Opening Statements: NJ v. Melanie McGuire (2007) — Court TV Archive

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Good morning again members of the jury. You have your notepads there and as you know we're about to hear the opening statements of counsel this morning. I do want to remind you that the opening statements of counsel are their first opportunity to discuss the case with you but what they tell you is not evidence. The only evidence that you're able to consider in this case is what you hear from the witness stand and any objects or documents that are admitted into evidence. Also, it's possible that the attorneys will perhaps ask you a rhetorical question during their openings or direct some statement or comment to one or more of you. Please remember that you should not respond to them or express your opinion verbally or visually with respect to any of their comments. Your thoughts and your conclusions regarding what you hear in this courtroom are to remain confidential and you should only be talking about them during deliberations at the end of the trial. Now at this point under our rules of court Ms. Precioso gets to go first and she's going to provide you with her opening statement at this time. Ms. Precioso. [00:01:13] Speaker 2: Thank you, your honor. May it please the court and good morning ladies and gentlemen. It took William McGuire nearly until his 40th birthday to purchase his first home. It was a lovely house in Warren County, a long commute for him but it would be a decent commute for his wife Melanie who was commuting to Morristown, New Jersey where she worked as a nurse. William and Melanie, William and Melanie, or his family referred to him as Billy, closed on that house on April 28, 2004. They never moved in though. You see the defendant seated at that table was having an affair and she was actually very much in love with someone else. You'll hear through the evidence that with her husband she was discussing the purchase of the home. With at least one of her colleagues at work she was asking questions about divorce. And with her lover they were discussing their future. The evidence will show that while Bill was engrossed in purchasing the house and all the closing details that go along with such a purchase, the defendant was very busy planning his death. She planned for her husband to disappear and disappear he did. Bill was last known to be alive in the apartment that he shared with his wife, with the defendant, in Woodbridge, New Jersey. You'll hear his voice during the trial, a recording of when he was on the phone with the utility company switching his utilities from the apartment they shared in Woodbridge to the new house again in Asbury in Warren County. He was never seen alive again. On May 5, 2004, the first of three suitcases was recovered from in and around the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia. The other two suitcases you will hear were recovered in the days that followed. The suitcases, it turns out, belonged to the defendant and her husband, the victim. It was their matching luggage. Within the suitcases, within these three suitcases, were the deceased's cut-up body. The first suitcase contained the deceased's legs from the knees down. They were wrapped in plastic trash bags like garbage with yellow ties. The trash bags were also found in the second and third suitcases, but listen when they're described, because in the second and third suitcases, there were larger trash bags, large industrial-type trash bags. And those are important, so you want to listen when you hear about them. These large trash bags from the second and third suitcase, again, that contained the deceased's remains, when compared to trash bags used only weeks later, when the defendant packed Williams' clothing into trash bags to move out of that Woodbridge apartment, they match. You will hear evidence that, when the comparison was done between those trash bags, and there are markings that are similar, that are evident of the production line, when the bags were manufactured. And these markings you will hear indicate that they were manufactured on the same day, within a very, very close proximity of each other, a very, very short time frame. Also, inside one of the suitcases, specifically the second one, was a blanket. And it was a distinctive blanket. It was a medical blanket. And it was labeled HCFC Corporation, which is a linen service that you will hear provides medical linens to many hospitals and medical facilities in New Jersey and Pennsylvania and Maryland. But one of the medical practices that subscribes to HCFC and subscribes to this particular blanket was the practice where defendant worked in Morristown. The evidence will show that the defendant had many of these blankets in her apartment. The 39-year-old husband of the defendant, father of her two children, was shot at least two times, once in the head and once in the chest, by a .38 caliber gun. The evidence will show that on April 26, 2004, only two days before the closing that I just told you about, two days before, the defendant purchased such a gun, of a make and model, absolutely consistent with what killed her husband. But there is so much more. There is so much more that you will see from the evidence of what this defendant did in both the days before William's disappearance and after. And I'm going to review all of this evidence with you in more detail in just a few minutes. But I want to digress for just one moment. As you may have sensed from this short summary, the evidence that you will hear in this case will be almost completely circumstantial. There will be no witness that comes to the witness stand and tells you, I saw her do it. But please make no mistake. This circumstantial evidence will allow you to clearly judge and will lead you directly and absolutely to Melanie McGuire. The evidence that you will hear during this trial will prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that Melanie McGuire participated in killing her husband, participated in cutting him up, and in all of the other charges that she stands accused of. Now, I use the word participated because it is likely that she had help with certain parts of this horrible crime. Under New Jersey law, as Judge DeVisa will instruct you on far more eloquently than I, you will hear that whether she did pull the trigger herself or helped it or commissioned for it to be done, it doesn't matter. She is guilty just the same. And while certain facts may never come to light, because again, murder is not an act that's committed in front of an audience, it will be the evidence, and not the drama, not emotion, not banter between the attorneys or illogical assertions, but the evidence that will lead you and paint a very clear picture of this defendant's guilt. Now, what I want to do is I want to go back to talking about the evidence. I want to review it with you. Now, the case you're going to hear is long, and you're going to hear from many witnesses who are going to give you small little pieces of the puzzle. During the trial, there will be times when you will hear testimony from a witness, and you'll be sitting in your chair thinking, gee, how does this fit in? Why is this important? The evidence, additionally, may not be presented to you in perfect order, and that's due to scheduling issues, but please rest assured, all of the evidence that will be presented to you has meaning and purpose, and when you draw from them the rational, logical, and logical conclusions from them, they will compel you right to the ugly truth in this case, that Melanie McGuire killed her husband, William. At the end of all of the testimony in the case, I'll again be able to speak with you during summations, and I'll explain the significance and help you put together all the facts that you've heard. After summations, Judge DeVisa will explain the law that you must apply to the facts, and then you and the other jurors will go to a room somewhere in this courthouse, and you'll decide the case. So now, I've shared with you a little bit about how William was found. I want to back up now and tell you what was going on before that. As I said, the defendant was having an affair. Please know she is not on trial for having an affair, and whether you approve of such or not, it doesn't make her guilty of murder. The reason you're hearing about the affair is because it does give you insight. It gives us all insight into her feelings for her husband. Words are just words, but please keep your attention focused on her actions, on all of her actions. Actions speak much louder than words, especially in this case. You'll meet the man that she was in love with, Dr. Brad Miller. The affair had started when defendant was pregnant with William's youngest child. It continued after Billy was killed and ended only shortly before the defendant's arrest on this case. You'll learn a bit about the defendant. She worked as a nurse at Reproductive Medical Associates of New Jersey, RMA for short. RMA doctors are reproductive endocrinologists, or fertility specialists. They help people get pregnant. Defendant was known to be a very hardworking nurse. Smart, really good at her job. But enter her rationalizations. The evidence will show that she complained about her husband to friends and to co-workers. She made William, she made Billy out to be the bad guy. Bill McGuire had been in the Navy for several years. He had a short, failed marriage before he married the defendant. He was working at NJIT as a computer technician. On the side, he had a computer consulting business with one of his friends, who you'll meet. And in addition, for extra cash, he worked as a professor. He taught some courses at NJIT as well. Did everyone love him? I'm sure not, because few people are loved by everyone. But he was a regular guy. You'll hear that he loved and adored his two young sons. He enjoyed red wine. He had a good sense of humor. He liked to gamble in Atlantic City. He was a regular guy. Billy had two sisters, Cindy Lagash and Nancy Taylor. And unfortunately, they didn't have the happiest of childhoods. Keep that in mind, because later you're going to hear, during the course of the trial, how the defendant uses that to her advantage. But let's get back to the defendant. In April of 2004, the defendant emails a friend of hers named Jim Finn, complaining about Billy. And through a series of emails that you will see, and phone calls that Jim Finn will tell you about, she starts telling him that she wants to purchase a gun. She wants information about how to purchase a gun, because she knows Jim Finn has an affinity for guns. So she knows he would have that information. Jim Finn will tell you that she wanted the gun for herself. She was alleging that her husband, Billy, had been acting weird, and she was nervous. You'll see the email where Jim Finn asks her, are you safe? Mr. Finn, who has always, since nursing school, had a soft spot for a defendant, willingly complied and explained in phone calls that he will tell you about how easy it is to get a gun in Pennsylvania if you can show proof of Pennsylvania residency. You'll hear that at the time, the defendant had a Pennsylvania driver's license, using her aunt's address. Throughout several dates in April, and around the same time that these conversations are going on with Mr. Finn, searches are being done on the McGuire's home computer. The searches included search phrases such as, how to commit a murder, how to purchase a gun illegally, undetectable poisons, and others that you'll hear about. Now keep these in mind, I'm going to return to them in just a minute. On April 26th, again, two days before the closing, defendant drives over to Palmer Township, which is just outside of Eastern Pennsylvania, where she purchases a gun. You'll meet the gun shop owner, his name is John Kasha, he's the owner of John's gun shop. Mr. Kasha will come in and he'll tell you he remembers that the nurse came in, and he remembered because she was so pretty, and she was well-dressed. You'll see the forms that she filled out, using her real name, but her aunt's address, the address that's now on her Pennsylvania license, and a fake work address. And using that Pennsylvania driver's license as identification, this defendant walked out of that gun shop on April 26th, 2004, two days before the closing, with a Taurus .38 caliber revolver. Now, Taurus is a brand name, just like Smith & Wesson, but that's important, because guns are manufactured in such a way that markings called lands and grooves are left on bullets that are fired through them. Now, let's go back to the gun shop. She also purchased another item, an item for $9.95, and Mr. Kasha will explain to you, there were all but two items, only two items in the gun shop, that sold for $9.95, and they were bullets for a .38 caliber gun. Ultramax brand, he had two types available, either round nose or wad cutter. Incidentally, the bullets that were removed from Billy's dead body, from his remains that were in the suitcases, those bullets had lands and grooves consistent with a handful of manufacturers, but one of those manufacturers is Taurus. The bullets that killed Billy were .38 caliber wad cutter bullets. The gun and the bullets that she purchased that day in John's gun shop is absolutely consistent with what killed this victim. Now, did she go back and did she tell her pal John, "Yeah, I went and I bought a gun?" No, she didn't tell him, not until much later, not until nearly a year later when you'll hear the police were interviewing her family and friends. But then suddenly, the gun wasn't because she was nervous, the gun wasn't because Billy was acting weird. The story changed. And you'll hear that then she claimed she bought the gun for Billy. They had decided they were going to get a gun because they were moving to a rural area and wanted one. Absolutely inconsistent with the discussions and the emails you'll see between she and Jim Finn. But you see, ladies and gentlemen, she had to tell Mr. Finn this excuse because in the months that had passed, she had used the excuse of moving to a rural area and purchasing a gun to explain to others why she purchased the gun. And this is but one example that you will see of excuses that this defendant makes in attempts to explain to her friends and family the very, very incriminating evidence that proves her guilty. You'll see the emails, Jim Finn will tell you about the phone calls, she bought the gun and the bullets. The gun and the bullets are absolutely consistent with what killed him, absolutely consistent with what was recovered from William's body and the markings on them. Now, let's go back to those computer searches, the searches included again, how to commit a murder, murder and