MI MI - Danielle Stislicki, 28, Southfield, 2 Dec 2016 #5

[kmarques]

It has not been shown that the pod was for her unit. I find it highly unlikely the family would clear her home out even if they felt she was not returning. It's not the norm in human psychology when losing someone or someone missing to box up belongings after a month.

Yeah I would agree with that. I think rent is the last thing on their mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

One of my theories is sort of close to yours. Men who abuse are dangerous, often to both kids and mom. Women who are abused are at a much higher likelihood of being murdered when pregnant or have just had babies; abuse can intensify around that time. Women often stay with/defend their abusers, love them deeply, and hope they will change. What I wondered is if the friend was starting to separate herself emotionally from the infant's father. Maybe even starting to allow herself to believe the medical experts' opinions. What if DS was supportive -- not involved as in "going to testify" but involved in helping her friend get strong and independent of her relationship. Boy, wouldn't that be a threat to an abusive partner? Might make an abuser want to retaliate, hurt his partner, scare her. What could be more hurtful or scary than your best friend disappearing? First your baby, next your friend. All just a theory.

At the press conference, her mom used two phrases that I thought were interesting -- "meet with her friend" was one, the other was "adventure with her friend." I don't know if either of those mean anything, but both stood out to me.

Interesting point about "meet with" friend -- I totally agree that it was an interesting choice of word. And also that she described it as "very important to meet with her friend that night." Why that night?

On the other hand, if you've ever suffered a huge loss and become seriously depressed -- as in, can hardly get out of bed or comb your hair depressed -- part of that can be intense loneliness and wanting people and distractions around as much as possible. Needing to be cared for. It sounds like DS played something of a caretaker role in her friend's life during that time. Maybe her friend was grieving particularly heavily during the holiday season and really needed her friend, which may explain why DS decided to go to her apartment, cook her dinner and spend the night, despite that she had to work the next morning.

I wish my mind would let this thought go for a little while, but I wonder her mother's comment about her "compassionate nature" isn't that she helped someone who needed a ride...but that she put herself in harm's way by caring for a friend who was vulnerable to an abuser.

This is exactly where my train of thought has been going the past few days.

I would do whatever my lawyer told me to do LE first raided my home, and then conducted multiple searches in connection with an abduction/murder and started hauling things out of my house. I would not decide for myself what the best way to handle things would be. If my lawyer said, "do not agree to be questioned" I would not agree to be questioned.

Maybe I've watched too many true crime shows in which people falsely confess -often under duress- and/or are wrongly convicted, but I do believe there is some truth to the saying, "If you don’t talk, you walk," and that is why whenever someone is accused of a crime and retains a lawyer right away, I don't necessarily see that as a definitive sign of guilt.

I also have an uncle who has been a practicing attorney -though in the IP/patent field- for over 40 years; he is 100% pro-LE, always has been, and has also always said not to say a word to LE without a criminal defense attorney present.

<respectfully snipped>

BBM

Agree...my first thought when I hear someone has gotten an attorney is that they are wise, not that they are guilty. They may well BE guilty...but it's the smart thing to do, regardless. I am about as straight-arrow as you can find, completely law-abiding apart from my occasional lead foot on the accelerator...and we've raised our kids with the mantra of not only respecting LE, but also always getting an attorney first in the event they talk with LE about something serious.

I think one's attitude about this may have a lot has to do with one's personal life experience. Those who've never been directly involved in this sort of situation are confounded when people hold their tongues while other tongues wag on SM and MSM. And they may leap to judgments based on how they think 'they' would act if innocent and similarly accused. But, to be honest, one of our biggest challenges as humans is putting a rein on our tongues - and this is true whether confronted with the desire to defend ourselves from public opinion OR (perhaps more nobly) when presented an opportunity to help someone in trouble or in need.

I have a friend whose spouse was wrongfully, vengefully, implicated in a criminal case as a direct result of being "helpful" and voluntarily talking for days with LE and FBI without representation concerning a serious case...and said spouse is now serving time in prison along with the guy he helped bring to justice. So today more than ever I realize that the system works best when one follows the system. Sure, help LE, and talk to them if you can help...but even LE will tell you it's wise to get an attorney before attempting to navigate a criminal justice system few people know well. Your attorney's job is to provide you the road map for coming out safely on the other side of the forest. And whether or not that satisfies the gossips is really, in the end, way down on the What's Important list.

