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

[black_squirrel]

That is how it appeared to me. Also, didn't the article state Monroe didn't ask for the initial warrant until that morning? I don't consider this all on Ypsi as defense claims. I think that was a clever attempt to taint what Ypsi has in that warrant. JMO, of course. Somehow I missed the found 300k *advertiser censored* images. Yowsers. I wonder if that was what Gma R referred to as "unhealthy" conditions.

I am not sure, but I think you are right that the prosecution is also partially to blame. JT's lawyer mentioned once that there were 300,000 images on the computer. I somehow doubt that because that really seems to be ALOT. Perhaps he misspoke. In any case, I don't think it has been mentioned by anyone that all these images are pornographic. All we know is that 18 images have been identified as pornographic and possibly involving people aged under 18.

 

[georgiasblu]

I am not sure, but I think you are right that the prosecution is also partially to blame. JT's lawyer mentioned once that there were 300,000 images on the computer. I somehow doubt that because that really seems to be ALOT. Perhaps he misspoke. In any case, I don't think it has been mentioned by anyone that all these images are pornographic. All we know is that 18 images have been identified as pornographic and possibly involving people aged under 18.

Maybe some of our questions will be answered. As far as the number of images, 300k seems like a lot to you and me but for those with pornographic addictions, that seems to be inline with other cases I've followed. There was a local in my city who had 580k images if children in pornographic situations. Please note, I am not accusing JT of *advertiser censored* addiction but pointing out that 300k is not a lot in certain situations.

 

[black_squirrel]

Maybe some of our questions will be answered. As far as the number of images, 300k seems like a lot to you and me but for those with pornographic addictions, that seems to be inline with other cases I've followed. There was a local in my city who had 580k images if children in pornographic situations. Please note, I am not accusing JT of *advertiser censored* addiction but pointing out that 300k is not a lot in certain situations.

Suppose he accumulated images on this computer for 5 years. Then this would average 300,000/5/365=165 images per day. This does seem like a lot, and it would suggest an addiction of some sort. But let us for the sake of the argument assume that all these images were pornographic. Then a *advertiser censored* addiction might explain the rate of 165 images a day. But if only 18 images out of 300,000 images are questionable, then this tells me that those 18 were probably downloaded inadvertently and that his "taste" does not include minors. Perhaps someone told police, whether true or not, that JT had a *advertiser censored* addiction. But this probably would not be sufficient for a search warrant, I think. But at this point we don't know much. There are 18 images that have been questioned, and I presume that they are pornographic. However, whether these involve minors has been disputed by the defense.

 

[georgiasblu]

Suppose he accumulated images on this computer for 5 years. Then this would average 300,000/5/365=165 images per day. This does seem like a lot, and it would suggest an addiction of some sort. But let us for the sake of the argument assume that all these images were pornographic. Then a *advertiser censored* addiction might explain the rate of 165 images a day. But if only 18 images out of 300,000 images are questionable, then this tells me that those 18 were probably downloaded inadvertently and that his "taste" does not include minors. Perhaps someone told police, whether true or not, that JT had a *advertiser censored* addiction. But this probably would not be sufficient for a search warrant, I think. But at this point we don't know much. There are 18 images that have been questioned, and I presume that they are pornographic. However, whether these involve minors has been disputed by the defense.

Well yes, but the job of a defense attorney is to create reasonable doubt in the minds of a jury and even the public. JT seems to have chosen his defense attorney wisely. Hopefully, we will learn more if the trial is a go.
Can't help but wonder what they learned to seek the November search warrant. It was likely enough to get a Judge to sign off on it.

 

[Trojan1966]

Maybe some of our questions will be answered. As far as the number of images, 300k seems like a lot to you and me but for those with pornographic addictions, that seems to be inline with other cases I've followed. There was a local in my city who had 580k images if children in pornographic situations. Please note, I am not accusing JT of *advertiser censored* addiction but pointing out that 300k is not a lot in certain situations.

I do not believe there were 300K images that were pornographic. I think that is the total number of images found on the computer in question. Even 300K total images seems to be rather high. JMO

 

[georgiasblu]

I do not believe there were 300K images that were pornographic. I think that is the total number of images found on the computer in question. Even 300K total images seems to be rather high. JMO

I agree that it's a big number. You figure family pictures, karate competitions, ect. That is a lot of images but if others used it, maybe? Thanks for sharing.

 

[DazednConfuzed09]

I agree that it's a big number. You figure family pictures, karate competitions, ect. That is a lot of images but if others used it, maybe? Thanks for sharing.

It's really not that big of a number. Have you ever been shopping online? Each and every photo you encounter leaves an impression as a photo on your computer. On certain shopping websites where it gives you the option of viewing 100 - 300 items per page, you would now have 100-300 images for that page alone on your computer. I love to shop for shoes I can only imagine how many thousands of shoe "prints" I have on my computer because of it. What about being on Facebook? Each photo that is visible on your screen has left a mark on your computer as well whether you clicked on it or not.

 

[georgiasblu]

It's really not that big of a number. Have you ever been shopping online? Each and every photo you encounter leaves an impression as a photo on your computer. On certain shopping websites where it gives you the option of viewing 100 - 300 items per page, you would now have 100-300 images for that page alone on your computer. I love to shop for shoes I can only imagine how many thousands of shoe "prints" I have on my computer because of it. What about being on Facebook? Each photo that is visible on your screen has left a mark on your computer as well whether you clicked on it or not.

Lol! Fellow shoe shopper. Never thought about shopping. I despise facebook and don't have it so I'm in the clear there. Thank you Dazed for clarifying.

