Did anyone else catch this "Final Appeal" story on Spike this evening?

I don't believe I have ever seen it before. Despite Spike's clever subterfuge, I have come to believe that this story was taken from the long lost short lived "Final Appeal" series.

What did you all think?

Was this guy guilty or innocent? I'm assuming he's still in prison. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of information about the case online.

I don't think he killed his wife himself, but I think he had something to do with the attack at their house. The fact that he got shot and was not seriously injured raises a question, i find it hard to believe someone could randomly shoot him and no vital organs be hit. The lady who confessed seemed a little iffy as well.

I don't think he killed his wife himself, but I think he had something to do with the attack at their house. The fact that he got shot and was not seriously injured raises a question, i find it hard to believe someone could randomly shoot him and no vital organs be hit. The lady who confessed seemed a little iffy as well.

That's a good point I hadn't considered. I wonder if he was collaborating with the woman and her companion to pull off the murder. Maybe he promised them a cut of the insurance money (assuming that was the motive).

Someone began talking to me during the middle of the segment and I didn't clearly hear about Dan's relationship with the woman and man who were the alleged intruders. I thought it was mentioned that they were neighbors but were they friends? It's pretty common to not really "know" your neighbors, so I was curious how well he knew these people.

The other thing I don't get, or maybe missed - why did this woman confess in the first place?

I think thats the most probable scenario, I didn't catch the realonship between them either. THe whole thing is strange, but I just can't buy he didn't have anything to do with it.

damn. While I can't sit past an episode of the New UM with all of its noise and graphics, I do give them credit for digging up some of these long lost stories.

On the net , it says the neighbors were into drug dealing or whatever.

The Hawaii trip was described as a "an attempt to save the marriage"

damn. While I can't sit past an episode of the New UM with all of its noise and graphics, I do give them credit for digging up some of these long lost stories.

Yes, as much as I dislike the bootied up, "in your face" format of the Spike incarnation it is nice to see some of these stories that we probably would not have seen otherwise.

I'm sure the NBC versions are superior and I would still like to find them.

I had never seen this story before, which was cool and I have to say the 360 degree view of the mugshots during the segment was awesome.

Just caught this on TiVo and was wondering if others on the board hadn't seen the original broadcast either. It's hard to make a judgment based on just a television segment, but he looked innocent to me.

Something that annoyed me. I just did a google search for Dan Montecalvo and found that there was a book written about his wife's murder. In the book's description, it says that Dan's voice was "oddly uninflected while talking to an emergency operator" about his wife's death. Are you kidding me? They played the actual tape of the 911 call, and he was hysterical, so much so that the operator asked him to repeat himself several times because she couldn't understand him. It bothers me that people can write such blatently false information that is accessible to millions of people. How much of the other information that we read and hear about such cases is an outright lie?

Just caught this on TiVo and was wondering if others on the board hadn't seen the original broadcast either. It's hard to make a judgment based on just a television segment, but he looked innocent to me.

Something that annoyed me. I just did a google search for Dan Montecalvo and found that there was a book written about his wife's murder. In the book's description, it says that Dan's voice was "oddly uninflected while talking to an emergency operator" about his wife's death. Are you kidding me? They played the actual tape of the 911 call, and he was hysterical, so much so that the operator asked him to repeat himself several times because she couldn't understand him. It bothers me that people can write such blatently false information that is accessible to millions of people. How much of the other information that we read and hear about such cases is an outright lie?

I saw that too. Along similar lines, it always bugs me when people assume that because someone isn't showing enough emotion when a tragedy like this occurs it means that person must be guilty or involved somehow. In actuality, how each of copes is a very personal and different thing.

A minor update: I have corresponded with the author of "Fatal Vows" and she confirmed that Montecalvo is still in prison and apparently in very poor health.

Unfortunately, California does not have an online inmate locator.

This one is on right now. I'd like to have more info on Dan's gunshot wound to the back. Apparently, this was being treated by the authorities as if it was a self inflicted grazing wound to a non-vital area that was done in an effort to make it look like he was also a victim.

But, nobody shoots themselves, or has their hired burgler/hitman shoot them in the back just to stage the scene. The segment says he was hit in the lower back. Was he shot in the butt? Was he shot near the kidney? Or was he grazed by the bullet across the skin on his waist? How serious was the wound?

I find it hard to believe that he chose the lower back as the place for the self inflicted wound. There's just too many organs located there and too many things that can go wrong.

The neighbor's story is two lesbians who lived down the street were partying and ran out of drugs. They knew that Dan and Carol were going to be in Hawaii and thought they were gone already, so she and her partner went to rob the house.

A couple inconsistencies with her story are: Dan remembers one of the assailants had a mustache and was tall and strong, not a woman. The neighbor says she thought they were already in Hawaii, so they went to rob the house, but in the segment, they say all the lights were on in the house and two cars were parked in the driveway. But the robbers still went in anyway, thinking that the homeowners are in Hawaii? The neighbor didn't explain how she thought they were away in Hawaii with all their lights on and not even one car parked in long term parking at the airport.

But, she knew info that only someone who was there that night would know, such as the caliber of the two different guns that were used, the color of the money box, the fact that one of Carol's shoes came off in the struggle.

One thing that makes Dan look guilty: He had $20,000 in gambling debts and his wife was insured for over $250,000. That's a lot of life insurance for back then, and especially for someone with no kids to provide for in the event of their death. Weird.

Also, Dan was in his 40s, was diagnosed with a "bleeding ulcer" and because of that, he could not work. So, he spent all his time at the bar, drinking and gambling. How exactly can you drink alcohol if you have a bleeding ulcer? That sounds weird to me, but I'm always suspicious of people who have these bizarre reasons for having to go onto state funded disability, but can still party hard.

Dan's still in prison, according to the update.

I saw this for the first time today. It was pretty interesting. I'm not 100% convinced but I'm leaning towards innocence. It seems once police found out he was a bank robber, they didn't bother investigating any other leads that might have come up. I agree with the woman's argument that why would she falsely confess to a murder knowing it might warrant her a life sentence if she wasn't guilty? Maybe her conscious got to her knowing there was someone serving time for the crime. Btw I just ordered a copy of the book about the case. It sounds pretty interesting and will probably give a lot more info than the Spike segment did. If anyone else is interested, here's a link:

http://www.amazon.com/Final-Vows-Karen-Kingsbury/dp/0440211980

Okay I recently finished this book and wanted to give my thoughts on it. Its a tough call but I still think, after reading it, that he is innocent of his wife's murder. He is a total slime and is accurately portrayed as one in the book. His wife seemed completely devoted to him and was a good Christian but it seemed at times she thought of him more as her "project" than an equal partner. He would drink excessively, gambling was out of control and huge debts and was on payment plans to various casinos in an effort to pay these down. He would stay out late many nights at the bars and many witnesses say he would proposition and even make out with other women. Carol stood by him through all of this. He was a career criminal and thought he didn't deserve someone as good as Carol and I think really loved her despite everything. Police did seem to believe his story until they found he was in prison in the past and then seemed to try and make a case for his murder. Dan didn't really help himself as he was acting very paranoid in the hospital after finding out police were investigating him. Started carrying guns around even. As far as his version of events, it checked out in that Carol was found with the registration paper in her hand when she was shot (remember Dan said she went inside to get something to help attach it to the license plate). He did say he heard Carol say "what are you doing here?" which sounds like something she would say if it were someone she knew in the house.

Remember the lady interviewed in the UM segment named Suzan Brown? She was quite a character. She was usually high on pills or drunk and in the book she would have flashbacks thinking she was in Carol's house that night and then she would brush it off as a dream. They basically said she had split personalities so you didn't really know what to believe. I do think she was involved in the murder though. Carol sold Avon and soon before the murder Suzan had came to pay Carol for her order. Suzan saw the money box and exactly where it was kept. She knew Dan and Carol were about to leave on their trip and thought they had already gone. She eventually said her and a friend of hers (RS said she didn't name him but he was named in the book) were out of pills and money and decided to rob what they thought was an empty house which seemed to be something they did from time to time to support their drug habit. She knew how much money was taken, the position of Carol's body and what she was wearing even. All details the police hadn't released to anyone. The big problem with Dan's trial is that Dan wanted to be co-counsel. He had what seemed to be a very competent attorney whom he quickly fired because he refused to let Dan try the case with him. He found another attorney who would allow Dan to help and Dan basically being in charge since it was his freedom on the line, against his current attorney's advice, tried most of the case himself. He was repeatedly objected to with the objections being sustained and was really frustrating the judge who is very against defendant's representing themselves. Soon after Dan was found guilty.

Another very interesting footnote to this case was they mentioned that in addition to Carol's murder in Burbank only two other murders had taken place in that town in recent memory. Both were UM cases....Crystal Spencer and Charlie Anderson. In fact the Charlie Anderson murder only took place a few blocks from the Carol Montecalvo murder and was also a home invasion/robbery. When investigator's working for Dan questioned Suzan about the case she initially didn't say anything but after some goading such as "you don't know anything about that case" she proved she did and mentioned a yellow coat that was left at the crime scene, something only police knew. I really think Charlie Anderson's death could have been at Suzan Brown and her friend's hands in a break-in looking for money for drugs.

