Jury: Martin MacNeill's 'heartless' nature, circumstantial evidence added up to murder

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 9:27 p.m.

    I thought he had a fake medical diploma. If so then he never was a physician.

  • Little Andy Tremonton, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 9:14 p.m.

    And none of you nay sayers were there. It is just reporting that you are hearing. I will stand by the jury...

  • Sean Jackson Provo, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 5:34 p.m.

    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.

  • Shawnm750 West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 11:23 a.m.

    @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.

  • BigEasySLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 11:07 a.m.

    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, Dog..."

  • BostonLDS Salt lake City, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    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!

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 9:50 a.m.

    I 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.

  • MoJules Florissant, MO
    Nov. 14, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    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 detox.

  • grinchpiggy Provo, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 7:27 a.m.

    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.

  • Olive Anderson Walnut Creek, CA
    Nov. 14, 2013 6:20 a.m.

    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.

  • mountain man Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 4:49 a.m.

    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 murderer.