Podcast Summary: Hands Tied

Episode 10 – Unanswered Questions
Host: Maggie Robinson Katz
Producer/Co-Host: Maggie Latham
Date: October 8, 2025

Overview and Main Theme

This bonus episode serves as a reflective coda to the main Hands Tied series. Host Maggie Robinson Katz and producer Maggie Latham revisit lingering questions from the investigation and trial into Jim Melgar’s 2012 murder, for which his wife Sandra (Sandy) Melgar was convicted. The duo discusses conversations and perspectives that didn’t make it into the main series, delving into law enforcement opinions, jury thought processes, the Melgar family’s Jehovah’s Witness faith, and elements of the defense that point to an alternative theory of a home invasion. The episode maintains a searching and empathetic tone, exploring the many ambiguities and unfinished threads left in the wake of a deeply controversial case.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Interview with Sgt. Doucet: Detective’s Perspective

(03:49–07:31)

• Maggie Latham recounts her off-mic 40-minute conversation with Sergeant Doucet, a lead detective on the Melgar case.
• Doucet was unwavering in his belief in Sandy’s guilt, asserting there were no lingering doubts or reconsiderations over the years.
  • “…he was in absolutely no doubt that Sandra was guilty…There was nothing like that at all. He had a very sort of clear characterization of Jim and Sandy, that Jim was sort of ambitious, he was really healthy…But according to Doucet, Sandy, he said, this is his words, had let herself go.” (05:35)
• Doucet theorized that marital trouble had been brewing and that Jim might have chosen their anniversary to tell Sandy he wanted to leave, framing the murder as potentially premeditated.
• His narrative about Sandy was at odds with what friends and family testified at trial regarding the marriage’s health.

“But I think what Doucet was saying is that nobody really knows what goes on in a relationship other than the two people involved. That was the sort of tenor of what he was saying.” (07:02)

2. The Power of Prosecution Storytelling & Sexualized Narrative

(07:31–08:44)

• The prosecution’s framing of events, and Doucet’s echoed theory, implied a sexual undertone, painting Sandy as a “sex siren” who lured Jim into a vulnerable position in order to kill him.
• Police found sex toys in the bedroom, which were interpreted as part of this narrative.

“Sergeant Doucet's theory was that, you know...she'd kind of lured Jim into this promise of sex, got him naked and was doing this seductive dance, so to speak, and then she sort of slashed his throat from behind...” (08:12)

3. Jury Perspectives and Unanswered Doubts

(08:44–13:12)

• Maggie Robinson Katz recaps a call with a male juror, who affirmed the verdict but admitted wrestling with doubt.
  • He wanted Sandy to be innocent and was uneasy about handing down a sentence, even hoping for a mistrial possibility.
  • The juror cited the clarity of the Jacuzzi water in crime scene photos as the most convincing but still peculiar evidence: “he didn’t think that if people were sitting in a bathtub that the water would be that clear if they were in the tub for that long…” (09:23)
• He wondered if Sandy taking the stand might have altered his view but acknowledged it might also have harmed her case.
• Both Maggies speculate about the possible impact of Sandy’s demeanor and the role of gender stereotypes in perceptions of guilt and grief expression.

“We do have these preconceived notions of how we expect people to act in stressful situations, especially women…when people don't fit into what we believe is [the] accurate presentation of…grief, of guilt, of shame, then we start to develop different ideas…” (11:50–12:48)

• Neither host was able to secure a comment from a female juror but noted that every juror seemed to grasp the seriousness of the case.

4. The Role of Faith: Jehovah’s Witnesses in Life & Courtroom

(18:38–25:43)

• Explores Sandy and Jim’s conversion to Jehovah's Witnesses, how it shaped their community (almost all friends from church), and provided comfort, especially for Sandy in prison.
• Maggie Latham describes how being a Jehovah’s Witness became central to the prosecution's "othering" of Sandy.
  • In court, the prosecution highlighted unusual beliefs (no holidays, strict divorce rules) to set Sandy apart from jurors and cast aspersions.

    "So I think...it was used to make Sandy seem unsympathetic, to portray as an unsympathetic, different other type of person to the jury." (22:06)

• Quotes Colleen Barnett, state prosecutor, on the possible religious motivation for murder instead of divorce:

  "If I get divorced, I get ostracized and I can't talk with my friends. But if I kill him and nobody finds out, I'm not ostracized. And he's just asleep." (23:18)

• Both Maggies clarify that this framing doesn’t wholly line up with real-life Jehovah’s Witness practice, as even close friends acknowledged divorces do happen.
• Sandy’s faith remains a source of strength for her in prison, and continues to ground both her and her daughter Liz.

“She is…I know for a fact that if anyone has a Bible question, they'll say, ‘Oh, I don't know, go ask Ms. Sandy. She'll know.’…one thing that gave her comfort was knowing that she would see Jim again in the Resurrection, knowing that that wasn't the end.” (25:48)

5. The Defense Theory: Home Invasion

(31:04–41:03)

• The defense suggested the murder was the result of a random home invasion, a not-uncommon crime in Houston at the time.
• Maggie Latham interviewed Mike Glenn, long-time Houston Chronicle crime reporter, and Ron Oliver, former ATF agent who led anti-home-invasion task forces.
• Glenn describes home invasions as “run of the mill…so normal,” rarely covered by press unless especially shocking. Most had a prior connection (e.g. drug trade).
• Ron Oliver’s task force tracked organized crews, primarily Colombian, targeting homes with cash; these crews were careful and heavily armed, rarely used knives, and clearly preferred to avoid homicide charges.
  • The Melgar case didn’t fit the standard pattern due to the use of a knife and lack of forced entry, but some aspects (use of household ties, jewelry theft, bag of valuables) were broadly consistent.
  • Liz once speculated a Colombian crew might be responsible after seeing a police sketch resembling the woman Sandy recalled seeing pre-attack, but this was unconfirmed.

“But they always had guns. That's the thing that Ron Oliver said, they would pistol whip people, they would threaten them at gunpoint, and people were shot and killed. He doesn't remember any stabbings at all. Stabbing is a really sort of intimate, visceral thing that can go wrong. So it's not really the type of thing that a professional gang would do.” (40:27)

6. Hope for New Evidence: DNA and the Innocence Project

(41:19–42:36)

• Liz Melgar played a crucial role in recalling a potential avenue of exoneration: hair found in Jim’s hand that could now be DNA tested.
  • The Innocence Project of Texas had overlooked this detail, which Liz recalled from digging through the voluminous case file.

“Liz, with her sort of very clever brain, remembered the hair. She remembers the details, and the Innocence Project of Texas…is so lucky to have Liz. She's the one that's been across it from day one, and she's still there.” (41:40)

7. Closing Reflections: The Toll on Liz and Ongoing Fight for Justice

(42:50–44:28)

• Both Maggies reflect on the difficulty and heartbreak of Liz’s situation—having lost her father to murder and her mother to prison, forced to fight ceaselessly for years.

  • “You just can never imagine being in the situation that Liz is in…having to pick up the pieces of your life and try and carry on after that. It's just so difficult to imagine.” (42:50)

• The episode ends with an update: Liz hopes someday to move to California and provide a home for Sandy if and when she’s released.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Sgt. Doucet’s certainty: “He was in absolutely no doubt that Sandra was guilty. He hadn't kind of thought back over the years, 'Oh, maybe she didn't do it.' ...There was nothing like that at all.” (05:35, Maggie Latham recounting conversation)

• Jury struggle: "He really wanted to believe that Sandy was innocent. And then when the actual deliberation happened, he didn't want to give any sort of sentence. He wanted to see if there was any way that there could be a mistrial." (09:23, Maggie Robinson Katz)

• The Othering via Faith: "So...it was used to make Sandy seem unsympathetic, to portray as an unsympathetic, different other type of person to the jury. So she's different to us, therefore she's guilty." (22:06, Maggie Latham)

• Doubt about home invasion theory: "If you're a respectable criminal in Houston and you want to break in, you use a gun or multiple guns...They don't want to kill anybody…As long as they weren't struggling, the invaders were looking to grab the drugs and the money, not so much to leave a bunch of bodies around." (36:13, Ron Oliver via Maggie Latham)

• Liz’s critical role: "She's the one that's been across it from day one, and she's still there." (41:40, Maggie Latham)

Important Timestamps

• Introduction to the bonus episode and purpose: 02:19–03:49
• Discussion of Det. Doucet and his views: 03:49–07:31
• Analysis of prosecution storytelling/sexualization of Sandy: 07:31–08:44
• Jury deliberation insights: 08:44–13:12
• Jehovah’s Witness faith as defense and prosecution tool: 18:38–25:43
• Home invasion context and expert interviews: 31:04–41:03
• Hope for new DNA evidence: 41:19–42:36
• Reflections on Liz and the ongoing case: 42:50–44:28
• Closing update from Liz: 44:28

Takeaways

• The Melgar case is defined by ambiguity and sharply split narratives; law enforcement, the jury, and Sandy’s supporters interpret the same facts in deeply opposed ways.
• Storytelling—especially as wielded by the prosecution—had an outsized influence on trial outcome, with gendered and religious “othering” coloring perceptions of guilt.
• Alternative theories like the home invasion, while plausible in some respects, failed to match certain specifics; yet, the defense and Innocence Project hope new DNA testing could provide clarity.
• Liz Melgar’s persistence and investigative skills have driven ongoing appeals, illustrating the impact that family advocacy can have in complex criminal cases.
• The episode closes with a sense of frustration, hope, and commitment to keep pursuing answers.

For listeners new to the case, this episode provides essential context on how difficult it is to resolve competing narratives in the criminal justice system—and how those left behind keep fighting for truth, no matter how many questions remain unanswered.