suicide, undetectable poisons and more. And with undetectable poisons, there were lots of substances that were searched for, but there's one that's very important in this case, and that's chloral hydrate. Chloral hydrate is a substance that some of you may have heard of, it used to be used in something called a Mickey Finn, in the old movies, she slipped him a Mickey. It's a sedative, it's a sedative that when added to alcohol or even on its own, it has little pharmacological value today, but even on its own, this powerful sedative can make a person pass out. Still a higher dosage can make someone go into a coma, higher still can be lethal. The computer searches show that the searcher from the McGuire's home computer was looking at this on April 26, 2004. The searcher, after reading about chloral hydrate, next went to a Walgreens website. And remember, there's only two adults that are living in that Woodbridge apartment, and that's the defendant and the victim. On April 28th, the morning of the closing, defendant dropped her children off at daycare at Kinder Castle in Metuchen. Approximately 10 minutes after she dropped her children off, there was a prescription brought into the Walgreens that is less than a three-minute drive from that Kinder Castle. The prescription was under the patient named Tiffany Bain. The evidence will show that Tiffany Bain was a patient at RMA, where the defendant could have easily accessed Tiffany Bain's name and address. The prescription was on an RMA prescription pad, signed allegedly by Dr. Brad Miller. However, Dr. Miller says he didn't sign it, and a handwriting expert agrees. Chloral hydrate, according to the head partner at RMA, has no use in reproductive medicine. Tiffany Bain will tell you she has never been to that Walgreens. Now Tiffany Bain did not fill that prescription, but somebody did. You will learn that the defendant had access to RMA prescription pads, and as a nurse there, she had filled out and signed many, many, a prescription for Dr. Miller. So on April 28, 2004, hours after the children are dropped off at daycare and after that prescription for chloral hydrate is filled at that Walgreens, the house closing goes through. Interestingly, the defendant had told Dr. Miller that the closing wasn't going to go through. She didn't think it was going to happen, but in fact it did. There was a last minute problem with an appraisal, the associated stress that goes along with the biggest purchase of your life, but it went through, and the move was set for that weekend, and Billy had arranged for friends to help. Notably, she was speaking to her lover, Dr. Miller, several times throughout the day of the closing, and after she tells him that the closing went through and he expresses his disbelief, she tells him not to worry. "Don't worry, everything's going to be okay." According to what the defendant later told her friends and family, and then what she told the Middlesex County Family Court, and eventually told the Virginia Beach Police, sometime that night, from the 28th into the 29th, she alleges that she and Billy got into a fight. She alleges that Billy got physically violent for the first time and hit the defendant and shoved a dryer sheet, like one of those bounced dryer sheets, into her mouth. Defendant claims she hid in the bathroom with one of her children and could hear her husband rummaging through the apartment, and then he left, saying words to the effect of, "You're going to be the reason that my children don't know their father." That's what she alleges. However, there is no proof, there is no evidence of any kind, that William McGuire ever left that apartment in Woodbridge that night of his own volition. Virginia Beach detectives learned that on the night of the 29th into the 30th, technically it was the 30th, because now it's a little bit after midnight, at about 12:40 a.m. William's car was captured on a security video parking at the Flamingo Hotel in Atlantic City. Now, I want to fast forward, and I'm going to come back to this, I assure you, but I want to fast forward, it's almost a month after William is gone, almost a month later, when the defendant, after hearing through media accounts that the police had had this security video, it was in the paper with the articles that surrounded the deceased being identified, that the police had the security video from the Flamingo. And she admitted to others in her typical fashion of an excuse, that it was her that was on the tape putting William's car at the Flamingo Hotel. Now, just so you have a time reference, Billy's body wasn't identified in Virginia until May 22, 2004. The defendant was officially notified by police that Billy was dead on May 26, 2004, when the case was in the papers in New Jersey. It was then, again, almost a month later, after a month after Bill's disappearance, that she starts making excuses for this very incriminating piece of evidence that she believed existed. She believed there was a video tape at the Flamingo, and she told her friends, "It's me in the video." And I'll get back to that explanation in a minute. But unfortunately, the security video that shows William's car pulling into the Flamingo Motel doesn't show who's driving it. You see the car pulling in. Now, perhaps her friends and family, hearing about it a month later, didn't remember what it was she was doing in those days following Billy's disappearance. Maybe they didn't remember, but you won't, ladies and gentlemen, you won't forget, because the evidence is going to be right in front of you. The evidence will show that on April 29, remember this is allegedly the morning after the fight, the day after the closing, the evidence will show that defendant told friends and family she went to family court to get a restraining order from Billy, but left because the court was too crowded. We can see from her phone records that on the 29th, she started contacting attorneys. And we know that approximately then, she checked into the Red Roof Inn, which is a motel in Metuchen, where you could park your car and go right into your room from the parking lot. There's no hallways, there's no elevators where you're going to run into somebody. So, she told her friends and family at the time that she was staying at the Red Roof Inn because she was afraid of her husband and she wanted to be closer to family court. It was more convenient to be near family court here in Middlesex County than staying with her parents in Barnegat. I'm going to come back to that as well. Several weeks later now, remember the time passage, after William's murder becomes public, she admits that during the overnight of the 29th into the 30th, she went to Atlantic City in her SUV, which is a Nissan Pathfinder, to see where he was. Again, during the daytime of the 29th, she alleged she went to family court but left because it was too crowded. We have a restraining order during the day and now allegedly she's looking for him in Atlantic City at night. And according to her, she didn't know where he was or even if he was in Atlantic City. But she goes down there after midnight looking for him and doesn't find him but just happens, just happens to find his car. In the all of Atlantic City, not knowing where he was, she claims she just happened to find his car. And according to defendant, she decided at that time she would play a college-like joke on him and move his car to where he wouldn't find it. She explained, and this is important, keep this in mind, she found his cell phones in his car and threw them out. But her story gets even better. She says that after moving his car, she forgot where she left hers and she was tired. So she decided to take a cab, a cab from Atlantic City back to the Woodbridge train station. After sleeping on the way, she felt better, so she claimed she took yet another cab from the Woodbridge train station back to Atlantic City. Where allegedly she located her car and drove home. A few interesting facts are going to be presented to you on this. First, although both defendant and Billy had easy pass in their cars and they lived in Woodbridge, right near the Garden State Parkway. There are no easy pass hits for either car going into Atlantic City that night. Second, when you watch the Flamingo Motel security tape, you will see, as did the FBI, an SUV consistent with a Nissan Pathfinder pull up to the parking area of the Flamingo Motel just minutes after we see Billy's car pull in. And we know who's driving Billy's car, we know who's driving because she admits it. To be clear, Billy's car pulls in, a few minutes pass, and another vehicle, an SUV consistent with a Nissan Pathfinder that we know the defendant drives, consistent with a Nissan Pathfinder, pulls up. You see in the tape on that, on that Pathfinder, the brake lights engage, indicating it stopped, and then it continues on. It's a time lapse tape, so it's not continuous. But you will see that it is all consistent with believing that someone went down to Atlantic City with this defendant and brought her back up to Middlesex County after she planted Williams' car at the Flamingo Motel. After putting Billy's car at the Flamingo Motel, she returns to Middlesex County, and later that same day, now we're on April 30th. Remember, she parks the car just after midnight on the 30th. Now, hours later, to the business hours now of the 30th, she's in Middlesex County Family Court getting a restraining order. She's getting a restraining order to protect her from her husband, who clearly, and excuse me, it's just a lot of talking, who clearly must have been dead or incapacitated at the time. You will hear her tell the family court judge the story of the dryer sheet. You will hear and see the paperwork that she filled out where defendant tells the judge, "No one to my knowledge has a gun." And she further says she doesn't know where her husband is when axed. No one to her knowledge has a gun. It was April 30th, four days after she purchased one herself in Palmer Township, Pennsylvania. And she doesn't know where her husband is. Yet, hours before, at just after midnight, she allegedly found his car in Atlantic City. But you don't hear her say, "I know he's in Atlantic City." You won't hear that. She doesn't say that, ladies and gentlemen, because the real reason for being in family court, as the evidence will show the real reason is not to get a restraining order. The real reason is to create a defense. She's looking for people to believe, "I couldn't have killed him because, look, here I am. Here I am getting a restraining order and I'm contacting attorneys to get a divorce." But follow the evidence. Keep your eyes on her actions. April 30th was a Friday. She stays in the Red Roof Inn. She stays in that motel until Sunday, paying for the room with cash. Remember, the excuse for being in the motel is to be closer to court so it would be more convenient. But now it's Saturday and Sunday and the court here in Middlesex County is closed. Her parents live approximately 45 minutes away in Barnegat. And her mother is taking care of the children. Grandma has had the kids throughout these last few days. Yet, instead of staying with her parents, she chooses right after this horrible change of life. Remember what we know she alleges she was going through. Going from a marriage and a new home to a divorce and no home. Allegedly so scared of her husband that she's getting a restraining order. Yet, she chooses to stay at the Red Roof Inn rather than with her parents who you will hear she is extremely close with. She leaves her children with her parents and stays at this motel. And she's not there to hook up with her boyfriend. You will hear that he can't spend that much time with her over that weekend. You see he has house guests. He's on duty that weekend. He's working and he has patients to see. He has a family. He has a wife. And he has children. And he goes home at night. On the morning of May 1, 2004, Dr. Miller, you'll hear, stopped in at the motel very early in the morning on his way to work. They're in contact throughout the weekend. He's worrying about her. But again, he had patients to see and he has those house guests. On May 1, into the early morning hours of May 2, at approximately one o'clock in the morning, there is yet another trip by the defendant to Atlantic City. She doesn't tell Dr. Miller about this trip either. Not for quite some time. However, when she does admit to taking this trip, she tells him she didn't go alone. This trip, she went with Michael Caporero, her stepfather, the man who raised her from when she was a small child. Now, what do we know about this second midnight run to Atlantic City? Well, for one thing, this time, there's an easy pass hit on the Atlantic City Expressway. However, in June, when the defendant receives her easy pass bill, you will hear that she calls easy pass customer service. And she protests this 35 cent charge, telling customer service, "I wasn't there." Customer service says, "The toll stays." And you'll hear that sometime after that, knowing now that it's on her easy pass bill, now come the excuses again. She went down to Atlantic City with her stepfather to see where Billy is. An excuse. An excuse again for incriminating evidence of her guilt. But the key to these trips to Atlantic City may lie in what was found in Billy's car. Billy's Blackberry and work computer were in the trunk. There was a small vial of chloral hydrate in the glove compartment. Pamphlets for Atlantic City and Virginia were on the front seat. But by far, the most significant evidence that was recovered from the car was recovered from the vacuumings of the driver's side rug in the front and of the passenger side rug in the front. You see, vacuumings pick up dirt in the rug and whatever may have been transferred there from the bottom of the shoes of persons using the car. We know who last used the car. The defendant. In those vacuumings, our New Jersey State Police Lab found tiny pieces of human tissue. DNA tells us that these tiny pieces of flesh were once part of William McGuire. You'll hear from a Virginia medical examiner, Dr. Wendy Gunther, who will tell you about her examination of William's remains. William's legs were cut off at the knees. William's torso was cut from his pelvic area below his ribs but above his hips. From the knees down were in the first suitcase. From the waist up in one continuous piece was his torso in the second suitcase. And his pelvic area and thighs, clothed only in underwear, in men's briefs, were in the last suitcase that was recovered. Please listen when these suitcases are described for you and listen for the amount of blood recovered in the suitcases because we're going to discuss that on summation. You'll hear from Dr. Steve Sims. Dr. Sims is