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

[lisafremont]

Strange grieving? I never said that.

People do handle things differently. Some people turn to drugs or alcohol or sex. It's to forget & dull the pain.<snip>

OR the person could be quite happy and celebrating.

We have many examples of defendants who "grieved" strangely. And I say she like them is a sociopath and the truth is SHE WASN'T GRIEVING AT ALL.

Any crying or clinging to Todd's shirt was a SHOW.
MO

 

[lisafremont]

Lisa
why is it you claim she was the only one with an oppurtunity? that is simply not true.

An acute arsenic poisoning would show up as symptoms of severe cramping, vomiting and diarrhea within 30 minutes to 4 hours.

Todd first became ill with the above symptoms at 3 am.

Cindy came home at 10:30 pm, 4 and a half hours before Todd showed symptoms.

That doesn't make sense to you? It certainly does to me.

 

[lisafremont]

I came back to this forum to see what the people who think Cindy Sommer is NG have to say in reply to my posts and I see...NOTHING!

Is it the dearth of facts which would combat the evidence-based arguments I made? Perhaps so!

It is my considered opinion that the thrust of the arguments against the prosecution in this case consists of:
1) They haven't put arsenic in CS's hands

TRUE. But they don't have to. It's a common, easily obtained poison. And there's also the lapse in time for disposal of evidence.

2) So what she went wild!

IT'S EVIDENCE. Her behavior is evidence. As I have pointed out, if she'd gone into a nunnery, that would be touted. The jury can consider if she was distraught, as she claims, or if she was in fact happy, as her behavior supports.

3) He wasn't even murdered!

He showed symptoms of acute arsenic poisoning and his liver and kidney showed the evidence. There is no innocent explanation, IMO. He was murdered. The only one who could have done it is Cindy.

Personally, I am most convinced by her own statements. That she had no sense of urgency going to the hospital. And that's because she knew he was dead. He was dead, IMO, before she called 911. And that's the case right there.

She admitted on the stand that she didn't really love Todd as she loves Ross, and that's in contrast to her "knight in shining armor" defense. And I hope the jury sees it as I do.

 

[Linda7NJ]

oh for Pete's sake! She stopped to buy smokes on the way, big deal. I would do the same. Smokers do that! The driver also made a stop...gee maybe the driver did it.

he was breathing for EMT's
She may have done it, BUT the prosecution has NOTHING to prove it in a court of law. NOTHING

 

[nanandjim]

...She admitted on the stand that she didn't really love Todd as she loves Ross, and that's in contrast to her "knight in shining armor" defense. And I hope the jury sees it as I do.

Hasn't she already shown that she is capable of easily lying? Didn't she say that she had called Todd's cell phone several times just to hear his voice when in fact she had given the cell phone to the daughter and she was calling her?

I think that she killed him. I think the jury will also believe that she did. However, I'm not sure that they will be convinced enough to convict her of the crime.

 

[less0305]

I came back to this forum to see what the people who think Cindy Sommer is NG have to say in reply to my posts and I see...NOTHING!

Is it the dearth of facts which would combat the evidence-based arguments I made? Perhaps so!

It is my considered opinion that the thrust of the arguments against the prosecution in this case consists of:
1) They haven't put arsenic in CS's hands

TRUE. But they don't have to. It's a common, easily obtained poison. And there's also the lapse in time for disposal of evidence.

2) So what she went wild!

IT'S EVIDENCE. Her behavior is evidence. As I have pointed out, if she'd gone into a nunnery, that would be touted. The jury can consider if she was distraught, as she claims, or if she was in fact happy, as her behavior supports.

3) He wasn't even murdered!

He showed symptoms of acute arsenic poisoning and his liver and kidney showed the evidence. There is no innocent explanation, IMO. He was murdered. The only one who could have done it is Cindy.

Personally, I am most convinced by her own statements. That she had no sense of urgency going to the hospital. And that's because she knew he was dead. He was dead, IMO, before she called 911. And that's the case right there.

She admitted on the stand that she didn't really love Todd as she loves Ross, and that's in contrast to her "knight in shining armor" defense. And I hope the jury sees it as I do.

Hey Lisa,

I think she's guilty as sin. I think you outlined the whole thing quite well - and I know I couldn't have said any of it better than you. I'm just hoping that the jury sees it as clearly as I do.

 

[Amraann]

I think Lisa in an above post touched on the Laci Petertson case...
IMO Scott should not have been convicted.. Is he guilty ?? As sin .. hell yes.

But they had no evidence.
Cases like that corrupt our criminal justice system.

Legally .. they have nothing on this women. It should be pointed out that LE can easily coerce and twist words.

 

[Garnan]

I don't think stopping to get cigs means anything either. If she had gotten a carton earlier in the day, that would be twisted as well.

Her promiscuous (sp?) behaviour is ugly. However, she may have been looking for a new man. She's got 4 little kids, and a crappy job. It's all some women know how to do and let's face it, she's not getting any younger. Even a finanical expert would have a hard time stretching that life insurance, and she was far from that! She went nuts and spent, spent, spent. I know people that would do the same thing. She apparently had a very comfortable upbringing, then had to penny pinch and do without. Suddenly she has funds, yep she went nuts with the spending, but lots of people would have done the same.

I can't see convicting her. I'm glad I'm not on the jury. One thing that I can't believe is that she didn't tell someone. With all the drinking and partying, she didn't get drunk, and spill her guts????? I would send her home, right or not, I could not convict her. Reasonable doubt all over the place.

 

[Peter Hamilton]

She's gonna be raked over the coals today, former friends talking about wet t-shirt contests, even taking her thong off during the contest, three in a bed, sleeping with 5 guys in a short period of time--yikes--she's the original "merry widow" lol

 

[Peter Hamilton]

That woman is back who ordered Arsenic over the internet--She said she just received it in the mail--looks like anybody can order it

 

[Jeana (DP)]

That woman is back who ordered Arsenic over the internet--She said she just received it in the mail--looks like anybody can order it

That still doesn't put it into the wife's hands. They cannot link her to the drug. They still haven't even convinced me that it was the cause of death.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I must agree. They haven't convinced me either it was the cause of his death. This one smacks seriously of a rush to judgement with no evidence on the part of the DA's office or from LE. If they intend on proving her guilt...they need to provide evidence a crime actually took place first. I don't think they can. This case should never have gone to trial on such speculation.

Her behavior, however inappropriate after his death, isn't proof of anything. People act out. Didn't I see a card from her dead hubby saying she should get the enlargement? Maybe there is so much more about their sex life we will never know...and shouldn't know!

IMO Quite frankly, it sounds to me as if the DA wanted a case filled with sex, intrigue, and good ratings for Court TV to further their own agenda. (Nifong did it to win an election.) I wonder what the real reason charges were brought up here. They are certainly treading on thin ice so far with this case.

 

[Dalilah]

I don't believe this young woman will be convicted. I believe she is Borderline and completely capable of having killed her husband, but I don't believe she did. I believe all of her behavior in question and being used as "evidence" that she murdered her husband is, in fact, evidence of BPD. She is promiscuous and having affairs all over the place, spending above and beyond her means, had an inappropriate affect, lies compulsively, is self-destructive. Her behavior after the death of her husband is exactly what I would expect from someone with Borderline Personality Disorder. Sure, it makes it her look guilty. She probably feels guilty. People with BPD feel guilty for everything ALL THE TIME. Guilt, anger and fear are the driving emotions of the disorder. I certainly hope she gets help, whatever the outcome.

 

[JDB]

That still doesn't put it into the wife's hands. They cannot link her to the drug. They still haven't even convinced me that it was the cause of death.

Dang I wish I could watch this one. But from what I have read on it. I agree they have not placed it in her hands. nor have the proven to me that it was the cause of death.An if acting weird after his death is a crime then better lock me up. After my Dad passed away. I was making all kinds of crazy statements.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Dalilah and JDB, you're both right. She's definately not mother of the year, nor is she a lady by any stretch of the imagination, but she didn't kill him.

 

[Pepper]

Dalilah and JDB, you're both right. She's definately not mother of the year, nor is she a lady by any stretch of the imagination, but she didn't kill him.

Don't you mean that there is not enough evidence to convict her? We can't be absolutely sure she didn't do it, only that the evidence doesn't support a conviction.

 

[tybee204]

Im expecting a not guilty verdict. Nothing convinced me that she killed her husband. No intent, no evidence of marital strife. The science was iffy putting arsenic in the case let alone putting arsenic in Cindy Sommers hands.

I get tired of people comparing every defendent to Peterson. The equivalent would be comparing every Prosecutor to Nifong. Nothing in this case compares to Peterson.

Her behavoir after her husband died is not pretty but I could write a book on how whacked my mother was after her husband died.

 

[JDB]

Her behavoir after her husband died is not pretty but I could write a book on how whacked my mother was after her husband died.

I would buy the Book :crazy:

 

[lisafremont]

I think Lisa in an above post touched on the Laci Petertson case...
IMO Scott should not have been convicted.. Is he guilty ?? As sin .. hell yes.

But they had no evidence.
Cases like that corrupt our criminal justice system. <snip>.

I totally disagree!!
Criminals should not be rewarded for disposing of evidence.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
IS
EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Don't you mean that there is not enough evidence to convict her? We can't be absolutely sure she didn't do it, only that the evidence doesn't support a conviction.

Just my opinion. I don't think she did it. Therefore, there isn't any evidence to support a conviction.