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

[SherlockJ]

If the homeowner on Oxford lived in that house for the amount of time public records suggest, I think "the neighbors" would have had a better grasp on who they were. But news media didn't capture anyone who seemed to know a lot about them.

Wondering if this IS indicative that someone else DID live in that house.

 

[Eileen730]

My hotspot, the untampered purse. From the get-go I've made one assumption (maybe two)

1. The person who drove the car back to IGA had an emotional attachment to D.S.

LE did not believe she drove her car home. Interesting to consider how quickly my suspicions and theories might change should their assumption prove wrong.

Do you think they would have bothered mentioning the SG if they did not initially suspect his involvement. From what I read, he isn't even the homeowner.

SG was questioned because he was seen talking to her. So automatically he become a pOI.

 

[kimoWAsabi]

We have to remember that just because we are limited by what's on OUR table for discussion it that doesn't mean our info holds the answer.

For instance WHO. We're bending over backwards to make SG the "who" because he's all we got. But other "WHOs" are at least as connected as he to the case imo.

WHEN... just because we have the time she last communicated (415) and the time the jeep was located (6p next day) doesn't mean one of those is when this happened. Where does it say she intended to return home prior - yet we spent a lot of time talking about if her abduction occurred at MetLife or when she returned home to pick things up - why did we assume she was returning home before going out? We continued that assumption even after we were told she didn't return the jeep. Just weird to me.

I am just as frustrated with the lack of info but am being careful not to blow up huge fantasies about clandestine affairs/drugs etc just to make it fit with what little we have. Thinking outside all this especially with regards to WHO and WHEN.

The WHY for me seems assuredly crime of passion but I haven't lost sight of that meaning a lot more than "crime of two people who have had sex" - the word passion isn't limited to romantic passion in Crimes of Passion.

Legally it's an "explosive" or "reactive, impulsive" vs "premeditated. That's why I got confused when I heard "well planned crime of passion". Huh?!?

Until I know they were more than acquaintances I'm not tunneling in on the lovers angle.

Jealousy is a huge crime predicator for instance and not just sexual or romantic jealousy. Professional jealousy, sibling rivalry, etc. what if someone just discovered DS had something they wanted/lost/etc at work or a friend or acquaintance or hell and acquaintance's friend for that matter.

[just me trying to keep the spectrum broad for a little longer and back up from the vast leaps a little- carry on ]

 

[Lia_]

They can change at the drop of a hat, but signs were there leading up to the change or circumstances. Rare a person just snaps, most often though people don't see those signs, sometimes they do and ignore them or write them off.

Pet peeve for me, as I have worked in mental health, in substance abuse and I've been involved with many family law cases. I find the need to always add something to open people's eyes up.

The longterm stress of being a caretaker in terms of with someone who already had previously existing issues would be enough to make someone "snap", the person would have to most likely have previously existing issues but as someone also with a degree in mental health, and as someone with a terminal illness the stress can change and agitate existing problems

 

[1smile]

Has anyone ever been able to determine the name of the lawyer or law firm that the POI obtained? I remember someone mentioning that there was a gentleman that was interviewed by the news reporter, as a possible attorney... Any ideas?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[missgulfsouth]

The longterm stress of being a caretaker in terms of with someone who already had previously existing issues would be enough to make someone "snap", the person would have to most likely have previously existing issues but as someone also with a degree in mental health, and as someone with a terminal illness the stress can change and agitate existing problems

Being a caregiver can make people snap. I get that. But "snapping" due to stress, at least in my mind, would be akin to an adult temper tantrum, breaking things, screaming, losing it for a period of time. It could also be that the caregiver takes an instant vacation, or a mental time out.

Most people who snap don't abduct or kill people, right? To me, those aren't things that just happen one day because someone got stressed. Those are things that are already in someone's heart and mind to do, maybe they've thought about it often. Then one day, seemingly (to the rest of us) out of the blue, something happens that pushes them over the edge ... but they were already standing on that particular edge to begin with.

