MI MI - Danielle Stislicki, 28, Southfield, 2 Dec 2016 #6

[SherlockJ]

Another interesting point which preempted a full night's sleep. Yawn.

Mrs. S. sounded quite convinced stating, "I believe it was my daughters helpful nature which landed her in this predicament".

But realistically, how much "good deed" can someone do on a ride home from work?

That is, unless her mother saw something on a security video from the parking lot.

The "good deed" could be witnessing a second person in the car, assuming DS was providing him/her a ride home.

LE wouldn't want that evidence leaked.

But it would explain the focus on "Did anyone notice her demise if they did see her in the car?".

 

[SherlockJ]

Reviewed the 30 minute Press Conference. Again. Some thoughts....

A.S.: "Did you see the car, did you see her, what was her facial expression?"

IMO At that point surveillance video had already confirmed someone else was in the car. The facial expression could provide more clues into whether she willingly let that person in.

A.S. immediately added "Our fear is that she is somewhere being held"

IMO voicing that specific fear at that specific point stemmed from what video exposed.

At that point the father jumped in and asked "Was she alone?" The mother plays it down and just says "right", noticeably changing the subject.

IMO The only reason A.S. played down that point (which should have been a hotspot) was because she knew she was not alone. But LE does not want that leaked. And...

IMO The father knew he wasn't suppose to mention video showing person #2. It was a slip up carelessly aimed at asking the public for a description of who she was with.

LE: "Here is a photo of the jacket she was wearing so if you saw her leaving the office this is what she was wearing".

IMO this means, "we ask anyone who saw her walking from the building to her car to come forward with information. This is the time frame we have reason to believe a crime was committed."

Here, convinced she was taken in the lot, part captured on surveillance video. Equally convinced they were unable to get a clear shot of probable perpetrator (It's winter--coats, hats, scarves, hoodies) and are still looking for witnesses who may have been leaving work at the same time--ergo the emphasis on the coat mentioned above.

 

[Deli66]

I was searching backpages last night in just a last ditch effort. 1 i came across looked similar, most likely not but I screenshot pic. Is there someone i should send to?

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I would call Farmington Hills police investigators.

Sent from my SM-S902L using Tapatalk

 

[gam]

Reviewed the 30 minute Press Conference. Again. Some thoughts....

A.S.: "Did you see the car, did you see her, what was her facial expression?"

IMO At that point surveillance video had already confirmed someone else was in the car. The facial expression could provide more clues into whether she willingly let that person in.

A.S. immediately added "Our fear is that she is somewhere being held"

IMO voicing that specific fear at that specific point stemmed from what video exposed.

At that point the father jumped in and asked "Was she alone?" The mother plays it down and just says "right", noticeably changing the subject.

IMO The only reason A.S. played down that point (which should have been a hotspot) was because she knew she was not alone. But LE does not want that leaked. And...

IMO The father knew he wasn't suppose to mention video showing person #2. It was a slip up carelessly aimed at asking the public for a description of who she was with.

LE: "Here is a photo of the jacket she was wearing so if you saw her leaving the office this is what she was wearing".

IMO this means, "we ask anyone who saw her walking from the building to her car to come forward with information. This is the time frame we have reason to believe a crime was committed."

Here, convinced she was taken in the lot, part captured on surveillance video. Equally convinced they were unable to get a clear shot of probable perpetrator (It's winter--coats, hats, scarves, hoodies) and are still looking for witnesses who may have been leaving work at the same time--ergo the emphasis on the coat mentioned above.

So why keep this quiet? Im thinking of other cases where it was useful releasing the little they have, like video(even bad video) or that they know someone was with her or that it happened in Metlife parking lot.

 

[Momma2cam]

So why keep this quiet? Im thinking of other cases where it was useful releasing the little they have, like video(even bad video) or that they know someone was with her or that it happened in Metlife parking lot.

I agree. I know someone mentioned that releasing that info can lead to all types of eyewitnesses that likely won't hold up in court. However, this far in especially, I don't find it very likely that all of a sudden someone is going to remember seeing her and the jeep. I also think if they knew this info right away and released it just as they released DS description, it may have been more possible that someone recalled seeing them both. Over a month later I don't see eyewitnesses coming forward at all unless someone personally connected to the poi saw or knows something and at that point it would not be helpful to release the poi description.

