Suspect #1: Dellen Millard *Charged* 1st Deg Murder 15 May 2013 #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tattoo on DM's left wrist which appears to be very small IMO.
 

Attachments

  • lefthand.jpg
    lefthand.jpg
    16.4 KB · Views: 37
cansleuther said:
It certainly is difficult (maybe impossible) to capture a screenshot from that video that isn't blurry! However if the video is watched with "HD" turned on it is quite apparent that the tattoo does not have a box around it, even if the actual word cannot be read clearly. There are also a few photos of DM on FB that show neither wrist tattoo is framed in a box. Whether a box was added to one or both wrists after is anyone's guess at this point.

It's unfortunate that Molly Hayes did not mention seeing DM's tattoo when she visited him - especially since she pointedly mentioned his sleeves were rolled up to expose his forearms. If she was only a couple of feet away from him, she may have been able to get a good look.



http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4075078-exclusive-jail-visits-with-bosma-s-accused-killers/
Click to expand...

Someone did ask MH about the tattoo on her twitter account, but, as far as I could find, she never answered.

https://twitter.com/MollyatTheSpec/status/378309871302483968

Personally, I can't see a box in any of those photos.

JMO
 
sillybilly said:
I'm wondering if perhaps the "box" aspect surrounding the tattoo was disinformation released by LE in order to not spook a perp and to lull somebody into a false sense of security.
Click to expand...

Or if they pretend it is after the fact to make the evidence match up with the description...
 
Juballee said:
Or if they pretend it is after the fact to make the evidence match up with the description...
Click to expand...

So yathink for some unknown reasons they manufactured everything against DM ... right on down to the tatt, the trailer in the driveway, the body on the farm ... ???

okay ;)
 
It's anybody's guess about the tattoo. I tended to believe LE because they said it was the box that made it unique. But, gee, you'd think by now something would have come up to show that he does indeed have a box around that tattoo, if he does. I'm really starting to believe that, for whatever reason it was said that there was, there really is no box.

JMO
 
sillybilly said:
So yathink for some unknown reasons they manufactured everything against DM ... right on down to the tatt, the trailer in the driveway, the body on the farm ... ???

okay ;)
Click to expand...

No need to put words in my mouth, sillybilly. I wasn't talking about a trailer or a driveway or a farm, I just pointed out that it is easy to go back afterwards and say it was deliberate misinformation if you are wrong about something. It's like losing a game and then saying "I meant to lose"; it's hard to believe after the fact.
 
Police photograph, catalogue and share tattoos. Not really different than DMV on driving records and addresses,or local/Prov/Fed on crime records.

Likely if they had the ability to search a database of collected data from contact cards, arrests, etc.,(most agencies do) they could have found anyone with the word "ambition" or the "box" or the wording "ambition is a killer."

The above would result in a name and possibly an address, if not the name and a DMV search, or other shared records would produce an address.

So the word "ambition" could be searched on a database and get numerous hits and with other evidence it could be narrowed down to a particular person and a warrant issued.

And yes there is a possibility of "apparent public confusion" over a box or absence of a box as a Police database isn't a real time process.

Or put another way I could(independently or with BO's statement)search for ambition and get results of DM's tatt without it indicating a box. BO might say nope can't be, he had a box. I go ok, I get the DMV photo, description and DMV photo and BO says bingo. We go get the warrant and follow/arrest DM.

Lots of potential for public/media confusion on the geometry of the tatt but no matter, that only got us an arrest warrant. The evidence they collected in the investigation is what really matters not the miniscule event of the tatt tieing him to a test drive with BO.

They had enough to arrest and hold and then subsequent evidence allowed them to hold and update further charges.

DM & Company know exactly how he was caught blow by blow, thought by thought, or they should, it's there for them to see in the ITO vs Warrant and laid out in discovery.
 
Juballee said:
No need to put words in my mouth, sillybilly. I wasn't talking about a trailer or a driveway or a farm, I just pointed out that it is easy to go back afterwards and say it was deliberate misinformation if you are wrong about something. It's like losing a game and then saying "I meant to lose"; it's hard to believe after the fact.
Click to expand...

Going back to your original statement "Or if they pretend it is after the fact to make the evidence match up with the description..." I interpreted that to mean that you believe DM could be innocent (i.e. LE could be wrong and covering their tracks?) and/or LE would possibly manufacture the tattoo evidence against him for a crime he did not commit?

I don't believe I was putting words in your mouth ... I was simply putting my own thought processes to work in what I believe would be the only logical extension of MY interpretation; that extension of thought would necessarily include the trailer/driveway/farm.

If I am wrong in my interpretation of the bolded statement above, please clarify what you meant by it. Thanks.
 
Archangel7 said:
The evidence they collected in the investigation is what really matters not the miniscule event of the tatt tieing him to a test drive with BO.
Click to expand...
<rsbm>

Double thanks for that AA ... box or no box (for whatever reasons) led them to a specific individual that resulted in subsequent evidence that is pretty hard to refute.
 
Yes I say the description of the perps given by SB and matching the description of BO's description (minus the tattoo), the evidence found in totality far outweighs the information/description about the tattoo.

For all we know DM may have put a bandage on it to hide it but didn't realize it fell off. Maybe what BO saw was the outline of dirt after a rectangular bandage is removed and he mistook it as part of the tattoo. :dunno: but maybe... It happens to some kids and many auto mechanics kwim. :giggle:

MOO.
 
