Appellate Motion Denied in Melanie McGuire Appeal [Archive]

totallyBARD

07-22-2009, 01:20 PM

Appeals court shoots down McGuire's bid to introduce new evidence in Woodbridge suitcase murder

NJ.com Staff Report Wednesday July 22, 2009

MIDDLESEX COUNTY - A state appeals court has denied a bid by Melanie McGuire to introduce new evidence that her attorneys say show that markings on the bullets recovered from the remains of her husband did not come from the handgun she purchased days before his slaying.

In a ruling Tuesday, a two-judge panel ordered McGuire's attorneys to file a new brief and appendix in their ongoing appeal of her murder conviction without the information concerning the bullets within 14 days.
On April 23, 2007, a Middlesex County jury found McGuire guilty of the murder and dismemberment of her husband after hearing testimony that William McGuire was shot and killed at their Woodbridge apartment.
His body was found in three suitcases in the Chesapeake Bay a weeks after the April 2004 murder.
In June, the defense filed a motion seeking to supplement the record with the information about the bullets. McGuire's attorneys contended that bullets from the Taurus .38-caliber revolver that Melanie McGuire bought in Pennsylvania five days before William McGuire was killed have five lands and grooves, while the bullets recovered from the victim's body had six lands and grooves.
Lands and grooves are distinctive markings made on a bullet when it is fired from a gun.
The gun Melanie McGuire bought was never recovered. Prosecutors during the trial were only able to link the bullets with the make of weapon.

The argument of McGuire's attorney, Jamie Kilburg of Washington, D.C., was based on information obtained by the defense from an unnamed customer service representative and a Taurus Web site.
In a brief filed in response, Deputy Attorney General Daniel Bornstein argued that bullets recovered from McGuire's body were consistent with bullets that could have come from the Taurus .38.
In a sworn affidavit, Robert Morrison, the president of Taurus International Manufacturing Inc., indicated that the unnamed service representative was not entirely accurate, and information on the Web site "should not be relied on as accurate.''
The revolvers are manufactured in Brazil, according to Morrison. Depending on production needs, tool wear and availability of parts, the tools used make either five or six lands and grooves. The tools "were, and are, used interchangeably,'' Morrison said.
Kilberg could not be immediately reached.
McGuire, 36, is serving a life sentence at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women in Union Township, Hunterdon County.

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20090722/NEWS/90722021/Appeals+court+shoots+down+McGuire%E2%80%99s+bid+to +introduce+new+evidence+in+Woodbridge+suitcase+mur der

totallyBARD

07-22-2009, 01:38 PM

I have previously said that dubious heresay non-authenticated data presented to a Court's Appellate Division is in my opinion unprofessional and completely amateurish.

My hat is off to those NJ Appellate judges who recognized that a detailed sworn affidavit from the President and CEO of the Taurus gun company was truly representative of facts about the type of gun illegally purchased by Melanie to kill her husband.

Now maybe we can move forward with any other motions, so Melanie McGuire can get back to her daily prison routine as quickly as possible. It appears her thinking she might win a "get out of jail card" easily may be harder than first thought. Even if she were to get a retrial, the evidence is very strong that she is a depraved killer. I think she'd better get used to the idea that she is not about to get away with her past criminal actions.

Len

07-22-2009, 02:07 PM

Not surprising that this particular motion was denied. Now lets see what will happen to the whole appeal. There may be still good reasons in the appeal for her to get a new trial.

Great Dane

07-22-2009, 02:09 PM

I hope so too....

Len

07-22-2009, 02:20 PM

I hope so too....

I dont think much changed with that decision. The appeal has not been considered yet. It is just that motion.

Great Dane

07-22-2009, 02:34 PM

I dont think much changed with that decision. The appeal has not been considered yet. It is just that motion.

Ah, thanks for the clarity. I wish we could view what is in the appeal....:glare:

totallyBARD

07-22-2009, 02:37 PM

Well, until recently, a midgy-handful of MM supporters had this particular motion being touted as the critical bombshell which was going to spring Melanie from jail ASAP.

As it turned out, the "smokeless gun" documentation turned out to be more of a hot-air gun after all.

Len

07-22-2009, 02:58 PM

Ah, thanks for the clarity. I wish we could view what is in the appeal....:glare:

I think Bugsy had posted that he had seen the whole appeal and it was interesting. If the info with the gun was 100% and gone through, MM would have been essentially exonerated. But that is not the case. Still, the appeal may have enough to lead to a new trial. We will find out sooner or later.

bugsy

07-22-2009, 03:48 PM

MM's motion to expand the trial record has been denied. Her atty's have been instructed to resubmit her appeal within 14 days.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/court_denies_ballistics_hearin.html

totallyBARD

07-22-2009, 04:11 PM

July 22, 2009 Philadelphia Inquirer

Setback in dismemberment killer's new trial bid
The Associated Press

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. - A New Jersey woman convicted of killing and dismembering her husband has suffered a setback in her bid for a new trial.

A state appellate court on Wednesday denied a request from Melanie McGuire's attorneys for a hearing on ballistics evidence.

Instead, the panel told them to submit a new brief with no references to information learned after the trial about the type of gun she bought before her husband was killed.

The defense contends ballistics information from the weapon's manufacturer is inconsistent with markings on bullets found in the victim's body, but prosecutors dispute those claims.

McGuire, of Woodbridge, was sentenced to life in prison after a jury convicted her of the 2004 murder. William McGuire's remains were found in three suitcases in the Chesapeake Bay near Norfolk, Va.

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/new_jersey/20090722_ap_setbackindismembermentkillersnewtrialb id.html

totallyBARD

07-22-2009, 04:17 PM

Appeals court rejects Melanie McGuire's arguments about new evidence in suitcase slaying

by Tom Haydon/The Star-Ledger
Wednesday July 22, 2009, 2:30 PM

MIDDLESEX COUNTY -- A state Appellate Court has denied a request from attorneys for convicted killer Melanie McGuire for a hearing on ballistics evidence in an effort to seek to a new trial.

In a ruling today, the state Appellate Court ordered McGuire's attorneys to submit a new brief without any reference to information found after the trial relating to the type of handgun McGuire purchased in Pennsylvania in 2004, two days before her husband, William McGuire, was killed.

During Melanie McGuire's 2007 trial, prosecutors argued she drugged, shot and dismembered her husband in their Woodbridge townhouse, before stuffing his remains in three suitcases that were dumped in the Chesapeake Bay.

Prosecutors introduced evidence about the gun Melanie McGuire purchased, but the weapon was never recovered.

In June, defense attorney Stephen Turano filed a brief contending the Taurus Model 85 .38 Special revolver McGuire bought could not have been the murder weapon

Turano argued that information on the Taurus website proved the number of lands and grooves machined into the gun Ms. McGuire purchased in 2004 is inconsistent with the marking on the bullets described by the state's own experts."

In response, Deputy Attorney General Daniel Bornstein filed a brief that said the information on the website was inaccurate and misleading. Bornstein also filed an affidavit from the president of Taurus, who said the revolver could have five or six grooves when it left the factory.

Turano today, when asked about the ruling, said he still expects to get the ballistics information in the record, but possibly not in this round of appeals.

"There will be a forum for this argument," Turano said. "The jury was led to believe (McGuire) purchase this gun that was consistent with the murder weapon. We can argue and assert that it's impossible for that gun to be the murder weapon."

The Appellate Court order told Turano to file a new brief, without the supplemental information concerning the gun, within 14 days.

Prosecutors said McGuire killed the computer programmer in 2004 so she could be with her lover, Bradley Miller, a doctor who worked with her at a fertility clinic in Morristown.

McGuire, now 36, a former fertility nurse, was sentenced in July 2007 to life in prison and is incarcerated at Edna Mahon Correctional Facility in Clinton.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/court_denies_ballistics_hearin.html

Len

07-22-2009, 04:35 PM

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/court_denies_ballistics_hearin.html

From the new link above:

Turano today, when asked about the ruling, said he still expects to get the ballistics information in the record, but possibly not in this round of appeals.

"There will be a forum for this argument," Turano said. "The jury was led to believe (McGuire) purchase this gun that was consistent with the murder weapon. We can argue and assert that it's impossible for that gun to be the murder weapon."

The defense still insists that they can assert that it is impossible for that gun to have been the murder weapon. That is certainly interesting. The defense is not giving up. Maybe Turano has reasons to say that now (despite the affidavit of the president of Taurus). Hard to know. We will find out sooner or later. Maybe "Nostradamus 12" is still correct :-)

Len

07-22-2009, 04:44 PM

I will repost here what I just found:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/court_denies_ballistics_hearin.html

From the new link above:

Turano today, when asked about the ruling, said he still expects to get the ballistics information in the record, but possibly not in this round of appeals.

"There will be a forum for this argument," Turano said. "The jury was led to believe (McGuire) purchase this gun that was consistent with the murder weapon. We can argue and assert that it's impossible for that gun to be the murder weapon."

The defense still insists that they can assert that it is impossible for that gun to have been the murder weapon. That is certainly interesting. The defense is not giving up. Maybe Turano has reasons to say that now (despite the affidavit of the president of Taurus). Hard to know. We will find out sooner or later. Maybe "Nostradamus 12" is still correct :-)

Lapis

07-22-2009, 04:55 PM

Len

07-22-2009, 05:03 PM

Just curious.... have you ever read a comment by an attorney who loses a round saying " Oh well, we tried I guess that's it." ? What exactly did you expect Turano to say?

I would expect him to say something like...."we are disappointed by this outcome, but the appeal has merit because of many other reasons, etc. etc.". I would not expect him to insist on that if he really realized he was wrong. Simple.

vonna

07-22-2009, 05:14 PM

Dtviewer3

07-22-2009, 05:26 PM

I would expect him to say something like...."we are disappointed by this outcome, but the appeal has merit because of many other reasons, etc. etc.". I would not expect him to insist on that if he really realized he was wrong. Simple.

And I would expect him to say exactly what he did say.

And we will never hear about the gun again.

Its over. Done. Just like many said before.

Len

07-22-2009, 06:18 PM

And I would expect him to say exactly what he did say.

And we will never hear about the gun again.

Its over. Done. Just like many said before.

Can you also predict the future? I take Turano at this word. He may be wrong of course. But the appeal is not over. It has not been filled yet. Will see.

Dtviewer3

07-22-2009, 07:19 PM

Can you also predict the future? I take Turano at this word. He may be wrong of course. But the appeal is not over. It has not been filled yet. Will see.

I guess I can!

Originally posted by dtviewer3 on 7-8-2009:
--snipped---
"The gun issue is now dead. Over. The appelate judges will not re-try the case.

The only chance Melanie has for a new trial will be any other issues brought up in the appeal. "

:closedeyes:

moondance

07-22-2009, 07:39 PM

Len

07-22-2009, 09:09 PM

i watched the 20 20 tv show again about mm and she seems so convincing. i watched the entire trial. ive read every post everywhere and i have to say that i am not so sure she is guilty. i have no fancy post here just a gut feeling. they took the drains apart in the shower don t you think they would have found some flecks of tissue in there. i just cannot imagaine this maybe i'm crazy. i have thought too much about this case from the beginning. it drives me nuts she is very smart why use a work blanket why use your own luggage why why why why

I agree with you. Good points. Although there is clearly some very incriminating evidence (buying the gun, IF the gun was consistent with the murder weapon) there are some things that somehow make me think that she may be really innocent. One is the total lack of any forensic evidence. Second is the fact that her lawyer (Turano) and BB have taken the case pro-bono (that is my understanding from reading the boards), meaning they really believe in her innocence. Also, watching the 48 hrs show, it was clear to me that her mother and her best friend (Selene Trevizas) really believe in her innocence. Will see what will happen with the appeal. Independently of this ruling, the appeal may be substantive enough to lead to a new trial.

darwin

07-23-2009, 02:05 AM

I agree with you. Good points. Although there is clearly some very incriminating evidence (buying the gun, IF the gun was consistent with the murder weapon) there are some things that somehow make me think that she may be really innocent. One is the total lack of any forensic evidence. Second is the fact that her lawyer (Turano) and BB have taken the case pro-bono (that is my understanding from reading the boards), meaning they really believe in her innocence. Also, watching the 48 hrs show, it was clear to me that her mother and her best friend (Selene Trevizas) really believe in her innocence. Will see what will happen with the appeal. Independently of this ruling, the appeal may be substantive enough to lead to a new trial.

