Update on cynthia sommer case

[JSinSOCAL]

see story 'Sommer's bid for exoneration on hold'

Link to San Diego UT
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080927/news_1m27sommer.html

:(

[Dogmatic]

Why are they dragging this out?

He was either poisoned or he wasn't.

Which is it?

[BillE]

Dec. 5, 2008 hearing--Judge Einhorn sets hearing for May 4, 2009 to decide whether or not to dismiss her case "with prejudice". The news article is at:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081205-1152-bn05sommers.html

[Topaz]

she should sue their a$$es off-- the prosecution!

They may be holding this over her, as a bargaining chip.
ie. drop the suit (if it ever comes) and we will remove the "prejudice".

[Len]

she should sue their a$$es off-- the prosecution!

They may be holding this over her, as a bargaining chip.
ie. drop the suit (if it ever comes) and we will remove the "prejudice".


I hope she sues them and wins millions. This is an unbelievable story. A totally innocent woman being convicted because of aggressive prosecution, based on an obvious lab error. This case should have never gone to trial in the 1st place.

[fairlaw]

I am amazed to find no discussion of this. It is now 8:30, so only has a half an hour to go.

[kellabeck]

They left a lot of incriminating evidence out of the account.

[tvdinners]

They left a lot of incriminating evidence out of the account.

They sure did. There's A TON of incriminating evidence against the SDCDA's office in this case!

Any evidence they had against Ms. Sommer was either erroneous or embellished... and it doesn't count now because:

Todd Sommer Was Not Murdered

[Raguilar2009]

SHAME ON YOU LAURA GUNN!!! you try and convict because you have a license to steal peoples lives... like the life of Cynthia Sommer you so carelessly almost stole. YOU PERSONALLY OWE CYNTHIA FOR THE TWO PLUS YEARS YOU TOOK OF HER LIFE in addition to the irreparable emotional damage you have caused her to suffer for the rest of her life!!! SHAME ON YOU LAURA GUNN. You have let everyone down, including your former friends and family that you have brought so much shame on them as well. Your carelessness in this case was not a lack of training as much as it was a reflection of your character, or the lack there of. All your previous cases should be ordered for review. You are a terrible lawyer, much more, a Deputy D.A. Please resign immediately. You are not competent.

[kanzz]

Bravo Raguilar2009!!

You sound very knowledgeable on this subject - especially when you say "You have let everyone down, including your former friends and family that you have brought so much shame on them as well."

ITA with all you said. So, let me just echo:

SHAME ON YOU LAURA GUNN

[LisaM22]

I think because she was not guilty of any crime they should leave her alone and stop retrying the case on the air and bringing this back to the surface again and again - jmho

[fairlaw]

Pia, I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner.

I thought that the "Snapped" program was the wrong place for Cynthia's case. Cynthia did not "SNAP", Cynthia tried to save her husband's life.

Cynthia's story needs to be shown from the end, to the beginning.
It is not helpful to show the utterly false crap that sent Cynthia to jail, and then show that she was utterly innocent.

I want a show that tells the truth from the beginning. That the DA and LG had more than abundant information that a crime never took place, yet they expended every ounce of their resources to put an innocent woman in prison for life.

I want a show that shows the corruption of the SD DA's office in this case. And I really want a show that gives Cynthia a gazillion buckies for what they did to her.

I know that you, like me, have believed this was a case of prosecutorial misconduct from the beginning. For The Love Of God, Even the expert that the Pros hired to prove her guilt, told them that the lab results made no sense and that this WAS NOT a case of arsinic poisoning.

He testified for the defence.

But as we all know by now, LG didn't give a darn if there wasn't a shread of evidence, she went after Cynthia's actions and character.

Despite dozens of cases across the nation of apparently healthy young men dying of sudden cardiac arrest. LG SWORE to the jury that no young man had EVER died like that.

I, personally, sent LG and the defence, dozens of cases of young high school sports players, young college sports players, ect, who had died of exactly that in the past few years. LG DIDN'T CARE!!

To LG, it was nothing but a game. A game to win at all costs. She would have let Cynthia spend the rest of her life in prison, just so LG could win.

I am nothing but sincere in my conviction that LG and the DA should both be sentenced to what they falsly caused Cynthia to be sentenced to.

But will they? HE** NO, they will keep prosecuting and persecuting innocent people, with impunity. This system sucks, real bad.

I would say that the most deeply disturbing and heart breaking part of this, besides the misconduct, is that this happened in California.

We are all well aware that there are places in our wonderful country where there are pockets of ignorance, places where if the Cop says it's true, it is true, places where if the DA goes to court on it, then the person is guilty, places where people, and sickingly funny, the folks know that their cops are corrupt and their DA is corrupt, yet they convict anyone who is brought to court.

What a mess, and we have got to fix it.

[LisaM22]

yeah it was a great show. CS was on there, her brother and the Pros even admitted they royally fudged up.

and at the end you find out CS and her family have all went bankrupt trying to pay her legal bills :(

that is so sad, the state should have to work to make it right with Cynthia - they should not be able to destroy someone and just walk away... though I am glad to hear the prosecution admitted they were wrong, that should help some

even had her husband died from arsnic poising like they originally thought, that still would not of proven she did it, the prosecution was using behavior to get the jury to convict and that is wrong, that seems to be a new tactic that DA's are using nowadays

[LisaM22]

Fairlaw, I agree that Cindy’s story needs to shown in full. I do like the way Snapped did it though when they didn’t go into detail about the “bad behavior” but I do wish they had focused more on that being what convicted her. I guess there is only so much they can do in an hour.

One other thing you mentioned about “Snapped”. They had begun this after Cindy’s conviction but before she was granted a new trial. From my understanding a majority of these interviews were done before the case was dismissed. I guess they were planning to make it look as if she had indeed ‘snapped’. That is why when I first heard of them doing the show not long after the verdict, I was upset.

I am with you though on her story getting out there. ALL of it. From the time of Todd’s death until now. Especially this fight over dismissing with prejudice.

I want everyone to know that still today, more than nine months after they have evidence that there was no arsenic in that man’s body, that his death certificate still states the cause of death was ‘homicide by arsenic poisoning’. I don’t care if they do still think that Cindy may have somehow killed Todd, they KNOW she didn’t do it with arsenic so that should not be on the death certificate. Glenn Wagner testified in court that when there is evidence of a different cause of death, the case MUST be reopened and the COD changed. Did he lie on that stand or is he not doing his job now?

Even if the case is ‘reopened’ they aren’t going to find arsenic so why not remove it from the COD? Because imo without it they have nothing to fight this dismissal with. I have no idea why they want to drag this out unless it is just pure meanness. It certainly is not justice.

good point on COD, did he lie or not doing his job now, maybe a little of both?

[Topaz]

I think a terrible crime was committed here AGAINST Cynthia Sommer.

Why can't there be an investigation, and all of the people who handled the samples that were contaminated, take a polygraph, and see who
did this deed?

Someone tampered with evidence, and obviously people covered that up.
They should be brought to justice, and Cynthia should receive compensation for her 2 yrs in prison, and the loss of her financial resources to defend herself against this spurious prosecution.

[LisaM22]

I think a terrible crime was committed here AGAINST Cynthia Sommer.

Why can't there be an investigation, and all of the people who handled the samples that were contaminated, take a polygraph, and see who
did this deed?

Someone tampered with evidence, and obviously people covered that up.
They should be brought to justice, and Cynthia should receive compensation for her 2 yrs in prison, and the loss of her financial resources to defend herself against this spurious prosecution.

I agree, it is sad that when people in the system attack you, you have to fight the system to get justice

[awareness]

its just not right what happened to Cindy & her family. Especially her relationship with her children! They should NOT have to pay a dime for legal fees, this is all the fault of an over-zealous prosecutor.


Did Cindy say she planned on suing the city of SD at all? or Laura Gunn?


Fairlaw - there was a HUGE thread/folder about the case when the trial was going on, even afterwards. When the old board shut down/crashed and the new insessions board opened, the old folder was archived or maybe deleted.

[Dogmatic]

Laura Gunn did a huge disservice to Cindy Sommer and family.

More globally, her biggest disservice was to the families of future victims who's killers may walk free because jurors will come to distrust what the prosecution is offering up as fact.

Laura Gunn has publicly impacted our judicial system in a horrific way

[Dogmatic]

As a side note: I was one of those that just "knew" Cindy was guilty. In all my years, I have never come across a person that "grieved" the way Cindy did. I believed what the prosecution offered up as fact, and Cindy's "way of life" was consistent with a person that was happy to see her spouse gone.

I am also one that will now want a prosecution to show me more evidence than necessary to prove guilt, thanks to Laura Gunn et al.

It's still my opinion that Cindy is too selfish to be a good parent, but I firmly believe she did not kill her husband. She didn't love him much, imo, but she did not kill him.

[fairlaw]

I'm happy that you are not one of the real stupid people who still insist that somehow/someway/by some magical method, she killed him.

However, I think I disagree with your position that she didn't love him much. We have all heard her 911 call. To me she sounded like a loving wife who was trying desperately to save her husband.

San Diego County owes Cynthia a LOT of money, does anyone know if her atty is working on that?

[LisaM22]

This is so sad that this woman has had her life put her whole life put on hold while the court is playing games with her and her childrens life. I don't remember a whole lot about her case, but wasn't she found guilty because she did not show to be a grieving wife or am I thinking of another woman?
I sure hope this gets settled soom so she can get her sons back and the whole family can start healing.

jmoo

yep, some said she was guilty because she stopped off for a pack of smokes on the way to the hospital....

[LisaM22]

As a side note: I was one of those that just "knew" Cindy was guilty. In all my years, I have never come across a person that "grieved" the way Cindy did. I believed what the prosecution offered up as fact, and Cindy's "way of life" was consistent with a person that was happy to see her spouse gone.

I am also one that will now want a prosecution to show me more evidence than necessary to prove guilt, thanks to Laura Gunn et al.

<snip>but I firmly believe she did not kill her husband. She didn't love him much, imo, but she did not kill him.

that is a good thing, I hope others have learned the same from the nightmare Cindy had and is still going through

[Dogmatic]

too selfish to be a good mother? most of the insurance she put into a trust fund for her children to go to college. i didn't hear anyone ever say she was a bad mother. She got her children back and she works two jobs to take care of them.



