February 24, 2010

Accidental shooting?

Posted: 10:43 PM ET

In the case of Florida v Schack, defendant Mark Schack insists the shooting death of his long-time fiancé, Amy Boscarino, was an accident. However, as investigators and firearms experts dug deeper into Schack's statements, they found many inconsistencies in his version of the shooting.

Boscarino was shot in the throat by what forensic expert, Dan Austin, calls “a weapon that kills,” the Golani sporter rifle.

Austin spoke with In Session host, Ryan Smith, about the intricacies of the weapon and shares his views on whether this shooting was indeed accidental.

Lynette Brown, In Session Associate Producer

Filed under: The Law • Trials

Share this on:
Bobbo   February 25th, 2010 10:36 am ET

This is a hit piece... no pun intended.

dave rutenbeck   February 25th, 2010 10:48 am ET

As per the trial of mr. shack; being a gun owner myself & having been in the U S M C for 4 years I absolutely disagree that the gun discharged by itself & killed his girlfriend. She was killed because she was leaving him & he knew it. He intentionally shot her & waited to call 911 so she would hopefully die in the meantime. He aimed at her (shows premeditation) & shot her in the neck & left her to die. This guy is a cold blooded killer who needs to pay for his crime of passion. It's very obvious that he has no regard for human life & was & is willing to kill another human being to get his way. Now he feels remorseful for what he did because he is caught & now will (hopefully) pay the price for what he did. He is unwilling to come to terms with what he did & so needs to be held accountable for his actions. Amy was trying to leave to start her life over again w/out mr. shack & he wouldn't leave her alone. He also was interested in her life insurance policy. He is just a poor excuse for a man. period. No honor, no compassion, no life. throw the book at him.

Parnell   February 25th, 2010 11:19 am ET

Ok...So lemme get this straight....the bullet is supersonic....and this is bad'm a gun owner and I can tell you that the ROUND (not the cartridge. Cartridge goes in a magazine) that comes out of the rifle will ALWAYS be faster than the speed of sound. Hence the crack as the round leaves the barrel. Just educating people that might read this.

Laurie Brodnak   February 25th, 2010 11:57 am ET

You are missing the true motive in this case. If you recall the testimony of Amy's cousin she stated that Amy started questioning her life and had started down a path of changing her hair style, clothes, etc even asking how she could live on her own. When women do this they slowly gain confidence in themselves and this will NOT go unnoticed by their significant other! I believe Mark recognized this pattern and realized the inevitable. The life insurance was secondary to this, if Amy wouldn't marry him he made sure no one could have her!

Laurie, Nashville, TN

mary   February 25th, 2010 12:14 pm ET

mark schack is the biggest fake. trying to make people think he is crying is the worst acting I have ever seen. If you told a 2 year old to pretend they were crying they could put on a better performance. If this was not such a tragic murder his acting would be comical

Kent   February 25th, 2010 12:18 pm ET

During his "frantic" 911 call, Schack sounds like he is frantically and desparately trying to help Amy for several minutes, and yet he has NO blood on him??!! I don't buy it!

dan skadeland   February 25th, 2010 12:18 pm ET

ive been watching this trial and if i was on the jury there is no way i could positivly convict this defendent with the evidence shown dan

steven   February 25th, 2010 12:19 pm ET

Why was the gun loaded in the first place, everyone knows you don't clean a loaded weapon, as he claims

Glynn T   February 25th, 2010 12:21 pm ET

The 911 call is Mark made sounds rehearsed. ie.. who tries to explain in such detail about a gun going off instead of "my wife's been shot ! / please send help !! What did he do with regard to resessetative procedures until the ambulance came ?

Joy   February 25th, 2010 12:28 pm ET

3 years ago I left my husband of 29 years when he told me I was going to see things his way or else.
Once while hunting (I was forced to go with him) he told me that he could shoot and kill me and it would look like an accident.
When I left him, I got a P.F.A. and all his weapons were removed and are still being held by the court.
I took wedding vows till death due us part; not until he kills me.
This is a domestic violence case and Amy Boscarino paid the ultimate price.

dolores c folk   February 25th, 2010 12:37 pm ET

who is the baby pictured with amy?

Danny Hollingsworth   February 25th, 2010 12:47 pm ET

I am 57 years old and have owned guns my whole life. I have dropped them from deer stands, fell with them,throw ed them down and all kind of different type of situation with them,I have never had a gun to accidentally discharge with me. I have owned some of the cheapest and some of the best.. If I had to call this shot I would call it an intentional kill shot.

Nicole   February 25th, 2010 12:58 pm ET

Its hard to believe that a person with the knowledge to clean a weapon does not have the knowledge to clear (of live rounds) it before he/she cleans it. This guy doesn't come across as a fool. He knew what he was doing. Those round(s) were in that weapon for a specific reason. To kill. Who cleans a loaded weapon?

jeremy   February 25th, 2010 1:34 pm ET

All these people who are eager to jump to the assumption that this man knowingly shot this woman are crazy. This just goes to show that no matter what you do it's never innocent until proven guilty it's the other way around. I am a former MARINE who knows how to handle a weapon and have on occasion found myself with a loaded weapon and not known it.

Valerie Helphenstine   February 25th, 2010 1:37 pm ET

What about the trijectory of the bullet? That HAS to be a tool for the prosecution! I believe this man to be soooo guilty in this senseless, selfish death of this beautiful woman.

Rick Bailie   February 25th, 2010 1:54 pm ET

If I understand correctly, did'nt he sell his girlfriends ring for attorney fees? Gee! , Did he sell any of his weapons?

T   February 25th, 2010 1:55 pm ET

hey i believe it was a accident even though all the firearm training he had. thier's a police that is training a class on youtube and he ended up shooting himself by a mistake imagine if that bullet would of strike one of the students

danielle rawlins   February 25th, 2010 1:57 pm ET

i think that the attorneys r not asking the right questions to the witnesses. they should be asking about the accident not about the people who can say nothing but hearsay, or about the jobs that the witnesses do which have nothing to do with the case. also why haven't they asked the guy who went to the firing range with Mark Schack which gun he (schack) bring to the range and questions like that kind, how he handled the gun. was it the gun in the shooting, was it put together at the range or was it put together at his home.

nick marazoff   February 25th, 2010 2:00 pm ET

I believe that he knew what he was doing and some rifles have accidents that can cause death but this man was an expert and knew exactly what he was doing and I what to see him punished to the full extent of the law.

J. Kinte   February 25th, 2010 2:08 pm ET

I think this guy did this intentional, and all the crying he's doing is to save his own freedom, because reality is sinking in. He's in jail and he wants out...hope the jury gets this right!

stacey bianchi   February 25th, 2010 2:10 pm ET

I believe he is innocent. I see it as an accidental shooting, why would he have killed her? what was the motive?

Daniel Rodriguez   February 25th, 2010 2:24 pm ET

Every aspect and witness of this case points to Schack's furitveness. But the we and the jury must keep in mind that America is one of the few nations in the world that ALL suspects are innocent until proven guilty; is there enough evidence to affirm this death as a murder?

J. Kinte   February 25th, 2010 2:26 pm ET

his motive was obsession...all the gifts was no longer working, she wanted out of the relationship...he couldnt except can u prove his innocence? u can try, but guilt will override !!!

Richard   February 25th, 2010 2:28 pm ET

Anyone who is capable of working on firearms certainly knows enough to check and re-check the chamber to be sure it contains no bullets. Whether he was sighting a scope,or working on the magazine. This would be the first step to assure his OWN safety, as well as the safety of others.

Rick Bailie   February 25th, 2010 2:41 pm ET

#1 What moron adjusts a scope other than at a rifle range. What's the point? #2 If he cleans that weapon as often as he does, I would assume he fires it just as often. Then how does someone in that much debt afford the expensive rounds for a rifle like that?

Baysmeme   February 25th, 2010 2:46 pm ET

This female defense attorney is driving me nuts! She asks irrelevant questions over and over and over. If I were on the jury I would think that they have no pertinent questions to ask – thus he is guilty.

Gary Kassel   February 25th, 2010 2:51 pm ET

I dont know the age difference, but the defendant looks to be at least 5 or more yrs older and listening to the trial it seems to me that he wanted their relationship to move forward and she did not and that was the problem. Could it be that he was afraid of her leaving him and he could not stand it and killed her.

tony gentile   February 25th, 2010 3:05 pm ET

There is no way an expert would be cleaning a weapon that is loaded. I can't believe that anyone would give a gun to someone to clean or fix without unloading it first.And upon receiving a weapon that is the first thing you check weather a person say it unloaded or not. There is a thin line between love and hate and even if were for a second he cross that line

Lorin Phillips   February 25th, 2010 3:06 pm ET

The body could have been moved by the officer doing CPR. Also doing CPR on a victim with a neck would, it appears, would pump more blood out of the wound. Stop the bleeding is the first rule. If the body was moved that would impact the ballistic finding.


nadine gerrity   February 25th, 2010 3:11 pm ET

Mark Schack testified that after the gun went off he heard Amy scream. It seems highly unlikely to me that that was possible given the autopsy results showing the point of entry on the neck and the testimony of the dr. who performed it. Wouldnt the vocal cords be damaged or severed?

Denise   February 25th, 2010 3:20 pm ET

Mark "lavished" Amy with gifts? Two people who have $120,000 worth of credit card debt are not reasonable thinkers. All of Mark’s hobbies cost money, so clearly he was charging much of his narcissistic indulgences. It appears life was all about him and his hobbies. The dry sniveling in the court room is bad acting, just like his pathetic story about cleaning the gun in the bedroom at 2:30 in the morning. Clearly he was neglectful and reckless and is responsible for Amy's death to a second degree.

RagingBear   February 25th, 2010 3:25 pm ET

I believe I said it already but for those of you that missed it, here it is again, GUILTY. I too have had weapons all my life (part of my culture, growing up where I did) and I have NEVER had one misfire. Period. My father and I used to load our own rounds and never had one misfire. Period. GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY, fry him.

RagingBear   February 25th, 2010 3:27 pm ET

By "load our own rounds" I mean we would re-load shotgun shells as well as other center fire cartridges. In other words, re-use them.....Still no misfires.

Nancy H.   February 25th, 2010 3:45 pm ET

It's not right that the Prosecution use the fact that Mr. Schack sold Amy's engagement ring to pay for his attorney fees! The law on engagement rings is: The gentleman gives a woman an engagment ring with the anticipation of marriage. If there is no marriage taken place or ever will be, it is still the property of the gentleman's, not the ladies.

So the marriage could never take place since she was deceased - so the ring is still the property of Mr. Schanks!

sohoe.   February 25th, 2010 3:46 pm ET

he's guilty...and he has no emotion toward it....he's guilty!

Warren rudy   February 25th, 2010 4:00 pm ET

I have been around firearms since I was 8yrs old and I am now 62yrs old. In my opinion that accident should have never happened. I learned at an early age about gun safety, and that firearm should have never been loaded. Any responsible gun expert would have never picked up, cleaned, or worked on any firearm without checking that firearm very thoroughly to make sure it wasn't loaded, so not only was Mark Schack, negligent with the handling of that firearm I also don't believe his story. The magazine should have been empty, and the breech should have been opened and locked.

Michelle   February 25th, 2010 4:05 pm ET

I started watching this trial just today. It is clear that the Amy Boscilinos' family did not like the defendant. I am wondering if any testimony has been given as to why Ms. Boscilino stayed with him or what she saw in him?

Dennis McKnight   February 25th, 2010 4:10 pm ET

When faced with a witness like Ms. Boscarino's sister, unless the defense knows some deep dark secret that will totally discredit her,the best plan for defense is to leave her alone. Let the prosecution do direct, let her venom spew and then simply say "No questions." Get her off the stand as soon as possible. Don't give her the change to do more damage to your defense. We know she hates the Defendant. Don't give her more opportunities to pour more poison in the jury box.

Matthew Thacker   February 25th, 2010 4:30 pm ET

Why is Mr. Schack spending money on rifles and ammo if he is $80,000 in debt. That rifle that shot Amy is worth at least $1500.00. That is without the scope, or ammo! This man's multiple and expensive hobbies are more than he knew he could afford. This tells me that he does not think clearly, and very careless!

Tommy Hollywood   February 25th, 2010 4:34 pm ET

I have been watching this trial from the beginning...

1) the bullistics prove he had the scope mis-sighted..probably intentionally, and more then likely he was aiming at her head when he intentionally pulled the 5 lb. trigger, killing her. He calls 911 and builds his defence (CLEANING, ADJUSTING SCOPE,MAGIZINE)before stating he shot her as also indicated in his cnversation with her father. i wonder if they (the detectives) confiscated their computer to see if there were any interesting searches or corrispondence relative to the demeanor of the suspect as well as the victim in this tragedy?? So far I have seen based on physical evidence alone that there would have to be pre-meditation to pull this crime off.. If the gun was falling, how did the powder burns end up on the dresser as said by the bullistics expert?? i wonder how the neighbor didnt hear the shot?? However, the neighbor stated that the dog was frantic.. at 1:40 am...maybe that is when he actually killed her?? Mr. schack almost derserves an oscar for his "frantic" state of mind. He is absolutley guilty...and I bet...1rst DEGREE!!!

Tom   February 25th, 2010 4:35 pm ET

I have owned and operated all kinds of firearms since I was 12 years old and served 28 years in the army. It is mind boggeling that anyone could watch this trial to this point and still think that Mark Shack did not purposefully shoot his girlfriend. Who cleans a loaded or unloaded weapon at 2:30 in the morning anyway ?

Frank   February 25th, 2010 4:38 pm ET

Mark could be stupid and that was his perception of him dropping the gun while it going off. perhaps when he tried to grabb it it was higher than he thought when it whent off. So far alot of these expert opinions given are even given much weight as much as 100 accuracy. Medical and Pshychiatric can only be within a reasonable degree of medical certainty. A firearms expert shoild be to the same standard!

D-   February 25th, 2010 5:00 pm ET

I am floored that there are so many gun owners who do not think a gun accident could happen. It's mind-boggling that people think because they have never had an accident, it cannot happen to anyone else. It appears that many have made up their mind and see him as guilty for no other reason than gun owners do not have gun accidents. Interesting.

Tommy Hollywood   February 25th, 2010 5:03 pm ET

Maybe the bulluistics experts should have as a test; load blanks into the rifle...drop many times on the floor to see the odds of a misfire??? i will bet it doesnt happen(the mis-firing) after a hundred tries.

Dan Burch   February 25th, 2010 5:04 pm ET

This guy is as guilty as sin. He's supposed to know how his gun works. To fire a round, then remove the magazine and claim he though the gun was not loaded is bogus. The live round in the chamber tells me that he fired the weapon, THEN removed the magazine. He should have removed the live round in the chamber to make is story more believable. But ANY responsible gun owner would ALWAYS clear the weapon BEFORE cleaning, adjusting or doing anything to the weapon or with the weapon.

Tommy Hollywood   February 25th, 2010 5:06 pm ET

Yes Mathew, he should of thouhgt more clearly for a more believable alibi!

Robert Fred Weaver   February 25th, 2010 6:03 pm ET

A carefully planned (but not realistic) scenario. A person who consistently handles guns and rifles..does not make this kind of mistake. It is far fetched that the gun would have been loaded..and as testimony supports..the defendant would never allow someone to come even close to the 'direction' of the gun muzzle. It clearly reflects a cover up. Robert W., Stockton, Ca. (ex Marine).

Mike   February 25th, 2010 6:07 pm ET

I think this guy is guilty big time but the defense missed a good opportunity with the gun expert. They should have asked him if he has ever had an accidental discharge while hunting or shooting, or if anyone has ever handed him a loaded weapon after being told it was empty.
Just to show the jury accidents have happened with loaded weapons.

sabrina   February 25th, 2010 6:12 pm ET

I have to say that the crying and the consistent frowny mouth is a dead give away. I hate a dry cryer, that is when you know that it is not sincere and only an act. I have watched so many defendants try to appear they are legitamately upset, however, when there are no tears there is something definitely missing.

Ed   February 25th, 2010 6:13 pm ET

i am not a gun expert but i have taken gun safety courses and the main rule i remember is you "ALWAYS" treat a gun as if it where loaded. Another thing i know is before you do anything with a gun or rifle is to confirm it is not loaded and even then the safety should be on at all times while working on the gun. I don't know why anybody would even do this inside a home. I could be wrong but as far as i know once a magazine is loaded and you insert it in the gun the first round still needs to be chambered. I also find it very hard to believe that he could catch this gun and accidentally fire a shot that would hit the neck in the way it did. I would think if a gun was falling and even if i could catch it and it fired when i caught it the shot could go anywhere. I would think it would take aim to have a bullet hit the neck and go through both neck veins like that. I am not saying it's impossible but i would think it is very unlikely. I would be very surprised if he is not convicted of second degree murder

Jessica M   February 25th, 2010 6:13 pm ET

WOW is all that I can say about this trial. I am almost sick of having to hear more and more incriminating evidence. Within hearing through the evidence of the forensic evidence of Mr. Walker, I was already 100% convinced that Mark Schack COMMITTED murder. I would be astonished if the jury came back with a reasonable doubt with the evidence heard thus far on this case. I think that Mark Shack is fake and is trying to put on a sob story and agree with the body language expert that he is not sentimental about anything to do with Amy and it is only when he is realizing that he is incriminating himself every time he opens his mouth. I pray that Mark Shack has to testify to show what type of true idiot he is.

Jessica – FL

ronhelm   February 25th, 2010 6:22 pm ET

I have no idea why my post regarding the verdict was "moderated out", apparently CNN wants viewers to watch its commercials, when the verdict and sentence has already been imposed on Schack. Guilty and life imprisonment...give us a live trial for a change like in the good old days of Court TV.

Jane   February 25th, 2010 6:30 pm ET

Thus far, the testimony makes it VERY clear. This guy is guilty!!!! How anyone could perceive it differently is beyond me.

