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

[Deleted member 132804]

Could you please share the link for the news article referring to this bit of info? Thanks in advance.

It's been stated in many articles, but here it is in DFP: http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...r-family-divided-emu-students-death/70183350/

Also, spellbound posted a few articles with the same information. It was in a Monroe News article too. Still digging that one up. I'm just trying to speculate the whys of the T's moving from the family home, and possibly county. Just curious to see if there is more to be concerned with in Monroe County.

 

[Spellbound]

It's been stated in many articles, but here it is in DFP: http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...r-family-divided-emu-students-death/70183350/

Also, spellbound posted a few articles with the same information. It was in a Monroe News article too. Still digging that one up. I'm just trying to speculate the whys of the T's moving from the family home, and possibly county. Just curious to see if there is more to be concerned with in Monroe County.

BBM
Here is the Monroe article
http://www.monroenews.com/news/2015/mar/17/turnquists-bond-reduced/

 

[black_squirrel]

Grandma Rose alleged that JT threatened her in 2012, but this has not been verified.
If he threatened her in 2012, why did she wait until 2015 to file for a PPO? A lot of allegations
against JT have turned to be false. For example, at the time of his arrest it was alleged that
he had many guns on him. He also allegedly threatened people when he was taken to the hospital
(where GR works). For this reason, his bond was set very high initially. But then later, it turned that these things
weren't true, and the judge lowered the bond. Were did this misinformation come from? This
was around the same time that GR asked for the PPO, and just before her media offensive against JT.
JMO, but I don't necessarily accept GR's allegations as fact.

 

[Spellbound]

Would a PPO have been granted without good reasons on record? I know nothing about what is required to obtain one, nor how long the last.

 

[black_squirrel]

Would a PPO have been granted without good reasons on record? I know nothing about what is required to obtain one, nor how long the last.

At the time the PPO was granted, JT had just been arrested on charges of child *advertiser censored* possession (of which he later was found "not guilty"). Also, rumors had spread that he
barricaded himself with lots of guns, and that the threatened health workers (which turned out later to be not true). At the time, it certainly would have looked reasonable to grant
the PPO. I am not sure if it would have been granted before his arrest, because as far as I can tell he was already avoiding her like the plague even before the PPO. I am not sure
how long the PPO lasts, but it can vary. It seems that it may have to be renewed after a half year or so.

It does seem that the Turnquists have no desire to be close, as they seem to have moved away from the Monroe area. I have no idea where they went. I can imagine though
that they went far enough so that there is no risk of being harrassed or bullied by neighbors, at school etc. If I were them, I would move to a safe neighborhood with a good
high school for their youngest daughter.

 

[Deleted member 132804]

At the time the PPO was granted, JT had just been arrested on charges of child *advertiser censored* possession (of which he later was found "not guilty"). Also, rumors had spread that he
barricaded himself with lots of guns, and that the threatened health workers (which turned out later to be not true). At the time, it certainly would have looked reasonable to grant
the PPO. I am not sure if it would have been granted before his arrest, because as far as I can tell he was already avoiding her like the plague even before the PPO. I am not sure
how long the PPO lasts, but it can vary. It seems that it may have to be renewed after a half year or so.

It does seem that the Turnquists have no desire to be close, as they seem to have moved away from the Monroe area. I have no idea where they went. I can imagine though
that they went far enough so that there is no risk of being harrassed or bullied by neighbors, at school etc. If I were them, I would move to a safe neighborhood with a good
high school for their youngest daughter.

From what I can tell by this Mlive article: http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2015/03/julia_niswenders_stepfather_wa.html

He traveled to the Karaoke studio with one gun (he had a permit for) and barricaded himself inside the studio.

Per this article: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...higan-students-murder-remains-jailed/31762164

KT is the one who called 911 saying her husband was suicidal, homicidal and had lots of guns...
IMO..when the heat is on, KT is afraid too, of what JT will do.

 

[black_squirrel]

From what I can tell by this Mlive article: http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2015/03/julia_niswenders_stepfather_wa.html

He traveled to the Karaoke studio with one gun (he had a permit for) and barricaded himself inside the studio.

