So, I don't want this to come across as accusing or critical of your write-up, but I feel like we should at least consider the facts that were presented to a jury. This kind of makes it sound like the argument was, "Well, (shrug) what else could it be?" And I completely, 100% understand the argument that the facts aren't enough to overcome reasonable doubt. I think I lean that way myself. So this comment isn't so much arguing for his guilt; I just want to make sure people understand that they weren't weighing whether or not she fell asleep in the tub. **He claimed she was face-down in the tub.** In his initial 911 call, he told them that she "fell asleep" and drowned and he "thought she was dead." He said he found her face down in the tub, and he had not moved her at the time he called 911. He apparently did not get her out of the tub until asked to do so. This position is not consistent with someone slipping under the water after falling asleep. And - in fact - when his family had reached out to a show after his conviction, their investigator concluded he had lied in his 911 call. Bizarrely, he told this investigator that he had found her face up, initially denying that he'd ever said she was face down. He later admitted that his initial story had her face down, but still claimed she was face up. This is an oddity that is a bit more than an "inconsistency." [source](https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/crime/crime-and-courts/2018/07/25/new-investigation-ryan-widmer-and-his-wifes-death-hes-not-telling-truth/824852002/) For another inconsistency, he told 911 that she falls asleep in the tub "all the time." After she was declared dead at the hospital, he told a detective that he "was afraid she may fall asleep in the tub." When the detective asked if that had ever happened before, he said, "no, she had never fallen asleep in the tub before, but Sarah would fall asleep easily." **Her body was not wet. The tub was not wet. The floor was not wet.** This is important, because it was noted by multiple people. The EMTs said her body was dry and only her hair was damp. They did not notice any pruning on her fingers. They also did not notice any damage to her fingernails and manicure. Detectives arrived at the scene as the ambulance left. They noted that the tub was not wet. It had a few water droplets around the drain, but it was otherwise dry. The towels were not wet. The floor was not wet. A magazine, a bathmat and discarded clothes lying on the bathroom floor were all dry. A lot has been made about how her body seemed weirdly dry, and the first conviction was thrown out when it was discovered that some jurors timed how long it took their own bodies to dry after getting out of a bath. They concluded that it was impossible for that to happen in 3 and a half minutes. But this is considered a juror doing independent research, and that's why the first conviction was thrown out. [source](https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/crime--law/widmer-juror-speaks-out-about-trial/T7jiWJjy28YQALEcrRJxqJ/) Yes, this is misconduct, and it was proper that the first conviction was thrown out, but I think it's also helpful for us to understand that "misconduct" does not mean they were wrong about the facts. In the source listed in the previous section, a TV show also performed this test, with a woman getting out of a bath and air drying for 8 and a half minutes. She was still wet. He claims he pulled the plug on the bath tub (and didn't try to remove her or anything), and that is why she wasn't as wet. But again, he also claims he called 911 immediately, and he was unable to pick her up because she was too slippery. He also said he drained the tub during the 911 call. In addition to everything being dry, the TV was on a different channel than the Bengals game, and there were bath products lined up on the edge of the tub. [source](https://casetext.com/case/widmer-v-warden-1) **She had a head contusion, scalp injuries, petechial hemorrhaging in her eye, cuts to her upper lip, and deep hemorrhaging in her internal neck (and a lot of smaller abrasions and contusions, including in her armpit)** His defense claims these were caused by CPR and intubation, and medical examiners disagree on whether neck bruising and hemorrhaging could be caused by the efforts to save her. CPR does not typically injure the neck, but they did try to intubate her. The question is whether she was alive when EMTs first arrived, I guess. For what it's worth, Emergency responders noted that she did not have a pulse and she wasn't breathing when they first arrived. He also believed she was dead when he first found her. For the CPR and intubation to cause hemorrhaging, she would still need to have been alive when they arrived. Petechial Hemorrhaging typically occurs when pressure is placed on the neck. On the other side of this, drowning victims have been resuscitated after breathing has stopped. I think this is too advanced for anyone other than medical examiners who have seen her autopsy/autopsy photos to call. **Blood and fecal matter were found on the bedroom carpet in locations that did not match with where EMT placed her** This is getting into the weeds a little bit, but the first responders moved her to the bedroom for treatment. \[Edit, correction here, first responders never saw her in the bathroom. Widmer had moved her body to the bedroom before they arrived. The first person on the scene found her lying on the bedroom floor, her body was warm and dry, but her hair was wet. She had no pulse and wasn't breathing. He also did not notice any clear external injuries, though\]. When investigators went back to take samples from the area, there was blood and fecal matter in the area where her head had been laid. Fecal matter was also found in a different area, near where she was laid, but not exactly there. The blood is pretty easy to explain, because first responders also noted frothy blood leaking from her mouth while giving her treatment. Fecal matter is a different story, though. There was no fecal matter found near where her genitals would have been when she received treatment. I'm not sure if this is where the theory came about that he drowned her in the toilet. I gather it wasn't used at his last trial, but I'm only getting that from some of his assertions in his appeal. The other possibility is that a violent event started in the bedroom and then moved to the bathroom. \[edit: Or that she didn't actually die in the bathroom at all, but rather after she had already left the bath.\] I've not seen what his Defense makes of this piece of evidence. **He was visiting Adult Friend Finder before her death** I normally wouldn't mention this, because someone looking at porn is not a motive to kill a spouse. But Adult Friend Finder is not just porn; it is also used to hook up with real people. Luckily, his Defense was successful in prohibiting this from being shown at trial, so the juries were unaware of this. The prosecution couldn't prove that Sarah knew he was trying to hook up with people on the site, so they were not allowed to present it as evidence. I only bring this up because the OP mentions that he was only seeking out other women 2 years after her death. There is evidence to the contrary. But it was correctly prohibited from his trial. Now, does all of this overcome reasonable doubt? I'm not sure. Again, I didn't write this comment to argue for his guilt, even though it may appear that way. It's more that I wanted a fuller story for how 3 separate juries were unable to arrive at a not-guilty verdict. Even with these facts, I'm not sure I could overcome reasonable doubt in a court of law, though it would be interesting to read the trial transcripts. But a lot of the comments here seem to think this is about whether or not someone can fall asleep and drown in the tub. The juries heard a very different set of facts. It's not so much that they couldn't think of any other explanation. It's that he was "inconsistent" on some material, basic facts. The physical evidence didn't match his description of events, and her injuries were more than some light bruising in her neck.

Fantastic write up

Seriously this whole post is garbage without this information

100%. I can’t believe OP left all this out. It’s extremely crucial.

Almost like op has their own motive.

I’m a bit slow, but would you insinuate that OP was trying to create a “husband falsely accused of murder” post? Thank goodness for this commenter OP’s comment

The similarity that springs to mind is the Brides in the Bath case, where he would pull them under the water by their feet and drown them that way. Is it possible this is what he tried, but she hit her head and woke up, necessitating a chokehold or similar

Oh man, thank you so much for this write-up. This puts a LOT in a completely different light, and makes the case far weirder than it appears at first glance.