Thank you for the good laugh this morning, Swedie! I am still giggling about this. It makes me remember when my children were young enough to have filthy, dirty bandage lines, or being a child and remembering the dread of pulling one of them off when it had been stuck on there for a good long time.

In seriousness, though, I have never seen a mechanic use an actual bandage, the ones I know all use duct tape. And scientifically speaking, any bandage that had adhered strong enough and long enough to leave a dirt outline wouldn't be able to fall off on it's own, it would need to be ripped off. Also, most people can distinguish between sticky, gooey dirt and a tattoo from the distance that would be required to read a tattoo, I would think.

What it comes down to is that the descriptions will be read in court, DM will show his tattoo, and they will either match up or they won't.
 
Juballee said:
What it comes down to is that the descriptions will be read in court, DM will show his tattoo, and they will either match up or they won't.
Click to expand...
<rsbm>

Very true ... and IMO, it won't make a difference one way or another.

Yesterday as I walked down my hallway, I did a double-take when in my peripheral vision I "saw" a person's head as if someone was lying on my couch. Turns out it was a combination of how the light was filtering through the blinds, the shadowing, and the positioning of the leather cushions that had been moved into an odd position (and possibly reading too much at WS ;)) ... so I did not see a head on my couch !!

Peripheral vision can be odd ... it's possible that Mr. Etobicoke wasn't into micro-studying DM's body during a test drive, but he did register the word "ambition" (which we know is in fact on DM's arm), but his peripheral vision also saw the conglomerate of whatever that other tatt is on DM's forearm, and those images somehow combined in his mind to form a box that did not really exist.

In the long run, LE should be able to explain any discrepancy in court ... and REGARDLESS of what that explanation is, the jury will know that the tattooed word "ambition" led LE to the only person in the world who owned the trailer in which Tim's stolen truck was found and the remote property on which Tim's remains were found. IMO, it will be a non-issue.
 
Juballee said:
Thank you for the good laugh this morning, Swedie! I am still giggling about this. It makes me remember when my children were young enough to have filthy, dirty bandage lines, or being a child and remembering the dread of pulling one of them off when it had been stuck on there for a good long time.

In seriousness, though, I have never seen a mechanic use an actual bandage, the ones I know all use duct tape. And scientifically speaking, any bandage that had adhered strong enough and long enough to leave a dirt outline wouldn't be able to fall off on it's own, it would need to be ripped off. Also, most people can distinguish between sticky, gooey dirt and a tattoo from the distance that would be required to read a tattoo, I would think.

What it comes down to is that the descriptions will be read in court, DM will show his tattoo, and they will either match up or they won't.
Click to expand...

OMG! HPS is going to have an 'if the glove don't fit' episode in an upcoming trial?

The Crown could sell tickets to this phase to off-set the costs!! Can't wait to see how the remains on DM's property will pan out vs DNA at OJ's trial.
 
IMO ..it will NOT be on OJ simpson Trial........Woodland (poster above me )>> you made me laugh in a good way :)

...JMHO if you look back at the timeline by Swede.. there is more than enough evidence ..BUT that is just my opinion..so take it as you wish....again IMO ...but I think we shall see a lot..! IN Court the crown will present the evidence which I am sure after 7 mth now HAS been given to the accused defense attorneys...I believe than maybe we shall hear some of this story ....JMHO robynhood..
 
Juballee said:
Thank you for the good laugh this morning, Swedie! I am still giggling about this. It makes me remember when my children were young enough to have filthy, dirty bandage lines, or being a child and remembering the dread of pulling one of them off when it had been stuck on there for a good long time.

In seriousness, though, I have never seen a mechanic use an actual bandage, the ones I know all use duct tape. And scientifically speaking, any bandage that had adhered strong enough and long enough to leave a dirt outline wouldn't be able to fall off on it's own, it would need to be ripped off. Also, most people can distinguish between sticky, gooey dirt and a tattoo from the distance that would be required to read a tattoo, I would think.

What it comes down to is that the descriptions will be read in court, DM will show his tattoo, and they will either match up or they won't.
Click to expand...


You're quite welcome for the laugh; it was my intention.

BBM I don't mean to be nit picky here but really...scientifically?! Years ago when my hubby worked at a pretty greasy, grimy, job he would end up with nicks and cuts here and there, he would put a bandage on and within maybe hours the bandage would lift off and you could see an outline of dirt and grease from where the bandage was. Same with my kids when they were little. I could change a bandage many times in a day because the darn things would come loose. Not to mention sweat or getting them wet didn't help either. Must have been darn cheap bandages or the technology wasn't as good back then. :doh::giggle:

UBM Exactly! And I agree with SB's last paragraph: In the long run, LE should be able to explain any discrepancy in court ... and REGARDLESS of what that explanation is, the jury will know that the tattooed word "ambition" led LE to the only person in the world who owned the trailer in which Tim's stolen truck was found and the remote property on which Tim's remains were found. IMO, it will be a non-issue.

MOO.
 
This is my favourite quote:

Last year, the death of his father, Wayne, brought focus to his meandering path, Millard says.

"He was probably the person I loved most in the world, even more than myself," he says. "We would have deep discussions. He needed me a lot for the business."

Even more than myself? Who says that? wow. JMO

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4...dellen-millard-says-he-didn-t-kill-tim-bosma/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 224 more.
Total: 2,144 (members: 225, guests: 1,919)

Online statistics

Members online
225
Guests online
1,919
Total visitors
2,144
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,357
Messages
18,095,015
Members
230,852
Latest member
dinkeydave
Back
Top