Ryan Widmer - 3rd time is a charm....

[bucksfan2]

5. In public is what you have to remember about what you just said.

matt

And no reports came out of the trial about that. That is what I meant about in public. It was never reported on and the jurors when interviewed after the fact never mentioned it. In fact your mention of it was the first I have ever heard of abuse.

[top6]

I feel that Widmer probably did kill his wife, but there is almost no evidence to prove it. I think there is an awful lot of reasonable doubt.

There is a lot of evidence.

1. Her hair and head being the only thing wet. No one taking a bath is that skilled.

2. The bruising around her neck is consistent with strangling.

3. The delayed call to 911 is evidence as well anyone concerned would have called a lot earlier.

4. The fact that he has been lying to the authorities since the very beginning on the 911 phone call.

5. The authorities had been called out their numerous times for arguments between them and even one case of physical abuse because Ryan had beat on Sarah. That right there already falls into the category of a "Pattern of Violence." Proving he could have easily killed her based on his past actions.

So believe what you want but there are 5 pieces of evidence right there.

A lot of this seems pretty circular to me. If there truly was a "delayed call" to 911, wouldn't that have given her body time to dry, except say maybe her hair? #4 is just an opinion/assertion, not a fact/evidence, and there was NO evidence at trial to support #5 that I am aware of.

[top6]

To those who would have voted not guilty, what piece of evidence do you need? A video tape? If he's behind her stuffing her head into bath or toilet water it's very likely she couldn't get her hands backwards to defend herself and consequently have defensive injuries.

Again there's nothing "reasonable" about a healthy 24 yr old dropping dead. There's no reasonable doubt that she must have died another way

I don't think you are thinking of the burden of proof correctly. I don't think the prosecution can just say, "she died, some unless you can come up with some other explanation, you need to convict her of murder." As a juror, I would expect some physical proof that he killed her short of the fact that she is dead, and it seems to me that the defense had a very good explanation for every bit of physical evidence the prosecution came up with.

Don't get me wrong, though, it's a tough case, and the prosecution did present a very strong circumstantial case, and that is permitted. (A lot of people don't understand that.) Your arguments are actually much more persuasive to me than other arguments that are being made, and the point you raised earlier about the difficulty in defining "reasonable doubt" is a good one. By the term's very nature, I think each juror has to apply the "reasonable doubt" standard in their own way, and your way and my way may be just as valid.

[Sea Ray]

A lot of this seems pretty circular to me. If there truly was a "delayed call" to 911, wouldn't that have given her body time to dry, except say maybe her hair? #4 is just an opinion/assertion, not a fact/evidence, and there was NO evidence at trial to support #5 that I am aware of.

Exactly. It "fits" that he delayed in calling 911. That all helps the prosecution's case.

As for #5 I'm not aware that the police had ever been called there before.

[Sea Ray]

I don't think you are thinking of the burden of proof correctly. I don't think the prosecution can just say, "she died, some unless you can come up with some other explanation, you need to convict her of murder." As a juror, I would expect some physical proof that he killed her short of the fact that she is dead, and it seems to me that the defense had a very good explanation for every bit of physical evidence the prosecution came up with.

Don't get me wrong, though, it's a tough case, and the prosecution did present a very strong circumstantial case, and that is permitted. (A lot of people don't understand that.) Your arguments are actually much more persuasive to me than other arguments that are being made, and the point you raised earlier about the difficulty in defining "reasonable doubt" is a good one. By the term's very nature, I think each juror has to apply the "reasonable doubt" standard in their own way, and your way and my way may be just as valid.

Well written. The only thing I disagree with is that IMO the prosecution did put forth a good bit of evidence. Inconsistent statements from the defendant and injuries to her neck which is all it would take to kill her. I can't think of anything else they could possibly come up with.

I am amazed that the public is so split on this whereas three juries have voted 34-2 to convict.

[top6]

Well written. The only thing I disagree with is that IMO the prosecution did put forth a good bit of evidence. Inconsistent statements from the defendant and injuries to her neck which is all it would take to kill her. I can't think of anything else they could possibly come up with.

I am amazed that the public is so split on this whereas three juries have voted 34-2 to convict.

I would not trust any of those counts from the hung jury, but your point still stands. As for the neck injuries, I thought the defense's expert convincingly testified that those were consistent with CPR. (By "thought" I mean the articles I read about the trial seemed convincing. It may not have been so convincing in person, although based on jury interviews this jury just threw out all of the expert testimony, which is a bit depressing to a litigator who has spent untold 100s of hours working on expert testimony.)

[top6]

Exactly. It "fits" that he delayed in calling 911. That all helps the prosecution's case.

As for #5 I'm not aware that the police had ever been called there before.

But then it is only 1 point, not 2, is all I was saying. If he delayed calling, that explains why the body was dry, meaning that they only evidence you have is a delayed call (which I give you is still somewhat damning). CM and others seem to want to say that the dry body is further proof that she didn't even die in the bath tub, and that the delayed call if proof of guilt, but if you believe in the delayed call then you already have the only explanation you need RE the dry body.

