MI MI - Danielle Stislicki, 28, Southfield, 2 Dec 2016 #11

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
BloodHoundSleuther said:
With all due respect, I don't think it would be fair to make the assertion that Mr. Stislicki is not in agreement with the sighting of the home in Berkley on December 2nd. . . . I also don't understanding where this idea of Danielle being at the Berkley house earlier in the day, at lunchtime, is coming from? I have read that 'lunchtime' theory a few times on this forum and to be honest, it just seems like more spin out of desperation from those attempting to muddy the waters! JMO!
Click to expand...
I agree with you about some people attempting to muddy the waters.

I still don't understand why there hasn't been a push to get the public involved in determining the security guard's movements during the hours and days after Danielle disappeared. Someone might have remembered seeing him or his car. Now memories are fading. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that they already know much more than they've let on.
 
Ozoner said:
I agree with you about some people attempting to muddy the waters.

I still don't understand why there hasn't been a push to get the public involved in determining the security guard's movements during the hours and days after Danielle disappeared. Someone might have remembered seeing him or his car. Now memories are fading. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that they already know much more than they've let on.
Click to expand...

you only get one shot at a murder conviction so they are making sure it's ticked and tied.
 
Ozoner said:
I agree with you about some people attempting to muddy the waters.

I still don't understand why there hasn't been a push to get the public involved in determining the security guard's movements during the hours and days after Danielle disappeared. Someone might have remembered seeing him or his car. Now memories are fading. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that they already know much more than they've let on.
Click to expand...

I believe they have contacted those that know him and perhaps what he was doing and where he was at on that day in question. I'm assuming very few are talking. They cannot without evidence shoot his photo out there and say he may be involved in an abduction.. have you seen me? The legalities involved in that would be damning and would be a negative for the prosecution once he is charged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Ozoner said:
I agree with you about some people attempting to muddy the waters.

I still don't understand why there hasn't been a push to get the public involved in determining the security guard's movements during the hours and days after Danielle disappeared. Someone might have remembered seeing him or his car. Now memories are fading. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that they already know much more than they've let on.
Click to expand...

It's just my opinion, but I believe LE had information very quickly as to whom Danielle was last seen with and when. If LE had solid information form more than one source, then you are absolutely correct that LE already knew much more than they let on! They had enough to obtain a search warrant and that doesn't just happen because two people were seen together!
 
I agree with jdj125 ( quoting is all screwy for me today on here)
Double jeopardy is a prosecutors nightmare. They know they have one shot to get a conviction so they know they have to make sure all their ducks are in a row. Especially when they're trying a case without a body. They have to prove without a reasonable doubt that the person was indeed a victim of a crime and that the accused is without a doubt the person responsible.
It's not like the Hollywood movies , in real life these things take time. ESPECIALLY under these circumstances!!!!!!!
I can guarantee that the police know more then we do and it was no coincidence that they just happened to search the SG home. They had to have a judge sign a probable cause warrant to gain access to that home and Remove items. A judge isn't going to sign that just because a security guard was friends or acquaintances with a missing girl. While all searched aren't fruitful and sometimes they can't find anything substantial, I don't think that will be the case this time.
 
BloodHoundSleuther said:
You may have missed this article that came out yesterday. They are still waiting on forensics to come back, not only that but they have new evidence as well that's been turned over for analysis!

http://www.hometownlife.com/story/n...e-await-lab-analysis-stislicki-case/98349292/
Click to expand...

Is it fair to say that there won't be an arrest until all of the evidence is tested, regardless of how much incriminating evidence they already have? If that's the case, we may have a while to wait.

BloodHoundSleuther said:
It's just my opinion, but I believe LE had information very quickly as to whom Danielle was last seen with and when. If LE had solid information form more than one source, then you are absolutely correct that LE already knew much more than they let on! They had enough to obtain a search warrant and that doesn't just happen because two people were seen together!
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that they identified the security guard as a suspect very quickly--probably by Monday December 5th at the latest. Still, I can't help but wonder how much progress they've made in tracking his movements from Friday evening through Sunday evening.
 
