MI MI - Danielle Stislicki, 28, Southfield, 2 Dec 2016 #12

[nonanks]

Anyone know what time FG is due back in court today?

 

[thekarmabus]

9 am but sure court behind. Fox2 Detroit Facebook page states they will live stream it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nonanks]

Judge asked that they not live stream

https://www.facebook.com/WJBKFox2Detroit/

 

[Spellbound]

I believe this is the video of his court appearance here:
https://www.facebook.com/pg/WJBKFox2Detroit/videos/?ref=page_internal

ETA: Live stream is being suppressed, per the judge, due to some allegations that were not clear, but can be streamed later.

 

[thekarmabus]

They stopped. No live stream allowed in this case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[inmyhumbleopinion]

9 am but sure court behind. Fox2 Detroit Facebook page states they will live stream it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the heads-up, karma!

FOX 2 FB page: https://m.facebook.com/WJBKFox2Detroit/

FOX 2 article from this morning:
"The person of interest in Danielle Stislicki's missing person's case will be in court Thursday on unrelated charges.
...
Floyd Russell Galloway Jr. will be in court Thursday in connection with that case. His hearing is expected to begin at 9 a.m. You can watch a livestream on our Facebookpage here when it begins."
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/266048365-story

FOX 2 Twitter:
https://mobile.twitter.com/FOX2News/status/882957957562085377
"Person of interest in Danielle Stislicki's disappearance due in court on unrelated charges"

Local 4 WDIV Detroit Twitter:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Local4News/status/882940299806478337
"Person of interest in Danielle Stislicki missing case has hearing today for Hines Park jogger attack case"

 

[Skigirl]

Judge asked that they not live stream

https://www.facebook.com/WJBKFox2Detroit/

Was it because they wanted to protect the sexual assault survivor's privacy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[thekarmabus]

Was it because they wanted to protect the sexual assault survivor's privacy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe it was for this reason . First hearing judge stated she would suppress items.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nonanks]

Was it because they wanted to protect the sexual assault survivor's privacy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it may be, looked like it was the prosecuting attorney that requested it.

 

[monkeypants]

It's closed doors I believe

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[thekarmabus]

Update:
Galloway was arraigned on those charges June 28 and is being held on a $750,000 bond. His preliminary examination will be Aug. 1. Galloway's attorney, John Dakmak, waived his client's right for a preliminary examination within seven days of the date of the probable cause conference.

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news...has-hearing-for-hines-park-jogger-attack-case


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[laurieloo]

From Click on Detroit, more at the link:

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news...es-park-jogger-attack-case?platform=hootsuite

LIVONIA, Mich. - Floyd Galloway Jr. was in court Thursday for a probable cause conference on charges stemming from an attack on a jogger at Hines Park in Livonia.

Galloway, of Berkley, is considered a person of interest in the missing case of 28-year-old Danielle Stislicki. But right now he's accused of attacking a woman Sept. 4, 2016 while she was jogging in the park. He faces charges of kidnapping, criminal sexual conduct with intent to commit penetration, and assault with intent do great bodily harm by strangulation in connection to the Hines Park attack.

Galloway was arraigned on those charges June 28 and is being held on a $750,000 bond. His preliminary examination will be Aug. 1. Galloway's attorney, John Dakmak, waived his client's right for a preliminary examination within seven days of the date of the probable cause conference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[thekarmabus]

Could one of the attorneys on this thread explain the purpose of waiving his prelim hearing within 7 days? Is this a common thing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[inmyhumbleopinion]

Judge asked that they not live stream

https://www.facebook.com/WJBKFox2Detroit/

Was it because they wanted to protect the sexual assault survivor's privacy?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From the arraignment (not this morning's hearing):

"[Judge] McCann ordered the investigation report and witness list in the case not be released to the public. She said the Prosecutor’s Office was concerned about threats made either by the defendant or his family and friends.
“This is the first we’ve heard about this, your honor,” said Galloway’s attorney, John Dakmak. (BBM)
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/2017/06/28/livonia-arraignment/103254734/

So, yes, I think the main reason the judge has ordered certain items to be kept under seal is the protection the survivor's privacy. Another reason for the order, it appears, is to protect the security the survivor and witnesses from threats made by someone(s) on the defense side, as alleged by the prosecutor.

Or ... the way the article is written makes me wonder if it is actually the Prosecutor's Office that has been the subject of the threats (made by someone like Jim Williams, perhaps ... sorry, that's just the first person that comes to my mind ...)?

Either way, I am very curious as to what that's all about. And if true, how dare they!

 

[mittenstate1988]

Could one of the attorneys on this thread explain the purpose of waiving his prelim hearing within 7 days? Is this a common thing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It happens more often than not.

There are a few different reasons for doing it. If he's hoping for a plea deal or plans to plead guilty, he would want to do it. Since his team is allowed to cross examine the prosecution's witnesses at this level, any testimony has the potential to end up being used against him later on at trial (even if the witness eventually doesn't testify in front of the jury). Anything that comes out at the prelim. is more likely to hurt him than to help him. If a witness discloses info that was previously unknown and could implicate more charges, result in no plea deal offered, etc. Soo... it's usually a strategic move by the defense to waive it, in hopes that the media circus fades, memories fade, witnesses get flakey and forget things, etc.

 

[tmmac]

http://www.hometownlife.com/story/n...ccused-livonia-sexual-assault-case/440382001/

A few tidbits about today's hearing.

 

[BloodHoundSleuther]

http://www.hometownlife.com/story/n...ccused-livonia-sexual-assault-case/440382001/

A few tidbits about today's hearing.

I read that article just a few minutes ago. Very strange how it says, "There's always the potential for threats or harassment", Bennett said. Not that there has been any harassment or threats."

Compared to what was stated at the initial arraignment by the judge, "Due to the welfare and safety of the complainant in this matter, they made that request upon the initial warrant, in complaint, so the witness list will not be part of the public documents, the investigation is on going and there is threats of intimidation and harm."

HMMMM:thinking:

 

[thekarmabus]

I read that article just a few minutes ago. Very strange how it says, "There's always the potential for threats or harassment", Bennett said. Not that there has been any harassment or threats."

Compared to what was stated at the initial arraignment by the judge, "Due to the welfare and safety of the complainant in this matter, they made that request upon the initial warrant, in complaint, so the witness list will not be part of the public documents, the investigation is on going and there is threats of intimidation and harm."

HMMMM:thinking:

I do not feel threats have been made to the victim. I believe it is reasonable to believe due to past postings on other sm sites as well as the Dani case being a visible large case that there would be potential for threats from others. A conservative approach to protect the victim ... which I agree with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BloodHoundSleuther]

I do not feel threats have been made to the victim. I believe it is reasonable to believe due to past postings on other sm sites as well as the Dani case being a visible large case that there would be potential for threats from others. A conservative approach to protect the victim ... which I agree with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I actually agree with you! I posted the two different comments just for reference. Just due to the circus created on other platforms and social media in general, it's easy to see the potential for threats, harm or harassment is a very real possibility.

 

[mittenstate1988]

I actually agree with you! I posted the two different comments just for reference. Just due to the circus created on other platforms and social media in general, it's easy to see the potential for threats, harm or harassment is a very real possibility.

You both are correct. There is a very big possibility of threats but it doesn't necessarily mean they have had threats just because they asked. Under Michigan law, for sexual assault cases, they always have the ability to ask for suppression even if they haven't documented threats have already happened. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ue...g.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-750-520k