MI MI - Danielle Stislicki, 28, Southfield, 2 Dec 2016 #8

[Holocene]

I brought up something similar in the last thread (or the one before) and I'm pretty sure that the VI apologized for being too quick to say that. It was at the beginning of the search when everyone was still confused as to what had happened that day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Holocene]

Also, that "last text" is not official transcript. It stems from another poster inferring what MAY have been said as a final text message.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spellbound]

quote is from previous thread:

Originally Posted by 1smile I have been re-watching the initial reports on the ownership and activity of the Oxford St./Berkley home.

Here is the link to the FoxNewsDetroit clip that is 2 minutes and 42 seconds long in its entirety.


http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/loca...25345000-story


The gentlemen that shows up at the :30 second mark...I find it interesting that he never gave his name...Did the reporter not ask? Did the reporter the reporter ask and he declined? You will notice at the :45 second marker in the same report, you see that neighbor Judy's name is promptly displayed below her as she is speaking. Now, Mr. No Name shows up again right at the 1:15 marker....Apparently, he left, was out of town, didn't see anything...which very well could be the case...However, something in his interview doesn't set well with me...Not that he's guilty of anything, but he almost seems frightened or worried the way his eyes dart around during the reporters questioning. As if he wants this interview over as quickly as possible.

Then at the 1:30 marker you have Mr. John Williams (modsnip) enter the scene, says he is a family friend and who is blocking/stopping media from getting to the door. Further, claiming an elderly couple lives at this address (after doing a thorough Oakland county records search, I see that is clearly NOT the case that an elderly couple lives there)

At 1:54 marker, they go back to poor, Mr. No Name who claims he really doesn't know much, thinks it's a rental (looks disgusted while saying that) swallows really hard and then claims "then they moved out" ..."so, I have no idea the person who lives there now"

(modsnip)

So, in this news report that lasts 2:42, there's so much misinformation and confusion it's astonishing.

I can't believe that no one at Fox has decided to go back out talk and with the neighbors, again get additional clarification on the exact info they tried to glean in the original report...And then also do some due diligence on the actual ownership and status of that house... Because, essentially no solid information came out of that report. It's nothing but gobbledygook!

Am I way out of line here? It's been weeks without any follow up on the unknowns in this news report.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

re Mr. No-name, actually his name (JW) does show up on-screen and he apparently lives across the street.

Rwgarding an elderly couple living there at some point, is it possible the younger couple moved in with them?

 

[Privatecupcake32]

I have been re-watching the initial reports on the ownership and activity of the Oxford St./Berkley home.

I agree I got a weird vibe from him as well
Here is the link to the FoxNewsDetroit clip that is 2 minutes and 42 seconds long in its entirety.


http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/225345000-story


The gentlemen that shows up at the :30 second mark...I find it interesting that he never gave his name...Did the reporter not ask? Did the reporter the reporter ask and he declined? You will notice at the :45 second marker in the same report, you see that neighbor Judy's name is promptly displayed below her as she is speaking. Now, Mr. No Name shows up again right at the 1:15 marker....Apparently, he left, was out of town, didn't see anything...which very well could be the case...However, something in his interview doesn't set well with me...Not that he's guilty of anything, but he almost seems frightened or worried the way his eyes dart around during the reporters questioning. As if he wants this interview over as quickly as possible.

Then at the 1:30 marker you have Mr. John Williams (modsnip) enter the scene, says he is a family friend and who is blocking/stopping media from getting to the door. Further, claiming an elderly couple lives at this address (after doing a thorough Oakland county records search, I see that is clearly NOT the case that an elderly couple lives there)

At 1:54 marker, they go back to poor, Mr. No Name who claims he really doesn't know much, thinks it's a rental (looks disgusted while saying that) swallows really hard and then claims "then they moved out" ..."so, I have no idea the person who lives there now"

(modsnip)

So, in this news report that lasts 2:42, there's so much misinformation and confusion it's astonishing.

