I don't see how they could have no doubt in their minds. The last trial they deliberated for 32 hours, this time 12. The jury didn't take many notes but they are able to come to a unanimous decision that he's indeed guilty. I watched Shawshank last night and couldn't help to think about Andy Durfresne when I heard the decision. I just hope the jury got it right, I just couldn't imagine spending 15 years in prison while being innocent. How horrible that would be for any human being.

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.

 

 

Of all the people to confess to, we are supposed to believe a total stranger that met him through an online forum? I agree about the jury, how unbiased could the jury be unless they were hermits?

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.

 

I heard he was a terrible witness and not believable. That is why he didn't testify. His attorneys video taped a mock examination of him and then showed it to people. No one believed he was truthful. That is why he didn't testify.

 

As to those questioning the jurors, perhaps we should question those few jurors who would not convict him. I believe the jury in both previous trials wanted to convict him but there were a couple holdouts. So 36 jurors have heard the case in three trials and the numbers are something like 32 guilty, 4 not guilty.

After listening to all of the evidence and arguments, and being instructed on the law the jury voted 12-0 to convict in the first trial, 10-2 to convict in the 2nd trial, 12-0 to convict in the third trial.

Let's be clear. The first trial ended with a 12-0 verdict so there was no doubt right from the start. However, due to a juror trying their own experiment the verdict was overturned.

I would have loved to be on the jury for this.

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.

 

I'm kind of feeling that way myself.

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.

 

I completely agree. I was undecided on how I felt about all of it earlier on, but as it went on, the prosecution seemed as if they were trying all that they could even if it didn't work or wasn't feasible. If someone is truly guilty of a murder beyond no reason of doubt, I am for long sentences, but if things are not concrete, I have a hard time with a conviction, especially for something like murder.

The juror that called into 700 wlw immediately after the verdict sounded like a guy who didn't listen to all the facts or understand that if there is reasonable doubt you shouldn't convict. He said he didn't like Widmers demeanor in the courtroom and that he reminded him of a punk kid. Wow, sounds like this double digit hilljack had his mind made up. Why would you call a radio sration to discuss it 20 min after the verdict anyway? Sounds like a low class losers to me who was biased as heck. He kept reconfirming how they all were convinced he did it. Sounds like he got the wrong jury and when its your 3rd trial and you need a scapegoat for the dead girl, you will get a guilty regardless.

Just pathetic. No idea whether he was guilty or not, but 3 trials is absolutely unacceptable. Lost what little faith I had in our justice system with this garbage.

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.

 

I've sat on several juries, including three at the federal level, and am amazed sometimes at what prosecutors will go to trial with. Was on a jury for one trial where the evidence kept coming in wave after wave, the prosecutors just kept coming with one fact after another. It was a slam dunk for them. But, then just a few months later, some of the same prosecutors were at a trial where, honestly, when they rested their case I said to myself "That's it?!?!? That's all you got?" Didn't even really need to hear the defense's side, as there seemed to be more than enough reasonable doubt just in what had already been presented.

 

But I think ultimately, we're caught up in a CSI-type world, where we expect forensic evidence for everything. And sometimes it's just not there. However, the absence of it doesn't mean a person is automatically innocent or guilty.

I would have loved to be on the jury for this.

 

I'm like you.. There's no way I would have let a guilty verdict come out of that deliberation without being 100% sure. From everything I've read and heard about the case, there was room for doubt. Is it wrong that I'd rather see a guilty man set free than a innocent man put behind bars?

911 call Ryan says he found her face down in the tub. Did you see the pictures of this tub? How is that possible? He gets her out of the tub and you can hear sirens in the background of the 911 call, but her body is dry and the floor is dry but her hair is wet. They found Sara’s hand prints on the “wall” side of the tub. On that evidence alone I would say guilty beyond a reasonably doubt.

This should go without saying, but you know how some people jump overboard and don't put things others say in context, it's a shame someone was murdered.

 

BUT, I am GLAD that this is over, at least for now, as I am SICK of hearing on every local news station about this trial! If there is no real development in the trial, DON'T mention anything, just let us know when the verdict is in, but they all kept saying the same thing over and over, which was nothing!

 

At least now we can rest, before the appeal.

 

I only listened to this after the verdict, when he was addressing the court, did you listen to him? This is why attorneys do not want their clients to take the stand, even in a serious case such as this, he hacked the heck out of what he said, he was horrible! But that doesn't mean guilt, but he wouldn't have helped himself if he took the stand.

911 call Ryan says he found her face down in the tub. Did you see the pictures of this tub? How is that possible? He gets her out of the tub and you can hear sirens in the background of the 911 call, but her body is dry and the floor is dry but her hair is wet. They found Sara’s hand prints on the “wall” side of the tub. On that evidence alone I would say guilty beyond a reasonably doubt.

 

1) No idea when or how the handprint was made. That could easily be explained away.

 

2) How do you know what those "sirens" were for? I hear sirens all the time in the distance, doesn't tie to the case.

 

3) Dry body and wet hair is weak evidence. When women take baths (or showers), the hair is usually still wet a good hour later unless they blow dry their hair. Maybe he wrapped her in a towel when he got her out of the tub? Way too much doubt.