Melanie McGuire

[totallyBARD]

The Discovery ID (Investigative Discovery) science channel will soon be featuring convicted killer Melanie McGuire in its "Solved" series. Although no air date has been officially announced, here is a 3 minute clip from the one hour forensic show, which explains how law enforcement was able to prove McGuire was the killer:

http://investigation.discovery.com/video/solved.html

(For those who do not recall, Melanie McGuire is an ex-nurse in NJ who brutally shot and dismembered her husband in April of 2004, then she stuffed his corpse into 3 suitcases and dumped his body parts into the Chesapeake Bay. The case remains open for any possible accomplices.)

[shelkobe]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep my eye out for the episode.

[kakax]

Thanks for the info! I will keep searching for times it will be shown. One thing that is great about that channel is they air things over and over (it can also be redundant too).

[kakax]

http://investigation.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=141.15376.124279.35462.2

Here is the schedule for this show through beginning of November. I'll keep checking for an update!

[totallyBARD]

No premiere date set yet for the "Solved" Investigation ID forensic special on how it was discovered that ex-nurse Melanie McGuire murdered & dismembered her husband in 2004.

The John Glatt book on this convicted killer is due out in the next couple of weeks on Dec 2: "To Have and To Kill: Nurse Melanie McGuire, an Illicit Affair, and the Gruesome Murder of Her Husband"

[totallyBARD]

Due out in 2.5 weeks: http://us.macmillan.com/tohaveandtokill

This can also be pre-ordered on Amazon.com

:read:

[YankeeGirl]

I for one, cannot wait for this book to came out, I have been craving a good true-crime book for some time now. I sure hope this book delves into her childhood and high school years, to give us a revealing glimpse of the manipulative cheating murderess she became.

[Topaz]

my copy too, from Amazon.

I've read several of Glatt's books. This past summer I read
Cries in the Desert~~ which had to be the most horrific crime I have
ever read.

I've never seen a hardcover Glatt book. Only paperbacks. He tends
to write short books, with much less background/psychology (as opposed to Ann Rule who goes into much more detail).

So I don't expect much from this book.

These books are only as good as the sources who provide data to the author. Ann Rule's best ones typically have alot of family cooperation.
Given the dense veil of confederates that seem to surround Melanie,
we may not get much that we don't already know. And the Ligoshes, may not be forthcoming either, to shield the children. So we'll see.

[bugsy]

These books are only as good as the sources who provide data to the author. Ann Rule's best ones typically have alot of family cooperation.
Given the dense veil of confederates that seem to surround Melanie,
we may not get much that we don't already know. And the Ligoshes, may not be forthcoming either, to shield the children. So we'll see.

I'm curious as with every type of "true-whatever" book I see as to how much of the book will be sourced, verse how much of it will anonymous sources or the like.

Do we think Glatt contacted and asked questions of MM herself, or her family? Or will anything they'd have to add be missing.

And I agree with you regarding the ligoshes, hopefully they steered clear, in the best interest of the children.

[YankeeGirl]

Glatt was at the trial everyday, I remember. I'm sure he spoke to former teachers, especially the gym teacher from MTHS who got fired for having an affair with her...

[totallyBARD]

It is a paperback because it is from St. Martin's True Crime books. They always put out their books in paperback, period. I have read dozens of St. Martin's True Crime books, and what I have come to realize is that the quality of the book depends on the author. With St. Martin books, it's always going to be either a grade A or an F with very little in between. Luckily, I have read some of John Glatt's previous books (my favorite being Forgive Me Father) to know that this book will most likely be good. From previous experiences with St. Martin True Crime books, it is easy for me to tell when a book was thrown together in a week, or if the author actually took time to write and research the case. John Glatt's books are almost always quality material.

I agree with you about the very good quality of John Glatt's paperback, hardcover and audio books. He has quite an established fan following.

I will be excited to know who he interviewed about Melanie McGuire's past, which often can be a great predictor of one's future. I wonder if any people contacted his web site with verifiable profligate Melanie stories.

Those very few in Melanie's trusted inner circle may not have been interviewed, since they had already done so much national blathering about how wonderful their Melanie is. Court evidence contradicted them. Funny how none took the trial stand to swear they were truthful about things they had no problem saying outside the courtroom. (The case remains open for possible accomplices, who may still be lawyered up.)

Given Melanie's purported amoral past, those she chose to surround herself with, what she did as a despicable killer, and those who may have helped her obstruct justice, I suspect this may be a lengthy investigative work by Glatt. We'll soon see.

[totallyBARD]

I'm curious as with every type of "true-whatever" book I see as to how much of the book will be sourced, verse how much of it will anonymous sources or the like.

Do we think Glatt contacted and asked questions of MM herself, or her family? Or will anything they'd have to add be missing.

And I agree with you regarding the ligoshes, hopefully they steered clear, in the best interest of the children.

I respectfully disagree about hiding those who might have been asked about the INNOCENT man Melanie murdered. If anyone is able to shed light on William McGuire the wonderful father, William McGuire the man who served his country in the military, William McGuire the man who co-workers enjoyed knowing and respected as a diligent worker, I'm sure that would be a very fine legacy for his children to know about.

Since there is no evidence to show that the killer and her family told the truth about William McGuire to the press, I think anyone who personally knew William as a funny, kind human being who did his very best for his family, has a right to be heard.

I think if I ever found out that my mother brutally killed my father to get rid of him permanently, it might help my now-scarred-for-life psyche to know that my dad was a decent human being who was always there for me whenever mom was out "doing other things," which I understand was rather frequently. ( examples: seeing other men, using love phones up to 20 times a day, etc )

[totallyBARD]

A one hour special about how police nabbed killer Melanie McGuire, will debut on the Discovery ID show "Solved" starting Dec 8 at 9pm. This very detailed forensic show will air many times in the week to follow.

Solved
Broken Vows
TV-14

"In May 2004, three matching suitcases containing male body parts surface off the coast of Virginia Beach. Investigators gather circumstantial against the victim's wife, but now they must prove she is capable of the gruesome murder of her husband."

http://investigation.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=141.15376.124279.35462.2&start=10

http://investigation.discovery.com/search/results.html?query=melanie+mcguire (Click on #2 Computer Forensics)

[Topaz]

our cable is adding Discovery ID to our service at the beginning of
Dec. With luck I will be able to watch this!

Thanks for posting it.

[BarefootDiva]

The Discovery ID (Investigative Discovery) science channel will soon be featuring convicted killer Melanie McGuire in its "Solved" series. Although no air date has been officially announced, here is a 3 minute clip from the one hour forensic show, which explains how law enforcement was able to prove McGuire was the killer:

http://investigation.discovery.com/video/solved.html

(For those who do not recall, Melanie McGuire is an ex-nurse in NJ who brutally shot and dismembered her husband in April of 2004, then she stuffed his corpse into 3 suitcases and dumped his body parts into the Chesapeake Bay. The case remains open for any possible accomplices.)
We just switched from cable to satellite tv and that's when I got Discovery ID. I love, love, love that channel. I can spend hours watching it.:patriot:

[bugsy]

I respectfully disagree about hiding those who might have been asked about the INNOCENT man Melanie murdered. If anyone is able to shed light on William McGuire the wonderful father, William McGuire the man who served his country in the military, William McGuire the man who co-workers enjoyed knowing and respected as a diligent worker, I'm sure that would be a very fine legacy for his children to know about.

Since there is no evidence to show that the killer and her family told the truth about William McGuire to the press, I think anyone who personally knew William as a funny, kind human being who did his very best for his family, has a right to be heard.

I think if I ever found out that my mother brutally killed my father to get rid of him permanently, it might help my now-scarred-for-life psyche to know that my dad was a decent human being who was always there for me whenever mom was out "doing other things," which I understand was rather frequently. ( examples: seeing other men, using love phones up to 20 times a day, etc )


Absolutely, if the book revolves around the virtues of WM, I'm all for it, nothing wrong with that at all.

However, my concern arises when it goes beyond that, into any very personal issues that may arise in the book concerning either their mother or father. Such negative things should be discussed privately with the children in the family if necessary. To plaster them accross the nation in a mass produced book (later to be repeated on the next TV special of the month) can only hurt the children.

What happens the first time one of the boys classmates picks up a copy from their parents and brings it into school and begins interrogating and harassing them about what they read. Why would anyone want to add to all that is already out there. Why further risk possible damage the "scarred-for-life-psyche" as you put it.

That's why I hope the families and friends involved have respectfully declined to be involved with the book, in order to not take the chance of making a bad situation worse for the kids. I sure think this is one of those situations where all the caring adults involved should err on the side of caution.

Does that make sense... or am I missing something and am way off base?

Oh well, kind of a moot point as the book is finished... I'll let you know what I think of it in a couple days once I get to read it though. Should be getting here tomorrow or Monday.

[totallyBARD]

I believe your concerns are misdirected, Bugs. The only one who hurt the children was their mother. My GOD! If she had not done what she did, it never would have made Court TV and national notoriety. The convicted killer and her few family members (Are they still be looked at as accomplices?) went all over national TV several times over to make Melanie a saint and paint Daddy William as the sinner extraordinaire.

What they did over and over to an innocent murder victim in the media was despicable. I think it is great that the children will learn from others how caring and wonderful a person their father truly was. Nothing will erase the horror of what their mother did, but hearing how much their father loved them, may make their lifelong psychological cross a tiny bit easier to bear.

Please try and stay on the mark here. Whatever is in the best interest of the children, is where your concern should be. Supporting a convicted killer is low on the priority list.

[YankeeGirl]

I don't think that the boys, who are in elementary school would ever read a book like that, and by the time they're old enough, they'll be able to make the decision to read it on their own. They will also be mature enough to come to their own opinion as to who murdered their father.

[totallyBARD]

I don't think that the boys, who are in elementary school would ever read a book like that, and by the time they're old enough, they'll be able to make the decision to read it on their own. They will also be mature enough to come to their own opinion as to who murdered their father.

I agree with you, Yankee Girl. Small children would definately not be reading adult non-fiction crime books .... My point is that considering the facts of the case where mommy brutally killed daddy, including the convicted killer's repeated efforts to destroy the deceased victim's reputation via several forms of national media, it's nice to know that SOMEDAY when the children are grown up, they will be able to have more objective resources for truthful information about their loving father.

If my mother had done to my father what Melanie did to the father of those children, I would probably be in therapy for the rest of my life. How very tragic for them to have to deal with any part of this horrible nightmare. My heart goes out to them.

[YankeeGirl]

Mine, too. To think that this mother of two small children could commit an act so brutal still blows my mind. I definetly do not feel sorry for those boys for losing thier mother, because in reality they lost her way before because of HER selfishness and evil in planning and executing the murder of their father.
Do I feel for them because they lost their father? You bet.

[BookM]

No premiere date set yet for the "Solved" Investigation ID forensic special on how it was discovered that ex-nurse Melanie McGuire murdered & dismembered her husband in 2004.

The John Glatt book on this convicted killer is due out in the next couple of weeks on Dec 2: "To Have and To Kill: Nurse Melanie McGuire, an Illicit Affair, and the Gruesome Murder of Her Husband"

:read: FYI- I just found the book, To Have and To Kill, according to Barnes and Noble Bookseller's website is out on Dec 2nd and the Author is going to be signing copies on Dec 3rd at their Bookstore in East Brunswick, New Jersey, 7:30pm.

[Len]

It will be very interesting to see this documentary, but for another reason IMO. That is the (near total) lack of forensic evidence, beyond the computer findings, in this case. The clip was only focused on the computer searches. I am wondering if the documentary will also discuss the lack of forensic findings in the presumed murder place and the questionable (IMO) rest of the findings in that case relating to the CH, the hair stubble and the rest.

[totallyBARD]

Discovery ID "Solved" air dates for the one hour special on forensic evidence used to convict killer Melanie McGuire:

Dec 8, 2008 9pm EST
Dec 9 12am EST
Dec 12 9pm EST
Dec 13 12am EST
Dec 13 3pm EST
Dec 14 4am EST
Dec 14 6pm EST

Solved
Broken Vows
TV-14

[bugsy]

Got the book on Monday, read it... complete hatchet job of MM... pretty much one sided, as in 2 main sources... Cindy Ligosh, for most of it, and Michael Cappararo, Jr, for family history. A bit of Nancy Taylor here and there, and Sue Rice has her fingerprints on it as well, tearing Melanie up.

Jon Rice comes across very respectably, and he really does a great job of remembering his good friend Bill McGuire, and my hats off to him for it. He really makes Bill come alive in the pages without dousing every word he says in venom against MM. He just seems.... fair, and unbiased, if that make any sense. You really do feel for him and his loss after reading his part of the story.

However, overall the book is full of obfuscations, distortaions, and outright lies.

And I am horrified that multiple people name the McGuire children, and that much is discussed regarding them.... they should have been left out of such a book entirely, and inclusion in such can in no way be considered in their best interest.

[bugsy]

Oh and yup, as I've been saying, Baker Botts is handling the appeal.

[4Life]

Got the book on Monday, read it... complete hatchet job of MM... pretty much one sided, as in 2 main sources... Cindy Ligosh, for most of it, and Michael Cappararo, Jr, for family history. A bit of Nancy Taylor here and there, and Sue Rice has her fingerprints on it as well, tearing Melanie up.

Jon Rice comes across very respectably, and he really does a great job of remembering his good friend Bill McGuire, and my hats off to him for it. He really makes Bill come alive in the pages without dousing every word he says in venom against MM. He just seems.... fair, and unbiased, if that make any sense. You really do feel for him and his loss after reading his part of the story.

However, overall the book is full of obfuscations, distortaions, and outright lies.

And I am horrified that multiple people name the McGuire children, and that much is discussed regarding them.... they should have been left out of such a book entirely, and inclusion in such can in no way be considered in their best interest.

Intereseting from a person who has said over and over again that he does not know anyone from this case. IF you don't know anyone, how do you know the book was full of lies?
I read it and it is full of truth.

[4Life]

Oh and yup, as I've been saying, Baker Botts is handling the appeal.

Interesting: Source from Melanies side of the family is saying the complete opposite

[totallyBARD]

Investigative journalist John Glatt has dissected many murder cases and like news reporter Rick Malwitz, they uncovered the story behind the story. Here is what Rick Malwitz said about Glatt's expose of the Melanie Melanie murder case:

By Rick Malwitz from MyCentralJersey.com Nov 2008

In the middle of an account of a gruesome murder, a love story breaks out.

Chances are you know about the murder. On April 29, 2004, Melanie McGuire shot her husband Billy at their Woodbridge apartment, with a gun she purchased two days earlier in Pennsylvania. She cut his body into three pieces, put the body parts in matching suitcases and dropped them off the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in Virginia. Two years later she was convicted by a Middlesex County jury, and without a successful appeal will serve in prison until after her 100th birthday.


The story has now been told in book form by author John Glatt, who did not miss a day of the seven-week trial, and was a pleasant friend on press row. At 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, Dec. 3, Glatt will discuss the case and sign copies of "To Have And To Kill," at the Barnes & Noble at the Brunswick Square Mall in East Brunswick.

The love story is the love that Cindy Ligosh, Billy McGuire's older sister, had for her kid brother. Her passion to solve the murder mystery was in stark contrast to Melanie McGuire's, who wanted the case to go away so she could resume her love affair.

The first investigator to meet Ligosh was Virginia Beach homicide detective Ray Pickell, who came to Woodbridge to work with police here, and question McGuire. When Ligosh met Pickell and he expressed his determination, Ligosh kissed him and said he was her hero. She let it be known she knew who did it. "Now go get her!" she told Pickell.

Patricia Prezioso would prosecute the case for the state of New Jersey, and said this week that she developed a tremendous amount of respect for Ligosh. "She trusted law enforcement to do our job," said Prezioso.

When Attorney General Peter Harvey asked Prezioso to take the case he implored, "Patricia, I need you to do this. The victim's family is feeling that no one's paying attention."

The family, of course, was not the victim's wife, but his sisters, Ligosh and Nancy Taylor.

Today Ligosh has custody of the McGuire's two children. One revelation in Glatt's book is that the boys have been examined by doctors and found to not have autism. During the trial, Melanie McGuire wore a ribbon designed to raise awareness of autism.

Other accounts in the book tell stories that never made to open court, in part because Judge Frederick DeVesa did not want the trial to read like a script for "Desperate Housewives." Glatt, author of 12 true crime books, was not similarily restrained.

For example, according to Melanie's brother, when his sister, the former Melanie Slate, was attending Middletown South High School, she boasted about affairs with two married teachers.

On the morning of her wedding, she got a sonogram showing her unborn baby in her womb, and made guests uncomfortable when she proudly showed it at her wedding reception, the book says.

Also in the book: During the murder investigation, when she was alone briefly with Virginia detective Tommy Shattuck, she flirted with him, telling him, "You know, you're kind of cute."

She knew she was being investigated for the murder. "There was no confusion about what her motives were," Shattuck told Glatt.

Her deadly motive was her three-year affair with Dr. Bradley Miller, with whom McGuire worked as a nurse. Their den was the Loop Inn on Route 1 in Avenel. Miller signed in as "Brad Mills" and paid in cash at what Glatt describes as a "sleazy motel, boasting adult theme rooms."

In order to run away with Miller, she felt she had to make her husband disappear.

Glatt also cleared up the second mystery. The first mystery was the murder. After asking me if I thought she did it, the question I heard most was, Who is paying for her defense? According to Glatt, it was her stepfather and her friend, Selene Trevizas, the former Selene Rodriguez, who met Melanie when the two were 6-years-old and living in Perth Amboy.

Trevizas remains true to her friend, visiting her regularly in prison.
McGuire's lead attorney was the charismatic Joe Tacopina, who is not just a pretty face, but an excellent attorney, with rich tastes. (Throughout the trial, he stayed in a $450-a-night suite at The Heldrich Hotel in downtown New Brunswick.)

The day she was convicted, Tacopina said it was just the first step, that she would appeal, and ultimately prevail. Her appeal has yet to be heard, while she bunks alone in a 6-by-9 room in the maximum security section of the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women in Clinton.


Rick Malwitz's column appears Wednesdays and Fridays. Rmalwitz@mycentraljersey.com, (732) 565-7291.

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20081126/OPINION06/811260374/1069/newsfront

[totallyBARD]

Got the book on Monday, read it... complete hatchet job of MM... pretty much one sided, as in 2 main sources... Cindy Ligosh, for most of it, and Michael Cappararo, Jr, for family history. A bit of Nancy Taylor here and there, and Sue Rice has her fingerprints on it as well, tearing Melanie up.

Jon Rice comes across very respectably, and he really does a great job of remembering his good friend Bill McGuire, and my hats off to him for it. He really makes Bill come alive in the pages without dousing every word he says in venom against MM. He just seems.... fair, and unbiased, if that make any sense. You really do feel for him and his loss after reading his part of the story.

However, overall the book is full of obfuscations, distortaions, and outright lies.

And I am horrified that multiple people name the McGuire children, and that much is discussed regarding them.... they should have been left out of such a book entirely, and inclusion in such can in no way be considered in their best interest.

You forgot that the MAIN source was the evidence at the murder trial, which proved to the jurors that Melanie was the killer.

Additionally, I cannot think of anything worse than a mother killing her children's father so she get rid of him to be with another man. Someday the children will be reading this book after they are grown, and it may comfort them to know that at least their father was truly a decent man.

[4Life]

And I am horrified that multiple people name the McGuire children, and that much is discussed regarding them.... they should have been left out of such a book entirely, and inclusion in such can in no way be considered in their best interest.How come you fail to mention that Linda Cappararo mentioned the children many times before,during and after the trial?

[bugsy]

Oh, very clever

For those of you who are unaware, "Regina Knowles" is the name used by one of MM's friends in the book who wished to remain anonymous. Throughout the book, she has many good things to say about MM.

Here we have a poster who has taken that name, and is using it as their screename to further bash MM.

Like I said, clever, and classy.

