GUILTY UT - Michele MacNeill, 50, found dead in bathtub, Pleasant Grove, 11 April 2007 - #8

[scorekeeper]

much more at link, and very interesting:

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/loc...cle_9640cdce-4b39-11e3-b41e-001a4bcf887a.html

Thank you for the link.

Also in the article:

"This is swapping out Michele for Gypsy on Martin's terms: 'I'm not going to pay alimony, give up the house, pay child support, or be discovered as an adulterer and hypocrite. I'm going to switch out Michele Gypsy on my terms,'" Deputy Utah County Attorney Jared Perkins had said.

^^Thank you Mr. Perkins!! :loveyou:

Randy Spencer, MacNeill's chief defense lawyer, said that MacNeill had "an abundance of reasonable doubt" working in his favor but seemed resigned to his fate.

"Obviously, it wasn't the result he had hoped for, and we're very disappointed with the result, too," Spencer said Monday. "But Martin recognized whether he was convicted or acquitted, he didn't have a lot to look forward to. He lost his family and his livelihood."

Too bad, So sad......:banghead:

BBM

 

[scorekeeper]

2nd part of interview with Gypsy on Inside Edition

-marty said he was 10 years younger
-didn't tell her he was a doctor
-went by Joe
-had affair because marty wanted more excitement
-said marty loved his life
-noticed some weird things with marty - one time bought 100 boxes of cereal
-said had nothing to do with Michele's death
- she said she wore appropriate business attire to testify in...said Nancy Grace shouldn't have been looking down her/Gypsy's top

.........urggggggg

 

[turaj]

Creepy eyes. I did not notice that during trial. One photo in the old 20/20 episode shows it, and this one from dailymail from verdict day. Not a good look in his eyes here:

This article was posted earlier but here is the link again:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ers-speak-Mormon-fathers-guilty-sentence.html

I love daily uk mail....they always seem to have great photos from news here in usa...better than we have??

 

[Sophieandme]

Ben Winslow interview with Jill Harper-Smith (Michele Macneill's niece)

http://fox13now.com/2013/11/11/macn...there-will-be-an-appeal-of-murder-conviction/

After the verdict was read, Michele’s family met with members of the jury for a few minutes inside the Provo courthouse.

“It was really cool to be able to talk to them and thank them and they all gave us hugs and said, ‘We’re sorry for your loss,’ and were really genuine about it,” Michele’s niece, Jill Harper-Smith, told FOX 13 on Monday.

Harper-Smith said she and other family members asked about deliberations. Jurors told the family they found Dr. MacNeill guilty of obstruction of justice first.

“He was getting rid of everything and that was the main thing for them that stood out. They said never once did they feel like Alexis was lying or changing her story. They believed her 100 percent,” she said of Michele’s daughter, who first brought her suspicions about her father to police.

<modsnip>

BBM...interesting.

Thanks Dmacky!

 

[Bravo]

Wowsers :scared:

 

[seattlechiquita]

Hi friends, super busy at work. What is this I read that MM will face another trial next month for allegedly sexually assaulting Alexis? I haz confuzionz.

 

[aa9511]

much more at link, and very interesting:

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/loc...cle_9640cdce-4b39-11e3-b41e-001a4bcf887a.html

oh I like the second comment at the bottom...."scuttlebutts" :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[panthera]

She started the hour off talking to Alexis asking how the verdict felt and then made it all about Nancy and her fiancé's murder. She cut off the prosecutors too. She doesn't seem to get it that when she has Alexis and the prosecution team on, no one is tuning in to hear her talk. She just reminded me why I can't watch her.

I was also somewhat disappointed in last night's "interview". Having Alexis and the entire prosecution team assembled was a perfect opportunity to allow THEM to speak and answer questions directly related to the trial. There was some useful information presented, however, there is no comparison between NG's fiance's murder when talking to Alexis about her father murdering her mother. A good interviewer won't interject personal statements but will only ask relevant questions.

MOO

 

[panthera]

BBM...interesting.

