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.

15 minutes of fame! Did he mention his name and that he was single too? I wouldn't doubt it.

 

Wonder if his attorneys could use this as well for the appeal?

He basically got convicted because of the 911 call. There is no way to say how anyone would react or what they would say in a 911 call. I've been in a bank that was robbed where the teller that got robbed didn't get one fact right about the robber other than he was male. She missed his pants color, his shirt color and she said he wasn't wearing a hat when he was. If I was on the jury I would need more than the 911 call. I think some jurors forget the beyond a reasonable doubt at times because there should have been some doubt. That being said it's hard to argue that 32 of 36 jurors have come back with a guilty verdict. The judge probably felt pretty strongly that he was guilty also to allow the 3rd trial.

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.

 

You are bringing up doubt, not reasonable doubt. The most compelling evidence is the 911 call where he says he found her face down in the tub. That is not "reasonable". Nobody has or can explain how that happened.

You are bringing up doubt, not reasonable doubt. The most compelling evidence is the 911 call where he says he found her face down in the tub. That is not "reasonable". Nobody has or can explain how that happened.

 

You've never misspoke, especially in the heat of an insanely intense scary situation? Happens all the time. How come when police interview multiple witnesses to a crime they almost always get numerous variations of the story? I mean, they were all there right? How can they not be 100% accurate?

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.

 

So if the judge had ignored the fact that one of the jurors in the first trial did some of his own experiments you would have been fine with the 12-0 murder verdict?

You've never misspoke, especially in the heat of an insanely intense scary situation? Happens all the time. How come when police interview multiple witnesses to a crime they almost always get numerous variations of the story? I mean, they were all there right? How can they not be 100% accurate?

 

Then Ryan should have testified and explained himself, but he didn’t. He had 3 trials to explain his side of the story. This man has lied for 2 ½ years, he killed a women he claimed he loved and bankrupted his parents. May he rot in Hell.

So if the judge had ignored the fact that one of the jurors in the first trial did some of his own experiments you would have been fine with the 12-0 murder verdict?

 

Absolutely not. Jury tampering, even if it was done by a juror, null and voids the entire trial. The 1st re-trial I'm fine with. Should have ended there.

 

Like I said, I have no idea whether he's guilty or not. If I had to guess, I'd say he is, but they sure as heck didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The whole thing seems like a fishing expedition, with the prosecution hellbent on dragging this thing out through as many trials as it takes to get a guilty verdict.

Then Ryan should have testified and explained himself, but he didn’t. He had 3 trials to explain his side of the story. This man has lied for 2 ½ years, he killed a women he claimed he loved and bankrupted his parents. May he rot in Hell.

 

In your opinion. You have no way of knowing that.

In your opinion. You have no way of knowing that.

 

He has been convicted and sentenced twice, I don’t think that qualifies as an opinion.

He has been convicted and sentenced twice, I don’t think that qualifies as an opinion.

 

There are plenty of examples of people being convicted for crimes they didn't commit. It doesn't happen every day for sure, but to just say because he was convicted it happened that way is wrong.

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.

 

How does that evidence tend to prove that Ryan Widmer killed anyone?

 

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.

 

I agree that the constant updates were a bit overwhelming, but it's just like anything else in the media. The Widmer Trial attracted a lot of attention, both locally & nationally. Some people wanted to know what was going on every minute. Neither you nor I were one, apparently.

 

15 minutes of fame! Did he mention his name and that he was single too? I wouldn't doubt it.

 

Wonder if his attorneys could use this as well for the appeal?

 

I find it very hard to believe that it was an actual juror who called in. Very unlikely, in my opinion. If a juror was looking for his or her 15 minutes of fame, there are plenty of opportunities in front of cameras. No way a juror, who just deliberated for hours & spent the past few weeks in a grueling trial would run to the phone and call the local radio station.

 

He has been convicted and sentenced twice, I don’t think that qualifies as an opinion.

 

He was WRONGLY convicted the 1st time. Nonetheless, it is telling that so many jurors (over the 3 trials) felt that he was guilty.

A juror said that one of the keys to her vote was the fact that Widmer didn't testify on his own behalf.

 

That's a troubling statement.

A juror said that one of the keys to her vote was the fact that Widmer didn't testify on his own behalf.

 

That's a troubling statement.

 

And one on 700 WLW said they all had their mind made up after the 911 call and just watching his mannerisms in court. Sounds like solid evidence to me. For the record I do think he is guilty but I don't think they did enough to prove without a doubt he did it.

A juror said that one of the keys to her vote was the fact that Widmer didn't testify on his own behalf.

 

That's a troubling statement.

 

That is very troubling; however, it is a common sentiment. Quite frankly, I am appalled at the number of people who have labeled Mr. Widmer's statement at the end of the case as "self-serving" and evidence of why he didn't testify. The man was on trial for murder, not to gauge how well he speaks publicly or how he speaks after being convicted of murder.

 

And one on 700 WLW said they all had their mind made up after the 911 call and just watching his mannerisms in court. Sounds like solid evidence to me. For the record I do think he is guilty but I don't think they did enough to prove without a doubt he did it.

 

I read something similar, but it was a juror from the 2nd trial that made those comments about the 3rd jury. Not sure if that's what WLW was talking about or not.

I will say this and it's a general statement as I had never even heard of Ryan Widmer until this thread was started.

 

I don't have a problem with trying someone 10 times if that is what the law allows. And if it's not unanimous one way or the other then that is what the law should allow. That said, after the first trial there should be an automatic change of venue for the next trial. And again if there is a third trial. It's obvious there is no way they could find a jury that hadn't been influenced one way or the other. Like I said I have never even heard of this case until now so how hard would it be to move it to another part of the state.