‘I just wanted to calm her down': Burlington man on trial for murder says he killed wife in self-defence
A Burlington man charged with murdering his wife claims she attacked him, and he ended her life in self-defence.
Sandor Somogyi, 73, testified in his defence before a jury in Milton on Thursday, April 24.
He is accused of killing his wife Margit, 67, in her Regency Court apartment on Jan. 13, 2023.
He has pleaded not guilty to the charge of second-degree murder he faces.
The jury heard that Sandor and Margit had a troubled relationship prior to Margit's death.
Through a Hungarian interpreter, Sandor testified the pair separated, but did not divorce, after their children moved out of their Burlington home in 2016.
Sandor returned to his native Hungary to try and start a new business while Margit moved into her own apartment at
695 Regency Court
in Burlington.
Sandor said things did not work out for him in Hungary as he couldn't get the licensing needed to start a business and he returned to Canada after about a month.
He then moved into Margit's apartment despite his name not being on the lease.
Sandor would later confirm Margit did not add him to the lease because he had recently declared bankruptcy and because he had a criminal record with multiple convictions related to impaired driving.
During the trial the court heard from several neighbours who testified about loud arguments coming from the Somogyis' apartment.
When asked by defence attorney Donald Carter what these arguments were about Sandor said sometimes they were about their daughters' marriages.
Sandor said they didn't marry well, and his opinion upset Margit.
Other times he said the fights were about everyday things like her not liking how he did the cleaning or him making a mistake with the shopping.
However, during cross examination by assistant Crown attorney Maureen McGuigan Sandor acknowledged the arguments were also about his level of alcohol consumption, which Margit had a problem with.
The relationship between Margit and Sandor deteriorated further on Dec. 23, 2022, when Sandor became intoxicated and passed out in the second floor hallway of the Regency Court apartment building.
Sandor said this was the only time he had been that drunk and acknowledged property management had to support him to the elevator so he could get back to Margit's apartment on the fifth floor.
Police were called as a result of this incident and a week later property management served Margit with notice that Sandor had to be out of the building by noon on Jan. 13, 2023.
McGuigan said Margit was also told that if Sandor stayed and there was another incident Margit would be evicted as well.
The court heard that Sandor was still in the apartment on Jan. 12, 2023.
He told the jury that that day he had visited homeless shelters in Oakville and Hamilton to see if they could take him but was told they were full.
He said he also checked to see if he could stay in an apartment above an area church and was told to expect an answer the following day.
Sandor said Margit had regularly reminded him he would have to leave.
He said as Jan. 12 became Jan. 13, he packed a suitcase and planned to head to a motel at around noon.
The Burlington senior testified that at breakfast Margit began fighting with him.
'She told me to leave,' said Sandor.
'I told her to give me three hours.'
He said Margit continued shouting at him and he told her to calm down.
After about five minutes of Margit shouting, Sandor said, both decided to go back to bed.
He said sometime later the doorbell rang and Margit told him to answer it.
Sandor said when he answered the door the property manager asked if everything was OK and where Margit was.
He said he told the manager that Margit was in bed and not to disturb her.
After the property manager left Sandor said Margit again demanded he leave, but this time she physically attacked him in the bedroom.
'She was coming, and she was strongly trying to attack, and she scratched my face and my chest,' said Sandor.
He said she also slapped him on the forehead.
Sandor said he grabbed Margit by the shoulders to keep her away from him.
He said he then turned her around, grabbed her neck from behind with his hands and pushed her onto the bed.
'I told her quietly to calm down and everything will be OK,' said Sandor.
'I was holding her neck for about half a minute and then I let go because she went quiet.'
Sandor said he turned Margit over and called her name, but she was unresponsive.
'I didn't want to kill her,' he said.
'I just wanted to calm her down.'
An
autopsy
found that Margit died as a result of her neck being compressed.
Following Margit's death Sandor said he swallowed large doses of the various medications he was taking in an effort to kill himself.
He said he then wrote what was intended to be a suicide note on two sides of a piece of paper and left it on a pillow next to Margit's body.
Sandor confirmed the front side read: 'I Sandor Somogyi killed this woman. I did it rightfully. Please investigate.'
He said on the reverse side of the note he wrote: 'Blood speaks. The blood of my 3 daughters doesn't match.'
When asked about this message on the reverse side of the note Sandor said he believed his wife had been unfaithful and his two youngest daughters were not actually his.
Sandor's suicide attempt would ultimately fail, and he was arrested after attending the property manager's office and telling him to call police.