a tool mark expert specializing in tool marks on bone. He will tell you that in his opinion at least two instruments were used to cut up William McGuire. First a sharp instrument like a knife and second a saw, probably a reciprocating saw through the bone. The evidence of the flesh in the car tells you what was on the bottom of the shoes of someone in that car, whose shoes were in contact with William's cut up body and more likely with the floor of the room that William's body was cut up in. And as we've discussed by her own admission, it is this defendant that was last in William's car. On May 4th, the evidence will show that in the morning hours, around 9 a.m., defendant places herself in Delaware, on the Delaware side of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, claiming she was furniture shopping. Yes, according to her, she was furniture shopping. Her husband allegedly just left her. Her lease is up on the apartment because remember they were due to move to go into the new house. She's staying now with her parents. But according to her, she's furniture shopping. And once again, this wasn't told to Dr. Miller at the time that she did it. It was long after. An excuse to be in Delaware because perhaps she feared a picture from the toll or a picture from the bridge, but there is none. We just have defendant's admission in Delaware, furniture shopping on the morning of May 4th. Now, the evidence will show, if you don't remember it from geography class, that Delaware is between New Jersey and Virginia, where the Chesapeake Bay is and where Billy's body was recovered. Furniture shopping in Delaware on the 4th. The first suitcase is recovered on the 5th. The defendant never moved into the Warren County home that they purchased. She sold it. And after staying for a while with her parents, she moved into an apartment. In preparing to move out of the apartment that she had shared with her husband, only a few weeks after the disappearance, because remember the lease is up, they're planning to move, she packs his belongings, William's clothing, in these large industrial type trash bags. She packed them before she was officially notified that the deceased was dead by police. She finds out, officially, officially finds out, I should say, that he's dead just before Memorial Day and the move is Memorial Day weekend. On moving day, she has friends do the move, she doesn't attend, but one of those friends is a gentleman named Justin Marrero. Justin Marrero is the cousin of one of defendant's best friends, Celine Trevisas. Justin assisted with the move, and seeing the bags of clothing that were just going to be thrown out, he took them home with him. You will hear that detectives went and interviewed Justin Marrero, and they recovered the trash bags that she packed William's clothing in. And those are the trash bags that, when compared to the large trash bags in the second and third suitcase, those are the trash bags that match in markings. And you will hear a lot about the markings and how trash bags are made. Only one other bag, let me back up for a minute. There were other bags recovered during searches that I'll tell you about in a minute. There were many other trash bags that were recovered in the defendant's home, in the home of her parents. Yet there was only one other bag that was found that matched in markings both the bags used to hold Billie's cut-up body and those that the defendant used to pack William's clothing in. And that one other bag was found in Michael Caparero's garage, in her parents' garage. And remember, the defendant had lived with her parents for a period of time after moving out of that Woodbridge apartment. But there is more. I want to digress and talk to you about some of the evidence specifically. This case was originally investigated by Virginia Beach Police Department. Months later, the investigation was transferred up here to New Jersey, where it's been investigated by the New Jersey State Police Major Crime Unit and the Division of Criminal Justice. You'll hear that detectives, using what they knew at the time, some of what I've described, but certainly not all, they went to a judge and they got permission to tap her phones and her parents' phones. You will hear some of those calls. Now, much of what you hear will be portions rather than the whole call. These edits were done with the court's guidance. And you will hear the defendant herself talk about much of what I've just described. Other witnesses will testify as to what the defendant told them, and certainly others will tell you what they heard, saw, or smelled. But again, no one will say they saw her do it. And you will hear calls. When you hear these portions of calls, much as you would expect, you will hear the defendant vehemently denying any involvement. Again, ladies and gentlemen, look past her words and look at her actions, look past the excuses. The search warrants of her home, the defendant's home, and her parents' home were executed on the day she was arrested, and you'll hear about these as well. You see, on the wire and through witnesses, law enforcement was repeatedly hearing that the defendant said she had put a locked lockbox into her rented storage area. And although she claimed she couldn't open it, she told people she believed it contained the gun she purchased. She said that her attorney told her just put it in the security area and leave it there and don't touch it. That changed, though, later in the investigation when Dr. Miller permitted law enforcement to consensually record his phone call with the defendant. She told Dr. Miller that she didn't know where the gun was and claimed she checked the lockbox she had previously told him about and found it only had batteries in it. Let's go back now to the search of that rented storage compartment. The detectives, when they searched it, they found the storage compartment and the lockbox, and it was locked. After it was opened by a locksmith, it did indeed contain only a box of batteries. Importantly, the detectives also found Bill's wallet in the storage area. Inside his wallet, the trifold wallet was his original Social Security card, his health insurance card, and a variety of business cards that you will hear he only obtained in the months immediately preceding his death. We've talked now about the big items of evidence, the evidence from Virginia, including William's remains, the suitcases, the blankets, the trash bags, the bullets, but there's more you'll hear about as the trial continues. You'll hear from experts in trace evidence, and during summation, we'll talk about what all the trace evidence means. You'll learn that all evidence that is processed through the New Jersey State Police Forensic Center enters the laboratory through the criminalistics department, where a criminalist, in this case it's Tom Lesniak, initially examines the evidence and then sends it to a variety of places within the laboratory. Among the items he examined was a piece of tape used to close the garbage bags, used to seal them within the suitcases. Tiny hairs were recovered from a piece of tape, and these hairs were cut on both ends, small little pieces of hair, consistent with razor stubble or shavings. You will hear that one of those pieces of hair, well let me back up for a minute, mitochondrial DNA testing was done, and you'll hear about, and you'll learn about mitochondrial DNA, which is a special type of DNA test that's used on degraded samples, bones, teeth, but it's especially good for testing hairs. You'll hear that mitochondrial DNA showed that these tiny little pieces of hair, again cut on both ends, consistent with razor stubble, one was consistent with the defendant, and one was consistent with the victim. At the end of the case, during summations, we're going to talk about the significance of that discovery and what it tells us about where Billy's remains were put into those garbage bags. We've covered Virginia now, we've discussed her actions the day before and right after he disappeared. Now I want to shift and talk about long after William was gone, I want to talk to you about law enforcement, what law enforcement received after the defendant was arrested. The evidence will show that after defendant's arrest, she made several desperate attempts to misdirect this investigation and shift the focus away from her. On approximately August 31st, 2005, Brad Miller received a letter at his office. It was a copy of a letter to then Attorney General Peter Harvey that we will call the Peter Harvey letter. You'll see and read the Peter Harvey letter, which was written by a person, allegedly, who speaks very much like a tough-talking mobster. This mobster, however, very sensitive mobster, was very concerned that these kids may lose a mother. So he felt compelled, compelled to tell law enforcement in four pages of single-spaced typed written text why he knows defendant didn't do it. This mobster was very interested in the defendant. We know that because he talks about her in almost every paragraph. And he instructs law enforcement that we shouldn't care that Billie was inside her luggage. We shouldn't care that she bought a gun. We shouldn't care that the trash bags match. And we shouldn't care because he was there when the victim was killed and she didn't do it. The letter was received by her lover, by her attorney, by the Trentonian, and by the defendant herself. You will hear more evidence during the trial about these letters and will quickly see that the evidence supports that this defendant is behind the letters in an attempt to hinder and mislead law enforcement. You'll hear about other anonymous communications as well. One of them left on Cindy Lagosh's, and remember that's Billie's sister, the deceased sister. One of them left on her property. You'll hear about calls to the local police where Cindy Lagosh lived, where she was caring for her brother's children. And you will see that with only one exception, all of the anonymous communications received in this case fit a similar pattern. I'm not going to spend time on them now. However, I do want to speak to you about one significant communication, one significant anonymous communication. The evidence will show it was the last one received and the evidence will show that it was addressed to me. On October 11, 2005, the grand jury was due to conclude consideration of this case and vote. Detective David Dalrymple from the New Jersey State Police Major Crimes Unit was on the stand, and concluding his testimony when the presentation was interrupted. The evidence will show that my assistant, while I was inside the grand jury, had opened a Federal Express package addressed to me, and it contained a letter, a list, and some pieces of evidence. The full picture of this evidence will show you that this package was actually from the defendant, and that this FedEx package was nothing short of a desperate attempt by a guilty woman to mislead and misdirect this prosecution in a poor, poor attempt to save herself. Inside the FedEx package was a letter. Inside the FedEx package was a letter addressed, "Dear Madam Assistant Attorney General, keep that phrase in mind during the course of the trial, because this won't be the only time you hear it." "Dear Madam Assistant Attorney General," allegedly, this letter was sent by a work colleague of Cindy Lagash, who was at the time working as a realtor at Weikert Realty. The evidence will show that the sender claimed to have been going through the trash at the real estate office, going through the trash at Weikert, looking for a file in the trash, when he or she happened upon the other contents of the FedEx package. Inside the package was a handwritten list entitled "Set Her Up," and literally it has the word "Set Her Up" across the top. Listing in what is supposed to be Cindy Lagash's, again the deceased's sister, in Cindy Lagash's handwriting, her plan to set up the defendant for the murder of Bill. Also included in the package was a ring that very well may be the deceased's wedding ring, a man's bracelet, an empty box of Ultramax bullets, a key that fits Williams' Nissan Maxima that was parked at the motel, and a key that opens the lockbox that the detectives recovered from defendant's rented storage area. Lastly, in the FedEx box was an assortment of prescription drugs, pills, and those pills are what comprise the drug charges in the case. You'll hear other important facts about the FedEx package. Firstly, the return address on the package was incorrect. It said Weikert Realty, Franklin Road, Franklin Lakes, rather than the correct address on Franklin Avenue. Now in Franklin Lakes, Franklin Road, and Franklin Avenue are two entirely separate streets, and any person working as a realtor for Weikert would know the difference. Secondly, the postage was paid for with an American Express gift card. Now many of you probably know that Federal Express postage can be paid for with a credit card. You can put the credit card number in on the shipping label. The sender of this chose to use an American Express gift card. That gift card was purchased at a Rite Aid pharmacy in Passaic County, and we know exactly when and what time, what day and what time it was purchased because Rite Aid has to activate the card. So the sender used this card to pay for the $8 worth of postage, and it's a $50 card. So the remaining $42 on the American Express gift card remains unspent to this day. Detectives went to that Rite Aid, and they got the security tape that shows the parking area in front of the strip mall where the Rite Aid is attached. You will see the relevant portion of that security tape, and you will decide for yourself its significance. Lastly, the evidence will show that detectives interviewed the staff at Weikert, and no one who works there has any knowledge of this package. The evidence will show that this defendant very much wants Billy's sisters, especially Cindy Lagash, to look very bad. And who better than someone who is related to you? Someone who knows all the distasteful things you've done and said to make you look bad. You will hear evidence that the defendant kept something written by Cindy, and that this writing sample, if you will, provided the defendant with the means to create that set-her-up list, allegedly written by Cindy, that wasn't inside the Federal Express package. Cindy Lagash had no reason to kill her brother. Did they get along all the time? Of course not. They were brother and sister, but they were very close. The evidence will show that this Federal Express package was nothing short of a poor and transparent attempt to shift the focus of the investigation, this time to Cindy Lagash. But you will see, and the evidence will show, that the contents of that package actually prove defendant's own guilt. They support defendant's guilt. You'll hear from a handwriting expert from the FBI, who will explain to you that when someone is trying to disguise their writing, it's very difficult to tell who wrote it, and the results you hear about will be inconclusive. But just the same, you'll hear about the comparison, and you'll hear about what the expert found. You'll also hear from a forensic linguist, who will compare for you the similarities of these letters and defendant's own writing style. When you look at the letters themselves, and you hear all the evidence regarding them, you will see clearly that they came from defendant, perhaps with the assistance of others, but from defendant just the same. I'd like now, very briefly, just to run through the charges in this case that you'll be considering. Defendant is charged with murdering her husband, purposely causing her death, participating in that murder on, about, or between April 28, 2004, and May 5, 2004. As the judge will tell you during his charge, it doesn't matter whether she's the one who pulled the trigger or not, she participated in it, she is guilty. You won't hear a specific date or time that William took his last breath, nor do you need one. He was alive on April 28, he was dead on May 5, when that first suitcase washed up in Virginia. She's charged with possessing a gun with the intent to use it unlawfully between on or about April 26, 2004, again that's the day she purchased the gun, and May 5, 2004, the day the first suitcase showed up. The gun to this day has never been recovered, nor do you need it. You have the bullets from Billy's dead body, you have the information from the gun shop. She's charged with desecrating or cutting up William's remains, and again, like with the murder, whether it's she that used the knife herself or someone else did it and she helped, she was an accomplice, and Judge DeVisa will explain to you what that means, it makes no difference. She's charged with perjury, committed on April 30, 2004, when she went into family court for that restraining order, claiming that she had a fight with Bill and he left on his own volition. She's charged with two counts of hindering prosecution, one for the Peter Harvey letter, the second for the FedEx package, both of which were designed to hinder and mislead this prosecution. Finally, she's charged with tampering or fabricating evidence, false reports to law enforcement, and three counts of drug possession. All of those charges pertain to the contents of the Federal Express package. Now, there will be many witnesses who will be coming before you to give small pieces of what I've just described. And further, please know that I did not cover every detail during this opening. Please consider this opening an overview of the case. As we discussed at the end of the trial, I will speak with you again and explain how all of these pieces fit together and lead you to one and only one inescapable conclusion and that's that this defendant committed each and every crime that she is charged with. And at that time, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to ask you to convince Melanie McGuire of murder and each and every charge that she's accused of. Thank you. [00:55:08] Speaker 1: All right, members of the jury, at this time, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Terrano, who will be making the opening statement for the defense. Mr. Terrano. [00:55:19] Speaker 3: Ladies and gentlemen, opening statements are a series of promises. And you should hold, Ms. Prezioso, to all of those promises. Because, ladies and gentlemen, at the end of the day, this is not like a political process where people sit up and they make promises and then you get to -- after -- you vote for them prior to that, they actually make their promises. And only then you see whether they actually fulfilled your trust. This is different. In this case, ladies and gentlemen, you don't -- you get to vote your actually verdict in this case after you can see if Ms. Prezioso fulfilled each and every one of her promises, the promises she made in an opening statement. And you're going to see, ladies and gentlemen, that she's not going to be able to do that because the evidence that she presents, the evidence that she talked about is going to come from here. It's not going to come from the witness stand. She's going to ask you to enter into speculation upon speculation upon speculation. You heard her talk to you about, and I'll talk about it during summation. We'll talk about that during summation. She's going to ask you to engage in rank speculation, conjecture, guesswork. And that's something you cannot do, ladies and gentlemen. Now, my statements today are going to start and essentially conclude with the basic premise that Ms. McGuire is innocent. Ms. McGuire did not murder her husband, William McGuire. She didn't dismember her husband, and she doesn't know who did. And you'll see Ms. McGuire right there. Take a good look. She's obviously nervous. We're all nervous. And over the next few weeks, we'll have opportunity to talk to you more and more about how this evidence and how the case is going to be presented. But I want to talk to you a little bit about some of the things that we did prior to you coming here today. Remember, about a month ago, you filled out a rather lengthy questionnaire. Just last week, you were asked questions by Judge DeVisa. You were asked questions by the lawyers. And some of those questions you probably found intrusive. I apologize for that. But the purpose of those questions was to see if you could be selected as jurors. Jurors who could decide this case fairly and impartially. And you all said that you could. And we believe that you could. And you took that oath. You made that promise. Whether you can decide this case without any preconceived notions or bias. And you said that you could. And importantly, you also said that you could keep an open mind. And I don't mean just today for my statements. I don't mean the next week. I mean throughout the trial, keeping an open mind. Because the way this works, the way this process works, ladies and gentlemen, is Ms. Prezioso and the state, they put on their case. Because it's their case. It's their burden. And we only put on our case through cross-examination and if and when we choose to put on our case later. And sometimes the things that solidify the case for you, the things that make the most sense, don't come at the beginning. They're not scripted. They come later on. And you have to keep an open mind. And you said that you could do that. You also said, ladies and gentlemen, that you could decide this case, that you can hold the state to its burden. Its burden of proving each and every element of all the counts beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, beyond a reasonable doubt, it's a term we all have heard, we've heard often. And it's not a legal technicality. It's also the very basic tenant of our legal system. It's what makes this system the most venerable system on earth. It's what makes this system the most respected legal system on earth. And plain and simple, plain and simple, ladies and gentlemen. And His Honor talked about how you are the judges of the facts and that he is going to be the judge of the law. And Judge DeVisa will explain to you, he'll explain, he'll give you instructions as to the law you're supposed to follow at the end of the case. But plain and simple, ladies and gentlemen, reasonable doubt is that doubt that would cause you to hesitate in making the most important decisions in your life and the life of your loved ones. That's what it is. And make no mistake about it, ladies and gentlemen, in the next few weeks, you're going to be asked to make one of the most important decisions, certainly the most important decision in Ms. McGuire's life, in the life of her loved ones, her children, and her family. And while we certainly have the privilege of representing Ms. McGuire and coming to know her for the last year and a half, certainly has an awesome responsibility and an awesome burden. Not unlike your responsibility and the burden that's going to be thrust upon you in the next few weeks. Now, you heard -- and I'm going to spend a little time on it. I submit not as much as Ms. Prezioso spent on it. You heard Ms. Prezioso talking about circumstantial evidence over and over again and how her case is almost completely circumstantial is what she said. I took that down. It's almost completely circumstantial. But the problem with this case, ladies and gentlemen, the problem with that assertion is that this circumstantial evidence that she talks about, again, is not going to be coming from here. It's going to require you to engage in speculation. She's going to ask you to connect dots that you cannot connect. And we'll talk about that and we'll see how this goes on as the case progresses. So you must evaluate the quality, the quality of the evidence, the quality of the circumstantial evidence she talks about. Now, one of the things that Ms. Prezioso talks about -- she talked about a number of facts, a number of pieces of evidence that she wants you to put together. And certainly the purpose of opening is not to respond to it for tat and be able to come up or explain each and every piece of evidence that Ms. Prezioso puts forth. That's going to be something that's going to be played out that's going to come through the evidence, through the witnesses. Certainly the lack of evidence that's presented. That's going to be played out here in the courtroom. But I'm going to attempt to do some of that. Now, again, this is not evidence -- this is not evidence that you can touch, that you can feel, that you can embrace, that you can put your arms around. This is amorphous. This is things that she's going to ask you, again, to speculate and engage in rank conjecture. Now, like I said, this case is about as much as about what there is as what there isn't. This is a case that -- make no mistake about it -- not for lack of trying, not for a lack of resources. This was a three-year investigation. [01:02:43] Speaker ?: Okay? [01:02:44] Speaker 3: There's going to be a great many documents coming in, great many witnesses. So not for lack of trying. But you heard Ms. Prezioso say herself, she's not sure if she's ever going to be able to prove who actually killed Mr. McGuire, the manner in which he was killed, where he was killed, the time he was killed, how he was dismembered. And Ms. McGuire's role in the offense. Now, one of the things that Ms. Prezioso stated during her opening, and it struck me, is she talked about how he was charged -- or I'm sorry, how Ms. McGuire was charged as an accomplice, under the accomplice liability. And it doesn't matter how you find her guilty. It doesn't matter. Maybe in terms of the instructions, but it's certainly something you should consider. Of course it matters. This is -- again, this isn't something that was thrown together. This is a three-year investigation. And for the very first time today, she talks about maybe there was a commission -- someone was commissioned to participate. Well, ladies and gentlemen, don't you think they should know that? Don't you think they should have investigated that? Commissioned. [01:03:57] Speaker ?: There's not going to be any evidence of that. [01:03:58] Speaker 3: That's, again, rank speculation, conjecture. There's not going to be any evidence of money coming out of funds, secret meetings with people. That's just conjecture. And we'll talk a little bit about why that comes about. There's also not going to be any eyewitnesses. There's not going to be anyone that said they saw Ms. McGuire do the shooting. There's not going to be anyone that says they saw anyone participate in the dismemberment. There's not going to be anyone that's going to come in and say how they talked about how they saw movement and conduct. Disposing of the bodies. Disposing of a murder weapon. There's not even a murder weapon. Three-year investigation. There's none of that. Of course they're going to resort back to, we don't have to prove that. That's their position. They have nothing else. There's not a confession. That may not seem significant. That may not seem significant. And I'm going to talk a little bit about that. But when you put it in the context of Ms. McGuire, sorry, Ms. Prezioso talked about these taped conversations. These were secretly recorded conversations. And she talked about how some of the edits were done with the court. Don't make any inference about who, how, why, and why these edits were done or how they were done. But the fact of the matter is there were hundreds of hours of taped conversations. And there's not a single time when Ms. McGuire, when Melanie admits to anything. Talking with loved ones. Talking when her, presumably her guard is down. People that she trusted and respected. And there's not a single time on any of those recordings where she ever talks about her role or being involved. In fact, not only does she, is there not any quote unquote confession. She repeatedly, repeatedly denies involvement in this crime. Now, one of the things I want to point out, and again, as the trial progresses, this is what you're going to see. For every piece of circumstantial evidence that Ms. Prezioso talks about, for every point that she intends to talk about, and that she did talk about, there's going to be a powerful response. A response that I would submit is more indicative of innocence than guilt. And that's why I tell you it's important to keep an open mind. Now, another thought, another issue that I want to present. This was more of a prosecution than an investigation. And by that I mean, from the very beginning, again, I talked about a three year investigation. But from the very beginning, the prosecution of the state presumed Ms. McGuire was guilty. And you could do that in certain walks of life. You can't do it in an investigation. Because you know why? It leads to a bad investigation. It leads to an incomplete investigation. It leads to injustice, or the potential. Now, every time, ladies and gentlemen, every time, hard evidence, not this amorphous evidence, but hard evidence. Every time hard evidence pointed to Ms. McGuire's innocence, to Melanie's innocence, you see one of three things happening. Number one, they turned a blind's eye to it. It wasn't significant. And we'll talk a little bit about that. They turned a blind's eye to it. Number two, they would just switch their theories. You heard that today. You heard that today with Ms. Prezioso's opening. She talked about how William McGuire never left the apartment of Woodbridge alive. He took his last breath. And then she backed up towards the end of the opening. Well, we don't have to prove that. We may not know what happened. It's that flip-flopping. It's that switching midstream. It's a moving target. Well, we're going to -- we're going to hold them still and see if we can address these issues. Number three, and this is, I think, probably the weakest of all, the easiest of all, the sloppiest of all. Every time there was a significant piece of evidence, direct or circumstantial, that pointed to Ms. McGuire's innocence, what did they do? They just chalked it up to her being cunning, her being smart, her being able to concoct this great story. Okay, well, we'll talk about that because they go both ways again on that. You can't have it both ways. She can't be stealth-like and cunning in one instance and downright stupid in another. Which way do you want it? And we'll talk a little bit about that. Now, again, this case is also, like it or not, this case is as much about character as anything else. It's about William McGuire's character, Billy's character, as Ms. Prezioso calls them. It's about Melanie's character, and we embrace that challenge. We accept that challenge, that contest, because the state is going to want to present a less-than-complete picture of William McGuire. A less-than-complete picture of William McGuire, a regular guy. You're going to see, how do they know that? They never did anything to bother to see what type of individual Mr. McGuire was. Three-year investigation, and they don't even bother. Again, they started with the conception, the presumption of guilt, and they never followed leads. For instance, you're going to hear how in the weeks, days leading up to this incident, to William McGuire's murder, how he was becoming, he was unraveling. He was, he was starting to become more violent, more assertive. He was having trouble sleeping. You're also going to hear how he wanted to purchase a gun. He wanted to purchase a gun. For a number of reasons. The reason that he put forth is because he was moving to a rural part of New Jersey, and he wanted to purchase a gun. You're not going to hear that from Ms. McGuire, from Melanie. You're going to hear that being corroborated by other people, a co-worker of Mr. McGuire's. You're also going to hear how Mr. McGuire is someone who took frequent trips to Atlantic City. Is that problematic? No, not in and of itself. But when you couple it with trips close to the time of the closing on the house, obviously close to the time of his murder, and when you couple it with trips where he attended with unknown people, certainly not Ms. McGuire, it becomes interesting. Should you have investigated? We're not going to hear anything about the efforts that the investigators, the state police, undertook to try to see some of the things, some of the conduct, some of the activities that Mr. McGuire partook in leading up to his days and weeks before his death. You're also going to hear evidence. Ms. Preziosos said he was a regular guy. He liked to go to Atlantic City. You're going to hear evidence that he's a little bit more than just a regular guy who liked to go to Atlantic City. You're going to hear evidence that he was a gambler. And I know everything is relative, ladies and gentlemen, but he was a big gambler. And he was a big gambler because he gambled beyond his means, beyond what you would expect someone who made what he made. But yet you're not going to see a single piece, or at least in the months and certainly year leading up to the closing on the house, you're not going to see any funds coming out of his account. No efforts to determine where he was getting his funding. Certainly we know, ladies and gentlemen, as much as we like to think, you don't always win. You lose a lot more than you win. And what we can show is that he played a lot. And the more you play, the law of averages show, the more you play, the more you're going to lose. There's not going to be any evidence to suggest or show where this money was coming from. Whether he got the money on the street, whether he was in debt, whether he was behind on payments. Because he certainly wasn't taking it from a bank account. You know what, ladies and gentlemen? When you have money out on the street and you're behind and you're not making payments, you know what happens? You get shot here and you get shot here. Now, most importantly, ladies and gentlemen, I submit, you're going to hear how Mr. McGuire was emotionally and verbally abusive to Melanie McGuire. You're going to hear that. You're not going to hear that just from the complaints. You're going to hear that from witnesses. That through the course of their marriage, he was emotionally and verbally abusive. That he engaged in abusive and erratic behavior. And it's not going to be just from words of Melanie McGuire or family members or friends. It's going to be substantiated by his ex-wife. They're not going to call his ex-wife. We're going to call her. And ask yourself why. Now, Ms. Prezioso, I don't want to mischaracterize this, but almost mocked the notion. The allegations in the complaint, in the criminal, in the divorce complaint rather. Almost mocked the allegations of abuse. These allegations that are going to be substantiated. And you know what, ladies and gentlemen, no one knows what goes on behind closed doors. But that's offensive. It's offensive to mock these allegations, especially when they're corroborated. Especially when they're corroborated. And this is very, very important, ladies and gentlemen. And I'm going to talk a little bit about why this is so important. Again, characters in this case, not put in by me. It's put in by the state. It's put in by the prosecution. They injected it. They never bothered also to determine whether Mr. McGuire had any enemies. A three-year investigation. There was no detailed investigation. You're going to see the lack of that. Ladies and gentlemen, what you're also going to hear -- three-year investigation. Keep that in mind. You're going to hear that within the last few weeks, the last few weeks of this trial -- I don't mean the last few weeks of Mr. McGuire's death -- but the last few weeks, the state, essentially for the very first time called Atlantic City, a jurisdiction that's very much involved in the details of this are certainly very much involved in this -- the incidents that occurred. Certainly the territory, Atlantic City. A lot of things happened there. And for the very first time, they called law enforcement in Atlantic City and asked, "Is there any connection, by the way, to this homicide with another unsolved homicide?" They asked that for the very first time several weeks ago. That should send chills up and down your spine, ladies and gentlemen. Three years investigation, and two weeks ago we get around to picking up the phone. And can you imagine what that conversation was? How thorough that conversation was? No? Okay. [01:15:42] Speaker ?: Thanks. [01:15:43] Speaker 3: Bye. We expect more. We should get more. Now, there's also some talk about this Flamingo Hotel. How -- and I'll talk a little bit about that or more about that in a moment -- but how Ms. McGuire moved her vehicle -- moved -- I'm sorry -- William McGuire's vehicle to the Flamingo Hotel Hotel on 4:30 and how it was captured on tape. And by the way, Ms. McGuire doesn't say that's me on the video. What she does is -- what she says is a little different than that. She tells her friends and loved ones that she moved the car. Nothing to do about a video. That she moved the car. But what I want to ask you to think about when you think about this video, and you think about some of the other visits that the state is going to allege took place -- for instance, May 2nd, maybe May 18th -- other visits to Atlantic City by Ms. McGuire. And presumably other visits to the Flamingo Hotel. Why is it there are no other -- no other tapes? Why don't we have a tape of May 2nd? Why don't we have a tape of May 18th? See why? Well, certainly I want to know why. Now, I talked to you about character. I talked to you about the incomplete picture that they're going to present of William McGuire. I want to talk to you a little bit about the inaccurate portrayal of Melanie. Now, ladies and gentlemen, the other one is Michelle and Ms. Prezioso agreed that she's a hardworking person. She worked her way through college. She finished very high, 2nd in her class in nursing school. And she spent her entire adult career as a nurse working in the fertility field. Spent much of that time at the RMA. Ms. Prezioso spoke to you about that. And this is a woman who, as Ms. Prezioso said, was lauded by her patients. Was respected by her patients. Was revered because of her dedication and her loyalty. This is a woman, ladies and gentlemen, who spent her life nurturing life. Helping to bring life as a fertility nurse. Not taking it. And this is a woman, ladies and gentlemen, who, with every fiber of her being, loved her children. Jack and JT loved her children. And I'm going to tell you one thing, ladies and gentlemen. There's not a chance that she would have done what she's accused of doing. And there's not a chance that she would have done it with the children present in the home. And that's what's alleged. There's not a chance she would have done that. Now, don't get me wrong. None of us are perfect. Ms. McGuire, Melanie wasn't perfect. You're going to hear, you heard about extra metal affairs. About extra metal affairs. You heard that about a week ago. Questions were being asked. And this was absolutely a failing marriage. There's no hiding that. There's no mistaking that. But you're also going to hear about, this was a marriage permeated with extra metal affairs. Not just Ms. McGuire. William McGuire. He was having extra metal affairs. Hopefully, they'll tell you that. Hopefully, they'll get around to that. If not, we will. Now, this is important. It's not, ladies and gentlemen, this is a tragedy. Absolutely a tragedy. Mr. McGuire lost his life. He was brutally murdered. And Melanie stands falsely accused. Don't get me wrong. This is important. This character that we're talking about is important. Because it's injected into the case. They will try to depict Ms. McGuire as someone who did not mourn her husband. appropriately. Whatever that means. Well, the character, the state of the marriage, the abusive tendencies, that plays into it. That explains some of the reactions. But the fact of the matter is, ladies and gentlemen, you're going to hear evidence. You're going to hear evidence how Ms. McGuire did mourn. How when she found out about her husband's death. How her mother rocked her in her arms for hours, telling her it would be okay. How she mourned the loss of her children's father. And how that was very important. That was very important to her. You're going to hear that. How she mourned the loss of her father. Because her children, Jack and JT, needed her father, their father. Words and all. And you're also going to hear on these taped conversations, at least the state will suggest, that she was callous in his death. And we talked about it, and I'll talk a little bit more about these conversations. I'll talk about the wire tap conversations and the consensuals. But how she was callous in his death. Again, the character puts that into context. And let me tell you what else puts it into context. These conversations took place between Ms. McGuire and friends and loved ones. People that she trusted. People that knew the state of the marriage before Mr. McGuire's death. And people that knew about the allegations of the abuse. They knew the abuse. They knew the insensitivity towards the children and their special needs. The refusal to get them the assistance they needed. Because these are children with some learning disabilities. Children displaying signs of autism. They knew all about that. So of course there's animosity. Of course there's a degree of callousness. Especially, ladies and gentlemen, when you learn that these conversations take place in and around the time. That the state themselves try to throw out feelers to let Ms. McGuire. To let Melanie know that she is the only, the sole target of an investigation. So of course there's some animosity. Of course there's callousness. Of course there's going to be frustration. Now, you heard me refer to these tapes several times. And again, Ms. Prezioso talked to you about how a lot of these tapes were obtained through legal wiretaps. Orders signed by the judge to allow law enforcement to listen in on conversations between Ms. McGuire and friends and loved ones. And you're also going to hear about other tapes. Consensual tapes that were, that were done by Brad Miller. Where he agreed to wear a wire or agreed to have his conversations, his phone conversations recorded. And you're going to hear how James Finn also did that in mid April, maybe April 2005. So almost two years ago. Now, what's important about, especially the consensuals, especially the consensuals, is you have a secured line. And we know that, or at least what I'm suggesting is that Melanie thought that she was on a secured line. Because there's some talk about it. I'll call you on this line or I'll call you back on that line. And she's being taped, unbeknownst to her, by people very close to her. Brad Miller, one of the closest people to her on this earth at the time. James Finn, a friend, a very close friend. And Brad Miller, the same Brad Miller that she had an affair with, that she was involved in a relationship with, a significant relationship. And they taped her when she was most vulnerable. When she was under investigation. When she was afraid. When she was concerned. Concerned, obviously, about a false investigation. An investigation that wasn't pursuing other leads. And more importantly, these same individuals were coached by the state. By investigators. And by that I mean they were told what to say, presumably, to elicit information. They were coaxing her. They were trying to trick Ms. McGuire. They were trying to get her to say incriminating things. And ladies and gentlemen, when you tape, in law enforcement, when you tape, you tape to kill in court. Because you want the button to be pushed and you want evidence to be incriminating. You want confessions. You want incriminating evidence. You want smoking gun evidence of guilt. The thing that you hang your case on. I submit, they regret that they ever did this. Because you're not getting any of that. But what you'll get, ladies and gentlemen, is you get the fallback position. Of course she knew. This was all orchestrated. Of course they knew. Then why were they listening for hours and hours and hours? And why are they introducing him? You can't have it both ways. And in those conversations, ladies and gentlemen, over and over again, she professes her innocence. To people that she loved, people her confidant, Brad Miller, her closest confidant. She professes her innocence. Not once, but over and over again. Now, I'm going to talk to you a little bit about the events of April 28th. And how the life, certainly, of William McGuire and the life that Melanie knew came to a screeching halt. Now, this couple did close on a house on April 28th. And as the evening progressed late into the evening hours, certainly the early morning hours of April 30th, the couple got into a fight. Not uncommon. And the fight started out like many fights, except this time it was about the closing and perhaps settling on a house or being discontent. And the fight escalated, not unlike other fights. But this time something different happened. This time, for the first time, William McGuire got physical. You'll hear how he shoved Ms. McGuire against a wall. You'll hear how he stuffed a dryer sheet in her mouth. And you'll hear, ladies and gentlemen, how he did that in front of his four-year-old child, Jack. And you'll hear how Ms. McGuire went into the bathroom, blocked the door with her child, waited for it to blow over, waited for him to leave. He went around the house, collected some items. And in fact, he did leave, ladies and gentlemen. He left that house. And that was the last time Melanie saw William McGuire ever again. And that's April 28th. Now, having witnessed bizarre and escalating behavior over the last few weeks leading up to his death. And certainly having, for the first time, had this confrontation become physical. And ask yourself, why would she say, if she was trying to build a case, why would she say that he wasn't physical? That he was abusive, emotionally abusive, but wasn't physical to her or the children, if it wasn't the truth? She didn't look to gill the lily. She wasn't trying to create or litter the complaint with false allegations. In fact, I'm going to ask you, take a look at the complaint. It will be evidence. Look at it. Look at the details. Look at the descriptions of the abuse. It has the ring of truth, ladies and gentlemen. But let me talk to you about what Ms. McGuire does in those first few days. Now, the first thing she does is she brings her children to her parents' house in Barnegat, New Jersey, further south. This is the next day after the altercation. And she does it so that she can tend to a number of things in the Woodbridge area. We're going to hear how the evidence is going to certainly will show how Ms. McGuire, Melanie McGuire, has conversations with her parents. And they decide or she decides that she's going to stay, not down there, but closer to the Woodbridge area, where a number of things have to occur, where she's going to get a TRO, TRO, where she needs to look for a lawyer, where she needs to move on with her life, where she needs to get an apartment. That's a decision that she comes to. That's a decision that they come to, that she comes to. I mean, Ms. Prezioso talked about how she actually purchased, or she, I'm sorry, not purchased. She checked herself into a hotel, a local hotel in the area. And she did it in cash. Yeah. She entered in a hotel in her own name. What's the significance of cash? She entered the hotel in her own name. Now, you're also going to hear evidence how she went and got a TRO. She attempted to get the TRO. The very next day, she gets a TRO. Now, the TRO is a temporary restraining order. Something that's typically done or can often be done in this type of a situation, where there's some threat of violence or violence occurs and there's a divorce. It's a temporary restraining order. And Ms. Prezioso talked about how Ms. McGuire, in response to a question on the TRO, said that there were no guns, that no one had any guns. Well, that's not the question. And you're going to see for yourself. The question is whether the person, the target, the subject of the TRO, William McGuire, whether he had a gun. And you're going to hear, ladies and gentlemen, how at the time there was no reason to believe that he had actually taken his gun. There was no perjury. There was no lie. There was no intent to deceive. Again, that's a position that Ms. Prezioso is going to take that she's not going to be able to prove. Now, you're also going to hear other things that she did to try to move on with her life, to try to get a divorce. Things that are typical of that. She contacts Joanne Casilla. Joanne Casilla is a speech therapist for the children. And she tells Joanne Casilla, several days after the incident, she talks about what had happened, that they had a fight. And she does that because she's trying to tell Joanne Casilla about the TRO, that there's a TRO. And let me know if William McGuire shows up because he's not supposed to. He's not supposed to show up and take the children. She also does that to Donna Todd, the children's preschool teacher or the one who runs the preschool facility. Again, saying, did William McGuire show up several days after the fight? There's a TRO in place. We had an argument. Let me know. What she also does, ladies and gentlemen, is she contacts a friend, Armand McComber. Armand McComber is a lawyer. Not a matrimonial lawyer, but a lawyer. And he's a close friend of Ms. McGuire's. And she has dinner with him on the 30th, April 30th, the next day after the fight. And she tells him about what happened. And she tells him that she wants to get a lawyer. And Ms. Prezioso talked about how she went looking and talking to lawyers in those days. Not a criminal lawyer, a divorce lawyer. A divorce lawyer. And how together she and Mr. McComber actually get a divorce lawyer. A very well-respected divorce lawyer in the Woodbridge area with the firm Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer. Lisa Kleiner was the lawyer. On May 5th, she's actually retained. Ms. McGuire pays her $10,000 to draw up the divorce complaint and to help her secure a divorce. $10,000 that she has to borrow from her parents that she could ill afford to pay. You're also going to hear that in the days immediately after this, in the several days why Ms. McGuire was actually up in the Woodbridge area. As opposed to sitting down in Barnegut. It's because she actually closed a bank account. A joint bank account. Not closed. She took money out. She left a little bit. But she took most of the money out of the account. And what she did with it, she didn't put it in her pocket. She didn't use it to commission anyone. She opened up another account that William McGuire couldn't have access to. Because she didn't want him depleting the assets. What she also does, ladies and gentlemen, is that she calls work and tells them that she doesn't want them to any longer use direct deposit to put her funds, her paycheck, into that old account. She switches the account. Again, she doesn't want her assets depleted. And what she also does in those few days is she cancels the joint credit card. Again, in an effort not to have assets depleted or to be on a hook for any great liability. The joint credit card she cancels. Now, all this culminates, ladies and gentlemen, within a matter of weeks in a divorce -- filing for a divorce, I should say. She files a divorce several days before she learns about Mr. McGuire's death. Now, again, these are all instances of conduct consistent with innocence, consistent with someone attempting to get a divorce. Ms. Prezioso tries to characterize -- or will try to characterize it through speculation and conjecture -- that they're a cover, that it's a part of an elaborate scheme. And one of the things I want to talk to you about is this flip-flopping of obviously what I mentioned about Ms. McGuire being at one point very detailed in this potential or alleged cover-up and yet being very out there and very open and downright stupid on other occasions, which I submit is inconsistent and unlikely. But also I want to ask you, just think about this. Think about this. Why not a divorce? Why wouldn't she get a divorce? There's no reason that she wouldn't get a divorce. There's no reason that she didn't attempt to get a divorce. I don't need to be a flip about this, ladies and gentlemen, but certainly getting a divorce is far less complicated, far less problematic than committing murder and dismemberment. There's certainly no financial incentive to divorce or to murder over divorce, not the least of which is not in her character. But the fact of the matter is, why not get a divorce? You also have, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to go over some of the things that Ms. Prezioso spoke about, some of the circumstantial evidence that she says that she's going to put together to piece, to put her case together. Now, first of all, you have this moving of the vehicle, moving of William McGuire's vehicle into the Flamingo Hotel on April 30, 2004. Now, one of the things that Ms. Prezioso, again, certainly mischaracterizes what occurs. She tells you that, in one hand, she's seeking, that Melanie McGuire is seeking a TRO, that she's concerned, she's afraid of her husband. In the other hand, she's seeking him out. Well, that's not what the evidence will show. The evidence should not show that she was seeking him out. The evidence will show that this is a relationship, a marriage together, a marriage gone bad. And for herself, she wants to satisfy whether, in fact, he really did leave, or if he's just in his familiar surroundings of Atlantic City, places that he had frequented often. And that's why she goes down, not to confront him, but to satisfy herself. And when she goes down, she sees his vehicle. And she doesn't engage in a college prank, as she says. She engages in something, a vindictive act, certainly, moving the car, a childish act, but evidence of murder, no. And when you hear evidence, ladies and gentlemen, how this is something, this type of vindictive act, this childish act, is something that William McGuire himself had done to her on a number of occasions when they fought. And that's what she did. Now, you're also going to hear, ladies and gentlemen, how the body, Mr. McGuire's body was found in their luggage. Okay. Now, when confronted by this fact, whether the luggage was the couples, Ms. McGuire didn't deny it. When shown actual photos or whatever the witness will say, she readily admitted, "Yes, this is our luggage. This is our luggage." Now, keep in mind, ladies and gentlemen, we talked about how when Ms. McGuire was in the bathroom, when Mr. McGuire, William McGuire, was rummaging around, taking items, packing. There are a number of reasons, a number of explanations as to why Mr. McGuire would have luggage. Okay. And we'll see what we can explore. He may have taken them that night. They may have been in his car. Remember, this couple was moving. They were moving that same day or within days. There was a planned move. Now, you also have this issue of garbage bags that Ms. Preziosa spoke to you about. Again, there's garbage bags in the vehicles. There was garbage bags in Ms. McGuire's SUV. There were garbage bags in the Nissan, Mr. McGuire's car. There were garbage bags in the house. And there were garbage bags, you heard from Ms. Preziosa, garbage bags in the Caparrero's house. Again, the couple was moving. They were cleaning out their stuff. They were purging. They were consolidating. They were moving. They were intending to move. In and of itself, not a unique fact. But Ms. Preziosa also talked to you a little bit about the science of the garbage bags. And one would think, ladies and gentlemen, if you're relying so heavily on the science of garbage bags, one would expect that it wouldn't be so unreliable. And by that, I mean all the state can show and all that it tends to show with this evidence. It's not that they were linked together, that they were matched to these garbage bags, that they were in sequential pattern or fashion. All they show is that these garbage bags were manufactured in the same company, in the same manufacturing facility, in a relatively short period of time, an extrusion run, maybe even several hours. But you're going to hear that they certainly weren't -- no one can conclude that they were in the same box. These garbage bags came out of the same box. All you're going to be able to learn from their own witness, ladies and gentlemen, their own expert, is that typically, when things are manufactured in a particular run, they're packaged in bags -- in boxes, rather. These boxes are then placed on pallets -- you're talking about sometimes, you know, hundreds of boxes or several hundred boxes -- placed on pallets. And that pallet is then shipped to a geographical region, for instance, in this case, Middlesex County. And then those boxes of garbage bags are distributed to all the retailers in that particular area. It could be one retailer, it could be many retailers. And that's all that evidence will show. Now, there's also some talk about these hospital blankets. Again, Ms. McGuire herself -- I'm sorry, Ms. Prezioso herself said that this company, this hospital or medical supply company that supplied blankets, supplied these types of blankets to many hospitals and to many doctors' offices. And, ladies and gentlemen, you're going to find -- you're going to hear evidence that the actual blankets that were found with the body actually don't match the blankets that were provided to RMA. Don't match the blankets that were provided from -- handed from Ms. McGuire to another witness in the case, subsequent during -- also during the move. That these blankets don't match. That they're consistent. That they're from the same company, presumably. They don't match. And that these blankets are provided to many, many sources, to many hospital and doctor's offices. We also have, ladies and gentlemen, a trip to Delaware. And Ms. Prezioso talked to you a little bit about, can you believe she was buying furniture? Well, what she didn't tell you is that she was also -- the evidence is going to show -- that she was attempting to purchase or to rent an apartment during that few-week period. And I didn't mention that either. But that she was with friends, a friend. And that she had made numerous visits to different apartment complexes to attempt to buy an apartment, to rent an apartment. Because remember, she had to vacate the apartment that she was in, that the couple shared, that Woodbridge apartment. And she certainly wasn't going to move into the house that they purchased for a variety of reasons, not the least of which she couldn't afford. Not the least of which she lost. She sold at a loss. She had no mortgage insurance. She didn't make money on the sale of the house. She lost money on the sale of the house after his death. But she was going into an apartment, and she was looking to start over, to get furniture, to get new furniture, to scale it down. She was selling furniture. And that's a fact that's clear, that Ms. Prezioso spoke about, that she sold furniture. She was also looking to buy different furniture, new furniture. And when we talk about geographically Delaware being between New York and Virginia -- I'm sorry, New Jersey and Virginia, well, okay. That's true. There's a lot of -- that's true, certainly. But it's about 45 minutes, an hour from Barnegat from where she -- at that time, by the time she made this trip on May 4th, she was staying with her parents in Barnegat about an hour, 45 minutes. But it's also six hours away from where the body was found, where they presumably think that the body was dumped. Six hours away. So we're not talking about an area in the neighborhood. We're talking about five, six hours away. And yes, she was certainly in an area that's known for selling furniture, that's known for having cheap prices. But what's significant about that, ladies and gentlemen, is that I think as the case progresses, you're going to see that it's actually inconsistent with the state's theory. It's absolutely inconsistent with the state's theory. Because the trip on the 4th, on May 4th, the trip to Delaware, where they try to ask you to speculate or to provide guesswork as to the significance of that trip. The significance of that trip, ladies and gentlemen, is lost if the body was actually dumped in the Chesapeake Bay, if the parts were dumped in the Chesapeake Bay prior to May 2nd. I'm sorry, prior to May 4th. Because, ladies and gentlemen, evidence from their own expert will tell you that the body parts were in actually very good shape, that they were not decomposed. And evidence is going to show you, ladies and gentlemen, I believe I submit uncontested evidence, that bodies decay -- unpleasant subject, I know -- but that bodies decay much faster in air than they do in water. And evidence is going to show that this is especially true when you're dealing with cold temperatures, like it would be in the Chesapeake Bay in early April, late May. So the evidence is going to suggest, ladies and gentlemen, that the parts, the body parts, were dumped not on the 4th, not on May 4th, but much earlier than May 4th. As early as four or five days before May 4th. So the significance of May 4th is insignificant, inconsequential. And that leads to another issue. If it weren't, if the evidence suggests, or if Ms. Prezioso intends to argue that the body was dumped on the 4th in the Chesapeake Bay, but yet he was murdered on the 29th, never left the apartment alive, where's the evidence that this body was being carted around? Where's the evidence that this body was being protected, kept from decomposing? Where is that evidence? Because it didn't happen. There is no evidence of that. Again, something, ladies and gentlemen, that I think you need to pay close attention to. Now also we get to this issue of the computer searches. Ms. Prezioso spoke to you about the computer searches. He talked to you about how there were certain internet hits on the search. Certain internet hits that she argues are problematic and certainly are odd hits. Certainly are problematic hits. Certainly are hits that would be significant of murder or motive or a number of things. But what she didn't tell you, ladies and gentlemen, is that this was a computer that was primarily used by William McGuire. Certainly Melanie had access. We won't deny that. But what she also doesn't tell you, ladies and gentlemen, is that at critical times during these searches, that some of these searches, either immediately before or immediately after. And again, let me back up a little bit. When you're dealing with internet history and searches, we can push a button to delete, but it's never really deleted. It stays in a hard drive. And that's certainly what the state is alleging. They're extracting the hard drive. And we'll talk a little bit about how they actually came into possession of this computer, this hard drive. When you push delete, it remains in its memory. But what still also remains in its memory is the fact that you can pinpoint the actual time and date of when these searches occurred. And if you do that, if you pour through, if you bother to pour through the hits, the searches, the quote-unquote incriminating searches, you will see that either immediately before or immediately after, other searches, other sites were hit, were accessed, that could only have been done by William McGuire. Either by content of the search, or more importantly, ladies and gentlemen, because some of these searches, some of these surrounding sites were password protected. Searches that only he could access. So if the state were correct in their assertion, they would want you to believe that Ms. McGuire, that Melanie was actually conducting searches essentially while William McGuire was not only in the house, but essentially right in the same room over her shoulder. She also talked about the significance of some of these searches, especially dealing with the chloral hydrate in the Mickey Finn. Now, she said, Ms. Prezioso, that you either take chloral hydrate straight up or you take it through alcohol. It's unlikely that William McGuire was given this chloral hydrate unbeknownst to him that he took it straight up. And it's also unlikely, ladies and gentlemen, that he took it with alcohol. But more importantly, ladies and gentlemen, what's something that you didn't hear? Chloral hydrate wasn't found in his body. It wasn't found in his body. We're not in the autopsy. And they're going to try to suggest that it's because they didn't know what to look for. Not until much later. But it wasn't found in his body. And then they're going to ask you to try to speculate, to jump, to draw conclusions that aren't there. They talked a little bit about the prescriptions for chloral hydrate. But before I go there, I want to talk to you a little bit more about this computer like I said I would. And how I talked about how I wanted to slow down and talk to you about how this hard drive, this roadmap, so to speak, came into the state's possession. Was it seized secretly? Was it done by search warrant? No. It was turned over by Melanie McGuire. Turned over. Virginia Beach, who had the investigation early on, asked politely if there was a computer. Ms. McGuire said yes, gave the computer to her attorney, her criminal defense attorney at the time. Actually, no, I had to take that back. Actually, she didn't have a criminal defense attorney. Gave it to Risa Kleiner, her divorce attorney at the time. It sat in Risa Kleiner, meaning the computer, sat in Risa Kleiner's office for weeks and weeks and weeks. Virginia Beach never bothered to pick it up. Instead of taking it back, ladies and gentlemen, because it wasn't under any court subpoena. It wasn't under any legal subpoena. It stays there. And when the state of New Jersey finally gets around, when they get the case and when they get around to asking for it, they do it through search warrant. And it's readily turned over. It's where it always was. It's in the hands of the attorneys. Now, the significance of that, ladies and gentlemen, is that you'll hear testimony. That Ms. McGuire, when I explained to you how that memory is forever created and you click a button and you think it's deleted and it's not deleted, you can hear testimony that Ms. McGuire knew that these searches don't get deleted. She knew that there was a permanent record of searches. But she didn't oppose the turning over the voluntary. She voluntarily turned over these computers to Virginia Beach, intending to give to Virginia Beach, but certainly to her attorneys, because she had nothing to hide. Nothing to hide. Sure. As she became the focus of the investigation, she became concerned about what was on it because she didn't know what would be on it. But as far as she was concerned, as far as her knowledge, she had nothing to hide and she voluntarily turned over the computer. Not by search warrant, she voluntarily turned it over. Again, we talked about that stealth-like performance when you're trying to explain away evidence of innocence, but then you kind of ignore it when you're trying to explain other instances that would support the innocence or would support her innocence. Now, you heard evidence about the prescription, the prescription for chlorohydrate. And Ms. Prezioso said that the handwriting didn't match Brad Miller's. She moved on. And then she said, you'll hear someone come in, a handwriting expert, that will talk about how people try to disguise the writing in connection to Melanie. And what she's telling you, ladies and gentlemen, that's code. What she's telling you, not code. It's basically, she's not telling you, ladies and gentlemen, that it also said that Melanie McGuire didn't match her handwriting. She didn't tell you that. She said that it didn't match Brad Miller's. It also didn't match Melanie McGuire's. And now we're going back to the fallback position. Well, there's an intent to deceive. Well, why didn't we have that position with Brad Miller? Why are we so willing to take it with Melanie McGuire? Now, she also didn't mention, and in fairness, we don't cover everything, but this is kind of significant. But she also didn't mention, Ms. Prezioso, that there was another prescription that same month earlier for another type of sedative. Not coral hydrate, but another type of sedative. And that prescription was actually in the name of Ruth McGuire, who was William McGuire's mother, who was dead for several years before the actual prescription was -- before the prescription was actually written out. And what we also didn't hear -- we heard a little bit about access to prescription pads. Sure, there's access to prescription pads. There's access to prescription pads in the McGuire house. One of the things that we didn't hear is, guess who was trained as a pharmacist? Guess who was trained as someone who understood how to write a prescription and fill a prescription? William McGuire. William McGuire. He was a trained pharmacist. He didn't practice as a pharmacist, but he was a trained pharmacist. Kind of significant piece of evidence, don't you think? No bullet holes. No trace evidence. No tool marks. You're in the shower cutting up a body. You're presumably in a tub or somewhere cutting up a body. There's no tool marks. Nothing to suggest that the murder took place in Woodbridge. And that's a big problem. That's a huge problem, ladies and gentlemen. But you know what? It wasn't for lack of trying. You're going to hear evidence how there were teams and scientists. Teams. There were numerous forensic scientists. Investigators who went into that place. And they checked. And they didn't find it. Virginia Beach did. The state did. Not once. Not twice. Three, four, five times. And as most recently as last summer. Two and a half years after the murder of William McGuire. They're still checking for DNA. Because they couldn't believe their eyes, ladies and gentlemen. They couldn't believe that there was no DNA in that apartment. Because it didn't happen. It didn't happen. William McGuire was not murdered in that apartment. They vacant. You're going to hear a testimony how they moved out the tenants or the tenant of that apartment to perform some of their tasks. A lot of effort. A lot of resources went into this. I suspect, I suspect that now a trial. You're going to hear some evidence. Well, maybe there wasn't a crime scene. Or maybe it could be cleaned up. Or maybe it isn't that important. Then why go three or four or five times? Why go through the effort? And why do it as most recently as several, or summer? Because it is significant, ladies and gentlemen. Now it's, they're stuck with it. It's the facts that they have to deal with. Now, Miss Prezioso spoke to you a little bit about some of the DNA that she felt was significant. She's talked to you by far the most significant DNA was this tissue that was found in Mr. McGuire's vehicle. Well, first of all, there's not going to be anyone that's going to come in that's going to say that this was tissue from a dead person, okay? And this is, keep in mind, this is William McGuire's car. But one of the things that Miss Prezioso said is that she said that Ms. McGuire, Melanie McGuire admitted that she was the last person in the car. No. That's not true. Ms. McGuire said that she drove the vehicle on the 30th. We don't know who was the last person in that car. In fact, their evidence suggests that the car may have been moved in the intervening time. And again, where are the Flamingo tapes, the Flamingo videotapes? On the 2nd or on the 18th, on pivotal dates. But that's not even of tremendous consequence or significance. Because obviously, ladies and gentlemen, we don't know and certainly Ms. Prezioso doesn't know because she said it. We don't know how William McGuire was killed or where he was killed or the means of which he was killed. So we don't know what transpired in that vehicle or what tissue may or may not be in that tissue in that car. But we know, we do know, ladies and gentlemen, is they're going to ask you to speculate. That's one of the things that I suspect she's going to talk to you about on closing. It's not going to come from here again, it's going to come from over here. And you can't do that, ladies and gentlemen. You can't do that. But here's a thought. Here's a thought. We talked about, or Ms. Prezioso talked about the Pathfinder. How William McGuire's vehicle on the 30th pulls into the spot in the Flamingo Hotel. And on his video, what you'll see, there's a car consistent with the Pathfinder. Well, okay. You make that judgment, ladies and gentlemen. That's a big leap to make. It's a big leap to make. But that there's a car consistent with the Pathfinder. No one getting into it, by the way, but pulls off. Well, do you think they searched the Pathfinder? Yes. They searched the Pathfinder. Well, if that's a vehicle that Ms. McGuire or Melanie was driving with quote-unquote accomplice, why are there no particles or tissue in the Pathfinder? And by the way, we're talking about several microscopic tissues. Skin, tissues, connective tissue. Why is there in there more? Why is it in the Pathfinder? Why is it in other places? Because they didn't know where to look. And because where they looked turned up negative. One of the things that we talked about, and I said that this was not an investigation. This was a prosecution. And Ms. Prezioso spoke a little bit, probably more than I did, about Brad Miller and some of the things that they expect to hear from him. One of the things you wouldn't have heard from Brad Miller, not until the defense started failing around, not until two years after the