CONVICTION OVERTURNED CA - Sgt. Todd Sommer, 23, fatally poisoned, San Diego, 18 Feb 2002

[lisafremont]

I'm following this trial very closely and IMO she is guilty!! She lied to LE. She lied on the stand. She's guilty!

I don't know if she'll be convicted but in my mind she already is.

 

[Amraann]

I'm following this trial very closely and IMO she is guilty!! She lied to LE. She lied on the stand. She's guilty!

I don't know if she'll be convicted but in my mind she already is.

What did she lie about??

 

[Garnan]

Pls answer about what she lied about. I have been following the trial as well, although, not closely. My feeling is she didn't do it. I would love to hear your POV. Thanks!

 

[Linda7NJ]

Quote from the msnbc link above:
"During an 2001 investigation of child neglect-abuse, she allegedly told a North Carolina caseworker, “I have four kids. It isn’t like I could leave them and go anywhere. No one wants to baby-sit four kids.”

This is sick. What an attitude. Is there any update on this case?

? What's sick? Every mother NEEDS some time for themselves, I can't imagine what it would be like to be broke with four kids and all alone while hubby is away for months. I imagine it stresses you out and you would yearn for an hour just for yourself.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I don't think that they considered it a crime scene. Also, it wasn't just the breast enhancement--which, BTW, he didn't want her to have. It was the entire lifestyle. She had loud parties right after he died, had a new boyfriend and had a breast enhancement. She wasn't smart enough to play the grieving widow. Had she laid low, pretended to grieve and taken care of her children, she wouldn't even be on trial.

This verdict could go either way. However, as I previously said, I think that she killed him.

Didn't want her to have? The card he gave her days before his death proves he WANTED to be able to get her *advertiser censored*!

 

[Jeana (DP)]

This woman has definately made some mistakes. She had too many kids too early. However, she's not on trial for choices that she made during that time and she's not on trial for how badly she behaved after he passed away. She's on trial for intentionally feeding her husband arsenic. So far, they've failed to prove that she had access to the drug or fed it to him. Moreover, and definately more importantly, they're not even able to prove that it was the cause of death. I think there is so much reasonable doubt here, I cannot believe the prosecution even took her to trial.

 

[lisafremont]

I have posted extensively on this case on the CTV message boards under the same hat. There's a forum there dedicated to the trial and many interested posters, many of whom come down on the NG side, as I do not.

Many months after Todd died, his saved tissues were tested for heavy metals and the high levels of arsenic were found in liver and kidney. Investigators then questioned the widow.

They asked her about the consultation with the plastic surgeon, Dr. Miller, she went to on 8 Feb 2002 (the day of the night Todd became very ill). She told them that Todd went with her. He was all in favor of her getting her breasts enlarged (for $5400). At the time there was less than $300 in their checking account.

THIS WAS A LIE. Todd was in El Centro that day, working. The defense claims that she has confused that appt. with a previous consultation that he went with her to. However they have not come up with any evidence to support this claim.

The significance of this lie goes to motive. By claiming that Todd favored her frivolous desire for a boob job when they were in debt and had four little kids.

Two months to the day of Todd's death, after having gotten checks totalling $256,000, Cindy got her wish.

The investigators asked about her computer. She told them it was, indeed the same computer she had had since BEFORE living in California. She had had it in Camp Lejeune.

THIS WAS A LIE. The computer was seized and investigators discovered it wasn't even manufactured until 3 months after Todd died.

The significance of this lie goes to her attempt to create the impression that her computer from early in the marriage was clean of anything suspicious such as possible research into arsenic poisoning.

And then there was her testimony. She seemed to do well on direct, as many defendants will. But under cross examination, a number of very telling things came out. The DA questioned her about stopping to buy cigarettes while her husband was being rushed to the hospital that fatal night. And Cindy says, "There was no---I mean there was a sense of urgency..."

There was no sense of urgency about getting to the hospital. And why was that? Because she knew he was already dead. Witnesses reported the coolness or coldness of his body, a body she appeared to be giving CPR while on the phone with 911. But to my ears that phone call is very staged and phony.