Gayle   February 25th, 2010 6:58 pm ET

Why does Mr. Schack go up with the attorneys when they ask for an approach to the bar? This is so irritating to me. I have noticed several times him directing his attorney with his index finger. What am I missing?

Steve   February 25th, 2010 7:15 pm ET

stacey bianchi go become this guys girlfriend and find out the hard way you fool. He's guilty, this woman's life had value, he has to be held responsible.

Dan Parker   February 25th, 2010 9:20 pm ET

Who exactly is this "forensic expert", Dan Austin? He might be an expert on something, but he either knows *nothing* about firearms, or is lying through his teeth. > 90% of the technical information he gave was either complete bunk, or hyperbolic nonsense exaggerated to the point of ridiculousness.

CNN (like most other media outlets) needs to put at least some effort into vetting the expertise of the people they put on the air.

Gayle   February 25th, 2010 10:19 pm ET

Why does Schack approach the side bar with the attorneys?

George DeWald   February 26th, 2010 2:29 am ET

If Mr. Schack is such a gun enthusiast, he knew darn well that the rifle was loaded. Like any firearms trainer would teach, you treat every firearm as if it is loaded until you prove that it is not. I hope the jury realizes that and give him the maximum.

Mary Joan Mueller   February 26th, 2010 7:05 am ET

Mark Schack cold bloodily murdered his girlfriend,simple reason,she was going to 'dump' him.A very large life insurance policy and he is named beneficiary. WAKE UP and smell the coffee.
Guns do not go off by themselves.If that were so,then police officers would be shot in the leg or foot . When the police are on foot,in chaseing a suspect,they do draw their weapon;BUT their index finger,is on the side of the barrel,not on the trigger.When they stop,then their finger is on the trigger.Sometimes just pointing their weapon at a suspect is sufficient;but they will 'shoot' if necessary.Then the safety is put on and their gun is hosltered.
Schack is nothing more than an idiot,he will be convicted.Another important fact,that Amy's parents and sister didn't like him at all. More than likely after he is found GUILTY,the life insurance policy will go to the Boscorini family. This was stated in testimony yesterday by a rep of the insurance company.

Paula   February 26th, 2010 10:55 am ET

This guy makes me sick. He should know by now that he will be found guilty. Amy was so pretty and to think she could have been with this loser. He deserves ONLY to spend the rest of his life in jail.

Sherman, Texas

Carol   February 26th, 2010 10:56 am ET

Everytime I look at that man's face I want to slap him his face tells me everything he did it and he is trying to get away with it but he is not winning.
He needs to pan fried and thrown away he is a killer and a killer that is worse than any of them. If he is found not guilty I will never feel the same about the criminal justice system.
This is a man from childhood that was told "NO" and it was never who ever was telling him "NO" didn't mean it in other words he is a brat and needs to be told "NO" and this time everyone means it and that is a fact.

blue   February 26th, 2010 11:35 am ET

Mrak Schack is so up on safety , why would he clean his gun or change his scope or what ever his" story" is now when there was ammo in the gun? Why would he clean it in the house? Changing scopes? Had there been another scope on the gun when he fired the gun/discharged when it killed his lovely girlfriend Amy. Wouldn't the gun had been on safety, remember he is "super safety guy"? He would probably tell his friends, 'don't EVER clean your gun in the house" as he told his friend/neighbor who went to the range with him, "don't ever point your gun in any direction other then down range" so why be careless and clean your gun in the house. And his finger hit the trigger when the gun fell? What are the chances of that? Can a gun of that style "accidently" fire just from being dropped? Wouldn't the bullet have gone into a wall/ceiling/floor and NOT a perfect shot of someone who is standing in another room and it hits a vital organ/vein. Really. He should have just let the gun fall and maybe the story wouldn't have had this tragic ending which isn't even slightly believable anyway. He did it out of revenge and rejection. It is a loss to
Amy's family. I hope the jury sees through his lies and see his motive for what it truly was.

deaner   February 26th, 2010 11:38 am ET

this trial is a waste of time and money,there is no way in hell as it was falling from a dresser and accidently went STRAIGHT thro her neck,there would have been an angle.It makes sense that he had the gun on the dresser while he took aim and shot

anthony   February 26th, 2010 11:56 am ET

was watching the trial,then this crap about an affair comes on! who cares,get back to the trial!

Barbara   February 26th, 2010 12:18 pm ET

The magazine cannot be out of the gun and still have 1 round fired and another in the chamber. The magazine was removed after firing, obviously. It had blood on it as did the closet woodwork. This man must have been controlling and manipulative and when realized he was losing his hold on her he couldn't allow that after 10 years together. He took final control of her, her life. So sad for Amy who was starting to become her own person at last. He's as phoney as a 3$ bill. His attorneys are fighting a losing battle and working hard to bring into testimony anything that can benefit their client. The evidence tells the tale.

larry   February 26th, 2010 1:11 pm ET

i am continually surprised by what you decide to show on t.v. who cares about governer sanfords divorce??? most, it's mildly interesting.

what is going on with the mark schack trial???

Mart in NV   February 26th, 2010 1:20 pm ET

If Amy was "swiffering" the floor then her head would be pointed slightly down, therefore, she would not have had her head directly up and I can see if he had the cross hairs of the scope directly in the middle of her head and she was slightly bent down at the rt. shoulder then the bullet would have hit where it did.

Linda L. Moffit   February 26th, 2010 1:24 pm ET

I am so mad at you I could chew nails and spit rust!! I planned my schedule this morning so that I could continue watching the trial of Mark Schach from Fort Myers, Florida.

I don't understand why you would interrupt that coverage for the "Breaking News" on the Sanford divorce from South Carolina. I don't understand what you define as "news." I am not from South Carolina and have never been there. I don't know the governor or his wife and do not consider these scandals to be news. I am about to change channels. You have had this running for an incredible period of time and I am trying to figure out how much longer I have to hear this garbage. IT IS OF NO INTEREST TO ME WHATEVER!!

I am about to change channels. I have exercised all of the patience I have to listen to this garbage you label as "news." South Carolina is only one state of fifty. I dare say many in the state of South Carolina don't give a rip. The majority of the other forty-nine states also don't give a rip.

Why are you wasting my time? Why are you interrupting the case for which I scheduled my time to listen? I must stop now so that I don't pop in a few swear words because of my irritation and frustration.

Linda L. Moffit   February 26th, 2010 1:28 pm ET

In every communication, including the 911 call, Mark Schack is rehearsing his defense as opposed to expressing concern for Amy. I have not bought a word of it and I hope the jury can see him for what he is. This case, however, should be first-degree murder, not second-degree.

Shay   February 26th, 2010 1:45 pm ET

Here are the purported facts of this case as I understand them:

* Mr. Schack just happened to be adjusting the scope on his high-powered assault rifle, in one of his bedrooms, at 2:30 in the morning.

* At the same time, Ms. Boscarino just happened to be out in the living room, cleaning the house.

* As Mr. Schack was adjusting the scope, the rifle just happened to slip off the dresser.

*As it fell, the rifle just happened to be pointing toward the living room.

* When he grabbed the falling rifle, Mr. Schack’s finger just happened to slip through the trigger guard and apply enough pressure to pull the trigger.

*At that exact same instant, (a) Ms. Boscarino just happened to be moving past the very narrow line of sight provided by the bedroom door opening and (b) the rifle just happened to be perfectly aligned with her neck such that the bullet passed through it, severing both her juglar vein and her carotid artery, killing her almost instantly.

Reasonable doubt that this was a cold-blooded murder? Not.

Steve   February 26th, 2010 2:15 pm ET

Please get back to the trial at hand. How mny times do you have to show this Sanford divorce? The repeated showings and commentary are drivel and demeans your status. Then you go on to talk about other governors and politicians divorce. Please give it a rest!

Denise   February 26th, 2010 4:05 pm ET

Glad to hear there are so many others who are non-believers of that "bottom feeder's" lies. Did you hear Amy's sister say that he licked her face at her wedding?! What kind of weird pig does that?!! No wonder the family could not stand him. Clearly, since he could never get a woman to marry him, he has no idea of the time and effort that a woman goes into making herself look fabulous on her wedding day. It only shows one more snip-it of insight into what a looser the bottom feeder really is.

Rick Dodkin   February 26th, 2010 4:22 pm ET

Hold On!!! Look at the rifle–tricked out!! This guy knows guns. I can spot at least five aftermarket "goodies" on this weapon. I can't believe the "firearm experts"have failed to mention how much this rifle has been customized. It was used for the reason that it was built. GUILTY!!!!
Rick S.C.

Kathy Hoatson   February 26th, 2010 5:37 pm ET

Why would a beautiful woman such as Amy was be hooked up with this old man? What did she ever see in him? He looks like a control freak and never should have been given permits for guns in the first place especially after hearing from her sister how he treated people. The gun that shot Amy was it illegally purchased? It doesn't look like a gun that you would need for any protection. It looks like something that the Army would use. My prays go out to her family. I wish that they could have talked some sense into her before this tragedy happened.

Dan L   February 27th, 2010 12:11 am ET

This "weapons expert" knows little about the gun in question. The .223 is not a high powered rifle round and this rifle is NOT an assault rifle. Most rifle rounds are going to supersonic on leaving the muzzle. ALL modern center fire rifles will need to be transferred via an FFL not just this one. Trigger pull is NEVER reported in pounds per square inch it's just straight pounds of pull. A .223 is not a round that any "adventurer" would take to Africa. The LARGE .30 caliber rounds are the least you would use for large,dangerous game and one of the .40 caliber rifle rounds would be even better on elephant. It sickens me to know that this non-expert has most likely put people in the clink with his testimony.

Joe Mellen   February 27th, 2010 9:57 am ET

I was a range officer and firearms instructor for 22 years while in the military and the first rule is make sure the weapon is clear. After my retirement I have sold firearms for Kmart, Dick's Sporting Goods and Gander Mtn. I have talked to numerous people that are so-called firearm experts. They are buying their first firearm and they want the biggest and baddest one that money can buy and have no idea what damage can be done. What was the angle of the bullet that killed Amy? If it was falling it must have been on a upward path, not a consistent path. Keep up the great work.

brad   February 28th, 2010 12:42 am ET

These guys are idiots, he said that if he was an adventurer that was going to Africa to kill tigers it would work. Not even close. The .223 bullet is more designed to kill groundhog at long range. They kept talking about how unsafe it was to clean one in the house. Give me a break. How about the about the age old rule of unload your gun before you clean it. This particular rifle is very safe. Until of course an idiot pulls the trigger. If the guy would have stabbed her in the throat with a pencil would they have made a big deal of it? I doubt it.

JL   February 28th, 2010 3:05 am ET

Mr. Schack, do not past go, do not collect $200.00, GO STRAIGHT TO JAIL --–> that way buddy.

JL   March 1st, 2010 11:06 am ET

Mr. Singleton (Schack's future brother in law) told more about Mr. Schack's "real" character than the prosecution and defence.

Carol   March 1st, 2010 11:44 am ET

As to the former best friend's testimony about Mark's confession
I'm wondering why the focus is on the tone of the statement – what I would like to know is how can someone be "LOOKING DOWN THE SCOPE " and pulling the trigger as a gun is falling?

vern mcewen   March 1st, 2010 12:39 pm ET

If schack was cleaning his gun then where on earth was the cleaning kit.

John   March 1st, 2010 12:45 pm ET

Guns are built with safety in mind. The chances of a gun going off "accidently" is almost impossible without actually pulling the trigger. This is a tired excuse heard time and time again. This
psych case murdered this poor woman in my mind. Time to take
out the trash!

James   March 1st, 2010 1:02 pm ET

Geeze as a gun owner I own a semi auto M4, AK-47 and a Golani sporter rifle. Sometimes I hunt with the semi auto .223's.There are way better guns to use when hunting. I bought them because I really like weapons even just for target practice. If I accidententally shot someone which I never keep any of my weapons loaded and they said I got them solely for killing I would feel wronged. But the Golani firing by dropping it on the floor highly unlikely there are ways but still. I kind of want to test it out maybe with blanks so I don't shoot my self or someone lol. I don't want to ruin my gun but it would be an interesting test. Even though I believe that Mark Schack is Guilty.

Tina Davis   March 1st, 2010 1:11 pm ET

Everything about this guy screams narcissism. He chose the most lethal weapon in his "arsenal" to kill her, not the revolver or 9mm, which have been known to "accidentally" discharge. That shot was a kill shot; it was no accident. Big gun, big emotional displays, big crocodile tears...... This was absolutely premeditated, and he is now counting on his narcissism to save him. He thinks he is so much smarter than everyone else. I think he will find that there are smarter people than he on that jury. I am only sorry that they didn't try him for 1st degree murder.

Charles Harrell   March 1st, 2010 1:29 pm ET

The problem I see in this trial is where she was shot. I find it extremely hard to believe that anyone trying to kill someone with a gun, who is supposedly familiar with guns, would choose the neck as the easiest place to fire, hit and kill a person. I feel that it was an accidental shooting, period.
I would hate to be on the jury in this case, because I would have a very difficult time believing, without a shadow of doubt, that he intentionally shot her in the neck.

Jo Darr   March 1st, 2010 1:51 pm ET

In the past as a shooting makes the news of someone who has either entered a school or office and CLAIMS they only intended to scare the victim or victims by pointing a gun at them is lying. The pure fact that even one bullet was in the chamber or any part of the gun, shows intent. Mark Schacks who apparantly went to some sort of class for HIGHLY POWERED WEAPONS instruction in how to use this killer machine new the safety importance of handling this weapon. The window of 19 to 29 minutes from the shooting death of Amy to the time he called 911 proves he thought he could cover his tracks by placing the cartridge back where it should have been in the first place. How in the world even if he is kidding, point a weapon of this degree in the direction of any living thing, let alone the woman he claims he loved. Oh, and of course, don't waste any time in calling the insurance company to get the papers flying so he can collect on her LIFE insurance policy. She was truley preparing to leave him, and he was obviously not happy with it. There is so much more to be said. In my opinion all the evidence points to his guilt.

Deanna   March 1st, 2010 1:52 pm ET

Every person is suppose to be innocent until proven guilty, but come on. I am watching this man and I have heard several people talk about his crying or bawling??? I have seen him countless times blinking his eyes and trying to get tears to come and distorting his face to try to look upset. And the police interview he got really emotional when they wanted to read him his rights. I haven't seen any remorse in this man except for himself. My prayers go out to all the families that have been affected by this shameless slaying of this beautiful human being. God Bless. Deanna from Indiana.

Deanna   March 1st, 2010 2:06 pm ET

OMG...I can't wait to see this man in the witness seat!!! This is going to be a horrible acting (like a b movie). I bet his lawyers begged him not to take the stand, he makes a horrible wittness. He killed her and he knows it. Can't wait to see this sideshow act. Now I see what most other wittness's said he is arrogent and what an ego........lmao He is so gonna hang himself. I don't believe he had any real emotion until they read him his rights. Deanna from Indiana. At the edge of my seat...

Tammy Pentz   March 1st, 2010 2:08 pm ET

You cannot deny the scientific proof in this case, he aimed to shoot and kill. This man knew enough about weapons to know how and when to clean it and how to be safety cautious, as he was when his neighbours when shooting with him, really look at the FACTS in this case, after she was shot this man had no blood on his clothing yet there was the blood on the closet door and on the gun magazine.Did he wash his hands before calling 911??? Or was there blood on the telephone? For someone that was truely upset about this "accident" he should have had blood on his clothing, he also should have tried to apply pressure to the wound. For someone who was "distraught" the police interview seems to show otherwise, he is fine when speaking about his work or his medical conditions, he seemed very clear in mind. I have NO doubt that he intentionally shot he in the neck. the evidence says that he was aiming for her head.
This is not 2nd degree murder it was 1st degree 100%

John Evans   March 1st, 2010 2:19 pm ET

Wow! Give this guy an oscar. He could not shed a tear if he was cutting an onion!!!

Marcia Schneider   March 1st, 2010 2:31 pm ET

I have tried to beleive that this shooting was an accident. It possibly could have happened the way Mr. Schack said. However he is his own worst enemy. He should have invoked his right to remain silent. He can't keep his story straight to anyone about exactly what he was doing with the gun – cleaning it? adjusting the scope? changing the magazine?
Was Amy or was she not in the room or in contact with the gun? In his statement at the police station he dives into this sad story about his life long CMT nerve damaged hands, carpel tunnel syndrome, and the drugs he takes for this condition. BUT the statement he made to the grief counselor that he felt no guilt because it wasn't his fault bothers me alot. My husband took our boat out 5 years ago alone, fell out, & drowned. I was at work. To this day I feel guilty because I wasnt there.
I cannot imagine someone who would feel no guilt about this beautiful girl's death when he WAS there & the gun was in his hands.

Tammy Pentz   March 1st, 2010 2:34 pm ET

THERE was BLOOD on the Magazine!!! Hello...he shot he ..went over to blood on his hands...went back to the gun.... took the magazine out...went over to the blood on the door...threw the magazine into the closet... If this was an accident the weapon would be untouched after it went off.

Lyn   March 1st, 2010 2:41 pm ET

Perhaps, being visually impaired, I am not "seeing" something here... Am I to understand he shot his girlfriend with a wall between them? What is he, Superman? I think he is guilty as sin but can't figure out how he was able to shoot her through a wall and hit her in exactly the right place. He would have to be a very, very lucky man or have X-Ray vision. One other thought... were he to have shot her as he supposedly caught the gun when it was falling, the bullet should have entered her throat at an angle, not a straight line.

Linda   March 1st, 2010 3:01 pm ET

If Schack were a good actor, his taped interview was just not believable, if Schack were indeed mourning the loss of his girlfriend, he was still not believable. This man is as fake as any defendant I've seen on your broadcast. There is not a word of truth coming out of his mouth, he was just figuring out a way out of his debt and the so called love for his long time girlfriend just not believable. Emotion like tears when genuine just happen and when you are faking it, there are no tears as we see from Schack.

