him? i went and i got shot. and i won. so because i won the gunfight, i know that i will not be standing on the side of my children s graves and people aren t going to be patting me on the back and saying, there s nothing you could have done. i did. oakes claimed mark stover shot first. thus the claim he now made. it was self-defense. even though no evidence ever surfaced to suggest stover was in possession of any firearm at all or that stover had ever arranged any meeting with oakes. and as for the story that he was a hired gun for the opdyckes, just not true, said michiel oakes. a great many people believe that one or both of the opdyckes are involved. were they involved? not at all. but of course it was all michiel s story. about a crazed dog whisperer,
the judge to be sentenced. though first, michiel oakes had a thing or two to say. i wish to express the sincere and heartfelt remorse that i carry due to my actions and apologize to all that i ve harmed through my poor judgment. first, i would like to apologize to members of mr. stover s family and all those friends and clients who clearly cared so much for him. i also wish to apologize to members of my own family who have cared for me all of my life and who have now sacrificed everything for my legal representation and to enable my bail pending trial. but oakes did not withdraw his claim of self-defense. he stuck to his story. and the judge just didn t buy it. i believe we re still a long ways from the truth as to what actually happened on october 28th, 2009. truth, as the judge told the court, seems elusive still in
so what was she and oakes so frightened about? the last time that you ever saw mr. stover or heard from mr. stover was at the protection order hearing in april of 08, correct? that is correct. keith morrison: but she certainly saw a lot of michiel oakes. you continued to have romantic feelings, intimate feelings toward mr. oakes and vice versa. yes. and in fact, i think that you said that in our interview last week, is that you loved him, correct? i don t recall if i said that or not, but i do. yes. keith morrison: and hadn t her new lover done her a favor, asked the prosecutor, by getting rid of the ex-husband she accused of causing her so much trouble? the fact is that in this case, you don t have to worry about mr. stover, now do you? it appears to be that case. and in that sense, the defendant helped you out, correct? no. prosecutor kaholokula also asked opdycke about her refusal to answer
so well he s written numerous articles for gun magazines, has even trained police s.w.a.t. teams. but has no criminal record and, insisted browne, he isn t a murderer. still, he must have done something to mark stover. didn t he? well, here s where it all began to get tricky. if stover was really dead, said john henry browne, and if the prosecution could prove oakes killed him, then, and only then oakes might provide an explanation. through the legal fog a little hint came popping out. the prosecution had already indicated it would introduce into evidence a bulletproof vest found in michiel oakes suv. now attorney browne seemed to be suggesting that vest would be important to any claim the defense might decide to make. just to make things clear, your honor, it s not just a vest. it s a bullet that was found in the vest. and then the defendant tells his story to dateline. even before he had does in
on that that has a threaded end that i can put a suppressor on. silencer, that is. then an expert matched bullet casings found outside stover s house to michiel oakes gun. i was able to identify all three fired cartridges as have been been fired from the browning pistol. proof that michiel oakes gun was fired at mark stover s house where dna showed more of mark s blood was found. blood but no body. to try to answer the question of what michiel oakes might have done with mark s body, prosecutors presented this surveillance video. shortly after 12:00 noon, october 28th, the day stover disappeared, an suv looked like michiel oakes suzuki