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

[Pias]

I think you began to try to remove the 'personal crime' out of the equation and sidestep into theory vs proposition in your last statement which would then only serve to confuse the matter when, if one were not trying to be difficult, would likely be understood as to the point one was supposing at the time. I hope this is not the case as it is unnecessary and nonproductive and I wish only to seek answers that may lead to the recovery of Michelle.

Why do you keep referring to the Hummer as 'clean'? Because there has been no arrest?

If that is why, why are you supposing that so much activity took place inside of ANY vehicle that it would leave such a bulk of evidence as you expect to find?

Why must she be dead in a vehicle?

If you want something that MUST be, here you have it:
Someone other than Michelle is going to have to be in the Hummer either after they take Michelle prisoner or when they dump her or when they dump the Hummer.

Eventually, someone who is involved in this crime is GONNA HAVE to be in that Hummer. That's just a fact.

 

[Thor]

I think you began to try to remove the 'personal crime' out of the equation and sidestep into theory vs proposition in your last statement which would then only serve to confuse the matter when, if one were not trying to be difficult, would likely be understood as to the point one was supposing at the time. I hope this is not the case as it is unnecessary and nonproductive and I wish only to seek answers that may lead to the recovery of Michelle.

Why do you keep referring to the Hummer as 'clean'? Because there has been no arrest?

If that is why, why are you supposing that so much activity took place inside of ANY vehicle that it would leave such a bulk of evidence as you expect to find?

Why must she be dead in a vehicle?

If you want something that MUST be, here you have it:
Someone other than Michelle is going to have to be in the Hummer either after they take Michelle prisoner or when they dump her or when they dump the Hummer.

Eventually, someone who is involved in this crime is GONNA HAVE to be in that Hummer. That's just a fact.

Yes the perp must be in the Hummer at some point, but the issue is one of an activity that brings about potential evidence and by how much and over what period of time. I would think we'd agree that from the point of view of the perp is not the same thing to simply drive the Hummer to Walden and nothing more vs. to abduct, restrain, kill and finally drive to a location to dispose of the body with it. That latter exposes the vehicle and his driver to infinitely more chances of evidence being left inside then just using the vehicle briefly to simply abandon it. And I seem to recall that the Hummer was characterized as been "clean" in various news reports at the time, I'm just to tired right now to go check but I'm 99% percent positive here.

As per per your question "Why must she be dead in a vehicle?" my answer would be that she would not have to be nor did I ever say that she must be. However evidence while transporting her, alive or not can be present. She might be alive but bleeding if only a little, the driver himself might be bleeding if only a little ... say because of a scratch? Evidence might be present in the tires for example, soil residue? And those are only two of countless others evidence potentially present having nothing to do with Michelle being alive or dead per se and all potentially present in the Hummer if used in the commission of the entire crime and why would the perp choose to do so and leave the Hummer and all possible evidence, either internal and external of the vehicle, for the police to find?

 

[Pias]

Since the average Joe may not have the skills Jr does, I can perhaps imagine why there could be a host of evidence to cause an arrest found in her Hummer where you suppose should be, but Dale is trained to disable a person with just a touch in less than 8 seconds, or kill even quicker, all without blood. The bigger issue might be urination or defecation. The perp may have owned rubber sheets to help protect against leakage, depending on the degree of damage he could have inflicted this way, such as unconscious vs a vegetative state.

Another factor one could take into consideration when examining the possibilities of a potential suspect, is that if you follow through with the thought that a person engaged their military training in gaining control over their victim, then it is possible the entire crime was in like fashion.

In that training one would be taught to think fast move fast. In. Out. Done before the enemy knows what hit them. No driving in circles. No keeping the victim for a period of time after death. No holding on to the victim. No long time in anything anywhere. JMO

 

[Pias]

Each time I speak it is I asking YOU why YOU think there has to be a dead body in a vehicle. I have NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER said that. Even in dumping her, the act of killing can be done where the dumping occurs. I do not think, nor have I EVER thought Michelle was dead in the Hummer.

And again, as far as 'clean' goes, one can have a clean looking vehicle. No trash, looks washed and vacuumed windows look clean, but that does not make it clean in the art of forensic science. Just clean to the eye of the beholder from an outward point of view, between which, there is much difference.

 

[Pias]

Turn out your lights and turn on a florescent black light and see if you don't find a few stains you didn't know you had, and that is just a black light test.

You can bet forensic evidence was found in the Hummer and that LE is keeping that information close to the vest.

 

[Thor]

Turn out your lights and turn on a florescent black light and see if you don't find a few stains you didn't know you had, and that is just a black light test.

