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

[Jeana (DP)]

I saw all of the trial and I have noticed that those that came in with a guilty opinion stuck with it and refused to consider any evidence that was not consistant with their opinion.
I dont put a defense spin on it. I didnt come in with an opinion. She may have done it, but IMO the State didnt prove to me that she did it.
It makes a difference when you listen to the testimony with an open mind (like the Jury is suppose to) rather then with the opinion of guilt from the get go.
Nobody had to prove anything to you as you had already made your decision before any testimony was offered.
I also dont have CTV so havent had my opinion skewed by talking heads.

Tybee, I've been watching it on Court TV and none of them can even believe this was brought to trial. They think she's probably a bad mother, but the state can't prove murder by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[JDB]

Verdict is IN!!!!

 

[Dalilah]

You beat me to it, JDB.

I'm on the edge of my seat now...

 

[JDB]

You beat me to it, JDB.

I'm on the edge of my seat now...

AN I am at work. With the read backs yesterday I think they were leaning Not Guilty.

 

[Dalilah]

I hope the verdict is NOT guilty. If they jurors having been paying proper attention, I can't imagine any other verdict.

 

[JDB]

What is taking so long? It siad it would be read at 1 PM ET

 

[Peter Hamilton]

GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY WEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee--I TOLD YOU SH'Es GUITY AS SIN!!

 

[Peter Hamilton]

Party Time!!! Where are you LisaFremont!!

 

[JDB]

Let's hope for once the appeals process will work.I guess the jury system just took a step backwards .

 

[Dalilah]

Well, I suppose jurors are human, too. Therefore, they are hardly infallible.

 

[Peter Hamilton]

By Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: " Whenever you eliminate the impossible,whatever remains,however improbable, must be the truth"---the arsenic got in his body only one way and it was impossible for it to get into his body any other way but that she put it in there--enjoy prison my sweet

 

[JDB]

By Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: " Whenever you eliminate the impossible,whatever remains,however improbable, must be the truth"---the arsenic got in his body only one way and it was impossible for it to get into his body any other way but that she put it in there--enjoy prison my sweet

Please explain why no Arnsenic was in the fluid or blood? but after a time it showed up in the organs?That part alone causes me to worry about the evidence

 

[Peter Hamilton]

Let's hope for once the appeals process will work.I guess the jury system just took a step backwards .

--sorry JDB--only 3 per cent of appeals are successful--her life...is over

 

[tybee204]

The Jury spoke and I accept their decision. When they announced the verdict was in right after they came in this morning I assumed it was Guilty. I supect they went home and slept on it last night and took the vote first thing this morning.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I hope the verdict is NOT guilty. If they jurors having been paying proper attention, I can't imagine any other verdict.

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

 

[Dalilah]

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

Apparently, they'll take whomever shows up for duty. It seems these folks couldn't discern fact from fiction.

Lately, I've noticed that common sense seems to be the least common of all the senses.

 

[Nore]

Please explain why no Arnsenic was in the fluid or blood? but after a time it showed up in the organs?That part alone causes me to worry about the evidence

---------------

This was explained during the trial.IMO.

 

[Sniffy38]

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.

 

[MagicRose99]

I'm really confused by some attitudes... I don't mean to be confrontational or condescending, but I'd really like to understand...

I had no feelings on this case one way or another, but it's been fasinating watching the differing views and convictions of those posting on this thread.

Why, when the accused is a man, he's "guilty until proven innocent" and when the accused is a woman she's "innocent until proven guilty?" If a man is convicted he "deserves" the verdict and yet when a woman is found guilty the jury "doesn't know what they're doing?"

Whether or not we believe that the evidence supports the outcome, it seems to me that there is quite a difference in attitudes between finding a man guilty vs finding a woman guilty...

Are there double standards? Are we just conditioned to believe the man "did it" while women are not typically stereo-typed? Are we so used to hearing, "look to the husband, boyfriend, ex..." when a woman is injured/killed vs not hearing those words when a woman is accused of the crime?

I'd really like to understand what people are thinking to have such different attitudes...

 

[Dalilah]

I don't think it has a single thing to do with gender. It has everything in the world to do with evidence, circumstantial or otherwise.

Is there another case that is precisely the same as this one, but wherein a man was the defendant, and I just missed it?

I'm a bit confused as to why you seem to think this is about gender?