MI DANIELLE STISLICKI: Missing from Farmington Hills, MI - 2 Dec 2016 - Age 28 *ARREST*

Farmington Hills police are searching for a missing 28-year-old woman who was last seen Friday in Southfield.

Danielle Stislicki's vehicle was left at her home in the area of Halsted and Grand River in Farmington Hills, even though she was last seen in Southfield.

Police seek missing 28-year-old Farmington Hills woman

Farmington Hills police are searching for a missing 28-year-old woman who was last seen Friday in Southfield.

www.clickondetroit.com

MEDIA

 

[GrandmaBear]

Ok i am understanding now that the tip was regarding the location of the Fitbit and Tim Hortons which meant they could retrieve a video from Tim Hortons. That video showed him using Danielle's phone to call a cab. However, this was from the other crime he was charged with i think, for which he did a plea deal. From my memory, the crimes happened fairly close together. The polygrapher should have submitted the tip anonymously, then it would have been legit right, as nobody would have known the source?

This evidence is very important so i think it should be allowed, despite the source now being known. I don't see that the source makes any difference. They have the evidence now and as it is regarding a murder, it should be allowed. Why were the D polygraphing him anyway, is that normal?

ETA i bet they were polygraphing him because it was a requirement of the plea deal. Also some polygraph employees are exempt from the rules, i just read. Federal employees, for instance.

The polygrapher was ex FBI, apparently.

I believe it was said to be a tip, maybe even an anonymous one.

I don't know, it's a tough one.

And yeah, I thought the Fitbit and Horton thing came from it or they wouldn't have known to do that or look there.

I mean the polygrapher is not his attys but imagine if you confessed to your own attys and then he called the State side or LE or had a buddy there and said hey, I have representing this guy as I know he's guilty and I can't stand it, so here's some info. That's absolutely WRONG by our rules and laws, and it's confidential. I'm not as sure on the polygraph thing of course but they were hired by the D.

They did find evidence that's clear but they did not find it on their own and likely would not have.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with some of our laws and rules but they were broken here it seems.

I don't like it but it seems a clear violation from following the polygrapher thing throughout... All know I generally do not defend the D or like them in most cases but just like a CLEAR Miranda violation in some cases, it is what the rules are. I' d like more definition on the rules re this though.

It seems you have refreshed a bit and I'm not going to have the time but what other crime? I forget? I have followed throughout, it's just been a lot of years and not fresh on all.

Yeah I'm sure most highly regarded polygraphers have worked for the P or the feds etc. at some point, good chance of it.

That's interesting that some polygraph employees are exampt from the rules. Sounds like you've been researching a bit and interested in hearing it. But he was ex FBI and hired by the D no?

And that does sound right, that he was exFBI.

 

[Tresir]

I believe it was said to be a tip, maybe even an anonymous one.

I don't know, it's a tough one.

And yeah, I thought the Fitbit and Horton thing came from it or they wouldn't have known to do that or look there.

I mean the polygrapher is not his attys but imagine if you confessed to your own attys and then he called the State side or LE or had a buddy there and said hey, I have representing this guy as I know he's guilty and I can't stand it, so here's some info. That's absolutely WRONG by our rules and laws, and it's confidential. I'm not as sure on the polygraph thing of course but they were hired by the D.

They did find evidence that's clear but they did not find it on their own and likely would not have.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with some of our laws and rules but they were broken here it seems.

I don't like it but it seems a clear violation from following the polygrapher thing throughout... All know I generally do not defend the D or like them in most cases but just like a CLEAR Miranda violation in some cases, it is what the rules are. I' d like more definition on the rules re this though.

It seems you have refreshed a bit and I'm not going to have the time but what other crime? I forget? I have followed throughout, it's just been a lot of years and not fresh on all.

Yeah I'm sure most highly regarded polygraphers have worked for the P or the feds etc. at some point, good chance of it.

That's interesting that some polygraph employees are exampt from the rules. Sounds like you've been researching a bit and interested in hearing it. But he was ex FBI and hired by the D no?

And that does sound right, that he was exFBI.

The crime to which he pled guilty and is now serving 35 years - he knocked a jogger over and was sexually assaulting her/attempted rape. That crime was a few weeks before Danielle was last seen giving him a lift from work. I am thinking that poly was part of his deal.

Yes the polygrapher is ex FBI at the time of the poly though. ( I think.)

