Cindy, as most know now, was recently released from prison after serving 876 days behind bars for a murder she didn't commit. An overzelous DA from San Diego, Bonnie Dumanis, prosecuted an innocent woman with nothing more than character attacks. This woman, Bonnie Dumanis, victimized another woman because she didn't behave correctly, per her standards, as a greiving widow.
Fortunately, Superior Court Judge Peter Deddeh allowed for another trial deeming Cindy's initial counsel as ineffective. He ruled that the prosecutors' description of her "lifestyle" was so inflammatory that it deprived Sommer of a fair trial. This came from the JUDGE!! He noted the bias againsed Sommers.
This FORCED the DA's office to reissue testing of the deceased tissue samples ( that were considered contaminated and inconclusive in the first place ) which came back as normal. To follow in greater detail, the botched "evidence" the DA used for the conviction, you can read the details HERE.
The facts are the facts however you can google the name anywhere if you feel the site isn't objective enough. The data regarding testing, contamination, and inconsistancies run rampant anywhere you look. The defensive back biting between departments is ridiculous and the DA's response to all this is that they did what they were suppose to do. Hm? Convict innocent people? I would think the DA would try to find JUSTICE!
New tests showed not only that she had not murdered her husband, but that he hadn't been murdered at all.
So the question is, why would Bonnie Dumanis convict an innocent woman? Why was she so hell bent on making this woman appear a murderer with no link to purchasing "the poison", inconclusive evidence of poison in the victim's system, witness testimony of how arsenic reacts in the body and that it couldn't have been the culprit, and witness testimony that food poisoning occurred a week or so prior? Why would Bonnie, a person who is suppose to seek justice and protect people from being victimized, attack a woman on how she dresses and behaves without any real evidence of wrongdoing? I must ask, when is this woman up for re-election?
"It's scary how [prosecutors] are dealing with this now," Bloom said. "They're taking credit for doing the right thing. They didn't do the right thing! Justice was done, but not because of the prosecution in this case but despite the prosecution." What's worse is apparently during prep for the second trial the DA's office, once again, asked friends about Cindy's behavior after her husband's death.
Hello??? Did you not realize this tactic may have worked the first go 'round but wasn't ethical; this is why you are having a second trial? Obviously, even knowing you have a bs case you're still trying to save face and your job (CYA) that you would go to any length to convict an innocent woman. Period.
Bonnie Dumanis STOLE 876 DAYS of Cindy's life from her and her children. Does she feel remorse? Watching her on the news she doesn't appear to have any shred of it. Should she be criticized and sacrificed in the media because she doesn't BEHAVE as someone filled with remorse should? Guess society will decide that; they certainly decided on Cindy's behalf. It was, after all, a jury of "peers" that found her guilty based on her behavior and NOT evidence or lackthereof.
Wonder if Bonnie fares better?