June 21, 2010

Florida woman kills her lesbian lover, says she was protecting her children

Posted: 04:25 PM ET

On January 17, 2009, 50-year-old Cynthia Monson fatally shot her ex-girlfriend of twelve years five times.  According to Monson, Patricia Thomas, 55, went to Monson’s house, threatened to kill her, and take her children away.

Monson called 911 after the shooting and gave two statements to police the same afternoon. The first statement was recorded on audio tape inside the back of a police car.  The second statement, in which Monson demonstrates the sequence of events that led to the shooting, was recorded on video tape.

Monson, who admits firing her gun at Thomas, now stands accused of first-degree murder and faces life in prison.   Seven women and five men make up the jury panel.

The trial begins airing tomorrow on In Session.

-  In Session Field Producer Nancy Leung

Filed under: Trials

Share this on:
DENISE   June 21st, 2010 5:46 pm ET

that was smart now your kids dont have you to protect them.

Mariann Pepitone   June 21st, 2010 6:15 pm ET

The woman is not alive to defend herself and there appears to be a flaw in her story. Its possible that Thomas wanted to reunite with Monson and both of them got into a heated discussion. That's when Monson shot her and its apparent she already had the gun nearby. Its also possible that Monson did not want to be a lesbian anymore and Thomas rejected it. However, killers do not think about the consequences in killing because they are too tied up with anger and hate. Now Monson might spend years behind bars and what happens to her children when Monson isn't there to take care of them.

Victoria   June 21st, 2010 10:59 pm ET

Protcting her children from what? There will have to be some evidence provided to establish whether or not the children were in danger and if so what type of background information will be relevant. Is protecting one's children a defense? Or is it just the reasoning behind the action and is being put forward to disprove first degree murder in favor of a lesser offence?

Marilyn   June 22nd, 2010 9:45 am ET

This sounds like a slam-dunk for the prosecution. I feel sorry for the poor children involved. Monson doesn't sound like much of a mother to me. Now her children will be orphans.

Linda   June 22nd, 2010 10:27 am ET

The first words to the police when they arrived were that she shot Thomas to stop her from going to her car to get a gun. It is a fact that Thomas had previously kept guns in her car and that she showed them to others and also the children. Also, when Monson purchased the gun she told the storekeeper she was buying it for self defense. I don't believe in killing, but she may have been threatened and i believe it was self defense.

Bobby Mckinstry   June 22nd, 2010 10:28 am ET

I think that self-defense is when your defending yourself from someone who's trying to hurt you or offend you physically by that being said just because a person says there going to do something to you doesnt mean he/she will. The prosecutor said that patricia thomas said she had the gun in the car not on her self being meaning if she went outside to get it she could of locked the door and called the police but no she shot her in the back and then in the head that not self-defense.

ashley   June 22nd, 2010 10:33 am ET

From how i see it regardless if Thomas had guns or had a gun in her car that doesnt mean someone can shoot her knowing that information. Monson decieved Thomas to believe that they were talking about Aaliyahs grades, but in reality she was planning on killing Thomas. Monson bought that gun 4 days in advance, with premeditation on killing Thomas. Monson wasnt trying to protect her kids, she was finishing what she started for good.

Jesse Smith   June 22nd, 2010 10:41 am ET

Self-Defense: Self-Defense is the use of reasonable force (deadly or non-deadly) used to repel an imminent attack.

Clesha   June 22nd, 2010 10:52 am ET

I agree with Bobby 100 percent, and i believe this was premeditated murder when she bought the fire arm. This is just a cold blooded murder, ms. Thomas could have been leaving the residence for good, but who will know now, if she had intended on harming Monson i think she would have had her weapon on her already.

Dwayne Davis   June 22nd, 2010 11:03 am ET

Self defense is when you are in imminent danger at the time of defensive action. This means that the danger must be vivid, non-verbal and with no supposing or anticipating a future threat.
This means that going to a car or leaving the house, isn't immediate danger. This is a clear case of murder, no matter what went on in the bedroom. Ms. Monson didn't give Ms. Thomas a choice to go outside get in the car and leave. She cannot predict that she knew in the future exactly what she was going to do and therefore acted out of passion, jealousy and malice.

Trudy   June 22nd, 2010 11:03 am ET

I do understand you are afraid, but you try not take something you can't replace.

Marilyn   June 22nd, 2010 12:10 pm ET

I think this woman was driven more by anger and jealousy than any threat to herself or her children. We see this all the time when couples break up and one of them starts a new relationship. I also think that Monson lured Thompson into the bedroom in order to kill her. I think the killing was premeditated. As Bobby said, Monson could have waited for Thompson to leave the house, then locked the door and dialed 9-1-1. There was no reason to shoot her five times, if Thompson threatened to get her gun from her car. I don't believe any of Monson's story.