If this was to do with his plea deal, which, as the D is involved, i would think it is, then i don't believe there would even be a Miranda necessarily. Presumably he was already charged with the other crime at this point. Sorry but my thoughts are a little complicated but that is the only reason i could see the D being involved in hiring a polygrapher.

 

[GrandmaBear]

IMO it's not unlike the confessions by RA to the mental health doctor in the Delphi trial being used against him. It is what it is. Do they receive a Miranda warning in instances like these? Eg. The daily meetings with a doctor in the RA case and the polygraphy test(s) in this case? They are both voluntary presumably.

I was thinking of that, Delphi and Wala, as I wrote my first response just now and then saw this post. I didn't mention it to not muddy that response. I did mention Miranda but not in direct connection to what happened here, just that is another type of clear violation in cases where it is CLEAR it should have been given and was not.

It's different, was it not the D who arranged this polygraph? The D did not arrange Wala.

And the D, any D should have advised their client that anything he says to ANYONE other than them is not necessarily confidential. It's easy for most people to think medical or mental health records would be but it is not always the case. The other side has a right to discovery and if you keep trying to use such but try to forbid access well... That's another rabbit hole.

I mean the P perhaps could have subpoenaed here and did a deposition and found out the very same info, not sure? But it isn't how it was obtained.

Unfortunately there's no one here to provide answers and this is not a case I am seeing covered with even any talking heads or LE or atty experts out there on News which doesn't do sh*t on cases anyhow or just a select few and then it's questionable.

If I ever become a paid member of any channel, it is going to be someone like Scott where there you can then ask about some of these things on various cases and he knows his stuff.

I also think sadly the defendant here and RA in Delphi may well have a possible civil suit against the respective polygrapher and doctor in each case. Wala was online talking the case. I don't know the confidentiality rules here but again the D hired the polygrapher if I recall it correctly?

I'm not coffeed yet. I do think I got seven hours of sleep, broken towards the end but that's more than I ever get and very needed.

And it is confusing as I'd think this would perhaps have been discoverable but you know you can't have discovery until LE can charge and it goes to the prosecutor...

 

[Tresir]

The info he voluntarly gave at the poly is how LE were able to get the video from Tim Hortons showing him using and then disposing of Danielle's phone in a bin inside Tim Horton's and finding the other stuff he discarded outside.

 

[Tresir]

I was thinking of that, Delphi and Wala, as I wrote my first response just now and then saw this post. I didn't mention it to not muddy that response. I did mention Miranda but not in direct connection to what happened here, just that is another type of clear violation in cases where it is CLEAR it should have been given and was not.

It's different, was it not the D who arranged this polygraph? The D did not arrange Wala.

And the D, any D should have advised their client that anything he says to ANYONE other than them is not necessarily confidential. It's easy for most people to think medical or mental health records would be but it is not always the case. The other side has a right to discovery and if you keep trying to use such but try to forbid access well... That's another rabbit hole.

I mean the P perhaps could have subpoenaed here and did a deposition and found out the very same info, not sure? But it isn't how it was obtained.

Unfortunately there's no one here to provide answers and this is not a case I am seeing covered with even any talking heads or LE or atty experts out there on News which doesn't do sh*t on cases anyhow or just a select few and then it's questionable.

If I ever become a paid member of any channel, it is going to be someone like Scott where there you can then ask about some of these things on various cases and he knows his stuff.

I also think sadly the defendant here and RA in Delphi may well have a possible civil suit against the respective polygrapher and doctor in each case. Wala was online talking the case. I don't know the confidentiality rules here but again the D hired the polygrapher if I recall it correctly?

I'm not coffeed yet. I do think I got seven hours of sleep, broken towards the end but that's more than I ever get and very needed.

And it is confusing as I'd think this would perhaps have been discoverable but you know you can't have discovery until LE can charge and it goes to the prosecutor...

Wala was neutral - she was employed by the prison for MH purposes. Similar to the polygrapher but presumably he was paid for by either the P or the D if it was part of a plea deal. Didn't Murdaugh have to have a poly when he did his financial deal? Maybe it is normal in plea deals to make sure it is not a false confession.

 

[GrandmaBear]

The crime to which he pled guilty and is now serving 35 years - he knocked a jogger over and was sexually assaulting her/attempted rape. This was a few weeks before Danielle was last seen giving him a lift from work. I am thinking that poly was part of his deal.

