Dubai Debt Issues Push Stocks Down
GMA: Adam Lambert, No; Chris Brown, Yes
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Mayor: Sex Trafficking Victims, Please Speak Up
Street Artist Proposes on Subway Signage
After a long trial that delved into a very troubled marriage, a jury acquitted 73-year-old Ben Odierno in the stabbing death of his wife Christine. The jury deliberated for four hours, coming back with the not guilty verdict which made Odierno cry. The senior has been in jail for 21 months, and told reporters, "I feel like I'm back again - from heaven to hell and back."
Christine Odierno had presented her husband with divorce papers in their East 84th Street townhouse in 2005. They were arguing, and Christine Odierno died after being stabbed 40 times, but not before telling police "My husband stabbed me." Odierno claimed that Christine stabbed him first (he was stabbed 8 times) and he stabbed her in self-defense. The prosecutors had claimed he killed her, angry over the divorce and how that would affect their $10 million in property, and stabbed himself to make it look like she attacked him.
One juror told the Daily News there was "reasonable about intent," while others told the Times they believed both spouses were emotionally abused in the relationship. They also questioned the prosecution's strategy. While Odierno, his sons, and others testified about Christine Odierno's extreme moods and rage, the prosecution had few character witnesses; the jury even wondered when the victim's sister weren't called to testify even though they were in the courtroom. One juror, Miri Samuel, said about Odierno, "He was a simple, decent man who tried to live a simple, happy life."
The Post reported that Odierno celebrated with his family and friends at Lusardi's and gave this shout-out: "I'm all for the boys in the Tombs!"
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
and the he poured out a glass of wine... "for the homies"
There is the argument for never getting married!
ahhh valentine's day
I followed this case closely. Those jurors are out of their minds. They essentially said that they acquitted him because his wife wasn't likeble, and because they liked his demeanor on the stand.
They might have liked the Odierno's wife's demeanor on the stand too...if she was testifying as opposed to being six feet underground.
The jurors apparently believed the Odierno's assertion that he had been stabbed, even though the "stab" marks were closely grouped together (i.e. self inflicted - who would get stabbed once, then not move out of the way while their assailant is stabbing at the same location?).
Odierno also testified to this elaborate scenario of what had happened, and then on cross said that he had amnesia and couldn't remember what happened.
This verdict just means that it's open season on spouses. What a failure they were as a jury.
BEST SHOUT OUT EVER!
a failure as a jury? this is your opinion after "following the case closely? did you attend every day of the proceedings? did you devote several weeks of your life to hearing this case?
your comment is reprehensible for two reasons. you seem to believe that by reading the news and the post (and the two NYT articles on the case) that you "followed the case" closely enough to know it better than the jury. then, you attack the jury as a "failure" without any apparent understanding of the gravity that most jurors bring to their task.
maybe we should just let the tabs decide the next one themselves?
a failure as a jury? this is your opinion after "following the case closely? did you attend every day of the proceedings? did you devote several weeks of your life to hearing this case?
your comment is reprehensible for two reasons. you seem to believe that by reading the news and the post (and the two NYT articles on the case) that you "followed the case" closely enough to know it better than the jury. then, you attack the jury as a "failure" without any apparent understanding of the gravity that most jurors bring to their task.
maybe we should just let the tabs decide the next one themselves?
somebody call me?
I actually did attend several days of testimony. My post was based on more than the news reports. Much more. The jurors, in their comments, revealed that they departed from deciding the relevant issues in the case, and that they based their decision on sympathy. What burns especially is the one juror's statement to the effect of "we thought how could somebody do something like that, but then we all thought, we don't know what we would do." So, basically, she's saying that if you have a really contentious relationship and fight a lot over money, that it's not a crime to kill your spouse.
Best. Jury. Ever.
I think the caliber of ADA's has gone down. Too much smearing and nastiness won't gain you friends in the box. It backfired.
Next up, the Cortez jury will find him Innocent. Did you see the ADA in that case? I don't know what he has on his head.
Sounds like she got what she deserved.
taking cues from the ADA's in Law and Order won't work. A jury will see badgering and feel for the accused.
You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
no, the juror is not saying that a "contentious relationship" gives one license to kill a spouse. it's that, given this particular contentious relationship, there is a significant possibility that she started it and that his reaction is explainable.
what they were saying is that they didn't buy the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Let's see...
Your kids testify that you were a nutcase.
Your brother implies that he believes the husband.
Your mother doesn't recognize you.
The jury made a sound decision.
read about it only but 2 comments -- the guy's attorney is a barracuda and, again from what i read in the papers, the Pros could have done a better job of countering the D's claim the wife was a beeotch
Forensically speaking, forty stab wounds = sounds like an "overkill" pattern -- a rage murder. Try raising a knife over your head and sinking it into the body of an imaginary woman 40 times. Feel like self-defense? Didn't think so.