They're way more grounded than Millard's support system, but there is still some denial about what Smich brought to the table in this. It's pretty hard to move somebody to murder purely on the kind of manipulation Millard had mastered without other factors being present on their own. Still, it's absolutely true in my view that Millard's did create a false and seductive environment that was crafted to entice Smich and exploit his weaknesses and criminality for Millard's benefit - but there was no coercion and there is no indication that Smich was following Millard to a place he didn't want to go. I think their overarching point is that it's sad, that it didn't have to be this way for Smich but for some pretty fateful things that were mostly out of his control, is true. So yes, it didn't have to be, but it is, and now he's a convicted murderer for mostly very good and mostly clear reasons.
Smich's family makes you feel the concentric circles of loss that grow from terrible acts. The letters were good, and for me reflective of what I think has been pretty clear all along. Smich is not Millard. Doesn't mean he's not dangerous and right where he belongs, but he's not Millard. For me the people who do terrible things but don't meet the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy are the most interesting, and the ones we can learn the most from as human beings with an interest in criminal cases that can in part serve as a means to understand people and the world. It is very unlikely that people like Mark Smich, Karla Homolka, Russell Williams and other deeply destructive people are psychopaths, and yet they did horrific things. Why? What are they if they aren't that? How did this happen? It's that question that typically defines the cases I end up interested in.
