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

[Kamille]

That is an excellent point, I never thought of that. Perhaps more then one perp? The perp was not driving at the time? The perp was at a red light? Was Michelle driving but being commandeered at gun point? Is there any doubt the Waterford text was not Michelle's as it seems obvious to me? And so many other question that observation raises. I'm inclined to think the perp is driving but it is at red light or stops momentarily to answer the text since he feels important to do so, because it is relevant to what he's going to do next, because he needs time and he doesn't feel secure of complete anonymity, because he's afraid that his van or similar vehicle will be spotted by someone that knows it and is out there looking for Michelle?

Well there is no time to stop momentarily and then answer the text so if they were driving, you're right, they must have been already stopped for some reason. But then there is the question, why did they have the phone so close to them as to be able to answer it so quickly. Were they monitoring it? And why Waterford? How did they come up with that lie so quickly? And how did they know that Michelle had been in Waterford that day prior to arriving at the condo? Or was that just a random fluke?

There was no evidence of a struggle in her vehicle. I'd find it hard to believe that if someone had carjacked her that there wouldn't be. Not to mention she was wearing flip flop shoes. If someone had tried to drag her out, even at gunpoint, she wouldn't have made an effort to keep her shoes on IMO.

MOO

 

[Thor]

Well there is no time to stop momentarily and then answer the text so if they were driving, you're right, they must have been already stopped for some reason. But then there is the question, why did they have the phone so close to them as to be able to answer it so quickly. Were they monitoring it? And why Waterford? How did they come up with that lie so quickly? And how did they know that Michelle had been in Waterford that day prior to arriving at the condo? Or was that just a random fluke?

There was no evidence of a struggle in her vehicle. I'd find it hard to believe that if someone had carjacked her that there wouldn't be. Not to mention she was wearing flip flop shoes. If someone had tried to drag her out, even at gunpoint, she wouldn't have made an effort to keep her shoes on IMO.

MOO

I think they/he needed the phone initially to monitor who might be looking for her and that to me may indicate familiarity with MP and what gravitates around her. Assuming the perp had no connection to MP, and that he's traveling in his own vehicle (something I'm pretty certain of) then needing the phone is something of a stretch unless one assumes a level of caution bordering on the extravagant, possible though but not likely. No, in my opinion the perp has a familiarity with MP, he's not a total stranger, there is a connection of sort, there is a fear of discovery that a person traveling in his own vehicle without any connection to the victim would not necessarily have. The Waterford text was a knee jerk reaction to buy time, since the vehicle trajectory was within a danger zone of discovery ... family was making inquiries ... the vehicle is then over the bridge and the phone is tossed in the waters below.
In sum, the perp, the vehicle and Michelle are connected by a common denominator, none of them exist in total anonymity, thus the fear, hence the text.
JMO

 

[Kamille]

I think they/he needed the phone initially to monitor who might be looking for her and that to me may indicate familiarity with MP and what gravitates around her. Assuming the perp had no connection to MP, and that he's traveling in his own vehicle (something I'm pretty certain of) then needing the phone is something of a stretch unless one assumes a level of caution bordering on the extravagant, possible though but not likely. No, in my opinion the perp has a familiarity with MP, he's not a total stranger, there is a connection of sort, there is a fear of discovery that a person traveling in his own vehicle without any connection to the victim would not necessarily have. The Waterford text was a knee jerk reaction to buy time, since the vehicle trajectory was within a danger zone of discovery ... family was making inquiries ... the vehicle is then over the bridge and the phone is tossed in the water below. JMO

If he's in his own vehicle at 4:26pm, with the phone, where is Michelle and where is the Hummer? Is she alive? So he is so familiar that he knows Dustin is her brother? And the phone wasn't tossed for at least another 31/2 hours. So where were they for all that time and how did the Hummer end up at Walden?

 

[Pias]

More thoughts on the Waterford text:
And Michelle had just been shopping earlier (we don't know where).