You can bet forensic evidence was found in the Hummer and that LE is keeping that information close to the vest.

Ok when we start talking (yet again) about evidence that must exist and particular perp that therefore must be guilty that is where I don't wanna go. Actually where I want to go right now is to bed It has been my pleasure to have this little chat with you Pias, good night and be well. :bedtime:

 

[Pias]

Ok when we start talking (yet again) about evidence that must exist and particular perp that therefore must be guilty that is where I don't wanna go. Actually where I want to go right now is to bed It has been my pleasure to have this little chat with you Pias, good night and be well. :bedtime:

I didn't specify a particular perp. The fact is, there is a perp NO MATTER WHO THE PERP IS and the perp, no matter who they are, are going to leave evidence. Even the lack of evidence is evidence within itself. It is impossible that no evidence was found in the Hummer, if even due to the lack of it, to which we have no proof. fftobed:

 

[GrammaMaybe]

I just got off the line with Guiseppa one of my friends from my Knitting club. She is a real peach in every sense of the word... She asked me something I couldn't answer...does anyone know this: Can Michelle's family sue Dale for wrongful death and at least get him into court to spill the beans? Any attorneys or legal friendly peeps have any input? I think Guiseppa had a good idea. She is a smart cookie...

Colored & pouffed by me.

JMO:

INAL

If the family can find a lawyer who believes they have enough evidence to win (standard for conviction lower than criminal) they could sue in California. Nicole's family sued and won millions from OJ. The trial might expose evidence that would make it possible for a criminal prosecution.

LE would probably object unless they believed they had NO likelihood of ever having a winnable case. "You can't unring a bell," and Papa & Baby Dale might end up with information that could make it impossible to for them to be convicted.

 

[GrammaMaybe]

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

Colored, cut & pouffed by me.

MOO MOO

To rent a car, you have to have a credit card. If Baby or Papa Dale transported Michelle in a rented car, there is a paper trail. For that reason, I think it more likely that a friends car, if any, was used.

The most difficult problem. IMO, was dealing with the extra car.

If Baby Dale was alone, he had to get the twins to his folks, get a ride back to the condo, take the Hummer over to Walden Palms and get a ride from there to Rose Blvd.

If Papa Dale was there at the condo to make sure Baby Dale handled this efficiently, he could have taken the kids to Rose in Baby Dale's truck and left Baby Dale to deal with the Hummer and Michelle.

Dale could have also taken his work truck to Rose before Michelle and the twins arrived, driven the twins to Rose Blvd in his own truck and driven his work truck back to the condo to pick up the Hummer. Then he only needed a ride from Walden Palm to Rose.

 

[TxLady2]

Colored & pouffed by me.

JMO:

INAL

If the family can find a lawyer who believes they have enough evidence to win (standard for conviction lower than criminal) they could sue in California. Nicole's family sued and won millions from OJ. The trial might expose evidence that would make it possible for a criminal prosecution.

LE would probably object unless they believed they had NO likelihood of ever having a winnable case. "You can't unring a bell," and Papa & Baby Dale might end up with information that could make it impossible to for them to be convicted.

In CA??? When this whole thing happened in FL??? Are you sure about that???

I may be wrong, but I don't think that's possible. JMO.

 

[Kamille]

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.

Okay so Michelle is in a perp's vehicle at 4:26pm and so is her phone. She's incapacitated in some way. So how did she get there and how did someone incapacitate her? In broad daylight. With no one seeing anything. It is more unlikely that someone was able to grab a woman from her large and very noticeable vehicle in broad daylight, in public, than it is likely that something may have happened within the confines of a home with many different rooms and a garage area with only two small 3yr old children around. Children who can easily be occupied with a snack and a toy or movie. This is a place we know she went to. There is no other place that it is known she went to, either by witness identification or video surveillance.

And if she is in the perp's vehicle then has he left the Hummer behind somewhere. Where? In broad daylight no one saw the Hummer parked anywhere. And how did he get the Hummer moved to Walden after the commission of the crime? Did he leave his vehicle where the Hummer was? How did he get back to it after he dumped the Hummer. At what point in the crime was the phone tossed? Which vehicle was used for that? Was the perp on the way to get the Hummer or on the way back from dumping it?

And then of course....what is the motive? What reason did someone else have for killing and disposing of Michelle? A motive so reasonable to them that they may have been able to convince someone else to help them? While we can all speculate as to a myriad of reasons, LE have gone over her life with a fine tooth comb and have not come up with anyone who may have had a reason or motive and the opportunity to do this other than DSJr. If this was not him, then it would almost have to be a random stranger. Which just doesn't seem to work with the "limited evidence" that is available.

MOO

 

[southern_comfort]

Is there any spot near the Nela bridge where the public can access Lake Conway?

I took a short google walk and it looked as though the bridge itself is very narrow with nowhere to pull over. But, maybe a local person knows of a spot.

 

[Skully]

Has the Senator Beth Johnson Park or Lake area been searched?

 

[Jazzmaster]

Okay so Michelle is in a perp's vehicle at 4:26pm and so is her phone. She's incapacitated in some way. So how did she get there and how did someone incapacitate her? In broad daylight. With no one seeing anything. It is more unlikely that someone was able to grab a woman from her large and very noticeable vehicle in broad daylight, in public, than it is likely that something may have happened within the confines of a home with many different rooms and a garage area with only two small 3yr old children around. Children who can easily be occupied with a snack and a toy or movie. This is a place we know she went to. There is no other place that it is known she went to, either by witness identification or video surveillance.

And if she is in the perp's vehicle then has he left the Hummer behind somewhere. Where? In broad daylight no one saw the Hummer parked anywhere. And how did he get the Hummer moved to Walden after the commission of the crime? Did he leave his vehicle where the Hummer was? How did he get back to it after he dumped the Hummer. At what point in the crime was the phone tossed? Which vehicle was used for that? Was the perp on the way to get the Hummer or on the way back from dumping it?

And then of course....what is the motive? What reason did someone else have for killing and disposing of Michelle? A motive so reasonable to them that they may have been able to convince someone else to help them? While we can all speculate as to a myriad of reasons, LE have gone over her life with a fine tooth comb and have not come up with anyone who may have had a reason or motive and the opportunity to do this other than DSJr. If this was not him, then it would almost have to be a random stranger. Which just doesn't seem to work with the "limited evidence" that is available.

MOO

This is why IMO all roads lead back to Dale. He is the ONLY one to have the time, means, and opportunity...it also leads me to the conclusion that this most likely had some elements of premeditation. I doubt Dale was THAT good at cleaning a crime scene...though he does have an in-law that does professional cleaning so you never know.

The crime starts at Dale's condo and to me seems that Dale needed at least one other person to help with:

1. Hiding Michelle
2. Hiding her vehicle
3. Using phone to monitor family concerns and then dispose of the phone.

The fact that the 4:26 text was answered so quickly shows that a plan was probably already in place at that time... I believe Dale saw a shopping bag or two in Michelle's vehicle and had her leaving at 4pm, saying she was going shopping, texting Waterford at 426 to back up shopping alibi. He would be at his parents at 430 so he is covered right?

That neighbor's video camera was the MAJOR wrinkle in his plan. Had it not been for the PROOF he was lying he may have been cleared...but here we are almost 10 months later and he is still the ONLY focus. I still believe the 42 mins from 3:18 until 4:00 are the most crucial time period to figure out what Dale and his accomplice were doing...

If unplanned, who was at the condo (if anyone) watching Dale make an idiot of himself on TV...that could now help? If no one else was there, how did Dale contact the accomplice to stop what they were doing to help him clean up? Or was this at first an abduction then it turned into a murder as it went too far?

If planned all of these questions are answered by Dale before Michelle even arrived. His plan is foiled by the neighbor's camera...the premeditated plan seems to be the most likely scenario for me...Dale had enough of Michelle and she had secrets on him so he erased her on a day that few would suspect he would be that stupid to attempt to pull off....MOO

 

[Thor]

Okay so Michelle is in a perp's vehicle at 4:26pm and so is her phone. She's incapacitated in some way. So how did she get there and how did someone incapacitate her? In broad daylight. With no one seeing anything. It is more unlikely that someone was able to grab a woman from her large and very noticeable vehicle in broad daylight, in public, than it is likely that something may have happened within the confines of a home with many different rooms and a garage area with only two small 3yr old children around. Children who can easily be occupied with a snack and a toy or movie. This is a place we know she went to. There is no other place that it is known she went to, either by witness identification or video surveillance.

And if she is in the perp's vehicle then has he left the Hummer behind somewhere. Where? In broad daylight no one saw the Hummer parked anywhere. And how did he get the Hummer moved to Walden after the commission of the crime? Did he leave his vehicle where the Hummer was? How did he get back to it after he dumped the Hummer. At what point in the crime was the phone tossed? Which vehicle was used for that? Was the perp on the way to get the Hummer or on the way back from dumping it?

And then of course....what is the motive? What reason did someone else have for killing and disposing of Michelle? A motive so reasonable to them that they may have been able to convince someone else to help them? While we can all speculate as to a myriad of reasons, LE have gone over her life with a fine tooth comb and have not come up with anyone who may have had a reason or motive and the opportunity to do this other than DSJr. If this was not him, then it would almost have to be a random stranger. Which just doesn't seem to work with the "limited evidence" that is available.

