Poisoned Marines Wife Freed

[Defender968]

This seems very sketchy to me, sounds like she's getting off on a technicality, I'd love to look at all the merits of this case. 23 year olds don't just drop dead. They initially ruled it a heart attack; again that would be unusual unless he had been using some type of drugs. Then they found the arsenic, at 1020 times the normal level.

I hope they take another look at trying this case because that young man deserves justice and this isn't it, IMHO.



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...04-17-22-07-52

Apr 18, 7:30 PM EDT

Widow cleared of Marine's death criticizes prosecutors

By ALLISON HOFFMAN
Associated Press Writer


SAN DIEGO (AP) -- A woman who spent more than two years in jail before she was cleared of killing her Marine husband with arsenic questioned Friday how prosecutors could sleep at night, now knowing that new tests showed no traces of poison.

Cynthia Sommer, 34, said she barely slept herself on her first night of freedom after a San Diego Superior Court judge Thursday dismissed charges that she poisoned her husband in 2002.

She was convicted of first-degree murder in January 2007 after initial tests of Sgt. Todd Sommer's liver showed levels of arsenic 1,020 times above normal.

But prosecutors found no traces of poison in previously untested tissue as they prepared for a second trial. A judge had ordered a new trial in November after finding she had ineffective representation from her former attorney.

At her trial, prosecutors argued that Sommer used her husband's life insurance to pay for breast implants and pursue a more luxurious lifestyle.

With no proof that Sommer was the source of the arsenic detected in her husband's liver, the government relied heavily on circumstantial evidence of Sommer's financial debt and later spending sprees to show that she had a motive to kill her 23-year-old husband.

Sommer criticized prosecutors for questioning her behavior after her husband's death, saying, "I did what I did."

She was set free within hours of the judge's ruling and emerged from the Las Colinas Detention Facility in suburban Santee.

"The only question I have for (prosecutors) is how they sleep at night?" Sommer said.

Her attorney, Allen Bloom, said he felt the evidence was contaminated. "We've said that all along," he told reporters outside the courthouse.

Bloom accused the district attorney of "gross negligence."

San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis defended her handling of the case Friday, saying that justice was served and that her office acted appropriately.

"We did what we were supposed to do," Dumanis told KFMB-TV. "We're all looking backwards now and second-guessing everything."

A recently retained government expert speculated that the earlier samples were contaminated, prosecutors wrote in a motion filed in court. The expert said he found the initial results "very puzzling" and "physiologically improbable."

Todd Sommer was in top physical condition when he collapsed and died Feb. 18, 2002, at the couple's home on the Marine Corps' Miramar base in San Diego. His death was initially ruled a heart attack.

Dumanis said Thursday there was no proof of contamination but offered no other explanation. She said she didn't know how the tissue may have been contaminated.

"We had an expert who said it was arsenic and no reason to doubt that evidence," Dumanis said. "The bottom line was, 'Was there arsenic in Mr. Sommer causing his death?' Our results showed that there was."

Sommer said she wasn't sure what she would do now that she was out of jail. She was looking forward to seeing her four children, ages 8 to 16.

"It's already been an incredible day. I can't wait to finish it," she said.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights

[Pete S]

Is that the same chic that got a boob job with the insurance money?

[Defender968]

The very same, IIRC she went out slept with several guys right after her husband died, including one they proved she had begun trying to hook up with before her husband died.

[Kyobanim]

I guess she's guilty because she has loose morals. Who cares about evidence.

Did you ever think the marine might not have been the best person in the world either?

[nmap]

Back in 1994...there was a fellow named Fred Zain that gave expert testimony on blood tests. Mr. Zain, it seems, regularly fabricated or altered evidence. He lied about his qualifications under oath.

You can read more HERE

Science is only as good as the researcher. Sometimes, researchers are mistaken. Occasionally, they lie. Which seems to me to be a good reason to avoid placing total, unquestioning faith in such tests.

As for young men dying young...a friend of mine had a son who came back from Iraq about a year ago. The young man felt tired and took a nap. And he simply died. My friend and his wife haven't really recovered; perhaps parents never get over such things.

In addition, a couple of my cousins...both in their fifties...died rather suddenly. One of deep vein thrombosis (too much sitting at a desk without moving for too long). The other felt tired, took a nap (dangerous things, those naps), and never woke up. It seems he had an undiagnosed heart condition.

So...I guess I would be cautious about judging the young woman too harshly. Sometimes, the good die young for no good reason. And occassionally, we really don't know why.

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by Kyobanim

I guess she's guilty because she has loose morals. Who cares about evidence.

Did you ever think the marine might not have been the best person in the world either?