I'm still thinking they either do not know if she left with anyone OR they do but they cannot identify him with the images they have.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[tiffran]

IMO they are keeping this quiet because it's part of something huge.... something they don't want others to know how much they know. Think about it... if she was possibly part of a national/international HT case and you are trying to bust someone, wouldn't you want as few details leaked to the public as possible?

 

[Eileen730]

The only reason I think something happened at work was because her mom wanted to know if anyone noticed her demeanor . To me something happened at work or something not work related but upsetting happened.

I think there is alot of info we are not privy to. I'm still very curious as to why all these agencies are involved..

Does Danielle know things job related that
Would put her in danger?

All very strange.

 

[DakotaMayi]

IMO, I don't think it's weird at all that MetLife offered up a reward for DS. They are an insurance company after all; they offer life insurance, etc. Although it's foreign to us, offering up a reward probably felt like second nature to them. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if DS's insurance was supplied by them, so it makes sense that it was an automatic extinct for them to give up a reward.

Also, although many of us may despise our day jobs, I'm sure the multi-billion dollar companies wouldn't bat an eye at 50,000. In fact, as disgusting as it is, it may look like good publicity.

I could be incorrect, but just wanted to point out that the reward may not be as ominous as it looks. Also, I don't believe MetLife would offer a reward if they were privy to any ongoing situation between DS and FG. Doing so would make them look guilty, and could incrimate them. Being that they are an insurance company, I highly doubt they would throw themself into the investigation willingly.

BBM.

I don't either, but I do think how quickly they offered it up creates questions.

 

[Tasty]

So why keep this quiet? Im thinking of other cases where it was useful releasing the little they have, like video(even bad video) or that they know someone was with her or that it happened in Metlife parking lot.

As someone above stated, an eyewitness testimony saying a POI was in the car with DS would be much more valuable in court if the person claimed to have seen POI prior to a video being released publicly. If they release a video and THEN someone comes forward saying they saw DS in the car with that person, it's easier to make the defense that the eyewitness was influenced by the video. I think it's just stronger evidence if the eyewitness comes forward of their own accord, so initially I think the police were hoping that would happen, although it's getting kind of late for that now.

Not to mention the fact that releasing evidence could spook a suspect and make the investigation much more difficult. If they only have video of DS interacting with someone in the parking lot of MetLife, all they can really prove is that she interacted with someone at metlife. They need more to convict someone, they need evidence that the person was with DS further down the timeline, up to and including whenever the crime took place.

It's possible they have video of DS interacting with someone in the MetLife parking area after she leaves the office on the 2nd. Then she (or they) get into the Jeep Renegade and depart, after which time she goes missing. The police are trying to find eyewitnesses that can help them fill in the timeline after DS leaves MetLife. The officer in the press conference even states "we want to talk to anyone who saw the Jeep Renegade from the time it left MetLife on the 2nd up until the time it was discovered in the IG parking lot on the evening of the 3rd." They have suspicions about what happened (hence the raid on the Berkley home), but to make a solid case against a suspect, they need more information/evidence/eyewitnesses. Also supporting this is the fact that one of the neighbors of the Berkley home told reporters that he was asked "not much about FG, but more about whether I was home at a certain time, and whether I saw DS or her car at [FG's residence]."

edit: at 0:46 of this video is when the neighbor says he was being asked if he saw DS's car at the Berkley home: http://www.wxyz.com/news/police-con...ing-farmington-hills-woman-danielle-stislicki

 

[Eileen730]

IMO they are keeping this quiet because it's part of something huge.... something they don't want others to know how much they know. Think about it... if she was possibly part of a national/international HT case and you are trying to bust someone, wouldn't you want as few details leaked to the public as possible?

I kind of think some thing more is going on here.

 

[SherlockJ]

So why keep this quiet? Im thinking of other cases where it was useful releasing the little they have, like video(even bad video) or that they know someone was with her or that it happened in Metlife parking lot.

