Thayne Alan Smika

Solve_the_Case · August 1, 2026, 11:05am

Justkelli777 · August 5, 2026, 11:43pm

Yes—the deeper problem is that the affidavit takes several uncertain facts and stacks them together until they sound conclusive. Some pieces are genuinely suspicious, but several important links are missing.

Page references below are the affidavit’s printed page numbers. Add one to find the corresponding PDF page because the warrant cover is unnumbered.

1. The morning timeline

Time	Source and claim	Problem or significance
3:30–6:30 a.m.	Smika said he was cutting cocaine, using some and doing something involving “trash out.” Affidavit p. 4.	This appears to anticipate the neighbor’s trash-can observation. It could be innocent corroboration or an attempt to explain being seen.
Approximately 6:30 a.m.	Kathy Karmis saw Smika carrying a green trash can from the parking lot toward the apartment. Affidavit p. 5.	Police later emphasize that a disassembled shotgun would fit inside it. But she did not see a gun, and he was moving toward—not away from—the building.
Approximately 8 a.m.	Smika said he went to sleep after using cocaine. Affidavit p. 4.	Heavy cocaine use and little sleep could affect the reliability of his times and recollection.
8 a.m.	Wells’s girlfriend left Wells asleep in her apartment while she attended class. Affidavit p. 11.	This gives Wells a separate location that morning.
9:30 a.m.	Wells’s supervisor said she spoke to Wells by telephone. Affidavit p. 10.	She was unsure whether she called Wells’s apartment or his girlfriend’s apartment, so this does not establish where Wells was.
10:30–10:45 a.m.	Smika said Wells rang the apartment doorbell and awakened him. Affidavit p. 4.	This directly conflicts with the girlfriend’s account below.
Approximately 10:50 a.m.	The girlfriend returned and said Wells was still in her bed. Affidavit p. 11.	If her time is right, Wells could not have awakened Smika at the other apartment five to twenty minutes earlier.
Approximately 11 a.m.	Smika said he gave Wells $300 in an envelope, approximately $750 more and cocaine, then left. Affidavit p. 4.	This puts him with Wells close to the estimated death. Smika previously said he left at 10 a.m.
11:20–11:45 a.m.	Neighbor Greg Eliot originally reported a loud noise that could have been a gunshot or door slam. Affidavit p. 2.	This fits the estimated time of death, but he could not initially identify it conclusively as a gunshot.
Approximately 11:35 a.m.	Coroner’s estimated time of death. Affidavit p. 2.	The affidavit does not explain how the coroner calculated such a precise time.
Approximately 11:45 a.m.	Sam Wells returned from camping and did not see Smika’s car. He remained outside cleaning his car and airing his sleeping bag. Affidavit pp. 14–15.	If Smika committed the shooting at 11:35, he had only about ten minutes to leave before Sam arrived. That is possible, but narrow.
Around noon	Dan Laurin reportedly saw a suspicious man moving through nearby parking lots. Affidavit pp. 30–31.	Laurin could not remember whether his lunch began at 11:30 or 12:30. His original physical descriptions were inconsistent.
Noon and 12:15 p.m.	Wells’s girlfriend called his apartment but received no answer. Affidavit p. 11.	Consistent with Wells already being dead, but it does not identify the killer.
Approximately 12:20 p.m.	Sam entered the apartment and found Wells. Affidavit pp. 14–15.	Sam had been outside approximately 35 minutes before entering.
12:28 p.m.	Police responded to the report. Affidavit p. 1.	This appears consistent with Sam’s discovery.
Approximately 12:30 p.m.	Another neighbor reported hearing a loud bang. Affidavit p. 2.	It could not have been the fatal shot if the body had already been discovered and police were responding. The affidavit never reconciles this.
Approximately 3:30 p.m.	Smika’s sister found him at the Akron house. He was wearing black shorts and no shirt or shoes. Laundry was being done by 4:30. Affidavit pp. 9–10.	The clothing differed from what Karmis saw at 6:30 a.m., but many hours had passed. No victim blood was subsequently identified on the seized clothing.

The most important conflict

The 10:30–10:50 conflict is more significant than the warrant makes clear.

