Ryan Widmer Gets A New Trial

[PM Thor]

Everyone around the Cincy area knows about this story, the alleged murder and subsequent travishamockery of a trial. Now there will be a new trial for the alleged killer, let the local media frenzy begin.

I honestly don't know what to think about this one.

I HATE dayton.

[XU05and07]

He's guilty...I wonder if the new trial things will be admitted that weren't admitted into evidence the first time.

The re-enactment Widmer does of finding his wife in the bathtub is the most guilty looking re-enactment that I have seen

[JimmyTwoTimes37]

I don't know if he's guilty or not, but there was definite jury misconduct. He's entitled to a new trial

[Kahns Krazy]

I'm good friends with some relatives of Ryan's who are convinced of his innocence based on their knowledge of him and that he "couldn't do it". I have empathy for these people. There are a some people that I know well that I would swear couldn't hurt a fly. I imagine the mental conflict between the person they know and the allegations is impossible to reconcile.

I have a hard time with the 911 call and a lot of the circumstances around the death. I also can't get over the fact that there is no precedent for a grown, sober person to drown in a bathtub.

I think I said it on another thread. I'm glad I'm not on that jury. It is very difficult to separate the evidence and the gut feeling.

[XU 87]

I wonder if he'll take the stand at the next trial. Or maybe he'll take a plea.

[An X Fan]

The local media and 700 WLW can now stop their crusade to make sure that a white guy gets another shot. No chance that some random black guy under the same circumstances gets the same treatment. That's how it goes. He was convicted by a jury of his peers.

[JimmyTwoTimes37]

I wonder if he'll take the stand at the next trial. Or maybe he'll take a plea.

I bet he takes the stand this time. Does double jeopardy now apply to this case? I believe he can only be tried for aggravated murder now...Not entirely sure though

[BandAid]

The local media and 700 WLW can now stop their crusade to make sure that a white guy gets another shot. No chance that some random black guy under the same circumstances gets the same treatment. That's how it goes. He was convicted by a jury of his peers.

What if the black guy is articulate and well-spoken?

[XU 87]

The local media and 700 WLW can now stop their crusade to make sure that a white guy gets another shot. No chance that some random black guy under the same circumstances gets the same treatment. That's how it goes. He was convicted by a jury of his peers.

Yep, that's it. If he was black guy, forget it. The racist judge would have ignored the jury misconduct and just sent the guy to jail.

[JimmyTwoTimes37]

He was convicted by a jury of his peers.

Yes he was convicted by a jury of his peers. However...

"The court has determined that there were external matters discussed in deliberations...These matters constitute a violation of a Sixth Amendment right and due process," Judge Bronson.

Basically what happened was 3 of the jurors conducted air drying experiments in their own homes and approximately timed them. Why is this bad? Isn't it common sense?

Its bad because 1) The judge ordered them ahead of time to only go by the evidence presented in trial. 2) Those jury members then shared the results of the approximately timed air drying experiences with other jury members during deliberation 3) This evidence persuaded at least one jury member of his guilt 4) The 3 jury members who conducted these tests effectively became witnesses for the prosecution but could not be cross examined (as stated by the defense.

[An X Fan]

I understand the course of the legal system, and I ultimately don't mind that the judge found that a retrial was in order. If that's the legal ruling then I'm okay with it, and I don't think that racist judges are all over the place. I separate the legal system from the media. There is NO WAY IN HELL that 700 WLW would continue to crusade for a black guy who was marginally convicted they way they have for Ryan Widmer. Or that the local TV stations would continue to run stories day after day well after the trial concluded.

[blobfan]

I understand the course of the legal system, and I ultimately don't mind that the judge found that a retrial was in order. If that's the legal ruling then I'm okay with it, and I don't think that racist judges are all over the place. I separate the legal system from the media. There is NO WAY IN HELL that 700 WLW would continue to crusade for a black guy who was marginally convicted they way they have for Ryan Widmer. Or that the local TV stations would continue to run stories day after day well after the trial concluded.

I'll give you WLW. It's the listeners, those that call in, that I agree it's highly unlikely would rally behind a non-white non-male in these same circumstances. But please show me one instance where a non-white non-male who by all outward appearances falls firmly in the middle class and has no record of illegal behavior should have gotten this type of support and didn't?

The truth is, most people involved in this type of crime have a record and because of that record they get thrown under the bus, regardless of whether or not it's fair.

[nuts4xu]

If he didn't do it, and his wife in fact drowned because she fell asleep, why did he spend time draining the tub? Dude is guilty as a mofo.

And those jurors are dumb hillbillys. I have no idea who they are personally, but if they thought it was ok to do their own legal experiments, they are flat out dumb....period.

[Snipe]

What is wrong with the 911 Call? I listened to it. I wish I wouldn't have.

[JimmyTwoTimes37]

They are only throwing out the conviction for murder. The acquittal for aggravated murder cannot be thrown out. So in his next trial, he will only be tried for murder and/or lesser offenses. Double Jeopardy (where the scores can REALLY change) prevents them from prosecuting the aggravated murder case again.

[XURunner85]

Honestly I believe he is guilty, I was surprised that at the first trial that they did not end up in a hung jury. But there is to many things and of course circumstantial that really makes him look guilty. Why would you drain the tub if your wife has just drowned. Why would you dry the floor from water that would have spilled out when you took her out??? You would have had to really been unconcious to not wake up if you fell asleep and slid under the water and not knowing the water coming up your nose....I also think the jurors did not wrong, I want them to make a good and fair decision and if that means re-enacting the scene from the evidence that was given to them then so be it. They could re-enact the defensive side also. I think it is going to be harder this time around, the jury pool is tainted all of this area from Dayton down to Cincinnati. They might have to move it up north more for a better selection and fair jury pool.

[nuts4xu]

What is wrong with the 911 Call? I listened to it. I wish I wouldn't have.

It sounds rehearsed and like a story to me. That is what is wrong with it.

[XU05and07]

What is wrong with the 911 Call? I listened to it. I wish I wouldn't have.


It sounds rehearsed and like a story to me. That is what is wrong with it.

He didn't have the urgency in his voice...he had a story and excuse...why mention that she falls asleep all the time?

When asked if he started CPR, he said yes...then said that he needed to get her out of the tub, thus not really doing CPR because he didn't know how.

There is just a lot of unanswered questions by this guy...

[PM Thor]

People do panic in emergency situations, so I don't really take anything said on the 911 call for much. I haven't heard it to be honest, but people say things, do things, and react without reason when put in situations like this. Personally I don't think much should be made out of any 911 call ever.

I HATE dayton.

[xeus]

People do panic in emergency situations, so I don't really take anything said on the 911 call for much. I haven't heard it to be honest, but people say things, do things, and react without reason when put in situations like this. Personally I don't think much should be made out of any 911 call ever.



I agree with you Thor.

[TheDanimal]

They are only throwing out the conviction for murder. The acquittal for aggravated murder cannot be thrown out. So in his next trial, he will only be tried for murder and/or lesser offenses. Double Jeopardy (where the scores can REALLY change) prevents them from prosecuting the aggravated murder case again.

I don't know if this is necessarily true in the case of juror misconduct... estoppel and double jeopardy concerns may not apply when due process was violated the first time.

But a few things on the matter...

A: He did it... See not taking the stand and his actions
B: A new trial is right decision... even though he did it, the jury screwed it up
C: I wish this was no longer news... ugh...

[Snipe]

People do panic in emergency situations, so I don't really take anything said on the 911 call for much. I haven't heard it to be honest, but people say things, do things, and react without reason when put in situations like this. Personally I don't think much should be made out of any 911 call ever.



I don't know how I would sound on a 911 call if I just found my wife dead. He was crying. I don't know what happened. I wish I didn't listen to it.


I don't know if this is necessarily true in the case of juror misconduct... estoppel and double jeopardy concerns may not apply when due process was violated the first time.

But a few things on the matter...

A: He did it... See not taking the stand and his actions
B: A new trial is right decision... even though he did it, the jury screwed it up
C: I wish this was no longer news... ugh...

If I ever do a crime, I will take the stand and look the jury in the eye and declare that I am an innocent man. It seems to me to be damning evidence if you don't testify in your own defense.

If my wife died and people claimed I did it and charged me with a crime, I could not imagine not taking the stand and just saying "I didn't do it". I usually suspect people that won't talk to the press because their lawyer advised against it. And I really suspect people that won't testify in their own defense. There is something to be said about someone who will look you in the eye and tell you they didn't do it.

I don't know what happened and I have tried to avoid this case. I kept the family in my prayers.

[Kahns Krazy]

People do panic in emergency situations, so I don't really take anything said on the 911 call for much. I haven't heard it to be honest, but people say things, do things, and react without reason when put in situations like this. Personally I don't think much should be made out of any 911 call ever.

I HATE dayton.

There has been research done into these calls. There are some pretty solid indicators that are found on a statistically significant number of callers where the caller is guilty of the crime, such as inconsistencies with details, extraneous information (I was downstairs. She falls asleep all the time), and establishing mortality. These indicators do not show up nearly as often when the 911 caller was not involved in the incident.

He starts the call by saying "My wife fell asleep in the bathtub and I think she's dead." How does he know what happened? Why doesn't he ask for help?

On it's own, the call doesn't establish anything. However, in conjunction with the highly unusual cause of death, it does provide some insight.

He claims to have drained the water and performed CPR, but she was still in the tub. He also claims to have found her "laying face down" in the tub. I don't understand how that is physically possible.

It also sounds to me like he contradicts himself at one point, saying that the water is draining right now, then immediately changing his story to that he has completely drained the tub.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that if I found my wife face down in the tub, I wouldn't reach over her unconscious body and drain the tub, leaving her in there.

At one point one of the jurors said that the 911 call was critical in the conviction. They said they listened to it over and over, and just couldn't figure out how it could have happened the way he says it did. I have to agree with that statement. The statements made in the call don't seem to add up.

Edit: Here's the link for the FBI Bulletin regarding 911 calls. Ryan's 911 call fails nearly every one of these indicators. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_6_77/ai_n27504386/?tag=content;col1

[blobfan]

I don't know how I would sound on a 911 call if I just found my wife dead. He was crying. I don't know what happened. I wish I didn't listen to it.



If I ever do a crime, I will take the stand and look the jury in the eye and declare that I am an innocent man. It seems to me to be damning evidence if you don't testify in your own defense.

If my wife died and people claimed I did it and charged me with a crime, I could not imagine not taking the stand and just saying "I didn't do it". I usually suspect people that won't talk to the press because their lawyer advised against it. And I really suspect people that won't testify in their own defense. There is something to be said about someone who will look you in the eye and tell you they didn't do it.

I don't know what happened and I have tried to avoid this case. I kept the family in my prayers.

Some people just don't play well to the jury, no matter how innocent. I can think of a lot of reasons someone shouldn't take the stand in their own defense: if you have a stutter, if you are so uncomfortable speaking in public that you twitch or otherwise act shifty, if you are like me and your brain shuts down so that you say stupid things when on the spot. I thought judges always instruct the jury that they are not allowed to consider whether or not the defendent took the stand when determining guilt.

[Kahns Krazy]

I find myself fascinated by this case. Between the facts that are not disputed - only Sarah and Ryan in the house at the time of death and that she died of drowning, and the strange 911 call.

No physical evidence that proves she died at the hands of another, but no reasonable explanation for the words and actions of the only witness. The dry bathroom thing is weird too.

I just don't know.

[JimmyTwoTimes37]

I just don't know.

That's how I feel about it as well. I don't know if we'll ever know

[pizza delivery]

I don't live in town so I don't know much about the case. Is it possible to committ suicide by drowning in a bathtub? I mean, it sounds like he's guilty and this would be his best defense.

[Kahns Krazy]

I don't live in town so I don't know much about the case. Is it possible to committ suicide by drowning in a bathtub? I mean, it sounds like he's guilty and this would be his best defense.

I read some of the commentary from the testimony today. Basically the defense is that it's possible Sarah had an undiagnosed condition that caused her to have some sort of seizure and drown.

Home bathtub drownings among heathy adults are so rare there is no data collected. I do not think suicide in a bathtub is possible in a sober adult. The human physical response to a lack of air is difficult to willfully overcome.

Having said that, if the rest of the evidence was consistent with an accidental tub drowning, I think there either would have been no charges filed or an acquittal the first time around despite the rarity of the cause of death.

[Woodburn]

sually suspect people that won't talk to the press because their lawyer advised against it. And I really suspect people that won't testify in their own defense. There is something to be said about someone who will look you in the eye and tell you they didn't do it.

If you ever get jury duty in Indy, please make sure you disclose that Snipe is your internet alter ego on your jury questionnaire. I want to make sure I get you struck right quick.

[DC Muskie]

I saw the Dateline show about this a few months ago and came back with thought that the husband couldn't have done this. If I remember correctly it had something to do with no motive. Am I correct in assuming that motive was hard to prove in this case?

[kyxu]

If you ever get jury duty in Indy, please make sure you disclose that Snipe is your internet alter ego on your jury questionnaire. I want to make sure I get you struck right quick.

No kidding. Geez.

Some people -- even innocent ones -- just don't testify well. Plus, the magnitude of the situation can make an even an innocent person look unstable and not credible. Guilty people can lie through their teeth earnestly to a jury. Hell, if they have the capacity to kill, I wouldn't imagine it'd take much more to lie to a room full of people.

It's up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; if they can't do that, no conviction. The system is set up so that the prosecution can't rely on the defendant to make the case for them.

Can't just fry defendants who exercise their 5th Amendment right.

[Kahns Krazy]

I saw the Dateline show about this a few months ago and came back with thought that the husband couldn't have done this. If I remember correctly it had something to do with no motive. Am I correct in assuming that motive was hard to prove in this case?

Proving motive is not a requirement. I don't even think the prosecution is trying to establish a motive.

If you listen to the 911 call, it's difficult to believe the situation as described. There are several inconsistencies that lead one to believe he's lying. I truly believe that if the 911 call recording didn't exist, there would be no case at all. As it is, it's difficult to reconcile the call with the evidence.

[Nigel Tufnel]

I saw the Dateline show about this a few months ago and came back with thought that the husband couldn't have done this. If I remember correctly it had something to do with no motive. Am I correct in assuming that motive was hard to prove in this case?

They were married for a very short period of time....and there was no life insurance in place on the victim. Essentially, there was no financial gain from her death for him. Based on the short term marriage, he could have just as easily filed for divorce and there wouldn't have been much to split...it would have been a much easier and logical out for him than killing her. In his situation, "its cheaper to keep her" didn't apply at all. The evidence in the house didn't support that this was a heat of the moment domestic violence turned murder. If anything, the lack of evidence of a physical struggle would lead one to believe that if, in fact, she was killed, it would have had to have been premeditated.

With no financial gain and the option of a quick divorce with little/no marital assets and no children, it begs the question, why would he commit premeditated murder?

It doesn't make much sense, but I guess it doesn't have to. Most people who know him don't think he's capable of premeditated murder....who knows though. I think under the circumstances, with no financial gain or reason and an easy out with divorce with little financial ramifications and no children, the guy would have to almost be a psychopath to kill his wife based on the physical evidence at their house. Anything's possible, I guess.

[Kahns Krazy]

"an easy out with divorce ".


I know a guy who has lived with a woman he hates more than anyone I know hates another person. They are married with a child. He only refers to her as "the c**t", and they are rarely home at the same time. When they are, he's in the basement and she's upstairs. They clearly should have gotten divorced years ago, but that is not acceptable in his family.

What might appear to be an easy out for some may not seem so easy to others.

I will certainly agree that this case doesn't fit a mould of any kind. The lack of motive is baffling.

Asking if he's guilty or innocent is like asking if 6+5 equals 10 or 12. It doesn't add up.

[Snipe]

If you ever get jury duty in Indy, please make sure you disclose that Snipe is your internet alter ego on your jury questionnaire. I want to make sure I get you struck right quick.


No kidding. Geez.

Some people -- even innocent ones -- just don't testify well. Plus, the magnitude of the situation can make an even an innocent person look unstable and not credible. Guilty people can lie through their teeth earnestly to a jury. Hell, if they have the capacity to kill, I wouldn't imagine it'd take much more to lie to a room full of people.

It's up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; if they can't do that, no conviction. The system is set up so that the prosecution can't rely on the defendant to make the case for them.

Can't just fry defendants who exercise their 5th Amendment right.

I am not taking away his 5th Amendment Rights. He has his day in court and I am not on the jury. This is the court of public opinion, and I gave my opinion. If someone wrongly accused me of killing my wife I would tell people I didn't do it. I would speak to the press, and I would testify at my trial. I could not imagine not doing those things.

If I was on the jury though I would be tempted to let him go because none of it really adds up.

[Woodburn]

If someone wrongly accused me of killing my wife I would tell people I didn't do it. I would speak to the press, and I would testify at my trial. I could not imagine not doing those things.

Fair enough. I also think you'd hire the best criminal defense attorney you could afford. That attorney would almost surely tell you to not speak to the press. He/she may also advise you to not testify at your trial. Ultimately - those decisions are your call, but there are excellent reasons why not talking/testifying is generally in your best interest. Hire me and I'll tell you about them. Otherwise, we'll likely have to agree to disagree.

[DC Muskie]

There has been research done into these calls. There are some pretty solid indicators that are found on a statistically significant number of callers where the caller is guilty of the crime, such as inconsistencies with details, extraneous information (I was downstairs. She falls asleep all the time), and establishing mortality. These indicators do not show up nearly as often when the 911 caller was not involved in the incident.

