Ryan and Sarah Widmer, what the Prosecution doesn't want you to know.

Just like John McCain had to do, I want to apologize for the ridiculous remarks that have been made by Bill Cunningham. It's a shame that he has turned into a flip-flopper towards not only Ryan but us Supporters as well.

Last year Bill Cunningham had Jill Widmer on his show and had nothing but nice things to say, talked about how he thought Ryan was innocent, he even showed support on the Dateline episode.

Has little Willie turned into a two-faced jerk, trying to be the next Jerry Springer with ridiculous entertainment to draw ratings? Let us know your thoughts with a comment.

Yesterday we got to see the true side of the first juror that jumped at the chance of her 15 minutes of fame with some off the wall remarks of how she spent her time during deliberations. This is a prime example of what a juror is not suppose to do, giving our Judicial System a black eye. This is also a great example of why you don't allow Ryan to testify in a case that is obviously filled with Reasonable Doubt, it opens the door for them to create more "theories". Had this been a "Not Guilty" juror that spoke out and acted like this - I would be saying the same things about them as well. We want a fair trial that uses our judicial process properly - end of story.

Juror Interview - June 2, 2010

BC: Welcome to the Bill Cunningham Show

Juror: Thank You

BC: You were one of the jurors in the Widmer case.

Juror: That is correct.

BC: Tell me what happened inside the jury room as far as what the final vote was.

Juror: There was never actually an official final vote taken...uh...not like there was
on Friday when we went to the judge.

BC: On Friday, what was the vote when you went to the judge?

Juror: There were 5 for conviction, there were 3 that were definitely for not
convicting and there were 4 that were on the fence.

BC: So after 2 or 3 days, after 20 hours of deliberation, it was 5, 3, 4;  5 to
convict, 3 to not convict and 4 undecided.  It was really divided.

Juror: Yes

BC: So you went home and came back on Tuesday?

Juror: Correct

BC: And what happened Tuesday?

Juror: We decided to start going through every piece of evidence again and taking a
look at it.  We'd all had a 3 day weekend, pushed it aside for awhile, thought
we'd get a fresh look at things and start going through every single thing that
we thought was an important piece to the puzzle.

BC: Even though there wasn't a final vote on Tuesday, what was your sense as to the
breakdown?

Juror: My senses to the breakdown were 2 that we were not going to change their mind
whatsoever and that was there right and I respected that, that they were               
sticking to their guns, that there was no way that we were going to get to              
change their minds;  there were....the rest....if there was anybody on the fence       
they were definitely leaning toward the guilt. And we definitely had more guilty        
right off the bat that were sitting on the fence.

BC: So the 3 day weekend helped coalesce the viewpoints of the 4 that were kind of on
the fence.

Juror: Yes

BC: So at the end of the day you had a sense it was 9 or 10 for conviction, 2 or maybe
3 for not conviction.  Is that true?

Juror: True, I leaned more toward there only being 2, that we were never gonna be
able.....

BC: No matter what.

Juror: No matter what.

BC: Now I understand that you're a EMS person, is that correct?

Juror: That is correct.

BC: Tell me what happened because one of the other jurors that I spoke to about an
hour ago said that she was troubled by the fact that they never heard a theory from
the prosecution about what actually happened.  What do you think happened inside
that bathroom?

Juror: I actually laid out a theory that sounded so reasonable to me that explained
the injuries on her body, cause when I went back, I started looking at, I went
back in my mind and looked at her body and I thought her injuries told the
story, and I just don't think that we were listening to those injuries and
hearing the story.  There was a lot of things...we came up with a lot of
different scenarios but nothing fit all the pieces together.  There were
theories on how he could have done that without getting scratched, but it didn't
explain why there was no water.  I mean there was just different pieces of the
puzzle that wouldn't all come together and I thought I had come up with a very
plausible theory of what happened that would explain everything.  And I really
thought I was gonna go in there and state my case and convert people, but I
really overestimated what my theory impact was going to have on them.

BC: Tell me what you think happened?  What theory fits all the pieces of evidence; just
kind of walk us through it.

Juror: For me, this is the theory;  when you start looking at all the injuries on her
body, the theory that works for me is...I've always believed that she drowned in
the tub.  I never thought that she drowned any place else but the bathtub. If
you're gonna drown, it's got the deepest water that's gonna take place in.  So I
really feel that she had spent the previous weekend out of town with her mother,
that she was exhausted, spent a full day at work, she wasn't feeling all
that great, her neck was bothering her a little bit, got a headache; I
really think she wanted to take a nice, relaxing bath.  And she did so; she was
in the bathtub.  I don't know if anybody has seen the pictures of her bathtub,
but it has a recessed area for you to lay back in, it's built for somebody to
lay back and soak in a bathtub.  I think, for whatever reason, and, again,
the prosecution did not have to prove any motive, that did bother some
people, but they did not have to prove that; he came into the room, said her
name, got her attention, she looked up at him, exposed her neck, and the wound
on her neck was some sort of incapacitating, blunt force to her neck.

BC: Like a karate chop or punch?

