AL AL - Danniella Vian, 24, Mobile, 17 Jul 2018 #5

[otto]

I was thinking about this entire game of hot potato with the phone again and thought that at every step of the process where a decision point existed to make a different choice that the choice actually made resulted in delay. It sounds a bit nuts but if you just create the visual of a decision tree on the phone it is quite interesting that the only person active and concerned with the phone was DW and the only person passive on the phone was JDT. I do find it quite interesting that JDT exerted the effort to track down and employee/friend of DNV's to get her employee ID as that was her unlock code for the phone. Its hard to reconcile this effort to unlock a phone that doesn't belong to you with exerting no effort to get the phone and hold it in safekeeping for DNV. I would think most people would go and get the phone at the earliest due to so much confidential information that we keep on our phones these days. But not in this case. We are ok with the phone in the hands of a stranger and not only that we will break into the phone when we finally do get the phone. Why was it so important to break into the phone?

Bizarre to say the least. My phone is like a personal computer in terms of all the information it holds. Police needed access to the phone to search Danni's last contacts, but they didn't need Danni's ex-boyfriends' mother for that.

DW delivered the phone to police after unsuccessfully trying to return it to the ex-boyfriend's mother for several days. I wonder if the phone has been helpful in tracking Danni's final days and identifying whether there were any confrontation communications.

 

[Whiskers16]

The problem is most of the information the VI provided is the exact information you just posted to remind us was outside of TOS: sleuthed information about people never named by MSM or LE as a suspect or POI and comments from Facebook.

I don't think it's really fair to allow one person's opinion stand as fact when other outside evidence that may directly contradict the introduced information is not allowed to be discussed as outside of TOS.

Know what I mean? The VI may have said Person A was in jail, and a poster offers evidence that Person A was not in jail. It doesn't seem fair to allow the VI information stand as true when most people would believe the public record instead. I totally understand if no discussion is allowed either about the VI statement or the public record. But I am not comfortable if we are supposed to take VI statements as facts but not be allowed to discuss why they may not be true.

Your point is a very reasonable one. I don't want to misdirect you all so I'll ask that you please hang tight for some further guidance on how to handle prior VI posts and remain within TOS. Thanks.

 

[AtticusFitz]

Bizarre to say the least. My phone is like a personal computer in terms of all the information it holds. Police needed access to the phone to search Danni's last contacts, but they didn't need Danni's ex-boyfriends' mother for that.

DW delivered the phone to police after unsuccessfully trying to return it to the ex-boyfriend's mother for several days. I wonder if the phone has been helpful in tracking Danni's final days and identifying whether there were any confrontation communications.

I agree. We have seen so much flip flopping narrative from JDT on the entire DNV relationship and whether TT was or was not living at her apt. that I really wonder what was driving the reason for this lack of clarity? The way JDT went from posting a note on the door of DNV apt. to ask for a call back to then racing over to the apt either with or without DNV friends to go through the apt. has me confused. It was as if the message was being delivered that well we didn't really care too much about talking with DNV but we really cared about what she might have had in her apt. No questions were ever answered about any cash found in the apt and the amout of cash was described as being 'large' but not amount was ever given. Going through this entire sequence of events in the timeline it seems like the cash and apt contents were of a higher priority than actually seeing or speaking with DNV in person IMO. I still can't get beyond MPD not locking that apt down when the missing report was filed so that nobody could enter until the apt was searched and processed for evidence. I feel the exact same way about the social media takeover and I don't get why MPD has done zero to safeguard the privacy of DNV social media accounts and are allowing access by non family members to FB accounts and Messenger. We have beaten all these issues to death but my only point in bringing up these issues again is that stringing all these events together presents a picture that to me at least raises more questions than it answers as it relates to motive and this has me quite concerned.

 

[AtticusFitz]

Who knew she had the car:
JDT - she dropped DNV off to pick up the car although she didn't remember the time that this happened
Friends she was with that night to celebrate
Friends/co-workers she worked with at PF Changs
Other Mobile 'family' most likely knew too as JDT would have said what she was doing so this would include JDT husband and TT and possibly even JCD.
Pearl Motors sales and admin staff
Possibly mechanic that did GPS install for Pearl Motors

I don't recall seeing that she posted anything about the car on public SM.

