The Stranger She Loved

by Shanna Hogan

  In Utah, the proceedings would be historic—the first criminal trial in the state’s history to be broadcast live on TV. A rule banning the use of cameras in the courtroom had been overturned in appeals the previous year, and Utah joined nineteen other states in allowing civil and criminal proceedings to be recorded and broadcast.

  Although the prosecution fought the motion, the judge ruled the coverage was warranted. “There is significant public interest in this case,” the judge said. Cameras positioned in the courtroom would capture every moment in the case that had grabbed headlines for years.

  Court would be held four days a week, with no proceedings on Mondays. In order to be in court every day, Linda Cluff worked graveyard shifts and weekends at her hospital job, while also caring for her mother, Helen, who was in her nineties and in need of full-time care. Her sisters, Susan and Terry, and Michele’s nieces would also be regulars in court. Because they were witnesses in the trial, Alexis and Rachel could attend proceedings only after testifying.

  The MacNeill family drama would now play out in court for the world to see. Everyone prepared for a battle that had been six years in the making.

  37.

  The trial of the State of Utah v. Martin Joseph MacNeill began on October 17, 2013. The complex, circumstantial case would unfold over nearly a month, the testimony plagued with emotional recollections and shocking accusations.

  Perched at the center of the vast oak-paneled courtroom was Judge Derek Pullan. To the judge’s left, the prosecutors, Chad Grunander, Jared Perkins, and Sam Pead, were clustered behind a long wooden desk.

  On the opposite side of the courtroom, the defense attorney, Randall Spencer, made notes on an open laptop. Next to him, Susanne Gustin occasionally whispered into their client’s ear. For the first day of the trial, Martin MacNeill was dressed in a dark suit, blue tie, and sleek, square-framed glasses.

  Pead rose from his seat and walked to a podium facing the jury. In a solemn voice—as if he were delivering a eulogy—he began his opening statement by describing the discovery of Michele’s body.

  “On April 11, 2007, the defendant picked up his daughter Ada from school,” Pead said, “and the two of them went back to the MacNeill family home in Pleasant Grove, Utah. Like many young children, Ada went to look for her mom, Michele MacNeill, who was also the defendant’s wife.”

  The courtroom darkened and a picture of Michele’s beautiful, smiling face flashed on a projection screen behind the prosecutor.

  “Ada found her mom unresponsive in the bathtub and ran to get the defendant,” said Pead. “Ada ran to the neighbor’s house to get help. And the defendant called nine-one-one.”

  But this case, as the prosecutor explained, actually began brewing a year and a half earlier, when Martin first met Gypsy Willis. On the projection screen, Gypsy’s face appeared.

  Pead walked the jury through the events of 2006 and early 2007—the affair, Martin’s apparent waning health, and his sudden fixation on his wife’s appearance. “The defendant began to look into surgery for Michele MacNeill.”

  At the defense table, Martin’s eyes narrowed as Pead described how the disgraced doctor hastily booked a surgeon and requested additional prescriptions. “Dr. Thompson did agree to prescribe all five of these drugs to Michele, but did so because her husband was a doctor and was her primary care physician and would know how these drugs should be properly administered.”

  Pead told the jury that following the surgery, while left in her husband’s care, Michele was found peculiarly overmedicated in her rented hospital bed. A few days later, Michele was dead.

  In court, the two 911 calls were played. Martin’s gaze was cast downward as his own frantic voice filled the courtroom. “I need an ambulance. I need help, please. My wife has fallen in the bathtub!”

  Pead spoke of Ada’s pleas for help, and how neighbors rushed to the house to find Michele, her head under the faucet, face covered in mucus. “During this initial attempt at CPR, no witness saw any mucus transfer from Michele’s face to the defendant’s face or saw Michele’s chest rise.” Minutes later, paramedics had arrived.

  At the defense table, Martin glared at the prosecutor, the muscles in his throat contracting as Pead described the former doctor’s belligerent behavior as paramedics attempted to save his wife.

