GUILTY UT - Michele MacNeill, 50, found dead in bathtub, Pleasant Grove, 11 April 2007 - #4

[CUCKOOHEAD]

So once again we are going to attack a witness, bring up their past "bad acts", and go after them to make them appear to be something that they aren't yet we have a man on trial that has done numerous criminal activities himself and all of that is "off limits" during his trial.

Pathetic, IMO

Pretty lop sided huh?

 

[bsk]

That's pretty funny when the inmate has to correct Spencer on a matter of law.

 

[minor4th]

So once again we are going to attack a witness, bring up their past "bad acts", and go after them to make them appear to be something that they aren't yet we have a man on trial that has done numerous criminal activities himself and all of that is "off limits" during his trial.

Pathetic, IMO

If he were to testify, all of that could come in to impeach him, but it can't be used to prove that he murdered his wife.

 

[Italy]

I think this witness has provided testimony that will benefit the State:

1. Martin MacNeill was able to run several times a week, 4-6 miles
2. His reference to his daughters as "My f---ing daughters"

 

[Softail]

Ben Winslow ‏@BenWinslow 36s
Jury is taking a lot of notes, looking at Inmate #3 and the attorneys. @fox13now #MacNeilltrial #MartinMacNeill

 

[Hope4More]

So once again we are going to attack a witness, bring up their past "bad acts", and go after them to make them appear to be something that they aren't yet we have a man on trial that has done numerous criminal activities himself and all of that is "off limits" during his trial.

Pathetic, IMO

Sadly, is very different. Inmate 1 is a piece of filth who isn't helping the state one bit. MacNeill is a piece of filth who is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Hundreds and hundreds of years of precedent dictate what can be brought up in trial about a defendants prior deeds. Frustrating yes, but the law of civilized nations.

 

[minor4th]

This is pretty bad - state attorney didn't know that he made up a story to snitch on a guy before.

 

[Softail]

Ben Winslow ‏@BenWinslow 42s
Inmate #3 says he's a snitch, violating prison code. "You don't snitch, you don't fool with gays and you don't steal." #MartinMacNeill

Wild About Trial ‏@WildAboutTrial 2m
#3 claims his life is already in danger because he will be seen as a snitch and went against "prison code". #MartinMacNeill

 

[Ina Cognito]

I don't know, oddly this inmate comes off very well....

 

[minor4th]

That was helpful - Martin told him Michele drowned.

 

[TorisMom003]

Sadly, is very different. Inmate 1 is a piece of filth who isn't helping the state one bit. MacNeill is a piece of filth who is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Hundreds and hundreds of years of precedent dictate what can be brought up in trial about a defendants prior deeds. Frustrating yes, but the law of civilized nations.

Martin has his own rap sheet that does not include what he is on trial for. He has been found guilty of at least two other crimes that are not being brought up in this trial because of it being to prejudicial against him. How is it right, fair, that the past "crimes" of those testifying are being use against them when they are not on trial?

 

[Hope4More]

This is pretty bad - state attorney didn't know that he made up a story to snitch on a guy before.

Yep. If I were on jury I'd be pissed at the state for making me listen to him.

 

[Softail]

1 jury question.

Some info you gave in 2002 panned out. What did you mean?

He says not some, but all info panned out. About 26 people were put in prison for his info. He got nothing for it.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

Re: Oxycodone vs. Oxycontin
I've noticed that the public at large seems to only know the term "oxycontin". Likely because it was talked about so much in the media as a drug of abuse, pharmacies being robbed, etc. Plus I have encountered few who have even heard of hydrocodone, but they have heard of the brand name Vicodin.

Lortab and Vicodin are trade names for hydrocodone. While less strong than oxycodone, it still has the CNS depressant quality. The liquid form of a medication to be taken orally is called an "elixir". A tablet prescribed "P.O." means "per orum". A suppository is administered "P.R." meaning "per rectum".

As far as what happens at time of death, I would not recommend using what one sees in a movie to gain medical knowledge. The "deaths" we see in movies are a Hollywood fantasy. In real life death is not always a quiet passing where the ill or injured person says their last words and then their head slumps to the side.

If a patient has several CNS depressant type medications in their system, their normal reflexes are going to be depressed. Even though these medications are not in "toxic" levels, they are there and they are causing CNS depression. This is why the labels say "don't drive or operate machinery while taking".

I think MM would have administered the liquid medication first, because that would be the easiest. I do wonder how he got her to take the meds that were in tablet form. Maybe he just "ordered her" to take them. Maybe she didn't realize she was taking an Ambien due to being less than alert from him having already given her a huge dose of liquid hydrocodone?

I can see the scenario of him coming home and "being sweet" to her, bringing her breakfast with a large glass of orange juice or other liquid. He had to have been there in order for her to have told Alexis on the phone how he was treating her that morning. Wasn't he up and out early that morning? Made calls to people from his office?

He could have been back to the house more than once that morning.

 

[Leilei]

One jury question...

 

[scmom]

All things considered I think the inmate helped the prosecution.

 

[Tipstaff]

Good questions by the State attorney in bringing up that the inmate can be charged with perjury and are there considerations given to the inmate for his testimony

It needs to be put before the jury.

 

[bsk]

Great jury question!

 

[minor4th]

Martin has his own rap sheet that does not include what he is on trial for. He has been found guilty of at least two other crimes that are not being brought up in this trial because of it being to prejudicial against him. How is it right, fair, that the past "crimes" of those testifying are being use against them when they are not on trial?

Because past crimes are not evidence that he committed THIS crime. If he had a pattern of committing "bad acts" similar to this crime, then it would be allowed in as a pattern of behavior because that actually would tend to show that he committed this crime.

 

[TorisMom003]

Because past crimes are not evidence that he committed THIS crime. If he had a pattern of committing "bad acts" similar to this crime, then it would be allowed in as a pattern of behavior because that actually would tend to show that he committed this crime.

Then what about his allegations to others that he tried to kill his mother, his brother, his sister and whomever else he claims to have killed or attempted to kill? Why not bring in the fact that so many people close to this man have had "accidental deaths" or "suicides"?