MI MI - Danielle Stislicki, 28, Southfield, 2 Dec 2016 #7

[Momma2cam]

Where did this come from? It's not what I'm finding under Mi laws on it. I can't provide link, my stupid iPad is messed up and won't let me.

I think that is Canada law, from a quick search of 487.05 criminal code...

For a search warrant in Michigan:
www.legislature.michigan.gov
Section 780.651

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[missgulfsouth]

Rumor not fact

Thank you, friend! It's sooooo frustrating to have theories presented as though that's what really happened.

 

[BloodHoundSleuther]

So...I don't know which post it was in thread 6, someone said that supposedly Dani pulled into the apartment complex before hers and then turned around...

1. Is a time this occured available?
2. If this is true, then why would she NOT be the one driving her vehicle into her own space at her own complex minutes later?

If memory serves correctly, the time given was rush hour. I believe this was most likely a case of mistaken identity. I trust law enforment with where the the investigation is headed and do not believe Danielle drove her jeep home.

 

[NoHeartAnthony]

Guys, her address is likely on her license. That address leads directly to her apartment building.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Momma2cam]

Guys, her address is likely on her license. That address leads directly to her apartment building.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

The vehicle was parked in her typical parking space.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[NoHeartAnthony]

Which would be left open by others in the complex.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Momma2cam]

Which would be left open by others in the complex.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Possibly. It has been noted by residents there that there are ample parking spaces and would likely be multiple spots open.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[Skigirl]

I disagree that the word "acquaintance" means something substantial. To me it means, somebody I know by sight, I might have a chat with, say hello and goodbye leaving work...but that is IT. An acquaintance is not a friend to me and certainly nothing MORE than a friend. An acquaintance knows very little of my personal life/situations.
Being an "acquaintance" certainly doesn't rule out a stalker situation either. Isn't that how most stalkings begin? You see somebody, run into them a couple times, they deliver your paper, serve your coffee at the shop, etc. and then they begin to have an unhealthy fixation on you. I'm not saying that's how it happens all the time, but alot of the time.
I will be surprised if it is found that there was an actual on-the-side relationship going on here. jmo

This. Totally.

 

[gam]

I think that is Canada law, from a quick search of 487.05 criminal code...

For a search warrant in Michigan:
www.legislature.michigan.gov
Section 780.651

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Thank you, I've spent all day trying to find a solution to my iPad issues and it's driving me nuts I can't do any links at all.

 

[Spiritecho]

Thank you, friend! It's sooooo frustrating to have theories presented as though that's what really happened.

I did not decide this is what really happened... I was throwing it out there...about the prior post with conflicting info...why am I singled out with my questions? IT IS A VALID POINT! And I am aware that it was rumor...and I did put supposedly in my previous post....................good grief ......MOO

 

[soanyway]

I continue to pray that DS is safe somewhere and LE is moving in closer to be able to bring her home to her family/friends. It's been 5 weeks since she disappeared and while it seems like the wheels of justice are grinding too slow, IMO an arrest will be made soon. LE has been on this case from the beginning with searches (many of which I'm sure we still don't know of) and gathering of evidence almost immediately. I was thinking today of Kayla Brown and how long it took LE to follow up on her pinged phone (IIRC, over 2 months). Just remaining optimistic in light of the swift and constant attention DS is getting that she will be found.

 

[missgulfsouth]

I did not decide this is what really happened... I was throwing it out there...about the prior post with conflicting info...why am I singled out with my questions? IT IS A VALID POINT! And I am aware that it was rumor...and I did put supposedly in my previous post....................good grief ......MOO

I'm not singling you out...you absolutely asked a valid question. My gripe is with the original post you are referencing. I read that post, I've been here since day 1, and it has never been stated by LE that she was seen anywhere. Obviously people took that rumor / post as fact that DS was seen pulling into this road or that drive and turning around ..... it's confusing.

