September 10, 2025 • 32 mins
A woman found tied up in a closet, her hands tied behind her back, the door jammed shut from the outside. Now, she’s on trial for stabbing her husband, without a motive.
Nearly five years after Jim Melgar’s death, Sandy Melgar is in court, accused of his murder.
Host: Maggie Robinson Katz
Producer: Maggie Latham
Script consultant: Emma Weatherill
Sound designer: Tom Brignell
Production support from: Dan Marchini, Elaina Boateng and Mabel Finnegan-Wright
Managing Executive Producer (iHeart): Cristina Everett
Executive Producer (BBC Studios): Joe Kent
Hands Tied is a BBC Studios Audio production for iHeartPodcasts
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
BBC SDS. Hey, it's Maggie. Just a quick heads up
before we begin. This episode does contain some pretty detailed
descriptions of violence and deals with adult themes. Tell me
(00:24):
a little bit about Houston. I've never been there. What's
it like.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Liston is the most diverse town in the state of Texas,
very very ethnic friendly, lots of culture, lots of restaurants.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
It might not sound like it, but I've been desperate
to talk to this guy ever since I started working
on this story.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
It's a nice little part of Southeast Texas that nobody
considers to be Texas.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
He has a unique insight.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
We like to go out and test different restaurants.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Sometimes we have Thai food and sometimes you know the
stake how is to serve excellent food.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
And his opinion really counts.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
There's plenty of tex Mex and there's even variations of
tex Mex. So you can go in one restaurant, I
have a text Mex and then something next week will
be a little bit different. I think they have the
most cultural influence, but although the country is getting more
and more culturally influenced by Hispanic America, so that's always good.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
Totally, I'm with you. It has taken me hours and
hours of searching online and dozens of phone calls to
find Air and Day. Tell me why we are talking
to you today.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
You want to know my take on the Sandra Melgar
murder trail.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
Do you still think about the case?
Speaker 3 (01:42):
Oh? Yeah, will never leave.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
Me, Arin Day. He was one of the jurors in
the state of Texas versus Sandra Gene Melgar.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
It's part of my life, part of my history.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
I got called into something I didn't want, but I
was asked to do it.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
I did it because that's of my civil responsibility.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
Starting at the beginning, I'd love to talk a little
bit about the jury selection process.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
Yeah. In the Boorda for dire.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
Which again I'm sure Aaron and I are pronouncing one
hundred percent correctly, is when perspective jurors are assessed on
whether they can be truly impartial or not.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
I remember this as far as the prosecutor's first words.
She said, welcome, ladies and gentlemen to Ordai. I have
one question I want you to think about. Can you
convict a person of murder with no motive? I answer
that question, yeah, I think you know. If there's evidence,
we should be able to convict. If we can't and
(02:46):
the evidence isn't prevalent enough, then we won't convict us.
What our legal system is all about?
Speaker 1 (02:52):
And what did you think of that question?
Speaker 4 (02:54):
When she asked, uh, you know it was really unusual
that well, I knew it would be an unusual trial.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
A woman found tied up and trapped in a closet,
her hands tied, the door jammed shut from the outside,
on trial for stabbing her husband to death without a motive.
I'm Maggie Robinson Katz and from BBC's Studios and iHeart podcasts.
(03:27):
This is Hands Tied, episode six the trial.
Speaker 5 (03:41):
When Santa Malgar walked into the courtroom, she was walking
with a cane and I was struck by how petite
she is and her delicate features.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
That's Amanda Orr, a journalist covering the case for Reuters.
Speaker 5 (03:57):
She had a shock of whitish gray hair that was
about shoulder length. She was wearing glasses, and she didn't
seem like a big, hulking woman that would have been
physically capable of overcoming a grown man.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Amanda joins her fellow spectators, the media, law students and
your casual gawkers all cramped onto the uncomfortable wooden benches
waiting for the show to start.
Speaker 5 (04:30):
Murder trials are some of the greatest dramas any human
can witness. It's really a fascinating thing to behold. The
greatest lawyers know that winning a jury over is about
presenting the facts in a way that engages them, and
so attorneys are tasked with the job of being storytellers.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Whoever tells the best story wins. One of those storytellers
is the silver haired defense attorney Max Seacrest. He's also
joined by his niece and protege, Allison Seacrest. Max dressed
in a dark zomber suit and wears round towardous shell glasses,
while Alison sports an understated linen suit pearls her long
(05:21):
hair pulled back. Telling another story is prosecutor Colleen Barnett,
a confident woman with a shoulder length blonde bob and
a sharp suit. We tried to get Colleen for this podcast,
but we didn't get a response. So what comes next
are her words taken from the court transcript, spoken by
(05:44):
an actor.
Speaker 6 (05:45):
You're going to hear testimony that Heimi's brother knocked on
the front door and didn't get an answer.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
This is Colleen's opening statement.
Speaker 6 (05:56):
You're going to hear testimony that when he went into
the house, he found his brother's body in his brother's closet,
brutally stabbed to death, multiple stab wounds on his chest
and his neck. He went into another part of the
house where he found Sandramelgar in her closet with her
(06:17):
hands tied behind her back and her ankles wrapped. She
was in her closet in the bathroom, and there was
a chair on the outside of the bathroom door, wedged
up against the door. The police were called immediately.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
Colleen tells the jury how she thinks Jim died.
Speaker 6 (06:39):
We're going to show you that what we believe happened
is that she enticed Timie into some type of maybe
some sexual liaison or something that she was going to do,
made him sit in the chair.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
Then Sandy stabbed him to death. She says. She warns
the jury not to believe the story. The defense is
going to tell that there was a burglar there.
Speaker 6 (07:05):
What we're going to be able to show you is
that there was no way for any.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Burglar to enter that house.
Speaker 7 (07:13):
There was no.
Speaker 6 (07:14):
Reason for anybody to have anything to do against timing.
He was a loved person at his work and in
the neighborhood. There was no vendetta from anybody.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Colleen thinks Sandy could have made it to look like
a breaken to cover her tracks. She tells the jury
to not trust Sandy about her health, about her relationship
with Jim, and about her version of events the night
Jim died and.
