Found Deceased MI - Venus Stewart, 32, Colon, 28 April 2010 - # 4 *D. Stewart guilty*

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
It doesn't matter. This is a missing persons case which might be an abduction. Until they can prove that she was actually abducted and/or murdered, they won't be able to charge or arrest anyone no matter how suspicious everything seems.
 
It's like with Scott Peterson...they had nothing but circumstantial evidence and the moment they found her body, he was arrested and charged. That could happen here, but also, he could be charged without a body, if enough physical evidence comes back.
 
thesaint said:
Then once they gathered their evidence (the receipt in the truck etc), place him under arrest and then they are able to question him (with his attorney present).
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't understand the correlation of your post to mine that you quoted, or what you mean.
 
cluciano63 said:
It's like with Scott Peterson...they had nothing but circumstantial evidence and the moment they found her body, he was arrested and charged. That could happen here, but also, he could be charged without a body, if enough physical evidence comes back.
Click to expand...

Good point, tho I think in the Scott Peterson case the police didn't even consider Peterson a suspect for the first month and Peterson wasn't even lawyered up.

And I think when they did begin to investigate Peterson they were treating it as a homicide investigation with crazy Peterson as the chief suspect.
 
Natal said:
If it is parked somewhere else in a criminal case and there are multiple parties who could have had it, it would have to be proven that you had possession of it. Mere proximity doesn't make you in possesion. In your example, if it can be shown that you had possession the day before it would be reasonable to assume that you still had possession.

In this case possession may end up being in dispute. If he was to say that it wasn't in his possession, but someone else says it was and they are both involved in the case, it would be one persons word against the other in a conflict of interest situation. Under those circumstances LE would have to prove that he did in fact have it independently. If they don't, and the vehicle ends up being the only means of placing him at the scene, then in court the defence could simply claim that he wasn't in posession and that some unknown party was. If the prosecution can't prove that is not true then their case will dissappear.

So, whether you like it or not, if they are going to make a case against DS they are going to have to do that.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, Natal, but we're not trying a case here. There is no case to try. Nobody's even been arrested yet. A trial is way, way off in the future - if it ever does indeed happen.

We're just trying to figure out what happened from a practical, real life standpoint.
 
BeanE said:
I'm sorry, I don't understand the correlation of your post to mine that you quoted, or what you mean.
Click to expand...

Just that once an individual is placed under arrest, they can have a lawyer present and they can refuse to answer questions, but they can't stop the police from asking them questions (in an interrogation room, most likely), presenting pieces of evidence (maybe play the Wal-Mart tape for the husband and see if there's a flicker of recognition when he sees whomever it is buying the tarp etc) and the police can observe their response (non-verbal, unless the person answers the questions). that's all.
 
thesaint said:
Also, in order to have print evidence processed you need Doug's prints to compare them to. Which you have to place him under arrest to compel him to provide.
Click to expand...

No. Just no. LE executed a search warrant to obtain Doug's DNA and prints. Done. No arrest. No arrest necessary.

Please take advantage of pufnstuf's excellent timeline and case notes on the case, so you can become familiar with it. You'll find it a very interesting case.
 
What I do not get is the lack of cooperation. The surest way to get the bullseye off your back is to help out. Sure he has a right to lawyer up, but why would he need to? The police start at the inner circle and work their way out-how can DS be eliminated fully if he doesnt give LE the chance to do so??

Hmmm.
 
thesaint said:
I thought they had the receipt and the tarp package, the rest is circumstantial. Although they must have the Wal-Mart tape by now. And who knows what else they might have to spring on the husband in an interrogation and see if it shakes anything loose that helps them find Venus. Again, if this is being treated as a missing person case, then any delay works against finding the missing person alive. If the police somehow believe that the husband is involved in her disappearance and they have some corroborating evidence, make an arrest and question him about his wife's disappearance.

Now, if this is being treated as a homicide, I agree that, absent some concern that Doug is either going to flee or kill again, the police can take their time and wait for all the evidence to come back before making an arrest.
Click to expand...

The police do not have to arrest someone to question them. They have tried to question him. He refuses to cooperate, per his attorney's advice.

If they arrested him, he would not answer questions. He would still refuse, per his attorney's advice.

I'm not sure what country you live in, but here in the U.S., it is common and allowed by law for a person to refuse to answer questions. There's a whole set of laws around it by which the police must comply.
 
Natal said:
It doesn't matter. This is a missing persons case which might be an abduction. Until they can prove that she was actually abducted and/or murdered, they won't be able to charge or arrest anyone no matter how suspicious everything seems.
Click to expand...

True. They must have probable cause.
 
believe09 said:
What I do not get is the lack of cooperation. The surest way to get the bullseye off your back is to help out. Sure he has a right to lawyer up, but why would he need to? The police start at the inner circle and work their way out-how can DS be eliminated fully if he doesnt give LE the chance to do so??

Hmmm.
Click to expand...



Well, they were estranged and living apart. So this isn't like a loving husband and family man suddenly clamming up.

He could find his statements taken out of context, twisted and, as they say in the miranda rights, "used against him in a court of law".

His lawyer would be negligent to allow Doug to say anything to the police, even if Doug is innocent. Too much of a circumstantial situation that you don't want to open your mouth and say something the wrong way and have it used against you later.
 
BeanE said:
The police do not have to arrest someone to question them. They have tried to question him. He refuses to cooperate, per his attorney's advice.

If they arrested him, he would not answer questions. He would still refuse, per his attorney's advice.

I'm not sure what country you live in, but here in the U.S., it is common and allowed by law for a person to refuse to answer questions. There's a whole set of laws around it by which the police must comply.
Click to expand...

So they brought him down to the police station and interrogated him? Did not know that. Didn't catch that in the very useful time line. Thanks.
 
BeanE said:
True. They must have probable cause.
Click to expand...

Which, according to the Newport News Circuit Court, they have--or else they'd not have been able to get the search warrants.

Search warrants are based on the PROBABLE CAUSE affidavit. If there had not been probable cause, the judge(s) would not have signed the search warrants.
 
thesaint said:
Just that once an individual is placed under arrest, they can have a lawyer present and they can refuse to answer questions, but they can't stop the police from asking them questions (in an interrogation room, most likely), presenting pieces of evidence (maybe play the Wal-Mart tape for the husband and see if there's a flicker of recognition when he sees whomever it is buying the tarp etc) and the police can observe their response (non-verbal, unless the person answers the questions). that's all.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're not from the U.S. That's not how it works here.
 
pufnstuf said:
Which, according to the Newport News Circuit Court, they have--or else they'd not have been able to get the search warrants.

Search warrants are based on the PROBABLE CAUSE affidavit. If there had not been probable cause, the judge(s) would not have signed the search warrants.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was referring to probable cause for an arrest.
 
thesaint said:
Well, they were estranged and living apart. So this isn't like a loving husband and family man suddenly clamming up.

He could find his statements taken out of context, twisted and, as they say in the miranda rights, "used against him in a court of law".

His lawyer would be negligent to allow Doug to say anything to the police, even if Doug is innocent. Too much of a circumstantial situation that you don't want to open your mouth and say something the wrong way and have it used against you later.
Click to expand...

Yet he calls up the media and gives them statements. Seems he's more worried about what the public thinks about him than finding his missing wife. Wonder why that is?
 
BeanE said:
Sorry, I was referring to probable cause for an arrest.
Click to expand...

Yes... I understand.

Just pointing out that probable cause exists, and that's how MSP got the warrants.

:)
 
BeanE said:
No, they requested an interview. He refused. That's how it works here in good ol' US of A.
Click to expand...

Ah, ok. But once someone is under arrest, there's no saying "nah, I'm not even going to listen to your questions", correct?

That is, once under arrest, the police can conduct an interrogation--they can make you sit and listen to their questions. You can have a lawyer present and you can refuse to answer any questions, but you can't deny the police the opportunity to sit you in a room and sit across from you and ask questions, is that true?
 
thesaint said:
So they brought him down to the police station and interrogated him? Did not know that. Didn't catch that in the very useful time line. Thanks.
Click to expand...

MSP investigators served a search warrant on the person of Douglas Stewart, and took fingerprints, palm prints, and buccal swabs. They also searched his apartment and the two vehicles.

Once the warrants are signed by judges, his cooperation isn't a choice, as far as investigators gathering evidence within the scope of the warrants. He can agree to provide the prints and swabs.

Douglas Stewart is refusing to answer questions from investigators, and has referred all contact with him to be made through his attorney. It doesn't matter if it's now or right up to and through the trial. He never has to open his mouth (except to provide buccal swabs) if he doesn't want to. He has the right not to incriminate himself--the fifth amendment. Investigators realize this, so they're using the warrants to let the evidence speak, since Doug won't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 170 more.
Total: 3,610 (members: 171, guests: 3,439)

Online statistics

Members online
171
Guests online
3,439
Total visitors
3,610
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,164
Messages
17,964,533
Members
228,713
Latest member
Lover305
Back
Top