She was asked about some emails she wrote to her "fiance" who she met the day of her boob job. In one she wrote that she "had to" marry Todd. She denied that on the stand and the DA had her read it. She had to admit she wrote it but claimed she didn't know what she meant by it. :innocent:

She also wrote to Ross that she couldn't see herself "5 years" with Todd, whom the defense has sought to portray as her "knight in shining armor" and the "love of her life", while she could see herself "50 years with you, baby!" The DA showed her a copy of this email which she was forced to admit she wrote. She said she couldn't see herself growing old with Todd. And she admitted what she felt for her late husband was not the way she felt about Ross.

And then there's her behavior! Partying. Bedding 5 men in 8 weeks after Todd died. Blowing through money. Thong and wet Tshirt contests and flashing her newly purchased chest at strangers in bars.

Her lawyer and supporters remind us that people "grieve differently." But it seems with Cindy, like many murder defendants, some people do not grieve at all. Her defenders want us to disregard her behavior and the defense featured a few witnesses to talk about how distraught she was as a widow. Only this opened the door for other "non-grieving" behavior.

My POV is: If she donned widow weeds and cloistered herself with her kids instead of what she really did, don't you think the defense would trumpet that as proof of her innocence? You bet! So, it seems, behavior IS EVIDENCE.

So, therefore, is her behavior of seeming like a liberated party-goer who rather than sad at his death is celebrating.

I could go on. But this is enough. There's plenty more on the forum at CTV.

I have no idea how the verdict will go, if there is one. It's a tricky case owing to the huge lag time between his death and the investigation. She had time between dosing him and his dying to destroy evidence. And then there was many months to get rid of more. So I don't put much into the lack of evidence of arsenic in her hand when it is an easily obtained poison.

But there is enough evidence IMO to convict her. And I do believe she felt trapped in her marriage and murdered her husband for freedom and the bonus of money.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Lisa, its not enough. You just listed some bad behavior. That doesn't equal murder. Listen to what the experts are saying. If he suffered a massive arsenic overdose, the drug would be throughout his system. Its only in two organs.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Personally, I am still rolling at the thought she did this for money! ROFLMAO!


Don't think so. Much went into trust accounts and to pay off debt. She splurged on her kids a bit and bought *advertiser censored*, BIG DEAL! When he died she almost instantly became homeless.

Testimony proves to me she cared a great deal about him, calls made, the tattoo, her actions before he died and immediately after.

So what? she became a little loose after his death, she strikes me as the type that is very emotionaly needy and was looking for comfort. While perhaps morally improper it's certainly not criminal.

NOTHING links her, NOTHING.

Her life was pretty much an open book to those around her, she hid nothing. Yet she didn't make one slip up? No record of a purchase, no fights, no talk of divorce, not one bad thing said about her husband, not one man she cheated with while married to the deceased.

She should walk.

 

[lisafremont]

Didn't want her to have? The card he gave her days before his death proves he WANTED to be able to get her *advertiser censored*!

No. The way it reads he was trying to mollify her.

And the most telling thing about that card was her reading of it on the stand. She whipped through that, her last Valentine from the "love of her life" like she was reading a piece of junk mail. It meant NOTHING to her.

So the defense of "she loved him" A LIE.

And Jeana, her behavior IS EVIDENCE. It proves she wasn't distraught but HAPPY

I am no more disturbed by the inability of the prosecution to put a common item like arsenic in her hands than I am of the DA's inability to put a gun into Justin Barber's. Or for Distaso to prove exactly when or how Scott murdered Laci.

MO

 

[lisafremont]

Lisa, its not enough. You just listed some bad behavior. That doesn't equal murder. Listen to what the experts are saying. If he suffered a massive arsenic overdose, the drug would be throughout his system. Its only in two organs.

Disagree. The levels were highest in the liver, as would be expected, and the kidneys, a lower amount. The poison cycles out of the body. There was an expert from John Jay on CTV yesterday who supported this. And I believe in the rebuttal the prosecution will bring in testimony to support it. It also came out in cross.

There's a poster who related her own experience of having had a serious toxic exposure which registered in her liver and in no other organ in her body despite coming in through the lungs.