Man it's been some time. Rings the bell now but forgot about that. I don't know if a poly is ever made part of a deal, don't think I've ever seen it.

I was under the understanding the D contracted for one, and probably hoped it would show innocence and be a bargaining chip but it showed the opposite. I'm probably off and would have to review the case. Not on my list lol right now as I can't fit such in, as it is I am probably going to be canceling an appt. today for a second time now. Flat out wiped. Can't imagine doing a deep dive anytime soon in my life. Until and if somehow, cna't imagine it, this pace ever changes. Next weeks and month and half are going to be even harder.

I appreciate that you do have the time I used to to go looking and I count on what you bring. I used to do the same. I needed the distraction badly and had the time.

I am up on the more recent things here re the polygraph but they've happened over months too. All I know is I concluded it WAS wrong and when I can't recall all, all I know is I come to my conclusions for good reasons even if I can't remember those, I generally remember my conclusions. Meaning too if I've decided someone guilty, I have reasons and real ones that I come to such a leaning even if I can't recall what they all were, I always know that.

I honestly think the intent here was to see justice resulted when LE is often hamstrung by rules. And it isn't LE that sought this, but the polygrapher who offered it or so it seems...

You know way back in the day I worked for a couple of law firms in my 20s. Then 20 years in insurance where I saw a lot of law and police reports, cases, you name it. The one firm two attys did criminal defense and I saw a ton of records and you name it. Reports. Medical reports. Psych reports. You name it. And at times, it was a real itch because I've always been the type that wants things fair, justice, you name it. But fair too. And I saw things that I thought does the other side know THIS, does the judge know THAT... Even custody cases...

I was just office but you do NOT go share that stuff, even anonymously. And you sit and watch the ridiculous dance and red tape and ineffective counsel or judges and you name it.

I'm sure LE gets frustrated, prosecutors do, etc. Fed agents even. And it's gotten so much worse.

Okay, in a spot of possibly overly sidetracking so stopping.

It's all about defendant rights these days but the stupid red tape, ridiculous rules in some cases and you name it, has only made it worse.

But this was wrong by the rules from what I recall. And while I do NOT agree with all the rules, they were attempted to be skirted with it seeming like an anonymous tip and it wasn't, etc.

 

[Tresir]

Just posting the Murdaugh plea deal/poly controversy for comparison purposes.

Alex Murdaugh's lawyers say FBI agent's mention of Joran van der Sloot led to failed polygraph test

 

[Tresir]

Man it's been some time. Rings the bell now but forgot about that. I don't know if a poly is ever made part of a deal, don't think I've ever seen it.

I was under the understanding the D contracted for one, and probably hoped it would show innocence and be a bargaining chip but it showed the opposite. I'm probably off and would have to review the case. Not on my list lol right now as I can't fit such in, as it is I am probably going to be canceling an appt. today for a second time now. Flat out wiped. Can't imagine doing a deep dive anytime soon in my life. Until and if somehow, cna't imagine it, this pace ever changes. Next weeks and month and half are going to be even harder.

I appreciate that you do have the time I used to to go looking and I count on what you bring. I used to do the same. I needed the distraction badly and had the time.

I am up on the more recent things here re the polygraph but they've happened over months too. All I know is I concluded it WAS wrong and when I can't recall all, all I know is I come to my conclusions for good reasons even if I can't remember those, I generally remember my conclusions. Meaning too if I've decided someone guilty, I have reasons and real ones that I come to such a leaning even if I can't recall what they all were, I always know that.

I honestly think the intent here was to see justice resulted when LE is often hamstrung by rules. And it isn't LE that sought this, but the polygrapher who offered it or so it seems...

You know way back in the day I worked for a couple of law firms in my 20s. Then 20 years in insurance where I saw a lot of law and police reports, cases, you name it. The one firm two attys did criminal defense and I saw a ton of records and you name it. Reports. Medical reports. Psych reports. You name it. And at times, it was a real itch because I've always been the type that wants things fair, justice, you name it. But fair too. And I saw things that I thought does the other side know THIS, does the judge know THAT... Even custody cases...

I was just office but you do NOT go share that stuff, even anonymously. And you sit and watch the ridiculous dance and red tape and ineffective counsel or judges and you name it.

I'm sure LE gets frustrated, prosecutors do, etc. Fed agents even. And it's gotten so much worse.

