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

[kmarques]

Thanks Anthony. My ex husband said I was a great detective. That's why he's my ex.

Ha! My husband says the same. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SherlockJ]

Say something did happen in the parking lot at MetLife. Wouldn't an alleged former-or-current security guard be exactly the person to know the best blind spots?

Spot on--he'd know the blind spots. But he would also be aware of high foot traffic in the lot on a Friday afternoon. Doubtful a recognizable security guard would show up there with the intent of doing something wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

 

[soanyway]

IMO, there was additional evidence (other than parking lot video) that led LE to FG's residence (possibly something found in DS's vehicle). They obviously had enough to secure not one (but two) search warrants.

I really liked your comment about someone looking like FG. Suppose in his security position his job function took him out on the lot. Anyone from afar could easily mistake someone of a similar appearance, especially since they are used to seeing him outside. And I believe there have been searches in different cases where police go twice to the same home and nothing turns up. Im not so quick to point a finger at him.

 

[mahoolin]

Thanks Anthony. My ex husband said I was a great detective. That's why he's my ex.

Lol, I had my own Investigation Bureau too for my ex.

 

[Holly73]

Imo... Regarding if someone knew security cameras or not... The area is a busy populated area. I would think that the person, even if this was planned, it was not with a sound thought process.

 

[monkeypants]

Where at MetLife would they have gotten video from? And I wonder why anyone working there presently or in the past would confront her there or want to be seen with her there knowing there are cameras around. If they were up to something that is. I am not sure an arrest is imminent. Hoping this doesn't fade away into another cold case and 20 years down the road we are still wondering. There are so many of those in every state.

It was already stated and shown by a poster here that generously did a go pro drive of DS work to home to Berkeley house ...go check thread 5, I believe that's where it was. It shows the signs, he discussed the cameras etc

Btw crime of passion never cares about cameras...if he got p.o.'d enough and shoved her in the car etc he wasn't thinking about cameras

 

[Holly73]

Exactly!

It was already stated and shown by a poster here that generously did a go pro drive of DS work to home to Berkeley house ...go check thread 5, I believe that's where it was. It shows the signs, he discussed the cameras etc

Btw crime of passion never cares about cameras...if he got p.o.'d enough and shoved her in the car etc he wasn't thinking about cameras

 

[monkeypants]

Thanks Anthony. My ex husband said I was a great detective. That's why he's my ex.

My husband fears my obsession with true crime...he thinks if he ever pisses me off I'll have figured out the perfect crime [emoji6]

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Agree.

Now FG and Danielles friends are in the realm of whatever.

But why would her job and apt complex both offer 50k a piece for safe return?

Just asking.

Now I understand MetLife for doing a PR move to protect the image.

But as far as the IG management complex.

Why?

Similar question asked a few threads ago. I answered then and now: It's the right thing to do in the event that Danielle was abducted from IGA property (or that another crime was committed on said property - in her apartment, vestibule of her building, at the mailboxes, parking lot, etc.).

The last time I offered this response, I was convinced that something must have happened at IGA since Danielle's car was found there. I'm now leaning towards the abduction and/or crime taking place at or near MetLife or along the route to Danielle's apartment at IGA.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Thanks Anthony. My ex husband said I was a great detective. That's why he's my ex.

:lol: :tyou:

 

[Blue5591]

Similar question asked a few threads ago. I answered then and now: It's the right thing to do in the event that Danielle was abducted from IGA property (or that another crime was committed on said property - in her apartment, vestibule of her building, at the mailboxes, parking lot, etc.).

The last time I offered this response, I was convinced that something must have happened at IGA since Danielle's car was found there. I'm now leaning towards the abduction and/or crime taking place at or near MetLife or along the route to Danielle's apartment at IGA.

Wondering if someone was in her vehicle and had another person follow from behind.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[Wardog]

I've always wondered something about this "reward money thing". Honestly I don't get it. How could someone realistically provide information of enough quality to get them a big sum of reward money, without having committed a crime somewhere along the line? Lets say someone witnessed an abduction and kept their most shut for 3 days, then sees the big reward and spills the beans. IF something happened to Danielle while that person was busy NOT calling police, aren't they guilty of something? Like Aiding and abetting or something?
Even if someone was just told what happened, and sat on it for any period of time, I'm pretty sure thats a crime. What I'm wondering is in what scenario someone could realistically
1) Know the truth
and
2) Not be guilty of something.
Furthermore, if #1 and #2 aren't possible, why would anyone come forward with information. This always bothers me about these "reward" scenarios.

 

[Blue5591]

I've always wondered something about this "reward money thing". Honestly I don't get it. How could someone realistically provide information of enough quality to get them a big sum of reward money, without having committed a crime somewhere along the line? Lets say someone witnessed an abduction and kept their most shut for 3 days, then sees the big reward and spills the beans. IF something happened to Danielle while that person was busy NOT calling police, aren't they guilty of something? Like Aiding and abetting or something?
Even if someone was just told what happened, and sat on it for any period of time, I'm pretty sure thats a crime. What I'm wondering is in what scenario someone could realistically
1) Know the truth
and
2) Not be guilty of something.
Furthermore, if #1 and #2 aren't possible, why would anyone come forward with information. This always bothers me about these "reward" scenarios.

Good points! In addition, they only get money if she is found safe and they prosecute someone.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[Lmustang89]

Fox news updated 1/3/16 - posting excerpts (click link for the complete article)

http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/226826548-story

**words bolded by me***

When her car was searched, her purse was found inside the locked vehicle. Inside the purse were her credit cards, driver's license, and other personal items. One thing that's missing is her phone which police have called a key piece of evidence.

