It must have taken the writer of the book a long time to gather all the information together for the book. It states in the CM article he was 85 at the time of the interview. CM was born in 1913 and would have been 85 in 1998, eight years before he passed away and at the time of the publishing of the Malton book. Then the writer went back years later to gathered more info after Dellen received his pilot's license.
It also stated WM and MB were still married during the writing. WM and MB split between Dellen receiving his pilot's license age 14 (1999) and around the age of 19 (2004). Another article states MB has been living on Tinsmith Court for a good 10 years. So that would be since 2003. For what it's worth and MOO.
Della and CM lived on Derry Road at the time of the writing.
From what I figure, CM owned both the Derry Road and Maple Gate Court homes. As to whether WM/MB/DM
always lived on Maple Gate has yet to be confirmed, other than articles stating in was DM's childhood home. This is pretty much what I deduced in my "frazzled" about 16/18 post back. CM left both homes to WM and DM in his will.
But by age 19, he seems to have been more interested in using Millardair planes as props for 



shoots. The adult website Suicide Girls credits Dellen Millard as the photographer for a 2005 photo spread entitled Cockpit. It features a model named Josie naked inside an aircraft, explaining her first official act as captain was to make the DC-4 a clothing-strictly-prohibited aircraft.
Whether Wayne knew what Dellen was up to is anybodys guess. By that time, he and Madeleine had split and, according to Steve Glass, the brother of Waynes girlfriend at the time
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...bosma-murder-suspect-started-to-dismantle-it/
Burns, who has lived at 32 Tinsmith Court for a good 10 years,
http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/678720/neighbours-say-they-want-to-console-millards-mother/
I find it a little odd that this quote about the so called





shoot keeps being reposted when there is no value to it, in my opinion. It was discovered quite a while ago that the shoot would have most likely to have been DM doing a favour for the woman in the photos, since all photos to that site must be submitted by the woman in the pictures themselves, only. Also, there is evidence that other films and photos shoots were taken there durning that time, so to me, personally, I feel that this is being dragged into this discussion repeatedly just as a prejudicial means to slur the hanger or DM or the woman in the photos. I am not sure how it is relevant to the case or to finding the timing of his parent's divorce.
If you really need to know the date of the divorce, I am sure you can go to the local courthouse and pay for a transcript of the hearing, from what I recall, aren't all court proceedings a matter of public record? Also, the date of divorce and the time of separation are usually two very different dates, and unless something traumatic happened, there usually isn't a firm date on the separation aspect the way that there is a date for a divorce. Regardless, seeing as how about half of all children now go through having their parents divorce, I can't see how it would be a relevant indicator of his possible guilt or innocence overall.
I really think that this is a case where a lot of circumstantial so called evidence has thus far been put forward, that when put together can paint a picture of guilt, but when taken separately, investigated to see the flaws in each piece, and many have, (like the supposed





shoot) been eliminated as not being what they seem and losing their value, DM starts to look more and more innocent. If it turns out that the incinerator was bought by someone else, or that the hanger wasn't a chop shop, or that DM really didn't need to steal a used truck he could afford to buy, or that the tattoo description was wrong, how many little pieces have to fall off of the scale before the balance starts to swing the other way in the eyes of the general public? How many articles were published sensationalizing on the fact that he owns an incinerator, and how many were published that quietly mentions, if you read between the lines, that it was purchased by an employee, not DM? That is how sensationalism works and how jury pools are tainted.
In my opinion, this "Josie' should be afforded the respect of not being dragged though this every time someone needs a quote to show that DM was once 19. She is not a person of interest and has nothing to to with this case, other than the sensationalizing factor that she was naked, she did nothing illegal.