Stablein said, although prosecutors previously alleged that following a warranted search of his home, Turnquist drove to his karate studio with guns in his vehicle and barricaded himself inside before being arrested, those accusations have been dismissed in court.

Per this article: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...higan-students-murder-remains-jailed/31762164

KT is the one who called 911 saying her husband was suicidal, homicidal and had lots of guns...

Wrong. KT did not call 911.

Shortly after the search, James Turnquist left the home. Not long later, Kim Turnquist went into an insurance office in Monroe and a woman there called 911 around 11:15 a.m.

"Her husband's going to kill himself," the woman told a dispatcher on the call obtained by the Free Press where a frantic woman can be heard in the background. "His wife is here. I don't know where he went."

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...r-family-divided-emu-students-death/70183350/

It is clear that initially the prosecuter had no idea what was said to the 911 dispatcher, because he didn't even know WHO called 911. So the allegations that KT said that her husband was homicidal
and had a lot of guns seems unfounded. At least, it does not seem to be on the 911 tape that the free press obtained (otherwise the free press likely would have reported that.)

IMO..when the heat is on, KT is afraid too, of what JT will do.

She was afraid that he would hurt himself. There is no indication that he was going to hurt anyone else.

 

[Trojan1966]

black_squirrel: I personally talked to KT after the initial incident. She went to a business (State Farm agency) very near her house and said she told them that she had to call 911. Now, did the lady at the office call 911 and merely passed on the information KT told her or did she give the phone to KT. I'm not sure but the press articles seem to indicate KT talked to the 911 dispatcher. I think all this is a moot point now.
I'd like to know where everyone found any information about why JT was found "not guilty". From what I recall, the verdict had nothing to do with the child *advertiser censored* but the fact that the prosecution could not prove it was JT using the computer at the time these were saved. I wish everyone would understand that there was *advertiser censored* (child *advertiser censored* or not) on the computer that was in their house and was used by the young daughter quite a bit. Did she see it? Is it OK to have that on a computer that a young girl could possibly see?
About their move..... My information is : They left town and will not be paying on their mortgage - basically walking away and letting the home go into foreclosure. A while back, the gas was turned off which means when it gets cold there, the water pipes will probably freeze and possibly burst. I'm sure the water was turned off but there's still water in the pipes and this house has no basement. It will be interesting to see what happens when the real cold weather hits the area.

 

[DazednConfuzed09]

Last time I checked, (I do work in a Circuit Court building...remember when I mentioned talking to police officers... I do in fact speak with them everyday), when a jury goes into deliberation and reaches a verdict...only the verdict is read in the courtroom. The judge does not specify why the jury came to their decision (the judge is never in deliberations with the jury). The charge was 1 count of possession of child *advertiser censored*. They verdict was not guilty. One can only speculate as to why they jury did what they did. 12 people in Monroe were able to determine the photographs they viewed were not "child *advertiser censored*", because if there in fact had been "child *advertiser censored*" photos, I believe they would have convicted on that evidence alone! Not a matter of who put it there!

 

[DazednConfuzed09]

I think we've already established that children who can access the internet on a cell phone, computer, tablet etc. can access *advertiser censored* very easily if they went looking for it, much easier than they would find on a computer that didn't have any images saved to it.

 

[Spellbound]

Last time I checked, (I do work in a Circuit Court building...remember when I mentioned talking to police officers... I do in fact speak with them everyday), when a jury goes into deliberation and reaches a verdict...only the verdict is read in the courtroom. The judge does not specify why the jury came to their decision (the judge is never in deliberations with the jury). The charge was 1 count of possession of child *advertiser censored*. They verdict was not guilty. One can only speculate as to why they jury did what they did. 12 people in Monroe were able to determine the photographs they viewed were not "child *advertiser censored*", because if there in fact had been "child *advertiser censored*" photos, I believe they would have convicted on that evidence alone! Not a matter of who put it there!

BBM
I have to vehemently disagree with the bolded statement you made, Dazed. No jury should convict a defendant on possession of child *advertiser censored* if he was NOT the one to put it on the computer. He was not on trial solely for it being there, but for being the one to put it there. If what you say were true, The mother or child in the same home could just as easily have been the defendant in this case. In this case, they may not have determined if the images were underage, and they did not connect underage images to JT.