Did the Fatal Vows book mention a life insurance policy? Specifically, when he got it in relation to the robbery?

Some Googling turned up a passage from a book entitled "Masters of Deception" that indicated Montecalvo was the beneficiary of a $600,000 life insurance policy, but it doesn't sound like it was paid out.

http://books.google.com/books?id=2hrqvjccW5UC&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=%22dan+montecalvo%22+and+insurance&source=bl&ots=yAHgTwYGs3&sig=oeuyHpV-xXkA7WxoXByGaYssVfQ&hl=en&ei=tx6kSei-EYG4tweC5ODJBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Kinda funny how matter-of-factly this source states that he was guilty. There is no mention of other suspects and the possibility that he might be innocent. :mad:

I wonder if UM covered these three cases because they were close to home (Burbank).

Did the Fatal Vows book mention a life insurance policy? Specifically, when he got it in relation to the robbery?



Yes they did mention the life insurance policies (sorry, its hard to summarize a 417 page book in a few paragraphs). All totaled they were close to $600,000. If I recall they were taken out at different times several months before her death. He said it was Carol's idea because basically she thought if anything ever happened to her that Dan would need that money to live on. He had worked on and off but had recently been disabled due to ulcers. He did receive $400,000 of it pretty soon after her death (the rest was being contested by insurance companies as there was more than one policy) and wasted no time blowing the proceeds on gambling. At one point it mentions after he received the money he developed a $327 a hand blackjack habit and lost $53,2000 one month and $50,000 the next.

Another statement that made Dan look bad was from one of his acquaintances at a bar and another guy he was in prison with for his robbery conviction. The acquaintance was having trouble with his woman and Dan encouraged him to take some life insurance policies out on her and then Dan would kill her and they would split the money. Not sure how credible that was or if Dan was drunk when he said it. He told his former cellmate his goal was to marry a shy woman (probably one that thought she couldn't get any better than a creep like him), insure her and then kill her. This was mentioned during the trial and of course made him look terrible. One thing a lot of people said, even people that didn't like Dan, was that Dan was very familiar with guns and they didn't think there was any way he would shoot himself in the back intentionally. There's too much of risk of death or paralysis in doing that.

Not sure how Dan is today, if he is even still alive. The copyright of the book is 1992 and at the end they said that while at the California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo (a resort they say compared to other jails of its kind) he suffered a major heart attack. It said the heart attack deadened most of his heart's vital tissue and leaving him with a heart operating only on 42% of its original capacity. He's on complete disability which means I assume he doesn't have any chores to do in jail.

If his wife was sympathetic to him as it seems she was, it makes sense that she would have life insurance on herself for his benefit since it seems he was incapable of supporting himself. I have a hard time believing he was involved as well, especially in light of the neighbor lady's confession. He wouldn't be the first to plan to have himself shot to cover up his own involvement, but typically in those cases, the person is shot in the arm or something like that to ensure no life-threatening or debilitating injury. Getting shot in the back is extremely risky--there's a huge chance of death or paralysis with that.

I also don't put much stock in what cellmates or former cellmates say. They have too much incentive to lie.

Someone earlier mentioned that it didn't seem to make sense that the neighbors would break into the house, thinking they were in Hawaii since the lights were on and both cars were in the driveway. However, druggies in need of a fix aren't the most sensible people. Also, lots of people take a cab or an airport shuttle instead of driving to the airport and using long-term parking. I know that's usually what I do. People also will leave at least some of their lights on when they go, ironically, so people won't think the house is empty and target it for burglaries.

I'm open to the possibility that he was involved. I just don't see the proof beyond a reasonable doubt here. The confession that seems to match up with evidence that would only be known by someone involved seems to provide reasonable doubt enough on its own. Couple that with the lack of any real direct evidence or physical evidence of his involvement, and it doesn't seem like there is enough to convict him.

Of course, he seems like he was pretty stupid in insisting on representing himself. He wouldn't be the first innocent client I had, though, who seemed to do everything in his or her power to unintentionally sabotage his or her own case.

Heck, if Dan was involved, maybe the dufus just accidently got caught in cross fire of the druggies pulling off this crime.

Maybe the life insurance was the motive, he knew his neighbors were druggies and burglers and promised them a cut of the insurance proceeds, but by hiring doped up idiots instead of professionals, he accidentally got shot in a vital area.

YuppieLawyer, (and anyone else who may be knowledgeable on the subject),

Couldn't Dan's wife, who was apparently highly insured because she was concerned for Dan's financial welfare in the event of her death, and knowing that he was incapable of supporting himself, set up some kind of a legal trust or some kind of account that would pay him an allowance to live on, without giving him access to the full insurance amount in a lump sum, which obviously, we all knew he was going to blow at the bars and casinos as soon as he got his scamming hands on it?

YuppieLawyer, (and anyone else who may be knowledgeable on the subject),

Couldn't Dan's wife, who was apparently highly insured because she was concerned for Dan's financial welfare in the event of her death, and knowing that he was incapable of supporting himself, set up some kind of a legal trust or some kind of account that would pay him an allowance to live on, without giving him access to the full insurance amount in a lump sum, which obviously, we all knew he was going to blow at the bars and casinos as soon as he got his scamming hands on it?
Yes, she absolutely could have done that. Instead of making Dan the beneficiary, she could have made the beneficiary of the life insurance a trust that was for the benefit of Dan but administered by a trustee. That usually takes hiring a lawyer to set up the trust, though, and most people don't do that. They just buy the insurance policy and name the person or persons as direct beneficiaries.

Okay, so Dan Montecalvo was/is (if he is still alive) not an angel. He might even be a total sleaze. But there is a difference between being a sleaze and being a killer. Yes Montecalvo was a drunk and a gambler, lots of people are. Does that make them all 'scammers'? To be honest, some folks on here seem ridiculously determined to believe in Montecalvo's guilt because he is kind of an unsavory character. Like I think one poster said that Montecalvo killed his wife, but that somehow, just by coincidence, on the same night, at the exact same time he was allegedly doing this, some drug dealer neighbors were arguing on the same street at the same time as Montecalvo was plotting to or already had just killed his wife and just by coincidence gets hit in the back. That is pretty far fetched.

Does anyone recall the caliber of gun that Montecalvo was shot with? Was it a .22?

Does anyone recall the caliber of gun that Montecalvo was shot with? Was it a .22?

I just looked it up in the book and he was shot with a single .25 caliber on the right side of his back just above his hipbone. He had to have it surgically removed.

A few other interesting comments about Suzan. She worked in her garage making lampshades out of popsicle sticks and she spent most of her time wheeling around in a wheelchair even though she didn't need one and had absolutely no leg injuries. She would get up from it and walk around whenever she wanted. :crazy:

I just looked it up in the book and he was shot with a single .25 caliber on the right side of his back just above his hipbone. He had to have it surgically removed.

A few other interesting comments about Suzan. She worked in her garage making lampshades out of popsicle sticks and she spent most of her time wheeling around in a wheelchair even though she didn't need one and had absolutely no leg injuries. She would get up from it and walk around whenever she wanted. :crazy:

Thanks. I was going to ask my father what he thought as he is familiar with firearms and anatomy since he is a Hospice nurse. Just for my own peace of mind. I can't get over why he would shoot himself in the back. There is just too much that could go wrong there. I don't know if anyone watches the show 24, but there was a murder/staged shooting on this week's episode and the guy shot himself in the arm. That's a safer bet if you're trying to fake injuries and not looking to kill or paralyze yourself in the attempt.

I don't know if anyone watches the show 24, but there was a murder/staged shooting on this week's episode and the guy shot himself in the arm. That's a safer bet if you're trying to fake injuries and not looking to kill or paralyze yourself in the attempt.
Yes, I think every other case I can recall where someone was shot and it was eventually concluded that the person was only shot to cover up his role in the murder, the person had been shot in the arm.

does any one know if hes still alive? i thought i remember reading one time he had passed but now looking it up I cant find anything on him.

Just saw this case for the first time last night. The first thing I thought of was the Doctor MacDonald case...struck me as very similar.

I think the fact that we have another party who has intimate knowledge of the crime scene tells me that at the very least Dan Montecalvo did not act alone in the killing of his wife, if he was involved at all. I think much like Michael Scott Martin the fact that he had priors worked against him in this case and more than likely is a big part of the reason he's behind bars right now.

To answer Nystyle's question, I believe either Justin or Crystaldawn reported that Montecalvo is still incarcerated and in failing health.

yes I read that, but from the time that was posted to now is when I had read he had possibly passed away. thats why I asked.

Last I knew he was in bad health due to heart problems and was even trying to get out based on that but was still incarcerated. I highly recommend the book about the case called "Final Vows". He was a total sleaze and a lousy husband but I'm convinced he didn't kill his wife.