He died of arsenic poisoning and there was only one person able to dose him. Cindy.

And her motive wasn't just money. It was freedom and money. Arsenic is easy to get and she had lots of time to dispose of the evidence.

She's guilty, IMO.

 

[lisafremont]

Personally, I am still rolling at the thought she did this for money! ROFLMAO!

Not just money. Freedom and money. She had already been "stiffed" by her first divorce and she wasn't gonna go that route again.

Don't think so. Much went into trust accounts and to pay off debt. She splurged on her kids a bit and bought *advertiser censored*, BIG DEAL! When he died she almost instantly became homeless.

The trust funds were the idea of Todd's dad and uncle and they more or less strong-armed her into them. But she had seen how a trust fund can be drained, as she and Todd regularly dipped into the one he had when she met him and which was at a zero balance the week before he became ill. She might well have thought she could get her hands on that money and she certainly had the scheme in place to get herself a new car through the kids on a regular basis.

Testimony proves to me she cared a great deal about him, calls made, the tattoo, her actions before he died and immediately after.

Perhaps you didn't see the cross examination.
She "cared" a great deal about him? She wrote Ross, her "fiance" that she "had to" marry Todd. Christian was born 8 mos after the wedding ("4 weeks premature," said Cindy.) She denied this. Read the email aloud and then said she didn't know what she meant by it.

She also told Ross in an email that she couldn't see herself with Todd
5 years" while she saw herself with Ross "50 years, Baby!" She also said on the stand she didn't know what she meant by that.

Bedding 5 men within 8 weeks of the death of her "knight in shining armor" is not evidence of her "caring" about him. Quite the contrary. She partied like she was CELEBRATING her LIBERATION.

The calls made to Todd's cellphone so she could hear his voice? The DA crossed her on that and it turns out she gave his phone to Jenna and that phone was used to call Cindy. So it was Jenna she was calling.

The tattoo? She had his birth and death dates tattooed on her arm and then added similar "tributes" to a couple of Marines who died in a car crash. That showed how "special" Todd was!

Her actions immediately before he died? What? The 911 call? There was testimony at how cool or cold Todd's body was and couple that with the phony sounding 911 call and I believe she waited until he was good and dead before calling.

After he died? Are you referring to the partying and telling her MIL to mind her own business, or the thong contest and wet Tshirt and flashing her *advertiser censored* in bars or the five guys she bedded? Quite the widow!!

She didn't almost instantly become homeless. She stayed on the base a while. And she had the monthly checks from the government. Nice try.

So what? she became a little loose after his death, she strikes me as the type that is very emotionaly needy and was looking for comfort. While perhaps morally improper it's certainly not criminal.

So if she had been very staid, stayed at home with her kids, would you not be pointing to that as evidence of her grief and innocence?

Right. And yet the opposite behavior is dismissed as "strange grieving" rather than what I see is NO GRIEF AT ALL.

In itself, of course it's not criminal. But it IS EVIDENCE that she was happy he was dead, not the grief-stricken widow who lost her "knight in shining armor."

NOTHING links her, NOTHING.

It is true that there is no evidence putting the arsenic in her hand. However, arsenic is common and easily obtained. She could have gone to garden supply or over the border and gotten some with cash.

She had days before he died to dispose of evidence and months afterwards. In addition, she dumped her computer and lied about that to LE.

Just as the DA couldn't put a gun in Justin Barber's hand and his jury convicted him of shooting his wife, the jury in this case can put the pieces together and conclude there was only one person with the opportunity and motive to do this. Cindy.

Her life was pretty much an open book to those around her, she hid nothing. Yet she didn't make one slip up? No record of a purchase, no fights, no talk of divorce, not one bad thing said about her husband, not one man she cheated with while married to the deceased.

She should walk.

I disagree. I don't know how this will turn out. But I believe she did it.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Disagree. The levels were highest in the liver, as would be expected, and the kidneys, a lower amount. The poison cycles out of the body. There was an expert from John Jay on CTV yesterday who supported this. And I believe in the rebuttal the prosecution will bring in testimony to support it. It also came out in cross.

