Murder of Roger Dean still Unsolved!!!

[Mr.Clairvoyant]

I ran across this episode and decided to make a post I am not sure if this has already been discussed here before if so Sorry.. This case is so bizzare and seems like law enforcement has not only let it go cold but there are no other leads or clues able to help identify a suspect or the person or persons responsible for the death of Roger Dean.. here are the known facts...

1. On Nov. 21, 1985 Roger Dean and his wife Doris "DJ" Dean were accosted by an seemingly unknown intruder and Roger was shot 6 times in his driveway at there home 8266 Bighorn Court Littleton, Colorado where he died.

2. We also know from the cirmcumstances of the case and how it was reported by Unsloved Mysteries that is was unusual for Roger to even be home at the time this occured that he normally leaves for work at 6:15 this has lead to speculation that Roger was involved in the crime because of his odd behavior that morning of sipping coffee in his garage and the appearance that he may have been waiting for the assailant to let them into the home.. ( Could there be another reason why he was home?? Perhaps his wife may have asked him to stay home or go into work late for some unknown purpose? The only account we have of these events came from the wife.)

3. The would be robber came to rob them and instructed Roger to tie his wife up and blindfold her.. and specifically start asking about how much money was in there savings????? ( What strikes me as odd about that account why would the assailant instruct Roger to blind fold his wife since the assailant was wearing a mask?? Ok so she is tied up in the bedroom and Roger is lead away to be asked the same question about how much money is in there savings???? why not ask them both in the same room.. better yet why not bond and blindfold both of them in the bedroom together what was the purpose of seperating them??

We see the obvious here and we know that Unsloved Mysteries are often cryptic with details. But let's look past what we were shown in the sgement and think about it... I think the ruse was orchestrated by the wife.. The police could have been wrong about her not knowing about the stolen money (30,000) that was in a seceret account.. and in the segment the killer asked her how much she had in there savings she said she did not know... Huh??? how could you not know how much money you and your husband have in the bank?? I am assuming they both contribute to funding their bank account...But when the killer asked Roger he instantly said 30,000 the exact amount taken from the job??? Now Mrs. Dean you mean to tell me you suddenly see 30,000 appear in your savings account and not curious where it came from.. I think she knew all along that Roger was stealing money.. to perhaps support there lavish living the segment stated they lived in affluent neighborhood.

Next strange thing that people close to Mrs. Dean happen to expire in untimely tragedy.. Son dies in a car accident and then BOTH her parents.. Naturally she would have had life insurance on all three of them and would have collected.. and we know that accidents pay double.. even though the Son got hit by a train but we don't know the circumstances that lead to him getting hit by a train...

Then five years later you begin to get harrased by the Killer stating he is now going to kill your only family left your daughter.. lets assume the killer had been watching news reports and reading papers and came across public knowledge that her other family members were dead.. a random killer would not know this unless he stalked them in advance or close to them personally.And why now ask for 100,000 when orginally you were content with collecting 30,000 how would the killer assume she would have 100,000 lying around....5 years later??????

Perhaps Mrs. Dean was having an affair and used her lover to commit these crimes.. after all she was safe from harm the entire time.. tied up in the bedroom.. Perhaps she learned of the stolen money and knew the company would be closing in on Roger that would have been embrassing to her so what better way to make all that go away then to kill your husband and stage harrassment for ransom.. it makes perfect sense when you think about it.. the husband was shot six times clearly fleeing from the killer that was over kill and she did not get a mark.??? the Killer did all this to leave empty handed and to only come back 5 years later looking for money... Nobody breaks into a home looking for knowledge on what is in the bank they are more concerned with getting cash and jewerly on hand... Plus the killer would have ran more of a risk getting caught by spending that much time with Roger to drive to the bank.. and leave the wife unattended tied up at home for her to get free and notfiy the police. This all makes sense Doris Dean and her unknown lover got the life insurance money from Roger's Death plus the 30.000 and somewhere enjoying that money or as long as it lasted. One more last thing that casts doubt on Doris Dean while hearing gunshots and not knowing if there was other people in the home while blindfolded you were able to make it off the bed all the way downstairs and outside for a passer by to free you.. why not hop to the phone and call for help??? Back then 1985 no DNA testing but why not test the ducktape over Roger's glasses for DNA or finger prints.. and if the part in the segment was true when the killer was fleeing the scene he took his mask off and threw it on the driveway.. surely they should be to extract DNA from it now with technology....