I watched this the other day and I gotta say......THE GUY DIDN'T DO IT. I DO certainly see how he became a suspect what with his very sketchy past and all. But the simple fact is, if you're going to shoot yourself to "pretend" to be innocent, you aren't going turn a gun toward your back and just shoot away. Any moron knows that you'd risk hitting something vital with bad aim. It's a shame that he is in jail for this, ESPECIALLY when this other woman admitted to it.

Dan also stored his stuff away and the murder weapon was hidden in a book hole and if you positioned them right you could hide the 2 kinds of guns(Dan was shot with a different caliber then his wife). Why would Dan hide both the guns away in storage?

I usually think everyone is guilty, but this guy seems innocent to me and whacked out weirdo neighbor wouldnt confess unless she was crazy or did it. I just dont get it.

Last I knew he was in bad health due to heart problems and was even trying to get out based on that but was still incarcerated. I highly recommend the book about the case called "Final Vows". He was a total sleaze and a lousy husband but I'm convinced he didn't kill his wife.

At one time I went to the same church the Montecalvo's attended. I really didn't know them other than by sight, as I was new to the church shortly before the murder. However after Dan was released on appeal, I did become acquainted with him. I had seen him break down more than once, over all that had happened in his life with his own mistakes, Carol's murder, the continuing drinking and gambling problems he had. I can say beyond any shadow of doubt I believe he truly loved Carol very much! And although I am not a professional in any way, in my God given spirit, I truly believe that Dan is innocent. Yes, he was a drunk, a compulsive gambler, and a jerk, but he Loved Jesus, and he Loved Carol.

Also, during the investigation/trial, medical professionals testified that the location of Dan's gunshot wound could not have been self inflicted, and the bullet barely missed vital organs, which if hit would have meant immediate death.

The segment aired today. I was leaning towards innocent till I had heard that he had remarried a friend of Carol's just weeks after she died.


That just reeks of guiltiness to me. If my wife was brutally murdered in my house, the last thing I would do is remarry immediately after it. I think he had planned the trip to Hawaii in jest and to set up his wife so he could kill her and start a new life with a new wife and new money.

The segment aired today. I was leaning towards innocent till I had heard that he had remarried a friend of Carol's just weeks after she died.


That just reeks of guiltiness to me. If my wife was brutally murdered in my house, the last thing I would do is remarry immediately after it. I think he had planned the trip to Hawaii in jest and to set up his wife so he could kill her and start a new life with a new wife and new money.

I don't think the fact he re-married means he's guilty. Tragedy has a strange way of bringing people together. I saw a program a few years ago about the wives of firefighters killed in 911 who went on to marry their deceased husband's best friends. That sort of thing happens.

The segment aired today. I was leaning towards innocent till I had heard that he had remarried a friend of Carol's just weeks after she died.

That just reeks of guiltiness to me. If my wife was brutally murdered in my house, the last thing I would do is remarry immediately after it. I think he had planned the trip to Hawaii in jest and to set up his wife so he could kill her and start a new life with a new wife and new money.

Well, no one is denying that Dan Montecalvo is a scumbag who did not treat his wife very well and had very low moral character. He was constantly hitting on other women while he was married to her, so it would make total sense that he would instantly hitch himself to a new woman since he was unemployed and would need a new meal ticket since he was likely to blow his wife's insurance policy on gambling (which he did).

However, just because someone is a lowlife doesn't mean they're capable of murder. Thomas Drake moved in with a new girlfriend while his wife was in a coma, which is a pretty terrible thing to do, but I still think he's probably innocent of attempting to kill her. I feel the same away about Montecalvo even though I don't think highly of him as a human being.

There was no shortage of great husbands on Final Appeal.

There was no shortage of great husbands on Final Appeal.
:D

Here are my thoughts on Montecalvo (I'm going strictly off of what was shown in the segment): he didn't actually kill his wife, but he planned it. I think he got his druggie neighbors (Suzan Brown and her partner) to "break in" and murder Carol. He probably promised them a cut of the insurance money. Now I'll admit I haven't read the book on Montecalvo so this may have been answered, but isn't it weird how Suzan Brown never names the other shooter (the one who allegedly actually shot Carol) by name? She just says she was there when Carol was shot and that she was the one that shot Dan. But Montecalvo insists he was shot by a man with a moustache. I think this is Montecalvo's way to deflect attention away from Suzan Brown (who would ultimately lead the investigation back to him). I'm not even sure if Montecalvo was aware that Suzan Brown was claiming to have been involved. The two big clinchers for me were the fact that he discussed this scam with a guy at a bar before Carol's murder and the police found the hollowed out book in his house that fit the murder weapon perfectly.

Here are my thoughts on Montecalvo (I'm going strictly off of what was shown in the segment): he didn't actually kill his wife, but he planned it. I think he got his druggie neighbors (Suzan Brown and her partner) to "break in" and murder Carol. He probably promised them a cut of the insurance money. Now I'll admit I haven't read the book on Montecalvo so this may have been answered, but isn't it weird how Suzan Brown never names the other shooter (the one who allegedly actually shot Carol) by name? She just says she was there when Carol was shot and that she was the one that shot Dan. But Montecalvo insists he was shot by a man with a moustache. I think this is Montecalvo's way to deflect attention away from Suzan Brown (who would ultimately lead the investigation back to him). I'm not even sure if Montecalvo was aware that Suzan Brown was claiming to have been involved. The two big clinchers for me were the fact that he discussed this scam with a guy at a bar before Carol's murder and the police found the hollowed out book in his house that fit the murder weapon perfectly.

According to this article, Suzan Brown identified two other men who were allegedly involved in the burglary/murder at the Montecalvo home (and apparently everyone who was there at her house the night of the party). They both denied involvement and apparently unidentified fingerprints found in the home could not be linked to them.

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-01-17/local/me-285_1_investigators

Suzan Brown said she spent seven years in the U.S. Navy and received treatment on multiple occasions after her 1967 discharge for PTSD she developed during 13 months in Vietnam. If this is a true story, it A) is not surprising that she would develop a drug habit, and B) shows (D.A.) Robert Cohen's ignorance of mental illness in general and is, to me, clearly a "reach" strategy. To point to that as a reason--or even part of the reason--why Brown's story isn't credible is absurd.

The "bar discussion" thing is tenuous at best, IMO. There is one man who claims this conversation took place. Montecalvo denies it. It's a he said-he said.

I also think the hollowed-out book is a pretty big stretch. The two weapons used in the shootings--a .38 and a .25--have never been found. I'm not even sure Montecalvo was ever known to own such weapons. I own a hollowed-out book and I'm certain a particular handgun could fit neatly inside. I'm sure it could also fit just as well in a perfectly-sized box or a kitchen drawer compartment. The fact that it could fit does not automatically imply that I am hiding or did hide a particular handgun there--even IF I have another handgun in that spot. It's just pure lack of logical thinking on the investigators' part, plain and simple.

The biggest thing that gnaws at me in this case is that a smaller-caliber weapon was used to shoot Dan, the survivor. In a number of cases in which a supposed double shooting occurred, the surviving assailant shot him- or herself with a smaller weapon. In one extreme case, I remember a husband was killed by his wife's boyfriend with a 12-gauge shotgun, and afterwards the boyfriend shot her through the subcutaneous fat on her arm with a .22 pistol to make it look like a double shooting. Her wound was obviously quite minor and probably caused a lot less pain--IF her poor husband even had the opportunity to feel any pain. However, in Montecalvo's case, I don't think it's inconceivable that a couple or party of burglars would bring such weapons as a .25 and a .38 with them. They're common "carry" calibers and relatively quiet. Montecalvo was also shot in a very uncommon place for a self-inflicted shooting.

According to what I've read so far (still waiting on the book--hopefully it'll be here this afternoon. I paid a whole $4.00 for the book and the S&H, after all :p ), I think Cohen ultimately wanted a conviction more than anything else. Whether for his professional record or to cover for friends on the Burbank P.D. after Montecalvo brought forth that suit, I don't know--but that's what it smells like to me.

This is kind of worth about a cent and a half, but I just do not get that "guilty" vibe from Dan Montecalvo at all.

According to this article, Suzan Brown identified two other men who were allegedly involved in the burglary/murder at the Montecalvo home (and apparently everyone who was there at her house the night of the party). They both denied involvement and apparently unidentified fingerprints found in the home could not be linked tothem.

Interesting about the fingerprints. Although it wouldn't be that uncommon for there to be unidentified fingerprints and other items in virtually everyone's home, due to basic traffic of visitors and guests. It's just strange that she named these people who, if in fact were involved, there would have been some sort of evidence to corroborate that they were there.

Suzan Brown said she spent seven years in the U.S. Navy and received treatment on multiple occasions after her 1967 discharge for PTSD she developed during 13 months in Vietnam. If this is a true story, it A) is not surprising that she would develop a drug habit, and B) shows (D.A.) Robert Cohen's ignorance of mental illness in general and is, to me, clearly a "reach" strategy. To point to that as a reason--or even part of the reason--why Brown's story isn't credible is absurd.