There's a poster who related her own experience of having had a serious toxic exposure which registered in her liver and in no other organ in her body despite coming in through the lungs.

He died of arsenic poisoning and there was only one person able to dose him. Cindy.

And her motive wasn't just money. It was freedom and money. Arsenic is easy to get and she had lots of time to dispose of the evidence.

She's guilty, IMO.

So, she knows that she dosed him with arsenic, but she signs the papers to allow his organs to be gifted for transplantation????? They were on an Army base. There are hundreds of people who had the opportuity to dose him. Don't get me wrong, I think she's a *advertiser censored*. But there's a world of difference between being a *advertiser censored* and being a murderer. You keep going back to her behavior after the murder, but I think that's where you're hung up. You don't like her, so you want her to be found guilty. And, while she may very well be, they are so lacking the evidence to prove it.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Disagree. The levels were highest in the liver, as would be expected, and the kidneys, a lower amount. The poison cycles out of the body. There was an expert from John Jay on CTV yesterday who supported this. And I believe in the rebuttal the prosecution will bring in testimony to support it. It also came out in cross.

There's a poster who related her own experience of having had a serious toxic exposure which registered in her liver and in no other organ in her body despite coming in through the lungs.

He died of arsenic poisoning and there was only one person able to dose him. Cindy.

And her motive wasn't just money. It was freedom and money. Arsenic is easy to get and she had lots of time to dispose of the evidence.

She's guilty, IMO.

She may very well have murdered him. I don't know. But legally speaking...there is no way in this country she should be convicted. The prosecution has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They failed. All they have is an ASSUMPTION.

I am buying into the defense position that you can not recieve a letal dose of arsenic and survive for 10 days. How can anyone have enough poison to kill them 5 x over appear to get well enough to go to work and an amusment park? THEN drop dead?

It also doesn't look good for the prosection when their own report contradicts itself 4x when referring to the levels. Their own numbers are WAY off from each other. One page claims something like 52% yet on the stand their "expert" is claiming 92% found on another page.

Another thing......the prosecution went to the defense (2) experts FIRST and agreed to use the third. All refused to testify for the prosection.

Those are BIG deal things. IMO

 

[Linda7NJ]

Not just money. Freedom and money. She had already been "stiffed" by her first divorce and she wasn't gonna go that route again.




The trust funds were the idea of Todd's dad and uncle and they more or less strong-armed her into them. But she had seen how a trust fund can be drained, as she and Todd regularly dipped into the one he had when she met him and which was at a zero balance the week before he became ill. She might well have thought she could get her hands on that money and she certainly had the scheme in place to get herself a new car through the kids on a regular basis.



Perhaps you didn't see the cross examination.
She "cared" a great deal about him? She wrote Ross, her "fiance" that she "had to" marry Todd. Christian was born 8 mos after the wedding ("4 weeks premature," said Cindy.) She denied this. Read the email aloud and then said she didn't know what she meant by it.

She also told Ross in an email that she couldn't see herself with Todd
5 years" while she saw herself with Ross "50 years, Baby!" She also said on the stand she didn't know what she meant by that.

Bedding 5 men within 8 weeks of the death of her "knight in shining armor" is not evidence of her "caring" about him. Quite the contrary. She partied like she was CELEBRATING her LIBERATION.

The calls made to Todd's cellphone so she could hear his voice? The DA crossed her on that and it turns out she gave his phone to Jenna and that phone was used to call Cindy. So it was Jenna she was calling.

The tattoo? She had his birth and death dates tattooed on her arm and then added similar "tributes" to a couple of Marines who died in a car crash. That showed how "special" Todd was!

Her actions immediately before he died? What? The 911 call? There was testimony at how cool or cold Todd's body was and couple that with the phony sounding 911 call and I believe she waited until he was good and dead before calling.

After he died? Are you referring to the partying and telling her MIL to mind her own business, or the thong contest and wet Tshirt and flashing her *advertiser censored* in bars or the five guys she bedded? Quite the widow!!

She didn't almost instantly become homeless. She stayed on the base a while. And she had the monthly checks from the government. Nice try.



So if she had been very staid, stayed at home with her kids, would you not be pointing to that as evidence of her grief and innocence?

Right. And yet the opposite behavior is dismissed as "strange grieving" rather than what I see is NO GRIEF AT ALL.

In itself, of course it's not criminal. But it IS EVIDENCE that she was happy he was dead, not the grief-stricken widow who lost her "knight in shining armor."



It is true that there is no evidence putting the arsenic in her hand. However, arsenic is common and easily obtained. She could have gone to garden supply or over the border and gotten some with cash.

She had days before he died to dispose of evidence and months afterwards. In addition, she dumped her computer and lied about that to LE.

Just as the DA couldn't put a gun in Justin Barber's hand and his jury convicted him of shooting his wife, the jury in this case can put the pieces together and conclude there was only one person with the opportunity and motive to do this. Cindy.



I disagree. I don't know how this will turn out. But I believe she did it.

Strange grieving? I never said that.

People do handle things differently. Some people turn to drugs or alcohol or sex. It's to forget & dull the pain.

I was at a funeral for someone I loved very much, something struck me funny out of the blue. I started chuckling then the more I thought about it the more I found myself unable to control myself and broke out in hysterical laughter. Was that appropriate? Hell no! I have family that will not speak to me even today because of it. It was bizzarr behavior. Does it mean I didn't love that person? Hell no! Does it mean I wasn't grieving? NOPE!

That's just one example I am sure if you thought about it you could find examples in your own life.

 

[Amraann]

This women strikes me as very emotionaly immature.

I know plenty of women who " fall in love " easily (IMO they love the idea of being in love) I could easily see one of them after the fact (either the relationship is over or even death) claiming they did not really love the other person but are madly in love with the current one.

Some people cannot reconcile emotions very well and along with that live under some cinderella/tv notion that there can only be one true love in their lives.
As a young widow it is also likely that she harboured some resentment that he died and left her alone...
Many people subconscioulsly feel that way about lost loved ones and some display it in weird ways.

 

[Peter Hamilton]

Just as the DA couldn't put a gun in Justin Barber's hand and his jury convicted him of shooting his wife, the jury in this case can put the pieces together and conclude there was only one person with the opportunity and motive to do this. Cindy.

--Great post lisafremont--I totally agree--This woman is guilty as sin--I've been watching the trial on CourtTV--Doubt she'll be convicted tho--I think she's going to get away with it--hope not--her demeanor at the table is quite cold and that tattoo of hers was positively hideous--think the whole tatoo thing is a crock anyway,I guess that proves she really loved him--yeah right--anyway,keep up the good posts lisa

 

[Dalilah]

It sounds to me like this woman has Borderline Personality Disorder.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Lisa
why is it you claim she was the only one with an oppurtunity? that is simply not true.

 

[lisafremont]

So, she knows that she dosed him with arsenic, but she signs the papers to allow his organs to be gifted for transplantation????? They were on an Army base. There are hundreds of people who had the opportuity to dose him. Don't get me wrong, I think she's a *advertiser censored*. But there's a world of difference between being a *advertiser censored* and being a murderer. You keep going back to her behavior after the murder, but I think that's where you're hung up. You don't like her, so you want her to be found guilty. And, while she may very well be, they are so lacking the evidence to prove it.

I don't think she's guilty because I dislike her. I concluded she was guilty based on her own statements.

As far as the organ donation goes, yes, the defense can argue that. But my feeling is that 1. She waited to call 911 until she was sure he was dead and that organs were unlikely to be harvested.
2. She couldn't very well deny organ donation since he had signed for it. To do so would raise big red flags.
That's how I would counter that argument.
And you are right that there's a big difference between being a *advertiser censored* and being a killer, just as there is between being a cad and being a killer.
But you must know, as I am sure you do, that there are plenty of killers in prison put there by a web of circumstantial evidence.
IF Todd had been killed by something really hard to get, like thalium or plutonium, say, then I would agree that the prosecution would have to prove she could have gotten it.
But it's something common, arsenic.
Justin Barber was convicted of shooting his wife and yet the gun was never found and there was no proof that he had a gun that night. Didn't stop a conviction.
I can come up with other examples.
JMO