MI MI - Danielle Stislicki, 28, Southfield, 2 Dec 2016 #13

[thekarmabus]

In this news segment defense attorney questions jogger. Why does he say "they wanted sex" ? Are they trying to twist that Floyd found her unconscious and ran off others? Odd use of word "they".
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/271373907-story


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BloodHoundSleuther]

In this news segment defense attorney questions jogger. Why does he say "they wanted sex" ? Are they trying to twist that Floyd found her unconscious and ran off others? Odd use of word "they".
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/271373907-story


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think its more of a slimy defense tactic to distance Floyd from the attack, meaning, it may not have been Floyd. "They" is very ambiguous!

 

[thekarmabus]

I think its more of a slimy defense tactic to distance Floyd from the attack, meaning, it may not have been Floyd. "They" is very ambiguous!

I can see that. It was just his follow up question stating are you sure it wasn't " they just want sex or was it I just want sex".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ozoner]

Thank you. That was my thought process... reading the post I felt as though it was a justification ... not an explanation.

In this news segment defense attorney questions jogger. Why does he say "they wanted sex" ? Are they trying to twist that Floyd found her unconscious and ran off others? Odd use of word "they".
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/271373907-story

I wouldn't put anything past John Dakmak. He was probably testing the victim to see how easy it would be to instill doubt in her. He probably plans to gaslight her during the trial thinking that if he can get her to doubt herself, then that doubt will rub off on the jury.
I won't be surprised if his line of questioning at the trial includes asking the victim how short her athletic shorts were. What a *******. Offhand I'd say Dakmak and his client were made for each other.

 

[BloodHoundSleuther]

I can see that. It was just his follow up question stating are you sure it wasn't " they just want sex or was it I just want sex".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand what yout pointing out! I honestly believe the defense will try anything from confusing the victim to trying to plant seeds of doubt that maybe it was more than one person that possibly attacked her. Either way, its a slimy move, just as it is to try and suppress the nurses testimony who obtained the DNA samples from the jogger. I personally wouldn't read too much into it.

 

[Momma2cam]

I wouldn't put anything past John Dakmak. He was probably testing the victim to see how easy it would be to instill doubt in her. He probably plans to gaslight her during the trial thinking that if he can get her to doubt herself, then that doubt will rub off on the jury.
I won't be surprised if his line of questioning at the trial includes asking the victim how short her athletic shorts were. What a *******. Offhand I'd say Dakmak and his client were made for each other.

This is basically the only method defense attorneys can use in cases like this, especially when there is DNA evidence. Their job is to defend their client and in cases like this, the best defense is to break down the credibility of the witness/victim. It really makes my blood boil to see defense attorneys do this to children as young as 4 or 5. I've been on the stand in numerous cases and had my credentials and integrity questioned by defense attorneys every time. I've been essentially accused of coaching young children to disclose sexual abuse that didn't happen. Yeah, no. But remind myself that it is their job- it isn't that they are evil people.

Based on the 911 call and the brief testimony she gave that has been reported, she's going to be an excellent witness and the defense tactics aren't going to work. Jmo.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[Midge Montana]

This is basically the only method defense attorneys can use in cases like this, especially when there is DNA evidence. Their job is to defend their client and in cases like this, the best defense is to break down the credibility of the witness/victim. It really makes my blood boil to see defense attorneys do this to children as young as 4 or 5. I've been on the stand in numerous cases and had my credentials and integrity questioned by defense attorneys every time. I've been essentially accused of coaching young children to disclose sexual abuse that didn't happen. Yeah, no. But remind myself that it is their job- it isn't that they are evil people.

Based on the 911 call and the brief testimony she gave that has been reported, she's going to be an excellent witness and the defense tactics aren't going to work. Jmo.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

In your opinion, how does this behavior seem to effect (affect? grr) the jury? When the defense starts playing games with the victim, does it put a bad taste in the mouths of the jury members? I would think it would.

 

[monster12]

In your opinion, how does this behavior seem to effect (affect? grr) the jury? When the defense starts playing games with the victim, does it put a bad taste in the mouths of the jury members? I would think it would.

