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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
PickieChickie said:
One theory I have is that while Venus's father was asleep, someone (perhaps Doug) telephoned Venus to tell her the truck was outside, that it had been delivered so she would have a vehicle.

Venus's father was asleep and does not know for certain, but has merely speculated, that Venus walked to the mailbox to mail a letter.
Click to expand...

It was a bit more than just wild speculation though. Venus' mother said Venus had told her earlier she was going to mail a letter.
 
Natal said:
We don't know who these people are, or if there are only two.

Since Monday was a work day and he has a job, the most likely alibi would be that he was at work that day.

If he wasn't at work that day I think he has a problem since any alibi under those circumstances would be a lot softer. Besides from that, he would also need to explain WHY he wasn't at work that day, if that was the case.

Based on how LE was responding initially about the alibi I would guess that there was at least some "arms length" component about it, so IMO it probably was the former rather than the latter. But until/if any info about it is released we can't be sure what exactly it was.

For all we know the alibi may have placed him in the great lakes area on the weekend.
Click to expand...

You're right. We know nothing whatever about what DS alibi is.
 
pufnstuf said:
Respectfully snipped...

I'll be glad to.
Click to expand...

Thank you so much, Puf! :blowkiss:


pufnstuf said:
“Part of his alibi is he was in Virginia,” said Lt. Risko, “but that's not to say, don't know how the receipt got in his vehicle.”
Click to expand...

Finally! Some good, credible info about DS's alibi. Part of it is he was in Virginia.

Now, does that mean per his alibi he was in Virginia only part of the time that needs to be accounted for?
 
thesaint said:
Once the police arrest anyone, the police can ask questions. The individual under arrest has the right not to answer and the right to have an attorney present during the questioning i.e., "miranda rights"

"The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him."

The standard to arrest someone is pretty low. People are arrested and interrogated every day with far less to implicate than what the police appear to have against this husband. I'm wondering why they have yet to arrest their sole person of interest--in a missing person case, where time is against the police. Like I said, arrest him, book him, take prints and all the rest of the process, sit him in an interrogation room and make it all very real for him. Sure, his lawyer will be there and most likely he doesn't answer any questions. But that doesn't mean they can't make him sit there and listen to their questions and watch his demeanor etc. Who knows, maybe the husband gets cocky and decides to respond to some of their questions. Or maybe the realness of being arrested and questioned in a police station causes him to break down and spill everything.
Click to expand...

Okay, but back to the point I was really responding to - LE did try to question DS right at the beginning, and he refused via his attorney.
 
PickieChickie said:
One theory I have is that while Venus's father was asleep, someone (perhaps Doug) telephoned Venus to tell her the truck was outside, that it had been delivered so she would have a vehicle.

Venus's father was asleep and does not know for certain, but has merely speculated, that Venus walked to the mailbox to mail a letter.
Click to expand...

This is a good line of thinking to pursue. I was trying to come up with scenarios in which Doug somehow induced Venus to walk out to the mailbox (alone) that morning. And it seems ludicrous that he could get her to do that.

All I could come up with is that he requested that she mail something either to him or on his behalf (perhaps something related to their divorce) and he knows based on her history that she'd do it in a certain time-frame. It sounds like the parents lived in a somewhat rural area, where the mail carriers drive their routes and stop by at about the same time every day.

But, again, he'd have no way of knowing for certain that she'd walk out to the mailbox alone at that time--maybe one of her parents mails the items for her, maybe she mails it the night before. Maybe she drives to the local post office and sends it priority.

And it just seems like too much of a stretch that Doug got her to go out there to mail something within a time-frame to facilitate her abduction.

However, if the inducement were the truck (the bait in his trap)...
But wouldn't she have mentioned to her parents that her truck was on its way to her?

And if someone called her that morning, the police would have the phone records and be readily able to trace the number. Perhaps they do and are keeping that bit of evidence to themselves.

Perhaps the arrangements were made via email and she was told that the truck would be there between 7 and 8 am (or whenever) and to be watching out the window for it?
 
BeanE said:
Okay, but back to the point I was really responding to - LE did try to question DS right at the beginning, and he refused via his attorney.
Click to expand...

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).
 
A conundrum:

Any theory that is based on Doug somehow arranging ahead of time for Venus to emerge from the house alone at that hour is dependent on Doug most likely having left a phone record or other paper trail.

Any theory based on the kidnapper(s) just waiting for Venus to randomly emerge alone from the home seems to rely too much on random and fortuitous-for-the-kidnappers events.
 
thesaint said:
This is a good line of thinking to pursue. I was trying to come up with scenarios in which Doug somehow induced Venus to walk out to the mailbox (alone) that morning. And it seems ludicrous that he could get her to do that.

All I could come up with is that he requested that she mail something either to him or on his behalf (perhaps something related to their divorce) and he knows based on her history that she'd do it in a certain time-frame. It sounds like the parents lived in a somewhat rural area, where the mail carriers drive their routes and stop by at about the same time every day.

But, again, he'd have no way of knowing for certain that she'd walk out to the mailbox alone at that time--maybe one of her parents mails the items for her, maybe she mails it the night before. Maybe she drives to the local post office and sends it priority.

And it just seems like too much of a stretch that Doug got her to go out there to mail something within a time-frame to facilitate her abduction.

However, if the inducement were the truck (the bait in his trap)...
But wouldn't she have mentioned to her parents that her truck was on its way to her?

