-
NOTHING BUT SEX – ALL THE TIME! *UPDATED
Posted on July 29th, 2009 119 commentsA DISGRACE BY SODOMSKY?
E-mails revealed during the trial showed that Funk and Roseboro communicated about rubbing each other with oil, and wedding dresses that were short enough to allow Funk to show off her legs. About this, Sodomsky said simply that men think about sex all the time. At one point, as an aside to the jury, he said, I’m talking to the men — you know what happens.
“It’s a disgrace… but this thing with Angela Funk was nothing but sex,” Sodomsky argued.
Allan Sodomsy, Michael Roseboro’s defense attorney, quoted by WGAL-TV in his closing statement to the jury (click here).
Do you think this was a smart move by Sodomsky? There are eight women and four men on the jury. Will this be “enough” for one of those men to have reasonable doubt?
*** Update: WGAL-TV is now reporting DA Craig Stedman said this in his closing:
“This is not a typical guy. This is not about sex. It is twisted. He’s a liar. He’s a cheater and we proved he is a murderer.”
119 responses to “NOTHING BUT SEX – ALL THE TIME! *UPDATED”
-
Flower Power July 29th, 2009 at 16:38
Not all men think about sex all the time. It’s NOT normal to think that way, and any man that does has a problem–murderer or not.
-
lly1988 July 29th, 2009 at 16:48
What a sexist remark to make. Obviously Sodomsky thinks about sex all the time. Did he have an affair with Angie, too?
-
DENVERGIRL July 29th, 2009 at 16:53
I appreciate the news that has been passed along by this site and the comments as people process information from this trial. Thank you for all your hard work.
I however stand with the side of the defense. However dispicable I may find the actions of the defendent as he has carried out his affair with this disgusting woman, the only shred of evidence is that he had an affair. The fact is that MANY people in an affair act the same way as they did. It is the thrill of the affair that takes over and consumes you. Most people do not have the freedom or opportunity to make that many calls, emails or texts but it is not that they aren’t thinking about doing just that. Being consumed by an affair does not in any way prove that this man is guilty of murder. Do you realize how many people discuss leaving their spouses for their fling and about their wedding or honeymoon? Wake up! That is often how an affair works. It is a huge jump to conclude that based on any of these discussions this man has provided incriminating evidence that he intended to kill his wife or even that he was in the state of mind that he was likely to do so. If this jury follows the law and assumes Michael is innocent until the prosecution proves that he is guilty, then he is guilty of adultery, by having an affair and lying about it (which you usually do). He is guilty of being selfish and putting his own desires above the welfare of his family. But he is INNOCENT of murder. My concern is that in my experience jurers do not ofen accept the accused as innocent until proven guilty. Which is the basis of our judicial system. I am deeply saddened by the loss of this beautiful woman, Jan Elizabeth Roseboro and I cannot even begin to comprehend the sorrow that this family is enduring. I want justice to be served as much as anybody for the sake of these children and have hoped that we would uncover what actually happened that night. I am not even saying that Michael did not in fact murder his wife. I AM SAYING that the there is a lot more than a reasonable doubt floating around here and we cannot find a man guilty of murder because of an affair or because we can’t prove who else did it instead! -
I think it was an incredibly stupid thing for him to say. And I don’t know about Sodomsky and Angie but the hot blonde on Sodomsky’s team might be a different story and she is a story for another day!
-
I think it was a stupid comment. The woman of the jury are thinking what a pig Roseboro is and the men are probably insulted.
-
rinda July 29th, 2009 at 16:56
Can Sodomsky be disbarred for making such a sexist stupid remark?
-
DENVERGIRL, he is not innocent! Get a grip…
-
Common Sense! July 29th, 2009 at 17:23
DENVERGIRL, if you find dog droppings next to your mailbox, you don’t have to actually SEE the dog doing his business to understand that, in fact, thats what a dog just did.
If there is only one dog in the neighborhood who could have possibly done this, it is insane to believe that another dog – aliens dogs, ghost dogs, time travelling dogs, whatever – probably did it and your favorite neighborhood dog isn’t guilty.
Mike Roseboro killed his wife. There is SIMPLY NO OTHER REASONABLE EXPLANATION TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE.
Mike Roseboro killed his wife. There is SIMPLY NO OTHER EVIDENCE that proves otherwise.
-
another denver online member July 29th, 2009 at 17:30
I can’t wait till they send this horrible man up the river, hopefully without a paddle. Of course he’s guilty ! But I also think somebody else {A} got off easy. I have read here where {A} got kicked out of her church. I was wondering if the Denver elementary school is still going to let her volunteer there. I for one do not wish for any of my children to be in her presence, not now, not ever .. And if by chance she does, I will remove my children from that school. I know many others are feeling the same way too. Keep up the fantastic work !
-
According to the Reading Eagle the charges brought against Rosebore are: First degree murder and RELATED OFFENSES.
If those are the charges Roseboro can be acquitted of the principal charge but be convicted of a lesser included offense like manslaughter.
-
Sara, that was what the judge was charging them with this afternoon. I don’t know what all of their options are. Stedman made it very clear in jury selection that he was going for first degree murder.
-
Reading Guy July 29th, 2009 at 17:51
Sodomsky is a top notch defense attorney. He was probably one of the best prosecuting attorneys Berks County ever had, but as in all counties, you cannot pay enough to keep good attorneys.
A good defense attorney has to defend his client and sometimes they say things that are not very popular. Afterall, he is trying to sway one juror enough to have reasonable doubt, not win a popluarity contest with the media and public.
