FL FL - Michelle Parker, 33, Orlando, 17 Nov 2011 - #21

[Thor]

Yes...just very passionate about helping victims! I can be a bit opinionated at times but at the end of the day I'm really a pretty nice person! JMO lol

Opinionated? Now, that includes everybody in here I guess or we wouldn't be here to begin with. And since we are in our usual end-of-the-day-hug-fest let me say I think you are a nice person too.

 

[SleuthDecay]

If she left on her own, that could explain it.

I don't consider her leaving "on her own" a possibility. Investigators said a bloodhound was used at the site where the Hummer was found, but the dog did not hit on a viable scent trail. So this, in my opinion, knocks the wind out of the theory that Michelle just abandoned the Hummer and left on her own.

 

[SleuthDecay]

Does anyone know: Has Dale himself admitted to being wrong about (or lying about; however you want to phrase it) the time he made contact with Michelle at his condo (4:00), or is the 3:18 arrival time still standing in contradiction to Dale's 4:00 claim?

Since Dale's own attorney has used 3:18pm as the starting point of the defense's 72 minute timeline that Dale had to kill Michelle and dispose of her body, I would say that, yes, it still stands in contradiction to Dale's original 4:00 claim. JMO.

 

[vibert]

Does any one know if or what the start up costs are for the Glow Tanning business are? I remember she mentioned it in the PC airing about starting up the business but i don't recall if she said this business specifically.

Removing that sticker may have been for other reasons than just not wanting it to stick out like a sore thumb as some think.

Not sure. Someone here had posted they found documents of another business she had also, but the records only had a name not a type of business. I was wondering if that has ever been determined?

 

[SmoothOperator]

That is a motive for killing her, and there are more then one if you think about it. But why on that very day and under those circumstances? Why not tomorrow, or next week, when the kids are not in the immediate area and he is not the last one to have seen Michelle? Why not at night, in the dark, when few people are around? IMO

The answer here is very simple and IMO obvious.. this man has proven time and time again to have severe issues with impulse control.. SEVERE!

 

[SmoothOperator]

Can you explain how it is so. I did not hear the particulars of that one before.

Its quoted in the timeline on page 1..NeJame stated the infamous 72 minute window of opportunity that IMO he very quickly regretted having done.. that window of op according to Jr's attorney began at the 3:18pm mark of Michelle arriving at the condo and ended when he arrived on Rose Blvd at sr's at 4:30pm.

HTH

This was stated by NeJame in the Presser held soon thereafter he was retained by Dale.

 

[Thor]

Since Dale's own attorney has used 3:18pm as the starting point of the defense's 72 minute timeline that Dale had to kill Michelle and dispose of her body, I would say that, yes, it still stands in contradiction to Dale's original 4:00 claim. JMO.

3:18pm ORIGINAL ARRIVAL TIME OF MICHELLE AT DALE's. Surveillance video shows Michelle's blk Hummer(sister, Lauren confirmed it was Michelle's Hummer)arriving at Dale's condo. The 3:18pm timestamp has been verified as correct(only "off" 2seconds) by the very man whose surveillance cam caught the Hummer footage.
**also note that 3:18pm marks the BEGINNING of the 72min window of op later given by Dale JR's ATTY, NeJame**
[MSM, video confirmation, sister, MN]


4:00pm THIS IS THE NEW ARRIVAL TIME OF MICHELLE AT DALE's CONDO per sister, Lauren on 11/30 PrimeTime News. She claims that the time on the video of 3:18pm is INCORRECT.. that the correct time of Michelle/twins arriving at Dale's was 4:00pm.. Lauren further claims that in Dale's initial convo with the family on 11/17 when they asked him when he'd last seen Michelle that he answered that she'd arrived at 4:00pm, stayed and talked for 10mins, and upon her leaving she told Dale she was headed "shopping".
**please note that I am making clear that this time and info is not told to the public by Dale Jr, himself, but rather it is Michelle's sister, Lauren publicly stating these are the events/times of 11/17 as the family was told by Dale Jr in their first contacting him on the night of 11/17**
[family, MSM]

If Dale saw MP at 4:00 pm would it not mean He had even less then 72 mins to commit the crime? And I did not find any reports that Dale told the police he met MP at 4:00 pm. Please correct me if I am wrong. In any case what is the point here? That Dale lied in order to undermine his own defense?

 

[SleuthDecay]

If Dale saw MP at 4:00 pm would it not mean He had even less then 72 mins to commit the crime? And I did not find any reports that Dale told the police he met MP at 4:00 pm. Please correct me if I am wrong. In any case what is the point here? That Dale lied in order to undermine his own defense?

Dale's own attorney puts Michelle's arrival time at 3:18pm, NOT 4:00 pm and that is a FACT and is not in dispute.

 

[Thor]

Dale's own attorney puts Michelle's arrival time at 3:18pm, NOT 4:00 pm and that is a FACT and is not in dispute.

Dale told the police, as his own attorney indicates, that he met MP at 3:18 pm
there are no facts stating otherwise. That is DS statement per his own attorney and not refuted by the police.

addendum: actually I don't think there is a public record of what he actually told the police, sorry. I think the timeline of the 72 mins defense by DS' attorney is a reference to the "Surveillance video shows Michelle's blk Hummer(sister, Lauren confirmed it was Michelle's Hummer)arriving at Dale's condo. The 3:18pm timestamp has been verified as correct(only "off" 2seconds) by the very man whose surveillance cam caught the Hummer footage." Since this is part of the defense contention I am assuming to be consistent with a possible statement that DS might have made to the defense.

Michelle's sister says DS told the the family previously that he saw first Michelle at 4:00 pm

In other words is not DS stating he saw MP at 4:00 pm is MP's sister recollection of DS having previously stated to the family he saw MP at 4:00 pm.

In any case a timeline that starts at 4:00 pm would even be preferable for the defense to another starting at 3:18pm since it would give Dale even less time to kill and dispose of MP's body, where the 72 mins. defense is at issue.

 

[SleuthDecay]

Dale told the police, as his own attorney indicates, that he met MP at 3:18 pm
there are no facts stating otherwise. That is DS statement per his own attorney and not refuted by the police.

Michelle's sister says DS told the the family previously that he saw first Michelle at 4:00 pm

Either Michelle's sister is mistaken or Dale lied in order to undermine his own defense, since his attorney would love to prove a timeline that starts at 4:00 pm bc it gives DS even less time to kill MP and dispose of her body.

Which one is your point?

You are incorrect. Dale first told Michelle's family that Michelle dropped off the twins at 4:00pm. He stuck with this story until the surveillance video was released of Michelle's Hummer's arrival at 3:18pm. Right after that video was made public, Dale hired a lawyer and the lawyer has since maintained and has not deviated from the time of 3:18 pm as the time Michelle dropped off the twins. He has made quite a big deal out of claiming that Dale had only "72 minutes" to commit and cover up the crime. But he has always conceded that the 72 minutes starts at 3:18pm when Michelle's Hummer is first spotted pulling up to Dale's drive.

 

[Thor]

You are incorrect. Dale first told Michelle's family that Michelle dropped off the twins at 4:00pm. He stuck with this story until the surveillance video was released of Michelle's Hummer's arrival at 3:18pm. Right after that video was made public, Dale hired a lawyer and the lawyer has since maintained and has not deviated from the time of 3:18 pm as the time Michelle dropped off the twins. He has made quite a big deal out of claiming that Dale had only "72 minutes" to commit and cover up the crime. But he has always conceded that the 72 minutes starts at 3:18pm when Michelle's Hummer is first spotted pulling up to Dale's drive.

IMO you are assuming that the Mp's sister recollection of this 4:00 pm is correct, and besides IMO the only statements that really counts is the one he might has given to the police not an hearsay statement made by a member of MP's family. Also, as you said, his lawyer has maintained he has not deviated from the timeline and the police have not refuted that assertion.

Why did you say then:

"Since Dale's own attorney has used 3:18pm as the starting point of the defense's 72 minute timeline that Dale had to kill Michelle and dispose of her body, I would say that, yes, it still stands in contradiction to Dale's original 4:00 claim."

and then:

"Dale's own attorney puts Michelle's arrival time at 3:18pm, NOT 4:00 pm and that is a FACT and is not in dispute".?

No it is not a fact the Dale made a claim he saw MP at 4:00 pm it is an hearsay statement made by MP's sister.

And therefore no, it is not a fact that DS's attorney contradicts Dale's statement, actually he maintains the opposite and that assertion has not been refuted by the police.

And what if is true that DS changed his recollection of when MP arrived at the condo, in what context would this be relevant?

 

[southern_comfort]

IMO you are assuming that the Mp's sister recollection of this 4:00 pm is correct, and besides IMO the only statements that really counts is the one he might has given to the police not an hearsay statement made by a member of MP's family. Also, as you said, his lawyer has maintained he has not deviated from the timeline and the police have not refuted that assertion.

Why did you say then:

"Since Dale's own attorney has used 3:18pm as the starting point of the defense's 72 minute timeline that Dale had to kill Michelle and dispose of her body, I would say that, yes, it still stands in contradiction to Dale's original 4:00 claim."

and then:

"Dale's own attorney puts Michelle's arrival time at 3:18pm, NOT 4:00 pm and that is a FACT and is not in dispute".?

No it is not a fact the Dale made a claim he saw MP at 4:00 pm it is an hearsay statement made by MP's sister.

