CONVICTION OVERTURNED CA - Sgt. Todd Sommer, 23, fatally poisoned, San Diego, 18 Feb 2002

[Nore]

I don't know where there would be access to transcripts. however you could join Extra for free and see a whole bunch of stuff on video.

Todd was 23 and always healthy. He was a tough Marine and even though feeling terrible, no doubt, went to Knotts to please Cindy. Same as he went to work. Tough it out. But he was too sick to drive home, Cindy said.
Beers? What is our evidence of that? Cindy's sayso? Uh oh.

Here's a really telling fact, JDB. When he became violently ill (in the right time frame for an AAP when NO ONE else was around) Cindy called his mother to tell her and her mother as well. She was preparing them for his sudden death, I believe. And the medical record confirms how sick he was.

But when the defense shifted to the "too much arsenic, too little sickness" defense, she changed her story. On the stand she tried to minimize his illness and say he wasn't that sick.

JDB, I am as sure of her guilt as Scooter's. I am telling you. If you could see her testify, you might agree.

------------
Lisa, I have been 99% sure of her guilt,especially the fact there was NO ONE else around.I dont have access to the transcripts,just figured that would be the only way to read the mans exact words.I do so hope his family goes for custody of his son I know I would.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

------------
Lisa, I have been 99% sure of her guilt,especially the fact there was NO ONE else around.I dont have access to the transcripts,just figured that would be the only way to read the mans exact words.I do so hope his family goes for custody of his son I know I would.

So you think he should be separated by the only brothers he's ever known and be made to go and live with people who hate his mother?

 

[nanandjim]

...I am so glad the jury got it right.

I was pleased when I heard the verdict, too. Cindy really put on that "dumb" act, didn't she? I appreciate all of your posts with the details. There really was a lot of evidence for the jury. The window of opportunity was also narrowed down to a 4-hour time span, and Cindy was the only one with Todd at that time. Of course, that is just one small piece of the puzzle.

I wonder if her "fiance" is going to stand by her side now that she is convicted, and the money will cease to roll in.

I'm assuming survivor benefits will be paid to the caretakers of the children, though.

As you said, it's good that Cindy was brought to justice. However, that doesn't bring back Todd. What an unfortunate stroke of fate that he met Cindy that day years ago when she had planned to hook up with his roommate. I bet the roommate is thanking his lucky stars because it could have been him who would have ended up dead.

 

[JDB]

Kobinlnksi *SP* Just said on LK it could have been done from eating at a resturant HMMM Bad Mexican Food that Todd said at first.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Kobinlnksi *SP* Just said on LK it could have been done from eating at a resturant HMMM Bad Mexican Food that Todd said at first.

Well that's at least some explanation of how it got into his system. She didn't put it there.

 

[Straitfan]

I for another, am glad with the verdict, though I was shocked, afraid she would get away with it!.. :woohoo: If one has a "family member" violently ill, NORMALLY, one takes them to an ER to see what is wrong, it is not as if he was a sickly person... Plus, guilty people (IMO) have a very hard time coming across as innocent! Thank God for his family, may he rest in peace.. :angel:

 

[Saffron]

I was really sick today, and could do nothing but stay in bed, so I watched Court TV and heard this verdict come in. I didn't know anything about the case, and the talking heads were convinced she would be acquitted. So, tonight I'm reading this thread with interest. You all make compelling points.

Since I didn't watch the trial I had no opinion about guilt or innocence. But here are two things I noticed this morning: 1.) Cynthia's unemotional response at the verdict. And this verdict meant that she would definitely be getting life without parole. This is completely subjective, I know, but I've always assumed an innocent person would almost hysterically tell everyone in court that they did not do what they were just convicted of having done. I thought of this during Scott Peterson's conviction, and I thought it today, although with Peterson I believed he was guilty, but with Cynthia I had no opinion. I can't imagine being convicted of murder and not just having to tell the victim's family, and the world, for that matter, that I would never have killed their loved one. I would risk being in contempt because I would need people to know the truth. And I would be sobbing at the injustice of it all, and the fear of prison. 2.) The defense attorney was interviewed very soon after the verdict, and he stated that he "knew and would always believe" that Cynthia did not murder her husband. Then he calmly stated that he respects the judicial system. When asked how she was doing, he said that she's going to be alright, and that, though disappointed, she, too, respects the judicial system. Would someone who knew that an innocent person had just been convicted of a crime and will now spend the rest of her life in prison be able to even think of the word "respect" for the system that allowed that? Especially only minutes after the conviction was read? And would someone convicted of a crime they didn't commit really be telling her attorney that they respect that system? His words seemed contrived to me. I can understand an attorney being careful not to insult judges or juries, protecting things for the appeal, and just keeping his dignity, but he could have either not given an interview so soon, or given his interview without editorializing about the judicial system at all.