During cross examination McGuigan hammered Sandor on many of the details of his account.
She questioned whether Sandor had any intention of leaving, noting that no suitcase can be seen in police photos of the apartment closet where Sandor said he put it.
She also noted his clothing was still in the wardrobe.
Sandor said the suitcase is in a corner of the closet and can't be seen due to hanging clothing.
He also noted he was not done packing and said the clothing would only take him minutes to remove.
McGuigan questioned why he was still in the apartment at all with just hours remaining until he was supposed to leave.
Sandor said he was waiting to hear back from the church about potentially being able to stay there.
McGuigan suggested this story about a church apartment was a fiction, but Sandor maintained it was real.
The assistant Crown attorney also took aim at Sandor's account of the struggle with his wife noting that the door to the bedroom was right beside him and when he pushed her on the bed, he could have just escaped.
Sandor said he feared his wife would attack him again if he let her go.
He also said Margit used her arms to block him from leaving.
'It's easy to be smart after the fact,' he said when questioned further about not taking this escape route.
McGuigan also drew attention to testimony by Beata Pegoretti, Margit's daughter, who said she was worried about her mother and had been
calling her all morning but received no response
.
Indeed,
the Halton officer who found Margit's body
testified that when she entered the Somogyi apartment she noticed that Margit's cellphone was constantly ringing.
The assistant Crown attorney argued that by the time the property manager knocked on the door Margit was already dead, otherwise she would have picked up her phone.
Sandor said he did not hear Margit's phone ringing.
McGuigan then drew attention to the note and pointed out there was no mention of Sandor having killed Margit in self-defence.
Sandor said there was not enough room on the note for this and believed he had little time given the medication he had swallowed to kill himself.
Asked by McGuigan what he meant by stating 'I did it rightfully,' Sandor said he meant that he had 'rightfully' defended himself.
McGuigan suggested Sandor thought her death was done rightfully because she had cheated on him and had been forcing him out of the apartment.
Sandor disagreed.
McGuigan also argued that Sandor had included the information about Margit's alleged infidelity as an act of revenge and to taint their daughters' memory of her.
Sandor said he wanted the authorities to know what Margit was guilty of.
McGuigan suggested that in the early morning of Jan. 13, 2023, Margit threatened to call police to have Sandor removed at which point Sandor choked her to death.
She said the account of Margit attacking him was completely made up.
'You decided you were done listening to Margit about this and any other subject. You wanted peace and quiet permanently,' said McGuigan.
The assistant Crown attorney said that as he choked Margit she scratched him in self-defence and that is how he got the scratches later photographed by police.
Sandor denied this and said she attacked him.
With Sandor's testimony complete Carter said the defence's evidence was complete.
In the coming days, McGuigan and Carter will present closing arguments to the jury after which the jury will decide whether they believe Sandor's account of self-defence or that he is guilty of second-degree murder.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Killer of London, Ont., Muslim family appeals convictions, challenging use of manifesto at trial
Warning: This story contains distressing details. A London, Ont., man convicted of killing four members of a Muslim family and severely injuring a fifth member in a hate-motivated attack four years ago is appealing on three grounds, including that the judge should not have allowed the jury to consider his white nationalist manifesto. A Windsor jury found Nathaniel Veltman guilty in November 2023 of four counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder. Three months later, then Superior Court Justice Renee Pomerance ruled his actions amounted to a "textbook case" of terrorism as defined under Canadian law. He was sentenced in January 2024. Friday's news of the appeal comes on the fourth anniversary of the killing of Yumnah Afzaal, 15, her parents — Madiha Salman, 44, an engineer, and Salman Afzaal, 46, a physiotherapist — and family matriarch Talat Afzaal, 74, a teacher and artist. The youngest family member, a boy, survived. Veltman drove his pickup truck into the family as they were taking an evening stroll on June 6, 2021. Appeal sought on 3 grounds "I appreciate that the community was horrified by this offence and the remaining members of the family were devastated by this offence. I respect that, and I feel very badly for both the family and for the community," Veltman's appeal lawyer, Stephen Whitzman, told CBC News. "Mr. Veltman, of course, has a right to exercise his full legal rights, including his right to an appeal, and it's my job as his lawyer to assist him in doing that, and I hope that everyone will understand that those two things can both exist together." WATCH | CBC's coverage of the judge's 2023 ruling in the Muslim attack case: The appeal is being sought on three grounds, based on court records obtained by CBC News: The judge erred in admitting the ideological evidence, including Veltman's white supremacist manifesto, titled "A White Awakening," which set out his political and racist views. The judge erred in admitting Veltman's statements to a police officer which were obtained via a "Charter breach," meaning he was not properly warned of his rights. The judge erred in refusing the defence application for a mistrial because of what Veltman's lawyer at the time called "inflammatory language" during the Crown's closing statement, including references to the crime scene and the grievous injuries suffered by the victims. Veltman's trial lasted 12 weeks. The jury heard evidence he was motivated by right-wing extremist and Islamophobic views, and he described himself as a white nationalist. He grew up in a strict Christian home and fell into a web of online hate during the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial heard. Veltman testified in his own defence and said he took magic mushrooms a day before the killing in order to escape the "hell" of his mind. The killing galvanized London and Canadian society to create laws and groups that would combat Islamophobia. As it has on every anniversary of the killing, the community gathered Friday to reflect on the family, who became known as Our London Family, and to recognize the impact of the tragedy.
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
B.C. babysitter must be acquitted in toddler's drowning death, Supreme Court rules
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a woman originally convicted in the 2011 drowning death of a toddler in her care must be acquitted. Tammy Marion Bouvette was babysitting 19-month-old Iyanna Teeple in Cranbrook, B.C., in 2011 when the toddler was found unresponsive in the bath. Teeple was flown to a hospital in Calgary, where she later died. Bouvette was originally charged with second-degree murder in the child's death, then later pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of criminal negligence. She was sentenced to 12 months in jail. But an independent review of the case determined that the Crown hadn't disclosed all evidence to Bouvette or her counsel before she entered her guilty plea. In 2023, the B.C. Court of Appeal quashed her conviction and ordered a stay of proceedings, but declined to enter an acquittal. Bouvette appealed and, in a ruling released Friday morning, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded she should be immediately acquitted on the grounds that the Crown also sought an acquittal and said it would call no evidence at a new trial. 'A miscarriage of justice' The case became the subject of an investigation by CBC's The Fifth Estate in 2020 after CBC journalists uncovered a report that criticized pivotal pathology evidence in the Crown's case against Bouvette. Bouvette has maintained she did not abuse or kill the child and told The Fifth Estate she had wanted to avoid a lengthier prison sentence for a murder charge when she made her plea. In 2023, the B.C. Court of Appeal determined that the B.C. Prosecution Service had failed to disclose to Bouvette's defence lawyers several items of key evidence, including the pathology evidence report, which supported Bouvette's claim that she had not hurt or neglected the child. Bouvette's former defence lawyer told The Fifth Estate that he had not received that report from the Crown during the prosecution. At the time, the judges wrote that they "make no finding of bad faith or malice on the part of the Crown. But neither can we ignore that the disclosure breaches were not isolated or confined to information of dubious value to the appellant." "As a consequence of material non-disclosure, the appellant was deprived of the opportunity to make an informed decision about how to plead apprised of the strengths and weaknesses of the case against her on fundamental issues." The court ruled that Bouvette's criminal negligence conviction causing the toddler's death was "the product of a miscarriage of justice," and ordered a stay of proceedings because retrying her case would be an "abuse of process." Friday ruling In the Friday ruling, judges were unanimous in their decision, if for different reasons. Writing for the majority, Justice Nicholas Kasirer said the first possible ground for an acquittal under section 686(2) of the Criminal Code is where there's a lack of evidence to ground a reasonable conviction. The second possible ground is where the Crown seeks an acquittal and says it would call no evidence at a new trial. Kasirer said Bouvette was acquitted on this second ground.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Mushroom cook denies cancer claim at lunch
Alleged mushroom poisoner Erin Patterson has denied telling her lunch guests she had cancer and asking for advice on how to break the news to her children, the jury in her triple-murder trial has heard. Ms Patterson, 50, is facing trial accused of murdering Simon Patterson's parents and aunt and the attempted murder of his uncle after the four guests fell critically ill following a lunch at her Leongatha home on July 29, 2023. She has pleaded not guilty, with her defence arguing the case was not deliberate poisoning but a tragic accident. Giving evidence on her fourth day in the witness box on Thursday, Ms Patterson was grilled at length by Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC about her 'so-called cancer diagnosis'. Earlier in the week, the alleged killer admitted she feigned receiving a series of medical tests, including a needle biopsy and an MRI, claiming she was concerned about a lump on her elbow 'at one point' but was planning to use the medical test ruse as cover for a gastric bypass surgery. 'I thought perhaps letting them believe I had some serious issue that needed treatment might mean they'd be able to help me with the logistics around the kids and I wouldn't have to tell them the real reason,' she said on Wednesday. Dr Rogers suggested Ms Patterson continued the 'fiction' to her husband Simon Patterson's parents, Don and Gail, expecting them to tell Simon so he would be less likely to reject the lunch invitation. 'The answer is no because I would not expect her to tell him any of that,' she responded. 