Haha I have to laugh at your effect/affect because I cannot ever seem to figure out which to use so I just avoid using it. [emoji57]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[thekarmabus]

This is basically the only method defense attorneys can use in cases like this, especially when there is DNA evidence. Their job is to defend their client and in cases like this, the best defense is to break down the credibility of the witness/victim. It really makes my blood boil to see defense attorneys do this to children as young as 4 or 5. I've been on the stand in numerous cases and had my credentials and integrity questioned by defense attorneys every time. I've been essentially accused of coaching young children to disclose sexual abuse that didn't happen. Yeah, no. But remind myself that it is their job- it isn't that they are evil people.

Based on the 911 call and the brief testimony she gave that has been reported, she's going to be an excellent witness and the defense tactics aren't going to work. Jmo.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Off topic... wanted to say thank you for all that you do for the children. I can't imagine the things you see and things you are told. It takes a very special person to be in such a position. Hugs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Momma2cam]

In your opinion, how does this behavior seem to effect (affect? grr) the jury? When the defense starts playing games with the victim, does it put a bad taste in the mouths of the jury members? I would think it would.

It works more often with adolescents than with young children. I've witnessed defense attorneys take the "you were wearing short shorts and a tight, low cut shirt" approach many times with teens. The same tactics are used and absolutely have swayed judges and jurors with DV/sexual assault cases.

In one case in our area, a semi-celebrity was recently dismissed from all charges despite video evidence of the victim running nude and screaming for help and then being dragged by the alleged perp into the hotel room, stranger eye witness testimony, and DNA evidence from a rape kit. The judge didn't even bound it over for trial and suggested there wasn't evidence to say it was not consensual.

The defense attorney was able to cast doubt into her testimony by questioning why she didn't run for help at a gas station and why she got back in the vehicle with him. She had gone to the restroom, borrowed the gas station attendant's phone and called her boyfriend to pick her up but he didn't answer. She started to get worried because the suspect wouldn't let her charge her phone and she had a bad feeling he wasn't just taking her home, which prompted the call to her boyfriend. The prosecutor will be appealing thankfully but it is a good example that when it comes to adult victims, there is still a whole lot of skepticism and victim blaming.

In this case, I'm hopeful that won't be effective and come into play since Floyd was not known to the victim or her boyfriend so there should be nothing to suggest anything was consensual in regards to his DNA being in her shorts.

All JMO of course!

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[Momma2cam]

It works more often with adolescents than with young children. I've witnessed defense attorneys take the "you were wearing short shorts and a tight, low cut shirt" approach many times with teens. The same tactics are used and absolutely have swayed judges and jurors with DV/sexual assault cases.

In one case in our area, a semi-celebrity was recently dismissed from all charges despite video evidence of the victim running nude and screaming for help and then being dragged by the alleged perp into the hotel room, stranger eye witness testimony, and DNA evidence from a rape kit. The judge didn't even bound it over for trial and suggested there wasn't evidence to say it was not consensual.

The defense attorney was able to cast doubt into her testimony by questioning why she didn't run for help at a gas station and why she got back in the vehicle with him. She had gone to the restroom, borrowed the gas station attendant's phone and called her boyfriend to pick her up but he didn't answer. She started to get worried because the suspect wouldn't let her charge her phone and she had a bad feeling he wasn't just taking her home, which prompted the call to her boyfriend. The prosecutor will be appealing thankfully but it is a good example that when it comes to adult victims, there is still a whole lot of skepticism and victim blaming.

In this case, I'm hopeful that won't be effective and come into play since Floyd was not known to the victim or her boyfriend so there should be nothing to suggest anything was consensual in regards to his DNA being in her shorts.

All JMO of course!

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Quoting my own post just to add that if you take a look at the comments on some of the articles related to this case, you'll see the victim blaming in full force. I saw several implying she shouldn't have been running alone there, she was asking for the assault, etc. Any of those people could be a juror at some point- frightening.