And if someone called her that morning, the police would have the phone records and be readily able to trace the number. Perhaps they do and are keeping that bit of evidence to themselves.

Perhaps the arrangements were made via email and she was told that the truck would be there between 7 and 8 am (or whenever) and to be watching out the window for it?
Click to expand...

Or maybe she just went out to mail a letter like she told her mom she was going to.

Occam's Razor etc.
 
So just to review, DS is making statements to the media (for example the one where he says it is terrible and he is getting worried) but he will not cooperate with police.

And he has moved to Michigan. I am assuming he is going to be looking for contact with his children-that should be interesting.
 
thesaint said:
A conundrum:

Any theory that is based on Doug somehow arranging ahead of time for Venus to emerge from the house alone at that hour is dependent on Doug most likely having left a phone record or other paper trail.

Any theory based on the kidnapper(s) just waiting for Venus to randomly emerge alone from the home seems to rely too much on random and fortuitous-for-the-kidnappers events.
Click to expand...

BeanE said:
Or maybe she just went out to mail a letter like she told her mom she was going to.

Occam's Razor etc.
Click to expand...

Wellll, perhaps there was something she was mailing that had to be picked up that day. For example, her insurance bill, a credit card payment, the mortgage pmt on her house, a letter of explanation to DS....and perhaps the person waiting for her knew that she would be mailing a letter that morning. I mean, her mother knew right?

Someone knew her father and children would be in the house and that her mother would be gone from the house and that her father could sleep through a certain amount of ruckus ie a door closing while someone is leaving the house to mail a letter. ;)
 
pufnstuf said:
Since LE says that he was in possession of the vehicles, I'll take their word on it. When I go to Piggly Wiggly, I may not be inside the vehicle and it may not be on my property, but I'm still in possession of it.

If I park my truck in my neighbor's driveway, it doesn't become their vehicle. I'm still in possession of it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
pufnstuf said:
Originally Posted by View Post
“Part of his alibi is he was in Virginia,” said Lt. Risko, “but that's not to say, don't know how the receipt got in his vehicle.”

BeanE said:
Thank you so much, Puf! :blowkiss:




Finally! Some good, credible info about DS's alibi. Part of it is he was in Virginia.

Now, does that mean per his alibi he was in Virginia only part of the time that needs to be accounted for?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The statements by the police in this case (esp this Lt Risko) are frustratingly delphic.
 
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...

Which would be excessively stupid when the blood evidence, tire evidence, and print evidence hasn't come back yet.
 
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...

Care to cite case law on that?
 
believe09 said:
Wellll, perhaps there was something she was mailing that had to be picked up that day. For example, her insurance bill, a credit card payment, the mortgage pmt on her house, a letter of explanation to DS....and perhaps the person waiting for her knew that she would be mailing a letter that morning. I mean, her mother knew right?

Someone knew her father and children would be in the house and that her mother would be gone from the house and that her father could sleep through a certain amount of ruckus ie a door closing while someone is leaving the house to mail a letter. ;)
Click to expand...

the main thing I wonder about is timing: from all the reports, someone couldn't just loiter in that neighborhood all day and night--woodpile cover or not--and not be noticed. How long were the kidnappers willing to hang around waiting for her to come out of the house alone? Or, back to the other line of thinking, did they somehow have some way of knowing that she'd emerge alone from the home in that time-frame?
 
pufnstuf said:
Which would be excessively stupid when the blood evidence, tire evidence, and print evidence hasn't come back yet.
Click to expand...

Why? It happens all the time. Happens in almost every case.The police make an arrest and conduct an interrogation long before they have all the evidence processed. What would be stupid, esp in a missing person case, is not arresting and interrogating your chief suspect because you have to wait 6 weeks for the lab to process the evidence.

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.
 
thesaint said:
Why? It happens all the time. Happens in almost every case.The police make an arrest and conduct an interrogation long before they have all the evidence processed. What would be stupid, esp in a missing person case, is not arresting and interrogating your chief suspect because you have to wait 6 weeks for the lab to process the evidence.

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...

You obviously aren't very well acquainted with this case. Please take some time to peruse the timeline and documents on page one of this thread.

Doug's palm prints and fingerprints were taken through a search warrant executed on him over a week ago.

ETA: Search Warrant for the Person of Douglas Stewart - PDF
 
thesaint said:
Why? It happens all the time. Happens in almost every case.The police make an arrest and conduct an interrogation long before they have all the evidence processed. What would be stupid, esp in a missing person case, is not arresting and interrogating your chief suspect because you have to wait 6 weeks for the lab to process the evidence.

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...

Arresting for what is the question? He is a person of interest. He is not making himself available for interviews and he is not cooperating with LE. That is his right as a citizen. Until they have sufficient proof he committed a crime or even any proof he committed a crime, why would they pick him up?

What case like this have they arrested someone with nothing in hand but suspicion?:waitasec:
 
believe09 said:
Arresting for what is the question? He is a person of interest. He is not making himself available for interviews and he is not cooperating with LE. That is his right as a citizen. Until they have sufficient proof he committed a crime or even any proof he committed a crime, why would they pick him up?

What case like this have they arrested someone with nothing in hand but suspicion?:waitasec:
Click to expand...


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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 196 more.
Total: 4,084 (members: 197, guests: 3,887)

Online statistics

Members online
197
Guests online
3,887
Total visitors
4,084
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,832
Messages
17,959,772
Members
228,621
Latest member
Greer∆
Back
Top