Woman who poisoned husband to pay for breast implants is convicted.

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
I don't know who's more stupid; the woman for using a well known, easily detectable poison, or the man she's now engaged to.

actually, they couldn't connect her to the actual poisoning at all. what did her in is what she did *after* her husband died. she partied hardy, had sex with a bunch of guys, and cashed in on a huge life insurance policy. she didn't act like a grieving widow is supposed to.

and

Originally posted by: dbk
I don't know.

With no direct evidence that Sommer was the source of the arsenic detected in her husband's liver, Deputy District Attorney Laura Gunn relied heavily on circumstantial evidence of Sommer's financial debt to show that she had a motive to kill Sgt. Todd Sommer.

:thumbsup:

Sorry but there was NO evidence she killed him. Maybe she was about to leave him and he killed himself. Maybe it was a bad business deal with someone etc... Her attorney must have been an idiot or the jury was.
She did not do all the crying and such but so what. She might be a azz but there was no evidence she killed him. What happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty.

 

[s0ssos]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
I don't know who's more stupid; the woman for using a well known, easily detectable poison, or the man she's now engaged to.

actually, they couldn't connect her to the actual poisoning at all. what did her in is what she did *after* her husband died. she partied hardy, had sex with a bunch of guys, and cashed in on a huge life insurance policy. she didn't act like a grieving widow is supposed to.

and

Originally posted by: dbk
I don't know.

With no direct evidence that Sommer was the source of the arsenic detected in her husband's liver, Deputy District Attorney Laura Gunn relied heavily on circumstantial evidence of Sommer's financial debt to show that she had a motive to kill Sgt. Todd Sommer.

:thumbsup:

Sorry but there was NO evidence she killed him. Maybe she was about to leave him and he killed himself. Maybe it was a bad business deal with someone etc... Her attorney must have been an idiot or the jury was.
She did not do all the crying and such but so what. She might be a azz but there was no evidence she killed him. What happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty.

you still believe in "innocent until proven guilty"? have you not heard of the innocence project?

 

[imported_Devine]

Originally posted by: OulOat

Originally posted by: JS80
why the fvck would a marine making $20k take out a $250k insurance policy?

Might be government sponsored. Or since he might die in combat, life insurance would be nice.

The military has their own insurance to where you only pay $20 or so a month and get the 250k insurance policy. In the last yr though it was bumped up to 400k and we pay $29 now I think.

 

[Wapp]

Originally posted by: Devine

Originally posted by: OulOat

Originally posted by: JS80
why the fvck would a marine making $20k take out a $250k insurance policy?

Might be government sponsored. Or since he might die in combat, life insurance would be nice.

The military has their own insurance to where you only pay $20 or so a month and get the 250k insurance policy. In the last yr though it was bumped up to 400k and we pay $29 now I think.

For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGLI

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
the marine only made 20.4k/yr? 😕

I was making like 15k/y when I first enlisted. Nobody signs up for the paycheck... =(

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
I don't know who's more stupid; the woman for using a well known, easily detectable poison, or the man she's now engaged to.

actually, they couldn't connect her to the actual poisoning at all. what did her in is what she did *after* her husband died. she partied hardy, had sex with a bunch of guys, and cashed in on a huge life insurance policy. she didn't act like a grieving widow is supposed to.

and

Originally posted by: dbk
I don't know.

With no direct evidence that Sommer was the source of the arsenic detected in her husband's liver, Deputy District Attorney Laura Gunn relied heavily on circumstantial evidence of Sommer's financial debt to show that she had a motive to kill Sgt. Todd Sommer.

:thumbsup:

Sorry but there was NO evidence she killed him. Maybe she was about to leave him and he killed himself. Maybe it was a bad business deal with someone etc... Her attorney must have been an idiot or the jury was.
She did not do all the crying and such but so what. She might be a azz but there was no evidence she killed him. What happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty.

You know nothing more about this than what you have read in the news and somehow feel that you are more qualified to pass judgment on it than the 12 people that actually spent time listening to every minute of the testimony as it was presented in a court of law. Like it or not that is how our system works. If there were any egregious errors in the court proceedings she will have ample opportunity to have her case reviewed by the appeal process.

 

[fLum0x]

Originally posted by: cjmtfd102401
link w/pic of woman

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10479896/

she def needed something to move the attention away from her face :x

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Wapp

Originally posted by: Devine

Originally posted by: OulOat

Originally posted by: JS80
why the fvck would a marine making $20k take out a $250k insurance policy?

Might be government sponsored. Or since he might die in combat, life insurance would be nice.

The military has their own insurance to where you only pay $20 or so a month and get the 250k insurance policy. In the last yr though it was bumped up to 400k and we pay $29 now I think.