I hope this jury is looking for genuine emotion, genuine tears and genuine remorse for the loss of this girl's life. If this jury looks for these three things nothing more needs to be said about this man. If the emotion we see on tapes and in the courtroom is what this man has been showing his girlfriend for many years no wonder she would not marry this man.

All Schack wants is for everone to feel sorry for him and just forget the loss of this young woman't life. Sorry Schack, I don't believe you. I hope the jury sees through you and your attorneys smoke screens.

tom dunn   March 1st, 2010 3:05 pm ET

i cant understand why a man would be working on his rifle, cleaning it or what ever he was doing, why he would have the magizine in the rifle and have a round in the chamber. that is unexcusable. i own several rifles and i would never load the rifle in the house. i have been through gun saftey courses as he says he was. even if he is new at owning guns he should have known better. i am having a difficult time deciding if this was an accident. i think he is at least guilty of man slaughter.

sara maroto   March 1st, 2010 3:06 pm ET

"I am not a you weapons expert but common sense teaches us that guns and vicodin don't mix."

Carol morgan   March 1st, 2010 3:08 pm ET

The defence are beating a dead horse.showing this man despartly acting like a weepy teen and blowing smoke is too pitiful.bad,bAd move!!he is guilty as sin.who is up at 2am cleaning guns???the only one he was gunning for was that beautiful woman that was just trying to move on.

Paula   March 1st, 2010 3:31 pm ET

I agree with John. As he is testifying, it looks like he is trying his best to lay out a few tears, I would also like to slap his face and knock him back to jail. I can't stand looking at him. I really like the testimony of Amy's sister. She told it like it was. Now he says he did not go to Vegas to get married. Liar, liar pants on fire.

Doris Hill   March 1st, 2010 3:52 pm ET

There are plenty of cut and dry cases in the U.S. and this is one of them. Just because you have money doesnt mean you should get a lesser sentence neither.

Marianne   March 1st, 2010 3:53 pm ET

When someone accidently hurts someone else-even when it is an accident-they still feel guilty and responsible for it happening. This guy has no guilt and says it was an accident is clearly not a normal reaction to killing his girlfriend. He hasn't grieved her death only his "poor me, they are investigating me and I might get locked up." Something isn't right with his behavior now and right after it happened. He was just running around saying it was an accident. That is a normal reaction to an accident. He would be feeling it was his fault even if it was an accident. This guy isn't right.

Supa Diva   March 1st, 2010 3:55 pm ET

How are y'all goin to set here and say dis man killed his wife they been in love for 10years man then how he gon shot her throw a wall come on he called da police just really look at dis man its no way he did it she was not in the same room

David   March 1st, 2010 3:57 pm ET

Aside from the shooting. Why was he buying a big dollar gun if they were in such debt?

Marianne   March 1st, 2010 3:58 pm ET

I meant that is NOT a normal reaction to accidently killing someone especially someone you claim to love. Feeling guilty would overwhelm you and he doesn't even feel any guilt. WOW.

Laura   March 1st, 2010 4:11 pm ET

In his 911 call, Schack seems to begin by trying to protect himself, rather than seeking help for his girlfriend. He mentions the shooting briefly, but then goes on to give information about his actions that lead up to the shooting, without mentioning any more details about the girl. If you're on the phone with 911 and your loved one is dying at your feet, I would think you'd focus on getting her hlep. But if you're afraid you'll get caught, you're going to waste no time trying to cover yourself early on.

Tina Davis   March 1st, 2010 4:19 pm ET

Bravo! And the winner is..... keep trying to squeeze out those tears!

Tammy Pentz   March 1st, 2010 4:21 pm ET

He did not shoot her through the wall...he shot her through the open door, the evidence clearly shows that when bullet in the left side of her neck, came out the right side, and hit the wall.
bullistics prove this case..all the way, the bullet had a flat level. During the interview he showed the detectives how he went to catch the weapon as it was falling and then corrected his motion when it was stated that it was on the dresser and he would have to grab it differently, either way the flight pattern of the bullet does not support his story at all.
Just look at him on the stand....trying to looking meek...trying to force is sick...and the jury will see through this act and look at the evidence.

Tammy Pentz   March 1st, 2010 4:26 pm ET

Another intesting fact is he said that when the the shot fired he heard her scream...there was no time for that...the bullets in this weapon can go a distance of 2 football fields in a second ( faster than sound) she was hit before she would have time react to the sound of a gunshot.

rhoward   March 1st, 2010 4:51 pm ET

It would have been almost impossible for the gun Schack supposedly was working on to have fell the way he said it did and just miraculously strike the girlfriend in the throat. This guy couldn't stand the thought that Amy didn't want him anymore and was preparing to move on with her life without him. He decided if he couldn't have her, no one else was going to either. The insurance money was just a bonus for him. Hopefully, the jury will see him for the lying, sleazy fake he is.

Roger Kirwin   March 1st, 2010 5:02 pm ET

The single most important bitt of evidence that Mark Schack did not thing of in his cover up was the angle of the bullet in flight. Amys injury shows that she suffered a entry and exit wound at a level position. Which is inconsistent with the defences testimony of a rifle falling of the table. This evidence will be what hangs him! And for sad puppy dog look on his face, it doesn't fool anybody. He's a reel piece of garbage. I wouldn't even give him credit for being a good actor.

George   March 1st, 2010 5:03 pm ET

The Man is faking those sorry looks & rediculous eye flutters trying to shed a tear. I am gun owner & dropping that gun is not going to fire unless it is defective & it wasn't . George CA

Kat   March 1st, 2010 6:34 pm ET

I am a gun owner. I have been watching this trial and am amazed that it has gotten this far. Schack is GUITLY. I realize gun accidents happen...I had my 25-06 blow the chamber while I was shooting it in Oct due to overcharged rounds from the factory. Luckily just some very minor shrapnel wounds to me, no one else got hurt. Accidents happen, but there are some very basic rules he should have as the gun safety expert he claims to be should know...
First off, why clean your gun at 2 am even if you are planning on going to the firing range in the morning, do it when you get up. Second, ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS check, check and recheck that the firearm is unloaded. Third, you can't clean the muzzle of a loaded fire arm, the round in the chambers prevents a total clean. Forth, you can't accurately sight a rifle in the house. Fifth, this guy for being so gun savvy has shown his true ignorance in regards to gun ownership and is given the responsible gun owners of this country a bad name by being so stupid in public.
Just to let the general public know, law abiding gun owners are not this stupid. We abide by the laws that are in our state and guns don't kill people, idiots who pull the trigger while pointing it at somebody else kills people. Just like Mark Schack.


Denise   March 1st, 2010 6:42 pm ET

If Schack is crying so much and is so distraught, where are the boxes of tissues?? When he was being interrogated he never asked for a tissue, but did need a drink and a smoke. Sitting I the court room I am not seeing him ever need a tissue to wipe his tears. OH, I know, the tissues are with the cleaning kit he was using to clean his gun! Things are not looking good for the bad actor....

Yuri   March 1st, 2010 8:07 pm ET

“The bullet goes one hundred billion kilometers per hour! Scary, eh?”

Where did they dig this "expert" guy out? He is a defendant’s dream!

The ridiculousness of what he says is beyond amusing. It’s downright funny: every single word is a masterpiece. And he does it with such a straight face! My favorite “the force required to pull the trigger is 3 lbs PER SQUARE INCH”. There may not be many gun-savvy folks here so let me interpret: it’s like an automotive expert saying “this car can easily reach the speed of 150 miles per gallon…” And it’s not like he misspoke! Even if you don’t know anything about cars how would you take a single word seriously from this guy? On ANY subject.

Things along the lines “weapon designed to kill…” are not bad either. Because traditionally firearms are designed to bake bread, of course. “This gun is not a toy…” Care to name a gun that is?

But why not mention something relevant? Like the little fact that Century actually had a recall on Golani rifles for a firing pin retrofit, specifically to reduce the risk of an accidental discharge? Missed that humble component? I guess that would actually require the modicum of knowledge on the subject.

Very entertaining. This “expert” seriously hooked my up on In Session.

Jo Darr   March 1st, 2010 9:40 pm ET

I haven't been able to watch the entire trial but I wonder, has there been a weapons expert brought in by the prosecution to explain how this weapon works and should be handled? Also, has the prosecution asked Mark Schack why of all weapons did he choose to purchase this type of weapon over all the other smaller hand guns? Was he expecting a terrorist?

Jo in NY

Jeannie   March 1st, 2010 10:37 pm ET

In the first place, why was he cleaning the rifle in the bedroom with it loaded. My husband goes hunting and he never cleans his rifle in the house, with it loaded. He always cleans it outside pointing away from anybody. Mr. Schack doesn't really know about guns and how to handle them. Why buy that kind of rifle, unless he was going safari hunting. I believe he wanted to kill his girlfriend because she didn't want to marry him and he wanted the insurance money. Why did he asked his sister to go ask about it right after the shooting. And the way he is acting in the courtroom, its all an act and to make the jury feel sorry for him. Who cleans a rifle at 2 am in the morning? I hope he is found guilty.

Fred in Sacramento   March 2nd, 2010 12:54 am ET

During his police interview, Schack tried to give a plausable explanation of how the rifle fired however his knowledge of firearms is too limited to provide a believable excuse. That is why, when pressed by the detectives about the round in the chamber, he faked the histrionics and became completely incoherent. He is setting the stage to do the same on the witness stand with his sighs and sobs. He will fake another breakdown under cross examination when the prosecution addresses the particulars of the weapon discharging. He cannot tell the truth because the truth is that he deliberately shot to kill the woman and he is too ignorant to make up a reasonable scenario. It disturbs me that some one who obviously knows so little about firearms should be granted a concealed carry permit. Also he is a lousy shot. He was probably aiming at her head.

Glenn Perkins   March 2nd, 2010 10:51 am ET

Whether you're adjusting the scope, cleaning the weapon, or attaching a tripod why would you load a magazine with ammo inside the house it doesn't make sense to a reasonable person. This guy is guilty!.

nancy   March 2nd, 2010 11:35 am ET

this would have to be an accident. For the gun to discharge, go through the walls and actually hit her right in the neck killing her is a 1 in a million shot - and he just got into "playing" with guns.

Carol Beutler   March 2nd, 2010 11:41 am ET

While any occurance can be viewed as an "accident", the evidence shown indicates without question that this was an act of deliberate violance against this woman.

Sandy   March 2nd, 2010 11:42 am ET

This guy is guilty. I've had guns since childhood. Never a misfire. Jams yes. He's lying.

Tony Samuel   March 2nd, 2010 11:42 am ET

I think that Mr.Shack is guilty, as a gun owner while cleaning your weapon on of the first think you do is unload your weapon before cleaning it and then check the chamber to make sure that it is empty and remove the magazine if the weapon has one. I like the demonstration Mr. Shack is trying to get away with killing his girlfriend and use the insurance money to get out of financial problem.

L. Smith   March 2nd, 2010 12:02 pm ET

I would like to know if Mark Shack was every able to produce any tears from his continual blinking. I hope the jury sees though his bad acting.

Wendy   March 2nd, 2010 12:20 pm ET

This guy is a joke!!! I don't own a gun but if I did there would never be any bullets in the chamber. He killed her and he show pay for it.

Michael   March 2nd, 2010 12:32 pm ET

I think the only REAL tears from Mark Schack will come after he receives life in prison. I don't see how the jury can not see the facts.

igor   March 2nd, 2010 12:44 pm ET

i am sooo tired of listening to or hearing about these low-life defendents whom clain innocense to the destruction of life to good people. this schack has very selective memory which is criminal in itself. my heart goes out to the family and friends of amy who have to sit in that court room and listen to this. i do not know how these close friends and reletives restrain themselves from jumping the gate and beat this excuse of a human til he pays with his !

leigh   March 2nd, 2010 12:54 pm ET

This was an accident...this man did not do this on me everything is being twisted around like crazy to suit the procuations's sick.....most lawyers can't see beyond the end of their own nose....stop thinking about if you win or lose your case and PRIDE but put yourself in the place of the accused...just because someone can't see how this could possibly happen does not make it didn't happen just the way Mr. Shack says.... I believe he is NOT GUILTY..thanks you for your time....Leigh

JL   March 2nd, 2010 1:10 pm ET

Mr. Schack should have used wisdom and NOT testified. That judge let him have it. I feel sorry for Mr. Schack's attorneys'.

Shirley Mee   March 2nd, 2010 1:14 pm ET

My son owns several guns and rifles and I worried about safety -
my sons comment . . there are no unloaded guns in my home!

The important testimony so far to me – the expert who said the gun
could not have gone off in the manner indicated by Mr Schack. The
expert should know. There has been no testimony to contradict
this expert.

At this point – Mr Schack is guilty. No one would have her if he
didn't! The insurance was just a bonus.

Angela   March 2nd, 2010 1:15 pm ET

Schack is guilty as a sin, is pure evil. I would like break his neck with my hands !

dan skadeland   March 2nd, 2010 1:18 pm ET

this man is on the stand for his future . can there be a mistrial on the bases of a judge yelling at him .

Larry W Kemp SR   March 2nd, 2010 1:18 pm ET

Frist rule never assume a gun is unloaded. Next a lot of guns will go off if dropped or falls off a table or dresser but the angle will be eather up or down never level at 52" high. that rilfe with a loaded clip after the last shot the bolt will lock open, allowing the clip to be changed or reloaded put back in the gun bolt has to be pulled back to release lock allowing an unfired round in gun and youre locked and loaded again.

ilya   March 2nd, 2010 1:22 pm ET

The prosecutor is a idiot and defendant speaking back and judge getting angry can not do that if it was your life at stake you would do the same and some people can't talk wright when sad they blame him for that they need a new prosecutor and judge,

Val   March 2nd, 2010 1:23 pm ET

Please remove that silly blue box on the right hand bottom side of screen. It looks as tho a child did this and is so proud that he wants to show it over and over and over again. It is highly irritating!

Brent   March 2nd, 2010 1:23 pm ET

My heart goes out to the Boscarino family, I just can’t fathom that this is an accident. I do believe he is guilty. I think he knew she was going to leave him. On the show when Mike Brooks and the Gun Professional showed us when you charged the gun it was very load. He knew he had charged the weapon. Also why would you sell the ring that you gave it to the person you want to be with your whole life, I would want it to be with her or gave the ring to her parents. I just see him on the witness stand and I keep on counting how many times he is going to change his story so far I think I’m on number 23.

julie   March 2nd, 2010 1:25 pm ET

mark schack is an idiot and a real faker. during his interview with the detective it looked as if he still had his glasses on, lots of tears to be wiped through those lenses. i can't beleive a falling gun, that had no magizine, could be accidentally fired and strike a person, in another room, straight through the neck. i don't beleive anything he says. his explanations of how the shooting happened doesn't mke any sense. guilt is written allover his face and statements. i think he shot her then went back into the bedroom and shot a hole in the wall to try and deviate what happened. cover up?? i tink so.

Lynne - Columbus Ohio   March 2nd, 2010 1:26 pm ET

Wow...the real Mark Schack starts to emerge. He seems so controling and I think this is exactly what happened with Amy. She wanted to leave him and his controling side reared it's ugly head! I don't believe this guy for a second. He should be glad I am not on his jury. Kudos to the Judge for not allowing this behavior in his court room.

Barbara   March 2nd, 2010 1:26 pm ET

Oh this man is getting under my skin. He can turn his "emmotions" off and on like a spigot. I would love to know how much his demeanor differs from how he acted before all of this happened. My guess would be that he was not like this at all and if he was, No wonder his family couldnt stand him.

jim   March 2nd, 2010 1:27 pm ET

why did williams get plea and schack dont no witness in
schack case williams shot guy point blank

mike   March 2nd, 2010 1:28 pm ET

i think hes inosent he had no reason to kill her not even the money becouse he dont want them

Barbara   March 2nd, 2010 1:29 pm ET

and by the way if he had such a problem with muscle control or weakness and unsteadiness, what the Hell is he doing with guns. OMG it makes my skin crawl

danielle rawlins   March 2nd, 2010 1:30 pm ET

we don't feel that they should use the ring against him, cause if it happened to either one of us we would not be able to put it to rest with the ring around.

O C Gordon   March 2nd, 2010 1:31 pm ET

Why was Mr Schack cleaning the gun the second time. He stated that he clean the gun before he put it away, and that he was sure there was nothing in chamber. He need to explain why the gun was loard.. I have a problem with a falling gun shoot someone in the neck maybe the lower body but neck how tall this dresser. The gun was going down not up. What happen and what he telling is very different. I think this about money
selling the ring right away not a good ideal. I am sure there was other thing or ways to get the money for the lawer.

ilya   March 2nd, 2010 1:32 pm ET


tina carter   March 2nd, 2010 1:33 pm ET

Mr.Schack is crazy if he thinks the jury is going to believe what he is saying,he keeps changing his story. Why would go in the safe to hide anything if you didn't know what had happen. It's just sad what happen to Amy.

Linda   March 2nd, 2010 1:34 pm ET

This man been trying to build his defense since the 911 call. He talk to much then and talk to much now. Steady trying to build his case. Anwsering questions nobody ask him. When you call 911 for emergency, with someone dying in front of you , are you going to talk about a hunting trip and guns at the time. If I am innocent that will be the last thing on my mind. He talk so much the judge had to tell him to shut the hell up. And all that trying to look pitiful look irks me.

Cheryl   March 2nd, 2010 1:37 pm ET

What was Amy thinking? This guy is just plain out creepy.

Ali   March 2nd, 2010 1:43 pm ET

So, they guy is a horrible manager of money. He is likely guiltly, but that is our very strong opinion. Does the evidence presented support a conviction? No reasonable doubt?

I am familiar with and have been around weapons my whole life, this does seem unlikely; but what if it DID happen this way?

I believe he will tangle himself in his words. I hope his attorneys are writing all of these "mistakes" down so they can clarify on the re-direct.

