Dellen Millard: Innocent Dupe? Alternative Theories

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blomquist said:
and I do differ....thanks for your opinion and how you feel on the matter.

I feel that there may not be any DNA to assist with this case...we shall see....
Click to expand...



BBM
Hope they didn't talk, cough, or sneeze while "test-driving" TB's truck....JMO
It is very difficult to avoid leaving your DNA behind. Whether you cough, sneeze, talk or just touch someone or something, you will leave a trace of your DNA wherever you go.
Click to expand...

http://www.norfolk.police.uk/aboutus/ourorganisation/forensics/dna.aspx
 
Alethea Dice said:
I know your post was directed at Margarita and, no, that doesn't help at all. When you post on a public forum, I assume anyone can ask for clarification on the points made in your post.


JMO
Click to expand...

Yes I agree... can someone please clarify that all posts are in fact able to be assumed to be directed for all to read ?

Can we answer all posts whether they are directed at us or not?

I am getting somewhat confused as I was of the impression that in a public arena it pertained to all. I cannot see it in the rules that only the one who the post is directed at needs to respond. Thanks for any helpful input.
 
Blomquist said:
But it doesn't say that air particles are easily collected and tested. JMO
Click to expand...


As was mentioned/posted before, DNA is deposited. The only variable, so to speak, is the ability to find/collect and the ability of the lab used to analyze wrt sample size. There is also a particular sequencing that must be followed wrt evidence collection.

I will say this, because it should be public knowledge, well known, on the internet, etc., that an invisible(to the naked eye) sample 5-20 cells in size can be fully analyzed, fingerprinted, profiled or typed depending on which term one uses and has been for almost 2 decades IIRC.

And that is just what is admitted to publicly.

ETA....any "good" defense lawyer would know that and realize that as far as risk vs reward, wrt time spent on that .....DNA won't likely be most important anyway in this case.
 
dizzy1 said:
[/b]


BBM
Hope they didn't talk, cough, or sneeze while "test-driving" TB's truck....JMO


http://www.norfolk.police.uk/aboutus/ourorganisation/forensics/dna.aspx
Click to expand...

I bet sweaty hands were gripping the steering wheel during BOTH test drives and match it up nicely to the murders other DNA left at the scene along with their shoe/boot prints, tire tracks, finger/hand prints left of incinerator knobs and handles, prints left on door handles of DM's truck, the murders DNA mixed with TB's DNA (maybe blood from TB), maybe a weapon was found with prints of the murderers, ect., ect.

Again I will refer to Tori S's case. Tori's DNA/blood was mixed with MR's DNA on his gym bag in the trunk of his car. It wasn't obvious to the naked eye either, as it along a seam on the bag. I feel certain there will be an ample amounts of DNA left behind directly showing who the murderers are. I for one am not worried. Not only will they have DNA, there will be much more evidence which I can suggest, such as:

*tire tracks left by vehicles at the scene,
*boot/shoe prints found at the scene,
*DNA/prints/blood found in numerous places,
*eye witnesses,
*video surveillance, from BO's place of business or other businesses in that area, TB's house suggesting Yukon was seen following TB's truck, other videos from Brantford (motel, gas station ??),
*GPS on TB's truck or DM's Yukon,
*cell phone records, TB's cell phone with accused murderers DNA/prints,
*burner phone itself and/or records,
*farmland neighbours, witnesses and picture(s), suggesting there are more pictures than what we are privy to,
*incinerator,
*DM's Yukon,
*DM's trailer,
*murderers clothing worn the night of the murder,
*shoes/boots,
*mud or dirt from farmland inside TB's truck or DM's trailer along with impressions/prints inside left by shoes/boots,
*computers, xboxes/PS2(3), owned by the accused,
*phone records from MS's home,
*phone records from DM's phone,
*cell phone tower records,
*friend or acquaintances of DM and MS who gave damning evidence/information,
*the stolen HD with its trailer and any evidence found inside the hangar, showing criminal activity tying to the crime of TB,
*evidence found inside MS's home, clothing, weapon,
*evidence found inside DM's home, " , "

I am sure other sleuthers can come up with more possible evidence to add to my list.
:moo: HTH.
 