I can't believe that no one at Fox has decided to go back out talk and with the neighbors, again get additional clarification on the exact info they tried to glean in the original report...And then also do some due diligence on the actual ownership and status of that house... Because, essentially no solid information came out of that report. It's nothing but gobbledygook!

Am I way out of line here? It's been weeks without any follow up on the unknowns in this news report.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree I got a weird vibe from him as well

 

[gam]

I believe our VI, Holocene, stated that this is a friend that moved out of town for college and has recently come back. Now that doesn't jive with the friend that she usually has dinner with.

Meeting, my belief is that mom just worded it oddly.

I believe Holocene later stated that he was wrong on that friends info.

Edit-need to refresh page before posting, I didn't see Holocene has posted to answer.

 

[Holocene]

I also think a little too much emphasis is being placed on the visits between Danielle and her friend being "every week". Yes to frequency, but it's not literally every week, thus the discrepancy between when bags are already packed and when they aren't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

"I have been able to get off early, let me swing home real quick, pack a bag, I'll meet you there."

I'd like confirmation that this was, indeed, the phrasing of Danielle's text to her friend, but in the meantime, "I'll meet you there" doesn't sound like DS was necessarily going to the friend's house to cook dinner. Sounds to me like they might have been planning to "meet" somewhere (presumably for drinks and/or dinner). Maybe this is what Mrs. Stislicki was suggesting when she called seeing the friend a "meeting". "Meet you WHERE"? I think most of us have latched on to the notion that Danielle was going to her friend's home to cook dinner, but maybe that wasn't the exact plan for the evening. :thinking:

 

[RoyalsGal8]

Anyone have a quick summary from this case that they wouldn't mind bringing over?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SherlockJ]

Also, that "last text" is not official transcript. It stems from another poster inferring what MAY have been said as a final text message.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do we know if she usually packed a bag and went directly from work to that friends house? I guess this was a fairly common routine.

Do we know if her cat's feeding schedule requires her to be at home once, twice a day?

Do we know if she had an office phone that her friend attempted to reach her on Saturday after the calls to her cell went unanswered?

Someone said you might know her. In fact I received 5 Emails that said that! :thinking:

I'm grabbing at anything to help trigger something in someones mind!

 

[Spellbound]

Seasoned WS'ers... Can you think of any other cases (similar in being an missing adult person) where they specifically asked the public to not do active searches, ground searches, etc.

I understand the need to keep the integrity of the investigation and wanting to preserve evidence... There are other ways to search. This is a part of this case that I don't comprehend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

yes, it often occurs. A recent case here was a young man in Alaska --- people went out searching after being asked to not do so ---- and got themselves lost. :gaah:. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...d-Grunwald-16-Anchorage-13-Nov-2016-*Arrests*

When LE says to not go out on your own, they generally have a good reason that we may not know about. People should still be observant, though, and report anything that seems out of kilter.

 

[SherlockJ]

I also think a little too much emphasis is being placed on the visits between Danielle and her friend being "every week". Yes to frequency, but it's not literally every week, thus the discrepancy between when bags are already packed and when they aren't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Got it! Interesting! So you think when she has plans to go there, she packs a bag and when the decision is made the same day, she likely has not. That makes sense. We probably all do that. And that's helpful since it could mean it was a last minute decision--which brings us to WHY!

 

[Spellbound]

"I have been able to get off early, let me swing home real quick, pack a bag, I'll meet you there."

I'd like confirmation that this was, indeed, the phrasing of Danielle's text to her friend, but in the meantime, "I'll meet you there" doesn't sound like DS was necessarily going to the friend's house to cook dinner. Sounds to me like they might have been planning to "meet" somewhere (presumably for drinks and/or dinner). Maybe this is what Mrs. Stislicki was suggesting when she called seeing the friend a "meeting". "Meet you WHERE"? I think most of us have latched on to the notion that Danielle was going to her friend's home to cook dinner, but maybe that wasn't the exact plan for the evening. :thinking:

I caught that phrase, too and wondered where they planned to meet. If it was out somewhere, the friend may have just assumed Danielle decided not to go and was not worried until she still could not contact her the next day.

 

[OldSteve]

This is correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So glad to see you back here!

 

[gam]

yes, it often occurs. A recent case here was a young man in Alaska --- people went out searching after being asked to not do so ---- and got themselves lost. :gaah:. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...d-Grunwald-16-Anchorage-13-Nov-2016-*Arrests*

When LE says to not go out on your own, they generally have a good reason that we may not know about. People should still be observant, though, and report anything that seems out of kilter.

I'm just using your post to add on, not directed at you, but ones asking.

Michigan is a big state, with lots of woods and a city near Danielle that has lots of abandon buildings. Without knowing where to start looking it's way to much, costly, requires lots of manpower and as spellbound noted in her example it can be dangerous having others look.

 

[Holocene]

Okay double checked on the phrasing of that last text. It stems from this post in which the poster repeats the statement used by Danielle's mom, "I think the last text message was confirmation to her friend that yes, I have been able to get off early..."

So not an exact quote from Danielle's phone. Paraphrasing from her mom during the press conference upon answering a journalist's question.

 

[SherlockJ]

It's been disclosed by a confirmed insider that DS did not always pack a bag because it wasn't an "every weekend" event. The Friday which she disappeared was one of those times she was "bagless". This is great to know because it means there is a good chance it was a late in the day decision. How interesting since she had to work in the morning and the friend had a goofy schedule too! So why THIS Friday since it wasn't even an every Friday event.
Now consider this. The plans are made late in the day and she conveys to a friend she is on the way over (a quick stop 1st). WHY WHY WHY didn't the friend worry enough to call the police. I agree with the theory she didn't expect "all of this" and hindsight is 20-20. But forget a disappearance. What do we do when this happens. We assume a car accident. Why wasn't she concerned about a car accident?!?!??!

 

[Kadie]

"I have been able to get off early, let me swing home real quick, pack a bag, I'll meet you there."

I'd like confirmation that this was, indeed, the phrasing of Danielle's text to her friend, but in the meantime, "I'll meet you there" doesn't sound like DS was necessarily going to the friend's house to cook dinner. Sounds to me like they might have been planning to "meet" somewhere (presumably for drinks and/or dinner). Maybe this is what Mrs. Stislicki was suggesting when she called seeing the friend a "meeting". "Meet you WHERE"? I think most of us have latched on to the notion that Danielle was going to her friend's home to cook dinner, but maybe that wasn't the exact plan for the evening. :thinking:

Yes. These are my thoughts as well..maybe they were meeting for happy hour.

 

[missgulfsouth]

When LE says to not go out on your own, they generally have a good reason that we may not know about.

They have a good reason not to allow searches? Sorry, I gotta disagree. They had no idea what happened to Jessica Heeringa, initial composite sketches of a mysterious POI were way off base. Her killer was arrested for another case, Jessica was tied to him as an afterthought. Her body has still never been found.

In Sherri Papini's case, LE was just as shocked as everyone else when she turned up, so they had no idea, either.

TJ Allen's case is ongoing, so time will tell, but ground searches have been suspended, with the public strongly discouraged against searching.

The single most important thing the public can do is SEARCH THEIR PROPERTY.
Morgan Harrington was found along the perimeter of a farmer's field, had been there for a long time. Jennifer Huston was found in a grove of trees on private property.

 

[Holocene]

I really do wish we could leave Danielle's friend alone. I understand the necessity of sleuthing everything, but LE has left her alone. Asking why she didn't go seek out Danielle Friday night won't change anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[InsightfulSage]

I can, but this way I know where I have read up to.

I take screenshots on my phone to remember my spot! [emoji12]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk