Ryan Widmer found guilty of murder of his wife in his 3rd trial.

Just goes to show that if you want someone to be guilty bad enough, you just keep having new trial after new trial.

Good!

I don't see how the prosecutors convinced the jury "beyond a reasonable doubt". It seems there was nothing clear in this case, yet the jury believes he was guilty beyond a doubt? Plus it took 3 trials just to get to this point. I'm not saying he's innocent, just that the prosecutors should have presented more evidence that he was truly guilty.

Where is the doubt in your mind?

The news stated that on the first vote in the jury room it was unanimous, guilty! The jury obviously had no doubt!

Where is the doubt in your mind?

 

In my opinion, these jurors already had their minds made up. There is absolutely no evidence that points to his guilt. The prosecutors say that he knocked her unconscious but as I recall the coroner even testified that there was no blunt force trauma to the skull therefore he couldn't have knocked her unconscious. There was no evidence, in my mind, that the prosecution presented that I would call significant evidence that proves that he did it. And I think he did it, too, I just don't see how the jury could convict based off of this evidence or lack thereof.

After this trial, I feel ANYONE could be convicted of murder, regardless of the evidence. It is sad to think that a man who could very well be innocent will have to spend the next 15 years to life in prison.

Also, I think he should have taken the stand to defend himself. If my life was on trial and I was innocent, I know I would want to tell my story and prove my innoncence. Honestly, I think he is guilty but I could not have convicted him based on the lack of evidence.

Also, I think he should have taken the stand to defend himself. If my life was on trial and I was innocent, I know I would want to tell my story and prove my innoncence. Honestly, I think he is guilty but I could not have convicted him based on the lack of evidence.

 

You aren't supposed to take into account that a defendant invoked his fifth amendment rights when judging guilt, but jurists are human

I have a big problem with this going to trial 3 times. I don't know if they had all of their ducks in a row. I can't say I would have found Ryan guilty.

They interviewed someone from the jury on 700 earlier and they said everyone had their mind made up after the 911 call but like some have said, I don't see how you can find him guilty without a doubt.

Call me crazy but aren't you only allowed to put someone on trial for a crime once. Double Jeopardy? If I am wrong someone please explain lol.

Call me crazy but aren't you only allowed to put someone on trial for a crime once. Double Jeopardy? If I am wrong someone please explain lol.

 

True, but you have to be found not guilty and he never was in either of the first two trials.

IMO this is a joke! If you try someone enough times, you will find him guilty. I question the intelligence of the jury. This has been a high profile case and if the jurors didn't have any preconceived opionions prior to this trial, they must have been living under a rock or completely ignorant. They must have been to stupid to process the evidence. Additionally, who in their right mind would confess to killing his wife to a complete stranger? And, who in their right mind would believe this person? She wanted to make a name for herself. If she's known it for two years, why wait till now to bring it up? These jurors are complete idiots and I hope justice is served on them one day.