Speaker 6 (07:42):
I didn't hear anything because the jacuzzi was going, and
that's broken, by the way, and I can't turn it
off if I wanted to, because it's broken, and the
noise was so loud from the jacuzzie that I couldn't
hear my husband getting stabbed, couldn't hear it.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
So if this were a courtroom TV drama, we could
maybe see Colleen make her way to the jury, looking
each of them intently in the eye. Maybe she'd rest
her hand on the wooden divider separating the jury from
the rest of the court. Because this is her moment,
the crescendo of her opening argument.
Speaker 6 (08:19):
We believe that we're going to be able to prove
this case to you beyond a reasonable doubt. Don't know
that I have motive here, but There's no other way,
any other thing could have happened other than she just
brutally murdered her husband.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
Again, continuing my imagined version of what she did, Colleen pauses,
ensuring that the jury heard those last words, that she
Sandy brutally murdered her husband.
Speaker 7 (08:52):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
She thanks the jury and takes her seat. But even
if they accept that Sandy enticed her husband into a
sexual liaison before murdering him, how is that possible? When
Sandy was found trapped in a closet, her hands and
feet tied. A video is played in court. The shaky
(09:29):
hand held camera hands across the disheveled bedroom belonging to
Jim and Sandy Melgar. This is the video the police
took the night of Jim's murder, capturing the scene of
the crime. The room is a mess, the bedsheets, rumpled
clothes everywhere. The camera moves into the bathroom, where we
see the remnants of their celebratory evening drinks set on
(09:52):
the edge of the chacuzzi, a tub of cream with
a strawberry perched on top. Then we see a gloved
hand pull a white satin chair in front of the
closet door.
Speaker 6 (10:03):
The Sheriff's Department did a video showing you can be
on the inside of the bathroom and pull the rug
so the chair wedges up against the door. They can
show you that that can happen, that she could have
done that, and that is what she did.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
To Colleen. This video is proof that Sandy could have
shut herself in the closet, put the chair on a
piece of fabric, making sure that half of it was
outside and the other half inside. Sandy could have cracked
the door slightly, just enough to place her hand on
the top of the chair, making sure it hooks underneath
the door handle, close the door, then crouched down and
(10:49):
pulled the part of the chair that is inside of
the closet towards her, causing the chair to be set
in place, locking herself in.
Speaker 4 (10:58):
This theory clicked for juror aar and A and they
showed how you can pull that chair with a rug
underneath it to make it look like the door was
actually blocked so.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
A person couldn't get out.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
So that was like, oh, okay, that.
Speaker 1 (11:12):
Makes sense, But how could she have done all of
that when she was found with her hands tied behind
her back. Well, Colleen has an answer for that too,
Sandy tied herself up. Colleen stands before the jury and
takes out a piece of fabric, its ends tied together.
She methodically loops it around one of her wrists and
(11:34):
a figure eight pattern. Then, with both hands behind her back,
she twists the material around the other wrist, holding her
forearms parallel with each other, each hand gripping the opposite elbow.
The binding looks tied around her wrists, but Colleen shows
she can easily slip her hands free, so Sandy could
(11:55):
have tied her own hands behind her back.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
The prosecution was able to demonstrate to the jury that
you can bind your hands behind your back and make
it look convincingly real and not have anybody.
Speaker 3 (12:13):
Actually tie you up.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
So that was the big thing for me, is well, okay, yeah,
I guess you can bind yourself.
Speaker 7 (12:21):
The only problem was that wasn't the way that Sandy
was tied up. That was not at all consistent with
the testimony of the only two witnesses who saw her
tied up.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
To Mac Sandy's defense attorney, Colleen's demo doesn't match with
what actually happened.
Speaker 7 (12:40):
She wasn't tied at the risk, she was tied with
her arms behind her back. The ligatures ran from her
wrist up basically to below her elbow. And when you
look at the crime scene unit photographs of Sandy's arms,
guess what? She has red marks consistent with that on
(13:05):
her arms.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
So, if you remember, Sandy was cut free by her
brother in law, herman, and his wife before the police arrived.
Herman gives evidence in court to say her arms were
bound so tightly behind her back that he couldn't untie
the knots and needed scissors to cut her free. While
Aaron may be convinced of Colleen's arguments, there's another question
(13:32):
that looms across the entire trial.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
How can this poor little sick lady commit murder? That's
what I saw Sandra. I was surprised by the picture
she portrayed of her physical being.
Speaker 1 (13:46):
And can you say a little bit more about that?
Speaker 2 (13:48):
What is that she walked with her kine when she
walked into the courtroom. I needily questioned that she couldn't
have done it because she looked so frail and unhealthy
the way she presented herself.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
The prosecutor, Colleen Barnett, argues that it didn't matter how
strong or how frail Sandy might have been, because she
believes Sandy planned the whole thing and took Jim completely
by surprise.
Speaker 6 (14:14):
So she gets Himie to sit down in the chair
and maybe she's massaging his neck or whatever, I don't
know what, and then she pulls it out and then
while he isn't looking, she makes a strike straight up
all the way to his neck. That's what the first
(14:37):
strike is. Jimie of course, gets up to try to
defend himself, turns around and that's when she gets him
on the thumb and that's when the blood starts spurting
out onto the chair. This was the first strike, and
then she had him. There was no place for him
(14:59):
to go. As you saw, there's only two feet wide
and not that deep. He was just stabbed to death.
She had the knife.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Colleen points out that jim wasn't a big guy. At
five foot seven, he was a bit taller than Sandy,
but she's heavier than his one hundred and twenty five pounds,
and the stab wounds weren't particularly deep, three inches at most,
which gets Duror Air and Day thinking.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
It made sense that she didn't have to be superwoman,
strong or any of those other things you would think
a murderer would have to do to murder somebody.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
But there's also the matter of Sandy's health. She's had
her hips replaced, has epilepsy, and loopis an Ever since
her police interview, she has pointed to her health as
a possible explanation for not knowing what happened at the
night Jim was killed. Sandy suspects she a seizure and
blacked out. I want to go into that. Colleen has
(16:05):
her medical records from Sandy's primary care doctor and asks
a witness to read them to the court.
Speaker 6 (16:11):
Under seizure disorder.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
What does it say that she was stable? Reads the witness.
