MI MI - Julia Niswender, 23, EMU student, Ypsilanti, 10 Dec 2012 - #4

[black_squirrel]

It seems to me that in the Grand Rapids case, the police could have easily obtained a search warrant and the search warrant would have stood up in court. I think that the Best Buy employee was authorized by the defendant to look at the files on the computer. If he reports child *advertiser censored* to the police then I would think that would be enough for a search warrant.

In the Turnquist case, it seems that the search warrants had been obtained by police. I am not sure if the Monroe police needs a separate search warrant. But if they did, they probably obtained it. I think the problem is with the Ypsi police search warrant. The Monroe search warrant(s) are based on the Ypsi search warrant. If the Ypsi search warrant is invalid, then so are all the search warrants depending on it.

I think that the defense is questioning the Ypsi police search warrant. Even if the search warrant has been signed by a judge, it could be that the search warrant might not stand up after further scrutiny.

 

[georgiasblu]

When the computer was seized JT made KT go to the police to get the computer. If I remember correctly, Kim asked to see the warrant. Was that Monroe or Ypsi?

 

[black_squirrel]

When the computer was seized JT made KT go to the police to get the computer. If I remember correctly, Kim asked to see the warrant. Was that Monroe or Ypsi?

That was the Ypsilanti police.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DazednConfuzed09]

When the computer was seized JT made KT go to the police to get the computer. If I remember correctly, Kim asked to see the warrant. Was that Monroe or Ypsi?

Do you have link to the news article referencing this, or was it stated on WS by an insider that you could refer us back to? Thanks in advance.

 

[georgiasblu]

Do you have link to the news article referencing this, or was it stated on WS by an insider that you could refer us back to? Thanks in advance.

That info came from VI Trojan, as I remember. More than once

 

[georgiasblu]

I hope that is not the case but it happens often allowing the guilty to go free. I had hoped this trial would settle some questions for me. I guess we will know soon enough.

 

[DazednConfuzed09]

That info came from VI Trojan, as I remember. More than once

Do you know which thread we could find it in for reference? I'm not sure I remember ever seeing that.

 

[DazednConfuzed09]

If there is a Search Warrant out there dated for December 2014, it shouldn't have been an issue to present to the Court yesterday at the very least. I assume the Search Warrant would only list what LE was looking for and not the reasons why they were looking for it. The reasons would be in the report tied to the Search Warrant wouldn't they? You can try to call it a loop hole, but it's basic Law covering Discovery evidence which LE was well aware of. Nothing special to go looking/digging for.

 

[georgiasblu]

FindHG, It breaks our heart to read some of the posts in here.... but I know or hope that we all just want the same thing. We want to find out who took Julia's life.
It is very interesting, never heard of BURKING before. Not sure that it will apply to Julia's case. I personally believe that who ever took her life, knew exactly what they were doing, that it was not an accident and that it was planned. IMO Julia didn't take baths.... she took showers. Remember she was found in the tub in an 'unnatural position'.
There has been a lot of attention on JT on this site, but really I think only since his arrest for Child *advertiser censored* in Feb. 2015. What amazes me, by looking at other cases, typically they rule out the male friends, people she dated or the ones that wanted to date her....In Julia's case there were quite a few Male acquaintances to rule out. Then LE concentrates on the victims immediate family. What I want to know is why didn't that happen, why did it take until late 2014 for YPSI LE to finally start investigating the family? And since JT, KT and JN met up with investigators in Dec. 2014, was when they decided finally to get the Turnquist Computer. WHY did they only get one computer, if KT and JT and JN where at the house and they KNEW that it might help in the investigation. Why did they NOT help by turning over ALL their computers? We had gotten a phone call from KT when a detective came to their house, she was so upset that they took their computer, darn right pi$$ed, saying that JT was VERY mad, and told her that she better get the computer back. So she evidently did go up to YPSI to get the computer back, and they wouldn't give it to her, and she demanded to see the warrant .... they showed her that they did have a warrant for the computer. THAT 1st. computer that they took in Dec. 2014, was not returned to them. I'm a parent, I would have probably asked the detectives very early on in the investigation if they wanted to visit my home, inspect my car, take anything from my home, and definitely turn over my computers when THEY knew early on that KT's MOM (RN) turned hers over to LE. I guess that's the part that really gets me... WHY, would they NOT want to cooperate?

See above Dazed. Thread 20, dated july 10. This is 41st. The subject has come up before primarily when Trojan was explaining the com

 

[georgiasblu]

Sorry. Hit post button inadvertently. Trojan has also posted this before. Usually during the discussion of the number of computers seized. Hope this helps. Bottom of second paragraph.
Eta to correct. Third paragraph. Daughter was grabbing my phone.

 

[DazednConfuzed09]

Sorry. Hit post button inadvertently. Trojan has also posted this before. Usually during the discussion of the number of computers seized. Hope this helps. Bottom of second paragraph.
Eta to correct. Third paragraph. Daughter was grabbing my phone.

Thank you very much for posting this quote!!! There has been so much info on this thread that it's hard to sift through at times! I certainly do question why Ypsi LE wouldn't provide this Search Warrant to the courts (especially if it was shown to KT) knowing full well the judge was going to do his job by complying with the Law.

 

[Spellbound]

I guess I don't follow why the child *advertiser censored* case is entitled to the Ypsi search warrant if the following article is correct. It seems the computer was voluntarily given to Ypsi PD and questionable images were found; then Monroe got a search warrant and confiscated more electronic equipment. Perhaps all the images came from the computer voluntarily given (which seems did not have a search warrant)?

Recently the murder investigation shifted to Monroe County when Ypsilanti police sought Mr. Turnquist’s laptop computer. According to his attorney, he voluntarily handed it over to authorities and investigators apparently recovered images considered child *advertiser censored* from that laptop.

Felony charges then were filed by the Monroe County Prosecutor’s Office, and a search warrant for the family home in Monroe Township was issued. A computer, software, a digital camera and other items were removed from the home by Monroe County sheriff’s detectives.
.
Read more at: http://www.monroenews.com/news/2015/mar/04/jennifer-niswender-backing-stepfather/

 

[black_squirrel]

I guess I don't follow why the child *advertiser censored* case is entitled to the Ypsi search warrant if the following article is correct. It seems the computer was voluntarily given to Ypsi PD and questionable images were found; then Monroe got a search warrant and confiscated more electronic equipment. Perhaps all the images came from the computer voluntarily given (which seems did not have a search warrant)?

From what has been said in this forum, I believe that the Turnquists wanted the computer back. At that point the Ypsi police showed them a search warrant.

 

[Spellbound]

Squirrel, I have appreciated your helpful posts today, but I am still unclear as to why any search warrant from before the arrest by Monroe would be needed for the child *advertiser censored* case. Even if they showed a warrant to the Turnquists, it was intended to be used for possible evidence relating to the murder investigation. Monroe got their own search warrant for other electronics possibly related to child *advertiser censored*.... so why is Ypsi's warrant needed? . (Admittedly, I am drained tonight, so maybe this will make more sense in the morning)

Sorry to seem so stubborn, but I am trying hard to understand how Ypsi warrants relate to the Monroe case. thanks, if you are able.

 

[Spellbound]

It seems to me that in the Grand Rapids case, the police could have easily obtained a search warrant and the search warrant would have stood up in court. I think that the Best Buy employee was authorized by the defendant to look at the files on the computer. If he reports child *advertiser censored* to the police then I would think that would be enough for a search warrant.

In the Turnquist case, it seems that the search warrants had been obtained by police. I am not sure if the Monroe police needs a separate search. But if they did, they probably obtained it. I think the problem is with the Ypsi police search warrant. The Monroe search warrant(s) are based on the Ypsi search warrant. If the Ypsi search warrant is invalid, then so are all the search warrants depending on it.

I think that the defense is questioning the Ypsi police search warrant. Even if the search warrant has been signed by a judge, it could be that the search warrant might not stand up after further scrutiny.

BBM
From what I posted previously, Monroe did get their own warrant. So going by what you said in the first paragraph (if he reports it to police, that is enough for a warrant) it seems the same as Ypsi reported it to Monroe and that was enough for them to get a warrant. I suppose what is questionable is whether their warrant also covered the laptop voluntarily given to Ypsi?

 

[psyquestor]

The murder happened in a different jurisdiction than the other case (child *advertiser censored* / residence of the Turnquists'). If the materials were collected as a part of the murder investigation, would they need a separate (Monroe) search warrant? I understand that if they are completely unrelated, then they would indeed need two...correct?

Trying to learn the particulars. TIA

ETA: To be clear, the murder investigation is in Ypsilanti and the child *advertiser censored* case is in Monroe. (correct if wrong)

 

[Spellbound]

The murder happened in a different jurisdiction than the other case (child *advertiser censored* / residence of the Turnquists'). If the materials were collected as a part of the murder investigation, would they need a separate (Monroe) search warrant? I understand that if they are completely unrelated, then they would indeed need two...correct?

Trying to learn the particulars. TIA

ETA: To be clear, the murder investigation is in Ypsilanti and the child *advertiser censored* case is in Monroe. (correct if wrong)

You are correct, psyquestor. The murder is in Washtenaw County (Ypsilanti), the *advertiser censored* case is in Monroe County (Monroe). Your questions is the same as mine. Two different jurisdictions, and two different search warrants were issued. Possibly, if the child *advertiser censored* is ONLY on the laptop voluntarily given by JT, Monroe would need a warrant also ... that is where I am not clear in the slightest.

 

[georgiasblu]

Well, this has become clearer than mud. 😳 This is just me thinking aloud but perhaps KT was home alone when the detective asked about the computer. She freely gave it and then JT had a different opinion and asked Kim if they had a warrant and sends her to ypsi to get it back. She questions whether there was a warrant and is shown one. My question, since she gave it voluntarily, did the pd need to show the warrant?

 

[Trojan1966]

Well, this has become clearer than mud. �� This is just me thinking aloud but perhaps KT was home alone when the detective asked about the computer. She freely gave it and then JT had a different opinion and asked Kim if they had a warrant and sends her to ypsi to get it back. She questions whether there was a warrant and is shown one. My question, since she gave it voluntarily, did the pd need to show the warrant?

I think what you said is true. If I understand what happened, KT "gave" the computer to Ypsi (they said they had a warrant, but KT voluntarily gave the computer to them) then sometime later, KT went to their police department later and wanted it back because JT's records for his cleaning business were on it. Ypsi then showed KT the warrant and basicallt said we are keeping it..

 

[Trojan1966]

On August 4, I received a text from my daughter, KT, in which she said that weeks ago, she tried to join this forum but the administrator has not authorize her. I'm not sure if that is true but it sure would be beneficial to have her join this forum. According to her text, the two lap tops that they owned are in police custody. She also stated that she never had the actual pictures in her possession but merely descriptions of the pictures as part of the discovery package for JT's lawyer. She did not say what exactly happened when LE got the first computer but she did say I didn't tell the "story" exactly how it happened. I merely posted what I was told. The next pretrial is scheduled for August 14th.