MOO

Ok, as I indicated before, given no evidence, just about every theory can be criticized and usually with good reasons. You response is very comprehensive as there is a tendency around here to look at the whole episode from star to finish as if it was important to make everything fit together in a single narrative that is neatly packaged, with the bad guy (Dale as it just about always happens) ready to be handcuffed and taken away. However no such a thing is possible here IMO, the evidence is not there to make a complete narrative that makes sense and does not inevitably stray from the remotely provable. Mine was not a theory as such, it was no theory at all really, it was a thinking out loud about bits and pieces of a puzzle that can't be solved readily and needs eventual more evidence to be tested against, none of which are available right now.

I can't discuss all of the observations you've made, as legitimate as they are, because there is really not enough time in my day to have to reconsider an entire scenario in every post, that ultimately leads to the obvious simplifications and broad statements of guilt so pervasive around here. So let me pick one ... motive.

"What reason did someone else have for killing and disposing of Michelle?"

Reason or motives can be many here, ranging from a personal grudge to a sexual compulsion or anything else I don't know .

"While we can all speculate as to a myriad of reasons, LE have gone over her life with a fine tooth comb and have not come up with anyone who may have had a reason or motive and the opportunity to do this other than DSJr. If this was not him, then it would almost have to be a random stranger."

We don't know what LE has done or not done investigation wise, and if the idea is that if the police cannot find something therefore the conventional wisdom must be that nothing is there then it would be the same as saying that if a crime has no suspect then there is no perpetrator, (and most crimes have no suspect and are never solved) and conversely if a crime has a suspect then it is a likely indication of guilt, both of which in my opinion being erroneous and beside the point where guilty or not guilty being mostly a matter of evidence that can be produced or not produced and not one based on assumptions.

All my opinions

 

[Pias]

Being erroneous and beside the point where guilty being mostly a matter of evidence is far from fact. The true fact at hand, is that when there is a crime, there is a suspect guilty of said crime. What you perhaps meant to say was it then becomes a burden of proof based on the evidence of who will be convicted of guilt, wrongly or rightly, if anyone.

If you wrongfully convict someone, it hardly makes it fact that they are guilty just because they were convicted. Being guilty and being convicted of guilt are not one and the same. Evidence can lead to the wrong conviction, but the fact still remains the person who committed the crime is guilty of the crime.

 

[Thor]

Being erroneous and beside the point where guilty being mostly a matter of evidence is far from fact. The true fact at hand, is that when there is a crime, there is a suspect guilty of said crime. What you perhaps meant to say was it then becomes a burden of proof based on the evidence of who will be convicted of guilt, wrongly or rightly, if ever.

You are of course arguing semantics, and I would not shy away from such an exercise, however I think it was obvious that I meant guilt as a matter of proof not as the general idea of guilt. If a crime is committed then there is obviously a guilty party and you are correct, however that is a philosophical observation about guilt not of guilt as it may or may not be established within an evidentiary context.

 

[Pias]

If you wrongfully convict someone, it hardly makes it fact that they are guilty just because they were convicted. Being guilty and being convicted of guilt are not one and the same. Evidence can lead to the wrong conviction, but the fact still remains the person who committed the crime is guilty of the crime, not the other way around, as your statement may have compelled one to believe you were trying to imply when saying guilty is mostly a matter of evidence, whereas, this in no way could be construed as a true statement or baring fact.

 

[Thor]

If you wrongfully convict someone, it hardly makes it fact that they are guilty just because they were convicted. Being guilty and being convicted of guilt are not one and the same. Evidence can lead to the wrong conviction, but the fact still remains the person who committed the crime is guilty of the crime.

We are still not clear between guilt has a state of being and guilt as state of proof one being different from the other. Practically speaking one is guilty of a crime when one is found guilty of it within a criminal trial and of course there are many cases where one is subsequently exonerated of that crime. However guilt here is intended as a legal state not as moral and philosophical one. There is no humanly devised way to establish guilt outside of what is proven "behind a reasonable doubt" with doubt being the crucial word here since no one operates from the position of an "all knowing" state which is usually attributed to higher powers such as those of a God.

JMO

 

[Pias]

But again, the fact is, that we DO have a power so close to 'all knowing' that it could solve many crimes and, most likely, prevent others from happening due to its power, thus, becoming a determent.

Satellite technology.

Harness the power by the power vested in you as an American citizen.

http://www.change.org/petitions/pet...sting-military-technology-we-the-people-speak

Help bring Michelle and hundreds of thousands of others home.

You CAN!