'They made me feel loved and cared for in the way they were asking be about my health … so I just kept going.' Dr Rogers asked Ms Patterson if she told guests at the lunch on July 29, 2023, she had cancer. 'I don't think I put it that precisely,' she said. 'I don't remember saying I had a diagnosis.' The prosecutor continued the line of questioning, asking if she agreed that 'even in your evidence yesterday' Ms Patterson told the lunch guests she had upcoming treatment for cancer. 'I can't remember the exact words I used, as to whether I said 'I had' or 'I might need to', but I was trying to communicate that there might be some treatment coming up,' Ms Patterson responded. Dr Rogers suggested Ms Patterson wanted her guests to believe she would be receiving cancer treatment, which she agreed with. Dr Rogers then took Ms Patterson to the evidence of Ian Wilkinson, who said she had asked for advice on how to break the news of her 'life-threatening' diagnosis. In response, Ms Patterson suggested Mr Wilkinson was wrong, saying there was 'nothing to tell the kids'. 'I suggest that you never thought you would have to account for this lie about having cancer, because you thought that the lunch guests would die?' Dr Rogers asked. 'That's not true,' Ms Patterson responded. 'Lethal dose': Cook grilled on mushroom pic Ms Patterson was taken to a series of images police located in cache records from the Google Photos app on a Samsung tablet. She confirmed the photos were 'likely' taken by her, and depict her kitchen bench, dehydrator and scales. 'I only phrase it that way I don't have a specific memory of taking the photo,' the alleged killer said. Dr Rogers took Ms Patterson to the evidence of mycologist Dr Tom May who said one image of mushrooms on a dehydrator tray being weighed was 'consistent with Amanita Phalloides (death cap mushrooms)'. The image, Dr Rogers said, was recorded in metadata as being last modified on May 4, 2023. The prosecutor suggested these were death cap mushrooms Ms Patterson collected from the nearby town of Loch after seeing a post on citizen science website iNaturalist. 'That is not correct,' Ms Patterson replied. Dr Rogers suggested the image depicts her weighing the mushrooms so she could 'calculate the lethal dose'. 'Disagree,' Ms Paterson said. Judge gives update on trial After a short break, jurors were given an update on the trial, now in its sixth week, by trial judge Justice Christopher Beale. The judge said it was likely Ms Patterson would remain in the witness box until at least the end of the week and following that, there would need to be a break for legal discussions. 'Those discussions may take a couple of days,' he said. Justice Beale said there was a 'possibility' there may be more evidence called in the trial before closing addresses from the prosecution and defence. 'Each of those could take a couple of days which would see out that week,' he said. Jurors would then be given directions, he said, before they were sent off to deliberate. 'So my final directions to you could take a couple of days, then the boot is on the other foot because none of you can tell me how long deliberations will take,' Justice Beale said. Prosecution begins with rapid fire questions about lies to police Crown Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC starts off her line of questioning at a rapid pace, asking Ms Patterson to confirm she lied to police about owning a dehydrator, dehydrating food stuffs and foraging for mushrooms. Ms Patterson confirms this is the case. The prosecutor takes the accused woman through a series of exhibits, including photos found on her tablet of mushrooms and a dehydrator, an invoice showing she purchased the dehydrator on April 28, 2023, and photos of her disposing of it at the tip on August 2. 'You rushed out to get rid of the evidence, you lied to the police because you knew you had used the dehydrator?' Ms Rogers asks. 'No I didn't know that,' Ms Patterson replied. 'You knew if you told the police it would implicate you in the deliberate poisoning?' the prosecutor follows with. 'No, it's not correct,' she responds. Erin denies deliberately harming lunch guests Defence barrister Colin Mandy SC then took Ms Patterson through a series of propositions he said related to the prosecution case. She is asked if she lied about only cooking one batch of beef wellingtons, responding; 'No, I didn't lie'. Mr Mandy then runs through a series of questions, including whether she lied about purchasing mushrooms from an Asian grocer, her children eating the leftovers, and pretending to be sick following the lunch. Each Ms Patterson denies. The barrister carries on asking about whether Ms Patterson ever deliberately picked death cap mushrooms and intentionally included them in the lunch. Again Ms Patterson denies this is the case. Going through the four lunch guests, Don, Gail, Ian and Heather, Mr Mandy first asks if she intended to kill, seriously injure or harm them. Her voice faltering, Ms Patterson replies; 'no, I did not' to each. Mr Mandy then closes his examination in chief and hands over Ms Patterson to Crown Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC. 'Stupid': Why Erin says she lied to police Giving evidence on Thursday, Ms Patterson was asked by her barrister if she had lied to police in her record of interview when she denied owning a dehydrator, dehydrating things and ever foraging for mushrooms. She confirmed she had. Asked why, Ms Patterson said it occurred 'in the context of thinking mushrooms I had foraged … had made people sick'. 'It was this stupid knee-jerk reaction to dig deeper and keep on lying, I was scared,' she said. Mushroom cook admits lies to husband, in-laws Taking the stand following the closure of the prosecution case this week, Ms Patterson was asked by her barrister Colin Mandy SC about a message exchange with her husband. Earlier in the trial, the jury was told the pair separated in 2015 but remained amicable as they continued to co-parent their two children. Reading the messages, Mr Mandy said the evening before the lunch Simon Patterson declined an invitation he'd earlier agreed to. 'Sorry, I feel too uncomfortable about coming to the lunch with you, mum, dad, Heather & Ian tomorrow, but am happy to talk about your health and implications of that at another time if you'd like to discuss on the phone. Just let me know,' the message read. Ms Patterson responded saying; 'That's really disappointing. I've spent many hours this week preparing lunch for tomorrow which has been exhausting in light of the issues I'm facing and spent a small fortune on beef eye fillet to make beef Wellingtons because I wanted it to be a special meal as I may not be able to host a lunch like this again for some time.' 'It's important to me that you're all there tomorrow and that I can have the conversations that I need to have. I hope you'll change your mind. Your parents and Heather and Ian are coming at 12.30. I hope to see you there.' Asked about her reaction, Ms Patterson told the jury she felt a bit hurt and a bit stressed by Simon's message. Questioned by Mr Mandy if the reply was true, she said: 'Apart from the fact that I'd spent a small fortune on beef eye fillet and I wanted it to be special, the rest was exaggeration.' She told the court she exaggerated because she wanted him to attend so she could discuss an upcoming medical procedure, specifically about sorting out plans for the care of their son and daughter. Earlier in the day, Ms Patterson told the jury she had misled Simon's parents, Don and Gail Patterson, about needing a series of tests on a lump on her elbow. She said earlier the same year she had a lump but it resolved itself and she was planning to use it as a cover to get gastric bypass surgery. 'I had come to the conclusion that I wanted to do something, for once and for all about my weight and my poor eating habits. So I was planning to have gastric bypass surgery and so I remember thinking I didn't want to tell anybody what I was going to have done,' she said. 'I was really embarrassed about it, so I thought perhaps letting them believe I had some serious issue that needed treatment might mean they'd be able to help me with the logistics around the kids and I wouldn't have to tell them the real reason.' The jury was shown a series of messages between Ms Patterson and Gail Patterson over a few weeks in June where she kept up the charade, writing to her mother-in-law that she was waiting for the results of a biopsy and then needing an MRI. Asked 'were those lies?' by Mr Mandy, Ms Patterson confirmed 'yes'. 'They had shown quite a lot of care about that, which felt really nice … I didn't want their care of me to stop, so I just kept it going. I shouldn't have done it,' she said. Ms Patterson told the court she 'shouldn't have' said those things to Simon but wanted him to feel bad about cancelling at the last minute. Asked by her barrister whether it was true when she said she'd spent 'many hours' preparing for the lunch, the accused woman confirmed it was not. 'I didn't do any preparing other than shopping and researching the recipe, so I guess the answer to your question is, no, it wasn't true,' she said. 'I didn't mean to do any of that. I shouldn't have done any of that, but that's what I was thinking at the time.' Don and Gail Patterson and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson died in early August 2023 from organ failure linked to death cap mushroom poisoning. Heather's husband Ian Wilkinson recovered after about a month and a half in hospital. Ms Patterson is expected to return to the witness box on Thursday, where Mr Mandy told the jury he had about 15 minutes more of questions, before she is turned over to the prosecution to question. The trial continues.