Did I explain that clearly? I'm trying to understand your POV.

 

[ZacksDad]

My hotspot, the untampered purse. From the get-go I've made one assumption (maybe two)

1. The person who drove the car back to IGA had an emotional attachment to D.S.

LE did not believe she drove her car home. Interesting to consider how quickly my suspicions and theories might change should their assumption prove wrong.

Do you think they would have bothered mentioning the SG if they did not initially suspect his involvement. From what I read, he isn't even the homeowner.

The purse is interesting. I had possible belief that she never got back to her car. That is was driven back after the crime. But I cannot imagine perp would place her purse back in her car. Does not make sense to do that.

So now I am with others that she drove the perp to another location and he eventually drove her car back to her apartments. Or she could have followed him to that location. I could see that see she left her purse in the car while going out for some reason. If she planned on leaving her purse in the car, it may have been slightly hidden so no-one from the outside could see it. So the perp may have not noticed it when it was dropped off.

But the bottom line is that LE had reasonable cause to search the SG home multiple times. I am sure there is much more they know why he would be a POI then we know.

1. If he was the last person seen with her after she got off.
2. If her cell phone pinged close to his house.
3. If they had recent bad accounter between them.
4. If she or her car was seen at his house.

I could see reason that she went over willingly or not. I do not wish to speculate either, just hope for justice for her.

 

[Vresia]

Has anyone ever been able to determine the name of the lawyer or law firm that the POI obtained? I remember someone mentioning that there was a gentleman that was interviewed by the news reporter, as a possible attorney... Any ideas?

His name was stated in one of the news videos. I will post the link if I can find it quickly.

Update: In the video that names the attorney, he is referenced as a friend NOT the attorney.

 

[kimoWAsabi]

Maybe a lawyer told him to say nothing.

I know I would have. (Ducking - as I know that's unpopular but it would be sound legal advice)

 

[NYArtist]

IMO, the simplest explanation is a random, crime of opportunity where someone trolling for a victim happened to see her in the apt. parking lot and was able to trick her in some way to get close enough to take her...

Yes, I agree with you Old Steve, except for where this took place. Feeling more like it was in the parking lot where she worked. He may have taken over her car after leaving the lot somewhere.

 

[ZacksDad]

I know I would have. (Ducking - as I know that's unpopular but it would be sound legal advice)

I am not a lawyer so I cannot speak for them. But I think it depends on your involvement.

1. If the SG was dealing drugs.
2. If the SG had a previous beef with her.
3. If the SG had a ongoing relationship with her.

I am not saying any of this is true, just trying to imagine what could be true for him lawyer up and not cooperate with LE

But I cannot think of many other reasons not to clear your name. Why would he not allow the search of his house willingly? If he was on the up and up there should be nothing there.

 

[soanyway]

BBM. I agree, we are limited only what has been linked through social media. But if you have a list of another WHO (or multiple), I'd love to see it. I don't think it's uncommon that we are focusing on the SG as this is the ONLY house that has not only been reported by MSM, but also the only one leaked through local SM pages. Wouldn't people be all over posting it online if their neighbors house was searched or somehow involved? They didn't waste time jumping on the Berkley page to bring attention to the Oxford residence, later confirmed through MSM and LE. I just haven't seen any reason to believe that someone other than the SG (who also had a sick spouse) was living at this residence.

As for the return home, it was reported very earlier on that DS told her friend she had planned to drop by apartment and grab a bag before heading over to her home that evening to spend the night. It's later been confirmed by family and LE that neither believe she ever made it into her apartment or was the one to park her JEEP there.

No one has been formally named a POI but discussing who appears to be the only lead in the case doesn't mean we are closed off to others or an accomplice. At least I'm not, I just don't see anyone else at this point. All MOO.

We have to remember that just because we are limited by what's on OUR table for discussion it that doesn't mean our info holds the answer.

For instance WHO. We're bending over backwards to make SG the "who" because he's all we got. But other "WHOs" are at least as connected as he to the case imo.

WHEN... just because we have the time she last communicated (415) and the time the jeep was located (6p next day) doesn't mean one of those is when this happened. Where does it say she intended to return home prior - yet we spent a lot of time talking about if her abduction occurred at MetLife or when she returned home to pick things up - why did we assume she was returning home before going out? We continued that assumption even after we were told she didn't return the jeep. Just weird to me.

I am just as frustrated with the lack of info but am being careful not to blow up huge fantasies about clandestine affairs/drugs etc just to make it fit with what little we have. Thinking outside all this especially with regards to WHO and WHEN.

The WHY for me seems assuredly crime of passion but I haven't lost sight of that meaning a lot more than "crime of two people who have had sex" - the word passion isn't limited to romantic passion in Crimes of Passion.

Legally it's an "explosive" or "reactive, impulsive" vs "premeditated. That's why I got confused when I heard "well planned crime of passion". Huh?!?

Until I know they were more than acquaintances I'm not tunneling in on the lovers angle.

Jealousy is a huge crime predicator for instance and not just sexual or romantic jealousy. Professional jealousy, sibling rivalry, etc. what if someone just discovered DS had something they wanted/lost/etc at work or a friend or acquaintance or hell and acquaintance's friend for that matter.

[just me trying to keep the spectrum broad for a little longer and back up from the vast leaps a little- carry on ]

 

[Momma2cam]

I am not a lawyer so I cannot speak for them. But I think it depends on your involvement.

1. If the SG was dealing drugs.
2. If the SG had a previous beef with her.
3. If the SG had a ongoing relationship with her.

I am not saying any of this is true, just trying to imagine what could be true for him lawyer up and not cooperate with LE

But I cannot think of many other reasons not to clear your name. Why would he not allow the search of his house willingly? If he was on the up and up there should be nothing there.

If there was an ongoing relationship that was consensual (big IF as we know nothing more than aquaintance). Would he want to talk willingly to police and allow a search knowing how any of that could be used "against" him?

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Dylan Roof gets Death Penalty.

 

[kimoWAsabi]

I am not a lawyer so I cannot speak for them. But I think it depends on your involvement.

1. If the SG was dealing drugs.
2. If the SG had a previous beef with her.
3. If the SG had a ongoing relationship with her.

I am not saying any of this is true, just trying to imagine what could be true for him lawyer up and not cooperate with LE

But I cannot think of many other reasons not to clear your name. Why would he not allow the search of his house willingly? If he was on the up and up there should be nothing there.

If LE advised my client that they were seeking to search in relation to a crime they'd be told to come back with a warrant. (& I'm from a LE family - fun times at reunions lol). Actually my LE agree with me on this and only admit it in low whispers Quite frankly at the very least I'd like a judge to review the reasons and grant an Order prior. Second what if it was not his lawyer who advised him not to participate - just an example - what if his spouses lawyer discussed spousal privilege - JUST an example. Don't read into that. Do a quick google search in 5th amendments rights to find very good articles about why one should always exercise their right to remain silent (legally - imo - unless speaking could prevent further harm to someone). I think another attorney posted some upthread even.

 

[ZacksDad]

If there was an ongoing relationship that was consensual (big IF as we know nothing more than aquaintance). Would he want to talk willingly to police and allow a search knowing how any of that could be used "against" him?

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

I included that as reason 3. I also am not saying that happened either. I am just trying to come up with reasons why he would want to lawyer up and not allowed his house searched.

But the bottom line is that LE had enough legal reason to get search warrants.

 

[soanyway]

I also thought it was possible her purse was concealed (under the seat, backseat, etc.) and visible to the perp. My bag is the size of a small suitcase, but many ladies (especially younger ones) seem to carry only a wallet/wristlet which would be very easy to stash under the seat. She may have packed a lunch (being healthy) and that could've been left in the vehicle (also leading family to believe she never made it into her apartment).

IMO, whatever evidence led to the SG's home was because that is where he was believed to have been residing. Possible that surveillance cameras picked up her vehicle, but not sure they would have followed her vehicle directly to that specific address. Prints, phone pings, or witness accounts led LE to that address because they were looking for someone known to have been living/staying there. JMO

The purse is interesting. I had possible belief that she never got back to her car. That is was driven back after the crime. But I cannot imagine perp would place her purse back in her car. Does not make sense to do that.

So now I am with others that she drove the perp to another location and he eventually drove her car back to her apartments. Or she could have followed him to that location. I could see that see she left her purse in the car while going out for some reason. If she planned on leaving her purse in the car, it may have been slightly hidden so no-one from the outside could see it. So the perp may have not noticed it when it was dropped off.

But the bottom line is that LE had reasonable cause to search the SG home multiple times. I am sure there is much more they know why he would be a POI then we know.

1. If he was the last person seen with her after she got off.
2. If her cell phone pinged close to his house.
3. If they had recent bad accounter between them.
4. If she or her car was seen at his house.

I could see reason that she went over willingly or not. I do not wish to speculate either, just hope for justice for her.

 

[kimoWAsabi]

I included that as reason 3. I also am not saying that happened either. I am just trying to come up with reasons why he would want to lawyer up and not allowed his house searched.

But the bottom line is that LE had enough legal reason to get search warrants.

Where did MSM report that the initial search was conducted with a warrant?

 

[gam]

If LE advised my client that they were seeking to search in relation to a crime they'd be told to come back with a warrant. (& I'm from a LE family - fun times at reunions lol). Actually my LE agree with me on this and only admit it in low whispers Quite frankly at the very least I'd like a judge to review the reasons and grant an Order prior. Second what if it was not his lawyer who advised him not to participate - just an example - what if his spouses lawyer discussed spousal privilege - JUST an example. Don't read into that. Do a quick google search in 5th amendments rights to find very good articles about why one should always exercise their right to remain silent (legally - imo - unless speaking could prevent further harm to someone). I think another attorney posted some upthread even.

I'm with you, shutting my mouth, getting a lawyer and following their advice. I would though be doing my own research on what my lawyer was telling me. No offense meant at you, but some lawyers are not good.

It's right there for anyone to see "you have the right to remain silent, everything you say can be used against you". More people get themselves in messes by not keeping their big fat trap shut. It applies to both innocent and guilty individuals.

Defending yourself to the public, specially on SM or to the media, is dumb, everything is twisted and "used against you".

 

[AggieLou]

The purse is interesting. I had possible belief that she never got back to her car. That is was driven back after the crime. But I cannot imagine perp would place her purse back in her car. Does not make sense to do that.

So now I am with others that she drove the perp to another location and he eventually drove her car back to her apartments. Or she could have followed him to that location. I could see that see she left her purse in the car while going out for some reason. If she planned on leaving her purse in the car, it may have been slightly hidden so no-one from the outside could see it. So the perp may have not noticed it when it was dropped off.

But the bottom line is that LE had reasonable cause to search the SG home multiple times. I am sure there is much more they know why he would be a POI then we know.

1. If he was the last person seen with her after she got off.
2. If her cell phone pinged close to his house.
3. If they had recent bad accounter between them.
4. If she or her car was seen at his house.

I could see reason that she went over willingly or not. I do not wish to speculate either, just hope for justice for her.

I always leave my purse on seat next to me when driving alone. At first report of her purse being left in locked car I thought of it being on seat. I personally do that a lot when I am just running in the house for a second but I don't live in a big apartment complex.

Leaving all of a person's money and ID and credit cards would be most indicative of her not being identifiable. Either you personally do that if you want to disappear and not be traced or someone else does it because they want to make it more difficult to identify the person. It also seems to hint at not a random dirt bag abduction as they may have taken cash or even some dummies take credit cards and use them.

Where her purse was in the car could be a clue if she drove her car home too. I don't know how LE can be sure she didn't drive there when her mom states she was seen driving her vehicle at 5pm. But we don't have any information provided by LE that is real confirmed evidence. So......