GUILTY OH - Sarah Widmer, 24, drowned in bathtub, Hamilton Township, 11 Aug 2008

[IceIce9]

I’ve been thinking about this case and checked here to see if there had been any updates.

This case has always puzzled me. I had followed it from the start, as I happened to be listening to local Cincinnati radio when it was First announced on a newscast that a woman was found dead in a bathtub in her home. The following day the 911 call was played, and replayed, on every newscast and also on local talk radio programs.

I followed the case through the retrials, the jurors who had experimented with how long it took their own bodies to dry, the “Free Ryan” campaigns, etc.

Why was he convicted? What was the motive? Sure seems like reasonable doubt would enter into this case.

 

[IceIce9]

Go here to read about "Submerged"; a book about the Widmer case, very well written by reporter Janice Hisle who covered the case for The Cincinnati Enquirer. Available on site and Amazon.com.

Bookstore debut: It’s official – Janice Hisle

I just finished listening to the audiobook version of Submerged.

I would love to get some discussion going regarding this case. Highly recommend this book to everyone.

I am now leaning heavily toward thinking Ryan did not kill Sarah. The medical information brought out in the book about Sarah makes it seem very possible that she had a seizure and drowned.

 

[ilovewings]

I am just seeing this case for the first time on Oxygen: He was convicted on very little evidence---and no obvious motive that has ever come out. Very strange case. I wonder though why he never testified --- I guess I am one of those people who believes if a person is innocent they should testify. It certainly is possible that they had an argument and he lost it and drowned her-- this case is just one of those mysteries I guess for which the answer may never really be known--- On the other hand, I am not sure that some prosecutors probably would never have brought this case to a jury in the first place.

 

[IceIce9]

I am just seeing this case for the first time on Oxygen: He was convicted on very little evidence---and no obvious motive that has ever come out. Very strange case. I wonder though why he never testified --- I guess I am one of those people who believes if a person is innocent they should testify. It certainly is possible that they had an argument and he lost it and drowned her-- this case is just one of those mysteries I guess for which the answer may never really be known--- On the other hand, I am not sure that some prosecutors probably would never have brought this case to a jury in the first place.

I would recommend reading the book “Submerged: Ryan Widmer, His Drowned Bride, and the Justice System.” It was written by Janice Hisle, who had been a reporter for 20 years, and this was her first book.

I was in Cincinnati and followed this case from the start, when the news story broke.

 

[Mert]

I would not have convicted him, had I been on the jury. Sad that his family spent so much to assist in his defense, and all for nothing. I don’t find him particularly likable, but I don’t think criticizing his call for help or many other points at trial are enough. I am NOT impressed with women that seek out people accused of crimes and insert themselves. It is possible that he is guilty, but I just did not see enough to convict. I agree with several comments previously posted on this thread.

 

[ilovewings]

What bothers me about this case, as in way too many cases I have seen and read about, is that when the police/prosecution focus on a suspect, they develop tunnel vision and just focus on that individual, to the exclusion of all others. In this particular case (Widmer), I do not believe this case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact there is a lot of doubt-- - As I said in my post above, there are many prosecutors who would never have taken this case in the first place IMO.

 

[IceIce9]

Ryan will be eligible for parole in February 2024.

 

[ilovewings]

Ryan will be eligible for parole in February 2024.

I hope he gets paroled

 

[Claritate Luminis]

• I highly recommend watching Reasonable Doubt (ID, season 2, episode 6). If you're unable there's still a tiny snippet at youtu.be/Vpz8qs54ZMk.

The damp hair/dry skin is damning. Because skin factually does NOT airdry at room temp in 3mins30secs (which is the time between the 911 cal and the arrival of the first responders. In the first trial, three jurors tested it themselves at home, but this led to the case being thrown out. Why the prosecution never called up a dermatologist or anyone to scientifically reinforce this fact, I dunno.

Widmer didn't take the stand, and for good reason, as evidenced in Reasonable Doubt with an independent, 20+ yrs detective. Subjectively, he did not come across as innocent.

Objectively, Ryan throws up what seems to be an entirely different explanation.
911 call: face down in water.
RD visit: firmly says Sarah was face up in the water.
911 call: implied that Sarah was taken entirely out of tub and laid on the floor.
RD visit: claims I only moved her head out of the water...is really wishy-washy when asked again.

His new story makes no sense now and eliminates his whole defense: how does Sarah end up "face up" if she "fell asleep?" There's no scenario where you could end up drowning in a bathtub face up. Even if she was narcoleptic, your body would react to the initiation of drowning: water hitting face could wake you up...if that didn't, your body would still involuntarily seek to breathe, and this is a bathtub, not a lake.

His new claim that he pulled her head out: that would only further enhance the dry skin/damp hair problem would only be enhanced, because this would reduce the amount of time Sarah's body would have had to dry (making it further impossible).

This was never found out by the prosecution, but, by the 2nd trial, Ryan already had a son on the way (by a new woman, also named Sarah, after their claimed first meeting in bed). I dunno, while okay, anyone's entirely free to move on after being widowed, but because of how much he emphasizes he loves Sarah (and will forever).

Sarah died by drowning.
No signs of a break-in...so unlikely other parties are around).
Pathologist: no abnormalities in cardiac tissue.
By process of elimination, barring an act of God, the only explanation is that he held her head down at an unsuspecting moment. He's over a foot taller than Sarah, which gives enough armspan to hold down her hands away while keeping her head underwater.

Sources: Reasonable Doubt s2e6, Dateline s19e(?). Brief local tv interview (on Youtube). Read trial notes of Cinncinati Enquirer, read Appeal Dismissal decision.

 

[IceIce9]

For anyone following this case, I would highly recommend reading the book “Submerged: Ryan Widmer, His Drowned Bride, and the Justice System.” It was written by Janice Hisle, who had been a reporter in Ohio for 20 years.

 

[ilovewings]

:gthanks:

This is the first I've been on this thread, but I followed the case from the beginning because it happened in my hometown. I don't know whether or not Ryan killed his wife, but there was absolutely no evidence to suggest foul play. I was astonished at the outcome and felt ashamed of my hometown. It was obvious that the jury (and prosecution) wanted Ryan punished "just in case" he was responsible for Sarah's death.

There were so many inconsistencies. The prosecution didn't have one particular theory as to the MO. The bits of "evidence" and theories they presented were contradictory. And the surprise witness's story was rife with inconsistencies, too. IMO, she was not a believable witness, but was only looking for her 15 min. of fame. It did not matter to her if her testimony destroyed the life of an innocent man.

Also, I agree with alsmom's assessment of Sarah's mom. She had no reason to believe Ryan had hurt her daughter at the start, but prosecution planted ideas in her mind so that her perception of Ryan, even prior to Sarah's death, became distorted. By convincing her of Ryan's guilt, I think prosecutors only added to her grief and have prevented her from healing emotionally from the loss of her daughter. MOO

I am watching this case right now. I don't know if he killed his wife or not, but IMO there was not enough evidence to convict him. The police went after him immediately- within days. All I see are theories and supposition--- I hate cases like this. Conviction based on flimsy supposition. Please give me some real evidence and I would change my mind.