And the judge, just showed his hand. He clearly does not like this defendent. He never should have admonished him in front of the jury–bad acting or not.

lisa   March 2nd, 2010 1:48 pm ET

This wimp can't strum a guitar any longer because of his "CMT", but he can fire high powered rifles accurately? Give me a break!

Terri Moore   March 2nd, 2010 1:49 pm ET

I believe Mark Schack is guilty but the JUDGE is way out of line with the defendant I wouldn't be surprised if the JUDGE causes a mistrial with his conduct in the court room with the jury present.

Paula   March 2nd, 2010 1:51 pm ET

Boy, Mark should not have taken the stand. He is fumbling with his answers and as always, everyone else is lying. He is done. He can't keep his lies straight. He better learn what stop means. The judge is going to eat him alive. I thought he was a better actor, but he has failed. He is like a piece of meat in a lions den.

T Daggs   March 2nd, 2010 1:51 pm ET

The guy is guilty, no question about it. i dont understand why there is even a question in the jury's mind, between his story changin every five minutes and the level of suspicious activity and his facial expressions and body language tell the story for me personally. He is guilty and GOD BLESS AMY!!

Teresa   March 2nd, 2010 1:51 pm ET

Mr Schacks whole demenor during this is puzzling. He cant seem to get his story straight, especially on the 911 call first he said he was cleaning the gun then he said he was postioning the scope. He keeps changing his story hes GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY in my book. I think he did kill Ms Boscarino because she wouldnt marry him.

pastor a.e.garrison   March 2nd, 2010 1:54 pm ET

The real reason there are so many innocent people in lockup is the arrogances of the court system such as this judge that refuses to allow people to speak to their deffense. Always ready to use their power to shut up the person on trial to give complete testimony of their deffense. I am geting to where I am glad to see one beat the prosecution even if they are guilty because of the vast corruption of the system of the D.A."s office down to the prossecuting attorney. We enjoy your show every day but you all have indeed educated us on the corruption of the system.I wouldnt give you a dime for all the prosecution attorneys in the nation.

MCD   March 2nd, 2010 2:01 pm ET

The anchor read an email that included the line 'I wonder how Amy's family feels about his affect on the stand.' The word 'affect' in this context would relate to the defendant's appearance and behavior. The anchor read the line as 'I wonder how Amy's family feels about his effectiveness on the stand.' While the two are somewhat related, it was not what the email said, and distorted what the emailer meant.

roger   March 2nd, 2010 2:05 pm ET

i have defended people for 38 years. my wife prosecuted for 15 years and defended for 5. (capital crimes) the shear ineptitude of the prosecution is so painful my wife can't watch the cross of the defendant anymore. for example , could it be that the pros did not get the gun admitted? is that why he is waving his arms around trying to question about a gun he doesn't really understand? the 'in session" experts explained the impossibility clearly, but did the jury get a similar demonstration? earlier the pros failed to ask the question of the pathologist "what was the manner of death". then the defense on cross opened the door for the pros on redirect to get the answer "homicide"! this is junior league bordering on incompetent. it is possible that this deft will be acquitted or found guilty of a lesser and if that happens it will the result of the poor job the pros is doing. there is too much to criticize for this email. the defense is little better. from what has been shown the defense lawyers are sitting away and have distanced themselves from the defendant conveying they don't like him or don't believe their own client! the defendant paid for this?
painful in the extreme.

J. Kinte   March 2nd, 2010 2:12 pm ET

he's trying to play so dumb...he got caught with his hands in the cookie jar...he's funny!!!

Ali   March 2nd, 2010 2:15 pm ET

Ok, so he is a terrible witness. Is there enough evidence to convict?

Is a persons demeanor and their bumbling words enough to establish reasonable doubt??

That judge was out of line correcting him in front of the jury. Judges should never show their hand...and he just told the jury how he feels. Not good. Banter from witness to attorney is normal.

I sure hope his attorneys are paying attention. This guy is likely guilty, but what if it really was an accident???

M L Sketchley   March 2nd, 2010 2:18 pm ET

In regards to Mr. Shack, this is what I think. If you will notice, his voice is in monotone. He never appears honestly upset or emotional. I believe he is trying to convince people that he is cool, and is not flustered. Well, he is being too cool. It appears phony. I think he is lying and guilty as sin.

thank you
M L Sketchley

pastor a.e.garrison   March 2nd, 2010 2:19 pm ET

I have a question. I have heard many times on your show these words. The jury always gets it right, If that is true, then tell me why has the "INNOCENT PROJECT' worked so many times. Why are there innocent people coming out of prison after ten and twenty years of being locked up and innocent at the same time. The jury does not always get it right.When we as a society begin to speak for the right instead of the office at hand we will have less innocent convicted just so someone can praise the office involved in the situation.

Greg   March 2nd, 2010 2:30 pm ET

Schack said he had one hand on the pistol grip, and one on the magazine. Is he saying that is how the second bullet chambered, and if so doesn't that mean when the gun fail, he would of had to catch it like that to chamber the bullet.

Randy   March 2nd, 2010 2:39 pm ET

It seems that Mr. Schack has an answer for every question asked of him. Now he is blaming her for loading the weapon. I have weapons and the first thing I do when I touch a gun is to check to see if it is loaded. I think as a person whiich just recieved training in guns would do the same.

anna   March 2nd, 2010 2:40 pm ET

The defendant seems like he is not being truthful. He answers the questions as if he is not hearing well or is not understanding the question. His facial expressions are telling us more than he is himself. His facial expressions are constant and seems like he is acting and thinking too much.

Mabel Chambers   March 2nd, 2010 2:40 pm ET

Why is it a straight line shot as the fire arms expert stated when the medical examiner stated it went in her neck but exited her shoulder. How can that be?

brit   March 2nd, 2010 2:41 pm ET

Amy was described as an extremely neat house-keeper, as I am.
The candle near the dresser was off centre on the stand, did he
slightly move the candle to line up the gun to get a better.

Joan Andris   March 2nd, 2010 2:45 pm ET

Schack should get twenty years just for his terrible acting!

Granny from TN   March 2nd, 2010 2:50 pm ET

I am 70 years old and have been around guns all my life but I have never had one to accendially go off because it is not a toy and you have to be careful with something that only takes seconds to hurt or take someone's life so I just don't see how this could happen. I am no ex[ert but I do know that you do not WORK on a gun and point it towards another person even when it is not loaded and a gun should always be treated as if it is loaded no matter what.

mark   March 2nd, 2010 2:52 pm ET

You can absolutely chamber that rifle quietly. Someone with the lack of strength might pull the action back slowly as well as let the action down slowly resulting in a chamber gun. That's exactly how my wife champers her's and its much quieter than the way I do it or rambow or the bald guy demonstrated on your show.

peggy   March 2nd, 2010 2:53 pm ET

I think as I am watching the defendent testify that he facial features show nothing but disgust when being questioned and having to explained what happened. This guy is as guilty as sin and should be shown the same amount of disgust.

Wylie M. Smith   March 2nd, 2010 3:00 pm ET

This guy is guilty. Where are all the tears when he is wimpering on the stand? I have had guns all my life (65) and his story is hard to believe. Something is wrong with him with all of Amy's family disliking him. Is every witness wrong and he is the only one right? I don't think so.

Cheryl   March 2nd, 2010 3:04 pm ET

Jurors do get it right with the evidence given to them. The innocent that are in prison are pre-DNA. It is found that you can not rely on eye witnesses. Now that DNA testing has progressed these people in prison are getting their day in court and the ones that are truely innocent are being freed, and they are being compensated for the injustice. How many were found innocent and went out and commited further crimes?

Russ Lynn   March 2nd, 2010 3:09 pm ET

I've noticed that when people who call 911 for help and seem more interested in convincing the dispatcher of their innocence rather then getting some help on the way usually end up in jail!

Shay   March 2nd, 2010 3:10 pm ET

This guy makes my skin crawl. It was bad enough having to look at Schack's poor, pitiful face but having to listen to his poor, pitiful voice as he "tearfully" tries to explain away this cold-blooded murder is almost more than I can bear. I don't know how Amy's family was able to sit through his grade D movie performance without hurling.

Traci   March 2nd, 2010 3:11 pm ET

This older man says Amy's death was an accident. He proposed a few times and she said NO? Maybe he couldn't handle rejection and thought "If I can't have her, nobody will!" His body language sure makes him look guilty. Cleaning a gun late at night with a bullet in the chamber? Yeah right.

Bruce   March 2nd, 2010 3:17 pm ET

Where is Marks defence?The state has all the money they need for experts.The gun expert works for the state and all of his testimony favored the state.The scales or Justice are tiped in the favor of the state.If Mark had money for experts and a dream team this would be a more fair trial. Mark is getting railroaded! Money can buy freedom. He is innocent,
Bruce from Roy Wa.

Sooner   March 2nd, 2010 3:19 pm ET

Check out his body language during cross and re-cross. Constant raised eyebrows and looks of confusion, repeating questions, obviously defensive, etc. Accident or not he shot her. Tax payers shouldn't have to waste money on this guy.

Ann Walsh   March 2nd, 2010 3:19 pm ET

Mark Schack is Guilty as charged! Motive one, Why didn't Amy want to be married to her long time boyfriend? Most woman want to be married after 10 years of a relationship. It seemed to annoy him that she didn't want to be married to him. Motive two, how do you allow yourself to have $80,000 in debt. Amy had $30,000. But the actual video footage of his question by the detectives sealed his fate. Guilty

Mitch   March 2nd, 2010 3:22 pm ET

Mr. Schack is absolutely ridiculous to think they he will get away with this crime of passion. It is clear as day that he intentionally killed his girlfriend of 10 years. Who cleans a LOADED gun at 3 a.m. ?? I'm disappointed he's only be charged with 2nd degree murder!! Lock him up

Mary Ellen Ellis   March 2nd, 2010 3:27 pm ET

Maybe he is not likeable or attractive, and the Boscarino's never liked him but that does not make him a murderer. I believe they, in particular the sister-lawyer, probably put a lot of pressure on prosecutors to charge him with murder. This case should never have been brought to trial. Painful as it is, accidents do happen.

Ann   March 2nd, 2010 3:41 pm ET

The State of Florida has not proven beyond reasonable doubt. If he is guilty, then blame the State for not proving it in court. No way he can be convicted on what has been presented so far. You cannot convict on "feelings" or because you do not like the defendant and/or his mannerisms. I sure hope the jury takes their job more seriously than some of the posters here.

Megan McPheeters   March 2nd, 2010 3:42 pm ET

I definitely feel that he purposely shot Amy. If you have ever taken any lessons with guns, you are taught to clean the weapon without ammunition. To change a scope, bullets are not needed, so why was ammunition even in the same area while he was changing the scope?

He can't keep his stories straight of what happened, and after listening to him talk, I can't even figure out what happened. What was the point of changing the scope three times in a matter of 3 weeks, after only shooting it once?

He's a liar and a murderer and should spend the rest of his life in jail!

Warren Thompson   March 2nd, 2010 3:42 pm ET

An actor but not a very good one. I predict a conviction.

Michael Sitterly   March 2nd, 2010 3:51 pm ET

I live out in the country in oklahoma and i have experience with guns and actively hunt. I know for a fact that when sighting in rifles, you do not do it inside a home, you do not do it without making sure the weapon is unloaded, and if you have a gun you should know basic gun safety.

ben   March 2nd, 2010 3:52 pm ET

det. carr violated schacks rights when he did not stop questioning him and get him an attorney when he asked for one, twice, instead carr kept saying we will but lets clear up some of these points first..
the gun slipping off the dresser and being caught,thus going off, is believable. as far as the angle of the bullet entry, you dont know if you pull up on the gun when you catch it or not, that could bring the angle back to a level angle..
the judge and prosecution wants to here only half truths to valadate there case, they do not want the truth because they cant handle the truth, as it would set this man free. thats why the judge jumped on Jeff singleton when he brought up the drug issue. and thats why he jumped on schack when he was answering the prosecuters questions, they dont want the whole truth and notheing but the truth.

this man is not guilty, no matter how sad this case is.......

Kenneth A. Spaulding   March 2nd, 2010 3:55 pm ET

Mr. Schack should not have taken the stand. He is narcissistic and somewhat antisocial. If he isn't guilty he may get convicted due to not being able to generate empathy or sympathy. But, he sure would get my guilty verdict.

sal   March 2nd, 2010 3:55 pm ET

why would a person (amy) not experienced in weapons chamber a weapon and not mention it so no one is aware of this. and also facial expressions say alot he has the look of why is he here i am confused as a veteran a bullit does not seek its own path a path is created through aim you cannot drop the tail end of a gun unless she jumped up to catch the round with her neck. He still might use that one

Ed Scholl   March 2nd, 2010 4:00 pm ET

If Shack had JUST mounted the scope on the rifle then the accuracy should be questioned. I have been a gun owner and mounted more than 20-30 scopes and have NEVER had one accurate without it needing to be sited in. Also, unless Shack has Xray vision HOW did he shoot through a wall and hit the juglar (a target less than 1/2 an inch in diameter)???????? That would be nearly impossible unless someone is a professional marksman.

chrka yawic   March 2nd, 2010 4:03 pm ET

Did anyone ever look at thee tragectory of the bullett? A straight shot would've indicated an accurate aligning of a determined shot.

jeremy   March 2nd, 2010 4:05 pm ET

Everyone is trying to say he shot her on purpose, But the gun went off and the bullet went through the wall in to the other room and struck her in the neck. So he shot his wife through the wall and he was a good enough shot to know exactly where she was standing to shot her in the neck. It does not add up at all.
All the little doctors and body language specialist say he ain't acting right and not showing the right signs. What is the right body language or signs to show when you shot your spouse on accident. He feels bad enough as it is and that is how people drive there selves crazy over something like this. Every time something like this happens the state has to blame someone to make it look like justice has been served.
Every one makes mistakes when cleaning or changing optics on a gun. My father shot a hole in the roof when he was cleaning his "unloaded" gun. All these investigaters don't know anything about people and everyday life because when something like this happens, They start the hunt for someone to blame, it's the first thing on there minds. They take justice to far some times. They trust in it to much.

shelly   March 2nd, 2010 4:06 pm ET

Schak's lip curled as he squinted when the prosecution asked piercing questions. Hisovert pain revealed either fear of revealed truth or the distress of formulating a lie.

Gracie   March 2nd, 2010 4:10 pm ET

Mike Brooks made a comment just before the end of the show today re: describing the defendant Schack ... about how meticulous he was about what someone was saying, but not about protecting the table with a towel.

A little insidious 2 pt. note about Mike Brook's comment:

A – Cleaning, adjusting, adding accessories: even a novice will typically have a towel or cloth down, not only to protect the table, but to catch any small screws, tools or parts that may drop.

B – Firing said rifle: even novice would not use a bench rest, shooting bench or tripod over movable, soft object like a towel, stacks of paper that could shift during recoil.


With that said, we've had folks bring firearms in for service with them "not knowing" there were rounds loaded in the chamber.

Russ Lynn   March 2nd, 2010 4:16 pm ET

I have trouble understanding why so many people are concerned about whether his tears are real or not!! Does this mean that if he was a BETTER actor he should get off??
Also some seem to think it had to be an accident because he shot her in the neck instead of the head> Consider for a moment! This weapon would have blown her head clean off! What would be his chances of getting someone to believe THAT was a accident!

carol kesling   March 2nd, 2010 4:21 pm ET

hooray for this judge putting his foot down !!!!!this mark guy is trying to cause a mistrial, and i don't think the jury will beleive him with his demeanor on the stand.. this man is "GUILTY.

B.J.   March 2nd, 2010 4:25 pm ET

If Mark Schack has a neurological disease (CMT) that impairs his motor skills, why in the world would he handle a deadly weapon (a gun) at all, much less at 2AM when one might be tired with less than precise physical responses? Seems like a pretty irresponsible idea to me.

Ewardo   March 2nd, 2010 4:26 pm ET

I'm watching the trial right now and to me the defendent when asked a question tries to explain his answers or why he did or said something makes him look guilty an innocent man would just answer the question with no need for explination as it would show proof of your innocence

Billy c   March 2nd, 2010 4:27 pm ET

Schack is a poor actor......he lined her up in the crosshairs its time for the jury to line him up

Ms. Woods   March 2nd, 2010 4:28 pm ET

The chances of accidently shooting someone in the neck, in a main artery by dropping a gun, are just about as good as the chances of me winning the lottery or rollerskating with the President, not very likely! Anyone who accidently killed someone who they cared deeply for would most likely show some type of remorse, and express how sorry they really are. They would not act as if they accidently killed a dog or something. Schack is in no way convincing, in court he had this dumb founded look on his face the entire time and he claimed he could not recall just about everything. To me the obvious is that the girlfriend did not, and never intended on marrying the man, this infuriates him, bruises his ego, and so he felt if he couldn't have her then no one could, and so he "accidently" shot her which led to her death. No one will ever know the truth about what she thought, and I am betting that is exactly how he intended it to be. This man's facial expressions and demeanor scream guilty, and I am sure that the jury will determine this as well.

Linda Myatt   March 2nd, 2010 4:32 pm ET

Schack killed Amy. He is a cold blooded murderer. He is trying to manipulate the judge, jury, every law inforcer, mental health personnel, and every person that is watching this trail. This women did not deserve to die. My feelings tell me that he thinks he is much smarter than everyone. I pray that the jury does not let this man go. Amy's life is over. Such is the way Schack should loose his freedom. That is as close as the judge and jury can get to making him pay for her precious life. This case has disturbed me more than I can say. I say guilty as charged. GUILTY, GUILTY

Linda Myatt

Chucky, TN

larry cox   March 2nd, 2010 4:43 pm ET

the judge should be removed. He had no right to say what he did to the defendant. The defendant has the right to answer the question completely without the state interrupying. I know the state does this to rattle and confuse the witness. The defence should demand the judge to step down.