My guess is you Lancaster County tractor jockeys aren’t used to big time criminal cases. Amos’ mule damaging the neighbor’s flower bed is probably your idea of a crime. But I guess this story is the main topic of conversation at Floyd’s Barber Shop and Goober’s Fill’n Station. LOL
-
gulfcoastgirl July 29th, 2009 at 17:52
The evidence in black and white proves it was more than that. Meeting after Jan was murdered makes it more than that. If she was only about sex and he loved his wife, he would have been focused on his family in the days after, not on Funk.
-
Piper July 29th, 2009 at 18:01
The blonde on the defense team is Sodomskys office manager. She helps do the scheduling at his office and takes telephone calls from clients etc. Did Mike get charged extra for her to sit there. Who are these people kidding?
-
Reading Guy, I would guess Somdomsky wanted to kick himself in the a$$ the second that stupid comment came out of his mouth.
He’s also probably still kicking himself after the year ago press conference, when he talked about the $40,000 of jewelry missing.
It amazing he never once mentioned it during the trial.
-
denverguy July 29th, 2009 at 18:04
If it helps, I’ve read studies that say men think about sex on the average of once every 7 seconds of every day. While posting, I’ve thought about it at least 2 times. Commas are sexy.
-
emelia254 July 29th, 2009 at 18:05
yet Reading guy you are on the this website w/ nothing to do……hhmmm
-
Anonymous July 29th, 2009 at 18:20
DENVERGIRL……..you need to practice your listening skills…..follow that by a huge dose of COMMON SENSE thinking…..
-
No REASONABLE doubt left, if there ever really was any. GUILTY. So long Mike.
-
hey Reading Guy, let’s see what the verdict reads before spouting off about how great a defense attorney Sodomsky is. Making a bet it will read GUILTY! off to State Prison where he’ll find out all about lovers. Deserves it, has it coming, CASE CLOSED !
-
It was a brilliant move what Sodomsky did to keep the Roseboro’s from hearing all the horrible details about their son without the family appearing to have abandon him.
Just put them on the defense witness list. -
Piper – the hot blonde was mentioned in the taped prison call from Mike to Angie. She apparently was also a main liason to Mike’s mom. She was a hoot and a half! Just as lovable and talkative as she could be.
-
DENVERGIRL July 29th, 2009 at 19:02
To continue the dog analogy for the so called Common Sense… I agree that if you find dog doo doo, yes A Dog did it. I even agree that it is most likely that the dog with the easiest access did it. But since this isn’t a dog crapping by your mailbox you have to follow the law and that includes proving beyond a reasonable doubt and the assumption of innocence. Much as the prosecution, you have proven nothing more than opportunity for your dog. I have read your analogy before on this site and just as the prosecution didn’t prove much more fact than you used to prove your dog guilty, so does your analogy miss all the fundementals of law.
-
I for one have been praying very hard that the guilty party pays. I graduated a couple of years behind Mike at Cocalico and in those days if you had money or were of the more desirable social status everyone even teachers catered to you. I would be very upset to see the guilty party go free because of who they are and how much money they have. I think one of the many lessons that should be learned through all this is money doesn’t make the man or person. Just because you’re rich or are held in high regard in your community doesn’t mean your not like everyone else and you should certainly not walk around with a sense of entitlement that so often his kind do. I also feel some much sadness when I think of Jan and how she spent 19 years loving somebody who did not hold her in the same regard. I believe we are all deserving in this life of being loved by someone who’s suppose to be our best friend and who’s stands by us no matter what. I can’t imagine looking into the eyes of said person while they steal my life away in more ways than one. She wasn’t blessed with the gift of a devoted partner in life but I pray she will be blessed with justice.
-
rinda July 29th, 2009 at 19:31
Denver Girl…Unless you were in the courtroom for every minute of the trial, you can’t possibly say that the prosecution hasn’t proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
Marie July 29th, 2009 at 19:38
Does anyone know who the man was with Ann Roseboro on WGAL tonight? Just wondering if it was Ralph or someone else.
-
riverrat71 July 29th, 2009 at 19:50
DenverGirl, are you related to Mike? Or have been one of his “girls?” Given the one hour window of opportunity, a gate that is hard to open by stranger, light breakers marked so only family would know what ones were which. The DNA under Jans fingernails, caused by DEEP scratches. A small town with not alot of stranger traffic at night. Put it all together and it spells GUILTY. You are right, we must make sure, but put it all together and no way someone else did this…unless OJ’s killer came to Denver. No matter what the verdict, Jan is still dead, and a family is ruined for life, and it was more that “a whistful, lustful banter”
-
Common Sense! July 29th, 2009 at 19:52
DENVERGIRL, not sure it was me who made the dog analogy before but kudos to him/her.
As far as presumption of innocence (not assumption of innocence) and reasonable doubt, do yourself a favor and look those definitions up in a legal dictionary.
You see dog poopie next to your mailbox. While the only dog in the entire neighborhood wasn’t scene doing the deed, you give him the benefit of the doubt. After looking for evidence for any other dog and find none, AND learning that the neighbor dog tummy was overly filled with yummy treats and needed to go bathroom somewhere, you determine if ANY OTHER possible scenario – ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE PROVIDE AND DEFENSE GIVEN – and make a judgement. Your judgement does not have to be absolute. But your judgement needs to be reasonable and based upon the evidence…
Dog poopie next to mailbox? Only dog in town had full tummy? Guess what, dog did it.
-
Yes it was Ralph and he didn’t look so good at all. I know it been awhile since I saw him but I had to look long and hard to see that it was Ralph.
-
Just Me July 29th, 2009 at 20:01
Denverguy,
If commas turn you on, I wonder what semi-colons do to you? lol ;;;;; jkBack to the subject, I think Mike is sooo guilty but at work there are diffent opinions. Some say guilty, some say hung jury, and some even say not enough evidence. I just hope the jury can see the truth and convict if guilty.