murder, not until he met with Ms. Prezioso and members of the state's prosecution team numerous times, I don't even know how many, but I'd venture to say many times. Not until he actually entered into his arrangement where he would testify in a grand jury. They learned for the very first time, and I believe May of 2006. May of 2006, William McGuire is murdered, presumably in May 2004. In May of 2006, guess who purchases a reciprocating saw? Dr. Miller. Not in May of 2006. He purchases, he tells them for the very first time in May of 2006 that he purchased, gee, I may have purchased a reciprocating saw, May 2nd, 2004. Do you think that's an important date? What was done to investigate Mr. Dr. Miller? Ask yourself, see. Look critically at that evidence. What was done to investigate Brad Miller? He purchases a reciprocating saw, and that's it? No follow-up? By the way, the reciprocating saw that I described, the same type of saw that their own expert will say, was used to dismember William McGuire. Now, there's some other DNA, ladies and gentlemen, that is suggestive of Ms. McGuire's innocence. You see the presence of DNA, the presence of certain trace evidence that can't be identified to Mr. McGuire, and can't be identified to Melanie McGuire. For example, possibly hair particles found, not inside her bag, the bag, the suitcase. And by the way, Ms. Prezioso talked to you about the hair particle, or the hair, rather, that was found at mitochondria linked Melanie to the suitcase. Well, it was her suitcase. But the hair inside the garbage bag containing the body parts, that's a different issue. And the hair inside the garbage bag containing the body parts had an unidentified hair, none belonging to Ms. McGuire, and this particular one not belonging to William McGuire. Significant. Significant. You're also gonna hear how there are fingerprints on certain items, unidentified fingerprints on certain items. You're also gonna hear, ladies and gentlemen, that there's a possible fingerprint, a possible palm print, on the garbage bag, one of the garbage bags containing William McGuire's body parts. A palm print that doesn't belong to William McGuire, and a palm print that doesn't belong to Melanie McGuire. In fact, there are no palm prints belonging to Melanie McGuire. Not anywhere. Significant. How about the presence of animal hair? All over, riddled all over, everything. Different plates, on tape, on bags. The presence of animal hair. Well, the problem with that is that Melanie McGuire didn't have an impact. Nothing done with that evidence. They didn't even bother to determine, I believe they can, they didn't even bother to determine what type of animal. Or whether it was consistent with one another. Didn't even bother to determine that, because they had already found out what they wanted to know. Ms. McGuire doesn't have an animal, okay, we're not interested in it. Put it away. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a serious, serious matter. And you're gonna hear time and time again how things were ignored, disregarded, or just simply, misconstrued, mischaracterized. Now, again, I talked a little bit about the flip-flopping theories. How, one breath, they tell you that there was an accomplice. There had to be an accomplice. Not something that she could have done alone. And that's something that's articulated over and over and over again during the investigation. At least early on. And then as the investigation unfolds, no accomplice. And Ms. Prezioso will stand up and tell you, well, we don't have to prove an accomplice. We charge it as an accomplice, but we don't have to prove it as an accomplice. Maybe as a matter of law, ladies and gentlemen, but you're the judge of the facts. You should consider that as a fatal defect in their case. [02:01:10] Speaker 2: Objection. [02:01:13] Speaker 3: I'll move on, Your Honor. The objection is the state. We'll also talk about the tape. The video, the audio tape, rather. How, in one breath, the state wants to use it as evidence of incriminating conduct or behavior. But when it doesn't suit their purpose, they characterize it as just self-serving or that she knew that she was being recorded. You can't have it both ways, ladies and gentlemen. And we talked about that. Same thing about this, I kept referring to this stealth-like performance of trying to avoid apprehension. You have the cleaning, the pristine crime scene, the remarkable, immaculate cleaning of this Woodbridge apartment. How it shows up, absolutely no signs of a crime scene. How she orchestrated this complicated murder and dismemberment. That it took time and it took effort. And how, yet, at times, she was downright careless. It doesn't make sense. We talked about the moving of the car. It only makes sense, ladies and gentlemen, if you're acting under the assumption that your husband is alive. Likewise, we talked about the purchase of the gun. Absolutely doesn't make sense that you would engage in all these efforts of concealment and then go into a gun shop and buy a gun, the murder weapon, two days before. Evidence of her innocence. Now, I started by telling you, ladies and gentlemen, that opening, I'm concluding, I promise, that opening statements are a series of promises and that you should hold the lawyers, hold me. Hold Ms. Prezioso to her promises. Promises that she can't keep, ladies and gentlemen. Because, like I said, even out of her own mouth, her own admissions, they're not going to be able to tell you where William Maguire was killed, how he was killed, when he was killed, the details, if any, of Ms. Maguire's involvement. They're not going to be able to tell you who dismembered William Maguire. They're not going to be able to tell you the names of any accomplices that they so believed took place that participated in this, so much so that they charged. They're not going to be able to tell you any names. And they're also not going to tell you, now, let me just, let me just hit on that very briefly. Ms. Maguire, I'm sorry, Ms. Prezioso said that it makes no difference. The fact that they can't pinpoint an accomplice, it makes no difference. Ladies and gentlemen, I would submit that that, again, is offensive. It makes no difference. You charge someone with an accomplice, as an accomplice. The objection is overruled. You charge someone as a, thank you, Your Honor, you charge someone as an accomplice, and then you sit here three years later and you say it doesn't matter. Don't you think that's strong, powerful evidence of Melanie's innocence? You should consider that, ladies and gentlemen, I submit. And also consider this, one of the reasons why the state took that position, because it was a very plausible position early on. William Maguire, 210, 215 pounds, 5'10", 5'11", the evidence will show that. Melanie, at the time, 105, 110 pounds, 5'4", couldn't have done it. She could not have done what they alleged that she did. She could not have absolutely done that. Impossible. It's absolutely impossible. And that's why, ladies and gentlemen, they stayed with this accomplice theory. That's why she was charged in this accomplice. Because without the presence of somebody else, it could not have been her. It wasn't her. And again, we talked about how they turned a blind's eye to other facts. Other things pointing to someone else, or pointing to other areas, or pointing to Ms. Maguire's innocence. Same thing with motive. They talk about, they throw out, they'll tell you, no doubt, if Ms. Prezioso hasn't already, she'll tell you that they don't have to prove motive either. Geez, wouldn't you like to hear that? But she'll throw out the affair with Brad Miller. Because why else would it have any significance? It doesn't have any significance in and of itself. Well, again, we talked a little bit about that. If she wanted to be with Brad Miller, she would have gotten a divorce. And you're also going to hear, ladies and gentlemen, testimony, not from Melanie, but from other people. Not only from, but from other people. You're going to hear testimony, ladies and gentlemen, that, sure, the marriage was not a healthy one. That's not in dispute. Sure that the parties were contemplating, or at least Melanie was contemplating divorce. But the fact of the matter is, she wanted her children to have their father. And I submit, ladies and gentlemen, if that's the case, if that's the premise, you don't murder William Maguire. You divorce William Maguire. Because we know, ladies and gentlemen, there's no dispute that she would have had the children. There's no financial incentive to murder over divorce. We also talk about financial incentive. There is no financial incentive. There was no reason, there was no motive of money. We talked about love, how that doesn't apply. What about money, how that doesn't apply? There was no financial, it's not like there was a big life insurance policy that you can hear about. William Maguire had, at his work, I think, two and a half times the salary, something to that effect. You're going to hear how the life insurance policy was $225,000, somewhere along that line. Hardly the type of money you're talking about when you're planning reasons as motive for planning or plotting someone's death. And you're also going to hear, ladies and gentlemen, how Ms. Maguire never accessed that money, never took that money. That money is an irrevocable trust for Jack and JT, their children. We're now seven and four years old. You're also going to hear, ladies and gentlemen, how they actually, how Ms. Maguire actually lost money. There was no mortgage insurance. It's not like she made money on the sale of the house or came into any windfall. There was no financial incentive. There was no motive. And ladies and gentlemen, without motive, they also have a problem. Now, very briefly, we talk about this second, this area of anonymous communications for which Melanie was indicted. And ladies and gentlemen, just very briefly. Again, there is no, it's pure speculation and conjecture on the state's part. There is absolutely no evidence, no scientific evidence, at the very least, linking Ms. Maguire to those communications. Where you would expect it to be. There's no DNA belonging to Melanie Maguire. There's no handwriting samples or handwriting evidence that will prove or state that she did it. And we'll talk a little bit about some of the other things. But ladies and gentlemen, there is DNA. There is scientific evidence. It just doesn't belong to Melanie. You got the DNA underneath the flap, not fingerprints because you would expect fingerprints from a variety of sources to be on these envelopes. But DNA underneath the flap of a stamp, not belonging to Melanie Maguire. The flap of a stamp of one of these anonymous communications. DNA on several envelopes. Several envelopes of the anonymous communications or versions of the anonymous communication. Again, not belonging to Melanie. Most importantly, you're going to hear that at least one content, one of the items, one of the contents of the package inside the envelope, the sealed envelope, had also had DNA. And again, not belonging to Melanie. Now, what are we left with? Well, ladies and gentlemen, I would highlight, I would suggest that what we're left with highlights, I think, the serious weaknesses in this case. What we're left with, ladies and gentlemen, and Ms. Presley also talked a little bit about it, but what we're left with, is we're left with this grainy video. And she talked about that, how this video allegedly or purportedly depicts someone, in this case, they're going to want you to speculate that it's Melanie Maguire, walking into the location of where, of this Rite Aid, where this particular credit card or this gift card was purchased that was used to actually finance or pay for the federal express shipment, one of the anonymous communications. Okay? And they have a timeframe on it, and they have a date, and then it's this grainy video, and I, again, you're going to see it, and I ask you to see it, and I welcome you to see it, and you're going to see very little else. You're going to see a grainy image, you're going to see someone, and you have to make your own conclusions, but I'm going to submit, ladies and gentlemen, you're not going to be able to, it's not going to suggest that it's Ms. Maguire. In fact, I think there's going to be evidence to suggest or show that it wasn't Ms. Maguire, that it was more likely that it wasn't her than it was. Ladies and gentlemen, you're also going to hear evidence of the last resort, this linguistics testimony. This, what I would submit as somewhat voodoo science, where they try to take certain style markers, certain phrases, certain punctuation, certain whatever, certain words, and they try to link it to Ms. Maguire. Well, they did that, ladies and gentlemen, because all else failed. DNA failed, handwriting failed, the more typical things that you would associate. And again, we welcome that challenge, and you'll see how that, you know, how that evidence is introduced and certainly what we do in terms of who we introduce. Now, ladies and gentlemen, as I started, I said to you that one of the fatal flaws in this case is that the state started out by presuming Ms. Maguire's guilt. It never actually followed any leads. Certainly leads were neglected. No real investigation or serious investigation took place outside of Ms. Maguire. And again, we talked about how the themes were shifted or evidence just simply ignored. Now, I'm confident, ladies and gentlemen, after you hear all of the evidence, after the case is concluded, after we talk to you again as attorneys in our concluding remarks, I'm confident, ladies and gentlemen, that you're going to be able to evaluate all the evidence or the lack of evidence. And you're going to come to, again, what I started my opening comments were. And that is that Melanie Maguire did not murder her husband. That Melanie Maguire did not dismember, did not dismember her husband. And that Melanie Maguire does not know who did. And that certainly Melanie Maguire was not involved in sending any of these anonymous communications to try to deflect or obstruct the investigation. Now, ladies and gentlemen, one of the things that, and these are certainly names that you're going to be hearing in the trial, Linda and Michael Caporero, family, mother and father of Melanie Maguire. One of the things that they said early on to Joe and I is to take care of Melanie Maguire, to take care of her daughter. And we're going to do the best we can, ladies and gentlemen, in the next few weeks. But there's going to come a point in time in the next few weeks when it's your case. We're going to ask you, ladies and gentlemen, to take care of Melanie Maguire and to find her innocent of all charges. Thank you.