Whenever I’m writing for publication, somewhere along the way I read through the draft out loud to test the way the words work together, how the text flows, and most important, how to keep it simple, even when I’m trying to describe the complexities of procedures, laws, or issues.

And in that edit, I usually end up cutting bits and pieces, slimming down to story so that it stays on track, now without interesting but unnecessary tangents.

That happened this time around, as usual, when I wrote today about John Stancil’s request to be released from federal detention on bond until trial, which is currently scheduled to begin in late March 2022, but is likely to be pushed back further as additional evidence is compiled and disclosed to defense counsel.

Stancil’s attorney, Walter Rodby, did his best to paint his client in a favorable light. Not an easy task for someone with a street reputation who is now facing 11 federal charges in this complex case, including allegations of participating in racketeering and a murder-for-hire conspiracies, attempted murder in aid of racketeering, drug trafficking, and conspiracy to use a chemical weapon, along with use of a chemical weapon stemming from the alleged release in two nightclubs of a toxic chemical used in termite treatment. It’s a tough sell.

And Rodby kind of tripped over some details in trying to pitch his “best case” scenario of Stancil as a hard working, standup family man.

Sometimes Rodby feigns outrage, which turns out to be misplaced.

Example: “Regarding Count 7, (Kamehameha Shopping Center) the simple fact of the matter is that Mr. Stancil was not present during any supposed meeting between Miske, Smith and Bermudez. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Stancil was not at the scene, he simply was not there.”

But Count 7 charges a murder-for-hire conspiracy. And in a conspiracy, not every co-conspirator needs to be part of each act tied to the conspiracy. It doesn’t matter if Mr. Stancil was not at the scene of a particular meeting if the government can show he was part of the overall conspiracy.

Similarly, Rodby attacks Count 8, which describes several men, including Stancil and Mike Miske, driving to Kualoa Ranch to kill a man working on a film set. The charge is “Assault and Attempted Murder in Aid of Racketeering.”

Rodby argues that the government hasn’t presented evidence Stancil actually pulled the trigger: “The prosecution’s star witness Jacob Smith, has provided contradictory statements to law enforcement about the events leading to the filing of Count 8. In particular, in Smith’s plea agreement with the prosecution, he states that while he fired a weapon, he cannot say whether Mr. Stancil fired a weapon.”

Okay, I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if you get in a car with a group of men driving to the other side of the island in order to shoot your intended victim, and you’re on the scene of the attack with a gun in hand when at least one shot is fired, it is unlikely to make much legal difference whether it can be proved your own gun was fired. The circumstances, which Rodby doesn’t appear to dispute, put you in the middle of the attempted murder, or so it seems to me.

And then Rodby turns to the chemical weapon charges, again based in part on statements by two participants who have already pleaded guilty.

Rodby argues:

Smith alleges that the chloropicrin released was that of Kamaaina Pest Control, and came from Mr. Stancil’s residence. This false accusation does not comport with logic or common sense, and begs the question; If Smith planned to release chloropicrin at a nightclub in Honolulu, why would the chloropicrin be stored across the island, in Mr. Stancil’s Waimanalo garage, when Kamaaina Pest Control was mere blocks away from said nightclub?

Then, assuming arguendo, Mr. Stancil was somehow tangentially involved in the release of fumes into a nightclub, there is absolutely no evidence that Mr. Stancil knew what Chloropicrin was.

Here’s a straight up answer to why the chemical would be retrieved from storage in Stancil’s Waimanalo garage, although Miske’s Kamaaina Termite and Pest Control office was located just blocks from the scene of the chemical attack.

The easy answer is that there are strict federal storage requirements that apply to the inventory of the licensed company using and storing the chemicals. Removing chemicals from that inventory for an attack would be risky, as it would likely leave a paper trail. Instead, it would appear some chemicals were “off the books” and stored in Waimanalo, to avoid the regulatory and legal risks.

Then there’s Rodby’s claim the government has presented “absolutely no evidence” Stancil knew about this termite chemical.

Several pages earlier in Rodby’s legal memo, he reviews Stancil’s employment history, and states: “Mr. Stancil worked for Kama’aina Pest Control in 2004.”

Perhaps if Rodby had used the correct name of the company–Kama’aina Termite and Pest Control–it might have been easier to see that there does appear to be reason to believe Stancil knew about chloropicrin, a standard chemical used in termite treatment.

There’s one other thing worth noting from the Stancil memo, but I’ve gone on long enough and so I’ll hold that for tomorrow.

Stancil memorandum in support of motion for release on bail by Ian Lind on Scribd