Sandy's medical records show that, despite fairly regular checkups, she
hasn't reported having a single seizure in the four years
before Jim's murder. According to Colleen, yes, Sandy had a
condition that could cause seizures, but it was stable, controlled
(16:35):
by medication.
Speaker 8 (16:39):
Sandy hadn't felt good, she had been resting a lot.
She had been experiencing auras, which are many seizures.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
Defense attorney Allison Seacrest argues that those medical records don't
tell the full story or reflects Sandy's health in the
months before Jim's death.
Speaker 2 (16:56):
If she's using her illnesses and she's saying she can
veniently had a seizure and then a blackout for twelve
hours when her drugs were supposedly controlling these things, and
she was not complaining to her doctors, maybe she did blackout,
but I can't find any evidence that.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
She did.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
Over ten days. Colleen tears into Sandy's claim of innocence.
Colleen tells the court that she was unhappy, plotted the
whole thing and locked herself in the closet and tied
her own hands. The only thing that is missing is
why why would Sandy do this? When I've ordired you, guys.
Speaker 6 (17:40):
One of the things that I was a little worried
about was motive, because I showed you the things we
have to prove, and we've proven all of them. We've
proven all of them, but motive is not one of them.
And one of the things that I worried about being
able to establish that.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
She offers the jury a theory or two. The first
is the classic Jim had life insurance policies worth some
half a million dollars.
Speaker 6 (18:13):
She'd be getting a lot of money.
Speaker 1 (18:17):
The second is religion. Colleen argues that as a devout
Jehovah's witness, Sandy couldn't divorce Jim without being ostracized.
Speaker 6 (18:26):
But if I kill him and nobody finds out, I'm
not ostracized and nobody finds out and I still get
the money.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
I can imagine Colleen locking eyes with the jury, ensuring
that her last words are heard clearly.
Speaker 6 (18:42):
There's zero evidence, zero evidence, zero evidence that somebody else
did this, no evidence that anybody else did this. She's guilty,
ladies and gentlemen, She's guilty. Please find her so, thank you.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
Now it's the defense's turn to take the stage to
try and convince the jury that the prosecution has got
it all wrong and Sandy is innocent. When it's the
defense's turn to address the jury and defend Sandy, Maxiecrest
(19:27):
makes a big decision. He doesn't call Sandy to the stand. Instead,
he relies on a very simple but powerful argument.
Speaker 7 (19:36):
It's the worst investigated case I've ever seen.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
He says. The only reason Sandy is on trial is
because the police fail to do their job properly.
Speaker 7 (19:47):
They had an agenda, they weren't objective, and they jumped
to conclusions, and they were sloppy. They assumed. It's the
old rubric that if two people are married and one
of them's dan thee, the other one must have done it.
And that pretty much what propelled the entire investigation from
the get go.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
He claims, potentially crucial evidence slipped through the cracks.
Speaker 7 (20:11):
There's actually a bloody thumb print on a safe in
the closet where Jimi was found.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
Mac tells the jury that this is the bloody smear
that Liz noticed when she was packing up her old house.
When she's called as a witness, Liz tells the court
she sent a photo of the bloody mark to the
police and they told her it had already been processed.
Speaker 7 (20:32):
And guess what, they didn't bother to analyze it. In fact,
one of the detectives said that it had been analyzed,
when in fact it never had been.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
The crime scene investigator tells the court that his team
had spotted the blood, but they didn't swab it for
DNA or toss the safe for prints. When asked on
the stand, why, he says, because we assumed it was
Sandy's blood.
Speaker 7 (20:56):
So I mean, again, this is indicative of what we're
dealing with.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
According to Mac and his fellow defense attorney, Alison Seacrest,
the police cherry picked evidence that suited their case and
ignored anything that didn't, like the fact that forensic analysis
of the Melgar's phones and computers and a keyword search
for rope not stab, crime scene and murder revealed nothing.
(21:21):
And according to friends, family, and neighbors, the Melgars had
a healthy relationship.
Speaker 8 (21:27):
There was no evidence of any kind of infidelity or
animosity between the pair. Sandra and Jim had a really
loving relationship.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
Then there's the lack of physical evidence linking Sandy to
the murder.
Speaker 7 (21:41):
Jim died in a brutal savage attack at least fifty
one sharp force and blunt force injuries, thirty one what
we call sharp force trauma. He had all the hallmarks
of someone who'd been eating to death. What's startling is
(22:04):
when you examine Sandy's hands, there was no trauma to
her hands. It's very very common in stabbing cases that
if I'm holding a knife and I start to stab you,
and I stab you and I stab you, it's going
to produce a lot of blood. And it's very typical
(22:25):
that that blood will cause your hand to slip, and
the assailant will likely cut his or her own hand by,
you know, repeatedly wielding a bloody instrument. In Sandy's case,
the inside of her hands no cuts at all, and amazingly,
(22:47):
she had ten beautiful fingernails, no brakes, no chips, no cracks,
and yet she supposedly brutally worked him over, including hitting
him with her fist.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
Jim's autopsy report details fractures to a skull, bruises on
his head, shoulders, torso, arms, and legs, and notes that
there was internal bleeding linked to some of those bruises.
Speaker 7 (23:16):
Because of the fifty one plus blunt and sharp force injuries,
it was agreed to by all sides that the assailant
would be covered in blood. There was no blood found
on Sandy at all. There was no blood found on
any of Sandy's clothing at all all. The examination of
(23:41):
her fingernails and the DNA under her fingernails no blood.
Speaker 1 (23:48):
At all, and there was no evidence of a cleanup
to the defense. This proof Sandy didn't kill Jim, and
make some question why the police so quickly discounted the
theory of a robbery gone wrong. They seem to believe
that there was no obvious signs of a break in,
no windows broken, no doors knocked in, so no robbery.
Speaker 8 (24:13):
I think she was the only suspect because these officers
rushed to judgment and made up their mind that because
there was no forced entry into the house that it
had to have been Sandy.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
But there is one key sign the police may have overlooked.
Speaker 8 (24:27):
Sandy told the detectives in her interrogation that the garage
door could have been left open.
Speaker 7 (24:33):
The garage was open when the family arrived and was
able to enter the house through the unlocked interior door.
So that's how Hermann got into the house, and we believe,
of course, that's how the intruders got into the house.