He starts the call by saying "My wife fell asleep in the bathtub and I think she's dead." How does he know what happened? Why doesn't he ask for help?

On it's own, the call doesn't establish anything. However, in conjunction with the highly unusual cause of death, it does provide some insight.

He claims to have drained the water and performed CPR, but she was still in the tub. He also claims to have found her "laying face down" in the tub. I don't understand how that is physically possible.

It also sounds to me like he contradicts himself at one point, saying that the water is draining right now, then immediately changing his story to that he has completely drained the tub.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that if I found my wife face down in the tub, I wouldn't reach over her unconscious body and drain the tub, leaving her in there.

At one point one of the jurors said that the 911 call was critical in the conviction. They said they listened to it over and over, and just couldn't figure out how it could have happened the way he says it did. I have to agree with that statement. The statements made in the call don't seem to add up.

Edit: Here's the link for the FBI Bulletin regarding 911 calls. Ryan's 911 call fails nearly every one of these indicators. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_6_77/ai_n27504386/?tag=content;col1

Sorry I didn't read this before. What interesting points. I never heard some of these things.

I'm not sure what I do if I was in that situation. Or what I would say. If I knew my wife had a history of falling asleep, it could be reasonable to expect me to say that she fell asleep in the tub. Although I do think that's almost in possible. Or at least should be.


Proving motive is not a requirement. I don't even think the prosecution is trying to establish a motive.

If you listen to the 911 call, it's difficult to believe the situation as described. There are several inconsistencies that lead one to believe he's lying. I truly believe that if the 911 call recording didn't exist, there would be no case at all. As it is, it's difficult to reconcile the call with the evidence.

I'm not a lawyer by any means, but proving motive is not a requirement? Doesn't that prove whether it was murder in the 1st or 2nd degree? What he tried for?

[kyxu]

Fair enough. I also think you'd hire the best criminal defense attorney you could afford. That attorney would almost surely tell you to not speak to the press. He/she may also advise you to not testify at your trial. Ultimately - those decisions are your call, but there are excellent reasons why not talking/testifying is generally in your best interest. Hire me and I'll tell you about them. Otherwise, we'll likely have to agree to disagree.

Exactly. Most of the time, it's best to just not put the defendant on the stand. Defense attorneys don't have the monopoly on being shrewd or conniving. Don't think for a second a prosecutor can't ruin the credibility of an innocent person testifying.

Screw public opinion. I'd rather be a free man.


I'm not a lawyer by any means, but proving motive is not a requirement? Doesn't that prove whether it was murder in the 1st or 2nd degree? What he tried for?

Motive could go to premeditation, which is an element of first degree murder.

[GoMuskies]

I'm not a lawyer by any means, but proving motive is not a requirement?

Did you think randomly killing someone for no reason was legal?

[boozehound]

Did you think randomly killing someone for no reason was legal?

Touché.

[Nigel Tufnel]

I know a guy who has lived with a woman he hates more than anyone I know hates another person. They are married with a child. He only refers to her as "the c**t", and they are rarely home at the same time. When they are, he's in the basement and she's upstairs. They clearly should have gotten divorced years ago, but that is not acceptable in his family.

What might appear to be an easy out for some may not seem so easy to others.

I will certainly agree that this case doesn't fit a mould of any kind. The lack of motive is baffling.

Asking if he's guilty or innocent is like asking if 6+5 equals 10 or 12. It doesn't add up.

Good point. I deal with divorcing people everyday...I see the worst of it. Terminating a short term marriage with no children is a walk in the park in comparison to some of the others. Its legally easy. I didn't take into account other factors. However, I haven't heard anything in the media about his religious or personal beliefs on termination of marriage. One would think if he had that type of conviction, it would have come out. Its doubtful if he had that type of feeling about marriage, it wouldn't have come out to family, friends, friends of his wife, etc.

I will say this though....I know his attorney. He is a very, very good criminal lawyer. If I got in trouble in Warren County, he would be the first guy I called. If he thought it was best for Widmer not testify, then I trust his opinion implicitly. What if Widmer, by nature, sweats a lot? What if he stutters when he gets nervous? What if he doesn't speak well in public? Now you've got your client on the stand being cross examined by a Prosecutor. Your client is on the stand, stuttering, sweating like a pig. How does that make him look to the jury? Not good. Let the other side prove their burden....its not worth taking the chance if you've got a client that may not handle the situation well.

Personally, if it were me and I was innocent, I would want to testify and scream to the world that I didn't do it. But if my attorney advised against it and gave me a good reason why (my demeanor, stuttering, sweaty, just generally an aloof person), then I would follow his advice. Charlie Rittgers knows what he is doing.

[wkrq59]

There are several factors I haven't seen discussed here.
Evidence or testimony by an expert witness was supposedly excluded from the trial. If so, why?
From everything I have heard and read about Widmer, he does not sound like the brightest star in the galaxy. In fact, he doesn't seem to be all that bright.
Thor says people react differently when making a 911 call. I have made 911 calls on several occasions and the circumstances were different each time. In every case I noticed certain constants: The 911 operator usually says (911 what is the nature of your emergency? What is your address? Where did the auto colission take place. What is your name and address?
Unless you are used to answering questions without embellishing or describing in great detail you will have problems.
Over a 40 year span I have seen people react differently to what I considered simple, uncomplicated questions. Such as "How long have you been grooming horses?" The answer was "Gee, I duno. I guess, lemme see, maybe 10, no more like 15 years, I think."
Now what can you discern from that answer? It depends on what you yourself know about grooming horses? And even if you ask a simple question like that, you have to take into account the education of the person, his background, was he in some other occupation before he took up working on the backstretch?
No two people react exactly the same way to situations of severe stress.
If I were interviewing him after he had found his wife dead in the tub as he claimed the first thing I would want to know is how tall the wife was and what was her weight? How tall is he and what does he weigh? Is his physical make up such that he could easily lift over 100 pounds of dead (no pun intended) weight that was wet out of a tub.?
Remember, this was a newlywed. Presumably he loved the woman.
Was there any indication she was a narcoleptic? Did she unknowingly suffer from sleep aponea?
Again, people react differently to stress. Felix Unger would have pulled her out of the tub. dried her off and probably covered her before or after he tried cpr which he probably didn't know how to do and could at least severely bruise her skin or crack her ribs. Or cause some other internal injury.
Oscar Madison would have left her in the tub or tried to resucsitate or if he did pull her out of the tub, would have pulled a shower curtain down and thrown it over her.
I don't know if he's guilty, but I think I'd err on the side of caution. A jury of his peers could mean the jury was just as stupid as he sounds. Also, a juror who hadn't prejudged the case wouldn't have been privately conducting tests to see if he was lying. And anytime a certain WLW radio personality in on the air making judgments about a person's guilt or innocence, I wonder what the hell is going on?
But there are still too many unanswered questions. :confused:

[DC Muskie]

Did you think randomly killing someone for no reason was legal?

Ha. Like I said I'm no lawyer. If I went to law school, I'd probably miss the day they taught law.

[Kahns Krazy]

It's interesting because there is so little evidence in this case. You have the scene of the death. You have the 911 call. You have the deceased person. Really, that's about it.

Sarah drowned. The cause of death was drowning. The autopsy revealed no brain trauma to suggest a seizure or any other even that would have overcome the human reponse to a lack of air.

In terms of pure statistical liklihood, the most likely explanation for all of the evidence available is that she was drowned by someone. Most likely Ryan. But there is no proof. The 911 call to me is totally baffling. In the space of about 2 minutes, he says she is in the tub and the water is draining, to the paramedics arriving to a dry body. I don't get how that happens. At the beginning of the 911 call, he tells the 911 operator that his wife has fallen asleep in the tub, he found her face down and he thinks she's dead.

The burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The question, is it reasonable to assume that Sarah suffered an undiagnosed, undetectable condidtion that is so rare that nobody else has it that caused her to drown in her own tub?

I think if Ryan had made the call and said "I found my wife face down in the tub, she's not breathing, please send help!" then threw the phone down, I would be inclined to err on the side of caution. As it is, I think there's just too many irregularities to form a reasonable doubt.

I would love to be able to listen to the jury deliberations on this.

[Nigel Tufnel]

The lack of any type of physical injury is what boggles me the most...the 911 call doesn't bother me as much because different people act differently in certain situations. If you are being drowned, how in the world do you not fight? How is there no bruising, scratching, etc. The fight to live would have to result in some type of struggle...and there was nothing. I just don't get that.

[Kahns Krazy]

Like I said, I'm fascinated with this case.

Some interesting testimony today. Things I didn't know: (quotes are from the wlwt blog)

(keep in mind that these are prosecution witnesses)

A police sgt responding to the scene

Elliott says she talked to Widmer as life saving efforts going on. She noticed smell of alcohol and asked if he'd been drinking. He said he'd had about four beers.

the Sergent without having heard the 911 call, felt something about the scene was "suspicious".


Elliott says she knelt down to touch carpet where Sarah had been, and she says carpet between bloodstains were dry. She points out that area on the photo. Bloodstains at Sarah's head and groin.
No other officers present at this time, but Officer Short arrived just after Elliott touched the carpet. He asked if she was going to call Lt. Braley, and she says she did at that point.
Called him because she believed something was suspicious and needed possibly investigating. Then Braley would determine if investigation necessary.

[DC Muskie]

Do you think he could have drugged her?

Maybe stuck a needle in her neck or something that knocked her unconscious?

[boozehound]

If there was no evidence of a struggle, what are the bloodstains from?

I do agree that the lack of evidence of a struggle is very wierd. That is the only thing that keeps me from being certain that he did it. The will to live is a powerful thing. You would think, at a minmum, that her finger nails would show signs of scratching/clawing for her life as she was being held under water. She should have had a good 60 seconds, at least, until she started to lose consciousness from lack of oxygen.

DC - I am not sure how many drugs there are that he could have given her that wouldn't have shown up on any of the tox screens that I am sure they gave her. I would have to imagine that they tested for every possible drug that could have killed her or caused her to become unconscious and drown. I do agree that her being drugged would explain a lot, like how you drown someone in a bathtub without any evidence of a struggle...

[Kahns Krazy]

If there was no evidence of a struggle, what are the bloodstains from?
...

From what I've read of the testimony, bleeding from the mouth following a drowning and a resuscitation effort would be totally expected. The wlwt blogger said that the bloodstain from the groin area had been explained, but that he forgot the explanation. The impression I got from that was that there was a general consensus that it was natural or normal.

[xavierdude]

Do you think he could have drugged her?

Maybe stuck a needle in her neck or something that knocked her unconscious?

This is the only way I can see him actually "killing" her. Maybe I watch too much TV, but I think there are drugs that are untraceable...especially drugs that don't kill, but just knock you out. But I can't be for certain. But this is the most obvious explanation that can't be proved at all to me.

[boozehound]

From what I've read of the testimony, bleeding from the mouth following a drowning and a resuscitation effort would be totally expected. The wlwt blogger said that the bloodstain from the groin area had been explained, but that he forgot the explanation. The impression I got from that was that there was a general concesus that it was natural or normal.

Thanks. Gotcha. The groin bleeding was the part that seemed the strangest to me, but I am far from a Doctor or Medical Examiner, obviously.

I'm sure if it was unusual we would have heard a lot more about it.

[boozehound]

This is the only way I can see him actually "killing" her. Maybe I watch too much TV, but I think there are drugs that are untraceable...especially drugs that don't kill, but just knock you out. But I can't be for certain. But this is the most obvious explanation that can't be proved at all to me.

I agree that this seems most plausible, assuming that there are untraceable drugs that can cause paralysis, unconsciousness, or death. I don't really feel like doing the research on my PC at work right now...

[Kahns Krazy]

The coroner is on the stand. Some interesting testimony from his as well. According to the prosecution witnesses, several of them developed a sense that something was not right about the situation. The idea that several people, experienced in their respective professions, had the same sensation independent from each other is a red flag to me.

I found this thread especially interesting. (It reads from the bottom up)

Asked why he was afraid Sarah would fall asleep in tub, has she done that before? Ryan told him no, but she does fall asleep easily elsewhere, he says.
by Travis Gettys at 4:09 PM
ReplyTweet this event!Says he asked Ryan if he pulled wife from tub before or after 911 call. Ryan told him after, he says.
by Travis Gettys at 4:08 PM
Says Ryan said dispatcher told him to pull her from tub, and then he pulled plug of tub.
by Travis Gettys at 4:07 PM
Ryan said no water came from mouth, but pink mucus did.
by Travis Gettys at 4:06 PM
Says he found Sarah's cell phone on vanity and called 911.
by Travis Gettys at 4:06 PM
Describes layout of bathroom to jurors. Tub on left, vanity on right. If facing tub, drain/faucet on left.
by Travis Gettys at 4:05 PM
Burke had never been to house at that time, but did go there later.
by Travis Gettys at 4:04 PM
Says he pulled Sarah from tub and pulled plug to drain tub. Then began performing CPR. Ryan said he'd been trained in CPR some time before.
by Travis Gettys at 4:04 PM
Ryan said he could hear water running, and went upstairs about an hour later. Says water off, water level at top of overflow and Sarah was face down in the water.
by Travis Gettys at 4:03 PM
Ryan said he'd been downstairs at 10 p.m. watching football. Said Sarah went upstairs to take bath, was worried she might fall asleep in tub. Burke says he found that unusual. Defense objects, and judge asks jury to disregard.
by Travis Gettys at 4:03 PM
Ryan told him they'd been married since April, said only he and Sarah had been home at the time of her death. Burke says he knew nothing when he arrived. Says they could have lived with parents or been having a party for all her knew when he arrived.
by Travis Gettys at 4:02 PM
Introduced self, told him he was working with police to find out what happened to his wife. Ryan not in custody of any type. Agreed to talk.
by Travis Gettys at 4:01 PM
Spoke to Ryan at hospital in consultation/chapel room with his mother.

There are several contradictory statements from Ryan between this testimony and the 911 call.

[Kahns Krazy]

The coroner's investigator went on to say that he wasn't concerned with the sequence of events, but the comments about how Ryan was concerned that she might fall asleep in the tub, followed by the comment about how she had never fallen asleep in the tub before were of concern to him.

[PM Thor]

From what I've read of the testimony, bleeding from the mouth following a drowning and a resuscitation effort would be totally expected. The wlwt blogger said that the bloodstain from the groin area had been explained, but that he forgot the explanation. The impression I got from that was that there was a general consensus that it was natural or normal.

I can personally attest to this. CPR is a very violent event on a body. Ribs are quite frequently broken (especially on the elderly), teeth broken, lungs damaged, etc, etc.

This doesn't even mention the fluids that come from a body during CPR, especially in a near drowning. Hoo boy CPR is pretty gross, and violent many of the times.

As for the case, I still have no idea how to think about it. I wish I would learn the truth about what happened, alas, I know we never will...

I HATE dayton.

[Kahns Krazy]

I didn't follow the testimony yesterday. From what I've read and comments from observers seem to think that the defense is gaining some ground by calling into question some of the documentation around the case.

Today's testimony was pretty boring - especially a prosecution witness that was Sarah's maid of honor. Basically said Sarah was normal, no concerns about Ryan and Sarah's relationship, and that she was aware that Sarah had fallen asleep in the tub before. A puzzling prosecution witness.

Then the coroner took the stand. I have to say, I find this interesting:


Uptegrove notes that hemorrhaging found in front of throat. Many things can cause it. Usually compressional force, some type of squeezing or blunt force.
Uptegrove says typical CPR injuries are rib fractures, sternum fractures. Contusions or hemorrhages to heart, even.

Uptegrove found no injuries to chest area where typical CPR injuries found. He's aware she received CPR for some time before she was pronounced dead.
It is physically possible to impart an injury on a dead body, he says, but much more difficult. Lack of blood circulation inhibits bruising.
Found significant hemorrhaging in neck area but not chest area, where chest compressions being performed.

Uptegrove doesn't recall seeing similar injuries related to CPR. Not consistent with injuries related to CPR or other life-saving techniques.

These injuries in her neck, they couldn't have happened when she was dead," Uptegrove says.

[Kahns Krazy]

And the cross exam of the coroner is equally interesting. Defense doing a good job of painting an alternate picture of how the injuries could happen.

[DC Muskie]

IBasically said Sarah was normal, no concerns about Ryan and Sarah's relationship, and that she was aware that Sarah had fallen asleep in the tub before.

She had fallen asleep in the tub before?

[blobfan]

She had fallen asleep in the tub before?

Apparently she did so on several occasions. I thought it was impossible until I did it myself. Woke up in cold water with seriously pruned hands and feet.

[Muskie1000]

however your head was still above water. I would think the minute your head went below water you would immediately wake up.

[D-West & PO-Z]

however your head was still above water. I would think the minute your head went below water you would immediately wake up.

I was thinking the same thing. It would have to be some sort of medical condition. Something more than just falling asleep in the tub.

[Kahns Krazy]

I think the thing that fascinates me about this case is that there are really only two possibilities:

1) Ryan killed his wife somewhat skillfully (without any defensive wounds or direct evidence) and is very close to getting away with it.

2) Sarah suffered from some sort of extremely rare medical condition and died without any normal indications. After losing his new bride, Ryan may suffer the ultimate injustice of being punished severely for a crime he didn't commit.

