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

[georgiasblu]

I don't believe the addendum was presented to the judge for clarification before obtaining the judges signature. Am I wrong in this Trojan? Did the judge see this "addendum" prior to signing the document?

I believe Trojan corrected the record after he received the affidavit a week or so ago so I would guess the answer is no, Dazed but I think you already know that. None of those corrections actually change the primary points made in the affidavit regarding the reasons for obtaining the warrant. Certainly no evidence of this wide ranging conspiracy that involves multiple law enforcement and two judges from two different jurisdictions. JMO

 

[Spellbound]

The last page of the first document listed date 11/20/14 is an addendum add by Trojan in his rebuttal to what was within the document that he believes to be erroneous. There are 8 points he makes stating to be incorrect. Not 1, not 2...but 8!

Are you only going by what Trojan says to be the full truth of the document? And do those points really make any difference? They seem minor and could easily have been misspoken/misunderstood at the time of the document. I don't see that it changes the validity of the warrant.

JMO

 

[MIMOMMY]

I think that we should really move past the affidavit. We've all read it now - let's not waste any more time with the he said/ she said and go back to focusing on Julia's murder and stay on track!

 

[georgiasblu]

I'm curious about the job transfer. Did KT put in for a transfer and were those plans halted when JT was arrested? Was Carries's laptop searched?

 

[Trojan1966]

The last page of the first document listed date 11/20/14 is an addendum add by Trojan in his rebuttal to what was within the document that he believes to be erroneous. There are 8 points he makes stating to be incorrect. Not 1, not 2...but 8!

Again, anyone in the family may join WS and become a verified member...... All are welcome and can express their beliefs and facts! Let's eliminate the "middle man" and get the info from the true source.

 

[Trojan1966]

I'm curious about the job transfer. Did KT put in for a transfer and were those plans halted when JT was arrested? Was Carries's laptop searched?

I'm not sure if she put in an official transfer but I do know she was quite seriously interested in it. She may have done a phone interview but I'm not sure. I believe she had pretty much decided not to move well before JT was arrested. As far as I know, Carrie's laptop was searched.

 

[black_squirrel]

The last page of the first document listed date 11/20/14 is an addendum add by Trojan in his rebuttal to what was within the document that he believes to be erroneous. There are 8 points he makes stating to be incorrect. Not 1, not 2...but 8!

The affidavit also states twice that JC is Julia's aunt but according to Trojan she is JC's great-aunt. So that makes 9.
Some of the errors seem pretty serious. For example, mixing up the names Jim T. and Jim N. could have disastrous consequences. Fortunately,
in this case, I think it is clear from the context what was meant.

Then there is the question who reported abuse to CPS in 2000. According to the affidavit, "4ist" stated that the twins told her that JT hit them with spoons and belts, and she reported abuse to CPS. We have heard excerpts from the CPS report that includes hitting with spoons. Judging from the affidavit, it seems reasonable to conclude that the CPS report was based on what 4ist told them. There has never been any evidence presented that the school ever reported to CPS. And there was only 1 CPS investigation.

Trojan wrote in his correction that detective Koppock may have mixed up the CPS report with the statements of 4ist.
The conversation with 4ist happened a couple of days after Julia's death. At that time, the detective most likely hadn't seen the CPS report yet.
It seems that Julia's friend L suggested possible abuse and that Coppock should call 4ist. I presume that Coppock did so soon after. So
it seems strange that the CPS would have been mixed up with the CPS report.

Now perhaps Trojan is right, perhaps Coppock mixed up two completely different things, the CPS report and the interview with 4ist. But if she did,
how can we trust anything she writes? In particular, the statement of Julia's friend L seems very suspicious to me. It seems that she, like 4ist,
was ONLY interviewed by detective Coppock. Then later, L completely denied ever making such statements. Could it be, that Coppock perhaps attributed some statements to L that she never said. It seems more than plausible, if she mixes up Jim T and Jim N, and mixes up 4ist with a CPS report.

All the incriminating statements come from the grandparents and "L". None of the other witnesses have stated that Jim T. abused anyone. All the statements of Jim T.'s side of the family are about how he is the VICTIM of abuse.

I don't know Jim T. and his family. He may be involved, who knows. But I certainly think there is plenty of room for reasonable doubt.

 

[caspermi]

Some observations after reading the affidavit.

Section L - both parents admitted that JN was sexually promiscuous. Could she have been into anonymous and one time encounters?

Section R - JT voluntarily provided fingerprint and DNA samples. But he did come right out and say that his fingerprints would be found in the apartment. He also stated that he was only in her apartment one time, on the day he helped move her in. Have the roommates been asked if he was ever there to either support or contradict his statement?

Sections U and V. - The comments from the grandmother and aunt appear as if they were coordinated before the interviews. A lot of similarities in the two interviews.

Section UU - thigh, vaginal and rectal swabs all tested positive for semen. A probable indicator of a sexual assault. I still find it difficult to believe that with three separate samples, a DNA profile cannot be found? Perhaps these samples need to be sent to a private lab with more expertise.