This doesn't mean that I thought Cynthia was guilty without having seen the trial, it's just what I observed and wondered about.

 

[Straitfan]

So you think he should be separated by the only brothers he's ever known and be made to go and live with people who hate his mother?

Ahhh.. exactly at what point was she thinking about her children??? I could only speculate but one would think that his grandparents or whoever has him, would allow him to continue a relationship with his siblings.

 

[strach304]

The "attitude" is in the evidence. If there was evidence that I thought proved she murdered this man, she deserves to spend the rest of her life in prison. However, I don't think the jury saw past her behavior, which, if you had listened to the trial, you would know, was the SAME as before he died. They were shopping on line for people to have three-somes with. This is not your average housewife. That's what he wanted. That's what he got. There is nothing that has this woman purchasing arsenic. There is nothing that proves she fed him arsenic. There is no proof he even died from arsenic. So, regardless of whether the defendant is male or female, I think the state should have to prove its case. In this case, it did not, IMO.

That's what I was looking for, your opinion of guilt based on the evidence since I did not follow this trial. Exactly why I didn't from the get-go was because of the headlines I saw that stated she killed him for breast enhancements, parties, insurance money, etc. Very trashy imo that immediately sounded to me like a case that was going to be tried on behavior of the suspect. I figured if it was arsenic poisoning there would be lots of proof along those lines.
Thanks for posting that article on jury nullification, very interesting.

 

[Peter Hamilton]

I was pleased when I heard the verdict, too. Cindy really put on that "dumb" act, didn't she? I appreciate all of your posts with the details. There really was a lot of evidence for the jury. The window of opportunity was also narrowed down to a 4-hour time span, and Cindy was the only one with Todd at that time. Of course, that is just one small piece of the puzzle.

I wonder if her "fiance" is going to stand by her side now that she is convicted, and the money will cease to roll in.

I'm assuming survivor benefits will be paid to the caretakers of the children, though.

As you said, it's good that Cindy was brought to justice. However, that doesn't bring back Todd. What an unfortunate stroke of fate that he met Cindy that day years ago when she had planned to hook up with his roommate. I bet the roommate is thanking his lucky stars because it could have been him who would have ended up dead.

---Absolutely--or anyone with a 250,000 dollar life insurance policy would have been fair game for her--Cindy is one of those Black Widows, who have no empathy for their victims--Imagine the horror that Todd went through--What a truly terrible way to die,his suffering was immense--but his suffering meant little to her--It is such a cowardly crime--reminds me of Elma Barfield,who poisoned several of her own relatives,watching them all suffer--Thankfully, she was executed

 

[nanandjim]

---Cindy is one of those Black Widows, who have no empathy for their victims--

I totally agree. Here are a couple of links concerning the trial. I think one of the articles says that she will be sentenced in March. I believe that her three youngest children are living with her brother. I'm not sure, but maybe the oldest daughter is living with her mother?

http://www.courttv.com/trials/sommer/013007_verdict_ctv.html

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070130-1213-bn30sommer2.html

 

[lisafremont]

Kobinlnksi *SP* Just said on LK it could have been done from eating at a resturant HMMM Bad Mexican Food that Todd said at first.

Todd never said that!
All Dr. Kobilinski was saying was he didn't know how Todd had ingested the arsenic but he had definitely been poisoned in his opinion.

 

[fundiva]

As I've always said, you don't need to pass an IQ test to be selected for a jury.

Actually you do have to pass voir dire, and if the attorney isn't smart enough to object if he thinks you are too stupid or ignorant, then that's his and his client's fault.