Hey VGL:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/court_denies_ballistics_hearin.html

"There will be a forum for this argument," Turano said. "The jury was led to believe (McGuire) purchase this gun that was consistent with the murder weapon. We can argue and assert that it's impossible for that gun to be the murder weapon

Unless, Turano has MM's gun and it is available for ballistic tests, he cannot make the assertion that it is "impossible" that MM's gun was the murder weapon. IMO.

PP used the term "consistent with" which is an entirely different argument.

As far as the pro bono work is concerned, all attorneys are encouraged to do pro bono work.

This is an high-profile case, so it is good for the firm's rainmaking.

IIRC, wasn't Alison LiCalsi, the only friend of MM's to testify on her behalf, connected to an attorney firm?

--darwin

jaxback

07-23-2009, 08:11 AM

I thought her lawyer was Joe Tacopino - who is Turano? Is that the appeals lawyer?

I didn't follow this case closely, so can anyone tell me what MM says happened to the gun she bought? TIA

Great Dane

07-23-2009, 08:52 AM

While I think this is an impossibility, if Turano did have the gun...would she be exhonerated?

Jaxback: Turano was a lawyer that assisted JT in the original proceedings and is assisting Baker Botts with the appeal...

Great Dane

07-23-2009, 08:55 AM

This is an high-profile case, so it is good for the firm's rainmaking.

--darwin

How could connecting yourself to a case you can't win, be good for anyones reputation? If anything, you take the probono stuff thats off the charts, not the one thats going to portray you as a smoke and mirrors law firm, with mistakes all over the media/internet.....

:confused:

Pat

07-23-2009, 09:13 AM

If Turano has the gun, why didn't he present it at trial?

If he came to be in possession of the gun after the trial, why didn't he present the gun as evidence in the appeal? Or have I missed something?

How can he prove the gun is "the" gun if he has to rely on witnesses in this case? MM is a convicted murderer so her testimony would be self-serving, as will the testimony of the witnesses for the defense.

Wouldn't the court ask why the gun was never presented in the trial if the defense claims they've always had it? Wouldn't the same question be legitimate if Turano says they didn't have it then, but do now?

I don't think they have the gun.

While it is likely Mel had the assistance of family in the murder, Mz Mel was the mastermind, and that was proven in court by the overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

Lapis

07-23-2009, 09:17 AM

I thought her lawyer was Joe Tacopino - who is Turano? Is that the appeals lawyer?

I didn't follow this case closely, so can anyone tell me what MM says happened to the gun she bought? TIA

Turano is actually Tacapino's partner here in NJ. Tacapino is not licensed in NJ nor is Baker Botts so they need Turano to sign all the pleadings. JMO

Len

07-23-2009, 09:20 AM

PP used the term "consistent with" which is an entirely different argument.

If the defense could prove that the gun MM purchased could only have 5 grooves based on production records (something that is clearly disputed by the president of taurus), then the use of the term "consistent with" would have been inappropriate and, probably, a reason for a new trial. However, it does not seem that things are going that way.

Lapis

07-23-2009, 09:27 AM

If the defense could prove that the gun MM purchased could only have 5 grooves based on production records (something that is clearly disputed by the president of taurus), then the use of the term "consistent with" would have been inappropriate and, probably, a reason for a new trial. However, it does not seem that things are going that way.

Actually, given your scenerio, the comment would still be appropriate. The defense could have argued the opposite, but they chose not to go that route. Once again it is a matter of strategy which cannot form the basis of an appeal. JMO

Len

07-23-2009, 09:33 AM

Actually, given your scenerio, the comment would still be appropriate. The defense could have argued the opposite, but they chose not to go that route. Once again it is a matter of strategy which cannot form the basis of an appeal. JMO

Would it still be appropriate if the prosecution knew at the time of the trial that it could only have 5 grooves? I am not saying that's what I believe happened. It is a hypothetical question.

Lapis

07-23-2009, 09:48 AM

Would it still be appropriate if the prosecution knew at the time of the trial that it could only have 5 grooves? I am not saying that's what I believe happened. It is a hypothetical question.

I am really reluctant to answer your question because the facts do not bear this hypothetical out. If it can be shown that the prosecution knew this and failed to disclose it it would constitute misconduct. However, there is absolutely no evidence of this being the case. This is a serious charge and needs more than just a gut instinct and "I believe". JMO

jaxback

07-23-2009, 11:01 AM

Len

07-23-2009, 11:03 AM

I am really reluctant to answer your question because the facts do not bear this hypothetical out. If it can be shown that the prosecution knew this and failed to disclose it it would constitute misconduct. However, there is absolutely no evidence of this being the case. This is a serious charge and needs more than just a gut instinct and "I believe". JMO

You may want to read again what I wrote. It was clear. I said it was "hypothetical" and it does not mean that is what I believe. Here is the exact quote of what I wrote:

I am not saying that's what I believe happened. It is a hypothetical question.

And I do not believe that's the case at all. I believe that both the prosecution and the defense at the time had no idea about the potential issue with the weapon (if what Turano says stands at the end). If the defense proves that the gun could not have been the murder weapon, IMO it will strongly suggest one thing. That MM may in fact be innocent. But that's a huge if.

Great Dane

07-23-2009, 11:43 AM

totallyBARD

07-23-2009, 12:31 PM

Thanks Great Dane and Lapis for clearing up the lawyer question.

Does anyone know what MM claims happened to the gun she bought? I didn't watch anything other than the very end of the trial, so I am missing a lot of info. Thanks again.

In truth, Melanie claimed a LOT of different stories and did a LOT of covering up. She even lied to a family court judge saying there were no guns in the townhouse, right after she had purchased a gun and murdered her husband. The jury examined massive evidence and convicted Melanie on buying a gun for illegal purposes, lying to a judge, premeditatively murdering her husband, and dismembering his body. The case is still open for any accomplices who may have helped her.

There certainly was truth to Melanie saying her husband left their townhouse never to return. She and any likely accomplices made sure he left the townhouse in her new three suitcases. (which she initially denied owning to police until she remembered that someone had known she had recently purchased them.) And I assume the reason Melanie got rid of her new gun was so it could never undergo ballistics testing. It is common for murderers or likely accomplices to dispose of the murder weapon.

She is no longer considered innocent and is expected to spend the next 64 years in jail. During this ongoing appeals process, which could last
for up to 20 years, her counsel will try to find some judicial trial error which is major enough to warrant a new trial. The case is officially over except for examining the trial process. of course, if any accomplices are charged, then there would be additional trials for him/her/them.

jaxback

07-23-2009, 12:37 PM

In truth, Melanie claimed a LOT of different stories and did a LOT of covering up. She even lied to a family court judge saying there were no guns in the townhouse, right after she had purchased a gun and murdered her husband. The jury examined massive evidence and convicted Melanie on buying a gun for illegal purposes, lying to a judge, premeditatively murdering her husband, and dismembering his body. The case is still open for any accomplices who may have helped her.

There certainly was truth to Melanie saying her husband left their townhouse never to return. She and any likely accomplices made sure he left the townhouse in her new three suitcases. (which she initially denied owning to police until she remembered that someone had known she had recently purchased them.) And I assume the reason Melanie got rid of her new gun was so it could never undergo ballistics testing. It is common for murderers or likely accomplices to dispose of the murder weapon.

She is no longer considered innocent and is expected to spend the next 64 years in jail. During this ongoing appeals process, which could last
for up to 20 years, her counsel will try to find some judicial trial error which is major enough to warrant a new trial. The case is officially over except for examining the trial process. of course, if any accomplices are charged, then there would be additional trials for him/her/them.

Good synopsis - thanks! :smile:

nostradamus

07-23-2009, 03:10 PM

The upcoming appeal will be denied

Her groupies will be outraged and crying
It won't be pretty, but if you know it's coming, know why it's coming and prepare for it, you will deal with it and its effects much better.
Should you be afraid?
Only if you are an accomplice and have something to be afraid of...

totallyBARD

07-23-2009, 03:12 PM

Mycentraljersey.com UPDATE: Appeals court rejects McGuire’s bid to introduce new evidence in Woodbridge suitcase slaying

By KEN SERRANO with Rick Malwitz

MIDDLESEX COUNTY - A state appeals court has rejected a bid by Melanie McGuire to introduce what her attorneys call new evidence that shows the bullets recovered from the remains of her husband did not come from the handgun she purchased days before his slaying.
In a ruling Tuesday, a two-judge panel gave McGuire's attorneys two weeks to file a new brief in their ongoing appeal of her murder conviction. but without the information concerning the bullets.

McGuire's attorney of record, Stephen Turano, said the appellate division's decision did not touch on the substance of the ballistics argument. He will seek to have the issue heard by a court in the future, he said.

Peter Aseltine, spokesman for the state Attorney General's Office, which prosecuted McGuire, said the case was settled at trial.
Ms. McGuire was found guilty by a jury following a fair trial that afforded her defense team with ample opportunity to gather and present evidence that they felt was relevant,'' he said. "We're confident the verdict will stand.'' On April 23, 2007, a Middlesex County jury found McGuire guilty of the murder and dismemberment of her husband after hearing testimony that William McGuire was shot and killed at their Woodbridge apartment.

His body was found in three suitcases in the Chesapeake Bay weeks after the April 2004 murder.

In a brief filed in June, McGuire's attorneys contended that bullets from the Taurus .38-caliber revolver that Melanie McGuire bought in Pennsylvania have five lands and grooves, while the bullets recovered from the victim's body had six lands and grooves. Lands and grooves are distinctive markings made on a bullet when it is fired from a gun.

The gun Melanie McGuire bought was never recovered. Prosecutors during the trial were only able to link the bullets to the make of weapon.
The argument of McGuire's attorney, Jamie Kilberg of Washington, D.C., was based on information obtained by the defense from an unnamed customer service representative and a Taurus Web site. The Web site includes a search feature that identifies specific guns based on their serial numbers.

(2 of 2)
McGuire's gun was a Model 85 blue-metal, .38-caliber special with a 2-inch barrel that retailed for $425.

In a brief filed in response, Deputy Attorney General Daniel Bornstein wrote, "There is no question that the gun defendant purchased is consistent with the murder weapon, just as the state alleged at trial.''

In a sworn affidavit, Robert Morrison, the president of Taurus International Manufacturing Inc., testified that the unnamed service representative was not entirely accurate, and information on the serial number search section of the the Web site "should not be relied on.''
Depending on production needs, tool wear and availability of parts, the tools used make either five or six lands and grooves, Morrison said.
Since neither the tooling nor the barrels of the guns are serialized, "it is not possible to determine the number of lands and grooves cut into the barrel of the revolver at issue,'' Morrison said in the affidavit.

A spokeswoman for Kilberg's office said he does not comment after decisions as a rule.

Turano said Morrison's affidavit and the exchange of briefs by the two sides does not settle the question of the bullets.

"It needs to be vetted out,'' Turano said. "It is far too significant an issue to go away. The state argued at closing that (the gun Melanie McGuire bought) in fact was the gun that killed William McGuire. If we're right, obviously we need a new trial.''

McGuire, 36, is serving a life sentence at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women in Union Township, Hunterdon County.

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20090722/NEWS/90722021/-1/newsfront/Appeals+court+shoots+down+McGuire%E2%80%99s+bid+to +introduce+new+evidence+in+Woodbridge+suitcase+mur der

totallyBARD

07-23-2009, 03:27 PM

Turano had every opportunity to make a "federal case" about any aspect of evidence during Melanie's trial. For him and Taco to avoid discussing the gun and anything else which pointed directly at Melanie, is a very common strategy among defense attorneys. When the client looks obviously guilty, discredit the evidence, avoid anything which points heavily toward the client's guilt, and blame the dead victim as much as possible.

The strategy may work to create reasonable doubt in some cases, but MM had way too much evidence stacked against her.

There is no re-do now. You cannot whine and say, "We need to re-do our defense strategy." Not gonna happen.

Once the briefs are filed and examined by the appellate judges, unless the judge made a serious error which affected the jury's verdict, it's over.

PS: I don't blame counsel though, for using the press after their embarrassing motion was denied. After all, they have to continue to make a living.

cherylt

07-23-2009, 08:17 PM

Just curious.... have you ever read a comment by an attorney who loses a round saying " Oh well, we tried I guess that's it." ? What exactly did you expect Turano to say?