Not judging the marine one way or the other. As to evidence I would trust the tests done at the time of autopsy much more than a test done on some tissue that is reportedly the deceased 2 years later. Not to mention a detective and the DA were pretty certain it was murder and then managed to convince not only a grand jury but the trial judge, and 12 jurors that she killed her husband. I don't have all the answers on the evidence as I wasn’t part of the case, but I'm guessing it was more than, well folks we have just this one test which shows arsenic she's, got to be guilty, juries aren’t that easy to convince, least not in my experience. If that were the case and they threw the case out on the merits I wouldn't have a problem. The issue as I read it is they're throwing the case out for her having a less than stellar defense attorney, and that is a whole different ball of wax that's a technicality and has nothing to do with innocence or guilt, of course she, her lawyer and her press agent will try to spin it so she's the victim, why because she'll announce her law suit shortly.

Originally Posted by nmap

Back in 1994...there was a fellow named Fred Zain that gave expert testimony on blood tests. Mr. Zain, it seems, regularly fabricated or altered evidence. He lied about his qualifications under oath.

You can read more HERE

Science is only as good as the researcher. Sometimes, researchers are mistaken. Occasionally, they lie. Which seems to me to be a good reason to avoid placing total, unquestioning faith in such tests.

As for young men dying young...a friend of mine had a son who came back from Iraq about a year ago. The young man felt tired and took a nap. And he simply died. My friend and his wife haven't really recovered; perhaps parents never get over such things.

In addition, a couple of my cousins...both in their fifties...died rather suddenly. One of deep vein thrombosis (too much sitting at a desk without moving for too long). The other felt tired, took a nap (dangerous things, those naps), and never woke up. It seems he had an undiagnosed heart condition.

So...I guess I would be cautious about judging the young woman too harshly. Sometimes, the good die young for no good reason. And occassionally, we really don't know why.

I do not believe in placing total unquestioning faith in such tests, however if due diligence was done, and they tested not only the liver, but also the hair, (depending on how long they believed the arsenic had been given to the young Marine) and possibly the bones, and all three came back positive for arsenic, which I would hope they would have done, then those tests are very damming, one contaminated specimen I might buy, unlikely but possible, two or three, I'm not buying period.

While on occasion young people do die, they rarely die for no reason. I had a good friend die at the age of 22, she got pneumonia and drowned (fluid in her lungs), but she was sick her folks just didn't know how sick, as for people feeling tired and then dying, yes it does happen but with a thorough autopsy from a competent medical examiner they usually figure out why. I will admit that on occasion young people do die from unspecific and undeterminable causes, however I would venture to say, at least in my experience, that many fewer healthy 20 somethings die for no reason than 20 somethings who are killed by something specific and determinable, and more times than not it's caused by another human. If the leg work is done 99 times out of 100 you'll find out why, be in a blood clot, poisoning, or a GSW to the head.

As an LEO I have yet to see a 20 something just die of natural causes, unless you consider the 400 lb 26 year old who died after a botched stomach stapling surgery natural causes and I wouldn't. As I said before a very seasoned detective once told me when I was first on the job, young people usually don't just die.

The way she behaved as well as the test(s) would lead me to believe there is a strong probability of guilt, and I don't have all the evidence in the case, but I also don’t believe in coincidences (and I do trust the system, it's not perfect but it also slants things in the favor of the accused very much so.) I've seen far more guilty go free than innocent people go to jail. And of course if you believe all the folks in prison who claim they’re innocent then we'd need no jails.

Of course in my line of work I suspect the worst of people, but I also usually have my suspicions confirmed by their actions.

[Kyobanim]

Read the whole article here: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/24254002

After jurors heard the scientific evidence and stories about her frolicking with her husband’s Marine buddies on the night of his funeral, Sommer was convicted of first-degree murder last year and sentenced to life in prison.

But last Thursday, after Sommer had served 876 days, San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis unexpectedly moved to dismiss the murder charges.

Sommer was suddenly a free woman.

“I’m overwhelmed with emotion,” Sommer said. “I can’t describe being in jail one day, one minute actually, and being out the next.”

The motion to vacate the conviction, Dumanis said, was prompted by overlooked evidence and additional scientific analysis that challenged the validity of the prosecution’s original case that Sommer used arsenic to kill her husband.




Last December, a judge granted Sommer’s request for a new trial based on the contention that her former attorney, Robert Udell, made several legal mistakes that might have prejudiced jurors

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by Kyobanim

Read the whole article here: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/24254002

Read the new article, interesting verbage,

additional scientific analysis that challenged the validity of the prosecution’s original case that Sommer used arsenic to kill her husband

What that says to me is the defense has proved that a reasonable doubt exists to her guilt, that doesn't mean she's not guilty, just that the prosecution didn't meet their burden of proof with the inclusion of the new evidence.

[Kyobanim]

What the quoted line says to me is there was a problem with the evidence.

What this whole thing says to me is the prosecution should have spent more time worrying about real evidence instead of playing up her social activities. The object of a trial is to find the truth, not a path to re-election on someone's civil liberties.

[lksteve]

Originally Posted by Defender968

What that says to me is the defense has proved that a reasonable doubt exists to her guilt, that doesn't mean she's not guilty, just that the prosecution didn't meet their burden of proof with the inclusion of the new evidence.

