MI MI - Julia Niswender, 23, EMU student, Ypsilanti, 10 Dec 2012 - #3

[FindHG]

True. The last pretrial was rescheduled because the prosecution had "new" evidence to introduce and JT's lawyers said they would need time to study and prepare a defense for that. They've had all the time the court will give them, so the judge decided today to schedule a trial start date - which will be June 29th. Of course, Jim still pleads "not guilty" so now he'll have his day in court.

Thank you, for this.

 

[Spellbound]

I'm not sure if the "public" will see the pictures or whatever because they will be restricted evidence. Only the lawyers, the suspect, the judge and the jury will get to actually view them from what I have read. Unusual but whenever a trial involves *advertiser censored*, it's handled a little bit differently. Makes sense to me. We may find out how many images and how many involved a person under 18 years old but that may be all.

I know, Trojan. I was mostly just ranting. My head just spins with what this family has gone through, and the questions in my head just wander al over the place. Child *advertiser censored* does not usually end with just viewing images from what I have read. I hope it has not escalated beyond viewing.... that is disgusting enough. Whoever is in the photos is already scarred for life. Once on the Internet, it is always there to be found again and again....

:tears:

 

[4ist]

Thank you. I thought you said that the charges were overblown, nothing compelling was going to be presented during the preliminary hearing, and that charges would be dropped?

MiMommy posted June 29th. will start pretrial ....

Today was the pre trial, and today, they did say that there would be ANOTHER pretrial, but we later found out that indeed they are not going to have another pre trial, but going straight to trail on June 29th. early!

 

[4ist]

I don't see it being worth the time and money that is needed if there was not subsantial evidence for a conviction. I do hope we learn how much evidence (images) and the ages of the children. Are they strictly taken from computer pics, or personal photos? Have they been redistributed or sold to others? Do they depict sexual contact between an adult and child? Are the images stills or videos? So many awful questions are running through my mind. I list some of them only because I am tired of holding the thoughts in, and needed to release some frustration, guess. I want the facts, the entire truth to come out.

I no longer feel there is leeway to imagine these photos depict "questionable" ages. To go to trial, there must be adequate reason to know they are minors. Children. Underage. No more excuses.

I mean no offense to anyone ..... family or friends. But I am sickened at the possibility of child *advertiser censored* having any connection to our dear Julia's loss, whether just by extension of family or actual knowledge by Julia. What did those poor children have to see or hear? Who is covering up, lying, hiding helpful info.? Or can it really be a case of turning one's back and closing the eyes and ears to what goes on in a home? Can other family members truly not know or suspect something like child *advertiser censored*?

Sorry for the rant. I have tried so hard to not jump to any conclusions.

Dear Spell, I and many others are awaiting the answer to all of these questions you ask, and totally am sickened that ANY one would look at a child *advertiser censored* picture or video! Hope and pray that the truth will eventually come out. Thanks for your input always!

 

[4ist]

Quote Originally Posted by rosesfromangels View Post
Black_Squirrel, you are such an excellent sleuther; really are!

I'm interested in knowing if the roommate who was allegedly using drugs and her boyfriend took LE poly's, gave formal statements, etc. - MiMommy?

I'm hearing little tidbits that would lead me to wonder if the "disarray" in the apartment was someone looking for drugs. Or was the "disarray" only in Julia's room? I'm confused, someone set me straight.

Does anyone know what type of drugs are alleged?

I'm not sure about the drugs but from what I have been told, only Julia's room was in "disarray".

Roses, as far as we had heard from LE is the room mate KM and her boyfriend at the time, had given poly's and DNA, not sure if they gave 'formal statements' but do know that they did cooperate. NOT sure about what type of drugs were used in that APT. either. But I know LE does know.

 

[4ist]

I'm not sure if the "public" will see the pictures or whatever because they will be restricted evidence. Only the lawyers, the suspect, the judge and the jury will get to actually view them from what I have read. Unusual but whenever a trial involves *advertiser censored*, it's handled a little bit differently. Makes sense to me. We may find out how many images and how many involved a person under 18 years old but that may be all.

I thought I had read in a previous post by MiMommy, that the pictures were questionable. Trojan and I also had a phone call from Kim say's that she supposedly carried the copies of the pictures in question in her purse, so I don't know this for certain, but it could be possible that more then a few people have seen what ever Kim was carrying around with her in her purse. IMO

 

[4ist]

Forgive me for imposing on you Trojan1966, but it sounds like this day in court would indicate LE's case is stronger and Turnquist is choosing to go to trail or the judge? Am no legal wiz, and most of it just whizzes by me, sorry to ask.

Hey FindHG, lots of theories out now as to why it's going to trail, time will tell. We just have to be listening to any and all other theory's on Julia's murder in the mean time.

 

[DazednConfuzed09]

Has anyone seen any recent news casts or media articles regarding "new or additional" information released for this case? How about additional charges from originally presented? I can't find even one! Guess I get to keep my paycheck! The Pretrial today was uneventful (as expected) and moving forward as almost all Circuit Court cases do. Nothing newsworthy here.

 

[rosesfromangels]

I thought I had read in a previous post by MiMommy, that the pictures were questionable. Trojan and I also had a phone call from Kim say's that she supposedly carried the copies of the pictures in question in her purse, so I don't know this for certain, but it could be possible that more then a few people have seen what ever Kim was carrying around with her in her purse. IMO

Uhm....just an opinion, but that doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. Especially if there are underage individuals in them. She may want to consult with JT's attorney on any concerns that may come from carrying such images on her person....and showing them to others. Sounds like a *very bad* idea, IMO. Probably illegal too. But JMO.