Russ   March 2nd, 2010 4:54 pm ET

It never ceases to amaze me how people who call 911 for help don't realize that their trying to convince the 911 dispatcher that their innocent of what happened rather than just get some help on the way might as well sign a confession of their guilt!!

ronnieinbama   March 2nd, 2010 4:57 pm ET

I observed is, here we have an middle aged man, average looking and for many years tried to get a much younger attractive lady to marry him with no outward possibility of marriage in the future and if he couldn't have her nobody else would either.

This whole defense of cleaning the gun and it accidentally discharging has no credibility to it at all. I have to believe Mr. Schack did in fact purposely pull the trigger and hastily tried to construct an accident scene in the 19 minutes then with the 911 call set up his defense rather than concentrate on providing aid.

Mr. Schack knew in the final questioning from the prosecution his future was being striped from him and went from someone who should be sad to someone angered by constant repeated questions.

I personally would rather have seen more remorse to impact the jurors this was in fact a possible accidental shooting, but I just didn't see it. Instead, I saw a man who knew his defense had little credibility and basically threw his hands up and said, "Ok look, you might think you have me but I think I've got reasonable doubt on my side and I'm not going to admit guilt."

Guilty as charged, may God have mercy on his soul.

linda   March 2nd, 2010 5:04 pm ET

this was too much gun for him, he should have stuck to guitars and captaining his remote controlled planes.

emmy   March 2nd, 2010 5:21 pm ET

He is a liar, he can't keep his story stright... now u went to tlk to the people while the investigation was going on?? I think that he is guilty.. because she was leaving him.. she realized she needed an uplift.. he is a murderer! Go to prisonn son!

Jackie Templeton   March 2nd, 2010 5:31 pm ET

Suffering from ADD, (Attention Deficiet Disorder) myself, I can understand alot of Mr. Scheck's testimony and his continual insistance of wanting to explain the questions being ask of him...I myself have struggled all my life with people mis-interpeting what I am trying to convey to them. As frustration builds, anxiety does as well then I find myself over compensating..I would be interested to know if Mr. Scheck is medicated on ADD medication during this trial. I also know from past experience the medication for ADD will take away alot of one's eotions and ability to show feelings, thus crying. I also believe Mr. Scheck was most probably taking alot of Vicodin for his disorder, thus the combination of medications can most certainly cause one to have inconsistancies. One should not judge without truely understanding his disorder,,He is messed up and is coming off as being "gulity"...He very well may be, however, what if he is innocent and it was a terrible accident?

Sydney Tingley   March 2nd, 2010 5:43 pm ET

The guy should not have taken the stand, he's making things worse for himself, everyone is lying but him and that look on his face, who does he think he's kidding???Guily!!

marilyn smith   March 2nd, 2010 5:44 pm ET

firstly,, I am so happy to see Vinnie back, I've missed you! Now my question is WHY in the world would Amy Boscarino make Mark Schack the beneficiary of her insurance policy? She so obviously loved her family and DID NOT love him. Is it a fact that his name was on her policy?

az   March 2nd, 2010 5:52 pm ET

On the point of the "falling" rifle; it seems unlikely that he would accidently grab the grip and pull the trigger mid fall. It is more likey that his hand would already be on the grip. And because it is a pistol grip, as long as the hand is wrapped around it, there is substantial control over the weapon, therefore a knee-jerk reaction to it falling – to the point of squeezing the trigger- would be highly unlikely. Secondly, if his finger just happened to slip into the trigger cage as it was falling (without wrapping the had around the grip) the muzzle of the weapon would more likely be pointing down, allowing gravity to "assist" in the pulling of the trigger, went it discharged.

With all that aside, it is highly possible that if he pulled the trigger while it was falling , that the trajectory of the bullet could in fact be at near horizontal anglel. What the "experts" appear to have overlooked ( unless i messed it) is the human element.. in that when an object starts to fall, an often common reaction by a person is spontaneous and counters the movent of that object to a degree in the opposite direction rather than merely "catching" it. In this case the butt of the rifle could have easily been lifted higher than the dresser the gun was supposedly resting on escpecially if the bipod still remained partially on the dresser, as well as been pulled toward the body thus changing the angle of the weapon form parallell to the dresser, to a more perpendicular posistion.

Despite thses points, i think the claim that it "fell and went" off is still very weak and unlikely. If this scenario were in fact true, it would have happened so quickly, and Mr Shack would likely not be able to describe it in the detail that he has.

Arturo Ruiz   March 2nd, 2010 5:52 pm ET

I've been in military for 22 years and I'm a considered expert in both human behavior and weapons. To me it appears that an accident is plausible. The defendants testimony and in particular his demeaner on the stand is consistant with innocense

J. Logan   March 2nd, 2010 6:04 pm ET

Ms Woods,

Just the opposite. Shooting someone in the neck is more remote and more consistent with an accident. If he did this on purpose, he would have aimed for the heart or the head. You don't convict someone based on their facial expressions or demeanor. Some people just have a strange affect and shouldn't be convicted on that alone. No one will ever no the truth because there were no witnesses.

az   March 2nd, 2010 6:13 pm ET

In response to the video above. Ryans question of
"is this the kind of rifle you want to be cleaning in your home at 2 30 in the morning...?"
Are you kidding me? many gun enthusiasts clean their guns in their home.. whether it be an AK-47 or a BB gun... where else would they do it? and at 2 30 in the morning? – why not... or should gun cleaning be done between 9 am and 5 pm? -

And.. yeah.. thats a pretty cool gun... but a .22 could have caused her death just as well. Pointing out that it is an assault style sport rifle... and is based on a military rifle is just media sensationalizing.

David   March 2nd, 2010 6:21 pm ET

What I am pondering is if during his mounting/installation of the last scope if he ended up looking through it or not...
I believe that after installing a new scope, the installer would check and make sure that it is proper and check it out to make sure the installation was successful...and when someone looks through a scope, they mount the gun like they were to actually fire it, And perhaps maybe, he discharged it not realizing there was a chamber in the round. And maybe a fumble would be more convincing than the actual truth.

glenn mcqueen   March 2nd, 2010 6:23 pm ET

guilty 100 % did he change his cloths, wheres the blood? no way could he'd give her CPR and not get any blood on self or cloths

bob fisk   March 2nd, 2010 6:52 pm ET

if mark was to shoot amy whhy the neck whhhere she might have survived

Shay   March 2nd, 2010 7:03 pm ET

I have to agree with Midwin Charles... this prosecutor's cross-examination of Mark Schack was quite possibly the worst I have ever seen. Not only did he jump all over the map with no sequence or logical connection from one question to the next, but the questions themselves were so confusing and convoluted that poor little sad-sack Schack couldn't figure out what the heck he was asking. Pathetic. Hopefully he'll have his act together in time for his closing arguments.

don   March 2nd, 2010 7:29 pm ET

I think it was a accident, how would he know that one shot would actually kill her,if it didnt then he would have a witness HER, and he couldnt shoot 2 times !!

mark   March 2nd, 2010 7:39 pm ET

Can't the weapon be tested professionally to see if it can or cannot discharge as Schack said it did? If this could be it would conclusively prove the matter I think.

SB   March 2nd, 2010 7:45 pm ET

He planned this, aimed at her head and hit her in the neck, and then move stuff around before calling 911. His faces are hilarious!! I don't know how anyone could sit there and defend him. He is a joke. And I think he truly thinks the jury is falling for his "performance". I hope this trial ends soon, b/c it's hard to watch it drag out so long, when the conclusion is obvious. Justice for AMY.

Robert   March 2nd, 2010 8:23 pm ET

I agree with Larry, seems to me the judge is biased. ( PRO- Prosecution ) I have followed this case closely, but didn't get to watch every minute of the trial. I have watched 90 to 95 % of this trial. How can someone get shot in the neck through a bedroom wall other than accidently ? There is no way he could see where she was in the living room. This was a terrible accident . Also he does not seem all that swift about firearm safety . An accident waiting to happen ???

Mich   March 2nd, 2010 9:00 pm ET

I'm really impressed with the misinformation in that video, CNN. I'm not entirely sure where that "expert" was given his firearm training, but its pretty far from factual.

I do also agree that there is no way that the rifle would have gone off short of a mechanical issue ( which there is apparently none).

But the otherwise incorrect statements and conjecture the "firearms expert" provides is absolute rubbish.

This is the sort of sensationalism overlooking facts I might expect from Glen Beck or the rest of the Fox team, but not CNN.

I'd recommend you send the reporter back to training and black list this "expert" as his apparent expertise is that which an 11year old could get from reading a single "Guns and Ammo" magazine and then day dreaming about african safaris.

Really dropped the ball publishing this, CNN.

Charles Knapp   March 2nd, 2010 10:14 pm ET

A gun owner and part time gunsmith,and former military I do not believe a accidental discharge of the firearm happened. Even of the fireing mechinism was tampered with I do not believe it would discharge by it self upon falling. If it was that "hair trigger" it would be unsafe to handle. That wasn't brought out in testimony I have also used some firearms in poor condition they didn't accidently discharge. I do believe that the defendent is lying about the whole insident. If I were on the jury I would have to have more evidence to change my mind of this situation. I would vote guilty as charged and sentence the maximum.

Leslie   March 2nd, 2010 11:21 pm ET

1: It is not true that if you do not brace the butt of the stock of this gun that it will automatically jam.
2: Everyone who is panicked and under a lot of traumatic stress can make inconsistent statements and illogical comments when trying to get help. They also can remember little things later, things that did not occur to them at the time.
3: What difference does it make how many guns these people had? It sounds like both were very into learning about weapons and starting a collection.
4: Mark Schack did not necessarily have to hear if she chambered a round, he's older so maybe he doesn't hear very good or maybe he was doing something else.
5: Every couple has arguments and just because he asked to stay at a friends house 10 days earlier doesn't mean their relationship was in trouble and they were fighting that day. It seems that her family and their friends are making assumptions.
6: I think of my husband's family as family to me, even though we don't like each other and rarely speak. The length of their relationship could have made him think of them as family even if they didn't care for each other.
7: Accidents do happen, and if he was trying to murder her there are a lot better ways to have an accidental shooting than how that shot was made.

Leslie   March 2nd, 2010 11:33 pm ET

I agree with Jeremy's comment. Accidents do happen. Also why would he not try and help her before calling 911, he needed to see what happened first. He did have blood on him and where is the testimony of the officer that moved the body? Why is this guy out of town and why isn't he forced to come back and testify? This guy's future is at stake.
I believe he did this accidentally and of course he checked the life insurance, that is what it's for. If you have an accident and carry life insurance (as most people do) why do people automatically think something fishy happened? I also think the judge does not like the defendant and it shows, this could influence the jury and their decisions.
It just seems that your guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around.

dano   March 2nd, 2010 11:44 pm ET

I have heard from other family members that Mr. Schack was loud, over bearing, foul mouthed, rude, and alot of other words that I can't spell.

Hearing him on the stand answering questions in an almost inaudible way, sounding like a 12 year old was to much for me to bear. I get the defense that I am to despondent to even talk clearly, but that poor acting is going to get his a– locked up for a long time I hope.

What women see in these 'all about me" men, I really just don't get, but yet I see it every day. Sad to say, but I think that some women bring this kind low life companions on themselves. 80,000.00 in credit card card debt, Helllllooooo!!!! not a good call for a maybe hubby.

gina michielli   March 2nd, 2010 11:55 pm ET

I think that some people are innocent,i belive that mark shack is,i think this shooting was truley a accidet. theres just not enough evidence or a motive,no life insurance,was collected,neither one was having a affair & i think he truley feels horrible,i believe he is innocent,an may amy rest in peace ,an god be with her friends & family at this tragedy time...........................................

Greg   March 3rd, 2010 12:23 am ET

Has anyone else realized the contradicting answers to the same questions put forth by the prosecution and Defense? Schack really should begin to keep notes so that he can keep his stories straight. for example... Prosecution asked him, How many times have you been to the range with this rifle? Schack said three times and changed his scope three times and the first time at the range he didn't have the scope. Schack also stated that he bought the rifle about 6 weeks prior to the incident. When defense redirected.... Schack said that he owned the rifle only 3 weeks prior to the incident and been to the range only one time.

On the subject of his shooting her through the wall....If people are actually following the case they would know that he DID NOT shoot her through the wall! He "shot" her with a clear line of sight. Not only that.. he shot her with a straight shot and not at an angle which is indicative of a supposed falling gun. I am all about the innocent until proven guilty however Schack is digging himself into a hole that he may never get out of.

Bentley   March 3rd, 2010 1:59 am ET

Ok What is This ? Schack admits to saying " How could I look down the scope and pull the Trigger and Kill My Baby "? HELLO if the gun was falling why or how would her be looking down the Scope at all why would he make this statement at all ? Who cares if it was How ? Ever ? or Why ? The gun was supposedly Fallin ? Right

Mark Hanczaruk   March 3rd, 2010 2:04 am ET

Everyone does know that this trial has been over and Mark was sentenced to Life in jail right? Not sure why this case is just now on the TV but he was convicted and sentenced in early Feb....

George DeWald   March 3rd, 2010 2:20 am ET

Oh my god, if this guy does not think he is above the law, than who is. He is so uppity as to his demeanor, and shows nothing but contempt to these proceedings. His attitude alone shows what he felt towards that poor girl in the early morning hours. And the family is right to feel the way they do about him. Your daughter, dad, deserved better, and i wish you could have convinced her better.

George DeWald   March 3rd, 2010 2:27 am ET

Oh my god, if this guy does not think he is above the law, than who is. He is so uppity as to his demeanor, and shows nothing but contempt to these proceedings. His attitude alone shows what he felt towards that poor girl in the early morning hours. And the family is right to feel the way they do about him. Your daughter, dad, deserved better, and i wish you could have convinced her better. My heart goes out to you.

Susan   March 3rd, 2010 10:17 am ET

Mr. Schack told people he was a good shot. He appears to be very melodramatic and manipulative.
Could he have shot Amy on purpose to injure her and become more controlling by having her dependent upon him?

CurtisB   March 3rd, 2010 10:20 am ET

Watching Schack on the witness stand was quite a show, from the difference in his demeanor from defense to prosecution, its plain to see that his defense attorny was giving him some type of signal to either answer Y/N. then under cross examination from the prosecution he changed completely. Maybe his attorney should have used the same signals at that time.

The unanswerd question still remains, How did the 2nd bullet get into the gun, and how about the blood on the bed, closet door, and the magazine back into the safe with his blood???

Susan M.   March 3rd, 2010 10:37 am ET

Mark Schack does seem to be hiding something and yet I don't think he is a murderer.
I think Amy and Mark were both high that night. Amy came into the bedroom and was checking out the gun. Mark went into the second bedroom to look for a another scope. Meanwhile she picked up the gun and instinctively discharged (whatever you do to put a bullet in the chamber) it. Then she set it down and went back to her cleaning in the hallway. Mark came back into the bedroom where he was working on the gun. He took the magazine out and thinking he knew that the gun was not loaded, lifted it to his shoulder, looked down the scope, aimed at Amy's head and pulled the trigger. Then in a panic he clumsily tried to cover it up. Tragedy with the components of drugs, bad judgement and a child living in a middle-aged mans body.

leigh   March 3rd, 2010 10:39 am ET

Why do people want to convict before a trial is even over? Is it human nature.??...considering we can all hear a statement at the same time and everyone person will get their own person intake on it, we all hear hings differently no matter what it is...thats why there is so much difficulity in families...tone of voice....but in this case for Mr. Shack ...if he shows sadness well thats means he did it....if he sit there like a stick...well guess what...He is still guilty...I hope the jury has more sence than most people I've heard comments on the big screen so far...because if not...than why bother with a trial...just through him in jail and forget about him....he did it....but personally I'm not so sure about won't matter what he says most people won't believe Mr. Shack anyway....please get over the fact that this man is 13 years or so older then she was...SO WHAT!!!..only God knows so I'll let him be Mr. Shacks judge...

ryan   March 3rd, 2010 10:45 am ET

I own several weapons. I have had extensive safety training. People are killed every day by "unloaded" guns. If I were a jury member, Mr. Shack would be free. The State has only proven that she died. They have not disproved that it "could" have been an accident.

karen   March 3rd, 2010 10:53 am ET

Mark Schack is guilty. His story fell apart before he could even attempt to put it out there. It changed so many times and he had the nerve to say " Amy must have chambered the gun " Yeah right, sure she did. Coward! The gun fell off the dresser. Shot a perfect shot. Wow. Amazing. Did he do that good at the target range as well? Just drop your gun and you get a clean shot. What are the chances of that? Even my boys who have airsoft guns are more skilled then he is. They couldn't believe what he was trying to say happened and they are 12 yrs. 14 yrs. & 17 yrs. old. I am so sorry for the family who has lost such a beautiful daughter, Amy. I hope that the jury does the right thing and gives him the sentence he deserves. Why would he sell her engagement ring to pay attorney fees? His love of his life . His "baby" . It doesn't make sense. I hope he gets a severe sentence for what he has done to Amy, her family, friends, and neighbors.

chris   March 3rd, 2010 11:09 am ET

this guy is sooooo guilty. if he really took out the magazine how would the next round load?? i guess we have the magic magazine. not to mention that a)it pretty hard to fire a gun whil dropping it though not impossible and b)if the gun was falling while the triiger was pulled why was the trajectory of the bullet so flat? don't you thing it would be dratically pointed up or down?/? convict this guy.

ruby brittingham   March 3rd, 2010 11:26 am ET

In the case of florida v schack. Why was not more investigation done on the couples trip to Las Vegas prior to the shooting. Supposedly Mr. Schack took Amy there to propose to her and get married. Were the clerks & hotel employees where they stayed questioned as to if he had stated to them he was proposing or if it was a honeymoon suite rented. If he stated anything to anyone at the hotel it would have gone to motive that his plans and hopes with Amy were lost on that trip, and he could not get over the rejection. If she refused to marry him perhaps he was afraid she would leave.

spencer davis   March 3rd, 2010 11:29 am ET

Can someone tell me who the small child is in the photo of Amy?

DeevoEx   March 3rd, 2010 11:33 am ET

Mark Shack is so not intelligent as he thought he is and he knows the gig is up. Can't wait to see his face when he learns his fate.

Jimmy Watson   March 3rd, 2010 11:37 am ET

It is clear that he killed his girl friend,you can tell he was lying on the witness stand,sick man,hope he likes prison that is where he is going thxx jimmy

Patricia Hart   March 3rd, 2010 11:40 am ET

Would like to have heard if Amy could have screamed with a bullett hole in her neck... he said she screamed.

Also wanted to hear more about the dog barking for so long. If the neighbor heard it than why didn't did Schack leave him bark for so long at that time of the night?

sa taylor   March 3rd, 2010 11:43 am ET

The prosecutor was moving around and looking for things so often during his closing that it was disturbing to watch. Had the defendant been more appealing I would have favored him because of the poor preparedness of the prosecutor.

sa taylor   March 3rd, 2010 11:47 am ET

If I was making a 911 call I would be telling them to get an ambulance here, get an ambulance here! I would not be explaining what chamber a bullet was in or that I was cleaning a gun. I would be saying that my baby is shot, get an ambulance here! He was trying to set up a defense on that 911 call.

adam   March 3rd, 2010 11:53 am ET

This man is full of it. As a gun owner ,having droped a gun myself. you do not grab a firearm by the triger. one would grab the gun near the scope or barel

Zack   March 3rd, 2010 12:04 pm ET

I don't mean to make light of this tragedy but.....Is it just me or does anybody else see a visual resemblance between Schack and Dick Cheney? I don't believe a word Schack says and if others see this similarity, it couldn't help.

Anthony Peterson   March 3rd, 2010 12:09 pm ET

If i were a juror, i would want to see how off adjusted the scope was from a target of the same distance of the victim. This is a trial, if he's guilty, that i want to b certain that he's guilty.

JOE, FROM DEARBORN,MICHIGAN   March 3rd, 2010 12:24 pm ET

His lawers should have protected him better when he was being badgered by the prosecutor.
The Judge had to tell the prosecutor to move on after asking the same question 6 times without any objection from the deffence. And the deffence should not call it ashot ,they should call it an accedentle discharge.

jake   March 3rd, 2010 12:33 pm ET

The deputy sitting behind Shack has been asleep for an hour. Lmao.

Janie   March 3rd, 2010 12:35 pm ET

I think Amy was getting ready to leave him, because of what her cousin stated about her starting to change her appearance, her hair, and Mark couldn't handle it. Had the mindset of I can't have her, no one can.

Terri Heckman   March 3rd, 2010 12:47 pm ET

Vinnie Or Ryan
The Defense Attorney for Schack is making the case for the prosecution.
She is a terrible Defense Attorney.

Bill C   March 3rd, 2010 12:53 pm ET

OK, this doesn't seem complicated to me. The state has created reasonable doubt as to Mr. Schack's innocence. I am as suspicious about this death as any of you, but this is not how our justice system works.
There is no PROOF that he intentionally killed Amy. We CANNOT convict someone because of suspicious circumstances.
He has not been proven guilty. Not Guilty is the only just verdict in this trial.

Robert King   March 3rd, 2010 12:54 pm ET

The first thing we were told us when they gave us a rifle in the Army. If you do not think it is load put it to your own head and pull the trigger .

Denise   March 3rd, 2010 12:55 pm ET

It doesn't take a scholar to figure this one out. He was her sugar daddy, she was young and liked the gifts he gave..then when he ran out of money she bolted! He didn't like it ..and shot her..This guy is so ugly and without money he's nothing..he cracked..

Ben   March 3rd, 2010 12:57 pm ET

Guilty or not It could have been an accident. I have read about and seen video of law enforcement during a firearm safety instruction shoot himself as he was demonstrating gun safety. Why didn't he check the chamber before he shot himself? Maybe he had credit card debt. Freak accidents are one in a million, not accidents commited by ugly people.

Denise   March 3rd, 2010 1:02 pm ET

BTW the worst part...the poor attorneys..The defense attorney is so bad it is painful to listen. What law school did she attend? I'd like to know. The prosecutor is not much better.

Carmen Menasco   March 3rd, 2010 1:07 pm ET

I've been glued to this trial. Guilty as charged. This could have been me. Two years ago I left a 10 yrs relationship with a man that insisted on marriage and was very offended at my repeated no's. He could be the most lavishing person but each night I slept behind a locked door scared for my life. The plan of escape started once he annouced at my daughter's b'day dinner at a nice place that he was giving me on last chance to say yes and if I did not 'THAT WAS IT'. He had every intention to kill me as the gun collection grew and there were several incidents. The relationship became unbearable and I Praise God every day he gave me the strength to move out. I pray for Amy and I feel the pain she indured – Sometimes control and verbal abuse can be worse than physical abuse – I believe it to be more dangerous.

David, MA   March 3rd, 2010 1:11 pm ET

You can pay your attorney to say pretty much whatever you want. But getting away with murder...IMPOSSIBLE

Art G.   March 3rd, 2010 1:12 pm ET

The rifle was on the dresser with no towel or protection under the rifle. If it were falling of and a bullet discharged, wouldn't the recoil of the rile have left scratches or nicks on the dresser?

wilner   March 3rd, 2010 1:23 pm ET

Mr. Schack DEF. said he was not a expert on guns. then said he couldn,t staging the seen leaving a bullet in the gun .if he was a not a expert he may forgot 2 check if there was a bullet in the gun. before he called 911. what you think about that ?

Tony   March 3rd, 2010 1:32 pm ET

What a waste of tax payer money this is not rocket science It Makes me sick this guy thinks he is smart.I am a gun owner and i Have never failed and will never fail to triple check a fire arms chamber upon placing a gun back into a case. Or in a safe , or on a table or any where when I'm finished using it.I'm so glad there is a thing called evidence.It tells the truth .I feel sorry for the defense knowing the truth is right in front of them, and they still have to try to convince people. Its a hard thing to do. I would have a hard time being forced to defend this guy when the evidence is true.I wouldnt be able to sleep at night,knowing that.

Lisa   March 3rd, 2010 1:33 pm ET

This trial comes down to one word. CLEANING

Skeptical in Oregon   March 3rd, 2010 1:34 pm ET

This guy is guilty. He's had the training and it was reviewed with him on the stand. Claims he thought gun was not loaded because when he last put it away it was not loaded. EVERY TIME a gun is picked up THE SLIDE/BOLT is to be opened and a visual of the chamber, as well as put your little finger into chamber to make sure it is clear.

Training includes "MOST ACCIDENTAL SHOOTINGS ARE CAUSED BY UNLOADED GUNS." He's smart enough to know what that means and smart enough to know why he can't claim he didn't know it was loaded. Chamber is always to be clear until just before pulling the trigger when target shooting.

There's so much more. Magazine loaded and in gun? NOT UNTIL you step onto the range. Only time to carry a loaded magazine in a gun is when on the range, when walking around or in a blind hunting, or in time of war in an active combat zone or in combat. Even then when a soldier steps inside, chambers are to be cleared.

His training taught him that guns are to be loaded only at the time when the gun owner expect to fire the weapon. Not the night before going to the range.

This guy is such a liar. Couldn't have been an accident.

So sad for his girlfriend and her family.

Joe   March 3rd, 2010 1:39 pm ET

I have been following this case from day one. I do not believe that the state has produced enough significant evidence to convict on murder two. However there has to be something to put this guy away for a long time due to him being that careless with a firearm. Honestly his defense team seems so nervous, its almost like they know he is guilty. In the opening & closing comment the attorney just seems very uncomfortable. Almost like she knows, but then again maybe she just needs more experience.

Tony   March 3rd, 2010 1:46 pm ET

And one other thing hes crying for himself and only for himself .

Bernie Paulson   March 3rd, 2010 1:49 pm ET

It doesn't make sense to me that if Mr. Schack wanted it to look like an accident he would have used a smaller weapon, like a handgun, not some large military rifle.

carol jenson   March 3rd, 2010 1:51 pm ET

I have been watching this trial and feel the defendant is guilty!
Putting him on the stand, was a mistake, as it did not help his defense, because he is not a particularly likable individual.
However, at this very moment, I am watching the closing arguments by the defense attorney. She is presenting this case very poorly, not at all pepared or passionate, She seems to be very inexperienced,
merely reading from her notes and checking off as she goes, rather than address the jury directly. I think they should have had another defense attorney, execute the closing arguments. I certainly would not want this attorney to represent me!

ronhelm   March 3rd, 2010 1:58 pm ET

Everyone acts like this is a live trial, the verdict was made a month ago, and if anyone had bothered to read this blog, would have seen the results posted.

vsbmark   March 3rd, 2010 2:01 pm ET

The defense lawyer is priceless. Her closing is soo bad. Full of nothing of any substance. To watch the judge's face as she spoke is also priceless.

Larry Glavin Palm Harbor, Florida   March 3rd, 2010 2:04 pm ET

I've been watching the case against Mark Shack but was unable to see everything and get all the information needed to make a decision. One thing I saw was the tape measure along side the bullet hole in the wall made after passing thru Amy's neck. I believe it said 4 ft 4 inches. If you follow the line the bullet was traveling it would seem to me Mark Shack was holding the gun and aiming it rather than trying to catch a falling rifle. What did it fall from, the ceiling. This alone would prove he is lying. I'd like to see that clip again showing the tape measure.

Thanks for listening,
Larry Glavin
Palm Harbor, Fl.

Dan G   March 3rd, 2010 2:04 pm ET

On a highly technical point, the definition of 2nd degree murder specifies "lack" of premeditation, not that the state doesn't have to prove premeditation. I believe the murder "was" premeditated. I suspect most jurors (and viewers) would not make an issue of it, but I'm questioning whether the defendant was improperly charged. I think murder one should have been a choice for the jury.

Greg   March 3rd, 2010 2:04 pm ET

Has anyone told the defence that we are not watching RAMBO FIRST BLOOD? IT is rare for a millitary person to hold rifle at there hip. You have a sight on the barrel for a reason, you put the gun to your shoulder , aim and shoot. Mark put the gun to his shoulder, aimed through the scope, and killed his girlfriend. The 223. is a rifle, not a machine gun, and all it takes is one jouror to know about guns, and that therory is no good.

gj brozik   March 3rd, 2010 2:06 pm ET

This guy broke the record for shortest time between story switch. It went from cleaning the gun to adjusting the scope in the first 5 seconds of the 911 call.

Arlene   March 3rd, 2010 2:07 pm ET

Mr.Schacks defense is as limp as a cooked noodle, How do you own weapons, and not pay attention to weather they are loaded or not when you handle them? How do you make such a perfect killing shot by accident? I wonder how long he held her in the sights before he pulled the trigger? I think he is quilty

Dave from Canada   March 3rd, 2010 2:10 pm ET

Watching schack testify is the most annoying experience I've ever seen on this show.It must be SOO hard for Amy's family to sit quietly through schack ridiculous explanations of how this happened.Anybody in their right mind would have to find him guilty with all the facts that are against him.To bad they can't give him the needle and put this pathetic creep down.

anthony   March 3rd, 2010 2:18 pm ET

the whole "he didnt check to see if the gun was loaded, doesnt make any sense" to me is arguable. There is a very strong human element in/is not this senario, and that is/is not that not everybody does everything perfectly when it comes to safety protocol all of the time. Who has'nt skipped a step in a safety procedure for anything anytime. people make mistakes, and maybe he really did not know the gun was loaded, and maybe believed that it was not loaded just as much as he needs to breath air. So in his mind why would he even consider looking to see if it was loaded. Thats equivalent to looking for your keys in the same pocket. People do it, but not everybody.

Glenn Farris   March 3rd, 2010 2:19 pm ET

I Object. The prosecutor mislead the jury on the weapon action.
This gun is a gas operated semi-automatic and does not need to be placed against anything in order for the reload mechanism to work.
He said it had to be held against the shoulder or other object which is simply not true.

Scott from Virginia   March 3rd, 2010 2:26 pm ET

This guy is guilty! ...How does the bullet make a flat trajectory while sitting on the bi-pod on top of a dresser? There is clearly a great angle on the weapon in this position.

angie in reno   March 3rd, 2010 2:29 pm ET

the 911 call says it all the rest is just what it is common sense . that 911 recording is the truth. why would you wait and watch her bleed wouldnt that be your second thing check her and call 911? guilty guilty guilty. our peers wont forget that call. panic whatever it took him to long to call. his peers are getting ready to take his freedom which is a good thing.

Dan G   March 3rd, 2010 2:31 pm ET

By the way, I think it's unfair to blame the defense attorney for not being able to present much of a case. If I gave Tiger Woods my granddaughter's set of plastic golf clubs, I don't think he would shoot par at Pebble Beach.

Mary Ellen Ellis   March 3rd, 2010 2:35 pm ET

This case points out how important it is for anyone to have an attorney present before they make any statements to police. The prosecution has manipulated his inept, naive statements to look like guilt.

Scott from Virginia   March 3rd, 2010 2:35 pm ET

The only way I see the trajectory to be flat whie sitting on the dresser is if the magazine was in the gun at the time of the shooting, therefore lifting the butt of the rifle up while resting on the magazine and the bi-pod.

Susan   March 3rd, 2010 2:48 pm ET

I don't believe this was an accident, my children knew better than to handle any firearm without checking the chamber. I also think this was premeditated

Janet   March 3rd, 2010 2:51 pm ET

What older motive for murder than money? Love !!! If I cant have her -after all I have done for her and how much I "love" her -then no one will have her !!! It all seems so clear to me – guilty as charged.

Mary Ellen Ellis   March 3rd, 2010 2:51 pm ET

The prosecutor fails to mention that the mortgage debt is not his debt, it's THEIR debt. She was making more money than he. He killed her accidentally, it couldn't be more clear.

scott   March 3rd, 2010 2:55 pm ET

It is only natural for a right handed shooter to pull the aim off of a rifle down and to the right when pulling the trigger. I believe the prosecution when they say he was aiming for her head. Especially being a basically new shooter.

Tom Kondash   March 3rd, 2010 2:59 pm ET

I think there will be a hung jury. At least one juror will be a hold out.

Doug Gray   March 3rd, 2010 3:00 pm ET

The thing that bothers me with this trial is the ballistic testimony. Clearly a scope aimed at the head shoots low and would hit the neck. But the photo showing the bullet hole in the wall through the scope puts the crosshairs right on the bullet hole. Shouldn't the crosshairs have been higher and to the left to have made that bullet hole? This photo was misleading at best.

Danny Brown   March 3rd, 2010 3:01 pm ET

I believe the Defendent is the best evidence for the proof of guilt in this trial, I believe explaining his normal character by the defence might go the wrong way for them, that helps why he would do something in this manner, I think he had thought about doing it and made the split second decision to do it that night .

Linda Bordeaux   March 3rd, 2010 3:03 pm ET

IF he was adjusting the scope for her use, she would have to be there to look thru it. He can't adjust it to suit her without her input. He had finally accepted that she was not ever going to marrry him, he was losing his trophy girlfriend which he needed due to his low self esteem, she was bringing in the bulk of income at the time. He would be consoled from her death rather then be embassment by everyone knowing she didn't want him. I can't understand what she was doing with him in the first place. I hope he is convicted and gets the max sentence the law allows.

J J Lynn   March 3rd, 2010 3:03 pm ET

Looking at the trial on TV I feel that there is no way the crime happened like Mr. Schack said it did.

He aimed and pulled the trigger to her jugular vein.

pete   March 3rd, 2010 3:05 pm ET

Maybe I missed something? Didn't the prosecution expert testify thet they lined up the scope with the bullet hole in the wall with the cross hairs and that the scope they they tested shot low and to the right?
I can,t watch it all but if I was a juror and there was a lack of this "fact" in evidence prominitly not displayed I'd have questions or did the defense simply miss it.

Deane Barker   March 3rd, 2010 3:05 pm ET

Mark Schack "indicted himself" on the 911 call. Seemingly, the most important thing would be to get an ambulance IMMEDIATELY! Why did he waste valuable time giving all that extraneous information, telling the 911 operator what he purported had caused the gunshot.

Mike in New York   March 3rd, 2010 3:07 pm ET

I have been following this case for a while now and am not sure who to believe. As we went through closings today the Defense Attorney seemed like she was tearing holes in the Prosecutions case. If I were on the jury I would have to say that he was innocent because the prosecution has not proved to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this was an intentional act.

Carol   March 3rd, 2010 3:07 pm ET

This whole case makes me ill because I know he did and he is making out as though she did this herself by loading the gun and not telling him and that is so far out of line I can't find the line and that is a fact.

He reminds me of someone that was never told "NO" and mean it. He is one of those brats that never grew up.

Jim Allen Richmond VA   March 3rd, 2010 3:08 pm ET

In the Mark Schack case I don't understand why ,in closing, the prosecutor doesn't, as I've heard in other cases, remind the jury that the charge to the jury isn't guilty beyond any doubt but guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as I believe he is.

Howell Jones   March 3rd, 2010 3:11 pm ET

I have owned guns for 40 years. The first thing I do when I pick up a gun is to check to see if it is loaded. If I hand it to you standing next to me to look at when you hand it back even though I never lost sight of the weapon I check to see if it is loaded. Any time I pick up a weapon no matter what I check to see if it is loaded. I would like to add you do not clean a loaded gun. It makes no sense because you can not clean a loaded gun properly. Depending on the gun in order for a gun to discharge from being dropped I believe it would have to hit the hammer directly with force. I have 4 daughters and when they were about 10 or 12 I taught them gun safety even though they would tell me Dad I don't need to know this I don't plan on owning a gun. I would tell them that is not the point the point is if you ever came in contact with a gun you would know how to handle it safely even if you just found it laying on the street. Gun safety is something everyone should know the basics about. All four know gun safety procedures one a bit better than the other three because she is a Chicago Police Officer.

