I agree the defense did a mediocre job. You have to give Martin credit. He
almost committed the perfect murder.Even when family confronted the
pleasant grove police...they were not even given the time of day. But
Martin got drunk with power. Forcing gypsie on his kids. Texting during the
funeral. Bragging to inmates.Give credit to Alexis. She is the shining
light in this story. So sad to see a family ripped apart by a cold callas
I recently read the book "The Sociopath Next Door". The
author/psychologist builds on the premise that there are people out there that
have no conscience. I found it incredible. After all, everyone experiences some
guilt, some remorse, loves someone. She states that most people in jail are not
sociopaths, and most sociopaths don't go to jail. They fit in so well among
us we don't recognize them. They can be our parents, our teachers, our
mentors. But reading about this case, I can see a sociopathic personality. How
can someone who loves their children, their flesh and blood, kill their beloved
mother. This man shows incredible, subhuman callousness. He lived a lie all
these years, manipulating people thru his religion, family image, and falsely
achieved professional status. And it might turn out in the end this was not the
first murder he committed. He found his kindred spirit in Gypsy. God bless the
trail of damaged human beings he left in his wake.
Strange that the jury did what they were instructed not to do, go off their
feelings added to the evidence and to imply evidence that was not at trial. Not
saying there may have been enough evidence to convict, but it seems like
nowadays the court system has become its own soap opera series. The Zimmerman
case almost went the other way because of the emotional feelings of the jurors.
If I was a defendant these days, I would probably request a judge, not a jury.
I appreciate hearing from the jurors after a trial like this. I didn't
follow this trial very closely, but I have such a respect for the system and
know that the jurors are getting all the information without having an opinion
to start with. I thought it was interesting how the inmate testimonies were not
really that much value. Good job to these jurors and now, get some rest and
@MoJulesI respectfully disagree that jurors ought to have press
conferences.The snoop in me loves to hear the details but I don't see
how it serves justice.
I am so glad he was convicted! He seems like such a nasty piece of work. I am
sad for the family, and glad the Jury was able to do their job, and that they
found him guilty. It must be so hard to be on such a high profile murder case!
Bravo to them, I hope they take a few days off to process and relax!
Well, all the wannabe Perry Mason's who love to pontificate on their vast
legal knowledge might not like it, but even if the jurors put a bit too much
emphasis on emotion and "gut feelings" instead of cold, hard facts, in
this particular case it's clear they got it right in the end. The circumstantial evidence in this case is overwhelming, and taken all
together make it crystal clear that Dr. MacNeill did indeed murder his wife.
I've said it before but his actions, when looked at in their entirety, over
the course of his life (remember, he has shown signs of sociopathy for 30+
years) would make even make O.J Simpson (who obviously knows a thing or two
about circumstantial evidence) say, "Man, you really pulled a sloppy job,
@Say No to BO - I think it's important for the public to understand how
jurors reached their conclusions, especially in a case like this. I think a lot
of the public believed that because there were 5 inmates who confessed to
hearing MacNeill talk about killing his wife, and Alexis' testimony
combined with the fact that she's a doctor too were the "nails in the
coffin." Others have asserted that just because he was unfaithful "then
he must be guilty of the murder" were factors in the jury's decision. I
think this helps reinforce the the notion that while the system may not always
work, it does most of the time, and that jurors take their responsibility
seriously. None of us know when we might be called to be part of a
jury, so it's good to know how others may have handled the situation.
I'm with grinchpiggy...A "mountain of circumstantial
evidence" and an unreliable witness, an incredibly weak case for a murder
conviction.Is it possible to judge the character of a human being
based on evidence? I think to some degree, yes. But what the world considers
evidence and what I have found to be evident are very different. I tend to find
"evidence" as others see it to be very weak. What I find to be true and
self evident is found weak by others.All that aside... even the man
of the least character among us is still no more or less guilty than another due
to circumstantial evidence.I simply believe that a serious
conviction requires serious evidence. If we can't come up with anything
more, than we have no right to claim such from the accused.
And none of you nay sayers were there. It is just reporting that you are
hearing. I will stand by the jury...
I thought he had a fake medical diploma. If so then he never was a physician.