Thanks Dmacky!

Very interesting. I found the inmates' testimony credible.

MOO

 

[panthera]

2nd part of interview with Gypsy on Inside Edition

-marty said he was 10 years younger That I can believe.
-didn't tell her he was a doctor Don't believe this. He would've been bragging.
-went by Joe well, maybe, but why?
-had affair because marty wanted more excitement So she did it for him?
-said marty loved his life Past tense, I am sure of now.
-noticed some weird things with marty - one time bought 100 boxes of cereal Wasn't there another instance of a strange shopping spree after Michele's death?
-said had nothing to do with Michele's death Of course not. And another lie.
- she said she wore appropriate business attire to testify in...said Nancy Grace shouldn't have been looking down her/Gypsy's top Appropriate? No comment.

.........urggggggg

My comments in red.



MOO

 

[turaj]

I was also somewhat disappointed in last night's "interview". Having Alexis and the entire prosecution team assembled was a perfect opportunity to allow THEM to speak and answer questions directly related to the trial. There was some useful information presented, however, there is no comparison between NG's fiance's murder when talking to Alexis about her father murdering her mother. A good interviewer won't interject personal statements but will only ask relevant questions.

MOO

And she had them for the whole hour and really covered not much new. I thought Alexis looked sort of amazed as she went on about her fiance. I realize that was an awful event in her life many many years ago...but Nancy seems like she could use some therapy concerning that event...sometimes wonder how her husband feels as she constantly brings it up.

 

[renatae]

much more at link, and very interesting:

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/loc...cle_9640cdce-4b39-11e3-b41e-001a4bcf887a.html

I have to say I'm disturbed that they are disturbed. There was such a mountain of evidence that was just too difficult to overlook. It also was not a precedent. There have been many cases decided on circumstantial evidence alone. Even not knowing much of the most damaging evidence, such as Michele's statement to Alexis to make sure it wasn't her father, the jury managed to feel they had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

I liked what NG said recently, that people misunderstand reasonable doubt. She said it doesn't mean that if there was this or that other possibility, that that forms a reasonable doubt simply because it's a possibility. She said if you are convinced in your head and your heart that the evidence shows the defendant committed murder, that is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Yet defense counsel likes to make it seem the opposite; they throw everything they can think of against the wall, hoping something will stick.

 

[Apollo]

I have to say I'm disturbed that they are disturbed. There was such a mountain of evidence that was just too difficult to overlook. It also was not a precedent. There have been many cases decided on circumstantial evidence alone. Even not knowing much of the most damaging evidence, such as Michele's statement to Alexis to make sure it wasn't her father, the jury managed to feel they had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

I liked what NG said recently, that people misunderstand reasonable doubt. She said it doesn't mean that if there was this or that other possibility, that that forms a reasonable doubt simply because it's a possibility. She said if you are convinced in your head and your heart that the evidence shows the defendant committed murder, that is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Yet defense counsel likes to make it seem the opposite; they throw everything they can think of against the wall, hoping something will stick.

I'm sure we've all heard jury instuctions in other trials where the judge has said if there's a reasonable explanation as to why something happened that favors the defendant, the jurors must give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant.

However, what would be a reasonable explanation for:

1. Michelle expelling so much water when CPR was being performed by the paramedics if Martin had already attempted CPR like he claimed he did.

2. Why was the date he stated on the fake wedding to Gypsy the day of Michele's funeral.

3. Why did he have Damien's girlfriend dispose of the medication and then tell Alexis the police took the medication.

4. Why didn't he try to pull Michele out of the tub when he found her.

5. Why was he ranting and raving that he didn't want Michele to have the surgery when everyone knew it was his idea and not hers.

6. Why were there several medications in her system when she had just had a post op visit with the plastic surgeon and said she was weaned off of the medications.

And I'm sure there's more...........

But what reasonable explanations could there be for any of this? There aren't any----and that's why he was found guilty.

