MI MI - Danielle Stislicki, 28, Southfield, 2 Dec 2016 #8

[Bravo]

But why leave her purse if the plan was to act like she made it home safely?

Did they want someone to break into the car so the suspicion would be on a car burglar that would probably break her window to snatch the purse?

I guess it depends on exactly where the purse was. Hidden or in plain view. Hate to mention the case but remember Casey Anthony dumped her car in a seedy part of town. Unlocked. I believe hoping SODDI
(some other dude did it) spin? Since we dont know the exact location of the purse maybe "that guy" didn't even know it was there. Speaking to the frenzied mind of a criminal???? Just some points to ponder.

 

[zencompass]

^^^ This ^^^

Sent from my SM-G530W using Tapatalk

I believe you nailed this Ozoner

I still believe that no one noticed him in her car because it was so busy on that Friday at 5. Five o'clock traffic is usually
busy and everyone is too tired to notice anything because their goal is to get home.

He may have asked her to drive him to where his car was parked - likely a remote area. Then the jeep could have remained there while he took her in his car to Oxford street. Then something happened.

Afterwards he parked his car where her jeep was. He drove her jeep and parked it around 3 or 4 a.m. in her parking lot under the cover of darkness.

He then walked to his car and went home.

Because the security cameras do not work at MetLife, someone must have spotted him getting into her car. Maybe a friend of her Mom's as someone mentioned? Or someone who recognized him as a S.G. who worked there previous to October.

I think that is the clue that honed the L.E. to his house. The mattress, whatever came out of the boxes which the police removed must have had evidence of some type.

Ozoner, you are brilliant!

 

[missgulfsouth]

So here is what is bothering me today about what we've learned thus far:

1. The laptop - if it was found underneath the seat, why would someone besides Danielle bother putting it under the seat? Why not just leave it out in the open, for someone to steal and possibly take some of the blame for whatever happened?

So...thinking that Danielle had to have been the one to put it under the seat: would she have done that if she was being held against her will in the car? Or is it more likely she got to her car, went about her drive home and then shoved it under the seat when she went to 'run inside' somewhere?

I personally think Danielle is the one who stuck it under the seat. Ive done it myself a thousand times (though, in fairness, its my camera I shove under the seat and not a laptop). So in my mind, Im thinking whatever happened had to happen after she was in her car, with the laptop under the seat. Maybe she stopped for gas? A grocery store run?

2. The phone and keys - I truly think those are long gone. Whoever drove the car last needed the keys to park the car (or atleast have the keys in close proximity. My car does not require keys to be inserted, but they have to be close, like in a purse). I think the phone was turned off, ruined, whatever early on in the situation. But I think it was finally disposed of once everything was done.

3. I feel like the perp had assistance from either a family member *NOT HIS WIFE* - someone who would not ask questions. My gut says whoever assisted him probably did not pick him up at IGA. Maybe he walked to a neutral location and called for a ride?

4. I do not think this was a hidden love affair. I feel like Danielle was friendly with him - as many people are with those who they see at work. I think this was probably premeditated somewhat, but not so planned that mistakes were not made. Maybe not 'glowing red, obvious' mistakes, but you can bet some small detail was overlooked.

Anyway, thats whats on my mind today.

Excellent.

And I wish I knew where in the Jeep her purse was found. I'm thinking she left the front passenger seat clear so someone could sit there.

 

[Out of the darkness]

Reading it all laid out like that, I have to believe that there was NOT a mutual sweet friendship between them.

It's scheming. Deceitful. Laying plans. Sneaky. Something was premeditated.

If they hung out together, there would have been an opportunity for *more* to develop between them naturally.

This was an ambush.

Why do you suppose LE took the mattress then?

If there were any possibility of a sexual assault, the assailant likely wouldn't care if it took place somewhere other than a bedroom.

Meaning-relations on a mattress would seem to be consensual, IMO.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Why take a mattress? This leads me to believe several possible conversations occurred when LE initially made contact with the SG.

A mattress has a tremendous amount of DNA from any persons who have "slept" there. Sheets, blanket, comforter, duvet, bedspread, pillows, etc. are also rich with skin cells and/or body fluids. Towels and clothing, too.

 

[zencompass]

We don't know that he would have had to walk from IGA all the way home. If he planned to abduct Dani at gunpoint at Met Life, he could have parked near Met Life or anywhere between IGA and Met Life. Then he would have had a much shorter walk back to his vehicle after dropping off her Jeep.

Your thought of him parking between makes the most sense to me ! I don't think she left voluntarily with him. Not at all. He must have abducted her where he hid his car.

First he tricked her into driving her to where his car "broke down".

 

[missgulfsouth]

Why do you suppose LE took the mattress then?

If there were any possibility of a sexual assault, the assailant likely wouldn't care if it took place somewhere other than a bedroom.

Meaning-relations on a mattress would seem to be consensual, IMO.

Not at all. Plenty of women have been raped in their own beds.

 

[Eileen730]

So here is what is bothering me today about what we've learned thus far:

1. The laptop - if it was found underneath the seat, why would someone besides Danielle bother putting it under the seat? Why not just leave it out in the open, for someone to steal and possibly take some of the blame for whatever happened?

So...thinking that Danielle had to have been the one to put it under the seat: would she have done that if she was being held against her will in the car? Or is it more likely she got to her car, went about her drive home and then shoved it under the seat when she went to 'run inside' somewhere?

