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

[Kamille]

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

I may be mistaken and I'm sure someone can correct me if I am, but I believe that the children were interviewed once shortly after Michelle disappeared and only for a short time. Now that may have been when DFS was involved and removed the children from DSJr's custody for a brief period just prior to the emergency court hearing.

MOO

 

[Pias]

The question was posed: "What exactly is it that you would have Dale do..." "What is it exactly that Dale could say..." "What exactly..."

Sorry Thor, I mistook that as you wanting to "know exactly," so I tried to be specific. That's it. And it very well reflected your question being repeated at the time, and had little to do with the light under which it is now met with scrutiny, having skewed the entire context to the point it has become unrecognizable, and therefore my responses to you regarding this matter are closed for me. You may continue on at will as you see fit.

 

[What'sThatClue]

I may be mistaken and I'm sure someone can correct me if I am, but I believe that the children were interviewed once shortly after Michelle disappeared and only for a short time. Now that may have been when DFS was involved and removed the children from DSJr's custody for a brief period just prior to the emergency court hearing.

MOO

You're not mistaken. The story is also up-threads but here's a link:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...orlando-police-mark-nejame-protective-custody

4th paragraph from the bottom, I believe. It was DCF who interviewed the twins, not LE. And the twins were interviewed due to past domestic violence, according to the article.

Jmo except for link.

 

[Thor]

I may be mistaken and I'm sure someone can correct me if I am, but I believe that the children were interviewed once shortly after Michelle disappeared and only for a short time. Now that may have been when DFS was involved and removed the children from DSJr's custody for a brief period just prior to the emergency court hearing.

MOO

IMO, you're neither right nor wrong on the facts, they are simply not known in regard to how many times the children were interviewed, for how long, under what circumstances etc... It is also not known whether or not DS allowed the police to further question the children, if the police asked to interview the children again and were denied access and so on. Surely the police had access to the kids at some point, at least when they were still residing with the grandparents (however briefly) and that much seems to me indisputable. Also it might be the case that the police in this particular instance would be able to interview the children further without parental consent pursuant a court order although the police would probably need to show probable cause which in this case might be tricky since they would probably need to show the probative value of such a request. If in turn the attorney for DS would be inclined to oppose further interviews of the children it would probably be primarily on the grounds of it being a "fishing expedition" that would unnecessarily subject the kids to further emotional distress or something to that effect. Of course all of this is highly speculative on my part, and I can be wrong on so many levels here, if someone else here can correct me on the facts and legal theories, please do so.

 

[Thor]

You're not mistaken. The story is also up-threads but here's a link:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...orlando-police-mark-nejame-protective-custody

4th paragraph from the bottom, I believe. It was DCF who interviewed the twins, not LE. And the twins were interviewed due to past domestic violence, according to the article.

Jmo except for link.

The article you mentioned here asserted that DCF had interviewed the twins but it makes no claims about the police having interviewed them or not and there are no claims from the police that they were prevented or are prevented from interviewing the twins, that I know of course .

 

[Pias]

DCF said authorities interviewed the children, but what, if anything, was learned from them is not yet known. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/michelle-parker-missing-dale-smith_n_1121180.html

Sorry if this link is not allowed

There is this one from the TODAY show which also states LE questioned the twins http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/45474757#45493398

It points out the children were taken from their father sometime after the children were interviewed by LE.

Does that really sound to speak to Dale's innocence?

 

[Thor]

DCF said authorities interviewed the children, but what, if anything, was learned from them is not yet known. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/michelle-parker-missing-dale-smith_n_1121180.html

Sorry if this link is not allowed

Whatever was learned in the interview(s) is not known factually, and it can either be accusatory or exculpatory, or any shades in between. ie: if the children witnessed a verbal fight between DS and MP that would be accusatory, although here imagining the twins witnessing a verbal altercation but not a physical fight might be a bit far fetched, and had they witnessed an actual act of violence it would all but surely be the case that DS would have been charged by now. IMO

It is more then likely IMO that the children having witnessed nothing out of the ordinary do provide exculpatory evidence in this case, at least where the crime scene would be DS's condo, and I always found the condo as the crime scene almost surreal, independent of DS being guilty or innocent.