ROFL! That is exactly what I was thinking.

Yep, I give up. Forget it, pack my bags and I'm gone.... :)

vonna

07-25-2009, 07:58 PM

ROFL! That is exactly what I was thinking.

Yep, I give up. Forget it, pack my bags and I'm gone.... :)

I can't wait for the other motions to be denied.

GossipGirl

07-26-2009, 10:45 AM

Me too!!
We have Sephardic Rabbi's to catch, and our newly-coined reputation as the most crooked state in the country to maintain.
As there were never any mobsters of any kind in this case, I am ready to close all the appeal-books on this one and move onto Solomon Dwek, our first ever Jewish crook-turned-informant.
There will be an HBO series about him and our Deal, I'm sure of it.

GG

Hanford

07-28-2009, 07:45 AM

Jaxback

MM claimed that she believes WM left the townhouse with the gun that night and therefore he had it with him.....which would have at the time of the trial explained why the bullets were from the same gun....but, since their has been some discrepancy as to whether or not the gun she purchased could have been the weapon since the gun she bought wasn't consistent with the grooves on the bullets....but, it appears now that they "may" be....that is where it gets a little too ballistic-y for me....lol

Hi,
I followed this case here and have been reading these threads.
I don't think the actual gun is that important to the case.
I think she is guilty based on all the other evidence and the gun is just one piece.
I think the blanket, suitcases, car rides etc. were enough to convict her.
(if it walks like a duck, etc.)
If anything, the fact that she could easily get one gun illegally points to the possibility that there might have been other guns available to her. So if the bullets didn't match that particular gun, in my opinion that would not prove her innocence.
But the gun she bought happens to be missing...
Hmm... To me that looks suspicious too.

totallyBARD

07-28-2009, 09:55 AM

Hi,
I followed this case here and have been reading these threads.
I don't think the actual gun is that important to the case.
I think she is guilty based on all the other evidence and the gun is just one piece.
I think the blanket, suitcases, car rides etc. were enough to convict her.
(if it walks like a duck, etc.)
If anything, the fact that she could easily get one gun illegally points to the possibility that there might have been other guns available to her. So if the bullets didn't match that particular gun, in my opinion that would not prove her innocence.
But the gun she bought happens to be missing...
Hmm... To me that looks suspicious too.

Hi Hanford. You make a good point. Melanie McGuire was firmly convicted in April 2007 of first degree murder, desecration of a corpse, purchasing a gun for illegal purposes, and perjury to a judge. That much has been well established based on a totality of evidence.

The bizarre gun-issue raised by her counsel as part of the appeals process was smacked down by the appellate court judges after the president of the Taurus gun company provided the court a sworn affidavit which straightened out MM counsel's unsubstantiated assertions about Taurus 85 guns. Additionally, Melanie or an accomplice got rid of her newly purchased purse gun after the murder so no ballistics comparison could be made.

Like so many other murderers, she thought she was smarter than law enforcement. But she was not.

Great Dane

07-28-2009, 11:23 AM

Len

07-28-2009, 01:53 PM

I actually think your point "doesn't" make sense, if she had access to multiple guns, why buy one, leave a trace and not have a spare one to show police????? Hmmm.....doesn't that make sense?

The blanket was not a match, he could have had the suitcase with him, in the trunk.....

I agree with you about the gun. Why would she buy one with her real name if she were to use another one illegally obtained?

By the way, another issue that hopefully will be addressed in her appeal is the issue of the argument of "no evidence is evidence" that was mad by the prosecution for the lack of evidence in the TH. I watched recently an episode of 48 hours (link below) about a husband suspected in the murder of his wife. That guy, not only cleaned the house using a professional cleaning company and repainted the walls, but he also changed the carpets and burned a piece of furniture. All that was very suspicious, as it seemed that he was trying to hide evidence. Interestingly, when police examined the house they found several blood spots with the blood of his wife, despite such extensive cleaning, repainting and burning. That shows how incredibly difficult/essentially impossible it is for anyone to make evidence "disappear" completely. In the case of MM, it is clear that the murder did not happen in the TH after the total lack of any forensic evidence and after extensive searches and luminol negative x 2.

By the way, after 3 trials, the suspect in that case was found not guilty because of reasonable doubt.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/06/48hours/main923125.shtml

Great Dane

07-28-2009, 02:14 PM

Not to mention, the way she got the gun...was illegal, because she doesn't live in PA....but, it wasn't as if she bought it off some guy on the corner either....

totallyBARD

07-28-2009, 02:39 PM

Lenny: Hundreds of solid cases result in convictions where the crime clean-up is perfection, or there is no body, or....I could go on and on.

The State proved the MM case with tons of evidence and it's over for her. She is a convicted killer like thousands of others, now trying to get off on appeal. This has been explained to you repeatedly.

Note: The State proved its evidence about Melanie purchasing a gun for illegal purposes. And she purchased the gun illegally too. Recently the Appellate Court affirmed the sworn affidavit by the owner of the Taurus gun company and the Appellate judges denied counsel's unsubstantiated heresay documentation.

Additionally, there is NO confusion about the new gun Melanie or an accomplice ditched after the murder, so it would not have to undergo ballistics testing.

Len

07-28-2009, 03:10 PM

Not to mention, the way she got the gun...was illegal, because she doesn't live in PA....but, it wasn't as if she bought it off some guy on the corner either....

Exactly, good point. It will be interesting to see what will be the outcome of the appeal. I think chances are 50/50 that she will get a new trial. JMO.

Dtviewer3

07-28-2009, 03:25 PM

I agree with you about the gun. Why would she buy one with her real name if she were to use another one illegally obtained?

By the way, another issue that hopefully will be addressed in her appeal is the issue of the argument of "no evidence is evidence" that was mad by the prosecution for the lack of evidence in the TH. I watched recently an episode of 48 hours (link below) about a husband suspected in the murder of his wife. That guy, not only cleaned the house using a professional cleaning company and repainted the walls, but he also changed the carpets and burned a piece of furniture. All that was very suspicious, as it seemed that he was trying to hide evidence. Interestingly, when police examined the house they found several blood spots with the blood of his wife, despite such extensive cleaning, repainting and burning. That shows how incredibly difficult/essentially impossible it is for anyone to make evidence "disappear" completely. In the case of MM, it is clear that the murder did not happen in the TH after the total lack of any forensic evidence and after extensive searches and luminol negative x 2.

By the way, after 3 trials, the suspect in that case was found not guilty because of reasonable doubt.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/06/48hours/main923125.shtml

That wont be 'addressed' in the appeal Len.
It has been explained to you repeatedly. The case will not be re-tried through the appeal.

PP made her argument and presented her evidence. The jury decides whether to believe or not believe her argument and also how much weight to give that evidence if they do believe it.

Dtviewer3

07-28-2009, 03:30 PM

Exactly, good point. It will be interesting to see what will be the outcome of the appeal. I think chances are 50/50 that she will get a new trial. JMO.

Wow Len. Im shocked.

We dont even know what is IN the appeals and you are predicting a 50/50 chance of a new trial?

And you asked ME if I "can predict the future"??????

Len

07-28-2009, 03:39 PM

That wont be 'addressed' in the appeal Len.
It has been explained to you repeatedly. The case will not be re-tried through the appeal.

PP made her argument and presented her evidence. The jury decides whether to believe or not believe her argument and also how much weight to give that evidence if they do believe it.

Have you seen in the appeal? You are just guessing it will not be because you have a different opinion. How do you know it will not be addressed? Are you "Nostradamus-DT"?

Just checking....

Len

07-28-2009, 03:42 PM

Wow Len. Im shocked.

We dont even know what is IN the appeals and you are predicting a 50/50 chance of a new trial?

And you asked ME if I "can predict the future"??????

LOL. Yes, I think her appeal has a good chance. Why? Because I am not sure she is guilty and I believe the blogs might have influenced the trial based on the stories that we read about a juror reading the CTV site. BB is a good law firm and I am sure they put a lot of effort to make a compelling argument. That is why I think she has a good chance.

Dtviewer3

07-28-2009, 03:45 PM

Have you seen in the appeal? You are just guessing it will not be because you have a different opinion. How do you know it will not be addressed? Are you "Nostradamus-DT"?

Just checking....

No Len, I am not just guessing.

An appeal is not to re-try certain pieces of evidence that may or may not have been considered by the jurors.

It just does not happen that way.

Dtviewer3

07-28-2009, 03:49 PM

LOL. Yes, I think her appeal has a good chance. Why? Because I am not sure she is guilty and I believe the blogs might have influenced the trial based on the stories that we read about a juror reading the CTV site. BB is a good law firm and I am sure they put a lot of effort to make a compelling argument. That is why I think she has a good chance.

If its anything like the 'compelling argument' they made about the gun Melanie had better be prepared to spend a long time in jail.........:closedeyes:

Len

07-28-2009, 04:19 PM

If its anything like the 'compelling argument' they made about the gun Melanie had better be prepared to spend a long time in jail.........:closedeyes:

Will see. The fact remains that you and I simply dont know what is in the appeal. The main reason I believe that she has a good chance is what I read about a juror having visited this site (CTV) during the trial. That alone should be a reason for her to get a new trial IMO. Why? Because, clearly, there is (and I assume was then) a huge bias against MM by some posters and it should not be a place any juror would look at. Dont you think so?

Dtviewer3

07-28-2009, 04:51 PM

Will see. The fact remains that you and I simply dont know what is in the appeal. The main reason I believe that she has a good chance is what I read about a juror having visited this site (CTV) during the trial. That alone should be a reason for her to get a new trial IMO. Why? Because, clearly, there is (and I assume was then) a huge bias against MM by some posters and it should not be a place any juror would look at. Dont you think so?

No, I dont.

I have full confidence the judge took the matter seriously and made the correct ruling during the trial when he questioned the jurors about what was read and if it had any effect on their ability to render a fair verdict.

Len

07-28-2009, 04:59 PM

No, I dont.

I have full confidence the judge took the matter seriously and made the correct ruling during the trial when he questioned the jurors about what was read and if it had any effect on their ability to render a fair verdict.

So you dont think that there are posters on this site which were heavily biased against MM? Really, huh?

Dtviewer3

07-28-2009, 07:02 PM

So you dont think that there are posters on this site which were heavily biased against MM? Really, huh?

Of course there are. There are posters on this site heavily biased against MM, and believe it or not there are posters on this site heavily biased 'for' MM.

So what.

As I posted above I have full confidence the judge was convinced after interviewing the jurors that they could still be fair and impartial even if one of them read a blog he or she shouldnt have.

I'll go out on a limb here and say with 100% certainty Melanie wont get a new trial because of the internet 'issue'.

hoopster

07-28-2009, 07:17 PM

4Life

07-28-2009, 07:49 PM

Len I find it very interesting that you read in the paper that a juror was on this board and you believe it without question, Then you look at all the evidence against MM and you have all these questions. Hmmmm...I think if a juror was on this board the defense would have called a mistrial at the time of the trial, don't you think??? JMO

And the Judge qustoned every juror and was satisfied that none read boards. Taco was asked if he was satisified and wanted the trial to continue..He said Yes he has no objections.

vonna

07-29-2009, 02:26 PM

Jupiter

07-29-2009, 02:57 PM

I would also be very interested in hearing the answer to that question.

Len

07-29-2009, 03:07 PM

Good question. I'd love to hear the answer.

Sorry, but I am not planning to answer :-) I hope that helps. Cheers.

Dtviewer3

07-29-2009, 03:59 PM

Sorry, but I am not planning to answer :-) I hope that helps. Cheers.

Taking your ball and going home?:confused:

Seemed like a legitimate question Len.........

Len

07-29-2009, 04:05 PM

Taking your ball and going home?:confused:

Seemed like a legitimate question Len.........

Some things are obvious and dont need specific answers. I think it was very clear what I meant and I am sure you got it. After all it is just our opinions. However, I agree with you. There having opinions posted here heavily biased both against and in support of MM. No disagreement at all.

Nic99

07-29-2009, 05:36 PM

Some things are obvious and dont need specific answers. I think it was very clear what I meant and I am sure you got it. After all it is just our opinions. However, I agree with you. There having opinions posted here heavily biased both against and in support of MM. No disagreement at all.