It's my opinion that she was selfish in her role as a mother. In my opinion, when you have four children and you lose the main bread winner in the household, the last things you do are: tattoos, plastic enhancements, trips to Mexico etc. And you certainly don't allow men to immediately enter your childrens home and drive the family car and sleep in the bed of the deceased. That is MY opinion and always will be.

But Cindy is innocent of the crime she was accused of.

[Dogmatic]

I'm happy that you are not one of the real stupid people who still insist that somehow/someway/by some magical method, she killed him.

However, I think I disagree with your position that she didn't love him much. We have all heard her 911 call. To me she sounded like a loving wife who was trying desperately to save her husband.

San Diego County owes Cynthia a LOT of money, does anyone know if her atty is working on that?

There is no foundation for proclaiming her guilty at this point. I think many, just like myself, were so awe-struck that a person with four children could do the things she did in the months following Todds' death, that it was easy to jump on the guilty bandwagon.
I have since arrived at the conclusion that my idea of the role model a parent should play in the event of a tragedy, and others ideas are vastly different.

[Dogmatic]

yep, some said she was guilty because she stopped off for a pack of smokes on the way to the hospital....

I will admit that really got under my skin.

In a time of crisis, I am the type of person that thinks of everyone around me, and not of myself.

Cindy is obviously the type that can respond to the crisis, but also make sure she receives the comforts necessary for herself.

I don't understand it, but it is what it is.....

[LisaM22]

I will admit that really got under my skin.

In a time of crisis, I am the type of person that thinks of everyone around me, and not of myself.

Cindy is obviously the type that can respond to the crisis, but also make sure she receives the comforts necessary for herself.

I don't understand it, but it is what it is.....

she was thinking ahead, she was planning on a long stay, that seems completely normal to me

[Dogmatic]

she was thinking ahead, she was planning on a long stay, that seems completely normal to me


I know. I understand. It's not normal to me, but it is to many. I learned that. I'm still amazed.

[Dogmatic]

What is good about that though is you are willing to look at it differently now. If only the prosecutor/DA would...

Laura Gunn is a disgrace. She has no choice but to admit her mistake, and let Cindy move on.

IMO, if she can't prove right this minute that Todd was poisoned, (which we know he was not), she needs to drop it and admit failure.

[darwin]

It's absurd and a bit disgusting to be quite honest, especially when they have to twist what really occurred like the money situation when she did in fact put a large portion of it in a trust for the children,


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/29/earlyshow/main2407685.shtml

Cynthia Sommer's in-laws testified that she objected when they asked her to put her husband's $250,000 death benefit in trust for herself, their baby and her three children from a previous marriage.

It was Todd Sommer's family who INSISTED, over CS's OBJECTIONS, that a portion of the death benefit MUST BE put in trust NOT ONLY for Todd's biological child but MUST ALSO include her other children.

That doesn't make her a murderer. I just wanted to clarify the facts as to the trust.

--darwin

[Dogmatic]

I remember plenty of posts calling her a bad mother.....IIRC there was an incident or something in Florida with Children Services or something.....again this is just my recollection. There were those that claimed she was a sociopath and only cared about herself. Also claims that she was only after the money.

Same classic theme on these boards. Some posters have the ability to diagnose anyone and everyone a sociopath and/or pyschopath with a few statements or actions. It's absurd and a bit disgusting to be quite honest, especially when they have to twist what really occurred like the money situation when she did in fact put a large portion of it in a trust for the children, paid off her in-laws for a vehicle, paid other bills that both her and her husband had accumulated during their marriage.

Example of some things that were posted.

She was faking the 911 call, she didn't act right, she was a liar......of course there was no evidence to support her poisoning her husband. The only "evidence" was that created by posters and the prosecution who put their own "spin" on those things I mentioned above.

Sorry for the rant, sorry if my post is a bit discombobulated.

For me anyway, they are two very different issues. You see, I used to think she poisoned her husband, was selfish, and was not a very good mother. ( I base my opinion of her mothering skills on some of the items she spent her money on when she was facing life alone with four children, her bringing a man immediately into the family home, Todds bed and letting him drive Todds car, and her conviction and/or guilty plea to child neglect charges.)

I now know she is not guilty of poisoning her husband.

However, my opinion of her mothering skills has not changed, and never will.

[awareness]

JMO that Cindy's had some issues over the years, before her arrest - I mean CPS was called while she was in FL and all. She probably needed parenting class... and also HELP seeing the Dad of her older children wasnt paying child support (IIRC). But I still feel she loved her kids and certainly at this point is at a better place maturity-wise to look after them.

The old board/folder was crazy. IIRC someone claming to be Ross' (ex boyfriend) Dad came in and posted for a little while. He kept saying Cindy had said things during a holiday dinner that didnt sound right, or alluded to knowing other things about Cindy that made her charachter seem dark. But he never came out and said exactly what things he knew, so it was all hearsey - and that's providing it was actually Ross' Dad.

You used to be able to find Cindy's posts on that old car (Honda?) message board, and posts regarding her arrest & trial, but dont know where you'd find that at this point.

I never thought she was guilty. Even after she was found guilty, it just didnt "fit" for me. I donated money to her cause before it was "popular" with public opinion that she was innocent. Im just glad she's out now and hopefully she'll be COMPENSATED from SAN DIEGO and be able to get on with her life.

All of the above is JMO/IMO.

[Dogmatic]

Just a question......wasn't the CPS called after the death of Todd? There was no evidence that before Todd's death that she was a bad mother. (At least to my knowledge)

I know that people will argue that it doesn't matter if it was after his death, but I think it does have to be look at in context to after his death.

She was convicted and/or plead guilty to child neglect, I believe while she lived in Florida.
It was established as a fact and is of record.

[Dogmatic]

Yes, again....

after Todd's death.....isn't that correct?

No. before her marriage to Todd

[Dogmatic]

Yes but this was after Todd's death. I think that is what Narcissist71 was asking.
She did everything they told her to do and had regained custody of all of the children back. She just didn't have the two middle boys with her yet when she was arrested. The baby and her daughter were both back with her at that time.

There was testimony of an incident in North Carolina while Todd was out on the ship. He had to come home. It wasn’t so bad that they took the kids. Just more proof that Cindy was fine when she had Todd but overwhelmed when he wasn’t there. I am not making excuses for her but I can understand what she was probably going through.

Then I apologize. My memory failed me.

It was my understanding that a boyfriend turned her in for child neglect BEFORE she married Todd.

My bad.

In any event, her stability as a parent seems questionable to me. For the childrens sake, I hope she has changed.

[Dogmatic]

No problem. Yes this was after Todd died. It was Ross who supposedly turned her in...Not sure of the details of all that though.


When it was, as understandable as it might be, is of little consequence to me. My sympathy always goes out to the children that are helpless to provide for themselves and seek comfort in ways that adults do.

(I think you are right. I think it was Ross that turned her in because there was nothing in the house for the kids to eat or drink except beer.)

[darwin]

. She was quite able to stick up for herself, eg. when she told her MIL "you grieve your way and I'll grieve mine". MOO :smile:

Yes. I, too, was very "impressed" with the empathetic response she gave to the GRIEVING mother of her dead husband.

But, that is separate and apart from the murder charge.

--darwin

[Dogmatic]

Well can't you have sympathy for the children and the woman who lost her husband to an unforeseen death? Sometimes situations get the best of even the most loving and caring people.

No. I'd be lying if I said I could.

I come from the school of thought that a parent has the obligation, especially during tragic times, to be there for their children and provide a stable, peaceful environment for the children. Cindy wasn't the only one grieving. The children were too. And on top of trying to deal with their day to day lives and their grief, they were dealing with a mother facing neglect charges. But she had time for tattoos, men, trips and physical enhancements to deal with her grief.

No sympathy for her; only for her children.

But the silver lining to all of this is that maybe, just maybe, being wrongfully convicted gave her time to reflect, and perhaps she will come out of this whole mess a far better mother, ( in my eyes anyway), than she started out. For those four kids, I sure hope so.

[awareness]

<respectfully snipped> I would like everyone who thinks they are capable of sitting on a jury to really look at what happened here also. The jurors did a horrible job. IMO if you are put on a jury you have a responsibilty to do your job; they didn't. :smile:

Agreed. Wasn't there a former LE person on the jury? Maybe IIRC he was the Foreman? Guess the whole "EVIDENCE" factor of this case didn't phase the jurors at all, who clearly convicted her based on charachter flaws (some of which were pretty bad, but does not make her a murderer).

I think the time in jail has matured Cindy but JMO. I dont know her at all, but just my guess, she wouldnt want to be in jail and away from her kids ever again. Im sure she's wanting to put her best foot forward and best of luck to her - it wont be easy with the 4 kids.

JMO/IMO

[awareness]

Thanks for the clarification re foreman!

JMO/IMO

[awareness]

I wish that movie were showing around here (SoCal) somewhere! Hopefully there will be future DVD rentals/sales.

[wcrapkin]

Regarding questions of a lawsuit I would imagine a lawsuit is planned but it will probably be geared towards the county and anyone else that they can sue. However, fortunately Dumanis and Gunn are protected from lawsuits under absolute immunity. That was recently reconfirmed by the US Supreme Court. Thomas Goldstein spent 24 years in prison based on the testimony of a lying snitch whose history of testifying for the state was not disclosed to the trial prosecutor by his superiors. Goldstein tried to sue DA Van De Kamp for his wrongful incarceration based on his office's lack of protocol for monitoring informant testimony. The US Supreme Court recently threw out the lawsuit saying that DA's are cloaked in absolute prosecutorial immunity. The end shot is that with the US Supreme Court rulings Dumanis and Gunn are shielded from being sued.

[pinky]

I think it is absolutely ridiculous that there are people out there who think that cynthia sommer is innocent. Whats worse is that you there are some of you who think that she should sue them for what "she had to go through." What she had to go through, what about what her husband's family had to go through. Is there not anyone out there who thinks that her behavior is not what a grieving wife should behave. All I know is that if my husband just died, I wouldn't be calling the family's accountant about some taxes, I wouldn't be out partying hard and participating in some wet t-shirt contest. I'm sure you have all heard about the case of Casey Anthony. It wasn't normal for her to go out partying after her daughter Caylee Anthony went missing. But I can bet that the same ones who thought that Casey's behavior was was not right for a worried mother are the same ones that feel that there's nothing wrong with the behavior of Cynthia Sommer. Although there might not be enough evidence to put her behind bars but I believe that one day they will. Why is she in such a hurry to get this case dismissed once and for all? She knows that one day they'll find enough evidence to get convicted. One day they will find enough evidence and the ones that are fools are those of you who think she's innocent. Anyone dumb could figure that one out. Cynthia Sommer got off so easy, almost easier than OJ Simpson did. If it was up to me I was have her executed. Unfortunately, it's not. so lets hope that Cynthia Sommer doesn't victimize another family and put them through what Todd's family had to go through!

[johnielee333]

I think it is absolutely ridiculous that there are people out there who think that cynthia sommer is innocent. Whats worse is that you there are some of you who think that she should sue them for what "she had to go through." What she had to go through, what about what her husband's family had to go through. Is there not anyone out there who thinks that her behavior is not what a grieving wife should behave. All I know is that if my husband just died, I wouldn't be calling the family's accountant about some taxes, I wouldn't be out partying hard and participating in some wet t-shirt contest. I'm sure you have all heard about the case of Casey Anthony. It wasn't normal for her to go out partying after her daughter Caylee Anthony went missing. But I can bet that the same ones who thought that Casey's behavior was was not right for a worried mother are the same ones that feel that there's nothing wrong with the behavior of Cynthia Sommer. Although there might not be enough evidence to put her behind bars but I believe that one day they will. Why is she in such a hurry to get this case dismissed once and for all? She knows that one day they'll find enough evidence to get convicted. One day they will find enough evidence and the ones that are fools are those of you who think she's innocent. Anyone dumb could figure that one out. Cynthia Sommer got off so easy, almost easier than OJ Simpson did. If it was up to me I was have her executed. Unfortunately, it's not. so lets hope that Cynthia Sommer doesn't victimize another family and put them through what Todd's family had to go through!

who are you to say what a person is supposed to act like when they lose someone special to them ? are you GOD? NO i didnt think so ! so do not judge ! we all grieve different in some ways but also the same in some ways.

[RayStar]

pinkyYour post is comparing apples to oranges. IMO Some of us express our feelings differently than what some of may feel is proper. If the evidence were there, she would be behind bars. This was a wrongfully charged case against a young woman. Cynthia Sommer really deserves to have her record cleared.

[Topaz]

There is NOT going to be MORE evidence found.

Original tissue samples, that were fixed with glass covers in slide form and properly stored, from Todd's dead body....showed NO traces of any kind of arsenic. That means NO ARSENIC-- no poisoning. The glass coverslips prevent any contamination after collection. This was NOT true for the tissues kept in jars, which had over 10 (and I think actually 16 breaks in custody!) That evidence obviously was mishandled and no wonder turned up tainted. I think someone was looking for a scapegoat...and Cindy was it.

[wcrapkin]

As it stands now it appears that she may very well be innocent, but I don't think the charges should be dismissed with prejudice. Without prejudice is just fine. The likelihood of charges ever being refiled is unlikely, but the option should be left open just in case the unexpected occurs and someone one day thinks of something that has been overlooked. Remember Drew Peterson and Kathleen Savio. For years it was unquestioned Pia, that Kathleen Savio died in an accidental bathtub drowning. However, we now know without question thanks to new state-of-the-art forensic testing that Kathleen Savio was murdered and her death was staged to look like an accident. Since we still have no definitive answers as to what caused Todd Sommer's death, the charges should be dismissed only without prejudice in the event that new evidence turns up one day just like it did in the Kathleen Savio case.

[tvdinners]

I think it is absolutely ridiculous that there are people out there who think that cynthia sommer is innocent. Whats worse is that you there are some of you who think that she should sue them for what "she had to go through." What she had to go through, what about what her husband's family had to go through. Is there not anyone out there who thinks that her behavior is not what a grieving wife should behave. All I know is that if my husband just died, I wouldn't be calling the family's accountant about some taxes, I wouldn't be out partying hard and participating in some wet t-shirt contest. I'm sure you have all heard about the case of Casey Anthony. It wasn't normal for her to go out partying after her daughter Caylee Anthony went missing. But I can bet that the same ones who thought that Casey's behavior was was not right for a worried mother are the same ones that feel that there's nothing wrong with the behavior of Cynthia Sommer. Although there might not be enough evidence to put her behind bars but I believe that one day they will. Why is she in such a hurry to get this case dismissed once and for all? She knows that one day they'll find enough evidence to get convicted. One day they will find enough evidence and the ones that are fools are those of you who think she's innocent. Anyone dumb could figure that one out. Cynthia Sommer got off so easy, almost easier than OJ Simpson did. If it was up to me I was have her executed. Unfortunately, it's not. so lets hope that Cynthia Sommer doesn't victimize another family and put them through what Todd's family had to go through!

Maybe you missed the newsflash - Todd Sommer Was Not Murdered.

Your comparison to OJ is ludicrous. Two people were murdered in that case... in this case, a young man died tragically of cardiac arrhythmia; leaving behind a wife, children, parents, a sister, and friends who loved him.

No amount of beating one's head against a wall or wringing of the hands would have brought him back. Cindy partied. So?

I'm really sick and tired of reading what others say about what they would or wouldn't have done, or what they did or didn't do in a similar situation.

There will likely come a time when we'll each be judged based upon our own history of judging others. Maybe then you'll want to retract - especially that part about having her executed if it was up to you.

If some ninny hadn't taken some bizarre test results and skewed them to make this look like a poisoning, you would have never heard about Todd or Cindy Sommer.

[JSinSOCAL]

Maybe you missed the newsflash - Todd Sommer Was Not Murdered.

Your comparison to OJ is ludicrous. Two people were murdered in that case... in this case, a young man died tragically of cardiac arrhythmia; leaving behind a wife, children, parents, a sister, and friends who loved him.

No amount of beating one's head against a wall or wringing of the hands would have brought him back. Cindy partied. So?

I'm really sick and tired of reading what others say about what they would or wouldn't have done, or what they did or didn't do in a similar situation.

There will likely come a time when we'll each be judged based upon our own history of judging others. Maybe then you'll want to retract - especially that part about having her executed if it was up to you.

If some ninny hadn't taken some bizarre test results and skewed them to make this look like a poisoning, you would have never heard about Todd or Cindy Sommer.

ITA

I sure would hate to think that Pinky would serve on any jury. Sounds like Pinky would be happy if we just excuted anyone that is arrested...and to heck with a trial. :angry:

[tvdinners]

ITA

I sure would hate to think that Pinky would serve on any jury. Sounds like Pinky would be happy if we just excuted anyone that is arrested...and to heck with a trial. :angry:

Funny you should mention that - because what first crossed my mind when I read Pinky's post was that perhaps s/he had already served on a jury... know what I mean?

[darwin]

It certainly looks like you did Pinky! :w00t:

I appreciate your post. It really helps someone like me to understand how twelve jurors could ignore the evidence and convict someone because they didn't like her. I guess they REALLY didn't like her! :ohmy:

It is not the FAULT of the jurors that the Judge let in so much character evidence.

I don't remember if Udell made a Motion in Limine. I would assume so.

If Udell did, the prosecution argued against it. Therefore, it is likely that the Judge ruled AGAINST the defense's motion.

IMO, it was the Judge who screwed up.

[Dogmatic]

I agree, and the jury should have been smart enough to weigh the character evidence along with the scientific evidence, and know that the character evidence had nothing to do with the death of Todd.......

Character evidence is flawed to begin with IMO, and especially in this case because most of the character evidence was after Todd's death when interpretation of behavior is much more complicated.

But even so the jury dropped the ball even if the judge let it in.

I don't blame the jury. They are NOT scientists. They were operating under the knowledge that there had been a poisoning that took place.

The prosecution is to blame in my opinion.

I, personally, found Cindy's "character" to be repulsive, but I don't think she was convicted on her character. I think she was convicted because the prosecution convinced the jury there had been a poisoning and Cindy's character was that of someone capable of doing such a thing.

[Dogmatic]

I think when a person is grieving and trying to handle things, much can depend on the support you have. You would be in a weak state, easily swayed perhaps and under ideal circumstances would have strong friends who would knock sense into you if you got stupid.

I have to wonder why no one ever questions the behavior of some of Cindy's friends. What kind of support is it when her and Todd's friends, party loving people, came to Cindy's house and drank and, yes, slept with her. I'm shocked that these guys would take advantage of someone in such a vulnerable state. Even the MP who befriended Cindy claimed that she was going downhill quick and what did the friends do, they helped her slide down that much faster.

Then, thanks to LG, it became popular to dump on Cindy and the exaggerated stories took on a life of their own. The easiest thing in the world to do is spin things and stretch the truth. We expect that from everyday gossips, but not from those who have sworn to uphold the law and search for truth and justice. LG sounded like the typical nosy neighbor who loved to spread rumors.

If the case went differently and one of Todd's friends was accused of his murder, imagine what an easy time LG would have had trashing him. As it is, she actually made them sound like innocent little boys. Man, she's good, isn't she?

It is amazing that we are still talking about this nearly a year after charges were dismissed. I am appalled that a few people out there still claim she's guilty, based on nothing, and spew venom because they are so perfect and would never fall apart if they were in her shoes.

I have always said that the "friends" surrounding Cindy and children in their time of need were completely unbelievable.

However, who a person chooses to hang out with during good times is who is going to be there during bad times. These people were Cindy's choice and therefore she is defined by those that CHOSE to associate with. In her time of need their true colors came shining through. Instead of encouraging her and supporting her to be a good mother, they encouraged and supported her in her self destructive endeavor to bury her grief through sex, partying, physical enhancements.

How those people can look in the mirror is beyond me.

But in the end, we are all responsible for our own actions, and our choices of who we associate with are VERY important. Morals are important. Standards are important. When we start letting the bar for our moral conduct drop too far, we start finding it acceptable to associate with people that have VERY BROAD views of what is acceptable.

I'm sure Cindy is most aware of that now. I hope the dude that moved right into her bed and drove Todd's vehicle and the friends that "partied" with her right after Todds death have raised their bars of moral conduct a bit.

[Dogmatic]

I blame the jury, because if they didn't understand the science they should have asked more questions about it. If they took the word of the prosecution, then they failed in listening to the evidence that was presented by experts that the prosecution first went to about the case that there was no poisoning, that the evidence was flawed and never seen before in an arsenic poisoning case. I personally would question why the prosecution had to go looking for someone to support their case as a jury member. Common Sense is preached on these boards everyday, but now you are defending the jury because they were NOT scientists.....did common sense fail, or did the jurors not use common sense as I addressed the prosecution having to search out someone to support the poisoning theory, though even prosecution witnesses reluctantly admitted to many flaws in that theory.