Okay, in a spot of possibly overly sidetracking so stopping.

It's all about defendant rights these days but the stupid red tape, ridiculous rules in some cases and you name it, has only made it worse.

But this was wrong by the rules from what I recall. And while I do NOT agree with all the rules, they were attempted to be skirted with it seeming like an anonymous tip and it wasn't, etc.

If you think about it they probably ask " are there other crimes you have committed?" and they cannot lie so have to say yes I guess and then must confess to them as well. If they are minor crimes perhaps they include them in the plea deal. I don't know but this would be a good one to ask Scott about and ask him to cover it on his show, perhaps.

 

[Tresir]

Man it's been some time. Rings the bell now but forgot about that. I don't know if a poly is ever made part of a deal, don't think I've ever seen it.

I was under the understanding the D contracted for one, and probably hoped it would show innocence and be a bargaining chip but it showed the opposite. I'm probably off and would have to review the case. Not on my list lol right now as I can't fit such in, as it is I am probably going to be canceling an appt. today for a second time now. Flat out wiped. Can't imagine doing a deep dive anytime soon in my life. Until and if somehow, cna't imagine it, this pace ever changes. Next weeks and month and half are going to be even harder.

I appreciate that you do have the time I used to to go looking and I count on what you bring. I used to do the same. I needed the distraction badly and had the time.

I am up on the more recent things here re the polygraph but they've happened over months too. All I know is I concluded it WAS wrong and when I can't recall all, all I know is I come to my conclusions for good reasons even if I can't remember those, I generally remember my conclusions. Meaning too if I've decided someone guilty, I have reasons and real ones that I come to such a leaning even if I can't recall what they all were, I always know that.

I honestly think the intent here was to see justice resulted when LE is often hamstrung by rules. And it isn't LE that sought this, but the polygrapher who offered it or so it seems...

You know way back in the day I worked for a couple of law firms in my 20s. Then 20 years in insurance where I saw a lot of law and police reports, cases, you name it. The one firm two attys did criminal defense and I saw a ton of records and you name it. Reports. Medical reports. Psych reports. You name it. And at times, it was a real itch because I've always been the type that wants things fair, justice, you name it. But fair too. And I saw things that I thought does the other side know THIS, does the judge know THAT... Even custody cases...

I was just office but you do NOT go share that stuff, even anonymously. And you sit and watch the ridiculous dance and red tape and ineffective counsel or judges and you name it.

I'm sure LE gets frustrated, prosecutors do, etc. Fed agents even. And it's gotten so much worse.

Okay, in a spot of possibly overly sidetracking so stopping.

It's all about defendant rights these days but the stupid red tape, ridiculous rules in some cases and you name it, has only made it worse.

But this was wrong by the rules from what I recall. And while I do NOT agree with all the rules, they were attempted to be skirted with it seeming like an anonymous tip and it wasn't, etc.

Well it was anonymous, sort of. He asked for the cop to keep his name out of it and so the cop reported it as anonymous. That isn't at all unusual with police and their narks. And they get paid for good tips - or they used to. I don't know about these days but i think cops still have their narks.

You could have been a paid informant. It's quite lucrative but dangerous.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Just posting the Murdaugh plea deal/poly controversy for comparison purposes.

Alex Murdaugh's lawyers say FBI agent's mention of Joran van der Sloot led to failed polygraph test

yeah I am developing a headache, a big one. in that all is always debated. DNA is, ballistics are, polygraphs are and the thing with Vandersloot/Holloway affected Murdaught give me a break. Things have become so ridiculous and outrageous I can't even take it in any longer.

Put such things together though and Alex does have missing money... Put things together with other evidence. And he did fail it.

Defense these days are going all at it and with new tactics. There are actually conferences on this b.s., I've learned that in the last year or two. Note how in Kohberger they are trying to get all thrown out and a Frank's hearing. What does that remind one of? Of course Annie actually files legible readable things that aren't a million pages long. But it's still just bluster. I'm sure the failure sof B & R in Delphi got helped out being told to do the same when they failed their client totally.

Everything with Murdaugh fits his failed polygraph. And it has nothing to do with a case from Aruba.

I don't agree with a lot of the rules and sh*t going on these days.

