This episode contains audio from the 2009 trial of Stacey Castor, 41, for the murder of her husband David, 48, in Onondaga County, New York State. In the face of cross examination by prosecutor Bill Fitzpatrick, Mrs. Castor remains calm and collected on the stand, and her testimony is meticulous in its detail–both of which may have counted against her in the minds of the jury.
Mrs. Castor claims that David, her second husband, had been despondent over health and business worries, and after a long and heated argument, he locked himself in the marital bedroom, drank whiskey for hours, then killed himself by drinking automotive antifreeze, which has no smell and a sweet taste, allowing it to be mixed undetected into beverages like coffee or iced tea.
Mrs. Castor’s first husband, Michael Wallace, died in 2000, also under suspicious circumstances. Police investigators, who smelt a rat, spent two years collecting evidence against her. In 2007, when the widow realized the net was closing in, she panicked, and wrote a “suicide note” on her computer in which her daughter Ashley “confesses” to poisoning both her father and stepfather. Mrs. Castor then invited Ashley, 20, to “get drunk” with her, and over the course of the evening, attempted to poison her daughter with crushed pills mixed with vodka, orange juice, and Sprite.
The jury found Stacey Castor guilty of the second-degree murder of David, and guilty of the attempted second-degree murder of Ashley. In June 2016, Castor was found dead of a heart attack in her prison cell.
This was written by Mikita. Posted on Saturday, February 2, 2019, at 8:54 pm. Filed under . Tagged poisoning, Stacey Castor, trial proceedings, uxoricide. Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
This episode contains audio from the 2009 trial of Stacey Castor, 41, for the murder of her husband David, 48, in Onondaga County, New York State. In the face of cross examination by prosecutor Bill Fitzpatrick, Mrs. Castor remains calm and collected on the stand, and her testimony is meticulous in its detail–both of which may have counted against her in the minds of the jury.