[bucksfan2]

Well written. The only thing I disagree with is that IMO the prosecution did put forth a good bit of evidence. Inconsistent statements from the defendant and injuries to her neck which is all it would take to kill her. I can't think of anything else they could possibly come up with.

I am amazed that the public is so split on this whereas three juries have voted 34-2 to convict.

I think what Atomic Dumpling said has a lot of merit to it. My mom grew up in Warren County and we had a family friend who was involved in local politics up there. Both made mention of how corrupt the place was.

I am going to say this and I have no proof whatsoever, but it would not surprise me in the least to see a prosecution testifier being charged of perjury. And it wouldn't surprise me at all if we found the prosecution team had broken some laws as well. They seemed to go very aggressively at Widmer and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they pushed the issue a little too far.

I also think that after the first juror misconduct and the second hung jury the trial should have been moved to a different location. The issue for me is that every citizen is guaranteed a fair trial, and I don't believe Widmer got that the 3rd time around. You would be hard pressed to prove to me that any of the jurors didn't know about the trial and have an opinion going into the trial. IMO if you move it somewhere like Toledo, Columbus, Cleveland, etc. or even somewhere into Indiana then you would have had a better chance at a fair trial.

[top6]

All this talk about Warren County jurors being pro-prosecution (which may be true) and Warren County being corrupt is pretty beside the point, since it was Widmer's attorneys that opposed the prosecution's request to move the trial outside of Warren County.

[bucksfan2]

All this talk about Warren County jurors being pro-prosecution (which may be true) and Warren County being corrupt is pretty beside the point, since it was Widmer's attorneys that opposed the prosecution's request to move the trial outside of Warren County.

I didn't realize that. Two huge errors that the defense made seem to be not moving the trial and not having Widmer testify. From my point of view I don't understand that.

[Cuban_Missile]

But then it is only 1 point, not 2, is all I was saying. If he delayed calling, that explains why the body was dry, meaning that they only evidence you have is a delayed call (which I give you is still somewhat damning). CM and others seem to want to say that the dry body is further proof that she didn't even die in the bath tub, and that the delayed call if proof of guilt, but if you believe in the delayed call then you already have the only explanation you need RE the dry body.

If the case would hurry up and be official I will spill my beans on everything that I know. My uncle is one of the Warren County Detectives who has been working on the case since day 1. I know a few things I haven't shared because of this yet.

[Roy Tucker]

I've been on a couple Warren County juries and what Atomic Dumpling said (from a jury standpoint) is pretty much true.

I was foreman for one of the trials and I almost had to yank people up by their collars to consider the cases presented and the evidence. Most everyone made their minds up the first time they saw the defendent and said "she's a briar and looks guilty, that's all I need". I felt like Henry Fonda from 12 Angry Men.

It certainly made me pause to wonder who the hell these idiot people were that lived in my county. Having not served on any other juries besides Warren Co. ones, I didn't know if all the idiots in the world had moved there or if this was just how most juries are.

[dabvu2498]

I've been on a couple Warren County juries and what Atomic Dumpling said (from a jury standpoint) is pretty much true.

I was foreman for one of the trials and I almost had to yank people up by their collars to consider the cases presented and the evidence. Most everyone made their minds up the first time they saw the defendent and said "she's a briar and looks guilty, that's all I need". I felt like Henry Fonda from 12 Angry Men.

It certainly made me pause to wonder who the hell these idiot people were that lived in my county. Having not served on any other juries besides Warren Co. ones, I didn't know if all the idiots in the world had moved there or if this was just how most juries are.

South Lebanon, Franklin, Carlisle, Morrow, and Waynesville are all in Warren County!

Just kidding, Roy. But it is an interesting county from top to bottom.

[dabvu2498]

If the case would hurry up and be official I will spill my beans on everything that I know. My uncle is one of the Warren County Detectives who has been working on the case since day 1. I know a few things I haven't shared because of this yet.

How much more "official" does it need to be for all these goodies to come out? It will probably be under appeal longer than this message board exists.

And by the way, nowhere in the Warren County Court or Mason Muni Court online records is any evidence of Ryan Widmer being charged with Domestic Violence or anything related.

[top6]

And I have to say, the fact that Warren County detectives apparently gossip about murder investigations with their high school/college age nephews, who then go onto very popular local message boards to state that they will reveal that gossip after a case "would hurry up and be official," doesn't actually do a lot to dispel what people are saying about the corruption and ignorance in Warren County.

I mean, am I the only one who finds this thread odd? "3rd time is a charm?" Posted by the nephew of a detective in a murder case? After a trial where someone is going to jail for the rest of their life, and where the lead detective's credibility was seriously called into serious question, to the point where he is currently being investigated by the trustees of Hamilton Township? I just don't get what is going on here.