-
FunkeyMunkey July 29th, 2009 at 20:03
Hey Reading Guy,
Stay off the website then stupid.
So, Lancaster is not NEARLY the hotbed of crime that stunning downtown Reading is…how fortunate that you get to live in the county that has made a sport of killing cops and raging child abuse. Good for you. Thanks also for polluting our stretch of 222 with all of our fabulous NYC drug runners…good job there too. Oh, and we want to model Reading High…awesome example of a public school system.
This horrific murder is big news for us. For you see, in Lancaster County, horrendous slayings are not the everyday events that they are in Reading, so they sting a bit more.
You are a stupid putz.
Oh, ain’t that Dutchie enough for ya?
How bout this…Jerk.
-
FunkeyMunkey July 29th, 2009 at 20:04
Marie – that was Ralph…Good Lord, he looks terrible…as expected, I guess.
-
My My July 29th, 2009 at 20:08
Yes it was her husband. We as readers do not know all of the information presented in court- I have read many different news sites and have found conflicts in words along with added information. Each station reports what they feel is the best story. It would be great if we knew all of the information- but we don’t, not until we get to read the book someone will write? Then we can see the detailed word for word? I just hope justice will be served and the families find a way to continue their lives with this tragedy of two adults who were terribly selfish. May Jan rest in peace soon.
-
FunkeyMunkey, please don’t have to make me take this moderation job seriously…can we calm down on the insults? Thank you.
;;;;; those are for DG. LOL!
-
Truth is, most guys think alot about sex. That doesn’t make me or my fellow genderites sexual deviants. In my gut, I do believe that Mike Rosenboro did murder his wife, however presenting enough evidence to convict him is another story. Is there reasonable doubt to allow him to walk, ABSOLUTELY!
-
FunkeyMunkey July 29th, 2009 at 20:10
Whatever…he started it.
-
Marie, I was just wondering if Ann or Ralph spoke on camera to WGAL.
-
DenverGirl, Can you come up with an alternative theory?
That’s reasonable.
I think you are confused by beyond a reasonable doubt. With reasonable doubt jurors can still have a doubt as long as it’s reasonable. In other words the defense presented zero evidence with regards to the robbery theory, so why would jurors think it was a robbery gone bad? As a matter of fact, they only are supposed to make their decision based on what the witnesses testify to and not what the attorneys said or they may have heard or read in the media.
The defense brought on no witnesses to offer an alternative theory. The defense was to discredit the state’s witnesses. Is it reasonable to conclude all the state’s witnesses were lying?
-
My My July 29th, 2009 at 20:16
Ann said, “No comment.” That was the extent of the conversation.
-
Marie July 29th, 2009 at 20:22
Thanks for confirming it was Ralph! I was wondering if he would make an appearance. Only Ann spoke to WGAL, a simple “no comment thank you” was all she said.
-
The jury would have to be void of logic or lack the capacity to reason to come back with a not guilty verdict.
-
sayit'snot true July 29th, 2009 at 20:33
I live right outside of Reading and I am quite embarrassed by Reading Guy’s last comment on his post.
Funkey Munkey, you made an excellent point. Reading wouldn’t be a bad place to live if it were not for the crime level.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have been following this trial since it started, (thanks to Becky) and I cannot believe there are still people who think Mike could be innocent. At one point, I thought maybe Angie had more involvement in the murder. But I do not think Mike would take the fall for her. What a sin, though, to put his son on the stand. It just goes to show what a very selfish man he is. As far as the fact that he has to live with this, I honestly think he will have no problem living with himself.
I pray for all the children involved in this, including Angie’s. -
Amen to that statement, AC.
I think alot of the commenters on here are confusing beyond a reasonable doubt with beyond the shadow of a doubt which is an impossible standard and one we don’t use. Alot of the comments have phrases like “I believe he’s guilty but there’s not enough evidence to convict.”
They want a smoking gun. There are smoking guns evident in this case. Roseboro’s DNA under Jan’s fingernails coupled with the scratches on his face. The short window of opportunity. Roseboro appears as though he is a pathological liar-he lied about his affair to his wife and then by Sodomsky’s own admission today, Roseboro was lying to Funk-it was all about sex, not about getting married and starting a life together. If Roseboro is going to lie about affairs and to his girlfriend he sure is hell going to lie about a murder he is charged with. -
denverguy July 29th, 2009 at 20:42
Anything but periods! Periods suck!
-
denverguy July 29th, 2009 at 20:45
Sorry…the reference came from a youtube video I saw a while back. If you can make it through…you’ll catch it.
-
That’s enough out of you, DG! Ladies, let’s get him.
-
Just me July 29th, 2009 at 20:48
………………..
-
Denise July 29th, 2009 at 20:48
denverguy….you are funny! I’m gonna miss you when this is over!
-
Marie July 29th, 2009 at 20:49
Hey denverguy – Bet Mike would’ve liked a period!!!!
-
thinking out loud July 29th, 2009 at 20:50
I completely agree with you Sara. Sodomsky only proved that Mike is a liar and a selfish pig. Most of what he said in his clients defense was extremely weak and could be used in the prosecution’s favor. I think Sodomsky knows that his back is up against a wall and all he could do was fight with what little ammo he had and cross his fingers.
-
denverguy July 29th, 2009 at 20:53
Have you seen this one already? Do I die at the end? What happens when this is over? TELL MEEEE!
