We've been told that any sort of deal can't be kept secret, but what constitutes a deal? Obviously someone charged with a crime can deal to have those charges or a possible sentence lessened, but is it considered a deal if somebody has not been charged with anything? Something tells me Hagerman is saying what the prosecution needs him to say because they will charge him with being an accessory after the fact (as they quite rightly should) if he doesn't. Would that be considered a deal? Shouldn't the jury be aware of that?
Honestly I'm not believing anything these guys say. Hagerman is full of crap when he says he and AM never discussed the contents of the toolbox. Kids talk, and when there is drama, thats all they do. I think they were all aware Millard was "hot" and I think they were all aware that it had something to do with TBs disappearance. I am convinced that by the 9th or 10th every single one of these guys new exactly what was going on. Probably even earlier than that. What we have here is an organized crime ring led by Millard. All of them are tied in by crimes they've already committed. Thats why Millard had no problems showing off TBs truck, because everybody who's see it was already in up to their eyeballs.
What the testimony of the past week also shows is that Millard called the shots on these missions, and that his soldiers actually knew very little about what was happening. Also, we've learned that these missions have al been stealth missions and non violent. I'm finding it more and more likely that Smich had absolutely now idea that things were going to go the way they did that night, and when they did he had no choice but to aid in the coverup.