No one could force Alex to take a polygraph either... Right? Nor the guy in this case,,,

 

[Guess Who]

Well it was anonymous, sort of. He asked for the cop to keep his name out of it and so the cop reported it as anonymous. That isn't at all unusual with police and their narks. And they get paid for good tips - or they used to. I don't know about these days but i think cops still have their narks.

Here we have a dedicated "tip line" where the individual calls and is guaranteed anonymity. Those tips are then given to LE by the tip line.

 

[Tresir]

Here we have a dedicated "tip line" where the individual calls and is guaranteed anonymity. Those tips are then given to LE by the tip line.

What do you mean "here"? In your state? Or in this case? Not sure if they even had that in this or the Iowa case. They only got 2k tips in the Iowa one and i don't know how many in this one. I am pretty sure they knew who their man was pretty quickly in this case.

It sure didnt work with RA - the opposite happened and it got buried. Still something weird about that.

 

[GrandmaBear]

If you think about it they probably ask " are there other crimes you have committed?" and they cannot lie so have to say yes I guess and then must confess to them as well. If they are minor crimes perhaps they include them in the plea deal. I don't know but this would be a good one to ask Scott about and ask him to cover it on his show, perhaps.

Should we join? Want to join with me?

I've through the years actually watched a ton about polygraphs and even looked into having one myself and daring the other person too. Then we have the Gannon Stauch case where his evil stepmom got online and tried to pay for a fake one and results (yep) and came back and bit her in the butt.

There are good ones and bad ones, it's like experts. There are bona fide experts and then junk paid whores for experts.

From what I found out back when, the questions are to be kind of gone over, no surprises and be yes or no questions. Very controlled as far as no surprises, etc. If I recall correctly. It's been some time ago but I looked into this a lot and even had emails back and forth with one.

And I know Dr. Phil can be controversial but he used to have the same one on always who I believe was the most experienced there was and I think retired F B I. And it was covered how they have to do things if responsible and know their sh*t.

I've always said you know, I'd take one any time in my life as I have nothing to hide. On the other hand since I don't if it came back with deception I 'd failed to trust them, I've never taken one but I sure would have liked some others to do so.

It isn't admissible to this day where ballistics, etc. are but argued that it's junk science, and I don't believe it is. But then people believe DNA is the golden standard and it is NOT.

Anyhow that's all general but back to this case, should this have been shared or not is the reason here.

I did go read the Murdaugh link and it's ridiculous to me. I wasn't going to and do remember it.

With Alex when one puts together all of the evidence and then adds this, yes he failed it and it had nothing to do with Vandersloot for God's sake.

Someone has to stop this train of stupidity in our system.

 

[Tresir]

yeah I am developing a headache, a big one. in that all is always debated. DNA is, ballistics are, polygraphs are and the thing with Vandersloot/Holloway affected Murdaught give me a break. Things have become so ridiculous and outrageous I can't even take it in any longer.

Put such things together though and Alex does have missing money... Put things together with other evidence. And he did fail it.

Defense these days are going all at it and with new tactics. There are actually conferences on this b.s., I've learned that in the last year or two. Note how in Kohberger they are trying to get all thrown out and a Frank's hearing. What does that remind one of? Of course Annie actually files legible readable things that aren't a million pages long. But it's still just bluster. I'm sure the failure sof B & R in Delphi got helped out being told to do the same when they failed their client totally.

Everything with Murdaugh fits his failed polygraph. And it has nothing to do with a case from Aruba.

I don't agree with a lot of the rules and sh*t going on these days.

No one could force Alex to take a polygraph either... Right? Nor the guy in this case,,,

It seems to me if the case is hopeless, then they try this sort of crazy stuff. Nothing to lose is there? Especially if it is a public defender. Like with RA and DB. With Kohberger i think his case is hopeless. Is he paying his defence?

 

[Tresir]

Should we join? Want to join with me?

I've through the years actually watched a ton about polygraphs and even looked into having one myself and daring the other person too. Then we have the Gannon Stauch case where his evil stepmom got online and tried to pay for a fake one and results (yep) and came back and bit her in the butt.

There are good ones and bad ones, it's like experts. There are bona fide experts and then junk paid whores for experts.

From what I found out back when, the questions are to be kind of gone over, no surprises and be yes or no questions. Very controlled as far as no surprises, etc. If I recall correctly. It's been some time ago but I looked into this a lot and even had emails back and forth with one.

And I know Dr. Phil can be controversial but he used to have the same one on always who I believe was the most experienced there was and I think retired F B I. And it was covered how they have to do things if responsible and know their sh*t.