 

[inmyhumbleopinion]

It's been reported in the MSM that FG's not talking to LE.

That is absolutely correct, and I apologize for not being clear: What I meant to say was FG may have changed his mind since that statement was made by his attorney about a week ago, and (e.g., faced with evidence obtained during the second search, at the urging of family and friends, etc.) decided to talk to LE in recent days. In that case, I would assume that his attorney would be there every step of the way, and that there would be some negotiating going on. I wouldn't, however, expect to hear anything about it until there is some sort of resolution, one way or another.

For example, in the Tricia Todd case last year, she was missing for about a month; there was very little information being released, and many of us here on WS spent countless hours analyzing her blog, leading some of us (including myself) to believe perhaps Tricia took her own life.

Then all of a sudden, it was announced that her ex-husband confessed to killing and burying her. Come to find out, LE had been collecting evidence against him all along, while not once suggesting that he was even a POI, and faced with the evidence, he confessed, though not before reaching a deal with prosecution (and I don't believe that there was a defense attorney involved in the case).

 

[Yeahbabs]

I agree. I don't see anything odd or noteworthy about the overnight plan.

I don't necessarily see anything odd about it on its own (the overnight part, etc.), but the fact that it was apparently SO usual makes it seem odd that her mom was emphasizing that it was so "important" for her to have this "meeting" with her friend.

Also, if I had the same plan with my best friend every weekend, I probably wouldn't make a big deal about trying to leave work early.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Coldpizza]

Folks you can't post what's on the friends FB pg.

Discussion as to what's been printed in MSM (mainstream media) has been allowed as it may pertain to a possible theory in Danielle's disappearance. That doesn't mean you can sleuth her. She is not a POI or suspect period.

If you can't link it then you can't post it.

 

[Skigirl]

I'm dismissive because there is no confirmation he was living in the house at the time. In fact, some neighbors have suggested the couple had moved out and renters were living there.

I don't think it's "some neighbors". I think it was one neighbor, who didn't really even sound sure who was living there or whether the house was owned or rented.

 

[LBee]

They have never said FG is the POI...they have only said the unnamed POI lives in the house with his wife. That same UNNAMED POI isn't talking to LE, per his attorney.

 

[Skigirl]

They have never said FG is the POI...they have only said the unnamed POI lives in the house with his wife. That same UNNAMED POI isn't talking to LE, per his attorney.

It is far from outlandish to think that the husband of the owner of the home, who used that address to register to vote, lives in the home. It is possible that he does not, but not, in my opinion, probable.

 

[BloodHoundSleuther]

I can't be certain, but it looks as if MetLife has posted a vacancy for the same position Danielle worked. Per MetLife, Danielle's position was a Global Technology &Operations Associate, others had also claimed she was a Manager. The position posted on December the 14th, 2016 seems to fit that criteria. That doesn't sit well with me! The position is listed under the Global Technology catagory and it also states that MetLife maintains a drug free work place.

https://jobs.metlife.com/job/Southfield-Supervisor-II-MI-48033/380748300/

 

[SherlockJ]

On one occasion the mother of DS stated she was going to have a "meeting with a friend" and on the second occasion she said she was going to have an "adventure with her friend". Does anyone else find these descriptions peculiar? "She was suppose to go to her friends house" sounds so much more reasonable. A "meeting"congers up a much different image from an "adventure" . So now I'm wondering if the meeting was indeed about her friend's husbands upcoming trial and if this was in any way connected to her disappearance. And if her mother was aware of that meeting, she quickly wanted to correct it in the public's eye by calling it an "adventure". Not much too adventurous about cooking dinner for a friend and going to work in the morning!

 

[Deleted member 132804]

Danielle had to be to work at 8am. So maybe she wanted a jump start before it got dark at 5:30 pm. Idk.

That's what I thinking too. Danielle may be a salary employee, so maybe she was able to leave early on Friday night becuase she was scheduled to return for an early training session on Saturday.

 

[Blue5591]

I can't be certain, but it looks as if MetLife has posted a vacancy for the same position Danielle worked. Per MetLife, Danielle's position was a Global Technology &Operations Associate, others had also claimed she was a Manager. The position posted on December the 14th, 2016 seems to fit that criteria. That doesn't sit well with me!

https://jobs.metlife.com/job/Southfield-Supervisor-II-MI-48033/380748300/

I wouldn't really think this is her position. I think she is a trainer and do not think they would legally be able to post her position at this point, not 100% though.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[LozDa]

I'm dismissive because there is no confirmation he was living in the house at the time. In fact, some neighbors have suggested the couple had moved out and renters were living there.

http://www.wxyz.com/news/security-g...issing-danielle-stislicki-of-farmington-hills

"The man's wife had been in the hospital until Thursday."

I think we can surmise from this that it's FG. Im happy to be proven wrong, but I'm unsure why we're jumping to assume they have lodgers. Could you link me to the quotes from neighbours?

 

[SherlockJ]

I can't be certain, but it looks as if MetLife has posted a vacancy for the same position Danielle worked. Per MetLife, Danielle's position was a Global Technology &Operations Associate, others had also claimed she was a Manager. The position posted on December the 14th, 2016 seems to fit that criteria. That doesn't sit well with me! The position is listed under the Global Technology catagory and it also states that MetLife maintains a drug free work place.

https://jobs.metlife.com/job/Southfield-Supervisor-II-MI-48033/380748300/

How interesting it would be to note whether METLIFES previous help wanted ad prior to the one you described, also mentioned "drug free environment"

 

[Skigirl]

I can't be certain, but it looks as if MetLife has posted a vacancy for the same position Danielle worked. Per MetLife, Danielle's position was a Global Technology &Operations Associate, others had also claimed she was a Manager. The position posted on December the 14th, 2016 seems to fit that criteria. That doesn't sit well with me! The position is listed under the Global Technology catagory and it also states that MetLife maintains a drug free work place.

https://jobs.metlife.com/job/Southfield-Supervisor-II-MI-48033/380748300/

I would bet that there is more than one person at the Manager/Associate level in Global Tech and Opps, based on my experience in big corporations. There were at least three people with job titles and job descriptions that sounded much like mine when I worked at a large company.

 

[BloodHoundSleuther]

I wouldn't really think this is her position. I think she is a trainer and do not think they would legally be able to post her position at this point, not 100% though.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I have to respectfully disagree! It's in the same business catagory as Danielle's exact title and located in the right geographical place. Too much of a coincidence to not be Danielle's position in my opinion.

 

[Gardenista]

I can't be certain, but it looks as if MetLife has posted a vacancy for the same position Danielle worked. Per MetLife, Danielle's position was a Global Technology &Operations Associate, others had also claimed she was a Manager. The position posted on December the 14th, 2016 seems to fit that criteria. That doesn't sit well with me! The position is listed under the Global Technology catagory and it also states that MetLife maintains a drug free work place.

https://jobs.metlife.com/job/Southfield-Supervisor-II-MI-48033/380748300/

Not sure that's her position, but I don't find anything wrong with them trying to find someone to replace Danielle--they have a business to run.

Since she was a stellar employee, there's no doubt they will find a new job for her if she returns.

 

[LozDa]

How interesting it would be to note whether METLIFES previous help wanted ad prior to the one you described, also mentioned "drug free environment"

I would think these are standard employment terms and conditions!

What are we suggesting here? MetLife are making a dig at Dani in their job advert?!

Come on guys.

 

[BloodHoundSleuther]

I would think these are standard employment terms and conditions!

What are we suggesting here? MetLife are making a dig at Dani in their job advert?!

Come on guys.

I would never suggest that! I'm simply pointing out that as a valued employee MetLife would need to fill Danielle's position. They do have a business to run. I'll also add there are no openings for security guards at the Southfield location. Maybe that means the guards were contracted and not by MetLife?

 

[monkeypants]

Not sure that's her position, but I don't find anything wrong with them trying to find someone to replace Danielle--they have a business to run.

Since she was a stellar employee, there's no doubt they will find a new job for her if she returns.

Agree with this...the earth keeps spinning...