Cincinnati Nesties
daves_sweetpea
member
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Widmer trial a hung jury again
Re: Widmer trial a hung jury again
Tyler Anthony arrived on 9.21.09
The Chronicles of Justin and Tyler
Now that this trial is officially a hung jury, I think it will depend on the split of the jurors (if we find out). It's very expensive for both sides of the case to try it for a 3rd time.
The attorneys are all in chambers still talking to the judge about the case. They are also trying to talk to the jurors. As soon as the jurors start leaving, they are allowed to talk to the media so we should be learning more about this case as the night goes on. The attorneys can't talk - they are still under the gag order.
It's scary to me that juries are having such a hard time with this. I understand personal beliefs, but when it comes down to the facts there just isn't enough there. I'm sure they were briefed numerous times on how it's supposed to work and there's still doubt. I can't imagine the frustration or weight of being on the jury and in the situation these individuals have been in! Or the families of Ryan and Sarah.
I'm with Rachel saying that he's innocent!! I've read every word of WLWT's (unbiased) blog and read every article published on this case. Even if you are on the fence on how you feel about this case, there is no where near enough evidence to even consider putting a man in prison for life. Additionally, I live in Warren County and my tax money has already paid to try him twice! I keep telling my DH I want to protest, somehow, if they decide to try him again
Don't say that! I live in Warren County now!
Do you think that there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty? Personally, I don't think he did it, however I know a few people who think he did. However, either way, I don't see how if one presumes he's innocent, they have enough "ammunition" to sway the opinion to guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are just way too many what if's.
On the other hand - nothing in the bathroom was wet including the magazines right next to the tub, indicating no struggle. This was one of the things pointed out by Dr. Chandler Phillips (a prosecution witness). They have the carpet sealed from the original trial and it actually showed that the carpet he laid her on was wet. I think some of the details are a little strange and there's lots that doesn't add up (I think mostly from mistakes made by EMTs/detectives), but I don't think there is enough evidence to put anyone in prison for 15 years to life.
This is not actually true. The testimony stated that she was "not overly wet." More than one person testified that she was in fact wet Including her hair) as was the carpet surrounding her. They said her fingers weren't pruned but they didn't even notice that she had fake nails/french manicure. Not sure how you can know one but not the other. None of it makes sense & that's because it shouldn't. It was an unfortunate accidental death & that's why things don't make sense. They wouldn't.
I just read online that a juror spoke to WLW today. She said that the majority of the jury was leaning towards guilty, although there was no official vote on Tuesday. As of Friday, I think 5 said guilty, 3 said not guilty and 4 were undecided. This particular juror felt he was guilty because she concocted a scenario in her mind that COULD explain the whole situation. "She said Widmer likely ?blitzed? his wife by surprise and struck her in the neck with an ?incapacitating blow.? Then, he grabbed her head with his fingertips, leaving a curved line of several small bruises along the right side of her scalp, ?then he just slides her down into the tub.? "...REALLY?!
She told Hutzel to "go for it... It scares me that people think our justice system is supposed to operate on what-if's and hypothetical scenarios. Heaven forbid something inexplainable ever happen to any of our loved ones while we are home alone!
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard! These are exactly the kind of things they were instructed time & time again not to do. That is not how the judicial system is set up. That is so unbelievably scary to think that someone could be convicted on crap like that. Oh my blood is boiling!!!
I'm listening to it now. Did this juror listen to any of the trial?!?!? Her job was not to solve the crime!! WOW!! The system is horrible. This lady is absolutely ignorant.
DISCLAIMER: I haven't been following the trial at all the first time nor the second time. I know what he's accused of doing and that's about it. Guess that since my tax dollars are apparently paying for this (twice) I should pay more attention...
Back to what I was going to comment about: What happened to innocent until proven guilty? And guilty verdicts only being reached if the evidence shows as such beyond a reasonable doubt? People watch too much Law and Order (OK, guilty as charged here!) and CSI now-a-days trying to play detective. Geez!
Latest Blog Update: Peanut Butter Cookie with Salted Peanut Caramel
That IS the problem! The one juror who spoke out tried to solve the crime, instead of determine if he was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution. She has a full solution of what "happened", even though the prosecution never gave their theory. She even explains it in the WLW clip. They should get more educated people on a jury for a case like this. Hopefully they don't waste our tax dollars again for a 3rd trial.