Judy   June 22nd, 2010 12:24 pm ET

Did the deceased have a key to the residence; if not, why open the door. Call the police. There were other options available to Ms. Munson. Shooting her five times; seems like over kill.

sherri   June 22nd, 2010 12:34 pm ET

It is quite obvious that this is a crime of passion, not one of self-defense. Having a military background would indicate to me that Monson could have easily injured the victim to stop her from going to the car to supposedly get her gun. If Monson had been threatened by the victim prior to this, why didn't she alert the police to this fact? If she was truly afraid for the life of her children and her own, why get involved with thomas and continue to have a relationship with her. Monson was no doubt angry that their relationship was over. That's why she purchased the gun. She was a woman scorned, plain and simple

Donna   June 22nd, 2010 12:56 pm ET

Verbal threats alone do not justify deadly force against an unarmed person. Did Ms. Thomas force her way into the defendant's home and into the bedroom? There was no struggle or fight. It appears Ms. Thomas was fleeing or leaving when she was shot in the back and then excecuted with the head shots. Ms. Monson could have allowed her to leave, and called 911 and gotten her gun for protection and if Ms. Thomas approached with a gun shot her then and that would have been self defense. Since Ms. Thomas did not have a gun on her or in her vehicle, it is not likely she would have made such a threat.
I believe Ms. Monson was tired of dealing with the situation, and in a rage, solved her "problem".

Terri   June 22nd, 2010 1:00 pm ET

Self-defense; Is when you believe yourself or your family is in danger, you have all right to protect yourself and your family. But you have to give the other party a chance to exit your home, shooting them in the back is not self-defense, it is murder.
If you believe the other party has a weapon in their vehicle, you have to wait to see if that is true, or if they were just making threats. The home owner, had enough ways (windows) to see if the person is truly putting her and her children in danger. If Thomas then would have pulled out a gun, Monson being on her property; face to face; would then be in all "right" of self-defense. Monson was in the military, she didn't panic, she was trained not to panic. 5 shots is over kill, no way was it panic, self-defense or fear.

Tammy   June 22nd, 2010 1:02 pm ET

Ms. Monson had a reasonable right to protect her self in her home if she felt she was in eminent danger. But there is a difference in bring a gun to a lipservice battle. I think Ms. Monson used extreme, excessive force by shotting Ms. Thomas six time. Being that she (Ms. Monson) is a expert gunsmen she could have simply disabled Ms. Thomas by shotting her in the leg or arm and fled with the children to the authorities, if she felt herself to be in eminent danger.

Garry Staranchuk   June 22nd, 2010 1:05 pm ET

This is not self defense, this is muder. It is as plain as the nose on your face. What you think someone is going to do does not constitute a physical threat. In this case, the victim did not have a gun on her person. Even if someone has a gun in their hand but is not pointing it at you, you are not in imminent danger until the gun is brought up in a threatening manner. This is a case of "rush to judgement". This was a deliberate act fueled by anger not fear.

samantha   June 22nd, 2010 1:07 pm ET

i feel that if she was going to kill the kids she had 12 years to do so, i also feel that it did not take 5 bullets to stop a person. i feel that the ex was mad, due to her mate moving on. she need life in prison. she can't stop no one now from hurting her kids ,did she think about that...........! that was no way no how self defense.

ark   June 22nd, 2010 1:22 pm ET

I am trying to figure out what is her defense. Patricia Thomas did not have a gun, if she went to harm anyone she would have this mystery gun in her hand. This is unreal, there is no defense at all.

BOBBY MCKINSTRY   June 22nd, 2010 1:45 pm ET


Elizabeth   June 22nd, 2010 1:46 pm ET

To add to my previous comment, this lady went to the gun store and bought a gun 4 days prior, she says Thomas called her threatening her, but she did not call the police, and why did she call her is another question. I believe Monson called her first told her we need to discuss our childs grades, call me in the morning so we can get together and discuss this. Thomas was obviously lured to that home, and had no weapons what so ever on her, so if Thomas's intentions were to go there to harm her, don't you think she would have brought the weapon in with her. There is just no way that the defense is going to win this case, and if they do...our justice system is a mess.

Sgt. P   June 22nd, 2010 2:03 pm ET

If the defendant fired the weapon as stated , was she transported to the hospital for palm burns.

Nate   June 22nd, 2010 3:08 pm ET

This seems like a straight-forward pre-meditated set-up to be rid or get even (jealous of Thomas dating another?) directed towards the ex.
Monson chose to ignore the relationship formed by the children and Thomas and use the law to disallow the continuation of that relationship.
There is clear evidence that this is first-degree murder.
"Scared for her life"? How? Thomas was not armed or even had a gun in her immediate vicinity. Monson, a "sharp shooter" with her brand new gun fired kill shots to the heart region–and then to the brain, just to be sure. She wanted Thomas dead.
Monson traded her personal freedom and her being a parent because she could not resist murdering her ex.

Alan Segal   June 22nd, 2010 4:18 pm ET

Self defense against someone who doesn't have a gun with them? It may have been more believable if she was shot in the back walking to her car "to get the gun"). And when you pick up the gun an hour earlier? With kids, I would have had the gun in a lockbox, not in a drawer.