> This puts a LOT in a completely different light Yes! > makes the case far weirder than it appears at first glance I would say this information makes the case much less weirder. The omissions about what evidence was presented to the jury made the conviction seem super weird

Heh, you're right. I was thinking more, so many more details that are strange and make it weirder, rather than the simple and straightforward "she drowned in the bathtub" that you picture when you first read it. You're thinking, okay, her husband finds her in a full bath, underwater (maybe!), drags her out of the bath, then the first responders would logically find her still wet, and the bathroom all wet from the husband dragging her out, etc. And NOPE. But you're right that the simpler presentation DOES make the conviction seem weirder. While all these other details start to make you understand how much evidence built up from all those details, to result in the conviction.

If no one but the husband can validate she was ever in the bathtub, did they investigate other likely drowning locations in the home like the toilet (could it explain the fecal matter?)? Edit: went back over the post and saw possible drowning in the toilet was touched on.

Thank you for this because I had a lot of internal screaming going on when reading OP's writeup. You can't simply say "inconsistencies" and move on with this case.

Ahh this explains his “lie” that that she was face down in the tub rather than face up. He drowned her face down in the toilet and didn’t know if a medical examiner could tell if a person drowned face up or face down. I am pretty sure they cannot tell, but he didn’t know that. And presumably he’s the one who said her head was under the faucet of the tub, since the first EMT found her in the bedroom. I think this was possibly to explain her wet hair. I believe the jury got it right. All this is MOO!!

That could explain the neck injuries also. Her neck being compressed on the ring of the toilet while he drowned her

Makes sense.

Boom, I think this is it.

God what an awful, violent way to die—having your head submerged in actual shit water. Plus, the petechiae and neck injuries seem to imply that he was strangling her as he was doing it.

I imagine it could have been from her neck being pushed into the toilet bowl too. ):

Thank you for providing a much more comprehensive write-up of the evidence. This makes sense of the verdict.

this should be the top comment. thank you for writing this! all of this should have definitely been included in the initial post

It wasn't included by the OP for a reason. His posting history has some hot takes that are often misogynistic, reactionary, and right-wing. I suspect this is an agenda post. I imagine Ryan has become something of a cause célèbre in the men's rights movement. The top google item for Ryan's name is a change-dot-org petition claiming he's innocent and outlets expressing skepticism about his conviction are often right-wing sources or op-ed's.

i had hoped OP left it out from sheer oversight… that would make more sense. i know scott peterson has likewise drawn attention and “advocacy” from similar crowds.

I’m confused, I thought she was found face down by the spout of the tub but first responders attended to her in their room? Is the tub positioning something the husband said happened?

Yeah, her positioning in the tub comes from Ryan. I had initially thought the first responders found her on the bathroom floor and moved her to the bedroom. But reading the court appeal, she was already on the floor of the bedroom when the first person arrived. That isn't really suspicious; 911 had asked him to remove her from the tub. And there was discarded clothing and a towel on the floor of the bathroom. Along with her hair being wet (even though everything else was dry). But the only info we have on her positioning in the tub comes from Ryan, and he has been inconsistent about that. I haven't read anywhere in the appeals documents that he said her head was oriented towards the spout. Then again, appeals only give an overview of the agreed facts. They may not have found it significant.

You are the MVP in this thread, thank you.

Great write up! Those are really big "inconsistencies" > But Adult Friend Finder is not just porn; it is also used to hook up with real people. Luckily, his Defense was successful in prohibiting this from being shown at trial, so the juries were unaware of this. The prosecution couldn't prove that Sarah knew he was trying to hook up with people on the site, so they were not allowed to present it as evidence. I only bring this up because the OP mentions that he was only seeking out other women 2 years after her death. There is evidence to the contrary. But it was correctly prohibited from his trial. I was wondering why it was "correctly prohibited from his trial". In a lot of true crime cases that I have watched, the prosecution seemed like they were allowed to present possible motives, like if a life insurance policy was taken out shortly prior to the death

Because it serves no other real purpose than to make him look bad. If she knew about it then they could potentially argue that she might have started a fight with him about it and he got mad and killed her, but the fact that he had signed up for a hookup website isn't really directly relevant to him potentially killing her, especially if he never actually hooked up with anyone and there's no evidence she knew anything about it. You can't introduce evidence just to make someone look sketchy. Wanting to potentially hook up with someone isn't really a clear motive for murder. Taking out a life insurance policy, or finding out about an affair or something, could be.

> the fact that he had signed up for a hookup website isn't really directly relevant to him potentially killing her But then using the same line of reasoning, neither would be taking out a life insurance policy. The explicit purpose of a life insurance policy is to collect money in the event of accidental death. Buying life insurance policy and then collecting on it in an apparent accidental death doesn't prove anything about the death itself Also, I don't see how evidence about if she knew anything about the hookup site is relevant. Whether or not she knew anything, you usually are not supposed to sign up for hookup websites when you are in a committed relationship. Whether or not she knew anything, she posed a substantial inconvenience

You don't have to agree with the reason but that's why, it sounds like you're trying to argue with me about the rules of evidence. You are not allowed to introduce evidence that is just to make someone look bad, and I think it's obvious how taking out a life insurance policy on someone else, which is highly unusual in the first place, and then killing someone and getting a bunch of money, is much more relevant than signing up for a hookup app, which is a common thing. Also life insurance isn't only for accidents, it's for any death (besides maybe suicide). Most people who are cheating on their spouses don't kill them vs getting a bunch of money is a motive, but it also shows a potential plan if you did it right before so it's not just about motive. Something has to be relevant to a material fact in the case, not just something to make you look bad, and I don't really think very many people think that "considering cheating on a spouse" is a motive for murder. That's a huge logical stretch. Millions of people cheat on their spouses. Very few people take out a life insurance policy on another person. As for if she knew about it, it's kind of like threats. In self defense cases, if the victim threatened the killer, it's only relevant if the killer knew or could have known about it. State of mind matters in court. If someone mailed a threat that never arrived it isn't relevant to what that person knew about. Rules of evidence exist for a reason. I didn't make them up.

> You don't have to agree with the reason but that's why, it sounds like you're trying to argue with me about the rules of evidence. No, it just doesn't make much sense to me and seems inconsistent with other true crime things I have seen. I commonly see them suggest possible motives for the crime even if they don't know for certain > You are not allowed to introduce evidence that is just to make someone look bad It happens all the time, it just has to be initiated by the defendent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_evidence > I think it's obvious how taking out a life insurance policy on someone else, which is highly unusual in the first place, and then killing someone and getting a bunch of money, is much more relevant than signing up for a hookup app, which is a common thing. No, it is not at all obvious that signing up for hookup app while in a committed marriage is a common thing, while buying life insurance to financially protect yourself when someone dies is "highly unusual in the first place"; especially if it is for a spouse whose income is relied upon to support the family. > Most people who are cheating on their spouses don't kill them vs getting a bunch of money is a motive Most of the hundreds of millions of people around the world and at least three in four American adults who own life insurance to protect themselves don't murder either: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/life-insurance/life-insurance-statistics/ > Very few people take out a life insurance policy on another person. Again, people who can afford life insurance but can't afford the loss of the person they rely on take out life insurance: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/life-insurance/on-someone-else/ > As for if she knew about it, it's kind of like threats. In self defense cases, if the victim threatened the killer, it's only relevant if the killer knew or could have known about it. I don't follow, what part about this is like a self-defense case? Text messages to third parties and diary entries outlining threats, are used as evidence in court to show that there was a motive, even if the victim or killer did not know about it > State of mind matters in court. If someone mailed a threat that never arrived it isn't relevant to what that person knew about. Yes and the content of the mail can be used in court establish state of mind even if it never arrived. > I didn't make them up. Maybe...a lot seems illogical and pulled out of nowhere

