Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | RSS | Ways to Listen
09: The State’s witness testifies that there is forensic evidence linking Melanie to trash bags found with the body. However the defense gets lucky and happens across their own expert with a different opinion about what the evidence shows.
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.
For Images related to this episode, visit: https://directappealpodcast.com/images/#ep09
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, Frank Ruiz and Sally Ginter
- Producer-At-Large, Adam Curry
I watched the trial on court TV and I remember when the defense expert testified regarding the plastic bags. The prosecutor made her look like she was inept and really didn’t know what she was talking about. After listening to her speak again on this podcast you can see how very knowledgeable she is and that she certainly does know what she’s talking about. I really believe that if the jury had been able to hear the defense expert the way we just heard her on this podcast that they would not have taken the testimony of the State expert as being fact. It’s also hard to believe that her appeals have gone nowhere with all of these inconsistencies that were presented at trial. It also seems that her defense team really didn’t go out of their way to try to help her. I’ve said before that this case was permeated with reasonable doubt and the more I listen to this podcast the more I really feel that somehow something has to be done for this poor woman that’s been spending all this time in prison for a murder she didn’t commit.
I love this podcast but oh boy was this episode boring. It could have been summed up in 5 minutes, what the prosecution expert concluded, what the defense expert concluded, done. I hope its was just a one off. Looking forward to next week.
I disagree. Bringing out the details of this obfuscation with junk science is very important, since junk science is often a key factor in wrongful convictions. The prosecutor’s attempt at an AHA moment with this trash (pun intended!) worked on the jury … ironically it was very incomplete, superficial science and the bags were in fact not the same.
The defense really screwed up, and I know there was some confusion and debate as to whether they pocketed monies that could/should have been spent on experts for the defense.
I agree. Her lawyers just showed up instead of diligently fighting for her. They could have asked for an extension in order to prep and prepare their expert on the bags. They threw her to the wolf. The State prepared their expert. Unfair to Melanie big time!! She had ineffective counsel in my opinion not to mention that the State being allowed to present that the murder took place in that townhouse when they had no proof or evidence to support that theory. The prosecutor said that because there was NO DNA that was the proof. Seriously?? So I guess that now fingerprints, etc are no longer needed to convict someone?? Since when can you “make up” or “theorize” how a crime was committed??
Meghan & Amy, I just want to say that you guys ROCK! I am so enjoying this podcast – I am born and raised in NJ and remember this case (not too well as I was in my late 20’s and probably didn’t pay much attention). But thank you for doing this podcast it is very interesting. I wish I were a student again and I would definately be taking some of your classes.
Keep up the great work and look forward to hearing more!
‘Since when can you make up or theorize how a crime was committed?’
It is a travesty and slimy and prosecutorial over-reach … but IMO once you have painted the defendant as promiscuous or an adulterer … it is much easier and allowed! Sad, sad, sad … imagine losing your two young boys knowing you have done nothing wrong. The horror. The prosecutor’s case was a built on a house of cards, but between them, the judge, and the police it was allowed to stand long enough for a wrongful conviction.