Blomquist said:
Thank you Margarita25 it is a well written article compared to some.

I have an issue with such 'witnesses' as this:

“There was definitely no animals there,” said Tom Sherk, who drives past the farm every day.


Now how on earth can someone who drives past a field every day know DEFINITELY that no animals are there ???? It is farmland in a rather remotish location surrounded by bush..... This suggests to me that there would be umpteen different species living there...from mice to deer and everything in between. This witness is far from credible and obviously talks out of his hat IMO.....

Such ridiculous statements are laughable and its even more hilarious that it gets published as suggested fact JMO
Click to expand...

Deer don't "live" on a tiny sliver of land like what DM has; they have a range, a territory, that they travel through around 600 acres in size meaning DH's spread would be a small percentage of the range. The chance that many deer are dropping dead on DM's farm on a regular basis is low. You would expect an injured deer to cower and die in the cover of the forest to the east, not the rather bare land DM has. Skunks, porcupines, etc. also have a range and most of the time they would be just passing through. The only things that would truly live on DM's farm are weeny little things like mice and chipmunks that have a small range.

Farm animals would range a lot farther too if not for fences. You have to have good fences for livestock or you may as well not have them at all. The fact that there are no good fences to corral off any part of the land shows the land was not used for animals. If animals were being raised in the barn, you would expect to see a vehicle there at least a couple times a day at regular times as the keeper goes to care for them. If you don't see these obvious signs, you know that nothing to do with animals is happening on the farm.
 
Archangel7 said:
As was mentioned/posted before, DNA is deposited. The only variable, so to speak, is the ability to find/collect and the ability of the lab used to analyze wrt sample size. There is also a particular sequencing that must be followed wrt evidence collection.

I will say this, because it should be public knowledge, well known, on the internet, etc., that an invisible(to the naked eye) sample 5-20 cells in size can be fully analyzed, fingerprinted, profiled or typed depending on which term one uses and has been for almost 2 decades IIRC.

And that is just what is admitted to publicly.

ETA....any "good" defense lawyer would know that and realize that as far as risk vs reward, wrt time spent on that .....DNA won't likely be most important anyway in this case.
Click to expand...


Yes...as I said earlier, I dont expect there to be much if any DNA evidence in this case.... much of it having been burned or wiped clean IMO
 
SnooperDuper said:
Deer don't "live" on a tiny sliver of land like what DM has; they have a range, a territory, that they travel through around 600 acres in size meaning DH's spread would be a small percentage of the range. The chance that many deer are dropping dead on DM's farm on a regular basis is low. You would expect an injured deer to cower and die in the cover of the forest to the east, not the rather bare land DM has. Skunks, porcupines, etc. also have a range and most of the time they would be just passing through. The only things that would truly live on DM's farm are weeny little things like mice and chipmunks that have a small range.

Farm animals would range a lot farther too if not for fences. You have to have good fences for livestock or you may as well not have them at all. The fact that there are no good fences to corral off any part of the land shows the land was not used for animals. If animals were being raised in the barn, you would expect to see a vehicle there at least a couple times a day at regular times as the keeper goes to care for them. If you don't see these obvious signs, you know that nothing to do with animals is happening on the farm.
Click to expand...

I would say that the chance of many or any deer dropping dead on DM's farm is zero. Just my opinion. We have a farm and never in 13 years have I ever happened across a dead deer. Actually, I have never happened across anything dead. My neighbour a cattle farmer does not have an incinerator, nor does any farmer around my area. It completely baffles me why a city boy who owns land without animals would have an incinerator. Burn barrel, yes, incinerator, no.
 
SnooperDuper said:
Deer don't "live" on a tiny sliver of land like what DM has; they have a range, a territory, that they travel through around 600 acres in size meaning DH's spread would be a small percentage of the range. The chance that many deer are dropping dead on DM's farm on a regular basis is low. You would expect an injured deer to cower and die in the cover of the forest to the east, not the rather bare land DM has. Skunks, porcupines, etc. also have a range and most of the time they would be just passing through. The only things that would truly live on DM's farm are weeny little things like mice and chipmunks that have a small range.

Farm animals would range a lot farther too if not for fences. You have to have good fences for livestock or you may as well not have them at all. The fact that there are no good fences to corral off any part of the land shows the land was not used for animals. If animals were being raised in the barn, you would expect to see a vehicle there at least a couple times a day at regular times as the keeper goes to care for them. If you don't see these obvious signs, you know that nothing to do with animals is happening on the farm.
Click to expand...

Actually just last fall I was out on a fourwheeler and saw several deer running towards a small bush... quite close to country homes and barns... also in the evening the area is rife with raccoons who can be a pest. Also coyotes are around the area.....and yes I am talking about south western Ontario.... thats to name just a section of the wildlife in the area... I may have said I was a city dweller but I did not suggest that I was ignorant of every aspect of country life.... in fact only yesterday I was out on a four wheeler roaming the countryside again..... saw quite a few animals.... and that was just a sliver of the countryside !!!!

It's not just deer I was referring so...so I personally would not limit the conversation on animals at DM's farm to deer... I believe I have said this before.... imo
 
Blomquist said:
Actually just last fall I was out on a fourwheeler and saw several deer running towards a small bush... quite close to country homes and barns... also in the evening the area is rife with raccoons who can be a pest. Also coyotes are around the area.....and yes I am talking about south western Ontario.... thats to name just a section of the wildlife in the area... I may have said I was a city dweller but I did not suggest that I was ignorant of every aspect of country life.... in fact only yesterday I was out on a four wheeler roaming the countryside again..... saw quite a few animals.... and that was just a sliver of the countryside !!!!

It's not just deer I was referring so...so I personally would not limit the conversation on animals at DM's farm to deer... I believe I have said this before.... imo
Click to expand...

Yes the city is full of loads of raccoons, unlike the country, because there are good pickings and few predators...except for the cars that take out quite a few. Same thing with skunks, they like the city and the 'burbs and you will see a lot of flat ones especially in the spring when the new ones hatch because they won't back down against a car. These animals are far more plentiful in the city than in the country where you don't have garbage pickup and people secure their garbage until they take it to the dump themselves. There is no buffet on the street every Tuesday like you have in the city/suburbs. Unless you have a fish pond and leave cat food on your deck you will not see a lot of either in the country. If your dog rips one up, there will not be a lot of leftovers. In the city the roadkill does pile up unless you call someone, though. In the country a dead animal goes back to nature: is gnawed on, shrunken up by the sun, eaten by bugs until only a ragged pelt and bones, and finally just brittle bones, are left over. Within a week you would no longer consider it "meat" and shortly after that it's a husk. Unlike dying on the pavement, there are beetles and bugs just waiting for a dead thing all over the country and a dead animal breaks down quite quickly.

Where I grew up in the country we saw deer every day if you were up early. They spent the night in the woods along with the bands of wild turkeys, the bats that came out at dusk to feed on the ponds, etc. with the rest of the woodland animals. If you want to see a dead something, deer antlers, etc, go for a walk in the woods where you will find these things. Short of car accidents, you just don't see dead deer out in the open. Yes you will see them in the open as they pass from place to place or enjoy a meadow or crop field, but these are woodland animals. They do have a sort of home base at times, e.g., a doe will drop off her fawn, go off grazing with the rest of the deer, and come back for it later (because it couldn't keep up and doesn't forage yet anyway). Every spring I used to find at least one fawn curled up in a ball waiting for mom to come back. Yes these things ranged into people's yards but life and death happens in the woods.

ETA: I live(d) in SWO close to all the action
 
This article I do find very telling and chilling Marg. The more you read these articles and dissect them, the more clues you can derive from them. It says this article was updated August 23, 2013.

DM took software design and maybe that helped him out the produce the grotesque gamer tag picture. We've seen his evidence of the soft core *advertiser censored* photography and his interest in cars, stolen and otherwise but we have not seen anything to do with his interest in culinary arts other then eating in fine establishments. I hope we don't learn from the trial he used his culinary arts during the murder. The way the writer wrote the article makes it seem DM interests turned to bad intentions.

MS's dark turns; low level crimes seems to have turned into high level crime. His interest in participating in horror acts is kinda creepy, but I guess a wannabe actor has to start somewhere and the rap...well I'll just leave it at that. MOO.

Glad to hear DM is studying up on law as he's going to need as much help as he can get when dealing with his defense, it will help him to pass his time away in such a gloomy, lonely place. Wonder if MS is also doing some studying on law? All MOO.

But based on their Internet footprints, they appear to be friends, each travelling a winding path that sometimes took dark turns: Mr. Millard in software design, culinary arts, soft-core *advertiser censored* photography and cars; Mr. Smich in low-level crime, so-called horror art and rap music under the nickname “Say10” (a common play on “Satan”).

Mr. Millard’s lawyer, Deepak Paradkar, said his jailed client is a “philosopher” who now spends 30 minutes outside in a cage each day and has been reading up on the law ahead of trial. Mr. Smich’s lawyer, meantime, has said little about a client who appeared last fall in a gory rap video portraying a hatchet-wielding killer.
[/I]
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rge-in-mysterious-bosma-case/article12757899/
 
Blomquist said:
Yes...as I said earlier, I dont expect there to be much if any DNA evidence in this case.... much of it having been burned or wiped clean IMO
Click to expand...

I'm sure they didn't wipe clean Mr. Etobicoke's truck after that test drive.
 
Blomquist said:
Yes...as I said earlier, I dont expect there to be much if any DNA evidence in this case.... much of it having been burned or wiped clean IMO
Click to expand...

Evidence could be wiped clean possibly in a lab by an experienced and knowledgeable forensic person. Good luck if you think DM & MS are capable.

Forensics are able to analyze(obtain DNA and type it) from over 140 yr. old material.
And I don't mean evidence that was clinically collected and preserved, I mean existing evidence that has lingered over 140 years. American Civil War events are being interpreted by lingering DNA evidence.

And I didn't say, as inferred when you seem to be agreeing with me, that I expect little if any DNA evidence. I said it likely won't be needed.

With all the different geographic locations, all the different trailers, vehicles, incinerator, etc. and 2 perps, there will be plenty of DNA available I just don't think it will be needed as the single avenue to convict or be the pivot point of the case.
 
SnooperDuper said:
Yes the city is full of loads of raccoons, unlike the country, because there are good pickings and few predators...except for the cars that take out quite a few. Same thing with skunks, they like the city and the 'burbs and you will see a lot of flat ones especially in the spring when the new ones hatch because they won't back down against a car. These animals are far more plentiful in the city than in the country where you don't have garbage pickup and people secure their garbage until they take it to the dump themselves. There is no buffet on the street every Tuesday like you have in the city/suburbs. Unless you have a fish pond and leave cat food on your deck you will not see a lot of either in the country. If your dog rips one up, there will not be a lot of leftovers. In the city the roadkill does pile up unless you call someone, though. In the country a dead animal goes back to nature: is gnawed on, shrunken up by the sun, eaten by bugs until only a ragged pelt and bones, and finally just brittle bones, are left over. Within a week you would no longer consider it "meat" and shortly after that it's a husk. Unlike dying on the pavement, there are beetles and bugs just waiting for a dead thing all over the country and a dead animal breaks down quite quickly.

Where I grew up in the country we saw deer every day if you were up early. They spent the night in the woods along with the bands of wild turkeys, the bats that came out at dusk to feed on the ponds, etc. with the rest of the woodland animals. If you want to see a dead something, deer antlers, etc, go for a walk in the woods where you will find these things. Short of car accidents, you just don't see dead deer out in the open. Yes you will see them in the open as they pass from place to place or enjoy a meadow or crop field, but these are woodland animals. They do have a sort of home base at times, e.g., a doe will drop off her fawn, go off grazing with the rest of the deer, and come back for it later (because it couldn't keep up and doesn't forage yet anyway). Every spring I used to find at least one fawn curled up in a ball waiting for mom to come back. Yes these things ranged into people's yards but life and death happens in the woods.

ETA: I live(d) in SWO close to all the action
Click to expand...

Actually there are plenty of raccoons in the country...at least in the country areas of Ontario that I have spent time in.

Plenty of all the things you mention..... thank you for confirming all of the woodland animals.... even with the graphic interpretations ...

DM's property is quite near woodland areas from what I can see... so I still maintain my opinion that there are animals on his property...... MOO
 
Not following the logic. If LE is already onto you because you used the same burner phone to contact several potential victims, does it matter if you bury the body on your property or on an adjacent property, either of which may be noticed by alert neighbors?

Now on the other hand, what if you think you're so slick you won't get caught? Why bother going to someone else's land when you have your own land, incinerator and bobcat at hand?

I usually stay out of this thread (and will go back to doing so), but I think the attempts might be more successful if they weren't always based on "DM wouldn't do (all these dumb things other criminals have done a zillion times and gotten caught for)"; or at least some sort of substantiated explanation of why he is assumed to be too intelligent to have made poor decisions.

(I'm not even really seeing where they're poor decisions anyway, because I think his mindset was that he would never be connected to the crime. And I think a lot of the theoretical "why did he do choice A with the body/evidence when he could have done choice B" questions follow along from that point, with A and B being a wash because he didn't think he was going to get caught anyway.)
 
ArianeEmory said:
Not following the logic. If LE is already onto you because you used the same burner phone to contact several potential victims, does it matter if you bury the body on your property or on an adjacent property, either of which may be noticed by alert neighbors?

Now on the other hand, what if you think you're so slick you won't get caught? Why bother going to someone else's land when you have your own land, incinerator and bobcat at hand?

I usually stay out of this thread (and will go back to doing so), but I think the attempts might be more successful if they weren't always based on "DM wouldn't do (all these dumb things other criminals have done a zillion times and gotten caught for)"; or at least some sort of substantiated explanation of why he is assumed to be too intelligent to have made poor decisions.

(I'm not even really seeing where they're poor decisions anyway, because I think his mindset was that he would never be connected to the crime. And I think a lot of the theoretical "why did he do choice A with the body/evidence when he could have done choice B" questions follow along from that point, with A and B being a wash because he didn't think he was going to get caught anyway.)
Click to expand...

I agree, e.g., IMO I think that DM never hid his tattoos because he projected he would either leave the person alone (making him immemorable) or kill them (leaving no witness). He just wasn't smart enough to work out the details (e.g., SB seeing him)

I feel that because he had the tool to execute the perfect crime (the incinerator) he was overconfident in his other actions
 
ArianeEmory said:
Not following the logic. If LE is already onto you because you used the same burner phone to contact several potential victims, does it matter if you bury the body on your property or on an adjacent property, either of which may be noticed by alert neighbors?

Now on the other hand, what if you think you're so slick you won't get caught? Why bother going to someone else's land when you have your own land, incinerator and bobcat at hand?

I usually stay out of this thread (and will go back to doing so), but I think the attempts might be more successful if they weren't always based on "DM wouldn't do (all these dumb things other criminals have done a zillion times and gotten caught for)"; or at least some sort of substantiated explanation of why he is assumed to be too intelligent to have made poor decisions.

(I'm not even really seeing where they're poor decisions anyway, because I think his mindset was that he would never be connected to the crime. And I think a lot of the theoretical "why did he do choice A with the body/evidence when he could have done choice B" questions follow along from that point, with A and B being a wash because he didn't think he was going to get caught anyway.)
Click to expand...

I don't believe I have ever made any assumptions as to the level of intelligence DM had. I would say he knows how to conduct himself in a real estate transaction as pointed out by his agent on the farm and I would say based on my own investigations he knows how to buy and flip a property legally yet cost-effectively. That takes either some intelligence or good guidance IMO. But I have never made any claim as to his sensibility. In fact, I might even guess he may have lacked "street smarts" and a certain social instinct but I cannot base that on much.

If anyone else has made any claims as to DM being too intelligent, it is no different than your stating he is too confident. You can say it in light of your belief he is guilty and I can state whatever I want in light of my belief that there is a good chance he is not guilty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 111 more.
Total: 1,743 (members: 112, guests: 1,631)

Online statistics

Members online
112
Guests online
1,631
Total visitors
1,743
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,458
Messages
18,095,661
Members
230,862
Latest member
jusslikeme
Back
Top