  “While all these procedures were being employed, the defendant was acting extremely peculiar. He was yelling. He was screaming and shouting. He would not stay still,” Pead said. “These professionals, despite many of them having years and years of experience, will tell you they were extremely taken aback by the defendant’s behavior.”

  Pead documented Martin’s various contradictory statements about the position of his wife’s body, what medication she took, and the length of time she had been left alone. Martin instructed Eileen Heng to toss out Michele’s medication, which Pead told the jurors constituted obstruction of justice.

  Following his wife’s death, Pead said, Martin did not appear like a grieving spouse. “After the funeral the defendant was jovial, laughing and smiling and again remarking that he was going to have to get used to the life of a bachelor.”

  Then, a week after the funeral, Martin introduced Rachel to “Jillian” at the temple, “holding out this fabricated but seemingly happenstance meeting as an answer to prayer.”

  Amid his daughters’ growing suspicions, the new nanny moved into the house. Their affair continued as the lovers shopped for wedding rings and traveled to Wyoming, where Martin proposed.

  Throughout the prosecution’s case, Pead conceded to the jury, they would hear about contradictory opinions from the medical examiners. He told jurors that the original pathologist determined the cause of death as myocarditis and that the death certificate was later amended to include drug toxicity in addition to heart disease. Pead also explained that an expert witness would testify that Michele drowned.

  During their case, Pead said, they would not only hear from pathologists and toxicologists, but also Martin’s former mistresses and jailhouse informants.

  “This case is a puzzle with many pieces. Pieces that are required to show you a complete picture of what happened to Michele MacNeill on April 11, 2007,” Pead said as a photograph of a bathtub sliced into puzzle pieces flashed on the projector. “At the conclusion of all the evidence, and the instructions, and the arguments, we—the state’s attorneys—will come back up here and ask you to find the defendant guilty of murder and of obstructing justice. Thank you.”

  * * *

  “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what you just heard from the prosecution reminds me of an Aesop’s fable that I first learned about in high school,” Susanne Gustin said as she began her opening statements.

  Strolling in front of the jury box, Gustin was dressed in a dark suit, her wavy, blond hair hanging loosely. She spoke with a theatrical flair, punctuating her sentences with dramatic pauses, as she compared the murder trial to a classic children’s tale.

  “And that fable goes like this: A farmer who had gone into his field to mend a gap in one of his fences found on his return the cradle in which he had left his only child asleep, turned upside down—the clothes all torn and bloody. And his dog lying near it was smeared with blood,” Gustin said. “Thinking that the animal had destroyed his child, he instantly dashed out his brains with the hatchet in his hand. When turning up the cradle, he found his child unhurt and an enormous serpent lying dead on the floor, killed by that faithful dog, whose courage and fidelity in preserving the life of his son deserved another reward.”

  Gustin paced back and forth, making eye contact with each of the jurors. “Now what were the morals of this story?” she asked rhetorically.

  “Number one is that we should not jump to conclusions. And the other is that we probably shouldn’t let emotions cloud our judgment.” Gustin paused. “And I’m not here to tell you ladies and gentlemen that Martin MacNeill deserves a reward like the faithful dog in Aesop’s fable. Martin has made poor choic
es in his life.”

  Gustin admitted her client’s actions were morally reprehensible—he had affairs and moved his mistress into the home within days of his wife’s death. “We may think he’s a total jerk and that’s absolutely disgusting. And that’s natural, but it’s very critical that during this trial you set aside your emotion and you evaluate this case based upon the facts of the case rather than emotion.”

  The attorney also conceded that Martin was loud, obnoxious, and quite eccentric. The prosecution would use his odd personality, unfairly painting Martin as someone who was capable of killing his wife, Gustin said. “Which is akin to the evidence that the farmer misinterpreted as being proof of the dog’s guilt. As in Aesop’s fable, the prosecution’s perception in this case is wrong, ladies and gentlemen.”