 

[21merc7]

I have to say I'm disturbed that they are disturbed. There was such a mountain of evidence that was just too difficult to overlook. It also was not a precedent. There have been many cases decided on circumstantial evidence alone. Even not knowing much of the most damaging evidence, such as Michele's statement to Alexis to make sure it wasn't her father, the jury managed to feel they had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

I liked what NG said recently, that people misunderstand reasonable doubt. She said it doesn't mean that if there was this or that other possibility, that that forms a reasonable doubt simply because it's a possibility. She said if you are convinced in your head and your heart that the evidence shows the defendant committed murder, that is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Yet defense counsel likes to make it seem the opposite; they throw everything they can think of against the wall, hoping something will stick.

I don't know who wrote the article, so you have to consider, who is the person that wrote it? (Not their name, that is on the article. What do they do, who are they friends with, who asked for the article to be written, etc...)

Most defense attorneys would wish there is a not guilty verdict on a circumstantial case. Most would hope juries would not convict without hard, cold evidence, like video of the murder.

The article did mention that another view was there was plenty enough circumstantial evidence, but I think that was one sentence. I truly think the area does not see a whole lot of murder cases, so it leaves them scratching their heads no matter which way a trial goes.

There was a boatload of circumstantial evidence. Even with that, you can never tell which way a jury will view it. Each and every jury is different. Each and every attorney plays their cards in a way that the jury can relate to or cannot.

ETA: Did anyone think MM's attorneys were clear in trying to show he couldn't have done it? In trying to show every family witness was lying? In showing every inmate was lying? (Heck, even I thought the inmates were credible.) That the neighbors and First Responders were incapable of remembering and did a poor job to begin with? That the First Responders did not notice anything to raise suspicion? That all of the ME's were wrong, the prescribing doctor was wrong? And I have no idea what Kenny Rogers was about, so that just hurt the case, along with the constipation remarks. (I think Kenny R was there as pro bono attorneys would have to pay out of their own pocket for experts, and Kenny was free or cheap. Only bolstered the prosecution's case.)

 

[21merc7]

Who was he buying 100 boxes of cereal for?

Was it for his children? Was it for her?

Makes sense if he wants to make sure the children have food, and he doesn't have to bother cooking it. Albeit, cruel and uncaring.

What was the other odd shopping spree? I missed that info.

 

[21merc7]

I love daily uk mail....they always seem to have great photos from news here in usa...better than we have??

They get them from wherever the case is being filmed, sometimes they scour the internet, sometimes the pay the photographer directly. This one was probably already in another article on the internet.

 

[Norwegian]

Who was he buying 100 boxes of cereal for?

Was it for his children? Was it for her?

Makes sense if he wants to make sure the children have food, and he doesn't have to bother cooking it. Albeit, cruel and uncaring.

What was the other odd shopping spree? I missed that info.

The other odd shopping spree stems from the fraud incident all the way back in 1977 when he amongst buying a large amount of socks and shoes also bought a year supply of chocolate covered cherries.

I don't think the cereal fits with any other explanation than with erratic thoughts and excessive spending.

 

[Hope4More]

Who was he buying 100 boxes of cereal for?

Was it for his children? Was it for her?

Makes sense if he wants to make sure the children have food, and he doesn't have to bother cooking it. Albeit, cruel and uncaring.

What was the other odd shopping spree? I missed that info.

Maybe he bought that cereal and maybe he didn't. Given that its GW saying so, I wouldn't bet the farm that's its true.

MM's known odd shopping spree happened before he married, when he quickly spent the $30,000 he acquired through fraud. (I think the fraud and the spending all happened within a week or two).

 

[Dmacky]

http://www.4utah.com/story/macneill-murder-trial-exhibits-released/d/story/r_3Dp_77D0u_zAkQRwFf1w

Trial exhibits released!

 

[cubbeegirl]

http://www.4utah.com/story/macneill-murder-trial-exhibits-released/d/story/r_3Dp_77D0u_zAkQRwFf1w

Trial exhibits released!

The e-mail between the Utah County Investigators is very interesting indeed !