Police are also looking for a smiley face key charm that went missing from Danielle's key chain. Police say it may have been turned in to a lost and found somewhere, so if you've seen it they're asking you to contact them.

 

[Yeahbabs]

Since you like my thinking let me point one more thing out to you Tiffran. Typically she slept at this friends house every weekend. But on that Friday she called the friend late in the day to tell her she would spend the night. Then asked to leave early. It could be she had originally had something preempting her from sleeping at the friends. Then something happened. whatever she was suppose to do was canceled. And she was upset. Real upset. So she calls the friend, and wants to get the hell out of work. But when she gets to the car, something bad related to all this happens... The person most likely to know some details, her friend.. And based on the information she could provide and cameras, the apartment is no longer an interest to rescuers.

I think if she got that upset and called the friend freaking out about whatever it was and that was the reason they made plans, 1) DS wouldn't be cooking for the friend - friend would be like, "Let's just order takeout so you can relax!" and 2) I think the friend would have been concerned about her not showing up WAY sooner if she was aware DS was dealing with some drama.

 

[Dolphin8]

I think the one thing we can probably all agree on as fact is that from the beginning LE has known much more. Early on it seemed, IMO, that her disappearance was part of something larger. I say that because, really, nothing about this case has been the norm; from the verbiage used by LE and family in the beginning straight to the fact that no one, not one person, whether a distant friend of the family or someone at Met Life, or even someone in a building close by, at this point has anonymously leaked info or rumor.

Take into account the unique circumstances that surround this case; the sad past of the best friend, the theories regarding the key chain, the sad yet bizarre death of another Farmington Hills woman, a drug arrest and a kidnapping on the same day at the same apt complex, and a security guard who "worked or had worked at Met Life" (again, that verbiage), a seemingly hacked yet bizarre old Twitter account, Michigan being one of the largest hubs for HT, and everybody's number one question, the reason behind the swift inclusion of 12 LE agencies.

It's understandable that seasoned Websleuths here have been annoyed by the constant speculation and theorizing in this case but it's almost impossible not to, given the above which could all end up being a whole lot of nothing or just a little bit of something. If there are any writers following this thread, we've no doubt given them fodder for their next big screenplay, but not without good reason. The best thing that's happened in the last five weeks, IMO, is that this case went national via Fox (here's to hoping Daily Mail picks it up next). Maybe because a reporter noticed the SM campaign or maybe because there is going to be a lot more to the story. Lilnuggent asked last night why the house search wasn't included in the Fox article, then a few hours later, a paragraph was added to include that search. Weird. Questions, everywhere. Danielle, nowhere.

With all the above taken into account, JMO but I'm left with this--

1- The plans. While I don't personally find it at all strange to have sleepovers, this scenario and timeline has bothered me the most. Friend most likely able to have provided important info to LE that the public is not privy to at this time, and whatever it was, was cause for immediate alarm, 12 agency type alarm. Assuming there would've been a brief phone call between the two when DS got out of work, the friend might've been the only one who would've known whether or not DS was stopping for groceries or running another errand. The fact that this dinner/sleepover is being described as a meeting DS would absolutely not miss, does not correlate with the fact that there was no worry until 4pm next day.

2- Key chain with two keys. IMO the focus on the key chain is because its unique, not because of what it signifies. It's kind of cute and something someone might remember seeing somewhere as opposed to a nondescript bunch of keys. Two keys (if not for her mailbox) could've been to a place she was stopping at prior to going to the friends? Storage facility, lock box, keys to friends house?

3- Searches. LE was already doing searches before it was made public, word got out through FB, not sure if LE intended to publicize those searches so it might be a safe bet to say there have been more searches, perhaps many, that they've been able to keep under wraps. Asking public not to search, not weird. Integral if different kinds of dogs need to be brought in at any time.

4- Security guard (irregardless of who he was employed by). Most likely the last person seen with DS which for sure would've made him a POI. However, if DS had been worried about something else could it be possible that she might've asked to be escorted to her car?

5- Crime of passion. Form fitting clothes to more over sized tops. Could be cold whether clothing. November Danielle completed on instagram. A good amount of extra space left in the way the flannel hangs. Two hearts drawn on top of her own, one bigger, one tiny.

All JMO.

Someone out there knows something. The hardest thing is always the right thing to do. Be anonymous, stay anonymous. Call in the that one tip that will bring her home.

 

[Blue5591]

So if by chance someone saw DS with FG and FG was last known person to be seen with her before she went missing, os that enough probable cause to get a search warrant? If so, is it possible that even if FG was seen with her he is not the responsible party. Maybe DS knew about his wife and offered to make edibles and he was picking them up from her. It's obvious DS is a very giving person. Maybe it was just that and then something horrible happened back at her apt ny someone else. It would have been a little bit darker

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[Lmustang89]

Someone in comments asked why 3 photos of Dani's jeep was posted, the reporter stated: (I bolded below)

"Gus Burns | fburns@mlive.com Dec 20, 2016
@Freakin_J_Deacon We included all the pictures police provided. They were hoping to get some tips from someone who might have seen the Jeep on the road during the time between when she left work on Dec. 2 and the Jeep was discovered the following evening. "

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2016/12/search_for_missing_farmington.html

 

[Blue5591]

Why would LE not mention the person she was last seen with if they knew?

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[Momma2cam]

Why would LE not mention the person she was last seen with if they knew?

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I was reading the fds Facebook page just now and wondering the same. I'm not sure they actually know. But, if they do, and they are still trying to build a solid, airtight case, they may stay quiet? On the other hand, it would surely be helpful to know when asking the public to report if they saw her or the jeep during that critical period. Having another person to have possibly seen could be helpful... so, I'm really not convinced they know.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk