Ryan Widmer...Anyone Followed This Fiasco?

[Nigel Tufnel]

Just wondering if any of the local Muskie faithful have followed this whole ordeal? Crazy, crazy shit going on in Warren County.....the kid is found guilty of murder...not aggravated murder....somehow the jurors thought that Widmer and his wife got into a fight, he drowned her in the tub and killed her. Yet there was no sign of struggle in the bathroom, the poor victim didn't lose an acrylic nail on her hands in any struggle and somehow he managed to keep her head under water until she died without pulling out one single hair out of her head.

Now, it appears the jurors performed their own experiments, in direct violation of the Judge's order, and tried to time how long a body dries after having taken a shower. One of the jurors signed an affidavit to that effect. Only problem...after the trial, the Warren County Prosecutor released possible motives for the murder that were deemed inadmissible at trial and also released a reenactment of how the murder may have possibly gone down....a video ruled inadmissible at trial.....I've got to believe the guy will get a new trial, but how will he get a fair trial after that information was released to the media?

Its sad....I have yet to find 12 people that think the guy was guilty....yet somehow, the 12 jurors in that trial were able to reach the decision that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.....I know the defense attorney.....he is a hell of a lawyer.....the whole thing just leaves me shaking my head. Somehow the dispatcher was able to discern that the whole thing was suspicious based on the 911 call....the whole case is just weird.

[PM Thor]

He drowned her in the toilet, not the tub. Thus no water around and her body is dry. She was pushing off the floor, pushing backwards, thus no broken nails, she was using her palms. The weird bruising came from the toilet rim, no way no day does it come from rough CPR procedures, I can personally vouch on that last part.

This is not my personal view on whether he did it or not, just another scenario about how it went down from peoples opinions. I have no idea if he did it or not, but there sure are a ton of unanswered questions. I still don't know how his lawyers didn't get him off.

I HATE dayton.

[Nigel Tufnel]

He drowned her in the toilet, not the tub. Thus no water around and her body is dry. She was pushing off the floor, pushing backwards, thus no broken nails, she was using her palms. The weird bruising came from the toilet rim, no way no day does it come from rough CPR procedures, I can personally vouch on that last part.

This is not my personal view on whether he did it or not, just another scenario about how it went down from peoples opinions. I have no idea if he did it or not, but there sure are a ton of unanswered questions. I still don't know how his lawyers didn't get him off.

I HATE dayton.

Yet no signs of a fight in the bathroom? Incredible....Assume she is struggling and fighting for her life...even if she is pushing backward.....an acrylic nail doesn't pop off? No scratching?

Charlie Rittgers doesn't suck. This much I know. The guy is a very, very good attorney....regardless of the juror's decision in this case, if I got into trouble in Warren County, I would hire Rittgers in a heartbeat....and I tend to think I am somewhat knowledgeable in this area. Sometimes you get sucky jurors....it is only something that can be questioned in hindsight.

Either way...its one crazy case.

[nuts4xu]

This case is unlike I have seen. I think he did it, but it just doesn't seem like there was enough there to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

[wkrq59]

"We the jury in the case of...find the defendant Orenthal James Simpson, not guilty." And thus it began...
---
The Widmer case, too, is strange?
...If the guy doesn't get a new trial, his conviction will probably--at least one would assume--be overturned. Then what?
And what the hell is with the prosecutor's office releasing inadmissible evidence and videos??
Is that not a matter for the Bar Association? Or has Judge Roy Bean been reincarnated. "We'll give him a fair trial before we hang him." And where the hell is Watchbear II?

[XU-PA]

Warren County's legal system could be compared to Mayberry, and it would be a slap in Andy and Barney's faces.
They still run the county like it's 1959 not 2009, just take a look at the conduct of some of the judges etc, and look at high profile cases, quite humorous.

[boozehound]

Isn't the Warren county prosecutor the same retarded whore who was trying to charge those kids that got caught 'sexting' as adults with a child pornography charge?

Think about that. A 16 year old sends a naked picture of herself to another sixteen year old who shows the picture around. So a sixteen year old is at the same time old enough to be charged as an adult but young enough that it is considered 'child pornography.

[TheDanimal]

If you are on trial for killing the woman you love and you do not take the stand to clear your name/cry/do anything in response to the horrible situation, to the jury, you did it. I think what happened here can be as simple as that.

[Kahns Krazy]

Ryan is related to a friend of mine. It appears to me that everyone who knows him is convinced he's innocent.

People don't just drown in bathtubs though. The entire defense was "some undiagnosed medical condition that nobody else has". It doesn't make any sense.

However, on the chance that he didn't do it, I can't imagine anything worse of earth than losing your wife then going to jail for it wrongly.

[Nigel Tufnel]

If you are on trial for killing the woman you love and you do not take the stand to clear your name/cry/do anything in response to the horrible situation, to the jury, you did it. I think what happened here can be as simple as that.

I agree with this....but that's not how its supposed to work. As defense counsel, if you don't think the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no reason to put the Defendant on the stand. No point in taking the chance. What if the Defendant sweats a lot? Or stutters/stammers while speaking when nervous? Now you've got your Defendant being crossed examined by the Prosecutor and he's sitting up there sweating and stuttering....what do you think the jurors think then?

The simple truth of the matter is that the jury wanted defense counsel to prove he was innocent. Even in their closing argument, the prosecutors gave the jurors multiple theories on what may have happened and let them pick one....

How was the jury able to find Widmer not guilty of aggravated murder, yet guilty of murder? Based on the jury's decision, they thought there was a fight and Widmer snapped and killed her.....yet no signs of struggle throughout the house, in the bathroom or his or her bodies. If he did do it (and I have no idea), then I'd have to say it was calculated and planned....there's no way there is no physical evidence unless he planned it in advance.

wkrq....I don't think the verdict will be overturned on appeal....what grounds? Public outcry? I don't see that happening in the 12th Appellate District....they are very, very prosecutor friendly....I've seen them overturn very few guilty verdicts....the Judge where I practice has found in favor of the Defendant multiple times on motions to suppress and they were ALL overturned and remanded back to him.

If anything, I think with the juror misconduct, he may get a new trial...but again, how does he get a fair one after the prosecution released inadmissible evidence to the press after the verdict?

[picknroll]

What you said. Absolutely. If he is "100% not guilty" then he should have taken the stand in his own defense.

[XURunner85]

I really thought this was going to be a hung jury. I am not sure if he did it but I can't buy that she fell asleep in the bath tub and drowned. Unless she was so drunk and passed out or she was on medication that put her soundly asleep. I just can't see how she could drown in the tub from sleeping. I would think the water would wake you up if your head went under. Also, where was the water when the rescue got there. First thing I would do is pull her out of the tub and start trying to revive her and forget about the bath water. But there was no water in the tub, no water on the floor and the only thing wet was her hair. I still find it suspicious but not sute they had enough to convict. And why couldn't the jury do an experiment, Iknow the judge said no but they want to make sure they are sending someone to jail that actually was guilty and not someone innocent on circumstantial evidence. I am probally about 65 to 45 % sure he did it, but not 100%.

[Stonebreaker]

Is OJ in jail? If not....

[joe titan]

As some have alluded in prior posts, the recent allegations of juror misconduct -essentially ignoring evidence presented and "experimenting on their own-- would not usually result in a judicial acquittal but rather a new trial.

Prosecutor Hutzel's discussions of inadmissible matters does not necessarily taint the potential new trial; juror selection in Warren County might be difficult but not impossible. Defense counsel would likely move to change venue to another county but that could be risky in itself. As long as 12 folks SWEAR they will decide on the evidence presented the jury is considered proper.

As for Widmer taking the stand, it is strategy (do we play zone/man ?) but the prosecution must prove what happened--not just advance theories. If the prosecutor's evidence is thin (seems that way here) the Defendant's testimony is just as likely to help the prosecution. Widmer is young guy unfamiliar to courtroom testimony. Police investigators are well trained to say exactly what the prosecution needs & wants. Police had adduced very few supported facts about the incident so there was no need for Widmer to testify to contradict those facts. The risk of Widmer saying the wrong thing, becoming confused or just not coming across as sincere enough far outweighs the benefits of his testimony.

Frankly, from my experience w/ Judge Bronson, if he holds any doubt the jury acted outside their duty, he would order the case re-tried. Bronson highly values the integrity of his courtroom.

Finally, given the Prosecutor has now heard why/how the jury decided for guilt, maybe evidence is re-visited and evaluated more objectively; I would bet plea deals would be discussed at length.

