The Troubling Case of Sarah Widmer

by Laura James

In August 2008, 24-year-old Sarah Widmer, of southwest Ohio, died under mysterious circumstances: she drowned in her own bathtub.

The only other person in the home at the time was her husband of four months, Ryan Widmer.

The coroner ruled it a homicide. Mr. Widmer was charged and convicted of murdering his wife. The trial was taped by Dateline. And yet he has many supporters, among them his family and the Ohio Innocence Project -- which took on the case even though it does not meet their criteria (because there is no exculpatory DNA evidence). With the widespread publicity, an unusual case quickly became a very unusual case.


The conviction was thrown out by a judge concerned with the conduct of jurors who went outside the evidence to create their own theory of the case. (Or at least that was the stated reason. If the judge didn't have his own doubts about the verdict, I doubt he would have issued this ruling.) Now Ryan Widmer is about to be retried.


In the meantime, websites tell the tragic stories of this couple. Remember Sarah Widmer is a heartbreaking tribute to the attractive woman who lost her life in such an inexplicable way. Local station WCPO has put together its voluminous coverage. Mr. Widmer's supporters have created a comprehensive website and organized mass prayers.


Did Ryan Widmer kill his wife? How can the drowning death of a healthy young woman be otherwise explained? But there is no motive to be gleaned from the evidence. Was he wrongfully convicted? Was the coroner's conclusion warranted by the evidence? Did our criminal justice system, as extraordinarily deferential as it is to prosecutors, make a grievous error? Or is a guilty man going to go free?


These are deeply troubling questions. Had I been on the jury, I don't know that I could have voted to convict him, based on what I have read. I can't help but think that jurors in the United States today have completely lost touch with the concept of reasonable doubt.

One thing is for certain, to my mind anyway: widespread publicity in any case is a serious threat to a search for the truth. Is this not apparent to us by now? Be it a case in which the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, yet the defendant walks (O.J. Simpson, Robert Durst), or a case in which the evidence is ridiculously thin but the defendant is convicted anyway (Father Gerald Robinson, and, perhaps, Ryan Widmer), journalists and cameras are more often a problem than anything else.


If I ever had the misfortune to represent an innocent person accused of a crime, and if that case were to be heavily publicized beforehand or broadcast live, I would not stand for it. I'd go on a hunger strike until they removed the camera. If, on the other hand, my client was guilty, I'd welcome the publicity. The cameras are monkey wrenches. They mess with the works.


In the Widmer case, we can only hope that the retrial results in the truth coming out.

Victim or Cold-Blooded Killer?

by Diane Fanning

Under suspicion of first-degree murder, 15-year-old Jordan was arrested on July 13, 2009, by Colorado Springs Police. The lead detective, Lieutenant David Whitlock, described her as "a cold-blooded killer."

More than six months later, she remains in the custody of the state; her mother's rights as a parent have been terminated.  No charges have been filed yet against Jordan because prosecutors do not know what to do with her, even though she admitted to shooting Jon Hazard (below, right) to death.

Although I normally stand with murder victims, this case may be an exception.  Hazard is not a very sympathetic figure.  His wife didn't realize he had an obsession with underage porn until his fascination with their teenage babysitter brought it all out in the open.  She divorced him in 2001.

Hazard's sons lived with their mother in Texas, but traveled to Colorado to visit their dad.  He lived next door to Jordan and her mother.  During the summer of 2006, 11-year-old Jordan became friends with Hazard's 10- and 13-year-old boys.

At one point, when Jordan was in Hazard's home, he surreptitiously videotaped her making out with a boy her age.  He used that tape as blackmail.  He said he'd show it to her mother unless Jordan used her cell phone to take nude photos of herself and send them to him.  Soon pictures of this naked child weren't enough to satisfy Hazard's lust.

He used the images to pressure Jordan to meet him at the Hampton Inn, where he plied her with booze until she passed out.  When she woke up, he was fondling her.  She leaped out of bed and took refuge in the bathroom for the rest of the night.  It wasn't the last time they met in a hotel, though.  On later occasions, he used pills to ensure he got what he wanted.  When Jordan went to Grand Junction with Jon Hazard in July 2008, her mother found out and called the police.

In December of that year, Hazard was arrested on two counts of sexual assault with a pattern of abuse, sexual assault on a child from a person in a position of trust, and contributing to delinquency of a minor.  A forensic analysis of his computer uncovered more than 200 images and videos of Jordan, dating back to when she was 13 years old.

But there was even more evidence stored on his computer.  Analysts uncovered a video of Hazard administering pills to Jordan, a 23-page confession complete with a time-line, and inappropriate images of other underage girls.

You'd think that with all the digital evidence to back up Jordan's story of abuse, police should have confiscated Hazard's hand guns when he was released on bail awaiting trial.  But they didn't. 

According to a source close to the case, when Hazard went to Palmer Park on the evening of May 31, he took two of his guns with him.  Was it mere happenstance that those weapons were in his car when he went to meet the young girl?  Or did he intend to use them to intimidate Jordan?  Or did he bring the weapons because he planned to take his victim's life to prevent her from testifying against him at his trial on June 9?

Whatever his intentions, Hazard died that night from multiple gunshot wounds.  His body was found near the picnic area in the park.

If he threatened Jordan that night, and she managed to get the gun away and turn it on her attacker, it is clearly self-defense.  But even in the worst-case scenario for Jordan -- if she took the gun from the car and shot Hazard dead without immediate provocation -- is a first-degree murder charge appropriate?

Opinions run the gamut.  On one side: Hazard deserved it, let the girl go.  On the other: victims can't take the law into their own hands; she took a life, her own was forfeit.  I think truth and justice lies somewhere in between those two extremes.

If Jordan saw her situation as one of perpetual victimization, a nightmare with no end, isn't it understandable that she would take action to end it?

The state finally moved her to a treatment facility last week.  But since she's being held on suspicion of first-degree murder, is she really there for psychological help for her past trauma? Or is the state using that methodology to build a first-degree murder case against her?

Hazard stole this child's dignity and destroyed her childhood. Now the state is holding the threat of lifetime incarceration over her head. Prosecutors need to file charges against this girl or set her free. The limbo Jordan is living in now adds to the trauma of her short and difficult life and prevents her from getting the help she needs to rebuild her life and heal her soul.

The Lovely Bones: Read it Before You See it

by Stacy Dittrich

In August 2009, I was vacationing on the beautiful Cape Fear coast of North Carolina. I'd sworn a personal oath that I'd simply enjoy the time with my family and do absolut