Friday, December 14, 2007

Judge Named Scrooge?

Is anyone following the Cynthia Sommer case? She’s a 34 year old mother of 4 (a baby from this marriage and 3 other children from a previous one). Her husband, a 23 year old marine, was thought to have died from a heart attack after the family returned from an amusement park. However, tests showed he had arsenic levels 1,020 above normal. How does one explain that? Well, a jury found Cynthia guilty of poisoning her husband, even though there was no evidence she committed the crime. Now, the judge ordered a new trial for Ms. Sommer because her former lawyer allowed prosecutors to produce evidence about her wild partying after her husband’s sudden death. There is also some question about juror misconduct.

Whatever the case may be, there’s a new trial set for next year. The thing is the judge won’t set bail for Ms. Sommer. I haven’t been able to find out why. This whole case is kind of strange. There was no evidence showing she bought, used or even researched arsenic. She’s either really smart or innocent. Apparently, she said in court she knew her marriage wouldn’t last forever. Would a guilty person admit that?

The fact that she slept with other men and had a boob job with her inheritance doesn’t make me believe she’s guilty. I think it’s normal for SOME women to go to men for comfort. We all grieve in different ways. She was also very responsible with the money. She paid off her debts and started a trust fund for the kids. She used the leftovers on herself. Who wouldn’t do that? Maybe we wouldn’t all rush out to get a boob job, but how is that so different from buying a new wardrobe or car?

I suppose one could argue she should’ve waited before using the money for breast implants because it may appear as a motive to murder. If you’re innocent, you don’t think about these things. Maybe she’s just so far in the dumps, she felt a boob job would make her feel better. After all, some people eat to feel better. For all we know, she might have had a pre-existing poor self-image.


  1. Arsenic? Who the heck uses arsenic any more? It's so easily identifiable in the bloodwork! There are so many more modern, difficult to trace poisons available to intelligent murderers.

    You're right, every one grieves differently. Maybe her expression of grief was to seek comfort in other men and her appearance. You never know. I think I'd go for the butt lift and tummy tuck myself.

    As for the judge not setting bail...that is fairly common for people who have been granted a new trial but previously convicted of murder. There is an extremely high risk of running and most judges don't want to take that chance. In jail, they know where she is.

  2. I dunno. Her actions do ring alarm bells in my head.

    I'd like to know for what reasons the jury did convict her the first time. These things don't come out of left field, usually.

  3. Generally, they don't let you bail out once you've been convicted, even if it is overturned to await new trial. I wouldn't venture to guess how innocent or guilty this woman looks... there were probably things brought up during the original trial that were not covered in the news stories - reporters don't tend to catch every nuance, nor do they care... they're supposed to be fair and impartial, but in reality I notice they generally pick a side and slant their stories that way...

    Also, the justice system is not nearly as fair as we'd like to believe - it often depends on other factors, like public opinion and when the next election is. Investigators have been known to make their careers off of landmark cases, so I think, honestly, you're less likely to get a fair trial in a high profile case than you are in one no one is paying attention to.