IMO, Laura Gunn did not use common sense and was on a witch hunt.

[tvdinners]

The ONLY juror who did her civil duty and weighed all the evidence was the alternate who stepped forward within a couple of hours of the verdict to reach out and help Cindy by reporting the juror misconduct in this case.

I credit her with not only being fair-minded, but having the courage to go above and beyond the call of duty. She saw through the smoke-and-mirrors put up by the prosecution. She understood that Todd Sommer was not poisoned.

Dr. Poklis alone should have convinced each and every one of them that there was no poisoning. Dr. Labay & Dr. Bakowska spelled it out for the jury, too. The other jurors flatly disregarded this testimony and, how did LG put it...

"They didn't spend a lot of time worrying about whether the arsenic was there or not there," Gunn said of the attorneys' short meeting with jurors after the verdict. "They accepted pretty early on that it was there, and once you do that — there's nobody else."
[ http://www.courttv.com/trials/sommer/013007_verdict_ctv.html?page=2 ]

Absolutely disgusting.

[Dogmatic]

The ONLY juror who did her civil duty and weighed all the evidence was the alternate who stepped forward within a couple of hours of the verdict to reach out and help Cindy by reporting the juror misconduct in this case.

I credit her with not only being fair-minded, but having the courage to go above and beyond the call of duty. She saw through the smoke-and-mirrors put up by the prosecution. She understood that Todd Sommer was not poisoned.

Dr. Poklis alone should have convinced each and every one of them that there was no poisoning. Dr. Labay & Dr. Bakowska spelled it out for the jury, too. The other jurors flatly disregarded this testimony and, how did LG put it...

"They didn't spend a lot of time worrying about whether the arsenic was there or not there," Gunn said of the attorneys' short meeting with jurors after the verdict. "They accepted pretty early on that it was there, and once you do that — there's nobody else."
[ http://www.courttv.com/trials/sommer/013007_verdict_ctv.html?page=2 ]

Absolutely disgusting.

Point taken. I guess, if I'm being perfectly honest, I have a soft spot for the jury because I personally bought what the prosecution was feeding me and it turned out that I was a big fat dork for doing so.

Your are correct. The jury had accountability.

[tvdinners]

Well, I have to admit - I was convinced Cindy was guilty even before the trial started. Just the pre-trial advertisements convinced me.

After all, if the DA isn't convinced of guilt, they wouldn't file charges, right?

It was through the course of the trial that things didn't add up for me. Too many things pointed to reasonable doubt, imo. And by the end of the trial, I was totally convinced that not only was Cindy not guilty, there was no murder at all.

The behavior issues should have never entered into play. Udell admitted his error in opening the door to that, but I was never convinced that door had indeed been opened. What I think about that is irrelevant at this point, however.

So, now we know that the DA would file charges even if they themselves weren't convinced of guilt.

Even Dr. Wagner couldn't have been truly convinced. Did he fall victim to the DA's pressure, or just what happened to convince him to change that death certificate? I blame him in large part for this whole fiasco.

[darwin]

No they are not scientists but from the ones I know a little history on, these are not stupid people. Had they listened to Dr. Poklis and Dr. Centeno and paid attention to what the other experts said, they would have had more than enough reasonable doubt and would not have convicted her. At the very least they should have had a hung jury. They just didn't listen to what experts from both sides told them. So yes I do blame them.


Unfortunately, when there are dueling experts, their testimonies often cancel each other out and the jury focuses on other evidence.

In the recent Mark Jensen murder case wherein he was convicted for the anti-freeze poisoning of his wife, there were dueling experts.

--darwin

[darwin]

I somewhat agree but when Dr. Centeno testified that he originally thought there was contamination, they should have paid attention to Dr. Poklis, Dr. Labay and Dr. Bokowska because that is what they said too. Let alone the fact that all three of these people were contacted by the prosecutor first. That would have told me (as a juror) that something was very wrong.

I agree; but the judge let in a lot of character evidence that muddied the waters.

Credibility is an important part of a case. Unfortunately, I don't think it is that far-fetched that the jury reasonably took into account CS behavior after TS's death. The judge allowed it in, so it was there for them to consider.

My blood ran COLD when TS's mother testified that CS told her that she would "grieve in her own way." It was an extremely callous thing to say and reflected very poorly on CS, the person and her character.

Your points are well-made; however, I think the jury is getting a bad rap.

--darwin

[darwin]

The Jensen case is a great example of what a good jury can accomplish. Unlike the compliant slackers in the Sommer case, the Jensen jury was able to process the information given them and arrive at an understanding of the truth that included insights into the evidence that the prosecutors themselves had never even grasped when presenting the case.

Incidentally, if memory serves, in Jensen I think the defense did concede the victim was poisoned. But their argument was that the victim had poisoned and smothered herself in an attempt to frame Mark Jensen (yea, right).

Hi lane: Excellent analysis.

However, what was interesting in the MJ case, was despite all you just said, there were many posters who believed she did poison herself because she was depressed and/or it was an attempt to frame MJ for her death.

So, had THEY been on the jury, it is a conceivable, he could have been found not guilty.

--darwin

[tvdinners]

I somewhat agree but when Dr. Centeno testified that he originally thought there was contamination, they should have paid attention to Dr. Poklis, Dr. Labay and Dr. Bokowska because that is what they said too. Let alone the fact that all three of these people were contacted by the prosecutor first. That would have told me (as a juror) that something was very wrong.

Even if the defense hadn't presented any witnesses at all, seems to me that Wagner's testimony and Centeno's testimony should have triggered the jury to think. They were not convincing.

Centeno testified that he initially thought it was a contamination.

I keep remembering Wagner's testimony - and how it hit me at the time as being so very significant.

Udell asked: And if you assume that test is correct and reliable, then you changed your cause of death to arsenic poisoning, correct?

Wagner: Correct.

Udell: That's the only fact -- without that test, you go back to cardiac arrhythmia, correct?

Wagner: Yes.

:confused:

[darwin]

I took that exchange differently. The context was that this adult woman who had just lost her husband was being scolded for staying out late partying by her MIL. Her response IIRC of, "You grieve your way, I'll grieve mine.", seems to me to be an assertation of independence. Not sugar-coated for sure but she may have had a history with the MIL and at that time I'm sure she had lost any sense of diplomacy she might ever have had.

Regardless of how anyone may have reacted to that exchange it really wouldn't seem relevant to a murder charge expecially when there was no evidence tying Cynthia Sommer to arsenic. :smile:


Hi randyw: You are correct. We don't know the history between CS and her MIL. Your interpretation is valid and I respect it. However, my sensibilities were offended.

The remarks were exceedingly distasteful, and lowered my estimation of CS, the person . . . even more so, because not only was the MIL's son dead but his widow was out partying.

If, as you say, the remarks were an "assertion of independence", it was an "independence" CS was able to achieve because the MIL was at her home taking care of ALL her children.

Murder, maybe not. Cruel and selfish, yes.

--darwin

[kanzz]

I took that exchange differently. The context was that this adult woman who had just lost her husband was being scolded for staying out late partying by her MIL. Her response IIRC of, "You grieve your way, I'll grieve mine.", seems to me to be an assertation of independence. Not sugar-coated for sure but she may have had a history with the MIL and at that time I'm sure she had lost any sense of diplomacy she might ever have had.

Regardless of how anyone may have reacted to that exchange it really wouldn't seem relevant to a murder charge expecially when there was no evidence tying Cynthia Sommer to arsenic. :smile:

I so totally agree. I never had an issue with Cindy saying "You grieve your way, I'll grieve mine." Might have been a lot more polite than I would have been under the same circumstances, I don't know for sure.

[darwin]

Yes the comments (as we know them) were very inappropriate. However, we were not there. I do believe Mrs. Sommer was offended and rightfully so but we don't know the tone she took with Cindy or what she may have said to Cindy.
I would never base a guilty or even a not guilty verdict on those comments. In fact, with the evidence presented I would never have considered them at all.

Streckfess (sp?) commented on how Cindy was "going downhill fast"...it seems as if she really did lose it when Todd died. She probably began going downhill that very night he died. Mrs. Sommer was hurting, Cindy was hurting. Mrs. Sommer couldn't understand how Cindy could leave the children like she did that night and Cindy obviously couldn't understand why Mrs. Sommer was not understanding her grief.

I don't recall IF CS testified as to HOW her MIL spoke to her that night. Maybe she could have set the record straight.

CS may have been wrongfully convicted, for that I sympathize; however, IMO, it does not give her a pass on her boorish behavior.

--darwin

[darwin]

As I don't give you a free pass.....at least I get to view your own typed words here from your own fingers.

Hopefully you see the difference.

If you are ATTEMPTING to draw some kind of correlation between CS and me, it is undecipherable as written.

--darwin

[Dogmatic]

I'm not trying to be offensive, but maybe you'll reassess how you look at cases in the future, and actually look at the real evidence in the case, instead of those things that have no solid foundation.

No offense taken, but you see, I never did base my opinion on the case on the things that had no solid foundation.

IMO, "scientific experts" are no more than hired guns. If science is so exact, then all the experts should come up with the same data.

I just put my chips on the wrong expert.

The rest of the testimony just proved how unfit she was as a mother, basically.

[darwin]

this is a textbook case on wrongful convictions and SEXISM.

If the roles were reversed and Todd slept with every woman from here to Bangkok, people would say he is just taking it hard...

as men, we get a free pass...even if we are rude to our MIL or party and drink... and even not be the best father...... yes, even if Todd had a surgery to make his penis larger

I have to disagree with you, Head.

I don't believe the outcome would have been any different had it been TS, MALE.

Any detective seeing a widower partying shortly after the death of his wife would have been just as suspicious.

In fact, Mark Jensen, recently convicted of his wife's death, was acting like a happy little camper at his wife's funeral; this was viewed with concern by many of the witnesses.

Shortly, thereafter, he moved his lover into the family home.

--darwin

[darwin]

No.....

I'm saying at least I can draw conclusions from what you, yourself, have typed........(though I would even argue, type written words don't always express the true meaning of someone's thoughts, feelings, etc.).....

but you are basing your opinion on what someone said someone else said.

Follow?

Not really. But I'll give it a try.

As I said, CS had the opportunity to explain herself when she was on the witness stand.

I certainly understand WHY her attorney avoided the subject of THAT particular statement. It was repugnant, IMO.

Nevertheless, the defense CHOSE not to put the statement into any type of CONTEXT, so I am left (and I assume the Jury) with having to assess the MIL's credibility and demeanor versus that of CS.

--darwin

[darwin]

Because it had nothing to do with the murder.......

thank god the evidence was found,

she's free.....

you chose to not listen to the evidence in the case......IMO

She no more owes you an explanation than you owe her an apology for every bad thing you said about her during, and after the trial.


I have NO idea WHAT you are talking about. But she certainly can apologize to me if she so wishes.

[darwin]

I think you are wrong, but that is ok. Laura Dunn had a win at all costs attitude... justiice was not in her mind. She ignored scientific evidence. This case reeked of sexism. I am male by the way.

I respect your OPINION, as well. No problem.

[Dogmatic]

Yes you did.....the science was clear, the prosecution had the hired gun, and you didn't understand or listen to the science to understand it.......

the data was also clear......and the prosecution searched for someone that would ignore the science to testify.

There are some sciences that are as much art as a science......one of the biggest one of all is behavioral science......

but the behavioral science in this case had absolutely nothing to do with a murder.

You are big enough to admit you were wrong about her being guilty, but you seem to have to hold onto something even knowing the false testimony of some, and the actions of the prosecution.....

IMO you are clinging to some kind of victory by saying how horrible a person she is, since it's just an opinion.


There is NO victory in an innocent person being convicted of a crime they didn't commit.

She did not kill her husband but, I still feel for her children and any other children that are in like situations.

She was a victim, but so were her children. Only they were victims twice.

As far as how clear the trial testimony was............I'm guessing you are stating that you have superior intellect over the likes of me, because it was so clear to you who the hired gun was and who wasn't. It wasn't that clear for me, so I guess you win, if that's what you are looking for.

[Dogmatic]

this is a textbook case on wrongful convictions and SEXISM.

If the roles were reversed and Todd slept with every woman from here to Bangkok, people would say he is just taking it hard...

as men, we get a free pass...even if we are rude to our MIL or party and drink... and even not be the best father...... yes, even if Todd had a surgery to make his penis larger

I see your point. I know many people who hold mothers in general to a higher standard of parenting than they do fathers in general.

It's one of those situations where "once you know, you can't pretend not to". I never mind what adults do to themselves with their life choices, but I get really worked up when there are innocent kids involved. "Don't mess with the little people" is what my parents used to say.

[kanzz]

I agree.

I hope Darwin wasn't offended by what I typed above.

I don't know how true it is, but if true it's an example where people will twist and spin a situation to create "evidence" in a case........one doesn't have to look far from the LG and the prosecution's witness list to find it either.

Free Cynthia-State Case (http://www.freecynthia.com/Travesty.htm#STATE)

"Investigators did not question Ms. Beach until she went to the MP's at Miramar after she heard about the arrest on the news. At trial, in response to Gunn asking Ms. Beach "And what happened once you got there?" - Beach testified "I noticed that the ambulance and the MP's hadn't arrived yet."

Unfortunately, the jury asked for Beach's testimony to be read back to them during their deliberations. In the mean time, Beach was posting liberally on a public message board and admitting, in effect, that she then understood her testimony was incorrect. She also wrote, "It never dawned on me that Cindy may have called me first. The investigator put that in my head."

Again, I don't know how accurate and how the defense found out this info, but it goes to show that if Todd's mother was brainwashed by the prosecution, she may have exaggerate the statements made about grieving. IMO

And of course it wouldn't have been a wise move for the defense to ask questions about such subjective opinions. I doubt a reasonable jury would have been interested in hearing about it.

And this jury would have probably viewed it as Cynthia being a narcissistic sociopath/psychopath, trying to make herself look better at the expense of the grieving mother.

That info is accurate. She posted: "It never dawned on me that Cindy may have called me first. The investigator put that in my head. (This makes me really mad because they would have had the phone records by than, and yet he put it in my head that she called me first. It is not the only thing he put in my head which makes me even more mad). "

[kanzz]

The 'babysitter' wrote on the board "I never said that Cindy called me first. If the jury was misled into thinking that, it was not my doing." But when Laura Gunn asked "And what happened once you got there?"; her response was, "I noticed that the ambulance and the MP's hadn't arrived yet."

Because the jury asked for her testimony to be read back, I will probably always believe that was some of the most damning testimony in the trial.

[kanzz]

I'll take the liberty of posting something here that I posted long ago. Seems like the right time to share it again...

Weighing the factors - subjective vs objective

OK, here's a little exercise for anyone who is interested in this case. Take out a sheet of paper and draw a line down the middle from top to bottom. Label one column "G", and the other one "NG". Weigh each and every element of any argument you can find anywhere on this board or elsewhere- for example:

First, take a look at some of the miscellaneous subjective factors and arguments:
Todd's symptoms
Money
Breast augmentation
SGLI proceeds
911 call
Telephone
Computer
CPR
Stop for cigarettes
Thong contest
Sexual encounters
Parenting skills
Yes, I'm sure this list could go on and on. Add anything in this category you'd like.

Players and witnesses - which ones do you choose to believe?
Ridley
Terwilliger
Wagner
Centeno
Cantrell
Susan Beach
Cindy
Jan
Poklis
Labay
Bakowska
Again, add anybody you'd like.

Also, factor in these things -
Arsenic - easy to obtain? Believable that Todd ingested it?

Let's just assume you weighed all of the above, and checked the "guilty" box on your sheet of paper for each item.

Now, let's look at the lab results and other objective facts:
Sky-high levels on the kidney and liver samples,
But normal amounts in all other samples.
DMA, but no other form.
And these important issues:
Autopsy - no damaged organs
Autopsy - cardiac arrhythmia
16 breaks in the chain of custody.
An environmental lab, rather than a toxicology lab.
A lab with no SOP's.
A lab that uses and stores DMA.
A new machine.
A tech who had never before performed this testing.
Tissue samples that weighed more when tested the second time.

This might cause you to take another look at the factors listed above. e.g.:
Todd's symptoms - so generic it could have been a number of things, but certainly not bad enough to constitute arsenic poisoning at these levels.
Medical findings on Todd's two trips to the clinic are in fact inconsistent with arsenic poisoning.
Witness info - Centeno suspected contamination from the get-go.

OK, obviously this list could be expanded. My challenge to anyone who has read this far - is to weigh all the objective data, then consider the possibility that all the subjective data is neither-here-nor-there. Are you willing to put your personal opinion of Cynthia Sommer aside and take a fresh approach?

Once I got to the bottom of my sheet of paper, the objective data far outweighed all the subjective info. I've based my opinion on the objective data in this case. All the rest is a moot point, imo.

Not Guilty. There was no murder. Todd Sommer was not poisoned.


[first posted in 2007]

[darwin]

Not Guilty. There was no murder. Todd Sommer was not poisoned.


[first posted in 2007]

Obejctively, I don't think one can say DEFINITIVELY there was NO murder.

What one CAN say, IMO, is that there was insufficient evidence to prove BARD that TS was poisoned with arsenic.

--darwin

[margaritaville]

Obejctively, I don't think one can say DEFINITIVELY there was NO murder.

What one CAN say, IMO, is that there was insufficient evidence to prove BARD that TS was poisoned with arsenic.

--darwin

So if he was not poisoned, by what method was he murdered?

since you can't say there was no murder?

Grasping at straws are you?
moo

[Dogmatic]

I'm not looking for a win......but was hoping that you might look at this case and reassess how you look at the "evidence"........

I'm not sure if you were one of the ones that thought she "sounded fake" in her 911 call. Or any of the other "feelings" that posters had on the board.

But if you don't feel that you have to, then that's all you. You did say you were taken in by what the prosecution fed you. So why do you think that is possible....if it just about betting on the wrong expert, that doesn't say much for our justice system.

I re-assessed right after this case.

This case and the Danielle Van Dam case brought me to the concrete conclusion that paid "experts" are not experts. They are hired guns that are given bits of information to come up with a designed conclusion. A true group of "experts" should come up with the exact same conclusion if science is going to convict.

I believed there was a poisoning via arsenic. I was wrong. I admit it. I'm done listening to experts in any case, unless they are all saying the same thing. I want to know who paid the expert, and what information the expert was given.

Science is science and it is exact. It appears to me that the "human factor" has entered the science world to try to skew the results. That angers me

[Dogmatic]

So if that is the case, what evidence in this case would you base your decision on? If you aren't going to listen to the evidence from the case presented by the experts, then wouldn't your opinion remain the same since you based your decision on guilt of the defendant on your feelings about her?

Again....

By not listening to the scientific evidence, wouldn't your conclusion remain the same as far as guilt of the defendant? But we now know that there was no arsenic poisoning, and that is confirmed by the tissue samples that remained in storage and were not contaminated and no indication of arsenic poisoning.

I don't know what you are after, but I'll say it one more time a different way.

The "experts" now are all saying the same thing,right? No poisoning, so why not listen to them? Is there an expert out there that isn't saying that? Not that I have heard of.
If there is conflicting reports among the experts, then I will have extreme reservation. As it stands, there's no one stepping forward saying anything different, so it's my opinion that all the experts have their eggs in one basket. There was no murder. Pretty simple


My feelings about Cindy don't make a difference one way or the other. No poisoning = no murder.

[darwin]

So if he was not poisoned, by what method was he murdered?

since you can't say there was no murder?

Grasping at straws are you?
moo


Grasping at straws, in my case . . . is really not so different from GASPING at straws, in your case.

Why take it so personally?

I don't know if he was murdered or not. And neither do you.

[tvdinners]

Obejctively, I don't think one can say DEFINITIVELY there was NO murder.

What one CAN say, IMO, is that there was insufficient evidence to prove BARD that TS was poisoned with arsenic.

--darwin

eek! You sound eerily like Bonnie Dumanis.

I can objectively state that not only was there insufficient evidence, there was no evidence to indicate Todd Sommer was murdered. He wasn't poisoned. Period. The only thing the first test results reveal is that there was some kind of an enormous BLUNDER in those results. The last results prove it.

[darwin]

eek! You sound eerily like Bonnie Dumanis.

I can objectively state that not only was there insufficient evidence, there was no evidence to indicate Todd Sommer was murdered. He wasn't poisoned. Period. The only thing the first test results reveal is that there was some kind of an enormous BLUNDER in those results. The last results prove it.


Well, I am happy for you that you are able to be so definitive about whether or not TS was murdered.

There are many examples of bodies EXHUMED years later and, surprise, they indeed were murdered.

Mistakes can go BOTH ways. Kathleen Savio being a recent example.

BD owes a duty to the public to make sure they don't COMPOUND the original error by making a second one.

[kanzz]

Well, I am happy for you that you are able to be so definitive about whether or not TS was murdered.

There are many examples of bodies EXHUMED years later and, surprise, they indeed were murdered.

Mistakes can go BOTH ways. Kathleen Savio being a recent example.

BD owes a duty to the public to make sure they don't COMPOUND the original error by making a second one.

BD has already made a second one... and a third... etc. She has already compounded the original error by failing to act in a reasonable and prudent manner.


From Dr. Wagner's testimony:

"Mr Udell: Q. And if you assume that test is correct and reliable, then you changed your cause of death to arsenic poisoning, correct?

Dr. Wagner: A. Correct.

Udell: Q. That's the only fact -- without that test, you go back to cardiac arrhythmia, correct?

Wagner A. Yes"


That exchange speaks for itself.
There was no valid reason to change the death certificate to arsenic poisoning in the first place.
The test was not correct or reliable.
A scientist should never base his/her decision on such an assumption.
He knew for a fact there was good reason to doubt the accuracy of those tests, as proven in the email exchange between him and Centeno.

[Dogmatic]

I'll trying to ask it another way. Before the new evidence showed beyond any doubt that there was no arsenic poisoning, you believed based on the "contaminated" evidence and the experts for the prosecution, along with the other behavioral testimony that Cynthia Sommer was guilty. Correct?

Had this new evidence not been found, you would still be supporting a false conclusion that Cynthia Sommer was guilty? Correct?

You say you have reassessed how you look at evidence by throwing out any scientific evidence that aren't agreed upon by all the experts.

So given the exact same trial as the first under your "reassessed" viewpoint, without knowing the "new evidence", wouldn't you still come to the false conclusion that Cindy Sommer was guilty?

Or may I ask.....

are you saying that the Behavioral evidence in this case without solid scientific evidence wouldn't have been enough for you to stand by a conviction or even state that you think she was guilty of murder?

TIA.....hopefully I was a bit more clear in what I was asking.




Right or wrong, under my new reassessed viewpoint, I would find her not guilty based on dueling "experts".


The only thing that convicted her in my mind was the expert testimony that Todd was poisoned, and Cindy's ability to detach from her husband and children to take care of herself fell into place.

[Dogmatic]

I'm grateful the new evidence was found, because I KNOW Cindy is not guilty.

[darwin]

BD has already made a second one... and a third... etc. She has already compounded the original error by failing to act in a reasonable and prudent manner.


From Dr. Wagner's testimony:

"Mr Udell: Q. And if you assume that test is correct and reliable, then you changed your cause of death to arsenic poisoning, correct?

Dr. Wagner: A. Correct.

Udell: Q. That's the only fact -- without that test, you go back to cardiac arrhythmia, correct?

Wagner A. Yes"


That exchange speaks for itself.
There was no valid reason to change the death certificate to arsenic poisoning in the first place.
The test was not correct or reliable.
A scientist should never base his/her decision on such an assumption.
He knew for a fact there was good reason to doubt the accuracy of those tests, as proven in the email exchange between him and Centeno.


That still does not disprove murder. A cardiac arrhythmia can be induced by a variety of "unnatural" means.

To paraphrase CS: You analyze your way and I'll analyze my way.

[kanzz]

“Gross, microscopic and toxicological examination, including in-depth examination of the heart and brain failed to identify a definitive anatomic cause of this Marine’s demise. However, the lack of morphologic alterations does not preclude a cardiac death due to long QT syndrome, Brugada syndrome or coronary spasm. ... The manner of death, in my opinion is natural.”

http://www.freecynthia.com/SUPERIORCOURT-MNTfinal.pdf

[kanzz]

That still does not disprove murder. A cardiac arrhythmia can be induced by a variety of "unnatural" means.

To paraphrase CS: You analyze your way and I'll analyze my way.

The point is.... this supposed arsenic was the ONLY thing on which the prosecution placed their flimsy evidence. They accused Cynthia Sommer of murder based on the idiotic findings of an inexperienced individual in an environmental lab which is inferior to to a forensic lab.

"Udell: Q. That's the only fact -- without that test, you go back to cardiac arrhythmia, correct?

Wagner: A. Yes"

IF you approach this entire issue from an "innocent until proven guilty" standpoint... a manner in which I'm sure we'd all want to be judged should it ever come to that... then you never get to "guilty".

The state knows Todd wasn't murdered, fgs. The only reason they're maintaining this charade is to cover their own hiney's.

[darwin]

The point is.... this supposed arsenic was the ONLY thing on which the prosecution placed their flimsy evidence. They accused Cynthia Sommer of murder based on the idiotic findings of an inexperienced individual in an environmental lab which is inferior to to a forensic lab.

"Udell: Q. That's the only fact -- without that test, you go back to cardiac arrhythmia, correct?

Wagner: A. Yes"

IF you approach this entire issue from an "innocent until proven guilty" standpoint... a manner in which I'm sure we'd all want to be judged should it ever come to that... then you never get to "guilty".

The state knows Todd wasn't murdered, fgs. The only reason they're maintaining this charade is to cover their own hiney's.


I imagine that TS family has a different perspective on it.

Continued investigaton into the matter is not unreasonable. In fact, it might be better for all parties involved.

For CS, it clears any residue of suspicion pertaining to her.

For TS family, it lays to rest any suspicions remaining as to how he died.

For the State, it completes its job, no matter its initial failures.

--darwin

[Dogmatic]

But where would they start? I don't know about everyone else, but I don't think I would ever trust these samples being tested again. Not in a court of law. We know there were no outward signs of homicide. So what are they going to investigate? I'm not trying to start an argument...Just a legitimate question. After all the mess up how can we trust anything else?

We can't. Laura Gunn has placed a large poo stain on our judicial community

[darwin]

Since when does anyone need to "disprove" murder? :ohmy:


The Medical Examiner for one. Accident, suicide, homicide.

[kanzz]

We can't. Laura Gunn has placed a large poo stain on our judicial community

Yes, and Dumanis is busy trying to make it look like a rose garden.

[kanzz]

The Medical Examiner for one. Accident, suicide, homicide.

OK - Wagner IS the ME.

"Udell: Q. That's the only fact -- without that test, you go back to cardiac arrhythmia, correct?

Wagner: A. Yes"

So, please don't forget - "natural causes" - which is exactly what was on the original DC.

[kanzz]

Since when does anyone need to "disprove" murder? :ohmy:

Exactly. One cannot prove a negative. Which is part of the reason why it is never up to the defense to prove there was no crime.

It's incredible that we're still here over two years after the end of the trial saying the same things to people who can't seem to accept the fact that TS wasn't murdered.

[Dogmatic]

It seems to me that we all have a personal responsibility to do what the ME won't: admit that there is no case to be made that Cynthia Sommer murdered her husband.

If someone is so deadset on the fact that she misbehaved and did a poor job as a parent then charge her for that but leave this business of "I still think she might have murdered him somehow, don't know how but let's keep the murder charge hanging over her head". :mad:


Exactly.

I will always be repulsed by her post death activities and will always think her children deserved a better role model, but she is no murderer.

[darwin]

OK - Wagner IS the ME.

"Udell: Q. That's the only fact -- without that test, you go back to cardiac arrhythmia, correct?

Wagner: A. Yes"

So, please don't forget - "natural causes" - which is exactly what was on the original DC.

I haven't "forgotten" natural causes, kanzz.

[kanzz]

I never have thought that whatever Cindy did or didn't do was any of my business. I'd have never known about it had it not been for the fact that the prosecution was heII-bent on getting that info out in front of the jury and everyone who was watching Court TV. I'd have never known about it had it not been for the fact that the prosecution was heII-bent on trying a case that they knew darn good and well was nothing but flimsy. None of us would have known about it had it not been for the fact that someone turned his back on science.

[kanzz]

I agree. I also think that if they were so convinced of Cindy's guilt and the case being solid, they would have left the death penalty on the table. Something so horrendous as what she was accused of doing certainly deserves the death penalty...it would have stayed there if they were convinced. They weren't but they went ahead anyway because they knew the garbage would get them a win.

Yeah. They knew they didn't have squat, yet they chose to go forward with this. Why? To save face? To give LG some experience with a murder case? LG was as shocked as anyone when that verdict came back. Her whole demeanor changed. It was obvious that she had only prepared herself for either a NG or hung jury.

[Crispy]

This case is on Snapped right now on the Oxygen channel.

[Dogmatic]

Wow, after all that's happened in this case, no one learned a tihng about grief and I'm sad to see that. I truly hope, that you never lose a spouse, or your SO and feel the need for comfort. Which is actually perfectly normal for some, not for others.

Kat

Already have. Kids come first. Always. (but that's just me)

[Dogmatic]

I very much agree, Brat, Laura Gunn went after Cynthia Sommer in a ruthless, diabolical method, with no evidence of murder but a determination to destroy her. She went out of her way in show and tell to the jury to paint a FALSE PREMISE. She was unable to back up a word she said concernng arsenic but blithely plunged on day after day to reach her goal of a conviction, whatever the price.

Cynthia Sommer wasn't very likeable and therefore made it much easier for Laura Gunn to drum up hatred against her, even though she was innocent of murder.

I feel, protected or not, Gunn comitted a terrible crime in knowingly deceiving the jury and even the State beforehand. It was like an act of murder in that it removed the defendent from a Free Life and condemned her forever, even though she was clearly innocent. Gunn set out to destroy Cynthia sommer inspite of the Truth. At the very least she should be removed from her position and refused a job in the judiciary system for life because she was dishonest in her ploys and actions.


I agree. LG is a disgrace to the justice system.

[ExArkie]

Already have. Kids come first. Always. (but that's just me)


My husband and I always put each other first; but, made a conscience decision to put the kids first in most cases - there is a difference!!! She may be guilty of BAD coping; but, not of murder. I wish her well.:sad:

[kanzz]

Here's one that seems to be worth repeating...