I don't know, I get kind of a "Helena Stoeckley vibe" from Suzan Brown. According to that article, she changed her story several times (just like Stoeckley) and kept saying she would reveal the "real truth" if she got immunity. I have no idea why Brown would come forward (if she wasn't involved) other than the fact that she has a mental illness, and in a eerily similar scenario involving Stoeckley, perhaps she was high on drugs that night and couldn't remember what happened and actually started to believe she was in the Montecalvo home.

The "bar discussion" thing is tenuous at best, IMO. There is one man who claims this conversation took place. Montecalvo denies it. It's a he said-he said.

You got me here. But at the very least it establishes a possibility that Montecalvo had discussed the same exact scenario involving his wife months before. I may be wrong, but the bar discussion had taken place with a friend or acquaintance of Montecalvo, correct? It wasn't like it was a cell mate or one of his ex-con friends. There would be no reason for this man to lie. He has nothing to gain. And according to the man, Montecalvo had suggested that the man be the one who finds a woman and that Montecalvo would bump her off and they could split the insurance together. It almost seems like Montecalvo was trying to find another woman first before settling on his wife.

I also think the hollowed-out book is a pretty big stretch. The two weapons used in the shootings--a .38 and a .25--have never been found. I'm not even sure Montecalvo was ever known to own such weapons. I own a hollowed-out book and I'm certain a particular handgun could fit neatly inside. I'm sure it could also fit just as well in a perfectly-sized box or a kitchen drawer compartment. The fact that it could fit does not automatically imply that I am hiding or did hide a particular handgun there--even IF I have another handgun in that spot. It's just pure lack of logical thinking on the investigators' part, plain and simple.

Speaking strictly from an investigators stand point (even if you were to believe in Montecalvo's innocence), don't you find it slightly odd that his wife was shot in the neck (twice) with the larger caliber weapon whereas Montecalvo was shot in the back (once) with the smaller .25? Why didn't they finish Montecalvo off, if their intent was to leave no witnesses? As to the hollowed out book, I wouldn't say it's a clincher but it certainly would raise a ton of suspicion on Montecalvo. IIRC, didn't both the .25 and .38 weapons fit exactly in the hollow part of the book? I realize this does not automatically make Montecalvo guilty, but it's certainly damning in regards to bringing more suspicion his way. Thanks to UM, we don't know if Montecalvo had an "innocent" explanation as to why he would even have a hollowed out book. I know there are a myriad of reasons, but it would've been nice to know his explanation.

The biggest thing that gnaws at me in this case is that a smaller-caliber weapon was used to shoot Dan, the survivor. In a number of cases in which a supposed double shooting occurred, the surviving assailant shot him- or herself with a smaller weapon. In one extreme case, I remember a husband was killed by his wife's boyfriend with a 12-gauge shotgun, and afterwards the boyfriend shot her through the subcutaneous fat on her arm with a .22 pistol to make it look like a double shooting. Her wound was obviously quite minor and probably caused a lot less pain--IF her poor husband even had the opportunity to feel any pain. However, in Montecalvo's case, I don't think it's inconceivable that a couple or party of burglars would bring such weapons as a .25 and a .38 with them. They're common "carry" calibers and relatively quiet. Montecalvo was also shot in a very uncommon place for a self-inflicted shooting.

I don't think Montecalvo shot himself. I think he had his accomplice shoot him there after they shot his wife. Now if Montecalvo was shot with the .38, that would make his story more beliveable. But he was shot with the smaller weapon, once. His wife was shot twice (to make sure she was dead, IMO), and Montecalvo almost certainly posed the greater threat to the burglars, so it just doesn't make any sense as to why he wasn't shot again to make sure he was dead.

According to what I've read so far (still waiting on the book--hopefully it'll be here this afternoon. I paid a whole $4.00 for the book and the S&H, after all :p ), I think Cohen ultimately wanted a conviction more than anything else. Whether for his professional record or to cover for friends on the Burbank P.D. after Montecalvo brought forth that suit, I don't know--but that's what it smells like to me.

This is kind of worth about a cent and a half, but I just do not get that "guilty" vibe from Dan Montecalvo at all.

Wow, that's cheap. Where did you order it from? I definitely want to read it now.

And FWIW, Montecalvo is dead and died recently as a matter of fact.

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/latimes/obituary.aspx?n=daniel-john-montecalvo&pid=167284317#fbLoggedOut

Wow, that's cheap. Where did you order it from? I definitely want to read it now.

And FWIW, Montecalvo is dead and died recently as a matter of fact.

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/latimes/obituary.aspx?n=daniel-john-montecalvo&pid=167284317#fbLoggedOut

Amazon. Nothing like those $0.01 used paperbacks. I'd say shipping on the mainland is probably even cheaper, too.


Wow, that was just weeks ago. Sepsis is an especially bad way to go. :(

Amazon. Nothing like those $0.01 used paperbacks. I'd say shipping on the mainland is probably even cheaper, too.


Wow, that was just weeks ago. Sepsis is an especially bad way to go. :(

I also found another link for prisoners with upcoming parole hearings. Montecalvo's was scheduled for October 30th.

So I'm currently about halfway through Karen Kingsbury's Final Vows.

Firstly, and I don't mean to be uncharitable, but Kingsbury's writing style is tending to stick in my side, beginning with statement in the first chapter that Carol Montecalvo would've been "quite pretty" if not for her weight. Not only did Carol's life reflect a woman who was deeply caring, loving, and a wonderful friend--indicating someone who was indeed beautiful--she WAS physically pretty, weight notwithstanding. Furthermore, Kingsbury tends to characterize all the male law enforcement officers as these caricatured, super-macho, smirking, square-jawed types who are out for the blood of everyone who even slightly transgresses the law.

Suzan Brown is treated as an absolute nutcase. While it is very clear Brown suffered from disturbances of some kind (she apparently utilized a wheelchair without having any apparent physical disability, did not like to change clothing from day to day, and was by all accounts a "speed" addict since the late '60s), I am not totally convinced that she is the hopelessly batty woman Kingsbury has presented. Kingsbury also takes a few opportunities to mention Brown's "obese" body. Her apparent fixation on other women's weights becomes :rolleyes: worthy after a while.

All distraction aside, the story is actually quite revealing of Dan Montecalvo himself. It is very clear that he was NOT, and I repeat, NOT, a good husband. He spends most of his weekends in bars. He leers at and picks up women. He acts a drunken blowhard and brandishes a firearm on two occasions. He solicits a prostitute. He blows huge money in Las Vegas. All of these events were corroborated by multiple, disinterested witnesses. There is not one, but TWO testimonies from totally different men about Dan talking about insuring wives and killing them. So that does lend some credibility to the notion that he could have committed Carol's murder.

However, I still find the hollowed-out book "evidence" to be extremely weak, even though by Kingsbury's account the Burbank P.D. seemed mighty pleased with themselves for "uncovering" it. And so far, it seems that's all they really have. Yeah, the guy seemed to be a lousy husband and an unsavory character overall, but there isn't anything so far that has me on the Dan-did-it wagon just yet. Maybe that'll change as I continue on. We shall see.

However, I still find the hollowed-out book "evidence" to be extremely weak, even though by Kingsbury's account the Burbank P.D. seemed mighty pleased with themselves for "uncovering" it. And so far, it seems that's all they really have. Yeah, the guy seemed to be a lousy husband and an unsavory character overall, but there isn't anything so far that has me on the Dan-did-it wagon just yet. Maybe that'll change as I continue on. We shall see.

Interesting stuff. I'm anxious to hear some of the details about Dan's trial since from what I heard, the guy did a LOT to screw himself over, even going so far as to fire his lawyer and act as his own counsel. Guilty or not, the guy was a walking trainwreck and I have a feeling he never would have been convicted if he'd just let his attorneys do their job.

There is not one, but TWO testimonies from totally different men about Dan talking about insuring wives and killing them. So that does lend some credibility to the notion that he could have committed Carol's murder.

That just seems like to big of a coincidence for him to still be innocent, IMO. What are the odds that something he discussed with two different people happens to him after the fact? I think he's guilty, but I have no idea as to whether or not Suzan Brown was an accomplice.

That just seems like to big of a coincidence for him to still be innocent, IMO. What are the odds that something he discussed with two different people happens to him after the fact? I think he's guilty, but I have no idea as to whether or not Suzan Brown was an accomplice.

On the surface I'd be apt to agree with you, but here's a guy with a personality such that he's perpetually trying to prove this high-rolling-wiseguy-with-mafioso-connections image amongst basically everyone that's not Carol's church friends. It's difficult to discern B.S. from truth when it comes to Montecalvo himself, I'm finding.