[starling]

Discovery ID "Solved" air dates for the one hour special on forensic evidence used to convict killer Melanie McGuire:

Dec 8, 2008 9pm EST
Dec 9 12am EST
Dec 12 9pm EST
Dec 13 12am EST
Dec 13 3pm EST
Dec 14 4am EST
Dec 14 6pm EST

Solved
Broken Vows
TV-14

TY :seeya:

[4Life]

Yup, Melanie showed real class when she was 8 months pregnant and having an affair with her boss. She must have inherited that class from her mother who alsp had affairs with married men

[Topaz]

people here get the book early? I can see a reporter getting an
advance copy, but the others here?

I have had mine on order for weeks, at Amazon. They say Dec 2 they will ship.

[4Life]

people here get the book early? I can see a reporter getting an
advance copy, but the others here?

I have had mine on order for weeks, at Amazon. They say Dec 2 they will ship.

Connections honey, all about connections

[4Life]

Oh, very clever

For those of you who are unaware, "Regina Knowles" is the name used by one of MM's friends in the book who wished to remain anonymous. Throughout the book, she has many good things to say about MM.

Here we have a poster who has taken that name, and is using it as their screename to further bash MM.

Like I said, clever, and classy.
Oh you mean the anonymous friend that started a WM bashing board, yup that is real classy

[Len]

Got the book on Monday, read it... complete hatchet job of MM... pretty much one sided, as in 2 main sources... Cindy Ligosh, for most of it, and Michael Cappararo, Jr, for family history. A bit of Nancy Taylor here and there, and Sue Rice has her fingerprints on it as well, tearing Melanie up.

Jon Rice comes across very respectably, and he really does a great job of remembering his good friend Bill McGuire, and my hats off to him for it. He really makes Bill come alive in the pages without dousing every word he says in venom against MM. He just seems.... fair, and unbiased, if that make any sense. You really do feel for him and his loss after reading his part of the story.

However, overall the book is full of obfuscations, distortaions, and outright lies.

And I am horrified that multiple people name the McGuire children, and that much is discussed regarding them.... they should have been left out of such a book entirely, and inclusion in such can in no way be considered in their best interest.

Hi Bugsy,
I thought there would have been an appeal by now in this case. Do you know if such an appeal was already filled? It has been long time since the conviction.

[bugsy]

Hi Bugsy,
I thought there would have been an appeal by now in this case. Do you know if such an appeal was already filled? It has been long time since the conviction.

Nope, state has still not turned over all the transcripts, so MM's attornies are unable to file the appeal yet.

[4Life]

I wonder how the Capps are enjoying the book
Guess they really needed that vacation so they could prepare for that book.

[Len]

Nope, state has still not turned over all the transcripts, so MM's attornies are unable to file the appeal yet.

It is hard to understand why it takes so long for something that simple. I guess it must vary from state to state.

[bugsy]

It is hard to understand why it takes so long for something that simple. I guess it must vary from state to state.

Does seem quite ridiculous, doesn't it.

[Len]

Does seem quite ridiculous, doesn't it.

Yes it does. Impossible to understand why it would take over a year to turn over transcripts. Especially these days. It should be all electronic, but apparently it is not.

[Satyagraha]

My books have shipped already .

Gee, I must "know somebody" .

Who ??????

[Satyagraha]

Nothing about Mel could shock me .

Wonder how the celebrity of it all

feels in a 6' X 9' .

Bet she's holding her own " book-signing" .

Amazon. com is how the ladies get books sent in .

[Topaz]

sent me a shipping notice on Saturday.

Maybe it will arrive today!

[GardenGirl]

I didn't preorder the book but now I'm not so sure that wasn't a good idea as the book signing might require another purchase.
Anybody going?
I'm thinking about it.

[Satyagraha]

I didn't preorder the book but now I'm not so sure that wasn't a good idea as the book signing might require another purchase.
Anybody going?
I'm thinking about it.

Oooo. Oooo. Can you pick me up
at East Brunswick NJT ?
Better yet can you come to Philly
and pick me up ?
(Not ALL of you : I'm talkin' to GG ) .

[Satyagraha]

Ah: Better not . People will pick us out in a heartbeat .
You go .
Then tell us all about it .

[Dtviewer3]

Nope, state has still not turned over all the transcripts, so MM's attornies are unable to file the appeal yet.


BS.
If you truely believe there hasnt been an appeal filed because the state hasnt turned over the transcripts yet, I have a bridge to sell you.

IF the state is really holding up the defense' desire to file an appeal by not turning over transcripts in a timely manner, it is VERY easy to file a motion and get a hearing in front of a judge on the matter.
And ANY Judge would most certainly make the state produce the documents by a certain date.
Lawyers file motions for hearings to get evidence and transcripts everyday.

Everyday.

[Len]

BS.
If you truely believe there hasnt been an appeal filed because the state hasnt turned over the transcripts yet, I have a bridge to sell you.

IF the state is really holding up the defense' desire to file an appeal by not turning over transcripts in a timely manner, it is VERY easy to file a motion and get a hearing in front of a judge on the matter.
And ANY Judge would most certainly make the state produce the documents by a certain date.
Lawyers file motions for hearings to get evidence and transcripts everyday.

Everyday.


Hey DT,
Nice to see you again. I have no idea if bugsy is right or not, but I believe he may well be right. Have you ever heard the word bureaucracy? Whether or not MM is really guilty or not, she can file an appeal. Essentially all convicts file appeals. I see no reason why she would not have filed it yet, except some delay that is beyond the control of her lawyers. She probably has reasonably good grounds for an appeal. This case has still many unanswered questions and mystery remaining.

P.S. Why DT3? What happened to DT and Dan?

[totallyBARD]

As far as I know, the transcripts (paid for by the state,) were handed over way back in March. If needed, the previous defense attorneys could make copies or loan what they already have. But there is no need, since the paperwork is already in hand.

Now it's just a matter of waiting til Melanie's number comes up. I'll guess sometime in 2009. Literally every murderer who pleads innocent files an appeal. It's part of a convicted murderer's freebie benefits package.

I hear a number of people received their books already. Don't forget to buy extra copies for adult stocking stuffers. (Include a small box of dryer sheets, for that extra touch. lol)

And don't forget to watch Discovery ID "Solved" Dec 8 at 9pm for the scoop on the forensic angles of how Melanie executed her plans.

[Dtviewer3]

Hey DT,
Nice to see you again. I have no idea if bugsy is right or not, but I believe he may well be right. Have you ever heard the word bureaucracy? Whether or not MM is really guilty or not, she can file an appeal. Essentially all convicts file appeals. I see no reason why she would not have filed it yet, except some delay that is beyond the control of her lawyers. She probably has reasonably good grounds for an appeal. This case has still many unanswered questions and mystery remaining.

P.S. Why DT3? What happened to DT and Dan?


Heyya Len!! Great to see you.
But........I stand by what I wrote. There is NO chance(Zero) that the hold up for transcripts is "bureaucracy".
As I stated above, all the appealate attorneys would have to do is file a motion to compel for the information they request.
That would be heard by a judge, who would then rule on whether or not the state should give the information to the attornies, and the judge would set a date by which they must comply. Its done all the time.

As far as reasonably good grounds for appeal, I really dont see it. I've never seen an appeal granted to try to solve 'unanswered ' questions, or 'mystery', (unless new evidence is uncovered). Appeals are usually about whether the accused received a 'fair' trial. Very, very rarely about whether the decision is right or wrong.


(DT got put on vacation when CW didnt like a joke I made:(.)

[Len]

Heyya Len!! Great to see you.
But........I stand by what I wrote. There is NO chance(Zero) that the hold up for transcripts is "bureaucracy".
As I stated above, all the appealate attorneys would have to do is file a motion to compel for the information they request.
That would be heard by a judge, who would then rule on whether or not the state should give the information to the attornies, and the judge would set a date by which they must comply. Its done all the time.

As far as reasonably good grounds for appeal, I really dont see it. I've never seen an appeal granted to try to solve 'unanswered ' questions, or 'mystery', (unless new evidence is uncovered). Appeals are usually about whether the accused received a 'fair' trial. Very, very rarely about whether the decision is right or wrong.


(DT got put on vacation when CW didnt like a joke I made:(.)

Hey DT3,
You make some good points. However, it is hard to know what is really happening and why it takes so long. Another possibility may be that they are trying to prepare the best possible case for a successful appeal and that is why it takes that long.

I am not a lawyer, but I am wondering if disputing the physical evidence (that I believe was heavily overinterpeted and exaggerated in this case) or the way the physical evidence was presented by the prosecution can be grounds for an appeal. In any case, we will find out sooner or later.

[totallyBARD]

Last night I saw a commercial of Discovery ID's "Solved" upcoming sixty minute special on the Melanie McGuire case. I can see we are in for a stunning forensic presentation on how law enforcement caught Melanie in her own web of sociopathic manipulation and deceptions. How she did what she did is well documented by the trial, the book, and now "Solved." For anyone interested in the inner workings of a truly depraved killer, don't miss THIS one. (Even the commercial, which airs about every 20 minutes or so, is fascinating.)

[Dtviewer3]

[QUOTE=Len;12483210]Hey DT3,
You make some good points. However, it is hard to know what is really happening and why it takes so long. Another possibility may be that they are trying to prepare the best possible case for a successful appeal and that is why it takes that long.
---snipped----QUOTE]

Thats a much more reasonable assumption than 'waiting for transcripts'.

[Len]

Thats a much more reasonable assumption than 'waiting for transcripts'.


I agree. And if that's the case, it suggests that her lawyers may really think they can make a strong case. Otherwise, there would be no point in waiting. They would have had already just filed an appeal.

[Satyagraha]

I agree. And if that's the case, it suggests that her lawyers may really think they can make a strong case. Otherwise, there would be no point in waiting. They would have had already just filed an appeal.

Dear Len, the eternal optimist .
Honey, I hope you're right .

[Len]

Dear Len, the eternal optimist .
Honey, I hope you're right .

Well, I was predicting a landslide Obama victory. Was I wrong?

[Satyagraha]

Well, I was predicting a landslide Obama victory. Was I wrong?

Nope .
Right on the money .

[TopsyCrete]

How did MM by a gun in Pa with a fake address? I saw the reciept, she gives an East Stroudsburg address. http://www.courttv.com/trials/mcguire/photo_gallery/index1.html?curPhoto=7

I know you have to show ID in Pa to buy a gun. Did she have a fake ID with a Stroudsburg address? She could have just given her NJ ID. Pa will give almost anyone a gun. :confused:

[Dtviewer3]

How did MM by a gun in Pa with a fake address? I saw the reciept, she gives an East Stroudsburg address. http://www.courttv.com/trials/mcguire/photo_gallery/index1.html?curPhoto=7

I know you have to show ID in Pa to buy a gun. Did she have a fake ID with a Stroudsburg address? She could have just given her NJ ID. Pa will give almost anyone a gun. :confused:


Was the address she gave to buy the gun the same address she was using to get cheaper auto insurance?

Its been awhile so I cant remember all the details..........

[Satyagraha]

How did MM by a gun in Pa with a fake address? I saw the reciept, she gives an East Stroudsburg address. http://www.courttv.com/trials/mcguire/photo_gallery/index1.html?curPhoto=7

I know you have to show ID in Pa to buy a gun. Did she have a fake ID with a Stroudsburg address? She could have just given her NJ ID. Pa will give almost anyone a gun. :confused:

Yes, sorry about that .
We in Pennsylvania do so love our guns and re
ligion .

Umm : how do we know the shooter's GUN WAS Melanie's GUN ?


I was just ASKIN' .........

[Len]

Umm : how do we know the shooter's GUN WAS Melanie's GUN ?


I was just ASKIN' .........



Good question.

[4Life]

Was the address she gave to buy the gun the same address she was using to get cheaper auto insurance?

Its been awhile so I cant remember all the details..........Yes the address she used to buy the gun is the same address on her ID which was used to get cheaper insurance. The address was her Aunts home, who had no idea that MM used that address for the gun purchase

[Topaz]

My book arrived this afternoon. I noticed in the photo insert portion,
that there is a duplication of all the photos. One set right after the
other.

Do those here with a copy, have that problem? Were there other pics
from MM's past? The only pics I have are those from the trial, and TV that we have seen already. There are a few of WM as a child, but none of MM. There is one pic of LC and MC at from the past.

I'm going to start reading tonight. It appears thicker than the other Glatt books I have read in the past.

And my Comcast has updated us with Discovery ID as of yesterday. So Monday I will be watching the show. The trailer for it looks interesting.
Some new footage at least!

[Len]

My book arrived this afternoon. I noticed in the photo insert portion,
that there is a duplication of all the photos. One set right after the
other.

Do those here with a copy, have that problem? Were there other pics
from MM's past? The only pics I have are those from the trial, and TV that we have seen already. There are a few of WM as a child, but none of MM. There is one pic of LC and MC at from the past.

I'm going to start reading tonight. It appears thicker than the other Glatt books I have read in the past.

And my Comcast has updated us with Discovery ID as of yesterday. So Monday I will be watching the show. The trailer for it looks interesting.
Some new footage at least!

Hi Topaz,
I also got it, but there was no duplication of pictures. I did not read it and I have no idea when I will find time to read it, but I noticed one picture that I think is kind of misleading. It is the picture with the "human tissues" from the driver's side. In that picture there are a few tissue pieces shown, but the magnification is not indicated. That can be very misleading, as in reality these pieces were probably the size of a grain of salt, but in the picture they seem "large". I always thought that these tissues had nothing to do with the crime and I believe the prosecution's theory on them is wrong.

[Satyagraha]

Book arrived .
Len , READ it .

[Satyagraha]

Hummm ...... very odd behavior at the Funeral ....
and making a pass at a Homicide Detective on The Garden State Parkway :
You can't make this stuff up .

Len, read the book .

[Satyagraha]

Yes the picture tableau is doubled .
Hmm .
Rush to release ?

N.B.D.

:read:

[Topaz]

One would not see large or huge pieces of tissue in that evidence.

Why? Because anything large would be wiped off.
The only residue would be small, and not easily seen with the naked eye.

We would not expect MM to examine her own shoes with magnifiers.
I would think this tissue would have adhered to the grooves in the shoes, and when they dried off , would fall off. Perhaps the texture of the car's carpeting could manually dislodge them from deeper crevices.

So far I only see comments in the early part of the book by MC Jr.
He is the major source so far, of family details.

The ME comments about the bullets is interesting however. The ME comments are pretty gruesome, IMO. The descriptions of how many bags were used to contain the body parts, is really obsessive... only a neat freak type person--most likely a woman would wrap the body so many times using TWO types of bags. This suggests to me that the long drive, was an issue. To keep the smell and dripping to a minimum. Hardly a professional organized type of hit.

At this rate it will take me about 2 days to finish the book.

[Len]

One would not see large or huge pieces of tissue in that evidence.

Why? Because anything large would be wiped off.
The only residue would be small, and not easily seen with the naked eye.

We would not expect MM to examine her own shoes with magnifiers.
I would think this tissue would have adhered to the grooves in the shoes, and when they dried off , would fall off. Perhaps the texture of the car's carpeting could manually dislodge them from deeper crevices.


Topaz,
Of course, but that is not the point. I was just pointing out that the way the picture was shown (without mentioning of the magnification) is misleading. Anyway, I really dont believe the tissues had anything to do with the case. They were only found in the car and they could have been there for years from incidental cuts. We never heard if they actually checked MM's shoes and if they found anything like that. The obvious assumption is that if they did, they did not. And not all types of tissues one would expect in a case like that were present in the car anyway.

It is questionable (and IMO unreliable) evidence like that (tissues, hair "stubble", CH) that were used by the prosecution to propose different scenarios that make me still question this case. Although the circumstantial evidence against MM (gun purchase, trips) was very strong, the tendency of the prosecution to base scenarios on extremely weak physical evidence (even arguing that no evidence is evidence) is what makes me still having doubts about this case. There are still too many unanswered questions left.

[Topaz]

The book is giving much more on WM's life. So I guess his family and friends provided this info to Mr. Glatt. The stuff on MM is less.

I suspected this, before the book came out.

One thing that struck me however....is that there are two mentions that MM took FERTILITY drugs to conceive. Mr. Glatt stated that she discontinued her birth control pills, and then took fertility drugs!!!!!
in order to force a quick conception. With the first child, she miscarried.
Then she conceived Jack. Now with the second child, he states she did the same thing! I find this very strange. A healthy young woman does not need fertility drugs to conceive. These drugs are not totally innocuous and studies have shown that with time...they can increase the rate of ovarian cancer. For women who are really infertile and desperate for a child, they do accept this risk. But exposing herself, MM, to it when it was NOT necessary? To me this is foolhardy, and the only reason I can see is a CONTROL issue. She MUST have the child WHEN SHE WANTS IT....

I wonder also if she just took them from the clinic...without authorization? Miller was not on the scene yet with the first child, as far as I can see. It is not explained, if she got these drugs legitimately or not.

Also it is stated that she earned $1,100 a WEEK extra for carrying a beeper! That is alot of money. $4000 a month more than her
salary. So she was making a lot of money at one time for a nurse.

But so far I see the control issues in MM's personal behavior, that we also saw in all the aspects of this crime.
Also so far, the book explains the casino behaviors of both MC and MM...they enjoyed and frequented casinos themselves. In fact MC taught WM much of the casino behaviors needed to get alot of "comps".

All of the quotes by MM so far are taken from the TV shows she appeared on. (in the beginning of the book, Mr. Glatt explains that MM, and her parents refused to be interviewed). So readers who saw the TV programs will recognize MM's statements. I sure did.

Len, I don't agree with you about the tissue samples. That is just my opinion. I think the jury accepted them as well.

[Satyagraha]

The fertilizing herself to have a baby
in the midst of planning to marry "the father of her children" ?
Sonogram at the wedding .
A-hem .
I don't judge anyone for getting pregnant before getting married .
Accidents happen .
But you try to get married before
"showing" .
You don't advertise the situation :
at the wedding ?
William was already irrelevant before
marrying the girl .
Very weird
Very weird .

[Satyagraha]

Oh, I didn't mean she fertilized
herself : just neglected to tell
the father he was planning to be a father .
Where's the love ?
They weren't ready to get married , either .
Let's talk Finances .
Don't couples talk Finances before
planning to get married ?
I think maybe : good idea .
This guy was bankrupt .
No matter .
Melanie will rake in the bucks , Melanie
will
decide when to have the baby :
Hummmmm who needs a husband ?
Apparently not Melanie .

[Topaz]

Oh, I didn't mean she fertilized
herself : just neglected to tell
the father he was planning to be a father .
Where's the love ?
They weren't ready to get married , either .
Let's talk Finances .
Don't couples talk Finances before
planning to get married ?
I think maybe : good idea .
This guy was bankrupt .
No matter .
Melanie will rake in the bucks , Melanie
will
decide when to have the baby :
Hummmmm who needs a husband ?
Apparently not Melanie .

Yes, CONTROL issues. She thought she could control Law enforcement and the Prosecutors there too. She was used to controlling men, and even her own fertility, but she made the wrong decisions when it came to the investigation into this crime. I guess she failed to control WM in the last days, as he bought the house she did not want. So I can see that motive for getting rid of him, more clearly now. (in addition to paving the way clear to have Dr. Miller )

[Satyagraha]

Reminder : You can't think straight on
Xanax . You forget stuff .
You have anxiety and paranoia with prolonged and increased usage .
Melanie's sharp wits were druggy .:read:

[Len]

One thing that struck me however....is that there are two mentions that MM took FERTILITY drugs to conceive. Mr. Glatt stated that she discontinued her birth control pills, and then took fertility drugs!!!!!
in order to force a quick conception. With the first child, she miscarried.
Then she conceived Jack. Now with the second child, he states she did the same thing! I find this very strange. A healthy young woman does not need fertility drugs to conceive. These drugs are not totally innocuous and studies have shown that with time...they can increase the rate of ovarian cancer. For women who are really infertile and desperate for a child, they do accept this risk. But exposing herself, MM, to it when it was NOT necessary? To me this is foolhardy, and the only reason I can see is a CONTROL issue. She MUST have the child WHEN SHE WANTS IT....



