Thursday, March 11, 2010
Free Ryan Widmer Creator Mike Mayleben    joomGO! Web Media Services - Cincinnati, OH
Home Prosecutor Closing Arguments
Login
Register
Prosecutor Closing Arguments
Written by Mike Mayleben   
Saturday, 12 September 2009 19:34

PROSECUTION CLOSING ARGUEMENT - Wednesday April 1, 2009


Bronson has granted each side up to an hour and a half to make its case.

9:41 a.m.

Prosecutor Travis Vieux begins his closing arguments by first thanking the jury for their patience.


...Vieux tells them they'll have to look through all exhibits and make a decision about where evidence leads them  “Accept the reasonable, object the unreasonable.”

He then continues with the 9-1-1 call that was made the night of August 11, 2008. Vieux says there were two 9-1-1 calls made by Ryan. The first one was for three seconds from Ryan's cell phone and then he hung up.
Is that a reasonable thing to do, when your spouse is in distress, is to make a call, give up?

He then made a follow up call from Sarah's cell phone.  Vieux asks the jury what’s the most important thing you would want to tell 9-1-1 if your spouse is in distress. He answers his own question by saying that the person on the phone would request for help.  

Vieux tells the jury that Ryan’s first words were "my wife fell asleep in the bathtub."  What position could Sarah have been in in the bathtub to suggest she fell asleep, had brain aneurysm anything?  

Vieux says that we know the medical evidence show that’s impossible to happen.

According to Vieux, not one time during that phone call did Ryan ask for help for his wife. He tells the jury that Ryan’s words were “Are you all coming?”

Vieux says that one of his witnesses even said that Ryan seemed too calm upon arrival to the house.
Think about his demeanor on that phone call, too relaxed. Dispatcher said Ryan was too relaxed, relaxed immediately after I asked him to. You listened to that 911 call. Defendant mentioned things important to him: "I was downstairs watching TV." Says Ryan trying to deflect blame from himself.

...Listen to amount of dead air time on that call when he's not asking for help, receiving instructions, Vieux says.

...Is taking time to pull the drain reasonable? In terms of the timing, amount of time it would take for entire tub to drain during 911 call, is that reasonable?

...He said he tried to do CPR on her, but she was still in bathtub. How could he do this? Is this reasonable?

...Vieux says photos show that she wasn't pulled from tub before CPR efforts, or there would have been bloody foam on floor from chest compressions.

“He said on the 9-1-1 call, she was still in the bathtub. If you were in that position, wouldn’t you take your loved one out?” Vieux asks the jury.

“He took the time to pull the drain, is that reasonable?” Vieux asks the jury.  

...Dispatcher urged him to get her out of tub, onto flat surface. Shows photo of door partially obstructing tub. How does he get her out of bathtub without closing that door?

...Defense experts say moving dead body alone very difficult, much less in narrow bathroom, through narrow doorway, with items still on floor. How is that possible? Is that reasonable?   

...Vieux tells the jury that they would have the opportunity to look at the pictures to see if it was reasonable for the two of them to be in that narrow bathtub.  Only the sound of the door hitting the bathtub was on the 911 call. What does that tell you? She was already out of the tub, Vieux says.  

Vieux shows the jury a picture of the bathtub in the master bedroom.

Also on the 9-1-1 call, the prosecution tells the jury that Ryan says that he has to go and unlock the doors so we know that there wasn’t a forced entry.

Vieux says less than two minutes passed from the time Sarah pulled from tub and arrival of Deputy Bishop. Bishop testified her body dry, hair damp.

Why was Bengals game on upstairs, Vieux says. Even defense witness says Sarah not really a Bengals fan.   

Vieux shows a picture of the carpet found in the master bedroom.

Why are there two areas of bloody foam on floor if defendant already moved body? Why were feces found on floor? Vieux says head caused both bloody spots on bedroom carpet. If incontinence a symptom of seizure, why no feces found in tub?

...If he was concerned about getting body onto flat surface, why did he need to turn her body around?  

Vieux also says when the EMS responder including Deputy Bishop arrived, they only noticed her hair was wet and no other places around the house were wet, her body wasn’t wet.  First responders said her body was dry when they placed defibrulator pads on her body. No need to wipe off water or dampness, according to witnesses.

Deputy Bishop found no heartbeat when he arrived. So by the time they arrived, she had been dead for 30 minutes, she had no pulse when officials arrived and Vieux mentions that she had no pruning on her body.

“The only part of her body that was wet was her head. That means the defendant lied and that he purposely put her head under the water, committing murder,” Vieux says.

Vieux says Spitz's book shows rigor mortis sets in 30-60 minutes after death, and he says Sarah's body was already entering state of rigor when EMTs tried to intubate.

Rittgers objects because rigor mortis was never mentioned in prosecution's testimony, Bronson overrules.

Sarah was either out of that bathtub for a longer period of time or her body was never in that bathtub, Vieux says. Only her head in that bathub. Means defendant lied, purposefully placed head in water. That's murder, he says.  

Vieux uses the bathtub and points to the marks made on the side.

Vieux asks the jury how the marks were made? He suggests someone fell into this tub, hands first and someone knocked over those bottles and then later replaced them.  Vieux says marks in the bathtub, including forearm marks found by fingerprint expert, indicates tub was wiped.