This isn't Scotland...a judge or jury has two options...Guilty or Not Guilty...there is not a "Not Proven" option in US Jurisprudence...

[Blue]

I think what he was trying to say was that although a jury can find someone "not guilty", it doesn't necessarily mean they did not commit the crime. It just means the prosecution did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., OJ).

I've seen people do some truly bizarre things because of their grief and hesitate to use that as any sort of moral compass. Or it could be the marriage was already in the shitter and she had moved on long ago. The problem is, even if arsenic was in his system, they had nothing to show she was the one who put it there.

I would rather see them wait twenty years and get the prosecution right than press forward with a half-ass case and lose it, never to be tried again. As the sign above my old department's homicide office said, "We Work For God".

[Defender968]

True and the 12 jurors found her guilty and the judge did not find the verdict a problem, her new lawyers have argued that her original counsel failed in his duties, and they granted a new trial last year. Now with this "new" evidence" the DA has dismissed the charges as it "challenged" the validity of the prosecution's case. I don't know the extent of how it challenged the prosecution's case, but what it sounds like is the DA in the case has some egg on her face for not testing this "new" sample. I don't know what the sample is, what part of the body it came from or how the new scientific analysis differed from the old I'm not a scientist I'm just a cop who has an opinion based on what info I've read, my experiences, and a feeling in my gut.

What I do know is the initial tests of the liver and kidney showed arsenic, I also know that arsenic poisoning is hard to diagnose, and I know that healthy 23 year olds rarely die of natural causes. I'm no lawyer, nor do I claim to be an expert on US law, again I'm just a cop who thinks this smells fishy, her behavior from what I recall was not just after he died, her way of morning as she now claims, it was shown IIRC that she had a consult for the breast implants (that they could not afford before the victims death) notice that's before he died. Does this make her a murderer, no, but it does start to paint a picture, and it does give her motive. They have dismissed the charges, that doesn't mean they can't refile them later if they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty.

If she truly is innocent then I'm glad she's not in prison, but the cynical cop in me doubts that's the truth in this case. That’s just my .02.

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Defender968

The way she behaved as well as the test(s) would lead me to believe there is a strong probability of guilt, and I don't have all the evidence in the case, but I also don’t believe in coincidences (and I do trust the system, it's not perfect but it also slants things in the favor of the accused very much so.) I've seen far more guilty go free than innocent people go to jail. And of course if you believe all the folks in prison who claim they’re innocent then we'd need no jails.

Of course in my line of work I suspect the worst of people, but I also usually have my suspicions confirmed by their actions.

I respect your experience - I have no background in such things. Still, I notice:

According to court documents, prosecutors learned last month that some of Todd Sommer’s untested tissue samples had been stored at San Diego Naval Medical Center. They were tested this month in Quebec and no arsenic was found and, as a result, contamination in previous tissue samples was possible.

(From the article, as linked by Kyobanim)

So, we have two sets of samples, one that shows arsenic, and one that doesn't. I see three possibilities:

Option One: Set 1 (with arsenic) is valid. Set 2 (without arsenic) is valid. That combination doesn't make sense.

Option Two: Set 1 (with arsenic) is contaminated, hence invalid). Set 2 (without arsenic) is valid. Hence, the murder did not occur.

Option Three: Set 1 (with arsenic) is valid. Set 2 (without arsenic) actually has arsenic, but the technician made an error and missed the poison.

Option 1: As I mention, this just doesn't make sense. How could 1 sample have it, and another not have it?

Option 2: The widow really isn't guilty.

Option 3: If I was the technician in a high-profile case, I think I would be extra careful. My lab procedure would be by-the-book.

You mention that you trust the system. I guess I see the system as merely a group of ordinary people. And people make mistakes. Sometimes they get lazy. Sometimes they take shortcuts, or have bad attitudes. Sometimes they just have bad days.

Now, let's look at those jurors. I've seen lots of people who can't make heads or tails of compound interest. I'd bet you've seen a great many who can't understand the concept of legal elements required to constitute a criminal offense. Are those jurors really capable of evaluating the evidence? I wonder. Your suggestion that many guilty people go free hints that we may be in agreement. At the least, if a guilty person is set free by a jury, then surely the converse can also occur.

Anyway, my inflation adjusted 2 cents worth...

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Defender968

What I do know is the initial tests of the liver and kidney showed arsenic, I also know that arsenic poisoning is hard to diagnose, and I know that healthy 23 year olds rarely die of natural causes.

Hmm. I have a question. How hard is it to get arsenic without creating a really obvious paper trail?

One could go to a lab supply house, I suppose; but that would be rather high-profile, I would think. Surely arsenic isn't easy to obtain?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by nmap

Hmm. I have a question. How hard is it to get arsenic without creating a really obvious paper trail?

One could go to a lab supply house, I suppose; but that would be rather high-profile, I would think. Surely arsenic isn't easy to obtain?

Let's deal with that as a rhetorical question, we do not need a bunch of posts explaining exactly how to anonymously obtain or manufacture large quantities of lethal poisons posted here.

TR