Did a bag in Michelle's Hummer make the perp think she had been shopping in Waterford and he is riding in her Hummer so he uses what he sees around him as his knee jerk response? The perp not knowing she had done that shopping with her mother? Feeling that when the Hummer was initially discovered that they would still be thinking Michelle could have been in Waterford when she supposedly texted that, leading everyone to think she could have texted that until the investigation (time) proved otherwise?

So, is the Waterford text a knee-jerk response and a result of being in the Hummer with the phone at the time?

 

[Thor]

If he's in his own vehicle at 4:26pm, with the phone, where is Michelle and where is the Hummer? Is she alive? So he is so familiar that he knows Dustin is her brother? And the phone wasn't tossed for at least another 31/2 hours. So where were they for all that time and how did the Hummer end up at Walden?

Michelle is in the van, she's dead, incapacitated or who knows what, if the Hummer is "clean" then the logical conclusion must be the Hummer is not used in the commission of the crime and why should it be? Why should a vehicle be used when it's going to be recovered by the police and taken apart for every little bit of DNA, hair sample, blood particle, soil in the tires and the many many other clues that can betray an identity or a place or both. No the Hummer is parked at Walden early on or sometimes after, depending on the perp being alone or with an accomplice. The Hummer is separated from the crime and the actual vehicle is not expected to be searched, at least not initially, if one suspects someone intimate to MP one would inquire for any cleaning solutions possibly bought at local stores, any trips to car washes and stuff of that nature, but I don't think the vehicle here is expected to be searched at any time unless it is spotted in the area and a connection can be made at the time, which might have been the case since the vehicle does have a connection to MP. The phone been tossed at that particular time is the natural progression of the events as they unfold at the time and it is entirely possible the it was tossed after the crime had been consumed (I don't think so) and depends on the perp's identity and the actual time he had available from star to finish. Just my opinion and more of a thinking out loud sort of a thing as I think about this more and more.

 

[Thor]

One more thing, I'm wondering whether or not the police were able to recover the boot loader records of the iphone. It is of consequence to know whether it was powered off prior of being tossed or not.

 

[Thor]

More thoughts on the Waterford text:
And Michelle had just been shopping earlier (we don't know where).

Did a bag in Michelle's Hummer make the perp think she had been shopping in Waterford and he is riding in her Hummer so he uses what he sees around him as his knee jerk response? The perp not knowing she had done that shopping with her mother? Feeling that when the Hummer was initially discovered that they would still be thinking Michelle could have been in Waterford when she supposedly texted that, leading everyone to think she could have texted that until the investigation (time) proved otherwise?

So, is the Waterford text a knee-jerk response and a result of being in the Hummer with the phone at the time?

It could have happened just like that, but do you think possible he's driving around in the Hummer? No forensic? Nothing ... the Hammer being found "clean" afterwards. Does he have enough time to clean the Hummer? Does he feel confident the Hummer will provide no clues to then decide to take the chance to use it in the abduction, killing, and disposal of the body? I can't quite see these logistical working here to this perp's satisfaction much less actually pulling it off.

 

[Pias]

It could have happened just like that, but do you think possible he's driving around in the Hummer? No forensic? Nothing ... the Hammer being found "clean" afterwards. Does he have enough time to clean the Hummer? Does he feel confident the Hummer will provide no clues to then decide to take the chance to use it in the abduction, killing, and disposal of the body? I can't quite see these logistical working here to this perp's satisfaction much less actually pulling it off.

I guess I could have used the word accomplice as well. To me they are all perps. Not all activities needed to take place in one vehicle.

But lets try some of this on for fit and see where the holes are.

For instance, if Michelle is held at (stun) gun point. Her children are in the back and she is forced to cooperate. Therefore, she is never dead in an automobile, nor was any blood shed in this scenario. Any DNA found inside could be expected to be found inside and yes, the perp or accomplice would wipe down the Hummer cuz no one can prove who wiped it down, but the persons DNA could expect to be found in her Hummer cuz they know each other, so any DNA that was to be found could be explained away. Since the person in the Hummer with Michelle and the kids KNOWS them all (cuz he's their dad, for instance) then the kids are none the wiser that anything is wrong in the front seat. They are used to seeing daddy with all of his Star war toy weapons.

Am I getting warm?

 

[Pias]

As a side note, we do not know what was found for evidence in the Hummer aside from her purse and some CD's, so to say the Hummer was found "clean" afterwards, you must be speaking from a 'detailer's' point of view, or outward appearance, and not a forensics one, may I presume? ::

 

[Thor]

I guess I could have used the word accomplice as well. To me they are all perps. Not all activities needed to take place in one vehicle.

But lets try some of this on for fit and see where the holes are.

For instance, if Michelle is held at (stun) gun point. Her children are in the back and she is forced to cooperate. Therefore, she is never dead in an automobile, nor was any blood shed in this scenario. Any DNA found inside could be expected to be found inside and yes, the perp or accomplice would wipe down the Hummer cuz no one can prove who wiped it down, but the persons DNA could expect to be found in her Hummer so any that was to be found could be explained away. Since the person in the Hummer with Michelle and the kids KNOWS them all (cuz he's their dad, for instance) then the kids are none the wiser that anything is wrong in the front seat. They are used to seeing daddy with all of his Star war toy weapons. JMO

Am I getting warm?

Anything is possible but of course the question is always ... is it likely? I don't see it likely the DS does this in the Hummer in front of the kids, to me the word in this scenario would be "surreal". Besides the kids would tell it just like you described it ... Dad had a star wars weapon and got in the car and we all went around and around on a nice trip" and surely he could explain to the Police why it is that Michelle comes around to drop the kids off and winds up taken a ride with him and the kids. And surely it makes a lot of sense that he plans it that way ... oh what a ingenuous plan must have been to kidnap Michelle with the kids in the rear seat ... just as you said ... am I getting warm?

 

[Thor]

Or may be Pias, you meant that DS abducts Michelle with the kids in the back seat, in broad daylight, then forces her inside the condo, then he incapacitates or kills her, then drives the kids to his parents, goes back to the condo, parks the Hummer in the garage, transports Michelle in the Hummer and then he takes off. And all of that, with the kids none the wiser, in broad daylight, with no witnesses, without spilling a drop of blood and leaving no evidence behind. I simply can't buy this one either.

 

[Pias]

At a car wash does seem like a good time to remove decals. But would that carwash be at Sr's, a friends? Or a public car wash?

 

[Pias]

It seemed you were suggesting that I was suggesting the entire crime took place in one vehicle. I was not. I then gave a sort of scenario of using one vehicle up and to a point. It would seem unlikely. Of course, since I am not sure where it would be that someone besides Dale or someone AT Dale's might have opportunity to abduct Michelle AFTER she leaves the condo, then it seems more probable that everything began at the condo if it was or was not premeditated, and perhaps before she arrived to his door if it were premeditated.

So yes, you are likely right that my suggestion of all being in the hummer is NOT how it happened.

Can you help me figure out how someone ELSE got in the Hummer with Michelle and without the kids? Or how Michelle may have ended up in some other vehicle? I noticed you referred to a van. Would that be Jr's van? I'm guessing no, because they would do forensics on it and you were suggesting the perp wouldnt use a vehicle he knew would be tested, at least right away, but someone who knows her, so the maintenance van was there. Did the maintenance guy have something to do with it? And possibly his van? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Thor]

It seemed you were suggesting that I was suggesting the entire crime took place in one vehicle. I was not. I then gave a sort of scenario of using one vehicle up and to a point. It would seem unlikely. Of course, since I am not sure where it would be that someone besides Dale or someone AT Dale's might have opportunity to abduct Michelle AFTER she leaves the condo, then it seems more probable that everything began at the condo if it was or was not premeditated, and perhaps before she arrived to his door if it were premeditated.

So yes, you are likely right that my suggestion of all being in the hummer is NOT how it happened.

Can you help me figure out how someone ELSE got in the Hummer with Michelle and without the kids? Or how Michelle may have ended up in some vehicle? I noticed you referred to a van. Would that be Jr's van? I'm guessing no, because they would do forensics on it and you were suggesting the perp wouldnt use a vehicle he knew would be tested, at least right away, but someone who knows her, so the maintenance van was there. Did the maintenance guy have something to do with it? And possibly his van? Is that what you are saying?

Mine it's just a theory of many and just like any other theory one can pump it full of holes when there are little facts behind it and certainly no evidence of any kind to point to this perp or another. But yes you're right, to me there it might very well be a correlation between MP, a van type of vehicle and the perp. I did say that should one want to think the perp is intimate with MP (Dale) then I would look whether he bought any cleaning solution or took his van to a car wash any time after the abduction. I'm personally inclined to think this perp is driving a vehicle that is neither the Hummer nor DS's van but there it has nevertheless a connection with Michelle and that goes for the driver as well. Is he DS? Is he not DS? I don't think is DS, not at all, but he could very well be DS for what I know, ultimately is a question of evidence of course, and the lack of them is the monumental problem for anyone's particular theory.

 

[Pias]

Or maybe you are saying Jr had some company there and that Dale's truck already wasn't there but rather the friends vehicle because it was planned? How is it you are involving an estranged vehicle exactly, and who's? Did somebody rent or test drive a FIAT or something and use THAT for transporting her? If there was a rental used, wouldn't that surely indicate premeditation? I seen you mentioning a lot of things up there. What exactly are you saying? Can you come up with a clearer scenario? You are losing me. Sorry and TIA

When you say DS, do you mean Jr, Sr, or both?

If you go up to my original statement, I only put an unidentified person (perp/accomplice) in the hummer with the phone, not with a dead body and so forth. I did not suggest a murder in the hummer or disposal of a body from the hummer. You took that all upon yourself, thus, here we are

 

[Thor]

Or maybe you are saying Jr had some company there and that Dale's truck already wasn't there but rather the friends vehicle because it was planned? How is it you are involving an estranged vehicle exactly, and who's? Did somebody rent or test drive a FIAT or something and use THAT for transporting her? If there was a rental used, wouldn't that surely indicate premeditation? I seen you mentioning a lot of things up there. What exactly are you saying? Can you come up with a clearer scenario? You are losing me. Sorry and TIA

Pias anything is possible of course, but you and me operate here a different levels clearly, you are trying to fit anything to a particular suspect (Dale) and need a particular scenario and a particular face attach to it if not DS. That being the case no scenario are going to be clear to you because there is no other suspect but Dale the we know of and certainly we are not the detectives on the scene interviewing people. My scenario is very limited as the facts and the evidence are limited and it is not my way to make up scenarios from scratches so as to point to one particular suspect. In my other posts I have given plenty or reasons why I think neither the Hummer nor Ds' van was used in the crime as it unfolded after the abduction/killing, and more reasons still why i think this perp has a connection to Michelle so that the Perp, the vehicle and Michelle are connected by a common denominator that exists prior to the crime, anything above that is to assume too much not supported by any evidence, and I can't just make it up as I'd like it to be ... out of thin air just because anything is possible or because I'm convinced DS did it and that to me would be looking for a theory to fit a suspect and I rather have a theory the leads to one with evidence being the sole drivers of the entire exercise.

Addedum: One does not need a scenario from start to finish with a suspect ready to be cuffed and be taken into custody, that is not the way investigations of any kind work, it is not like a TV episode where everything is solved in the space of an hour. Detective work as any other evidence gathering science is the painstakingly gathering of evidence, is the piecing together of clues and evidence that make up the whole even when the whole cannot be seen at first. It is not the art of the possible in itself but mainly the art of the provable, one can yes theorize of course but only so far and only to debate a point not to make the point the proof itself. Evidence is all we have to make a conclusion, and there's no escaping that basic fact since the truth is a matter of tangible proof that transcends opinions and it is not made up of beliefs.

 

[Pias]

It would seem to me that knowing a little bit about who MIGHT have done it can lead to discoveries. It seems that you can find potential clues by supposing who may have done it. A sort of profiling.

We have come to agree it was a personal crime. That was due to the facts surrounding the case which fit a profile, if you will.

We cannot say it with FACT, but we can certainly assert that the likelihood is great that the crime was personal.

Since we have agreed to assert the possibility that it was a personal crime, then we may also have to assert that the unknown person had knowledge of where Michelle was in order to commit this crime of a personal nature. In broad daylight, no matter WHO they are. We may also be able to assert that Michelle's cell phone and any other phone records were reviewed and no possibilities appeared to lead anywhere else in a personal nature.

So, who might we suppose, with what is and is not known, by public or by law enforcement, knowing LE has had time to review phone records and question and clear anyone they may or may not have had questions about, may have planned on meeting up with Michelle after she left Jr's condo if it happened after she left and not by any stretch related to Jr? What would LE be missing there that would make someone ELSE that Michelle knew personally a person who should be looked at?

 

[Thor]

It would seem to me that knowing a little bit about who MIGHT have done it can lead to discoveries. It seems that you can find potential clues by supposing who may have done it. We have come to agree it was a personal crime. That was due to the facts surrounding the case which fit a profile, if you will. We cannot say it with FACT, but we can certainly assert that the likelihood is great that the crime was personal.

Since we have agreed to assert the possibility that it was a personal crime, then we may also have to assert that the unknown person had knowledge of where Michelle was in order to commit this crime of a personal nature. In broad daylight, no matter WHO they are. We may also be able to assert that Michelle's cell phone and any other phone records were reviewed and no possibilities appeared to lead anywhere else in a personal nature.

So, who might we suppose, with what is and is not known, by public or by law enforcement, knowing LE has had time to review phone records and question and clear anyone they may or may not have had questions about, may have planned on meeting up with Michelle after she left Jr's condo if it happened after she left and not by any stretch related to Jr? What would LE be missing there that would make someone ELSE that Michelle knew personally a person who should be looked at?

You have made so many points in there that it would take me a long time to address them all. Perhaps you might want to go at it one at a time, again there is no reason why everything should fit in one encompassing whole.
So for one your question is "was the crime personal?" which I take it to mean "personally directed at MP" and not a random act, and yes I tend to believe that was the case and we can both agree with that.

 

[Pias]

Also, it seems no matter which way you slice it, when you use the theory that too much risk would be taken if the crime, or the bulk of it, took place in Michelle's Hummer, that someone, somewhere, is going to end up with the same problem. Not just the broad daylight one, but the what to do with all the vehicles one. If it isn't happening in the Hummer, it has to be happening in another vehicle then, right?

So then, now what?

 

[Thor]

Also, it seems no matter which way you slice it, when you use the theory that too much risk would be taken if the crime, or the bulk of it, took place in Michelle's Hummer, that someone, somewhere, is going to end up with the same problem. Not just the broad daylight one, but the what to do with all the vehicles one. If it isn't happening in the Hummer, it has to be happening in another vehicle then, right?

So then, now what?

No Pias that is not a theory per se that is an idea, a proposition if you will. Why would the perp use the Hummer knowing that evidence would be potentially gathered there? The Hummer is not something you toss it aside. And if the Hummer was nevertheless used, why is there no evidence, why is it clean? In the calculus of the probability the Hummer must be discounted save proof of otherwise IMO and no somebody doe not have to end up with the same problem, not if the vehicle is not expected to be seized by the police or at least not before enough time is available for the evidence to be removed. In this case both DS's van or another similar type of vehicle is the more likely probability, with my opinion being another vehicle altogether solely on the calculus of probability as I would imagine them of course. What do you think?