Michelle   June 22nd, 2010 5:04 pm ET

I believe she did it out of fear. I was in her place at one time. The police can't really do much to protect you unless they see the abuse and calling the police will put you in more danger. There were times I was so afraid that I probably would have done the same thing if there would have been a gun handy. There were times when I called the police only to have them treat me like I was just as disgusting as the abuser so at times I felt like i had no protection at all. Ms Monson said that Thomas punched her in the stomach and then said she was going to get her gun. A punch in the stomach is extremly painful and frightning in it's self. That violent act along with thegun threat

Michelle   June 22nd, 2010 5:09 pm ET

I believe she did it out of fear. I was in her place at one time. The police can't really do much to protect you unless they see the abuse and calling the police will put you in more danger. There were times I was so afraid that I probably would have done the same thing if there would have been a gun handy. There were times when I called the police only to have them treat me like I was just as disgusting as the abuser so at times I felt like i had no protection at all. Ms Monson said that Thomas punched her in the stomach and then said she was going to get her gun. A punch in the stomach is extremly painful and frightning in it's self. That violent act along with the the gun threat would be enough to make most anyone fear for their life. Especially a person who has taken a lot of abuse

PoohTiffy   June 22nd, 2010 6:40 pm ET

I personally dont think she was trying to protect her kids in this case. Were there any evidence showing that the kids were in harms way? Not only that in any 12 year relationship it would be hard just to stop seeing the children. So i dont think she would have hurt the kids I just think that was just an excuse to scream self defense. If it was self defense why did she shoot her so many times?

Clifford   June 22nd, 2010 6:58 pm ET

This is a clear case of a crime of passion. Ms Thomas had been with Ms Monson for 12 years and hadn't been with her new lover all that long, and had asked her to marry her. I think that she said to herself, If i can't have you no one will and killed her.

gail   June 22nd, 2010 8:26 pm ET

To shoot someone in the back, how on earth do you claim self-defence. Seems to me Thomas was walking away when she was shot.

bethone   June 22nd, 2010 11:27 pm ET

The defense has already convicted this woman as she needed to be convicted. His only defense is what Thomas had "supposidely" threatened or did to Monson, as REPORTED by Monson. I wonder what Thomas' version of the relationship would have been. We won't know because Monson shot Thomas five times, twice in the back. This killing was all a set up. Monson is guilty as HELL.

Marlena   June 22nd, 2010 11:48 pm ET

hey have any of you been afraid of some one who you thought loved you?
self defence is protecing yourself or loved ones from real or persieved danger . Ms. Monson had a real fear of danger from Ms Thomas at the time of the shooting. And they said that she (Ms. Thomas) was known to carry a gun in her car.

Marlena   June 22nd, 2010 11:53 pm ET

Also had she (Ms Thomas) gone out to get her gun she (Ms.Thomas)could have shot the glass out of the sliding glass door to get back inside and take the young child she(Ms.Thomas) was after, also Pat Thomas had no parental rights to any of Ms.Monson's children.

Doug from Wisconsin   June 23rd, 2010 9:32 am ET

Ms. Monson had siginficant militay wepons training. The most important part of training is ROE. "Rules Of Engagement". That trumps the self defence. W/O seeing a wepon and not being face to face with her target. She did not have cause to fire apon her target. She was also taught to fire till threat is totaly removed. She had the frame of mind to see that the 5 shots nutruialized the threat. That would explain her not needing to use the sixted round in the gun.

Pamela   June 23rd, 2010 9:53 am ET

To shoot some one that many times from behind,then you say self defense?Was the deceased living the house to go to her car to get her gun?

Florence   June 23rd, 2010 10:35 am ET

Self-defense is a tricky one. I have a gun permit. I was physically attacked by a complete stranger the other day in a shopping park lot. Witnesses agreed 100% : it was unprovoked and she went crazy. I allowed her to scream, threaten, and even hit me in the head because I considered she could be holding a weapon. She threw rocks and broke a mirror on my car, tried to break the windows. Later, I thought what if I had been carrying my gun? She said she wanted to kills me, even said, "hit me", etc.
I could have killed her since she was within inches of me.
Bottom line: I'm glad I didn't kill another human being. An ex? Well, really haven't most of us wanted to "kill" an ex?
That is what I think happened in this case.

lilredd   June 23rd, 2010 12:41 pm ET

It sounds to me like neither of them had the right to have had these kids to begin with. The law is the law and they worked around it to adopt kids. In the end one of them is dead and the other showes no remorse. I don't believe in same sex couples anyway but this is another prime example of why they shouldn't be able to adopt. And in just a bad couple situation, murder is murder especially in over kill and shooting someone in the back.

Barbara Crumble   June 23rd, 2010 1:24 pm ET

I've watched that lawyer for Monson for an half an hour,to me he is doing everything in his power to keep from dropping into a full sleep. I think that he is'nt paying any attention to the trail.My comment is this should result in a new trail.

