Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | RSS | Ways to Listen
17: This season’s final episode of Direct Appeal brings you audience tips and alternate theories. Also, Amy and Meghan will reveal their conclusions.
To help and participate in our research project, please take our short survey which can be found at: http://directappealpodcast.com/survey
If you would like to hear more from Amy and Meghan, check out our new podcast, “Women & Crime”. Every two weeks we’ll feature a new story which could be about female victims, offenders, or members of the criminal justice system.
For now its time to sign-off, however if there are major developments in Melanie’s case we will be sure to update our audience.
Many thanks to our fans, friends and family!
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
Professor Sacks states that “[t]he reasonable doubt standard is that you’re supposed to be 99.9% certain that someone is guilty.” I do not believe that is the standard in New Jersey – or any other jurisdiction. Most courts are reluctant to allow counsel to assign percentages to the reasonable doubt standard because it cannot be scientifically or mathematically quantified – you cannot attempt to quantify the unquantifiable.
There is a standard jury instruction on reasonable doubt in most jurisdictions. You will find New Jersey’s instruction on the njcourts.gov – website.https://njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/criminalcharges/non2c022.pdf.
It is because reasonable doubt cannot be quantified that the jury instruction must focus on the burden of proof and its relationship to the evidence and the individual juror’s state of mind after deliberation with the other jurors.
I am not a NJ lawyer, so happy to proven wrong.
Thanks for your work on this, and the courage to call foul balls in our courts. Hope Melanie gets fair treatment by the judicial system someday.
BOOM!
We have a winner!
Second BOOM is inbound.
MOAB!
Events will move quickly now.
Re-read drop regarding NJ VA equation.
Improper use of order of operations in 2005?
Incorrect conclusion in 2005?
What is HONOR?
What is INTEGRITY?
What is an OATH?
What is the TRUTH?
BOILING POINT.
Future proves past.
There are no coincidences.
For God and Country.
Q-
Please explain. MOAB??
Mother Of Al B*mbs
Melanie’s story sounds too rehearsed, she’s very slick, although she’s had 12 years to practice.
The EZ pass evidence and the story of the taxi are very incriminating and she has no really good answer for any of it. Hosts discussed this behavior but not in the manner of a big red flag that it presented. Police don’t like coincidences. You go to Atlantic City several times, act strangely, and wow, your husband ends up dead.
The only way to really solve the case is to have the accomplice or hit man roll on her. That family had some missing funds. Maybe she used some of that cash to pay off someone.
@Kenneth
“You go to Atlantic City several times, act strangely, and wow, your husband ends up dead.”
Wow, yes … that’s it .. guilt beyond reasonable doubt! /sarc
I hope you don’t end up on the wrong end of law someday, with some coincidences and strangeness in your life. The way you haters and law and order people think any inconsistency or acting strangely, or “wrongly”, proves guilt in a court of law is atrocious and poor thinking.