  Gustin explained that the defense’s entire case was based on the original autopsy findings of heart disease. While all the experts would offer different opinions on the cause of death, they agreed on one thing: Michele’s heart disease contributed to her death.

  “Let’s look at the actual facts in this case and the science in this case. The real culprit in Michele’s death, the serpent, if you will, was heart disease.”

  Gustin presented an enlarged poster board of a Venn diagram, the colored circles showing the various opinions of the medical examiners. The circles each overlapped in the center of the chart, in an area labeled “heart disease.”

  Michele’s heart problems were significant, Gustin said, because Martin could not have caused or known about the damage to her heart. “What is very important in this case is that none of the medical examiners believe that Michele’s death was due to a homicide, because there is a reasonable and natural explanation for Michele’s passing.”

  Gustin explained it was irrelevant if Michele died from heart arrhythmia or drowned, because either scenario was consistent with a natural death: she could have had a heart attack, fallen in the tub, and drowned.

  Further, Gustin said, there was no evidence to indicate a struggle—no unexplained needle marks or bruising not related to the surgery. But the prosecution—convinced Martin had murdered his wife—dismissed any facts that disproved their theory, said Gustin.

  “The investigators in this case conducted their investigation backwards. They started with the premise that Martin killed Michele,” she said. “And that’s why in the medical and scientific part of this case they went to great lengths to change the autopsy report.”

  In the nonmedical portion of the case, the prosecutors “cherry-picked” certain parts of Martin’s life that they perceived to be indicative of guilt, argued Gustin. And in their zeal to prove Martin’s guilt, the investigators engaged in deceptive practices not aimed at finding the truth.

  As for Martin’s health issues, Gustin stated they could all be explained by the genuine genetic condition in his toe. “The prosecution is going to suggest that Martin was limping and using a cane to stage that as a ruse that he wouldn’t be able to lift Michele out of the bathtub … But the investigators ignored the medical and scientific evidence on this matter as well.”

  Most important, she said, Martin had an alibi, and the timing would not allow him to kill Michele. He was in his office at 11 A.M., at the safety fair at 11:15 A.M., and picked his daughter up from school at 11:35 A.M., which simply left no time to murder Michele.

  “Finally, ladies and gentlemen, the prosecution—like the farmer in the fable—jumped to conclusions about Martin’s guilt. But unlike the farmer, who was willing to surrender his faulty perceptions in the face of the facts of the case, the prosecution has continued to cling to its faulty belief despite evidence in the case, including the medical evidence in this case, which shows Michele died of natural causes.” Gustin ended her statement emphatically. “Martin MacNeill is innocent, ladies and gentlemen. And, after you hear the evidence in this case, we will ask that you return a verdict of not guilty.”

  38.

  If Martin had planned to shoot his wife, the man who handed him the bullets was the plastic surgeon who operated on Michele.

  Although Dr. Scott Thompson could not possibly know Martin’s nefarious intentions when he prescribed the requested narcotics, he had inadvertently provided him the tools to commit murder. It was no surprise, then, that the prosecution’s first witness in their case was none other than Dr. Thompson, who took the stand with a dreary expression.

  Prosecutor Jared Perkins confidently questioned the surgeon about how Martin had located his services. “I had an ad in the paper, I think it was for Botox or something like that, and the MacNeills responded to that ad and called the office,” Thompson said.

  Thompson explained how Michele deferred to her husband on medical issues during each of their appointments.

  “Did Michele express any hesitations about the surgery?” Perkins asked.

  “Yes,” Thompson replied. “She was concerned about the recovery and the downtime and the risks.”

  The surgeon also testified about Martin’s requests for additional medication. “Martin was really the one who directed this discussion,” Thompson said. “He said ‘I’m really concerned about my wife. She gets nauseated easily. She gets anxious. And I just really want to make sure I have everything I might need in the postoperative period for these issues.’”