Jam   June 23rd, 2010 1:29 pm ET

No one really knows what went on in that room but Patricia and Cynthia. One thing I do know is that Cynthia should not have been so spiteful to Patricia by telling her that she would never see the children again. After 11 or 12 years together Patricia had rights to those children whether written in a law book or not. She had no problem with Patricia and the children during their long relationship. I believe she provoked Patricia and tried to hurt her as much as she can by using the children.

truth b told   June 23rd, 2010 1:56 pm ET

How pathetic can it truly get for these poor children? My Mom killed my mom because she wanted to protect me from my mom who helped raised me for how many years. Too many people are given the opportunity to be parents yet dont really know what it means to be a parent. Killing someone that you shared a home and family with and has their back turned to you is not being a parent. Guilty of being a horrible parent and murder. Lock her up and throw away the key. She will probably find another lover in jail and kill her if she breaks up with her.

LeAnn   June 23rd, 2010 1:57 pm ET

I do not believe this is a self defense case,I also do not believe Patricia should of had rights to the children Cynthia adopted them,I do not believe Cynthia being a single lady could of even adopted them had it not been for her job.I believe the juror already knows she is guilty of first degree murder if not they will discover this,It seems as though Patricia was louered over there for Cynthia to kill her.Cynthia had plenty of experiance with guns if she didn't want to murder her she could of shot her in the leg to keep her from going to her car to get the gun and then called 911.If I had to shoot someone I once loved I would have been criing and been a mess not as calm as her.Especially to be with someone off and on for twelve years.If Patricia was gonna shoot her she would of brought her gun into the house.I would never leave my gun in the car and then threaten someone with it. I have a gun in the car and I will use it on you.That sounds so stupid. For a person talking so calm it makes no sense why she shot her so many times.I could understand if she didn't have the shooting experience that she does. There were no sighns of struggle in the room or sighns of a fight.I think Cynthia thought she could get away with murder if she used the children as an excuse she knows the law to some extent it seems.Cynthia probly would of gotten away with it had she had shown some emotions and only shot her once.Keep up the good work and thank you for bringing us into the courtroom live.I can't believe Cynthia is this calm with her ex lover's body still in the room she sounds like she is talking to a friend about her day,Maybe it's from her service experiance I am sure she has shot people before,But none the less still weird she supposedly loved her once.Take care. LeAnn from Michigan.

Mian Dickie   June 23rd, 2010 2:18 pm ET

yesterday when the lady cop was being interviewed she stated that the deceased called the defendant at 8 am. She then later testified that " on that phone" she couldn't tell the difference between incoming and outgoing calls. How do we know who made that call/

vikki b   June 23rd, 2010 3:18 pm ET

first of all it wasnt about the kids to monson it was about thomas and her new lover monson trick thomas into coming over to talk about the kids and when she got there she tried to reconcile and when she realize thomas wasnt coming back monson lost it

Elizabeth   June 23rd, 2010 3:34 pm ET

Not saying who I feel is guilty here, but I disagree with something that was said by Derek Byrd. He said, “If u shoot once or u shoot twice you eliminated the threat. To shoot three, four and that fifth shot, that was to the back of the head almost execution style, is going to be the biggest obstacle.” I have only shot a gun once in my life to see if I could shoot a target, and I hope I never have to shoot one again. With that said, if I ever shot someone in self defense I would shoot until every bullet was gone!! It is too risky walking away, and thinking that the person is dead, and then they come after you. I am just curious as to how many other people would agree with me.

JStarr   June 23rd, 2010 5:05 pm ET

Well this case is no self defense case....I watched it all morning and didnt feel one ounce of pity for Cynthia. She admitted that she kept Patricia in the room by pretending to have papers for their daughter and then she turned to her and said this has got to end and then she shoots her twice in the back and three times in the self defensive is that? This was a case of pure excessive action and Cynthia had no right to take this woman's life. Then to talk to the police like you were a victim...that's not cool...she is not remorseful because she did this in purpose and she, in my opinion, lured that woman there to kill her. If she was so afraid of her why did she invite her into her home? Why didn't she call the police when Patricia got there and why, pray tell, did they NOT find a gun in Patricia's car like Cynthia claimed?? She should get exactly what she deserves, convicted of 1st degree murder....this was not a case of fear, this was a case of I want you dead and this is how I'm gonna do it and get away with it. I hope the jury sees past facade and convicts her for the murderer she is. That is all!

Rosalee Holt   June 23rd, 2010 5:08 pm ET

We will never really know the truth since a crime a murder has taken place. Manson knew what she was doing when she had those kids lock themselves in the bedroom so there would be no witnesses and she could wash her hands and walk away! She murdered a person for no reason and it is not self defence she needs to be put to death for planing this murder!

Steph   June 23rd, 2010 5:42 pm ET

when people have a gun they always find a reason to use it.