One of the court-appointed investigators into Dan's case noticed something about his story that led him to believe he was telling the truth. Dan claimed that on the night of their walk, Carol noticed that her registration sticker was going to expire and went into the house to grab a rag to wipe the dust off the plate before applying the new sticker. Dan claims he heard his wife say, "What are you doing here?" before hearing gunfire. The investigator surmised that this was an unusual way for Carol to react under the circumstances, that her reaction was more indicative of encountering someone she knew, and that it was something Dan probably wouldn't have made up (his reasoning; not necessarily mine). If she had been surprised by strangers, she would have immediately run out of the house, or she would have screamed. This in turn set the stage for Suzan Brown to fully enter the picture. Suzan was Carol's Avon lady. Just a theory; I'm not sure how I feel about it.

Suzan also volunteered--without prompting--an accurate description of the cash box in the Montecalvo home from which $800 was missing according to Dan. Now, as she had been in the Montecalvo home prior to the murder, some surmise that she could have noticed this cash box before, provided it was in view. A woman who had been in a relationship with Suzan also told investigators that it was indeed in Suzan's habit to burglarize homes when she needed drug money.

On the surface I'd be apt to agree with you, but here's a guy with a personality such that he's perpetually trying to prove this high-rolling-wiseguy-with-mafioso-connections image amongst basically everyone that's not Carol's church friends. It's difficult to discern B.S. from truth when it comes to Montecalvo himself, I'm finding.

That would then make Montecalvo one of the most unlucky people ever in the history of criminal convictions. Even if he was bs'ing with some bar buddies, the odds of the things he was bs'ing about happening to him and his wife would be near astronomical. Now had he simply said something like, "sometimes I wish someone would kill my wife" or something to that effect I could write it off as drunk garbage talk. But he specifically mentions the insurance part to two different people. That's a huge red flag, IMO.

One of the court-appointed investigators into Dan's case noticed something about his story that led him to believe he was telling the truth. Dan claimed that on the night of their walk, Carol noticed that her registration sticker was going to expire and went into the house to grab a rag to wipe the dust off the plate before applying the new sticker. Dan claims he heard his wife say, "What are you doing here?" before hearing gunfire. The investigator surmised that this was an unusual way for Carol to react under the circumstances, that her reaction was more indicative of encountering someone she knew, and that it was something Dan probably wouldn't have made up (his reasoning; not necessarily mine). If she had been surprised by strangers, she would have immediately run out of the house, or she would have screamed. This in turn set the stage for Suzan Brown to fully enter the picture. Suzan was Carol's Avon lady. Just a theory; I'm not sure how I feel about it.

Montecalvo doesn't strike me as someone necessarily bright (based off of the way he treated Carol, etc.) so it wouldn't surprise me if he was trying to imply that there were strangers in the house when Carol allegedly said, "What are you doing here".

Suzan also volunteered--without prompting--an accurate description of the cash box in the Montecalvo home from which $800 was missing according to Dan. Now, as she had been in the Montecalvo home prior to the murder, some surmise that she could have noticed this cash box before, provided it was in view. A woman who had been in a relationship with Suzan also told investigators that it was indeed in Suzan's habit to burglarize homes when she needed drug money.

I still don't know what to make of Suzan Brown. She was either a druggie who made everything up because she started to believe she was involved (like Helena Stoeckley), or she helped Dan murder Carol. Suzan may have had a habit of burglarizing homes when she needed drug money, but that doesn't explain why out of all the homes she burglarized she decided to shoot two people who were her neighbors and whom she knew. I tend to lean towards she was an accomplice of Dan, because UM says she testified on his behalf at his trial. She said some people had ran through her yard after the shots were fired and knocked over a wood pile. Why she would say that at his trial and then change it (after his conviction) makes no sense, unless of course she was his accomplice trying to help get him out of prison.

I always thought he was innocent...too many things lead me to think he was innocent. A man whore, but not a killer.

Meg, did you ever finish reading the book? Any interesting tidbits UM left out, and does the book sway the reader into believing Montecalvo's innocence or just questioning it?

Meg, did you ever finish reading the book? Any interesting tidbits UM left out, and does the book sway the reader into believing Montecalvo's innocence or just questioning it?

I did finish it and actually have loaned it out to another poster. There is a lot of stuff about Suzan Brown's antics--just some voluntary hospitalizations and finding her in someone's apartment passed out on drugs around the time she came forward to claim Dan's innocence--but nothing substantial.

I found the book to be pretty damning toward Dan Montecalvo, personally. It appears Kingsbury thinks he is exactly where he belongs, and that Suzan Brown is all kinds of mentally incompetent. (She might be correct on that last one, if everything Kingsbury reported is true.) Any room for doubt pretty much hinges on Suzan Brown knowing rather curious details about the Montecalvo home (like that lockbox, where exactly it was, and what color it was), and saying things that might give one pause--although again, it really is difficult to conclusively ascertain her mental status and what is or isn't the effects of habitual drug abuse.

I think you've drawn some appropriate parallels to Helena Stoeckley. I don't ultimately know what to make of Suzan Brown, either. To be honest, I'm more perplexed now after reading the book than I was before. I suppose I still give Montecalvo the benefit of the doubt--although I think that doubt is a bit smaller than it was before. I still get the vibe that Cohen really wanted a conviction--badly.

Giving Montecalvo the benefit of the doubt, this article (http://articles.latimes.com/1990-09-24/news/mn-928_1_murder-trials) states that the murder weapon was never found. Coupled with the knowledge that he had no GSR on his hands, this would mean he never fired a gun. So after shooting himself in the back (as the prosecution contends), he had mere minutes to get rid of the gun. And, as the prosecution contends, Montecalvo committed the murder on his own. That would be impossible. The article also mentions another suspect whose fingerprint was found in the Montecalvo bathroom. He quit his job shortly after the murder and vanished. Montecalvo also suggested two of former gardeners could have been involved, and one had looked like the guy who shot him. The gardeners were tracked down 2 years later in Mexico, but little was done with regards to questioning them (per Montecalvo & his lawyer).

What's interesting about that article is it plays up several other possible "mysterious" and alternate suspects, and I have no idea why UM chose to ignore those details and go with the Suzan Brown storyline. Montecalvo insisted the person who shot him had a mustache, whereas Suzan Brown claims to have been the one that shot Dan. The former salesman who had a fingerprint found in the Montecalvo bathroom should have been looked at further, IMO. Investigators said he was ruled out as a suspect, but they still wanted to talk to him. As far as I know, there should be no reason why his prints were found in the Montecalvo household. I used to think Montecalvo was guilty because I found Suzan Brown's claims wildly unbelievable, but after reading that article, there is definitely enough reasonable doubt. He should have never been convicted, IMO. Based off of the GSR tests alone and the impossibility of getting rid of the gun.

ETA: I totally forgot about the murder of Charlie Anderson and how it only happened four blocks away from the Montecalvo murder. That's another reason to create reasonable doubt, IMO.

Finished the book. A few last notes.

-Final Appeal may have been briefly alluded to once, in the back of the book, though never mentioned by name. It is referred to as a "news" program. Come to think of it, maybe she was talking about A Current Affair? Weird the author didn't mention Final Appeal at all seeing as she was interviewed extensively for it.

-I think this has been touched on before, but it's simply mind-boggling to hear about Suzan's possible involvement in the murder of Deputy Charles Anderson, in addition to the murder of Carol Montecalvo. Apparently, she knew more than a few facts about each case that were not known to the public at the time. Hell, at this point, I think they should question her about Crystal Spencer, just because. Assuming she's still alive. Given her addition to speed, that's questionable. I can say if they ever did an A & E Biography-type show on her, it would be pretty fascinating. I did get a chuckle when one investigator said he couldn't believe she was an Avon representative because she was "the single most unattractive woman" he'd ever met.

I had totally forgot about Charles Anderson's murder, and how close in proximity it was to the Montecalvo home. Anderson's murder is still unsolved, and I wonder if it was brought up at Montecalvo's trial to drum up reasonable doubt?

The Charlie Anderson murder is the one of the main reasons I have reservations about Montecalvo's guilt. The Anderson murder occurred just a few blocks down, yes, but the biggest thing that sticks in my mind is that both victims seemed to have interrupted a home invader. The crimes are at least superficially extremely similar.

For what it's worth, a few years ago, I had some conversations online with a couple that knew Dan personally. They always believed in his innocence and visited him in prison regularly. I do remember that they were still trying to prove elements of his story true as late as 2009 (when we last spoke), and they were hoping that he might get released as a result of budget cuts in the California penal system that would trigger the release of a lot of inmates. They told me that Dan was, in fact, parole eligible but that it had been denied numerous times because he wouldn't admit guilt to the parole board. The rationale: he still loved Carol. Part of parole is admitting responsibility for your actions, so he was denied numerous times for that reason. I always found that interesting.

BTW, did anyone else notice that the prosecutor in the Montecalvo case (I believe his sirname was Cohen, but I'm blanking on the first name) was interviewed in the Crystal Spencer segment? Both cases were out of Burbank, California.