Marie   March 3rd, 2010 3:14 pm ET

The closing argument for the Defense would have been much more effective had the Defendant's attorney avoided sarcastic comments regarding the Prosecution's case. Had she focused on the strength of her facts, she would have better made her case. There is nothing worse than relying on sarcasm as, in my opinion, it turns off jurors.

Deanna   March 3rd, 2010 3:17 pm ET

I really got a kick watching him on the stand. He seemed to beable to answer his defense attorney questions......they should have prepped him better for the cross. I know they prepped him on how to answer yes and no and then wait for the next question........he had a horrible time with this with the prosecution..and claiming the police moved her body. Please they know better than that.. they would lay a sheet over her to guard her body from being seen..which in fact I don't believe they are even allowed to do that until all the proper law and medical people were on seen. They have to take pictures of her position and what about the blood? She was or should have been laying in her own blood pool, because that shot certainly rendered her paralyzed immediately...i'm sure this wasn't there first barbeque!! Enjoy prison...Schack

Rachel Pickett   March 3rd, 2010 3:23 pm ET

I'm on vacation/wintering from Newfoundland, Canada and because the weather is unusually cool, I have spent a lot of time watching this trial. It looks like this guy is, most likely, guilty and in Canada he would have to be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". If that is the law here in the united States, it will depend on how "REASONABLE" is defined. An interesting watch!

Jim   March 3rd, 2010 3:24 pm ET

they keep on saying things about them doing things during the night. I work midnights and sleep during the day. I do all my cleaning at night. I also lived with a woman for 14 yrs. that I never married who is 10 yrs. older than me. She caused a lot of problems and 1 time an officer was suprised that I didn't shoot her. My family wants nothing to do with her. They will speak to me as long as she's not around. But anyways I would not have any guns around (period), if I was into guns and feel the way I felt about her with all the fighting what would stop her from shooting me in my sleep. There is just one to many posibilties. If he actually didn't do it he should have be playing the lotto because he would have won.

Chad   March 3rd, 2010 3:27 pm ET

For 10 years Mr. Schack was on a “quest” to get Ms. Boscorino to marry him (the ring, the house, the renovations etc...all for her). After he realized that all he had to show for the past 10 years was a house that was upside-down and a fiancé that would never be his wife. I believe once he was aware of this; he started his new “hobby” looking for an opportunity.

John Hart   March 3rd, 2010 3:28 pm ET

Almost everyything inside me says that this guy is guilty except for one thing. Explain to me how a bullet hole 52 " high goes through a wall {i.e 4'4"} and ends up in the neck of a 5'6 girl.... Is her neck 14 " from the top of her head ?

J Hart

louis costa   March 3rd, 2010 3:30 pm ET

from the pic it looks like no tripod was on the gun maybe hi stood up and shoot the gun and never had it on the tripod thank you louie costa pittsfield ma.

Dave   March 3rd, 2010 3:39 pm ET

He wasn't cleaning his rifle like he says if he was it would be taken apart to do so ' U can not clean a rifle with the breach in . Also the loading mechanism on this rifle is gas regulated and it would not have to be braced against anything to reload if it is fired and the magazine is attached to the rifle it will reload automaticaly. This guy is no weapons expert that is for sure . And in order to adjust the scope he would have to be at a range so he could see where it is shooting . Sorry but this guy is guilty as hell and should have to pat the max

wlmbugs   March 3rd, 2010 3:48 pm ET

I've seen some BAD acting......but this guys deserves the award for the worst and most unbelievable EVER, in the history of testimony.....he's fake and it wasn't a mistake........

Kerry Adams   March 3rd, 2010 3:55 pm ET

How can anyone possibly believe a word he said! He is a terrible actor, maybe he took his acting lessons from O.J. And is just as guilty.

becky hagerman   March 3rd, 2010 4:20 pm ET

i was married to a man like mark shack. he could really put on an act when he was caught doing something wrong. I watched as mark shack was watching the prosecuting attorney,was doing his closing arguments. and he sat there, interested not one tear. but when the defense attorney got up there. the tears started flowing. what a fake. he should be found guilty. and given a sentence to the full extent of the law.

Eileen   March 3rd, 2010 4:21 pm ET

Mark's gun hobby coincidentally began at the same time of the trip to Vegas. He killed Amy because she was going to leave him, he already felt humiliated by her refusal to marry him. He was losing control and she was becoming more confident and struggling to become independent. Also how could he afford 10 guns in 5 months if he was so broke. To an earlier blogger I think the child in the pictures of the child with Amy is her cousin Monica's child.

Doug Nelson   March 3rd, 2010 4:31 pm ET

The evidence clearly speaks for itself, the trajectory, the trajectory, the trajectory. I need not hear more! Guilty

Alison   March 3rd, 2010 4:39 pm ET

I have been watching the Schack trial from the beginning and am convinced he is guilty as sin. However, I had to go out this afternoon and FORGOT to record the verdict. How can I find out what the jury decided although they must all be dillusional if they found Schack anything but guilty!!!!


Cookie   March 3rd, 2010 4:45 pm ET

I am amazed at his lack of feeling guilt. Even someone who has been in an accident has guilt and goes through the "if I had only. . . ." and blames themself. Also, you don't have to turn down the TV and watch Mr. Schack to see he is guilty just close your eyes and listen to his voice for a while. It is chilling. Listen to the 911 call and you do not hear the deep guttural pain that one would normally feel after "accidently" killing a live one. This man belongs in jail!

Trev   March 3rd, 2010 4:46 pm ET

I've been following the trial, but I missed the closing arguments. Does anyone know if they will be re-aired? Or where I can view the closing arguments? Thanks

Mary from Idaho   March 3rd, 2010 4:47 pm ET

The State didn't make the case. Too many of their arguments could be reasonably doubted. Maybe Schack is guilty but the prosecutors did not prove it beyond "reasonable doubt".

Linda Paramo   March 3rd, 2010 4:56 pm ET

This man's attorney said he was an emotional person. I find this man is as emotional as a rock. The only emotion he displayed was feigned to make it appear he cared for the woman he killed. The main thing that bothered me the most was the difference in his demeaner when questioned. When questioned by his attorney he was articulate and precise, too rehearsed. His forhead was all wrinkled like he was trying to look pitiful. But he responded all confused, beligerant, and even sparing with contempt to the prosecution quesions. He had an explination for everything and the explinations didn't jive with reality.
Ibelieve he killed her and he meant to from the git go. He deserves the maximum. My condolences to Amy's family.

Karen Gibson   March 3rd, 2010 5:17 pm ET

I have a question for anyone that is an attorney or so versed on firearms and laws in Florida concerings this case. If Schack is found not guilty of second degree murder then I know he cannot be recharged for the same, but can he be charged with another offense say manslaughter and then retried or something of that nature? It would be a crime in itself for that to have to happen but can it as he should obviously do some type of time. I had hoped they could have proved first degree in this case but I do understand WHY they filed for second degree. Thanks for a great amount of coverage on this trial, it has been fascinating and I am learning a lot.

Chad   March 3rd, 2010 5:31 pm ET

The test shots made on the (green) target silhouette say it all. The scope cross hairs aiming in the center of the target’s head ………..the bullet hit the neck. Just as it did on Ms. Boscorino. The scope was a bit off, which proves his intended target was her head. Was it just coincidence that the weapon he was “working” on was one of the more accurate guns? Why not one of the hand guns? Plain and simple….he did not want to miss. The test fire evidence in the closing was the nail in his coffin.

jerry of pltn   March 3rd, 2010 5:35 pm ET

can't believe any of the posts who thought he was innocent. why would he have to give different explanations of what happened to 911, neighbors, detectives. such a poor actor...that alone would convict him. by the way, all these things he did for her....he was a loser....she probably made more than him so whatever house improvements, not many, so stainless appliances benefitted both of them. he ran up 80,000 to show he was a big man. my guess is he never made more than 35,000 and she made about 40 to 50,000. why would they only buy a house for 190,000 if he was successful. also, she was a very attractive lady and he, homely.
both attornies were only fair. what do you expect small town, public defender and state paid prosecutor.

zettasroses   March 3rd, 2010 5:37 pm ET

Finally – at the very closing of this case they get to the facts. They bring out the gun and show how this "accident" could not have happened the way Mark Schack states. His "puppy dog" face is pathetic. He wanted her dead because he knew in his mind she was too good for him and eventually she would wake up and leave him. I feel she was caught in his web at a very vulnerable age and just didn't know how to get out. How could she love this guy?? He could be her father. I think she stayed with him out of pity.
Let's prey the jury isen't stupid and convicts this guy of murder.

George Mayes   March 3rd, 2010 6:00 pm ET

If he's found guilty because they say he drew a bead between her eyes,and the bullet hit the same as one the silhoutette,then he's innocent-because the scope can rotate 360 degrees around the axis of the bore and hit in the same spot.

Zina   March 3rd, 2010 6:01 pm ET

Mark Schack reminds me of how my kids used to react when I caught them doing something they knew was wrong. That sad face looking like he is about to cry. After hearing all of the trial I believe that he is guilty. Too much stuff that doesn't make sense.

a j   March 3rd, 2010 6:06 pm ET

an auto is just that. If a round was found in the weapon's breach by police, after it was fired [accident or not], that means the weapon's mag was inplace, and removed after discharge. I did not hear that fact.

Roger Kirwin Tampabay Fl.   March 3rd, 2010 6:09 pm ET

There have been comments about the bipod on the rifle should have had a towl or something under the legs to support it from slipping. Actually the bottom of the bipod has rubber feet that support the bipod from slipping or moving easley. Rubber is very hard to move when applied to a varnished surface. I don't why this issue was over looked! Roger Kirwin Tampa Fl.

R.E.   March 3rd, 2010 6:15 pm ET

THis guys does not have any tears and once had red eyes.

denise   March 3rd, 2010 6:24 pm ET

i think he is guilty to from denise

tc   March 3rd, 2010 7:21 pm ET

I have seen a lot in my 61 years, but this man trying to say he is innocent of killing this woman is unbelievable. I say this not because of my disblief that a gun accident could happen, but based purely on the testimony, Mr. Schack's demeaner, his testimony is pitiful and he is totally unbelievable. That the deceased's family have to sit and listen to this is sad. The state did prove beyond reasonable doubt that this man killed this woman intentionally. Does he regret it? Probably, but, the fact remains, he did it. This gun did not discharge by itself and kill this woman. I grieve for her family and pray justice will be served.

Rick Friedlander   March 3rd, 2010 7:30 pm ET

You guys missed the boat on this one:
It was Bennie the dog who chambered the round into the rifle. Benny was a drug addict and Amy took the last 5 oxycontin in the house and Benny became angry and the tragedy followed.

Michael from LA   March 3rd, 2010 9:06 pm ET

Why has there been no mention of a bore sight? There is only one way to adjust a scope prior to sighting it at the range. It is a device that sticks in the end of the barrel, while inserted the shooter then looks throug the scope and makes the necessary adjustments. If there was none on the bed or anywhere near the rifle then there was no way he was sighting the scope. And without doing that first there would be little chance he would even get near the paper target the following day.

Of course this is purely academic as it is clear he shot her intentionally.

Brenda   March 3rd, 2010 9:17 pm ET

This guy is really such a joke. Not getting his stories straight, his facial expressions, his 'dry' crying, his gasps of air, oh my, what acting. He really should have planned it all better but this is so unbelievable at every turn. Like many have said, the FIRST thing you do is make sure any gun is not loaded. He's a self proclaimed expert & he doesnt check that? Yeah, right. It takes in excess of 20 minutes to call 911? really......what was he doing? uh...I think, staging the scene as has been mentioned. If you love somebody, everything else takes a back seat, you CALL 911 & get the ball rolling! much to say. One good thing though.....he has a TERRIBLE defense lawyer. I wouldnt want her to defend my DOG. Hurray for the prosecutors, they put it like it is. Put him in prison & throw away the key.

Kari   March 3rd, 2010 9:21 pm ET

There are many many cases of people being shot by all types of guns by accident. I believe it is possible and I think evidence shows he did in fact love Amy. I don't think they have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty even if in fact he is.

marsha   March 3rd, 2010 10:00 pm ET

I missed the verdict please announce this, I'm so very interested in what happen, but it should be guilty..........

Bernadine   March 3rd, 2010 11:30 pm ET

I agree with every1 on here schack is guilty and should spend the rest of his life in prison.I have been following this story right from the beginning n he is guilty.Why did schack wait for a while before he called 911.He isn't showing any tears while on the stand but when they show his video he is crying.Put him in jail n throw away the key.Some1 should do him like he did with amy.

suzan   March 4th, 2010 12:32 am ET

aloha- it is so sda today that people like mark shack can have a gun in their home and does not even think that the gun can go off. and why would some one like shack would put a gun on a dresser?

Andi   March 4th, 2010 2:01 am ET

I actually started to believe Mark Schack when I heard the defense question him. But after hearing the prosecutor's cross examination, Mr. Schack's contempt and arrogance became apparent and we all got a glimpse of what Amy's family saw in Mr. Schack. He seems much less credible when he shows his true self!

Andi   March 4th, 2010 2:10 am ET

Mr. Schack's is so full of arrogance that it make me think that he actually BELIEVES he will get away with killing Amy Boscarino!! I pray to God the jury sees right through him!

marsha   March 4th, 2010 9:36 am ET

Someone in this much debt, why go and buy this many firearms?

Pennie   March 4th, 2010 10:16 am ET

I am going to school to be a paralegal and I find it so interesting when you answer the questions from the viewers because it really does help me in my studies. You are a great teacher! Have you ever thought of being a professor?


Pennie   March 4th, 2010 10:17 am ET

What was the explanation on how the hole got into the wall?

dn   March 4th, 2010 10:37 am ET

the prsecutors are stretching its crazy to say that a bullet can travel through a wall and hit the women in the neck and that her boyfriend just happened to see through the same wall and know exactly how she was standing. WOW!!! and mike brooks the LE expert is any idiot if he can make the claim that guns dont just go off because they can.

Shaun   March 4th, 2010 10:37 am ET

His body language and just the way he is acting while giving his testimony is a give away to me. He knows he is guilty and there is no excuse or explanation he could give to show other wise.

Ida   March 4th, 2010 10:45 am ET

After listening to him I have begun to wonder if he was angry at her and while cleaning the gun he started to think about how angry he was that she would not commit to him after so many years .He may have raised the gun thinking to himself I could sooooo kill you right now I'm so mad and in his fury he indeed did pull the trigger( or maybe she startled him) and he did pull the trigger while envisioning this act in his mind. For me it comes down to the fact that he knows what to do with guns yet he did not clear the chamber or put the safety on.

Anthony   March 4th, 2010 11:20 am ET

The guy had absolutely no emotion whatsoever when the verdict was read. Not even a tear, except for a phony head shake side to side as if the verdict was wrong. If I were found guilty of a murder that I did not commit, I would be crying like a 2 year old and would prbably have to be escorted out of the courtroom. I wouldn't just stand there and accept the fact that a jury of my peers found me guilty of murdering an innocent woman and knowing that I would be spending the rest of my life behind bars. Oh yea, and the defense? He tried to grab a gun that fell off of a dresser? Give me a break! He couldn't do any better than that?

leigh   March 4th, 2010 11:22 am ET

I still believe Mr. Shack is NOT guilty o...this was an accident....

jay   March 4th, 2010 11:22 am ET

I think he was planning it from day one after she said no to getting married. he is a poor actor and murder .

Shirley Swift   March 4th, 2010 11:34 am ET

I think this man should have received a first degree murder conviction. His whole story was too unbelievable to be true; She was going to leave him and he could not let that happen. At least he will be going to prison for a very long time and can't ruin another woman's life or take their life as he did with Amy.

Daniel Snyder   March 4th, 2010 11:41 am ET

No emotions in the courtroom this a.m. with the guilty verdict. A forgone conclusion by all I'm sure.

Michael from Maryland   March 4th, 2010 11:42 am ET

Mark Schack got exactly what he deserved. The state did an excellent job presenting the case, and God bless the jury for seeing the REAL Mark Schack, a cold blooded murderer.

MG   March 4th, 2010 12:18 pm ET

He is guilty of 2nd degree murder, life in prison....he got what he deserved. It is hard to feel sorry for victims who stay with people that kill them. If you are with someone and they act crazy and need help, own guns – GET AWAY from them!!!! Sorry but this is my thinking – I married a man who showed his true temper 1 month after we were married.....went back 1 time but left very shortly after that.....divorced...married too quick – learned the hard way and he never hit me, he just yelled alot and physically was intimidating!!!! Talked to his ex later who he had beaten severely!!!! There are too many cases on the news for someone to stay with someone who will kill them.

larry cooper   March 4th, 2010 12:25 pm ET

No, I do not agree with the life sentence for Schack. Pre-meditated murder is murder one. This was so obviously pre-meditated. He should have been sentenced to death.

Linda Bordeaux   March 4th, 2010 12:29 pm ET

Good Job! This man should be locked up tilll the sun stops shining. She, by all accounts, was a loving, caring and beautiful person. The world has suffered a loss. If she ever got away from him, she would have brought much to many. My sympathy to her family for its such a blessing to have a daughter such as Amy.

Jill Koerner   March 4th, 2010 12:39 pm ET

I watched most of Shack's testimony, and I was wondering has a psychological profile been done on him. The reason I ask is that I am am a Registered Nurse dealing with Psychological patients and my husband a Physician. We found his testimony, eye contact, voice, all conducive with innocent people. Not Pathological. Also, it is interesting as a side point here, that we in this country believe in the magic bullet theory as it pertains to President JFK and it's course of travel which is simular to this bullet. What was his motive?

Shawn from Virginia   March 4th, 2010 12:46 pm ET

There was absolutely nothing redeeming about Mark Schackn. He was lazy unambitious smarmy and a terrible liar. He found a gem of a person and used her till she wanted to leave. Having nothing and no one this despicable man did the unthinkable and killed her. To pay off his own debt hiding from actual responsibility. He's probably going to end up in debt in prison and face a brutal response from unforgiving inmates. He made his bed and now he will sleep.

