why was the jury allowed to practically have a media fest in the jury room? When did criminal trials become “buffet style?” The prosecutor presented all kinds of theories on how this crime was committed, she told the jury, “you dont have to believe the crime was committed in the apt, it could have been committed somewhere else.” In essence, pick a theory any theory is ok. There’s only one problem Patricia, you didn’t produce any credible or reliable evidence to support any of your theories. And the list goes on…

   This is a wrongfully conviction, I’m concerned with how this travesty happened.

7. Again, if she planted the “poison your wife” searches she would have made sure it was found before trial so it could be used in her defense. Anything in that search history that would have been even somewhat exculpatory for her was left out by the State and her defense team never did their own investigation. They just accepted what the State presented. Same with the gun.

   And, someone who is volatile enough to even think about poisoning his wife could be just the type of person involved in enough shady stuff that could cause him to end up a victim. That is the one thing that wouldn’t be very coincidental, especially since he was insisting she purchase a gun for him.

   1. Based on what I’ve read, there’s no evidence to suggest that Bill was involved with anything shady like that, though. I don’t think any evidence pointed to him being addicted to gambling or way in over his head. If we surmise those conclusions from the evidence then we should apply the same logic to the circumstantial evidence against Melanie. There’s way more pointing to her guilt than there is to Bill being caught up in something sinister that caused his murder.

      1. @Megan, you’re correct when you say, “Based on what I’ve read, there’s no evidence to suggest that Bill was involved with anything shady…” You’re not going to read it because the judge wouldn’t allow it into evidence. What is slowly emerging through these podcasts is a person that possibly contributed to his own undoing. For example, gambling in AC when he’s signed in at work, lying about his whereabouts didn’t seem to matter. Forcing his wife to commit perjury to avoid prosecution on a motor vehicle violation. Obviously, he had problems following the rules when he got behind the wheel, as evidenced by his many moving violation tickets. Didn’t seem to bother him that his wife was putting her professional career on the line. Interestingly, that pattern was repeated when he wanted the gun. No qualms about engaging in extramarital affairs, the escalating abuse during his time with Melanie which culminated into physical violence on the night of the closing. If I remember correctly, he filed for bankruptcy in the late 90’s. Overextended the family finances by purchasing a house which almost couldn’t be finalized because he couldn’t come up with the necessary funds. Just based on these few examples, one could conclude that his actions and behavior are somewhat unstable. Just like everyone has drawn unfavorable inferences from Melanie’s actions and behavior one can also infer the victims part in all of this.

         To be clear, I am not bashing the victim, this man suffered a horrific death and whosoever committed this crime should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. So, if anybody thinks that this podcast series is somehow unfair to the victim, you better think again. No matter how you slice this case, there’s a killer on the loose.We have been told that Melanie had help, if that’s true, and I don’t believe it is, a killer(s) are still out here. If anybody is disrespecting this mans death it’s the people who refuse to stand up and order an investigation to be conducted. Maybe it’s just me, I find it unconscionable, that after 13 years nobody cares that there’s somebody out here who got away with murder and God knows what else.

         So then, don’t talk to me about how the Melanie Mcguire supporters are being biased and trashing the victim. All of the closed minded people on the other side are the ones responsible for a murderer running loose. If that’s not an attitude of irreverence towards this man and his family, I don’t know what is.

8. Megan, I also don’t think he was necessarily “plotting to kill his wife.” It May have been just a passing thought. Internet search histories tend to be diaries of fleeting thoughts, most of which are never followed up on. For example, am I really thinking about buying that car I looked up today? Nope. Just looking and I will likely forget about it next week.

9. Why o why did they zero in on the wife so soon and so completely? Known odds of gaining a conviction, perhaps?? Do they(the State’s primary players) now know that they goofed??? Some do!!!!

   Detectives need to learn more restraint in the quick narrowing of possible suspects … and the state needs to REWARD prosecutors and detectives and judges for halting/redirecting questionable investigations and prosecutions. Instead it is always(99.9 percent) full speed ahead, and if they win they must be right cuz they won …and often promotions follow.

   Lack of forensic evidence used to be important.

   Now it is okay to paint a storyline, find little facts that when obfuscated and piled up seem to support and detail that storyline…and then claim guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt. Inevitably concomitant with this strategy is that because the lady or man is promiscuouis, didn’t show “proper” grief, or showed bad character, it fits that they murder, too. How many countless, slanted press releases and leaks from the police and prosecutors have condemned Innocents?

   If we got to start all over with total objectivity with what is now known today … THE FORENSICS DEFINITELY. POINT AWAY FROM MELANIE.

10. Why so much character assassination of Bill? He didn’t kill himself and then stuff his own body into a suitcase. Melanie wants us to know this man was allegidly horrible to her for what reason? Producers should have cut the unnecessary and uncorroborated evidence of Bill being a bad husband. She rambles about her side of the story but he’s not here to defend himself. For instance, she complains that he wanted her to quit her job. Well, especially since we know she was in a relationship with her boss, is this really so terrible? Why is so much back story of their bad marriage included? It actually just adds more evidence that Melanie wanted away from Bill. There is no proof he owed any body any money and loan sharks DO NOT kill people who owe them money. They want the money, not a dead body. I listened to this podcast because I’m familiar with the story and I believe in prosecutorial abuse but I find the bad mouthing of Bill unnecessary and harmful.

Comments are closed.