Deborah1012
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2004
- Messages
- 421
- Reaction score
- 392
Prosecution's closing arguments:
Accept the reasonable, object the unreasonable.” Those were among the last words the prosecution team told the jury in the Widmer murder trial on Wednesday.
Prosecutor Travis Vieux begins his closing arguments by first thanking the jury for their patience.
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.
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 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.
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.
“He said on the 9-1-1 call, one, 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.
Vieux says on one 9-1-1 tape Ryan tried to do CPR and says that couldn’t have been possible to do that if she was in the bathtub.
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.
Vieux shows the jury a picture of the bathtub in the master bedroom.
“You heard from one of the defense’s experts moving a dead body alone is very difficult, much less (he shows another view of the bathroom to the jury) in a narrow bathtub,” Vieux says.
Also on the 9-1-1 call, the prosecution tells the jury that Ryan says that he has to go and unlock the doors and we know that there wasn’t a force entry.
The prosecution says the by time he takes Sarah out of the bathtub until the time the deputy was on scene was two minutes.
The Bengals game was on in one of the upstairs bedrooms. Vieux tells the jury that one of the defense witnesses said that Sarah wasn’t a Bengals fan.
Vieux shows a picture of the carpet found in the master bedroom
The prosecution suggests if Sarah had a seizure, she would’ve expelled feces, there was none found in the tub or on the carpet.
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.
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 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.
“None of the items on the floor of the bathroom were wet, including the magazines. 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 piece of tissue found on the side of the bathtub with no fingerprints found on it. Vieux suggests to the jury that the tissue was used to wipe down the bathtub by the defendant.
When the EMS responders arrived on the scene, they say Sarah had no pulse.
Vieux says the defense want the jury to think that the bruises found on Sarah were exaggerated by the process of drowning. The prosecution team say that would’ve caused Sarah to have an increase in her blood pressure, but there was none found.
Vieux tells the jury it was difficult for EMS representatives to find a pulse or a vein to do resuscitation efforts.
The rupture of those veins didn’t occur until six minutes before she arrived to the hospital.
Vieux shows a picture of Sarah’s larynx. He suggest 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.
Next, the prosecution team negates the defense claim that aggressive resuscitative efforts caused the bruising. Vieux says that the places where you would normally see injuries from CPR weren’t found on Sarah’s body.
Vieux mentions to the jury the thumb size circular bruise found on Sarah’s neck. He says no one can account for this bruise except its excessive force on the left side of her neck.
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.
Vieux points out that a number of the defense witnesses stated in their testimony that they did not read other witnesses statements.
The prosecution is also saying some of the defense witnesses haven’t met her family and they were unaware of what happened that night.
Next Vieux talks about Sarah not having any family or personal history of any major illnesses and that the jury is left with the possibility for 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.
Prosecution negates the defense claim of a possible cardiac event. Vieux says medical experts have testified that there should be a family history to assume this.
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.
The prosecution says in this case, it would be unreasonable to conclude that Sarah Widmer went through an undiagnosed, undetectable form of death.
“The cause of death was drowning, but according to the prosecution, drowning can not account for the extent of her injuries. It can not account for the bruising on her head, bruising on her arm,” Vieux says. The only reasonable conclusion is that Sarah was the victim of intentional homicide.
“Use your common sense, use your reason,” he says. On behalf of the state of Ohio, the Stewart family, please serve justice, where justice should be served.
Accept the reasonable, object the unreasonable.” Those were among the last words the prosecution team told the jury in the Widmer murder trial on Wednesday.
Prosecutor Travis Vieux begins his closing arguments by first thanking the jury for their patience.
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.
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 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.
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.
“He said on the 9-1-1 call, one, 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.
Vieux says on one 9-1-1 tape Ryan tried to do CPR and says that couldn’t have been possible to do that if she was in the bathtub.
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.
Vieux shows the jury a picture of the bathtub in the master bedroom.
“You heard from one of the defense’s experts moving a dead body alone is very difficult, much less (he shows another view of the bathroom to the jury) in a narrow bathtub,” Vieux says.
Also on the 9-1-1 call, the prosecution tells the jury that Ryan says that he has to go and unlock the doors and we know that there wasn’t a force entry.
The prosecution says the by time he takes Sarah out of the bathtub until the time the deputy was on scene was two minutes.
The Bengals game was on in one of the upstairs bedrooms. Vieux tells the jury that one of the defense witnesses said that Sarah wasn’t a Bengals fan.
Vieux shows a picture of the carpet found in the master bedroom
The prosecution suggests if Sarah had a seizure, she would’ve expelled feces, there was none found in the tub or on the carpet.
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.
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 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.
“None of the items on the floor of the bathroom were wet, including the magazines. 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 piece of tissue found on the side of the bathtub with no fingerprints found on it. Vieux suggests to the jury that the tissue was used to wipe down the bathtub by the defendant.
When the EMS responders arrived on the scene, they say Sarah had no pulse.
Vieux says the defense want the jury to think that the bruises found on Sarah were exaggerated by the process of drowning. The prosecution team say that would’ve caused Sarah to have an increase in her blood pressure, but there was none found.
Vieux tells the jury it was difficult for EMS representatives to find a pulse or a vein to do resuscitation efforts.
The rupture of those veins didn’t occur until six minutes before she arrived to the hospital.
Vieux shows a picture of Sarah’s larynx. He suggest 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.
Next, the prosecution team negates the defense claim that aggressive resuscitative efforts caused the bruising. Vieux says that the places where you would normally see injuries from CPR weren’t found on Sarah’s body.
Vieux mentions to the jury the thumb size circular bruise found on Sarah’s neck. He says no one can account for this bruise except its excessive force on the left side of her neck.
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.
Vieux points out that a number of the defense witnesses stated in their testimony that they did not read other witnesses statements.
The prosecution is also saying some of the defense witnesses haven’t met her family and they were unaware of what happened that night.
Next Vieux talks about Sarah not having any family or personal history of any major illnesses and that the jury is left with the possibility for 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.
Prosecution negates the defense claim of a possible cardiac event. Vieux says medical experts have testified that there should be a family history to assume this.
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.
The prosecution says in this case, it would be unreasonable to conclude that Sarah Widmer went through an undiagnosed, undetectable form of death.
“The cause of death was drowning, but according to the prosecution, drowning can not account for the extent of her injuries. It can not account for the bruising on her head, bruising on her arm,” Vieux says. The only reasonable conclusion is that Sarah was the victim of intentional homicide.
“Use your common sense, use your reason,” he says. On behalf of the state of Ohio, the Stewart family, please serve justice, where justice should be served.