I totally agree, some things are and should be obvious, but there are some who just don't understand unfortunately, sigh.....

darwin

07-29-2009, 09:44 PM

Although I watched this trial, I did not post along with most of you. So, are you saying "biased" as in posters who disliked and knew her personally before the murder and automatically assumed her guilt, or those who did not know her and formulated their opinions on the horrific and disgusting evidence pointing to her as the murderer?[/quote]

Hello Ike: MM is guilty.

Bias? Nope.

Rather, I (and many others) used superior (IMHO) critical thinking skills. ;)

--darwin

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Critical+thinking

[quote] Critical thinking consists of mental (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/mind) processes of discernment (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/discernment), analyzing and evaluating (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/evaluation). It includes all possible processes of reflecting upon a tangible (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/tangible) or intangible (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/intangible) item in order to form a solid judgment that reconciles scientific evidence with common sense.

Critical thinkers gather information from all senses, verbal (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Interpersonal+communication) and/or written (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/writing) expressions, reflection (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/reflection), observation (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/observation), experience (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/experience) and reasoning (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/reasoning). Critical thinking has its basis in intellectual (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/intelligence+(trait)) criteria that go beyond subject-matter divisions and which include: clarity (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/clarity), credibility (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/credibility), accuracy (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/accuracy), precision (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/precision), relevance (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/relevance), depth, breadth (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/breadth), logic (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/logic), significance (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/significance) and fairness.

BigDude

07-29-2009, 10:46 PM

Len

07-29-2009, 11:18 PM

Hello Ike: MM is guilty.

Bias? Nope.

Rather, I (and many others) used superior (IMHO) critical thinking skills. ;)

--darwin

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Critical+thinking

It is reassuring to see that at least some have "superior critical thinking skills" :-) The rest of us with the "inferior" (non) critical (un) thinking skills should learn from such thinking :-)

4Life

07-29-2009, 11:44 PM

I can't believe that the appellate court will ignore and not require a new trial based on the juror misconduct. Don't forget that one of the jurors wrote a note for another juror. That has to be proof that this particular juror was not obeying their oath. Then, the note is discussed and it is another person (not the recipient) of the note who turns it over to the judge. I believe that DeVesa errored and this one thing will be enough to grant MM a new trial. Combine the juror faux pas with other poor rulings, I predict there will definitely be a new trial. But then, if the gun that MM purchased is researched with the serial number and it is in the database as a five lands and groove gun, the state's case is over because their experts testified of the bullets in the victim had 6 lands and grooves.
BigD

Did you forget that Taco did not make any objection to having the trial continue after the note info was found out. The Judge asked Taco if he had any objections to allowing this to continue, Taco said he had no objections and was satisfied that the jury did no wrong. The appeals judges will see that Taco had no objections and the jury part of the appeal will be rejected(denied). Taco had his chance but he was satisfied.

BigDude

07-30-2009, 09:44 PM

Did you forget that Taco did not make any objection to having the trial continue after the note info was found out. The Judge asked Taco if he had any objections to allowing this to continue, Taco said he had no objections and was satisfied that the jury did no wrong. The appeals judges will see that Taco had no objections and the jury part of the appeal will be rejected(denied). Taco had his chance but he was satisfied.

4Life,

I sincerely believe that the defense did not realize the depth of the misconduct at the point of the trial. So much more came out after MM was convicted. Furthermore, DeVesa had said that he wanted a full investigation into the juror misconduct, but I don't think any more investigation was followed up on. We do not know what BB has at this point, but they may have found a lot more misconduct that we are not privy to. I still believe that this will be one of the biggest factor in the appeal. Would any of us what to hear that this type of jury was deciding our fate and that the laws were not followed and there were no reprecussions? I don't think we would. I don't think that the appellate court will stand for this type of conduct either. We don't know what information BB got from the message boards before they were hacked into and destroyed. That alone is might suspicious, IMO.
BigD

darwin

07-30-2009, 11:22 PM

4Life,

I sincerely believe that the defense did not realize the depth of the misconduct at the point of the trial. So much more came out after MM was convicted. Furthermore, DeVesa had said that he wanted a full investigation into the juror misconduct, but I don't think any more investigation was followed up on. We do not know what BB has at this point, but they may have found a lot more misconduct that we are not privy to. I still believe that this will be one of the biggest factor in the appeal. Would any of us what to hear that this type of jury was deciding our fate and that the laws were not followed and there were no reprecussions? I don't think we would. I don't think that the appellate court will stand for this type of conduct either. We don't know what information BB got from the message boards before they were hacked into and destroyed. That alone is might suspicious, IMO.
BigD

Hello, BigD : I think the appellate attorney has the option to make an ineffective assistance of counsel argument.

--darwin

Hanford

07-31-2009, 04:16 AM

I actually think your point "doesn't" make sense, if she had access to multiple guns, why buy one, leave a trace and not have a spare one to show police????? Hmmm.....doesn't that make sense?

The blanket was not a match, he could have had the suitcase with him, in the trunk.....

Sorry, I don't think I was clear.

-I meant to respond to some posters here who said that if the bullets found didn't match the gun that Melanie had illegally bought in N.J.,
then she wasn't the killer, and was then innocent. (this was when the 5 vs. 6 lands and grooves was an issue)
-My belief is that even if the bullet did not match that particular gun, she is still guilty based on all the other evidence and it is quite plausible that she could have access to a different gun. Or maybe an accomplice had different gun.
-The blanket came from the place where she worked - how is that not a match?
-Also, regarding "bias" I think that there are people here that have looked at the evidence and come to different conclusions.
I have looked at the evidence and think she is guilty based on that. I don't think that makes me "biased" against her, I just think the facts point to her being the one who killed her husband.
If a compelling argument was made that she didn't do it, I would change my mind.
-Just my 2 cents, Thanks!

Len

07-31-2009, 10:09 AM

Sorry, I don't think I was clear.

-I meant to respond to some posters here who said that if the bullets found didn't match the gun that Melanie had illegally bought in N.J.,
then she wasn't the killer, and was then innocent. (this was when the 5 vs. 6 lands and grooves was an issue)
-My belief is that even if the bullet did not match that particular gun, she is still guilty based on all the other evidence and it is quite plausible that she could have access to a different gun. Or maybe an accomplice had different gun.
-The blanket came from the place where she worked - how is that not a match?
-Also, regarding "bias" I think that there are people here that have looked at the evidence and come to different conclusions.
I have looked at the evidence and think she is guilty based on that. I don't think that makes me "biased" against her, I just think the facts point to her being the one who killed her husband.
If a compelling argument was made that she didn't do it, I would change my mind.
-Just my 2 cents, Thanks!

These are all good points, but I disagree regarding the gun. IMO the gun was the only SOLID evidence against her. It was highly incriminating and essentially impossible for her to explain. However, IMO the rest of the evidence against her was very weak and unreliable. Most importantly, the scenario of the prosecution was very far fetched and NOT supported by the facts (IMO). The fact that a very good and very intelligent prosecutor (PP) presented in a convincing way to the jury an unlikely scenario does not change the fact that the evidence against her was very weak. The gun is central to the whole case. Without it, I doubt she would have even been indicted. JMO.

Len

07-31-2009, 01:04 PM

Odd.

Melanie Mcguire was indeed indicted without the gun coming into evidence.

I thought you knew that.

No I did not. I think you are wrong.

Len

07-31-2009, 01:12 PM

You didn't know Melanie McGuire's illegally purchased weapon was never found by investigators?

Indeed it is true. And Melanie Mcguire was indicted, regardless.

Of course I knew that. That was my point. She was indicted to a large extent because she illegally bought that gun. But IF there was a way to prove that gun was not used in the murder, the case against her would have been very weak.

Len

07-31-2009, 01:34 PM

The case against Melanie Mcguire was one of the strongest circumstantial cases I've ever followed.

And if you weren't aware, circumstantial evidence holds as much weight, if not more, than direct evidence.

The jury obviously knew that.

The jury got it right.

We can agree to disagree. I am not convinced she is really guilty (although I realize she may well be). What you consider "strong evidence" was very questionable IMO. The reason I believe she may not be guilty is because IMO, based on the evidence presented in the trial, the murder clearly did not happen in that TH. On the other hand, based on the timeline of events, it would have been impossible for her to have killed him anywhere else (IMO). That alone creates huge reasonable doubt in my opinion. Of course, I may well be wrong.

Len

07-31-2009, 03:00 PM

Len, I believe you might want to check the definition of the word 'reasonable.'

It wouldn't be 'reasonable' to believe anyone but Melanie Mcguire murdered & dismembered William McGuire.

Why? To believe someone else murdered & dismembered William McGuire, one would have to believe in a huge conspiracy to frame Melanie McGuire.

And that is most unreasonable.

I disagree. I dont think there was any conspiracy to frame her. Absolutely not. But she could still be innocent. The question is not who killed him. The question is if she killed him.

seawolf4

07-31-2009, 06:14 PM

We can agree to disagree. I am not convinced she is really guilty (although I realize she may well be). What you consider "strong evidence" was very questionable IMO. The reason I believe she may not be guilty is because IMO, based on the evidence presented in the trial, the murder clearly did not happen in that TH. On the other hand, based on the timeline of events, it would have been impossible for her to have killed him anywhere else (IMO). That alone creates huge reasonable doubt in my opinion. Of course, I may well be wrong.

Hello Len, I am answering what I bolded. I don't see how you can say the murder clearly did not happen in the townhouse. It may be your opinion that it did not. I firmly believe the murder happened in the townhouse. There was small bits of bathroom debrie (sp) in the center of the tape that was used to close the trash bags that WM's cut up body was placed in. That puts the body in the bathroom in the townhouse while it is being placed in the bags. I know that you will say it could have been picked up from the suitcases, but I don't believe that, not when the bits of WM's beard and a bit of MM's hair was in the center portion of the tape.
Since I work in the medical field and handle blood there are many products, and I posted some links to some during the trial and I believe someone else did also that would have contained every bit of blood. How she did it exactly, who knows.
What I think many do not understand is that it was a very good plan and she would have gotten away with it, except for the suitcases floating to the surface. If the suitcases had not come up he would still be listed as missing and she would have succeeded. No one would have suspected that she murdered him. No one at all. She made only one mistake, just one, and that was not realizing that the weight of the body parts would not hold down the suitcases.
Of course once the suitcases were recovered and she began scrambling to cover up she just kept digging a deeper hole. MOO

darwin

07-31-2009, 07:04 PM

Hello Len, I am answering what I bolded. I don't see how you can say the murder clearly did not happen in the townhouse. It may be your opinion that it did not. I firmly believe the murder happened in the townhouse. There was small bits of bathroom debrie (sp) in the center of the tape that was used to close the trash bags that WM's cut up body was placed in. That puts the body in the bathroom in the townhouse while it is being placed in the bags. I know that you will say it could have been picked up from the suitcases, but I don't believe that, not when the bits of WM's beard and a bit of MM's hair was in the center portion of the tape.
Since I work in the medical field and handle blood there are many products, and I posted some links to some during the trial and I believe someone else did also that would have contained every bit of blood. How she did it exactly, who knows.
What I think many do not understand is that it was a very good plan and she would have gotten away with it, except for the suitcases floating to the surface. If the suitcases had not come up he would still be listed as missing and she would have succeeded. No one would have suspected that she murdered him. No one at all. She made only one mistake, just one, and that was not realizing that the weight of the body parts would not hold down the suitcases.
Of course once the suitcases were recovered and she began scrambling to cover up she just kept digging a deeper hole. MOO

Hi seawolf4: Long time no see, since Hans Reiser?

However, they still might have been able to cobble together a case against MM even without the body.

I have a feeling that WM's very loyal and tenacious sister would not have allowed the matter of the disappearance of her brother to "go gentle into that good night."

BTW: Excellent analysis.