Jim   June 23rd, 2010 7:04 pm ET

My best friend was the arresting officer. She admitted the whole thing not self defense and she is guilty as all hell.

myfathazdawter   June 24th, 2010 2:20 am ET

There have been a couple of VERY KEY contradictions between the conversation in the squad car and the walk-through of the crime scene. By contrast- Ms.Monson's stories just don't support each other.
At one point she claims self defense citing that the victim "hit her in the stomach." Yet when asked to walk through the crime scenario inside the home, she neglects to demonstrate how and/or when Patricia hit her.
ALSO, she (Ms. Monson) stated the victim called her to say she was ccoming over–YET, during the walk through of the crime scene in the bedroom Ms. Monson claims that she and Patricia were going back and forth verbally at which time she (Ms. Monson) says to Patricia, "I never should have invited you over , this is getting no where– they are not your kids!" I also find it quite interesting that Ms. Monson uses the "Law" only as she finds it convenient. The same FLORIDA LAW that would have precluded Patricia from having rights to the children would also have prevented Ms. Monson from legally adopting them in the first place had she been truthful during the adoption process. ~~~Colorado

sue Simms   June 24th, 2010 9:27 am ET

If I had shot and killed someone, even a STRANGER, I would be a sobbing mess! This woman killed a person who had been her lover for years. She shows absolutely NO EMOTION about this in any of the interviews, or even when she is doing the reenactment.

Either she is a person with absolutely no feelings, or she planned this whole thing and feels good about the end result.

jermaine johnson   June 24th, 2010 9:51 am ET

I thnk kids should not be use as a witnese they can be coche to take one side & that child might feel guilty for doing so in long run.

Tara   June 24th, 2010 10:21 am ET

MS Monson is Guilty and she knows it !

Retired LEO   June 24th, 2010 10:24 am ET

Thomas' vehicle looks to be a BMW 3 series...that being said, I am wondering if the hidden compartment in the center of the rear seat was searched for a handgun...that's where I keep mine!

Retired LEO   June 24th, 2010 10:32 am ET

Now there is no way, from the evidence submitted, that Monson was justified in the shooting...Thomas was unarmed, had her back to Monson, and the evidence doesn't support Thomas attacking Monson...Monson should be convicted of first degree murder.

Mariquaniqua lewis   June 24th, 2010 10:50 am ET

bottom line is that she planed to kill her i mean why not leave her and go by her business. She say she was protecting her kids well that goes back to get out the relationship and move on with your life with your kids now if she is found guilty how will she protect them then people got to think before they react

Kayllis   June 24th, 2010 10:51 am ET

i think she should get life becuz if she would have jus shot her once or twice her self defense would have worked... but she kept her there then backed up to the nightstand, said she was sorry after she made one more comment an opened fire on an UNARMED women... the gunshots to the head after she was down will be the ones that get her life...

Retired LEO   June 24th, 2010 10:54 am ET

In response to JStarrs post...even if you are ever put into the position of having to shoot someone in self-defense, a case could be made against you for excessive are only allowed to use enough force to eliminate the immediate threat... That is why if you own a weapon you must be proficient in the use of that weapon...I have seen before a genuine victim get convicted of manslaughter due to shooting more rounds than was necessary to stop the threat. This was a shame becAuse the victim was ultimately charged as a criminal!

MPOOHDAH   June 24th, 2010 12:15 pm ET

I know that she didn't have the right to kill, but this lady was probably scared to death of this woman. Even if she had gotten a restraining order how would that have protected? How many times have we heard that a person had the order of protection and still end up dying. My training of thought would be, better her than me, because saying I'm sorry wouldn't bring me back.

Detra   June 24th, 2010 12:19 pm ET

My concern is that Patricia Thomas was shot in the back of the head. How could someone be a threat if they're back is facing you? Over-kill! Yes, I believe they had a "shaky" relationship, but this went a little too far.

Detra   June 24th, 2010 12:21 pm ET

My concern is that Patricia Thomas was shot in the back of the head. How could someone be a threat if their back is facing you? Over-kill! Yes, I believe they had a "shaky" relationship, but this went a little too far.

Brenda Young   June 24th, 2010 12:50 pm ET

You know this case almost appears like there was abuse, between the two lovers. Otherwise why would a woman shoot someone 5 times? Cynthia almost appeared relieved when she shot her. Maybe her response during the video was because she was still in a state of shock. Just my thought.

josie   June 24th, 2010 1:35 pm ET

children should not testify against there parents for the fact theyll say anything to try and protect them.

Brian   June 24th, 2010 1:38 pm ET

Shot 2 times in the back and 3 times in the head??? Self defense? Why is there even a trial going on? This woman is GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!! No one witnessed the shooting so of course she claims self defense, but there was no imminent threat of violence, just claims of taking her children. She was shot in the back so she turned away from her or walking away therefore no reason to fear and act out in self defense. This is an open and shut case, the defense is trying to slander a dead woman to get their client off.

Shay, NC   June 24th, 2010 1:45 pm ET

From her 9-1-1 call, to her interview with Det. Whorley, to her taped reenactment of the shooting, Cindy Monson couldn’t have done a more masterful job of incriminating herself if she’d tried. Her elaborate attempts to justify shooting a defenseless, unarmed woman in the back and head—not once, not thrice, but FIVE times—would be laughable if they weren’t so tragic.

theresa   June 24th, 2010 2:08 pm ET

what shocks me most is the LACK of emotion from Ms. Monson, in the walk-thru video stmt. no emotion ( like she's talking to an housekeeper). when 5 of her six children take the stand, to attempt to pull her tail out of a sling, and have to relive this nightmare, no emotion. and she decides she does not want to put her tail in the sling by taking the stand (i do realize it is her right). She should pleaded temp. insanity that may have flew with me.

Twona Frazier   June 24th, 2010 2:21 pm ET

If she was so afraid of Patricia Thomas, Why did she let her in the house in the first place?

darla holt   June 24th, 2010 2:27 pm ET

yes, five times is a tad excessive, especially when there was not an equal threat. for whatever reason she wanted this woman dead. i think there is more to this story we dont know.

Patricia   June 24th, 2010 2:39 pm ET

This is premeditated murder she had this planned, Because if she was so afraid of this woman why would she take her into another room of the house where she can be alone with her. Why didn,t she stay out in the open where somebody could see them? And why did she hide the gun as she was pulling it out? This was no self defense

Violet Wagoner   June 24th, 2010 3:19 pm ET

I don't thing there was any good to come out of the children testifying. Poor Vaughn didn't even remember alot of what went on in his past. Her older son, who is unemployed, and a father stated he was forced to sell drugs. PLEASE!! Nobody forced him, he should have immediately gone straight to the police. My heart really goes out to the youngest innocent children in this mess. Her demeaner during both interrigations was cool, calm and calculationg. She appeared to be thinking up some "facts" as she went along. Five shots in the back and head of an unarmed person is murder.

vic   June 24th, 2010 5:22 pm ET

i have been watching and have felt sorry for ms. monson.. i feel like she was afraid of thompson... i think it was a case of ms tompson verball and emotionally and physical abuse over the years just added up and she couldn't take any more... the childern were all afraid of thompson.. there was a reason.. i know my opinion isn't the popular one but these are my feelings after watching the case

Desiree   June 24th, 2010 8:46 pm ET

Anyone with common sense knows she (Monson) did not act in self-defense. I am pretty sure it was out of anger that Monson committed this selfish act. Patricia had a new lover and Ms. Monson could not handle that! I feel really sorry for the kids and may God be with them.

dano   June 25th, 2010 9:34 am ET

Looks like first degree murder to me. Really no emotion, 5 shots, and I think just bought the gun only a day or maybe just hours before she gunned down her ex lover. I believe the Patricia moved on and Cindy had not. Still bitter. I don't think things are lookin good for Cindy.

Cyril   June 25th, 2010 10:01 am ET

Cynthia Monson shot Patricia Thomas 5 times. 2 in her back and 3 in the back of her head. SELF DEFENSE? Are you kidding me? This was a cold blooded killing. If Patricia was so dangerous why did she open her door? Answer that one! She open that door because she plan to kill her. She didn't want the kids to really see what she was going to do. She was angry Patricia had a new girlfriend, So she got her to come over, told her to come in that room and killed her. If Patricia is on the floor, dying...where is the self defense? Instead she pop three more in her head. Why? When Patricia saw her grab that gun she turned and tried to run, and she shot her in her back....when she fell, she shot her 3 more times in the head. If this jury come back with not guilty, I would be shocked. THIS WOMAN IS A COLD HEARTED MURDERER!

Katrina   June 25th, 2010 10:08 am ET

If Monson was that afraid of her, why did she invite her over in the first place? I have issues with my ex and I never meet him at my home nor will I meet him on my own. I always have another adult with me. Why couldnt Monson, if she had nothing but good intentions, do the same thing and meet her in a public area with another adult with her?

Rosalee Holt   June 25th, 2010 10:32 am ET

She is sooo guiltY!! The jury has to see this. RiP to Ms.Thomas and well wishes to her family. I think if Ms.Thomas was going to harm this lady or take one of her kids she had years to do so. THIS IS MURDER. I hope she pays the price for this. How can you pray and ask for forgiveness then shoot someone 5x.s??

Paula Leslie   June 25th, 2010 11:07 am ET

I don't believe it was self-defense. Besides it was over-kill. If you are protecting yourself or your children against bodily harm, why not shoot to injure so she (the attacker) could serve her term in prison. Ms Monson would've probably received custody after the attack. But no, she had to shoot Ms Thomas FIVE times.
I feel sorry for the children. Children are always the victims, whether they have gay parents or not. Being gay or Lesbian has nothing to do with it. Ms Monson was a mother, Ms Thomas was a mother, they both fought over the kids and only one survived.

Florence   June 25th, 2010 11:29 am ET

I believe that this was premedetated murder. She brouoght the gun, only days before. This women is a social worker. She knew what to do if there was domestic violence in this relationship. That fact that Patricia had moved on & had another girl friend leads me to believe that Monson was jealous. If someone beat my child the way she claimed I would have had her arrested. The fact that there was no emotion exhabited during the 911 call or during the time of the walk through, proves that she is cold and calclulated person. Not one tear was shead for the person she had a friendship/relationship for 12 years. She also acted like she had no knowlege of guns, which was false. I feel sorry for the children to be put in this situation. She must have lied to be able to adopt , since Florida does not allow homosexuals to adopt. This woman is very deceptive. This was cold blooded murder.