I've always said you know, I'd take one any time in my life as I have nothing to hide. On the other hand since I don't if it came back with deception I 'd failed to trust them, I've never taken one but I sure would have liked some others to do so.

It isn't admissible to this day where ballistics, etc. are but argued that it's junk science, and I don't believe it is. But then people believe DNA is the golden standard and it is NOT.

Anyhow that's all general but back to this case, should this have been shared or not is the reason here.

I did go read the Murdaugh link and it's ridiculous to me. I wasn't going to and do remember it.

With Alex when one puts together all of the evidence and then adds this, yes he failed it and it had nothing to do with Vandersloot for God's sake.

Someone has to stop this train of stupidity in our system.

Appeal Court denied didnt they? I guess they can just get the phone data elsewhere to prove he used it to phone a cab from Hortons.

 

[Guess Who]

What do you mean "here"? In your state? Or in this case? Not sure if they even had that in this or the Iowa case. They only got 2k tips in the Iowa one and i don't know how many in this one. I am pretty sure they knew who their man was pretty quickly in this case.

It sure didnt work with RA - the opposite happened and it got buried. Still something weird about that.

Locally. Most are going to it though. Not sure of that area.

 

[Tresir]

Locally. Most are going to it though. Not sure of that area.

The polygrapher should have just called the tip in anonymously.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Appeal Court denied didnt they? I guess they can just get the phone data elsewhere to prove he used it to phone a cab from Hortons.

I don't know. Sorry. Not fresh on it. But I am fairly sure it tried to be played off or as anonymous. But it wasn't.

I'm not fresh but yes they could find the info elsewhere BUT only if they found it on their own, but not if someone they tried to act was anonymous pointed them in the right direction... Was that not how it was if I recall...? The evidence is excluded so there is a reason I'd say.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Well it was anonymous, sort of. He asked for the cop to keep his name out of it and so the cop reported it as anonymous. That isn't at all unusual with police and their narks. And they get paid for good tips - or they used to. I don't know about these days but i think cops still have their narks.

You could have been a paid informant. It's quite lucrative but dangerous.

Yes but he wasn't some average citizen. Calling in to random officer who answered the call. I'm pretty sure I recall most of this.

Yes true yet about sources and narks, just listen to some of the retired big time LE channels. This though was a polygrapher hired by the defense wasn't it? I haven't had a chance to totally read all here but it's not the same is all I'd say, IF I have it right. And don't get me wrong, I do NOT agree with all of the rules and laws. This though isn't the same as some street nark.

All know I hate siding with the D in most cases. And I'm not, but this is different.

Another one is Doerman, totallky different, but as far as not crossing the Is and dotting the Ts, and while I can totally understand the cops' emotion, not knowing what they would encounter, etc., not reading him his Miranda. They responded to a scene of three dead little boys, one maybe still alive if I recall fighting for life, wife injured and panicked, stepdaughter running for help, to a man who had just done all of that having a cigarette but they didn't know any of that as they had to play careful and approach. Totally different, and two very different things, but it does appear they did not do the Miranda thing properly. That judge has thrown some things out due to it. Totally different than the issues here and I don't agree with all of our rules but it does seem a clear violation of what the rules are.

Fortunately in that one, I believe there is SO much evidence, it shouldn't affect his conviction.

There's a balance or should be, we hear most these days playing the corrupt thing, wrongful convictions, etc. but LE is often also hamstrung and it's gotten worse and worse. They DO need to be able to do their job.

I'd like to know the rules on what this polygrapher could do or say. I do not believe he had a right to share this and pick the person he shared it with. Now my opinion of how that should be totally differs from the rules but it is the way it is. IF and that's a big IF, I have it right.

I also really need to be corrected or stand to be corrected if I am wrong, but if I recall, they both knew exactly who they both were and who they called and were talking to, etc. That's not an anonymous tip but it was attempted to be played off as that. Do I have it wrong? I could but don't think so.

It's another again different situation and scenario but in Soto for instance, she got a so called "Queen for a Day Rule". Meaning she could say whatever and they could not go find something based on what she told them, etc. so LONG as she told the TRUTH. I forget what they said but something like if you told us there was a gun or a bullet buried here, for instance, we could not go dig it up and use it based on what you told us if what you say today led us there. We'd have to learn of it some OTHER way for it to be used. Where we would have found it independently of you or your info provided.