Speaker 1 (24:49):
Did Duror Aaron Day Though this argument doesn't add up.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
My thought process was, yes, the garage door may have
been open, but if you go to somebody's house to
rob them, why would you murder one and leave another
one tied up in a closet. It just didn't make
sense that the defense said this was a robbery gone
bad and person got killed.
Speaker 9 (25:25):
It's Sunday, December twenty third, twenty twelve. This is Sean CARIZL.
Harris kind of Shaff's office, Homicide sixty Henry forty two.
The current time is nine forty two pm. Okay, ma'am,
can you identify.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
Yourself for me?
Speaker 10 (25:38):
Sandra Milber.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
One part of the story that I can't quite shake
is Sandy's interview with the police the night she was found.
If you remember, she's distressed, can't remember details.
Speaker 7 (25:52):
We went up to eat.
Speaker 3 (25:54):
Okay, where's on the we at.
Speaker 10 (25:57):
Mexican restaurant?
Speaker 1 (25:58):
I think it was a.
Speaker 9 (26:02):
Products pros.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
Yeah, what time was that?
Speaker 7 (26:07):
I wasn't.
Speaker 1 (26:09):
Cucos cucos?
Speaker 10 (26:13):
Uh, I'm listening about eight. I mean, I'm just guessing.
Speaker 7 (26:17):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
How will this tape play in court to the prosecution.
Sandy's behavior proves she's dodgy, She's evasive, unclear, she seems numb, detached,
and when she cries, they don't see tears.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
Are you governing something else?
Speaker 7 (26:37):
Why would you take a pograph?
Speaker 9 (26:39):
Because I'm so stressed right now I can't even think straight.
Speaker 7 (26:44):
It's not a good reason.
Speaker 9 (26:45):
Well, I just don't want to use against me, That's
all I'll take it.
Speaker 7 (26:51):
But not just.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
Because I'm stressed, And I mean.
Speaker 10 (26:59):
I just beyond beyond that she.
Speaker 2 (27:03):
Was making them because she would answer questions. You know,
she would avoid eye contact, she would avoid and she
would mumble, and she wasn't shedding tears and emotion.
Speaker 1 (27:13):
But the defense call an expert witness, a former police
investigator who's reviewed the interview. He tells the court he
didn't see any sign that Sandy was trying to mislead
the officers or that they ever considered she was traumatized
in the victim of a serious crime, the ars screaming.
Speaker 10 (27:33):
I didn't hear when he was in pain. We know
that he suffered a lot. I need you to help me.
I need you to help me. I need you to
help me on this. Help me, Sandra, help me.
Speaker 9 (27:51):
Tell me, cousin Deny Scott, he went to a lot
of pain.
Speaker 10 (27:56):
Help me.
Speaker 9 (27:57):
I didn't hear anything stopping.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
How need help and.
Speaker 7 (28:03):
I need help help me.
Speaker 10 (28:07):
That's it, that's it.
Speaker 7 (28:09):
I need a lawyer.
Speaker 9 (28:10):
I'm not talking anymore because you guys are just trying
to torture me.
Speaker 7 (28:13):
Here. We wanted the jury to hear her suggesting that
maybe she ought to get a lawyer, because obviously the
tenor of the questioning was absolutely unfair.
Speaker 3 (28:28):
So you said, I want to stop ze lair.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
They should have stopped, So that'sn't really where I blame
the investigators interrogators.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
Immediately after that police interview, Detective Carousel contacts the District
Attorney's office to try and charge Sandy. However, the DEA refuses,
saying they need more evidence.
Speaker 7 (28:50):
Here's a guy that even before they know the analysis
of what the DNA may show, hours before the crime
scene people had left, it's saying he's trying to get
murder charges filed.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
Mac wants the jury to see this as yet another
example of a biased and narrow approach by the police,
but Detective Sean Carosel says he was just keeping the
DA informed.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
No wonder why they were suspicious at the onset, and
that's why I give the police credit for being suspicious
that they had their murderer and they didn't need to
do more investigations.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
Mac then reveals his trump card. Detective Sean Carousel has
been fired. Two of Sean Carousel's former colleagues tell the
court that his work on a previous case was sloppy
and that he's not truthful. For journalists Amanda or listening
(29:50):
to this in court, it's a slam dunk.
Speaker 5 (29:54):
The fact that the lead detective had been fired and
the fact that there were testimonies that the lead detective
had been untruthful in other investigations would have been enough
for me as a juror to say that everything about
this investigation is called into question.
Speaker 1 (30:14):
But she's not on the jury. Aaron is, and he's
more well forgiving.
Speaker 2 (30:22):
Yeah, nobody's perfect, Maggie.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
The jury aren't told the full story about why Sean
Carousel was fired, only that there was an issue over
a search warrant. But the truth is he forged a
search warrant in another case and lied about it. We
reached out to Sean Carasel for the story, but he
didn't respond to our questions.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
Closing arguments have just wrapped up in the case against
a woman accused of murdering her husband and then trying
to cover it up.
Speaker 5 (30:52):
I told Colleen Barnett that she did the best she could.
Speaker 8 (30:57):
Sandy couldn't have done it, and the evidence is so clear.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
The members of the media watching end court didn't seem
so sure.
Speaker 8 (31:07):
Yes, Bill Well, the prosecutor arguing very strongly that Sandra
Melgar did murder her husband.
Speaker 1 (31:13):
Now it's up to the jury. Sandra Melgar's fate lies
in their hands.
Speaker 3 (31:18):
Well, I tried to keep it help in mind.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
I want to believe somebody is innocent until the stake
can prove them guilty. And then we all went back
in the room kind of like, uh, okay, where do
we start.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
You've been listening to Hands Tied, a new eight part
true crime series from BBC Studios and iHeart Podcasts. New
episodes will be released weekly, so subscribe or follow on
the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts so
you don't miss out. If you like the show, please
help us by spreading the word or giving us a
(31:59):
five star review. I'm Maggie Robinson Katz and the producer
is Maggie Latham. Sound design and mix is by Tom Brignell.
Our script consultant is Emma Weatherall production support is from
Dan Martini, Elena Boutang and Mabel Finnegan Wright, and our
production executive is Laura Jordan Rawl. The series was developed
(32:23):
by Anya Saunders and Emma Shaw at iHeart. The Managing
Executive Producer is Christina Everett, and for BBC Studios, the
Executive producer is Joe Kent. James Cook is the Creative
Director A Factual for BBC Studios Audio and the Director
of Audio at BBC Studios is Richard Knight.
BBC SDS. Hey, it's Maggie. Just a quick heads up
before we begin. This episode does contain some pretty detailed
descriptions of violence and deals with adult themes. Tell me
(00:24):
a little bit about Houston. I've never been there. What's
it like.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Liston is the most diverse town in the state of Texas,
very very ethnic friendly, lots of culture, lots of restaurants.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
It might not sound like it, but I've been desperate
to talk to this guy ever since I started working
on this story.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
It's a nice little part of Southeast Texas that nobody
considers to be Texas.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
He has a unique insight.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
We like to go out and test different restaurants.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Sometimes we have Thai food and sometimes you know the
stake how is to serve excellent food.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
And his opinion really counts.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
There's plenty of tex Mex and there's even variations of
tex Mex. So you can go in one restaurant, I
have a text Mex and then something next week will
be a little bit different. I think they have the
most cultural influence, but although the country is getting more
and more culturally influenced by Hispanic America, so that's always good.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
Totally, I'm with you. It has taken me hours and
hours of searching online and dozens of phone calls to
find Air and Day. Tell me why we are talking
to you today.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
You want to know my take on the Sandra Melgar
murder trail.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
Do you still think about the case?
Speaker 3 (01:42):
Oh? Yeah, will never leave.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
Me, Arin Day. He was one of the jurors in
the state of Texas versus Sandra Gene Melgar.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
It's part of my life, part of my history.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
I got called into something I didn't want, but I
was asked to do it.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
I did it because that's of my civil responsibility.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
Starting at the beginning, I'd love to talk a little
bit about the jury selection process.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
Yeah. In the Boorda for dire.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
Which again I'm sure Aaron and I are pronouncing one
hundred percent correctly, is when perspective jurors are assessed on
whether they can be truly impartial or not.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
I remember this as far as the prosecutor's first words.
She said, welcome, ladies and gentlemen to Ordai. I have
one question I want you to think about. Can you
convict a person of murder with no motive? I answer
that question, yeah, I think you know. If there's evidence,
we should be able to convict. If we can't and
(02:46):
the evidence isn't prevalent enough, then we won't convict us.
What our legal system is all about?
Speaker 1 (02:52):
And what did you think of that question?
Speaker 4 (02:54):
When she asked, uh, you know it was really unusual
that well, I knew it would be an unusual trial.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
A woman found tied up and trapped in a closet,
her hands tied, the door jammed shut from the outside,
on trial for stabbing her husband to death without a motive.
I'm Maggie Robinson Katz and from BBC's Studios and iHeart podcasts.
(03:27):
This is Hands Tied, episode six the trial.
Speaker 5 (03:41):
When Santa Malgar walked into the courtroom, she was walking
with a cane and I was struck by how petite
she is and her delicate features.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
That's Amanda Orr, a journalist covering the case for Reuters.
Speaker 5 (03:57):
She had a shock of whitish gray hair that was
about shoulder length. She was wearing glasses, and she didn't
seem like a big, hulking woman that would have been
physically capable of overcoming a grown man.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Amanda joins her fellow spectators, the media, law students and
your casual gawkers all cramped onto the uncomfortable wooden benches
waiting for the show to start.
Speaker 5 (04:30):
Murder trials are some of the greatest dramas any human
can witness. It's really a fascinating thing to behold. The
greatest lawyers know that winning a jury over is about
presenting the facts in a way that engages them, and
so attorneys are tasked with the job of being storytellers.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Whoever tells the best story wins. One of those storytellers
is the silver haired defense attorney Max Seacrest. He's also
joined by his niece and protege, Allison Seacrest. Max dressed
in a dark zomber suit and wears round towardous shell glasses,
while Alison sports an understated linen suit pearls her long
(05:21):
hair pulled back. Telling another story is prosecutor Colleen Barnett,
a confident woman with a shoulder length blonde bob and
a sharp suit. We tried to get Colleen for this podcast,
but we didn't get a response. So what comes next
are her words taken from the court transcript, spoken by
(05:44):
an actor.
Speaker 6 (05:45):
You're going to hear testimony that Heimi's brother knocked on
the front door and didn't get an answer.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
This is Colleen's opening statement.
Speaker 6 (05:56):
You're going to hear testimony that when he went into
the house, he found his brother's body in his brother's closet,
brutally stabbed to death, multiple stab wounds on his chest
and his neck. He went into another part of the
house where he found Sandramelgar in her closet with her
(06:17):
hands tied behind her back and her ankles wrapped. She
was in her closet in the bathroom, and there was
a chair on the outside of the bathroom door, wedged
up against the door. The police were called immediately.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
Colleen tells the jury how she thinks Jim died.
Speaker 6 (06:39):
We're going to show you that what we believe happened
is that she enticed Timie into some type of maybe
some sexual liaison or something that she was going to do,
made him sit in the chair.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
Then Sandy stabbed him to death. She says. She warns
the jury not to believe the story. The defense is
going to tell that there was a burglar there.
Speaker 6 (07:05):
What we're going to be able to show you is
that there was no way for any.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Burglar to enter that house.
Speaker 7 (07:13):
There was no.
Speaker 6 (07:14):
Reason for anybody to have anything to do against timing.
He was a loved person at his work and in
the neighborhood. There was no vendetta from anybody.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Colleen thinks Sandy could have made it to look like
a breaken to cover her tracks. She tells the jury
to not trust Sandy about her health, about her relationship
with Jim, and about her version of events the night
Jim died and.
Speaker 6 (07:42):
I didn't hear anything because the jacuzzi was going, and
that's broken, by the way, and I can't turn it
off if I wanted to, because it's broken, and the
noise was so loud from the jacuzzie that I couldn't
hear my husband getting stabbed, couldn't hear it.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
So if this were a courtroom TV drama, we could
maybe see Colleen make her way to the jury, looking
each of them intently in the eye. Maybe she'd rest
her hand on the wooden divider separating the jury from
the rest of the court. Because this is her moment,
the crescendo of her opening argument.
Speaker 6 (08:19):
We believe that we're going to be able to prove
this case to you beyond a reasonable doubt. Don't know
that I have motive here, but There's no other way,
any other thing could have happened other than she just
brutally murdered her husband.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
Again, continuing my imagined version of what she did, Colleen pauses,
ensuring that the jury heard those last words, that she
Sandy brutally murdered her husband.
Speaker 7 (08:52):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
She thanks the jury and takes her seat. But even
if they accept that Sandy enticed her husband into a
sexual liaison before murdering him, how is that possible? When
Sandy was found trapped in a closet, her hands and
feet tied. A video is played in court. The shaky
(09:29):
hand held camera hands across the disheveled bedroom belonging to
Jim and Sandy Melgar. This is the video the police
took the night of Jim's murder, capturing the scene of
the crime. The room is a mess, the bedsheets, rumpled
clothes everywhere. The camera moves into the bathroom, where we
see the remnants of their celebratory evening drinks set on
(09:52):
the edge of the chacuzzi, a tub of cream with
a strawberry perched on top. Then we see a gloved
hand pull a white satin chair in front of the
closet door.
Speaker 6 (10:03):
The Sheriff's Department did a video showing you can be
on the inside of the bathroom and pull the rug
so the chair wedges up against the door. They can
show you that that can happen, that she could have
done that, and that is what she did.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
To Colleen. This video is proof that Sandy could have
shut herself in the closet, put the chair on a
piece of fabric, making sure that half of it was
outside and the other half inside. Sandy could have cracked
the door slightly, just enough to place her hand on
the top of the chair, making sure it hooks underneath
the door handle, close the door, then crouched down and
(10:49):
pulled the part of the chair that is inside of
the closet towards her, causing the chair to be set
in place, locking herself in.
Speaker 4 (10:58):
This theory clicked for juror aar and A and they
showed how you can pull that chair with a rug
underneath it to make it look like the door was
actually blocked so.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
A person couldn't get out.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
So that was like, oh, okay, that.
Speaker 1 (11:12):
Makes sense, But how could she have done all of
that when she was found with her hands tied behind
her back. Well, Colleen has an answer for that too,
Sandy tied herself up. Colleen stands before the jury and
takes out a piece of fabric, its ends tied together.
She methodically loops it around one of her wrists and
(11:34):
a figure eight pattern. Then, with both hands behind her back,
she twists the material around the other wrist, holding her
forearms parallel with each other, each hand gripping the opposite elbow.
The binding looks tied around her wrists, but Colleen shows
she can easily slip her hands free, so Sandy could
(11:55):
have tied her own hands behind her back.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
The prosecution was able to demonstrate to the jury that
you can bind your hands behind your back and make
it look convincingly real and not have anybody.
Speaker 3 (12:13):
Actually tie you up.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
So that was the big thing for me, is well, okay, yeah,
I guess you can bind yourself.
Speaker 7 (12:21):
The only problem was that wasn't the way that Sandy
was tied up. That was not at all consistent with
the testimony of the only two witnesses who saw her
tied up.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
To Mac Sandy's defense attorney, Colleen's demo doesn't match with
what actually happened.
Speaker 7 (12:40):
She wasn't tied at the risk, she was tied with
her arms behind her back. The ligatures ran from her
wrist up basically to below her elbow. And when you
look at the crime scene unit photographs of Sandy's arms,
guess what? She has red marks consistent with that on
(13:05):
her arms.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
So, if you remember, Sandy was cut free by her
brother in law, herman, and his wife before the police arrived.
Herman gives evidence in court to say her arms were
bound so tightly behind her back that he couldn't untie
the knots and needed scissors to cut her free. While
Aaron may be convinced of Colleen's arguments, there's another question
(13:32):
that looms across the entire trial.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
How can this poor little sick lady commit murder? That's
what I saw Sandra. I was surprised by the picture
she portrayed of her physical being.
Speaker 1 (13:46):
And can you say a little bit more about that?
Speaker 2 (13:48):
What is that she walked with her kine when she
walked into the courtroom. I needily questioned that she couldn't
have done it because she looked so frail and unhealthy
the way she presented herself.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
The prosecutor, Colleen Barnett, argues that it didn't matter how
strong or how frail Sandy might have been, because she
believes Sandy planned the whole thing and took Jim completely
by surprise.
Speaker 6 (14:14):
So she gets Himie to sit down in the chair
and maybe she's massaging his neck or whatever, I don't
know what, and then she pulls it out and then
while he isn't looking, she makes a strike straight up
all the way to his neck. That's what the first
(14:37):
strike is. Jimie of course, gets up to try to
defend himself, turns around and that's when she gets him
on the thumb and that's when the blood starts spurting
out onto the chair. This was the first strike, and
then she had him. There was no place for him
(14:59):
to go. As you saw, there's only two feet wide
and not that deep. He was just stabbed to death.
She had the knife.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Colleen points out that jim wasn't a big guy. At
five foot seven, he was a bit taller than Sandy,
but she's heavier than his one hundred and twenty five pounds,
and the stab wounds weren't particularly deep, three inches at most,
which gets Duror Air and Day thinking.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
It made sense that she didn't have to be superwoman,
strong or any of those other things you would think
a murderer would have to do to murder somebody.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
But there's also the matter of Sandy's health. She's had
her hips replaced, has epilepsy, and loopis an Ever since
her police interview, she has pointed to her health as
a possible explanation for not knowing what happened at the
night Jim was killed. Sandy suspects she a seizure and
blacked out. I want to go into that. Colleen has
(16:05):
her medical records from Sandy's primary care doctor and asks
a witness to read them to the court.
Speaker 6 (16:11):
Under seizure disorder.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
What does it say that she was stable? Reads the witness.
Sandy's medical records show that, despite fairly regular checkups, she
hasn't reported having a single seizure in the four years
before Jim's murder. According to Colleen, yes, Sandy had a
condition that could cause seizures, but it was stable, controlled
(16:35):
by medication.
Speaker 8 (16:39):
Sandy hadn't felt good, she had been resting a lot.
She had been experiencing auras, which are many seizures.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
Defense attorney Allison Seacrest argues that those medical records don't
tell the full story or reflects Sandy's health in the
months before Jim's death.
Speaker 2 (16:56):
If she's using her illnesses and she's saying she can
veniently had a seizure and then a blackout for twelve
hours when her drugs were supposedly controlling these things, and
she was not complaining to her doctors, maybe she did blackout,
but I can't find any evidence that.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
She did.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
Over ten days. Colleen tears into Sandy's claim of innocence.
Colleen tells the court that she was unhappy, plotted the
whole thing and locked herself in the closet and tied
her own hands. The only thing that is missing is
why why would Sandy do this? When I've ordired you, guys.
Speaker 6 (17:40):
One of the things that I was a little worried
about was motive, because I showed you the things we
have to prove, and we've proven all of them. We've
proven all of them, but motive is not one of them.
And one of the things that I worried about being
able to establish that.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
She offers the jury a theory or two. The first
is the classic Jim had life insurance policies worth some
half a million dollars.
Speaker 6 (18:13):
She'd be getting a lot of money.
Speaker 1 (18:17):
The second is religion. Colleen argues that as a devout
Jehovah's witness, Sandy couldn't divorce Jim without being ostracized.
Speaker 6 (18:26):
But if I kill him and nobody finds out, I'm
not ostracized and nobody finds out and I still get
the money.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
I can imagine Colleen locking eyes with the jury, ensuring
that her last words are heard clearly.
Speaker 6 (18:42):
There's zero evidence, zero evidence, zero evidence that somebody else
did this, no evidence that anybody else did this. She's guilty,
ladies and gentlemen, She's guilty. Please find her so, thank you.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
Now it's the defense's turn to take the stage to
try and convince the jury that the prosecution has got
it all wrong and Sandy is innocent. When it's the
defense's turn to address the jury and defend Sandy, Maxiecrest
(19:27):
makes a big decision. He doesn't call Sandy to the stand. Instead,
he relies on a very simple but powerful argument.
Speaker 7 (19:36):
It's the worst investigated case I've ever seen.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
He says. The only reason Sandy is on trial is
because the police fail to do their job properly.
Speaker 7 (19:47):
They had an agenda, they weren't objective, and they jumped
to conclusions, and they were sloppy. They assumed. It's the
old rubric that if two people are married and one
of them's dan thee, the other one must have done it.
And that pretty much what propelled the entire investigation from
the get go.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
He claims, potentially crucial evidence slipped through the cracks.
Speaker 7 (20:11):
There's actually a bloody thumb print on a safe in
the closet where Jimi was found.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
Mac tells the jury that this is the bloody smear
that Liz noticed when she was packing up her old house.
When she's called as a witness, Liz tells the court
she sent a photo of the bloody mark to the
police and they told her it had already been processed.
Speaker 7 (20:32):
And guess what, they didn't bother to analyze it. In fact,
one of the detectives said that it had been analyzed,
when in fact it never had been.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
The crime scene investigator tells the court that his team
had spotted the blood, but they didn't swab it for
DNA or toss the safe for prints. When asked on
the stand, why, he says, because we assumed it was
Sandy's blood.
Speaker 7 (20:56):
So I mean, again, this is indicative of what we're
dealing with.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
According to Mac and his fellow defense attorney, Alison Seacrest,
the police cherry picked evidence that suited their case and
ignored anything that didn't, like the fact that forensic analysis
of the Melgar's phones and computers and a keyword search
for rope not stab, crime scene and murder revealed nothing.
(21:21):
And according to friends, family, and neighbors, the Melgars had
a healthy relationship.
Speaker 8 (21:27):
There was no evidence of any kind of infidelity or
animosity between the pair. Sandra and Jim had a really
loving relationship.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
Then there's the lack of physical evidence linking Sandy to
the murder.
Speaker 7 (21:41):
Jim died in a brutal savage attack at least fifty
one sharp force and blunt force injuries, thirty one what
we call sharp force trauma. He had all the hallmarks
of someone who'd been eating to death. What's startling is
(22:04):
when you examine Sandy's hands, there was no trauma to
her hands. It's very very common in stabbing cases that
if I'm holding a knife and I start to stab you,
and I stab you and I stab you, it's going
to produce a lot of blood. And it's very typical
(22:25):
that that blood will cause your hand to slip, and
the assailant will likely cut his or her own hand by,
you know, repeatedly wielding a bloody instrument. In Sandy's case,
the inside of her hands no cuts at all, and amazingly,
(22:47):
she had ten beautiful fingernails, no brakes, no chips, no cracks,
and yet she supposedly brutally worked him over, including hitting
him with her fist.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
Jim's autopsy report details fractures to a skull, bruises on
his head, shoulders, torso, arms, and legs, and notes that
there was internal bleeding linked to some of those bruises.
Speaker 7 (23:16):
Because of the fifty one plus blunt and sharp force injuries,
it was agreed to by all sides that the assailant
would be covered in blood. There was no blood found
on Sandy at all. There was no blood found on
any of Sandy's clothing at all all. The examination of
(23:41):
her fingernails and the DNA under her fingernails no blood.
Speaker 1 (23:48):
At all, and there was no evidence of a cleanup
to the defense. This proof Sandy didn't kill Jim, and
make some question why the police so quickly discounted the
theory of a robbery gone wrong. They seem to believe
that there was no obvious signs of a break in,
no windows broken, no doors knocked in, so no robbery.
Speaker 8 (24:13):
I think she was the only suspect because these officers
rushed to judgment and made up their mind that because
there was no forced entry into the house that it
had to have been Sandy.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
But there is one key sign the police may have overlooked.
Speaker 8 (24:27):
Sandy told the detectives in her interrogation that the garage
door could have been left open.
Speaker 7 (24:33):
The garage was open when the family arrived and was
able to enter the house through the unlocked interior door.
So that's how Hermann got into the house, and we believe,
of course, that's how the intruders got into the house.
Speaker 1 (24:49):
Did Duror Aaron Day Though this argument doesn't add up.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
My thought process was, yes, the garage door may have
been open, but if you go to somebody's house to
rob them, why would you murder one and leave another
one tied up in a closet. It just didn't make
sense that the defense said this was a robbery gone
bad and person got killed.