--darwin

Len

07-31-2009, 07:07 PM

Hello Len, I am answering what I bolded. I don't see how you can say the murder clearly did not happen in the townhouse. It may be your opinion that it did not. I firmly believe the murder happened in the townhouse. There was small bits of bathroom debrie (sp) in the center of the tape that was used to close the trash bags that WM's cut up body was placed in. That puts the body in the bathroom in the townhouse while it is being placed in the bags. I know that you will say it could have been picked up from the suitcases, but I don't believe that, not when the bits of WM's beard and a bit of MM's hair was in the center portion of the tape.
Since I work in the medical field and handle blood there are many products, and I posted some links to some during the trial and I believe someone else did also that would have contained every bit of blood. How she did it exactly, who knows.
What I think many do not understand is that it was a very good plan and she would have gotten away with it, except for the suitcases floating to the surface. If the suitcases had not come up he would still be listed as missing and she would have succeeded. No one would have suspected that she murdered him. No one at all. She made only one mistake, just one, and that was not realizing that the weight of the body parts would not hold down the suitcases.
Of course once the suitcases were recovered and she began scrambling to cover up she just kept digging a deeper hole. MOO

Hi Seawold,
Yes I wrote IMO. It is just my opinion. The tape had hair stubble. DNA from the hair stubble showed a mix of DNAs from MM and WM. That does not necessarily mean it was from the bathroom, nor does it necessarily mean that it was a mixture of WM's beard and MM's hair. It could have been DNA from the hair of the victim and contamination with DNA from microscopic amounts of other biological fluids (i.e. sweat, saliva) from MM that might have been in the suitcase that was used by her previously. The argument that the mixed DNA was a proof that it was evidence of the "bathroom" was very far-fetched IMO. Although there are many products that can clean blood, it is had to imagine that after such a horrible crime that involved massive amounts of blood by the dismemberment there would be no trace at all. Especially as LE did a very thorough job and they even opened and checked the drainage pipes of the bathroom. IMO the evidence is very clear that the murder did not happen in the TH. But that is just my opinion.

Hanford

08-01-2009, 08:29 AM

These are all good points, but I disagree regarding the gun. IMO the gun was the only SOLID evidence against her. It was highly incriminating and essentially impossible for her to explain. However, IMO the rest of the evidence against her was very weak and unreliable. Most importantly, the scenario of the prosecution was very far fetched and NOT supported by the facts (IMO). The fact that a very good and very intelligent prosecutor (PP) presented in a convincing way to the jury an unlikely scenario does not change the fact that the evidence against her was very weak. The gun is central to the whole case. Without it, I doubt she would have even been indicted. JMO.

Hi Len,
I think we will have to agree to disagree here..
Regarding the bolded part in your quote, I think the circumstantial evidence against her was very strong.
I do agree that the scenario was far fetched but sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction, and I think the evidence brought at trial completely supports the prosecution's theory.
I also do Not think the gun was the most important evidence. or central to the case.

BigDude

08-01-2009, 01:25 PM

Hi Len,
I think we will have to agree to disagree here..
Regarding the bolded part in your quote, I think the circumstantial evidence against her was very strong.
I do agree that the scenario was far fetched but sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction, and I think the evidence brought at trial completely supports the prosecution's theory.
I also do Not think the gun was the most important evidence. or central to the case.

Hanford,

What do you think was the strongest part of the case? I agree with Len, with no gun purchase, what was left to charge her with? So what WM showed up in their luggage?? He probably took them with him. The mob letter said that WM brought everything that was needed. He may have had some of the garbage bags, but I doubt if he had the smaller kitchen bags with him! He would have had the bigger ones for moving. Nothing was said about MM having smaller bags that Glatt described, so where did they come from????

BigDude

08-01-2009, 11:01 PM

Great Dane

08-03-2009, 10:30 AM

I will preface my comments by saying that I am fully aware and respectful of a defendant's decision to take the stand or not. Having said that, if I were a totally innocent woman charged with this horrific crime, NO ONE on this Earth could persuade me to sit there like a lame duck. Your statement regarding the luggage seemed to indicate so what if WM's body parts were found in the luggage owned by he & the defendent. The same luggage that MM had a total memory loss about owning when first questioned? And, the list goes on. I don't care how much baggage I had, no pun intended, including the afternoon delight with my boss when I'm 9 months pregnant with my husband's child, I would have gotten on that witness stand to save myself from being falsely convicted of murder. Sorry, she took the coward's way out and hoped on a wing and prayer, her high profiled attorney would win the day.

Are you aware that MM had lied, under oath for WM many years back, regarding a traffic infraction? PP would have ripped her apart on the stand and anything that MM could have said in her defense, would have been portrayed to the jury as a possible lie, since MM had lied on the stand previously....

I think A LOT Of the evidence is speculative...people question why MM didn't report WM missing, when his sister didn't report him missing either, the medical blanket didn't match, the TH had NO DNA whatsoever...while I agree their is a lot of CE.....a lot of that CE, with the exception of the gun, could be coincidence, or circumstance....if WM left the TH, with the garbage bags and Luggage in the trunk (since they were planning on moving)....it's not that unresonable that he could have had it with him, in regards to the computer searches- no one can say for certain who was at the computer, it was never proven that MM wrote the CH scripts, or that the CH was ever used in the murder.....their is no proof of that....

While it is easy for some to see her as a murderer, it is obviously not "as" easy for others of us here.....that doesn't mean that either of us have superior/inferior skills....it means that ALOT of what PP presented, down to the green fiber that was never found....was speculative....and "I" as well as a few others, don't buy her story lock, stock and barrell

totallyBARD

08-03-2009, 02:53 PM

Len

08-03-2009, 03:06 PM

Almost all real murderers plead innocent to see if they can get away with what they did. Once convicted, they use the system in an attempt to get out of jail on a trial-error technicality. They have nothing to lose by playing the appellate system like Russian roulette. A few may win a new trial and most of those get returned to jail, but the overwhelming majority of convicted murderers stay in jail to pay for what they did.

The jury convicted MM on a vast amount of real evidence. Anonymous people are free to say whatever they want, but it is FACT that MM was convicted on the 1200 pieces of evidence and 76 witnesses which the jury examined and based their decision on.

This topic is about the appeal process, not the trial which has been over since April 2007. We are not here to argue what has already been decided by a jury.

Coldwater, who has the patience of a saint, has already advised us numerous times to stay on topic, and we should respect her opinion before we get closed down again.

With all due respect, all the info about the trial is relevant to the appeal. Coldwater has never complained about what is being posted here and the board has been great. Most of us are totally unrelated to the case and just enjoy discussing different theories and possibilities. That is exactly what the In Session message boards are for. Everything relating to the evidence in this case is relevant to the appeal. Great Dane's post was interesting and well thought.

Coldwater, please do not close this thread. There has been no violation of TOS by any poster in this thread. It is case that still has a lot of interest and many of us here simply like discussing the case and exchanging theories. Thank you.

Great Dane

08-03-2009, 03:18 PM

Granted, most mortals lie at some point during their lives, but not so much under oath. Regardless, I as someone who was being falsely accused of murder would have taken the stand. I honestly do not remember a few of the things you mentioned, but as far as the luggage, her lies were damaging. i think a logical response from an innocent person would have been that yes, she did own the luggage and noticed it was missing or did not realize it was missing. Denying ownership is very suspect. Also, although I happen to agree with the commentary about critical thinking, I did not post it and had no comment with regard to this case. I evaluated all of the evidence, put the pieces of the puzzle together and that last piece, for me, pointed to only one logical murderer beyond a reasonable doubt. I respect your opinions, but just do not agree.

Thank you for respecting my opinion as I respect yours. I think that most people would like the opportunity to take the stand, but much like a cheating husband...it is often times a lot less believable the second time around- even if what you are saying is true...lol

TotallyBard makes a good point, we aren't here to retry the case however certain aspects of the case are puzzeling to many of us and are certain things which some of us believe could be grounds for an appeal. As previously mentioned by several educated legal bees, new evidence can not be entered, old evidence can not be disputed....I have not seen the appeal and can therefore not make an educated guess about it's contents....which is why many on this board are posting under rather speculative terms....

Jupiter

08-03-2009, 03:39 PM

I agree with Len :biggrin:

I too would like see this thread remain open for discussion... I don't post all that much, but I like to read posts on this thread.

I think many people are interested in this topic, and what people have to say about this appeal.

I respectfully agree to disagree with all who think MM is innocent.

Just my two cents.

Len

08-04-2009, 11:20 AM

Hi Len,
I think we will have to agree to disagree here..
Regarding the bolded part in your quote, I think the circumstantial evidence against her was very strong.
I do agree that the scenario was far fetched but sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction, and I think the evidence brought at trial completely supports the prosecution's theory.
I also do Not think the gun was the most important evidence. or central to the case.

How does the evidence support the prosecution's scenario that involved the use of CH and the murder happening in the TH? The test for CH and its metabolites was negative, while the TH was searched by LE 5 times and no blood or DNA was found, with luminol tests negative x2. Sorry, but IMO the evidence does not support in any way the scenario of the prosecution. It does not exclude the possibility that MM committed the crime, but it certainly does not support the prosecution's scenario.

GossipGirl

08-05-2009, 05:53 PM

The twelve people who's opinion's mattered said the evidence indeed supported the prosecution's scenario.

In every way.

I think, in circumstantial cases such as this, one has to go with one's gut. For me, there were just a few too many coincidences and I couldn't reasonably believe it wasn't her.
Also, there was never any other suspect for us to glom onto.

Things like the Tiffany Bain prescription, the computer searches, the EZPass records, the Rite Aid video, the Atlantic City escapades, not admitting to owning luggage, her oddly subdued response to his murder, her buying a gun so soon before both it and he turned up missing, the racing off to Family Court, the married-boss-boyfriend scenario, her chats about the cost of divorce, the calls to remove EZPass hits, the Delaware shopping trip explanation for being on the only road between here and VA, staying at the Red Roof Inn with her boyfriend, the new home purchase that very day, garbage bags, bits in the footwell of the car, CH in the glove-box, not reporting him missing, the vague funeral all serve to give me pause when I throw them all together.
The TH isn't on the list, who knows where she killed him?
Could well have moved him in a mattress, with help, to some other spot. It's NJ, FGS!!
We've been hiding the goings on of murder for years now.
Pshaw! She was north Jersey.....the places are infinite.

Who heard about our new status as Possibly The Most Corrupt State!!
44 arrested, one for body part sales!!
It's the new Jewish Mafia.
What will HBO call the show?
GG

Shevarash

08-06-2009, 09:56 AM

IMO the gun was the only SOLID evidence against her.

JMO.

What was the evidence number assigned to the "SOLID" evidence? I do not even recall a photograph of "the gun". The only thing in the trial was a receipt describing a gun. How many lands and grooves did the receipt have then?

Sheravash

Great Dane

08-06-2009, 11:57 AM

I think, in circumstantial cases such as this, one has to go with one's gut. For me, there were just a few too many coincidences and I couldn't reasonably believe it wasn't her.
Also, there was never any other suspect for us to glom onto.

Things like the Tiffany Bain prescription, the computer searches, the EZPass records, the Rite Aid video, the Atlantic City escapades, not admitting to owning luggage, her oddly subdued response to his murder, her buying a gun so soon before both it and he turned up missing, the racing off to Family Court, the married-boss-boyfriend scenario, her chats about the cost of divorce, the calls to remove EZPass hits, the Delaware shopping trip explanation for being on the only road between here and VA, staying at the Red Roof Inn with her boyfriend, the new home purchase that very day, garbage bags, bits in the footwell of the car, CH in the glove-box, not reporting him missing, the vague funeral all serve to give me pause when I throw them all together.
The TH isn't on the list, who knows where she killed him?
Could well have moved him in a mattress, with help, to some other spot. It's NJ, FGS!!
We've been hiding the goings on of murder for years now.
Pshaw! She was north Jersey.....the places are infinite.

Who heard about our new status as Possibly The Most Corrupt State!!
44 arrested, one for body part sales!!
It's the new Jewish Mafia.
What will HBO call the show?
GG

The funeral wasn't a part of the case, wasn't entered as evidence...unless I'm wrong???? The jury didn't convict her of the Rite Aid video, the script for CH was never proven to have been written by MM, nor was it ever proven to have been used in the murder (no trace in the blood and it wasn't even ever mentioned by the VA police that had his body first)....if the luggage was newly purchased, she may have actually forgotten or she may have been afraid to admit it was their luggage.....even the computer searches, no one knows for certain "who" was at the computer....and the fact that she killed him "after" they bought the house, is the BIGGEST reason to NOT think it was her.....she never wanted that house, couldn't afford that house....if her "plan" was to kill Bill, why not do it BEFORE the closing???? Not to mention that CL didn't report him missing either, if you read Glatt's book, that is what Bill did he took off...and while I know Glatt's book isn't all "fact" CL, Bill Rice etc. did assist in the writing of the book.....Bill Rice does refer to WM as a get rich quick schemer, he commented on the large amount of money he saw him plop down on a recent trip to the casino....