I don't know how those jury members can bring themselves to vote between the above two options.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I think the thing that fascinates me about this case is that there are really only two possibilities:

1) Ryan killed his wife somewhat skillfully (without any defensive wounds or direct evidence) and is very close to getting away with it.

2) Sarah suffered from some sort of extremely rare medical condition and died without any normal indications. After losing his new bride, Ryan may suffer the ultimate injustice of being punished severely for a crime he didn't commit.

I don't know how those jury members can bring themselves to vote between the above two options.

Yeah pretty crazy. I havent seen all the facts and evidence but from what I do know and have read it doesnt seem like there is a clear indication either way. I would find it much more heartbreaking sending an innocent man to prison than letting a guilty man go free. I guess thats why they say beyond a reasonable doubt. Like I said I havent seen all the info but it seems to me like there is some reasonable doubt. Tough situation.

[LadyMuskie]

I think he killed her and I think he's going to get away with it. If I found my husband face down in the tub, the first thing I would do is pull him out, then I call 911, then I try to do CPR. Not let him float there while more water enters his lungs while I look around for a phone and then call 911. His story makes no sense and I genuinely believe that where there is smoke there is fire.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion Widmer is a liar and a murderer. God help the next woman he marries!

[Nigel Tufnel]

I think he killed her and I think he's going to get away with it. If I found my husband face down in the tub, the first thing I would do is pull him out, then I call 911, then I try to do CPR. Not let him float there while more water enters his lungs while I look around for a phone and then call 911. His story makes no sense and I genuinely believe that where there is smoke there is fire.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion Widmer is a liar and a murderer. God help the next woman he marries!

Respect your opinion, but if you were on the jury, how would you vote? That's the $64,000 question. You may think he killed her, you may think his story makes no sense, you may think where there's smoke, there's fire...but would you vote that he murdered his wife beyond a reasonable doubt? Legally, in a criminal trial, where there's smoke, there's fire doesn't equivocate to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. All those jurors should be pulling their hair out on this one.

Its a legally intriguing case. We had one in Clinton County about 10 years ago...anyone remember the Carrie Culberson case from Blanchester? No weapon, no body, a family capable of making a corpse disappear, a history of domestic violence. Case was HUGE on Court TV...it was like a made for TV courtroom drama...even witnesses testifying about being Wiccans. Guy was found guilty. Crazy thing is this...I really think he killed her...but I don't know if I could have convicted the guy without a weapon and especially a body. There really wasn't any proof that she was dead other than that she was missing. OK, I know she's dead...but I just don't think I could have found the guy guilty. A juror in a capital murder case shouldn't try to err on the side of caution, which I think if Widmer is found guilty, will basically be the case.

Ohio has had some crazy murder trials....

[D-West & PO-Z]

Respect your opinion, but if you were on the jury, how would you vote? That's the $64,000 question. You may think he killed her, you may think his story makes no sense, you may think where there's smoke, there's fire...but would you vote that he murdered his wife beyond a reasonable doubt? Legally, in a criminal trial, where there's smoke, there's fire doesn't equivocate to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. All those jurors should be pulling their hair out on this one.

Its a legally intriguing case. We had one in Clinton County about 10 years ago...anyone remember the Carrie Culberson case from Blanchester? No weapon, no body, a family capable of making a corpse disappear, a history of domestic violence. Case was HUGE on Court TV...it was like a made for TV courtroom drama...even witnesses testifying about being Wiccans. Guy was found guilty. Crazy thing is this...I really think he killed her...but I don't know if I could have convicted the guy without a weapon and especially a body. There really wasn't any proof that she was dead other than that she was missing. OK, I know she's dead...but I just don't think I could have found the guy guilty. A juror in a capital murder case shouldn't try to err on the side of caution, which I think if Widmer is found guilty, will basically be the case.

Ohio has had some crazy murder trials....

Exactly, I was about to say the same.

[boozehound]

Respect your opinion, but if you were on the jury, how would you vote? That's the $64,000 question. You may think he killed her, you may think his story makes no sense, you may think where there's smoke, there's fire...but would you vote that he murdered his wife beyond a reasonable doubt? Legally, in a criminal trial, where there's smoke, there's fire doesn't equivocate to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. All those jurors should be pulling their hair out on this one.

Its a legally intriguing case. We had one in Clinton County about 10 years ago...anyone remember the Carrie Culberson case from Blanchester? No weapon, no body, a family capable of making a corpse disappear, a history of domestic violence. Case was HUGE on Court TV...it was like a made for TV courtroom drama...even witnesses testifying about being Wiccans. Guy was found guilty. Crazy thing is this...I really think he killed her...but I don't know if I could have convicted the guy without a weapon and especially a body. There really wasn't any proof that she was dead other than that she was missing. OK, I know she's dead...but I just don't think I could have found the guy guilty. A juror in a capital murder case shouldn't try to err on the side of caution, which I think if Widmer is found guilty, will basically be the case.

Ohio has had some crazy murder trials....


I agree. I don't know all the facts of the case, but I have followed it. I think that he probably did it. I also think that if I were on the jury I would probably have to vote 'not guilty'. I don't see the proof beyond a reasonable doubt there, based on the information I have heard so far. I am really glad I am not on the Jury for this case, because this would be a very difficult verdict to return either way. My prediction is probably either a 'not guilty' or a hung jury.

[LadyMuskie]

I spent 11 years working for and with lawyers, some of whom were former prosecutors and some of whom were defense attorneys. I understand reasonable doubt. The key, however, is the word reasonable. Its not just beyond a doubt. You can't just ignore the evidence and testimony given because you have some doubts - you have to reasonably weigh what you've seen and heard. Reasonably, with the amount of evidence and testimony from experts, etc. I would vote guilty. Its just like OJ Simpson. Was there doubt cast that he killed Nicole? Yes. He had good lawyers who put on a good show making you question if he did it, which is the job of good defense attorneys. Was it reasonable doubt? No, it wasn't. At the end of the day all of the evidence still pointed to OJ and he should have been convicted. There is no such thing as an airtight case. Eyewitnesses can be unreliable. DNA samples and other evidence can be tampered with, and on and on. That's why its reasonable and not just doubt.

I'm willing to admit that I'm not following as closely this time around, because I think that, while a new trial was probably deserved based on juror misconduct, he's going to get off, so what's the point. But I did pay close attention the first time and I would have voted guilty based on the evidence given then and I still would now.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I just feel like from all I have read and heard I have reasonable doubt. Enough that I would not feel comfortable coming back with a verdict of guilty. I would not want to be a juror on this case. I would have a sick feeling in my stomach either way.

[Nigel Tufnel]

I spent 11 years working for and with lawyers, some of whom were former prosecutors and some of whom were defense attorneys. I understand reasonable doubt. The key, however, is the word reasonable. Its not just beyond a doubt. You can't just ignore the evidence and testimony given because you have some doubts - you have to reasonably weigh what you've seen and heard. Reasonably, with the amount of evidence and testimony from experts, etc. I would vote guilty. Its just like OJ Simpson. Was there doubt cast that he killed Nicole? Yes. He had good lawyers who put on a good show making you question if he did it, which is the job of good defense attorneys. Was it reasonable doubt? No, it wasn't. At the end of the day all of the evidence still pointed to OJ and he should have been convicted. There is no such thing as an airtight case. Eyewitnesses can be unreliable. DNA samples and other evidence can be tampered with, and on and on. That's why its reasonable and not just doubt.

I'm willing to admit that I'm not following as closely this time around, because I think that, while a new trial was probably deserved based on juror misconduct, he's going to get off, so what's the point. But I did pay close attention the first time and I would have voted guilty based on the evidence given then and I still would now.

I have a pretty good idea of what reasonable doubt is too. Its troubling that there aren't a lot of alternatives as to how she could have died other than being drowned. The fact that there were no signs of struggle at the house, no defensive wounds on him, no scratching, no skin under her fingernails...nothing is what troubles me. I think its reasonable to doubt whether he drowned her based on that. Otherwise, it was premeditated...so how did he go about getting her in a state where he could drown her, without any proof that she was drugged, without any signs of struggle on her part and no defensive wounds? Its definitely a head scratcher.

[Kahns Krazy]

The difference in this case is that the room for "reasonable doubt" is so narrow.

Sarah drowned. The cause of death is not in dispute. In order to have reasonable doubt that she was killed, you have to believe that she suffered a rare, undetectable disorder. One so specific that it cause a seizure of limited duration so as not to cause brain damage, one that did not cause her to stop breathing, one that did not cause other symptoms of seizure, such as loss of bowel control .

Such a disorder would be so rare, it would essentially be "Sarah Widmer" syndrome.

Still, in the absence of any other evidence, if I was on the jury, I think I'd have to let the guy walk.

However, when you take the rareness of the cause of death, the peculiar statements and actions of Ryan, the fact that several initial responders to the scene, independent of each other, felt that something was not right about the situation, injuries to the body that seem inconsistent normal resuscitation efforts, etc. etc. etc. ... I think you really have to stretch to come up with a reasonable doubt that covers all of the available evidence.

Healthy, sober people do not drown in bathtubs. It just does not happen.

[Kahns Krazy]

Even in the OJ case, a random killer scenario at least opens the door for reasonable doubt. That happens. It's rare, but it happens. In the Culberson case, it's possible that the girl just wandered off, ran away, fell off a cliff, whatever. It happens. People vanish accidentally or intentionally.

There's no such scenario for Sarah.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I went back and was reading some of the articles from the Enquirer from a couple days ago. I didnt realize how sloppy some of the work was done by investigators or medical personnel.

From the article:

Among the discrepancies on the paperwork that was supposed to show what actions were taken when rescuers were called to attend to Sarah Widmer: One document showing only one attempt to put a breathing tube into her throat - while another shows five such attempts.

Mark Godsey, a lawyer who heads the Ohio Innocence Project, called the discrepancies "absolutely outrageous."

"Trying to take away a man's liberty with this type of sloppiness and altering of records is very disturbing," Godsey said. "It shows what I've been saying for a year: 'This ain't CSI.' "

Lassiter said the multiple failed intubation attempts - including those in a moving ambulance - help support defense lawyers' contention that life-saving efforts caused the minor bruises and other injuries around Sarah Widmer's head and neck, and undermines prosecutors' arguments that a struggle with her husband caused those marks.

Lassiter said in a case that lacks a confession, self-incriminating evidence or third-party witnesses to the alleged crime, "the prosecution's case is constructed entirely from circumstantial evidence not only gathered by police investigators, but also interpreted by them."

Considering that foundation for the entire case, "it is imperative for the jury to reach a high comfort level in the integrity of the investigation before accepting the prosecution's hypothesis of guilt beyond a reason to doubt," Lassiter said.

There is a lot more interesting stuff in the article. I'm sure I am behind and most of you have read it.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100516/NEWS010702/5170322

[D-West & PO-Z]

"Amid last week's difficulties for the prosecutors, there were some bright spots for them, including an expert who testified about sleep and seizures, Dr. J. Layne Moore of Ohio State University. Moore scored some points for the prosecution when he testified he saw no evidence that Sarah Widmer had suffered a seizure or other medical problem that contributed to her drowning.

But Moore, under defense lawyers' questioning, also testified that a person who is held under water will thrash around instinctively to try to reach air and breathe. That statement leaves prosecutors to explain: How could such a struggle happen without leaving a single mark on Widmer and no marks on his wife's knees, fingernails, knuckles or elbows? Especially in a cramped bathroom?

Allen has no idea how prosecutors will resolve that dilemma.

"They are in a real pickle on this," he said."

[D-West & PO-Z]

"Godsey notes another aspect of Moore's testimony: "The state's expert admitted that Sarah could have drowned as a result of an undiagnosed ailment. He said this was 'unlikely,' but not impossible.

It is also very unlikely, but not impossible, for a man with Ryan's gentle nature and non-violent background to suddenly kill his new bride with no motive and with no scratches on his body, and no marks on her body beyond what would happen with resuscitation efforts. So what you have here is unlikely either way - two unlikely scenarios, one of which happened and one of which didn't."

That, Godsey says, is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

[D-West & PO-Z]

"The state bears the burden of proof - and so far, at least, it is just not there," said Mike Allen, former Hamilton County prosecutor.

But, he cautions, there are two weeks left to go, "and maybe things will pick up" for prosecutors.

"They will hammer on the sloppiness and inexperience of police and medical personnel," Allen said.

Potential targets this week include the lead detective on the case, whose work history is questioned; the county coroner, who lacks board certification; and a dispatcher who was accused of mishandling Widmer's 911 call."

Interesting that the coroner lacks board certification. Is that legal? Is it not required for him to be certified? I know in my profession I have to be liscensed by the state board to practice. I would be in some deep shit if I was practicing and I wasnt.

[boozehound]

Very good points by both Kahns and D-West. I have changed my mind at least 10 times regarding how I would vote in this case, and whether or not I think he did it. I just really don't know.

Kahns has a good point in asking the question "If he didn't do it, what happened?" The rare medical occurance explanation seems to be the only other explanation, and it would be a very rare event.

On the other hand, there are definitely some questions about the credibility of the investigation. I wonder what the chances are that they could have missed the symptoms of some kind of seizure?

The complete lack of any kind of a motive in this case is puzzling as well, as well as the ability to drown someone (allegedly) with no defensive wounds.

[Kahns Krazy]

I went back and was reading some of the articles from the Enquirer from a couple days ago. I didnt realize how sloppy some of the work was done by investigators or medical personnel.

From the article:

Among the discrepancies on the paperwork that was supposed to show what actions were taken when rescuers were called to attend to Sarah Widmer: One document showing only one attempt to put a breathing tube into her throat - while another shows five such attempts.

Mark Godsey, a lawyer who heads the Ohio Innocence Project, called the discrepancies "absolutely outrageous."

"Trying to take away a man's liberty with this type of sloppiness and altering of records is very disturbing," Godsey said. "It shows what I've been saying for a year: 'This ain't CSI.' "

Lassiter said the multiple failed intubation attempts - including those in a moving ambulance - help support defense lawyers' contention that life-saving efforts caused the minor bruises and other injuries around Sarah Widmer's head and neck, and undermines prosecutors' arguments that a struggle with her husband caused those marks.

Lassiter said in a case that lacks a confession, self-incriminating evidence or third-party witnesses to the alleged crime, "the prosecution's case is constructed entirely from circumstantial evidence not only gathered by police investigators, but also interpreted by them."

Considering that foundation for the entire case, "it is imperative for the jury to reach a high comfort level in the integrity of the investigation before accepting the prosecution's hypothesis of guilt beyond a reason to doubt," Lassiter said.

There is a lot more interesting stuff in the article. I'm sure I am behind and most of you have read it.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100516/NEWS010702/5170322

Note that the comments here are coming from "a lawyer who heads the Ohio Innocence Project". The comments are biased to one side. They aren't invalid points, but they aren't objective either.

The record keeping that has been called into question relates to the medical documentation. Remember that when many of these people were called out, it was to an accidental drowning call with an unresponsive victim. The fact that some medical forms were augmented after the fact doesn't really surprise me.

The comments this guy has chosen show his bias.


Lassiter said the multiple failed intubation attempts - including those in a moving ambulance - help support defense lawyers' contention that life-saving efforts caused the minor bruises and other injuries around Sarah Widmer's head and neck, and undermines prosecutors' arguments that a struggle with her husband caused those marks.

The coroner went on to say that he didn't understand how, medically, these injuries could have happened after Sarah was dead. The intubation happened after the CPR. There was no bruising evident from the CPR attempts, which indicates the victim was dead before CPR started.

Anyone can pick one thing out and say it casts reasonable doubt, but when you put all of the pieces together and view them as a whole, they paint a different picture.


"the prosecution's case is constructed entirely from circumstantial evidence
That just isn't true. There's a body, physical evidence from the scene, and a 911 call with a witness account.


"Amid last week's difficulties for the prosecutors, there were some bright spots for them, including an expert who testified about sleep and seizures, Dr. J. Layne Moore of Ohio State University. Moore scored some points for the prosecution when he testified he saw no evidence that Sarah Widmer had suffered a seizure or other medical problem that contributed to her drowning.

But Moore, under defense lawyers' questioning, also testified that a person who is held under water will thrash around instinctively to try to reach air and breathe. That statement leaves prosecutors to explain: How could such a struggle happen without leaving a single mark on Widmer and no marks on his wife's knees, fingernails, knuckles or elbows? Especially in a cramped bathroom?

Allen has no idea how prosecutors will resolve that dilemma.

"They are in a real pickle on this," he said."

Lack of any evidence of any thrashing or injury also calls into question the possibility of a seizure. This would have had to be a very, very specific type of undiagnosed seizure.


"Godsey notes another aspect of Moore's testimony: "The state's expert admitted that Sarah could have drowned as a result of an undiagnosed ailment. He said this was 'unlikely,' but not impossible.

It is also very unlikely, but not impossible, for a man with Ryan's gentle nature and non-violent background to suddenly kill his new bride with no motive and with no scratches on his body, and no marks on her body beyond what would happen with resuscitation efforts. So what you have here is unlikely either way - two unlikely scenarios, one of which happened and one of which didn't."

That, Godsey says, is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

Ryan's motive or gentle nature are not established facts. This guy has a slant on anything. The coroner testified that the bruising on the neck was not consistent with resuscitation efforts as they have been explained.


"The state bears the burden of proof - and so far, at least, it is just not there," said Mike Allen, former Hamilton County prosecutor.

