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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Absolutely there is more we don't know. Thanks for explaining, Trojan ...... we all need the reminder that what we see is not always the complete picture.
 
Trojan1966 said:
Information for Everyone: The affidavit is not all the information LE has Iconcerning Julia's murder case. I believe there are over 40 pages in the original document. LE extracted the information for the court to prove that there was enough justification for the search warrant for the computers. JT's lawyer wanted to say that the original search warrant was not a "legal" search, that way anything found on the computer would not be admitted in court as evidence. The other information (according to LE) that they have, if released, could compromise their murder investigation. Realizing the two cases are in different counties and court districts, Ypsi PD consulted with the DA in Washtenaw county (jurisdiction of the future murder case) to "clear" exactly what they could release without compromising their murder investigation. I know it sounds confusing but that's just the way it is. Monroe county has jurisdiction in the child *advertiser censored* case because JT lives in Monroe county and his residence is where the computer resided. I hope this helps clarify what is happening. Just remember that LE did not completely "show their hand", but just enough to satisfy the requirement for a legal search which is the way the Judge in Monroe county ruled on the 11th of September. Now that JT's lawyer got exactly what he asked for, I personally don't believe he wants the affidavit read or seen by the jury but it looks like it will be allowed. In some respects, this move by JT's lawyer may have backfired! Also, I've heard people say that all of this was a move by JT's lawyer to try to see exactly what LE has for possible evidence against JT in the future. I know this seems all confusing but so is our entire legal system. I hope all that I have said here helps everyone understand exactly what is happening. The child *advertiser censored* case (in Monroe county) begins tomorrow and I'm sure whatever happens will be well publicized in the news media.
Click to expand...

I am sure that after 2 years of investigation police would have produced a lot of documentation. Hundreds perhaps thousands of pages. This is just 1 of the many search warrants. The search warrant and affidavit that has been released for retrieving this particular computer was is only 12 pages though. There is another 3 page affidavit/warrant for searching the computer. What exactly is the "original document" of 40 or more pages? The search warrants are part of a report "2012-18237". Is that the whole Julia Niswender case, or just part of it?
 
black_squirrel said:
I am sure that after 2 years of investigation police would have produced a lot of documentation. Hundreds perhaps thousands of pages. This is just 1 of the many search warrants. The search warrant and affidavit that has been released for retrieving this particular computer was is only 12 pages though. There is another 3 page affidavit/warrant for searching the computer. What exactly is the "original document" of 40 or more pages? The search warrants are part of a report "2012-18237". Is that the whole Julia Niswender case, or just part of it?
Click to expand...

Like I said, I'm not exactly sure but I have been told that the document presented was an extract of a much larger document. That's all I can say.
 
Trojan1966 said:
Information for Everyone: The affidavit is not all the information LE has concerning Julia's murder case. I believe there are over 40 pages in the original document. LE extracted the information for the court to prove that there was enough justification for the search warrant for the computers. JT's lawyer wanted to say that the original search warrant was not a "legal" search, that way anything found on the computer would not be admitted in court as evidence. The other information (according to LE) that they have, if released, could compromise their murder investigation. Realizing the two cases are in different counties and court districts, Ypsi PD consulted with the DA in Washtenaw county (jurisdiction of the future murder case) to "clear" exactly what they could release without compromising their murder investigation. I know it sounds confusing but that's just the way it is. Monroe county has jurisdiction in the child *advertiser censored* case because JT lives in Monroe county and his residence is where the computer resided. I hope this helps clarify what is happening. Just remember that LE did not completely "show their hand", but just enough to satisfy the requirement for a legal search which is the way the Judge in Monroe county ruled on the 11th of September. Now that JT's lawyer got exactly what he asked for, I personally don't believe he wants the affidavit read or seen by the jury but it looks like it will be allowed. In some respects, this move by JT's lawyer may have backfired! Also, I've heard people say that all of this was a move by JT's lawyer to try to see exactly what LE has for possible evidence against JT in the future. I know this seems all confusing but so is our entire legal system. I hope all that I have said here helps everyone understand exactly what is happening. The child *advertiser censored* case (in Monroe county) begins tomorrow and I'm sure whatever happens will be well publicized in the news media.
Click to expand...

So good to hear there is more paperwork, 32 pages, pertaining to the murder investigation. If we think about the moves LE has made in recent months, we've known there is a lot of information hidden. The truth is, LE will not make a move unless they've got what it takes to back it up. Agreed, JT's attorney requesting proof of why the search warrant was issued for the computer, which resulted the child *advertiser censored* charges and trial, may have backfired.
 
Does anyone know what time court is scheduled for the trial today? I have to be away, so any updates will be appreciated. Thanks
 
I thought it was earlier than 9:30 AM. That was the time of the pretrial. My last talking to the court clerk said it was 8:15 AM as a start. They have to pick the jurors, so the actual trial will probably begin about 10AM or if jury selection takes too long, the actual trial may begin after lunch. There has been so many press articles and TV news about this, picking a jury may be quite involved. Any updates I get, I will post.
 
Trojan1966 said:
I thought it was earlier than 9:30 AM. That was the time of the pretrial. My last talking to the court clerk said it i
was 8:15 AM as a start. They have to pick the jurors, so the actual trial will probably begin about 10AM or if jury selection takes too long, the actual trial may begin after lunch. There has been so many press articles and TV news about this, picking a jury may be quite involved. Any updates I get, I will post.
Click to expand...
Thanks Trojan! Now I know why 9:30 was stuck in my head.
 
Child *advertiser censored* trial underway for stepfather of slain EMU student
by Darcie Moran, Ann Arbor News / mlive
September 21' 15, 11:54 am

Jury selection for the trial kicked off about 8:15 a.m. Sept. 21, according to the Office of Monroe County Circuit Court Judge Daniel S. White.

[...]

Judge White officially ruled Sept. 11 that he would not suppress the document, finding police did show probable cause to search the computer, the Detroit Free Press reported.

updated:

About 20 minutes ago, Ms. Moran, the reporter, mentioned in comments in the article that though jury selection is being monitored, there may be coverage of other parts of the trail.
 
http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2015/09/child_porn_trial_underway_for.html

"Julia Niswender was found dead in the bathtub with signs of ligature marks on her extremities in her Peninsular Place apartment,

rbbm

Noting that this is newly noted now, in brief coverage even. With this backfire on Turnquist's legal team's strategy, has he kept the same lawyer?


updated:

About 20 minutes ago, Ms. Moran, the reporter, mentioned in comments in the article that though jury selection is being monitored, there may be coverage of other parts of the trail.
 
Trial Update: I have received this from someone attending court today:
On break from Trial. Some highlights:
There are more than 30 images but only 30 are admitted into evidence.
Youngest daughter is missing school to be there. Why?
Some of the images were accessed multiple times.
JT seems to be the only male who used the computer.
No kiddie *advertiser censored* search terms were found in Internet searches.
 
Trojan1966 said:
Trial Update: I have received this from someone attending court today:
On break from Trial. Some highlights:
There are more than 30 images but only 30 are admitted into evidence.
Youngest daughter is missing school to be there. Why?
Some of the images were accessed multiple times.
JT seems to be the only male who used the computer.
No kiddie *advertiser censored* search terms were found in Internet searches.
Click to expand...
What is the significance of no internet searches?
 
georgiasblu said:
What is the significance of no internet searches?
Click to expand...

Defense may say it shows that he wasn't purposefully seeking out illegal material, which could add credibility to the notion that he didn't realize the 30 images were of underage individuals.
 
electric_rainbow said:
Defense may say it shows that he wasn't purposefully seeking out illegal material, which could add credibility to the notion that he didn't realize the 30 images were of underage individuals.
Click to expand...

Repeated visits to the same site or images could also indicate a portal link to other sites to avoid leaving a record of such searches, IIRC, from another case I had read about.
 
electric_rainbow said:
Defense may say it shows that he wasn't purposefully seeking out illegal material, which could add credibility to the notion that he didn't realize the 30 images were of underage individuals.
Click to expand...

I think the crucial question is, whether these images are indeed of underage individuals. How will the prosecution prove this? The defense lawyer stated that they could prove at least in once instance
that the person in the image was NOT a minor. I am not sure how they can prove that. Perhaps the individual is a known *advertiser censored* actor.
Another important question is where the images came from. Were they from a mainstream legal *advertiser censored* site, or did they come from an obscure child *advertiser censored* site?
 
FindHG said:
Repeated visits to the same site or images could also indicate a portal link to other sites to avoid leaving a record of such searches, IIRC, from another case I had read about.
Click to expand...

Absolutely could be true. I was just brainstorming about why the internet searches would be significant.
 
Trial Update:
From someone in court..............
Jury is deliberating now. Could go either way. Seems to be a pretty split jury of men and women. A few older women which may work against him. We'll see soon!
The closing arguments took FOREVER. JT's lawyer rambled on for about 40 minutes just trying to confuse people I think.

Also:
Jury is mainly older, 2 younger guys. JT's lawyer seems to ramble on to try to confuse jurors.
 
THANK YOU TROJAN! That sure was fast. Hope we hear today..... but I also hope they aren't too hasty and know all their facts well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 122 more.
Total: 387 (members: 123, guests: 264)

Online statistics

Members online
123
Guests online
264
Total visitors
387
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,501
Messages
18,255,011
Members
234,668
Latest member
paladinstraight
Back
Top