Haha, great minds :D!
I agree with you about people trashing the person who died. Honestly, it's not really a surprise that marriage fell apart as it did, 'cause the way the friends kept talking about them breaking up and getting back together and how there was infidelity (on both ends, apparently) and things of that sort, and how they seemed attracted to the "drama" of it all...I mean, that should've probably given off some red flags right there that this could end badly. Granted, I doubt most people imagined the bad end would involve one of them being murdered and dismembered, but still...
But yeah, much of the time Melanie talked about Bill, she kept focusing on the bad aspects of him and their life together, which speaks volumes. It seems that marriage was by and large an unhappy one. On both ends.
The idea of the stepfather being involved is interesting. He struck me odd during the episode, too-he seemed very protective of his stepdaughter, in the "She can do no wrong" sort of way. Which, I mean, I get on a parental level you want to defend and support your child, even in awful circumstances like this, and it can be a struggle to accept someone you love could do something like that. But I didn't get the sense that's why he was so defensive of her here. They did mention the possibility of her having an accomplice, and given just HOW much work was involved here, with the long trips and the cutting up of the body and disposing of it and whatnot, yeah, that'd be an awful lot for one person to do all on their own. So it wouldn't surprise me if there were some truth to the "accomplice" theory. And if there was one, I can see her turning to someone like him for help.
I'm okay with the idea of revisiting certain cases on a general level, because time and technology and new evidence can do wonders, and sometimes it is good and necessary to take another look at a case. And indeed, there have been cases where all the evidence seems to point at one person, and they look very guilty...and yet it turns out they actually didn't do it. Add in how high profile some cases are, and that makes it al the easier for investigations to be flawed and court cases to be questionable, because everyone's more focused on their fifteen minutes of fame than they are actual justice. Or there's more public pressure to make the "right" ruling.
But with this one, yeah, after watching, I did feel like, "...and why did this need to be rehashed again?" I got the feeling this was less about proving her innocence than it was to make her appear more sympathetic than she did initially, given the way they kept talking up the stuff about the abuse and his mismanagement of money and things of that sort. The podcasters may have started off trying to see if she was innocent, but when that angle didn't pan out, the focus seemed to turn more to, "Well, if she did it, she had valid reason to do so! Look at how much of a jerk he was!"