Defense in double-homicide trial points to someone else

DOVER — The defense team for Farmington double-homicide suspect Timothy Verrill continued its efforts to build an alternative suspect theory around Dean Smoronk on Wednesday, following Judge Steven Houran’s decision to deny the defense’s motion to dismiss the case. 

The defense had requested Verrill’s first-degree murder charges be dismissed following mid-trial revelations last week that key State Police investigators mishandled evidence, failing to turn over interview recordings, emails and text messages involving several witnesses. Houran announced in Strafford County Superior Court earlier this week that he was going to deny that motion, but as of Wednesday Houran hadn’t yet filed a written order about it, according to court staff.

As part of the defense’s direct case, Milton resident Dan Wall was called to testified Wednesday afternoon about various statements Smoronk allegedly made about a desire to kill Christine Sullivan, Smoronk’s girlfriend. Wall testified Smoronk allegedly made those statements not long before Sullivan and her friend Jenna Pellegrini were slain on Jan. 27, 2017, inside Smoronk’s 979 Meaderboro Road home in Farmington.

“He was always saying he wished she was dead and not in his life,” Wall testified. A couple of minutes later, Wall described on the stand a moment at 979 Meaderboro Road in which Smoronk allegedly told him he wanted to kill Sullivan.

Verrill, 37, is standing trial on murder and falsifying evidence charges. Verrill is accused of killing Sullivan, 48, and Pellegrini, 32, inside at 979 Meaderboro Road and trying to hide their bodies because he believed one of them was informing police about the drug trafficking enterprise in which Verrill, Smoronk and Sullivan were all involved, according to testimony heard over the past two weeks.

Wall ascribed a similar motive to Smoronk during his testimony Wednesday, claiming Smoronk, not Verrill, was the one who committed the crimes because he thought Sullivan was an informant.

Wall also testified Wednesday that he’s witnessed Smoronk physically abuse Sullivan and that Sullivan had told him she wanted to leave Smoronk, but ultimately didn’t.

“She was scared,” Wall testified. “She felt things would happen if she left.”

The state has heavily refuted claims that Smoronk was involved in the murders, claiming the defense has tried to paint Smoronk as a “boogeyman” to distract from the facts of the case.

The state has used witnesses, text messages and Florida airport surveillance footage of Smoronk to demonstrate Smoronk was out of the area and worried about Sullivan’s wellbeing after he couldn’t reach her. The state has also used witnesses, video surveillance from 979 Meaderboro Road, texts and other evidence in an attempt to demonstrate Verrill was the only man in the home at the time of the murders, and that Verrill was the only who acted guilty after the killings occurred.

Wall was one of several witnesses defense attorneys Meredith Lugo and Julia Nye called to testify Wednesday. Prior to Wall’s testimony, a Maine woman named Angelica Brown testified that she heard a man brag that he covered up the murder scene on Jan. 28, 2017, the day after Sullivan and Pellegrini were killed.

Brown testified she let the man, a man named John “Buddy” Seymour, and other people stay with her at an area hotel the weekend of the killings. Brown testified Seymour was “bragging” about it as he came into the hotel room on Jan. 28, 2017.

“He was saying, when I asked… why he had all this stuff in my hotel (room), he said, ‘Murder scene, bro. That’s how we roll. I just cleaned up a murder scene,’” Brown testified.

Seymour isn’t available to testify at trial because he died in August 2017, according to his obituary.

Senior Assistant Attorney General Pete Hinckley focused on the reliability of Brown and Seymour during his cross-examination of Brown.

Hinckley had Brown, who was escorted into the courtroom in handcuffs because she’s incarcerated in Maine, confirm on the stand that both she and Seymour were using heroin, fentanyl and methamphetamine on Jan. 28, 2017, and that Brown used to purchase drugs from Seymour.

Going further, Hinckley also asked Brown to confirm statements she made to investigators on the 979 Meaderboro Road case in March 2017. Brown, who had an active warrant out for her arrest in another matter at the time, told investigators she was at “rock bottom” on Jan. 27, 2018, and that she had been up for several days straight. She also told investigators some of the events surrounding Seymour’s bragging were a blur.

“You don’t know if he was being honest, do you?” Hinckley asked Brown.

Brown replied that she believed Seymour was telling the truth, based on her observations of the items he brought to her hotel room on Jan. 28, 2017. Brown didn’t specify what the items were.

Hinckley followed up with another question about Seymour’s reliability, asking Brown, “You don’t know if he was being accurate, right?”

“I guess anyone wouldn’t know if they weren’t there,” Brown replied.

Hinckley also used evidentiary inconsistencies to question the accuracy of Brown’s story, specifically that Seymour told her he had dragged multiple bodies out of a bedroom at 979 Meaderboro Road and hid them under the hot tub, which is where Verrill is accused of hiding Sullivan and Pellegrini’s bodies. According to evidence and testimony presented earlier in the trial, Pellegrini was killed in a bedroom and there are signs her body was dragged outside, but Sullivan was killed in the home’s kitchen.

The defense has yet to call Smoronk to the stand. The state objected several times Wednesday as the defense asked questions that could’ve gotten a witness to characterize Smoronk’s intent and frame of mind, arguing the statements are either hearsay or inadmissible because Smoronk is available and willing to provide direct testimony.

“That (because) we didn’t call Mr. Smoronk as witness does not make him unavailable for purposes of the rule of evidence,” Hinckley argued without the jury present Wednesday morning. “And we actually found out from Mr. Smoronk’s lawyer yesterday that were Mr. Smoronk (be) called to testify, he would not (decline). So, Mr. Smoronk is not unavailable.”

Testimony resumes in the case at 10 a.m. Thursday.