I personally think Danielle is the one who stuck it under the seat. Ive done it myself a thousand times (though, in fairness, its my camera I shove under the seat and not a laptop). So in my mind, Im thinking whatever happened had to happen after she was in her car, with the laptop under the seat. Maybe she stopped for gas? A grocery store run?

2. The phone and keys - I truly think those are long gone. Whoever drove the car last needed the keys to park the car (or atleast have the keys in close proximity. My car does not require keys to be inserted, but they have to be close, like in a purse). I think the phone was turned off, ruined, whatever early on in the situation. But I think it was finally disposed of once everything was done.

3. I feel like the perp had assistance from either a family member *NOT HIS WIFE* - someone who would not ask questions. My gut says whoever assisted him probably did not pick him up at IGA. Maybe he walked to a neutral location and called for a ride?

4. I do not think this was a hidden love affair. I feel like Danielle was friendly with him - as many people are with those who they see at work. I think this was probably premeditated somewhat, but not so planned that mistakes were not made. Maybe not 'glowing red, obvious' mistakes, but you can bet some small detail was overlooked.

Anyway, thats whats on my mind today.

Jmvoo
I do not think many mistakes were made.
Or just lucky.

 

[Out of the darkness]

Not at all. Plenty of women have been raped in their own beds.

Except they didn't take her mattress...they took his.

 

[missgulfsouth]

Except they didn't take her mattress...they took his.

Okay.

Same scenario ... her mattress.

You still think it's consensual because it's on a bed?

Dangerous assumption.

IMO

 

[soanyway]

Unfortunately, I don't recall seeing anything to confirm that LE has made any contact with the SG. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Why take a mattress? This leads me to believe several possible conversations occurred when LE initially made contact with the SG.

 

[gam]

Jmvoo
I do not think many mistakes were made.
Or just lucky.

I want to point out on this that people are all different. So one might handle emergencies far better then another, I know some who are better in emergencies then in calm.

So while perp may have grabbed her on the fly or had planned out grabbing her in advance, perp may not have planned whole thing out and is just good handling things in an emergency.

Hope that makes sense to all, not the best at writing what I'm thinking.

 

[Skigirl]

Except they didn't take her mattress...they took his.

I don't think you can infer consensual sex from sex taking place in a bed. It's actually a pretty frightening and offensive to me that someone would think this way.

 

[Bravo]

Yes and I keep going back to the search warrants. A Judge is not going to sign without just cause. LE knew something prior to going to the house. IMO it would not just be a sighting of him in the Jeep. IMO it wouldn't be enough. There had to be more. What I don't know. All MOO

 

[Out of the darkness]

Okay.

Same scenario ... her mattress.

You still think it's consensual because it's on a bed?

Dangerous assumption.

IMO

Under the theory that the SG got a ride home from DS, why would he either invite, lure, or force her inside his house? That means her vehicle would be sitting in his driveway for several minutes...something he would NOT want his neighbors to see.

If her DNA is on his mattress, it means it got there with her consent or without. If it was without her consent (i.e. by force), again, her vehicle would have to be parked at the SG's house for several minutes. Why would he risk the neighbors seeing her vehicle?

 

[jellybean96]

Under the theory that the SG got a ride home from DS, why would he either invite, lure, or force her inside his house? That means her vehicle would be sitting in his driveway for several minutes...something he would NOT want his neighbors to see.

If her DNA is on his mattress, it means it got there with her consent or without. If it was without her consent (i.e. by force), again, her vehicle would have to be parked at the SG's house for several minutes. Why would he risk the neighbors seeing her vehicle?

You cannot assume her car was in his driveway. There could have been a stop in between when Danielle was forced into one of his cars (after riding in her car). Then he could have gone home. Then no one suspects anything because its his car in the driveway.

Its been reported that SG cars were confiscated - which makes me think there could be some evidence of Danielle in his car at some point.

 

[black_squirrel]

The house on Oxford road has a gate and a garage. Her car could have been out of plain view.

 

[gam]

Under the theory that the SG got a ride home from DS, why would he either invite, lure, or force her inside his house? That means her vehicle would be sitting in his driveway for several minutes...something he would NOT want his neighbors to see.

If her DNA is on his mattress, it means it got there with her consent or without. If it was without her consent (i.e. by force), again, her vehicle would have to be parked at the SG's house for several minutes. Why would he risk the neighbors seeing her vehicle?

Your talking about someone who may have got in her in daylight where they use to work and then may have drove her car back and left it where she lives.

Several times putting himself at risk of being seen. So on further speculation what's the big deal of her car in his driveway for possibly minutes. Once in the house, quickly immobilize her and move her car into garage. Home had a garage.

All speculation on my part.

 

[Dolphin8]

In some cases a phone can still be tracked if the battery is intact, even if the phone was manually turned off. JMO any location or pings could be some of the the evidence that LE has obtained that would've lead to the searches.

 

[Out of the darkness]

Okay.

Same scenario ... her mattress.

You still think it's consensual because it's on a bed?

Dangerous assumption.

IMO

I don't think it's dangerous. I think it's entirely possible a consensual relationship existed. As one poster wrote, they were picking up married men in bars and no one would have ever thought they were capable of doing that. You just never know.