And therefore no, it is not a fact that DS's attorney contradicts Dale's statement, actually he maintains the opposite and that assertion has not been refuted by the police.

And what if is true that DS changed his recollection of when MP arrived at the condo, in what context would this be relevant?

I asked about the 4:00 arrival time (which, as you point out, is a claim made by M's sister and not by D himself) because it occurred to me that her passing the camera at 3:18 doesn't mean she came up to the door at 3:18. There have been plenty of times where I've had a sleeping kid I haven't wanted to awaken and I've found something to do while they finish napping in the car. Some kids, once they've been asleep even a few minutes and then awakened, won't go back to sleep. I was thinking it's possible that Michelle could have occupied herself for a short while, thereby passing the camera in the Hummer at 3:18 but with D not being aware of her arrival until she came to his door at 4.

That would tighten the timeline.

There are too many assumptions to draw any conclusions, though, with even the 4:00 claim being speculation. For the record, though, if D does claim she arrived at 4, I don't consider NeJame's 72 minute statement to be a contradiction necessarily. He may have been simply saying that, at most... even if you use 3:18 as her arrival time... there wasn't enough time.

Now, though, I am curious to know what DS has actually, himself, said about anything.

 

[southern_comfort]

Not sure. Someone here had posted they found documents of another business she had also, but the records only had a name not a type of business. I was wondering if that has ever been determined?

What was the name of the business?

 

[southern_comfort]

Well, that, coupled with the previous (I'm paraphrasing) "she had good reason to run away because she had a very public bad hair day on People's Court" remark, makes it seem as if there is some level of cattiness toward Michelle. And this is a victim friendly forum, so IMO, those kinds of remarks are unnecessary. But that's just my opinion.

At any rate, Dale's own attorney starts the window of opportunity for Dale to have killed and disposed of Michelle at 3:18 pm. So that might answer your question right there.

I don't feel any cattiness toward Michelle. She did have a very public bad hair day on People's Court, and she does like to take pictures of herself. Both of those facts about Michelle either are, or could be relevant to what happened to her.

That does not answer my question, but thank you for trying.

 

[Jazzmaster]

IMO you are assuming that the Mp's sister recollection of this 4:00 pm is correct, and besides IMO the only statements that really counts is the one he might has given to the police not an hearsay statement made by a member of MP's family. Also, as you said, his lawyer has maintained he has not deviated from the timeline and the police have not refuted that assertion.

Why did you say then:

"Since Dale's own attorney has used 3:18pm as the starting point of the defense's 72 minute timeline that Dale had to kill Michelle and dispose of her body, I would say that, yes, it still stands in contradiction to Dale's original 4:00 claim."

and then:

"Dale's own attorney puts Michelle's arrival time at 3:18pm, NOT 4:00 pm and that is a FACT and is not in dispute".?

No it is not a fact the Dale made a claim he saw MP at 4:00 pm it is an hearsay statement made by MP's sister.

And therefore no, it is not a fact that DS's attorney contradicts Dale's statement, actually he maintains the opposite and that assertion has not been refuted by the police.

And what if is true that DS changed his recollection of when MP arrived at the condo, in what context would this be relevant?

I think you are missing the MUCH larger elephant in the room...Dale was the last known person to see Michelle when she arrived at 3:18 p.m. on Nov. 17. It has been reported that after her arrival, Dale immediately took the children to his parents' home... arriving at Rose Blvd by 4:30 p.m....according to Dale's own attorney.

I have driven from Carter Glen to Rose and back at least a dozen times...sometimes during the exact time of day Michelle went missing and it has never taken me more than 30 minutes to complete the trip. It normally takes about 20 minutes but let's stipulate it took him 30 minutes....he still should have arrived at Rose by 4:00pm not 4:30pm. Dale actually had time to go to his parents, drive back to his condo, and then go back to Rose again! What did Dale do with this extra 30+ minutes? No one has been able to explain why it took Dale over an hour to get to his parents. So IMO there are 30 unaccounted minutes to hide evidence.

His lawyer told reporters it wasn't "physically possible" for Smith to kill Michelle, dispose of her body, dump her car and drive their children to his parents house in 72 minutes. I disagree with MN! Yet another MAJOR issue is there in no report of Dale remaining at his parents' house after arriving. So IMO Dale is unaccounted for from 4:30 until at least 8:00 given him 3.5 hours to hide evidence.

 

[southern_comfort]

I think you are missing the MUCH larger elephant in the room...Dale was the last known person to see Michelle when she arrived at 3:18 p.m. on Nov. 17. It has been reported that after her arrival, Dale immediately took the children to his parents' home... arriving at Rose Blvd by 4:30 p.m....according to Dale's own attorney.

I have driven from Carter Glen to Rose and back at least a dozen times...sometimes during the exact time of day Michelle went missing and it has never taken me more than 30 minutes to complete the trip. It normally takes about 20 minutes but let's stipulate it took him 30 minutes....he still should have arrived at Rose by 4:00pm not 4:30pm. Dale actually had time to go to his parents, drive back to his condo, and then go back to Rose again! What did Dale do with this extra 30+ minutes? No one has been able to explain why it took Dale over an hour to get to his parents. So IMO there are 30 unaccounted minutes to hide evidence.

His lawyer told reporters it wasn't "physically possible" for Smith to kill Michelle, dispose of her body, dump her car and drive their children to his parents house in 72 minutes. I disagree with MN! Yet another MAJOR issue is there in no report of Dale remaining at his parents' house after arriving. So IMO Dale is unaccounted for from 4:30 until at least 8:00 given him 3.5 hours to hide evidence.

If everything started in motion at 3:18 and his parents are his alibi (which I think you suspect, no?), and the trip takes 1/2 hour at most, why wouldn't they just say D arrived at 3:45 or 4? I wonder if the camera caught D leaving? Just not enough known.

 

[Kamille]

IMO you are assuming that the Mp's sister recollection of this 4:00 pm is correct, and besides IMO the only statements that really counts is the one he might has given to the police not an hearsay statement made by a member of MP's family. Also, as you said, his lawyer has maintained he has not deviated from the timeline and the police have not refuted that assertion.

Why did you say then:

"Since Dale's own attorney has used 3:18pm as the starting point of the defense's 72 minute timeline that Dale had to kill Michelle and dispose of her body, I would say that, yes, it still stands in contradiction to Dale's original 4:00 claim."

and then:

"Dale's own attorney puts Michelle's arrival time at 3:18pm, NOT 4:00 pm and that is a FACT and is not in dispute".?

No it is not a fact the Dale made a claim he saw MP at 4:00 pm it is an hearsay statement made by MP's sister.

And therefore no, it is not a fact that DS's attorney contradicts Dale's statement, actually he maintains the opposite and that assertion has not been refuted by the police.

And what if is true that DS changed his recollection of when MP arrived at the condo, in what context would this be relevant?

If DSJr told Michelle's sister personally that she arrived at the condo at 4pm then it is not a hearsay statement. It is a statement made by the suspect in this case.

Now if he told Michelle's mother that and her sister was relaying it via the media then that makes it a hearsay statement as far as the information we've gathered. And she is not the one who would be called in court to relay the statement. But it still makes it a statement that DSJr made.

And any statement that DSJr made to anyone is evidence. Not just what he told LE. Every person whom he made a direct statement to in regards to this case is subject to supoena should it go to trial.

Hence the reason that he is the prime suspect. He lied to her family and most likely he also lied to LE because everything was fine and he was co-operating and not considered a suspect right up to the day that video was released. After that, IMO, he was confronted with this conflicting timeline, asked to take the lie detector, which he refused and he stopped co-operating and got a lawyer.

Therefore it stands to reason that he has never given an explanation to LE about why his statement conflicts with the video IMO.

MOO

 

[Kamille]

If everything started in motion at 3:18 and his parents are his alibi (which I think you suspect, no?), and the trip takes 1/2 hour at most, why wouldn't they just say D arrived at 3:45 or 4? I wonder if the camera caught D leaving? Just not enough known.

Because he probably did arrive around 4:30pm at his parent's house to drop off the kids so he could go back and finish "cleaning up". And he may have gotten a ride back and his truck may have been at his parent's place from 4:30pm until he got back there after dumping the Hummer.

MOO

 

[missingm]

I don't consider her leaving "on her own" a possibility. Investigators said a bloodhound was used at the site where the Hummer was found, but the dog did not hit on a viable scent trail. So this, in my opinion, knocks the wind out of the theory that Michelle just abandoned the Hummer and left on her own.

I wonder if her hair treatment that day plus spray on tanning and an urban environment could have thrown off a dog.

 

[Cblewife]

I think because the only time he ever saw her was when she was dropping off the kids. When else was he going to be sure to see her? And i think he wanted the privacy of his home. How else would he get her alone?

I don't think he had the options that you listed. He had no chances to see her at night, when few people were around. She probably left work with her boyfriend most nights. When you think about it, this day was a perfect opportunity. He had his kids as his alibi. And he could use the same excuses that you are listing now. " Why would I do that now when she was at my home and everyone knew it?"

I think it was a spontaneous decision, out of anger. But once he made the decision, he went for it, and had already figured out what he was going to do, because he had pondered it, fantasized about it , many times before, imo.

BBM - IMO this makes perfect sense. He obviously lives in a semi-fantasy world, playing dress up with an apparent thirst for the lime light.