GUILTY UT - Michele MacNeill, 50, found dead in bathtub, Pleasant Grove, 11 April 2007 - #6

Status
Not open for further replies.
If the defense is hanging their hat on their (lack of a) defense then I have a feeling they will be sorely disappointed.
 
I agree that the look on MM's face indicated he knows it is bad for him. Anyone else get the feeling that Spencer seems sort of flippant and not terribly into this case...I mean just the way he rested. As a juror I would note that as not really believing in his client.
 
Very good post and I have thought about how many people just went along with Martin and apparently have his whole life. On that day he gets son and girlfriend to throw out pills (key evidence to see what happened)...bet they regret that even to the point of suicide....and the neighbors...certainly MM could have gotten her out. The guy on the stand now is absolute rubbish. Then there were two women who could have gotten her out...they did not and waited for a "man". I mean really!!

Corpses tend to float on water.


the human body eventually "floats" after bacterial decomposition, not immediately after death (that's why true drowning victims in murky H2O are difficult to find, sometimes)
HOWEVER, this case has a visible body in either a small amount of H2O or no H2O present....relatively easy to see & retrieve or at least shift around!
 
the nurse practitioner (i think that is who he was) that testified, reported mm called to tell him he was coding his wife. Was information released as to the time of this call compared to a call to 911? Thanks.

nope.......
 
Wait, are they coming back today?
Shut down my viewer because I thought they were recessed until the morn.
I am in a fog....(not the JA kind, tyvm, I am dang sure I have not killed anyone!).
 
I didn't expect MM to testify but I always thought the judge had to query a defendant as to whether it was their decision and their decision alone not to testify and the defendant has to answer. Is this not the case here or did I miss it?
 
... As a whole this has got to be the most ridiculous defense I have ever seen. All witnesses are a joke.
That being said...I think Martin did intentionally kill his wife, but I am worried about the strength of prosecution. What about you guys? If you were on this jury with only information that was presented at trial, would you vote NG or G?

I vote Nancy Grace. ;)
 
I would vote Guilty (Even putting aside what I know and the Jury doesn't)
 
I can now see why they had trouble getting this to trial.

The defense didn't need to put on a case.

Doesn't the defense technically never need to put on a case, because the state has the burden of proof? Constitutionally, we're all innocent until proven guilty?
 
So the State has shown the following:

Martin moved in Gypsy very soon after Michele's funeral.
Martin admitted to other inmates while in Federal prison that Michele (not the wife that was also in prison) drowned.
Martin had ample time to go home and kill Michele before receiving his award and picking Ada up from school.
Martin lied to several people as to how Michele was found in the tub.
Michele knew about his affairs, especially the one with Gypsy.
Martin hung up on 911 even when told to stay on the line.
Martin never performed CPR on Michele as he pretended to do.
Martin is more physically fit than he has previously claimed.
Martin did not need a cane because of a toe problem.
Martin and Gypsy continued their relationship after both were in prison.
Martin ordered that Michele's meds be destroyed.
Martin texted and exchanged photos with Gypsy often, including the day of Michele's funeral.

What else?

The Defense showed that Martin picked up Ada from school the day Michele died, that he called a nurse at work while supposedly performing CPR on Michele, and that it was not "safe" for him to lift Michele out of the tub without a lift or help.

Yea, I think the State definitely proved their case while the Defense failed proving their defense.

MOO
 
I don't think he will win on appeal if he is convicted. Just b/c your attorneys are no good, doesn't mean winning an appeal.

I think the defense did the best they could with what they had to work with. They tried at every point to poke holes in the states case.
 
I just wanted to share this. I am physically disabled, from a failed back surgery and from being ill. I am in agony 24/7/365. Double whammy.I rarely leave my home and spend most of my time laying in bed. I am relatively young in my mid fifties. Last summer my daughter called to me from downstairs that she could not arouse my son who was sitting in our hot garage, unresponsive. I flew out of my bed, ran down the steps, out the front door to the garage. I worked on my son to get him to breathe and regain consciousness. My son is taller, heavier than I am. I did not for one second think about my aching back. In fact, because of the adrenaline rush, I felt no pain at all. My son became responsive and I was able to get him up and walking. I did not require the assistance of My physically fit daughter. So I call BS on MM. BS. .
 
I think the biggest moments from today were the letters between him and Gypsy, and the fact that he was crying during her testimony. The jurors had to have seen that, and wondered why on earth this guy would cry over those letters, but not over the hurt, despair, and loss that his own children displayed when they testified.

That would stick with me big-time, if I were on the jury.
 
Another one for minor4th.... If the defense hadn't put up a defense - or to be more accurate if they hadn't called any witnesses (haha) - would they get to give their closing last? That would have been a better strategy IMHO than blowing it with four witnesses who were useless at best and detrimental to their case at worst.
 
Another one for minor4th.... If the defense hadn't put up a defense - or to be more accurate if they hadn't called any witnesses (haha) - would they get to give their closing last? That would have been a better strategy IMHO than blowing it with four witnesses who were useless at best and detrimental to their case at worst.

Yes, they get to give their closing last, either way. They probably also didn't put on much of a case because they didn't want to open it up to rebuttal.
 
JMO, I hope he lives the rest of his life in misery.
 
Yes, they get to give their closing last, either way. They probably also didn't put on much of a case because they didn't want to open it up to rebuttal.

Oh I thought they got some break in the order if they didn't present any witnesses. Who knows what I'm thinking of....
 
I didn't expect MM to testify but I always thought the judge had to query a defendant as to whether it was their decision and their decision alone not to testify and the defendant has to answer. Is this not the case here or did I miss it?

Well no I don't think you missed it and I always thought the same. Wonder if he forgot it just as he forgets the questions?
 
I don't think he will win on appeal if he is convicted. Just b/c your attorneys are no good, doesn't mean winning an appeal.

Sorry I was confusing - I meant to say he will GET an appeal...not win it. Thanks for pointing it out to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
200
Guests online
1,771
Total visitors
1,971

Forum statistics

Threads
589,966
Messages
17,928,431
Members
228,022
Latest member
Jemabogado
Back
Top