Here's a question, "if" WM owed money to the wrong person/people....and they got wind that he bought a 500,000 house....what do you think would happen?

MM was having an affair for YEARS....I'm not sure why anyone thinks that "that" is a motive for murder.....

totallyBARD

08-06-2009, 03:05 PM

To get back on track to the Appellate decision about the gun issue, which is actually the topic of this thread:

From the July 29, 2009 Woodbridge Sentinel

Motion in McGuire case denied

Matter has to do with gun used in '04 shooting

BY KATHY CHANG Staff Writer

The state Appellate Division of Superior Court filed an order July 21, denying Melanie McGuire's motion to supplement the record for a limited remand on the grounds that the gun she purchased days before her husband, William McGuire, was shot to death could not have been the gun used to kill him. After a six-week trial in 2007, McGuire, a former fertility clinic nurse, was found guilty of first-degree murder of her husband, who was 39 years old at the time of his death. He was an adjunct professor and senior programmer analyst with the Information Resource Development Department at the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT).

She was sentenced to life in prison for fatally shooting her husband in their Woodbridge Center Plaza apartment and later dismembering his body in 2004.

His remains were found in the couple's three matching green suitcases, which washed up along the Virginia coast on May 5, 11 and 16, 2004.
Since her conviction, McGuire, now 36, has been serving her sentence at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women in Hunterdon County.

The defense attorneys for McGuire, Stephen Turano, of the law firm Tacopina, Seigel & Turano in New York, and Jamie S. Kilberg, of the law firm Baker Botts LLP in Washington, D.C., have until the second week of August to file a brief that conforms to the appellate court's decision.
Peter Aseltine, spokesman for the state Attorney General's Office, said they are confident that the verdict will stand due to the Appellate Division's direct rejection of the defense's motion to supplement the record for a limited remand.

"Melanie McGuire was found guilty following a fair trial that afforded her defense team with ample opportunity to gather and present evidence that they considered relevant," he said.

Turano and Kilberg had filed a 125-page brief in June detailing their argument that the gun McGuire had purchased could not have been the gun used to kill William McGuire.

Authorities learned that Melanie McGuire had purchased a Taurus model 85 .38-caliber handgun and a box of bullets from John's Gun and Tackle Room gun shop in Easton Pa., on April 26, 2004.

With this new evidence, the defense attorneys were asking the Appellate Division to supplement the record for a limited remand back to Middlesex County Superior Court, where the case was originally tried.
The defense stated in their argument brief that the prosecution urged again and again that the "make and model" of the gun Melanie had purchased were "absolutely consistent with the bullets recovered from William's body and the markings on them."

"The model, it turns out, has five lands and grooves - not six," the defense stated in its brief.

The defense stated that when the serial number of the Taurus model 85 firearm that McGuire purchased is entered into Taurus' publicly available database, the database shows it was a 2004 model 85B2 firearm.

It goes on to say that Taurus' website shows that a model 85B2 contains only five grooves.

The state called two ballistics experts, who both testified that the bullets recovered from the victim's body were consistent with a .38 special caliber.

John Ward, a forensic scientist and supervisor of the firearms section of the Department of Forensic Science of the Commonwealth of Virginia, had testified that the bullets had been fired from a firearm having six lands and grooves that were inclined to the right and had a class of characteristics that were consistent with at least six possible manufacturers. One of them was Taurus.

Authorities never found the gun.

State Deputy Attorney General Daniel I. Bornstein filed an 18-page answer to the defense's brief on July 2.

The state said the information obtained by the defense attorneys that claims the gun purchased could only have five grooves is "inaccurate and misleading."

The state obtained an affidavit of Robert Morrison, president of Taurus, in which he stated that the defendant's gun could have had five grooves or six grooves when it left the factory, because Taurus uses parts and tools containing five and six grooves interchangeably when manufacturing Taurus .38 special revolvers.

The state has yet to file an answer to the other motions filed in the defense's brief, which include the claim that there was erring in handling the potential jury taint due to the "highly inflammatory media accounts," and the court erring by admitting expert testimony regarding garbage bags.

Aseltine said the state is "absolutely" planning to file answers to the additional arguments.

"Now we will wait for the conforming brief to be filed," he said.

Source: http://ws.gmnews.com/news/2009/0729/front_page/003.html

Great Dane

08-06-2009, 03:07 PM

Dtviewer3

08-06-2009, 05:00 PM

And another thing, GUT FEELINGS are saved for playing the lotto, deciding whether or not you go on a second date, if you have the fish or chicken, if you put an umbrella in your pocket book just in case....NOT for determining whether or not someone should spend the rest of their life in prison....:cursing:
JMO

Same could be said of completely unfounded speculations based on NOTHING such as this:
Originally posted by GreatDane
"Here's a question, "if" WM owed money to the wrong person/people....and they got wind that he bought a 500,000 house....what do you think would happen?"

There is NO evidence to back up or even insinuate that Wm owed money to anyone. Dont know how it forwards any debate to imply that this was even a possibility without any proof of such.
:confused:

GossipGirl

08-10-2009, 07:34 AM

And another thing, GUT FEELINGS are saved for playing the lotto, deciding whether or not you go on a second date, if you have the fish or chicken, if you put an umbrella in your pocket book just in case....NOT for determining whether or not someone should spend the rest of their life in prison....:cursing:

JMO

Hi GD!!
I know, I'm not a juror, I just give my opinions as an observer.
I do believe jurors convict on circumstantial evidence tho, one does not need hard proof, as we've all learned.
I suppose that's really the hardest thing to figure out.
Who's lying.
I would never want to be a judge, that's for sure!
Even Judge Judy can see through people much better than I can.

hope all is well
GG

GossipGirl

08-10-2009, 07:36 AM

Hi GD!!
I know, I'm not a juror, I just give my opinions as an observer.
I do believe jurors convict on circumstantial evidence tho, one does not need hard proof, as we've all learned.
I suppose that's really the hardest thing to figure out.
Who's lying.
I would never want to be a judge, that's for sure!
Even Judge Judy can see through people much better than I can.

hope all is well
GG

oh, one more thing.
I believe if WM owed a mobster a little money and had a new house, he'd make him sign over the house. I also don't think WM would be buying a house in his name in NJ if he owed mobsters dosh.
JMO
GG

Great Dane

08-10-2009, 08:50 AM

He just paid the down payment and closing costs, he didn't "own" the house outright....I'm not gung ho about the mafia theory, but it is possible that he owed "someone" money, and that someone was bothered by his recent purchase, not every bad guy is mafia related....maybe he owed a rabai money? lol.....OT j/k related to the recent arrests in NJ....

Great Dane

08-10-2009, 08:55 AM

Same could be said of completely unfounded speculations based on NOTHING such as this:
Originally posted by GreatDane
"Here's a question, "if" WM owed money to the wrong person/people....and they got wind that he bought a 500,000 house....what do you think would happen?"

There is NO evidence to back up or even insinuate that Wm owed money to anyone. Dont know how it forwards any debate to imply that this was even a possibility without any proof of such.
:confused:

But their was discussion of WM placing 10k down on a casino table, when it is a known fact he was only earning approx. 60-65k per year, her was a father of two....does that seem like something a father of two, earning that salary would do???? I know in court the casino testified that WM's gambling didn't seem excessive, or related to high loss, I'm not sure if those cards etc. moniter games in the back rooms etc., but that is a HIGH dollar amount for anyone earning that amount of money IMO.....

Hopefully that will be mentioned in the appeal, since Bill Rice admitted to that dollar amount in the Glatt book....

Dtviewer3

08-10-2009, 01:55 PM

But their was discussion of WM placing 10k down on a casino table, when it is a known fact he was only earning approx. 60-65k per year, her was a father of two....does that seem like something a father of two, earning that salary would do???? I know in court the casino testified that WM's gambling didn't seem excessive, or related to high loss, I'm not sure if those cards etc. moniter games in the back rooms etc., but that is a HIGH dollar amount for anyone earning that amount of money IMO.....

Hopefully that will be mentioned in the appeal, since Bill Rice admitted to that dollar amount in the Glatt book....

Good grief greatDane, and I'm not picking on you at all, but why do posters keep saying 'I hope thats mentioned/talked about/brought up in the appeal'?

There is no basis for any of Williams gambling amounts to be brought up in the appeal. None. The appeal is not a new trial. What basis would there be to mention that someone said Wm once spent 10k on gambling? What does that have to do with an appeal?

His gambling was discussed already at trial. It has nothing to do with any appeal.

nsm

08-10-2009, 04:24 PM

can she appeal again or is this the end of the line for her?

Dtviewer3

08-10-2009, 05:18 PM

can she appeal again or is this the end of the line for her?

This appeal hasnt even been ruled on yet.

But even if it fails she can appeal again.

totallyBARD

08-10-2009, 07:07 PM

can she appeal again or is this the end of the line for her?

Once MM's counsel submits the remaining motions, and the State responds, the Appellate judges can either deny the appeal outright or they can decide to hear one or more of the MM-counsel motions.

If Melanie's appeal gets denied, the next step for the convicted killer will be an appeal in a few years at the NJ State Supreme Court level. Following that appeal denial, there would be a round of Federal appeals.

The law is clear that all serious criminals who claim innocence have the right to appeal for many years to come. Of those killers/rapists/robbers who ARE able to use the judicial system to win a retrial due to a trial policy error, the overwhelming majority are once again found guilty and returned to jail.

I suspect if MM wins herself a retrial, it might make the perfect occasion to bring in a likely accomplice to join her behind bars. A retrial for MM may actually present a unique opportunity for the justice system, so this particular appeal bid could actually become a win-win situation.

Note to DT3: You are correct. Accusations made against a murder victim would absolutely not be part of any appeals process.

Great Dane

08-10-2009, 08:16 PM

Dtviewer, that comment was my attempt to stay on topic, I know people said that new evidence can not be presented but, my thought was if BB could somehow refelect that some of the evidence given was misleading or untrue that might be considered as misrepresentation????? Fot instance, would back room games be reflected on someone's gambling card, does anyone know? I'm not a gambler myself...so, I'm asking....

I think the first part of my reply does explain the basis for my reasoning, which you were questioning earlier...in regards to why I would think he may have potentially been mixed up with possibly owing people moiney...again, I do not think it was "mob" related, but possibly another type of crooked individual.....10k is a lot of money for a father of two to be placing down at a casino, even if he was lucky....esp. on the salary he was earning, that was over 10% of his annual salary....

Dtviewer3

08-10-2009, 08:59 PM

totallyBARD

08-10-2009, 10:15 PM

Again, there is not one single tiny shred of evidence to 'think he potentially possibly' owed any crooked individual any money.
No evidence of any secret back room games. No evidence of any 'mob' ties. None.

I dont see how made up 'what ifs' further any discussion or debate about Williams murder or Melanies guilt OR innocence.

I agree with you DT3, and we already know that Melanie's guilt was firmly decided by a jury of her peers in April of 2007. This thread topic is about appeal issues, not unfounded accusations made about the man Melanie McGuire murdered.

BigDude

08-11-2009, 09:49 PM

I agree with you DT3, and we already know that Melanie's guilt was firmly decided by a jury of her peers in April of 2007. This thread topic is about appeal issues, not unfounded accusations made about the man Melanie McGuire murdered.

And we firmly know that the jury of her peers were on the internet message boards discussing the case and that the juror left a note on the windshield of another juror! What more proof to you need, TotBARD, to realize that that there was SEVERE juror misconduct?? HELLO!!

4Life

08-11-2009, 11:25 PM

And we firmly know that the jury of her peers were on the internet message boards discussing the case and that the juror left a note on the windshield of another juror! What more proof to you need, TotBARD, to realize that that there was SEVERE juror misconduct?? HELLO!!