Does anyone else have any ideas on who else might have known about the car?

 

[Jenatlmom]

I agree. We have seen so much flip flopping narrative from JDT on the entire DNV relationship and whether TT was or was not living at her apt. that I really wonder what was driving the reason for this lack of clarity? The way JDT went from posting a note on the door of DNV apt. to ask for a call back to then racing over to the apt either with or without DNV friends to go through the apt. has me confused. It was as if the message was being delivered that well we didn't really care too much about talking with DNV but we really cared about what she might have had in her apt. No questions were ever answered about any cash found in the apt and the amout of cash was described as being 'large' but not amount was ever given. Going through this entire sequence of events in the timeline it seems like the cash and apt contents were of a higher priority than actually seeing or speaking with DNV in person IMO. I still can't get beyond MPD not locking that apt down when the missing report was filed so that nobody could enter until the apt was searched and processed for evidence. I feel the exact same way about the social media takeover and I don't get why MPD has done zero to safeguard the privacy of DNV social media accounts and are allowing access by non family members to FB accounts and Messenger. We have beaten all these issues to death but my only point in bringing up these issues again is that stringing all these events together presents a picture that to me at least raises more questions than it answers as it relates to motive and this has me quite concerned.

My hope is that MPD has allowed/ is allowing these things (entering DNV’s apartment, social media control, etc.) because they are watching and are hoping to use someone(s) actions as evidence in the future (whoever they suspect, not naming anyone specifically).

 

[LaylaD]

I agree. We have seen so much flip flopping narrative from JDT on the entire DNV relationship and whether TT was or was not living at her apt. that I really wonder what was driving the reason for this lack of clarity? The way JDT went from posting a note on the door of DNV apt. to ask for a call back to then racing over to the apt either with or without DNV friends to go through the apt. has me confused. It was as if the message was being delivered that well we didn't really care too much about talking with DNV but we really cared about what she might have had in her apt.
— respectfully snipped by me for brevity —

I have been confused and confounded concerning JDT’s lack of action with DNV’s phone. So much so, that I’m left to speculate ... somewhat wildly and imaginatively? Perhaps JDT conveniently was not in Mobile the night DNV disappeared? And so, was not around to collect the phone the following day? Perhaps JDT (and others?) returned just prior to the planned DNV visit with C? It has bothered me that C was out of town on the night her mother disappeared. Just too many coincidences....
​

 

[Jenatlmom]

I was thinking about this entire game of hot potato with the phone again and thought that at every step of the process where a decision point existed to make a different choice that the choice actually made resulted in delay. It sounds a bit nuts but if you just create the visual of a decision tree on the phone it is quite interesting that the only person active and concerned with the phone was DW and the only person passive on the phone was JDT. I do find it quite interesting that JDT exerted the effort to track down and employee/friend of DNV's to get her employee ID as that was her unlock code for the phone. Its hard to reconcile this effort to unlock a phone that doesn't belong to you with exerting no effort to get the phone and hold it in safekeeping for DNV. I would think most people would go and get the phone at the earliest due to so much confidential information that we keep on our phones these days. But not in this case. We are ok with the phone in the hands of a stranger and not only that we will break into the phone when we finally do get the phone. Why was it so important to break into the phone?

I didn’t get that JDT broke into the phone, but that she retrieved the phone code to give to the MPD, as they had they phone when DW turned it into them on 7/20. Unless I’m mistaken, JDT never touched DNV’s phone- it went straight from DW to MPD.

 

[Jenatlmom]

I have been confused and confounded concerning JDT’s lack of action with DNV’s phone. So much so, that I’m left to speculate ... somewhat wildly and imaginatively? Perhaps JDT conveniently was not in Mobile the night DNV disappeared? And so, was not around to collect the phone the following day? Perhaps JDT (and others?) returned just prior to the planned DNV visit with C? It has bothered me that C was out of town on the night her mother disappeared. Just too many coincidences....
​

Do we know who C was with out of town?

 

[LaylaD]

Do we know who C was with out of town?

I have not seen that mentioned anywhere.

 

[LaylaD]

I didn’t get that JDT broke into the phone, but that she retrieved the phone code to give to the MPD, as they had they phone when DW turned it into them on 7/20. Unless I’m mistaken, JDT never touched DNV’s phone- it went straight from DW to MPD.

See @cedgison ’s post #66 in thread #2 (AL - AL - Danniella Vian, 24, Mobile, 17 Jul 2018 #2).

From this, it appears that JDT had access to DNV’s phone for a limited time .... but definitely long enough to have gotten the code info.

.The police station is on Airport Blvd, but JT and DW were sent to the Harold Johnson building on Government st. This is where the missing persons liaison is located. DW had handed over Dannis phone to JT at the first police station.

DW got to the Harold Johnson building, before JT. As JT arrived, DW was giving his report to the Liaison. After DW was done, DW left, and JT then gave her report and handed over Dannis phone.

 

[Jenatlmom]

See @cedgison’s post #66 in thread #2 (AL - AL - Danniella Vian, 24, Mobile, 17 Jul 2018 #2).

From this, it appears that JDT had access to DNV’s phone for a limited time .... but definitely long enough to have gotten the code info.

Yes it does. If I were JDT, I would’ve looked through it.
Thank you for that link!

 

[theides]

Here is a little directory I've put together of articles containing statements directly from LE. Some of them contain other secondhand info, but I'm only going to quote things directly attributed to LE. I'll try to put them in chronological order.

July 21st, 2018
- "According to MPD, Vian was last seen July 17 in the 3500 block of Government Blvd. She was last believed to be wearing a 'Mellow Mushroom' t-shirt and hat. She was last known to be occupying a deep blue 2014 Chevrolet Cruz with a Pearl Motors paper tag." Mobile Police ask public help to find missing woman

July 25th, 2018
- "The case of missing woman Danniella Vian, 23, has been handed over to homicide detectives, according to a Mobile Police Department spokesperson. However, those working the case say that there is no information suggesting that Vian has been killed." Missing Mobile woman's case handed to homicide detectives

August 2nd, 2018
- MPD Press Conference: Mobile Police Department

- "MPD Chief of Police Lawrence Battiste said that Vian's case is not an ordinary missing person scenario. "Some people go missing because they want to," he said during a press conference Thursday, while also adding that Vian had no history of disappearing. "There is nothing that has led investigators to where she might be." [...] Battiste would not reveal if her credit cards or cell phone had been used since her disappearance." $2,000 reward offered in Danniella Vian missing person case

August 29th, 2018
- "Danniella was last seen on July 17 at the Shell gas station on Government Boulevard near I-65. According to police, she was captured on surveillance video leaving, but where she went next is still a mystery. [...] Investigators say so far they've exhausted all leads and tips." Mobile woman missing for 43 days now, fundraising events planned to help family

September 20th, 2018
"Danniella was last seen Tuesday, July 17, 2018 in the 3500 block of Government Blvd. wearing a dark-colored Mellow Mushroom shirt, a light-colored hat, and black legging style pants with a light-colored shirt tied around her waist. She was occupying a 2014 Chevrolet Cruz with a Pearl Motors paper tag." : Mobile Police Department

September 24th, 2018
- "The MPD is asking people to post what they know about her disappearance. The link to the blog is mobilepd.org/finddanniella. An MPD news release states: "Although other blogs exist, this blog is set up for people in the community who may have seen something or might have information that could help further the investigation. They are encouraged to comment on the posts. The blog will serve as a centralized two-way communication hub with the Mobile Police Department and community." The police department says the cash reward money to be given for information leading to finding Vian has increased from $2,000 to $5,000. "The Mobile Police Department wants to remind everyone that any information, no matter how small, can only help the investigation," the MPD news release states." MPD starts blog to help find Danniella Vian


These are what I've come up with so far. I did not include anything regarding the property search because I'm not completely clear on what is/isn't being permitted, so leaving it out for now. Feel free to add, manipulate, and whathaveyou.

 

[AtticusFitz]

I have been confused and confounded concerning JDT’s lack of action with DNV’s phone. So much so, that I’m left to speculate ... somewhat wildly and imaginatively? Perhaps JDT conveniently was not in Mobile the night DNV disappeared? And so, was not around to collect the phone the following day? Perhaps JDT (and others?) returned just prior to the planned DNV visit with C? It has bothered me that C was out of town on the night her mother disappeared. Just too many coincidences....
​

Agree with you. JDT was in Mobile by her own admission. CT was not in Mobile and was supposedly taken by JDT husband to No. AL and was scheduled to return on Thursday. The only way I can explain the phone is to say that it clearly wasn't a priority to JDT to safeguard the phone. It also seems for whatever reason she didn't want to meet with DW which is interesting as I doubt he sounded like a shady person on the phone. So, assuming DW didn't sound threatening on the phone then why not take a drive and go pick up the phone as CT was away and you had no childcare duties? What else was she doing with nobody home? That's an interesting thought too?!

 

[cedgison]

The problem is most of the information the VI provided is the exact information you just posted to remind us was outside of TOS: sleuthed information about people never named by MSM or LE as a suspect or POI and comments from Facebook.

I don't think it's really fair to allow one person's opinion stand as fact when other outside evidence that may directly contradict the introduced information is not allowed to be discussed as outside of TOS.

Know what I mean? The VI may have said Person A was in jail, and a poster offers evidence that Person A was not in jail. It doesn't seem fair to allow the VI information stand as true when most people would believe the public record instead. I totally understand if no discussion is allowed either about the VI statement or the public record. But I am not comfortable if we are supposed to take VI statements as facts but not be allowed to discuss why they may not be true.

Even as the former VI for this case, I have to agree with you. As a VI you are not required to show proof of the info; but now that I’m longer the VI, it’s more understandable that you’d question what I said or that there would be open dialogue about it. I’m now - or at least moving forward - held to the same standards with regards to TOS as everyone else.

 

[cedgison]

I didn’t get that JDT broke into the phone, but that she retrieved the phone code to give to the MPD, as they had they phone when DW turned it into them on 7/20. Unless I’m mistaken, JDT never touched DNV’s phone- it went straight from DW to MPD.

I’d be happy to clarify this but I don’t know if it’s within TOS since I’m no longer the VI & don’t have concrete proof.

 

[AtticusFitz]

Yes it does. If I were JDT, I would’ve looked through it.
Thank you for that link!

Yes, but she had exerted zero effort to get the phone and then when she does get it she breaks into it? Does that make sense? Did she think DNV had sent a text to herself? Why break in on someones phone? What was she looking for?

 

[theides]

I found it interesting that the MPD blog post had a much more specific description of what she was last seen wearing than any of the MSM articles. Gives the public a much better idea of her appearance that night.

"She was last believed to be wearing a 'Mellow Mushroom' t-shirt and hat. She was last known to be occupying a deep blue 2014 Chevrolet Cruz with a Pearl Motors paper tag." (MSM)​

VS

"Danniella was last seen Tuesday, July 17, 2018 in the 3500 block of Government Blvd. wearing a dark-colored Mellow Mushroom shirt, a light-colored hat, and black legging style pants with a light-colored shirt tied around her waist. She was occupying a 2014 Chevrolet Cruz with a Pearl Motors paper tag." (MPD Blog)
​

I could have missed where these specifics were mentioned in a flyer or another article, but in case I didn't: I'd think the more specific outfit description is something the public should be much more aware of.

 

[AtticusFitz]

I’d love to clarify this but I don’t know if it’s within TOS since I’m no longer the VI & don’t have concrete proof.

@cedgison correct me if I'm wrong but the timeline has JDT with the phone and getting the code from the person at PF Changs. Right?

 

[LaylaD]

I’d love to clarify this but I don’t know if it’s within TOS since I’m no longer the VI & don’t have concrete proof.

In response to this question, I quoted relevant portions of your post #66 from the second thread - a post you made as VI and quoting JDT. Unless you no longer believe in that statement, it should suffice.

 

[cedgison]

@cedgison correct me if I'm wrong but the timeline has JDT with the phone and getting the code from the person at PF Changs. Right?

I’m not sure where she obtained it from; that wasn’t directly stated to me that I remember.