 

[fundiva]

Lady Justice is smiling today! I'm with you Lisa & Peter. She was as cold and unfeeling at hearing the verdict and she was when she poisoned her beloved husband. Another Scott Peterson - It's all about Me, Me, Me. Perhaps now his mother can get some needed rest and try to heal the deep wound.

RIP, sweet Todd.

I agree with you. This case in general terms was just like Scott Peterson, except they know the method. The LE didn't have to prove the method of death for Laci Peterson, or where she died. They were probably even to arrest him without the bodies, until they turned up. They had no information that Scott did any of the above, except that the bodies turned up where he had been that day. Again, purely circumstantial In this case, the circumstantial evidence was more since the LE did prove the method of death, just couldn't place the arsenic in her hands. All the other circumstanial evident points to her though, just as much as the circumstantial evidence pointed to Scott Peterson. Scott was judged by his actions; so was Cindy. Both were unbelievable and, IMO, guilty as sin. Here are some reasons I think that:
1. There is no doubt that arsenic killed her husband. The defense couldn't refute that. Their experts didn't have any explanation concerning bad Mexican food. I'm sure if that was true, those experts would have had no problem testifying to that. They did testify that he had arsenic in his system 1000 times higher than average. What Mexican food can do that?
2. While the ambulance was rushing her unconscious and barely breathing husband to the hospital, she nonchalantly stopped by the store to pick up cigarettes on her way. He was dead by the time she got there. That was behavior prior to him dying and shows her lack of concern.
3. She read a card Todd for Valentine's Day saying he was sorry she couldn't get her "boobies" this year. Maybe next year they would be in a position to afford them. That was a very short time before his death. Yet, the day he died she went to an appointment, without him, to see about a breast job. Did she know something was going to happen to have her suddenly afford them? I think so. In her mind it was just a matter of time for the arsenic to work. I don't care that she got her "boobies", I just think the behavior and the timing says a lot. By the way, did you notice the huge jackets they had her wear. When the jury was out of the room I saw she took off her jacket and was wearing a very form fitting turtleneck. She hurriedly put it back on when the jury was headed back in.
4. The defense couldn't shed light onto who else would want Todd dead. He had no enemies that they could dredge up. Just like Laci, he was well liked. So, if not Cindy, who?

That's just a few of the most obvious reasons I believe she is guilty.

 

[JDB]

Todd never said that!
All Dr. Kobilinski was saying was he didn't know how Todd had ingested the arsenic but he had definitely been poisoned in his opinion.

Oh yes he did. The first time he went to the Hospital he said it might be the food I ate off the truck.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Ahhh.. exactly at what point was she thinking about her children??? I could only speculate but one would think that his grandparents or whoever has him, would allow him to continue a relationship with his siblings.

You're right. You can only speculate.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Actually you do have to pass voir dire, and if the attorney isn't smart enough to object if he thinks you are too stupid or ignorant, then that's his and his client's fault.

Really? Voir dire? What's that?

 

[lightwaveryder]

Well that's at least some explanation of how it got into his system. She didn't put it there.

if it was bad mexican food from the truck....

hwo many other perfectly healthy strong marines/construction workers died from food arsenic poisonging that day...


not possible.

next guess...?



~lightwaveryder~

 

[Jeana (DP)]

if it was bad mexican food from the truck....

hwo many other perfectly healthy strong marines/construction workers died from food arsenic poisonging that day...


not possible.

next guess...?



~lightwaveryder~

I'm sorry darlin, I don't recall mentioning any food items. You may have me confused with another poster.

 

[Nore]

So you think he should be separated by the only brothers he's ever known and be made to go and live with people who hate his mother?

-----------

Jeana (DP), if the grandparents are still young enough to raise the child yes.The child is Todds also,not just Lisas'.Todds family are already deprived of their son.A grandparent is closer than a brother.The fact the grandparents may hate the mother should have no reflection on how the boy would be raised,he is not hated.This boy is young and we are talking about a whole life ahead.Much would be taken into consideration,grandparents health,finances,ability to cope. With all that present,yes I'd go for custody.It doesn't mean he should never see his mothers' family or his half siblings.If one has animosity toward a parent it does not have to be brought before the child.I am living proof.In fact I have always said "remember one thing,you love your mother,you hate what she did".