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

[SherlockJ]

Since it was maybe a week before the first search, something obviously pointed to the HOI. My thoughts are either eyewitness can place the SG at Metlife that day or cell history can place the two together that day. I think it's quite possible SG took an Uber/taxi to and/or from the vicinity of DS's apt or he made a call or text to someone to take him to and/or from the area. We have no idea if LE have talked to any friends about his whereabouts. I'm also not ruling out a disgruntled wife being the cause of or okaying the first search.



I know mine automatically sends things to my Google Drive account when I have wifi, but I think I had to set it like that so it wouldn't use data ???? Hopefully hers auto updates.



I'm also not ruling out the it was SG's phone that pinged out of state or in Canada either.



Also open to both scenarios just because I haven't seen anything to confirm one or the other. I definitely think there was a known history between the two whether negative (rejection) or positive (romantic) just due to how quickly LE had their sights on SG.

I think in a rejection situation, it was likely SG misinterpreted DS's friendliness as flirting or mutual interest and was shot down or DS was adamantly against anything involving a married man.

But I can't rule out mutual romance either. I don't want anyone to think I'm judging DS either. No one can control emotions and she may have not even known SG was married. Not everyone runs a background check on a potential love interest. And people have been known to lie.

Crime of passion is my top theory. I don't think this was a random encounter with a random crazy.

People read our comments and because they like DS or because they have "seen" her personality they are quick to refute the possibility of a mutual relationship.

Convinced it was a crime of passion I too have obviously been trying to determine if it was one sided or two.

I THINK it was mutual and here's why.....

Why would a stalker who was also a "colleague" try to pull off a kidnapping at the workplace where he would be easily identifiable by hundreds of people. It would have been just as easy for him to pull it off at her apartment.
But he would be less concerned about being spotted in the lot if his initial plan did not contain any violence. He showed up to talk to her for a few minutes, Then something went wrong. IMO

 

[HardyGirls]

I THINK it was mutual and here's why.....(this is from previous poster, answer below)

Anything is surely possible. I just think it would be difficult to start a relationship with a SG at work... I mean you'd have to spend a lot of time out of your office and out in the parking lot or at the front desk getting to know someone. If that is the case then there are many people who have seen them together many times and likely pointed LE directly to him?

 

[SherlockJ]

Since it was maybe a week before the first search, something obviously pointed to the HOI. My thoughts are either eyewitness can place the SG at Metlife that day or cell history can place the two together that day. I think it's quite possible SG took an Uber/taxi to and/or from the vicinity of DS's apt or he made a call or text to someone to take him to and/or from the area. We have no idea if LE have talked to any friends about his whereabouts. I'm also not ruling out a disgruntled wife being the cause of or okaying the first search.



I know mine automatically sends things to my Google Drive account when I have wifi, but I think I had to set it like that so it wouldn't use data ???? Hopefully hers auto updates.



I'm also not ruling out the it was SG's phone that pinged out of state or in Canada either.



Also open to both scenarios just because I haven't seen anything to confirm one or the other. I definitely think there was a known history between the two whether negative (rejection) or positive (romantic) just due to how quickly LE had their sights on SG.

I think in a rejection situation, it was likely SG misinterpreted DS's friendliness as flirting or mutual interest and was shot down or DS was adamantly against anything involving a married man.

But I can't rule out mutual romance either. I don't want anyone to think I'm judging DS either. No one can control emotions and she may have not even known SG was married. Not everyone runs a background check on a potential love interest. And people have been known to lie.

Crime of passion is my top theory. I don't think this was a random encounter with a random crazy.

You mention the possibility of DS not knowing SG was married. Or that he lied. I would also add that there may have been a point in time when he and his wife were contemplating a divorce or even legally separated. Maybe it could explain some conflicting addresses people have reported seeing. And there is a possibility that she didn't want to expose a relationship for some reason. Who knows?

 

[SherlockJ]

I THINK it was mutual and here's why.....(this is from previous poster, answer below)

Anything is surely possible. I just think it would be difficult to start a relationship with a SG at work... I mean you'd have to spend a lot of time out of your office and out in the parking lot or at the front desk getting to know someone. If that is the case then there are many people who have seen them together many times and likely pointed LE directly to him?