 

[black_squirrel]

It's really not that big of a number. Have you ever been shopping online? Each and every photo you encounter leaves an impression as a photo on your computer. On certain shopping websites where it gives you the option of viewing 100 - 300 items per page, you would now have 100-300 images for that page alone on your computer. I love to shop for shoes I can only imagine how many thousands of shoe "prints" I have on my computer because of it. What about being on Facebook? Each photo that is visible on your screen has left a mark on your computer as well whether you clicked on it or not.

Web browsers store recently viewed images in cache storage for easy, fast access. But they usually delete images after a certain amount of time. I don't think one can accumulate 300k images that way. Now, the 300k images might also include deleted images that were retrieved. There are ways of seeing the cached images. However, I am not sure if one can accumulate a hugh amount of those, because one a file has been deleted, there is a great chance that some part of that file will be overwritten by another file.

BTW, Images in browser cache don't really count as posession. Browsing child pornographic websites without downloading is morally reprehensible, but
it may not be illegal.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-05/do-you-possess-what-you-view-online

In a ruling yesterday, the New York Court of Appeals dismissed several counts of possession of child *advertiser censored* charged to college professor James D. Kent, after a computer he brought to university IT for anti-virus service was found to contain child *advertiser censored* in its browser cache.
For those specific counts--he's still going to jail on other, related charges--Kent was found to have not committed an "affirmative act" such as downloading, saving, or printing the image files in order to "possess" them; rather, they were passively saved by his browser in its hidden cache.

 

[DazednConfuzed09]

Good point B_S about photos NOT being saved and only in the cache! It would be rather interesting if we find out that none of the photos were saved on the computer.

 

[Trojan1966]

Here's the latest in the local paper....................

http://www.monroenews.com/news/2015/aug/13/police-hand-over-turnquist-files/

 

[Spellbound]

Here's the latest in the local paper....................

http://www.monroenews.com/news/2015/aug/13/police-hand-over-turnquist-files/

The parties are expected back in court on Friday before Judge White to set a new trial date.
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]--[/FONT]

Lt. Gress said there was confusion and a lack of clarification regarding the affidavit request. He said his agency was not asked by the Monroe County Prosecutor’s Office to produce the search warrant until the day of the trial. But, he added, at the same time, they did not anticipate the requirement of search warrant documentation regarding the homicide investigation to be involved in the child *advertiser censored* case.

Read more at: http://www.monroenews.com/news/2015/aug/13/police-hand-over-turnquist-files/

(BBM)

 

[Spellbound]

Good point B_S about photos NOT being saved and only in the cache! It would be rather interesting if we find out that none of the photos were saved on the computer.

You can do google searches to find that the images do not have to be saved to be considered in the possession and in control of an individual. Defendants have been convicted on only cached evidence. I imagine depending on how often/long viewed, how often one returns to particular sites, if printed or forwarded, etc. One paper on such: http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/ncjrl/pdf/cp But Your Honor.pdf

 

[DazednConfuzed09]

Guess we all just have to wait and see what the outcome will be.

If you read the comments under this article it sums it up rather well with the excuses being given are equivalent to saying "the dog ate my warrant".

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2015/08/warrant_turned_over_after_mist.html

 

[Trojan1966]

Guess we all just have to wait and see what the outcome will be.

If you read the comments under this article it sums it up rather well with the excuses being given are equivalent to saying "the dog ate my warrant".

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2015/08/warrant_turned_over_after_mist.html

Again, if this documentation was so important to the defense, why was it not discussed at the last pretrial to ensure the documentation would be in court on the trial date. All this did is "buy more time" for the defense. JT's lawyer knew that the warrant was issued by Washenaw County and the trial is in Monroe County, so chances were pretty good that the Ypsi Detectives would not have all the paperwork. Let's see what else they can use to stall this trial. I want to see this trial over and done so the real crime of Julia's murder can be solved. Did JT have anything to do with it? I don't believe so but all Ypsi PD wants is more information from him. If he is truly innocent of any wrong doing, hopefully after this current matter is done, he will fully cooperate with LE to help solve Julia's murder.

 

[Spellbound]

I honestly do not see how a warrant from Ypsilanti for a murder investigation is considered part of a trial for a separate case/jurisdiction that got its own warrant.

Comments after our local newspaper articles are often tossed out to rile things, with little or no thought to the truth of a matter. I give them little weight.

 

[Trojan1966]

Looks like there will be a trial in the child *advertiser censored* case against JT. The pretrial was completed and Ypsi LE produced the required documentation. The trial start date was set as Sept 21st at 8:15 AM. Finally, it looks like there will be a trial and we can get this matter behind us. The Ann Arbor News has requested copies of the documentation under the Freedom of Information Act. Hopefully, once they get it, they make it available to the general public. I will contact the court to see if I can get any copies too.

 

[Spellbound]

Thanks, Trojan! They must certainly feel the case is strong enough to move forward. I hope there are no more delays. I hope for your own sake, you are also able to get copies.

 

[electric_rainbow]

A new article confirming the Sept 21 trial date:

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...of-murdered-eastern-michigan-student/34718072

 

[Spellbound]

A new article confirming the Sept 21 trial date:

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...of-murdered-eastern-michigan-student/34718072

In the video attached to your article, I notice that the youngest sister (is she 13 yrs. old now?) is in the courtroom. That seems a rather inappropriate trial to bring such a young aged child. I believe she should be aware of what is happening, but I sure hope she does not attend the actual trial and have to see evidence of the images in evidence. Truly, I feel for that young person.