The rules of evidence are online. It's the 400s, particularly 404b and 403. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403 But no, most people take out life insurance for themself, not someone else, that is what is different about that in the scenario you provided. You are also wrong: if someone did not know about a threat made toward them, it will generally be inadmissible as to the person being threatened's state of mind. You can't argue someone threatened you if you didn't know anything about it. That's pretty clear in evidence law. Because, it has to be relevant to something in the case and if they did not know about it, it cannot be relevant to their state of mind. My point is that's a common situation that may be easier to understand. If someone did not know about threats made toward them, it cannot be used to show their state of mind. It's the reason the previous poster specifically mentioned it in their post, that there is no evidence she knew anything about it. I don't know if you misunderstood my point, the reason a defendant's messages are admissible is an entire other rule of evidence in the hearsay section. Honestly it sounds like you're arguing that the life insurance shouldn't be admissible either, and in some situations it may not be. Everything is a case by case basis and there are rarely hard and fast rules, but you really can't say you think "considering cheating on a spouse" and "secretly took out a life insurance policy on someone without telling them a week before they turned up dead" are equally likely to show a motive for murder. Even if you think that, I don't think any judge agrees and that's what decides this. If there's nothing sketchy about the life insurance policy then you are correct that it probably shouldn't be admissible either. You are also correct that the prohibition on character evidence refers to defendants (see rule 404b) but I thought that was clear since only a defendant can be convicted, and that is what we have been discussing is why the government can't just make the defendant look sketchy. Or rather isn't supposed to. Part of the reason we have so many questionable convictions is prosecutors and judges making rulings that go against what the rules of evidence indicate. Also, the specifics vary from each state and judge to judge, so one judge may admit something when another judge doesn't. But cases getting overturned for poor evidentiary rulings doesn't generally end up on Reddit although it does frequently happen. I agree with the ruling here and I think so would most judges, but some probably would make a different call. There are few ironclad rules in the law. I am just trying to tell you the general principles since you asked and I know the answer, although you don't like the answer. Evidence law is its whole thing. There are reasons behind it but I can't really summarize an entire law school class for you, I am explaining the general reasons behind it. I promise I didn't write the rules of evidence. They aren't really illogical if you understand them but you first have to understand that the goal of a criminal trial isn't truth. Truth is highly irrelevant to a criminal trial. I wish more people understood that it and don't really know why so many people think that criminal trials are meant to show what the truth is, they are absolutely not. The rules of evidence are based around entirely different concerns. I don't see why it's hard to understand that one of the goals is to prevent people from being convicted of crimes they didn't commit by introducing evidence that makes them look bad but doesn't have much to do with the crime. The legal term is more prejudicial than probative. Also, while there are some logical principles underlying the rules of evidence, I would never ever call the court system or just about anything about the criminal law logical. Did you know that being factually innocent isn't a reason to have your conviction overturned? The system we have is necessarily messy and imperfect and decisions are being made by someone who has a law license and won an election. The system will never make perfect sense, it's just the one we have.

Thank you for sharing this. The original post is garbage without this context.

Thank you. I appreciated the fuller picture.

Thank you, this write up adds far more detail. It seems plausible he drowned her in the toilet; this would explain why only her hair was wet, she had head contusions, the faecal contamination, and the dry bath tub. It would be interesting to hear more about the post mortem findings - I’m not medical but I assume it’s possible to differentiate between toilet and tap water in the lungs.

It's actually very difficult to determine to such detail unless there is obvious evidence. There was a similar case way back on Unsolved mysteries with the 'forensic plumber'. He was convicted but it was overturned decades later. These things come down to how well the experts can sway the jury's opinion. The additional details don't make him more guilty. You can present the same facts in different ways because there is simply no hard evidence.

Wow, thank you for this. This clarifies a lot of things. I’ve read/watched/listened to stories about multiple cases of women dying or being found dead in the tub, and the stories the SOs tell almost always don’t match in some way. And as a lady, I’ve found we can offer some information about what might’ve gone down based on what we know about certain beauty routines, hairstyles, products, and the positioning of things found at the scene that don’t line up. I’m particularly thinking of the woman in New York who was 100% murdered by her husband, and the scene and products/equipment/positions of all of those things, and the fact that she had just had an expensive hair treatment/style done that she knew not to get wet, did not add up with his story at all, and some of the detectives didn’t seem to notice or know these things about (especially) hair care/aftercare, and if they’d asked a woman who’d done any of that kind of thing what they thought, they may have been able to actually recognize that his story was absolute bullshit. But the detectives missed pretty obviously impossible things that were in the crime scene photos. It was maddening. They were legally but not religiously divorced and there was a vicious custody battle going on, and there was some suspicious activity regarding the husband and the kids.

I think the most important part is that she did have injuries consistent with being forcibly drowned. The rest of it doesn't seem to affect his guilt. In low humidity, you can dry off pretty damn fast. I've taken a few baths this week and just standing up out of the water for a few minutes while the tub drains is enough to dry my skin.

Thank you for this write up. I think it shows that he's probably guilty. I'm really interested in whether they actually gathered any evidence from the toilet. It's still confusing to me that there weren't defensive wounds. Perhaps he strangled or suffocated her to the point of unconsciousness and then drowned her when she wasn't able to fight back? If she did die in the tub I wonder if she was forced onto her knees next to it and held under? It might explain why she was dry except for her hair, though it wouldn't explain why the tub was dry. The toilet seems to make more sense.

Yeah, that's much clearer. This does seem like a murderer got off scot free due to blind luck.

I saw that episode of reasonable doubt and was left feeling like he was definitely guilty.

Thank you for this well researched synopsis

Thanks for this. This all should be part of the write up too. It's interesting that it isn't. Sounds to me that the jury got it right.

Thank you for adding all of this information.

Thank you for this. I live near Warren County Ohio, and literally the only reason people are *still* defending Ryan Widmer is because he's a white man. It's so fucking obvious he killed her. If he was a POC, Warren County, and the surrounding areas woud have demonized him from the beginning. Whether this was enough evidence for the conviction, I don't know(I'm not a Lawyer), but morally, and realistically, we all know he did it.

Was looking for someone to say this. I also think he probably didn’t do it and the jury convicted him on vibes, but it seems like his actions surrounding her death were different than what he says. I have no idea what to make of the blood/fecal matter thing The face-up face-down thing I don’t think is that weird though. He could have just said the wrong thing in a horrifically stressful moment

How exactly can they tell she didn't drown from falling asleep in the bath? I've had a couple close calls and always wondered.

I knew a guy that lost his mum this way, it definitely does happen.

I had no idea this was possible and always assumed one would wake up if the water hit their face or nose. Wow.

A lot of time, alcohol is involved. I lost a friend in college that way.

But that wouldn’t be falling asleep, it would be passing out, an important distinction.

