MI MI - Julia Niswender, 23, EMU student, Ypsilanti, 10 Dec 2012 - #5

[ModMaiden]

Yes, that 7-11 would be on the way between her work and her apartment. This definitely could be
the place she stopped at.

I wonder though, besides the convenience store, might there be other places that she stopped at?

Are you suggesting that someone from a store she stopped at on her way home is involved?, BS? Earlier in another post you stated you thought the semen was planted. So we have a complete stranger from a store attacking Julia and planting false evidence. Is this what you are implying?

 

[ModMaiden]

<snipped> I think that the semen found may also have been planted.

Do you really believe this? This goes way beyond the sickness of this crime and takes it to another level. I absolutely do not agree that the semen was planted based upon where this evidence was found.

 

[Deleted member 132804]

Do you really believe this? This goes way beyond the sickness of this crime and takes it to another level. I absolutely do not agree that the semen was planted based upon where this evidence was found.

IMO..Keeping it simple, I think the semen is real and placing Julia in the bath filled with water was an attempt to get rid of the semen and any other physical evidence from the pert.

 

[monster12]

Maybe they somehow had to cut their time short and just had to leave her halfway(?) in and items at the scene. On the other hand, I feel they would had to have known the apartment was not going to be visited by roommates or anyone or they would have been caught, especially being inside her bedroom and bathroom with the tub water on. That would make it very difficult to hear anything or anyone coming into the apartment and them getting caught.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[black_squirrel]

IMO..Keeping it simple, I think the semen is real and placing Julia in the bath filled with water was an attempt to get rid of the semen and any other physical evidence from the pert.

I think there are 3 main possibilities for the semen:

It was already there. The semen has no relation to the perpetrator. Julia had a date the night before. She must have taken a shower since that date, but that does not necessarily remove all semen from the cavities. There was also a spot
of dried semen on her thigh. I wonder if it is possible that it was not completely washed of by taking a shower. There was no DNA profile from the semen, so it may be difficult to tell. Julia's date was young, so probably did not have a vasectomy.
But there could be other reasons why he might be sterile.

The semen is from the perpetrator: In that case, the crime probably was not pre-meditated. If it was premeditated, then the perp would have brought condoms. On the other hand, there are other indications that it was pre-meditated. The perp may have brought a knife or scissors, things to restrain the victim, gloves? Something may have enraged the person which led to rape and/or murder. I agree with Looking Glass that the bath scene may have been an unsuccessful attempt to get rid of all the evidence. The murder may have left the apartment and come back with the gloves and staged the crime scene and try to remove all evidence.


The semen was planted by the perpetrator. In this case, the crime must have been carefully planned. I am not sure if planting semen ever has been done, but it seems possible. The perp would have to have access to other people's semen, which would not be so easy. We don't know for sure if the gloves were planted, but I think they probably were. But if the gloves were planted, then perhaps other things were planted too.

 

[black_squirrel]

Are you suggesting that someone from a store she stopped at on her way home is involved?, BS? Earlier in another post you stated you thought the semen was planted. So we have a complete stranger from a store attacking Julia and planting false evidence. Is this what you are implying?

I stated that the semen may have been planted. But then again, it may not have been. I have many theories about what could have happened.

If Julia let someone into the apartment late on Sunday night, then they probably agreed on this earlier. Perhaps she communicated with the perp earlier that day. I am sure police checked all the electronic communication, and they did not find the perp that way. So perhaps she communicated with the perp in person. Perhaps she talked to him at work, or on her way to work, or her travel back from work. She may have met someone at the convenience store or other places that she stopped and ran into someone she knows.

 

[psyquestor]

The crossroads market place has security cameras for sure (I got my morning coffee there this morning on my way to work). Kampus Korner also functions as a gas station, so it is almost certain that it will have security cameras. I am not sure about Dollar Mart.

Police may have checked nearby convenience stores on a hunch. Friends and/or roommates may know about Julia's shopping habits.

IIRC A few years ago they had a robbery and wanted photos were posted for the perp. I think this is the same store. (so it would have them at least at the checkout).

 

[Deleted member 132804]

Not sure if we have talked about this before, but, I'm trying to think of the reason's why Julia's cell phone was found in the bath tub water with her??

 

[black_squirrel]

Not sure if we have talked about this before, but, I'm trying to think of the reason's why Julia's cell phone was found in the bath tub water with her??

The phone may have emails, text messages, etc. from the perpetrator.
The killer may have used to phone to send text messages to provide a false alibi.
Taking the phone from the scene might be dangerous, because perhaps the phone could still be tracked in some way. Putting it
in water probably would erase the memory and any fingerprints etc.

 

[Spellbound]

The phone may have emails, text messages, etc. from the perpetrator.
The killer may have used to phone to send text messages to provide a false alibi.
Taking the phone from the scene might be dangerous, because perhaps the phone could still be tracked in some way. Putting it
in water probably would erase the memory and any fingerprints etc.

BBM:
I don't think I would bet on that. In the case of Jodi Arias, a camera was found in the washing machine after a murder, and photos of the crime scene were recovered from it. Perhaps records can still be recovered from a wet phone? I know if you catch it quick enough you can salvage a wet phone by putting it in a bag of dry rice. Water does not always remove fingerprints either, if I remember correctly.

 

[Deleted member 132804]

Yeah, not sure submerging the phone could get rid of all the evidence. But the pert. may have thought it would. Agreed, the pert. could have sent text messages to secure an alibi. I saw this happen recently in the Edward Monday case.