You firmly know? LOL
Did you watch the trial? The judge interviewed the jurors and was satisfied that the jury were not on the message boards, The Judge asked tacopina if he wanted to continue with the trial. Tacopina said yes and he was satisfied that the jury did not read the boards..Hello wake up, she won't be coming home

BigDude

08-12-2009, 07:17 PM

Dtviewer3

08-12-2009, 08:15 PM

TotB/4L etc.,

I am not sure that Taco knew about the message boards right at the moment of the trial. He and the rest of the world knew about the note. IMO, the note alone should be enough for a new trial. What more proof do you need that the jury had outside influence??? It is documented on a piece of paper. It doesn't get much better than that for proof! I certainly would not want that jury deciding my future or anybody else's. They did not abide by the law or the rules of the court. DeVesa didn't want to call a mistrial because he knew the state had blown a boat load of money on trying to convict an innocent woman.BigD

Anytime you would like to back up some of your ridiculous accusations with some facts I would be very interested in seeing it.

So far all I have seen from your posts is whining and made up innuendo sprinkled with out and out lies.

Seems like sour grapes to me. So sad........

4Life

08-12-2009, 08:22 PM

TotB/4L etc.,

I am not sure that Taco knew about the message boards right at the moment of the trial. He and the rest of the world knew about the note. IMO, the note alone should be enough for a new trial. What more proof do you need that the jury had outside influence??? It is documented on a piece of paper. It doesn't get much better than that for proof! I certainly would not want that jury deciding my future or anybody else's. They did not abide by the law or the rules of the court. DeVesa didn't want to call a mistrial because he knew the state had blown a boat load of money on trying to convict an innocent woman.
BigD

Didn't you say the same thing about the bullet? LOL

Oh and Taco did not object to anything with the jury, he let the trial continue. Dead issue now

totallyBARD

08-13-2009, 10:42 AM

It's obvious that the gun and jury misconduct concerns are pretty much water under the bridge, so does anyone have an inkling as to what issues the next appellate filing will contain?

I believe the Appellate Division is waiting for MM's counsel to file the conforming brief, now that their first motion was summarily denied.

"Turano said the appeal is likely to cover the same issues that he and Tacopina cited within a month of the verdict in a motion seeking a new trial or a mistrial.

The motion questioned the jurisdiction of the state of New Jersey to try the case, since there was no direct evidence the murder occurred in New Jersey.

The motion also questioned the indictment charging McGuire with being an accomplice, without having charged anyone else with a role on the murder.

The motion also cited the fact that members of the jury admitted to reading Internet blogs during the trial, violating the judge's instructions to avoid all media coverage."

Quote excerpted from: http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20090530/NEWS/905300339/2+years+after+Middlesex+County+guilty+verdict++app eal+expected+in+Melanie+McGuire+slaying+case

GossipGirl

08-13-2009, 06:12 PM

TotB/4L etc.,

I am not sure that Taco knew about the message boards right at the moment of the trial. He and the rest of the world knew about the note. IMO, the note alone should be enough for a new trial. What more proof do you need that the jury had outside influence??? It is documented on a piece of paper. It doesn't get much better than that for proof! I certainly would not want that jury deciding my future or anybody else's. They did not abide by the law or the rules of the court. DeVesa didn't want to call a mistrial because he knew the state had blown a boat load of money on trying to convict an innocent woman.
BigD

Yea he did, don't you remember Summer Madness, etc? All played out in the newspapers.
All sides agreed to keep the trial going.
This will be a non-starter I believe.
GG

BigDude

08-13-2009, 09:58 PM

Yea he did, don't you remember Summer Madness, etc? All played out in the newspapers.
All sides agreed to keep the trial going.
This will be a non-starter I believe.
GG

I thought that the message board came up after the conviction, more near the time of the sentencing. No matter what, that note is misconduct and now the rest of the world knows about the jurors blogging. It should be an easy decision for the appellate judges to realize that MM did not receive a fair trial. There are probably posters on this message board who know who the bloggers were during the deliberations, maybe the appellate team has gathered more info than you realize.
BigDude

kakax

08-14-2009, 07:39 AM

I thought that the message board came up after the conviction, more near the time of the sentencing. No matter what, that note is misconduct and now the rest of the world knows about the jurors blogging. It should be an easy decision for the appellate judges to realize that MM did not receive a fair trial. There are probably posters on this message board who know who the bloggers were during the deliberations, maybe the appellate team has gathered more info than you realize.
BigDude

I'm confused as to what you are suggesting. I don't believe any jurors were "bloggers". Bloggers are people who have their own pages and "blog" what they are doing, their opinions, etc. We are message board posters. I also don't believe that there is any evidence that the jury was looking at any media sites or message boards. The juror that left the note did AFTER he/she was released.

"DeVesa also explained a delay in hearings on Friday was caused when an excused juror left a farewell note on the car of another juror, and mentioned there were internet postings about them specifically.

"DeVesa said he was satisfied, after interviewing all the jurors about the note, that it was insignificant, and that they could continue their deliberations."
http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates/2007/04/clarifications_sought_in_suitc.html

The note didn't say anything about any kind of evidence at all.

"But, the judge rejected the argument, saying he interviewed jurors and was satisfied they had not seen the blogs or coverage of the case."

http://blog.nj.com/jerseyblogs/2007/06/did_bloggers_influence_the_mcg.html

In Scott Petersons trial, the media called one girl Strawberry Shortcake. I remember reading Summer Madness' posts and they weren't anywhere close to nicknaming a juror like that. She referred to one juror as having a certain type of look. Scott Peterson's attorneys won't get a new trial because people were calling a juror Strawberry Shortcake.

BigDude

08-14-2009, 10:48 PM

[QUOTE=kakax;13365596]I'm confused as to what you are suggesting. I don't believe any jurors were "bloggers". Bloggers are people who have their own pages and "blog" what they are doing, their opinions, etc. We are message board posters. I also don't believe that there is any evidence that the jury was looking at any media sites or message boards. The juror that left the note did AFTER he/she was released.

"DeVesa also explained a delay in hearings on Friday was caused when an excused juror left a farewell note on the car of another juror, and mentioned there were internet postings about them specifically.

"DeVesa said he was satisfied, after interviewing all the jurors about the note, that it was insignificant, and that they could continue their deliberations."
http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates/2007/04/clarifications_sought_in_suitc.html

The note didn't say anything about any kind of evidence at all.

"But, the judge rejected the argument, saying he interviewed jurors and was satisfied they had not seen the blogs or coverage of the case."

http://blog.nj.com/jerseyblogs/2007/06/did_bloggers_influence_the_mcg.html

In Scott Petersons trial, the media called one girl Strawberry Shortcake. I remember reading Summer Madness' posts and they weren't anywhere close to nicknaming a juror like that. She referred to one juror as having a certain type of look. Scott Peterson's attorneys won't get a new trial because people were calling a juror Strawberry Shortcake.[/QUOT

Kakax,
You are right when I mistakenly called the posters "bloggers". But the root of the problem is that there were jurors communicating amongst themselves against the court's instructions and just because DeVesa called it a non-issue, doesn't convince me that with the appellate judges IT WILL be a non-issue. Isn't that what is meant by "trial error"? I think this was a huge mistake by DeVesa and we do not know what the appellate firm has learned since that day of the deliberations and the voir dire by DeVesa, which IMO, was totally inadequate. What makes you think that the jurors were going to admit to being on a message baord during the trial? But if they were, and I believe that it was very possibly happening that the jurors were posting on a message board, then the judge should have called a mistrial. I think DeVesa underestimated how much was going on the message boards about this trial. I still think the jury problem is extremely problematic and should be the reason that a new trial is granted to MM.
BigD

GossipGirl

08-15-2009, 09:44 AM

I think if all sides agree to carry on, then it's a done deal.
Which is what happened.

Same thing as the jurisdictional thing, it passed muster way before the trial.
GG

Lapis

08-15-2009, 10:56 AM

I think if all sides agree to carry on, then it's a done deal.
Which is what happened.

Same thing as the jurisdictional thing, it passed muster way before the trial.
GG

At the risk of giving aid and comfort to those seeking to find any excuse to overturn the verdict I must respectfully disagree. The two issues are different.

I admit that I was not following the trial as closely as some, as I had my own trials to attend to. If the defense objected to the jurisdiction, and the court ruled against them, then the issue can be raised on appeal. This would not be an issue that could have been raised on appeal prior to trial as it would have resulted in a delay of the trial. The rule is that the issue may be raised only after the trial. Having said that I believe that the appellate court will find sufficient ties to NJ to establish jurisdiction.

If the jury misconduct issue is uncovered at the time of the trial then it must be raised at the time of the trial. If the defense consents to the continuation of the trial then the issue is dead. If the defense objects and is overruled then it can be raised at the time of the appeal. Once again, the appellate court will look at the inquiry made and determine if the court abused its discretion. It will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court but rather determine if a proper inquiry was made. It is the province of the trial court to assess credibility.

I'm not sure what the appellate firm could possibly uncover as they are prohibited by law from questioning the jurors. I recall one trial I had where several jurors approached the attorneys after the trial to explain their verdict. All we could do was listen to what they had to say but could not ask any questions. Additionally, if a juror approached the defense attorneys the juror would have to put something in the form of an affidavit. Mere allegations of juror misconduct without something more will not suffice.

JMO

vonna

08-21-2009, 12:34 PM

Anytime you would like to back up some of your ridiculous accusations with some facts I would be very interested in seeing it.

So far all I have seen from your posts is whining and made up innuendo sprinkled with out and out lies.

Seems like sour grapes to me. So sad........

That says it all!!!! Kudos.

Dtviewer3

08-25-2009, 05:57 PM

Any updates to this?
I havent been able to find any new news............

GossipGirl

08-27-2009, 02:38 PM

Dtviewer3

08-27-2009, 02:49 PM

Hi everyone,
Lapis, I think that when the FBI from VA handed this case over to NJ it was because jurisdictional issues had been resolved. Maybe I'm wrong, well, prolly I'm wrong cuz I'm not a lawyer, but, isn't that enough? Can they bring this all up again?
Also, NJ doesn't have to show where the murder occured, just that it did in their state, right?
so, the endless chatter about the TH etc is irrelevant.

She is guilty.
GG

As the Judge explained during the murder trial when he ruled about the jurisdiction he stated that all that was needed was for some part of the crime to have been commited in NJ.

(PS...what happened to Len? Anyone know?)

kellabeck

08-29-2009, 08:05 AM

How does the evidence support the prosecution's scenario that involved the use of CH and the murder happening in the TH? The test for CH and its metabolites was negative, while the TH was searched by LE 5 times and no blood or DNA was found, with luminol tests negative x2. Sorry, but IMO the evidence does not support in any way the scenario of the prosecution. It does not exclude the possibility that MM committed the crime, but it certainly does not support the prosecution's scenario.

Disagree, Len! The prosecutor's scenario was that Melanie, the nurse, scoured the apartment of all evidence. She also planned it very well to minimize the mess and then thoroughly cleaned. Something she certainly could do given the place and the volume of time.

Had no crime and subsequent clean-up taken place, then searches would have expected to turn up evidence of living-- something to show two parents and two little boys having lived there. People, when they vacate, may neaten up, sweep, but WHO sanitizes?? Why would someone scour a vacated apartment except the killer who needs to eliminate all signs of the murder??

I thought the prosecutor's summation made all the facts come together in a powerful, cohesive, compelling whole and the jury felt the same way, obviously.

kellabeck

08-29-2009, 08:17 AM

Exactly what is evidence of "juror misconduct"? One juror leaving a note to say goodbye? Even to mention message boards doesn't mean that any jurors read them until after the verdict.

Where is the "misconduct"??

Dtviewer3

08-29-2009, 11:44 AM

Nothing new in this case? It has been a while.

P.S. I am here, how have you been?

Hey Len. I had noticed that all your posts were greyed out and your status had changed to 'guest' so thought maybe you had left. (glad to see you are still around)

Any new news about the appeal?

Dtviewer3

09-14-2009, 04:21 PM

Anything new yet?

Great Dane

09-18-2009, 10:34 AM

I have not heard any news...

But, I have heard THREE people use the term cut him off at the knees in the past week or so....perhaps I know too many Italians...lol, or maybe that is a more popular phrase in certain circles- but each time I heard it....I thought of MM and that converstation with her mom that everyone thought was so "telling"...Anywho, I thought it was ironic and I had to share it on this site, if no place else....lol

Jupiter

09-18-2009, 06:37 PM

Shevarash

09-19-2009, 11:29 AM

I would guess that the phrase "Sleeps with the fishes" would be also viewed by others as "inappropriate" as well when applied to the husband.

Shevarash

Wow…you are associating the term "cut him off at the knees" with Italians? Maybe you know too many Italians? Are you assuming that ALL Italians use that expression? In my opinion, those remarks were extremely inappropriate and may have offended people here. I'm certainly not laughing.

bill bradsky

09-20-2009, 12:52 AM

Great Dane

09-21-2009, 09:55 AM

Wow…you are associating the term "cut him off at the knees" with Italians? Maybe you know too many Italians? Are you assuming that ALL Italians use that expression? In my opinion, those remarks were extremely inappropriate and may have offended people here. I'm certainly not laughing.

My apologies if I offended anyone, it just so happened that the people that said it were all Italian....(was 100% not intended to offend anyone)

Dtviewer3

09-21-2009, 11:33 AM

1) was doctor's testimony that mm forged his signature on the chloral hydrate backed up by video of mm picking up the drugs or handwriting forensics?

2) was there any evidence as to bill's supposed gambling problem (other than his best friend who saw him break out 10 large at the casinos during a trip to ac)? was there evidence of recent financial trouble (assumably after financing had been secured for the expensive home purchase)?

1. No video. But the script was picked up at a Walgreens that was searched on the McGuires home computer. It was picked up within 13 minutes after Melanie dropped the kids off at their school at a Walgreens a little more than a mile from the school. Then the CH bottle was found in WM's glovebox with no fingerprints.

2. None. Zero.

Dtviewer3

11-02-2009, 01:51 PM

Any updates yet?

totallyBARD

11-02-2009, 03:51 PM

Hi DTV3: Due to the shortage of judges, backlog of cases and any expected delays, I am of the opinion we may not hear a decision on MM's first appeal until late 2010 or beyond.

If you remember, the defense took a VERY LONG TIME until their initial paperwork was submitted. (Lots of excuses were given for the delay) And the nonsensical gun argument was so over-the-top ridiculous, the Appellate Division rejected it and sent the paperwork back to be redone. None of us knows what the defense final product looked like when it was eventually resubmitted.

The State of NJ is a heavily populated place with LOTS of convicted criminals behind bars waiting to see if by some miracle they'll be granted a new trial due to judicial error.

Melanie is just another number in a khaki prison uniform, among virtually all the "innocent" NJ state prison murderers, waiting her turn at bat.

Free shelter, free clothes, free medical care, free legal services, free education, free food, paid cable, paid recreational facilities, et cetera. I'd say Melanie's got it pretty darn good for the next six decades or so.

GossipGirl

11-05-2009, 12:15 PM

I wonder if she's found God yet.
GG

bugsy

11-07-2009, 11:48 AM

Any updates yet?

Waiting on the state's reply brief. The state has requested 2 extensions so far.

Currently due Nov 22... well, that's a Sunday, so the 23 actually.

bugsy

11-13-2009, 10:50 AM

So do you think that there will be something next week? or it would take much longer after the state replies?

After the state's reply brief, MM gets a couple weeks for a rebuttal, then oral arguements are scheduled, after that we get a decision.

totallyBARD

11-13-2009, 11:22 AM

Actually, there may be quite a delay (for reasons already stated) before the Appellate Division decides whether to hear oral arguments of any or all motions. Personally, I'd like to hear a decision sooner than later, but I'm thinking we may not get a FINAL decision until well into next year.

Like I said, there are soooooooo many convicted criminals in NJ, almost all claiming innocence, all waiting for their turn at the Appellate Russian Roulette Wheel.

bugout

11-13-2009, 08:37 PM

I'm confused as to what you are suggesting. I don't believe any jurors were "bloggers". Bloggers are people who have their own pages and "blog" what they are doing, their opinions, etc. We are message board posters. I also don't believe that there is any evidence that the jury was looking at any media sites or message boards. The juror that left the note did AFTER he/she was released.

"DeVesa also explained a delay in hearings on Friday was caused when an excused juror left a farewell note on the car of another juror, and mentioned there were internet postings about them specifically.

"DeVesa said he was satisfied, after interviewing all the jurors about the note, that it was insignificant, and that they could continue their deliberations."
http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates/2007/04/clarifications_sought_in_suitc.html

The note didn't say anything about any kind of evidence at all.

"But, the judge rejected the argument, saying he interviewed jurors and was satisfied they had not seen the blogs or coverage of the case."

http://blog.nj.com/jerseyblogs/2007/06/did_bloggers_influence_the_mcg.html

In Scott Petersons trial, the media called one girl Strawberry Shortcake. I remember reading Summer Madness' posts and they weren't anywhere close to nicknaming a juror like that. She referred to one juror as having a certain type of look. Scott Peterson's attorneys won't get a new trial because people were calling a juror Strawberry Shortcake.

Oh yes, the woman with "hard eyes" lol! How could I ever forget that.
I can't. But anyway, we have had juror's descriptions before and I agree.

Mel Isn't coming home. She is with the lowest of lows, she disarticulated her husband. It doesn't get any more gruesome than that. Hell her freinds described the SMELL in that apt, and it wasn't all bleach. Such a busy little nurse Ms McGuire.

This is one case, that was solved. The only thing that went undone was convicting her father for his help. Could have been her mother, could have been her father, we just don't know. And that state is never going to charge either, they got their goose. It's name was Melanie McGuire.

Bug
:rose: For William

darwin

11-13-2009, 08:46 PM

After the state's reply brief, MM gets a couple weeks for a rebuttal, then oral arguements are scheduled, after that we get a decision.

Hey bugsy:

As far as I know, oral arguments are not mandatory. The Court makes the decision as to whether or not it wants to hear oral arguments.

Many appellate decisions are handed down without oral arguments, IMO, unless NJ has different rules.

--darwin

JazzyBell

11-14-2009, 12:17 AM

I hope there is not a new trial. Just me, but I believe she is guilty as hell. BTW - anyone know where she's getting the $$ for the Appellate Attorneys?

totallyBARD

11-14-2009, 09:40 AM

I hope there is not a new trial. Just me, but I believe she is guilty as hell. BTW - anyone know where she's getting the $$ for the Appellate Attorneys?

As far as I am aware, there is no money involved. Melanie declared indigency, remember? She apparently has the Public Defender and a few "friends of a friend" at play. (An Appellate-certified NJ attorney can sign off on any paperwork done by people not certified to practice in NJ)

totallyBARD

11-14-2009, 09:47 AM

Hey bugsy:

As far as I know, oral arguments are not mandatory. The Court makes the decision as to whether or not it wants to hear oral arguments.

Many appellate decisions are handed down without oral arguments, IMO, unless NJ has different rules.

--darwin

You are correct, Darwin. NJ may indeed hand down a decision without hearing oral arguments. Or they could decide to hear one or more motions. There is so much backlog right now and I doubt frivolous motions would be entertained. JMO

johnnos

11-14-2009, 01:53 PM

You are correct, Darwin. NJ may indeed hand down a decision without hearing oral arguments. Or they could decide to hear one or more motions. There is so much backlog right now and I doubt frivolous motions would be entertained. JMO

Yes you are right about the process, I think bugout was saying that as part of the process there are often oral arguments. Read your comment too, do you think the motions are frivolous? What did she actually end up appealing on. I see a lot of conjecture here, but nothing saying what the actual issues addressed in the brief contained? Have you seen the brief? Can you fill us in? Or can anyone else here find a link to the brief itself?

Thanks.

totallyBARD

11-15-2009, 09:10 AM

Yes, I presented opinions in recent posts about the reasons why we may not be hearing an Appellate decision on the MM case any time soon. The shortage of judges and the backlog of cases is well documented in the NJ news media.

To repeat: "Due to the shortage of judges, backlog of cases and any expected delays, I am of the opinion we may not hear a decision on MM's first appeal until late 2010 or beyond.

If you remember, the defense took a VERY LONG TIME until their initial paperwork was submitted. (Lots of excuses were given for the delay) And the nonsensical gun argument was so over-the-top ridiculous, the Appellate Division rejected it and sent the paperwork back to be redone. None of us knows what the defense final product looked like when it was eventually resubmitted."

johnnos

11-15-2009, 10:39 AM

without seeing it, how can anyone here (on either side) claim it either does or does not have any merit?

totallyBARD

11-15-2009, 03:08 PM

without seeing it, how can anyone here (on either side) claim it either does or does not have any merit?

I agree with your point. I suppose some posters are presenting opinions going by what has already been presented to the media as grounds for appeal, which started on MM's conviction day. Those same grounds were reinforced at various times since 2007. The bizarre "gun motion" which surfaced in 2009 was summarily rejected by the Appellate Division. Anyone who is directly related to the case and has helped with/seen the recently re-written defense paperwork, is imo not going to share the specific details of such information with strangers on a message board. IF I were MM's family, I certainly wouldn't.

johnnos

11-15-2009, 09:57 PM

I agree with your point. I suppose some posters are presenting opinions going by what has already been presented to the media as grounds for appeal, which started on MM's conviction day. Those same grounds were reinforced at various times since 2007. The bizarre "gun motion" which surfaced in 2009 was summarily rejected by the Appellate Division. Anyone who is directly related to the case and has helped with/seen the recently re-written defense paperwork, is imo not going to share the specific details of such information with strangers on a message board. IF I were MM's family, I certainly wouldn't.

Are apealate briefs public record in NJ? Or just the decision later?

BigDude

11-15-2009, 10:32 PM

I agree with your point. I suppose some posters are presenting opinions going by what has already been presented to the media as grounds for appeal, which started on MM's conviction day. Those same grounds were reinforced at various times since 2007. The bizarre "gun motion" which surfaced in 2009 was summarily rejected by the Appellate Division. Anyone who is directly related to the case and has helped with/seen the recently re-written defense paperwork, is imo not going to share the specific details of such information with strangers on a message board. IF I were MM's family, I certainly wouldn't.

TB,

For once I agree with you. The details of the appeal shouldn't be made public until the appropriate time. It won't be long and there should be a response from the state and that will probably get some type of media coverage.

I am just guessing, but I don't think we have heard the end of the gun issue yet.

BigDude

GossipGirl

12-08-2009, 12:30 PM

TB,

For once I agree with you. The details of the appeal shouldn't be made public until the appropriate time. It won't be long and there should be a response from the state and that will probably get some type of media coverage.

I am just guessing, but I don't think we have heard the end of the gun issue yet.

BigDude

Well, it took a few years but I think MM is finally and permanently relegated to the back pages of forums.
Thank God. She deserves no more front-page anything.
Merry Christmas to you all!
GG

bugout

12-08-2009, 09:45 PM

And to you! And for Mel?

I hope she enjoys her bruised apples, ego and scratchy blankets.
hehe
Justice was served for William McGuire.
BUG

GossipGirl

12-10-2009, 09:52 AM

Well, it's been 2 1/2 years and I think CW is probably happy we are not causing her anymore agida!!
I notice no one talks about the trial anymore, we just wait for news on the appeal, and I found this on page 2.
A few other forums still chat about her, but I can't find anymore than a half-dozen, so I think we have mostly moved on.
How's things BUG??
Bugout. Cute.
I need a new nic.
GG

bugout

12-14-2009, 02:12 PM

Hugs GG! lol, I seriously doubt MM will ever see the light of day again.
If she does, she will be old gray and bent, a threat to no one by that time.
Well, watching her body language during the trial was really a case study to me, And, knowing that CBS gave her a video cam during her trial, that really sealed her fate for me. She was all about Mel.

I think about William sometimes, and how cruel and henious her crime really was. That was what captured Me, about this case.
It certainly wasn't about how "pretty" the defendant was, I saw her as so black and ugly inside. Evil.

I will never forget transcribing that tape. Not ever. Can't ever forget what I heard on the tape either. It really sealed it for me, that Mel had help. Couldn't prove it, but I do believe she had help. It's enough though to get one in prison for life. She and She herself will take the fall for his death and her own greed.
It wasn't enough that she killed Bill, she took the childrens father from them. One day they will have to face that.

Mel will be the womens saving grace for all medical concerns in prison, I'm sure.
Like Casey A said, They will Just Love her!
hehe

Take care GG see you soon on another case I"m sure :D

Bug