 

[kimoWAsabi]

Deleted by me

 

[1smile]

Can anyone verify (from legit MSM) the make/model/color of the one or both of the other two cars that were searched in this case?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kimoWAsabi]

For a search warrant in Michigan:
www.legislature.michigan.gov
Section 780.651

I just found WS last night and it's taken me this long to catch up! Just throwing this out there (& here) because many times it's been discussed how many agencies are involved (including MDOC). If LE wants to search a home of an active probationer/parolee it doesn't need a warrant if MDOC officer is on board - 99.999999% a term of probation is ability to search at any time.

May not be relevant ... but if SG or any other resident was in probation/parole ... MDOC could have participated in a warrantless search. Not sure if a probationer could be an SG ... but there's that.

 

[Skigirl]

For a search warrant in Michigan:
www.legislature.michigan.gov
Section 780.651

I just found WS last night and it's taken me this long to catch up! Just throwing this out there (& here) because any times it's been discussed how many agencies are involved (including MDOC). If LE wants to search a home of an active probationer/parolee it doesn't need a warrant if MDOC officer is on board.

:wagon:

 

[Blue5591]

May not be relevant ... but if SG or any other resident was in probation/parole ... MDOC could have participated in a warrantless search. Not sure if a probationer could be an SG ... but there's that.

Someone on here is a lawyer and on one of the previous threads gave a hypothetical situation of how they xould get the warrant. Don't know where it is but possibly 2 threads ago. Anyone curious could reference that and it is current with MI law.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[AtomicAngela]

Guys, her address is likely on her license. That address leads directly to her apartment building.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Not necessarily. I lived at IGA for two full years before changing my address from my parents' house mostly because I wasn't sure if I was going to stay. In fact, the only reason I did change it was because I wanted to vote and I got a letter saying I needed to register at my current address. My ex hasn't lived at his parents for at least 15 years and his license is still tied to their address. For me it boiled down to not wanting to sit at the Secretary of State until I absolutely had to.

 

[1&2&3]

I don't know if the Michigan Stalking Laws have been discussed or not. In my state they are ridiculous! Example-as long as the person following you is not threatening to cause harm to you, they can follow you! If they go in same establishment as you, they must buy something. Grrr!

Anyway, I checked Michigan laws out. They are much simpler and don't permit the BS my state does.

From michiganlawyer.com, breaking it down into terms we understand:
" What contact is considered “unconsented”?

Consent is a key element of a stalking charge. Unconsented contact is any contact that the other party does not want and can include:

Sending email or posted mail
Being in visual contact with
Approaching
Confronting
Calling
Entering that persons property or workplace"

The point of all this, is IF she had a stalker, was aware of it, had she contacted the police? Could it be LE was aware of her movements that Friday night, perhaps even tailing her or were to appear at a designated place, and something went awry?

Yes, there are loopholes in that statement. However, there is also a reason for LE's statement regarding their concern about her safety and not her location (not exact quote). They evidently know or knew something!

 

[missgulfsouth]

I don't know if the Michigan Stalking Laws have been discussed or not. In my state they are ridiculous! Example-as long as the person following you is not threatening to cause harm to you, they can follow you! If they go in same establishment as you, they must buy something. Grrr!

Anyway, I checked Michigan laws out. They are much simpler and don't permit the BS my state does.

From michiganlawyer.com, breaking it down into terms we understand:
" What contact is considered “unconsented”?

Consent is a key element of a stalking charge. Unconsented contact is any contact that the other party does not want and can include:

Sending email or posted mail
Being in visual contact with
Approaching
Confronting
Calling
Entering that persons property or workplace"

The point of all this, is IF she had a stalker, was aware of it, had she contacted the police? Could it be LE was aware of her movements that Friday night, perhaps even tailing her or were to appear at a designated place, and something went awry?

Yes, there are loopholes in that statement. However, there is also a reason for LE's statement regarding their concern about her safety and not her location (not exact quote). They evidently know or knew something!

A recent stalking case I followed: Nia Hantzopoulos