MI MI - Danielle Stislicki, 28, Southfield, 2 Dec 2016 #7

[Zebra Lady]

You would think the parking lot would be full with workers leaving on a Friday rushing to go home.

I was thinking that as well but I wonder if even 5-15 mins give or take made the difference in how many people left for the day when DS left. Getting out of work at let's say at 4:50 pm rather than 4:30 or 5:00 pm might mean there's fewer people in the lot.

 

[OverThinker]

I think everyone is getting hung up on a few *assumed* details that aren't necessarily facts. I feel like this could be some of the reason everyone has just been going in circles here.

Assumptions based on the facts:
1) That SG=FG, and that the SG isn't someone else who was residing, or even staying, in the searched home.
2) Who says a SG has to be a male?
3) The facts state that the home belongs to a SG she is acquainted with. There are no facts stating that there is any belief that the POI is the homeowner. Could someone else have been there?
3) Maybe the reason for the involvement of the DEA and SONIC has zero to do with anything DS did or used, but has everything to do with activity the POI was involved in.
4) Did Danielle's helpful nature merely cause her to come across the wrong situation at the wrong time? Illegal or risky activity? Someone relapsing into addiction who didn't want family to know?

I think it's easy to make assumptions based on facts... but I think people are getting tunnel vision.

 

[Skigirl]

I worked at a very large (Fortune 500) health care services provider and not only did most of our buildings not have cameras, there is no way we would have evacuated an entire facility because there was a problem with a video camera, or even if all of our video cameras went down for a time. We took patient privacy laws very seriously, and were completely HIPAA-compliant. All of our buildings had card keys and restricted access, etc., but we had a much greater concern about electronic record security than the security of physical records and even biological samples. There is a difference between the law, and the implementation of company policy based on the law, and there is no way to know what one company's security and policies are like just by knowing another's.

I've been wondering about the camera situation myself. I worked at Blue Cross Blue Shield for 4 years, and they have what sounds like a similar setup as MetLife. We had a handful of security guards who mainly worked the front lobby (monitoring surveillance footage, logging visitors, verifying employment and issuing temporary ID cards that are required to access all buildings for those who forgot theirs at home, etc.). I can't imagine any scenario that would result in a complete breakdown of their video surveillance, and if one such scenario did occur, the company would likely force all employees to promptly remove themselves from the premises until the issue could be rectified. There's just way too much liability involved for an insurance provider if they fail to monitor every inch of their property at all times. They are also required BY LAW to maintain specific, and often strenuous, safeguards to ensure their client's privacy is protected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Eileen730]

JMO
I do believe she knew this man.
There is a reason he is a poi.
If not only for the reason he was seen talking to her.

 

[monkeypants]

I've said all along crime of passion, unrequited or affair...I don't think there was a crime at MetLife. I think they just talked. I think she went to his house and the crime occurred there.

 

[Skigirl]

I think everyone is getting hung up on a few *assumed* details that aren't necessarily facts. I feel like this could be some of the reason everyone has just been going in circles here.

Assumptions based on the facts:
1) That SG=FG, and that the SG isn't someone else who was residing, or even staying, in the searched home.
2) Who says a SG has to be a male?
3) The facts state that the home belongs to a SG she is acquainted with. There are no facts stating that there is any belief that the POI is the homeowner. Could someone else have been there?
3) Maybe the reason for the involvement of the DEA and SONIC has zero to do with anything DS did or used, but has everything to do with activity the POI was involved in.
4) Did Danielle's helpful nature merely cause her to come across the wrong situation at the wrong time? Illegal or risky activity? Someone relapsing into addiction who didn't want family to know?

I think it's easy to make assumptions based on facts... but I think people are getting tunnel vision.

You are totally right that there are many possible things that could have happened, but there is a difference between "possible" and "probable" and putting too much weight on the "possible" can lead to a lot of fruitless lines of inquiry with very little probability of being correct. Could DS have been abducted by a woman? Sure. But based on probabilities, and assuming she was abducted, she was probably abducted by a man, because, math.

 

[SherlockJ]

She requested to leave early to go visit her friend. Do you think she lied to coworkers?

Not sure. But you have a point. It's impossible to know for sure!

 

[LBee]

Man, it is not hard to see where Danielle gets her seemingly joyful personality from, her parents have been incredible through this, so, so positive with constant reminders and acts of gratitude. I really hope they find their girl soon.
*Hopefully I can say that and not break some rule I'm unaware of.

 

[SherlockJ]

I've been wondering about the camera situation myself. I worked at Blue Cross Blue Shield for 4 years, and they have what sounds like a similar setup as MetLife. We had a handful of security guards who mainly worked the front lobby (monitoring surveillance footage, logging visitors, verifying employment and issuing temporary ID cards that are required to access all buildings for those who forgot theirs at home, etc.). I can't imagine any scenario that would result in a complete breakdown of their video surveillance, and if one such scenario did occur, the company would likely force all employees to promptly remove themselves from the premises until the issue could be rectified. There's just way too much liability involved for an insurance provider if they fail to monitor every inch of their property at all times. They are also required BY LAW to maintain specific, and often strenuous, safeguards to ensure their client's privacy is protected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So we agree on that point. And I also think when the police said "we do not have video of her walking out to her car" it was very possible they were able to obtain other video. Otherwise I think a more general statement would have been issued: "we were unable to obtain any video of here".

 

[GigTu]

I've said all along crime of passion, unrequited or affair...I don't think there was a crime at MetLife. I think they just talked. I think she went to his house and the crime occurred there.

I think someone followed her home, lured her to their car just as she had parked, immobilized her, got her into the car, then drove away.

About cameras on the building, a long time ago in a galaxy far away... Also known as multiple threads ago but I don't know which one (2-3 maybe?) someone here drove through the parking lot of the building. Prior to even that occurring I asked if any locals had or would actually go there to see if the building had cameras. My question was never answered. Do they or don't they have cameras there on the builiding that capture entering/exiting and/or the parking areas?

 

[Eileen730]

She requested to leave early to go visit her friend. Do you think she lied to coworkers?

It sounds to me she went to her friends
Every weekend .
Why leave early this time?

 

[SherlockJ]

You would think the parking lot would be full with workers leaving on a Friday rushing to go home.

Exactly Dexter! A person who premeditates a crime to include returning a car to a home is very unlikely to commit the crime in a spot he would be most likely to see someone he knew. "I'll do it HERE where I am well known, then park the car THERE so no one knows." That doesn't set well with me!

 

[monkeypants]

I think someone followed her home, lured her to their car just as she had parked, immobilized her, got her into the car, then drove away.

About cameras on the building, a long time ago in a galaxy far away... Also known as multiple threads ago but I don't know which one (2-3 maybe?) someone here drive through the parking lot if the building. Prior to even that occurring I asked if any locals had or would actually go there to see if they had cameras. My question was never answered. Do they or don't they have cameras there on the builiding that capture entering/exiting and/or the parking areas?

LE seems to be alluding to knowing she didn't drive her car home tho

 

[SherlockJ]

I think she requested to leave early to go talk to the S.G

That theory is very reasonable. We don't know. But it certainly could fit into the bigger picture.

 

[missgulfsouth]

You are totally right that there are many possible things that could have happened, but there is a difference between "possible" and "probable" and putting too much weight on the "possible" can lead to a lot of fruitless lines of inquiry with very little probability of being correct. Could DS have been abducted by a woman? Sure. But based on probabilities, and assuming she was abducted, she was probably abducted by a man, because, math.

Oh, no. Not the two Hispanic women theory, again!

 

[SherlockJ]

I was thinking that as well but I wonder if even 5-15 mins give or take made the difference in how many people left for the day when DS left. Getting out of work at let's say at 4:50 pm rather than 4:30 or 5:00 pm might mean there's fewer people in the lot.

Makes sense. But here's the twist. She left work early whether to get a jump on rush hour traffic, or make a stop off at her house. We were told she requested to leave early and granted that time. BUT.. Why have they repeatedly said she left at 5PM. Her mother said 5PM. Not, "between 4:30 and 5:00. This brings two thoughts to my mind

1. WHAT was she doing between 4:30PM and 5PM?
2. HOW did her mother know the car pulled out at 5PM?

 

[LBee]

I think they even went past "alluding" and straight up said "we don't believe she drove her vehicle to her apartment" if we go off of the most recent MSM article quoting a law enforcement source.

LE seems to be alluding to knowing she didn't drive her car home tho

 

[monkeypants]

Oh, no. Not the two Hispanic women theory, again!

* gasp ....(drops iPad and runs)

 

[monkeypants]

I think they even went past "alluding" and straight up said "we don't believe she drove her vehicle to her apartment" if we go off of the most recent MSM article quoting a law enforcement source.

I agree..was being lazy and didn't want to have to search for a quote if I said it was a fact lol

 

[gam]

I think someone followed her home, lured her to their car just as she had parked, immobilized her, got her into the car, then drove away.

About cameras on the building, a long time ago in a galaxy far away... Also known as multiple threads ago but I don't know which one (2-3 maybe?) someone here drove through the parking lot of the building. Prior to even that occurring I asked if any locals had or would actually go there to see if the building had cameras. My question was never answered. Do they or don't they have cameras there on the builiding that capture entering/exiting and/or the parking areas?

This has been answered many times. The apt complex did not have cameras. AtomicAngela lives there and has posted this, along with several who have driven there.