Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | RSS | Ways to Listen
16: Direct Appeal is back after a brief hiatus to follow up on listener tips. We return with three interviews from those who knew Melanie best: a friend from her past, a friend from her present and a surprise interview with a key witness for the prosecution.
If you have any information regarding this case, you can still submit it 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
- Producer-at-Large Adam Curry
- Special thanks to Alan Tockerman
I’m still befuddled by this podcast – which was introduced as an (allegedly) unbiased look at Melanie’s case. It isn’t. Which is what it is, I have no quibble with different opinions, but my comments are all based on my expectations set by what was state in that first episode.
A few thoughts regarding “best friends” episode…
When one of the hosts indicated (sorry, haven’t put voices to names yet) that an old friend of Melanie’s was calling because she thought she was guilty, she expressed “I was sort of confused”. Why? We know there’s a lot of evidence that points to guilt, and that a lot of people believe her conviction was justice for Bill.
The hosts express their shock at the fact that Jackie said her family (and friends?, can’t recall) all hated Melanie. They seem sort of mystified by this – it is indeed strong language. One might conclude there was a good reason? When *many* people are saying something, it is often an indicator that there is *something* there.
After we hear about how they were both jerks to each other, both mean to each other, “it’s how they were”, it’s concluded that Bill was a bit more mean and had the upper hand, maybe controlling, based on… one anecdote? “I think we can say that for sure” (REALLY?)
Re: cadence of the letter –the expert who testified for the defense said it is impossible for the layperson to say. I think this is fair, legally, and I expect all forensic linguists would say the same. But if it were my best friend, I’d also think it was likely I could tell, and be pretty sure of it (I can see a scenario where I’d be unsure, but I can also see scenarios where I’d feel pretty darn certain, like Jackie does). My main issue with how this is addressed in the episode is the hosts were going to request the defense expert do an new analysis and rely on that as the definitive answer to whether or not it was Melanie. Which is frankly ludicrous, and a very clear example of bias. It seems this would be something new, not presented at trial, so without question someone who worked on Melanie’s behalf is not going to come on a podcast and say, YUP, I checked and oh boy, it’s likely written by her. Had she shared findings with the hosts that were in favor of Melanie, the only unbiased look would have been consulting a couple other experts with zero relation to the case to do the same. I understand that’s probably not possible due to cost, but then don’t offer the analysis we would have had as potentially definitive.
To preempt the sometimes rancorous commentary here, I have zero relation to anyone in this case. Yes, wrongful convictions happen FAR too often. I just don’t believe that to be the case for Melanie.
@Diana
Hundreds and hundreds of posts and comments accusing these hosts of being “biased.” I’ve asked these people for specific examples which would support this so-called “bias” position. NADA.
I hope you’re the exception. Can you kindly point to any specific example which supports your “bias” position? Just to be clear, you must show where these hosts took the FACTS of the Mcguire case and distorted them. Just because there are 2 plausible inferences from a fact and one person goes one way and another person goes another does not mean that one of them is biased. That is not bias. If these hosts are biased there must certainly be a MOTIVE.
Can you enlighten us?
Very interesting episode, however, having studied the McGuire case from the beginning,I find the bridesmaid observations and comments to be mean spirited. The repentant Finn with his tale, reminds me of a bible verse found in the book of Job 2:4, And Satan answered the LORD, and said, “Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.”
Jackie thinks her comments about the victim and Melanie are something that the world needs to hear because she has first hand knowledge.Trashing the victim and discussing charges that Melanie has been acquitted of tells me more about the motives of this disturbed woman than anything else. TAKE A HIKE!
Listening to Finn tell his story about the odyssey that these detectives took him through might fool the average listener.It took 13 years of being ridden with guilt for betraying a friend, to have this guy and come out to tell us, “it wasn’t me, the devil made me do it.” Fact is, you testified under a grant of immunity. You did that. And you did it to save your ass. If you’re genuine, and I don’t think you are, I would love the opportunity to interview you for an hour to answer the many unanswered questions raised in your podcast interview.
Melanie Mcguire has been languishing in a prison cell for the past 13 years. We heard from Barbara, a close friend of Melanie’s, who has witnessed Melanie’s ups and downs.I cant think of anyone more qualified to give an opinion on Melanie’s behavior and emotional status. Prison inmates are in a closed environment. It’s a 24/7 constant in your face environment, to the point where, everyone knows everybody else’s bathroom routine. It’s an environment where inmates can show their true colors because nobody’s watching. When Barbara tells us about a 6th sense in judging people I think she’s speaking gospel truth. An inmates very survival depends on that 6th sense. A wrong call could be deadly. I would be willing to bet that the correctional personnel and staff who have been around Melanie would corroborate Barbara’s observations.
To sum up, in my opinion, great podcast, thanks to the hosts for shedding light on the so-called evidence which caused the wrongful conviction of Melanie Mcguire.
Very well said DC40. This bridesmaid friend and her assertion that she suddenly came to the conclusion that Melanie was guilty it’s just a bunch of b******* thank God for Barbara coming on the podcast who spent quite a few years with Melanie in prison and is able to give a true and accurate description of Melanie. She even stated that the guards have a lot of respect for Melanie and they wouldn’t have that respect that they thought that she was guilty of chopping up her husband. As for Jim Finn you’re right I believe that he was up there to save his ass and don’t think that they didn’t coach him on what to say. His conscience must be bothering him now and rightly so. As for the hosts of this podcast they’re totally unbiased. They have said when they think that’s something that Melanie did or said didn’t make sense but they’re also honest when they have said that there’s a lot of Reasonable Doubt here. There’s no way that that murder was done in that townhouse. This podcast also showed how there’s no way she was able to throw those suitcases off the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. It’s unfathomable and scary to me that a state prosecutor could get up in front of a jury and totally and completely make up a murder scene and how she thinks it was committed. This case needs to be overturned not just because her lawyers didn’t step up and do their job the way they should have but because this whole thing was a Fabrication in the state’s mind they decided to go after her and they just wrote a scenario to go with it.
@Julie
Nice, just one thought to expand on this Jackie person. Where was Jackie when the McGuire trial was in progress? There was no Jackie on the prosecutions witness list nor the defenses’s witness list.I’m very suspicious of anyone who shows up some 13 years later with a story like that, on a internet message board. Jackie sounds convincing on direct and so does Finn, these 2 would crumble under cross.
Selene didn’t testify either.
Apples and oranges.
Nope
They wouldn’t call Selene or anyone for that matter that could benefit Melanie. Selene was a good and long time friend. The State only wanted people who could disparage her.
@Julie
As you know, Selene was Melanie’s Maid of Honor, the history of this case shows that she lived up to her title.
@DFC40 “Just because there are 2 plausible inferences from a fact and one person goes one way and another person goes another does not mean that one of them is biased.”
Of course. But the stated intent of the podcast was to do an unbiased review of the evidence. The way the hosts discuss the evidence is to be a bit dismissive of evidence against Melanie, and to draw rather unlikely conclusions favorable to her. I gave examples just from this episode in my post above. I don’t even necessarily think the hosts believe she is innocent, so I’m unsure why they are doing this, or if they are both aware of it.
@Diana
Very respectfully.
Ok, lets try this again.You can’t agree with my premise and disagree at the same time. You’re contradicting yourself.
The examples you gave in your comment are based upon some person named Jackie. What Jackie says in her interview is not evidence. Her and that story never showed up at the McGuire trial.That interview is just her opinion not evidence.
You can’t accuse these hosts of being “biased” and then claim:
“I don’t even necessarily think the hosts believe she is innocent, so I’m unsure why they are doing this, or if they are both aware of it.”
You’re using circular logic to prove your point.
I don’t know how familiar you are with the evidence in this case. One piece of evidence that was used to convict Ms McGuire was the prosecutions theory that she picked up 3 heavy suitcases stuffed with body parts and flung them over a bridge railing into the bay below. The hosts did a video on this evidence. Did you have the chance to see it?
My question, can you elaborate as to how this experiment demonstrates any bias on the part of these hosts?
Thank you for your time.
@DCF40 I am not agreeing and disagreeing with your premise. I agree with your premise. That does not mean I must therefore conclude this is an unbiased presentation of the evidence. Perception of bias is subjective. It isn’t an objective measurable quality. I, and, as you noted, many others find their interpretation of the evidence frequently biased towards Melanie. I hear the facts as they present them, and, time and again, am scratching my head at the conclusions they draw and how they arrive at them. I’ll be curious to see what their conclusion is, although at this point, I’m not expecting one. I think they’re going to equivocate – overall, or by splitting with one of them thinking she’s guilty and the other not.
@Diana
You’re correct, exactly the point I was trying to make.
“Perception of bias is subjective”
So then, all these comments accusing these 2 professors of being biased is merely based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.However, these 2 professors are examining evidence which is objective and measurable in the McGuire case not subjective evidence. I gave you an example of the Suitcase Experiment, which is objective, so you could explain the bias which you claim exists. You did not.
I give you credit for being honest, you can’t prove by the evidence that these professors are biased, it’s just a “feeling” and nothing more.
Thank You
@DCF40 You can’t expect me to identify a bias in a particular instance you choose (the “Suitcase Experiment”). That’s completely illogical. I’m not trying to prove the podcast is biased, I am – obviously – stating an opinion, for which I provided a few examples in my initial post. There are examples in most of the episodes.
“Supra Tentorial”
Who were the [Juror’s]?
Why did the one [Juror] that Meghan Sacks spoke with on the phone say that all the [Juror’s] had an agreement to not speak publicaly about their deliberations and decisions?
Is this agreement amongst themselves or are they bound with another entity?
Why did she become very angry at Meghan for wanting to know what happened with them?
Is this normal?
Has this situation ever happened before?
Are these [Juror’s] under threat to not speak?
Who would have enough clout to make them live in fear?
Who is [PP]?
Who is [PP] really?
Who are the [shills]?
Are they simply regular people posting here with organic opinions of their own?
Or do they work for an organization?
Organization’s?
Why would certain organization’s want to hire people to employ ridicule and character assasination tactics on people who are simply telling their truth?
Has one [Juror] in particular had enough?
Does relief finally come when one reveals the Truth?
Nothing can stop what’s coming.
@ Q.
[ This is the DirectAppeal podcast, not Comedy Central]
Did BM work for the Department of Homeland Security?
If so, what were his duties there that can be publicaly known?
Did he have any duties there that can not be publicaly known?
NJ=VA.
Mathematically, what you do to one side of an equation, you must do to the other side in order to calculate the correct answer.
Did the VA police artist sketch of BM look like him?
Did it actually not look like him?
If it did not look like him, then how was he “recognized?”
We’re there other elements in the VA news cast that maybe were recognizable back then?
Reconcile.
Future proves past.
BM…Brad Miller is a doctor. Department of Homeland Security????? I could respond to the rest of your post…but you are obviously mocking this podcast and the whole case.
@Q I now see you mean Bill McGuire as BM. In any event, my above comments stand.
Everyone is here now.
EVERYONE.
THIS IS NOT A GAME.
THE SUFFERING the people involved in this are feeling now IS REAL!
Are some [JUROR’S] talking to each other again about a particular subject?
Are there now more than one [Juror’s] who HAVE HAD ENOUGH?
Morning sun brings HEAT.
Think timing.
Window is closing.
Is there a race to the finish line?
First one across win’s?
GOOD VS EVIL.
GOD always WIN’S.
Message within a message?
Are you a juror?
Hey I figured out part of Q’s post! “Message within a message.” Just read only the capitalized words in order from top to bottom. WOW! You heard it here first!
We are raising money for the private detective we have hired to help uncover the truth about Bill’s murder. For those of you who think she is innocent, we ask for a contribution to this fund. Melanie is deeply grateful for the contributions already received. Thank you so much!
https://www.supportful.com/b96f6be6-d765-4ea1-b448-0abc7248ce61
Jackie states that the address on the RX for the chloral hydrate was the address of Melanie’s first apartment. Patty Prezioso stated at the trial that that prescription was written on a former patient and all of the information on the prescription was accurate for that patient except the phone number was off by one digit. She theorized that Melanie had deliberately changed one number so that if the pharmacy had to call that patient they would not be able to reach her. It’s puzzling to me that this Jackie claims that the address that was used was an old address for Melanie. I am sure that were the case that Patty prezioso would have certainly stated that at the trial. Also if that is the address that was used it doesn’t prove anything because Bill still could have been the one who forged the prescription. I guess the key question would be did Bill know Melanie when she lived at that address.