Topaz,
I think you go a little too far here in the way you interpret things. You dont know why and if she had good reasons to take fertility drugs. Dont forget that she was a fertility nurse working with fertility doctors. I am sure she had all the info and advise she needed when she decided to take fertility drugs. There is nothing to suggest that taking fertility drugs had to do with "control". You simply dont know why she needed to use such drugs.

[Topaz]

I KNOW about fertility drugs... that is one aspect of MY job.
I will say that there is a small % of women who may not conceive within 3 months after discontinuing b/c's. This is normal, as cycles normalize after the birth control hormones leave the body.

But apparently it was not within MM's timetable for the wedding. I personally think she did this to cement WM into the marriage so he would not have second thoughts and back out. (that is my opinion). What woman would TWICE arrange a pregnancy before marriage? Think about that. I will say that a woman who intends to be married would consider her husband's feelings and wishes. MM did neither. Then when SHE wanted the second child (that WM was not ready for) she orchestrated the second pregnancy, after their marriage. This is another example of not considering her husband in the matter. This seems like CONTROL to me.

According to the book, Mel got pregnant before the scheduled date of the wedding. Bill was upset and not happy with this. (she stopped her b/c's without his knowledge and took the fertility drugs according to a nurse at the office).
Then she miscarried...and one would think give in to her upcoming husband and wait, as he wanted. But NOPE, she did it AGAIN...and then had the sonogram of the fetus (who was born later ) at 2 months gestation on the DAY of her WEDDING, and then took the photo of the fetus later that day to the reception and showed it around!

Now, Len, you think this is normal female behavior? Getting pregnant TWICE on purpose BEFORE your wedding day (when the groom was not agreeable)? I certainly do not, and there are quotes in the book that others thought it was very very strange, as well.

Nothing MM did during this crime, or after for that matter made sense either. So this was just early examples of the CONTROL that was
to follow.

[Satyagraha]

Why women take fertility drugs :
A couple has been trying to conceive : and it has been determined that
either the man or the woman has some physical inner impairment that would
hinder conception the usual way .

Or let me be more open-minded about it :
A single woman wants to conceive
by artificial insemination and the inseminations just aren't "taking" : then someone might take fertility drugs .

Melanie , on the other hand ,
STOPPED taking Birth Control and took
Fertility Drugs all without TELLING her husband-to-be .

I THINK within a loving relationship
having a baby is a partnership
decision : wouldn't ya' think ?

What she did totally disrespects
and DISAVOWS her husband
before they even exchange marriage vows .

[Len]

I KNOW about fertility drugs... that is one aspect of MY job.
I will say that there is a small % of women who may not conceive within 3 months after discontinuing b/c's. This is normal, as cycles normalize after the birth control hormones leave the body.

But apparently it was not within MM's timetable for the wedding. I personally think she did this to cement WM into the marriage so he would not have second thoughts and back out. (that is my opinion). What woman would TWICE arrange a pregnancy before marriage? Think about that. I will say that a woman who intends to be married would consider her husband's feelings and wishes. MM did neither. Then when SHE wanted the second child (that WM was not ready for) she orchestrated the second pregnancy, after their marriage. This is another example of not considering her husband in the matter. This seems like CONTROL to me.

According to the book, Mel got pregnant before the scheduled date of the wedding. Bill was upset and not happy with this. (she stopped her b/c's without his knowledge and took the fertility drugs according to a nurse at the office).
Then she miscarried...and one would think give in to her upcoming husband and wait, as he wanted. But NOPE, she did it AGAIN...and then had the sonogram of the fetus (who was born later ) at 2 months gestation on the DAY of her WEDDING, and then took the photo of the fetus later that day to the reception and showed it around!

Now, Len, you think this is normal female behavior? Getting pregnant TWICE on purpose BEFORE your wedding day (when the groom was not agreeable)? I certainly do not, and there are quotes in the book that others thought it was very very strange, as well.

Nothing MM did during this crime, or after for that matter made sense either. So this was just early examples of the CONTROL that was
to follow.

Topaz,
With all due respect, this is just speculation. What you wrote is a view based on limited information. You do not know her medical history and you do not know whether there was something else going on that justified using fertility drugs. Also, we never heard her side of the story on that. There may well have been other reasons for which she took fertility drugs. We simply dont know.

[Topaz]

The facts were printed by the publisher of John Glatt's book.

He appears so far to be very careful what he is writing. Except IMO for MC jr's input. I found that a bit uncorroborated.

But we have WM's friends/family and MM's coworkers who also provided the input to the wedding plans/day. I found those credible.

All of us will find various things in this book interesting. My point of view is female...and women tend to have definite responses to the strange
behaviors of other women.

It is pretty obvious that the feelings of MM that were negative, dismissing or disrespectful of WM began BEFORE the marriage day.
People are curious about this case still, because it is so gruesome and confusing. This was not an impulsive crime.
I'll be reading more today. I am looking forward to the parts where MM tried to manipulate LE and make them go away from her, which did not work out as she planned in the end!

I am also looking forward to the show on Discovery ID Monday night.

And I cannot for one moment wonder what "other reason" there could be to force a pregnancy so quickly using fertility drugs before
a marriage--twice. Why don't you give me some, Len?

[Len]

And I cannot for one moment wonder what "other reason" there could be to force a pregnancy so quickly using fertility drugs before
a marriage--twice. Why don't you give me some, Len?

Again, you dont know whether the intention was to "force" a quick pregnancy or whether there were other reasons. Frequently people decide to have children before they get married. There are millions of children conceived or born before their parents are married. It is easy to speculate, but you simply dont know her medical history or any other reasons she might have had to use fertility drugs.

[Dtviewer3]

Topaz,
With all due respect, this is just speculation. What you wrote is a view based on limited information. You do not know her medical history and you do not know whether there was something else going on that justified using fertility drugs. Also, we never heard her side of the story on that. There may well have been other reasons for which she took fertility drugs. We simply dont know.

I like to think of it as 'inference' based on known facts'. ;)
We will never have ALL the information about anything. We have to take what we know and try to draw 'reasonable' conclusions from it. Which is what Topaz did, IMO.
(No different than evidence presented in a courtroom.)

Edit: From Wikipedia:"Inference is the act or process of deriving a conclusion based solely on what one already knows."

[Topaz]

for being more eloquent than I am and helping me out explaining. :wink:

This whole getting pregnant before the wedding is soooo problematic...
There is the problem of the dress no longer fitting as pregnancy advances -- and she had a very expensive dress!

And I am sorry, I have never met anyone whose kids or themselves
got pregnant before the wedding ON PURPOSE. Accidentally sure.
But not on purpose. Husband going off to war--or something similar perhaps might fly as a reason. But that doesn't apply to Bill.

And in MM's case it was TWICE ...and Bill didn't want it either time!

I am now thru the murder part of the book ~~ 1/2 way...and have noticed a couple of things.

1) that body stayed in the apartment quite a while--days!

2) The book states that MM went to Atlantic City 3 times:
a) Thurs night after 9pm with accomplice to dump the car (easy passes removed from both cars)
b) Just after midnight Sat/Sun am she and her stepfather drove back
and her EZ pass recorded it.
c) went again with Selene on May 17th! A week or so after the car
had been towed away.

I don't recall 3 trips!
It is suggested in the book that the pamphlets of other places and the chloral hydrate were planted on the 2nd trip as red herrings.
I believe that the CH at least was a red herring. It made little sense to me.

All the while of course, there is a lot of Xanax going down, and also one RX of doubled dose, during this time.
Some of the distorted and mixed up stories are beginning at this point.
Later tonight I'll go back to it further.

[Len]

I like to think of it as 'inference' based on known facts'. ;)
We will never have ALL the information about anything. We have to take what we know and try to draw 'reasonable' conclusions from it. Which is what Topaz did, IMO.
(No different than evidence presented in a courtroom.)

Edit: From Wikipedia:"Inference is the act or process of deriving a conclusion based solely on what one already knows."

Inference with limited knowledge of facts is just speculation. The evidence that Topaz was referring to had nothing to do with the courtroom.

[bugsy]

BS.
If you truely believe there hasnt been an appeal filed because the state hasnt turned over the transcripts yet, I have a bridge to sell you.

IF the state is really holding up the defense' desire to file an appeal by not turning over transcripts in a timely manner, it is VERY easy to file a motion and get a hearing in front of a judge on the matter.
And ANY Judge would most certainly make the state produce the documents by a certain date.
Lawyers file motions for hearings to get evidence and transcripts everyday.

Everyday.

Go right ahead and call MM's attornies if you have any doubt.

I stand by what I say. They are still waiting for transcripts as of 12/04/08.

[bugsy]

Was the address she gave to buy the gun the same address she was using to get cheaper auto insurance?

Its been awhile so I cant remember all the details..........

Yes, you are correct.

[Len]

I am now thru the murder part of the book ~~ 1/2 way...and have noticed a couple of things.

1) that body stayed in the apartment quite a while--days!

2) The book states that MM went to Atlantic City 3 times:
a) Thurs night after 9pm with accomplice to dump the car (easy passes removed from both cars)
b) Just after midnight Sat/Sun am she and her stepfather drove back
and her EZ pass recorded it.
c) went again with Selene on May 17th! A week or so after the car
had been towed away.


Topaz,
I only read a few pages this morning while working out, but I noticed something that IMO raises even more questions about the case. In the book, it is written than the people who discovered the 1st suitcase, noticed fresh blood after they opened it. Something like the floor of their boat was turning pink from blood. To me that suggests that the murder had just occurred that day, very close to the time (hours) that the suitcases were thrown in the water.

The prosecution's theory was that MM killed WM, dismembered him in the shower and drained the body of blood and kept it for several days with ice or in a refrigerator. That was very far fetched IMO. But reading in the book that there was fresh blood at the time of the discovery makes it essentially impossible. Any blood should have coagulated by that time, unless the murder happened the same day. Think about it. Of course, the other possibility is that the description of the people who found the 1st suitcase was exaggerated or wrong. But that is what was written in the book.

[4Life]

Go right ahead and call MM's attornies if you have any doubt.

I stand by what I say. They are still waiting for transcripts as of 12/04/08.
You know NO ONE outside of the family can call MMs attorney and ask questions about the transcripts.
Nice try

[4Life]

Topaz,
I only read a few pages this morning while working out, but I noticed something that IMO raises even more questions about the case. In the book, it is written than the people who discovered the 1st suitcase, noticed fresh blood after they opened it. Something like the floor of their boat was turning pink from blood. To me that suggests that the murder had just occurred that day, very close to the time (hours) that the suitcases were thrown in the water.

The prosecution's theory was that MM killed WM, dismembered him in the shower and drained the body of blood and kept it for several days with ice or in a refrigerator. That was very far fetched IMO. But reading in the book that there was fresh blood at the time of the discovery makes it essentially impossible. Any blood should have coagulated by that time, unless the murder happened the same day. Think about it. Of course, the other possibility is that the description of the people who found the 1st suitcase was exaggerated or wrong. But that is what was written in the book.
Could have very easily been blood that was on the plastic bags etc. Even a tiny bit of blood and can an amount of water pink.
Of course there was going to be dried blood on the skin,bones,flesh etc . Mix that dried blood with water and you will have pink water

[Topaz]

The ME states that the body had about 1100cc of blood in it.
That most had drained off, but not all.

The other two suitcases were quite a mess.

Read on.

[4Life]

The ME states that the body had about 1100cc of blood in it.
That most had drained off, but not all.

The other two suitcases were quite a mess.

Read on.

Exactly, I was just about to reply to Len with the same information

And, you are corrrect, MM had no medical conditions that would require her to take fertility drugs.

[Len]

The ME states that the body had about 1100cc of blood in it.
That most had drained off, but not all.

The other two suitcases were quite a mess.

Read on.

Yes, I noticed that. That is a lot of blood. Dont you think that directly contradicts the prosecution's theory that the blood had drained? And dont you think the blood would have clotted by that time, if the murder occurred several days prior to the discovery? And with 1100 cc there, one can only wonder why there was not some stored to check for CH when it was necessary at a later point. 1100 cc is not a limited amount. It is a huge amount.

[4Life]

Could have very easily been blood that was on the plastic bags etc. Even a tiny bit of blood can turn any amount of water pink.
Of course there was going to be dried blood on the skin,bones,flesh etc . Mix that dried blood with water and you will have pink water

Fixed typos

[4Life]

Yes, I noticed that. That is a lot of blood. Dont you think that directly contradicts the prosecution's theory that the blood had drained? And dont you think the blood would have clotted by that time, if the murder occurred several days prior to the discovery? And with 1100 cc there, one can only wonder why there was not some stored to check for CH when it was necessary at a later point. 1100 cc is not a limited amount. It is a huge amount.

That is not a huge amount. That is around a pint of blood. The average human body contains approx. 10 pints

[Len]

That is not a huge amount. That is around a pint of blood. The average human body contains approx. 10 pints

It is a huge amount. It is 1 liter and 100 cc. You can run as many tests as you want with such amounts. For the tests they run they probably only needed 30-40 cc. They could have stored enough to do as many tests as they needed. Apparently they did not store enough. However, that may be standard procedure (not to store large amounts). We simply dont know.

[bugsy]

Did you enjoy the book signing?
:wink:

Did not attend, it is several hours away from me, and I was working on a paper for school last night.

[bugsy]

You know NO ONE outside of the family can call MMs attorney and ask questions about the transcripts.
Nice try

Yes, they can.

Hence the information on the last page of the book.

Mr. Glatt was able to call Baker Botts and get the information regarding the transcripts last March.

Mr. Glatt is not family, is he?

[cookie]

Play nice guys. Three pages and the forum is still open. I'd like to see it continue. I read the book. I did nearly lose my breakfast when the autopsy was discussed. Ugh!! I didn't feel there was much new other than the fertility drug thing and I viewed that as "business as usual" for MM.
I don't believe - and never have - that the murder took place in the townhouse. I believe she and her accomplice(s) drugged him and took him somewhere else near the water. Probably Barnegat. The investigators had a single theory and they stopped there. One other thing that has always bothered me is the suitcases were still in almost pristine condition. If that is the case, how could they have been dropped off the Chesapeake bridge? I also believe the murder took place in Virginia, at the water, and that is why no one ever saw MM and her accomplice on the bridge. Did any investigator ever check to see if there were any boat rentals from Virginia Beach? I don't believe they did. Maybe not even rented from Virginia Beach. Could have been Barnegat or AC. Too bad they were so determined to make sure the venue was New Jersey. At any rate, it appears they never pursued any other angles. IMHO the investigators did a lousy job. Prezioso, being a very smart gal, took whatever info she had and ran with it. She put together a highly believable scenario and the jury bought it. Not that they shouldn't have believed MM was involved up to her eyeballs. She was the planner. It makes no never mind now. She is in for life and I seriously doubt any appeal will go anywhere.

[Len]

Play nice guys. Three pages and the forum is still open. I'd like to see it continue. I read the book. I did nearly lose my breakfast when the autopsy was discussed. Ugh!! I didn't feel there was much new other than the fertility drug thing and I viewed that as "business as usual" for MM.
I don't believe - and never have - that the murder took place in the townhouse. I believe she and her accomplice(s) drugged him and took him somewhere else near the water. Probably Barnegat. The investigators had a single theory and they stopped there. One other thing that has always bothered me is the suitcases were still in almost pristine condition. If that is the case, how could they have been dropped off the Chesapeake bridge? I also believe the murder took place in Virginia, at the water, and that is why no one ever saw MM and her accomplice on the bridge. Did any investigator ever check to see if there were any boat rentals from Virginia Beach? I don't believe they did. Maybe not even rented from Virginia Beach. Could have been Barnegat or AC. Too bad they were so determined to make sure the venue was New Jersey. At any rate, it appears they never pursued any other angles. IMHO the investigators did a lousy job. Prezioso, being a very smart gal, took whatever info she had and ran with it. She put together a highly believable scenario and the jury bought it. Not that they shouldn't have believed MM was involved up to her eyeballs. She was the planner. It makes no never mind now. She is in for life and I seriously doubt any appeal will go anywhere.


I agree with many of the things you wrote. Everything suggests that the murder did not happen in that TH. And there is a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest that MM was involved somehow (gun and trips to AC). But you forget one detail that matters a lot in this case. If the murder did not happen in that TH, the timeline of events is inconsistent with MM being involved directly in the murder. And there is zero evidence that the victim was "drugged". The only possibility would be that MM knew the killer and helped in the cover-up. But in that case, it is also possible that she was not involved.

It is impossible to say with confidence based on the known evidence if MM killed him. There is a lot of mystery remaining in this case. The only thing for which I am convinced is that the prosecution's scenario (CH and murder in the TH) does not stand.

[Satyagraha]

EVEN IF Melanie was MERELY the MASTERMIND and never pulled a trigger , never wrapped a black garbage bag , never did strange doings
on a bridge : she's in for life .
Look at this Rabbi Neulander in New
Jersey - paid to have his wife killed .
He got more time than the guys who did the killing . I think he's in for life .

[clannad]

You're right, Saty. Same thing happened with Robert O Marshall, another NJ killer. He paid to have his wife murdered and got sentenced to death, while the actual killers got jail time. NJ no longer has a death penality, so Marshall will now spend his natural life in prison.

[GardenGirl]

Ah...the Parkway murder, Robert O Marhall. I drive by the scene of that murder a few times a week. The elsest son is married to the actress Tracy Gold, the middle son teaches college ball I think, and the youngest still stands behind his Dad believing him to be innocent.

I don't know if she killed him in the TH or not. Long ago a poster convinced me she had when she (poster) pulled up links to sites that had medical absorbant pads used in operating rooms. Once I saw them, I knew she could have killed him there.
Interestingly, PP didn't need to prove anything about the murder at all. The FBI had deemed the case a NJ one, so she didn't need to be concerned about jurisdiction. All she had to do was convince the jury that MM did it somewhere in the State, and that's it. Because all the players are NJ-ite's this wasn't hard to do.
For me, it was the gun, the script for CH on a RMA pad for a patient there, the AC trips, the EZPass, the affair, not calling the police and finally the funeral.
I haven't read the book yet. I didn't go to the signing, but got B and N to put aside a signed copy for me which I have to go and pick up.

I think it'll end up being a movie, and I think it paves the way for others to write their own books.
Sadly one has to think of the kids tho. No matter how many books are written, there will come a day when one of them Google's up their Dad's and Mom's name, and then will begin the nightmare that will be the rest of their lives. I hope and pray CL and family are remaining strong and purpose-driven through all of this.

I am also glad CW is allowing this thread, and kudo's to the one who had the cajones to start it.
If it's TB, thank you.

[Len]

I don't know if she killed him in the TH or not. Long ago a poster convinced me she had when she (poster) pulled up links to sites that had medical absorbant pads used in operating rooms. Once I saw them, I knew she could have killed him there.

Hi GG,
LOL. The absordant pads argument never made sense. They may absorb fluids, but they dont absorb bullets. And it seems that there were 2 extra bullets (based on the wounds) that were never recovered. And they dont protect from splashes. And if she dismembered the body in the shower, there would have been some forensic evidence.

Overall, the evidence is compelling that the murder did NOT occur in that TH. And that is why the prosecution's theory does not really stand.

[Topaz]

The term consciousness of guilt comes up in the trials on TruTV (CourtTV) pretty often.

I am almost done with the book now. And my dominant impression is that there is consciousness of guilt hanging over MM majorly.

How did WM's wallet get into the secondary storage place (that MM conveniently tried to hide from LE?) She did NOT tell CL when police came. CL found out in other ways. The Carmichaels were never told.
AlexT blurted out that WM was shot...when that info was never released.

How did his comp card get into the parents' home to be found during a search warrant?

