FL FL - Michelle Parker, 33, Orlando, 17 Nov 2011 - #22

[BritsKate]

Using children as pawns isn't anything new for abusive personalities. Lundy Bancroft is an amazing resource for understanding a batterer in regards to child custody issues.

I think he should be required reading for all family court judges. MOO

http://www.lundybancroft.com/?page_id=279

 

[Pias]

Perhaps one can find truth in saying Michelle was alive the last time you seen her, if you covered her with or in something, alive, and she died as a result of her exposure to where she was left as a result of the conditions under which she was left.

I hate to bring this up, but regardless of exactly WHAT it is that may have killed Michelle, the fact remains that it would be the direct result of actions taken by the one who could find truth in saying that.

 

[Pias]

Perhaps one can find truth in saying Michelle was okay or even fine the last time I saw her. One could also visit someone in a hospital and say they were fine when I left, too... It is really likely a matter of perception as to the meaning behind 'okay' or 'fine.' Perhaps, if one said she was fine, one could translate that as 'she was good looking.'

I bring these points up because translation in communication has seemed to be an issue here, which might well be echoed somewhere else...

 

[Pias]

Perhaps whomever is responsible for what has happened to Michelle, is quite skillful in the art of dissociation...

 

[Pias]

Additional questions Dale might be able to answer are:

"Did Michelle see the children strapped into a vehicle?"
"If Michelle did see the children strapped into a vehicle, did the children remain in the same vehicle Michelle last seen them strapped into, and did they remain strapped in, until which time they arrived at your parents home?"
"If Michelle did not see the children strapped into a vehicle, yet left at the same time as you, and you visited for 10 minutes, how is it that Michelle was still there and never witnessed the children strapped in, making it possible for you both to leave at the same time?"

 

[Thor]

Did Michelle see the children strapped into a vehicle, Dale?
If Michelle did see the children strapped into a vehicle, did the children remain in the same vehicle Michelle last seen them strapped into, and did they remain strapped in, until which time they arrived at your parents home, Dale?
If Michelle did not see the children strapped into a vehicle, yet left at the same time as you, and you visited for 10 minutes, how is it that Michelle was still there and never witnessed the children strapped in, making it possible for you both to leave at the same time, Dale?

Apparently what the children saw or didn't speak more to DS innocence then guilty since he has not been arrested, but of course I really don't know the facts here and therefore forming an opinion one way or the other would be pretentious on my part.

 

[katydid23]

Apparently what the children saw or didn't speak more to DS innocence then guilty since he has not been arrested, but of course I really don't know the facts here and therefore forming an opinion one way or the other would be pretentious on my part.

If what the kids saw spoke to his innocence, then I think they would have been allowed to spend time alone with their family and with the cops investigating their mothers 'kidnapping.'

If the kids saw their mom drive away and that was that, he would have had them talking to LE that very day, imo.

 

[Thor]

If what the kids saw spoke to his innocence, then I think they would have been allowed to spend time alone with their family and with the cops investigating their mothers 'kidnapping.'

If the kids saw their mom drive away and that was that, he would have had them talking to LE that very day, imo.

You are making a correlation between a visitation issue and a missing person investigation where factually one has not been determined to exist as far as we know. There's basically no scenario that one can imagine where the children have not been interviewed extensively by the police already and possibly on more then one occasion since they have also been in their grandparents' custody at some point after MP disappearance, there is also no factual indication that DS has prevented the children from being interviewed by the police that I'm aware of, and if any of it is not enough, I believe the police in this particular case would be able to interview the children without parental consent pursuant a court order. JMO

 

[Pias]

The children's input, or lack of it, does nothing to speak to Dale's potential innocence, or it would have cleared him of any and all involvement. That is not the case.

 

[What'sThatClue]

I think of Josh Powell's children and how they didn't remember until recently...

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/02/08/powell-boys-grandfather-i-just-couldnt-fathom-it

Cox and his wife Judy told Grace that 7-year-old Charlie and 5-year-old Braden seemed to grow more willing to talk about their missing mother since they were taken from Powell’s custody last fall. At first, though, they tried to evade questions about her, as Cox believed they were instructed to do by their father.

“All they would say was the last time they saw mommy was on a camping trip…Then they would go back to, ‘I don’t know, I don’t remember’…a trained and coached response,” he said.

And...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/05/blast-kills-husband-missing-utah-woman-2-boys-734852263/

They were beginning to verbalize more," said Downing, whose clients had custody of the children. "The oldest boy talked about that they went camping and that Mommy was in the trunk. Mom and Dad got out of the car and Mom disappeared."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/0...ng-utah-woman-2-boys-734852263/#ixzz246oUwxtG

In the articles referenced above, note that Josh Powell's children didn't start to talk until he'd lost custody and they were living with their grandparents...

Oddly, DSSr posted about the Powell case on his FB page....(a few threads back there's a discussion about that)...

JMO unless there's a link...

 

[Pias]

Quite a time after Michelle went missing, one of the children saw a picture of their mom and the first thing they said was "Mommy's at work."