-
denverguy July 29th, 2009 at 20:57
OK…and this is completely arbitrary (surprise surprise) but supposing I was on the jury…the only really incriminating piece of evidence is the DNA under the nails. BUT, being married I know that there’s a good chance my DNA is under my wifes fingernails from the backscratches I receive so I doubt I would base a conviction on that alone. I would have a very hard time taking a mans life from him with a life sentence based on what was presented to me from what I know. He was home. He was cheating on his wife. Surely, these things don’t make it look good…but can you convict based on it? I guess we’ll see how the jury feels. I don’t know that I would at this moment in time.
-
I’ve seen it. You end up on 48 Hours talking about how much Angie and Randy love each other and are trying to make this work. The parting shot is of you being taken to the funny farm. Sorry, it’s true…
-
denverguy July 29th, 2009 at 21:03
Am I wearing pants?
-
I have to say, I agree with DENVERGIRL. I still have yet to hear or read of any evidence that makes me believe this case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, there was no evidence that established a particular point – to a moral certainty – that was beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative was possible. It’s not like he was inside a locked room, and was the only one that could have done it. This was done outside and at night, without an eyewitness.
I do think he did it, but I don’t think it was proven to the point that he should be convicted. I believe there are alot of people that simply have a closed mind because they are close to the case or the families involved, or can relate to the crime in some way. To these people, it did not matter what was said or how the trial went, he was already guilty. This trial should have been moved to a different venue, to take away bias. -
How about Roseboro lying about the scratches
on his face, DG?
Try this-bite off one of your fingernails and try and make a scratch in a piece of fruit or a vegatable. No way are you going to scratch away the skin without a fingernail.
I know because I just tried it with a lemon and a cantalope. It’s impossible. I couldn’t even make a dent much less a scratch. I had no problem scratching away the skin with a fingernail though.
Marie, your comment was great! Quick thinking. -
Isleepinswimtrunks July 29th, 2009 at 21:15
Even Angie knows he will be convicted. Do you supposed she would have chose her husband over mike if she had the slightest though he was going to get out?
Doubtfull -
why wasn’t it ever mentioned about the temper he has? I heard from several people that he was thrown off several school fields due to him losing his temper at his son’s games… Nobody brought that up.
-
DenverGuy, you are wearing a pair of “Depends.” (I had help with that answer by the way!)
-
peace July 29th, 2009 at 21:25
don’t forget that we did not get to see or hear all of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
-
denverguy July 29th, 2009 at 21:25
depends? lol. I got nothin.
-
Dguy ,,,,,,,,;;;;;;;; You Must be one sexy dude……….opp’s PERIODS…..U R TOO HORNY ””JUST SOME MORE COMMA’S FOR YA ,,,,,,,,,,
-
Unbelievable – back to serious. I believe he had a temper. Does any one know?
-
Common Sense! July 29th, 2009 at 21:31
Tim, what we’ve discussed here is DIFFERENT than what the jury heard… So you tell me, according to the defense, WHAT evidence did the jury hear to cause doubt? (You’re not supposed to consider, since it wasn’t a defense, aliens, ghosts, intruders, ninjas, self-inflicted murder (think Fight Club), nor one of the kids doing it, Angie doing it, a time/space continum rift or their dogs getting out of the cages and killing Jan. Just askin’.
-
I still think it was the martians! No wait the ninja’s! Seriously people, reasonable doubt? Who goes to bed in a wet swimsuit (Mike was seen pre and post murder in the same swimsuit, by someone who wanted him acquitted and testified to that)? Who on God’s green earth had means, motive, and opportunity besides Michael Roseboro (the martians or ninjas again)? What about the DNA(experts said a minimum of 15 minutes of back scratching on dry skin might accumulate that much DNA, but it was most likley from a forceful contact)? I guess everyone in Denver/Reinholds/ etc. have been in grave danger for an entire year with a random killer on the loose. How many others did this random intruder kill during the last year (NONE)? WAKE UP people!!!
-
Well the schools that he was thrown off and his son’s coach witnessed it. Many parents saw it also. I am just surprised it didn’t come out.
-
G-Man July 29th, 2009 at 21:40
unbelievable – I was wondering the same thing – his quick temper was exposed at several school sporting events and nothing was ever mentioned about it?
-
peace July 29th, 2009 at 21:43
maybe witnesses of his temper feared him and his wealth so they didn’t come forward to say anything
-
I think the jury should have known about his short fuse. I think he told her about the affair and asked for a divorce. She may have told him that it will be a long time before she would give him one and in a rage came back at her and made sure he wouldn’t have to wait.
-
Denise July 29th, 2009 at 21:47
I will stop reading when “this” is over, denverguy. Gonna miss your sense of humor amid this very awful, sad event for all involved.
-
A new STUDman groupie July 29th, 2009 at 21:53
Regarding his temper… MAYBE Judge Cullen didn’t let the DA present that to the jurors! Don’t forget Cullen was a Defense attorney. He represented ZOOK. Do you guys remember that case?
-
peace July 29th, 2009 at 21:59
don’t remember ZOOK…what was it about?
-
peace July 29th, 2009 at 22:07
12 days of testimony wasn’t revealed in the papers/media so there may be a lot of evidence we don’t know about. Especially since the media just gives blips of information.
-
farthar July 29th, 2009 at 22:11
the commonwelth cannot present evidence of prior bad acts by the defendant unless in narrow circumstances. Just showing that he had a temper is would not be one of them. The physical altercation would be relevant and I belive that was admitted
-
Reading Guy July 29th, 2009 at 22:12
Wow, someone musta grat-u-aided the sixt grade! Brilliant comment. Ya know if da ocean come up to da outsirts of Ephrata, it too wood be um restort area!
Wow, Jakey’s Cows woot be mate’n whit da whales den…ach do-leava.
