Where's the beef? Where's the crime? I guess more importantly, where's the investigation?

What we do, but we investigate something like this,

Sandra, I want you to understand that we go to all extremes.

We don't quit. You're gonna see a lot of me, you're gonna see a lot of my partner.

You are. We're gonna find out a thing about you. We're gonna find out everything but drugs.

We're gonna talk to everybody in your neighborhood. We're gonna talk to everybody that you're related to.

In this case, I want to scare the hell out of all of you.

How did we get to this point? That's the question that I've been asking myself for the last six months.

For the last three weeks, we've broken down the key elements of Sandy Melgar's appeal.

We began with Point of Era number one, which claims that the evidence presented at Sandy's trial was not legally sufficient to render a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

To put it quite simply, if you take every single element of the state's case at face value and assume that every bit of it is true and accurate,

there is still not a shred of evidence that actually connects Sandy to Jim's murder. No DNA, no hair, no blood, no witnesses, nothing incriminating on any computers or phones, nothing.

And yet still, the jury convicted.

Then we moved on to Point of Era number two. MacArk used in the brief that the prosecutor violated Sandy's constitutional rights when she used the cross examination of Roceo Reeb as a platform to, as he put it,

slimed that Jehovah's Witnesses fade in front of the jury. According to Mac, this was a clear violation of Texas rule of evidence 610, as well as a constitutional violation.

Or net used the cross of this character witness to ask questions like, so you don't respect or acknowledge Christmas, and you don't celebrate the birth of Christ.

The entire cross examination was uncomfortable to even listen to as I'm sure you remember.

Then last week, we covered Point of Era number three, alleged jury misconduct. There is no question that the misconduct occurred, in my opinion.

Although he blew it off as no big deal, the foreman himself admitted in a recent interview that at least one of the jurors did in fact conduct an experiment in the jury room during deliberations.

And according to Alice and Seacrest affidavit, a lot more than that went on. Out of the mouths of the jurors themselves, several of them were attempting to tie and untie themselves up with items that were not in evidence.

And all of this was discussed during the deliberation process, directly violating the judge's orders.

We had jurors crying in the box while the verdict was being read, and one juror stated to the lawyers, after delivering a guilty verdict, that she didn't want to be a juror, and only God knows what happened.

...