Section WW - LE also requested to install a GPS tracker on JT's vehicle. Wonder what interesting information/destinations they found? In section NN, the FBI BAU agent states that an offender may sometimes cache objects from the victim in a secret location. This tracker could have been on the vehicle until this August when JT's attorney received a copy of the affidavit.

 

[georgiasblu]

Did Julia's roommates or friends concur with the sexual promiscuity alleged by KT and JT? What about Jennifer?

 

[Skigirl]

The affidavit also states twice that JC is Julia's aunt but according to Trojan she is JC's great-aunt. So that makes 9.
Some of the errors seem pretty serious. For example, mixing up the names Jim T. and Jim N. could have disastrous consequences. Fortunately,
in this case, I think it is clear from the context what was meant.

Then there is the question who reported abuse to CPS in 2000. According to the affidavit, "4ist" stated that the twins told her that JT hit them with spoons and belts, and she reported abuse to CPS. We have heard excerpts from the CPS report that includes hitting with spoons. Judging from the affidavit, it seems reasonable to conclude that the CPS report was based on what 4ist told them. There has never been any evidence presented that the school ever reported to CPS. And there was only 1 CPS investigation.

Trojan wrote in his correction that detective Koppock may have mixed up the CPS report with the statements of 4ist.
The conversation with 4ist happened a couple of days after Julia's death. At that time, the detective most likely hadn't seen the CPS report yet.
It seems that Julia's friend L suggested possible abuse and that Coppock should call 4ist. I presume that Coppock did so soon after. So
it seems strange that the CPS would have been mixed up with the CPS report.

Now perhaps Trojan is right, perhaps Coppock mixed up two completely different things, the CPS report and the interview with 4ist. But if she did,
how can we trust anything she writes? In particular, the statement of Julia's friend L seems very suspicious to me. It seems that she, like 4ist,
was ONLY interviewed by detective Coppock. Then later, L completely denied ever making such statements. Could it be, that Coppock perhaps attributed some statements to L that she never said. It seems more than plausible, if she mixes up Jim T and Jim N, and mixes up 4ist with a CPS report.

All the incriminating statements come from the grandparents and "L". None of the other witnesses have stated that Jim T. abused anyone. All the statements of Jim T.'s side of the family are about how he is the VICTIM of abuse.

I don't know Jim T. and his family. He may be involved, who knows. But I certainly think there is plenty of room for reasonable doubt.

I agree that I could not convict based on the affidavit alone, but I feel that if the decision were mine, the document would support issuance of a search warrant. It is the subsequent evidence that would have to support a jury decision about guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. After reading it, I certainly understand why LE felt JT was worthy of further scrutiny.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Skigirl]

.

Section UU - thigh, vaginal and rectal swabs all tested positive for semen. A probable indicator of a sexual assault. I still find it difficult to believe that with three separate samples, a DNA profile cannot be found? Perhaps these samples need to be sent to a private lab with more expertise.

I have to wonder if there is a DNA profile from the seminal fluid and the results have just not yet been disclosed to the public? Investigators try to hold things close to the vest that do not need to be disclosed for the purpose of a warrant. Sorry if I missed information saying they could not get a profile.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[georgiasblu]

I have to wonder if there is a DNA profile from the seminal fluid and the results have just not yet been disclosed to the public? Investigators try to hold things close to the best that do not need to be disclosed for the purpose of a warrant. Sorry if I missed information saying they could not get a profile.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is still testing being done at MSP lab. I've wondered if the semen is one of those items.

 

[Trojan1966]

I don't believe the addendum was presented to the judge for clarification before obtaining the judges signature. Am I wrong in this Trojan? Did the judge see this "addendum" prior to signing the document?

Let's use our heads and think about it. I never saw the affidavit until it became public information. Now I ask you if you think the judge saw the addendum. The content of the affidavit provided enough justification for the judge to issue the search warrant, that's all. At the time, as far as the detective knew, the content was accurate. I'm sure since then corrections to their facts have been made. Remember this is the original document, not the final product that would be used in a murder trial. I don't think any of these statements could be used without having the individuals be witnesses at a trial or at least a formal deposition taken under oath. Move past this. It is now "old" history. It does seemingly give reasonable reasons why JT is considered a POI and will remain such until he is completely cleared by LE.

 

[Mountaingazer]

If any pertinent information was incorrect in the affadavit, JT'S lawyer would have challenged it and the search warrant would have been thrown out. Thus any info gleaned from the warrant (child *advertiser censored*) would be "fruit of the forbidden tree" and there would have been no trial.

This did not happen, so any mistakes that appear in the affadavit are inconsequential.

 

[DazednConfuzed09]

Let's use our heads and think about it. I never saw the affidavit until it became public information. Now I ask you if you think the judge saw the addendum. The content of the affidavit provided enough justification for the judge to issue the search warrant, that's all. At the time, as far as the detective knew, the content was accurate. I'm sure since then corrections to their facts have been made. Remember this is the original document, not the final product that would be used in a murder trial. I don't think any of these statements could be used without having the individuals be witnesses at a trial or at least a formal deposition taken under oath. Move past this. It is now "old" history. It does seemingly give reasonable reasons why JT is considered a POI and will remain such until he is completely cleared by LE.

You're the one who released the document Trojan. I guess it you wanted it to be a mute discussion it shouldn't have been posted.

Do you really think merely opinions will be entertained in court? The judge will certainly require proof regarding the statements before it would be allowed to be used in a murder trial. This document would certainly be brought up and scrutinized... could be in a civil trial as well. I guess one could explain which version of their statements they would like to swear to under oath....

How can a document that contains known errors...per your statement, be treated as if the rest of it is dead on accurate? That's an insane assumption.

 

[georgiasblu]

You're the one who released the document Trojan. I guess it you wanted it to be a mute discussion it shouldn't have been posted.

Do you really think merely opinions will be entertained in court? The judge will certainly require proof regarding the statements before it would be allowed to be used in a murder trial. This document would certainly be brought up and scrutinized... could be in a civil trial as well. I guess one could explain which version of their statements they would like to swear to under oath....

How can a document that contains known errors...per your statement, be treated as if the rest of it is dead on accurate? That's an insane assumption.

Respectfully Dazed, I think you are reaching with this argument. Obviously, Ypsi doesn't have enough for an arrest or JT's bum would be parked in a jail. When or if that occurs I can assure you it won't be based on what we all read in the warrant docs. The warrants detailed probable cause for a search warrant. I understand you are unhappy about the affidavit being publicized but that was a gamble Stablein took and it backfired.
Additionally, the inferred threats of slander and civil court are just silly and based on what? Comments made to a leo?

 

[black_squirrel]

If any pertinent information was incorrect in the affadavit, JT'S lawyer would have challenged it and the search warrant would have been thrown out. Thus any info gleaned from the warrant (child *advertiser censored*) would be "fruit of the forbidden tree" and there would have been no trial.

This did not happen, so any mistakes that appear in the affadavit are inconsequential.

I am not sure if the lawyer challenged any particular part of the affidavit. He challenged the affidavit as a whole, because it has "no facts". But I think this was an uphill battle for him. To show that the
affidavit is invalid, not only does he have to show that statements in it are wrong, but that the detective KNEW or reasonably could have known that these statements were wrong. That is a very
high bar.

 

[Spellbound]

You're the one who released the document Trojan. I guess it you wanted it to be a mute discussion it shouldn't have been posted.

Do you really think merely opinions will be entertained in court? The judge will certainly require proof regarding the statements before it would be allowed to be used in a murder trial. This document would certainly be brought up and scrutinized... could be in a civil trial as well. I guess one could explain which version of their statements they would like to swear to under oath....

How can a document that contains known errors...per your statement, be treated as if the rest of it is dead on accurate? That's an insane assumption.

No one has said the document is "dead on accurate". We are all quite aware there are discrepancies that may or may not have been corrected in other documents LE has in their possession, or will be before any trial takes place should that include JT. The document just gives us a small bit of why a search warrant was requested ..... which could be based on opinions or statements that are not necessarily true. It means they would likely want further proof/investigation of such allegations, IMO.

Please, let's try not to snipe at each other, or decide what another person wants for our discussions here. We are all entitled (both sides) to our thoughts and opinions, and to share whatever legitimate information we obtain if we have a link. Bessie is the one who requested the document be posted since others were talking about it and some of us did not know what was in it. Bessie posted it, not Trojan.

If an "opinion" is allowed in court, it will be made totally clear it is an opinion and not necessarily a fact. It will be up to a jury to determine who is telling the truth as best they can. Yes.... the document may very well be scrutinized if it turns up in another court proceeding.

JMO

 

[MamaDMK]

Did Julia often have the apartment to herself? Did roommates generally go home on weekends, or stay at their significant others apartments/dorms?
If so, I imagine this opens the door for a multitude of different types of night time visitors.
Possibilities:
An older, married man (that had a vasectomy?)
A professor, or any type of authority figure, maybe a boss
A friend who has a known girlfriend/wife.
A more experienced stranger met on any social media website

If I were looking to explore any type of "frowned upon" relationship and I knew my roommates would be gone, I would absolutely take advantage of utilizing MY home, as it would be familiar and seem safer.

* I am in no way insinuating that Julia took part in any type of sexually based meet ups, just stating it shouldn't be over looked as this type of behavior is generally not shouted from the rooftop.

 

[Spellbound]

I am not sure if the lawyer challenged any particular part of the affidavit. He challenged the affidavit as a whole, because it has "no facts". But I think this was an uphill battle for him. To show that the
affidavit is invalid, not only does he have to show that statements in it are wrong, but that the detective KNEW or reasonably could have known that these statements were wrong. That is a very
high bar.

BBM: " ...but that the detective KNEW or reasonably could have known that these statements were wrong. "

Absolutely. I think that is the key sentence.

Welcome to the group, MamaDMK! Good questions.... I don't know the answers, but I believe they are all pretty lax about staying or having overnight guests at most dorm type settings. (I consider this more a dorm setting than an apartment, since a lot of students live there.)