-
Kassie62 July 29th, 2009 at 22:19
My feelings are nothing good is coming after the verdict: hung jury – another trial?; gulty – off to the pen and the children have lost their father and the Roseboro’s their son; not guilty – Mike being treated as guilty by some, his position in life?? So Sad!
-
Kassie62,
The children haven’t had their father for a year and have done very well. How do you think they will be with Mike and Angie? The reason he will be treated like he is guilty if he gets out is because he is. Don’t feel too bad for him, he made this bed, now he has to sleep in it. -
whispers July 29th, 2009 at 23:18
If an intruder did this, why would there be no traces of blood around the murder scene? Someone cleaned it up obviously to hide what had truly taken place. I guess the anonymous lurking killer was a clean freak & courteous now. M. Roseboro’s profession is to do just that; clean out and up ones body of blood. Also, why weren’t 12 days of testimony covered by the news media? Just curious. I do think that this case should have been moved to another County however. Everyone knows of this case here, & well, it creates a bias on both sides. I also like the point about the swimsuit trunks.
-
it’s really a shame how ignorant people on here can be. whatever happened to everyone is innocent until proven otherwise? the prosecution has proven nothing other than what the defense admits, an affair. i know the roseboro’s and michael was always an extremely nice man. maybe he did it…but maybe isn’t good enough to lock someone up for the rest of his life. i find it very unlikely all 12 jurors will find him guilty. i believe this will be a mistrial at the best for the prosecution. realistically, michael will be a free man by the end of this week. and oh yeah, sodomsky is right when he says the prosecution has no idea what events took place that evening and that there are “major gaps” in their evidence and case.
-
oh yeah, and the “well, if mike didnt, then who did?” is the crappiest reason to find someone guilty of murder. but ubdoubtedly, there will be idiots on here who mention it.
-
pfan1 July 30th, 2009 at 00:34
I don’t understand the ignorant comments coming from Reading Guy. Do you have an issue with people from Lancaster County? You are showing how ignorant you are by stereotyping all people into one category. This county (even Northern part) has as much diversity as any other area. I am very proud of the small town life I have experienced growing up here and having the opportunity to travel all over the country. I chose to move back here and raise my children. It is sad that murder has become too common. I feel when your thoughts dwell on wrong things it can lead to things you never thought capable before.
-
cindy July 30th, 2009 at 03:37
I am curious about all the evidence bags. Were they all opened and what was in them if they were opened. I’m wondering if I just missed the reporting or if they remain unopened…and why?!?!?!
-
AlotOfBull July 30th, 2009 at 04:44
Becky – Was this video of Ann and Ralph only on the evening news, because I can’t find it online…just curious!
-
Nameless July 30th, 2009 at 05:43
Sure Angie is guilty of an affair, she is not a bad mother. Affairs do not make you a bad person. I believe she did not know anything about what was happening to Jan. I also know for fact that what she said in court about working things out with Randy is very true.
THERE WILL BE NO MIKE AND ANGIE!!!!!!(FACT).She is most quilty for being gullable and nieve.
-
COMMON SENSE…..What I’m saying is this, the state must exclude any and all reasonable doubt as to him being the only possible person to commit this crime, they had that responsibility. The defense had proposed an intruder could have done this, and I have heard nor seen nothing presented by the prosecution to rule that out. This crime was committed out in the open under the cover of darkness. The defense does not have to prove who that intruder was or why they might have done it, they only must prove that it could have occurred. It is reasonable to assume that this could have been done by another person that possibly knew the family and/or the layout of the property, and maybe even someone that conspired with Roseboro himself.
And no, obviously we have not heard all of what the jury was presented, and I stated that my opinion was based only on what I have read and heard to this point. I can only hope that they do have evidence or heard something that has not been reported, if they are going to convict. -
Tim, Anon,
I guess the glove doesn’t fit, huh? -
Eureka July 30th, 2009 at 07:44
Call OJ and tell him to come to Reinholds so he can fulfill his promise of catching the real killer(s !!!! Who would have thunk they would travel cross country?!
(DG – LOVE your sense of humor !!)
May Jan rest in peace……
-
Black Bart July 30th, 2009 at 07:57
OK….is this enough to convict him?
-lustful affair – admitted
-liar – admitted
-planned to leave his wife – read the emails
-met with A several times after wife is murdered (I guess to console his sorrow)
-Sent the kids to bed @ 9:15 when they normally have no bed time in summer
-put dogs in crates @9:15 when normally do not do that until last person goes to bed
-went to bed in his wet swimming trunks as it was proven he was in the pool when his son was home
-fresh scrathces on his face that he said came from his daughter who bites her nails
-skin and blood DNA under wife’s nails that DNA experts said would not come from a back scrathing unless she drew blood…which in that case he would have had scrathes on his back
-not possible that a killer came in turned the lights off, killed her, cleaned it up, turned the lights back on
-past physical abuse of wife
-obsessive texts, emails, phone with A
-911 call which he said he was performing CPR but was not
-backing away and not helping with CPR or care of his wife
-not even riding in the ambulance with his wife to hospital
-lack of water on the pool deck where she was laying when he pulled her out?
-4 minute time line from waking up, peeing, finding her in pool, pulling her from pool, performing CPR, 911 call…do not think so?I am sure that I missed lots also as I was not there at the trial!
Now the defense;
He did not do it!
Someone else did it and stole her jewlery that she was not wearing that night!
Maybe they got it from the bedroom that the 3 kids and Mike were sleeping in? -
Let’s just say the defense’s scenario is correct. All the lights were on, and Jan was siting by the pool in a fenced in area with her husband and three children “sleeping” just 20 feet away with her cell phone in her hand. According to Mike she was “checking her messages and watching the planes”. Jan’s last cell phone call was to Ann at 10:37 PM. Mike woke up at 10:58 to “check on the lights” (not his wife… the lights). That leaves the random motiveless killer 20 MINUTES!!!! There are several cars parked in the driveway (indicating that there are most likely more than one adult home). The area is well lit. Jan would see an intruder coming into the property. Why didn’t she scream for help? Why didn’t Mike hear her? Why didn’t she call 911?
I suppose the phantom killer is sure lucky that Mike is taking all the blame for this one. I would imagine that before he finished her off he also drug her into the bedroom where Mike was sleeping and scratched him so that his DNA was under Jan’s fingers and there were scratches on Mike’s face. I guess he is also lucky that Mike didn’t ride in the ambulance with his dying wife that he just found in the pool. I guess the killer is lucky that Mike called several people to tell them jan is dead before she was even pronounced dead! I guess the killer is lucky that Mike NEVER called the hospital to check on his wife. I guess the killer is lucky that he made the death look like an accident so the police would accuse Mike. I guess the random killer was so worried about how Jan looked after she was dead he didn’t bother to hit her in the face. Only on her head hidden behind her thick hair.
WOW Mike you were framed by the same guy that framed OJ.
-
Anon 00:15, “if Mike didn’t do it than who did” is absolutly part of the definition of reasonable doubt.
It does not mean proof beyond ALL doubt. It IS proof to a moral certainty-as opposed to an ABSOLUTE certainty. It is proof that leaves one with NO other reasonable conclusion, except that the defendent is guilty.
It is not the kind of doubt thought up by someone who is looking for doubts.
REASONABLE DOUBT IS PROOF THAT EXCLUDES EVERY REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS EXCEPT THAT THE DEFENDENT IS GUILTY.Tim, the commonwealth is required to bring forth evidence that points to the defendents guilt and that’s all. It would have been up to the defense to open the intruder door and there was no way Sodomsky was going to open that door and have Stedman run thru it during cross. Remember the defense did hire a private investigator. Obviously the PI also found no signs of an intruder.
-
Again, there is much circumstantial evidence, and I don’t think anyone will disagree with that. But it still comes back to burden of proof and reasonable doubt. Can anyone (without an obvious bias towards his guilt) say with certainty that this murder could not have been committed by someone other than Roseboro? Based on the evidence and testimony that I have heard, he can be convicted of being a bad husband, a liar, a cheater, and basically being an overall scumbag. But not a murderer…..incidentally, I totally agree with his odd behavior that night and the few days after, however, I have no idea what that could have been like, or how any one person would respond when something like that happens, or what its like to be in shock, so I won’t pass judgement on that….
-
Black Bart, the missing jewelry was never brought up in trial. Another door Sodomsky didn’t want opened only to be crushed during Stedman’s cross.
The defense came down to trying to discredit the commonwealth’s witness’ therefore creating reasonable doubt. -
tbird July 30th, 2009 at 08:38
There are a few people on this website that I am glad are not on the jury. They have no common sense and must see the crime actually take place on video to make them a believer. That is why as a past juror I am convinced you should not have to have a unanimous decision to convict. 10 jurors out of 12 agreeing on a verdict should be all that it takes. There are always going to be whackos that just don’t get it for whatever reason. I am certainly glad we don’t need a unanimous decision to elect our President. We must face the fact that not all people were born equal. Some were not gifted with common sense. This guy is GUILTY beyond a shadow of any doubt. I think 10 out 0f 12 people polled would agree. By the way Becky, FANTASTIC JOB!!!
-
Yes, Tim I can exclude every other reasonable hypothsis, except that Roseboro is guilty. As MA mentioned above, the 20 minute window of opportunity in which there should have been alot of noise and signs of a robbery, the DNA and the scratches, are quite convincing to me.
-
goopsie July 30th, 2009 at 08:46
The no blood issue. If the killiing took place in the pool and someone had the pool care knowledge to shock the water with bleach (forensic people help me here), is this enough to dilute the proteins. I know they did take pool water samples but never heard the results of the water tested.
-
Tim,
We don’t need video evidence of Mike killing Jan. The level of reasonable doubt does not increase with the severity of the crime. The judge will also explain this to the jury this morning. The same level of reasonable doubt is necessary to convict someone of theft or rape. I’ve never seen Jesus but I believe in him. I haven’t seen Mike kill Jan, but all the gospil I’ve heard tells me it’s him. If you connect the dots and see a dog, then it must be a dog. I connect the dots and see Mike Roseboro… not a random intruder. I sure hope the jurry didn’t leave their common sense at the door. Read the scenario I wrote above. Do you think it’s REASONABLY possible? Mike’s biggest mistake was time. He didn’t give himself enough. I would have a difficult time convicting him if there were several hours between Mike going to sleep and him discovering her in the pool. 20 minutes, assuming Jan made the phone call at 10:37, is not enough time to brutally beat someone and drown them. Even the defense autopsy said it could take up to 30 minutes to kill someone the way Jan was murdered. THINK ABOUT THAT! I suppose it’s also possible that Mike saw the real killer.
-
Hercule July 30th, 2009 at 08:57
MA, You’ve made an excellent argument in favor of conviction. A not guilty verdict would offend logic and be a grave injustice to the victim and those who loved her.
I hope District Attorney Stedman included the points you listed in his closing statement.
-
Not in town anymore July 30th, 2009 at 09:00
Denver Girl, you must one of Mike’s buddies to even think that he is not guilty. Even people that have known Mike for years know he is guilty. They might not like it but it is what it is. Bottom line JUSTICE for JAN.
-
tbird – according to your brilliant analysis, wrong imprisonments never actually occur. I mean, if a full jury convicts someone, they certainly must be guilty, right?? Well, here’s a little dose of reality for you, they do happen. Do you believe that in cases where it has happened, there weren’t people like you, that believed the accused was “GUILTY beyond a shadow of any doubt”, based upon their self proclaimed superior common sense?!
-
tbird July 30th, 2009 at 09:35
Tim,
you are EXACTLY the type of individual I am glad is not on that jury. WAKE UP AND FACE THE FACTS!!! So many GUILTY individuals are “free” today in society because of people who think as you do. Like I said we are not all created with the gift of COMMON SENSE!!!
-
grand slam July 30th, 2009 at 09:55
reading guy……your comments are somewhat amusing….and very much childish. Instead of spreading your humor on this website, remember, you have a cub scout project that is due over the weekend…. better get back to your match stick car project…. are you related to sodomsky in any way? —LOL it appears to me that you share his “lustful banter” view on life…..
-
Tim, yes wrongful convictions do occur. But are you aware that 25% of those convictions were based on direct evidence -eyewitness testimony? And most those who’s convictions were overturned were done so by circumstancial evidence-DNA?
-
Black Bart July 30th, 2009 at 09:57
Sara, the jewelry was brought up by Stedman as he showed like 50 pictures of Jan at the bank that afternoon with no jewelry. I also think that several friends also testified they saw her that afternoon/evening and she had no jewelry on.
Mike and Sodom did not bring this up again as they knew their their plan was blown out of the water.
Same with the PI being hired. I believe I remember in Mikes affidavit early on that he would hire the “best” in PI’s and spend whatever it took to bring the killer to justice! what happened to that? What happened is they came back and said, guess what–you did it buddy!
I truly believe in our criminal system but there are flaws, and a unanamous jury is one of them. But it is what we have and we need to believe it works.
Yes it is all circumstancial but it is far better than what the defense presented! They presented nothing other than he did not do it. give me some other scenarios of how it could have happened! give me something to create doubt! Sodom did not do that in my book.
-
yes tbird, you appear to be a real genius, base upon that nice in depth retort….
MA, Sara, Black Bart – you make some excellent points, and they are well taken. I believe he will be convicted, and I also believe he has at the very least, some knowledge of what actually happened. Maybe the bottom line is, based on that thought along with his unwillingness to testify on his own behalf, if he goes to jail he has nobody to blame but himself.
-
Exactly Black Bart. They were supposed to hire a team of experts and the only “expert” they could get anything out of, if that’s what you want to call it, was Dr. Hoffman, who himself has a sketchy past. His testimony appeared as a pathetic attempt to discredit Dr. Ross. I think he made a fool of himself and therefore the defense.
-
tbird July 30th, 2009 at 10:20
Black Bart,
You are correct. Our criminal system is flawed. However since we in our society are aware of that fact then we should be taking the necessary steps to amend it. We don’t have to live with things that we can change. That would put those undesirables behind bars where they belong. I served on a jury as most have and trying to get EVERYONE to agree is difficult if not virtually impossible. Take the OJ case for instance. He should have been convicted and put away where he belongs. I was horrified at that verdict and it was then that I realized how flawed our system really is.
-
I’ve known Mike, Ann and Ralph all of my life. I didn’t want Mike to be guilty. But I believe in my heart of hearts he is. I believe it and that is a terrible realization that in no way brings relief…in fact, it just exacerbates an already horrific situation.
Seeing Ann and a very haggard-looking Ralph on the tv was heartbreaking….seeing Suzie is even worse.
But the worst of all? Knowing that Mike was willing to put Sam and Rachel on the stand to try to extricate himself from this mess. That was probably the final straw for me. You have already caused so much agony, why not spare your wonderful parents and great kids the torture and humiliation of a much-publicized trial?
I can tell you that the mood has changed since the details surrounding Jan’s murder have been released. We knew she was “beaten”…however having the coroner illustrate with such gruesome detail exactly how it probably happened, was just too much. It has scarred many of us…and the anger and hatred with which this act was carried out is just inescapable.
I have asked myself a million times why Mike didn’t just walk away. Why he didn’t tell Jan that it was over, turn, walk out and go spend the night at Ann and Ralph’s. WHY?!
If he went crazy, why didn’t he snap out of it when Jan came to in the pool? To me, he was rational at that point. He had to know that he would be charged with spousal abuse and that would be a huge embarrassment. So, he made the decision to go forward – which means he was no longer in a raging state of “non-cognitive thinking.” He made a decision.
There will never be full closure in this case. Jan is gone. Mike has forever changed the landscape of both his children’s and family’s lives. Suzie will do a wonderful job of picking up the pieces and providing the children with the best possible future they could have at this point. But it is all relative.
The suspicion of their father will haunt the children and corrupt their development; regardless of how they feel at this date.
Was she worth it Mike? You see how your whore turned on you as she sat on the stand. How did that make you feel? To hear the woman you professed to love so deeply, tell the world that she wants to try to work it out with her husband? May those words echo through your psyche forever.
Did you really hate Jan that much? Well, just know that we receive what we give…and there is a lot of hate for you right now. Fortunately, for you, you have the luxury of protection that your wife of 19 years didn’t have that night by your pool.
I will pray for the kids, Suzie, your mom and dad, Melissa and you extended family. I will pray that the jury is lead to convict you and recommend application of the stiffest sentence available.
And myself – that I can somehow be freed from the feelings of complete and total anger and loathing that I feel for you. But I will not pray for you. I have no mercy for you and hope that you suffer eternally.
Of course, you are most familiar with concept of no mercy, aren’t you?
-
WOW sad, you said everything I would have said. Seeing you emotionless at Jan’s funeral was one of the first things I saw to bring up a red flag…
-
I meant to say seeing Mike emotionless at Jan’s funeral was one of the first things I saw that brought up a red flag.