Also to add that I think people generally want to believe people are good and that horrific crimes don't occur as the prosecutor presents. So, if a defense attorney can cast enough doubt to make a juror or judge think it is quite possible the victim lied or exaggerated, that is easier to wrap ones brain around than the fact that these type of wolves in sheep's clothing are walking amongst us. Jmo.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[seeking the truth]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Midge Montana]

@Momma2cam,
Thanks, but ugh! I think (hope) you're right about Floyd not having any excuse for his DNA in this gal's shorts.
Wondering where the defense atty was going with that "they" thing? Is he going to say Floyd came along and found this jogger already on the ground, the victim of someone else? I can't see how that would explain his DNA in (or was it ON) her shorts?

I can't see them painting her as 'too enticing' after running 7 miles in running clothes. This should be interesting.

But...where is our Dani?

 

[DexterMorgan]

I would be skeptical since cops do plant drugs and dna. Because the lady can't i.d him but they were face to face during a portion of the assault.

So police are relying on a ping from a tower that covers a large ratio of land plus supposed dna that they rarely seem to be able to collect.

So I want justice for the jogger and Dani as well
But I need to know more about other evidence linking him to the crime as well. jmo.

 

[thekarmabus]

I would be skeptical since cops do plant drugs and dna. Because the lady can't i.d him but they were face to face during a portion of the assault.

So police are relying on a ping from a tower that covers a large ratio of land plus supposed dna that they rarely seem to be able to collect.

So I want justice for the jogger and Dani as well
But I need to know more about other evidence linking him to the crime as well. jmo.

The saving grace would be the DNA from jogging crime would have been logged into the system 3 months before Danis disappearance. All logged and testified under oath it was gathered the day of attack. Phone pings don't hold much cred to me personally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Momma2cam]

The saving grace would be the DNA from jogging crime would have been logged into the system 3 months before Danis disappearance. All logged and testified under oath it was gathered the day of attack. Phone pings don't hold much cred to me personally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree. The assault was reported immediately and DNA was collected as part of a rape kit by SANE nurses. I can't possibly see how cops have any impact on planting DNA in that type of collection completed at the hospital ER. Jmo based on experience with SANE nurses and rape kits. There wasn't a hit on the DNA in the system until it was matched to DNA collected in Dani's investigation IMO.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[Momma2cam]

@Momma2cam,
Thanks, but ugh! I think (hope) you're right about Floyd not having any excuse for his DNA in this gal's shorts.
Wondering where the defense atty was going with that "they" thing? Is he going to say Floyd came along and found this jogger already on the ground, the victim of someone else? I can't see how that would explain his DNA in (or was it ON) her shorts?

I can't see them painting her as 'too enticing' after running 7 miles in running clothes. This should be interesting.

But...where is our Dani?

I am not sure but leaning toward just trying to distance Floyd from the crime. Using "they" suggests that it could be anyone and not only Floyd. Another way to cast doubt. Or, it could be to suggest she was unconscious as she said and thus may not be competent to recall exactly who or what happened.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[Sillybilly]

Sorry to interrupt this thread folks, but it is urgent.

Tricia Griffiths and this website are very, very special.

Tricia has never asked members for financial help before, but now she desperately needs our help to keep Websleuths going.

Please make sure you read her message and provide whatever help youcan:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?344923-IN-Abigail-Williams-13-amp-Liberty-German-14-Delphi-13-Feb-2017-64&p=13539601#post13539601

:tyou:

 

[tmmac]

Haha I have to laugh at your effect/affect because I cannot ever seem to figure out which to use so I just avoid using it. [emoji57]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Totally off topic in regards to Danielle..

Just think of "effect" as the end result. Think of "E" is end so it makes sense to use it as "the effects of no sleep really got to me." Then when it's not a end result use "affect". The alcohol in that drink didn't really affect me. That's how I remember. Same as will principle/principal. The principal is your pal is how I remember that one. Nerdy I know! Lol!

 

[monster12]

Totally off topic in regards to Danielle..

Just think of "effect" as the end result. Think of "E" is end so it makes sense to use it as "the effects of no sleep really got to me." Then when it's not a end result use "affect". The alcohol in that drink didn't really affect me. That's how I remember. Same as will principle/principal. The principal is your pal is how I remember that one. Nerdy I know! Lol!

Ha thanks. I try using that way but always think I'm wrong. [emoji57]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk