As far as I can see the Smich reasonable doubters just dismiss all the evidence and say they believe his story. Where do you stand on Meneses' testimony about the celebration, his 100-plus post-murder text messages to Millard including talk about his wedding suit and chilling out, Daly's testimony that Smich was perfectly fine that week until Millard got arrested?
How do you explain all his pre-murder texts about the BBQ, his gun obsession, his change of clothes, etc? And what about the fact that he draws a complete blank on his gun burial and 50-minute meeting with Millard before his arrest while remembering other things crystal clear?
I've only scratched the surface, <modsnip>
I don’t say I believe all of his testimony, but I feel his story is plausible in relation to the evidence. For those who say his testimony is geared to the evidence, what else would it be geared to if not to refute something that someone is using to nail your butt to the wall with a life sentence? Of course an accused will attempt to explain evidence that others feel points to his guilt. Why wouldn’t he?
MM’s original use of the word ‘happy’ in her initial interview that somehow morphed into ‘celebration’ (or celebratory?) just prior to trial makes me think she embellished for whatever reason.
If I was of a criminal bent and knew that my buddy had just killed a guy, recognizing what my lunatic friend was capable of might lead me to act as if what he did didn’t bother me. If my buddy is capable of killing a guy, then he’s capable of killing me if a pee him off. Talk of a wedding suit? Well, there was a wedding coming up. I don’t’ place a lot of credence on BD’s testimony given that he previously lied through his teeth and seemed to gear his answers to whichever lawyer happened to be questioning him.
WRT the sausages … DM previously specified he wanted “bacon” at a barbeque. There is a pic (not in evidence) of AM (I think with MH or BD behind him) barbequing with sausages on the grill. DM seems to get what DM wants. Perhaps he didn’t like sausages, specified bacon, and it was MS's way of teasing that they were going to served. Why else would DM talk about bacon? As for a pic of fireside furniture, I believe it was in evidence (?) that they would scope out locations for desireable items. Can't recall if they shared pics of such items, but could have just been an idea for any upcoming summertime event/barbeque. Gun obsession? I know lots of people who legally possess guns who haven’t killed anyone (LE, personal protection). Change of clothes? This was something that was previously associated with other scoping missions, so not just this particular theft/murder.
As for drawing a blank on the gun burial … yeah, I say probably hogwash on that, but given the gun was acquired illegally through MS’s associates, I can see MS being terrified that if that gun could be traced back, he was in pretty big trouble with the n****s who don’t mess around.
We don’t know what that 50 min meeting with DM consisted of so we have nothing to compare. It could have been discussing any number of things. We don’t know; he doesn’t remember. He referred to his emotions as shock, paranoia, stress, so it is possible that is a segment of the whole event he simply doesn’t recall the specifics.
Other Supreme Court rulings on appeal address benefit of the doubt to the appellant (accused), i.e.:
From:
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1320/index.do?r=AAAAAQAKUGVyc29ubmUgYgE
Moreover, in several passages, the trial judge properly instructed them on the proper standard of proof. The Chief Justice was also of the view that this particular instruction was still generally favourable to the appellant because it reminded the jury that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, McEachern C.J.B.C. concluded that the jury would not have been misled by this unfortunate instruction. He found it probable that the jury, rather than parsing the sentence, would have regarded the sentence as a reminder that the benefit of the doubt always went to the appellant.
I consider some of his testimony plausible, and some of the evidence as having the potential for other explanations. I also know that we can believe all, some, or none of the accused's testimony, and give the benefit of the doubt to the accused according to Supreme Court guidelines.