Juror: Yes, because to me, there was a deep....that bruise went
went all the way through to the bone, the hyoid bone.

BC: So she was punched or hit?

Juror: Yes

BC: And that stunned her?

JUror: And then, what's the....I don't know....there's a universal response to somebody
who's choking; they bring their hands up to their throat as a sign of choking;
not only is a sign of choking, but it also is to protect the area in which
you've just been attacked; that you're trying to protect from not getting hit
there again; and there are bruising on her chest that was found on the second
autopsy, not the first one, that has a fingerprint of some kind, and if she
brings her hands up, especially her right hand under her left, there's a mark
that could easily be the thumb, there's a separation of the bruises and the
bruise continues on to the left side.  Well, right between your thumb and your
first finger is a really nice separation where a bruise wouldn't necessarily be,
because there's no hand print there.  He takes his left hand and he puts his
hand on top of her two hands, he grabs with his right hand, the top of her head;
there's a bruise on the right side of her forehead.  Well, if he grabs her on
the top of the head, his thumb is right on the forehead.  There are these two
or three bruises to the perital (sp?) region on the right side of the head;
to me, they looked like the end of the fingertips.

BC: And that's where he's pushing her under the water?

Juror:  And then he just slides her down into the water...it's all....now this is a             
very quick blitz of things; he hits her, she grabs her throat, he puts his              
hands on her, he slides her down, now her feet are on the other end of the tub,
she can't even extend her legs. She's trapped.

BC: And she's very slippery.

Juror: Yes, because it's wet, it's water, he holds her down there.  Now there's also
fingerprints on the bathtub that looks like somebody drags their fingers down   
the side of the tub on the right side.  I explain that as being her last ditch
effort to try to sit up, she's grabbing on the side of the tub to try to pull
herself up...to get some breathes.

BC: And at this point, Ryan Widmer's body is outside, and he's got shorts on and he's
got no injuries on him, because at this point, he's got her fully stuck under the
water.

Juror: Exactly...again...this is my theory.  For me, that theory fit why her bruises
were on her body and where they were located, and also why the bathtub was dry,
why the clothes on the bathtub were dry, there was nothing...or very little
disturbed on the bathtub itself, there's a big bottle of handi-wipes sitting in
there that never got moved...ya' know....so for me...that's a theory of why..
in my mind how that could have happened.

BC: Any motive?...it's not required...but any motive?

Juror: That would have been nice; that would have been a nice smoking gun that some
jurors were looking for.  They could not get past a hard piece of evidence that
said Ryan did it.  And, ya' know, in circumstantial cases, you're not gonna
necessarily find it, that's why it's called a circumstantial case.  The
circumstances of everything that happened, doesn't make sense or not.         

BC: How much impact on the jury was the fact that Ryan Widmer did not testify?

Juror: It was brough up....we would have liked to have heard from him, but nobody
held it against him.

BC: You think Rachel Hutzel ought to try this case a third time?

Juror: That's a really good question....umm....I don't have an answer for her...
would I personally like to see it?  Yes, cause I was leaning that he was
guilty and I would like to see justice being done, but I can't, of course,
make that decision for her.

BC: How much impact, in your deliberations, did the 911 call from Ryan Widmer have?

Juror:  FOr some of us, it was a major red flag, for others, they brushed it off as
not knowing how they would react if they were in the same situation.

BC: One of the jurors who voted "not guilty" said to me that how could it have
happened in the bathroom in such a small area?  How would you have responded to
that?

Juror: We did.  It's not inconceivable whatsoever, especially if you don't have to
move around that much.  If she's in the bathtub, he's got 3 feet between him
and the counter to move around because she's clear in the bathtub.  I think
this person may have been referring to if she'd been out of the tub and they
struggled and he got her into the tub.  I maintain she was in the tub the
entire time.  He had plenty of room to maneuver.    

BC: Did you get over the point of the female DNA under the fingerprints?  Was that     
relevant?

JUror: It was to some, because they were wondering why they could not figure out who
was the female when there was......moreso that he wasn't underneath her
fingernails.  It was a big sticking point that he did not have any obvious
signs of a struggle on him.  A lot of women especially, could not get past
that fact that they would have fought tooth and nail; they fully expected her
to fight tooth and nail, and they could not get over the fact that he came out
of there with apparently not a scratch on him.

BC: How did you get over the fact that he had no injuries?

Juror:  I think he blitzed her; it was just something quick, he incapacitated her,
caught her off guard and was able to do it before she was able to put up a
fight.

BC:  Isn't it true, there was a hugh size differential between Sarah and Ryan?

Juror: 100 lbs. and 13 inches, I think we came up with?

BC: So he outweighed her by 100 pounds, he was a very strong....how old was he?  27?
28?

Juror: Somewhere in that area.  She was 24.

BC: Big, strong, male with a woman who was 100 lbs. lighter and a foot shorter.

Juror: Right, and he was a sports person; he played sports all through college so it's
not like he was a couch potato ya' know....he was athletic.

BC: What, to you, was the worst part of the trial as a juror?

Juror: Hearing the same testimony over and over again.

BC: Boring?

Juror: Yeah, and when it got repetitive, that got frustrating.

BC: Did the prosecutors and defense lawyers both do good jobs in your opinion?

Juror: They did an awesome job...both sides.  I told, the defense attorneys in the
juror room, if I ever got in trouble, I would want you on my team.  I do not
have anything against them, they did exactly what they were supposed to do,
and I respect that.  You know, they're an advocate for Ryan and I would want
somebody being that diligent and that hard working as my advocate, if something
would happen, and the prosecutor got....had an extremely tough case to try to
prove and they did an awesome job with what they had available and of course,
I don't know what was out there that we were not allowed to hear.

BC: Now if your theory is correct about the drowning inside the tub, why was her skin
dry, because the cops arrived within 3 minutes of the 911 call.

Juror: Exactly

BC: Why was her skin dry?

Juror: Because she'd been laying there, out of the tub, that's why there was two
blood spots, long before he ever called 911.

BC: You think, like 10, 15, 20 minutes?...

Juror: Exactly, long enough for him to...I think he panicked and tried to resuscitate,
that's why there's two blood spots, and we all agreed he moved the body. 

BC: How do you know he moved the body?

Juror: There were two separate blood spots, and the second blood spot where her head
was, right next to it was fecal matter.

BC: Is that when a person dies they release their bowels?

Juror: Exactly.  He had to have moved her because it didn't come up from where her
head position was.  So we all agreed....nobody....we all agreed he had to have
moved the body at some point.  Some agreed that maybe he just moved it after he
ran downstairs to unlock the door and came back upstairs.

BC: Did you have any.....put any weight in the fact of some "menage a troi", a
threesome argument because prosecutor Rachel Hutzel had said after the first trial
that somebody in that house was surfing threesome, "menage a troi" web sites and
there was female DNA under her fingernails?

Juror: No, that was never brought up and that was never even considered inside the
jury room.  Nobody ever brought that up.

BC: Were there any fights in the jury room?  Any nastiness? Any...

Juror: No

BC: Any fingerpointing?  Anything like that?

Juror: No, there was some frustrations, but everybody was extremely respectful of
everybody else's views.  There was no nastiness, no name-calling.  There was
nothing like that.  We finally just agreed that there came to a point where
we were not going to budge a couple of jurors and we decided that we needed
to tell the judge that.  That no amount of deliberating was going to change
their mind, and we just resigned to that fact.

BC: Did you feel the two jurors that voted "not guilty"...that they came to the trial
with a preconception of innocence and that no matter what happened they weren't
gonna change their vote?

Juror: No, I didn't get that sense at all.

BC: So you thought... they did deliberate with the other 9 or 10?

Juror: Yes, yes they did, they were part of the deliberation, they just could not...
see the same things we saw.

BC: As far as the conduction of the trial by Judge Bronson, do you think that was
well conducted by a good judge?

Juror: Yes, I think he did a phenomenal job.  He kept things moving; if he felt like
they weren't getting progess, he would stop them and say, "let's move on", I
thought he did a fantastic job.

BC: Did the lack of a motive bother you?

Juror: It would have been nice, but I understood that they didn't need to prove one
and we all agreed during the voir dire process that things happen behind closed
doors that nobody else knows about, so I truly believe that there could have
been things going on that we didn't know, and nobody else did as well, so
would a motive have been nice?  Yeah, it would have been real nice, but that did
not prohibit me from coming to my conclusion.

BC: How was Ryan Widmer's demeanor during the trial? Some said he was cool and
detached.  Did you find that the case?

Juror: I saw him sitting there and I, to be honest, didn't look at him that much at  all. 
I tended to keep my focus on either the prosecutor or the defense attorney
asking the questions and the witnesses answering.  I did not spend a whole lot
of time focusing in on him at all.

BC:  How much disappointment do you now feel, based upon the non-decision in the
Widmer case?

Juror: It is kind of disappointing cause it's consumed almost 4 weeks of our life.
It would have been nice to have had a final decision made and,  you know, to
close the book and that, and it is a little bit bothersome but that's the way
our jury system works and you have to respect it.

BC: One of the jurors I spoke to off the air about an hour and a half ago said she
was concerned when the prosecutor never presented a theory as to what happened.
Did that concern you at all?    

Juror: No, cause I think he tried to.  I think he was limited on what he was allowed
to do and I think in the way he presented the case, he tried to do the
theory, but some people may not have seen it that way.

BC: Did the autopsy photos, particularly have an impact on you; if you're an EMS
worker, I guess it didn't.

Juror:  No, it didn't.  It was very helpful to me.  I could see the injuries and I
learned through the paramedic course, mechanism of injury and how you get
bruises by compression or blunt force trauma.  So, and they didn't
show a lot of, in my opinion, extreme graphic, they showed what they really
needed to show to prove their case.    

BC: If Rachel Hutzel would call you and say, "Madame, you served on the jury, we've
gone through this two times, it is very expensive for both sides, do you
recommend that I go for a third trial of Ryan Widmer?  What would be your advice?

Juror: Because of the way I felt, that he was guilty, I'd say, for justice to be
served, that you should, you should go for it.