On that note, I believe the Montecalvo case, as featured on Final Appeal, was another one where the prosecution refused to participate/comment in the segment due to the "controversy" surrounding the case? The same thing happened with Johnny Lee Wilson, Paul Freshour, Thomas Drake, and Relando Cruz, plus a few others, IIRC.

Does anyone else find this odd/suspicious? Surely, there have been a number of cases in which controversy exists, yet the prosecution or police still come on to discuss their POV and dismiss these claims. It just seems shady when they don't participate, especially in situations like the Relando Cruz case where there was obvious prosecutorial misconduct.

Wow.

I just re-watched the Charlie Anderson segment, which I hadn't seen in some time, to see if I could find further similarities between that and Carol Montecalvo's murder. And sure enough, I did.

As Meg correctly pointed out, both seemed to have been murdered after interrupting a burglary gone bad. Suzan Brown and her cohorts were known to have burglarized houses when they ran out of money for drugs.

In Carol's case, $800 and some loose change was missing from a cashbox. Suzan knew about the cashbox, that money was missing from it, what color it was (beige) and that the money was in a white envelope in the cashbox. All before that was released to the public.

Now, it was stated that Suzan had burglarized the Montecalvo household when she thought they had already left for Hawaii. It's interesting to note that the entire Montecalvo household was not ransacked (well, not until the police got there anyways). But as far as I can ascertain, the only thing that was disturbed was the cashbox. This indicates to me that someone (Suzan) knew exactly where in that household to go and get money. She had known about its existence when Carol went to pay her one day for an Avon order.

In regards to the murder of Charlie Anderson, which, like Carol's murder, also happened late at night, the police believed the burglary was atypical because the entire house was not ransacked, drawers weren't spilled out to examine its contents, etc. Rather, the burglar(s) appeared to be looking for something specific (like with Carol's cashbox).

As with Carol Montecalvo's murder, Suzan (according to the book) knew several details of Charlie's murder before they were released to the public, such as a green field jacket being left behind by the killer.

So it appears to me the modus operandi is the same (burglarize the house, but not ransack it). I also believe there was perhaps no intent to kill either Carol or Charlie, but the burglar felt obligated to after being surprised. And Suzan was known to burglarize houses in the area at this time.

I think it's entirely possible that Suzan Brown either knows who killed both of them, or perhaps is responsible herself.

Btw, I had sort of forgotten how horrifying the Charlie Anderson murder was. I remember he went in his house first, but forgot he had one of his sons with him. And then his wife came in and notices Charlie lying on the floor, she leaves the son in the house with the potential of the killer still being in there. Thank God he wasn't hurt.

BTW, did anyone else notice that the prosecutor in the Montecalvo case (I believe his sirname was Cohen, but I'm blanking on the first name) was interviewed in the Crystal Spencer segment? Both cases were out of Burbank, California.

On that note, I believe the Montecalvo case, as featured on Final Appeal, was another one where the prosecution refused to participate/comment in the segment due to the "controversy" surrounding the case? The same thing happened with Johnny Lee Wilson, Paul Freshour, Thomas Drake, and Relando Cruz, plus a few others, IIRC.

Does anyone else find this odd/suspicious? Surely, there have been a number of cases in which controversy exists, yet the prosecution or police still come on to discuss their POV and dismiss these claims. It just seems shady when they don't participate, especially in situations like the Relando Cruz case where there was obvious prosecutorial misconduct.

I've noticed this, and it's always troubled me. If the case is such a "slam dunk", what harm is it to come on and refute what the final appellant is saying? Am I misremembering the Circleville segment, because I thought that there was someone on the segment to refute Paul Freshour's claims? Because the only "interviewees" I can remember on the segment are Paul and Martin Yant.

On that note, I believe the Montecalvo case, as featured on Final Appeal, was another one where the prosecution refused to participate/comment in the segment due to the "controversy" surrounding the case? The same thing happened with Johnny Lee Wilson, Paul Freshour, Thomas Drake, and Relando Cruz, plus a few others, IIRC.

Does anyone else find this odd/suspicious? Surely, there have been a number of cases in which controversy exists, yet the prosecution or police still come on to discuss their POV and dismiss these claims. It just seems shady when they don't participate, especially in situations like the Relando Cruz case where there was obvious prosecutorial misconduct.

Yeah, I always think of the prosecutor in the Larry Race case, who seemed obviously disdainful about the fact that his case was being presented on UM, but was at least willing to defend his POV on television. I remember the police refused to participate in the Luis Diaz segment because of the controversy surrounding the case, but the prosecutor still agreed to appear on camera to refute the accusations that Diaz was innocent, even though the points he made were incredibly weak.

This just makes the prosecutors who wouldn't appear at all look extra-sketchy. Though, I will say, I did admire the prosecutor in the Michael Scott Martin case for at least admitting he was no longer 100 % sure he convicted the right man.

I've noticed this, and it's always troubled me. If the case is such a "slam dunk", what harm is it to come on and refute what the final appellant is saying? Am I misremembering the Circleville segment, because I thought that there was someone on the segment to refute Paul Freshour's claims? Because the only "interviewees" I can remember on the segment are Paul and Martin Yant.

Nope, I don't think anyone refuted Freshour's claims. I do remember the sheriff (Dwight Radcliffe?) was invited to participate in the segment, but Stack said he declined.

Nope, I don't think anyone refuted Freshour's claims. I do remember the sheriff (Dwight Radcliffe?) was invited to participate in the segment, but Stack said he declined.

That's pretty rare. No one from the prosecution or LE appeared, neither did Mary Gillespie, or Paul's ex-wife. I guess that makes Yant and Freshour the only two interviewees in the segment.

One other thing I forgot:

One woman on the jury felt that Dan was innocent and had expressed that to her fellow jury members multiple times. She stated that she was bullied and intimidated by some of the other members, including the jury foreman. Because of this, she eventually changed her vote, but still felt that Dan was innocent, including after the trial.

Watched this one again last night.

If Montecalvo is lying, he's definitely one of the best lying husbands on UM/FA.

Montecalvo appealed his conviction twice in the 90's, and each time his appeals were denied. There wasn't even a write up on them (like Thomas Drake or Larry Race) where the justices affirm the conviction, they just flat out denied it.

ETA: A Los Angeles Times article on the case has said that the murder weapon was never found. How would Montecalvo be that successful in hiding the weapon minutes after shooting Carol and himself, to where it was never found to this day? That increases the likelihood that someone other than Dan shot Carol. Especially considering two guns were used in the attack.

Montecalvo appealed his conviction twice in the 90's, and each time his appeals were denied. There wasn't even a write up on them (like Thomas Drake or Larry Race) where the justices affirm the conviction, they just flat out denied it.

Same deal with some of Glen Consagra's appeals.

ETA: A Los Angeles Times article on the case has said that the murder weapon was never found. How would Montecalvo be that successful in hiding the weapon minutes after shooting Carol and himself, to where it was never found to this day? That increases the likelihood that someone other than Dan shot Carol. Especially considering two guns were used in the attack.

I thought the police theory was that he concealed the guns in a hollowed out book. The book was found some time later in a storage lot owned by Montecalvo.

Yes, IIRC, the UM segment implies that there was a hollowed out book that fit a .38 and .25 perfectly in the slot. But another Times article mentions that Montecalvo's hands tested negative for gunshot residue on an initial test that they did. Then a later test was given that detected trace metals (similar to a gun) on his hands. Montecalvo contested the second test. I do find it interesting that the original prosecutor dropped the charges against him, though. I want to believe in Montecalvo's innocence, but I just can't.

On the one hand with Dan Montecalvo, you have this bankrobbing ex-convict who really has not an insignificant motive to have married his wife for his own personal benefit in the first place, and drinks and gambles heavily, and is reportedly something of a slimey character in the bars.

On the other hand, I see a man who puts on a pretty convincing face that he loves his wife, tells a consistent story about what happened since the DAY it happened (until his death a few years ago, that is), and had the huge cajones to wage a complaint against first responders quite a while after the fact. (And back on the other hand, perhaps I could see this as an attempt to cull even more cash).

For me, I lean innocent. I'm not sure if I would feel this way had there been no Charlie Anderson murder or Suzan Brown pointing out details that had never been released to the public--which Montecalvo's own court-appointed investigator uncovered. And from what I've read about Cohen, he didn't have an especially squeaky clean reputation at the time.

The fact that Montecalvo had a conversation with a guy at a bar and suggested that one of them heavily insure one of their wives and the other murder her and split the insurance proceeds tells me he is probably guilty.

The fact that Montecalvo had a conversation with a guy at a bar and suggested that one of them heavily insure one of their wives and the other murder her and split the insurance proceeds tells me he is probably guilty.

I was under the impression that homeboy at the bar was the only one who reported that story, though. Could be wrong.

ETA: I was. Karen Kingsbury reported in her book that two completely different men told the same story about Montecalvo suggesting the insurance-murder thing to them each individually.

I still maintain, though, that if he's a liar, he sure is a damn good one.

I was under the impression that homeboy at the bar was the only one who reported that story, though. Could be wrong.

ETA: I was. Karen Kingsbury reported in her book that two completely different men told the same story about Montecalvo suggesting the insurance-murder thing to them each individually.

I still maintain, though, that if he's a liar, he sure is a damn good one.

Wow, I was under the impression that there was only one man (a plumber?) who came forward with such a story. Now you're saying that two completely different men came forward alleging that Montecalvo spun this scheme to them?!

I remember at least one of these interactions was mentioned on Unsolved Mysteries, and Montecalvo flat out said the guy was lying.

Yeah...I'm sorry, but I don't buy any of it.

We have not just one, but two completely different men come forward and allege that Dan said these things. Then, the exact same occurrence goes down at Dan's house? That is just too big of a coincidence, IMO. And what reason would either of these guys have to lie about something Dan said to them?

And the statements are just too specific. I mean, there is drunk talk and I've heard guys have a few drinks and say they hate their wives and all that, but to actually suggest such a scheme is pretty "out there," to be kind.

It sounds to me like Montecalvo was fishing for an accomplice. I wonder if Montecalvo spun a similar scheme to Suzan Brown, and she took him up on it and they worked together to pull off this whole scam. I could definitely see it.

Reasons to believe in Montecalvo's guilt, IMO:

-The whole prison pen pal turned into lovers has never sat right with me, especially after finding out what a POS Montecalvo was to Carol during their marriage. To an outsider, it appears that Montecalvo saw an opportunity with Carol and took advantage of her. This isn't unusual for ex-cons, but with regards to what eventually happened to Carol, I'd have to say this is a huge red flag.
-Montecalvo was known to be a womanizer. Not only that, but he was consorting with prostitutes all the while being married to Carol.
-Montecalvo was in over his head with debt. There was testimony at his trial that he owed several friends and casinos who had lent him money that was never paid back. One of the casino officials testified that they weren't pressing Montecalvo (shortly before Carol's murder), but they had made it known to him that if he needed to speed up the payments back (apparently he set up some sort of debt relief payment plan).
-Montecalvo was allegedly an "expert" with firearms.
-Carol had a $600,000 life insurance policy.
-Montecalvo had discussed with two different friends the scam involving one of them marrying a woman and bumping her off for insurance money.
-The hollowed out book found in Montecalvo's storage facility, which fit a .38 and a .22 perfectly.
-Carol was shot with the .38, two times. Montecalvo was shot with the much less lethal .22, only once.
-Apparently the Charles Anderson case was widely publicized in the area. Details were disclosed locally due to gossip among the community. The prosecution contended that Montecalvo used fragments of the Anderson murder as a part of a cover story for a robbery gone wrong angle.
-Montecalvo had the perfect opportunity to finger Suzan Brown after she confessed, yet continued to insist he was shot by a man with a moustache and a Latin accent. I think it's possible that Montecalvo had no idea that Suzan Brown was going to confess 2 and a half years after Carol's murder, so he had to stick to his original story.
-Montecalvo had hinted to the authorities that the man who shot him could possibly have been one of his ex gardeners. Conveniently, both gardeners were already gone from the area after Carol's murder, since they had relocated to Mexico. This reeks of Jeffrey MacDonald seeing the hippies around Ft. Bragg and using them as "sketches" for his "assailants" of his wife and children, IMO.

Evidence that Montecalvo didn't do it, IMO:
-Both guns were never found.
-Montecalvo, if guilty, would have had to have hidden the guns (including the one he shot himself with) after Carol's murder. There should have been some sort of evidence (blood trail) of Montecalvo traversing through the house to hide the guns.
-A fingerprint matched a neighboring salesman in the Montecalvo bathroom. This man was unknown to the Montecalvo's, and had no reason for being in their residence. He moved shortly after the murder of Carol. Police ruled him out as a suspect, although this is still a huge red flag, IMO.
-Suzan Brown's confession.
-Montecalvo's story about changing a license plate registration sticker before it expired doesn't sound like a made up story, IMO. Too elaborate of a detail.
-Montecalvo's hands tested negative for gunshot residue.
-The Montecalvo's were supposed to go on a trip to Hawaii the day after Carol was murdered. Why not wait until they got back?!

Evidence that Suzan Brown is lying:
-Didn't come forward until 2 and half years after Carol's murder.
-Didn't testify to anything other than having a house party on the night of Carol's murder at Montecalvo's trial.
-Told prosecutors that there were 2 other men involved with her that night, and named both men. Later changed her story to say it was just her and one man.
-Both men were checked out and cleared by police.
-History of mental illness.
-Implausible motive for wanting to break into the Montecalvo residence. At first it was to steal a TV or something expensive, then it was because she knew there was money in the residence.
-According to Brown, she believed the Montecalvo's had already left for their trip and were gone at the time they broke into the residence. Why feel the need to arm themselves with weapons, especially guns, if this was true?

All in all, there are points in favor of and against Montecalvo being innocent. But, like one juror said after his conviction, it was like a puzzle, and once all of the pieces came together, it really didn't make any sense for it to have been anyone other than Montecalvo.

What do y'all make of the beef with the city of Burbank for allegedly not responding to Montecalvo's call soon enough--specifically, what do you think his angle was here in waging that public complaint in the first place? Seems like a good way to draw attention to yourself if you're guilty. Then again, perhaps it was an instant of arrogance overshadowing good sense.

What do y'all make of the beef with the city of Burbank for allegedly not responding to Montecalvo's call soon enough--specifically, what do you think his angle was here in waging that public complaint in the first place? Seems like a good way to draw attention to yourself if you're guilty. Then again, perhaps it was an instant of arrogance overshadowing good sense.

Honestly, I think it was a ploy to make him appear more innocent, and to get more money. I think he figured he could get his friends and the public behind him by accusing the police and first responders of taking their time, and ruining any chance of survival Carol had. It seemed to work, because a lot of neighbors and friends of Montecalvo were interviewed for the LA Times articles and they all believed in his innocence. Or perhaps he thought if by going after the police department with a lawsuit, they would back off of him with the criminal charges.

Honestly, I think it was a ploy to make him appear more innocent, and to get more money. I think he figured he could get his friends and the public behind him by accusing the police and first responders of taking their time, and ruining any chance of survival Carol had. It seemed to work, because a lot of neighbors and friends of Montecalvo were interviewed for the LA Times articles and they all believed in his innocence. Or perhaps he thought if by going after the police department with a lawsuit, they would back off of him with the criminal charges.

Maybe I'm just naive--but that guy must have been an expert fabricator. He sure seemed to have a lot of people snowed if he was guilty.

Not to abruptly change gears, but re: Montecalvo, the "moustache man", and Suzan Brown's story. This has always stuck with me. Montecalvo offers up that perhaps Brown "couldn't admit she shot Carol", so she tweaked that detail and had herself shooting Montecalvo in the back. I have to admit, that seemed pretty reasonable to me when he said it. On top of being a good con artist, he must have been an exceptionally calculating liar to firstly, be able to resist the temptation to jump right on changing his story to fit Brown's version of events, and secondly, keep to the minutiae of that story without deviation for so long. That brings me to the registration sticker.

I too thought this tended to support Montecalvo's innocence. It just doesn't sound made up. And it may not have been, even if Dan was the one who pulled the trigger on Carol. Perhaps, like McDonald, there are details probably based in reality that he incorporated into his own fabrication.

Again, he must be one HELL of a liar if he's guilty. Definitely not saying it's implausible, but right now I think I'm still sitting at innocent.

My only problem with Montecalvo's version against Suzan Brown was that Montecalvo specifically mentioned to investigators that the man who shot him sounded and looked a lot like one of his ex-gardeners. Suzan Brown made no such claims that the man she was with was of Hispanic heritage, or the fact that this guy was an ex-gardener of the Montecalvo's.

My only problem with Montecalvo's version against Suzan Brown was that Montecalvo specifically mentioned to investigators that the man who shot him sounded and looked a lot like one of his ex-gardeners. Suzan Brown made no such claims that the man she was with was of Hispanic heritage, or the fact that this guy was an ex-gardener of the Montecalvo's.