 

[Kamille]

Whatever was learned in the interview(s) is not known factually, and it can either be accusatory or exculpatory, or any shades in between. ie: if the children witnessed a verbal fight between DS and MP that would be accusatory, although here imagining the twins witnessing a verbal altercation but not a physical fight might be a bit far fetched, and had they witnessed an actual act of violence it would all but surely be the case that DS would have been charged by now. IMO

It is more then likely IMO that the children having witnessed nothing out of the ordinary do provide exculpatory evidence in this case, at least where the crime scene would be DS's condo, and I always found the condo as the crime scene almost surreal, independent of DS being guilty or innocent.

Have you never heard of people leaving the room and getting out of earshot and eyesight of children to "discuss" something? Michelle had already taken DSJr to court for a restraining order based on a verbal and physical argument that did take place in front of the children in a public place where there was no place to do so away from them. Many couples have engaged in verbal and physical altercations with each other with their children being in the home but not seeing or hearing anything.

MOO

 

[Thor]

DCF said authorities interviewed the children, but what, if anything, was learned from them is not yet known. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/michelle-parker-missing-dale-smith_n_1121180.html

Sorry if this link is not allowed

There is this one from the TODAY show which also states LE questioned the twins http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/45474757#45493398

My God Pias, your ability to find relevant material here is incredible ... thank you very much, I though I heard that the twins had been questioned by the police Ibut I couldn't remember where ... and I certainly had not seen the video of DS' attorney claiming the police has "no evidence" "no DNA" or anything at all except a persons nobody likes which is what I always suspected. However it is also true that what a TV show says or DS's attorney say is not necessarily what it is either in whole or in part, we are still talking about "reports" and defense attorney's point of view and this video is rather outdated, fore example the police might have found evidence subsequent that day, I just have a strong feeling that is not the case and I'd need real evidence to really make up my mind one way or the other.

 

[Thor]

Have you never heard of people leaving the room and getting out of earshot and eyesight of children to "discuss" something? Michelle had already taken DSJr to court for a restraining order based on a verbal and physical argument that did take place in front of the children in a public place where there was no place to do so away from them. Many couples have engaged in verbal and physical altercations with each other with their children being in the home but not seeing or hearing anything.

MOO

Sure, nothing I have said precludes that of course, I just find it unlikely in these particular circumstances ... a verbal fight, a physical confrontation, an act of violence that kills or renders a person unconscious, no forensic evidence of such an act, no evidence of any kind ... I could go on here ... and the children hear nothing? No witnesses? No one overhears anything? The neighbors? Anyone? Sure anything is possible, I just think a defense attorney would have a field day with this particular theory and with good reasons ... although this is clearly my opinion and I could be wrong of course, we are not dealing with certainties here, at least where I'm concerned.

 

[What'sThatClue]

The article you mentioned here asserted that DCF had interviewed the twins but it makes no claims about the police having interviewed them or not and there are no claims from the police that they were prevented or are prevented from interviewing the twins, that I know of course .

You're correct in that I stated DCF interviewed the twins and not LE. And yes, the article makes no claims about LE interviewing them--I never said it did.

But I was referencing that particular article only and stated there were other posts upthreads that discuss this. So please don't misconstrue my post, thanks. . I didn't state, nor does that particular article state, that LE were or were not (or, are or are not) being prevented from interviewing the twinners. that's really an unknown for us...something the public may never know.

I'm glad Pias fornd the other article that does address LE interviewing them. . Thanks, Pias!

 

[Thor]

Your point is silly since the outcome is the same. What would the starting point have to do with what was not seen? For the same to be true, it could have happened anywhere, and does all the time, or we wouldn't have an epidemic of missing persons.

I'm not sure I understand here, I was referring to the DS's condo as being the crime scene, as many here have theorized over and over again in the past ... of course it could have happened anywhere. And I really don't get offended but what is the point in characterizing other people's opinions silly? It sort kills the atmosphere of the debate ... don't you think?

 

[What'sThatClue]

I'm not sure I understand here, I was referring to the DS's condo as being the crime scene, as many here have theorized over and over again in the past ... of course it could have happened anywhere. And I really don't get offended but what is the point in characterizing other people's opinions silly? It sort kills the atmosphere of the debate ... don't you think?

Jmo, it's not supposed to be a debate. We're here to sleuth where Michelle is, the circumstances behind her disappearance (and possible murder), possible scenarios as to what happened. To me a debate means two sides arguing, each on opposite sides. Here we should all be on the same side, no opposite sides here, just sleuthing of what happened/may have happened.

 

[Thor]

You're correct in that I stated DCF interviewed the twins and not LE. And yes, the article makes no claims about LE interviewing them--I never said it did.

But I was referencing that particular article only and stated there were other posts upthreads that discuss this. So please don't misconstrue my post, thanks. . I didn't state, nor does that particular article state, that LE were or were not (or, are or are not) being prevented from interviewing the twinners. that's really an unknown for us...something the public may never know.

I'm glad Pias fornd the other article that does address LE interviewing them. . Thanks, Pias!

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but by pointing out that the article did not mention the police having interviewed the twins or not was a matter of of clarification in the context of the entire issue that was being discussed in several posts and not in reference to your post specifically.

 

[Pias]

I'm not sure I understand here, I was referring to the DS's condo as being the crime scene, as many here have theorized over and over again in the past ... of course it could have happened anywhere. And I really don't get offended but what is the point in characterizing other people's opinions silly? It sort kills the atmosphere of the debate ... don't you think?

Never mind. It wasn't worth the discussion so I deleted it, but since you have quoted it, I am sure there are those who understood it without needing an S.A. with reference guide.

 

[notmissing]

I'm not sure I understand here, I was referring to the DS's condo as being the crime scene, as many here have theorized over and over again in the past ... of course it could have happened anywhere. And I really don't get offended but what is the point in characterizing other people's opinions silly? It sort kills the atmosphere of the debate ... don't you think?

I feel that spinning what everyone says or feels around constantly kills the atmosphere on Michelle's thread.


Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

 

[Thor]

Jmo, it's not supposed to be a debate. We're here to sleuth where Michelle is, the circumstances behind her disappearance (and possible murder), possible scenarios as to what happened. To me a debate means two sides arguing, each on opposite sides. Here we should all be on the same side, no opposite sides here, just sleuthing of what happened/may have happened.

IMO Debating is part of sleuthing, debating is the basis for anything life, is the way you evaluate facts, opinions, ideas, theories, beliefs, conjectures, analysis, speculation, and so on ... when you think ... you debate yourself, when you talk about issues you debate others ... having different opinions it's not a question of taking sides ... is it? Perhaps you are talking of arguing for the sake of arguing? And since this is in answer to my post, how this whole thing relates to me in particular outside of the semantics of what is the definition of a debate and me using that word?

 

[Thor]

i feel that spinning what everyone says or feels around constantly kills the atmosphere on michelle's thread.
:d

sent from my desire hd using tapatalk 2

lol ...

 

[Thor]

Never mind. It wasn't worth the discussion so I deleted it, but since you have quoted it, I am sure there are those who understood it without needing an S.A. with reference guide.

If one would have thought an apology was forthcoming one would have been disappointed ... and one would have been doubly disappointed in getting somewhat ridiculed instead. But then again, as I said, I did not get offended to begin with. I respect your opinions sincerely, and I would never doubt your ability to understand, as far as I'm concerned, I know who I am, so I will take no offense here.

 

[What'sThatClue]

IMO Debating is part of sleuthing, debating is the basis for anything life, is the way you evaluate facts, opinions, ideas, theories, beliefs, conjectures, analysis, speculation, and so on ... when you think ... you debate yourself, when you talk about issues you debate others ... having different opinions it's not a question of taking sides ... is it? Perhaps you are talking of arguing for the sake of arguing? And since this is in answer to my post, how this whole thing relates to me in particular outside of the semantics of what is the definition of a debate and me using that word?

I was making reference to your statement (which I quoted in my post):

It sort kills the atmosphere of the debate ... don't you think?

Now, my definition of a debate is two or more people arguing opposing sides.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/debate

Jmo, there should be no opposing sides here because we're all here for the same purpose. Discussion, yes, tho .