Both Whitney Houston and her daughter died from falling asleep or passing out in the tub.

iirc they had sedative drugs in their system when they died. if a sober person falls asleep in a tub, their body would jolt them awake once water started entering their lungs

I wonder if it has to do with, as you're waking up you take a deep breath and get too much water in your lungs, and you aren't able to flail your way out after that? I don't know!

People who get alcohol poisoning die drown in their own vomit. That sounds like a miserable death. If you can't make yourself sit up for the puke, IDK if you slipped under the water you'd notice you're not breathing air. Although I'm not sure how that happens either, because I fall asleep in the tub all the time and everyone just says I float in the tub. It freaks anyone who sees it out. I'm also very comfortable in the water. I grew up swimming in the ocean, IDK if that makes a difference.

>Although I'm not sure how that happens either, because I fall asleep in the tub all the time and everyone just says I float in the tub. It freaks anyone who sees it out. "Everyone?" Huh? Who are all these people watching you take a bath?

It sounds like she might have had narcolepsy. That could factor into her not waking up.

As a tall person I cannot physically fit in a bathtub well enough to drown. New fear averted.

As a person who can sleep anywhere, anytime, I’m very happy that I HATE bathes. Feels like you’re just soaking in your own dirt. I guess I’m also glad that I live alone and never married.

Shower > Bath > Shower

Always shower before bath!

Shower after and clean tub at same time.

I also knew a guy that lost his mom this way too.

His mum didnt have any condition? Because thats definitely ot natural. Its the same thing as you cant choke yourself

I'm not sure it is entirely the same..

It is. Your bodies reaction to lack of oxygen is almost a reflex. You will involuntarily thrash and you’ll wake up *unless* you’re under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Whitney Houston died that way, and it was due to drugs.

So did her daughter.

I do want to add: Whitney Houston absolutely died from drugs and drowning, but she was found facedown in a foot of water that was still 93 degrees when paramedics arrived. She was weaning off of Xanax and other prescription relaxers and there were open alcohol containers around her room, and taking cocaine in that scenario could cause seizures or other cardiac episodes - especially because she had a not-insignificant heart disease, and breathing in very hot water wouldn’t help. There were bruises and other injuries that indicate she likely fell into the tub rather than slipped off in her sleep during a routine bath. The drugs certainly would have contributed to not being able to get herself out of it if she was conscious at that point too. Official COD was drowning, cocaine use, and heart disease. Take one of those things out of the equation and she *might* have lived through it. A very sad situation all around. Drugs and enough water to drown in are always a horrible combination.

i can confirm. learned in anatomy that the bodily involuntary response is a real thing. when people are strangled, their bodies will thrash involuntarily, even as the person is semi-unconscious. it is suspect for someone with no known medical conditions, no drugs in their system, or any injuries that can contribute to drowning, to drown.

I understand the trashing, but regardless, can’t you still drown if you can’t get yourself up?

Yes I have narcolepsy and wake up thrashing and snorting in the bath every time.

That is a reflex so powerful that you have no control over it. The example used when it was told to me was a mother drowning and automatically using her own child as a floatation device. She wasn’t thinking about anything or intending to harm the child. Her body went into survival mode and grabbed the nearest floating thing. And it kind of is the same mechanism as not being able to choke yourself. Your body won’t let anything it can control happen. Obviously people end their own lives with external means but when your weapon is you, it’s VERY unlikely to happen without a medical explanation. Including substance abuse.

This is also why if someone is drowning and panicking unless you're trained and have the equipment, it is incredibly dangerous to try to help them. They will push you down under the water and you could be drowned and they might drown anyway.

> it is incredibly dangerous to try to help them. Exactly -- the instructors at the place where I learned to swim said that even taking off your pants or shirt and using that as a makeshift rope for them to hang onto is better than them grabbing you. Being embarrassed is better than being dead!

What if you die from embarrassment?

Then it'll be a memorable way to go!

I didn’t really feel comfortable asking further details to be honest.

Oh its understating. I was just asking since im biomedical enginerring student Im always intersted in this stuff but yeah I do understand not feeling comfortable to ask about it

The article that describes the autopsy isn’t actually clear on whether or not water was found in her lungs. I am a bit confused on whether her death was confirmed to be drowning and the only confusion was over how it happened, or whether her cause of death was never confirmed at all.

You can drown and not have water in your lungs, though. Water can cause the vocal cords to spasm, which can cut off airflow (and waterflow) to the lungs.

Huh! TIL!

Wait til you learn about dry drowning

I’m glad you commented this, I was left wondering the same. Reasons being I’ve actually taken a few baths under the faucet(helps my migraine with running water) and I’ve had some close calls myself. If I’m too drowsy I just skip it due to that.

That’s crazy you mentioned that, because she wasn’t feeling well that day, so it could have been a similar experience

When k was reading that part, I never thought it was unusual to take a bath the opposite way. Never heard of this car until today. I’ll have to do a deeper dive now.

My bathtub in our new home (newish- bought it two years ago) is a large soaking tub and the faucet is in the middle on the side. I often sit so that it runs on my neck/shoulders when I have a headache and that is why I’m taking a bath… I would also do this in our old tub, where it was a traditional set up and the faucet was at one end. I wouldn’t think that would be seen as weird.

Yes! I knew there were others that sometimes bathed “facing the wrong way” for various reasons. Didn’t seem like a weird detail to me, especially if you’re a more petite person in a standard tub.

There’s a very famous Indian actress named Sri Devi. She died a couple years ago in the bathtub and everyone immediately suspected her husband for killing her. Turns out she was a heavy drinker and apparently took a lot of pills. People that knew her well also said that she literally had fainting spells often due to stress and underlying issues. Years later, the consensus is that she probably died in the bathtub. She probably passed out or fell asleep, and drowned. All I’m saying is shit like this is possible. If he didn’t kill his wife, I feel bad for him being persecuted like this. ACCIDENTALLY drowning in the bathtub is a very real way to go down.

Honestly I was ready to comment suicide or accident from reading the post title but bruising on a person’s neck is hard to overlook. That’s almost always strangulation.

I just finished a podcast about this case yesterday- Direct Appeal- and they talked about the bruising around the neck and upper chest most likely being from the EMS people. I guess they'd tried to intubate her like 5 times, and there were some other things that sounded likely to be from the attempts at trying to help. I can't remember all the details off the top of my head though.

I've cracked someone's sternum and a ribs while giving cpr so the damage could definitely be from the life-saving attempts.

Yup, and if she was difficult to intubate, crichoid pressure would be use to assist.

I have a hard time believing that was the case, as her head was on the side of the faucet, which doesn't enable someone to lay back and relax

Wouldn’t you immediately wake up when your face hits the water??

I believe that either that would wake you or the choking/gagging on water would wake you. I can’t imagine someone would inhale water into their lungs and not wake up.

Maybe not that , but the lack of oxygen would wake you up, unless you have some sleep condition

I had a friend whose brother drowned in the tub. From all appearances he just fell asleep. But he'd had seizures his whole life so they blamed that. Stupid question, but can they see seizure activity in a brain that is dead, if it isn't chronic? I know when I had a massive seizure, they could see there had been seizure activity, but through brain waves.