“None of the items on the floor of the bathroom were wet, including the magazines, clothing, toiletries bag. Even if the defendant took the victim out of the bathtub, some of those items should’ve been wet,” Vieux says. He then suggests that those items were placed there after Sarah had died.

Vieux shows another picture of the side of the bathtub.

There was a moist Lysol wipe found on corner of tub when police arrived. No fingerprints at all found in bathtub. Logical inference?  Bathtub was wiped down, he says.  Vieux suggests to the jury that the wipe was used to wipe down the bathtub by the defendant.  No blood found, but perhaps the purpose was only to remove evidence of a struggle.

When the EMS responders arrived on the scene, they say Sarah had no pulse.

Vieux tells the jury it was difficult for EMS representatives to find a pulse or a vein to do resuscitation efforts. Medics had to do chest compressions just to insert IV line, Vieux says. They were only able to insert one in left jugular.

Defense wants to say the bruises were exaggerated by process of drowning, that the circulatory system was overwhelmed by water. That would cause significant increase in blood pressure. "Members of the jury, they couldn't find a vein. Instead, Sarah's veins had collapsed." The rupture of those veins didn’t occur until six minutes before she arrived at the hospital.  

Chest compressions produces only 20 percent of blood pressure, according to testimony. If her blood was diluted by water, medics would not have had such a difficult time finding a vein, he says.  

Talking about order of injuries. Injuries sustained by IV tube in jugular didn't occur until she was taken to the ER. Reminds jurors that Dr. Balko ID'd photo of larnyx as tongue, asks if injuries there also would have been made worse by blood dilution.  Is that reasonable? he asks. Does that fit with theory of what we
understand.  

Medics attempted to administer a stimulant in ambulance, but no evidence of that showed up in tox screen. Her circulation was too poor, Vieux says.

Despite supposed aggressive efforts to resuscitate, no injuries were found to tongue, ribs, interior muscles, sternum.  No injuries in places you would expect to see injuries associated with resuscitation, Vieux says.  

Vieux shows a picture of Sarah’s larynx. He suggests that there would be infusion of blood in this area, if there was more than the normal amount of medication inserted into Sarah’s body, but there wasn’t.

First responders said they applied light pressure to larynx during Sellick maneuver. Would that produce these injuries? he asks. Nothing can account for thumb-sized bruise on Sarah's neck.

Areas of void are seen in neck bruises, some testimony suggests that blood went under and around some muscles. Vieux reminds jurors Sarah lying on back most of the time, and asks why not an equal amount of spreading on back of neck. Why is blood radiating against the forces of gravity? Vieux asks.  

Placing a paper on the projector, Vieux reads a statement by Dr. Spitz, one of the defense witnesses.

It says: Anterior neck bruising often seen in cases of strangulation do not occur in drowning and should always be suspicion of foul play.

How many defense witnesses came up here and said they hadn't spoken to witnesses, read witness statements, spoke to family, examined family history. Only thing they could point to was statement Sarah made to doctor about being tired, shortly after father died following lengthy battle with cancer.

Cites Sarah's 5 a.m. wakeup time and lengthy commute to Fort Thomas. "Of course she was tired," Vieux says.  

Nothing unusual about way she fell asleep, he says. No evidence of sleep disorder. Headaches a nonspecific symptom, he says. She had chronic sinusitis, allergies.  

Vieux says Sarah does not have any family or personal history of any major illnesses and that the jury is left with the possibility that an undiagnosed, undetectable cause of death occurred in the case. The prosecution says that is not possible.

“She never fell asleep when she was working, or when she was in class, or when she was driving. There’s no sleep disorder here,” Vieux says.

Prosecution discusses the theory of Sarah having a headache. They say because Sarah had chronic sinusitis and allergies, a headache is a common side-effect.   Vieux says there’s no correlation to the fact that she had a headache that would have caused her death.

She hadn't even taken Tylenol on the night she died, so headache as symptom of something else is an unreasonable conclusion, he says. No family history of heart trouble, but simply a possibility.  

No family history of seizure disorder. Spitz said water can possibly trigger seizures, but Sarah regularly spent time near lake and never suffered one. This must be a special kind of seizure that leaves no evidence, Vieux says.  

None of these answer question about why Sarah's body was dry. Spitz says "possibility" means only that it does not defy the laws of nature.

A picture of Sarah is shown to the jury.

“Do not leave your common sense behind you when you enter that jury room. Look at these things, how do they apply in the situation?” Vieux asks.  

There's no evidence to support the possibilities mentioned by defense.

The cause of death in this case is drowning, he says.  

There is no substance to the defense claim of a possible cardiac event. Vieux says medical experts have testified that there should be a family history to assume this.

This defense does not account in any way for why Sarah's body and most of the scene was dry. They cannot account for the injuries to Sarah's body, bruising, etc. The only reasonable conclusion is that Sarah Widmer was forcibly held under water until she was dead.

Sarah Widmer was the victim of an intentional homicide.  

Examine the evidence, “Use your common sense, use your reason”. The only reasonable conclusion is that Ryan Widmer intentionally killed Sarah Widmer.

On behalf of the State of Ohio, Sarah Widmer's family, justice, find Ryan Widmer guilty of murder. Thank you.

Time: 10:21