Michiel was found guilty, despite the strength of his testimony and the volume of evidence defending it. Though it stood unimpeachable, there were a number of questions raised by Michiel’s testimony, which begged answering:
Why was Michiel armed and wearing a bulletproof vest?
To answer this question, one must look earlier in Michiel’s testimony. After Michiel met Linda, he offered to go to her home to evaluate her home security. She welcomed his assessment of what she was already doing to protect herself from her obsessive ex-husband, Mark Stover. Mark had a Domestic Violence Protection Order issued against him and ultimately was convicted of stalking. After Michiel and Linda formed a friendship, which grew into a loving relationship, Mark resumed his pattern of aggression and manipulation, this time targeting Michiel.
John Henry Brown: “Was that your custom, to be armed?”
Michiel Oakes: “Certainly since he approached me. I had a concealed weapons permit all my adult life so I often was armed. Since he approached me the first time, I was perpetually armed.”
Later, Michiel began wearing his bulletproof vest to the meetings that Stover arranged. Although he was armed, Michiel clung to the hope that Mark Stover would see reason, and tried at every opportunity to talk, reason, and plead with him, and stop the escalation. Their final meeting was no different. To learn more of Stover’s history of stalking, click here.
Why did Michiel come to Stover’s house?
Police tracking dogs indicated that Michiel entered Stover’s home through the front door, and later exited through the garage. This is consistent with Michiel’s testimony, but it does not explain why Michiel came to the house in the first place. Michiel’s first contact from Mark Stover had been more than 5 months earlier, and Stover quickly established that Michiel would comply with his wishes, or his family would pay the consequences. The time and place for every meeting was dictated by Stover. Hoping to appease him and prevent further escalation, Michiel complied.
Why did Michiel purchase items before the meeting?
Prior to arriving at Stover’s house, Michiel purchased several items of odd and varied natures. Among the list of things he obtained were shin guards, anchor line, 2-lb. ankle weights, and a camouflage sweat suit. In his testimony, Michiel described the reasoning behind each purchase:
- Shin Guards – A gift for his step-son, whom he was hoping to visit later.
- Anchor Line & Ankle Weights – To scale a water tower near Stover’s house, in case the meeting turned dangerous and he had to escape.
- Camouflage – Another emergency precaution taken, to help in hiding from Stover, if it became necessary.
With a Hollywood imagination, it becomes possible to fabricate malicious explanations for these purchases. In reality, however, none of the items purchased show a premeditated intent to kill; some are innocuous, while others simply demonstrate Michiel’s fear and caution in dealing with a dangerous man.
Why did Michiel behave erratically after being attacked?
One of the biggest questions in Michiel’s testimony was his behavior after being attacked by Stover. Michiel made numerous trips through Skagit County, often backtracking or making unnecessary stops. By all accounts, his decisions and actions were illogical and counter-productive. This is because Michiel was likely suffering the onset of an acute stress reaction, a result of narrowly surviving the attempt on his life. The confusion, inability to prioritize tasks, paranoia, and difficulty remembering entire segments of that day all match exactly with the dissociative effects of psychological trauma. To learn more about the effects of shock and acute stress, click here.
Conclusions
None of these points can lead us to the conclusion that Michiel premeditated the killing of Mark Stover, nor can they prove that he did not act in self-defense. Michiel’s decisions reveal nothing but a man cornered by the malicious attacks of another, striving only for the peace and safety of his family. In a certain light, these decision may cast question on Michiel’s reasoning, but these questions fall far short of the standards for criminal conviction.
Now, we can only pray that the appellate court agrees.
Free Oakes 