Sheriff's cpl. who reviewed jail calls testifies at trial of Samantha Woll's alleged Detroit killer

Michael Solberg, a corporal with the Wayne County Sheriff's Office, testifies Tuesday, July 2 at the trial of Samantha Woll's alleged killer. Michael Jackson-Bolanos is standing trial for murder and other charges in June in connection with the Oct. 21, 2023, stabbing of Woll at her Detroit home.

[@christurner4826]

Right. I don't think he killed her. That other guy did it

[@naychagirl2389]

In what other universe is the rejected boyfriend who confessed, not the defendant?

[@Nahtassja]

Sorry prosecutors but you missed ALOT of details. This post jail call means nothing.

[@Nothertoat]

The defense lawyer should never have spoke to the defendant on the phone.. he is not able to go to his client? He knows the calls are recorded… just don’t think this guy murdered the victim he is a thief but I don’t believe he killed her .. this was personal

[@constancereynolds3110]

​@@worley106The "Killer" in my opinion has already been cross examined on the witness stand.

[@bjpay7365]

​@@constancereynolds3110🤨 And to who are you speaking of?

[@mikemcewen516]

Agreed (partly)…the defense attorney is practically telling the defendant to stop talking so much and that the prosecution already opened the door to the defense they’re presently going with. The old I-didn’t-do-it-but-while-i- was-out-in-all-black-on-the-night-of-the-crime-in-the-same-neighborhood-looking-for-cars-to-break-into-I-found-and-touched-the-body-and-that’s-how-the-blood-got-on-my-jacket defense. We also get to hear him hang up and flip out on his girl after she reiterated on the recorded call (and the stand) that she DID wash the jacket. He was irate that she had fukked up his defense with that admission. She wasn’t supposed to say that because his defense was that it hadn’t been washed and there was only a couple of specks of the victims blood proving he didn’t kill her. Knowing it’s been washed means there was likely much more blood and DNA on his jacket. Which also means she may have lied on the stand to protect him.

[@worley106]

@@mikemcewen516 he didn't kill her. This was a crime of passion. Too many loopholes to try and take one narrative when the whole investigation was botched from the beginning. They got the one who's cell phone pinged in that area but what about the guy who was running who didn't have a phone on him. The pressure for them to find somebody LED them to a thief and they clearly overlooked the killer

[@mikemcewen516]

@@worley106 I hear you…and I disagree. This is just an old dude’s perspective but why do you think he got so mad at his ex on that call for not only contradicting his claim that the jacket hadn’t been washed but stressing that she’d made it very clear to detectives it HAD been washed? And the way she said it. I believe he was angry because he wanted her to lie and say that she hadn’t washed it. Obviously she wouldn’t tell the lie (although, I don’t believe she’s being completely honest about everything) and her testimony ruins his whole defense. Now the jurors have to ask themselves “if she washed it and there’s still blood/DNA on it, how much blood/DNA was on it before it was washed???” If I was a juror those phone calls would be deal breakers for me. And like the young lady I originally responded to asked, why would his attorney talk strategy to him on the phone???

[@georgiacrossett83]

Show us the DNA or the video or something proving that he's guilty show us the proof of guilt