Rachel1 said:
I agree with jdj125 ( quoting is all screwy for me today on here)
Double jeopardy is a prosecutors nightmare. They know they have one shot to get a conviction so they know they have to make sure all their ducks are in a row. Especially when they're trying a case without a body. They have to prove without a reasonable doubt that the person was indeed a victim of a crime and that the accused is without a doubt the person responsible.
It's not like the Hollywood movies , in real life these things take time. ESPECIALLY under these circumstances!!!!!!!
I can guarantee that the police know more then we do and it was no coincidence that they just happened to search the SG home. They had to have a judge sign a probable cause warrant to gain access to that home and Remove items. A judge isn't going to sign that just because a security guard was friends or acquaintances with a missing girl. While all searched aren't fruitful and sometimes they can't find anything substantial, I don't think that will be the case this time.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. They are most likely going to arrest him without a body unless he pleas down and tells where it is. So they need to take their time and do it right. I am fairly sure they know no one else is in danger in this situation and it was victim specific. I also believe they know this is a recovery not a rescue. Those things together afford them time imo
 
Ozoner said:
Is it fair to say that there won't be an arrest until all of the evidence is tested, regardless of how much incriminating evidence they already have? If that's the case, we may have a while to wait.



I don't doubt that they identified the security guard as a suspect very quickly--probably by Monday December 5th at the latest. Still, I can't help but wonder how much progress they've made in tracking his movements from Friday evening through Sunday evening.
Click to expand...

That's just the thing, we don't know how much is being held close to the vest! They are building their case and I trust they know a lot more than we do! I do agree, we have a while to wait regarding the evidence. It's been 3 months and so far we don't know the outcome of the original evidence. As of yesterday, they have new evidence turned over for analysis. It may be another 3 to 6 months or more before any results are yielded from the latest evidence found. It's a waiting game! I'm okay with that because there's only one chance to get it right! Whatever it takes to get justice for Danielle, in my opinion, is well worth the wait!
 
Agreed again jdj125
All signs point to this being a recovery at this point. Prosecuting without a body can be done but they absolutely need to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt, that's a lot harder when they don't have a body. It'll be very interesting to see what evidence was recovered and the results, I'm eagerly awaiting that day! ( I know that it will likely be a long time from now)
 
jdj125 said:
Totally agree. They are most likely going to arrest him without a body unless he pleas down and tells where it is. So they need to take their time and do it right. I am fairly sure they know no one else is in danger in this situation and it was victim specific. I also believe they know this is a recovery not a rescue. Those things together afford them time imo
Click to expand...

Yep....first taste will be charges, then pre-trial hearing will give us a good snap shot.
 
Rachel1 said:
. . . It'll be very interesting to see what evidence was recovered and the results, I'm eagerly awaiting that day! ( I know that it will likely be a long time from now)
Click to expand...
I haven't given up all hope of Danielle being found alive, but I know how long the odds are.

Assuming she isn't found, what is a likely time frame for an arrest? Suppose they need three more months for processing evidence and that they have enough evidence to bring charges. How long would it take for processing all the necessary documentation, developing a courtroom strategy, etc.? An extra six months? I have a hard time stomaching the thought of that sickening creep walking the streets for another nine months.
 
I agree that it's sickening to think of a killer being out in the streets for even more time ( I'm sorry, for some reason I can't quote on here lately) it's extremely disheartening. But in this case, I think it's for the greater good in the long run. Prosecuting a case without a body is so extremely difficult so they have to be overly prepared to prove their case.
 
thekarmabus said:
I believe they have contacted those that know him and perhaps what he was doing and where he was at on that day in question. I'm assuming very few are talking. They cannot without evidence shoot his photo out there and say he may be involved in an abduction.. have you seen me? The legalities involved in that would be damning and would be a negative for the prosecution once he is charged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Just a few days ago on our local news there was a body found. They showed a picture and named a person they wanted to talk to as they stated this person was witnessed in the area. They put the disclaimer statement with it--- saying he is just wanted for questioning and was not being charged with a crime.
Why wouldn't they have done this in the beginning in Danielle's case if he was definitely seen with her
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 221 more.
Total: 2,175 (members: 222, guests: 1,953)

Online statistics

Members online
222
Guests online
1,953
Total visitors
2,175
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,528
Messages
18,096,145
Members
230,871
Latest member
Where is Jennifer*
Back
Top