OK. HE WAS GUILTY. IF ALL YOU HAD PAID ATTENTION AT THE END OF THE SEGMENT. IT SAID HE MARRIED ONE OF HIS DEAD WIFE'S GOOD FRIEND FROM CHURCH 17 DAYS BEFORE HE WAS SENTENCED. OBVIOUSLY HE HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS WOMEN WHILE IS WIFE WAS STILL ALIVE. WHO MARRIES WITH QUESTIONS IF HE KILLED HIS WIFE

(REMEMBER THIS WAS HER FRIEND. YOU DON'T MARRY THE MAN WHO'S SUSPECTED OF KILLING BEST FRIEND. UNLESS YOU ALREADY HAVE A RELATIONSHIP AND PLANNED SO YOU MARRY HIM BEFORE HE GOES TO JAIL SINCE HIS MASTER PLAN TO KILL OFF HIS WIFE GET THE INSURANCE MONEY AND MARRY YOU TO LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER. TO BAD THE PLAN FELL THROUGH). HE SWORE UP AND DOWN THAT HE NEVER HAD ANY EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIRS.. BUT YET HE MARRIES HIS WIFE FRIEND. COME ON YOU CAN'T BE THAT NAIVE TO BELIEVE THIS WAS JUST COINCIDENCE. AND IF YOU NOTICED THAT THE PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR LEAD THE CHICK SUSAN BY SAYING LET ME GIVE YOU A SCENARIO. CLASSIC WAY TO LEAD SOMEONE INTO SAYING WHAT YOU NEED THEM TO SAY. SHE WAS KNOWN TO HAVE MENTAL ISSUES. WELL HE DIED IN SEPTEMBER 2013, BUT FOR MY MONEY THIS PROVES ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT HE WAS INVOLVED WITH HIS WIFE'S DEATH. THE GUY SEEM LIKE A REAL JERK WITH THE DRINKING(BLEEDING ULCER). GAMBLING DEBT. SO THIS THIS GUY SAID AROUND AT THE BAR DRINKING AND GAMBLING. WHILE HIS WIFE WORKED. O YEAH THEY WERE GOING TO HAWAII FROM HER JOB. DON'T BE FOOLED BY THESE PEOPLE. I'M DONE.

OK. HE WAS GUILTY. IF ALL YOU HAD PAID ATTENTION AT THE END OF THE SEGMENT. IT SAID HE MARRIED ONE OF HIS DEAD WIFE'S GOOD FRIEND FROM CHURCH 17 DAYS BEFORE HE WAS SENTENCED. OBVIOUSLY HE HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS WOMEN WHILE IS WIFE WAS STILL ALIVE. WHO MARRIES WITH QUESTIONS IF HE KILLED HIS WIFE

(REMEMBER THIS WAS HER FRIEND. YOU DON'T MARRY THE MAN WHO'S SUSPECTED OF KILLING BEST FRIEND. UNLESS YOU ALREADY HAVE A RELATIONSHIP AND PLANNED SO YOU MARRY HIM BEFORE HE GOES TO JAIL SINCE HIS MASTER PLAN TO KILL OFF HIS WIFE GET THE INSURANCE MONEY AND MARRY YOU TO LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER. TO BAD THE PLAN FELL THROUGH). HE SWORE UP AND DOWN THAT HE NEVER HAD ANY EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIRS.. BUT YET HE MARRIES HIS WIFE FRIEND. COME ON YOU CAN'T BE THAT NAIVE TO BELIEVE THIS WAS JUST COINCIDENCE. AND IF YOU NOTICED THAT THE PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR LEAD THE CHICK SUSAN BY SAYING LET ME GIVE YOU A SCENARIO. CLASSIC WAY TO LEAD SOMEONE INTO SAYING WHAT YOU NEED THEM TO SAY. SHE WAS KNOWN TO HAVE MENTAL ISSUES. WELL HE DIED IN SEPTEMBER 2013, BUT FOR MY MONEY THIS PROVES ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT HE WAS INVOLVED WITH HIS WIFE'S DEATH. THE GUY SEEM LIKE A REAL JERK WITH THE DRINKING(BLEEDING ULCER). GAMBLING DEBT. SO THIS THIS GUY SAID AROUND AT THE BAR DRINKING AND GAMBLING. WHILE HIS WIFE WORKED. O YEAH THEY WERE GOING TO HAWAII FROM HER JOB. DON'T BE FOOLED BY THESE PEOPLE. I'M DONE.

Do you know any of the people featured in this case personally?

Montecalvo is guilty as sin. For those that don't know, this case was featured on a new Investigation Discovery show titled, "The Perfect Murder" and the episode was titled, "The Book". Some highlights:

-Montecalvo owed a ton of money to various casinos. Carol had been saving cash ($700-800) for their Hawaii trip and had kept it in their safe in a white envelope. On the day of Carol's murder, Montecalvo paid one of the casinos $500 in cash. Keep in mind he was unemployed and essentially relied on Carol for money. This is what the prosecution contended what happened: in the middle of packing for the trip, Carol went to get the money and found it missing and an argument ensued and then Montecalvo shot her and then himself.

-Montecalvo got pulled over for a DUI months after Carol's murder and he fled from the police who eventually got him. They searched his car and in the trunk found a. 38 revolver, the same type of gun that killed Carol.

-While in jail for the DUI and felony possession of a firearm, they got a warrant to search Montecalvo's new girlfriend's house. They found a key to a storage facility inside registered to Montecalvo. They got a "piggyback" warrant to search the storage shed and this is when they found the book with the indentation of a. 38 and a .25, both weapons used in Carol's murder that night.

The show was pretty conclusive in the fact that Montecalvo was guilty. Oddly, they didn't mention the Suzan Brown subplot at all, but they did mention Charlie Anderson's murder, and that Montecalvo used his murder as a cover story for his home invasion angle.

Yeah, I watched that ID show as well and totally agree, it left me with zero doubt about Montecalvo's guilt. If Suzan Brown hadn't come forward with that weird confession, I don't think think UM would ever have been compelled to make a Final Appeal segment about this case.

-While in jail for the DUI and felony possession of a firearm, they got a warrant to search Montecalvo's new girlfriend's house. They found a key to a storage facility inside registered to Montecalvo. They got a "piggyback" warrant to search the storage shed and this is when they found the book with the indentation of a. 38 and a .25, both weapons used in Carol's murder that night.

OT, but have I mentioned how much I love "piggyback" warrants?

Do you know if ID is going to rerun that episode you're speaking of, TheCars?

Do you know if ID is going to rerun that episode you're speaking of, TheCars?

Also curious. Sounds like they advanced some pretty convincing theories.

It's on the forbidden site.

Search "The Perfect Murder Season 3 Episode 9 Murder By The Book" and the user who uploaded it is "The Perfect Murder" (has a picture from the movie with Michael Douglas).

Watched the episode.

I thought Dan's injury pattern was very interesting. The round struck a rib (I presume somewhere in the neighborhood of the tenth to twelfth rib, but we don't know for sure), which ended up richoceting downwards and damaging his bowel. To me, it almost seemed as though whomever held the handgun would have had the weapon at an upward angle--kind of like it would be if one held it to his own flank while attempting to pull the trigger.

There was also the blood splatter evidence that wasn't mentioned at all in the UM segment. Cast off blood splatter was found on Montecalvo's pants. He says he was outside when Carol was shot, but the blood splatter put him roughly 4 feet away from Carol when she was shot.

Cars, do you feel the motive was a gambling debt or something else?

Cars, do you feel the motive was a gambling debt or something else?

Interesting question.

My initial thinking is that yes, he wanted her dead to collect the life insurance. But what would have happened had Carol not discovered the missing money that night? Did he actually plan on killing her, or was it a spur of the moment decision because she found the missing money and confronted him? I think the endgame was ultimately to kill her at some point for the life insurance, but I've often wondered if they would have went on their trip had Carol not found the missing money.

I recorded the episode and thought it was a piece of junk. When you have a woman confess to being there, with the intent to steal money, and admitted to shooting Dan and her cohort shooting Carol and not even bringing that up in the episode? Talk about one-sided.

I lean toward Dan not being involved in Carol's murder, but I wouldn't exactly bet the rent money on it.

Thing is, Suzan Brown and her cohorts were known to burglarize local houses, I believe to get money for drugs. She can most politely be described as "eccentric" and least politely as "a complete weirdo." My understanding is that Suzan thought the Montecalvo's had already left for their Hawaii trip (she was off by a day), and pegged their house as one to hit up that night.

I'm also relatively sure I read about a neighbor's house that had some disturbed property that night.

I definitely wouldn't put it past her. In any event, this one isn't cut and dried.

I just saw this segment for the first time ever! I did a bunch of online research and Suzan Brown has changed her story a couple of times.
The first time she says her two friends were inside the Montecalvo house and she and the fourth friend staged a loud argument in front of a different house to draw attention away from the Montecalvo residence. She said when she saw Dan and Carol walking home her and her friend ran into her house through her garage.
Then that story changed to the one she gave in the segment about being in the house and shooting Dan.
And of course she was originally a witness for the defense at Dan's trial and didn't mention being involved in any way.
I think Dan did it but I'm going to watch The Perfect Murder episode tonight.

So im the unwanted daughter of this man i was born 12/23/1987 and my mom worked at the salt shaker in glendale this person dan pretended he wasnt married and chose to have a relationship with my mother had me and i met him and he said i wasnt his... well later on he kills i feel awkward and my mother his the truth from me to protect me for years but funny thing I look just like him and i grew up in la crescenta adjacent to glendale and from
Burbank ca. I am 32 going to be married next april I dont have any feeling for this person but it feels good to tell the truth about this.