Speaker 9 (25:25):
It's Sunday, December twenty third, twenty twelve. This is Sean CARIZL.
Harris kind of Shaff's office, Homicide sixty Henry forty two.
The current time is nine forty two pm. Okay, ma'am,
can you identify.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
Yourself for me?
Speaker 10 (25:38):
Sandra Milber.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
One part of the story that I can't quite shake
is Sandy's interview with the police the night she was found.
If you remember, she's distressed, can't remember details.
Speaker 7 (25:52):
We went up to eat.
Speaker 3 (25:54):
Okay, where's on the we at.
Speaker 10 (25:57):
Mexican restaurant?
Speaker 1 (25:58):
I think it was a.
Speaker 9 (26:02):
Products pros.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
Yeah, what time was that?
Speaker 7 (26:07):
I wasn't.
Speaker 1 (26:09):
Cucos cucos?
Speaker 10 (26:13):
Uh, I'm listening about eight. I mean, I'm just guessing.
Speaker 7 (26:17):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
How will this tape play in court to the prosecution.
Sandy's behavior proves she's dodgy, She's evasive, unclear, she seems numb, detached,
and when she cries, they don't see tears.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
Are you governing something else?
Speaker 7 (26:37):
Why would you take a pograph?
Speaker 9 (26:39):
Because I'm so stressed right now I can't even think straight.
Speaker 7 (26:44):
It's not a good reason.
Speaker 9 (26:45):
Well, I just don't want to use against me, That's
all I'll take it.
Speaker 7 (26:51):
But not just.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
Because I'm stressed, And I mean.
Speaker 10 (26:59):
I just beyond beyond that she.
Speaker 2 (27:03):
Was making them because she would answer questions. You know,
she would avoid eye contact, she would avoid and she
would mumble, and she wasn't shedding tears and emotion.
Speaker 1 (27:13):
But the defense call an expert witness, a former police
investigator who's reviewed the interview. He tells the court he
didn't see any sign that Sandy was trying to mislead
the officers or that they ever considered she was traumatized
in the victim of a serious crime, the ars screaming.
Speaker 10 (27:33):
I didn't hear when he was in pain. We know
that he suffered a lot. I need you to help me.
I need you to help me. I need you to
help me on this. Help me, Sandra, help me.
Speaker 9 (27:51):
Tell me, cousin Deny Scott, he went to a lot
of pain.
Speaker 10 (27:56):
Help me.
Speaker 9 (27:57):
I didn't hear anything stopping.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
How need help and.
Speaker 7 (28:03):
I need help help me.
Speaker 10 (28:07):
That's it, that's it.
Speaker 7 (28:09):
I need a lawyer.
Speaker 9 (28:10):
I'm not talking anymore because you guys are just trying
to torture me.
Speaker 7 (28:13):
Here. We wanted the jury to hear her suggesting that
maybe she ought to get a lawyer, because obviously the
tenor of the questioning was absolutely unfair.
Speaker 3 (28:28):
So you said, I want to stop ze lair.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
They should have stopped, So that'sn't really where I blame
the investigators interrogators.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
Immediately after that police interview, Detective Carousel contacts the District
Attorney's office to try and charge Sandy. However, the DEA refuses,
saying they need more evidence.
Speaker 7 (28:50):
Here's a guy that even before they know the analysis
of what the DNA may show, hours before the crime
scene people had left, it's saying he's trying to get
murder charges filed.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
Mac wants the jury to see this as yet another
example of a biased and narrow approach by the police,
but Detective Sean Carosel says he was just keeping the
DA informed.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
No wonder why they were suspicious at the onset, and
that's why I give the police credit for being suspicious
that they had their murderer and they didn't need to
do more investigations.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
Mac then reveals his trump card. Detective Sean Carousel has
been fired. Two of Sean Carousel's former colleagues tell the
court that his work on a previous case was sloppy
and that he's not truthful. For journalists Amanda or listening
(29:50):
to this in court, it's a slam dunk.
Speaker 5 (29:54):
The fact that the lead detective had been fired and
the fact that there were testimonies that the lead detective
had been untruthful in other investigations would have been enough
for me as a juror to say that everything about
this investigation is called into question.
Speaker 1 (30:14):
But she's not on the jury. Aaron is, and he's
more well forgiving.
Speaker 2 (30:22):
Yeah, nobody's perfect, Maggie.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
The jury aren't told the full story about why Sean
Carousel was fired, only that there was an issue over
a search warrant. But the truth is he forged a
search warrant in another case and lied about it. We
reached out to Sean Carasel for the story, but he
didn't respond to our questions.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
Closing arguments have just wrapped up in the case against
a woman accused of murdering her husband and then trying
to cover it up.
Speaker 5 (30:52):
I told Colleen Barnett that she did the best she could.
Speaker 8 (30:57):
Sandy couldn't have done it, and the evidence is so clear.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
The members of the media watching end court didn't seem
so sure.
Speaker 8 (31:07):
Yes, Bill Well, the prosecutor arguing very strongly that Sandra
Melgar did murder her husband.
Speaker 1 (31:13):
Now it's up to the jury. Sandra Melgar's fate lies
in their hands.
Speaker 3 (31:18):
Well, I tried to keep it help in mind.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
I want to believe somebody is innocent until the stake
can prove them guilty. And then we all went back
in the room kind of like, uh, okay, where do
we start.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
You've been listening to Hands Tied, a new eight part
true crime series from BBC Studios and iHeart Podcasts. New
episodes will be released weekly, so subscribe or follow on
the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts so
you don't miss out. If you like the show, please
help us by spreading the word or giving us a
(31:59):
five star review. I'm Maggie Robinson Katz and the producer
is Maggie Latham. Sound design and mix is by Tom Brignell.
Our script consultant is Emma Weatherall production support is from
Dan Martini, Elena Boutang and Mabel Finnegan Wright, and our
production executive is Laura Jordan Rawl. The series was developed
(32:23):
by Anya Saunders and Emma Shaw at iHeart. The Managing
Executive Producer is Christina Everett, and for BBC Studios, the
Executive producer is Joe Kent. James Cook is the Creative
Director A Factual for BBC Studios Audio and the Director
of Audio at BBC Studios is Richard Knight.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.