Recent content by LBee

I'm trying to make sense of this law and whether or not that means they would have had his DNA from the DD or not... http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/01/new_michigan_laws_require_dna.html

The attorney stated that he has a prior conviction for operating while impaired...does Michigan collect DNA from that type of crime? I remember some talk of collection for felonies, but not sure if a DD is a felony or not.

I've been questioning this as well. I would feel much more comfortable finger pointing at SG if someone credible actually said they saw them together, as in, someone who would recognize both of them definitively. Which is very possible, considering we have heard nothing from anyone at Met Life...

They do really look similar, especially in certain photos. I also cannot wrap my head around why they aren't searching, I'd like to think that it's because they have strong reason to believe she's not in the area, but at this point, I just don't know what they do have...kind of seems like...

Can't quote for some reason but it wasn't a "burner phone" in the literal sense, it was a tongue-in-cheek description of the fact that she had a prepaid phone. It wasn't like she used one for a month and then got a new one. Maybe it's a Michigan thing but there are a lot of prepaid phone people...

Quoting is an issue here lately, this is for Karmabus though... "Devils advocate of sorts... SG wife has cancer . Her type of cancer you'll bleed and bruise more easily due to the low levels of platelets (clot-forming cells) in your blood. Bleeding may also be excessive. Forensic team may be...

i I took it to mean if it was unplanned, it would be more hastily done, and not covered up as well...make sense?

See, this makes more sense to me. Why in the world would anyone who knows not to talk to LE without an attorney, voluntarily go to the police station to not make a statement? I'm not disagreeing with anyone here, more questioning the details the SIL supposedly has. There are just some things...

I I was more trying to figure out what attorney showed up. How long ago was it that he invoked his right to remain silent? Because, if he knew he was going to be questioned, why in the world would an attorney not be present from the beginning...unless he was arrested and then made his one...

Sorry, who is "he?" I'm not following... Which attorney, the one on the MSM videos throwing up red herrings when they were searching the house?

Guys, we know people close to her read here. Can we maybe be less graphic, especially since we don't know for certain that's what happened? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't want to contribute to her families pain in any way. I can't imagine what horrible things are already running...

This is what confuses me. Typically if they are "interviewed" there was some give-and-take, otherwise they would say he "refused to comment", or something to that effect. Did his own words in the "interview" cause them to look further at him? When was he interviewed, before or after the house...

This was a new one to me, it appears that he WAS interviewed...which I hadn't heard previously. http://www.theoaklandpress.com/general-news/20170224/sister-in-law-of-man-whose-berkley-home-searched-in-danielle-stislicki-case-speaks-out

I agree, I'm more inclined to think that at best, they have spoon fed her some information that they know would not be detrimental to the investigation if it were to get out. In fact, I think they may actually have intended for it to get out, via her in the hopes that it could provoke further...

No of course they won't. But it would make it much more likely that they would keep the info to themselves until it's proven to be hers.