This is what JT's own lawyer had to say about the verdict (bolded by me):
#Mr. Stablein told the jury that he was planning on having his client testify on his own behalf but decided against that strategy because the prosecution offered no evidence that his client was guilty. He said there was nothing to directly link Mr. Turnquist to the images and no proof that the individuals in the photographs were younger than 18.
http://t.monroenews.com/news/2015/sep/21/turnquist-not-guilty/?templates=tablet

 

[black_squirrel]

black_squirrel: I personally talked to KT after the initial incident. She went to a business (State Farm agency) very near her house and said she told them that she had to call 911. Now, did the lady at the office call 911 and merely passed on the information KT told her or did she give the phone to KT. I'm not sure but the press articles seem to indicate KT talked to the 911 dispatcher. I think all this is a moot point now.

It has been alleged that:

1. JT was homicidal, the day of his arrest.
2. JT threatened grandma Rose.
3. JT threatened people at the hospital.

If true, this would look incriminating in regard to Julia's homicide. However, these allegations seem to be untrue, or at least exaggerated.

1. As far as I know, nobody witnessed KT saying that JT was homicidal. The free press obtained the 911 tape and they don't mention anyone saying that JT was homicidal (I'm sure they would have reported it if someone did say that he was homicidal).

2. If JT threatened grandma Rose, why did she wait more than 2 years to ask for a PPO? I don't think she felt threatened at the time.

3. Early reports that JT allegedly threatened people in the hospital, has been disputed by a witness in court.

I'd like to know where everyone found any information about why JT was found "not guilty". From what I recall, the verdict had nothing to do with the child *advertiser censored* but the fact that the prosecution could not prove it was JT using the computer at the time these were saved.

I agree with Dazed here. Nobody knows what Jurors discussed, only that they didn't discuss for long. As far as I know, there was no evidence that the people in the images were minors, other than the images themselves, so jurors probably couldn't tell with any certainty if there was any child *advertiser censored* at all. They may not even have
discussed who put the images on the computer.

I wish everyone would understand that there was *advertiser censored* (child *advertiser censored* or not) on the computer that was in their house and was used by the young daughter quite a bit. Did she see it? Is it OK to have that on a computer that a young girl could possibly see?

I am not bothered by *advertiser censored* on the computer, as long as it is not child *advertiser censored*. Pornographic images are easy to obtain on the internet, so whether there are images on the hard-disk doesn't really change the accessibility to *advertiser censored*. I presume that if someone did save *advertiser censored* on the computer, that they took measures to cover it up. The fact that a forensic data analyst can find the images, doesn't mean that a young girl can.

It is difficult if not impossible to shield teenagers from *advertiser censored* because it is all over the internet. It is already difficult enough to shield them from being sexually active at an early age, and having unprotected sex. When KT was at the age that the youngest daughter is now, she was pregnant.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the real cold weather hits the area.

Snow is coming tomorrow!

 

[Spellbound]

Squirrel, while I don't always agree with you, I do appreciate the way you post, which often gives me reasons to think about your point of view in addition to my own.

With that said, I have a few questions for you, if you can...

We have no access to the 911 call, do we? Wish we did. From my understanding, even the judge felt that call indicated suicidal/homicidal possibilities and based decisions partially on that in the beginning. ( http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2015/03/julia_niswenders_stepfather.html ) Would he base a decision on a call without hearing it? I would hope not, but I don't know. However, if it was in the call, then I can understand using that as part of a basis for consideration of other issues related here.

As for a witness who heard KT say this, it would have to be the insurance person who was helping KT to make that call, and I don't recall any media statement from her that confirms or denies what she heard or reported. Am I correct? KT may very well have said or inferred suicidal/homicidal in her concern for the moment and wanted assistance as quickly as possible. Thus, perhaps she uttered an exaggeration, or meant it as stated. Just my opinion, of course. I don't know her exact words to the insurance person.

A PPO would not be granted on just a fear from a "threatening statement" two years prior, so there had to be more to the request by grandmother. I don't believe we have been privy to any more details as to the request or the granted PPO. Am I right so far? I don't think we should dismiss her concern for her own safety if she truly felt (feels?) uneasy or fearful of him and believes he may have harmed her granddaughter. If she exaggerated, it could be due to her concerns and not as an intentional act to deceive the court.

I would not want to be in the position of any of these family members. Whether they support JT and his immediate family, or not .... both sides have their own beliefs and reasons for their staunch loyalty or suspicions toward JT. Whether we agree or not with their reasons, none of us can say either is wrong. Which in my mind, allows some room for unintentional exaggerations from them.

I agree that the jury may have not found the images to be definitely child *advertiser censored*. I also believe they felt it was not proven that JT was the one to put them there. Wish we had jurors who had commented on their reasons.

There still are so many unanswered questions for me to make any definitive conclusions

 

[black_squirrel]

We have no access to the 911 call, do we? Wish we did. From my understanding, even the judge felt that call indicated suicidal/homicidal possibilities and based decisions partially on that in the beginning. ( http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2015/03/julia_niswenders_stepfather.html ) Would he base a decision on a call without hearing it? I would hope not, but I don't know. However, if it was in the call, then I can understand using that as part of a basis for consideration of other issues related here.

The detroit free press obtained the tape, so perhaps we can too. I think one probably can obtain it with a FOIA request. Since it is not central to the murder case, I don't feel like going through the trouble to do this. My impression is that the 911 tape was not submitted as evidence in the bond hearing. But the prosecutor and perhaps other witness made statements about the phone call
that later turned out not to be accurate.

A PPO would not be granted on just a fear from a "threatening statement" two years prior, so there had to be more to the request by grandmother. I don't believe we have been privy to any more details as to the request or the granted PPO. Am I right so far? I don't think we should dismiss her concern for her own safety if she truly felt (feels?) uneasy or fearful of him and believes he may have harmed her granddaughter. If she exaggerated, it could be due to her concerns and not as an intentional act to deceive the court.

I think one might obtain the PPO via FOIA as well. It does seem to me that the detroit free press has seen the PPO, because they are literally citing it.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...r-family-divided-emu-students-death/70183350/

A day later, Julia's grandmother, Rose Niswender, filed a personal protection order alleging James Turnquist threatened to "take out" her in December 2012. She also accused him of entering her home without permission around that same time, according to the PPO, which was granted.

"He blames me for police investigating him," she wrote, saying she was fearful he will come after her.

Julia's twin sister, Jennifer Niswender, said her grandmother, who she is estranged from, hasn't spoken to James Turnquist in more than two years.

 

[Deleted member 132804]

Well, IMO...it seems to me the Turnquist's wanted control over the investigation into Julia's murder from the start. In contrast, LE has the right to investigate who they want and name POI(s) as merited. If JT knows nothing about Julia's murder, why not cooperate with LE and get cleared as a POI??? Why go through all of this struggle with LE??

 

[black_squirrel]

Well, IMO...it seems to me the Turnquist's wanted control over the investigation into Julia's murder from the start. In contrast, LE has the right to investigate who they want and name POI(s) as merited. If JT knows nothing about Julia's murder, why not cooperate with LE and get cleared as a POI??? Why go through all of this struggle with LE??

Let's view it from JT's perspective, assuming that he did nothing wrong and that he knows nothing about Julia's murder. Initially he cooperated with law enforcement, passed two polygraph tests, handed over a computer etc. What were the results? He was jailed, taken away from his daughter because he was falsely accused of having child *advertiser censored*.

What would be the consequences if he did make a formal statement with police? The police might exploit any small inconsistencies (which are likely to exist when one tries to remember something that happened 3 years ago), and use this to build a false case against him.

Is the most important thing justice for Julia? It is not. It is important, but more important are the consequences for the living.
JT has still a daughter to raise and to protect. It seems that this is what he is doing. I don't know where the Turnquists have moved, but it would make sense to move out of a toxic environment, so that they will be able to create a normal and safe environment for their daughter.

I don't know if JT is guilty of anything or not. But if he isn't, I could still totally understand the actions and (non-actions) he has taken.

 

[Spellbound]

Seems to me I would cooperate no matter what was thought of me if my child disappeared or was murdered and I honestly had nothing to do with it. Polly Klaus, Elizabeth Smart ..... their fathers were under heavy suspicion, yet endured the scrutiny for the sake of their children. Even jailed wrongly, would be endured in the goal of finding truth. I don't think this family expected the parents to be scrutinized and were unprepared for how to handle themselves.

I understand protecting the young daughter, and moving away may be part of that.

 

[Deleted member 132804]

Let's view it from JT's perspective, assuming that he did nothing wrong and that he knows nothing about Julia's murder. Initially he cooperated with law enforcement, passed two polygraph tests, handed over a computer etc. What were the results? He was jailed, taken away from his daughter because he was falsely accused of having child *advertiser censored*.

What would be the consequences if he did make a formal statement with police? The police might exploit any small inconsistencies (which are likely to exist when one tries to remember something that happened 3 years ago), and use this to build a false case against him.

Is the most important thing justice for Julia? It is not. It is important, but more important are the consequences for the living.
JT has still a daughter to raise and to protect. It seems that this is what he is doing. I don't know where the Turnquists have moved, but it would make sense to move out of a toxic environment, so that they will be able to create a normal and safe environment for their daughter.

I don't know if JT is guilty of anything or not. But if he isn't, I could still totally understand the actions and (non-actions) he has taken.

Well, I do understand JT wanting to obtain an attorney to help in clearing his name with LE, in regards to Julia's murder. And, possibly with an attorney filing a formal statement as to his whereabouts in the days prior to the said event, in the beginning. However, it seems instead, he lawyered up to go the route of avoiding LE and a formal statement altogether. It seems he and the attorney want as much time to pass as possible before being forced to submit a formal statement. This is a legal cat and mouse game.

As for the *advertiser censored* on the computer, it's my understanding if viewers stay on reputable sites where it clearly states all the "models" are 18 years and older, viewers have nothing to worry about in the event of LE confiscating their computer for a search. I, personally, have no interest in computer "adult entertainment" but I've had the opportunity to interview a few people who have viewed, and they all say to stay on reputable sites. Also, it's been explained to me that, people who go off the reputable sites are looking for something that can/will lead to trouble.

 

[Trojan1966]

Another holiday will pass and we are all missing Julia. It sure would be nice to have some results in this case. I can not and will not understand the fact that the parents are not completely cooperating with LE to solve this murder. If I am ever put in their place and have lost a child, I would do everything in my power to assist in anyway possible. If I were made a POI, I would do all I could to "clear" myself. It just is not going to go away by itself. As a parent, I would be the one questioning LE all the time concerning the case. I still can not will never understand why JT will not sit down with his lawyer and assist LE in their investigation. If he truly "loved" her as a daughter, you'd think solving this crime would be very high on his priority list. I'm sorry, but to me I think he's treating this as a big "game" between him and LE. Maybe it has something to do with his past..... being on the Marine Patrol for the Sheriff's Department but never being offered a full time job or position or maybe some other event where he did not like to "take orders" from someone in authority above him. By working his own business, he has no one in authority above him so he can do whatever he wants. Why did he shy away from most family functions when I was in Michigan and saw the family quite often? He did seem to be very unsociable when he did show up. He would try to stay away from most people which really seemed odd. All of this is my personal opinion but based upon my personal association with him. I hope and pray that one day soon, they will cooperate with LE and help solve this murder. I am not thoroughly convinced he is guilty of the murder but I do feel that he knows "something" that may help resolve this murder but he just does not want to share it with LE. Why? I'll never truly understand this behavior. Let's hope that soon we will have Justice for Julia - with or without the parent's cooperation.

 

[Deleted member 132804]

FYI - In researching JT's attorney Paul Stablein, I found some interesting facts:

1. Rates are $301-400 an hour. Simple math: 50 hours of his (and/or law firms) time at $400.00 per hour = $20,000.00.

2. He's been the attorney for many high profile cases in Michigan such as: People v. Paul Jones: Cold case first degree murder charge, United States v. Sheri Rosenbaum: Mortgage fraud trial in U.S. District Court (Eastern District of Michigan), 2014, United States v. Bobby Ferguson: Federal corruption trial, U.S. District Court; hung jury and then dismissed, 2013.

IMO...he's the guy you hire to get/keep you out of jail, and he's your best bet in Michigan for a not guilty verdict when you're up a creek, without a paddle. He is NOT the attorney one might hire to help with a formal statement in the murder trial of a child you know nothing about.