Sorry but I get confused easily. You said you think the relationship was mutual, meaning they were having a romantic relationship. Did you say it would be difficult to start a relationship at work? I inferred that as they were not involved romantically with each other. Help my small mind figure out what you meant! And thanks!

 

[HardyGirls]

Sorry! I can't figure out how to reply to individual posts via my phone. I guess I need to accept that this site is now part of my daily life and download Tapatalk or whatever makes it easier.

I was inferring that I don't exactly think it was mutual. I work in a building occupied by an insurance company, also in Southfield. We have security at the front desk and in raised little "lookouts" in the parking lot. To me, it would be difficult to start a relationship within these locations because it's not as if security can leave their post and just come hang on the 7th floor to chat. Also, if I were away from my desk hanging out at the front desk or in the parking lot, people would notice. So, either it was one sided (him) from the relationship generally gleaned from these positions (hi, how are you?, have a good night!, hey, I forgot my badge) OR if it were more there have to be A LOT of people who knew it was more bc they notice a girl hanging around all day.

 

[SherlockJ]

Sorry! I can't figure out how to reply to individual posts via my phone. I guess I need to accept that this site is now part of my daily life and download Tapatalk or whatever makes it easier.

I was inferring that I don't exactly think it was mutual. I work in a building occupied by an insurance company, also in Southfield. We have security at the front desk and in raised little "lookouts" in the parking lot. To me, it would be difficult to start a relationship within these locations because it's not as if security can leave their post and just come hang on the 7th floor to chat. Also, if I were away from my desk hanging out at the front desk or in the parking lot, people would notice. So, either it was one sided (him) from the relationship generally gleaned from these positions (hi, how are you?, have a good night!, hey, I forgot my badge) OR if it were more there have to be A LOT of people who knew it was more bc they notice a girl hanging around all day.

Thanks! Now I clearly understand your position! I suppose in a situation like yours if an employee sparked something up with a security guard it would be more likely to happen if they bumped into each other say, at a bar. I suppose I had the mind set of someone who walked the perimeters, stopping along the way to say "hello" and chat! The "friendly security guard" scenario! The guy everyone likes....

Thanks for clarifying that perspective!

 

[SherlockJ]

Sorry but I get confused easily. You said you think the relationship was mutual, meaning they were having a romantic relationship. Did you say it would be difficult to start a relationship at work? I inferred that as they were not involved romantically with each other. Help my small mind figure out what you meant! And thanks!

Hardy Girl, this is kind of funny. It was me who was messed up--not you and/or phone. At the top of your reply you reiterated my words "I THINK it was mutual and here's why....". And silly me thought those were YOUR words. Ergo the confusion! Sorry! I'm not a very good detective!

Last night at bedtime (after sleuthing for hours), I couldn't find my pillow. My anti-sleuthing boyfriend asked "How can you find Danielle whiny can't even find your pillow! Sorry, a scattered brain here!:laughing:

 

[1smile]

Thanks! Now I clearly understand your position! I suppose in a situation like yours if an employee sparked something up with a security guard it would be more likely to happen if they bumped into each other say, at a bar. I suppose I had the mind set of someone who walked the perimeters, stopping along the way to say "hello" and chat! The "friendly security guard" scenario! The guy everyone likes....

Thanks for clarifying that perspective!

SherlockJ... When did you sleep last??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[monkeypants]

Maybe they don't care to ask age, but know what John's would care about? Getting their DNA all up on a chick that's on the news missing with billboards and flyers begging for her return.

I have followed hundreds of these cases, in all human trafficking is brought up, in none did it turn out to be the case except a couple. And in the human trafficking cases it was known from the get go that the girls were lured out. That's what is scary about these traffickers, they do exactly what someone mentioned a few pages back with the "katie" girl. They befriend, bring pizzas, make them feel they care for them. These girls usually leave on their own, and we all know how little LE looks for girls in their later teens that have left "willingly".

People keep talking about these 30-40 year old suburban woman snatched up and forced into the sex trade but no one can link me articles where it was cut and dry like that. Just a regular lady snatched up in minutes after driving home from work. Sure, some people remain missing and we don't know what happened to them, but we often do and it's never that. In the hundreds of busts and sting operations LE has preformed on Human Traffickers I have not seen a single high profile missing person found involved. Not one.

Is Human Trafficking rampant? Sure, but most of what we call Human Trafficking now is what used to just be disgusting regular pimp behavior, luring young girls into the lifestyle, getting them hooked on drugs and not letting them leave. Too many young girls from abusive homes/relationships, woman on drugs, foreign woman who do not speak English to go into the suburbs procuring girls the way a sexual predator hunts their prey. People posted tons of Human Trafficking cases on the Papini thread and not one fit when I read deeper into the story.

Same with the black market for babies I read often with missing little ones, is there a black market for babies? Sure, but are they lurking in suburban playgrounds waiting to snatch up little blond haired blue eyed babies? No.

I'm not telling others what to think I'm just stating what I have seen and not seen in my sleuthing life. I like reading all theories and I truly TRULY hope I am wrong about this one and it's that one fluke case that makes me eat crow. I also understand fully why others are considering what I am not seeing all those agencies involved and some comments that were made. We will see! I just hope wherever she is she comes home safe.

Thank you for pulling this out of my brain.

 

[SherlockJ]

SherlockJ... When did you sleep last??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's 6 hours later here (Europe)! You should be asking why I'm not at work!

 

[SherlockJ]

I know I'm talking to myself here. Anyways, the bottom line is this...

Nobody shows up at a place where they're highly recognizable with the intent of committing a crime.
Either the perpetrator was someone the employees would not recognize, or something went terribly wrong and someone snapped. I vote for the latter!

 

[missgulfsouth]

Is Human Trafficking rampant? Sure, but most of what we call Human Trafficking now is what used to just be disgusting regular pimp behavior, luring young girls into the lifestyle, getting them hooked on drugs and not letting them leave. Too many young girls from abusive homes/relationships, woman on drugs, foreign woman who do not speak English to go into the suburbs procuring girls the way a sexual predator hunts their prey. People posted tons of Human Trafficking cases on the Papini thread and not one fit when I read deeper into the story.

High five, my friend.

 

[SherlockJ]

If the crime was premeditated it means (according to some of the popular beliefs) the perpetrator's plan was to

1. Execute the crime at a place with high probability of being recognized.
2. Move the car to a second place involving more potential witnesses.

Nobody would premeditate this formula!

 

[JnRyan]

There is a good chance that LE has her texts. Carriers typically keep text content for 3-5 days (some longer, some not at all). I believe LE knew this was suspicious very quickly and were able to preserve the texts.

We have a thread here on it.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-PHONE-CO%92s-RETRIEVE-CELL-amp-TEXT-MSG-INFO

I remember this being discussed during the Christina Morris case. At the time, Verizon and Virgin Mobile were the only major carriers that retained the content of the texts and Verizon only kept them 3-5 days. (Virgin Mobile kept them longer - 90 days - and the search warrant had to specifically state that LE wanted the text content. But now they have been bought out by Sprint.) The others - Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T and Nextel - did not keep them. This chart on the ACLU web page shows the retention:
https://www.aclu.org/cell-phone-loc...ponse-cell-phone-company-data-retention-chart

The data could be in a cloud, but as a CPA I've discussed this with fraud examiners and LE with knowledge in this area and the cloud presents an entirely different set of issues. If the data is in a cloud that is encrypted, the cell phone holder may be the only holder of the key. Neither the cloud provider or the carrier would be able to decipher it without that key. The location of the cloud server is another issue as some of them do not reside in the US and therefore do not recognize US search warrants. And since carriers have agreements with multiple cloud providers it is extremely difficult to determine which cloud provider has the data - if it even all resides on one cloud. Since the cloud providers in many cases are not divisions or part of the carrier's organization but companies where the carrier rents space on a server, the search warrant has to be served on the cloud provider.
https://leb.fbi.gov/2014/october/executing-search-warrants-in-the-cloud

 

[SherlockJ]

More self talk...

I don't watch crime shows. And I'm new here. But I've read stories in the paper where people kill someone they love, often child victims, then cover their body in a blanket. Not to hide them. I think, because they love them--in their own twisted way.

Returning the car to it's appropriate place and not meddling with the purse strangely reminds me of the kid who has been covered with the blanket, a favorite doll positioned beside. Almost a guilt reflex from someone who formerly shared a love with that person. A person we all hope is still alive.

 

[Hoosier952]

Sorry! I can't figure out how to reply to individual posts via my phone. I guess I need to accept that this site is now part of my daily life and download Tapatalk or whatever makes it easier.

I was inferring that I don't exactly think it was mutual. I work in a building occupied by an insurance company, also in Southfield. We have security at the front desk and in raised little "lookouts" in the parking lot. To me, it would be difficult to start a relationship within these locations because it's not as if security can leave their post and just come hang on the 7th floor to chat. Also, if I were away from my desk hanging out at the front desk or in the parking lot, people would notice. So, either it was one sided (him) from the relationship generally gleaned from these positions (hi, how are you?, have a good night!, hey, I forgot my badge) OR if it were more there have to be A LOT of people who knew it was more bc they notice a girl hanging around all day.

Bolded for emphasis- Do we know that he didn't leave his post or that he wasn't allowed to? Could that have been the reason he isn't a SG there anymore? Also we know DS stayed late after work sometimes. If she were one of very few in the office, would people notice her chatting with an SG, whether in her office or at the SG's station? Is there a shared break room for the entire building or each business?

 

[monkeypants]

We have a thread here on it.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-PHONE-CO%92s-RETRIEVE-CELL-amp-TEXT-MSG-INFO

I remember this being discussed during the Christina Morris case. At the time, Verizon and Virgin Mobile were the only major carriers that retained the content of the texts and Verizon only kept them 3-5 days. (Virgin Mobile kept them longer - 90 days - and the search warrant had to specifically state that LE wanted the text content. But now they have been bought out by Sprint.) The others - Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T and Nextel - did not keep them. This chart on the ACLU web page shows the retention:
https://www.aclu.org/cell-phone-loc...ponse-cell-phone-company-data-retention-chart

The data could be in a cloud, but as a CPA I've discussed this with fraud examiners and LE with knowledge in this area and the cloud presents an entirely different set of issues. If the data is in a cloud that is encrypted, the cell phone holder may be the only holder of the key. Neither the cloud provider or the carrier would be able to decipher it without that key. The location of the cloud server is another issue as some of them do reside in the US and therefore do not recognize US search warrants. And since carriers have agreements with multiple cloud providers it is extremely difficult to determine which cloud provider has the data - if it even all resides on one cloud. Since the cloud providers in many cases are not divisions or part of the carrier's organization but companies where the carrier rents space on a server, the search warrant has to be served on the cloud provider.
https://leb.fbi.gov/2014/october/executing-search-warrants-in-the-cloud

Hers was a throw away phone, my guess is their retention isn't great for non contract customers....

 

[missgulfsouth]

Reading the cases you linked I just see typical trafficking, women in bad relationships who were lured and then not allowed to leave.
I want to see cases of happy healthy 30 year old women. I KNOW trafficking happens and it's horrendous, no argument there, it just doesn't fit 99% of
the cases I follow here. They don't snatch up women that will be missed, that's why that one man in the first article could keep them all in a house without moving them around to different locations, the neighbors even saw the women, they weren't missed. That's what's so depressing about it.

It would be so helpful ( to me, at least) if we could just get back to calling them pimps and prostitutes. Is trafficking the new PC term for the oldest "profession" in history? I don't understand why every time a woman goes missing these days, there's a leap to prostitution.

Jaycee Dugard, the woman in SC chained in a container, the women in the Ohio basement, the woman in the box (California) ... these were held by men who wanted them for themselves. That scenario is so much more common than pimping them out.

 

[ChazAldi]

In shared tenant buildings such as Raleigh Office Center where DS worked, the security is in the lobby and almost never enters the tenant's suites - certainly not casually. Also, each tenant would be responsible for providing their own break room. But, there may be a store (sundries, snacks, etc.) and/or a restaurant in the common areas.

Bolded for emphasis- Do we know that he didn't leave his post or that he wasn't allowed to? Could that have been the reason he isn't a SG there anymore? Also we know DS stayed late after work sometimes. If she were one of very few in the office, would people notice her chatting with an SG, whether in her office or at the SG's station? Is there a shared break room for the entire building or each business?

 

[SherlockJ]

Bolded for emphasis- Do we know that he didn't leave his post or that he wasn't allowed to? Could that have been the reason he isn't a SG there anymore? Also we know DS stayed late after work sometimes. If she were one of very few in the office, would people notice her chatting with an SG, whether in her office or at the SG's station? Is there a shared break room for the entire building or each business?

I did not know she stayed late after work sometimes. If it was a man staying late at the office a lot of people might suspect an affair.