 

[rosesfromangels]

So, back to the whole examination of the roommate dynamics.
As I understand it (please correct if wrong), Julia had arguments with one roommate due to usage of drugs (by the roommate) in the living quarters.

Was this same roommate still officially living in the apartment when Julia passed away, or had she moved to her BF's?
Was this roommate ever arrested for any drug related offense that we know of?

 

[DazednConfuzed09]

MiMommy posted June 29th. will start pretrial ....

Today was the pre trial, and today, they did say that there would be ANOTHER pretrial, but we later found out that indeed they are not going to have another pre trial, but going straight to trail on June 29th. early!

It's not early and going exactly as expected. Sometimes it helps to have first hand info and an understanding of legal proceedings to muddle through the system.

 

[caspermi]

True. The last pretrial was rescheduled because the prosecution had "new" evidence to introduce and JT's lawyers said they would need time to study and prepare a defense for that. They've had all the time the court will give them, so the judge decided today to schedule a trial start date - which will be June 29th. Of course, Jim still pleads "not guilty" so now he'll have his day in court.

Being that the family is not well off, is JT being represented by a public defender or has he retained his own attorney?

 

[4ist]

So, back to the whole examination of the roommate dynamics.
As I understand it (please correct if wrong), Julia had arguments with one roommate due to usage of drugs (by the roommate) in the living quarters.

Was this same roommate still officially living in the apartment when Julia passed away, or had she moved to her BF's?
Was this roommate ever arrested for any drug related offense that we know of?

Roses, I believe that both room mates were still living in the apartment at the time of Julia's murder. Not sure if either room mate ever had any drug charges.

 

[4ist]

It's not early and going exactly as expected. Sometimes it helps to have first hand info and an understanding of legal proceedings to muddle through the system.

I agree Dazedn, we did talk with the court today. I meant the time of the trail was 'early in the day'.

 

[DazednConfuzed09]

So, back to the whole examination of the roommate dynamics.
As I understand it (please correct if wrong), Julia had arguments with one roommate due to usage of drugs (by the roommate) in the living quarters.

Was this same roommate still officially living in the apartment when Julia passed away, or had she moved to her BF's?
Was this roommate ever arrested for any drug related offense that we know of?

Roses, I have heard the same rumblings. Invasion of her personal space (being in her room w/o permission or presence) and doing drugs. Both of which would be rather upsetting to a young lady who didn't partake in the drugs and left other peoples possessions alone. I thought I heard that one roommate stayed in the apartment for awhile after Julia's death. Can't confirm that though, so please correct me if I am wrong!

 

[4ist]

Being that the family is not well off, is JT being represented by a public defender or has he retained his own attorney?

Good question, appears his attorney is a fairly high profile attorney too, they don't come cheap?

 

[DazednConfuzed09]

Being that the family is not well off, is JT being represented by a public defender or has he retained his own attorney?

He has his own attorney.

 

[DazednConfuzed09]

I thought I had read in a previous post by MiMommy, that the pictures were questionable. Trojan and I also had a phone call from Kim say's that she supposedly carried the copies of the pictures in question in her purse, so I don't know this for certain, but it could be possible that more then a few people have seen what ever Kim was carrying around with her in her purse. IMO

Do you seriously think the courts are going to give up the photos to anyone other than officers of the court??? If they did it would be considered Distributing Child *advertiser censored* for goodness sakes!! OR is it NOT child *advertiser censored* at all???

 

[Forager]

Keeping straight the who's who of the Julia and Chelsea cases, and how they relate to one another has been difficult for me. Who knew who, who had gone to school together, who were Facebook friends, who was related to who?

There have recently been posts on the Chelsea thread that suggested possible links to an older group of Halloween party goers, and there are murmurings of multiple undeclared POI's in LE's lens. The Julia case had focused on one POI to the near exclusion of any other.

In hopes of expanding the context of the cases, I've worked up a Google map that focuses on the key characters who make up the context of the cases. None are suspects, and most are above suspicion. Some are probably even be irrelevant to understanding the cases. Here's the link to it.

Please help me understand if what I have on it is right, and how to expand it better reflect the truth.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=z_XRj_yu3Dto.kNiK91QwxeOc

 

[rosesfromangels]

Do you seriously think the courts are going to give up the photos to anyone other than officers of the court??? If they did it would be considered Distributing Child *advertiser censored* for goodness sakes!! OR is it NOT child *advertiser censored* at all???

If KT is carrying something around to basically show people that her husband is not guilty, she apparently doesn't think they are underage people in the photos. However, they might very well be, unbeknownst to KT. My point, upthread, was that it just doesn't seem like a good idea to risk it. I can understand her motivation in doing this, but doesn't sound like a good idea to me. At all. Laypersons opinion only!

And speaking of motivations, I keep reminding myself that KT not only lost a daughter, but is now faced with the stress of these allegations against her husband. I can't even begin to understand the stress she must be under! Her world has been falling apart, and I can see why she is trying to hold it together, as she is. That said, I hope she is remembering to take care of herself first, because no one could hold up under this level of strain without a lot of help and support. What mother and wife would ever want to wake up to this type of nightmare?