But, he cautions, there are two weeks left to go, "and maybe things will pick up" for prosecutors.

"They will hammer on the sloppiness and inexperience of police and medical personnel," Allen said.

Potential targets this week include the lead detective on the case, whose work history is questioned; the county coroner, who lacks board certification; and a dispatcher who was accused of mishandling Widmer's 911 call."

Interesting that the coroner lacks board certification. Is that legal? Is it not required for him to be certified? I know in my profession I have to be liscensed by the state board to practice. I would be in some deep shit if I was practicing and I wasnt.

Of course it's legal. Do you think it's possible that we're in the middle of the second trial and nobody thought to bring up that the coroner was not legally in his job? This guy also didn't mention that he was acknowledged by the court as an expert in his field.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Note that the comments here are coming from "a lawyer who heads the Ohio Innocence Project". The comments are biased to one side. They aren't invalid points, but they aren't objective either.

The record keeping that has been called into question relates to the medical documentation. Remember that when many of these people were called out, it was to an accidental drowning call with an unresponsive victim. The fact that some medical forms were augmented after the fact doesn't really surprise me.

The comments this guy has chosen show his bias.



The coroner went on to say that he didn't understand how, medically, these injuries could have happened after Sarah was dead. The intubation happened after the CPR. There was no bruising evident from the CPR attempts, which indicates the victim was dead before CPR started.

Anyone can pick one thing out and say it casts reasonable doubt, but when you put all of the pieces together and view them as a whole, they paint a different picture.


That just isn't true. There's a body, physical evidence from the scene, and a 911 call with a witness account.



Lack of any evidence of any thrashing or injury also calls into question the possibility of a seizure. This would have had to be a very, very specific type of undiagnosed seizure.



Ryan's motive or gentle nature are not established facts. This guy has a slant on anything. The coroner testified that the bruising on the neck was not consistent with resuscitation efforts as they have been explained.



Of course it's legal. Do you think it's possible that we're in the middle of the second trial and nobody thought to bring up that the coroner was not legally in his job? This guy also didn't mention that he was acknowledged by the court as an expert in his field.

Ya, dumb question by me on if that was legal.

That guy definitely has an agenda, but he also makes some good points.

My quoting was all over the place so it was kind of confusing but not all of those were from that one guy. Mike Allen had some in there as did a law professor at UC named Lassiter. All seemed to think at that point in the trial (5 days ago) that the defense was "winning" at that point.

The circumstantial ecidence comment was not by the Ohio Innocence lawyer but by the UC professor.

Now I'm sure the next article I read will have me thinking the other way again. I just think if I were a juror in this case (I feel for them) that if I switched my mind everytime I heard one side then the next, that that would be enough for me to be reasonably doubtful. However, I obviously dont know all the facts that thye are getting so maybe that is why I keep switching my mind so often.

[Kahns Krazy]

That guy definitely has an agenda, but he also makes some good points.
.


No argument from me there. This case has points on both sides.

I do think it is unusual for a non-board-certified-pathologist to perform an autopsy. I believe there were two autopsies done. Maybe that is why.

[KC4X]

however your head was still above water. I would think the minute your head went below water you would immediately wake up.

That happened to me and I did wake up. But, let me tell you I was horrified at the thought that I could have drowned. I did inhale a little water, and it only takes a teaspoon, they say. I haven't closed my eyes in the tub ever since.

[Kahns Krazy]

Day 2 of deliberations. I get the feeling from the coverage that the media expects an acquittal, but who knows what those 11 people are thinking.

I believe in my heart that he did it. The 911 call just doesn't make any sense to me if it happened as he says it did. And people just don't fall asleep and drown.

[boozehound]

2 days of deliberations isn't a great sign if you are hoping for a conviction, is it?

It will be interesting to see what the jury decides. I don't have a very strong opinion either way at this point, because I'm not sure how I would vote if I were on that jury. The 911 call probably pushes me toward the side of thinking he is guilty, though. I guess we will find out soon.

[Kahns Krazy]

The first jury convicted after 23 hours of deliberations. This jury is around 10 so far.

[THRILLHOUSE]

looks like we have a hung jury. Doesn't surprise me. I don't know if he did it or not, but there is enough reasonable doubt there that if I were on the jury I would vote not guilty. But I am glad I am not on that jury, such an odd and tough case.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100601/NEWS010702/306010056/Widmer-jury-why-so-long-

[Muskie1000]

ok this is my one major problem of the justice system. You have to get all the jurors to agree and if you don't, its a hung jury. It can be just that one juror who won't budge that can cause it. And bully to that juror for hanging on - I was a juror on one trial, nothing big, a civil suit and the the majority of the jurors who felt one way was intimidating and belittling the other jurors to go their way. Is that really what they meant by a fair system?

[Kahns Krazy]

I like this comment:


Gary Widmer says he doesn't think the taxpayers of Warren County should have to foot the bill for another trial.

Really? That's the reason you don't want another trial? For the taxpayer cost?

I think it's interesting how this case really comes down to how you interpret "reasonable".

It's probably the same thing that sprung OJ. The fact that something is conceiveably possible does not make it a reasonable doubt in my mind.

It will be interesting to hear what the count was. 6-6? 11-1?

[DC Muskie]

It will be interesting to hear what the count was. 6-6? 11-1?

Do you think we'll ever know the breakdown?

I sat on the board of discipline at Xavier for two years. My senior year I was the only student on a special case. Needless to say, after that experience I was glad I would never hear a case again.

So Kahn's, since you have followed this case closely, what do you think of the verdict?

[Kahns Krazy]

I followed a ton of it, and I still can't say for sure how I feel about it. I believe that he was involved in her death. While the lack of defensive wounds is surprising to me, it is less improbable than the defense's version.

Since I didn't sit in court and listen to every moment of the testimony, I can't really pass an opinion on the lack of a verdict.

I believe that Ryan lied in the 911 call. I believe the testimony of the 911 operator, the first responders and the coroner that the scene didn't feel right. Unrelated emergency response professionals that all pick up the same thing isn't just random bad luck.

I have listened to the 911 call several times, and I just can't reconcile it with the facts of the case.

Healthy, sober people don't/can't fall asleep in their bathtubs and drown.

Even though I am sure (in my mind) that he was involved, I'm still not sure that this would be a failure of the justice system. Our system is biased toward the defendent. By design, guilty people will get away with murder more often than innocent people will be convicted.

[XURunner85]

In May, I was an alternate to a attempted murder case. We got to hear the opening statements by the Prosecutor and the 2 defense atty's (2 defendants)...as we were getting ready to start hearing witness statements, we were ushered out to the jurors room and sat there for a few hours then excused for the day. The next day we sat there for 4 hours in the jurors room before going into the courtroom, where we were told the Judge declared a miss trial. She came back to the jurors room and explained the state's lead witness (who was a friend of the 2 defendants and the driver of the car) decided not to testify, she was affraid of her friends that they might have someone try to kill her and her mom. She was found in contempt of court and the judge put her in jail until the new trial, which is now postponed again. These two guys are also going to trial for attempted murder for shooting up a van on I75 last summer. So with all that, when on a trial you sit there the whole time making sure you hear every word so that you can make sure that you are going to vote the right way. I am sure this jury has some on there that just thinks he is innocent and some that think he is just guilty and some who are just confused and don't want to mess up either way. It is tough...I think Widmer is guilty but was surprised he got convicted the first time and doubt he will ever get convicted.....

[DC Muskie]

I followed a ton of it, and I still can't say for sure how I feel about it. I believe that he was involved in her death. While the lack of defensive wounds is surprising to me, it is less improbable than the defense's version.

Since I didn't sit in court and listen to every moment of the testimony, I can't really pass an opinion on the lack of a verdict.

I believe that Ryan lied in the 911 call. I believe the testimony of the 911 operator, the first responders and the coroner that the scene didn't feel right. Unrelated emergency response professionals that all pick up the same thing isn't just random bad luck.

I have listened to the 911 call several times, and I just can't reconcile it with the facts of the case.

Healthy, sober people don't/can't fall asleep in their bathtubs and drown.

Even though I am sure (in my mind) that he was involved, I'm still not sure that this would be a failure of the justice system. Our system is biased toward the defendent. By design, guilty people will get away with murder more often than innocent people will be convicted.

Can't say I disagree with anything you said.

There is not evidence of some special, unique medical condition that somehow could keep a person asleep and underwater so long that that person drowned, correct?

[blobfan]

Can't say I disagree with anything you said.

There is not evidence of some special, unique medical condition that somehow could keep a person asleep and underwater so long that that person drowned, correct?

If she was murdered, there's no evidence that Ryan Widmer did the deed, except he was the only other person known to be in the house. If they can't put his hands on her neck (so to speak), isn't it circumstantial? From all I've read/seen/heard, it takes too many logical leaps to get to 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and I'd be unwilling to hang someone's life on that, especially someone that is pretty unlikely to repeat the offense (assuming he did do it.) Whether I'd be allowed to consider that as a juror, as a human being the possibility someone will repeat their crime would occur to me.

I'm bothered by people wanting to hang him based on the 911 call. If he didn't do it and really loved his wife, do we really think he'd be logical and remember exactly what he did? If I found my husband face down in a tub I could probably empty it, dry him off, drag him into another room and dress him without remembering it if in my state of panic I thought any of that might save him. Logic just wouldn't apply.

Too many questions. The safe route to me is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[DC Muskie]

I'm sorry if this has already been stated, but there were bruises on her neck and sternum correct?

[boozehound]

Can't say I disagree with anything you said.

There is not evidence of some special, unique medical condition that somehow could keep a person asleep and underwater so long that that person drowned, correct?

It depends on who you ask, I think.

The prosecution would have you believe that there is nothing that could have caused her to fall asleep and drown that wouldn't have show up on an autopsy (a stroke, for example, could cause you to drown but would be visible during an autopsy).

The defense presented testimony from frieds of Sarah's that she had frequent severe headaches and sometimes 'saw spots' or felt faint. They were seeking to create doubt that there could have been an undetectable medical condition of some kind that cause her to fall asleep.

I don't know enough about the details to know how plausible the defense's case is in that regard.

[nuts4xu]

I'm sorry if this has already been stated, but there were bruises on her neck and sternum correct?

I believe you are correct, but the defense will also have you believe all these injuries were the result of life saving measures and/or CPR.

I don't think the prosecution was able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt these injuries were from a struggle of any kind. There was very little evidence of a struggle, therfore it is more plausible to believe the injuries were sustained while some burly fireman was compressing here rib cage trying to bring her back to life.

[nuts4xu]

There is not evidence of some special, unique medical condition that somehow could keep a person asleep and underwater so long that that person drowned, correct?

There hast been testimony she had a sleep disorder that caused her to fall asleep at strange times. They had testimony from people telling of how the girl would fall asleep at family parties, and at places people typically do not fall asleep.

But my understanding (and I am not a medical expert) is unless she had a stroke or something, simply falling asleep in a tub is not going to cause you to drown. If you are asleep, and water prevents you from breathing, your "fight or flight" instincts take over, and it seems you would wake up with a lung full of water before you ever drown.

This is such a strange case. I wonder how many times they try the guy before they give up. I know they can try him again since this trial ended in a hung jury, but I don't know what they can do different in the next trial to convince 12 jurors of his innocence or guilt.

Maybe have the case tried in front of a panel of judges instead of a jury?

[sash19]

My only question is what else can the court system do to get a "decision?" The defense's main objective is to give the jury reasonable doubt. While every person see's things differently, reasonable doubt is much easier to present I would think. A good defense attorney should be able to create reasonable doubt (I would imagine) most times unless a confession is given or the facts are just totally overwhelming. All that entails is a hint of doubt and boom-reasonable doubt exists. In this case, neither existed so "reasonable doubt" is the only conclusion. According to the law, that should acquit Widmer. However, how can we be so sure that the jury is using a "clear" mind here? Yes, they are instructed too and are vett'ed per se but Warren County is not that big and this case (both round 1 and 2) have been spoken about alot. Can we be sure this is not a jury issue again? I dont know the guy, dont know all the facts but from what I have heard and read, the prosecution did not make the case in a manner that made the facts 100% indisputable. Therefore, there is only 1 solution technically.

To you attorneys out there, what else can you do? I would imagine that the defense attorneys will ask for the charges to be dropped and the state has to decide if they want to try the case again. I would think a public outcry would come up if they spend tax payer dollars a 3rd time on a trial that at this point would have to be moved to get an unbiased jury pool. Unless new facts are brought forth, reasonable doubt is overwhelmingly present. I would guess that this is the end???

[Kahns Krazy]

If she was murdered, there's no evidence that Ryan Widmer did the deed, except he was the only other person known to be in the house. If they can't put his hands on her neck (so to speak), isn't it circumstantial? From all I've read/seen/heard, it takes too many logical leaps to get to 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and I'd be unwilling to hang someone's life on that, especially someone that is pretty unlikely to repeat the offense (assuming he did do it.) Whether I'd be allowed to consider that as a juror, as a human being the possibility someone will repeat their crime would occur to me.

I'm bothered by people wanting to hang him based on the 911 call. If he didn't do it and really loved his wife, do we really think he'd be logical and remember exactly what he did? If I found my husband face down in a tub I could probably empty it, dry him off, drag him into another room and dress him without remembering it if in my state of panic I thought any of that might save him. Logic just wouldn't apply.

Too many questions. The safe route to me is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I guess it depends. Really, all evidence is circumstantial and very rarely is anyone ever "proven" guilty. There are some facts though. The cause of death is drowning. Nobody has disputed that. It is also a fact that healthy, sober adults can not and do not drown in bathtubs. The coroner's finding was that the cause of death was drowning, and that the drowning was a homicide. That is evidence. It was an undisputed fact that there was bruising in the neck area. The cause of the bruising was disputed by the two sides. In my opinion, the theory advanced by the defense seems highly improbable compared to the theory advanced by the prosecution. There was a lot of interesting testimony about bruising and blood circulation. the short version was that according to the coroner, if the bruising in the neck was caused by the intubation, he would have expected to see bruising in the chest from the CPR efforts.

Out of curiosity, have you listened to the 911 call? It's creepy. I understand that different people react differently in different situations, but a lot of research has been done into these calls. In the call, Ryan does every single thing that involved parties are prone to do when calling 911. He established mortality, he established that he was somewhere else, he provided extraneous information about what he thinks caused her death.

A policeman hears a gunshot in an alley. Runs around the corner and finds a man with a gun standing over a dead woman with a bullet in her. The standing man says that another guy - total stranger shot the woman, put the gun in his hand, then ran the other way. It's impossible to prove that there wasn't another guy. Should this guy be free?

Suppose I'm drunk and I run over a kid on the sidewalk. Can I argue that the actual cause of death was spotaneous healthy kid undiagnosable syndrome causing death 1 second before I ran hiim over? It is impossible to prove that I was the actual cause of the kid's death.

What if you learned that Ryan had a girlfriend on the side, and he stood to gain $5 million dollars in the event of an accidental drowing death of his wife. Would that change your mind about the other facts of the case?

[Kahns Krazy]

I believe you are correct, but the defense will also have you believe all these injuries were the result of life saving measures and/or CPR.

I don't think the prosecution was able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt these injuries were from a struggle of any kind. There was very little evidence of a struggle, therfore it is more plausible to believe the injuries were sustained while some burly fireman was compressing here rib cage trying to bring her back to life.

The issue with that argument is that there is bruising in the neck area, but not bruising in the chest. The conclusion of the coroner was that the neck injuries occurred before death, death occurred, then resuscitation efforts started.

[Kahns Krazy]

There hast been testimony she had a sleep disorder that caused her to fall asleep at strange times. They had testimony from people telling of how the girl would fall asleep at family parties, and at places people typically do not fall asleep.
?

There was no testimony of a sleep disorder. She was not diagnosed with a sleep disorder, and her autopsy showed no neurological anomalies. She slept often, but did not fall asleep involuntarily. She took naps in her car at lunch, and napped at family parties. I have an uncle that used to do that all the time.

Ryan told the coroner that he was worried that Sarah might fall asleep in the tub when she went upstairs that night. When the coroner asked if Ryan was aware if she had ever fallen asleep in the tub before, he said no. So as far as he was aware, she had never fallen asleep in the tub, but he was concerned that she might fall asleep in the tub that night and drown. So, he did what any concerned husband would do. Had 4 beers and sat around in his underwear watching football.

[PM Thor]

I believe you are correct, but the defense will also have you believe all these injuries were the result of life saving measures and/or CPR.

I don't think the prosecution was able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt these injuries were from a struggle of any kind. There was very little evidence of a struggle, therfore it is more plausible to believe the injuries were sustained while some burly fireman was compressing here rib cage trying to bring her back to life.

Nice. Just did CPR on a guy on Monday. I had perfect form, per the paramedics on scene who mistook my compressions for an actual rhythm of the patient on the monitor. You still could hear the guys ribs crack while I did it.

As for the mistrial, I don't know if he did it or not. But I think they shouldn't retry the case either at this time. Just leave it open for a later date perhaps.

I HATE dayton.

[sash19]

Nice. Just did CPR on a guy on Monday. I had perfect form, per the paramedics on scene who mistook my compressions for an actual rhythm of the patient on the monitor. You still could hear the guys ribs crack while I did it.

As for the mistrial, I don't know if he did it or not. But I think they shouldn't retry the case either at this time. Just leave it open for a later date perhaps.

I HATE dayton.

Thanks for that nice mental image of you over some dude doing CPR and hearing his ribs crack like rice crispies!!

[D-West & PO-Z]

Can't say I disagree with anything you said.

There is not evidence of some special, unique medical condition that somehow could keep a person asleep and underwater so long that that person drowned, correct?

There was a doctor who testified the following:

Dr. David Smile, who has worked in Butler County and now works at a Dayton hospital, spent more than five hours on the witness stand over two days.

Smile said it’s possible that many people are walking around with an undiagnosed heart-rhythm problem that could suddenly kill them – and the problem can leave no trace after death.

“If you have a rhythm disturbance in an otherwise normal-appearing heart … (that) can’t be detected on an autopsy,” he said.

The diagnosis of a heart-rhythm electrical problem is made by ruling out everything else, Smile said.

These people with “electrically unstable hearts” may have genetic abnormalities that can be found only with specialized testing on molecules. Other witnesses have testified no such tests were conducted on Sarah Widmer.

The lack of evidence of a struggle in anway and that testimony to me give enough reasonable doubt, along with many other strange aspects of the case.

This is the link to that article:
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100525/NEWS0107/305250073/-Doctor-Ryan-Widmer-couldn-t-have-killed-his-wife-in-bathtub-struggle

[Kahns Krazy]

There was a doctor who testified the following:

Dr. David Smile, who has worked in Butler County and now works at a Dayton hospital, spent more than five hours on the witness stand over two days.

Smile said it’s possible that many people are walking around with an undiagnosed heart-rhythm problem that could suddenly kill them – and the problem can leave no trace after death.

“If you have a rhythm disturbance in an otherwise normal-appearing heart … (that) can’t be detected on an autopsy,” he said.

The diagnosis of a heart-rhythm electrical problem is made by ruling out everything else, Smile said.

These people with “electrically unstable hearts” may have genetic abnormalities that can be found only with specialized testing on molecules. Other witnesses have testified no such tests were conducted on Sarah Widmer.

The lack of evidence of a struggle in anway and that testimony to me give enough reasonable doubt, along with many other strange aspects of the case.

This is the link to that article:
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100525/NEWS0107/305250073/-Doctor-Ryan-Widmer-couldn-t-have-killed-his-wife-in-bathtub-struggle

Yes, people can, very rarely, die that way. But that's not how Sarah died. She drowned. If she died from some sort of irregular heartbeat, she would not have inhaled water. People die of old age. Babies die of SIDS. Sarah could have died of either of these things, but she didn't. She drowned.

I could testify that lots of people with diabetes are walking around with it undiagnosed and it could kill them. It would be true, but it wouldn't create any reasonable doubt in this case.


If spontaneous, undiagnosable death constitutes reasonable doubt, then even a confession and a video tape of Ryan holding his wife under water shouldn't be enough to convict, because the chances of her dying of spontaneous undetectable death right before that happened are exactly the same as they are in this case. Hell, Ryan may have even tried to kill his wife and be unaware that she actually died right before he got to her.

[D-West & PO-Z]

He also said seizures can go undetected and that the less extensive seizures may only involve contraction in one part of the body which would not be as violent.

These explanations are not the main reason I dont think you can convict him. The lack of evidence that there was any struggle is the most puzzling piece to me. I havent seen an explantion for that. Maybe I missed it. However I have seen explanations for ways (however rare) that she could have drowned other than Widmer drowning here.

"As for seizures, Smile said people at any age can suffer a generalized seizure – an “abnormal rush” of electrical activity in the brain that causes contraction of all the muscles of the body and loss of consciousness. Less-extensive seizures might involve just one area of the body in a person who remains conscious.

“We see all kinds of seizures in all age groups,” Smile said, noting that one in 100 people will have at least one seizure – and that many never have a second one.
The average age of onset of general epilepsy was 23.8, according to one study of 313 patients.

A small percentage of patients known to have seizures die from the seizure itself, but some die because they experience a seizure that turns deadly when combined with an activity such as eating, swimming or driving a vehicle.

“The injuries that we see depend on the setting” in which the person has the seizure, Smile said.

Smile has witnessed people suffering generalized or grand mal seizures and he says they often have a “gasping reflex,” where their body detects that the blood’s oxygen level has dropped and the person automatically tries to gasp for air. If that were to happen while a person were in water, the person would inhale water, Smile replied."

[Kahns Krazy]

I agree that it's not impossible that some set of very rare circumstances let to her death. I also agree that very rarely, people who are not involved in the crime will behave excatly like Ryan did. I agree that very rarely, people could suffer post-mortem bruising of the throat during recussitation yet not suffer bruising to the chest from CPR. I just don't think that the odds of all of those things happening to the same person at the same time represents reasonable doubt.

I see that nobody has touched my question from above. If you were to find out that Ryan had a grlfriend on the side and stood to gain $5 million from an accidental drowning of his wife, but all the other facts were the same, would it change your opinion about the case?

[Kahns Krazy]

For the record, I am opposed to trying him again.

[blobfan]

I'm sorry if this has already been stated, but there were bruises on her neck and sternum correct?
Whether or not those bruises might have been caused by a hand is in question. From what I've heard, had he shoved her under, you'd expect to see bruises approximating the position of his fingers and/or hands. And that's not the case.

Kahn's, if there were a motive, I might give more weight to the prosecution's version of the story. To convict him with current evidence we'd have to believe that for no apparent reason he decided to kill his new wife in a very cold and calculating manor. I might buy a crime of passion without financial motive, but not a carefully planned drowning that leaves few bruises and no signs of struggle.

There were no signs of trouble, right? For goodness sakes, the only problem the prosecution could find was that he'd clicked on a porn/dating site to view pictures once or twice. If viewing naughty pictures is motive for murder, I think there are a few people on this site that need to watch their backs.

[Kahns Krazy]

Whether or not those bruises might have been caused by a hand is in question. From what I've heard, had he shoved her under, you'd expect to see bruises approximating the position of his fingers and/or hands. And that's not the case.

Kahn's, if there were a motive, I might give more weight to the prosecution's version of the story. To convict him with current evidence we'd have to believe that for no apparent reason he decided to kill his new wife in a very cold and calculating manor. I might buy a crime of passion without financial motive, but not a carefully planned drowning that leaves few bruises and no signs of struggle.
.

But you would admit that the liklihood of the defenses "reasonable doubt" theory of spontaneous undetectable death would still be as solid, right? I think that's what I'm getting at... to me it seems as though some poeple are looking at this case, not seeing a motive, and concluding that that alone is reasonable doubt.

Even with a motive, isn't the likelihood of her dying some other way just as high?

[boozehound]

I agree that it's not impossible that some set of very rare circumstances let to her death. I also agree that very rarely, people who are not involved in the crime will behave excatly like Ryan did. I agree that very rarely, people could suffer post-mortem bruising of the throat during recussitation yet not suffer bruising to the chest from CPR. I just don't think that the odds of all of those things happening to the same person at the same time represents reasonable doubt.

I see that nobody has touched my question from above. If you were to find out that Ryan had a grlfriend on the side and stood to gain $5 million from an accidental drowning of his wife, but all the other facts were the same, would it change your opinion about the case?

My opinion of the case would most definitely be changed by that knowledge. The lack of a clear motive may very well sway me toward the side thinking he is guilty.

[blobfan]

But you would admit that the liklihood of the defenses "reasonable doubt" theory of spontaneous undetectable death would still be as solid, right? I think that's what I'm getting at... to me it seems as though some poeple are looking at this case, not seeing a motive, and concluding that that alone is reasonable doubt.

Even with a motive, isn't the likelihood of her dying some other way just as high?

I never said I thought the defenses 'undetectable death' theory was rock-solid. I simply believe it's more credible than this particular guy being a cold-blooded killer, so cold and calculating that his dead wife's family spoke up to defend him in the first days after her death. Maybe it's a gut feeling but he doesn't look like a sociopath to me. He doesn't seem cunning enough.

What's more, without motive there's too much doubt as to what happened. It's not as if he was found driving a car with bloody tires after a kid got run over or standing over a body with a gun in a dead-end alley. I don't require someone be caught red-handed to believe they are guilty of murder, but I do require more than what the prosecution is giving. Giving something more: bruises matching his fingers, signs of a struggle, conflict in the marriage, history of explosive anger, evidence he used to kill kittens, just one more thing that would make his being a murderer seem plausible. My gut doesn't say one thing or another, except he doesn't appear to be a sociopath and without that, the prosectution can't explain what happened to my satisfaction. Thus reasonable doubt.

Let's put it this way: I wouldn't be comfortable putting him in jail but I wouldn't be in line to be the next Mrs. Ryan Widmer either.

[Kahns Krazy]

Maybe it's a gut feeling but he doesn't look like a sociopath to me. He doesn't seem cunning enough.
.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6939/images/423497a-f1.2.jpg

[Kahns Krazy]

Actually, this one is even better.

http://www.dirjournal.com/info/images/Jeffrey_Dahmer.jpg

http://www.ohio-share.coxnewsweb.com/multimedia/dynamic/00477/081308drowning_477455g.jpg

[drudy23]

You don't have to be a sociopath to kill someone.

[blobfan]

You don't have to be a sociopath to kill someone.

In cold blood? With so much care that you leave no signs of struggle and few marks? I think you have to be a sociopath to do that.

Kahns, your first picture doesn't work. If Widmer were a smiling smooth-talker, I might wonder what he's capable of. The 2nd comparison may be more apt but it's more the image of him on video that gets me. He seems lost but not so pathetic that it looks like a put-on. I'm not naive enough to think you can id evil people solely on appearance or demeanor. But in this case it's one more component to the whole reasonable doubt mess.

[GuyFawkes38]

Not sure if anyone mentioned it on this thread, but a juror revealed it was 10-2 split in favor of guilty. Sounds like there will be another trial.

[blobfan]

Not sure if anyone mentioned it on this thread, but a juror revealed it was 10-2 split in favor of guilty. Sounds like there will be another trial.

Source?

[XU 87]

Not sure if anyone mentioned it on this thread, but a juror revealed it was 10-2 split in favor of guilty. Sounds like there will be another trial.

The article I just read said the vote when they were deadlocked on Friday was 5 guilty, 3 not guilty and 4 "on the fence". The final vote was "75% guilty-25% not guilty", which, if accurate, would be 9-3.

But the vote, if true, indicates that it will be tough to get a conviction if there is another trial.

[GuyFawkes38]

just heard it from WLW. Apparently it was an interview from the Bill Cunningham show:

http://www.700wlw.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=119585&article=7189476


Juror says most jurors were in favor of conviction, believes Ryan Widmer should face a third trial.
By 700WLW News
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
( The Big One ) - A member of the Ryan Widmer retrial jury called in to Bill Cunningham's show on Wednesday. She declined to identify herself, but said she does have emergency medical training, and she believes Ryan Widmer killed his wife.

She says after the Memorial Day weekend, the jury was divided 10 to 2 in favor of conviction on Tuesday, before they told the judge they didn't believe they'd ever reach a unanimous decision.

[Roach]

Yep, that's it. If he was black guy, forget it. The racist judge would have ignored the jury misconduct and just sent the guy to jail.

What a ridiculous statement. If it'll shut you up, I can dig up countless murder cases in which black men have received new trials for various reasons. Yes, sometimes blacks face racism (yes, even in the court system) but it is flatly absurd to state that a white man getting a new trial is a prima facie indication of racial bias.

[GuyFawkes38]

I don't know one bit about the case. But I honestly hope that he's convicted purely on the basis of his supporters being so annoying.

In all seriousness, there's something deeply unethical about trying to dig up dirt and bully the prosecuting team. I've never seen this before.

[XU 87]

What a ridiculous statement. If it'll shut you up, I can dig up countless murder cases in which black men have received new trials for various reasons. Yes, sometimes blacks face racism (yes, even in the court system) but it is flatly absurd to state that a white man getting a new trial is a prima facie indication of racial bias.

Ummmm, I was being sarcastic. Go read the post I was making fun of.

[PM Thor]

FYI, Inside Edition is going to do a story about the Widmer case right now, with a prosecution video of a potential scenario of how the murder/drowning occurred.

I HATE dayton.

[PM Thor]

I don't know one bit about the case. But I honestly hope that he's convicted purely on the basis of his supporters being so annoying.

In all seriousness, there's something deeply unethical about trying to dig up dirt and bully the prosecuting team. I've never seen this before.

It worked for OJs team. Undercut the prosecution every chance you can. It worked that time...

I HATE dayton.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I agree that it's not impossible that some set of very rare circumstances let to her death. I also agree that very rarely, people who are not involved in the crime will behave excatly like Ryan did. I agree that very rarely, people could suffer post-mortem bruising of the throat during recussitation yet not suffer bruising to the chest from CPR. I just don't think that the odds of all of those things happening to the same person at the same time represents reasonable doubt.

I see that nobody has touched my question from above. If you were to find out that Ryan had a grlfriend on the side and stood to gain $5 million from an accidental drowning of his wife, but all the other facts were the same, would it change your opinion about the case?

I agree that very rarely some people kill their loved ones for no apparent reason. I also agree that very rarely a person, who has never killed before, could kill a person by drowning them without any signs of a struggle and without sustaining any injuries to themself.

I dont think the odds of both of those things happeneing in one case is that likely. It at the very least gives me reasonable doubt.

[DC Muskie]

I have to say this one of the few times where I really agree with what Kahn's has been saying.

Thanks everyone for the answers to my questions earlier. I guess what it comes down for me is to not over think this.

Woman dies in bathtub. She drowned. Nothing in my life I have ever come across someone drowning in a bathtub without trying to accomplish the feat by him/herself or with the help of someone else. Bathtubs to me just don't seem large enough to drown in if you are an adult.

I know I would have tried to air dry myself if I was on the jury. I know it would be wrong, but I wouldn't have known it and would have just tried.

[Kahns Krazy]

It worked for OJs team. Undercut the prosecution every chance you can. It worked that time...

I HATE dayton.

I actually think these cases are somewhat similar. Especially the part where a guy gets away with murdering his (ex) wife.

[Snipe]

When I read the points and counter points I just still go with my gut.

If someone said I killed my wife, I would tell them I didn't do it. I would look them in the eye. I would tell them again and again. As long as they wanted to ask me about it I would tell them about the horror of finding my wife lifeless and limp. I am not a killer. I loved my wife. We were just married.

I would never stop telling the press that I loved my wife, that I didn't kill my wife. Most importantly, I would take the stand. I didn't kill my wife. I would look the jurors in the eye and tell them that. Convict me if you will, but I am not taking the fifth. I didn't kill her, and I freaking loved her, I would go to everyone and the highest tower in the land and proclaim it. I would answer ever question. I would take the stand.

Maybe a Harvard Lawyer could cross examine me and make me feel small. Maybe he could make me answer yes or no questions that could potentially incriminate me. That is ok. Lawyers can be slimey and people know that. The jury knows that. I would demand my own time to tell the jury that I didn't kill my bride. She is the love of my life. I would take the stand to take a stand. I would tell people that I didn't do it.

He didn't do that. For me that is strange. He married that girl and now she is dead. He doesn't talk to the press and he doesn't testify. I think he did it. If I was on the jury though, I would probably let him go. If I had to bet though, that bastard did it.

[Emp]

One many's slimy lawyer is another man's best defense. The best trial lawyers tell the client what he needs to know, not what he wants to hear.

The evidence is overwhelming that taking the stand is a very bad idea in most criminal cases, almost as bad an idea as being your own lawyer. Prosecutors who do high profile criminal trials are very very good at cross examination. Unless this guy is a professional witness, he's going to be chewed up with inconsistencies -- perhaps significant, perhaps not, the jury gets to decide.

Getting a retrial, the defense attorney is now going to be able to question every prosecution witness who made mistakes in the first trial, small or large, and embarrass every witness who changes testimony even in a minor way. That increases the burden on the prosecution. If the guy gets up on the stand, it gives the prosecution a golden chance to make the case about this guy all over again. He may not be a likeable guy. He may not be a very good actor, and may not be experienced speaking in public. Unless he is airtight, no background, no credibility issues, it would be bad judgment to put him on the stand.

Just by way of hypothetical example: Isn't it true Sir that you post on the internet when you are drunk? Isn't it true Sir that you changed party registration to vote for Obama in the 2008 primary? Isn't it true that you have discussed on the internet what you would say if accused of murder?

[boozehound]

This one is for Kahns:

Widmer admitted to killing wife? (http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100721/NEWS0107/307210112)

This is an interesting twist in the story. It sounds like they are going to re-try him in light of this new evidence. I wonder if he figured he was off the hook so he told somebody. There really isn't much explanation given as to why or when he admitted to killing his wife.

If the witness is at all credible then this could be a whole different case during the retrial. Lack of motive seemed to be a sticking point in the minds of a lot of people regarding whether or not he could have killed his wife.

[boozehound]

This article is a little more informative (http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/region_north_cincinnati/hamilton/Prosecution-witness%3A-Widmer-admits-to-killing-wife)

I also didn't realize that Sarah's Mother and Brother believe Ryan caused Sarah's death. I thought that Sarah's family believed Ryan to be innocent, if I remember correctly. I could definitely be mistaken, though.

[GuyFawkes38]

This article is a little more informative (http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/region_north_cincinnati/hamilton/Prosecution-witness%3A-Widmer-admits-to-killing-wife)

I also didn't realize that Sarah's Mother and Brother believe Ryan caused Sarah's death. I thought that Sarah's family believed Ryan to be innocent, if I remember correctly. I could definitely be mistaken, though.

I think one of the most troubling aspects about this whole thing, outside of the murder, is how aggressive Widmer's family and friends have been (thankfully, it appears the bully like behavior has only firmed the resolve of the prosecution).

I wonder if Sarah's family felt some pressure to be quiet during this whole ordeal. I don't blame them. Widmer's family appears completely insane.

[D-West & PO-Z]

This article is a little more informative (http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/region_north_cincinnati/hamilton/Prosecution-witness%3A-Widmer-admits-to-killing-wife)

I also didn't realize that Sarah's Mother and Brother believe Ryan caused Sarah's death. I thought that Sarah's family believed Ryan to be innocent, if I remember correctly. I could definitely be mistaken, though.

They were the ones who urged his bond be moved down from 1 million in the beginning anf it went to 400,000. Guess they changed their minds about him?

[GuyFawkes38]

They were the ones who urged his bond be moved down from 1 million in the beginning anf it went to 400,000. Guess they changed their minds about him?

who knows. I bet they were still in shock and sort of felt pressured to take the high road. What a sh*tty situation to be in.

Don't know about all of the legal stuff, but perhaps there's a possibility her family will pursue a civil case.

[Kahns Krazy]

They were the ones who urged his bond be moved down from 1 million in the beginning anf it went to 400,000. Guess they changed their minds about him?

They did initially defend him. At some point, they noticeably stopped defending him and went into silent mode.

I think Widmer did it, but even I am leery of the sudden appearance of a witness that claims Ryan spilled his guts to him. I don't see how the word of some guy, unless it's like Ryan's dad or something, is going to change the landscape of the evidence in the case.

[muskiefan82]

Wow...what do you do with this? It seems like he did it, but from an outside point of view wihtout access to everything there seems to be reasonable doubt that something else may have occurred. I would have to question the validity of a witness who is coming forward now when there has been ample time to make this news known AND I would hope the judge would meet with this potential witness before making any determination.

[boozehound]

They did initially defend him. At some point, they noticeably stopped defending him and went into silent mode.

I think Widmer did it, but even I am leery of the sudden appearance of a witness that claims Ryan spilled his guts to him. I don't see how the word of some guy, unless it's like Ryan's dad or something, is going to change the landscape of the evidence in the case.


The validity of the witness certainly should be in question, I agree. I would have to think it is somebody that Ryan allegedly confessed to somewhat recently, or the witness would have no credibility at all having not come forward earlier. Either that or it is a close family member, which would be very interesting.

[Porkopolis]

Let me start off by saying I firmly believe Ryan is guilty as charged. But if I were on the jury I would have to vote not guilty; there is just way too much uncertainty surrounding the evidence. If reasonable doubt still means anything in this country he needs to go free.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Let me start off by saying I firmly believe Ryan is guilty as charged. But if I were on the jury I would have to vote not guilty; there is just way too much uncertainty surrounding the evidence. If reasonable doubt still means anything in this country he needs to go free.

Yeah I agree to an extent. I cant say I firmly believe he is guilty but I agree that there is reasonable doubt.

[Kahns Krazy]

It all hinges on what you find "reasonable". Taken on their own, each peice of evidence has an explanation that I would buy as "reasonable doubt", even if it is unlkely. The combination of the number of things that would all have to be true in order for the entire defense case to hold up is where I no longer find it to be reasonable.

Take the lottery. Hitting one number is reasonable. All it takes is correctly guessing one number out of 50 or so. That happens. Not all that often, but it happens. But just because it's reasonable to hit one number out of 50, doesn't make it reasonabe to win the lottery.

[Kahns Krazy]

Thought I'd dig this one up, since trial number 3 is starting. I still think he did it. I still think trial #3 is a bad idea and a waste of money. I still hope he's convicted.

[CinciX12]

At this point the entire case is just lunacy. You couldn't possibly get an unbiased jury within a 300 mile radius, and if you did they are probably the product of 6 generations of inbreeding.

As far as my opinion on whether or not he did it I really have no clue. Part of me buys his story where there are just some things a person could do while they were freaking out and lose their cool. But there is some stuff that just looks really bad for him.

Either way, I don't see how you come back with a guilty verdict on the guy if he was tried 100 times.

And not sequestering the jury at least during deliberations? This judge is a moron. I understand not sequestering for the entirety of the trial, but what would 3 days hurt to at least know they are following the rules? Especially when that is why we even had a trial #2.

[xu95]

Maybe one of the lawyers here can help me out, but how can the prosecution have a "secret witness"? Isn't the defense suppose to have a fair shake at the witnesses?

xu95

[Muskie1000]

I'm not a lawyer, but yes they do. That's why when the "secret" witness is identified the court will delay the trial so that the defense has time to do background research. The theory is that they will be identified today since the trial is now officially starting.

[bleedXblue]

This is pretty simple to me.

A 24 year old woman dies of mysterious causes ?

Her husband is tried for murder.

He doesn't take the stand in his own defense ?

Are you kidding me ?

You better believe that if I was innocent, I would be on the stand pleading my innocence.

He's guilty and they'll get him this time.

[Porkopolis]

My gut tells me that he is guilty--but gut instinct isn't how you try a case. Having seen the same evidence the rest of the public is privy to, I would come back with a not guilty verdict. Many in our country have completely forgotten the idea of "reasonable doubt." It doesn't matter whether or not you think he is guilty, it matters whether or not you can prove it.

Edit: Yes, I realize he was convicted. I have a problem with juror conduct in the trial.

[boozehound]

This is pretty simple to me.

A 24 year old woman dies of mysterious causes ?

Her husband is tried for murder.

He doesn't take the stand in his own defense ?

Are you kidding me ?

You better believe that if I was innocent, I would be on the stand pleading my innocence.

He's guilty and they'll get him this time.

I agree with most of what you said, and if I were in the same situation I would feel the same way about taking the stand.

In reality though, sometimes lawyers will tell defendants not to take the stand. The defendant can the decide if he wants to listen to that advice. Some people just do not come off well and as a result it could be detrimental to their defense to take the stand. Maybe he gets very nervous in front of groups. Maybe he just comes off like a creepy dude. In either of those instances he may not want to take the stand.

I go back and forth on whether or not I think he did it, but I definitely don't see this trial ending any differently than the second trial, unless this 'secret witness' is a real doozy. It will be interesting to see who it is.

[Kahns Krazy]

My gut tells me that he is guilty--but gut instinct isn't how you try a case. Having seen the same evidence the rest of the public is privy to, I would come back with a not guilty verdict. Many in our country have completely forgotten the idea of "reasonable doubt." It doesn't matter whether or not you think he is guilty, it matters whether or not you can prove it.

Edit: Yes, I realize he was convicted. I have a problem with juror conduct in the trial.

I've admitted before that I'm fascinated with this case.

How do you define reasonable doubt in terms of percentages? 95% 99%? 99.9%?

Reasonable to me does not mean I have to make a huge leap of faith to get there. There is a dead woman who has drowned, but is inexplicably dry. There is the 911 call and interviews with Ryan at the morgue that are consistent with FBI profiles of persons involved in a crime.

Not a single person has been able to come up with another example in the history of recorded time where an otherwise healthy, sober, adult person has fallen asleep and drowned themselves in their own bathtub. It's actually fairly difficult to get into a normal tub in a normal bathing position and get your face underwater in the first place. There's a reason for that.


If you doubt that Ryan did it, that's basically what you have to believe. That in the history of the recorded world, Ryan Widmer's wife is the first to suffer from this deadly disease. You also have to believe that Ryan is unfortunate enough to randomly exhibit all of the indicators for an involved party making a 911 call.


The coroner ruled cause of death drowning, and he ruled it a homicide based on bruising in the neck area. The 911 operator, several initial responders to the scene and the coroner all felt that the story was not adding up. These are professionals in their field who have experience dealing with people who have found loved ones dead.

To me, too many things add up as evidence against Ryan to not convict.
I understand that there is not 100% proof that Ryan took Sarah's life, but I can not reconcile an alternate scenario that I would consider reasonable.


For those of you that would not convict, what additional evidence would you need to convict a husband in a death in the house?

[Emp]

This is pretty simple to me.
A 24 year old woman dies of mysterious causes ?
Her husband is tried for murder.
He doesn't take the stand in his own defense ?
Are you kidding me ?

You better believe that if I was innocent, I would be on the stand pleading my innocence.
He's guilty and they'll get him this time.

Consider (I am assuming you are married): You and your wife are having a hard time of it over money, kids, whatever. At some point you think, I need to get out of here and cool off, but you are worried she might max the credit cards, raid the account, go on a spending spree. So you clear out the account, stop the cards, book a flight to somewhere fun to take your mind off it.

Two days later your wife is found murdered. You didn't do it. But if you get on the stand, you have to answer questions about all that, maybe your bad credit history, a few indiscretions in your youth, whatever is on your computer.........You don't know what extraneous but very prejudicial information is being kept out by this guy not taking the stand. It may sound bad, but taking the stand may be worse.

Juror mentalities are mixed all over the place. Defense attorneys with a murder client in a bad place hope to find enough jurors who will give the benefit of the doubt, who wont hold the failure to testify against the client.

During the voir dire, defense counsel will try to get rid of jurors like you who believe the failure to testify is a sure sign of guilt, even though the law and logic require otherwise.

So let me ask you, assume you are called to be a juror in this case. During the voir dire, if asked about inferences or conclusions about the right not to testify, will you tell the attorney and the judge that you will tend to interpret the failure to testify as evidence of guilt, and vote accordingly if he doesn't testify?

[Porkopolis]

I understand that there is not 100% proof that Ryan took Sarah's life, but I can not reconcile an alternate scenario that I would consider reasonable.


For those of you that would not convict, what additional evidence would you need to convict a husband in a death in the house?

You cite my reasoning with your own comment. I would always err on the side of letting a guilty man walk if there is any uncertainty.

[boozehound]

You cite my reasoning with your own comment. I would always err on the side of letting a guilty man walk if there is any uncertainty.

You have to admit that it is a fine line though. How many crimes have enough evidence to create 100% certainty? Does DNA evidence give you 100% certainty? It has been wrong before and could have been contaminated or planted. True 100% certainty is subjective as well.

[LadyMuskie]

Thought I'd dig this one up, since trial number 3 is starting. I still think he did it. I still think trial #3 is a bad idea and a waste of money. I still hope he's convicted.

I agree. I think he killed her, but I think this has become a huge waste of tax payer dollars - especially now that we're paying for the prosecution and the defense's expert witnesses.

[Nigel Tufnel]

How do you define reasonable doubt in terms of percentages? 95% 99%? 99.9%?
?

69.69%. Giggity.

[xsteve1]

Witness rumor.....supposedly female and obsessed with Widmer. If this is true it will totally blow the prosecutions case IMO.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110119/NEWS01/301190039/1055/NEWS/Widmer-mystery-witness-likely-female?News

[Kahns Krazy]

You cite my reasoning with your own comment. I would always err on the side of letting a guilty man walk if there is any uncertainty.

There is some uncertainty in 99%+ of all cases.

Every traffic ticket carries more uncertainty than this case. Is it possible for a radar gun to malfunction? Yes. It has happened, and it has happened more often than spotaneous healthy sober bathtub drowing.

Arguing a radar gun malfunction is probably not going to get you out of a ticket, because although it is not impossible, it is not reasonable to believe a radar gun malfunction. Reasonable doubt /= zero doubt.


After Ryan's wife drowned, he made a point of telling several investigators that he was concerned that Sarah might fall asleep in the tub that night. When one of them asked if she had ever fallen asleep in the tub before, Ryan said that she had not.

So we have a guy who says he was concerned about his new bride falling asleep in the tub, which would be a very strange occurance. So what did he do? By his own statements, he sat in his underwear, watching football, and drinking 4 beers. Then, already concerned that for the first time in her life to his knowledge Sarah would fall asleep in the tub, he comes upstairs, finds his wife unresponsive, and makes the strangest 911 call any innocent newlywed has ever made upon finding his wife unresponsive in the tub.

I'm still not sure where the reasonable doubt comes in.

[Kahns Krazy]

Witness rumor.....supposedly female and obsessed with Widmer. If this is true it will totally blow the prosecutions case IMO.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110119/NEWS01/301190039/1055/NEWS/Widmer-mystery-witness-likely-female?News


Depends a lot. If she can prove that she knew him, for whatever reason, and she can provide any insight or even a hint of a motive, I think it only helps the prosecution.

[XULucho27]

Depends a lot. If she can prove that she knew him, for whatever reason, and she can provide any insight or even a hint of a motive, I think it only helps the prosecution.

Agreed. A person with personal knowledge that heard him confess is a great witness for the prosecution. There will of course be some credibility issues but the defense will have the opportunity to hammer that during cross-examination. There are definitely some hearsay issues with a "he told me he did it statement" but those should be easy to get around.

[Kahns Krazy]

The rumour article would also seem to imply that she had a longer relationship with him than "overheard a conversation once".

[XU 87]

Agreed. A person with personal knowledge that heard him confess is a great witness for the prosecution. There will of course be some credibility issues but the defense will have the opportunity to hammer that during cross-examination. There are definitely some hearsay issues with a "he told me he did it statement" but those should be easy to get around.

Statements by a party opponent are admissable. Statements by a defendant are admissable.

[Pete Delkus]

Excuse my legal legal naivety, but how does a person like Widmer get billed by his legal team...and how does he pay for it?

-Stare Decisis

[Kahns Krazy]

I believe he and his family have pumped all of their cash and savings into the defense lawyers. That is one of the reasons I was against a third trial. Even though I firmly believe he is guilty, I think he's been punished pretty extensively already, even lacking a (valid) conviction.

If this third trial generates a hung or not-guilty jury, then it's a total waste of taxpayer money. If they convict, you can count on appeals. I say let him go. Let him walk the streets. What is coming his way will come regardless.

[xavierj]

The rumour article would also seem to imply that she had a longer relationship with him than "overheard a conversation once".

If a chick stalks a pro athlete does that mean she know's his personal life any more than the next person? Just asking. I think this cat is guilty but if they are pinning any hope on a stalker who is obsessed with this case proving their case than they are not very smart.

[Kahns Krazy]

Prior to all of the revelations coming out about Tiger, we probably would have characterized any one of those girl's communication with Tiger as 'stalking' in absence of the whole story. Just because a girl calls a guy a lot and texts him a lot doesn't me he doesn't tell her stuff that might be true....

[CinciX12]

This is pretty simple to me.

A 24 year old woman dies of mysterious causes ?

Her husband is tried for murder.

He doesn't take the stand in his own defense ?

Are you kidding me ?

You better believe that if I was innocent, I would be on the stand pleading my innocence.

He's guilty and they'll get him this time.

I know it is natural to think that way, but a good prosecutor will rip you alive. My buddy's dad could probably get you to admit you killed your neighbor and robbed a gas station down the street while you weren't even in the same state the time it happened. And he isn't even a DA.

[PM Thor]

So let me get this straight.

A stripper from Iowa, who followed the case after it hit the national news, is now saying that Widmer admitted he killed his wife?

Ok well, if she's hot, I would have told the chick whatever she wanted to hear in order to see the vajajay.

This case has become a kangaroo court, no matter how I really feel about his guilt or not.

I HATE dayton.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Statements by a party opponent are admissable. Statements by a defendant are admissable.

"a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."

Hehe...takes me back. Like when a client says, "I know I can't testify about what he (my husband) said to me because its hearsay." Ummm....no, its not.

[cutterX]

Living in Warren County, this case terrifies the absolute shit out of me. I'm thinking most of the prosecution and police got their professional training in Mt Pilot!!
Besides that my fiscally conservative side is incensed at the complete waste of taxpayer $. If you believe in a just God like I do Widmer will be judged on the day he dies. What mere mortals couldn't figure out let God decide!

[Porkopolis]

There is some uncertainty in 99%+ of all cases.

Every traffic ticket carries more uncertainty than this case. Is it possible for a radar gun to malfunction? Yes. It has happened, and it has happened more often than spotaneous healthy sober bathtub drowing.

Arguing a radar gun malfunction is probably not going to get you out of a ticket, because although it is not impossible, it is not reasonable to believe a radar gun malfunction. Reasonable doubt /= zero doubt.

Comparing a minor offense to murder is a bit of a reach, don't you think? The procedure is quite different and the stakes are much lower. Getting it wrong on a speeding ticket adds some points to someone's license. Getting it wrong on murder sends a person away for life--or worse. Unfortunately it happens more often than we'd like to believe. See: Texas, State of.

[blobfan]

I might be more inclined to believe the man guilty if I didn't think the prosecutor was trying to position herself for a career in politics. I can't help flashing back to episodes of Law & Order whenever I read about this story. Now we have a surprise female witness who might be a girlfriend or might be an obsessed stalker. Is this for real?

[Kahns Krazy]

I might be more inclined to believe the man guilty if I didn't think the prosecutor was trying to position herself for a career in politics. I can't help flashing back to episodes of Law & Order whenever I read about this story. Now we have a surprise female witness who might be a girlfriend or might be an obsessed stalker. Is this for real?

Well, then she's as lucky that Sarah had Sarah Widmer syndrome in her district as Ryan is unlucky.


There is still a dead woman, and it's a death that the coroner has ruled a homicide.

[XULucho27]

Statements by a party opponent are admissable. Statements by a defendant are admissable.

Like I said, easy to get around, but, in discussing this with my bosses (criminal prosecutors here in Chicago) they're of the mind that defense could and probably should still make an objection once, just so the jury can hear you object. They're also of the mind that juries are mostly full of idiots. :p

[Emp]

I might be more inclined to believe the man guilty if I didn't think the prosecutor was trying to position herself for a career in politics. I can't help flashing back to episodes of Law & Order whenever I read about this story. Now we have a surprise female witness who might be a girlfriend or might be an obsessed stalker. Is this for real?

ALL elected prosecutors want high profile cases. It's a Law & Order job, and every prosecutor needs headlines to keep the job. They use public money to build press conference "backdrops" like any other media-savvy entity or public figure, from the A10 to Apple.

If I had my way, no public official could EVER put his/her name on stationery, highway signs, buildings, office doors or office buildings. Pay em, yes. To do the job, not to make PR.

[Kahns Krazy]

I might be more inclined to believe the man guilty if I didn't think the prosecutor was trying to position herself for a career in politics. I can't help flashing back to episodes of Law & Order whenever I read about this story. Now we have a surprise female witness who might be a girlfriend or might be an obsessed stalker. Is this for real?

I can't remember if I've already asked this, but have you listened to the 911 call? It's the single biggest piece of evidence in the case, and for some reason, the media has largely ignored it.

It's creepy and gross. If you think there's a chance you'll ever want to have not listened to it, then don't.

Ryan's story is that she fell asleep in the bathtub and drowned while he was downstairs drinking beer in his underwear. He then comes upstairs to find his wife "face down" in the bathtub and unconcious. He leaves her there, and starts draining the tub. He calls 911. He does not ask for help. He says "My wife fell asleep in the bathtub and I think she's dead" He claims that he has attempted CPR while she is still in the tub. All of this time, she is in the tub. In the span of about 13 seconds, Ryan states that the "the water's draining right now..." then his next statement is "the water's completely drained but she's just laying here unconscious".

He also goes on to say "she falls asleep in the tub all the time". Later that night, Ryan would tell the coroner he's not sure if Sarah has ever fallen asleep in the tub.

Ryan sounds like he's hyperventilating himself. He is not screaming, he is not panicking. He did not attempt to remove his unconcious wife from the bathtub that she was "face down" in.

The first jury convicted him, and when asked for comment, they said that they could never reconcile how Ryan's version of events could have happened. I still agree with them.

If you do choose to listen to the tape, I strongly suggest reading this article about 911 calls in homicide situations. It is based on analysis of 100 calls, half innocent and half guilty.

911 homicide calls and statement analysis: is the caller the killer?
(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_6_77/ai_n27504386/?tag=content;col1)

Some interesting points from the article:


Homicide calls are unique. They originate from distressed callers confronted with urgent life-and-death situations. These initial contacts can contain the most valuable statements--those least contaminated by suspects' attempts to conceal the truth, attorneys' advice to remain silent, and investigators' leading questions. In these instances, the dispatcher simply asks, "What is your emergency?" and the caller responds with insightful, uncontaminated verbal and vocal clues.



Reading that article and listening to the tape is sort of unbelievable. Ryan falls in the guilty side of nearly every single indicator.

Take Ryan's first dozen words. "My wife fell asleep in the bathtub and I think she's dead"


Request for Help

When analyzing a 911 homicide call, the investide call, the investigator's primary question should be, Was the caller requesting assistance? If not, why not? Was the individual simply reporting a crime? Almost twice as many innocent callers (67 percent) in this study asked for help for the victim than did guilty callers (34 percent).


Ryan never asks for help.


People who provide more information than necessary may be attempting to convince someone of a deceptive story, rather than simply conveying truthful information. ...Innocent callers, instead of adding extraneous information, were more likely to focus on the objective--getting medical assistance for the victim as soon as possible. Forty-four percent of the 911 homicide callers included extraneous information in their call. Of those, 96 percent were guilty of the offense, and only 4 percent were innocent. Extraneous information was the strongest indicator of guilt in the study.


Ryan states she fell asleep.


Guilty caller: I have an unconscious child who is breathing very shallowly. In this case, the father took personal possession of a problem ("I have") and referred to his problem (his dying son) as "an unconscious child." When the paramedics arrived at the residence, the child already had died. The father had assaulted his son, causing cerebral hemorrhaging. Twelve percent of the 911 callers in the study took personal possession of the problem. All were guilty of the homicide.



Ryan refers to Sarah as "my wife".


However, a caller stating that a victim is dead without absolute proof (e.g., decapitation) would raise serious questions. An example illustrates this point:

Dispatcher: 911. What is your emergency?

Guilty caller: I just heard a gunshot in the apartment next door, and I went over. My neighbor is dead!

In this case, the caller immediately declared the mortality of the victim. The subsequent investigation revealed that the caller had been romantically interested in his neighbor. He later confessed that he killed the victim because she refused to date him.

In the homicides in which mortality was not obvious, 23 percent of the callers accepted the death of the victim. Of this total, all were guilty of the homicide.



Ryan states that his wife is dead.


The are more indicators throughout Ryan's call, including repitition (Ryan states three different times that Sarah fell asleep, and twice states that he was downstairs, which is in and of itself another indicator - establishing an alibi), conflicting facts (water is draining/drained, performed CPR in a full bathtub) focus on help (Ryan never once uses the word "help") .


I have heard many people say that there just isn't enough evidence in this case to convict. I think there is.

[Emp]

The analysis of 9-1-1 calls is interesting. Of course experts are (almost) never permitted to testify about such a statistical analysis, since guilt cannot and should never be based on statistics. This illustrates the curious disconnection between science, evidence and argument in the judicial system.

While prosecutors cant introduce such studies, they can draw attention to such conclusions in final argument, contending that a person who says "x" would not have a good motive to do so. Defense counsel can make the opposite arguments about inferences.

DUI evidence is another curious area. Breath tests are routinely admitted and legal without any testimony about the reliability of the testing machinery, its propensity to give false positives, etc.

[MCXU]

The are more indicators throughout Ryan's call, including repitition (Ryan states three different times that Sarah fell asleep, and twice states that he was downstairs, which is in and of itself another indicator - establishing an alibi), conflicting facts (water is draining/drained, performed CPR in a full bathtub) focus on help (Ryan never once uses the word "help") .

Kahn's, I agree 100% with this analysis. That 911 call just sounds so shady to me. From the outset I didn't beleive his story because it just seemed to me that he was covering his butt during a time of crisis. What does it matter if you were down stairs watching TV?

My reaction on the 911 call if I just found my wife not breathing would go something like this.

Get your A$$es over here now and help me save my wife, operator give me instructions on how to get my wife breathing again.

I would be so scared/worried for my wife I wouldn't be able to think of what I was doing 2 minutes ago.

[Kahns Krazy]

I think I said this a while ago. If Ryan had called 911, yelled "My wife isn't breathing, send help now!" Then chucked the phone, I very well might feel differently about this entire case.

You still have an unexplainable sudden bathtub drowning and some other unusual circumstances, but I think all of those could fall within a single "reasonable doubt".

To me, the 911 call pretty clearly establishes that Ryan is lying about at least some part of what happened.

[_LH]

To me, the 911 call pretty clearly establishes that Ryan is lying about at least some part of what happened.

Which part?

[Kahns Krazy]

Specifically, the part where he says "The water is draining out now", then less than 10 seconds later states that the water is completely drained out.

Then the part where he states that he has performed CPR on her and has acnowledged that she is still in the tub.

I don't see how anyone who is even aware of what "CPR" is, training or not, would perform or claim to have performed CPR on a person in a bathtub.

If you put the two statements together, Ryan believing that there was water in the tub and having claimed to have performed CPR on Sarah, it then makes it difficult to understand why he was dry when the medics arrived, since his statements put him in a full bathtub.

He says that he "Just came up here and she was face down in the tub". He does not mention any efforts to revive her until he is asked about CPR by the 911 operator. He either "just came up here" or came up a while ago, performed CPR, then called 911. He can't have done both.

Also, he states that she fell asleep while stating that he was not in the room. It may not be a lie, but it certainly isn't a fact that he can be aware of, given his own statements. It is at least a deceptive statement.

It may not possible to say which exact statement is a lie, but it is possible to determine that all of the statements can not be true.


There's also the super creepy part where it sounds like Ryan is faking CPR breaths into the phone.

Edit: There's also the part where on the phone, he states that she falls asleep in the bathtub all the time. Later that night, he would tell the coroner in an interview that he is unaware of her ever having fallen asleep in the tub before.

[_LH]

It may not possible to say which exact statement is a lie, but it is possible to determine that all of the statements can not be true.

Reasonable doubt.

[Kahns Krazy]

Reasonable doubt.

No, it's not. You can't say two opposite things (e.g. "I just got here" "I have been here for an hour") and have them both be true. I don't need to know which one is ia lie to know that one of them is a lie.


That's been my major point throughout this whole thing. You can look at any single piece of evidence and create 'reasonable doubt' around that one piece of evidence. When you pile them all up, you need something far more magical than the magic bullet theory to explain them all.

[_LH]

You said you don't know what is true and what is a lie. That along with questionable evidence is reasonable doubt. Sorry.

[sweet16]

Rut Row....here we go. Kahn's you should know better by now.

[_LH]

Rut Row....here we go. Kahn's you should know better by now.

Yeah, Kahn's and I are the reason Widmer is not on this THIRD trial. :rolleyes:

[JimmyTwoTimes37]

Rut Row....here we go. Kahn's you should know better by now.

I don't know about you but I am just going to sit back, get some popcorn, and watch the upcoming fireworks.

[_LH]

Yeah, Kahn's and I are the reason Widmer is not on this THIRD trial. :rolleyes:

For Jimmy!

[sweet16]

I don't know about you but I am just going to sit back, get some popcorn, and watch the upcoming fireworks.

Jimmy, thanks for the validation.....at least you got it. I have no idea what LH is talking about.

[JimmyTwoTimes37]

Jimmy, thanks for the validation.....at least you got it. I have no idea what LH is talking about.

Nor do I but we'll both find out in about 10 seconds

[_LH]

Jimmy,

What fireworks?

[XULucho27]

You said you don't know what is true and what is a lie. That along with questionable evidence is reasonable doubt. Sorry.

Not really. Reasonable doubt is only present were a reasonable person's belief that the defendant is guilty is affected by their doubt in some part of the evidence presented. Hence, he could have his doubts about what the defendant is lying about, but if he's convinced that he is guilty in spite of that doubt, then there is no reasonable doubt.

And I don't understand what you mean by questionable evidence? Perhaps you mean circumstantial evidence? In which case, the trier of fact can choose what weight he lends to circumstantial or direct evidence. It's not up to the jury to decide if it's "questionable" or "good" or "bad" evidence, but rather, what impact that evidence has on their decision of the defendant's guilt or innocence.

[Power]

There has been reasonable doubt the past 2 trials. This new witness is already getting torn apart about her past. I am not saying I think it is right or not, but I can not imagine he will be convicted this time around. Nothing has changed. This new witness has been in and out of jail and has been in trouble with the law since she was 18. No credibility.

For people who believe he is guilty it should be noted that he has been convicted by many in the court of public opinion and will have this follow him for the rest of his life. He will not have a easy time from now on.

[PM Thor]

I don't see how anyone who is even aware of what "CPR" is, training or not, would perform or claim to have performed CPR on a person in a bathtub.

I think you are making some pretty big assumptions here. I mean, what type of size is this bathroom? Is there room to pull her out and lay her on the floor? Most bathrooms really don't have all that much floorspace for two people to be on the ground at the same time. In certain situations, it's best to leave a victim in a place where you can perform CPR, this includes bathtubs.

Plus, people just panic or shut down in emergency situations. He'll, I've seen people trying to perform CPR on someone in bed and on a conscious guy. Rationality goes out the window sometimes.

I HATE dayton.

[_LH]

Jimmy,

What fireworks?

Jimmy?

[_LH]

There has been reasonable doubt the past 2 trials. This new witness is already getting torn apart about her past. I am not saying I think it is right or not, but I can not imagine he will be convicted this time around. Nothing has changed. This new witness has been in and out of jail and has been in trouble with the law since she was 18. No credibility.

For people who believe he is guilty it should be noted that he has been convicted by many in the court of public opinion and will have this follow him for the rest of his life. He will not have a easy time from now on.

+1.

[PM Thor]

Technically there was no reasonable doubt in the first trial. Widmer was convicted, but later the trial was deemed a mistrial. Just me being picky.

I HATE dayton.

[JimmyTwoTimes37]

Holy crap. Im a little late to the game but I just read the Enquirer's report link from a Mason site on this new Prosecution witness? Wow...No way she's gonna be able to testify

http://masonbuzz.com/2011/01/26/widmer-trial-new-details-about-mystery-witness-doe-emerge/

[DC Muskie]

Holy crap. Im a little late to the game but I just read the Enquirer's report link from a Mason site on this new Prosecution witness? Wow...No way she's gonna be able to testify

http://masonbuzz.com/2011/01/26/widmer-trial-new-details-about-mystery-witness-doe-emerge/

This is what tax payers are going to flip the bill for? Wow.

I'm more of the mindset he did it. But enough already.

[Power]

I agree with DC Muskie. It is tricky because I believe that he probably did do it but I don't see them being able to prove it without any reasonable doubt this time. I think there is too many missing peices.

[XULucho27]

The first motion should be granted. Her credibility will most likely be shot in front of the jury pretty quickly on cross and a jury has a right to hear that evidence of her past. The second motion is interesting. I think a judge should deny it given that defense has ample opportunity to impeach her credibility and attack her story on cross. But they do bring up a great point however, specifically that they can't authenticate the phone call and hence the foundation for that testimony would be insufficient. I don't think the prejudice of her testimony outweighs the probative value. Again, the defense will be able to tear it to shreds on cross.

Sorry if these posts are boring but I love criminal law. :)

[boozehound]

Holy crap. Im a little late to the game but I just read the Enquirer's report link from a Mason site on this new Prosecution witness? Wow...No way she's gonna be able to testify

http://masonbuzz.com/2011/01/26/widmer-trial-new-details-about-mystery-witness-doe-emerge/

You have to be f*cking kidding me. This is the 'mystery witness'? Some chick with a rap sheet a block long who has recently spent time in a methadone clinic, and has never actually met Widmer in person? They decided to do a 3rd trial because that thought that this testimony was going to do it?

This is freaking ridiculous. A confession from a junkie and small time criminal who has never actually met the defendant. What a waste of taxpayer money.

[JimmyTwoTimes37]

This is what tax payers are going to flip the bill for? Wow.

I'm more of the mindset he did it. But enough already.


The first motion should be granted. Her credibility will most likely be shot in front of the jury pretty quickly on cross and a jury has a right to hear that evidence of her past. The second motion is interesting. I think a judge should deny it given that defense has ample opportunity to impeach her credibility and attack her story on cross. But they do bring up a great point however, specifically that they can't authenticate the phone call and hence the foundation for that testimony would be insufficient. I don't think the prejudice of her testimony outweighs the probative value. Again, the defense will be able to tear it to shreds on cross.

Sorry if these posts are boring but I love criminal law. :)


You have to be f*cking kidding me. This is the 'mystery witness'? Some chick with a rap sheet a block long who has recently spent time in a methadone clinic, and has never actually met Widmer in person? They decided to do a 3rd trial because that thought that this testimony was going to do it?

This is freaking ridiculous. A confession from a junkie and small time criminal who has never actually met the defendant. What a waste of taxpayer money.

Judge said they will allow her to testify. Her testimony is going to get ripped to shreds

[sweet16]

You have to be f*cking kidding me. This is the 'mystery witness'? Some chick with a rap sheet a block long who has recently spent time in a methadone clinic, and has never actually met Widmer in person? They decided to do a 3rd trial because that thought that this testimony was going to do it?

This is freaking ridiculous. A confession from a junkie and small time criminal who has never actually met the defendant. What a waste of taxpayer money.

Plus, I've heard that she has mental health issues (and undergoing treatment) that would explain why someone may fabricate a story to gain attention.

[Kahns Krazy]

I'm fascinated by what's being reported about the unidentified witness. A couple months ago, everyone was calling "him" a "jailhouse snitch". Now everyone is calling her a stripper junkie criminal with mental health problems.

I'm pretty sure this is all speculation. Some of it may be true, but it's being widely reported as factual based on inferences from defendants motions and juror questions.

The defense team is pretty clever. Ask questions that lead to the media referring to someone they can't identify as a stripper.

I think it's interesting that the defense's tactic seems to be that the witness can't confirm that the person who confessed to her is actually Ryan. It almost sounds as though they are acknowledging that someone did confess to her. Maybe that's just legal mumbo jumbo.

I also think it's interesting that the defense team told the court that they intended to bring up old convictions of the unknown witness even before her identity was disclosed. It sounds like they knew who the witness was going to be. I wonder how....

[PM Thor]

Kahns, channel 9 has id'd her and given some pretty damning evidence against what she is saying happened, fwiw.

I HATE dayton.

[Kahns Krazy]

Kahns, channel 9 has id'd her and given some pretty damning evidence against what she is saying happened, fwiw.

I HATE dayton.

The "damning evidence" is all from the defense motions, so it's carrying a pretty significant bias.

Also interesting that now that she's identified, she's no longer a stripper.

Keep in mind that WCPO just ran this headline 4 days ago:

"Experts say she is a stripper with drug problems"

http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/new-insight-into-widmer-%22secret-witness%22

[coasterville95]

Sidebar:

Two tweets by the Enquirer -
First one mentioned the cell phone rule for the trial - essentially says don't use your phone, if your phone rings - its a $100 fine on the spot.

Second tweet - just 7 minutes later mind you - stated they had their first cell phone violation. Paper also had to mention it was a Pro Widmer person, FWIW.

Someone mentioned to me that most, if not all, court rooms ban cell phone use while court is in session. Why there would even be a violation is a mystery to me. Are folks that much "above the rules". Wait, wait, don't answer that one.

Of course - if the article would have stated the person was on either legal team, I would have commented, their client would merely see a misc. $200 charge on their bill, cost of doing business.

[Kahns Krazy]

Kahns, channel 9 has id'd her and given some pretty damning evidence against what she is saying happened, fwiw.

I HATE dayton.

Having said what I said before, I am still rolling my eyes about this "mystery witness". If she pans out anything like she's being protrayed, she sounds like a detriment to the prosecution. Reading between the lines, it seems to me like the prosecution is just trying to get Ryan on the stand to respond to her statement.

[PM Thor]

The "damning evidence" is all from the defense motions, so it's carrying a pretty significant bias.

Also interesting that now that she's identified, she's no longer a stripper.

Keep in mind that WCPO just ran this headline 4 days ago:

"Experts say she is a stripper with drug problems"

http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/new-insight-into-widmer-%22secret-witness%22
when I'm saying "damning evidence" against her, I'm referring specifically to her past, and the biggest problem for the prosecution using her. She can't seem to remember the specific date, and phone records can't be found to corraborate any specific call. I don't know if the prosecution objected to these assertions, because if they have a specific call to reference, they sure aren't telling the defense about it.

I HATE dayton.

[Kahns Krazy]

Interesting that a theft charge from 19 years ago can be "damning evidence" for a witness, but failing every FBI profile for a guilty 911 caller with a dead wife in the room with you is "reasonable doubt".

It's a strange system we have.

[PM Thor]

It's not "one theft charge", she's got a pretty significant criminal history, didn't even correspond with Widmer until after the other trials, didn't know the victim, claims that Widmer said he did it because she was going to leave him (which flies in the face of every other witness who said it was a loving relationship) and they can't find any specific telephone call to tie her claims to. She's going to get blasted in cross, her credibility is pretty suspect, to say the least.

I HATE dayton.

[XU 87]

Widmer may or may not have murdered his wife, but I'm still wondering why he would tell a virtual stranger over the phone that he killed his wife.

[I'msorryMods]

Widmer may or may not have murdered his wife, but I'm still wondering why he would tell a virtual stranger over the phone that he killed his wife.

Correct

[Kahns Krazy]

I didn't follow this trial nearly as much as the other two. It will be interesting to see what the jury comes back with.

Regardless of what the two women that Ryan was carrying on long distance relationships with said on the stand, you really have to wonder about a guy who starts multiple long distance relationships with women while claiming he's morning the tragic loss of his young wife while standing falsely accused of her murder.

[xsteve1]

Widmer is now in the jury's hands. I'll bet they take the easy way out with involuntary manslaughter (3-10 yrs.). Actually I was wrong on the years for IM it is 1-5.

[Cheesehead]

Widmer is now in the jury's hands. I'll bet they take the easy way out with involuntary manslaughter (3-10 yrs.).

I concur.

[CinciX12]

I'm not sure they even got an involuntary manslaughter. The defense did pretty well again in my opinion. If it was me I'm voting not guilty. For the third time of a joke trial.

[xsteve1]

I'd probably go with not guilty as well. Just too much uncertainty and Jennifer Crew was an idiot.

[CinciX12]

I'd probably go with not guilty as well. Just too much uncertainty and Jennifer Crew was an idiot.

I'm still not 100% certain what went on with the Crew/whoever the defense's woman was. She called Widmer the same night that he called Crew?

And who knew that being on dateline for allegedly killing your wife gets you groupies?!

[Kahns Krazy]

I'm not sure they even got an involuntary manslaughter. The defense did pretty well again in my opinion. If it was me I'm voting not guilty. For the third time of a joke trial.

I haven't followed much of this one. I was on vacation for the whole prosecution part. Mike Allen has been reporting for channel 19 and he seemed to this this was by far the prosecution's best trial.

[boozehound]

Widmer is now in the jury's hands. I'll bet they take the easy way out with involuntary manslaughter (3-10 yrs.). Actually I was wrong on the years for IM it is 1-5.

I tend to think they will either convict of murder or manslaughter.

I was on the fence the first 2 trials, but probably leaning toward guilty for the most part. His behaviour is just too wierd for me. From the 911 call to striking up relationships with people he met on his website he just seems like he might be a sociopath. They are definitely a bit short on physical evidence, but there is plenty of bizarre behavior from Ryan make up for it.

[CinciX12]

I haven't followed much of this one. I was on vacation for the whole prosecution part. Mike Allen has been reporting for channel 19 and he seemed to this this was by far the prosecution's best trial.

I would definitely say as well it seemed that the prosecution did better this time around. But the only thing new that they really brought to the table was Crew. It will all come down to whether or not they view her as credible. I would just laugh her off as crazy.

The prosecution called 24 witnesses.

I forget the exact name, but the defense called a witness that absolutely destroyed the credibility of the coroner. Based on that testimony alone I was dead set on not guilty.

Here we go, found the article (http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110210/NEWS010702/102110315)

[bobbiemcgee]

http://sharing.kypost.com/sharewcpo//photo/2011/02/11/IMAG0243_20110211090731_320_240.JPG

The mystery witness was looking pretty hot, so we should believe her.

[xsteve1]

I forget the exact name, but the defense called a witness that absolutely destroyed the credibility of the coroner. Based on that testimony alone I was dead set on not guilty.

Here we go, found the article (http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110210/NEWS010702/102110315)

I was watching Frontline on PBS a couple weeks ago and they had report on coroners throughout the country. In some places a high school diploma is all you need to become a coroner and down in New Orleans there are a bunch of corrupt cases involving the coroner. The Warren County coroner in this case (Uptegrove) doesn't seem too qualified as he lacks board certified credentials.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/2011/01/should-we-abolish-coroners.html

[Kahns Krazy]

If he's acquitted, I can tell you one thing for certain, if I ever kill my wife, I'm going to drown her in the bathtub. It doesn't seem like there's any way to "prove" a bathtub drowning homicide in many people's eyes.

[xavierj]

If he's acquitted, I can tell you one thing for certain, if I ever kill my wife, I'm going to drown her in the bathtub. It doesn't seem like there's any way to "prove" a bathtub drowning homicide in many people's eyes.

Oh I think he did it but in this case there sure is enough to second guess if he for certain did it. The thing I find the biggest issue is the fact that there was no sign of a struggle. She had nails but did not scratch him or ruin her nails in anyway. The only way that is possible is that she had on handcuffs. Which in this case maybe she did. Who knows. Now he did sound guilty on the 911 call or whacked out on drugs.

[Kahns Krazy]

So I should kill my wife in the bathtub after rock climbing?

Seriously, couldn't the defense just argue that they had had a fight earlier, and that's where the broken nails and defensive wounds came from? That's possible right? There's no way to prove that broken nails and defensive wounds were incident to the death. They had a fight, then made up, then she went upstairs and suffered Sarah Widmer syndrome in her bathtub.

[sash19]

Oh I think he did it but in this case there sure is enough to second guess if he for certain did it. The thing I find the biggest issue is the fact that there was no sign of a struggle. She had nails but did not scratch him or ruin her nails in anyway. The only way that is possible is that she had on handcuffs. Which in this case maybe she did. Who knows. Now he did sound guilty on the 911 call or whacked out on drugs.


The handcuff "reason" would quickly be shot down given that she had no bruises on her wrists. If she had handcuffs on, you can bet your last dollar she was struggling and thrashing around. That would cause cuts and bruises....

[PM Thor]

Verdicts in, will be released in about 20 minutes.

I have a feeling it's going to be involuntary manslaughter.

I HATE dayton.

[xavierj]

that was pretty quick. All they wanted was the tub and 911 tape. He's going away for a long time.

[STL_XUfan]

Guilty- Murder

[xsteve1]

Wow, guilty of murder.

[PM Thor]

Guilty of murder.

I'm pretty surprised actually.

I HATE dayton.

[muskiefan82]

Wow. I am very surprised at this.

[Muskie1000]

surprised or not... for me it was too many unanswered questions on the side of the defense. This time I think he made a big mistake by not testifying.

[LutherRackleyRulez]

More justice news....


O.J. Simpson Beaten Unconscious In Prison Attack: Report

The National Enquirer reported on Tuesday that O.J. Simpson was attacked in the Nevada prison and beaten unconscious. He spent three weeks in the infirmary.

Inmates cheered as a muscular young skinhead knocked him to the ground, punching and kicking him to a bloody pulp and inflicting injuries so severe he secretly spent nearly three weeks in the infirmary before he recovered.

According to the report, prison authorities have "done their best" to keep the beating a secret and Simpson is now afraid to leave his cell.

The 63-year-old has reportedly been a "marked man" in prison "ever since white supremacists overheard him brag about his sexual conquests of beautiful white women."

Simpson's former business partner, Bruce Fromong, said: "Unfortunately for O.J., a group of young skinhead punks were within earshot - and they were enraged."





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/15/oj-simpson-beaten-unconscious-prison-attack_n_823504.html

[Kahns Krazy]

The 911 tape is damning. The more you listen to it, the more impossible it is to believe. There are some very confusing contradictory statements in the tape such as face down/face up and water/no water which are irreconcilable.

Because Ryan has chosen to never testify, the 911 tape becomes the only communication from him to the jury, and it's horrible. That's why I think he didn't testify. He has no answers for the questions they would ask because he killed his wife.

I am really not surprised by this. (Obviously). I don't think the far fetched alternative scenarios the defense presented for so many of the incriminating pieces of evidence added up to "reasonable" doubt.

[Muskie1000]

I also thought it was interesting that in the second trial (the hung jury), the majority, again, thought he was guilty. If the defense knew this, you would think they would have done more... or maybe tried to cop a plea.

[XU05and07]

http://sharing.kypost.com/sharewcpo//photo/2011/02/11/IMAG0243_20110211090731_320_240.JPG

The mystery witness was looking pretty hot, so we should believe her.

That picture is of a defense witness Melissa Waller...this is a picture of the mystery witness, Jennifer Crew

http://cmsimg.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=AB&Date=20110202&Category=NEWS010702&ArtNo=302020051&Ref=AR&MaxW=300&Border=0

[PM Thor]

I'm really interested to hear from the jurists, I would love to pick their brains and see what made them come to their decision.

I was surprised to see that much emotion from Widmer too. This thing is going to drag out for a long time in the appeals process though. I don't have any specifics to go off of here, but I wouldn't doubt a savy lawyer could win an appeal in this case.

I HATE dayton.

[boozehound]

I'm really interested to hear from the jurists, I would love to pick their brains and see what made them come to their decision.

I was surprised to see that much emotion from Widmer too. This thing is going to drag out for a long time in the appeals process though. I don't have any specifics to go off of here, but I wouldn't doubt a savy lawyer could win an appeal in this case.

I HATE dayton.

What would the appeal be based on? I (kind of) get the reason why the case was initially overturned when it was brought to light that jurors (not jurists ;) ) conducted their own experiments, however my understanding of the appeals process (and I very well could be wrong) would be that some type of impropriety would have to have occurred for the conviction to be overturned.

[bigdiggins]

That picture is of a defense witness Melissa Waller...this is a picture of the mystery witness, Jennifer Crew

http://cmsimg.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=AB&Date=20110202&Category=NEWS010702&ArtNo=302020051&Ref=AR&MaxW=300&Border=0

Hard to believe Crew was a stripper. She certainly couldn't have made very much money doing it.

[PM Thor]

What would the appeal be based on? I (kind of) get the reason why the case was initially overturned when it was brought to light that jurors (not jurists ;) ) conducted their own experiments, however my understanding of the appeals process (and I very well could be wrong) would be that some type of impropriety would have to have occurred for the conviction to be overturned.

Prosecutorial misconduct maybe? I dunno quite frankly, I'm making the assumption that having three trials begs to be appealed, that's all.

I HATE dayton.

[bobbiemcgee]

That picture is of a defense witness Melissa Waller...this is a picture of the mystery witness, Jennifer Crew

http://cmsimg.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=AB&Date=20110202&Category=NEWS010702&ArtNo=302020051&Ref=AR&MaxW=300&Border=0

geesh, and I was on the jury, shoulda probably known that. Appeal.

[CinciX12]

Very, very surprising.

I always had a suspicion that he did it. The fact was that the prosecution didn't do a good enough job to get the conviction. Like I said earlier, I don't see how in the hell they did this time either.

Granted it is way different obviously to be in the court room.

That being said, you show me the 12 people in Warren county who hadn't heard about this case in 2.5 years and I will show you inbred trash that...well they were probably just dayton fans and were too poor to afford newspapers or the internet. Now it all makes sense..

[Kahns Krazy]

Hard to believe Crew was a stripper. She certainly couldn't have made very much money doing it.

You know she wasn't actually a stripper, right? Cincinnati media speculated that she was, but she wasn't.


Prosecutorial misconduct maybe? I dunno quite frankly, I'm making the assumption that having three trials begs to be appealed, that's all.

I HATE dayton.

The defense had three trials to get an acquittal and failed all three times, and for some reason you think that alone is basis for a fourth try? You are a confusing individual.



Very, very surprising.

I always had a suspicion that he did it. The fact was that the prosecution didn't do a good enough job to get the conviction. Like I said earlier, I don't see how in the hell they did this time either.

Granted it is way different obviously to be in the court room.

That being said, you show me the 12 people in Warren county who hadn't heard about this case in 2.5 years and I will show you inbred trash that...well they were probably just dayton fans and were too poor to afford newspapers or the internet. Now it all makes sense..

I'm curious to know the basis for your determination prosecution didn't do a good enough job is a "fact", especially since you acknowledge you weren't in the courtroom. Also, the lawyers on this board can correct me, but simply having heard about a case does not disqualify a potential juror from being impartial.

[GuyFawkes38]

I'm happy for Sarah Widmer's family. What a hellish couple years for them (IMHO, Ryan Widmer's often hostile supporters didn't help). Hopefully this will provide some closure.

[XULucho27]

I'm curious to know the basis for your determination prosecution didn't do a good enough job is a "fact", especially since you acknowledge you weren't in the courtroom. Also, the lawyers on this board can correct me, but simply having heard about a case does not disqualify a potential juror from being impartial.

That's right. You can still be fair and impartial in the eyes of the court even if you've heard about the case or previous trials. It's mostly up to attorneys to decide during voire dire just how influenced they believe the potential juror may be in light of exposure to facts of the case and challenge the jurors qualifications if they believe they can't be objective.

[CinciX12]

That's right. You can still be fair and impartial in the eyes of the court even if you've heard about the case or previous trials. It's mostly up to attorneys to decide during voire dire just how influenced they believe the potential juror may be in light of exposure to facts of the case and challenge the jurors qualifications if they believe they can't be objective.

So in a case like this how could they ever come to an agreement? The defense didn't even want the trial in Warren county I believe. So in theory could the defense argue every single juror or does the judge eventually make you deal with the cards you are dealt?

[nickgyp]

Kahn's:

You are correct. If a prospective juror has knowledge about the incident, that fact is explored during voir dire. If the prospective juror states that he/she cannot remain impartial, he/she will be excused "for cause". Any such juror who states that he/she can remain impartial (whatever level of knowledge and/or affilaition with an incident) will not be removed for cause; however, the prosecutor and/or defense attorney, if he/she feels uncomfortable with such juror, can exercise what is called a peremptory challenge. Such challenges are limited in number (three in misdemeanor cases). Once those challenges are exhausted, you are essentially stuck with any juror who pledges impartiality.

For instance, one DUI jury trial that I prosecuted involved my use of all three preemptory challenges. I was stuck with a very vocal and opinionated juror who claimed her husband had been railroaded by the prosecution in his DUI trial/conviction. She insisted that she could be impartial even though nothing in the tone of her voice led me to have much confidence in that pledge.

I thought the evidence was strong in the state's favor but after a very short deliberation period, my jury came back with an acquittal and I learned later that certain said female was the forewoman on the case.

Jury selection is not a science. After having discussed cases post trial with jurors, I am always amazed at what they deemed significant or insignificant; what impressed them or didn 't, etc..

[XULucho27]

So in a case like this how could they ever come to an agreement? The defense didn't even want the trial in Warren county I believe. So in theory could the defense argue every single juror or does the judge eventually make you deal with the cards you are dealt?

See above. Yea, you're pretty much stuck with the hand that you're dealt.

[PM Thor]

The defense had three trials to get an acquittal and failed all three times, and for some reason you think that alone is basis for a fourth try? You are a confusing individual.

I think you are the confused one here Kahns. I never said a fourth trial was warranted at all. I said that with three trials in the books, that this would give a good defense lawyer a lot to work with in terms of an appeal. Hell, it's all conjecture on my part anyway, because I don't even know if prior mistrials or hung juries can even be referrenced in an appeal. All I was getting at was that I assume that on appeal a defense lawyer would probably have a lot more to work with in this case than in most other cases out there, considering all the weird twists and turns this case took.

I HATE dayton.