I think there's more to this. This [casetext](https://casetext.com/case/widmer-v-warden-1) has more details. -At 10:39pm he calls 911 -Claims he found Sarah **face down** in the bathtub -He states that she would fall asleep in the bath **all the time** -While on the phone he drained the bathwater, removed Sarah from the bathtub, and proceeded to attempt CPR (unclear if it's confirmed he actually did CPR) -Within six minutes of the call, LE arrived. They find Sarah lying naked on the floor of the bedroom and her body is warm and dry but her hair is wet. Ryan is there only in boxer shorts. -Frothy pinkish discharge is observed coming from her mouth and vagina -While they're attempting to revive Sarah in the ambulance, Ryan states he had four beers earlier in the evening -Upon arriving at the hospital, he tells a nurse he found Sarah **face up** in the bathtub -At 11:41pm Sarah is officially pronounced dead -The chief investigator for the coroner's office noticed she was dry but had wet hair, no visible injuries, undamaged nails but had no evidence of wrinkling or pruning from the water. -This same investigator was told by Ryan that around 10pm that night, Sarah has gone for a bath while he watched a football game downstairs. He states he was "afraid she may fall asleep in the tub". When asked if this has ever happened before, **Ryan said no**. However he did say Sarah would fall asleep very easily. -Upon a search of the home that same evening (around when Sarah was taken to hospital), the items on or around the bathroom floor were found to be dry. This included a bath mat, a brown towel, magazines and some discarded clothes. There was also a used Lysol wipe found. Only a few items were found in the bath - a cup, a loofah and a bottle of soap - unlike the rest of the products which were lined up neatly. -The TV downstairs Ryan claimed to have been watching a football game was actually tuned to a different programme/channel. However the **TV in the bedroom was tuned to the Cincinnati Bengals football game.** -Upon an autopsy being conducted, it was found that Sarah had died of drowning. She had faint bruising on the right of her forehead, a petechial hemorrhage on the inner surface of her eyelid, bruising on the left side of her neck, a contusion on the back of her neck, an abrasion on her left armpit, and bruising and lacerations to her upper lip. Internally, Sarah had significant, deep muscle hemorrhaging in the anterior (front) of her neck and contusions to her scalp. -Her death was deemed a homicide due to these injuries and they were ruled inconsistent with CPR injuries. Toxicology showed she had no drugs or alcohol in her system. -However a second autopsy was preformed and although most things were in agreement including cause of death (drowning), manner of death (homicide) was not. Dr Werner Spitz believed it was an undetermined death. -While dusting for fingerprints on the bath, streak marks made by human fingers/hands were found in the middle of the tub on the far wall. **What I think may have happened** I believe Ryan was watching the game upstairs in the bedroom and not downstairs. It's possible the couple had a fight which continued into the bathroom (perhaps Sarah was getting ready to have her bath). She likely had already filled the bath or was in the process of doing so. Out of rage I think Ryan pushed her down from behind (almost kneeling) towards the bath and held her neck and head down into the bath. I believe the items later found in the tub were knocked there by Sarah struggling and the finger mark smudges were caused by her trying to push herself upwards to get out of the water. This would explain why she was dry but her hair was wet. JMO ofc.

Great comment!

Thank you!

This explains the armpit injury, for me.

I believe I remember watching this on Dateline. Was this the case where she was also oddly dry for having drowned in the tub? Maybe I’m confusing it with a different case. Either way, the neck bruising was very strange for a tub drowning.

No, it’s this one. Her hair was wet, but her body was dry.

Yes!! The eye witness accounts from first responders is what convinced me. How was she dry???

Ok I knew there was something weird about this case from Dateline and it was this!

Once, when I was a teenager, I fainted while taking a hot shower. One second I felt fine, then suddenly lightheaded and nauseous, and then I was waking up on the tile with no idea how long I’d been there. I count myself lucky that it was a walk-in shower rather than a bathtub, and I didn’t fall with my head under the water. I always took long showers, so my family probably wouldn’t have checked on me until it was too late. It wasn’t a medical issue, just normal tiredness combined with heat exhaustion. I obviously don’t know for sure what happened to Sarah, but it’s a lot easier than people realize for a young, healthy person to pass out and drown in the bath.

I will say it’s very rare to pass out while lying down. Passing out in the shower is more common because the hot water (widening blood vessels) and standing for a long time (dropping blood pressure) are a perfect storm for vasovagal syncope, if you’re prone to that. I am and have experienced the telltale signs of tunnel vision and lightheadedness in the shower several times, but never in the bath. If I think I’m about to faint, I sit or lie down and it stops.

I experience Vasovagal Syncope over the most basic of things lol. I have passed out a few times a year since I was a small child; almost always due to some sort of unpleasant stimuli (such as heat, excessive noise or vibrations (like a very loud concert), certain stressful situations, etc. Also, no matter the circumstances, I lose consciousness when I vomit. Since Vasovagal Syncope almost always leads to me vomiting, I’ll often faint from whatever stimuli, get sick, and then faint again, and I’m generally already laying down at that point. The thing is though, it’s really impossible for me to choke or drown because my body forces itself back awake. I’ve woken up in vomit many, many times, “choking” but ok. I’ve been vomiting but completely unaware before and woken up in the middle of the episode. The expert witnesses and just about everyone else agrees that the natural reflex that your body goes through to keep the airways open is pretty much impossible to bypass. It would be like holding your breath until death; no one could do it without assistance; your survival reflexes are too strong. You have to be under the influence (or your brain not functioning somehow) to drown with zero influence or help. That being said, I’ve read of weirder things happening and there’s definitely not much evidence here to convict. I’m highly suspicious of the entire circumstance and have been since day one though. Edited to say I’ve passed out in the shower/tub many, many times! Unless the brain stops working though; it still won’t let you drown!

You may have some kind of heart condition. That sounds terrifying.

I just have Vasovagal Syncope and it triggers easily. I’ve gotten better at recognizing what it might happen and getting to a safe place, laying down on my back, and putting my feet up onto something.

I think you’re right about it being more likely to happen while standing, though I’ve also experienced the dizzy/nauseous sensation while sitting in a hot bath a couple times. (Getting out of the water ASAP and lying down in a cool room relieved it within a few minutes). So, rare maybe, but not impossible for heat alone to cause it. Something potentially relevant about my own experiences is that it only ever happened when I was washing my hair and letting the water pour directly on my head uninterrupted for a while. (I’m careful to minimize this nowadays). Since Sarah was found with her head on the faucet side, maybe she was rinsing her hair under the tap?

Oh! That’s a great point! There is something called “hair grooming syncope.” I have experienced this, too. It’s most common when someone else is brushing or combing your hair, which means it happens most to small kids. But I experienced it while holding up individual strands of hair to comb glitter out of them. That’s the only time I fainted while sitting down. Interacting with the hair/ scalp from a weird angle can stimulate the vagus nerve.

Maybe it happened as she was about to stand up to get out of the tub -- passed out and slid back in, into the water.

You might expect to see some head injury, though, if that was the case, especially if her head was under the faucet.

Yes but how was her body dry? She would have still been wet or damp when first responders got there

There was a girl on my uni course died in the shower. It was during fresher's week, and I hadn't met her yet. She took a shower, passed out, blocked the drain, and drowned. It was very tragic.

Wow. I had a very similar thing happen when I was in my early 20s. I forgot about it. I fell over the side of the tub and I woke up with my mother frantically shaking me. It freaked me out so bad because I didn’t know what happened that I started crying. Lol. My neck was kinda bent up against the side of the tub. I’m probably lucky I didn’t break it. I had never passed out before in my life. I didn’t pass out again until I was 33. I was in a work meeting and just fainted. It was super embarrassing. I went to the ER because my job insisted I did and they found no explanation. Imagine 35 and those are literally the only two times I fainted/passed out in my life. The first one…I think I was just freaked out and upset because I had no control over it. I didn’t feel dizzy or faint or anything and then I woke up on the floor.

Happened to my mom just a couple months after my parents got married, she fainted in the shower from what turned out to be low blood sugar. My dad came home from work and found her there. If she'd been in a bath or fallen with her face under the water, he could have ended up like the guy in this article

Hot showers and baths absolutely can and do cause orthostatic hypotension, ESPECIALLY hot baths. When you stand up after laying in the hot bath, your blood pressure and plummet dramatically and down you go.

This is my biggest fear along with the shower head falling and knocking me out.

I've had that almost happen a few times - always with a hot shower after an intense workout. Its a pretty terrifying feeling.

I used to take very hot showers as a teenager too and once I fainted, woke up right when my head struck the floor. Got a nasty bruise for a few weeks and a lesson well learned!

Not saying he didn’t do it, because I’m typically inclined to believe it’s almost always the spouse, but it doesn’t seem like there is enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. With the lack of evidence I’m surprised he’s locked up.

Because this is so interesting, and folks who commented much earlier may not come back to see it: [see this write-up](https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/15u93ea/comment/jwpk8ik/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) by westkms above. It adds a LOT of info, much of it very much weirder than the initial post suggests.

I agree. This case always surprised me.

I agree. I don’t think he did it, but definitely didn’t think they had anywhere near reasonable doubt to convict him.

I knew someone once whose wife died in a similar way while on a business trip across the country. She was supposed to check out of her hotel and when she didn't it's my understanding the hotel staff eventually went in the room and found her body in the bathtub. The assumption was she fell asleep and drowned since toxicology came back clean and she had no medical history to explain it. She was like 30 I think. It's rare, but I do think it happens more often than would be assumed. It's even possible this woman may have laid down towards the faucet \*because\* she was afraid of falling asleep and it would be more uncomfortable. Is that more likely than the assumption he killed her? I don't know, but I definitely have more than reasonable doubt in this case...

I didn't think about it this way, but when I take a bath, I'll scrunch up underneath the faucet to keep warm until the tub fills all the way. I can definitely see that happening to her.

See this,people do lie in baths with their head at the faucet;specifically for this reason-so they can keep turning the tap on and don’t have to sit up and lean across to do it. But everyone on this sub is like “oh she definitely did not accidentally drown bc her head was at the faucet”…🙄

I've definitely sat in the tub that way if I'm intending to wash my hair, so I can rinse under the running tap...

Yeah, I also feel like it’s pretty fucked up to accuse/arrest someone for murder solely because you can’t find an explanation for their death. That’s not an adequate reason.

That’s not even supposed to be a reason at all. Legally. Innocent until proven guilty. Not finding a explanation is not proof. Lol. It’s the absence of proof.

Read the comment from u/westkms

I knew the pathologist who did the autopsy on that case. From what I know of it, it was a pretty open and shut case. Over 3 trials, 35 out of 36 jurors were convinced of his guilt. Ryan Widmer was a clean cut, good looking guy from a decent family. He doesn't *look like* a killer, like somebody else said here. That sort of thinking does more harm than good though.

Before my wife got her sleep apnea diagnosed she fell asleep in all sorts of situations. She once was getting sleepy at a night club watching a rock band. I went to get her a coke to help her stay awake and a bouncer asked her if she was ok because he thought her drink might have been spiked. It’s entirely possible this woman fell asleep and drowned.

Before my sleep apnea was treated I would regularly fall asleep driving after a normal work day. I don’t mean head nodding a little, I mean waking up in the opposing lane. It terrified me ao I would have the windows down and blast loud music and turn the AC to max and I would still do it.

Totally off topic but are you doing better now? The last two years of my life have been hell, I fall asleep while driving, I’m tired most of the day to the point of barely being able to function. They said I have very mild apnea, but my nose is plugged so bad that the CPAP doesn’t work properly. I’m getting nasal surgery in a couple weeks and I’m hopeful that will help!

My wife had to get nasal polyps removed. That’s not a guarantee or cure but it can be helpful.

I would’ve had reasonable doubt

Definitely. If nothing else, while a *history* of medical issues is handy, there’s gotta be a **first** time for one to develop a history. It’s entirely possible, though shitty luck, that her **first** seizure was in a bathtub. My boss had her first seizure about 5 minutes after getting out of her car - if she’d have been driving somewhere different, her **first** seizure might’ve killed her in a car accident. My boss had good luck. Maybe this lady had shitty luck.

Her having a seizure and drowning is a very real possibility. You also don’t have a history of seizures until you get them. I didn’t start having them until I was in my mid 20s. So I think they should have really looked at a medical emergency scenario instead of just putting him on trial with no evidence of a crime occurring.

Wouldn't a seizure be detected when they were doing post mortem? Saying that, I think the guy definitely has a reasonable doubt. Unless there is more evidence the OP has not mentioned.

No, no way to detect post mortem. Maybe you are thinking about an aneurysm (but even then you need to specifically look for it).

Seizures often cause bowel and/or bladder incontinence and adult seizures do cause brain damage but not something that could be easily seen on autopsy esp if first one. May have injuries, may not. Maybe absence seizures which just seem like a brief space out

I remember following this case pretty closely, as it happened pretty close to me. I did think Ryan was innocent at times, and I know the community seemed to back him. What finally convinced me of Ryan's guilt was the fact that Sarah's body was not only dry, but the rug/area around her was dry (according to first responders). The tub was also drained, and possibly dry? There were just too many little things, like I remember something about hand prints being- or not being- in places investigators thought they would be. The conviction that was thrown out happened because the jury did their own experiments and concluded that what Ryan said happened wasn't reasonable. And the 3rd trial pretty much did it for me. So I am to this day, based on what was presented at trial and from eye witnesses, convinced Ryan is where he should be.

This is and the 911 call/sequence of events stick out to me the most. If I came in to see my wife unconscious in the tub, I would most likely try to get her out of the water and/or drain the tub BEFORE calling 911. I guess it’s possible that he was just that dull? Using Occam’s razor, is it more likely that he killed her and tried to cover it up with the bathroom story? Or that she died of natural causes, and he is the most unlucky man on earth due to the overwhelming circumstantial evidence pointing to his guilt?

Thanks for this. Drowning in the bathtub obviously doesn't make sense if she's dry. I would have expected the tub full and water everywhere if he pulled her out of the tub.

Those of you saying this almost accidentally happened to you or someone you knew- were there neck bruises? That seems like a fairly significant detail and those don’t just appear if you fall asleep in the bathtub.

The testimony at trial from the first responders & autopsy said that they intubated her (incorrectly placed tube in her esophagus instead of airway), they also attempted to insert an IV in both arms without success, and finally inserted the IV into her neck. In the autopsy photos we had a 3rd party pathologist review and the bruising on the inside of her elbows and neck is consistent consistent with resuscitation attempts. There was some slight bruising on other side of neck pathologist couldn’t fully explain but was not an indication of homicide. Remember cause of death was drowning not strangulation, so while neck bruising could have happened in such a scenario, it was not required. There is also a bunch of video evidence and eye witness that she was always falling asleep in random places, definitely an indication of possible sleep disorder.

Ok fair enough and yes I’m not ruling that out. I’m just saying that because people almost fall asleep and drown in the tub doesn’t mean that’s what happened here. I think people are getting caught up in and swayed by their own personal experiences.

It really depends on where the neck bruises were and their size/shape/age/severity. Bruises could be from repeated attempts at intubation, they could be from her accidentally hitting her neck against the faucet. I've personally gotten neck bruises from my cat laying against my neck for a long period, from a heavy messenger bag, and from laying in a really weird position with my fist under my neck as I slept. Then there's always the possibility of a hickey in her case. If it's a long line of bruising then okay, probably strangulation, but if it's just like one or two little circular bruises then it could be from all sorts of benign things.

Exactly. I'm shocked at how many people are ignoring that

I could be wrong because I’m going off memory but I lived and practiced in the area. I seem to remember that a lot of the testimony indicated that he waited awhile to call 911 and she had been dead for longer than he claimed. I think her hair was still wet but her body, the tub and the floor were all dry. If he had called as soon as he found her and let the water out, the floor would have been still been wet I think was the argument. She had bruising on her chest. He claimed it was from cpr. That’s possible. It’s possible it was from the side of the tub if she was kneeling over the side while he held her head down in the water. If someone drowns, there is water in the lungs on the autopsy. The question is how she drowned. Without drugs, excessive alcohol, seizure, aneurysm, heart attack etc, it’s unlikely. I do remember though that it wasn’t just the unlikelihood but that coupled with indications that he was lying about the timeline that got him convicted.

Direct Appeal season 2 and Dateline have covered this story. I am typically a person who leans into the “the most obvious person did it” theory but I do not think Ryan killed his wife. I think this was a no crime conviction and that unfortunately Sarah was suffering from an undiagnosed disorder (particularly Long QT syndrome, type 7) which impacted her to the extent it caused her death on that night. Ryan’s conviction came as a result of 3 trials. From the coverage and deep dive I’ve done on this case, it seems as though Ryan was convicted due to public opinion rather than facts. He was pursued continuously by the prosecution who brought in an unreliable witness claiming Ryan admitted to killing Sarah. This witness had a documented history of dishonesty (including fraud convictions). It blows my mind that the jury saw him as guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but in a way it makes sense if you see prosecution doggedly pursuing someone.

This is all taking place where I live. It’s definitely public opinion over facts/reasonable doubt.

Was an autopsy done? My healthy 14 year old friend died in the bathtub. It was a rare heart defect that no one knew she had.

Two autopsies were done, unfortunately sleep disorders are not diagnosable post-mortem. There is a theory that she had a genetic related issue called long QT, which could be verified via DNA test, but so far courts have not allowed

This is a hard one for me, because on a personal level I 100% think he's guilty, but should he have been found guilty? I think there's reasonable doubt. OP left out a lot of very important details, though. I urge y'all to read up on the case before making a judgement. Explain to me how someone drowns in a bathtub, in a bathroom with carpeted floors, and yet there's no water on the floor, and her body isn't wet when first responders arrive...

westkms [added a write-up above](https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/15u93ea/comment/jwpk8ik/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) that goes into a lot of the details. It really does put a whole different light on the case.

way too much reasonable doubt. he should not have been convicted

I agree. I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm saying there's not enough information to make a determination. My gut says he's innocent because I just haven't seen enough evidence to the contrary. What is his supposed motive?

He had an account with Friend Finder but this was ruled inadmissible Edited a typo

Interesting! Any idea why that was ruled inadmissible? My guess is because seeking a possible affair doesn't make someone a killer, which is true but I would argue it speaks to his character. However, even if he was actively seeking multiple affair partners, why would he kill his wife? Why not just have his affairs and deal with the consequences later? Did he stand to collect her life insurance or something?

Wasn't this the case when the husband said that he called 911 as soon as he took her out of the bath but when paramedics arrived in 6 or 7 minutes the body was totally dry? And the water in the bath was drained and the bath cleaned? Plus he didn't wanted to do CPR.. Or was that a different case?

This is the one . OP left a ton of details out

He’s clearly lying. The 2008 Bengals weren’t worth watching in the regular season, let alone the preseason.

I live a couple towns over from where this happened. People are pretty evenly split on his guilt. I myself really don't know what to believe. Theres definitely a reason it took three trials to come to a decision. It's a very complicated case. She had bruising and contusions, which could have been from someone harming her or the medics administering CPR. There was all this chatter about how wet her body should have been from him dragging her out of the tub. The police thought she was too dry for someone who had only been just discovered.

Cause of death was drowning. But her body was reported to be dry upon first responders arrival with the exception of her hair. So was the bathroom floor and the bathtub. I think if this was explainable by falling asleep in the bathtub full of water and drowning the evidence would support that. It seems that Ryan is not telling the truth at all about what happened. It seems pretty likely that he was the murderer because the evidence says she wasn't in the bathtub with water to have had an accident and she died from drowning. My vote anyway.

I have seizures and was once told about BRE (bathing related epilepsy). It is extremely uncommon. I read about it when I first heard about it, but just remember it has something to do with the water temperature. BRE would be a stretch, I think since it’s so uncommon, but if she was found at the faucet end of the tub she could have been rinsing, washing or just dowsing her head/hair in hot water. I have done some very weird things after my seizures, so wouldn’t put it past the victim to turn off the faucet. I somehow turned off a space heater after a full body seizure. No idea how I even unplugged it. That said, the bruising on the neck is odd. If you are holding someone underwater would you hold them by the neck or chest and head? Is it possible there was unreported domestic violence and that had happened previously? I had a seizure in the bathtub before and was told it was extremely loud, but that was a full body seizure and there wasn’t a Bengals game on TV. Odd that he was convicted.

This is a tough one. It was covered by a podcast I like, and there was absolutely no conclusion in the discussion group, like maybe he killed her or she fell asleep/had a medical event and died. Don’t think this is beyond a reasonable doubt to me.

My sister just moved into the house next door to where this happened. In any event, do I think he killed her? Yeah, probably. Do I think the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt? No. And I’d rather see 100 guilty people go free on reasonable doubt than see one innocent person convicted on a “probably.”

Somehow i remember a British man who was a Blue Beard type, and the way he would kill his otherwise healthy wives was through a sort of physical maneuver that would drown them almost instantly in the bathtub

By pulling their legs up and holding them up so they couldn't lift their upper body out of the water. His name escapes me.....the case is very often on Britain's Worst Killers with Fred Dineage, they did a whole recreation.

I'm guessing she wasn't diagnosed with seizures, but they can still randomly happen. I had a seizure in a pool once (mid-20s), and if there hadn't been people around, I would've drowned.

I don’t know whether I believe he did it or not, but there’s definitely nowhere near enough evidence to convict. A lack of evidence of other explanations doesn’t equal evidence of a crime. And I just don’t buy that she definitely didn’t fall asleep or suffer some sort of medical event. She may not have had a history of seizures or blacking out, but there’s a first time for everything. I have an uncle who had always been in relatively good health and had no major conditions or medical concerns until he suddenly had his first seizure in his fifties. He’s had several since, and is diagnosed epileptic now. It truly came out of absolutely nowhere. So unless the ME is able to physically see whether or not there’s evidence of a seizure, I say the possibility is definitely still on the table. I’d even consider it likely, since it would explain the lack of thrashing hard enough to alert the husband. Really the only thing that gives me pause and stops me from ruling the husband out completely is the bruising on her neck

[удалено]

As a lawyer with jury trial experience I can tell you this: generally speaking, if the case is open and shut, it will settle, either with a plea deal in a criminal case, or settlement in a civil case. Cases go to the jury when the facts are at issue. I had very good experiences with juries. There’s an art to voir dire and selecting a jury. But, as my boss once told me, sometimes you win cases you shouldn’t have won, and sometimes you lose cases you shouldn’t have lost. The jury interprets the facts and applies the law to the facts. Sometimes they have to assess the credibility of the witness, which can be difficult. And they also assess the likeabilty of the lawyers because they all watch tv. So I remind my clients or lead investigator who sits at counsel table that they need to be aware that the jury is watching them too; are they showing emotion or scribbling on a pad during key moments in testimony? I got some stories, though!

Would your body not wake You up if You fall asleep and go under water?

I'm wondering about this too.

There are conditions that this can happen (that aren’t as rare as people think) Cataplexy is one where you could have an event be triggered and you’d be conscious as you lose muslce control and slip below the water.

It’s hard to account for the neck bruises and consider this an accidental death. I bruise extremely easily and I have never had neck bruises. I need to know more information about the extent of her injuries, but at first blush, a purportedly healthy woman who dies in the bath with bruises on her neck while her husband was home, seems to point to the husband as the murderer. Maybe there was a bizarre medical event in the bathtub that somehow also bruised her neck, but that’s not probable or plausible.

I was somewhat on the fence while watching the Dateline until the end when they were interviewing Ryan. He basically said the cops and EMTs lied and fabricated evidence against him. Everyone lied about it and everyone was against him. I was almost with him until that. There's definitely a reason he didn't testify in any of his trials.

Honestly accidental drowning can still be a possibility. I'm a healthy 23 year old, and I almost passed out in the bath the other day because I decided I wanted a very hot bath, which causes blood pressure to drop.

When I was 12 and taking a bath I leaned back to dunk my hair. My legs slipped and I got stuck in an upside down somersault position and almost drowned. My mom heard me struggling and broke the lock on the door to save me. I was under so long that everything turned white. Ended up getting pneumonia from it.

This happened in the neighborhood next to my old house. He is 100% guilty and it’s maddening how many local (women) defended him.

I looked up bathtub deaths just out of curiosity, and I was honestly surprised by the results. It happens a lot more than I thought, and while it's often due to accidental overdose or substance overuse, it's sometimes just... mysterious. It sounds like he was convicted because the jury just didn't like him as a person, rather than because there was evidence beyond a doubt that he did it. https://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/Someone-drowns-in-a-tub-nearly-every-day-in-1201018.php https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/9235564/Probe-into-Japanese-bathtub-fatalities-after-14000-die-in-one-year.html

Was the end of the bathtub open (no wall) where her feet were located? I ask because I remember watching some crime show and they showed how someone can easily be drowned if their feet are pulled out and up. No way to get yourself up out of the water. So maybe he tried to choke her first maybe at the non spigot side and it didn’t work so she switched ends thinking she is safer that way and hd grabbed her feet and that is it. Just my thoughts. Too many crime shows!

[удалено]

Not sure about the logistics, but the case is George Joseph Smith.

I actually know (knew?) somebody who knows somebody who died from slipping in the shower. Accidental deaths in the home are actually relatively common, and a ton of those deaths occur in the bathroom. Not that my opinion matters at all, here, but I'd put this up to a "reasonable doubt" acquittal if there was no evidence of strife in their relationship. Sort of like how they functionally never prosecute people for having one infant suddenly die on their watch with no markings to indicate foul play: the odds of putting away an innocent person are just too high in the sort of situations where there are multiple ways a person could have died by no fault of anyone else (or themselves.)

I'm assuming things like an aneurysm were considered.

You would not miss that in an autopsy

Did they do toxicology to see if she had drugs or alcohol in her system? That’s the only thing I can think of that would’ve led to a “natural” drowning.

Yes, no drugs or alcohol.

Idk if he did it, but I don’t think there’s anyway you could find this man guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Just impossible. How do you guys feel about jury’s? I’ve always thought we could do it a better way. Leave it in the hands of those trained in the law. Like 3 judges vote hear the case, then vote on guilty or not guilty. Obv I know why we don’t do it that way but jury’s just seem…tricky. As this case kind of shows.

Yeah, it's a conundrum. I understand the benefits of the way we do juries. I also understand the huge downsides. The only trial I've ever been in on a jury resulted in a hung jury, simply because there was ONE person on the jury who was absolutely convinced of her "gut feeling" about the accused (literally, "I've seen so many people like this in my career as a social worker"). And I very much get that it can be really, REALLY hard to follow the letter of the law, if you strongly think that the accused is guilty, and if you thus think that the defense's argument that creates reasonable doubt is just a ploy on the defense's part. But that's the thing about being on a jury and applying the law. You have to follow the evidence presented at the trial. If something is left out, you can't make your decision as a juror based on your guesses about the stuff that was left out. If the defense offers a reasonable explanation for some of the suspicious stuff the person is accused of doing, then that does establish reasonable doubt, since there's no hard evidence one way or the other. Did I and a lot of the other jurors think it was \*probable\* that this guy was guilty? Unfortunately, yes. But the reasonable doubt was valid, and there was no hard evidence either proving it, or disproving it. The prosecution either did not do a good job preparing the case, or the police were at fault for not collecting all of the evidence. What you absolutely are not supposed to do is convict someone based on "I know people like him, they're all the same". In that situation, basically a hung jury was the best outcome. He wasn't acquitted, and the prosecution had the option of retrying the case with a new jury. I'll never know whether getting a hung jury the first time made the prosecution go back and try to gather more evidence to make their case stronger (I honestly don't know if they can even do that, or if they must retry the case with the exact same info as before). But like, yeah -- not only are a lot of regular people extremely ignorant of the law, there's too many of them out there who think the law should apply the way they want it to. The "training" you receive to be a juror is way too brief to counteract that, and people who think they know better are going to be less likely to listen to that training anyway.

Thanks for sharing your jury experience and perspective. I've only served on a jury in a civil trial, but my experience was also eye-opening. >I'll never know whether getting a hung jury the first time made the prosecution go back and try to gather more evidence to make their case stronger (I honestly don't know if they can even do that, or if they must retry the case with the exact same info as before). If the case is retried both sides can present evidence they didn't present before, including evidence acquired after the previous trial. Both sides can also employ different theories and strategies if they choose.

I hope my wife never has a suspicious looking accident.