Smika said Wells rang the apartment doorbell between 10:30 and 10:45. Wells’s girlfriend said Wells was still in her bed at approximately 10:50.

Both accounts cannot be exactly correct. Possible explanations include:

Smika lied about the time.
The girlfriend’s time was approximate.
Smika meant a later time.
One of their clocks was inaccurate.
The interview summary misstated the time.

The affidavit treats Smika’s statement as suspicious but does not investigate the clock discrepancy.

2. The trash-can theory is incomplete

Police appear to suggest that Smika used the green trash can to transport the shotgun.

What they established:

Karmis saw him carrying the can around 6:30 a.m.
His behavior seemed unusual to her.
A disassembled shotgun would fit inside the approximately 28-inch can.
The Akron shotgun was designed to be broken into sections.
Smika mentioned something about “trash out” during his interview.

What they did not establish:

Nobody saw a shotgun inside the can.
The can still contained trash when police seized it.
No gun oil, firearm residue, fibers or impressions from the shotgun were reported inside the can.
Karmis saw Smika taking the can toward the apartment before the murder.
Nobody saw him take the can away after the murder.
The affidavit does not explain how the shotgun supposedly traveled from the apartment to Akron.

The observation could support a theory that Smika brought the gun into the apartment before the shooting. It does not demonstrate how he removed it afterward.

3. The shotgun connection is a chain of indirect links

This is the exact evidentiary chain:

Link one: The murder ammunition

Wells was killed with a contact shot from a 20-gauge shotgun using No. 6 pellets. The fatal casing was not recovered. Only pellets and internal wadding were available for comparison. Affidavit pp. 15–18.

Link two: The Akron shotgun

Police found a Montgomery Ward 20-gauge shotgun in a box in the basement bedroom associated with Smika. Smika’s father had purchased it in Nebraska in 1970. Affidavit pp. 7–10 and 24.

This proves access to a compatible firearm. It does not prove that it was the murder weapon.

Link three: The two live rounds

Two old Winchester 20-gauge No. 6 rounds were found in a hunting vest in the Akron bedroom. An FBI firearms examiner concluded that both rounds had previously been loaded into and removed from the recovered shotgun. Affidavit pp. 18–19.

This strongly connects the two live rounds to the Akron shotgun.

It still does not connect the fatal round directly to the shotgun because the fatal casing was missing. Extractor or loading marks could not be compared.

Link four: Pellet composition

Pellets from the victim and pellets in the two live rounds shared two elemental compositions in similar proportions. Affidavit pp. 16–17 and 33–40.

The original FBI examiner said he would “expect” them to have come from the same box. The affidavit then admits that the FBI later concluded this type of lead-composition testing cannot support that degree of specificity by itself.

One expert quoted in the affidavit said there was no simple, firm numerical probability. Another consultant later produced a very wide range: approximately 1 in 2,925 to 1 in 665,250.

That range spans more than 200-fold, demonstrating how dependent the estimate was on assumptions.

Link five: The shell wadding

The fatal wad and the two live-round wads used similar old-style wax and construction. The microscopist concluded they were consistent with Winchester shells manufactured during the same period. Affidavit pp. 40–41.

But he expressly said this did not establish that they came from the same box or manufacturing lot.

Link six: Evidence from the gun itself

Investigators found:

Residue showing the shotgun had been fired since its last cleaning.
No ability to determine when it was fired.
No Wells blood on the gun.
No Wells DNA on the gun.
A mixed DNA profile from which Smika could not be excluded.
Later testing described as finding no detectable DNA on the gun and box.

The affidavit does not clearly reconcile the earlier mixed profile with the later statement that no detectable DNA was found.

The actual conclusion

The physical evidence supports this statement:

The fatal shell and the two Akron rounds were compatible in gauge, shot size, manufacturer, approximate manufacturing period, wad construction and pellet composition.

It does not conclusively support this stronger statement:

The Akron shotgun fired the fatal shell.

That remains an inference.

4. The gun’s appearance in Akron is suspicious—but unresolved

The gun was found on August 3 in the Akron basement bedroom.