-
Black Bart July 30th, 2009 at 11:33
Well said SAD!
The reality is;
Jan is gone!
Mike is gone! if guilty will be in jail for the rest of his life, if not-guilty, will be haunted with this as well as his family and dis-trust he created for the rest of his life
His parents, his children, and his friends will forever be scared at having to go through this due to him. Even if for some whacked out reason he did not do it–his lies and escapades made it look like he did
Suzie has been given the task to try to pull together what is left of the family and try to give them as normal of a life as possible and has done a wonderful job so far given the circumstances they are under.
As I have said before, I would like nothing more than to think that this man I know did not brutally beat, strangle, and drown his wife. A respected businessman in the community that I live. BUT, I just cannot see how someone else did it. If he did not do it, he knows who did and helped clean it up and cover it up–whether it was him, AF, or a hired killer–he knows what happened that night and has been willing to drag his parents, children, other relatives, and friends through complete hell and not loose a minutes sleep about it.
Rest in Peace Jan! You deserved so much more than this!
-
A new STUDman groupie July 30th, 2009 at 11:51
Zook was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder in 1986 and
sentenced to death for killing 55-year-old typewriter repairman Paul
Conard and the repairman’s 19-year-old girlfriend, Sandra Wiker,
during a botched robbery at Conard’s North Queen Street shop. James P. Cullen represented Zook. -
abbylynn July 30th, 2009 at 12:34
I remenber the Zook case ,he ducted taped them in the basement of the typerwiter shop.He had some one else there to. It’s been awhile now I have to think more about what I remember.I really remember how burtel it ended up.
-
Sad, your comment was thought provoking. I’m going to take it upon myself to speak for what I believe to be the majority commenting on LIP-if someone feels I am wrong correct me.
I believe that most of us didn’t want to believe that Roseboro murdered Jan. To believe that a husband of 19 years could kill his wife is foreign to most of us. The intruder theory much more plausible. We don’t want to believe that Roseboro could do this to his children, parents, sister and friends. We don’t like to see families divided.
But the evidence is what it is and though we don’t like where it is pointing, we have no choice but to believe Roseboro is guilty of murdering his wife.
-
waiting July 30th, 2009 at 12:49
I have sat here and read everything since this trial began and have not posted anything. I now feel that I have to say this:
SAD – what you wrote brought tears to my eyes. You are on point with almost everything. My heart hurts when I think about those children who have no mother and will soon have no father.
Jan was a beautiful woman. She always had a smile on her face and was always pleasent when she would talk to you. I liked her more then any of the Roseboros combined. One could look at her and tell she loved all of her kids deeply.
Thank you Sad for putting what i feel into words.
I, too, pray for justice for Jan.
-
Wannabe July 30th, 2009 at 13:04
The defense really doesn’t have to “prove” anything. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mike is guilty. If the defense doesn’t feel as though the prosecution has done that, they wouldn’t have to say or do anything at all. It seems as though the defense thinks that the prosecution hasn’t proven their case because they didn’t call very many witnesses nor present the “intruder” theory.
-
grand slam July 30th, 2009 at 13:59
SAD, very well spoken in your post. I have also been close to the family for many years. Neighbors, friends in high school etc. I tried to keep an open mind in the beginning as well. It’s so easy to throw someone under the bus, it’s even tougher to hold them back until more information is presented. After the first few days of testimony, my thoughts grew more and more that Mike did in fact kill Jan. I resisted those thoughts becasue they were the Roseboro’s. A stand up family in the community whom I thought teached their children to “always do the right thing”. Well apparently these lessons were not clear to Mike. Seeing Ralph and Ann on the news, let alone seeing them on the street at their home made me feel even more angry. They have been on an emotional rollercoaster since day one. Unfortunately, Mike dragged many people into this mess. Shame on you Mike for not being man enough to tell Jan you wanted out of the relationship. That would have been a hell of alot easier than making the choice to put your entire family thorough hell and back, and back again. You have ruined your family name and everything they stand for, forever. I Pray only for the rest of the family, I do not pray for you. If you are convicted or not, YOU have to LIVE WITH THE TRUTH FOREVER……that is the BIGGEST PUNISHMENT you will receive for this crime. I would hate to be the piece of your brain that reminds you each and everday what you did to Jan. Those thoughts will never go away.
-
What witnesses could they have called, Wannabe?
The intruder theory wasn’t brought up because they had no evidence to back it up. If they had, the private investigator would have testified, you can bet you first born on that.
Jurors are instucted to only take into consideration ( when deliberating) what the witnesses testified to and not what the lawyers may have said. Sodomsky wasn’t going to bring up an intruder without a witness. He would look bad in the eyes of the jurors, as if he were making promises he couldn’t keep.
-
Wannabe July 30th, 2009 at 14:49
Whoa Sara, calm down.
I totally believe that Mike is guilty but there are some on here saying that Sodomsky didn’t prove Mike’s innocence. I was just saying that the PROSECUTION has the burden of proof here, not the defense. I don’t know what witnesses Sodomsky could have called and that wasn’t my point. My point was that he didn’t seem to launch much of a defense so he must believe that the prosecution has not proven their case. Either that or he’s conceding defeat.
Do I think Mike did it? Of course, but I haven’t heard everything that the jury has heard and the jury hasn’t heard everything that I’ve heard. Right now it’s up to those twelve jurors, not us. Personally, I hope they vote to convict. Jan deserves justice.
-
I’m calm now Wannabe. Sodmomsky didn’t put on much of a defense, not because he didn’t have to or not because he conceded defeat but because he couldn’t. He would have loved to have something, some witness come forth, anything to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors, besides the discredit and confuse defense that was offered up.
-