Aretha Brown   June 25th, 2010 11:33 am ET

This woman is GUILTY!! she clearly set her up to take her out.

Theresa   June 25th, 2010 11:39 am ET

This is obvoius a case of premeditation-Monson cannot claim self defense when she shot Thomas what 5 times-3 of those shots in the head. she is too calm on the police interview tape and shows no remorse for what hse had done. any normal person would be distraught over shooting anyone even if they were used to it such as Monson in the military, especially someone you had loved for so many years. I feel Monson is guilty and should be sentenced accordingly

Jackie   June 25th, 2010 11:46 am ET

When you are afraid of someone you do not take the time after the first phone call to go out and pick up the gun from the gun shop. You call the police and tell them that you are afraid of the person that says she is coming to your house to take your child and you don't want them there. Even after the second phone call you have plenty of time to again call the police and have them come to your house and stop this person from entering. You don't invite someone into your house that you are deathly afraid of. It doesn't make sense. This is murder!!

ninjaGear   June 25th, 2010 12:07 pm ET

This thing was planned from the get go,..Come on now,you purchased a gun few days before the incident. How can you claimed self defense when the next person you are in fear of didn't have a gun..Why would you fired five times..She is guilty.
Instead of calling 911 she called others, this is such a lame defense.
She claimed she didn't know what she was doing,she just fired away,yet this woman was in the army and know how to use a gun.
This was not an act out of fear,its was planned she was just waiting for the right moment so she could claimed self defense
She showed no kind of sadness, to think they have had a twelve years relationship which of course kids are involve.
She is guilty as charged and i do hope she spent the rest of her life in jail..In the end the kids are the ones that end up hurting the most..People really don't think of their action and see that its not going make anything better by killing some one...

Audrey P.   June 25th, 2010 12:10 pm ET

I too am military (15 years). Common sense tells you that when the enemy is approaching,,,,take cover!!!!!!! She went into non-military mode and into personal vendeta mode. SHE IS GUILTY!!!!

Coatesville, Pa

mary   June 25th, 2010 12:20 pm ET

Did the 7 year old girl have a medical problem that she was still in diapers or was Monson to lazy to toilet train her?

Wendy   June 25th, 2010 12:27 pm ET

I was willing to give this woman the benefit of the doubt until I heard her comments in the bedroom interview. When she told the detective that " this was not going to end" I realized that this woman was going to take the matter into her own hands to "eliminate" her problem no matter the cost. I BELIEVE SHE IS GUILTY OF PREMEDITATED MURDER!

rachelle rogers of mbro TN.   June 25th, 2010 12:44 pm ET

mrs.monson is very guilty reason why i say that is i have pulled gun on my sons father he use to beat me all the time but i would call the police but the day i pulled the gun i thought about it and i called the police and thats why i say she is guilty because she had a choice she could have called the police i cant stress that enough we all have a choice and i feel this is more about she was hurt because she didnt have pat in her life pat was moving on with another women that women showed no emotions at all she looks very cold and mean she has not cried the whole time i have been watching and if her son was beat with a belt buckle she should have called the police asap and also the child should still have the marks from the belt someone should check his back that mrs monson is very guilty

Mr. G   June 25th, 2010 12:49 pm ET

To me she is guilty because she shoot her twice in the back and three times the head in the back of the bed room and not as if she was heading toward the door to go and get her so called gun. It is another sad day for everybody involved "Everybody Have A Lost". There were to many was she could've gotten out of that mess if it was that bad.

Bob   June 25th, 2010 12:57 pm ET

This is what I want to know. Why was she wearing pink handcuffs? I mean seriously... Pink handcuffs? Since when are restraints subject to fashion?

Steph   June 25th, 2010 1:18 pm ET

they are being allowed to revictimize the victim. what a character assassination they are doing to Thomas. even if any of that were true about the victim, Monson was judge, jury and excutioner. if someone punched me in the stomach that would be the first thing i would say. the prosecution should not be allowing the defense to assassinate the victims character like they are doing, that is all the murderer's point of view. i still believe race will play apart in the verdict of murder.

Linda Henderson   June 25th, 2010 1:21 pm ET

Cynthia Monson got exactly what she deserved.if you are afraid of someone you don't let them in your house if she was so afraid of Pat why didn't she call the police when Pat got there.I think that she fully intended to kill her and claim self defense.Gay people should not be allowed to adopt children period

Jennifer   June 25th, 2010 1:52 pm ET

I joined the Army 10 years ago and was successful in Basic Training when it came to shooting, hand to hand combat, PT and everything else I was taught and to this day I have not forgotten a thing, which is why I say it's a load of crap for Cynthia's atty to say she forgot everything she was taught. If this woman was so scared of the (unarmed) victim she would have locked her doors and called the police, not let her in the home. If this was self defense she would not have shot the (unarmed) victim 5 times, and for the defense atty to say that fear does not diminish when you shoot the first shot is crap. The defense atty sucks and Cynthia is a cold blooded murderer who deserves to go to prison for life.