For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGLI

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
the marine only made 20.4k/yr? 😕

I was making like 15k/y when I first enlisted. Nobody signs up for the paycheck... =(

Heh my pay was $398.40 per month when I joined and $534.90 per month when I exited 4 years later. On the other hand the GI Bill when I was in was a much better deal than it is today.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Wapp

Originally posted by: Devine

Originally posted by: OulOat

Originally posted by: JS80
why the fvck would a marine making $20k take out a $250k insurance policy?

Might be government sponsored. Or since he might die in combat, life insurance would be nice.

The military has their own insurance to where you only pay $20 or so a month and get the 250k insurance policy. In the last yr though it was bumped up to 400k and we pay $29 now I think.

For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGLI

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
the marine only made 20.4k/yr? 😕

I was making like 15k/y when I first enlisted. Nobody signs up for the paycheck... =(

yeh, but you get a break on your housing, cheaper food/gas at the commissary, and other discounts so that factors into your paycheck, right?

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Wapp

Originally posted by: Devine

Originally posted by: OulOat

Originally posted by: JS80
why the fvck would a marine making $20k take out a $250k insurance policy?

Might be government sponsored. Or since he might die in combat, life insurance would be nice.

The military has their own insurance to where you only pay $20 or so a month and get the 250k insurance policy. In the last yr though it was bumped up to 400k and we pay $29 now I think.

For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGLI

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
the marine only made 20.4k/yr? 😕

I was making like 15k/y when I first enlisted. Nobody signs up for the paycheck... =(

yeh, but you get a break on your housing, cheaper food/gas at the commissary, and other discounts so that factors into your paycheck, right?

If you are single enlisted and live on base then your food and quarters are free otherwise you get a small amount to offset that if you live off base. When I was in back in the dark ages the commissary definitely saved you some cash compared to civilian grocery stores but there really wasn't a significant savings buying stuff from the Navy Exchange.

 

[Amused]

What kinda bothers me is she was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence. In essence, she was convicted for the way she acted after he died, NOT for any evidence linking her to the crime.

Had I been a juror, that would have given me a truckload of reasonable doubt.

 

[j00fek]

:Q

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Amused
What kinda bothers me is she was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence. In essence, she was convicted for the way she acted after he died, NOT for any evidence linking her to the crime.

Had I been a juror, that would have given me a truckload of reasonable doubt.

I think the way she acted before he died had something to do with it too:

According to the statement, Todd Sommer began showing symptoms of arsenic poisoning on Feb. 8, 2002 ? 10 days before he died. That day, his wife visited a plastic surgeon?s office and inquired about breast augmentation, authorities say.

It was a $5,400 surgery that her household income would not allow, according to Terwilliger?s statement. A credit check showed she had more than $23,000 in debt, Navy investigators found.

Two weeks before her husband?s death, Cynthia Sommer paid $16.95 for an Internet dating service, authorities say.

So I'm thinking the jury relied heavily on the circumstantial evidence before and after the death.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Amused
What kinda bothers me is she was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence. In essence, she was convicted for the way she acted after he died, NOT for any evidence linking her to the crime.

Had I been a juror, that would have given me a truckload of reasonable doubt.

I think the way she acted before he died had something to do with it too:

According to the statement, Todd Sommer began showing symptoms of arsenic poisoning on Feb. 8, 2002 ? 10 days before he died. That day, his wife visited a plastic surgeon?s office and inquired about breast augmentation, authorities say.

It was a $5,400 surgery that her household income would not allow, according to Terwilliger?s statement. A credit check showed she had more than $23,000 in debt, Navy investigators found.

Two weeks before her husband?s death, Cynthia Sommer paid $16.95 for an Internet dating service, authorities say.

So I'm thinking the jury relied heavily on the circumstantial evidence before and after the death.

So if you're a fiscally irresponsible cheating spouse and someone murders your SO, you're automatically guilty?

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Amused
What kinda bothers me is she was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence. In essence, she was convicted for the way she acted after he died, NOT for any evidence linking her to the crime.

Had I been a juror, that would have given me a truckload of reasonable doubt.

I think the way she acted before he died had something to do with it too:

According to the statement, Todd Sommer began showing symptoms of arsenic poisoning on Feb. 8, 2002 ? 10 days before he died. That day, his wife visited a plastic surgeon?s office and inquired about breast augmentation, authorities say.

It was a $5,400 surgery that her household income would not allow, according to Terwilliger?s statement. A credit check showed she had more than $23,000 in debt, Navy investigators found.

Two weeks before her husband?s death, Cynthia Sommer paid $16.95 for an Internet dating service, authorities say.

So I'm thinking the jury relied heavily on the circumstantial evidence before and after the death.

So if you're a fiscally irresponsible cheating spouse and someone murders your SO, you're automatically guilty?