  “Did you prescribe any additional medications?” the attorney asked.

  “Yes.” Thompson sighed.

  Thompson said he warned both Martin and Michele that these drugs would be dangerous when consumed together.

  “What would be the effect if someone took Ambien, Phenergan, Percocet, and Valium around the same time?” Perkins asked.

  “Those could all interact together to create a combined central nervous system depression.”

  “Is it safe to say this combination could be dangerous?”

  “Yes.”

  “Why did you prescribe it here?”

  “Because Martin was a physician and he asked me for these things. And he mentioned all the concerns,” Thompson said. “I felt like because he was a physician I was willing to do that.”

  “What were your instructions to Michele about these drugs?”

  “I told her this was more medication than I usually prescribe, and I told her to be very careful and only take what you feel you need. And they can have overlapping effects and you just need to be careful about taking these medications.”

  “Would there be any reason for her to take Ambien in the morning?” Perkins asked.

  “No.” Thompson shook his head.

  Thompson spoke about seeing Michele in his office during post-op follow-ups, where she seemed in good spirits. Then, on the afternoon of April 11, Thompson learned of Michele’s passing.

  “It was an urgent call from Martin that Michele had been found unresponsive in the bathtub,” Thompson said.

  “What was your reaction?”

  “I was very upset.” Thompson winced, glancing at the floor. “It was just very upsetting. I’ve never had anything like this before or since.”

  Throughout the trial, Randall Spencer’s cross-examination style was aggressive as he attempted to discredit witnesses.

  “You didn’t get any indication that Martin was being overbearing and pushing the surgery?” Spencer asked.

  “I didn’t,” Thompson said.

  “You wouldn’t have offered the surgery if you felt that way, would you?”

  “That’s correct.”

  Utah is one of just three states that allows jurors to pose questions to witnesses. During the process, each question is vetted by the judge before being read to the witness. When Thompson was on the stand, the jury asked two questions.

  “Did it concern you that Martin was acting as the primary care physician for Michele?” the judge asked.

  “Yeah,” Thompson said. “I thought that was a little unusual.”

  “Did you raise any objections or concerns with Martin and Michele about that?”

  “No. And also
he consulted with another physician, so that made me feel better.”

  * * *

  Prosecutor Sam Pead called the next witness: Dr. Von Welch, the physician who performed the preoperative physical exam on Michele.

  “The defendant was anxious that we complete the evaluation so they could proceed with the surgery without a delay,” Welch told the jury. “He was a little bit animated, a little bit excited to get things going.”

  As in Dr. Thompson’s testimony, Welch stated that Martin did most of the talking during the examination. After he asked Martin to leave, however, Michele explained she was depressed, Welch said.

  “What was your assessment of her health?” Pead asked.

  “She was in excellent health, with two exceptions,” the doctor explained. “She had elevated blood pressure and she had depression … We talked about the fact that she had high blood pressure and it would be ideal to get that under control before surgery.”

  “What was his attitude about postponing the surgery?” Pead asked.

  “He seemed disappointed but seemed to agree with it,” Welch stated.

  Later, Welch said, he learned Michele had died, and was shocked to hear she had gone through with the surgery.

  Spencer then questioned Welch about his previous interactions with Martin. “Is it fair to say that Martin was frequently animated in your associations with him?”

  “Yeah,” Welch said.

  “When you asked to speak to Michele alone, Mr. MacNeill didn’t object or throw a fit or anything?” Spencer asked.

  “No.”

  * * *

  Next, Pleasant Grove police 911 dispatch manager Heidi Peterson was called to the stand, and the two 911 calls were replayed for the jury.

  Peterson explained how when Martin first called 911 on his cell phone, he was transferred to the county dispatch in Spanish Fork. When he called back, Martin was connected with Peterson.

  “We spoke briefly and he hung up on me,” she said. “Then I called back and we spoke again before he disconnected again.”