It speaks for itself.

Need an example? How about THIS one when everyone was leaving court?

In court, a judge ordered Michelle Parker's 3-year-old twins return full time to their father’s custody, Dale Smith II, who is also the only suspect in their mother’s disappearance.

“They saw some of mommy's signs on the way out and they said 'there's mommy'. She’s at work. And I said, ‘Yeah, she’s at work,’” said Michelle Parker’s mom, Yvonne Stewart.

The kids spent Tuesday night into Wednesday with Michelle Parker's mother Yvonne Stewart and her family.

She handed them back over to Smith sometime in the afternoon.

Dale Smith was seen on his way into the hearing body checking a cameraman, knocking him to the ground, and then opening a door into another one.

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/new...y-stays-focused-on-search-for-Michelle-Parker

This is the same court date Jr is seen shoving news crew and trying to slam a door into another on the way in.

This is the same court date where Sr shoves news crew on the way out.

This is the kind of behavior these adults have (demonstrated).

Children learn by example.

Children will believe what they are told (to believe).

It brings me to mind that had they not been repeatedly told something, the child might have likely asked "What time will mommy get off work?" (when is mommy coming home?) because the child likely wanted to see their mother, but had already came to the resolve or realization and acceptance, by then, that mommy was staying at work, or, would not be returning from work. JMO

 

[Thor]

The children's input, or lack of it, does nothing to speak to Dale's potential innocence, or it would have cleared him of any and all involvement. That is not the case.

The children input does speak of DS's innocence, at least in the general calculation of the probabilities. If they saw nothing that would give the police incriminating evidence against DS (as it seems the case) that would be a considerable exculpatory evidence.

JMO

 

[Thor]

Quite a time after Michelle went missing, one of the children saw a picture of their mom and the first thing they said was "Mommy's at work."

It speaks for itself.

Need an example? How about THIS one when everyone was leaving court?

In court, a judge ordered Michelle Parker's 3-year-old twins return full time to their father’s custody, Dale Smith II, who is also the only suspect in their mother’s disappearance.

“They saw some of mommy's signs on the way out and they said 'there's mommy'. She’s at work. And I said, ‘Yeah, she’s at work,’” said Michelle Parker’s mom, Yvonne Stewart.

The kids spent Tuesday night into Wednesday with Michelle Parker's mother Yvonne Stewart and her family.

She handed them back over to Smith sometime in the afternoon.

Dale Smith was seen on his way into the hearing body checking a cameraman, knocking him to the ground, and then opening a door into another one.

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/new...y-stays-focused-on-search-for-Michelle-Parker

This is the same court date Jr is seen shoving news crew and trying to slam a door into another.

This is the same court date where Sr shoves news crew on the way out.

This is the kind of behavior these adults have (demonstrated).

Children learn by example.

What is the correlation about DS pushing aside a reporter trying to shove a camera or a mic in his face, (something I can see myself potentially doing and as countless others have in the past), and everything else contained in your post?

 

[Thor]

They are examples of questions Dale might be able to answer and are not directed AT Dale except to the perspective one might be speaking to him as to which questions he might be able to answer that might help in that endeavor.

I edited my post which hopefully reflects this.

Originally Posted by Pias
"Did Michelle see the children strapped into a vehicle, Dale?
If Michelle did see the children strapped into a vehicle, did the children remain in the same vehicle Michelle last seen them strapped into, and did they remain strapped in, until which time they arrived at your parents home, Dale?
If Michelle did not see the children strapped into a vehicle, yet left at the same time as you, and you visited for 10 minutes, how is it that Michelle was still there and never witnessed the children strapped in, making it possible for you both to leave at the same time, Dale?"

All these questions are primarily about what Michelle saw, which is rather odd until one gets to the question "Dale?" The implication being that Dale would know what Michelle saw or did and yes you were asking Dale IMO although clearly rather rhetorically.

 

[What'sThatClue]

Maybe Dale could answer questions, such as
"If you left when Michelle did, which way did each of you turn out of the complex?"
"If you left when Michelle did, what took you so long to get to your parents house?" That might be a good start.
"What vehicle were you driving when you left, Dale?"
"Was Michelle driving when she left your condo?"
"Dale, what vehicle did Michelle drive away?"
"Dale, was Michelle alone when she drove away?"
"Who had the children after Michelle left?"
"Were the children with them the entire time?"
"When did you last see the children today?"
"List everyone who has had contact with the children since Michelle dropped them off with you."
"Did you go anywhere without the children after getting to your parents house, aside from driving here to meet us?" And this is just for starters.
"who brought the children over to your parents house?"

Are these questions LE has already asked? Are any of these questions Dale refused to answer? I can't see why he wouldn't answer them... unless he couldn't. There are few reasons one could not...

Whether it was any of these questions, or others which Dale could not answer, for reasons known only to him, it would appear LE (justifiably) feels he can.

Bumping the original post. JMO posts with questions after this post most likely were in reference to this post...in addition to it, so to speak.