Dave   June 25th, 2010 2:13 pm ET

How could anyone possibly believe monson is not quilty of 1st degree murder.Her self defence plea is sooo ridiculous and stupid sounding, that anyone that could believe it, should be evaluated for their sanity.

elimu   June 25th, 2010 3:24 pm ET

C.Monson is guilty of 1rst degree murder. Her own words convict her

yolanda from lancaster   June 25th, 2010 3:38 pm ET

that is so messed up how they put the victim on trail instead of the person that pulled the trigger. I do believe that cynthia kids didn't like patrica because they were gay . I also believe that the boy lied on the stand I think that he was asked to lie for his mom by her and her family he didn't even speak like he was abused by patrica. And another thing is cynthia stood in front of the bedroom door blocking patrica from leaving the room. I pray to god that they find her guilty because she knew what she was doing and about to do. It looks like patrica was looking out the window talking with her back turned while cynthia is getting ready to kill patrica

yolanda from lancaster   June 25th, 2010 3:44 pm ET

Why is that people always act like they were abused after they done killed someone. That be their laws telling them that if you say that you were abused that's the only way they could be free again play the role of the victim that was being abused.

Diamond   June 25th, 2010 4:10 pm ET

The lady , Ms Monson is Guity, Guity, and Guity. Even police officers are not allowed to shot in the head. This was pre-meditate; therefore, the defense attorney needs to stop playing games, Ms Thomas is not on trial. Ms Monson is a malicious, lying, evil, narcissistic, individual with issues, and has no due regard for others. The tax payer shouldn't have to pay for another triail after she is found guity.

yolanda from lancaster   June 25th, 2010 4:16 pm ET

I'm happy that they found cynthia guilty because no one in cynthia's family knows what really went onw between the two but her in patrica. I think that's why she had to finish her off so that patrica couldn't tell what really happened

yolanda from lancaster   June 25th, 2010 4:18 pm ET

I'm happy that they found cynthia guilty

The 13th juror!   June 25th, 2010 10:04 pm ET

There are no winners today, everyone lost & someone lost their life.Ms Monsan appears to be a very cold-hearted woman scourned who took justice(her kind)into her on hands.It's ashame& she should be ashamed of using abuse as her reason to commite coldhearted murder.To anyone that has ever been abused I apoligize&sympathize with u but this lady(Ms.Monsan) does not "Appear" to "Me" to have been abused.Jealousy is one of the 7 deadlist sins!

stephanie   June 26th, 2010 5:59 pm ET

Yes my name is stephanie and i am a good friend to Ms. Monson's youngest biological son Joshua's baby's mother. Him, her, their newborn daughter and the adopted daughter were in the house at the time of the shooting. I've been reading quite a few of these comments and BOY-OH-BOY!!!! Ms.Monson was a woman that had put up with ALOT of abuse from Pat, which is why SHE finally ended their relationship. Pat took it hard because of the adopted children, yet the children were in a way, scared and reluctant to spend any time with her alone. They had seen everything that went on in the past between their mother and Pat, but dont get me wrong they loved her! Also Pat was a person that had a thing for guns, and since the break up she had brought them up numerous amounts of times. So in a way Cindi had every reason to purchase the firearm so she felt if ever need be her family would be safe. Even though i feel she was acting in self-defense, she went extremely overboard!!! After 1 or 2 shots at anyone, they are no longer a threat. So the next 3 were complete hate for all she had been through over the years. Being someone who kind of knew 1st hand, I think once that 1st shot went off there was no kind of control to stop. She IS where she belongs, yet i feel that life without parole is quite excessive! They had there problems just like everyone, but they were both good women who loved those kids to death! One completely to her own death.

subscribe RSS Icon
About this blog

 This is your online home for In Session on truTV’s up-to-the minute, comprehensive coverage of legal issues, trials and news from America’s courtrooms.  Our anchors, analysts and producers are teaming up here to give you updates on the stories that matter to you.

Be sure to tune in to In Session on truTV from 9 a.m. – 3 p.m. ET.

On Twitter
RT @hlnmakingit: We're talking about last night's #debate and tomorrow's jobs report! Tune in to @HLNTV now
Twitter icon HLNTV 4:14 pm ET October 4, 2012 RETWEET
Now on #HLN: RT @hlnmakingit: Having fun today w our #Obama & #Romney cut-outs. Play our game 'who said that' at 4p
Twitter icon HLNTV 4:00 pm ET October 4, 2012 RETWEET
The #YellowDogProject, a sign for pets in a doggone bad mood via @LilThunderLiz @louisianabrown
Twitter icon HLNTV 3:31 pm ET October 4, 2012 RETWEET
RT @DarrenKavinoky: RT @DarrenKavinoky: Getting ready to dig into the toxicology issues in the #MillionaireDUI Case. Join us at @InSession on @truTV!
Twitter icon InSession 1:36 pm ET October 4, 2012 RETWEET
Philadelphia top cop says he plans to fire officer who struck parade-goer. READ MORE:
Twitter icon InSession 1:27 pm ET October 4, 2012 RETWEET
Contact us