 

[Deleted member 132804]

The phone may have emails, text messages, etc. from the perpetrator.
The killer may have used to phone to send text messages to provide a false alibi.
Taking the phone from the scene might be dangerous, because perhaps the phone could still be tracked in some way. Putting it
in water probably would erase the memory and any fingerprints etc.

I do wonder if the pert. sent a text message on Sunday to Julia, met up with her and the said event happened. Then the pert. may have deleted the text message. Would LE still be able to track the message through the cell phone company? I don't remember LE stating what information they got from Julia's phone on their own. I think they found out about the text messages from interviewing JN (twin), the roommate, and the close family friend (all of which the text messages Julia sent Sunday were to). Guess we will not know until there is a trail what LE found on Julia's phone from the cell company records, if any.

 

[black_squirrel]

I came across these allegations of sexual assault on the EMU campus against one of Julia's friends in 2011:
http://www.annarbor.com/news/ypsila...face-sexual-assault-charges-in-circuit-court/
The Ann Arbor news never followed up with the results of the trial. I don't know exactly how to read the court documents.
Can anyone figure out what happened? It seems like the case was dropped or that he was found "not guilty".


Some court records:
https://tcweb.ewashtenaw.org/PublicAccess/default.aspx
case number 11-000590-FC in criminal court.

 

[black_squirrel]

I do wonder if the pert. sent a text message on Sunday to Julia, met up with her and the said event happened. Then the pert. may have deleted the text message. Would LE still be able to track the message through the cell phone company? I don't remember LE stating what information they got from Julia's phone on their own. I think they found out about the text messages from interviewing JN (twin), the roommate, and the close family friend (all of which the text messages Julia sent Sunday were to). Guess we will not know until there is a trail what LE found on Julia's phone from the cell company records, if any.

I am not sure but I thing this could be tracked by the cell phone company. Without a texting plan, one would have to pay for each text message
individually. Before I was on a texting plan, my cell phone company would give my an itemized list of text messages and long distance calls.
I think that, even with a texting plan, they would keep records of the text message. But the content of the text messages probably isn't stored.

 

[Spellbound]

I came across these allegations of sexual assault on the EMU campus against one of Julia's friends in 2011:
http://www.annarbor.com/news/ypsila...face-sexual-assault-charges-in-circuit-court/
The Ann Arbor news never followed up with the results of the trial. I don't know exactly how to read the court documents.
Can anyone figure out what happened? It seems like the case was dropped or that he was found "not guilty".


Some court records:
https://tcweb.ewashtenaw.org/PublicAccess/default.aspx
case number 11-000590-FC in criminal court.

Jury trial scheduled (10/05/2011)Comment: Jury trial scheduled for 12/05/2011 08:00 a.m.
10/17/2011			Jury Trial (8:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Judge, Historical)EXTENSION_COUNT: 0000 Result: ADJ. BY COURT
11/22/2011			Final pretrial heldComment: Final pretrial held/people moved to dism with prejudice/granted/ order signed (shelton ctrm# 9 digital tbriske ceo# 8388)
11/22/2011			Final Pre-Trial (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Judge, Historical)EXTENSION_COUNT: 0001 Directive: (TRIAL 12/5) ADJ 10/4 Result: NOLLE PROS
11/23/2011			OrderComment: Pre trial order re prelim & final jury instructions fd (sgd 11/22/2011)
11/23/2011			Motion/order of nolle prosequi filed(sgd< m/dd/yyyy>Comment: Motion/order of nolle prosequi fd(sgd<11/22/2011>) (mf 12/05/11 pg 83292)
11/30/2011			Removal of Entry From LEINComment: Removal of entry from lein fd (sgd 11/29/2011)
12/05/2011			Jury Trial (8:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Judge, Historical)EXTENSION_COUNT: 0001 Directive: ADJ 10/17 Result: NOLLE PROS

Red and bold-red by me.

It looks like the case was dismissed.

NOLLE PROS= meaning "be unwilling to pursue",[SUP][2][/SUP] a phrase amounting to "do not prosecute". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolle_prosequi

 

[black_squirrel]

@Spellbound

When I read it, my guess was that they tried to notify a witness (perhaps victim)
to show up in court, but they could not find the witness. So the prosecutor dropped
the case. But I am not sure if my interoperation is right.

Anyway, I am not sure why the case was dismissed.

 

[Spellbound]

<modsnip>

That sounds probable, squirrel. Three times a notice to appear was returned due to "undeliverable mail". Therefore, the case was dismissed, Nolle Pros.

Dismissal with prejudice:
Dismissal With PrejudiceWhen a lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, the court is saying that it has made a final determination on the merits of the case, and that the plaintiff is therefore forbidden from filing another lawsuit based on the same grounds. See also: dismiss, dismissal without prejudice

http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/dismissal-with-prejudice-term.html

 

[Midge Montana]

:bump:

 

[black_squirrel]

:bump:

Julia would have turned 27 today, I believe. Hope this will get solved soon.

 

[Spellbound]

<modsnip>

That sounds probable, squirrel. Three times a notice to appear was returned due to "undeliverable mail". Therefore, the case was dismissed, Nolle Pros.

Dismissal with prejudice:
Dismissal With PrejudiceWhen a lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, the court is saying that it has made a final determination on the merits of the case, and that the plaintiff is therefore forbidden from filing another lawsuit based on the same grounds. See also: dismiss, dismissal without prejudice

http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/dismissal-with-prejudice-term.html

off-topic, response to moderator: Thanks Bessie. ("mods didn't edit; was a problem with codes; fixed link") I"m not sure what that means, but glad it wasn't something I did wrong.