From the North County Times
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/06/perspective/vandoorn/2507145516.txt


On the suspect grief of Cynthia Sommer
By: JOHN VAN DOORN - North County Times | Monday, February 5, 2007 2:43 PM PST

(excerpt)

"But judging her actions by society's narrow definition, and declaring, as the district attorney so noticeably did, that she "was not acting aggrieved," seems shallow in the extreme."

[kanzz]

Today marks one year since Cindy was released because new testing showed NO ARSENIC in Todd's tissue samples. However this horrible murder accusation is still hanging over her head because the state refuses to dismiss with prejudice.

How is that fair to Cindy, her children, Todd and his family?

Has the state been investigating this entire year? Do they have anything that would warrant them to keep this going on? I would say no, because if they did, Cindy would have been charged again.

The death certificate still says homicide by arsenic poisoning.... Dr. Wagner why aren't you following the policy you testified about in court?

How can you look at yourself knowing that you signed off on a lie?

I hope this case and many others we have seen in the past, opens the eyes of people. People who are selected to serve on juries across this country. When we swear to listen to evidence, not make up our minds before we hear all evidence, we need to follow that.

We may not like the person on trial...may not approve of their choices in life, but we do have to follow the law. And sometimes even if we feel a person may be guilty of the crime they are accused of, that is not enough to send them to prison possibly for the rest of their life or worse, to the death chamber. The prosecutor MUST PROVE this person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Also future jurors, don't be intimidated into voting something you don't believe. If you believe differently than the majority that doesn't mean that you are wrong. If the state didn't prove their case to you, it is okay to vote the way you believe. Just as you must deliberate with everyone else on that jury, they must deliberate with you also. Just remember when you walk into that room, a person's life is in your hands.

Congratulations to Cindy on her one year of freedom. I know you have been doing some wonderful things to help others...Your fight still continues and I pray that the nightmare is over very soon.

Bravo, Pia!!! :thumbsup:

[Marcia3]

Today marks one year since Cindy was released because new testing showed NO ARSENIC in Todd's tissue samples. However this horrible murder accusation is still hanging over her head because the state refuses to dismiss with prejudice.
How is that fair to Cindy, her children, Todd and his family?

Has the state been investigating this entire year? Do they have anything that would warrant them to keep this going on? I would say no, because if they did, Cindy would have been charged again.
The death certificate still says homicide by arsenic poisoning....Dr. Wagner why aren't you following the policy you testified about in court?
How can you look at yourself knowing that you signed off on a lie?

I hope this case and many others we have seen in the past, opens the eyes of people. People who are selected to serve on juries across this country. When we swear to listen to evidence, not make up our minds before we hear all evidence, we need to follow that.
We may not like the person on trial...may not approve of their choices in life, but we do have to follow the law. And sometimes even if we feel a person may be guilty of the crime they are accused of, that is not enough to send them to prison possibly for the rest of their life or worse, to the death chamber. The prosecutor MUST PROVE this person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Also future jurors, don't be intimidated into voting something you don't believe. If you believe differently than the majority that doesn't mean that you are wrong. If the state didn't prove their case to you, it is okay to vote the way you believe. Just as you must deliberate with everyone else on that jury, they must deliberate with you also. Just remember when you walk into that room, a person's life is in your hands.

Congratulations to Cindy on her one year of freedom. I know you have been doing some wonderful things to help others...Your fight still continues and I pray that the nightmare is over very soon.

Is there any reason why the state has not dismissed the charges with prejudice? What could possibly be the holdup here? The death certificate still being incorrect is inexcusable! Who's in charge there? They are looking sloppier by the minute, IMO.

I was one who was convinced of Cynthia's guilt before she went to trial. As someone who was not serving on the jury, I was under no obligation to remain neutral or open-minded. That being said, I realized after she was released from prison, that I should be more mindful to stay neutral in the cases I follow. I may be called for jury duty at some point, and it would be tough to not go into it with a preconceived notion of guilt or innocence...IOW, maybe I'd better not get so sloppy myself mentally, and try to retrain my brain to listen to all POV before making a decision.

At any rate, I'm glad that Cynthia is free, but do believe that these other items must be cleared up.

[Dove]

This is so sad that this woman has had her life put her whole life put on hold while the court is playing games with her and her childrens life. I don't remember a whole lot about her case, but wasn't she found guilty because she did not show to be a grieving wife or am I thinking of another woman?
I sure hope this gets settled soom so she can get her sons back and the whole family can start healing.

jmoo

I agree. She deserves full clearance and so do her children.

[firsttoserve]

Not baffling....it has to do with the lawsuit.

I could be wrong, but pretty sure.

Not sure I understand......If the COD is no longer Arsenic, it has NOTHING to do with the lawsuit.....Are you suggesting impropriety here, from a prosecutor or pressure from a law firm?:confused:

[firsttoserve]

I honestly do not know any details of any lawsuit...not even sure if there is one (should be imo) but that could be the reason on the prosecutors side. But why would Wagner be wanting to hold it up? Is he worried that AFIP will be named in the lawsuit? San Diego medical examiner named? He did/does head up both...maybe that is his reason...Speaking of him, I think he should be off this case entirely anyway. There is so much conflict with him heading up AFIP when the original testing was done and then head of the San Diego ME's office when the death certificate was changed...He is responsible in two different ways...How can we expect him to do the fair and just thing here?

You're spot on, Pia. There is so much wrong doing in this case, on the prosecution side, from the beginning until now. Makes me ill. From NCIS all the way up. I mention them as the bottom , because that's where they belong....:angry: Go Cindy, Go Jan, Go Kids!!!!:thumbsup:

[kanzz]

Not baffling....it has to do with the lawsuit.

I could be wrong, but pretty sure.

This would be the lawsuit that everyone assumes will be filed against the SDCDA's office - because everyone, including the SDCDA knows they fouled up big time???

:cursing:

[kanzz]

I hope we will hear soon that she is going to file one against them...anyone know?

I know nothing... :wink:

But seriously - I hope she will. Seems like a catch 22, in a way. I think the criminal case needs to be finalized first, and that's not going to happen until it's dismissed with prejudice. right?

Hey Dr. Wagner - I hope you're reading this! Pull your head out and do the right thing!! the professional thing!!

[kanzz]

Well, folks... this was bound to happen sooner or later.

The antics of the San Diego County District Attorney office (SDCDA) and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) have not only served to convict an innocent woman... but now the precedent is being used to try to free one who is guilty as sin.

The whole Casey Anthony case stinks to high heaven… and so does her atty. He’s trying to raise doubt about the science – based on the errors in Cindy’s case; and about the behavior.

Tues night, Casey Anthony's defense atty on WESH tv:
http://www.wesh.com/video/19309812/index.html (http://www.wesh.com/video/19309812/index.html)


There is just one common thread here, imo:
Todd Sommer died in Cynthia's arms and she knew that no amount of grieving would bring him back...
Caylee Anthony died at Casey's hand and Casey knew there was no amount of searching that would bring her back.



Shame on you, Laura Gunn!

Shame on you Glenn Wagner!

[Dogmatic]

Prosecutors need to seek the truth; let the defence attorneys try to win at all costs. In this case, the prosecutor tried to win despite the lousiness of her evidence eschewing a search for the truth. :smile:


IMO, both sides need to seek the truth, and therein justice will prevail

[Dawna_63]

I am not sure of all the legalities of this case but I was always under the impression that there is no statue of limitations on murder. So with or without prejudice, I believe she did something to her husband. I believe that is why she is fighting so hard to get this to go away for good. So that in the future if anything is ever found they cannot go after her again. It may not have been arsenic, but I do believe there was something.

Yes, people grieve in different ways, but to go out sleeping around and partying and getting implants does not seem right to me. Yes, she married a man years her junior. She had a basically free ride. Military man, living in housing she was taken care of. She has not shown much grief for the man. She is extremely lucky at least she can get on with her life, tainted or not, he cannot. I do not believe she should be able to sue for anything she got enough from his insurance. Her children need to be taken care of by their father, not any funds from anything to do with Todd Sommers. Just his son, if, the youngest one is his.

[Dawna_63]

So what happens now? She should not be collecting anything from the govt except for the little boy if he is Todd's I do not think she should get anything or be able to sue anyone for anything. No one that has been jailed and then let go has been able to do it. I really believe she did something to him. He was supposedly a healthy guy. More tests should be done to look for other poisons or other reasons. Go back and read the news from the time it happened. She really did not display that much grief, and she made statements to the effect that he would not let her get her implants, or let her do anything like going out partying, she also said she could not see herself having a future with him. So what does that mean?

IMO it means she found a way to do him in, collect his money. And then when nothing showed up, get the charges dismissed and make them go away so that they could never prove in the future that she did it. I would keep the case open for a long time there is always new technology coming along that may prove how she may have done it. A poison that at first mimics arsenic, but it undetectable, or something they overlooked. Who knows , but I do believe she is not innocent.

[BettyC]

Well, folks... this was bound to happen sooner or later.

The antics of the San Diego County District Attorney office (SDCDA) and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) have not only served to convict an innocent woman... but now the precedent is being used to try to free one who is guilty as sin.

The whole Casey Anthony case stinks to high heaven… and so does her atty. He’s trying to raise doubt about the science – based on the errors in Cindy’s case; and about the behavior.

Tues night, Casey Anthony's defense atty on WESH tv:
http://www.wesh.com/video/19309812/index.html (http://www.wesh.com/video/19309812/index.html)


There is just one common thread here, imo:
Todd Sommer died in Cynthia's arms and she knew that no amount of grieving would bring him back...
Caylee Anthony died at Casey's hand and Casey knew there was no amount of searching that would bring her back.



Shame on you, Laura Gunn!

Shame on you Glenn Wagner!



Sorry to read the news today Kanzz -

Judge declines to dismiss Marine widow's case permanently

SAN DIEGO — A judge on Friday declined to permanently dismiss the murder case involving Cynthia Sommer, the widow once accused of poisoning her Marine husband with arsenic, saying the law did not give him the authority to do so.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/sep/25/bn25sommer133928/?metro&zIndex=172258

[kanzz]

I am not sure of all the legalities of this case but I was always under the impression that there is no statue of limitations on murder. So with or without prejudice, I believe she did something to her husband. I believe that is why she is fighting so hard to get this to go away for good. So that in the future if anything is ever found they cannot go after her again. It may not have been arsenic, but I do believe there was something.

Yes, people grieve in different ways, but to go out sleeping around and partying and getting implants does not seem right to me. Yes, she married a man years her junior. She had a basically free ride. Military man, living in housing she was taken care of. She has not shown much grief for the man. She is extremely lucky at least she can get on with her life, tainted or not, he cannot. I do not believe she should be able to sue for anything she got enough from his insurance. Her children need to be taken care of by their father, not any funds from anything to do with Todd Sommers. Just his son, if, the youngest one is his.

Really? No... REALLY??? I suggest you read the facts of this case again. Todd Sommer was not murdered. That's the bottom line, and that is the ONLY fact that matters.

[kanzz]

Sorry to read the news today Kanzz -

Judge declines to dismiss Marine widow's case permanently

SAN DIEGO — A judge on Friday declined to permanently dismiss the murder case involving Cynthia Sommer, the widow once accused of poisoning her Marine husband with arsenic, saying the law did not give him the authority to do so.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/sep/25/bn25sommer133928/?metro&zIndex=172258

Thanks, BettyC. Me too.

[annalyzer]

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Marine-Widow-Hits-the-Town-62375502.html

...................... :laugh:

[RayStar]

Thanks for the update Annalyzer. If this story happened the way the reporter says, wow is my first thought. She knows she is not out of the woods completely yet. Her behavior is one reason for the thoughts of her committing murder. I find it out very strange to ask strangers if they know who she is. Oh well, she did look nice in the photo.

[aubrey04]

:rolleyes:

One word: pitiful.

I don't care for that "lady" at all.

[nsm]

she should sue their a$$es off-- the prosecution!

They may be holding this over her, as a bargaining chip.
ie. drop the suit (if it ever comes) and we will remove the "prejudice".

I dont understand why she cant have her kids back. who has them? I feel bad for her, she has been through alot.

[birdwatch]

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Marine-Widow-Hits-the-Town-62375502.html

...................... :laugh: Wow! She sure is consistant in the "poor judgment" department. I don't know who has her kids but I doubt she has the necessary common sense to be reponsible for bringing up children.

[RayStar]

I dont understand why she cant have her kids back. who has them? I feel bad for her, she has been through alot.

I'm surprised she does not have her children. I thought they were living here in MI. I wish her the best.

[aubrey04]

Wow! She sure is consistant in the "poor judgment" department. I don't know who has her kids but I doubt she has the necessary common sense to be reponsible for bringing up children.

ITA. Well said.

[Justice4all]

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Marine-Widow-Hits-the-Town-62375502.html

...................... :laugh:

I hope she gets the 20 million.

[Justice4all]

If we are looking at poor judgment, I think the winner would be the San Diego District Attorney, Ms. Bonnie Dumanis, who continues to abuse her power in office. Being maliciously and wrongfully accused and convicted of murder is not an indication of bad parenting. Its an indication of failure in the judicial system.

Great post...ITA

[LisaM22]

her life was ruined by this, the state should just pay up, they goofed up imo, how long has it been now? and this is still going on?

[Justice4all]

her life was ruined by this, the state should just pay up, they goofed up imo, how long has it been now? and this is still going on?

Todd died February 18, 2002 ( day my first grandson was born ) and Cynthia's life has never been the same, nor will it ever been the same. I hope she gets the 20 million.

RIP Todd.... :rose:

God bless Cynthia and the children.

[GossipGirl]

I didn't follow this case when it happened, but I of course know she got released from jail because there were negative tox reports about arsenic. Right?
So, how did this 23 year old guy die?

GG

[RootBeer]

I didn't follow this case when it happened, but I of course know she got released from jail because there were negative tox reports about arsenic. Right?
So, how did this 23 year old guy die?

GG

Sgt Todd Mitchell Sommer


Birth: Jan. 1, 1979
Monroe County
Florida, USA

Death: Feb. 18, 2002
San Diego
San Diego County
California, USA

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSsr=41&GSvcid=24327&GRid=12892600&

[CatToy]

I didn't follow this case when it happened, but I of course know she got released from jail because there were negative tox reports about arsenic. Right?
So, how did this 23 year old guy die?

GG

GG I remember it being briefly eluded to during the trial that he was taking "supplements" and I believe his cod was due to his heart.
Supplements can cause death in some individuals and I believe this is what killed him. His symptoms were not even consistent with arsenic poisoning.

I have to agree with most of you; CS has been through enough. To have her "judgement" or her dates and what she does and where she goes monitored by the public, then scrutinized again as if she has done something wrong is truly cruel.

Todd died in her arms that night. And, CS has done nothing wrong.
she can walk down as many red carpets she likes, and piffle to those who are jealous and don't like that. Same as those who convicted her because she had breast augmentation and sought out others to comfort her in grief. A common practice, actually. CS looks beautiful, healthy and is trying to go on with her life.
Her red carpet awaits. It is so sad to see some who refuse to leave her alone for whatever reason.
CT

[cantstandnuts]

her life was ruined by this, the state should just pay up, they goofed up imo, how long has it been now? and this is still going on?

Wonder what she'd do with the money. Somehow, I don't see it going to her kids, but what do I know?

[cantstandnuts]

GG I remember it being briefly eluded to during the trial that he was taking "supplements" and I believe his cod was due to his heart.
Supplements can cause death in some individuals and I believe this is what killed him. His symptoms were not even consistent with arsenic poisoning.

I have to agree with most of you; CS has been through enough. To have her "judgement" or her dates and what she does and where she goes monitored by the public, then scrutinized again as if she has done something wrong is truly cruel.

Todd died in her arms that night. And, CS has done nothing wrong.
she can walk down as many red carpets she likes, and piffle to those who are jealous and don't like that. Same as those who convicted her because she had breast augmentation and sought out others to comfort her in grief. A common practice, actually. CS looks beautiful, healthy and is trying to go on with her life.
Her red carpet awaits. It is so sad to see some who refuse to leave her alone for whatever reason.
CT

How much of what she gets will go toward her children? How much has so far?

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

If we are looking at poor judgment, I think the winner would be the San Diego District Attorney, Ms. Bonnie Dumanis, who continues to abuse her power in office. Being maliciously and wrongfully accused and convicted of murder is not an indication of bad parenting. Its an indication of failure in the judicial system.

ITA

This is insane. Seems the gloating never stops. It does not matter that this woman was INNOCENT of killing her husband-- all that seems to matter is getting swipes in.

Not to mention-- is this guy telling the truth? She supposedy talks to this Jerod Harris fellow and it ends up in the news because supposedly asked him to take her photo? :confused:

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

How much of what she gets will go toward her children? How much has so far?

When her husband died she put over half of the insurance money into trust funds for the children.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Well... this is something we can agree on. And I do agree with you.
:smile:

We can indeed, this was one travesty of justice I will never forget and Cindy and her family deserve every penny of that 20 million she is suing for. Her parents were bankrupt helping her. She lost years with her children and will suffer the stigma of being a convicted murderer for a long time—because she did not grieve the way people thought she should.

[aubrey04]

I agree that she deserves to compensated for being locked up for 2 years and all the stress this has caused her, but for those of you wanting her to get $40 million.. Who do you think will have to pay for that? The tax payers will pay it.

She's suing the federal government, county DA's office and county ME.

I am not sure about the particulars of San Diego's financial status, but I know California as a whole is in debt.

Like I said, I do think she should be compensated but $20-40 million has got to come from somewhere.. and it will come from a state that is already in debt.

And who needs that much money anyway? She's suing for $20 million last time I checked.. I doubt her lawyers even think she'll get that much.

[aubrey04]

If DA Bonnie Dumanis were forced to resign her position, that might be worth a few million. It's always the taxpayers that pick up the tab for the misdeeds of our elected officials.

I agree with you about tax payers "paying" (literally) for the mistakes of others.. I just think that burdening the tax payers with a $40 million dollar judgment, like some want on here (even though Sommers didn't even ask for that amount) - is beyond absurd.. Inmates who were wrongly convicted and spent decades in prison don't even get that compensation for the travesty inflicted on them.

Like I said, I hope she does get compensated.. Perhaps a million dollars.. but $20-40 million in a state that is already in debt and cutting corners.. with such a HIGH tax rate and cost-of-living.. I just strongly disagree with that.

What price can you really put on being imprisoned for 2 years and all the stress of the trial.. etc.. anyway? I just think of this from a rational view point, not emotional..

[impartial]

I agree with you about tax payers "paying" (literally) for the mistakes of others.. I just think that burdening the tax payers with a $40 million dollar judgment, like some want on here (even though Sommers didn't even ask for that amount) - is beyond absurd.. Inmates who were wrongly convicted and spent decades in prison don't even get that compensation for the travesty inflicted on them.

Like I said, I hope she does get compensated.. Perhaps a million dollars.. but $20-40 million in a state that is already in debt and cutting corners.. with such a HIGH tax rate and cost-of-living.. I just strongly disagree with that.

What price can you really put on being imprisoned for 2 years and all the stress of the trial.. etc.. anyway? I just think of this from a rational view point, not emotional..

There isn't enough money to compensate for being wrongfully accused, wrongfully tried, wrongfully convicted and wrongfully imprisoned.

Sometimes it happens ... but when the DA fires their initial expert because that expert's opinion doesn't support the DA's theory ... the DA was not seeking justice, she was seeking notoriety. Disgusting.

No amount of money is enough.

[pixiejoolz]

There isn't enough money to compensate for being wrongfully accused, wrongfully tried, wrongfully convicted and wrongfully imprisoned.

Sometimes it happens ... but when the DA fires their initial expert because that expert's opinion doesn't support the DA's theory ... the DA was not seeking justice, she was seeking notoriety. Disgusting.

No amount of money is enough.

I agree with what you are saying, but only up to a point. Unfortunately for the taxpayers of California - and I'm one of them - the money is coming out of our pockets, not out of the sleazy DA's. And this state is pretty much broke. While I think CS certainly deserves compensation for what she went through, it has to have a reasonable limit - not 20 or 40M.
jmo

[RootBeer]

I agree with what you are saying, but only up to a point. Unfortunately for the taxpayers of California - and I'm one of them - the money is coming out of our pockets, not out of the sleazy DA's. And this state is pretty much broke. While I think CS certainly deserves compensation for what she went through, it has to have a reasonable limit - not 20 or 40M.
jmo

I think 1 million dollars for every year after she was arrested until she was released is reasonable. jmo