FL FL - Michelle Parker, 33, Orlando, 17 Nov 2011 - #20

[nobodynoz]

First of all, his parents were not there. He only had his twin toddlers there.

Respectfully snipped to address one point.

Actually, do we know for sure his parents weren't there? Do we know for sure that a friend of his wasn't there? I don't think we know either way.

 

[nobodynoz]

Are you suggesting that his parents knowingly watched the kids while Dale killed Michelle?

Only speculating about a possibility, if one or both of his parents were there. I had that train of thought, since Thor mentioned the parents being at the condo too in one of his posts.

 

[Jazzmaster]

So even if he thought he was sure that Michelle was going shopping because he thought she had said it and it turns out she wasn't, that means exactly what? Even if later he thought something else she might have done, that means exactly what?

"Just what traces of evidence would one expect to find in a home where someone was killed without a weapon? Especially if the victim was removed rather quickly."

So now we know Michelle was killed without a weapon? So strangulation does not leave physical evidence? Signs of struggle cannot leave physical evidence? But then again, since when no evidence means evidence. And day is night? And war is peace? And black is white? Sounds like a passage right out of George Orwell's 1984.

I believe Kamille was saying Michelle COULD have been killed or disabled WITHOUT a weapon to avoid DNA detection. We know Dale Sr was researching how Josh Powell was able to get away with MURDER while having his two kids with him... What if the two Dales "studied up" and planned the disappearance?

 

[What'sThatClue]

So even if he thought he was sure that Michelle was going shopping because he thought she had said it and it turns out she wasn't, that means exactly what? Even if later he thought something else she might have done, that means exactly what?

"Just what traces of evidence would one expect to find in a home where someone was killed without a weapon? Especially if the victim was removed rather quickly."

So now we know Michelle was killed without a weapon? So strangulation does not leave physical evidence? Signs of struggle cannot leave physical evidence? But then again, since when no evidence means evidence. And day is night? And war is peace? And black is white? Sounds like a passage right out of George Orwell's 1984.

Michelle was strangled? There were signs of a struggle? With a weapon? Without a weapon? Only LE knows the answers. But, jmo, there are several ways to incapicitate or kill without a weapon. Perhaps when LE chooses to make public the evidence they have we'll know the exact circumstances. And they must have plenty of evidence they haven't released so as to not jeopardize the case they're building against the Prime Suspect.

 

[Kamille]

So even if he thought he was sure that Michelle was going shopping because he thought she had said it and it turns out she wasn't, that means exactly what? Even if later he thought something else she might have done, that means exactly what?

It would mean that he has no ability to take in information during a conversation and relate it a few hours later or that he passed on misleading information to LE during an investigation.

"Just what traces of evidence would one expect to find in a home where someone was killed without a weapon? Especially if the victim was removed rather quickly."

So now we know Michelle was killed without a weapon? So strangulation does not leave physical evidence? Signs of struggle cannot leave physical evidence? But then again, since when no evidence means evidence. And day is night? And war is peace? And black is white? Sounds like a passage right out of George Orwell's 1984.

So we know that Michelle was strangled? And that there was a struggle?

Answers in bold.

MOO

 

[Thor]

Respectfully snipped to address one point.

Actually, do we know for sure his parents weren't there? Do we know for sure that a friend of his wasn't there? I don't think we know either way.

So "we do not know" turns into he's guilty? So we can't prove he did it so we turn the whole thing on a dime and say that Dale has now to prove he didn't do it? We conjure up accomplices out of hat? Facts not on the record? Allegations not even the police has made?

Ok, you got me ... Dale Smith is guilty.

 

[nobodynoz]

So now we know Michelle was killed without a weapon? So strangulation does not leave physical evidence? Signs of struggle cannot leave physical evidence? But then again, since when no evidence means evidence. And day is night? And war is peace? And black is white? Sounds like a passage right out of George Orwell's 1984.

Well ain't that a kick in the head!

 

[nobodynoz]

So "we do not know" turns into he's guilty? So we can't prove he did it so we turn the whole thing on a dime and say that Dale has now to prove he didn't do it? We conjure up accomplices out of hat? Facts not on the record? Allegations not even the police has made?

Ok, you got me ... Dale Smith is guilty.

Are you mixing me up with someone else? I do think it's very likely that Dale is responsible for Michelle's disappearance, but my musing speculations about what could have happened when Michelle arrived at Dale's have nothing to do with evidence of his guilt or innocence.

 

[ynotdivein]

Again, if he killed her in the Condo with the kids and the parents being there, and then left no traces of the crime, Dale needs to be both a criminal mastermind and a magician all rolled into one. Besides, as I said before lack of evidence is no evidence.

And if Dale said he thought she was going shopping what is the problem with that? He is not in charge of having to know for sure what Michelle did prior or after her arrival at the condo.

Thor, this is your second time posting this about "the parents being there" at DSJr's condo--I assume you mean Dale's parents.

Please provide a MSM link to support this statement, or stop stating it as fact.

If this is a supposition of yours (i.e., you believe that one or another of Dale's parents came over later to assist him in some way, or that his parents happened to be at his house despite the fact that he later drove the children to his parents' house), please indicate that by using "IMO" or prefacing the statement with "what if", etc.

 

[katydid23]

So even if he thought he was sure that Michelle was going shopping because he thought she had said it and it turns out she wasn't, that means exactly what? Even if later he thought something else she might have done, that means exactly what?

"Just what traces of evidence would one expect to find in a home where someone was killed without a weapon? Especially if the victim was removed rather quickly."

So now we know Michelle was killed without a weapon? So strangulation does not leave physical evidence? Signs of struggle cannot leave physical evidence? But then again, since when no evidence means evidence. And day is night? And war is peace? And black is white? Sounds like a passage right out of George Orwell's 1984.

Do you really want to know what it means, that he told the 'going shopping' story? Some people think it means he was trying to 'misdirect' people. He wanted people to think she drove over to the shopping center, which is near where the car was found abandoned. That way, LE would think it made sense that her car was parked around there. Since she was 'going shopping' and all.


As for your second question, about us KNOWING she was killed without a weapon---not at all.

But you had said HOW could he have gotten rid of her without leaving any evidence behind---so we gave some possible scenarios. And he did not need to kill her in that condo. All he had to do is get her tied up and hidden away for a little while---the rest could be done later, away from his property.

 

[telemag]

I would assume although have personally never heard that LE would have questioned Dale's neighbors. I wonder if any of them saw anything at all that would implicate Dale?

 

[telemag]

Do you really want to know what it means, that he told the 'going shopping' story? Some people think it means he was trying to 'misdirect' people. He wanted people to think she drove over to the shopping center, which is near where the car was found abandoned. That way, LE would think it made sense that her car was parked around there. Since she was 'going shopping' and all.


As for your second question, about us KNOWING she was killed without a weapon---not at all.

But you had said HOW could he have gotten rid of her without leaving any evidence behind---so we gave some possible scenarios. And he did not need to kill her in that condo. All he had to do is get her tied up and hidden away for a little while---the rest could be done later, away from his property.

Maybe it means that Michelle thought it was none of Dale's business where she was going so if he asked she just said shopping.

 

[katydid23]

So "we do not know" turns into he's guilty? So we can't prove he did it so we turn the whole thing on a dime and say that Dale has now to prove he didn't do it? We conjure up accomplices out of hat? Facts not on the record? Allegations not even the police has made?

Ok, you got me ... Dale Smith is guilty.

I am not sure where you are getting any of this? Where did anyone say he has to prove he didn't kill her?

She was LAST SEEN driving into his condo complex. That does put a bit of an onus on him, especially given their DV past history, and their current custody and child support disputes. But even with all that, he is considered innocent until proven guilty. Which is why he is still driving his kids around, free as a bird.

 

[Thor]

Thor, this is your second time posting this about "the parents being there" at DSJr's condo--I assume you mean Dale's parents.

Please provide a MSM link to support this statement, or stop stating it as fact.

If this is a supposition of yours (i.e., you believe that one or another of Dale's parents came over later to assist him in some way, or that his parents happened to be at his house despite the fact that he later drove the children to his parents' house), please indicate that by using "IMO" or prefacing the statement with "what if", etc.

I meant Dale's parents as I seem to recall to have read they were there when she dropped off the kids at the condo. If that is not correct then I was mistaken on this issue and I apologize.

 

[telemag]

I am not sure where you are getting any of this? Where did anyone say he has to prove he didn't kill her?

She was LAST SEEN driving into his condo complex. That does put a bit of an onus on him, especially given their DV past history, and their current custody and child support disputes. But even with all that, he is considered innocent until proven guilty. Which is why he is still driving his kids around, free as a bird.

I've seen it mentioned dozens of times by various posters that Dale should take a polygraph among other things to prove his innocence. Maybe this is what Thor is referring to.

 

[katydid23]

Maybe it means that Michelle thought it was none of Dale's business where she was going so if he asked she just said shopping.

Maybe. But that still wouldn't answer any of the other nagging questions. And after seeing their court show, I think it is more likely she would have just said
"None of your effin business' , rather than make up a pointless lie.

Also, she as very concerned about her kids. So if one parent has them, you tend to be truthful about your whereabouts incase they need you in an emergency. So why would she have a problem with him knowing where she was going to be, while he was with their toddlers?

 

[telemag]

Maybe. But that still wouldn't answer any of the other nagging questions. And after seeing their court show, I think it is more likely she would have just said
"None of your effin business' , rather than make up a pointless lie.

Also, she as very concerned about her kids. So if one parent has them, you tend to be truthful about your whereabouts incase they need you in an emergency. So why would she have a problem with him knowing where she was going to be, while he was with their toddlers?

Hard to say but if Dale needed her she was a phone call away. I seriously doubt she would want to tell him anything about her personal life such as stuff concerning her new BF.

 

[katydid23]

I meant Dale's parents as I seem to recall to have read they were there when she dropped off the kids at the condo. If that is not correct then I was mistaken on this issue and I apologize.

Let me clarify for you, because it does get confusing.

Dale was home alone, waiting for Michelle to drop off the kids. [from what we have been told.] According to Dale, after she dropped them off, she left within 10 minutes. And then he drove them over to his parents home, which is about 20 to 30 minutes away, IIRC. And his lawyer says there is a witness to the fact that he arrived that afternoon at his parents home with the two kids.

The timeline for all of this is what is being questioned.

 

[katydid23]

Hard to say but if Dale needed her she was a phone call away. I seriously doubt she would want to tell him anything about her personal life such as stuff concerning her new BF.

True. But that little 'going shopping' story is the least of his worries, imo.

 

[katydid23]

I would assume although have personally never heard that LE would have questioned Dale's neighbors. I wonder if any of them saw anything at all that would implicate Dale?

I am pretty certain that they interviewed the neighbor with the video camera. They looked through all of his footage.