Dave from Canada   March 4th, 2010 12:47 pm ET

Hi Vinnie
The jury was absolutely right,on their decision.Anyone that watched the whole trial could easily see that schack was 100 percent guilty. It seemed that every time he opened his mouth he sank himself further and further towards the guilty verdict.Then there is the mountain of evidence against him that he tried to lie away.I hope the family can get some peace knowing he will be locked away forever.


James   March 4th, 2010 12:50 pm ET

I totally agree with this verdict and it wouldn't have taken me 5 minutes to come to this verdict because the evidence was overwhelming. This was lying and it showed.

Jennifer from Illinois   March 4th, 2010 12:56 pm ET

This case has bothered me. I think I would have been the one to make them deliberate longer. I see the defendent as not being, in the short time of being involved with gun and his Charcot-Marie Tooth disease, too skilled and/or smooth enough with a firearm to be that good of a shot to have killed Amy. On the other hand, his behavior really bothers me, but I don't think you can convict someone of murder because of the way they act or don't act. His stories changing bothers me, his demeanor bothers me, but, again, people act differently to different situations. Maybe I'm too naive and am a PollyAnna? I feel so bad for Amy's family, and I can see why they did not like him and blame him. I am familiar with guns, probably more so than the defendent. I can't get past him not checking the gun before messing with it, especially in his home. I can't get past him having the cartridge in it, especially at home. But, I still have a problem with him making such a shot.

Teresa M.- Tn.   March 4th, 2010 12:58 pm ET

Mark Schack got whatbhe deserved for killing Amy Boscarino, the jury saw right threw his fake crocodile tears,and his lying. Everybody way lying but him,ley him tell it. I hope it was LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE. My Thought and Prayers go out to the Boscarino Family as they try to move forward after this senseless tragedy!!!!!

Cindy   March 4th, 2010 1:01 pm ET

Hi Ryan
I Love watching you, everyday.
My feeling about theis "accidental" shooting is that Amy was at her last leg. Her co worker even said that she looked terrible before the death.
I think Amy told this "boyfriend" that she had had enough and that she was leaving . I am sure the fact that they were in debt and that Amy couldn't have a "normal" life had a lot to do with her death. It is so sad to see that she probably was finally able tell him she was leaving and this is why she died. I think this is what happened.
I feel so sorry for her family and I wish them them many prayers to heal from this death that didn't have to happen.
I know I'll think 3 times when I am serious with someone again.
Take care
Kalamazoo Michigan

Jennifer from Illinois   March 4th, 2010 1:02 pm ET

P.S. I don't care how much in debt you are, $185,000 is not much money at all. I just don't see him killing her for that, nor do I see him killing her, thinking she was going to leave him, I see him as a whiner and a begging man that would follow her and possibly stalk her instead. I know the prosecution does not have to give a motive, but the $ just doesn't add up for me.
And, I am not blaming the victim, but why did Amy stay if she didn't like him or love him? Her friend stated she did not ever want to have a child with "him". And they insinuated that she would move on. I am not saying she deserved to die and I am not saying that is why she died...I am just wondering why she would stay with him as long as she did.

Tony   March 4th, 2010 1:02 pm ET

Good rid ens Mr shack

Chris   March 4th, 2010 1:07 pm ET

I just found where this verdict was in a month ago. I thought this was going on now? Why are they spending the whole week on this when the verdict is in already???

patty tancredi   March 4th, 2010 1:16 pm ET

can you tell me if he was founf guilty or not guilty i know that the verdict was this morning but i could not watch thanks

Bonnie   March 4th, 2010 1:37 pm ET

I'm a long time viewer and can't believe how much time is being spent showing us, crawling us thru agonizingly long, repititive discussions about this Shack trial.
I sure miss the old format, where lawyers presented the case, but didn't go over and over and over and over (get it???) the same material.
And the drama of the presenters, Mike, VInnie and Ryan is just too, too, too, too (get it???) much. Not everything about the case is "shocking" or "unbelievable"!!!!!
Just show us the case and let your audience choose whether to be shocked or simply informed about your trials.

Alin   March 4th, 2010 1:46 pm ET

You don't even need all those witnesses for the prosecution when all you need to show is how impossible the defendant's story about the so called "accident" is. 100% guilty !

laverne   March 4th, 2010 1:58 pm ET

what was the verdict and sentencing on this case with shack and amy could not watch

Shay   March 4th, 2010 2:00 pm ET

Just to be clear, the bullet that killed Amy did NOT go through a wall before it killed her as some people seem to think. The facts are these:
1. Amy was in the living room, some 30 feet away from the bedroom where Schack and his high-powered, semi-automatic rifle were.
2. The bedroom door was OPEN, which provided a clear but very narrow view of the living room.
3. Schack positioned the barrel of the rifle toward the open bedroom door. At the precise moment that Amy's head appeared in his cross-hairs, he pulled the trigger.
4. The bullet passed through the open bedroom door, directly into Amy's neck, severing both her jugular vein and her carotid artery.
5. After passing through Amy's neck, it THEN went through a wall into the garage.
The chances that this was an accident are next to nil.

sammi   March 4th, 2010 2:01 pm ET

Hear, hear Bonnie!!

martin   March 4th, 2010 2:07 pm ET

During the trial there was the insurance policy of $185,000. Now that the case if over, and Mr. Schack does not receive the funds. Does the estate of family of Ms Boscarino received the money.. Or does
the insurance company just keep the funds ? ?

ian munroe   March 4th, 2010 2:13 pm ET

did the jury finish with this creep yet thanks

lisa   March 4th, 2010 2:23 pm ET

what was the verdict

sgolden876   March 4th, 2010 2:25 pm ET

omg, did this trial end??? dont tell me i missed the decision!!!

Sally Hirschberg   March 4th, 2010 2:34 pm ET

Please let me know the verdict on the Mark Shack case. I watched the entire case, but, was out this AM and, obviously, missed the verdict. Please tell me the disposition of the case.


Kim Cooney   March 4th, 2010 2:40 pm ET

After watching days of this court case, I do believe that Mr. Schack was guilty of murdering his girlfriend/fiancee. If she told her siblings and family that she no longer wanted to be with this man and that he was very possessive, then it goes to show how controlling the man was. Whether his gun went off accidentally or not, he still had it in their room and it hit her in the neck and killed her. He needs to sit in jail and think for the rest of his days what he did to this girl and her family.

Cindy K.   March 4th, 2010 2:40 pm ET

I haven't watched many trials lately but I have to say that I liked the old format much better when it was Court TV. They did find Mark Schack guilty and he was sentenced to life in prison without parole.
I don't own any guns and really have had very little experience with them but even I know that you always treat a weapon as if it is loaded when you are handling it. I would think that anyone with one ounce of sense would have looked to see if there was any ammunition in the gun before cleaning it. Also why would you clean a gun in the house when you have a perfectly good garage to do it in? I spoke with a friend who does have guns and he told me that he always cleans his guns outside of the house because the gun cleaning materials do have an odor. And the first thing he does is checks to see if they are loaded even if he is almost positive they are not. I will say I was amazed at how different this Mark Schack looked in the pictures they showed of him prior to this incident. In court he looked like a banker or accountant but they did mention he had tattoos on both arms and evidently dressed much less conservatively prior to coming to court. I believe he is guilty and I think he got what he deserved. However I do wonder why he was not charged with 1st degree murder. His victim was a beautiful woman and she did not deserve this. No one does. As for the insurance money I would think her family would receive the funds to help with her funeral costs and such. No amount of money will ever fully compensate them for their loss.

Sue   March 4th, 2010 2:41 pm ET

I was surprised when the expert witness didn't mention the fact that when you look through a scope in a room, her face would have been blurred

Cindy K.   March 4th, 2010 2:42 pm ET

Also, the jury took a little less than an hour to find him guilty.

lorraine J Cotton   March 4th, 2010 2:43 pm ET

ive got to quit watching this program. I watch, I listen, I deside and then I miss a day the verdict comes in, I miss it and they never go back and tell you what happened.. Ive missed a few verdicts, the couple that let thier child die. the father that locked his daughter in tyhe car and she died. and now this one. where and how do we find out what happened?????

Ida   March 4th, 2010 2:44 pm ET

GUILTY. Took the jury less than 1 hour(shocker) and you know it was guilty because the sheriffs all stood behind him.

Right after they showed the video of the cops trying to drop the gun and they showed the narrow window where the bullet went down the hall. The cop said they were convinced because when they fired the gun it fired 3 inches low and 2 to the side. When they lined her picture up the bullet went right where it did if he was aiming center head down the hall.

Warren illinois   March 4th, 2010 3:01 pm ET

I don't think they showed a motive good enough for me. How much time did he get? I dont think he got a fair trial at all.

Shay   March 4th, 2010 3:07 pm ET

Hi Ian, Lisa, and sgolden876: Yes, the jury is finished with this creep. They found him guilty of 2nd degree murder. The judge sentenced him to life in prison with no possibibility of parole. Yay!!!

Sue Broom   March 4th, 2010 3:10 pm ET

Guilty – life sentence

William   March 4th, 2010 3:11 pm ET

I lost count of the number of times he changed his story.
1. He was cleaning the weapon.
2. He was changing the scope on the weapon.
3. He was removing the magazine from the weapon.
4. He caught the weapon just as it ... oh the hell with it, judge. Lock the gentleman up.

Warren illinois   March 4th, 2010 3:15 pm ET

Life in jail is a bit much they never proved his intent or motivation for the crime. Jayson williams only got five years and he did it without adoubt how is that?

Carole   March 4th, 2010 3:23 pm ET

It always amazes me how the jury gets it right when WE see all the stuff they didn't.

debbie   March 4th, 2010 3:25 pm ET

I had to read through the comments to find out the verdict I had to miss it also. I was thrilled to find out that he was found Guilty and that they gave him life. I watched the entire trial and yes he was guilty. I grew up around rifles and hand guns and if a gun is falling your hand doesn't just get your finger in the trigger area, you would be grabbing the stock not the trigger. and you can't make that kind of shot in an accident. He got what he deserved. "GUILTY". And for those that don't understand and say he was innocent you need to stay away from guns.

Doris Petini   March 4th, 2010 3:35 pm ET

Found out: He is charged with second-degree murder, which carries a minimum 25 years in prison and a maximum of life.


After deliberating for just an hour, jurors came back with a verdict of guilty of second-degree murder. He was sentenced to life in prison.

Stefani   March 4th, 2010 3:37 pm ET

Mark Schack appears to have textbook 'narcissistic personality disorder' which would entail his desire & subsequent rejection in terms of his need to be the center of everyone's universe. Reality is especially upsetting to person's w/this disorder and his delusions of grandeur only support this further. Control & arrogance also [obviously] play a major role in addition to a vaulted impression of one's self—all present.
The victim's father stated he was disappointed that Mark did not receive the death penalty—but he has, it is just going to happen in a painfully slow manner.
God help them all-
Stefani in Dallas

Linda Paramo   March 4th, 2010 3:57 pm ET

This man was guilty from the git go. He knew he didn't deserve this woman and just the fact that she wouldn't marry him after him repeatedly asking her should have told him something. I believe he knew he was going to lose her eventially and knew he could not afford to lose her finacial support. This was not an accident and if his female attorney believes the prosecution didn't prove 2nd degree murder, she's just as delusional and out of touch with reality as her client. Her closing argument was rambling, lacked common sense, and was as damaging as her client's pitiful job on the stand. Good luck in lock up for the rest of your life inmate Shack.
Good job Vinnie and Ryan.

Margaret   March 4th, 2010 4:05 pm ET

Missed the verdict. Usually the verdict from the previous session is mentioned in the next session, but I must have missed it!!!!!!!

jay   March 4th, 2010 5:57 pm ET

for all you so called patriots out there i just wanna know what exactly happened to that innocent until guilty thing??? none of you guilty sayers were there so just chill on that part. secondly i just wanna say that i fire firearms frequently and i have seen the best get overly confident and discharg a round in a house or fire range cleaning there rifle or adjusting the scope. maybe he was getting ready to go to the range. i dont think if he wanted to kill his fiance in the house he change a scope to aim and pull the trigger...if he's that much of an expert i dont think he would need to fire a rifel at close range in the house. jus think outside the box a little. i believe the best evidence is get the ballastics of the round fired until then the prosecution really doesnt have ground to walk on.

An Objective Insider   March 4th, 2010 10:50 pm ET

Well, chalk one up to the drama that "Tru TV" shows. I think it should be called "selective tru tv". Having been at the sentencing, I witnessed Mark's mother's plea for mercy. She is a frail, old woman who broke down after addressing the Judge. So much for "no family" standing up for him. His father is dead. Having known the verdict prior to the broadcast, it is my opinion that "Tru(sorta)TV" is biased.

An Objective Insider   March 4th, 2010 11:20 pm ET

Just because his family chose not to be exploited on national TV by making public comments, does not mean he had no support.

Shay   March 5th, 2010 1:43 pm ET

Hi Warren in Illinois:

I'm not a lawyer but I’ve been watching Court TV/In Session for many years now, so I thought I'd try to answer your questions about this case.

To begin, even though prosecutors are required to prove a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they are NOT required to prove motive. However, they know from experience that jurors expect to be given some ideas about motive, so they typically offer one or more likely scenarios/theories. In this case, the theories were that Schack was deeply in debt, so he killed Amy for the insurance money and also that he felt he was losing control over Amy and was afraid she was getting ready to leave him. Even so, they were not required to prove anything at all about why Schack shot her; they were only required to prove that he shot her with the intent to kill her.

As for your second question, the reason there’s such a big difference in sentencing between Schack and Jayson Williams is because of their intent and the seriousness of their respective crimes. Schack was found guilty of second degree murder because prosecutors proved he intentionally murdered Amy. Second degree murder is a very serious crime which carries a very serious penalty: in this case, life in prison without parole. In contrast, prosecutors believed Williams did not intend to kill his victim but rather that he killed him by accident, so they charged him with the less serious crime of aggravated reckless manslaughter. Williams’ jury was unable to reach a verdict on that charge, so the prosecutors were going to re-try him. In order to avoid a second trial (and the risk that he might be found guilty), Williams' lawyers arranged a "plea agreement" for him wherein he was allowed to plead guilty to a far less serious crime (reckless assault), which carried a far less severe penalty: 6 years in prison.

I hope this helps answer some of your questions.

Mike Szymanski   March 5th, 2010 2:31 pm ET

I am happy that Mark will spend the rest of his life in jail. He will likely become a complete junkie and end up murdered over money owed to drug dealers, but I have to say I'm a bit interested in Mark Schaks life. What his childhood was like, was he always an asshole?

It is true, he is a bona-fide asshole, but I am curious about his asshole-ism gestation period. I'd like to have a one on one with his sister, who is engaged and not married with no date in site and likes guns and insurance too.

marsha   March 5th, 2010 4:58 pm ET

For all you people that missed the verdict Mark Schack was found GUILTY and got life in prison...............

Zack   March 6th, 2010 9:10 am ET

Justice prevails.

franklin Nast   March 6th, 2010 2:39 pm ET

Mr. Austin is not a firearms expert. 1. the rifle is a updated sporting( semi-automatic) version of an issue fire arm. Specifically an updated version of an AK-47. the updating is minor changes, better sights, differant stock, modified safety (added safety lever on the left side, some minor hand guard etc modifications). the AK-47 saftey lever is very safe. and it must be moved down to fire. you drop it and the saftey tends to move to safe not to off safe. by very safe I mean its on safe you will break the trigger off before you can make it fire 2. the words are pounds of pull, not pounds per square inch. 3. A Golani in 5.56mm ( a .223) is not an elephant rifle. In almost all nations it is not legal for elephants or any medium or large game animal. It is not high powered, and it is not an assault rifle. And the round is bullet, case, primer and power combined, a cartridge. Bullet does little to affect speed, bullet speed is almost all amount of powder in the case and case design.
Guys a shumuck, and is no expert. the rifles got military accurracy. meaning its ok for about 100 yards for deer and hogs and coyotes, maybe further. And since its an AK design it always works, rain, sleet, snow, mud, sand. Its a good ranch rifle.

WJUnursing   March 8th, 2010 2:00 pm ET

I agree with Dave R.

andy grana   March 19th, 2010 2:28 pm ET

" a minister , a mistress and a murder charge " trial " :

It is puzzling that the social worker that testified for the prosecution was not aware / had not been shown the diary of the deceased wife of the so-called minister which the defense brought up during cross of this witness.

Did the prosecution fail to show her this evidence or was this diary kept away from the prosecution until displayed in trial ?

Detroit life insurance   March 29th, 2010 4:18 pm ET

Ah! This is great! Thanks for countering a few
misunderstandings I have heard regarding this as of late.

subscribe RSS Icon
About this blog

 This is your online home for In Session on truTV’s up-to-the minute, comprehensive coverage of legal issues, trials and news from America’s courtrooms.  Our anchors, analysts and producers are teaming up here to give you updates on the stories that matter to you.

Be sure to tune in to In Session on truTV from 9 a.m. – 3 p.m. ET.

On Twitter
Philadelphia top cop says he plans to fire officer who struck parade-goer. READ MORE:
Twitter icon InSession 1:27 pm ET October 4, 2012 RETWEET
A poll says Mitt Romney won the first presidential debate. Will this give the GOP nominee a boost with voters?
Twitter icon HLNTV 1:11 pm ET October 4, 2012 RETWEET
Guess who is making a comeback album just in time for Christmas:
Twitter icon HLNTV 12:47 pm ET October 4, 2012 RETWEET
Today's Big Issue: Who is John Goodman? A former colleague is on now to talk more about the center figure in the #millionairedui trial.
Twitter icon InSession 12:05 pm ET October 4, 2012 RETWEET
Polo player and Ralph Lauren model Ignacio "Nacho" Figueras is on the stand now in #millionairedui trial.
Twitter icon InSession 11:43 am ET October 4, 2012 RETWEET
Contact us