Never said that. Just that they also relied on circumstantial evidence before the death too.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Amused
What kinda bothers me is she was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence. In essence, she was convicted for the way she acted after he died, NOT for any evidence linking her to the crime.

Had I been a juror, that would have given me a truckload of reasonable doubt.

I think the way she acted before he died had something to do with it too:

According to the statement, Todd Sommer began showing symptoms of arsenic poisoning on Feb. 8, 2002 ? 10 days before he died. That day, his wife visited a plastic surgeon?s office and inquired about breast augmentation, authorities say.

It was a $5,400 surgery that her household income would not allow, according to Terwilliger?s statement. A credit check showed she had more than $23,000 in debt, Navy investigators found.

Two weeks before her husband?s death, Cynthia Sommer paid $16.95 for an Internet dating service, authorities say.

So I'm thinking the jury relied heavily on the circumstantial evidence before and after the death.

So if you're a fiscally irresponsible cheating spouse and someone murders your SO, you're automatically guilty?

Never said that. Just that they also relied on circumstantial evidence before the death too.

I know. I just have a problem with someone being convicted for a murder based solely on them not acting in a way society deems fit, and with no evidence linking them to the crime.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Amused
What kinda bothers me is she was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence. In essence, she was convicted for the way she acted after he died, NOT for any evidence linking her to the crime.

Had I been a juror, that would have given me a truckload of reasonable doubt.

I think the way she acted before he died had something to do with it too:

According to the statement, Todd Sommer began showing symptoms of arsenic poisoning on Feb. 8, 2002 ? 10 days before he died. That day, his wife visited a plastic surgeon?s office and inquired about breast augmentation, authorities say.

It was a $5,400 surgery that her household income would not allow, according to Terwilliger?s statement. A credit check showed she had more than $23,000 in debt, Navy investigators found.

Two weeks before her husband?s death, Cynthia Sommer paid $16.95 for an Internet dating service, authorities say.

So I'm thinking the jury relied heavily on the circumstantial evidence before and after the death.

So if you're a fiscally irresponsible cheating spouse and someone murders your SO, you're automatically guilty?

Personally if I was on that jury this:

Prosecutors admitted they had no evidence ? no purchasing records, electronic paper trail or any direct link to prove that Sommer had access to the arsenic that killed her husband.

Would have been enough reasonable doubt for me to acquit her. That said I only know what has been reported in the news and have to trust that the system will work in the end and that she will get a fair hearing in the appeal process.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Amused

I know. I just have a problem with someone being convicted for a murder based solely on them not acting in a way society deems fit, and with no evidence linking them to the crime.

This'll probably go through a lengthy appeals process, and if there's no evidence besides circumstantial, she should go free. Whether she did it or not is a completely different story.

Based purely on the article, I feel there's not enough evidence for a conviction. Hopefully they'll release more information about the case to show why the jury found her guilty.

 

[Wapp]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Wapp

Originally posted by: Devine

Originally posted by: OulOat

Originally posted by: JS80
why the fvck would a marine making $20k take out a $250k insurance policy?

Might be government sponsored. Or since he might die in combat, life insurance would be nice.

The military has their own insurance to where you only pay $20 or so a month and get the 250k insurance policy. In the last yr though it was bumped up to 400k and we pay $29 now I think.

For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGLI

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
the marine only made 20.4k/yr? 😕

I was making like 15k/y when I first enlisted. Nobody signs up for the paycheck... =(

yeh, but you get a break on your housing, cheaper food/gas at the commissary, and other discounts so that factors into your paycheck, right?

I lived in dorms and ate free at the chow hall, so yeah there are discounts. Despite that the majority of people I knew while I was on active duty were in pretty bad debt. As a matter of fact, the base had a dedicated debt counselor.

 

[ryan256]

Originally posted by: Amused
So if you're a fiscally irresponsible cheating spouse and someone murders your SO, you're automatically guilty?

Well.. lets just say prosecutors will have no problem proving motive and opportunity. Given her actions I'm inclined to believe she did it. If I were the prosecutors I'd have investigative teams souring the house top to bottom looking for any trace of high arsenic levels. Unfortunately she will probably get off somewhere in the appeals process.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Amused

I know. I just have a problem with someone being convicted for a murder based solely on them not acting in a way society deems fit, and with no evidence linking them to the crime.

This'll probably go through a lengthy appeals process, and if there's no evidence besides circumstantial, she should go free. Whether she did it or not is a completely different story.

Based purely on the article, I feel there's not enough evidence for a conviction. Hopefully they'll release more information about the case to show why the jury found her guilty.

I have a sneaky feeling they convicted her for the same reason the vast majority in this thread and the thread a while back when she was arrested automatically assumed she was guilty. Solely on how she acted.