Different scenario but some similarities and I'm guessing the evidence ditched was ditched because they were pointed there. And not from their own investigation. I'd have to go back and look but that is not going to happen today. But I think I have it right and again, all can correct me if wrong.

And again there are some laws and rules I don't agree with necessarily but they are the laws and rules. I don't agree with spousal privilege for instance. This will cause controversy but I'm not even sure if I agree with a defendant not having to take the stand. Everyone else has to. 'Other than like spouse which I think is ridiculous nowadays. Marriage isn't sacred to many any longer and some have seven, etc., I mean what about that makes it privileged. It isn't the dark ages. A spouse is not necessarily tighter than a child and some CHILDREN have to take the stand.

Stopping there.

Just saying by the rules we have, I think this was not appropriate and I hate to side that way. I don't know if that's how the Tim Horton and other stuff was found but I believe it probably was. They should have found it on their own. Now it's tainted.

 

[Tresir]

Yes but he wasn't some average citizen. Calling in to random officer who answered the call. I'm pretty sure I recall most of this.

Yes true yet about sources and narks, just listen to some of the retired big time LE channels. This though was a polygrapher hired by the defense wasn't it? I haven't had a chance to totally read all here but it's not the same is all I'd say, IF I have it right. And don't get me wrong, I do NOT agree with all of the rules and laws. This though isn't the same as some street nark.

All know I hate siding with the D in most cases. And I'm not, but this is different.

Another one is Doerman, totallky different, but as far as not crossing the Is and dotting the Ts, and while I can totally understand the cops' emotion, not knowing what they would encounter, etc., not reading him his Miranda. They responded to a scene of three dead little boys, one maybe still alive if I recall fighting for life, wife injured and panicked, stepdaughter running for help, to a man who had just done all of that having a cigarette but they didn't know any of that as they had to play careful and approach. Totally different, and two very different things, but it does appear they did not do the Miranda thing properly. That judge has thrown some things out due to it. Totally different than the issues here and I don't agree with all of our rules but it does seem a clear violation of what the rules are.

Fortunately in that one, I believe there is SO much evidence, it shouldn't affect his conviction.

There's a balance or should be, we hear most these days playing the corrupt thing, wrongful convictions, etc. but LE is often also hamstrung and it's gotten worse and worse. They DO need to be able to do their job.

I'd like to know the rules on what this polygrapher could do or say. I do not believe he had a right to share this and pick the person he shared it with. Now my opinion of how that should be totally differs from the rules but it is the way it is. IF and that's a big IF, I have it right.

I also really need to be corrected or stand to be corrected if I am wrong, but if I recall, they both knew exactly who they both were and who they called and were talking to, etc. That's not an anonymous tip but it was attempted to be played off as that. Do I have it wrong? I could but don't think so.

It's another again different situation and scenario but in Soto for instance, she got a so called "Queen for a Day Rule". Meaning she could say whatever and they could not go find something based on what she told them, etc. so LONG as she told the TRUTH. I forget what they said but something like if you told us there was a gun or a bullet buried here, for instance, we could not go dig it up and use it based on what you told us if what you say today led us there. We'd have to learn of it some OTHER way for it to be used. Where we would have found it independently of you or your info provided.

Different scenario but some similarities and I'm guessing the evidence ditched was ditched because they were pointed there. And not from their own investigation. I'd have to go back and look but that is not going to happen today. But I think I have it right and again, all can correct me if wrong.

And again there are some laws and rules I don't agree with necessarily but they are the laws and rules. I don't agree with spousal privilege for instance. This will cause controversy but I'm not even sure if I agree with a defendant not having to take the stand. Everyone else has to. 'Other than like spouse which I think is ridiculous nowadays. Marriage isn't sacred to many any longer and some have seven, etc., I mean what about that makes it privileged. It isn't the dark ages. A spouse is not necessarily tighter than a child and some CHILDREN have to take the stand.

Stopping there.

Just saying by the rules we have, I think this was not appropriate and I hate to side that way. I don't know if that's how the Tim Horton and other stuff was found but I believe it probably was. They should have found it on their own. Now it's tainted.

What if they also had his location from his own phone, for instance. That would be ok right? Also, what do you think of the right to keep silent and the right against self incrimination plus the right to not testify? Maybe they should all go?