THREE trips to AC? Like the old adage, the guilty return to the scene of the crime? To fake it up more, and/or check on the car?

I really doubt that MM is innocent in this crime. It doesn't really matter in the details, IMO. Many crimes have these mysterious elements.
The only way we typically learn details is if the perpetrator confesses.
(and she is not likely to ever do that). I do think she had help.

She admitted to being on that bridge during that time frame. We have her easy passes twice on 3 trips to AC. The first trip, we have her admission she moved the car. I don't believe Bill went to AC. I believe he never drove his car away from their apartment, and it had to be moved.

I think there was plenty of evidence. LE had to make a spread sheet to contain it all. MM is organized and cunning and thought LE would never put together all the tiny details she spread around. But they did.
I found the LE discussion of how they "stimulated" phone action when the wire taps started, to be very interesting. LE has experience in how people react to situations. And the taps show alot of anxiety and consciousness of guilt IMO. MM never told her lover or Finn that she bought the gun. She finally told BM and he was surprised. When Finn found out from LE that she bought the gun, he realized she had used him.

I was also surprised that the chloral hydrate was not found until close to the trial. LE was still finding stuff and it took that long to do so.

If MM had stayed cool, and kept her mouth shut, she might have fooled everyone. But she could not...she lied and also lied by omission, which reveals to everyone her consciousness of guilt.

[GardenGirl]

Maybe she took the body to Barnegat and shot him and drained him under water. That would work.
Did they dredge there at the house?

[Len]

Maybe she took the body to Barnegat and shot him and drained him under water. That would work.
Did they dredge there at the house?

That would be impossible with the known time line of events in this case.

[GardenGirl]

Hi Len,
How are you?
What do you mean about the timeline? Wasn't there time? Or are you talking about the EZZPass hits?

[Len]

Hi Len,
How are you?
What do you mean about the timeline? Wasn't there time? Or are you talking about the EZZPass hits?



What I meant is that there would have been no time for her to do that. She could not carry him "sedated" there, kill him and dismember the body, and there was not enough time to get there. I think there was good reason that the prosecution focused in the TH as the place of the murder, as no other scenario would fit well with the timelines. The problem is that the (luck of) forensic evidence essentially established that the murder did not happen there (IMO of course).

[Satyagraha]

The Helpers (JMHO)

Dr. Bradley Miller ( the surgical cut-up :
signed proffer to cooperate with LE with guarantee of no prosecution ) .

StepDad Cappararo

Mom Linda who watched the kids

Selene Trivizias : BFFL .

Team Kill Bill .
(Mel's wry sense of humor . Ha . Ha .)

[Len]

The Helpers (JMHO)

Dr. Bradley Miller ( the surgical cut-up :
signed proffer to cooperate with LE with guarantee of no prosecution ) .

StepDad Cappararo

Mom Linda who watched the kids

Selene Trivizias : BFFL .

Team Kill Bill .
(Mel's wry sense of humor . Ha . Ha .)


If any of those people were involved, they would have been prosecuted by now. They are obviously not. And I think it is wrong to randomly accuse them for something so horrible without any basis. Seriously.

[Len]

Len, I have a question for you. What do you think about MM moving WM's car in Atlantic City?

Also, from your posts it seems you are convinced MM could not have killed WM in the townhouse due to lack of forensics. I think MM's occupation and where she worked needs to be taken into consideration. I work in the OR and I can assure you the sheets and drapes used are very effective at containing blood and tissues. They are made (in part) for that very purpose. The surgical supplies (including blades, cleaning supplies, etc) MM had access to and her knowledge definitely make it possible, imo. My guess is that she cut him up so she could store, move and dispose of the the body herself without detection. Once she got rid of the body the cleaning supplies she could easily get from work would get rid of all dna... and that's part of her problem, she got rid of ALL of the dna. That is not a finding you would expect in a bathroom in a home where people lived.

Hi,
I think that MM moving the car in Atlantic City was highly incriminating. And so was buying a gun. And that is why she was obviously top suspect.

But I dont think the sheets and drapes can protect from any splashes (on the walls for instance) and there are no "cleaning supplies" she could use to ged "rid of all dna" in the bathroom. I think the argument of "no evidence is evidence" of the prosecution is totally wrong and has no basis. IMO there is no way on earth she could have cut him up, maintain the body in ice bags for days and then depose it, as the prosecution argued. Not in the wildest imagination could someone maintain a body "fresh" with ice bags. That argument alone discredits the whole theory of the prosecution IMO, not to mention the lack of any evidence that CH was used and most of the "forensic" evidence.

I am not arguing that MM is innocent. The trips and gun purchase suggest that she was somehow involved. I just dont know if that evidence alone was "beyond reasonable doubt". I think there was reasonable doubt. This case is so twisted and has so many totally unexplained issues that I still believe there is a (small) chance that MM was not involved in the crime or the cover up. I just dont think the evidence was BARD.

[Topaz]

I wonder if they ever checked out Francine, MMs friend who we heard on a phone call in court. Francine and her husband own a shop(Bait/Tackle etc) down the NJ shore. They have access to boats, large coolers/refrigerators and ice

That is interesting!

There are reasons why the stepdad looks like a potential accomplice either before or after the fact:
1) WM's comp card was found at his house during the search warrant
2) Garbage bags (a small #) like the ones MM had were found rolled up
on a shelf in his work/tool area
3) He owned more than 2 dozen saws, but a reciprocating type was never found
4) He was heard speaking in code on the wire taps to MM
5) He called LE and reported that CL was unfit to have custody of the Grandkids

MM could have picked him up the night she took the boys to GParents house where they stayed for several days while MM stayed in a motel "alone". That night they could have driven WM's car to AC and left it there, and MM could have dropped him off on the way back. Barnegat is not that far from AC and would be on the way back.

The one thing that bothers me is the storage of the body before dumping. If MM cut him up right after the death, but before rigor set in, and then stored the parts in a large fishing cooler with ice that would make sense more than at home in a shower stall. He would "keep" better in a cooler.
She could have had a cooler herself in fact. So cutting him up served two purposes. 1) to fit in the cooler until dumping -- keeping the kids away at Gparents 2) to get out of the apartment in a realistic fashion.

I think MM saved WM's wallet and comp card and jewelry. BM testified to seeing a man's wedding ring in the bedroom (after WM was gone). The wallet was stashed
in the secondary less well known storage place, and the comp card saved for Stepdad to use (why waste it?)
These items would not be in those places if an anon person did WM in.

It hasn't been that much time to charge an accomplice. I am sure LE is hoping to get some snitch in the prison to hear some of the details.
(Like what happened in the Jensen case). People over time, do talk.
This is how many cold cases resolve, in fact.

[Len]

Hi Len,

Why do you think the walls would be splashed? The walls in OR's don't get splashed.


Well, noone goes around in the OR's shutting people at point blank range with guns. That can easily cause splashes. That's what I meant.

[Len]

That is interesting!

There are reasons why the stepdad looks like a potential accomplice either before or after the fact.

The one thing that bothers me is the storage of the body before dumping. If MM cut him up right after the death, but before rigor set in, and then stored the parts in a large fishing cooler with ice that would make sense more than at home in a shower stall. He would "keep" better in a cooler.
She could have had a cooler herself in fact. So cutting him up served two purposes. 1) to fit in the cooler until dumping -- keeping the kids away at Gparents 2) to get out of the apartment in a realistic fashion.


Topaz,
I disagree about the stepdad. None of the reasons you listed is substantial enough to make him a serious suspect IMO.

Anyway, regarding the preservation of the dismembered body, the prosecution's theory was that she maintained the body in the shower stall using ice. Think about it. That is totally impossible. It is simply not doable for multiple reasons. Regarding coolers (another wild imagination scenario IMO) we have to assume that LE looked to find out if MM owned large coolers or purchased coolers in the area and apparently they found nothing like that. And that is why the prosecution's scenario was discussing possible use of ice bags. But that is simply impossible.

[Topaz]

Len, MM had plenty of time--- weeks to dispose of stuff. In fact she did. Neighbors knew they were moving...so carrying stuff out would not attract much attention IMO.
Rugs and mattresses in fact were removed and never found. LE didn't know who to look at for almost a month. The kids were conveniently not there, for days, and I think that was revealing, too.

Mr. Tacopina even had another trial or interview on TV after MM where he demonstrated no
spatter with a gun! It was on these boards.

Once the heart stops beating, there is no spatter to speak of.
Using a pillow to muffle will also prevent back spatter.

I think of all the potential accomplices...there is the most compelling
list of evidence for Stepdad. You certainly don't have to agree with me. In fact, your posts are rather stimulating to discussion which I am sure you realize. Perhaps LE is reading here right now!

But I will say as a personal opinion after reading the book...that Dr. Miller remains a very unlikable and complex man. There is just something so hinky about him, still.

[Len]

Len, MM had plenty of time--- weeks to dispose of stuff. In fact she did. Neighbors knew they were moving...so carrying stuff out would not attract much attention IMO.
Rugs and mattresses in fact were removed and never found. LE didn't know who to look at for almost a month. The kids were conveniently not there, for days, and I think that was revealing, too.

Mr. Tacopina even had another trial or interview on TV after MM where he demonstrated no
spatter with a gun! It was on these boards.

Once the heart stops beating, there is no spatter to speak of.
Using a pillow to muffle will also prevent back spatter.

I think of all the potential accomplices...there is the most compelling
list of evidence for Stepdad. You certainly don't have to agree with me. In fact, your posts are rather stimulating to discussion which I am sure you realize. Perhaps LE is reading here right now!

But I will say as a personal opinion after reading the book...that Dr. Miller remains a very unlikable and complex man. There is just something so hinky about him, still.


Topaz,
You did not answer regarding the ice bags. Dont you agree with me? To me that is the part that completely discredits the prosecution's scenario.

As for splashes, obviously he was shut before the heart stopped. There is also one more thing that I realized reading the book that creates more questions. The second lethal bullet entered from the abdomen and exited through the chest. If he was laying down "sedated", it would be an unusual way for MM to shoot him. Dont you agree? And in the book there is mention for 4 bullet wounds.

Again, no one can exclude for sure any possible accomplishes, but I really believe if it was a known person in the case would have been already charged. As for Miller, he was obviously not involved. He said himself in his testimony I think that LE investigated him, but he was obviously cleared. And there is absolutely no reason to suspect him. He just had an affair with MM, but there was zero evidence pointing to him.

[Topaz]

what is a few bags of ice here and there? How much do you think it
would take to keep something fresh? We live in a fishing area in the summers, and
see these coolers all the time. Two bags max in a good cooler and
it can stay for up to 3 days. We ourselves have a special Coleman cooler which does just that. Run up the AC, turn down the heat and it would
last well enough to do what she had to do. (another reason to be at a motel herself and get the kids out of there.) This is very plausible to me, based on our experience with high end coolers.

I missed the testimony during the trial at the very beginning, and also was interested in the book's comments, from the ME. That Anna Nicole Smith thing was pre-empting MM's trial quite a bit, most days.

My impression was that MM may have misfired one shot. After all she was not familiar with guns. So a misfire is possible (the abdominal shot). And she may have been surprised at the recoil.
Also 2 were thru and thru and probably ended up in the mattress which was dumped long before LE got there. Once she got the recoil down, and understood that, the shots became more accurate.

[darwin]

In reference to the blood spatter, I seem to remember there was evidence of green fibers found with WM remains.

MM and/or her helper(s) shot through a pillow.


--darwin

[Len]

In reference to the blood spatter, I seem to remember there was evidence of green fibers found with WM remains.

MM and/or her helper(s) shot through a pillow.


--darwin


My recollection is that fibers were only found attached to one of the 2 bullets (the one recovered in the chest). And there were 2 more wounds for which no bullets were recovered. Enough to possibly cause blood spatter.

P.S.
Hi (G) D

[Len]

what is a few bags of ice here and there? How much do you think it
would take to keep something fresh? We live in a fishing area in the summers, and
see these coolers all the time. Two bags max in a good cooler and
it can stay for up to 3 days. We ourselves have a special Coleman cooler which does just that. Run up the AC, turn down the heat and it would
last well enough to do what she had to do. (another reason to be at a motel herself and get the kids out of there.) This is very plausible to me, based on our experience with high end coolers.

I missed the testimony during the trial at the very beginning, and also was interested in the book's comments, from the ME. That Anna Nicole Smith thing was pre-empting MM's trial quite a bit, most days.

My impression was that MM may have misfired one shot. After all she was not familiar with guns. So a misfire is possible (the abdominal shot). And she may have been surprised at the recoil.
Also 2 were thru and thru and probably ended up in the mattress which was dumped long before LE got there. Once she got the recoil down, and understood that, the shots became more accurate.

Topaz,
Wrong. You can not maintain a body for several days just by turning on the AC or surrounding it in a shower with ice bags. There would have been decomposition. And if the description in the book of Glatt is correct and there was fresh blood in the 1st suitcase with the legs, the most rational explanation is that the victim was killed shortly before the suitcases were thrown in the water. Not days earlier.

[Topaz]

I think it is more likely that the body was cut up and put into a
high end portable cooler (as used by fisherman) and kept on ice.
Also dry ice is now very available, and also could have been used to reduce moisture accumulation. We have dry ice now at our local supermarket.

Coolers will keep things LONGER when the outside ambient temperature is
lower. So turning up the A/C in the apartment would lower the ambient temp quite a bit, and not be very livable for small children. The kids were taken away to Gparents for a REASON...and I think it would be too cold there for them and MM herself. For example we get 3 days of ice and refrigerator cold in a cooler on vacation, typically when it is kept in the shade and there is no heat wave happening. We have propane refrigerators on an island with no electricity, and rely on our coolers when we arrive, have guests and need more room and when we leave. They don't consume ice that quickly--- the quality ones are great now.

A good quality cooler can keep anything from spoiling for up to 3 days if you are lucky. MM could have easily replenished the ice once or twice as well. Each time the cooler is opened however, the temp would rise.
The body was cut up in such a way to fit 3 suitcases, and could easily fit in a fisherman's cooler which are about 3 ft long. You can Google these and find many types.

I said in my post that this makes more sense to me than using the shower. But she may have. We will only know if she confesses.

Many convicted felons take their secrets to the grave. Those that plead out, often have a stipulation to reveal the why and how of the crime at sentencing. Since MM did NOT plead out, she is not talking. But is waiting for the miracle appeal which is not likely going to be successful IMO.

[4Life]

Topaz,
Wrong. You can not maintain a body for several days just by turning on the AC or surrounding it in a shower with ice bags. There would have been decomposition. And if the description in the book of Glatt is correct and there was fresh blood in the 1st suitcase with the legs, the most rational explanation is that the victim was killed shortly before the suitcases were thrown in the water. Not days earlier.

Wrong!! Topaz did not say several days, she said "up to 3 days". Topaz is correct

[GardenGirl]

I think she suffocated him in the bed while he was wasted on CH and then shot a dead man to make it look like mob shots.
And she could have done it under water at the shore, we have plenty of it. Shots fired under water at one of our gazillion beaches filled with fisherman and RV's and coolers would go unnoticed, especially in late April when not a lot of fisherman are out there.
She may have moved him via huge marine cooler (they can hold a body) full of ice. That's how we all get the fish we eat days out from when it was caught.
At least if you eat local that's how it's done.
Then she shot him before she packaged him up. Planted the evidence of a mob hit. And I assume she threw the gun in the water somewhere near AC to further add to the theory if ever it was found. Unless she chopped that up too.
I think she ditched that bed mattress because it had remnants of a dead body on it, not so much a ton of blood.
As to the splatter etc, there really isn't any with a dead body.

[Topaz]

no one heard from or saw WM from late Apr 28th.

His legs washed up May 5th and were not very decomposed.
ME said fresh...like the "next day" bodies they get from hospitals.
May 10th, second suitcase found. May 16th, 3rd suitcase found.

So either WM was killed sooner--kept cold/on ice.
Or he was kept alive and drugged (with the chloral hydrate or
other drugs) and killed just before the dumping.
No one really knows the details, and can only infer some scenarios, because of the circumstances surrounding that time period.

One thing also MM would know and have access to is storage of tissues.
A fertility clinic freezes eggs and sperm, and perhaps transports them from one facility to another in the group. There were at least 3 offices RMA ran. While liquid nitrogen is used for long term storage, other methods may be used for more short term situations.
Not only were blankets there (one of which was wrapped about WM's head) but sharp cutting scalpels, drapes and pads would be in stock.
Syringes and of course RX pads were accessible to MM. MM even offered a friend fertility drugs (left over from some patients), but the friend declined.

One other thing: Regarding the ice. A common camping trick is to use frozen water in 2 liter soda pop bottles. A friend of ours does
this instead of buying ice. She freezes the bottles before expected use. If MM did this, there would be no witnesses either in stores or
neighborhood seeing her buy ice or carrying it into the apartment.

[Len]

Can somebody tell me what the ME said about decomposition? I'm confused as to why people think the body was kept on ice?

The legs that surfaced first in the small suitcase, not only were not decomposed, but according to a description in Glatt's book by the people who found them, there was blood coming out of that suitcase. Meaning, the blood had not clotted yet completely after the murder. The only rational interpretation is that he was killed shortly before, and not days earlier in the TH as per the scenario of the prosecution.

[4Life]

The legs that surfaced first in the small suitcase, not only were not decomposed, but according to a description in Glatt's book by the people who found them, there was blood coming out of that suitcase. Meaning, the blood had not clotted yet completely after the murder. The only rational interpretation is that he was killed shortly before, and not days earlier in the TH as per the scenario of the prosecution.

That does not mean that at all. It could have very well been dried blood on the bag, skin or bones that mixed with the water.
The legs were found the day after MM said she was in Delaware

[Len]

That does not mean that at all. It could have very well been dried blood on the bag, skin or bones that mixed with the water.

Read that part of the book. It sounds like a lot of blood. Not just small amounts dried up.

[4Life]

Read that part of the book. It sounds like a lot of blood. Not just small amounts dried up.
I read the book. Have you seen blood mixed with water?
Again, I am sure there was ALOT of dried blood on the legs. the dried blood mixes with water making it look like alot of blood. The people that found it probably described it as such ( looked like aot of blood)

Again, remember the legs were found the DAY AFTER MM said she was in Delaware

[Topaz]

understand how blood clots and what happens at death and after:

http://pagesperso-orange.fr/gira.cadouarn/english/medicine/hematology.htm

# If there is a wound in the wall of the blood vessel the blood will coagulate, (just as in a living person), in the minutes immediately after death.
# If there is no wound in the walls of the blood vessel, the blood will remain liquid for several days, after which it starts to decompose. The blood in the arteries tends to drain into the capillaries and veins. (This phenomenon probably gave rise to the ancient belief that the arteries carried air and played a part in respiration, and it is interesting to note that modern thinking on the circulation and physiology of the blood started only around the beginning of the XVIIth century, about 300 years after the Shroud was first known to have been put on display). If a big vein is cut after death, e.g. during an autopsy, the blood runs ; and if this is done very shortly after death this blood will coagulate. In effect, the blood cells continue to live for several hours after the person has died. In the past, in Russia, successful blood transfusions have been made using blood taken from people who had just died.

In essence the blood cells remain "alive" for a short period after death.
When that time passes, there is no clotting anymore, since coagulation is a living process.

The body had to be cut up BEFORE rigor was established, or after it left. This is a considerable time period. (based on the way the ME evaluated the cuts, the body had to be bent certain ways.)

[bugsy]

As far as I know, the transcripts (paid for by the state,) were handed over way back in March. If needed, the previous defense attorneys could make copies or loan what they already have. But there is no need, since the paperwork is already in hand.

Now it's just a matter of waiting til Melanie's number comes up. I'll guess sometime in 2009. Literally every murderer who pleads innocent files an appeal. It's part of a convicted murderer's freebie benefits package.

I hear a number of people received their books already. Don't forget to buy extra copies for adult stocking stuffers. (Include a small box of dryer sheets, for that extra touch. lol)

And don't forget to watch Discovery ID "Solved" Dec 8 at 9pm for the scoop on the forensic angles of how Melanie executed her plans.

Oh, and if the transcripts had been fully turned over in March, the 45 day window for filing the appeal would have expired in May I guess, maybe early June, depending on when in March they were received.

If they had the transcripts, the appeal would have been filed by now.

They do not have the transcripts, they have not filed the appeal.

[totallyBARD]

The intent to appeal was filed long ago in 2007. Since there are so many other convicted murderers who filed before Melanie, she must wait her turn. Remember: It costs nothing to try and get off on a murder rap. The state taxpayers foot the bill. Melanie has nothing to lose in claiming what all the other convicted murderers claim.

It's laughable to think no one in her legal circle has the complete set of transcripts.

In truth, MM is just another destitute killer who is playing the game .... because she can. But she still has to wait her turn like all the other convicted killers in NJ. The judicial system doesn't follow the dictates of her fan base.

Let's hope someday innocent victims and their families can access the same level of rights as the convicted killer.

[bugsy]

The intent to appeal was filed long ago in 2007. Since there are so many other convicted murderers who filed before Melanie, she must wait her turn. Remember: It costs nothing to try and get off on a murder rap. The state taxpayers foot the bill. Melanie has nothing to lose in claiming what all the other convicted murderers claim.

It's laughable to think no one in her legal circle has the complete set of transcripts.

In truth, MM is just another destitute killer who is playing the game .... because she can. But she still has to wait her turn like all the other convicted killers in NJ. The judicial system doesn't follow the dictates of her fan base.

Let's hope someday innocent victims and their families can access the same level of rights as the convicted killer.

I believe you are confusing the notice of intent to appeal with the appeal itself.

First, you file the intent to appeal, then request the transcripts, and wait for the state to certify them and turn them over (don't have these yet). Once the transcripts are certified and distributed, a 45 day window begins, by the end of this 45 days the appelant must distribute the brief (the actual appeal, as we refer to it here) to the court and other parties.

As they do not have the transcripts yet, the 45 day window has not started.

[Len]

understand how blood clots and what happens at death and after:

http://pagesperso-orange.fr/gira.cadouarn/english/medicine/hematology.htm



In essence the blood cells remain "alive" for a short period after death.
When that time passes, there is no clotting anymore, since coagulation is a living process.

The body had to be cut up BEFORE rigor was established, or after it left. This is a considerable time period. (based on the way the ME evaluated the cuts, the body had to be bent certain ways.)

Topaz,
What you posted obviously does not apply in this case. For 2 reasons:
1. The body had been cut and I assume some major arteries and veins must have been severed during the cut leaving no doubt that there would have been massive blood loss and then clotting. 2. The legs when first recovered were reported as not decomposed. Meaning it had just happened within a day or so.

Sorry, but I dont buy the scenario in which the body was preserved for days by either ice bags or huge coolers. In my opinion that is wild imagination and physically impossible for MM to do. Also, you mentioned possible use of dry ice, but that does not make sense either. Dry ice would have caused burns/marks that were not there. I still think that the simplest explanation is that the victim was murdered shortly before the dismembering and disposal in the water. The other possibility that you mentioned (keeping him sedated for days with CH and other drugs) is also impossible. The dose of CH was not that high and there were no syringe marks that were mentioned during the trials. To keep him sedated for several days, it would require constant use of intravenous sedatives for days, something that obviously did not happen.

[Len]

there may be an explanation on why there was no DNA recovered from any person in the TH.

This morning I was able to read a little more of Glatt's book that I find very interesting and very objective. I noticed something that surprised me and caused me to pause. On pages 157 and 158 there is a description of the first forensic team's work from VA that first examined the TH for evidence. It is written there that the 3 detectives went together with a 3-man forensics team to conduct a luminol search for any traces of blood in the TH. It is written there that there were a "couple of false luminol positives", caused by heavy bleaching, but no evidence of blood anywhere.

If that description of Glatt is accurate, this could explain why no DNA from anyone in the family was ever recovered. If the original forensic's team only applied luminol throughout initially, that could have damaged DNA and other forensic evidence. It is known that luminol is extremely sensitive in detecting blood traces, but it can also cause DNA degradation, and make more difficult subsequent DNA detection. Is it possible that when the second team went back and tried to search for DNA, they only found degraded samples that could not be analyzed because of initial use of luminol?
Again, Glatt's book may not provide all details or be inaccurate on this issue. But if it is accurate, then we may have an answer on why no DNA from anyone was ever found in that TH.

Here is a link that discusses the problems of using luminol:
http://crime-scene-processing.suite101.com/article.cfm/chemiluminescent_luminol

and here is an abstract referring to research to minimize luminol-based degradation:

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=241709

[Topaz]

Is used after all other specimens are taken. DNA would have been swabbed and taken to the labs. Then the decision to use luminol would be made.

I took the evidence claiming DNA not present to include ALL DNA, including skin cells, and hair. Enough bleach was used, according to witnesses who smelled it and testified to it, to destroy all organic DNA in that apartment of the McGuires.

Also Glatt's book says there were 37 pieces of tissue in WM's car.
(including bone)

If the body were cut several hours after death, there would be no clotting.
If it were cut within a short time--the clotting would appear where the cuts were made to blood vessels.

We don't really have a time of death for WM. Only facts that appear AFTER the body dump. He was either kept alive and drugged and killed right before the dump (and cut up --which would take some time)
or he was killed earlier and kept cold and thus delayed decomposition.

Someday we may find out the details. MM will spill the beans, or an accomplice will be charged and spill for a plea bargain. Time is still relatively short. It took 12 yrs to bring Mark Jensen to trial and conviction for example (in Wisconsin, recently)

Whatever the details are, it is clear MM was involved, and therefore accurately convicted, in my mind and also many others including the jury.

[darwin]

My recollection is that fibers were only found attached to one of the 2 bullets (the one recovered in the chest). And there were 2 more wounds for which no bullets were recovered. Enough to possibly cause blood spatter.

P.S.
Hi (G) D


Anything is possible MYVGBFFL. :)

However, I think the probability factor is greater that the green fiber found on one of the bullets is indicative of a pillow (or, green something) being used to prevent blood spatter and to muffle the sound.

In reference to the appeal, in some states one can track online the progress of a criminal appeal, e.g. the name of the attorney assigned to do the appeal, as well as any motions made to extend time or augment the record, etc.

It seems that NJ does not have this option?

-- darwin

[GardenGirl]

Pretty cold the first week of May, that's for sure. Probably in the high 30's to low 40's.
That's some busy water also, full of boats and fisherman.
Waves and currents abound.

[Len]

Is used after all other specimens are taken. DNA would have been swabbed and taken to the labs. Then the decision to use luminol would be made.

I took the evidence claiming DNA not present to include ALL DNA, including skin cells, and hair. Enough bleach was used, according to witnesses who smelled it and testified to it, to destroy all organic DNA in that apartment of the McGuires.

Also Glatt's book says there were 37 pieces of tissue in WM's car.
(including bone)

If the body were cut several hours after death, there would be no clotting.
If it were cut within a short time--the clotting would appear where the cuts were made to blood vessels.

We don't really have a time of death for WM. Only facts that appear AFTER the body dump. He was either kept alive and drugged and killed right before the dump (and cut up --which would take some time)
or he was killed earlier and kept cold and thus delayed decomposition.

Someday we may find out the details. MM will spill the beans, or an accomplice will be charged and spill for a plea bargain. Time is still relatively short. It took 12 yrs to bring Mark Jensen to trial and conviction for example (in Wisconsin, recently)

Whatever the details are, it is clear MM was involved, and therefore accurately convicted, in my mind and also many others including the jury.



Topaz,
The point I was making is that if they did not check for DNA prior to the first luminol tests (and that is how it comes across in Glatt's book), then it would not be surprising not to find any DNA when they checked for DNA the 2nd time, as luminol would have damaged the evidence. If that happened, that alone can explain why no DNA from ANYONE was ever recovered.

As for the clotting, from what I read the cutting apparently involved the abdominal area. There must have been cutting of major arteries and veins there. There would have been massive blood loss or it would have been already clotted. The report of bleeding in the 1st suitcases that contained the legs (without decomposition) simply suggests that the cutting happened shortly before the suitcases were thrown in the water. It would have been impossible to keep him alive sedated for so many days. IMO any such scenario is impossible and wild imagination.

[totallyBARD]

Oh, and if the transcripts had been fully turned over in March, the 45 day window for filing the appeal would have expired in May I guess, maybe early June, depending on when in March they were received.

If they had the transcripts, the appeal would have been filed by now.

They do not have the transcripts, they have not filed the appeal.


As of today, there is no appeal on the docket. It was dismissed without prejudice. (The case was dismissed but the plaintiff is allowed to resubmit the case when the attorneys get it together.) MM's attorney can file a motion to vacate the dismissal and file again, and it will restore the appeal to the docket.

A BIG IMPORTANT MEGA POSTSCRIPT: Melanie McGuire, not the State of New Jersey, is responsible for supplying her attorney with the transcripts. I repeat, it is not the responsibility of the State and they are under no obligation to do so. She's now at the end of the line again. A year and a half wasted. Things should have been done in a timely fashion, but they obviously weren't.

[Topaz]

What is wrong? Where are all the "helpers" she is supposed to have? :confused:

[Satyagraha]

Melanie's Appeal Has Been Dismissed

[Topaz]

Running for cover. :laugh:

I saw the Tracy Frame show 48hrs over the weekend again, on Discovery ID

It was amazing how similar the crime was staged.

1)shot in the heart, desecrated remains (fire in this case)

2)all the blood cleaned up perfectly on a white carpet--no DNA

3)dumped car (on videotape)

4)caught using a UPC pass at grocery store (when alibi claimed out of town) on video and electronically logged.

5)motive--- ownership of house

6) hypersexual behavior of Tracy

It was almost deja vu! :blink:

[Len]

Melanie's Appeal Has Been Dismissed

I have no idea, but that is hard to believe. That case had so much publicity that it would have made the news if and when her appeal was dismissed. Somehow I believe Bugsy. I also think that her appeal has a small, but reasonable chance. JMO.

[GardenGirl]

Nope I believe it. These posters don't post what isn't the truth or can be verified, especially in this case.
If she blew it, timewise, then TB is correct and she can refile when the atty's get their acts together.
Well, she needs not worry about her address as it wont' be changing. Moving is such a bother anyway.
Good news G's!! NG's.....tough gig.

[GardenGirl]

I iknow I'm being catty here .....but, do we have her pic to put up?
OK that's enough, I'll be good..........

[Len]

Nope I believe it. These posters don't post what isn't the truth or can be verified, especially in this case.
If she blew it, timewise, then TB is correct and she can refile when the atty's get their acts together.
Well, she needs not worry about her address as it wont' be changing. Moving is such a bother anyway.
Good news G's!! NG's.....tough gig.


Then why was n't it reported anywhere in the news?

[Len]

Melanies case is old news and it was NOT that high profile
Believe what you want, but it was dismissed. Too Too many extensions being asked for.
On another board(the board you go on) Bugsy and 12 have been saying she will be out by end of summer and new evidence. End of summer has come and gone

It was not high profile? With 48 hrs, dateline NBC and all national coverage? What is high profile then?

[Satyagraha]

Nope I believe it. These posters don't post what isn't the truth or can be verified, especially in this case.
If she blew it, timewise, then TB is correct and she can refile when the atty's get their acts together.
Well, she needs not worry about her address as it wont' be changing. Moving is such a bother anyway.
Good news G's!! NG's.....tough gig.

GG: That's not funny .
Behave or I'll give you my cold .

[GardenGirl]

I think it will make tomorrow's news Len, I'll let you know if I see it.
As usual, there's more to her story than we know.
If it's true, bad day for the Capp's.

O/T-cold here Len, but no snow....21 degrees. How's by you?

[clannad]

:thumbsup:Running for cover. :laugh:

[Satyagraha]

GG : Sent you my fave PIC of Mel .
Regular e-mail .

[johnnos]

Can anyone cite the information about the appeal being dismissed?

I can't find it anywhere except here.

[starling]

Just a reminder... convicted murderer Melanie McGuire's case will be featured tonight on the show called 'Solved' on the I.D. channel.

The episode is titled Broken Vows & airs at 9pm eastern time.

Other air dates can be found below courtesy of totallyBARD:


bumping~~~~~~~~~~

[johnnos]

And of course, why was it dismissed? Or should we be treating just as another internet rumor for now?

[Dtviewer3]

I have no idea, but that is hard to believe. That case had so much publicity that it would have made the news if and when her appeal was dismissed. Somehow I believe Bugsy. I also think that her appeal has a small, but reasonable chance. JMO.


Under what grounds do you think an appeal would be granted?
Was there reversible error commited? An unjust trial?

An 'appeal' is basically a trial about the trial. Its not a 'do over' about the evidence.

Mels' chance are somewhere between slim and none.

[Len]

Under what grounds do you think an appeal would be granted?
Was there reversible error commited? An unjust trial?

An 'appeal' is basically a trial about the trial. Its not a 'do over' about the evidence.

Mels' chance are somewhere between slim and none.

I think that the most of the physical evidence presented (tissues in car, hair stubble, and CH implication) was unreliable and wrongly interpreted. Also, the argument of "no evidence" is evidence for the lack of DNA in the TH was very wrong IMO. Especially if, based on Glatt's book, luminol was used the first time the detectives visited that TH.

All those things played a huge role in her conviction. I am wondering if a re-examination of those things and the way they were presented, could lead to a successful appeal. Purchasing the gun and her trips to AC were incriminating, but not enough to convict her. She was convicted to a large degree based on the "physical" evidence. Although her actions seemed to reflect some sort of participation in the crime, IMO there is still a reasonable chance that she did not do it. I dont think the case was proven BARD.

[Topaz]

I thought this show was the best of the network attempts.
It was easy to follow, the actors made it seem more real,
and PP's narration was good. It covered things more sequentially, and I thought it was a pretty good effort.

Of course, for those here there was nothing really new.

At the end, mention of the failed appeal was made...failure to file.
So perhaps it will be redone. Or perhaps the appeal attorneys, cannot decide what to appeal or cannot find a convincing argument? So MM waits, again.

[Dtviewer3]

[QUOTE=Len;12506596]I think that the most of the physical evidence presented (tissues in car, hair stubble, and CH implication) was unreliable and wrongly interpreted. Also, the argument of "no evidence" is evidence for the lack of DNA in the TH was very wrong IMO. Especially if, based on Glatt's book, luminol was used the first time the detectives visited that TH.

--snipped----QUOTE]

Sorry len, but not a chance.
It is so rare for an appeal to be granted because of 'evidence' that was presented during a trial.
During the trial, both sides are allowed to present their arguments as to what the evidence reflects (with experts even), and the jurors decide what weight to give said evidence. The jurors decide if they feel the evidence is 'unreliable and misinterpreted', NOT an appellate court.
That is why our justice system is set up the way it is. So a jury of our peers make those decisions.
Your statement about the 'lack of dna in the townhouse etc etc' is a perfect example. Many people feel that was very compelling evidence, and you disagree. The jurors were faced with the same evidence, and decide what weight if any to give it.
Those are things that get argued during a trial, but mean NOTHING as far as Melanie getting an appeal.

BTW, Your statement that 'all those things played a huge role in her conviction' mean nothing unless the jurors come out and say that those things played a huge role in their decision to convict her.

To me, those things were very, very small in convincing me that she was guilty.

[Dtviewer3]

I thought this show was the best of the network attempts.
It was easy to follow, the actors made it seem more real,
and PP's narration was good. It covered things more sequentially, and I thought it was a pretty good effort.

Of course, for those here there was nothing really new.

At the end, mention of the failed appeal was made...failure to file.
So perhaps it will be redone. Or perhaps the appeal attorneys, cannot decide what to appeal or cannot find a convincing argument? So MM waits, again.


Interesting, isnt it?

[Topaz]

The last words of this show mentioned that the appeal was
dismissed. And it wasn't today or yesterday. It was a few weeks ago.

How come no one knew? Even at that "other forum" where supposedly
the MM fans claim to be in the know?

Makes one wonder, doesn't it?

[totallyBARD]

The last words of this show mentioned that the appeal was
dismissed. And it wasn't today or yesterday. It was a few weeks ago.

How come no one knew? Even at that "other forum" where supposedly
the MM fans claim to be in the know?

Makes one wonder, doesn't it?

I LOVE your posts, Topaz!!!

Note: When I mentioned the phrase "as of today" earlier, I meant that when the appeal dismissal facts were checked today, they were the same as was stated in tonight's "Solved" segment.

[Len]

Did you watch ID? Believe it now?

I did not watch it, but from what I read here it sounds that it was true. So, I believe you now.

[Len]

[QUOTE=Len;12506596]I think that the most of the physical evidence presented (tissues in car, hair stubble, and CH implication) was unreliable and wrongly interpreted. Also, the argument of "no evidence" is evidence for the lack of DNA in the TH was very wrong IMO. Especially if, based on Glatt's book, luminol was used the first time the detectives visited that TH.

--snipped----QUOTE]

Sorry len, but not a chance.
It is so rare for an appeal to be granted because of 'evidence' that was presented during a trial.
During the trial, both sides are allowed to present their arguments as to what the evidence reflects (with experts even), and the jurors decide what weight to give said evidence. The jurors decide if they feel the evidence is 'unreliable and misinterpreted', NOT an appellate court.
That is why our justice system is set up the way it is. So a jury of our peers make those decisions.
Your statement about the 'lack of dna in the townhouse etc etc' is a perfect example. Many people feel that was very compelling evidence, and you disagree. The jurors were faced with the same evidence, and decide what weight if any to give it.
Those are things that get argued during a trial, but mean NOTHING as far as Melanie getting an appeal.

BTW, Your statement that 'all those things played a huge role in her conviction' mean nothing unless the jurors come out and say that those things played a huge role in their decision to convict her.

To me, those things were very, very small in convincing me that she was guilty.

If you look at the Cynthia Sommers case (where you were 100% convinced that she was guilty), you will realize that old evidence can be re-evaluated and re-tested some times. I believe that should happen in this case as well. I have to say that in the Cynthia Sommers case I was 100% convinced that she was totally innocent (and I was right) despite her conviction. Here I can not say the same. I do believe though that the case was not proven BARD and the physical evidence deserves another re-evaluation and, even, re-testing. I believe the "tissues" and "lack of any DNA" played a huge role in MM's conviction, but they were not challenged properly by her defense team. They had no experts to challenge them.

[totallyBARD]

Sorry Len. No matter how you cut the mustard, this one you can stick a fork in. Melanie is so guilty by ANY reasonable standard. And the jury got it right. The case will not be tried over. It is done. I'm sorry you don't want to watch the evidence on "Solved," but the truth by any other name is still the truth. Guilty!

She'll eventually get an appeal submitted, and then once it's over, it's back to the slammer.

[daniel green]

Topaz,
I think you go a little too far here in the way you interpret things. You dont know why and if she had good reasons to take fertility drugs. Dont forget that she was a fertility nurse working with fertility doctors. I am sure she had all the info and advise she needed when she decided to take fertility drugs. There is nothing to suggest that taking fertility drugs had to do with "control". You simply dont know why she needed to use such drugs.

I agree.

The first thing that an OB-gyn will give a woman who has not conceived is a prescription called Clomid which is very safe and lots of women take (including me!)--and it has NOTHING to do with control. Just a pill you take once a day and that's it. MILLIONS of women take it every yr.

[daniel green]

there may be an explanation on why there was no DNA recovered from any person in the TH.

This morning I was able to read a little more of Glatt's book that I find very interesting and very objective. I noticed something that surprised me and caused me to pause. On pages 157 and 158 there is a description of the first forensic team's work from VA that first examined the TH for evidence. It is written there that the 3 detectives went together with a 3-man forensics team to conduct a luminol search for any traces of blood in the TH. It is written there that there were a "couple of false luminol positives", caused by heavy bleaching, but no evidence of blood anywhere.

snipped

Hey, Len. What I remember and from the program tonight (I just bought the book and have not read it yet) is that the absence of ANY DNA or anything from the TH is problematic. Major cleanup with heavy bleaching.

[daniel green]

Can anyone cite the information about the appeal being dismissed?

I can't find it anywhere except here.

They said that on the ID show tonight.

That it was not filed by the appropriate date and it was dismissed.

[daniel green]

snipped

In September of 2008, Melanie McGuire's appeal was administratively dismissed due to failure to file the proper paperwork.

Yep. That was it.

Thank you.

[daniel green]

snipped
It is so rare for an appeal to be granted because of 'evidence' that was presented during a trial.
During the trial, both sides are allowed to present their arguments as to what the evidence reflects (with experts even), and the jurors decide what weight to give said evidence. The jurors decide if they feel the evidence is 'unreliable and misinterpreted', NOT an appellate court.
snipped.

I agree completely. VERY rare for an appeal based on evidence at trial.

This was an incredibly strong circumstantial case and I think the jury got it right.

[totallyBARD]

To underscore what has been said:

There is currently no appeal on the docket as of this writing. It has been dismissed without prejudice. (The case was dismissed but the plaintiff is allowed to resubmit the case when the attorneys get it together.) MM's attorney can file a motion to vacate the dismissal and file again, and it will restore the appeal to the docket.

A BIG IMPORTANT MEGA POSTSCRIPT: Melanie McGuire, not the State of New Jersey, is responsible for supplying her attorney with the transcripts. I repeat, it is not the responsibility of the State and they are under no obligation to do so. She's now at the end of the line again. A year and a half wasted. Things should have been done in a timely fashion, but they obviously weren't.

Anyone who missed tonight's airing of Discovery ID's "Solved" "Broken Vows" episode can check their listings as it will air 5 more times this week. http://investigation.discovery.com/tv/solved/solved.html

[Satyagraha]

I have no idea, but that is hard to believe. That case had so much publicity that it would have made the news if and when her appeal was dismissed. Somehow I believe Bugsy. I also think that her appeal has a small, but reasonable chance. JMO.

Len , did I ever make stuff up out of thin air ?

No : Some of us heard from Reliable Sources late Monday afternoon .

Until the book ; until the News that took from September to December to see the light of day :
I was willing to believe nine ways to Sunday right along with you .

This isn't a Football Game :
Hoorah Navy trounced Army .

This is a very long tunnel with
no glimmer of light : no way out .

Fodder for crime writers and these shallow TV spectacles - a few facts punctuated by Sally Field selling Boniva .

[Topaz]

I agree.

The first thing that an OB-gyn will give a woman who has not conceived is a prescription called Clomid which is very safe and lots of women take (including me!)--and it has NOTHING to do with control. Just a pill you take once a day and that's it. MILLIONS of women take it every yr.

Doctors do NOT give anyone who wants it, Clomid. First you are determined to be not ovulating properly. This drug is for infertility, not
for any old use for YOUR gratifcation.
I suppose some rich celebrities may demand it, to fit a child into a filming schedule but for the average woman? It contains RISK.

Risk of cancer!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-513233/Fertility-drug-double-cancer-risk.html
Fertility drugs used by thousands of women to boost their chances of having a baby could double the risk of cancer.

The 23,000 women who take clomiphene every year have twice the chance of developing thyroid cancer, a study suggests.

The drug is the most commonly used fertility treatment in Britain...
The study of more than 54,000 women, published in the medical journal Human Reproduction, last night led to calls for better regulation of fertility drugs.

Clomid used to be common here, but over the years I see far more use of the more sophisticated drugs. I've worked with patients for 40+yrs, and certainly have more experience than most here.

Other things to consider:
http://health.yahoo.com/reproductive-medications/clomiphene-citrate-for-infertility/healthwise--hw201588.html

While Clomid (clomiphene) is still popular in Britain ~~probably due to cost... the other drugs are used more here in US.
http://www.ucsfhealth.org/adult/medical_services/womens_health/fertility/fertilityDrugs.html
Follistim has mostly replaced Pergonal. Follistim and HCG are given by injection. Clomid is oral.

All of the fertility drugs tend to produce multiple ovulations and hence multiple births. Not in everyone, but that event is more common than when not using the drugs.

Glatt's book stated that MM got her drugs from the "hospital" since she wasn't working at RMA yet. Since we know she tended to get drugs on HER terms, and have EVIDENCE of that--- even that she offered to get drugs for OTHERS (this is very irresponsible)...I don't think the fertility drugs she obtained then were legal or supervised. I think she did it all herself. Many nurses (unfortunately-- I apologize to nurse readers here but they know this) obtain drugs commonly for themselves.
Her stay in prison may be shorter than she expects, if she becomes one of the cancer statistics! IMO

I still think MM was foolhardy to self medicate with fertility drugs. It demonstrates to me a huge CONTROL issue.
She certainly controlled people in her environment, men especially, but this trait did her in when she tried to control Law Enforcement!

[YankeeGirl]

I wholeheartedly agree, Topaz. Has'nt the underlying issue all along with MM been control?

[Topaz]

I wholeheartedly agree, Topaz. Has'nt the underlying issue all along with MM been control?

You are absolutely right!

I was just amazed though when I read the book, that MM went as far as to get fertility drugs for herself so she would be pregnant at her wedding.
That was just excessive for me.

Also on the show last night...the observations by people during the trial and verdict were revealing. Her instability and self delusion were publicly visible. We can speculate on that some--- but SEEING it was another thing. Her forging RXs for Xanax and even escalating in dose is revealing of her need for control. Had she not been caught out, I wonder what other horrible things she could have done? She obviously did not live by society's rules. She made her own.

[starling]

Evil...that diagram of his body and the careful cuts she made at the joints...to be able to dismember anyone..esp the father of your children...drain the life out of them in your own shower.
Scary to think of her ever being out again,really!



JMO

[Roux]

I wholeheartedly agree, Topaz. Has'nt the underlying issue all along with MM been control?

I'm not eloquent enough to thoroughly explain, but have always thought one reason she went into a fertility setting was her ego and need for power -- being part of giving life, involved in a couples most intimate & emotional issues, having patients love her, etc. Just seems a different setting than many other areas of nursing that she could have pursued.

[Dtviewer3]

[QUOTE=Dtviewer3;12506918]

If you look at the Cynthia Sommers case (where you were 100% convinced that she was guilty), you will realize that old evidence can be re-evaluated and re-tested some times. I believe that should happen in this case as well. I have to say that in the Cynthia Sommers case I was 100% convinced that she was totally innocent (and I was right) despite her conviction. Here I can not say the same. I do believe though that the case was not proven BARD and the physical evidence deserves another re-evaluation and, even, re-testing. I believe the "tissues" and "lack of any DNA" played a huge role in MM's conviction, but they were not challenged properly by her defense team. They had no experts to challenge them.


Huh?
I didnt even follow that case, or know the facts in it.
I certainly wasnt convinced either way with that one.
The only comments I ever made on the CS board were 2 quick comments about the legal aspects after I had received some PM's from fellow posters.

The Sommers case was an 'extremly' rare case, and in no way resembles this case at all. In the Sommers case, all there was was the forensics of the supposed poison, and her actions.
This case, on the other hand, could easily have been tried with NO mention of the 'tissues' or 'vial' found in the car.
There was still the gun, the hiding of the car, the 2am phone call she claimed William made, the emails to Finn, the lying about the shopping trip, etc etc.......

I stand by my original posts.
The apellate court will not even look at the evidence presented in this trial.

[Topaz]

This morning I've had some other thoughts about the show.

1) obviously missing was J. Tacopina. No shots of him doing lawyer stuff, only the one shot of him with MM draped on his lapels.

2) no interviews with defense. Probably because they are not her lawyers anymore. They failed, move on.

3) Very little on Dr. Miller. Very little on Finn.

4) no mention about accomplices.

One thing I thought could have helped new viewers, would be a mention that there was OTHER evidence too. That what was shown were just the bigger pieces. Viewers might think that this was all there was, and that is not really accurate. The amount of CE as well as the quality or weight of the physical evidence are what convicted her, IMO.

One thing I noticed was the time frame. MM claims she was in the WM's Maxima in AC right after he left. And there was the human tissue found in it as well. That says to me he was dead early on, and kept in the
apartment until May 4th. The explanation on the show about the car was not exactly what was in Glatt's book. There was no mention on the show about THREE trips to AC.

This crime really interests me because of the medical connections.
So in some respects I look at it from those eyes.
What is really distasteful now after the fact, is that autism connection.
MM really played that one to the hilt, and publicly. Very bad. Using her own kids for pity/sympathy, and a LIE no less! :mad:

[Topaz]

I'm not eloquent enough to thoroughly explain, but have always thought one reason she went into a fertility setting was her ego and need for power -- being part of giving life, involved in a couples most intimate & emotional issues, having patients love her, etc. Just seems a different setting than many other areas of nursing that she could have pursued.

What MM did in that clinic was CONTROL... she had many duties to
exert power. She had power over the patients, appearing competent and successful. That is what those patients expect, from a complex, painful expensive procedure. She made sure their cycles were ready for procedures, etc. Supervised the drugs, gave the shots, even home visits. And she wasn't even a nurse practitioner!

I read the fertility forums, and there were women there posting that
MM even called up other doctors on the phone and gave them "what for" when those women were being seen for other reasons.
They stated that MM had a "mouth" on her. Not all liked that aspect of her. MM would NOT have lasted long as a surgical nurse for example...surgeons are totally in control of everyone as a rule.

It seemed to me that MM was escalating. The more power she had and fan base at work, fueled her ego to the point where she thought she could do anything. Mix in some hate towards her husband, and you get a messy situation!

[Topaz]

is totally different.

From the get go...I thought Sommer was innocent.

There was just no evidence that Todd was indeed poisoned.
The chain of evidence was so tainted...more than 15 breaks in that chain alone, the testing done by an unqualified inexperienced lab, of
tissue samples. There was no other evidence at all.

Her attorney was very poor.

I am glad that Sommer was finally released. Her situation was nothing
like MM. For one...she did not manipulate anyone or lie. Whereas MM manipulated just about everyone and everything and lied, in order to try and divert attention away from herself! (consiousness of guilt).

[Len]

Huh?
I didnt even follow that case, or know the facts in it.
I certainly wasnt convinced either way with that one.
The only comments I ever made on the CS board were 2 quick comments about the legal aspects after I had received some PM's from fellow posters.

The Sommers case was an 'extremly' rare case, and in no way resembles this case at all. In the Sommers case, all there was was the forensics of the supposed poison, and her actions.
This case, on the other hand, could easily have been tried with NO mention of the 'tissues' or 'vial' found in the car.
There was still the gun, the hiding of the car, the 2am phone call she claimed William made, the emails to Finn, the lying about the shopping trip, etc etc.......

I stand by my original posts.
The apellate court will not even look at the evidence presented in this trial.


You may not remember it, but one time we were arguing in the CS board and you wrote something like "same story, different murderess". Augustus was also in that discussion. Did n't you think CS was guilty?

[Len]

is totally different.

From the get go...I thought Sommer was innocent.

There was just no evidence that Todd was indeed poisoned.
The chain of evidence was so tainted...more than 15 breaks in that chain alone, the testing done by an unqualified inexperienced lab, of
tissue samples. There was no other evidence at all.

Her attorney was very poor.

I am glad that Sommer was finally released. Her situation was nothing
like MM. For one...she did not manipulate anyone or lie. Whereas MM manipulated just about everyone and everything and lied, in order to try and divert attention away from herself! (consiousness of guilt).

Topaz,
There were many people that had pre-judged Sommers because of her sexual promiscuity and because they thought she had abandoned her children and had lost custody of her children. If you ever visited the Sommers boards those days, she was called a liar all the time.

In any case, I agree with you that the Sommers case was very different. I was also convinced 100% that she was innocent and the arsenic levels were an obvious lab contamination/error. I never wrote here that I am convinced that MM is innocent. I believe there is strong incriminating circumstantial evidence. But what has bothered me all along in the MM case is the exaggeration of the physical/forensic evidence by the prosecution and the wild-imagination scenarios that have been proposed by the prosecution (i.e. CH, sedation, ice bags, etc.). I noticed another thing in Glatt's book this morning that made me question things even more. On page 266 it is written that DNA matching MM's was also found on the floor the Nissan of the victim where they human tissues of WM were also found. Although it is not written what were the sources of DNA, I am now wondering if there were also human tissues from MM there. It could simply be that accidental cuts from both WM and MM were in that car. Again, Glatt's book may be inaccurate on that, but this raises more questions again. This sort of evidence played critical role in the conviction of MM, as it was presented as a physical link of MM to the crime scene.

[Dtviewer3]

You may not remember it, but one time we were arguing in the CS board and you wrote something like "same story, different murderess". Augustus was also in that discussion. Did n't you think CS was guilty?

I dont know if she is or isnt. Even now!! I am not even sure what the whole story is with her release.
As I said, I really didnt follow that case except a couple of posts and a tiny bit of reading the boards.

BTW, Is augustus still around?

[Len]

I dont know if she is or isnt. Even now!! I am not even sure what the whole story is with her release.
As I said, I really didnt follow that case except a couple of posts and a tiny bit of reading the boards.

BTW, Is augustus still around?


Cynthia Sommers was cleared and released from jail and it was proven that the positive tests were false. And you still consider it possible she is guilty? Hello?

As for Augustus, I have not seen him posting for a while. I hope he shows up again.

[Dtviewer3]

Cynthia Sommers was cleared and released from jail and it was proven that the positive tests were false. And you still consider it possible she is guilty? Hello?

As for Augustus, I have not seen him posting for a while. I hope he shows up again.


I didnt know it was 'proven'. (Or that she has been 'cleared'.)
I thought they were questioned because of the breaks in the chain of custody, but I didnt know that there were more tests done?

Sorry, Im not up to date on Sommers at all.

[Topaz]

I didnt know it was 'proven'. (Or that she has been 'cleared'.)
I thought they were questioned because of the breaks in the chain of custody, but I didnt know that there were more tests done?

Sorry, Im not up to date on Sommers at all.

Yes, all along, there were OTHER tissue samples that were fixed in slide form for viewing. (they had slide covers on them).

The State sent them to a forensics lab in Canada (Montreal, I believe) and it was determined that there was NO arsenic in them.

You know what I personally believe?
All along I thought this case was hinky. Military bases are notoriously contaminated with toxins. In fact Todd's job just before he died involved checking out another base. You can Google this contamination issue. It is pretty serious and is happening all around the world.

I recall that NCIS came forward about 2 yrs after Todd died and pushed for reopening the case. (perhaps his family was involved with that as well). By finding ANOTHER REASON/PERSON to blame, the military
could point away from itself, and find a scapegoat. So no further investigation into the bases, or people would reveal culpability for damage to others (since the bases were possibly toxic). The open specimens were in the custody of the military all that time. I really don't think Sommer would have been prosecuted if it weren't for the military connection. But that is just my opinion.

[Dtviewer3]

Thanks Topaz.
From a quick glance of the Sommer board that is still here, it seems the prosecution still wants to be able to charge Cynthia in the future if need be. Just glanced at the headlines from the link section.

Guess I need to look at some more recent links.

Sorry to all for the sidetrack from the MM case...........

[SummerMadness]

Hello to all-

It has been a very long time since I have posted here, some of you may remember my Observations from the Courtroom thread on the McGuire case since I was there almost daily and could give my impressions of the goings on.

I was thrilled when I found out that John Glatt, the author of the book on this case was going to be at my local Barnes & Noble for a book signing, I had met him at the trial & could not wait to read the book.

The signing was very interesting, there was a crowd that included some of the jurors, press & a photographer that was at the trial every day. I took the opportunity to ask JG if he thought Melanie was guilty & if so what was the piece of evidence that clinched it for him, he said the searches on the computer were very damning along with all the other evidence the prosecution presented. I also asked him if he had talked to the jurors, and he said no, the jurors didn't talk to anyone. I was hoping he had because I was super-surprised that they had acquitted her of four charges that I thought were more than proven; I didn't approach any of the jurors tho for fear that my face would be rearranged.

In reading the book there are some trouble spots for me, not really amounting to a doubt, as I continue to think Melanie is guilty however, I do wonder... First there are the gun shots, the book states there were four but only two slugs were recovered the other two were "through and through" but were never recovered. Where are those two slugs? They were not in the sofa LE said MM shot him in or anywhere else. MM put her furniture on sale afterwards and her friend Lori Thomas bought the living room set, the bedroom set was not sold, but LE never found any evidence there. Had she draped drop cloths on the sofa too before shooting him?

The other thing that bothers me, and Patti P said they didn't have to prove were she killed and dismembered WM, is this- I never thought she did it at the apartment, for the simple reason that I can't see using a reciprocating saw on a bathtub and not scratching it, I scratch my tub when I clean it with Ajax FGS! AND how did Melanie transport the bleeding body of her husband to the bathroom and into the tub without leaving any trace?

I guess we will never know-

This case fascinates me, I continue to think that the circumstances and the case presented absolutely points to Melanies guilt, the book clarified the timeline for me better than the trial did. It clearly illustrates the perfect storm forming and culminating in the grizzly murder of William McGuire.

This case is like a glass of water that is crystal clear on top but very murky at the bottom.

[SummerMadness]

Hi Summer Madness. Had I recognized you at John's presentation, I would have come over and said hi at the book signing. My husband and I sat very close to you as it now turns out. A number of people came up to you to say hi and I wondered if you were Summer....I saw Chang, Serrano and Malwitz, and even the jury foreman among other trial people.... I felt badly for the people who were not able to purchase books because they sold out so early.

Regarding the "tub" : It in actuality was a double wide shower, and had plenty of space to do the dirty deed.

Regarding the number of shots: The ME sated it COULD HAVE BEEN up to 3 or 4, but the condition of the body prevented her from determining the exact number.

I agree with you wholeheartedly about those other charges, which in my opinion was totally Melanie's handiwork or one someone directed by her.

Regarding the bedroom set: The set was not sold, but Melanie got rid of the rather newish mattress set for some strange reason. lol She could have easily thrown bleach on any blood stains and then made sure the mattress ended up in the dumpster. In that complex, people were moving all the time so a mattress in a dumpster, or people putting suitcases inside the car, would never look out of place.

Regarding the townhouse: It appears that the place was redone over a 3 week period and made to look virtually brand new and never inhabited. A couple of people VERY close to Melanie have such skills.

And remember, the investigation is still wide open for obvious reasons.

Hi TB- Actually I wasn't sitting I was standing by John Glatts left, I was leaning on a rack of books. I wish I would have known there were friends from the boards there, I wanted to take JG for coffee afterwards, we could have had a party. Darn!!!

[totallyBARD]

Hi TB- Actually I wasn't sitting I was standing by John Glatts left, I was leaning on a rack of books. I wish I would have known there were friends from the boards there, I wanted to take JG for coffee afterwards, we could have had a party. Darn!!!

I redid the following for purposes of clarification and spelling:

Hi Summer Madness. Had I recognized you at John's presentation, I would have come over and said hi at the book signing. My husband and I sat very close to you as it now turns out. A number of people came up to you to say hi and I wondered if you were Summer....I saw Chang, Serrano and Malwitz, and even the jury foreman among other trial people.... I felt badly for the people who were not able to purchase books because they sold out so early at B&N.

Regarding the "tub" : It in actuality was a double wide shower, and had plenty of space to do the dirty deed.

Regarding the number of shots: The ME stated it COULD HAVE BEEN up to 3 or 4 shots, but the condition of the body prevented her from determining the exact number.

I agree with you wholeheartedly about those other charges, which in my opinion was totally Melanie's handiwork or someone directed by her.

Regarding the bedroom set: The set was not sold, but Melanie got rid of the rather newish mattress set for some strange reason. lol She could have easily thrown bleach on any blood stains and then made sure the mattress ended up in the dumpster. In that complex, people were moving all the time so a mattress in a dumpster, or people putting suitcases inside the car, would never look out of place.

Regarding the townhouse: It appears that the place was completely redone over a 3 week period and made to look virtually brand new and never inhabited. A couple of people VERY close to Melanie have such skills.

And remember, the investigation is still wide open for obvious reasons.

[totallyBARD]

Summer: I felt JG's presentation was well done. He was so shy yet anxious to provide as much detail as possible..... I had called the store earlier in the week to tell them to expect a crowd and have extra books on hand, yet they still needed more chairs and had to take names for those who were not able to get book copies...

What surprised me was that of all the murders he covered, JG felt this was by far the most fascinating because of the many twists and turns the case took, complements of Melanie and her steadfast inventiveness.

[daniel green]

What MM did in that clinic was CONTROL... she had many duties to
exert power. She had power over the patients, appearing competent and successful. That is what those patients expect, from a complex, painful expensive procedure. She made sure their cycles were ready for procedures, etc. Supervised the drugs, gave the shots, even home visits. And she wasn't even a nurse practitioner!

snipped!

Oh forpetesakes, that is what ALL nurses at ALL fertility centers do. I've been to three and that's how it was at all of them.

From her patients we know that MM was liked by her patients.

MM had no control over anyone's cycle or life or anything else like that.

That is ridiculous.

I believe that she killed her husband and that she did it in a horrible, calculating cold manner, but to jump the shark and start making allegations without anything to back them up about what she took or about her performance as a nurse is silly.

[daniel green]

Doctors do NOT give anyone who wants it, Clomid. First you are determined to be not ovulating properly. This drug is for infertility, not
for any old use for YOUR gratifcation.
snipped
Clomid used to be common here, but over the years I see far more use of the more sophisticated drugs. I've worked with patients for 40+yrs, and certainly have more experience than most here.

snipped

Again, that is just silly. I cannot think of anyone I know who got pregnant over the age of 30 without Clomid--and here is the US. Including myself, including my two daughters who used it during the past two yrs--again, in the US.

It's what's given as the first medicine to anyone not getting pregnant.

Don't need to get it from a fertility specialist. Just your own doc or GYN will prescribe it for a few months. It's the first thing Rxd.

[SummerMadness]

Summer: I felt JG's presentation was well done. He was so shy yet anxious to provide as much detail as possible..... I had called the store earlier in the week to tell them to expect a crowd and have extra books on hand, yet they still needed more chairs and had to take names for those who were not able to get book copies...

What surprised me was that of all the murders he covered, JG felt this was by far the most fascinating because of the many twists and turns the case took, complements of Melanie and her steadfast inventiveness.

I have all of John Glatt's books, been a fan for years. I agree that this case is by far the most compelling, a close second is "One Deadly Night" the story of David Camm who killed his wife and two kids. I highly recommed that one.

[daniel green]

There were also alot of patients that did not like her. They requested a new nurse. They have said she was overbearing,rude (to patients, doctors and other nurses), pushy and controlling

OK.

But that doesn't make her in control of anyone.

When one is going to infertility specialists it is an overwhelming time--not only because of what one is going through, and its attending loss and grief--but because of all the hormones one has to take.

But, because someone found her pushy (hey, I find her pushy) doesn't mean she was in control of anyone--which is what was posted upthread.

[totallyBARD]

I have all of John Glatt's books, been a fan for years. I agree that this case is by far the most compelling, a close second is "One Deadly Night" the story of David Camm who killed his wife and two kids. I highly recommed that one.

Thanks Summer! I'll check it out.

[Topaz]

there has to be precise control of the hormones and timing, and support of the women, in order to get the eggs ready for harvesting.
MM advanced from insurance billing snafus (where her pushy nature fit perfectly) to selecting qualified surrogates...If that isn't control...choosing surrogates, I don't know what is.

So yes, all good fertility nurses have to be in a position to take that
responsibility and control.

That is a good place for MM to be, to match her personality.
She would NOT make a good nurse in other settings, where her power would be less. In fact why do you think there is a shortage of nurses now? Because they have virtually little control or power in their jobs...and the stress with the doctors is enormous.

Yes, many regular OB-Gyns give Clomid. But I have never had a patient in 40 yrs who was fertile and using it.
Also the new fertility movement, is immense and very $$ profitable for the specialists. If Clomid does not work within a year, those women are typically referred. I work where Brad Miller now practices. In fact there are 3 big fertility clinics that I worked with commonly. None of them used Clomid commonly in their practice. They were mostly all injectable.

And if you read Mr. Glatt's book carefully you do NOT see him say Clomid. For all we know MM was injecting Follistim and HCG. It is stated in the book that MM offered a friend who was in Georgia free left over drugs...I assume this is the Follistim regimen, since Clomid is not that expensive in comparison and her friend could get it easily.

And I got pregnant when I was 34, with no drugs, thank you. You cannot assume all women over 30 get Clomid...that is ridiculous. Most pharmacies carry in stock 30 or less tabs (this is how it is sent by the manufacturer) at any one time. Often those stay on the shelf for months. My professional experience is with drugs, and the people who use them. In the last 10 yrs, Clomid by Aventis (and Serophene it's twin by Serono) dropped off tremendously, esp as the cancer risk continues to plague the drug. With the new technologies, many women go right to the specialists today. Do not waste precious time, etc. Clomid remains for those who cannot afford the specialists.

My comments are based on my professional experience with fertility clinics and patients.

[Topaz]

Summer. I enjoyed your posts during the trial.

Thank you for making them and keeping us up to date.

[SummerMadness]

Summer. I enjoyed your posts during the trial.

Thank you for making them and keeping us up to date.

You are very welcome, I enjoyed doing it. Im half hoping she gets a new trial so I can do it again.

[daniel green]

I didn't say that nobody over the age of 30 gets pregnant without Clomid. I said I don't know of any--and, as I said, I used Clomid myself in the 90's and my daughters used it in the last two yrs. One of them got pregnant only with Clomid--the other did not and used other treatments and finally got pregnant with twins with IVF.

Hard for anyone to use Follistin and/or HCG on their own without a lab or a vaginal ultrasound machine.

This is just so off topic. I think MM is a stone cold killer but do not think that making up things makes her any more "bad." Or the truth.

[daniel green]

snipped

Clomid remains for those who cannot afford the specialists.

snipped.

Nah. Clomid is covered by most if not all insurance companies and GYN's prescribe them for women way before they go to fertility specialists.

Last comment on this for me. It is way beyond OT.

[totallyBARD]

Now don't go getting crazy on us, Summer. I like Melanie right where she is. The men of NJ are a lot safer with her in maximum security at EMCF. And from what I have heard about her over time, women and children are a lot safer with her behind bars too!

[SummerMadness]

Now don't go getting crazy on us, Summer. I like Melanie right where she is. The men of NJ are a lot safer with her in maximum security at EMCF. And from what I have heard about her over time, women and children are a lot safer with her behind bars too!

Talk about crazy- If Tacopina gets his way Melanie will be out lickity-split just because the jurors read my blog when they clearly weren't supposed to. I didn't know until I read it in the book that he had cited me by name when he talked to the judge and he called the blogs scathing and detrimental to his client. THE NERVE!!

[totallyBARD]

Hi Summer: My understanding is that Taco thought the "blog" was read, but when each juror was polled individually by Judge DeVesa, that turned out not to be the case. Taco was offered options after the jury was polled, yet he was willing to press forward with the trial.

Glatt is a good writer, albeit not a perfect one. I tapped into a few errors in dates etc.

Not one of us can remember every tiny detail of the case, and quite possibly Glatt mixed up some of his notes or personal recollections.

Note: MM had this amazingly natural gift in that she could remember long series of numbers like vehicle identification numbers and such. Yet she strangely failed to remember her husband's license plate number when asked for it. Hmmmmm

[Topaz]

Nah. Clomid is covered by most if not all insurance companies and GYN's prescribe them for women way before they go to fertility specialists.

Last comment on this for me. It is way beyond OT.

Yes, this is why Clomid is affordable compared to other approaches.

I do not make things up... I only point out behaviors, and situations
that interest me and I have experience with. When someone accuses me, I have to wonder, who is actually making things up.

And Mr. Glatt did not say a fertility drug... he said DRUGS...

[Topaz]

I have to chuckle a bit about this blog issue.

1) It is amazing how many people do not have internet connections still.
In my work...I often counsel people on scientific/medical data, and encourage them to check it out themselves on the net. In many upscale neighborhoods where I sometimes temp...they don't have internet or even a home computer. It is the YOUNG ones who do.

2) I've been on the net medically for over 10 yrs now. So for me to do what I do seems easy and common. But you know, not one person I have communicated with, visits here, or even knew about this place.
And I correspond with people all over the country and world!

So from my perspective it seems that I can see that this forum venue may not be as popular or commonly frequented as some of the seasoned people here expect. I myself did not discover this board until 2007...myself. Only the people concerned with true crime come here.
Even my husband :rolleyes: bless his heart...will only look at some links I get from here over the past election. I guess I am very lucky he indulges me my comments from TruTV and true crime shows. :wink:

I think that the 1/2 page featured article in the NJ papers over Easter weekend saying MM PASSED a LIE DETECTOR test... was far more damning and prejudicial than this forum might ever be! Many people in that jury pool or relatives of same could have seen that newspaper headline and story than visit here! :rolleyes:

[clannad]

Good to see you back!!!!

[daniel green]

snipped

And Mr. Glatt did not say a fertility drug... he said DRUGS...

He actually recounts some annonymous person telling him about this.

Absolutely no proof no nothing about it.

[daniel green]

snipped
Glatt is a good writer, albeit not a perfect one. I tapped into a few errors in dates etc.



I am halfway into this one and I am very dissappointed. Horribly structured and based on people telling him things after the fact. BMcG's life was given very short shrift.

He lost me at the chapter titled called "Lolita." What on earth is that about.

[Topaz]

He actually recounts some annonymous person telling him about this.

Absolutely no proof no nothing about it.

You should take that up with Mr. Glatt and his publisher.

[totallyBARD]

I am halfway into this one and I am very dissappointed. Horribly structured and based on people telling him things after the fact. BMcG's life was given very short shrift.

He lost me at the chapter titled called "Lolita." What on earth is that about.

I think the chapter is named Lolita because it sounds as if Melanie early on slept with anything that moved. I call her "Lolita" myself and was surprised that Glatt thought of the same name for her.

William McGuire's life seemed to evolve around his family and work. According to evidence, he went to AC about 30 times in 5 years. And he was mostly at home with the children because Melanie was not. (Remember all her men and all that love-phone calling?) His life was mostly service, education, work and family. Until Lolita shot and chopped him up.

Authors do not usually write about decent people so much, unless they are murdered by indecent spouses. That's what I think!

[Justice_Dawg]

It bears repeating...

In September of 2008, Melanie McGuire's appeal was administratively dismissed due to failure to file the proper paperwork.

:scared: What is up with that???:confused:

[Justice_Dawg]

I do recall Joe Tacopina saying he would not rest until this decision was overturned, and he would file an appeal.

He must be getting awfully sleepy.

Did he have a reason at trial as to why MM drove from NJ to Pa to by a gun that just happened to be the same type that killed her husband?

Maybe we should send him some sleep aids or else he will die. :chicken:

[SummerMadness]

Did he have a reason at trial as to why MM drove from NJ to Pa to by a gun that just happened to be the same type that killed her husband?

Maybe we should send him some sleep aids or else he will die. :chicken:

The story for publication that Melanie put forth was that she bought the gun for Bill since he had a felony conviction, she had forgotten I guess that she had told Finn she wanted the gun for protection from Bill because he was acting erratically.

She said in one of her interviews that if she was going to make up stories, she would have made up way better ones than the truth she said she told. What the interviewer did not follow up with is the fact that her plan fell apart when the suitcases surfaced and she had to start making stuff up on the spot, hastily and sloppily. If the suitcases hadn't surfaced nobody would have been the wiser. NOBODY.

[Len]

I am halfway into this one and I am very dissappointed. Horribly structured and based on people telling him things after the fact. BMcG's life was given very short shrift.

He lost me at the chapter titled called "Lolita." What on earth is that about.


Good point. I agree with you. The use of the title "Lolita" was totally inappropriate and it did not make any sense.

[Len]

Hello to all-

In reading the book there are some trouble spots for me, not really amounting to a doubt, as I continue to think Melanie is guilty however, I do wonder... First there are the gun shots, the book states there were four but only two slugs were recovered the other two were "through and through" but were never recovered. Where are those two slugs? They were not in the sofa LE said MM shot him in or anywhere else. MM put her furniture on sale afterwards and her friend Lori Thomas bought the living room set, the bedroom set was not sold, but LE never found any evidence there. Had she draped drop cloths on the sofa too before shooting him?

The other thing that bothers me, and Patti P said they didn't have to prove were she killed and dismembered WM, is this- I never thought she did it at the apartment, for the simple reason that I can't see using a reciprocating saw on a bathtub and not scratching it, I scratch my tub when I clean it with Ajax FGS! AND how did Melanie transport the bleeding body of her husband to the bathroom and into the tub without leaving any trace?


I agree with your points. Beside those, one more issue that surprised me in the book was finding out that the detectives performed a luminol test the first time they visited the TH. It is known that luminol can affect subsequent DNA detection and can degrade DNA. If they looked for DNA only the second time, after there was luminol tests were done the 1st time (and that is how it comes across in Glatt's book), then it is not surprising that they could not detect DNA from ANYONE in that place. The lack of detection of ANY DNA may well had nothing to do with cleaning by MM, and be simply the result of the use of luminol the 1st time.

I also agree with you that the apartment was not the murder place. I believe that the evidence was very compelling against that. But here is the issue. With the known timeline of events (and how MM's moves were accounted the next couple of days after the nurder) , it would have been impossible for her to physically kill him anywhere else. I believe that is exactly the reason the prosecution's theory was focused on the apartment being the crime place. But the forensic evidence pretty much excluded the TH as the crime place.

[Dtviewer3]

I agree with your points. Beside those, one more issue that surprised me in the book was finding out that the detectives performed a luminol test the first time they visited the TH. It is known that luminol can affect subsequent DNA detection and can degrade DNA. If they looked for DNA only the second time, after there was luminol tests were done the 1st time (and that is how it comes across in Glatt's book), then it is not surprising that they could not detect DNA from ANYONE in that place. The lack of detection of ANY DNA may well had nothing to do with cleaning by MM, and be simply the result of the use of luminol the 1st time.

I also agree with you that the apartment was not the murder place. I believe that the evidence was very compelling against that. But here is the issue. With the known timeline of events (and how MM's moves were accounted the next couple of days after the nurder) , it would have been impossible for her to physically kill him anywhere else. I believe that is exactly the reason the prosecution's theory was focused on the apartment being the crime place. But the forensic evidence pretty much excluded the TH as the crime place.

I dont get why you keep repeating this.
How were MM's moves accounted for those days?
She dropped the kids with her parents, and had many hours each day to do whatever she wanted.
Other than her appointment to get the restraining order, and her lovers visit to the hotel, what time was accounted for?

Certainly you dont mean her shopping trip--the one where she cant remember a single store or area she shopped at?

[4Life]

I dont get why you keep repeating this.
How were MM's moves accounted for those days?
She dropped the kids with her parents, and had many hours each day to do whatever she wanted.
Other than her appointment to get the restraining order, and her lovers visit to the hotel, what time was accounted for?

Certainly you dont mean her shopping trip--the one where she cant remember a single store or area she shopped at?

I don't understand either, he has posted this 4 or 5 times in the last 2 days

I recall that "shopping" trip. The trip were she states she doesn't remember 1 store she went in and she does not remember the route she took in or took out. All she remembered was that she used 2 different routes. LOL
Oh and the legs showed up the next day

[Len]

I dont get why you keep repeating this.
How were MM's moves accounted for those days?
She dropped the kids with her parents, and had many hours each day to do whatever she wanted.
Other than her appointment to get the restraining order, and her lovers visit to the hotel, what time was accounted for?

Certainly you dont mean her shopping trip--the one where she cant remember a single store or area she shopped at?


What are you saying? Let me repeat: If the TH was not the murder place (and the evidence clearly established that IMO), there is no way she could have killed him anywhere else. Think about it. There is no way on earth that during the day, after she dropped her children, she would have been able to carry him "sedated" somewhere else and kill him. Even if she had help, that would have been impossible and she would have been noticed. If the TH was not the murder place, it would have been impossible for MM to physically kill him anywhere else. That does not exclude the possibility that it was murder for hire, but it excludes her as the physical killer.

[4Life]

What are you saying? Let me repeat: If the TH was not the murder place (and the evidence clearly established that IMO), there is no way she could have killed him anywhere else. Think about it. There is no way on earth that during the day, after she dropped her children, she would have been able to carry him "sedated" somewhere else and kill him. Even if she had help, that would have been impossible and she would have been noticed. If the TH was not the murder place, it would have been impossible for MM to physically kill him anywhere else. That does not exclude the possibility that it was murder for hire, but it excludes her as the physical killer.Where there is a will there is a way. She had the will and she found a way. Of course that way put her behind bars for life.

[daniel green]

Good point. I agree with you. The use of the title "Lolita" was totally inappropriate and it did not make any sense.

I thought that was awful and totally inappropriate.

Lolita, for those who have not read the Nabokov novel, is a girl sexually abused and raped for years by her stepfather, who killed her mother in order to do this.

How does that fit in to this case? Or that chapter?

Also annoying was the author's continual black-white writing. Everyting about Bill McG is good--his parents' abandonmnent is glossed over as is his being thrown out on the street by his immediate family.

But there is a second hand account from someone with a decided interest in this story and who hates MMcG about when she first had sex and then the author calls her dating in high school "several affairs."

Are you kidding me?

It is so incredibly lacking in nuance or anything close to being documentation or any corroboration.

Awful.

[daniel green]

I think the chapter is named Lolita because it sounds as if Melanie early on slept with anything that moved. I call her "Lolita" myself and was surprised that Glatt thought of the same name for her.

snipped

Really? She was like Lolita--sexually abused and repeatedly raped by her stepfather and another pedophille? Because, you know, that is what Lolita was in the novel.

A child VICTIM of pedophiles.

I think it is highly inappropriate and I kept thinking wow, maybe the author knows something I don't about her stepfather.

And then from fighting the stepfather (in the chapter called Lolita) the author blithely rushes to end it--with no explanation at all--on pg 30 that "soon Melanie would come to an understanding with her" stepfather and come to think about him as her father.

HUH?

[daniel green]

snipped

Authors do not usually write about decent people so much, unless they are murdered by indecent spouses. That's what I think!

But that is just not a very interesting story. The real story is how ppl who look perfect and are caring as she was to her patients, etc, who was a good student and accomplished to such a calculated, heinous, cold-blooded thing.

Otherwise here is the book:

Bad, terrible person killes wonderful, perfect person.

A nuanced book (such as, say, the early work of The Stranger Beside Me author) gets to the truth of everyone involved.

They are not cardboard cutouts.

Here you have one chapter named, totally incorrectly, Lolita, and then the chapter about Bill McG is just as inappropriately titled "serving his country." That's a chapter with all the references to his speeding tickets, driving with suspended lic, marrying a very young girl he didn't love, dating Melanie while still married to his wife, all his run-in with superiors, etc.

How is that truthful or interesting?????

It's such heavy-handed writing it sounds like a paperback romance novel, replete with ripping bodices.

In the chpter about BMcG, btw, there is an actual reference about him committing a "minor felony."

WHAT??????????

What kind of silly editorializing is that????????

Why can't he write about the real ppl, with actual references and notations, who were neither perfect, neither all evil, and how one of them killed the other?

[daniel green]

Another thing that made me say huh? what? was the reference to the trip to Aruba? Pg 28. Third paragraph. The writer talks about the trip to Aruba and says "During the Mexican trip..." HUH?

[Len]

Another thing that made me say huh? what? was the reference to the trip to Aruba? Pg 28. Third paragraph. The writer talks about the trip to Aruba and says "During the Mexican trip..." HUH?

LOL, funny. I noticed that too. You would expect the writer to know that Aruba is not in Mexico.

[SummerMadness]

But that is just not a very interesting story. The real story is how ppl who look perfect and are caring as she was to her patients, etc, who was a good student and accomplished to such a calculated, heinous, cold-blooded thing.

Otherwise here is the book:

Bad, terrible person killes wonderful, perfect person.

A nuanced book (such as, say, the early work of The Stranger Beside Me author) gets to the truth of everyone involved.

They are not cardboard cutouts.

Here you have one chapter named, totally incorrectly, Lolita, and then the chapter about Bill McG is just as inappropriately titled "serving his country." That's a chapter with all the references to his speeding tickets, driving with suspended lic, marrying a very young girl he didn't love, dating Melanie while still married to his wife, all his run-in with superiors, etc.

How is that truthful or interesting?????

It's such heavy-handed writing it sounds like a paperback romance novel, replete with ripping bodices.

In the chpter about BMcG, btw, there is an actual reference about him committing a "minor felony."

WHAT??????????

What kind of silly editorializing is that????????

Why can't he write about the real ppl, with actual references and notations, who were neither perfect, neither all evil, and how one of them killed the other?

While I agree with you that Anne Rule's books are more in depth and nuanced, they are also almost completely written from the prosecution and victims side of the aisle (I have read them ALL). Ms Rule usually has input from both sides, in this case Melanie and her parents refused to be interviewed. John Glatt said at the signing that at least 100 pages were cut from the book. Mr Glatt attended every day of the trial and the evidence presented was, IMO, overwhelming and inescapable, I think he saw it that way too.

[4Life]

I thought that was awful and totally inappropriate.

Lolita, for those who have not read the Nabokov novel, is a girl sexually abused and raped for years by her stepfather, who killed her mother in order to do this.

How does that fit in to this case? Or that chapter?



If you know the real meaning of Lolita and what his meaning was for naming the chapter that, you would understand

It makes person sense and fits for Melanie. Perfect match for that chapter of the book.

Lolita:A seductive adolescent girl


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Lolita

[daniel green]

LOL, funny. I noticed that too. You would expect the writer to know that Aruba is not in Mexico.

And it was not a typo because he repeated it TWICE!

[daniel green]

While I agree with you that Anne Rule's books are more in depth and nuanced, they are also almost completely written from the prosecution and victims side of the aisle (I have read them ALL). Ms Rule usually has input from both sides, in this case Melanie and her parents refused to be interviewed. John Glatt said at the signing that at least 100 pages were cut from the book. Mr Glatt attended every day of the trial and the evidence presented was, IMO, overwhelming and inescapable, I think he saw it that way too.


Thank you for Ann Rule's name! Totally blanking on it!

I don't think that she speaks to every convicted killer or his/her family but yes, her books are powerful and full of information and not all this silly black/white monster/angel stuff.

Glatt does thank Tacopina in his forward.

But a good crime author gets to the meat of the background--from named and various sources.

I agree that the jury got it right and that the evidence was overwhelming, but I find this kind of book to be a yawner.

There was a name I've read on this thread, Regina Knowles, of whom I know nothing about--but on pg 50 the author brings her up by saying "RK believes that Melanie never forgave him for that."

WHAT???????????

She had never been brought up prior to that and then there was no intro or info about her.

As a person who only watched the trial very sporadically and didn't follow it on the boards, I was blown away by that mistake. I wanted to know who that was, why she believed that, how'd she heard that, etc. Normal, routine things a reader wants to know.

The problem I see with a book like this is that ppl who watched the trial and followed the case very closely won't find this book to contain anything they don't know. And those who didn't, won't find anything of any weight or special window into the persons or case, either.

[daniel green]

If you know the real meaning of Lolita and what his meaning was for naming the chapter that, you would understand

It makes person sense and fits for Melanie. Perfect match for that chapter of the book.

Lolita:A seductive adolescent girl


snipped


Oh, I KNOW the real meaning of the term Lolita. I actually taught a college level class about it and the book.

Unfortunately, a lot of ppl think it is an sexually active teen. It is not.
The Nabokov book is told from the viewpoint of the narrator, a pedophile who kills Lolita's mother so that he can sexually abuse her and violate her and rape her for years. Lolita was not even a teenager.
She was a child victim of a predator.

So it is reprehensible to call a sexual teen after the nane of a horribly abused CHILD.

At the end of the novel, another predator pedophile snatches Lolita awat from her rapist/stepfather.

I just cannot understand how any editor or publisher let that chapter name get by.

From Wiki:

A nymphet is seen to be a sexually precocious, attractive girl, and was notably used by French author Pierre de Ronsard, and popularised by Vladimir Nabokov in the novel Lolita. In Lolita, protagonist Humbert Humbert uses it to describe the 9-14-year-old girls to whom he is attracted.

The PEDOPHILE believes that the CHILD is seducing him.

[4Life]

Oh, I KNOW the real meaning of the term Lolita. I actually taught a college level class about it and the book.

Unfortunately, a lot of ppl think it is an sexually active teen. It is not.
The Nabokov book is told from the viewpoint of the narrator, a pedophile who kills Lolita's mother so that he can sexually abuse her and violate her and rape her for years. Lolita was not even a teenager.
She was a child victim of a predator.

So it is reprehensible to call a sexual teen after the nane of a horribly abused CHILD.

At the end of the novel, another predator pedophile snatches Lolita awat from her rapist/stepfather.

I just cannot understand how any editor or publisher let that chapter name get by.

From Wiki:



The PEDOPHILE believes that the CHILD is seducing him.

Well we don't know which meaning of Lolita the author took, but I am thinking it was this one: Lolita:A seductive adolescent girl

Also according to the book, MM was sexual active at 14 and sleeping with men 19 y/o and up

[daniel green]

snipped
Also according to the book, MM was sexual active at 14 and sleeping with men 19 y/o and up

According to her step brother who claimed he was there the first time.

[daniel green]

The ME states that the body had about 1100cc of blood in it.
That most had drained off, but not all.

snipped.

Pg 15. "Dr Gunther took just 1,100 ccs of blood from the body cavity, leading her to believe the unfortunate victim had been bled out before being dismembered."

[Topaz]

tend to be only as good as the authors' sources.

I've read many Ann Rule books, at least over 15 and she is the best of the genre IMO. She favors the victims and the families of victims however.

But even though as good as she is, I think so far I can only say I thought about 7 of her books excellent (as opposed to just good).
The books where she had the most information and when she actually sat in on the trials (she doesn't do ALL trials) tend to be better.
She also gives more psychological insight into the accused/perpetrator.
Her descriptions of Diane Downs during her trial (I'll use this example because of the recent interest in DD and her failed attempt at parole) were very chilling. Small Sacrifices was one of the best books Ann Rule has ever written.

I think readers WANT the psychological/behavioral stuff mostly. There is a curiosity as to how the perpetrator of the crime(s) got there, and how they victimized the victim.

From my reading, I think John Glatt is more of a just the facts type of guy. This book about MM was mostly from the trial. Since MM refused to be interviewed as well as her parents there is a limit on what Glatt could use. So instead he used MM's diaries and interviews which were on TV. And he did not report one comment that MM did on one of the shows, where the interviewer said--"What would you say to Bill if you could today?" and MM responded "FU*K you!" Just previously to that question she said she hoped her children would see this interview in the future. I think MM really showed her personality and style in two of those TV shows quite well. While I thought she was guilty, I had about 5% or less niggling questions, doubt (not REASONABLE doubt) because she IS a young woman with two little children. But after seeing MM on those 2 shows, MY doubt was gone. TOTALLY.

[Topaz]

But that is just not a very interesting story. The real story is how ppl who look perfect and are caring as she was to her patients, etc, who was a good student and accomplished to such a calculated, heinous, cold-blooded thing.

Otherwise here is the book:

Bad, terrible person killes wonderful, perfect person.

A nuanced book (such as, say, the early work of The Stranger Beside Me author) gets to the truth of everyone involved.

They are not cardboard cutouts.

Here you have one chapter named, totally incorrectly, Lolita, and then the chapter about Bill McG is just as inappropriately titled "serving his country." That's a chapter with all the references to his speeding tickets, driving with suspended lic, marrying a very young girl he didn't love, dating Melanie while still married to his wife, all his run-in with superiors, etc.

How is that truthful or interesting?????

It's such heavy-handed writing it sounds like a paperback romance novel, replete with ripping bodices.

In the chpter about BMcG, btw, there is an actual reference about him committing a "minor felony."

WHAT??????????

What kind of silly editorializing is that????????

Why can't he write about the real ppl, with actual references and notations, who were neither perfect, neither all evil, and how one of them killed the other?

Daniel Green....
You ARE aware are you not, that EDITORS of books, often make authors say and do certain things in the books, to "spice" them up?

If you do not like aspects of Mr. Glatt's book, you would be accomplishing quite a bit if you put those thoughts down and send them to the publisher. In the case where an author was sloppy, it might result in better editing. Or in the case where an overzealous editor forced an author to put in a weak or inappropriate reference, that practice may be stopped in the future. In either case I think your comments would be best served sent to the publisher of this book.

[Topaz]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Lolita

I think the TERM Lolita has over time become a NOUN and entered into
common usage and slang and left behind its original character.

I will not copy over the website page because of the copyright restrictions here...
But suffice it to say:
The American Heritage Dictionary states that Lolita is "a seductive adolescent girl".

[BigDude]

Well we don't know which meaning of Lolita the author took, but I am thinking it was this one: Lolita:A seductive adolescent girl

Also according to the book, MM was sexual active at 14 and sleeping with men 19 y/o and up

Now let's think about this. A 14 year old girl with a 19 year old man! Who is the adult in this situation? Certainly not a 14 year old girl. In this country, this is called rape!

[Len]

tend to be only as good as the authors' sources.

From my reading, I think John Glatt is more of a just the facts type of guy.


Well, if some of the things that are in the book are facts (like luminol used the 1st time and that DNA of MM was found on the floor of the car), then there are some interesting questions raised. I had not read those 2 things anywhere else and, if so, there may provide an explanation on why no DNA from anyone was found in that TH and IMO further suggest that the tissues in the car were from accidental cuts.

But we know one thing for sure. Aruba is not in Mexico.

[Topaz]

Well, if some of the things that are in the book are facts (like luminol used the 1st time and that DNA of MM was found on the floor of the car), then there are some interesting questions raised. I had not read those 2 things anywhere else and, if so, there may provide an explanation on why no DNA from anyone was found in that TH and IMO further suggest that the tissues in the car were from accidental cuts.

But we know one thing for sure. Aruba is not in Mexico.

One would expect DNA from MM to be in the car. With all that hair she has... it would be some kind of miracle to NOT be in the car! I don't think anyone has said deep tissue DNA was found belonging to MM.

As far as the townhouse, when they went there the first time,
I am sure they followed their own standard procedures in deciding when and where to use luminol. It was stated on Solved that only false positives were found (because of the heavy cleaning and use of bleach).

When they went BACK, they tore out the walls and plumbing and took those pipes back for testing.

There as been NO evidence that any forensic procedures were improperly or sloppily done--- as in the Cindy Sommer case.
If it had, you'd think Mr. Tacopina would have latched onto it immediately. Since this was a central NJ investigation, NOT a local one, extra careful measures were in place. That gave the evidence more weight and confidence IMO.

[4Life]

Now let's think about this. A 14 year old girl with a 19 year old man! Who is the adult in this situation? Certainly not a 14 year old girl. In this country, this is called rape!

Can't rape the willing.
From what we have read and heard, MM seduces the men.

[totallyBARD]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Lolita

I think the TERM Lolita has over time become a NOUN and entered into
common usage and slang and left behind its original character.

I will not copy over the website page because of the copyright restrictions here...
But suffice it to say:
The American Heritage Dictionary states that Lolita is "a seductive adolescent girl".

Correct. John Glatt OBVIOUSLY was NOT trying to create a LITERAL comparison to the Lolita-description detailed by another poster. Glatt reported that Melanie apparently started seducing men when she was quite young.

Should teachers and married men she allegedly seduced, have been held accountable for their actions? Absolutely!!!! Should any young Lolita who deliberately seduces older men be held accountable for HER actions? Absolutely. Young teen girls who are deliberately sexually promiscuous with men, give decent girls a bad rap who ARE real victims.

According to her stepbrother in John Glatt's book, Melanie bragged about having affairs with 2 high school teachers and her stepdad threatened to have one of them fired.

It sounds like MM had no conscience from the very beginning.....

[totallyBARD]

Well, if some of the things that are in the book are facts (like luminol used the 1st time and that DNA of MM was found on the floor of the car), then there are some interesting questions raised. I had not read those 2 things anywhere else and, if so, there may provide an explanation on why no DNA from anyone was found in that TH and IMO further suggest that the tissues in the car were from accidental cuts.

But we know one thing for sure. Aruba is not in Mexico.

The 37 tissue samples from William McGuire found on the floor mats were DEEP post mortem tissue, not superficial top layers like Taco was suggesting to the jury......

[totallyBARD]

Well, if some of the things that are in the book are facts (like luminol used the 1st time and that DNA of MM was found on the floor of the car), then there are some interesting questions raised. I had not read those 2 things anywhere else and, if so, there may provide an explanation on why no DNA from anyone was found in that TH and IMO further suggest that the tissues in the car were from accidental cuts.

But we know one thing for sure. Aruba is not in Mexico.

Hi Len. It has been explained so very often why there was no evidence of human habitation in the townhouse where there was obviously a lot of cleaning and inside reconstruction done over a 3 week period to cover up what Melanie and any accomplices did.

You have recently admitted that Melanie was a part of this crime, but you say there was not enough evidence to convict her.

To me, there is a huge amount of evidence that she plotted for months to have her husband killed and that she was a part of his murder, and that she was a major part of the cover-up. I also think she had help from the very few people whom she trusted. People very close to her who did not take the witness stand. These same people didn't mind trashing the innocent victim and his family all over national TV, yet they would not swear to tell the truth in trial court.

[totallyBARD]

Can't rape the willing.
From what we have read and heard, MM seduces the men.

That may be true, but in many places, if a 19 year old guy has consentual $ex with his 16 year old girlfriend, her dad can have him prosecuted for rape and the guy is then listed on the $exual predator list for life.

I have always found it interesting that we jail girls and young women who accept money in exchange for $ex, but we do not have laws to prosecute teen girls and young women who deliberately barter $ex in exchange for better grades, fancy dinners, special attention, etc.

[Len]

Hi Len. It has been explained so very often why there was no evidence of human habitation in the townhouse where there was obviously a lot of cleaning and inside reconstruction done over a 3 week period to cover up what Melanie and any accomplices did.

You have recently admitted that Melanie was a part of this crime, but you say there was not enough evidence to convict her.

To me, there is a huge amount of evidence that she plotted for months to have her husband killed and that she was a part of his murder, and that she was a major part of the cover-up. I also think she had help from the very few people whom she trusted. People very close to her who did not take the witness stand. These same people didn't mind trashing the innocent victim and his family all over national TV, yet they would not swear to tell the truth in trial court.

LOL. So, I have "recently admitted that Melanie was a part of this crime"? Hello? I have written repeatedly that IMO there was a lot of incriminating evidence against her. IMO the circumstantial evidence suggests that she was somehow indirectly involved in the crime or the cover-up. However, I believe that the case was not proven BARD. Meaning that IMO there is still reasonable doubt on whether she did it. IMO the chance that she was not involved is small, but real.

As for you "explaining to me so very often" about the DNA evidence in that TH, thank you but your explanation reflects your own interpretation of facts and views. I happen to have a different interpretation. But thanks for "explaining" to me anyway.

[Topaz]

I think the townhouse was inferred because of criminal theory.

This was not quoted in the book, but I remember it clearly during PPs
closing argument (which was extremely well done and easy to follow).

When criminals do a complex crime..they typically do it in surroundings where they have control. That means, safety from interruption, less chance of witnesses, easy access to the tools they need etc.

The townhouse was the most likely place that MM could control. And it was stated that cutting Bill up carefully and carefully wrapping him, took TIME. So MM herself went to a motel. (any unexpected visitors would be met with a silent apartment when she was not there). Her children were taken to the Gparents for babysitting. MM made sure the guy who was to move them over that weekend, got a long note attached to his door so he wouldn't show up. She had total control of the area to do her stuff.
Where else would she have such control? Parents home? --she'd first have to get Bill there, and that might be seen. He might leave trace in her car, etc. So MM would not have wanted ANY accidental people to wander in or witness anything. The suitcases attest to that care, as well as the heavy duty packaging she did..many garbage bags used over each other in the wrapping up--from right there in her cupboards!

So that is why I think LE and PP proposed the apartment as the site.

[totallyBARD]

LOL. So, I have "recently admitted that Melanie was a part of this crime"? Hello? I have written repeatedly that IMO there was a lot of incriminating evidence against her. IMO the circumstantial evidence suggests that she was somehow indirectly involved in the crime or the cover-up. However, I believe that the case was not proven BARD. Meaning that IMO there is still reasonable doubt on whether she did it. IMO the chance that she was not involved is small, but real.

As for you "explaining to me so very often" about the DNA evidence in that TH, thank you but your explanation reflects your own interpretation of facts and views. I happen to have a different interpretation. But thanks for "explaining" to me anyway.

Actually, the many explanations provided to you from different sources, eminates from the evidence presented at MM's trial, which of course resulted in her conviction by the jury.

It's your perogative to disregard all the damning evidence based on YOUR interpretation during and after the trial, but the jury had the final word on whether she was guilty or not.

John Glatt's book and the forensic science channel, which recently put the physical evidence into easy-to-understand forensic context, was also based on evidence provided to the MM trial jury.

Whether Melanie pulled the trigger, did the dismembering, or watched from a nearby easy chair while directing others to do her bidding, it is clear from the overwhelming evidence that she was the planner and mastermind of this depraved murder.

The jury verdict was a reflection of the evidence presented to them. My opinion is that a jury member or two disagreed about the 4 lesser charges, so they went with what they all DID agreed upon. I believe she was guilty of ALL charges, but I'm happy with the major convictions.

[daniel green]

snipped

She also gives more psychological insight into the accused/perpetrator.
Her descriptions of Diane Downs during her trial (I'll use this example because of the recent interest in DD and her failed attempt at parole) were very chilling. Small Sacrifices was one of the best books Ann Rule has ever written.


From my reading, I think John Glatt is more of a just the facts type of guy. snipped.

I agree about the Diane Downs book, which I read many yrs ago but can still remember in detail. What made that book so good is that Rule went way back with multiple sources about everyone in the book. Did a lot of research. So you had insights from many ppl and from actual records about every aspect of everyone and everything.

That book had hospital records, the records from the surrogate pregnancies, the medical records, the diaries, all of the background players. Rule tracked it all down.

I am not sure what type of writer Glatt is, but disagree that he is just the facts type of writer, since the book is woefully short on facts.

[bugsy]

The appeal was dismissed by a clerk at the appealate court mistakenly, the 45 day window for filing the appeal has never even officially started, the paperwork to reinstate the appeal in well underway, and it will be reinstated shortly.

Once reinstated, it picks up at the exact place it left off, it does not go to the "back of the line" as has been reported.

The appeal should never have been dismissed as MM and her attornies as of yet (12-10-08) do not have all the transcripts. The state has yet to turn them over despite repeated requests.

MM is legally entitled to the full transcripts, a certified copy of which is necessary in order to file the appeal. The state produces the physical transcripts of the trial, and are supposed to do so in a reasonable amount of time. MM still doesn't have the full certified set. Once she and her attornies have the transcripts, the appeal can move forward, but until then, all they can do is sit and wait.