[THRILLHOUSE]

As for Widmer taking the stand, it is strategy (do we play zone/man ?) but the prosecution must prove what happened--not just advance theories. If the prosecutor's evidence is thin (seems that way here) the Defendant's testimony is just as likely to help the prosecution. Widmer is young guy unfamiliar to courtroom testimony. Police investigators are well trained to say exactly what the prosecution needs & wants. Police had adduced very few supported facts about the incident so there was no need for Widmer to testify to contradict those facts. The risk of Widmer saying the wrong thing, becoming confused or just not coming across as sincere enough far outweighs the benefits of his testimony.


Yeah I agree with this. Whether he did it or not I think most defense attorney's would have advised Ryan not to take the stand.

And as far as this whole mess of a case is, I have no idea how he got convicted. He might have done it, but no way did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

[boozehound]

I agree. I am by no means saying he did not do it, it just seems like their could be a reasonable doubt.

I don't know enough about the facts of the case to have a strong opinion though.

[Tardy Turtle]

I am probally about 65 to 45 % sure he did it

Way to always give 110%.

[Kahns Krazy]

I had the "reasonable doubt" conversation with some people this weekend. The problem is, there is even less evidence to support any other reason for death. Nobody is disputing that they were home alone at the time of her death. She's dead. How did she die? Either she died because of some sort of medical condition or was killed by her husband. People just don't drown in bathtubs. It's impossible for a healthy person to fall asleep and drown in their own tub.

So was is the "reasonable doubt"? How do you explain her death if he didn't do it?

[The Artist]

I really thought this was going to be a hung jury. I am not sure if he did it but I can't buy that she fell asleep in the bath tub and drowned. Unless she was so drunk and passed out or she was on medication that put her soundly asleep. I just can't see how she could drown in the tub from sleeping. I would think the water would wake you up if your head went under. Also, where was the water when the rescue got there. First thing I would do is pull her out of the tub and start trying to revive her and forget about the bath water. But there was no water in the tub, no water on the floor and the only thing wet was her hair. I still find it suspicious but not sute they had enough to convict. And why couldn't the jury do an experiment, Iknow the judge said no but they want to make sure they are sending someone to jail that actually was guilty and not someone innocent on circumstantial evidence. I am probally about 65 to 45 % sure he did it, but not 100%.

Because you have to rule based on the evidence provided to you, and only that evidence. I believe you say you'll do so when you take the oath.

I actually assumed that the jury doing their own experiment was illegal and possibly comtempt.

[joe titan]

First it is not "contempt" but is easily grounds for new trial when the jury decision is not based upon the evidence seen at trial but on some psuedo-experiment by one or more jurors.

Second KK, although I was not present in court throughout the trial, evidence was presented in the form of expert and other testimony to explain/substantiate an accidental drowning in the bathtub and the FACT that the victim had a history of falling to sleep at inappropriate times. I am not saying simply b/c the defense presents evidence it must be accepted. Rather, the notion drowning in the bathtub cannot be out of hand dismissed as "impossible".

If the prosecution argued a case of how else could she have died, they would fall far short of proving that specific defendant committed any crime.

[The Artist]

First it is not "contempt" but is easily grounds for new trial when the jury decision is not based upon the evidence seen at trial but on some psuedo-experiment by one or more jurors.

Second KK, although I was not present in court throughout the trial, evidence was presented in the form of expert and other testimony to explain/substantiate an accidental drowning in the bathtub and the FACT that the victim had a history of falling to sleep at inappropriate times. I am not saying simply b/c the defense presents evidence it must be accepted. Rather, the notion drowning in the bathtub cannot be out of hand dismissed as "impossible".

If the prosecution argued a case of how else could she have died, they would fall far short of proving that specific defendant committed any crime.

Ok, I honestly don't know anything about it, but it seems like it should be punishable to stop people from doing it.

[Kahns Krazy]

Second KK, although I was not present in court throughout the trial, evidence was presented in the form of expert and other testimony to explain/substantiate an accidental drowning in the bathtub and the FACT that the victim had a history of falling to sleep at inappropriate times. I am not saying simply b/c the defense presents evidence it must be accepted. Rather, the notion drowning in the bathtub cannot be out of hand dismissed as "impossible".

If the prosecution argued a case of how else could she have died, they would fall far short of proving that specific defendant committed any crime.

Falling asleep and drowning are two totally different things. I know a lot of people that have fallen asleep or even intentionally napped in the bath. They don't drown.

The prosecution argued that the victim was drowned. Whether she was drowned in a bucket, the toilet or the bathtub, it's all the same crime.

I'm glad I didn't sit on this jury. From what I've read of the evidence, it's a strange case indeed. The floor, rug, towels and magazines in the bathroom were all dry. The tub was drained. The victim's body was dry and her hair was "only damp". None of that makes sense to me if Ryan's story is true.

On the other hand, no marks of a struggle on him is confusing as well.

I have not heard any motive advanced whatsoever.

I am mostly amazed that the jury all agreed. To some extent, that leads me to believe that they all saw something that convinced them Ryan did it.

[blobfan]

It's a big question mark to me. She died abruptly and violently but there's no defensive marks on him? Not sure how that happens? And how can you put someone in jail by process of elimination? I don't think this jury knows what "reasonable" doubt is. There's nothing particularly sympathetic about Widmer but I'm just not sure he did it. I'm fairly sure the jury made the wrong decision. At worst it should have been a hung jury.

I think the prosecutor has some ethical issues. She says she's sure he did it and cites some inadmissable remnants of a swingers website found on his computer. God save us if that's enough to get someone accused of murder. And she shouts from the rooftops that Ms. Widmer's mother is happy with the verdict but the victims family has been oddly silent and initially said they didn't think Ryan did it. She's a little too eager to toot her own horn for my taste.

[boozehound]

I agree with a lot of what you said KK, particularly based on the limited information that I have.

The circumstances seem strange, but it seems like there is room for reasonable doubt. I haven't seen the evidence, but I don't know if I think he was guilty or not. It seems odd that somebody would fall asleep in the bathtub and drown. I would think that your body would wake up as soon as you took a lungful of water. I'm not a doctor though. It appears that the majority of the evidence here is dueling 'expert witnesses'.

Whether or not it looks like he did it the burden of proof is on the prosecution. I am surprised a jury was able to agree that the evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

[boozehound]

It's a big question mark to me. She died abruptly and violently but there's no defensive marks on him? Not sure how that happens? And how can you put someone in jail by process of elimination? I don't think this jury knows what "reasonable" doubt is. There's nothing particularly sympathetic about Widmer but I'm just not sure he did it. I'm fairly sure the jury made the wrong decision. At worst it should have been a hung jury.

I think the prosecutor has some ethical issues. She says she's sure he did it and cites some inadmissable remnants of a swingers website found on his computer. God save us if that's enough to get someone accused of murder. And she shouts from the rooftops that Ms. Widmer's mother is happy with the verdict but the victims family has been oddly silent and initially said they didn't think Ryan did it. She's a little too eager to toot her own horn for my taste.

From what I have seen and heard from people that live in Warren county their prosecutor is off her friggin rocker.

[Jumpy]

It's a big question mark to me. She died abruptly and violently but there's no defensive marks on him? Not sure how that happens? And how can you put someone in jail by process of elimination? I don't think this jury knows what "reasonable" doubt is. There's nothing particularly sympathetic about Widmer but I'm just not sure he did it. I'm fairly sure the jury made the wrong decision. At worst it should have been a hung jury.

I think the prosecutor has some ethical issues. She says she's sure he did it and cites some inadmissable remnants of a swingers website found on his computer. God save us if that's enough to get someone accused of murder. And she shouts from the rooftops that Ms. Widmer's mother is happy with the verdict but the victims family has been oddly silent and initially said they didn't think Ryan did it. She's a little too eager to toot her own horn for my taste.


That's what baffles me. In the beginning, they came out in full public support of Ryan, but never attended the trial? Maybe I'm just interjecting too much of myself into this, but how can someone never show up to the murder trial of their daughter?

[Kahns Krazy]

I

Whether or not it looks like he did it the burden of proof is on the prosecution. I am surprised a jury was able to agree that the evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

I am sure it boils down to the fact that she drowned, healthy adults do not drown in bathtubs, and he was the only other one there. She had some bruising that was difficult to explain, and the bathroom, from what I have read, was oddly dry. If you can't make the mental leap to believe that she died suddenly of an unexplainable, undiagnosed medical condition, you're left with only one other option.

From Ryan's point of view, I can't think of a worse way she could have died.

[joe titan]

KK: Part of Ms. Hutzel's post trial public statements indicated their investigation had uncovered computer evidence that various "swinger sites" had been viewed even proximate to the date of death. At least by inference, the Prosecutor would have us believe the Widmer marriage was not as "happy" as portrayed and that some marital/sexual problems became the motive for the incident. Several posts here have questioned the propriety of Ms. Hutzel post-verdict revelations to the public of this evidence which was not able to be admitted at trial.

Any here are welcome to provide their own thought processes about guilt/not, but the jury is bound by the evidence. Short of bribery, it is not a matter of punishing the jurors as guaranteeing the defendant's rights to fair trial.

In large part the Prosecutor must prove how she drowned. No eye witness came forward w/direct observations. No defensive wounds to either, no other physical evidence, bruising and other marks were consistent w/rescue procedures give a very long leap to conclude Ryan Widmer held her under water long enough to drown her.

[Kahns Krazy]

In large part the Prosecutor must prove how she drowned. No eye witness came forward w/direct observations. No defensive wounds to either, no other physical evidence, bruising and other marks were consistent w/rescue procedures give a very long leap to conclude Ryan Widmer held her under water long enough to drown her.

Maybe you know something I missed, but I thought it was the testimony of the medics that nothing they did should have lead to the bruising.

Also, something held her under water long enough to drown her. If not Ryan, then what?

[Kahns Krazy]

I should note that I don't necessisarily disagree with your points. I'm playing devil's advocate here.

I can certainly make arguments for both sides. That's what makes me so surprised that there was not a hung jury.

[boozehound]

Maybe you know something I missed, but I thought it was the testimony of the medics that nothing they did should have lead to the bruising.

Also, something held her under water long enough to drown her. If not Ryan, then what?

From what I understand the prosecution had medical witnesses that said that nothing they did should have led to the bruising.

The defense had medical witnesses that said that the bruising was consistent with aggressive CPR.

I don't know how the human body reacts to drowing, but would it be possible that she could have fallen asleep in the bathtub, got a lungful of water, and just shut down and drowned? I don't know?

I am also not sure what to make of the bathroom being dry either.

I think it looks like he probably did it. I just don't know if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[stxxu]

Maybe you know something I missed, but I thought it was the testimony of the medics that nothing they did should have lead to the bruising.

Some other witnesses stated they could have been from life saving efforts:


Two experts testified Tuesday that injuries found on Sarah Widmer were most likely caused by life-saving efforts, not by a violent attack as Warren County prosecutors allege...

...Balko and defense witness Dr. David Smile, an emergency room physician at Mercy Hospital Fairfield and medical director for the West Chester life squad, said that life-saving efforts could have caused the injuries.

“In fact, I was surprised there was not more evidence of injury on the body,” Smile said.

Link (http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090331/NEWS0107/303310053)

[stxxu]

I think it looks like he probably did it. I just don't know if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

And that right there is all that matters. Whether he did or not, from reading all of the articles on this case, it seems impossible to think, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did it. Obviously, the jury got to take in a lot more information that I did, so that's just my opinion based off of the news articles.

From reading an interview with one of the jurors after the case, it almost seemed like the jury found him guilty just because nothing else made sense.

[Kahns Krazy]

From what I understand the prosecution had medical witnesses that said that nothing they did should have led to the bruising.

The defense had medical witnesses that said that the bruising was consistent with aggressive CPR.

I don't know how the human body reacts to drowing, but would it be possible that she could have fallen asleep in the bathtub, got a lungful of water, and just shut down and drowned? I don't know?

I am also not sure what to make of the bathroom being dry either.

I think it looks like he probably did it. I just don't know if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Again, maybe I misunderstood what I read, but the prosecution had the actual people that attempted to resuscitate, and the defense had experts that hypothesized, because they were not there. If that's correct, I score that point for the prosecution.

If it is possible to fall asleep and drown in a bathtub, it is so rare that statistics are not even kept on bathtub drownings between ages 14 and 65. I don't think it's any more possible than suffocating yourself on your own pillow in your bed by rolling face first onto it.

Drownings are very rare in general. The body's physical reaction to having the air supply cut off is pretty violent.

In general, there is rarely "proof" that someone committed a murder.

[Kahns Krazy]

And that right there is all that matters. Whether he did or not, from reading all of the articles on this case, it seems impossible to think, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did it. Obviously, the jury got to take in a lot more information that I did, so that's just my opinion based off of the news articles.
.

What is your doubt? What is the other reasonable explaination for her death?

[blobfan]

...Drownings are very rare in general. The body's physical reaction to having the air supply cut off is pretty violent.

In general, there is rarely "proof" that someone committed a murder.

That's the crux of it, isn't it? Either you believe the murder was so well-planned that their was no evidence of drowning or you believe that whatever happened, Widmer couldn't have been responsible because there were no defensive wounds. How the heck does the jury come up with a simple murder verdict without saying it's planned (aggravated)?

[boozehound]

If the people who are saying that the CPR couldn't have caused the bruising are EMTs or Paramedics and the defense expert is a coroner I don't know that the EMT story is necessarily better than the coroner's findings. (who, admittedly wasn't there, but is still basing his assumption of what happens on the reports from people who were there, namely the EMTs)

EMTs and Paramedics may not have a whole lot of experience with the type of bruising in this case as death changes the way that the body bruises.

[stxxu]

What is your doubt? What is the other reasonable explaination for her death?

A "violent struggle" as the prosecution alleges with no defense wounds on either person causes some doubt in my mind. If someone is trying to drown me, I'm pretty sure I would fight back hard enough to cause something to happen either to me or my attacker. But as I understand it, the victim's manicured nails were perfect, there was no skin from an attacker under her nails, and there were apparently no wounds on Widmer that could have come from a struggle. Also, there was no evidence (blood, hair, anything) in the sink or toilet, which I believe the prosecution advanced as one of their theories.

I'm not medical expert, but I believe the defense also had a few people testify on "sudden death syndrome." Sounds crazy, but apparently young, healthy people can just randomly die. Or at the very least, have undetected seizure issues that remain undetected during autopsies.

Once again, I'm not really saying he did or didn't do it, I just don't see how things like this don't cause reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. In my opinion, there are just too many holes, to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, Widmer guilty.

[boozehound]

I have heard of people just dying for no reason, with no detectable cause upon autopsy. I think it is exceedingly rare, but I have heard that it happens.

[Kahns Krazy]

I hear what you're saying booze- that it would be possible for a seasoned ER physician or coroner to have a greater understanding of the injuries that could be left by paramedics.

[stxxu]

I have heard of people just dying for no reason, with no detectable cause upon autopsy. I think it is exceedingly rare, but I have heard that it happens.

I just found one of the articles that references this:


Dr. David Smile [an emergency room physician at Mercy Hospital Fairfield and medical director for the West Chester life squad], citing an article he recently read, said 300,000 people a year die from sudden death syndrome.

Of those, 1 percent to 2 percent involve people under the age of 35, he said. And one-third of those people have normal autopsies.

So using those numbers, 1,000 people under 35 die annually from sudden death syndrome, and then have normal autopsies.

Seems crazy, but apparently it happens.

Article link. (http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090331/NEWS0107/303310053)

[Kahns Krazy]

I have heard of people just dying for no reason, with no detectable cause upon autopsy. I think it is exceedingly rare, but I have heard that it happens.

Maybe, but they don't spontaneously generate water in their lungs at the same time. The cause of death is drowning. Nobody is arguing that. In fact, it was Ryan himself who said it first.


Diss said the jury pored over every bit of evidence, going over testimony from all 37 witnesses about three times.

"We listened and listened to the 911 tape," Diss said, saying they even timed it. "There was no time that we could be convinced that things happened like he said on the 911 tape."

The jurors questioned why Widmer would state that his wife had fallen asleep and drowned, as he told the 911 dispatcher, Diss said.

"He didn't know that, if he hadn't been there," Diss said. "A normal person would say, 'Something's happened to my wife, I need help.' You don't have a story already made up."



I have to agree that his statement is uber creepy. If you walked in to your wife floating unconscious in the tub, would you call 911 and say "my wife fell asleep and drowned"?

I also give some weight to the 911 operator's opinion that Ryan didn't seem as panicked as other people do when they make similar calls.

[stxxu]

I also give some weight to the 911 operator's opinion that Ryan didn't seem as panicked as other people do when they make similar calls.

I can see two sides to that. On the one side, it would seem odd to be so calm on a phone call of that nature. On the other side, the 911 operator didn't know Ryan. Without knowing Ryan, there is no real way of knowing if his demeanor was odd or normal. If he has a calm personality, it may not seem so out-of-the-ordinary that he wasn't very panicked.

As you told someone else earlier, I'm not disagreeing...just playing devil's advocate. I agree with what you said earlier: one can make arguments for both sides.

[boozehound]

The 911 call is pretty creepy. Really creepy.

The more we discuss this the more I think that he probably did do it. The question however is how to define 'reasonable doubt', and whether or not the defense generated it.

Since they don't know the exact circumstances surrounding 'sudden death syndrome' couldn't it be possible that her lungs would have filled with water even if she suffered some strange kind of seizure that was not detectable in the autopsy?

[Kahns Krazy]

I just found one of the articles that references this:



So using those numbers, 1,000 people under 35 die annually from sudden death syndrome, and then have normal autopsies.

Seems crazy, but apparently it happens.

Article link. (http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090331/NEWS0107/303310053)

mmhmm. And "Under 35" includes "under 1". SIDS is an established cause of death in infants.

I'd be far more interested if he gave the numbers of those between 20 and 35.

And again, she didn't have a normal autopsy. She drowned. No debate on that subject. I'm not sure why a defense witness is even mentioning this other way people die, because that's not how she died.

[stxxu]

Since they don't know the exact circumstances surrounding 'sudden death syndrome' couldn't it be possible that her lungs would have filled with water even if she suffered some strange kind of seizure that was not detectable in the autopsy?

I had the same question. If you had a seizure while in the tub, couldn't you fall down into the water and inhale some water? So an undetected seizure could then cause you to drown? Thoughts?


And "Under 35" includes "under 1". SIDS is an established cause of death in infants.

I'd be far more interested if he gave the numbers of those between 20 and 35.

The Enquirer article didn't mention any other cut-offs beyond the "below 35" I mentioned earlier.

And good point on the SIDS...I have no idea if the study the doctor was talking about took that into account or not.

[Kahns Krazy]

Like I said, I'm glad I wasn't on that jury. Nobody other than Ryan knows the whole truth. It is possible that she had a rare condition that allowed her to drown without recovering consciousness, or that there is some sort of undetected medical condition. Statistically, it would be a very, very rare condition, but people win the lottery, so it's not impossible.

Did the prosecution "prove" that Ryan drowned her? Well, no. Frankly, that was impossible on day one. Even if both of them were black and blue and Ryan's skin was all in her fingernails, that doesn't prove he drowned her. Is there evidence that what Ryan (the only living witness) said is unlikely? I think so. I'm creeped out enough by some of the evidence that I think he did it. I think he knew that everyone was aware of her odd sleeping habits and thought this seemed like a plausible thing to happen.

Like I said, I'm sure glad I wasn't one of the people on that jury. I wouldn't have felt good about either decision. I don't know how they arrived at the decision.

I watched the video that the prosecutor's office put together. It's horrible. I can't understand the thought process that went into creating that video.

[Kahns Krazy]

I had the same question. If you had a seizure while in the tub, couldn't you fall down into the water and inhale some water? So an undetected seizure could then cause you to drown? Thoughts?
.

This is basically the only plausible defense. I would imagine that you could find some evidence that this is possible. Some sort of seisure that caused her to go underwater and continue breathing.

If that's the case, it is exceedingly rare. The question then becomes, how rare can something be and still be "reasonable doubt".

Can Dante Stallworth argue that it's possible the guy he ran over suffered from Sudden Death Syndrome right before he hit them, and therefore, he's not the cause of death? It's possible, right? Hell, that guy was 59. If 1 to 2 percent of the Sudden Death Syndrome deaths are under 35, that means 98 to 99 percent of them are over 35.

[Kahns Krazy]

If you're interested, and a bit gruesome, you can listen to the 911 call at http://news.cincinnati.com/assets/AB131289324.MP3

I found the link from another message board. FWIW, here's some comments from the poster of the link.



Statement Analysis of 911 Calls
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_6_77/ai_n27504386/pg_2/?tag=content;col1

Ryan does many things that the article highlights as red flags when analyzing 911 calls from guilty vs innocent callers when homicide occurs, at least IMO.

1. He never really asks for help for Sarah. He just informs them.
2. He establishes mortality for her.
3. He, at many times, sounds very calm.
4. There are really really long periods of silence in which he does nothing like provide information or ask how long it's going to take for people to get there. (only does so once at the end, but otherwise never says hurry! Please, she needs help!)
5. He provides extraneous information about his whereabouts and him not being near her when it occurred.

Other weird things not mentioned in the article but that made me scratch my head. When questioned by the 911 operator he says he did CPR but he hadn't taken her out of the tub? Wouldn't your first instinct be if someone is unconscious in the tub to pull them out of the water?

I'm still not sure I could vote Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt though.