 

[Pias]

Originally Posted by Pias
"Did Michelle see the children strapped into a vehicle, Dale?
If Michelle did see the children strapped into a vehicle, did the children remain in the same vehicle Michelle last seen them strapped into, and did they remain strapped in, until which time they arrived at your parents home, Dale?
If Michelle did not see the children strapped into a vehicle, yet left at the same time as you, and you visited for 10 minutes, how is it that Michelle was still there and never witnessed the children strapped in, making it possible for you both to leave at the same time, Dale?"

All these questions are primarily about what Michelle saw, which is rather odd until one gets to the question "Dale?" The implication being that Dale would know what Michelle saw or did and yes you were asking Dale IMO although clearly rather rhetorically.

It seems you illustrate my point as to why I might clarify Dale as the person who might be able to answer these questions from his perspective, by way of removing confusion, which, henceforth, and not surprisingly, caused exactly that, as usual.

If, for example, Michelle and Dale both strapped in the children, he would clearly know that and know she was present.

While no one knows what the others eyes see, using the above as an example, one can get a pretty good idea by the power of reason and observation. Example: "I strapped in one, but both were strapped in." One might conclude it is likely someone else did it because it was done.

I also never implied he could answer any of them. I speculated as to which questions Dale MIGHT be able to answer, because, nearly all of them seem within the realms of possibility that he could answer those questions with a fair amount of accuracy, most likely, even if only from his own perspective, which, isn't that how most questions are answered? By the perspective of the one answering it?

If someone asks a question here more than once, it appears they are seeking an answer to it. I obliged in a way I felt was most direct by actually posing the potential questions rather than to be vague as the vagueness seemed to not be satisfying the person posing the question as evidenced by repeatedly asking it.

 

[Thor]

It seems you illustrate my point as to why I might clarify Dale as the person who might be able to answer these questions from his perspective, by way of removing confusion, which, henceforth, and not surprisingly, caused exactly that, as usual.

If, for example, Michelle and Dale both strapped in the children, he would clearly know that and know she was present.

While no one knows what the others eyes see, using the above as an example, one can get a pretty good idea by the power of reason and observation. Example: "I strapped in one, but both were strapped in." One might conclude it is likely someone else did it because it was done.

I also never implied he could answer any of them. I speculated as to which questions Dale MIGHT be able to answer, because, nearly all of them seem within the realms of possibility that he could answer those questions with a fair amount of accuracy, most likely, even if only from his own perspective, which, isn't that how most questions are answered? By the perspective of the one answering it?

If someone asks a question here more than once, it appears they are seeking an answer to it. I obliged in a way I felt was most direct by actually posing the potential questions rather than to be vague as the vagueness seemed to not be satisfying the person posing the question as evidenced by repeatedly asking it.

Yes I see your idea but I really don't understand the point of it ... I mean ... speculating (as you put it) about what legitimate investigative questions DS might be able to answer or not, has answered or not, could answer or not, would want to answer or not, ... is to make what point? That is the part I really don't understand.

 

[Pias]

Yes I see your idea but I really don't understand the point of it ... I mean ... speculating (as you put it) about what legitimate investigative questions DS might be able to answer or not, has answered or not, could answer or not, would want to answer or not, ... is to make what point? That is the part I really don't understand.

That I believe... kinda... but not to an extent one might readily assume.

 

[Salem]

Knock it off in here.

Don't bait or tease where the meaning could be taken as rude. Don't address posts to victims, poi's or suspects. The discussion is here, so let's keep it here and keep it respectful, please.

Salem

 

[Thor]

Maybe Dale could answer questions, such as
"If you left when Michelle did, which way did each of you turn out of the complex?"
"If you left when Michelle did, what took you so long to get to your parents house?" That might be a good start.
"What vehicle were you driving when you left, Dale?"
"Was Michelle driving when she left your condo?"
"Dale, what vehicle did Michelle drive away?"
"Dale, was Michelle alone when she drove away?"
"Who had the children after Michelle left?"
"Were the children with them the entire time?"
"When did you last see the children today?"
"List everyone who has had contact with the children since Michelle dropped them off with you."
"Did you go anywhere without the children after getting to your parents house, aside from driving here to meet us?" And this is just for starters.
"who brought the children over to your parents house?"

Are these questions LE has already asked? Are any of these questions Dale refused to answer? I can't see why he wouldn't answer them... unless he couldn't. There are few reasons one could not...

Whether it was any of these questions, or others which Dale could not answer, for reasons known only to him, it would appear LE (justifiably) feels he can.

Yes, I agree. I too tend to believe, that DS has not fully cooperated with the police, supported by the statement made by LE on this issue. However there are many scenarios when not answering a particular question or a series of questions is justifiable from an innocent person point of view, let alone a guilty one. In other words, it might be the case that the police are justified in asking a particular question and equally justifiable for a suspect not to answer it, regardless or guilt or innocence. In this case in particular one would need to know what question was asked, in what context it was asked and what reasons DS had for not answering it, and unfortunately we do not factually know the answer to that, at least not yet. JMO