Suspicious circumstances include:

Smika had access to the house.
His mother was away.
His sister said she had not previously seen the shotgun box.
His father had recently lived in that basement and could not remember the shotgun being in the small closet.
Smika initially denied owning a shotgun.
He then acknowledged that his father had given him one but claimed he had not seen it in seven years.
His father said Smika owned or possessed the shotgun.

But there are still uncertainties:

The gun was legally purchased by Smika’s father, not by Smika.
The father could not affirmatively say the gun had not been stored there.
No witness saw Smika bring the gun to Akron.
No victim blood or DNA tied the gun to the killing.
No evidence established when the gun was last fired.

The gun’s location is circumstantially suspicious, but the warrant repeatedly speaks as though “found in Smika’s bedroom” means “placed there by Smika after the murder.” That second statement was not proved.

5. The clothing-and-laundry theory lacks forensic support

Police emphasize that Smika arrived in Akron with clothing and immediately did laundry.

They also include a 1997 statement from Gina Diamond, who said Smika’s sister had told her that she washed Smika’s bloody clothes. But Diamond then admitted she might have heard this secondhand and could not remember the source. The sister denied it. Affidavit pp. 24–25.

The actual laboratory evidence was:

No blood established on Smika’s shirt.
No victim DNA reported on the seized clothing.
No useful DNA from the washing machine.
A bath-drain DNA profile excluded both Wells and Smika.
The sister described Smika wearing black shorts and no shirt when she arrived.

Therefore, “Smika washed bloody clothes” is not an established fact. At most, police established that he did laundry after arriving in Akron.

6. The $300 envelope partially supports Smika’s account

Smika said he gave Wells $300 in an envelope.

Police found an empty envelope on the coffee table:

“Sid” was written outside.
“$300” was written under the flap.
The envelope was torn open and empty.
None of the developed fingerprints were attributed to Smika.
One unidentified impression still required Smika’s complete palm prints.
A paramedic admitted handling the envelope.

This evidence can be interpreted in two different ways.

Prosecution interpretation:

Smika created or emptied the envelope to stage the transfer.
He took the cash after killing Wells.
The envelope was part of a false alibi.

Defense interpretation:

The envelope corroborates Smika’s claim that he delivered $300.
Someone else could have taken the money afterward.
Fingerprints did not identify Smika.
Scene handling contaminated the envelope.

The affidavit presents the missing money as incriminating while giving little attention to the fact that the marked envelope supports part of Smika’s story.

7. The note is suspicious, but not necessarily an alibi note

Smika’s note said:

“Sid/Sam I’ve gone home to visit my folks for a couple of days and I’ll be back Tuesday or Wednesday.”

Police considered this suspicious because:

Smika claimed he met Wells around 11 a.m.
He may have told Wells the previous night that he was going to Akron.
Former roommates said Smika did not ordinarily leave notes.
Smika’s departure time changed.

However, Sam was camping and expected home later. A note addressed to “Sid/Sam” could have been primarily intended to tell Sam where Smika had gone.

The important unanswered questions are:

When was it written?
Was the handwriting scientifically confirmed as Smika’s?
Did Smika admit writing it?
Were the words or paper compared with his datebooks?
Why were no identifiable Smika fingerprints reported on it?

The affidavit calls it “the note left by Mr. Smika” without describing a handwriting examination.

8. The crime scene was not a locked-room situation

The affidavit emphasizes “no forced entry,” but Smika said he left the apartment unlocked while Wells was inside.

Therefore, no forced entry does not narrow the killer to a roommate. It could mean:

The shooter was already inside.
Wells knowingly admitted the person.
The door was unlocked.
The shooter had a key.

The apartment contained cocaine, numerous visitors and people familiar with the occupants. The affidavit does not supply a complete list of everyone with access or knowledge of the drugs.

Other unexplained scene facts include:

Wells’s wallet was under a desk in Sam’s bedroom.
A chair was overturned.
The coffee table had been moved.
No spent casing was found.
No weapon was found.
Blood and hair were observed on the table.
Wells’s hairbrush had been brought from his girlfriend’s apartment.
The claimed money and cocaine were missing.

The wallet’s location is especially unexplained. It could be innocent, or it could indicate that someone searched or moved property.

9. The eyewitness identification is weak

Dan Laurin’s identification contains major inconsistencies.

His accounts variously described the person as:

Hispanic.
Lebanese or Middle Eastern.
Approximately 5’8".
Approximately six feet.
Stocky.
Bearded and mustached.
Possibly described by a detective as clean-shaven.
Wearing work clothing or denim.
Running or walking quickly.
Carrying something inside his sleeve.

Smika was described as approximately 5’11" and 140 pounds—thin rather than stocky.

Laurin saw Smika’s newspaper photograph before identifying him. The affidavit does not describe a controlled photographic lineup. His original estimate was reportedly “90% sure,” but decades later he became certain.

That does not make him dishonest. It does make the identification vulnerable to:

Memory change.
Exposure to newspaper photographs.
Repeated interviews.
Confirmation over time.
Differences between his original descriptions.

10. The alleged confession changed meaning over time

Bobbi Devine described Smika saying, “you know I killed him,” while drinking at a bar.

In 1983, she reportedly told investigators she thought he was joking. In 1997, she said she interpreted it as an admission. By 2010, she was deceased. Affidavit pp. 26–28.

Important weaknesses include:

No recording of the alleged statement.
Uncertainty about the precise date.
Both parties were drinking.
Her interpretation changed.
Smika was never confronted about it in the affidavit.
She was unavailable for later questioning.

Her account that Smika mentioned “brains” on her record albums sounds disturbing. But Wells’s death and the location of the body may already have been publicly known. As a roommate, Smika also knew where the albums were normally stored.

11. Flight does not point exclusively to the murder

Smika disappeared in approximately October 1986—more than three years after the murder.

At that time, he was accused of forging 14 checks totaling approximately $63,850. His vehicle was later found abandoned in California with a stolen plate.

Therefore, the evidence supports that he fled from something. It does not establish whether he fled because of:

The murder.
The forgery case.
Other criminal activity.
Fear of people involved in the drug trade.
A combination of reasons.

His mother claimed he changed his name because he knew the real killer and feared being killed. That claim was never corroborated, but it is an alternative explanation contained in the affidavit itself.

12. The strongest evidence against Smika

The strongest points are not the DNA or trash can. They are:

Wells suspected Smika of stealing cocaine.
Bruce Allen said Smika admitted taking Wells’s cocaine because Wells would not miss it.
Smika owed Allen approximately $2,000 and Evans $350.
Wells was reportedly considering removing Smika from the apartment.
Smika’s claimed departure changed from 10 to 11 a.m.
His claim that Wells awakened him around 10:30–10:45 conflicts with the girlfriend’s 10:50 sighting.
He admitted being with Wells shortly before the estimated death.
A compatible shotgun and unusually compatible ammunition appeared in his Akron bedroom.
His explanation involving Bruce Allen was contradicted by Allen.
He allegedly made incriminating statements afterward.

Together, those facts create substantial suspicion.

13. The strongest problems with the investigation

The most serious weaknesses are:

No fatal casing was recovered.
The fatal round was never directly matched to the Akron shotgun.
No Wells blood or DNA was identified on the gun.
The blood on Smika’s waterbed later excluded both Wells and Smika.
The “bloody clothing” story was secondhand and denied.
The carpet-fiber evidence may have resulted from evidence-room contamination.
The eyewitness description was inconsistent and photograph-influenced.
The alleged confession was unrecorded and reinterpreted years later.
The 12:30 bang conflicts with the discovery and police-response timeline.
The affidavit does not explain the basis for the exact 11:35 time of death.
The Evans alibi is declared “solid” but not demonstrated in detail.
The final palm-print comparison is not reported.
The pending hair-testing result is not reported.
The affidavit does not explain why the available evidence was insufficient for an arrest in 1983 but sufficient in 2010.
Several principal investigators, experts and witnesses were deceased by the time the warrant was issued.

My specific conclusion is that the investigation presents a reasonable circumstantial case for suspecting Smika, especially because of motive, opportunity, his changing timeline and the Akron gun. But the affidavit repeatedly converts “consistent with,” “could have” and “cannot be excluded” into a story that sounds more certain than the underlying evidence actually is. On this document alone, the state’s theory is plausible—but it is not scientifically conclusive.