BOTTOMLINE DORIS"DJ"DEAN DID IT!!!!

[TracyLynnS]

Very interesting points that make Doris sound quite a bit like Marie Hilley. When I get a few minutes, I'd like to watch this one again using your perspective.

[Mr.Clairvoyant]

Originally Posted by TracyLynnS

Very interesting points that make Doris sound quite a bit like Marie Hilley. When I get a few minutes, I'd like to watch this one again using your perspective.

I actually went back and watched the segment again and the wife is just like a robot and so emotionless.. You would think she would show some emotion in telling the story about her husband.. also the fact she was so certain that her husband did not owe any money and him not being involved in the robbery that lead to his death.. proves to me she was involved...

[WishfulDreamer]

I disagree about the wife. This woman had been through so much grief and pain for the past few years. Within months of each other, she lost her parents and son to car accidents, her husband was murdered, and now her daughter's life was being threatened. Not everyone grieves the same way. When I am really upset and grieving, I might initially cry, but I actually am very robotic. I can only imagine what this woman endured.

[Mr.Clairvoyant]

Originally Posted by WishfulDreamer

I disagree about the wife. This woman had been through so much grief and pain for the past few years. Within months of each other, she lost her parents and son to car accidents, her husband was murdered, and now her daughter's life was being threatened. Not everyone grieves the same way. When I am really upset and grieving, I might initially cry, but I actually am very robotic. I can only imagine what this woman endured.

Maybe so... but going off of the buzz words she was using during the segment "devastated" and"Terror" I would have thought she would have shown some emotion based on her choice words she used to describe how she was feeling even when she said devastated she really sounded and looked like a robot no expression of sadness or nothing.. and also with the police thinking that a man and a women were writting the letters makes my theory more possible..

[pardilia]

Originally Posted by Mr.Clairvoyant

Maybe so... but going off of the buzz words she was using during the segment "devastated" and"Terror" I would have thought she would have shown some emotion based on her choice words she used to describe how she was feeling even when she said devastated she really sounded and looked like a robot no expression of sadness or nothing.. and also with the police thinking that a man and a women were writting the letters makes my theory more possible..

The problem with this line of thinking is that you cannot judge someone by how they grieve (for the most part) - and especially not judging them based on how you would react. I, too, am rather robotic/logical when facing loss and stressful situations and have been accused of not caring because of that.

Even more to the point, if she was sobbing and crying during the entire segment, how would that help? She'd probably be nearly, if not completely, incoherent or at the very least difficult to understand. She's likely distancing herself from her emotions because she wants to get the information across.

I've dealt with a lot of loss/stress in the past few years and with every new hurdle I've been more and more "robotic" and "emotionless". Tears won't make life easier or cure cancer and when YOU have to take responsibility in a situation, most people compartmentalize/repress the trauma and do what they have to do. As so eloquently pointed out, it's not like she had anyone else to handle the situation for her.

[Mr.Clairvoyant]

Originally Posted by idyla

The problem with this line of thinking is that you cannot judge someone by how they grieve (for the most part) - and especially not judging them based on how you would react. I, too, am rather robotic/logical when facing loss and stressful situations and have been accused of not caring because of that.

Even more to the point, if she was sobbing and crying during the entire segment, how would that help? She'd probably be nearly, if not completely, incoherent or at the very least difficult to understand. She's likely distancing herself from her emotions because she wants to get the information across.

I've dealt with a lot of loss/stress in the past few years and with every new hurdle I've been more and more "robotic" and "emotionless". Tears won't make life easier or cure cancer and when YOU have to take responsibility in a situation, most people compartmentalize/repress the trauma and do what they have to do. As so eloquently pointed out, it's not like she had anyone else to handle the situation for her.

Somehow it seems that my opinion is received as if I stated she needed to be falling down all over the place I simply stated that she was without emotion and seemed like a robot.. Showing emotion does not mean there has to be tears or over the top story telling.. body language speaks much louder than words... NOW THIS IS MY OPINION AND I AM FREE TO STATE MY OPINION AS I SEE FIT.. Take Marie Hilley for example if we did not know about her crimes but yet came to a conclusion based on facts that she could be capable of doing such would doubt that too.. No one knows for sure if my theory is correct but its just that my theory just as others have a theory that Roger hired someone to kill him sounds like bad comedy to me.. but whatever.. I am done..

[saywhat]

Originally Posted by Mr.Clairvoyant

Somehow it seems that my opinion is received as if I stated she needed to be falling down all over the place I simply stated that she was without emotion and seemed like a robot.. Showing emotion does not mean there has to be tears or over the top story telling.. body language speaks much louder than words... NOW THIS IS MY OPINION AND I AM FREE TO STATE MY OPINION AS I SEE FIT.. Take Marie Hilley for example if we did not know about her crimes but yet came to a conclusion based on facts that she could be capable of doing such would doubt that too.. No one knows for sure if my theory is correct but its just that my theory just as others have a theory that Roger hired someone to kill him sounds like bad comedy to me.. but whatever.. I am done..

I agree with the other poster that it is dangerous to judge very much based on one's impression of another's grief. It's not so bad on a message board, of course (and I am not attacking your opinion/impression - to each their own), but what bothers me is when some people in law enforcement seem to use it as a significant clue, or even evidence! In my opinion, it simply is not. As others have said, people grieve in very different ways, and one way is no more sincere than another. Giving a television interview with bright lights, a camera in your face, a production crew in your house, etc. is also not the most natural of situations.

[Mr.Clairvoyant]

Originally Posted by saywhat

I agree with the other poster that it is dangerous to judge very much based on one's impression of another's grief. It's not so bad on a message board, of course (and I am not attacking your opinion/impression - to each their own), but what bothers me is when some people in law enforcement seem to use it as a significant clue, or even evidence! In my opinion, it simply is not. As others have said, people grieve in very different ways, and one way is no more sincere than another. Giving a television interview with bright lights, a camera in your face, a production crew in your house, etc. is also not the most natural of situations.

QMG MUST WE CONTINUE THE GREAT DEBATE ON EMOTION AND WHO SHOWS IT AND WHO DOESN'T BASED ON WHAT I AM SEEING IT IS MORE OF BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATION THAN ANYTHING... ONCE AGAIN GOING OFF HER VERY ON OWNS WORDS ON HOW DEVASTATED AND FULL OF TERROR.. AND BARELY BLINK HER EYE.. BUT ONCE AGAIN WHATEVER I MORE SO WANTED TO DISCUSS THE CASE BUT THIS HAS TURNED INTO A DIAGNOSIS ON HOW PEOPLE GRIEVE....CLEARLY WE HAVE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE VIEWS ON THE MATTER. WITH NO ROOM FOR ALTERNATIVES

[Mr.Clairvoyant]

Originally Posted by Mr.Clairvoyant

QMG MUST WE CONTINUE THE GREAT DEBATE ON EMOTION AND WHO SHOWS IT AND WHO DOESN'T BASED ON WHAT I AM SEEING IT IS MORE OF BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATION THAN ANYTHING... ONCE AGAIN GOING OFF HER VERY ON OWNS WORDS ON HOW DEVASTATED AND FULL OF TERROR.. AND BARELY BLINK HER EYE.. BUT ONCE AGAIN WHATEVER I MORE SO WANTED TO DISCUSS THE CASE BUT THIS HAS TURNED INTO A DIAGNOSIS ON HOW PEOPLE GRIEVE....CLEARLY WE HAVE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE VIEWS ON THE MATTER. WITH NO ROOM FOR ALTERNATIVES

In my attempts to cast doubt on DJ Deans account of the events regarding the murder and extortion of her husband I have found a rather interesting article about the events...

http://www.ourcoloradonews.com/archi...77a1c3b17.html

[pardilia]

Originally Posted by Mr.Clairvoyant

In my attempts to cast doubt on DJ Deans account of the events regarding the murder and extortion of her husband I have found a rather interesting article about the events...

http://www.ourcoloradonews.com/archi...77a1c3b17.html

And the article states that both her and the daughter cooperated and passed polygraphs. In fact, it seems to imply that the girlfriend likely had something to do with it as she disappeared shortly after the murder. I wonder how old her son was at the time?

And emotion turned into a "great debate" because people had opinions that differed from yours. It's a message board and that sort of thing happens. No reason to shout or yell. When you're discussing something subjective, people with different opinions and life experiences are going to weigh in and they may or may not agree with what you have to say. I also agree with a previous poster - it's dangerous when using one's perceived emotional state as evidence as I think it's wrong/dangerous to use ANY sort of subjective information as evidence.

For example, from personal experience, I went through a lot of loss/hardship and was similarly accused of 'not caring' because I didn't cry/wail or otherwise 'act upset'. I had to become the sole caregiver of a parent at the same time I lost a close relative. I had no "back up" so I had no time to be upset - I had to put on my "big girl pants" and take care of business, so to speak. I totally agree that people can be emotionless because they might not have cared in the first place, but I think there is usually way more evidence than just one's perceived reaction. I think the robotic/emotionless reaction is more common in someone who DOES care but just does not have the luxury of time to mourn.

[SheRaaa]

I had totally forgotten about this case, and was surprised to see that it was still unsolved.

What confuses me is, if Roger himself orchestrated this thing, why did the "robber" shoot Roger several times?

If the guy really was a killer/extortionist, still...why kill? Aren't there easier ways to steal money?

I wasn't paying super-close attention when I saw the segment so I would love to hear anyone else's thoughts on this weird case.

[pardilia]

Originally Posted by SheRaaa

I had totally forgotten about this case, and was surprised to see that it was still unsolved.

What confuses me is, if Roger himself orchestrated this thing, why did the "robber" shoot Roger several times?

If the guy really was a killer/extortionist, still...why kill? Aren't there easier ways to steal money?

I wasn't paying super-close attention when I saw the segment so I would love to hear anyone else's thoughts on this weird case.

In the article posted, it states that police think that the extortionist and the killer are two different people and that the extortionist was likely someone his wife knew.

I think this is one of those cases where going by articles will probably net more reliable information than the UM segment itself. The article also states that his family was rumored/thought to be involved in organized crime, so there is a lot going on that UM didn't cover (and typically wouldn't).

[Mr.Clairvoyant]

Originally Posted by idyla

And the article states that both her and the daughter cooperated and passed polygraphs. In fact, it seems to imply that the girlfriend likely had something to do with it as she disappeared shortly after the murder. I wonder how old her son was at the time?

And emotion turned into a "great debate" because people had opinions that differed from yours. It's a message board and that sort of thing happens. No reason to shout or yell. When you're discussing something subjective, people with different opinions and life experiences are going to weigh in and they may or may not agree with what you have to say. I also agree with a previous poster - it's dangerous when using one's perceived emotional state as evidence as I think it's wrong/dangerous to use ANY sort of subjective information as evidence.

For example, from personal experience, I went through a lot of loss/hardship and was similarly accused of 'not caring' because I didn't cry/wail or otherwise 'act upset'. I had to become the sole caregiver of a parent at the same time I lost a close relative. I had no "back up" so I had no time to be upset - I had to put on my "big girl pants" and take care of business, so to speak. I totally agree that people can be emotionless because they might not have cared in the first place, but I think there is usually way more evidence than just one's perceived reaction. I think the robotic/emotionless reaction is more common in someone who DOES care but just does not have the luxury of time to mourn.

Yeah WHATEVER!!!

[beaglelover]

Here is a writeup I did on Roger's case.

http://www.facebook.com/groups/63175...3030947429356/