One possibility is they do have clear video of who she was with. But they can not determine WHY they were together. And searching for someone who witnessed a portion of their conversation. Or maybe they support the possibility she is still alive and are concerned that publicly zeroing in on the suspect could have a fatal outcome. Frankly, I'm not sure why they chose not to release surveillance video. But I still am convinced the suspect was captured on it in the lot of MetLife. I'm not convinced FG is that person.

 

[monster12]

It's possible they have video of DS interacting with someone in the MetLife parking area after she leaves the office on the 2nd. Then she (or they) get into the Jeep Renegade and depart, after which time she goes missing. The police are trying to find eyewitnesses that can help them fill in the timeline after DS leaves MetLife. The officer in the press conference even states "we want to talk to anyone who saw the Jeep Renegade from the time it left MetLife on the 2nd up until the time it was discovered in the IG parking lot on the evening of the 3rd." They have suspicions about what happened (hence the raid on the Berkley home), but to make a solid case against a suspect, they need more information/evidence/eyewitnesses. Also supporting this is the fact that one of the neighbors of the Berkley home told reporters that he was asked "not much about FG, but more about whether I was home at a certain time, and whether I saw DS or her car at [FG's residence]."

edit: at 0:46 of this video is when the neighbor says he was being asked if he saw DS's car at the Berkley home: http://www.wxyz.com/news/police-con...ing-farmington-hills-woman-danielle-stislicki

Yes!!! This is what I am thinking also. They may know who was last seen with her from the video, but don't know how far along that person traveled with her. Maybe people saw her in the lot with someone, but didn't think of it as a big deal. Two adults talking on a Friday afternoon leaving work...nothing strange there, unless one was doing something to draw attention. But where along the route did something go wrong? Did she drop that person off and then go back to her apt and they followed her? Did she not make it back to her apt at all and only the vehicle did? --Which I think that is very risky and don't really see that as the case, but the vehicle could have reappeared once it was dark. We haven't heard any reports from those in apts by her if they happened to see her vehicle reappear at some point AND just bc we haven't heard anything, doesn't mean the LE don't know. That would be a key piece of the puzzle to release when the vehicle was seen. I don't know any of my neighbors but I know what vehicles are usually parked near my building. I couldn't tell you who owned which vehicle, but I might be able to notice when I pull in that a red car wasn't there at 4pm but was at 8pm when I left for going out for the night...or whatever.-- By the looks of it, the parking spots are very close to the building, so one would be walking by that spot to go into her building. Hoping someone at some hour noticed her vehicle wasn't there and then it was there...say it wasn't there at 5pm, but was there at Saturday 8am...or whatever possibilities.

Wanting to know if people saw her or the vehicle in the area and at what time, seems to me, they are trying to pin the timeframe someone was in the vehicle with her and when that person was no longer in the vehicle with her...whether she was driving it or they were...

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Her mom wasn't there that day. I believe someone or in MSM clarified it had been slow so she asked if she could leave early.

In regards to Liberty Greens, it was the name for her new blog

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I wondered how she came up with the name - the reason that I Googled it to see what turned up. Name for several apartment complexes (not MI), then the (medical) marihuana dispensary in A2. That subject has been discussed here since Day 1. Just sayin'...

 

[Vresia]

I am curious as to whether or not FG has been able to view the affidavit submitted in support of the application for the search warrant(s) ? The affidavit details the info the applicant is relying on to establish that there are grounds to issue the warrant.

I am under the impression that the person served with the warrant/ his attorney cannot see the affidavit unless he/she has actually been charged with something but I don't know if this is correct. Does anyone here know ?

Update: It appears that this is a grey area.
https://www.rcfp.org/secret-justice-warrants-and-wiretaps/search-warrants
Search warrants and related materials are often treasure troves of information. Police generally attach affidavits to their applications for warrants in which they describe the evidence that, in their view, provides the “probable cause” necessary for a judge or magistrate to authorize the search. Reviewing these documents provides the press and public one of the best opportunities to keep tabs on criminal investigations.

As important as these documents are, however, courts have not been clear about whether the public has a right to review warrants and related materials. Indeed, in a series of cases arising out of the same 1988 investigation, different federal appellate courts came to very different conclusions...

Does anyone from DS' area know the way local courts lean on this ? I would think reporters would have viewed the affidavit(s) if it were possible but, you never know.

 

[one_vice]

All I'm saying is it's something I have done. I know my friends have done. I know friends of mine who have gone on dates with guys they've met online, but said they were going out with girlfriends when their mom has asked what their plans are (and yes they live on their own).

Ok now I see her mom wasn't there .. So I don't know. But I still believe there was more to the meeting w her friend than what the public knows.

I'm 39 and I am not always honest with my mom about what I'm doing, usually because 1. I don't want her to worry (I did some internet dating after my divorce) or 2. I don't want the third degree. Yes, I'm a grown *advertiser censored* woman, but my mom is still nosy.

 

[Midge Montana]

I wondered how she came up with the name - the reason that I Googled it to see what turned up. Name for several apartment complexes (not MI), then the (medical) marihuana dispensary in A2. That subject has been discussed here since Day 1. Just sayin'...

But...the MMM place in AA is called The Green Door, and it happens to be on Liberty Street, which is why it comes up when you Google Liberty Greens Michigan. So, likely not related, but good thinking.

 

[Momma2cam]

I am curious as to whether or not FG has been able to view the affidavit submitted in support of the application for the search warrant(s) ? The affidavit details the info the applicant is relying on to establish that there are grounds to issue the warrant.

I am under the impression that the person served with the warrant/ his attorney cannot see the affidavit unless he/she has actually been charged with something but I don't know if this is correct. Does anyone here know ?

Update: It appears that this is a grey area.
https://www.rcfp.org/secret-justice-warrants-and-wiretaps/search-warrants
Search warrants and related materials are often treasure troves of information. Police generally attach affidavits to their applications for warrants in which they describe the evidence that, in their view, provides the “probable cause” necessary for a judge or magistrate to authorize the search. Reviewing these documents provides the press and public one of the best opportunities to keep tabs on criminal investigations.

As important as these documents are, however, courts have not been clear about whether the public has a right to review warrants and related materials. Indeed, in a series of cases arising out of the same 1988 investigation, different federal appellate courts came to very different conclusions...

Does anyone from DS' area know the way local courts lean on this ? I would think reporters would have viewed the affidavit(s) if it were possible but, you never know.

I'm not aware of the local enforcement or laws related to releasing affidavits to the media. But, I do know that the suspect can challenge the facts in the affidavit later. So, it would seem that at minimum, the suspect would have access to the details of what constituted probable cause to search.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[monkeypants]

One possibility is they do have clear video of who she was with. But they can not determine WHY they were together. And searching for someone who witnessed a portion of their conversation. Or maybe they support the possibility she is still alive and are concerned that publicly zeroing in on the suspect could have a fatal outcome. Frankly, I'm not sure why they chose not to release surveillance video. But I still am convinced the suspect was captured on it in the lot of MetLife. I'm not convinced FG is that person.

I actually may agree with this, but some how whomever was captured on it it well acquainted with FG.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

The only reason I think something happened at work was because her mom wanted to know if anyone noticed her demeanor . To me something happened at work or something not work related but upsetting happened.

I think there is alot of info we are not privy to. I'm still very curious as to why all these agencies are involved..

Does Danielle know things job related that
Would put her in danger?

All very strange.

Based on what was said at the press conference, LE and Danielle's parents have reason to believe that she could be in danger. No mention of reason and/or if it's work-related.

Danielle has been missing five weeks today. Where is she? With whom? Is she safe? Why was she taken? How did the abduction take place? Did Danielle go willingly with someone? So many questions; very few answers...

 

[DakotaMayi]

Why are we still waiting on any news? I'm getting overly angry with how this is panning out. Please god say there is stuff going on behind the scenes. Someone is getting away with ugly, ugly crimes here and walking around free as a bird.

Apologies to all... I am running out of patience and beginning to think that he is going to walk away from this! :stormingmad: