MI MI - Venus Rose Stewart, 32, Colon, Abducted 28 April 2010 - #4

[PickieChickie]

Originally Posted by Natal

Again, you are assuming he had the truck. He may not have had it period.

What's your theory about the four door truck seen in the field by a neighbor, near and during the time where and when Venus was allegedly abducted, with the white man crouching behind it which left tire tracks which appear to be the same as the tire treads on Doug's four door truck's tires?

[mommame]

Originally Posted by Natal

Again, you are assuming he had the truck. He may not have had it period.

What are the chances the someone stole his truck and just happened to show up in the same neighborhood where VS was at on the same morning she was abducted? I mean the neighborhood was not on any main roads. Not likely someone who "stole" his truck would just happen to be in the area.

Slim to none I would guess. IF the tire tracks match...then he IS somehow involved period! Maybe it was not actually him there BUT he knew who was there. Whoever it was, if it wasn't him had to get the information, directions, address ect from someone and I bet VS didn't tell them!

ok, back to lurking and this is all JMO

[Natal]

It may be the same truck, but that still doesn't mean it was in his possession. LE will need to independently corroborate who exactly had the truck and when.

Suppose this goes to trial, and the prosecutor says "we found this reciept in the truck, and tire prints over there bla bla bla.". Then DS gets up and says "but I didn't have the truck". Then the prosecutor goes "ummmmm.....aaaaah.......".

You see, they need to prove who had possession of the truck.

[Natal]

Originally Posted by mommame

What are the chances the someone stole his truck and just happened to show up in the same neighborhood where VS was at on the same morning she was abducted? I mean the neighborhood was not on any main roads. Not likely someone who "stole" his truck would just happen to be in the area.

Slim to none I would guess. IF the tire tracks match...then he IS somehow involved period! Maybe it was not actually him there BUT he knew who was there. Whoever it was, if it wasn't him had to get the information, directions, address ect from someone and I bet VS didn't tell them!

ok, back to lurking and this is all JMO

What makes you think someone stole the truck?

[PickieChickie]

Originally Posted by Natal

It may be the same truck, but that still doesn't mean it was in his possession. LE will need to independently corroborate who exactly had the truck and when.

Suppose this goes to trial, and the prosecutor says "we found this reciept in the truck, and tire prints over there bla bla bla.". Then DS gets up and says "but I didn't have the truck". Then the prosecutor goes "ummmmm.....aaaaah.......".

You see, they need to prove who had possession of the truck.

This is when the prosecutor hopefully shows the video footage from Walmart showing Doug purchasing the hat, tarp, gloves and shovel and says, "Jury, please don't even think for one moment the defendant was planning on simply raking leaves or burying a dead hamster!"

IMPORTANT NOTE: The sales receipt will have the identification number of the employee who rang up the sale. I hope law enforcement has interviewed that employee and showed them a photo of Doug and his two friends who are providing his air tight alibi!

[Natal]

And what if he doesnt show up on the video? Because if he stands up and says he didnt have the truck that is exactly what will happen.

[Frank Black]

Originally Posted by PickieChickie

My comment: I'd be ticked if my husband was granted temporary custody of my children then moved far away to another state!

Absolutely. See, it isn't about the parents. It is about the kids. But she made the decision for the court and that is why she only got temporary custody and not full custody. The court doesn't want one parent or the other taking kids away from one parent and moving them far away so the parent can't see them.

Something didn't go Venus' way and she took the kids over it with the intention of making it very hard on Doug to do anything about it. The majority of child custody and divorce matters are handled in such a way that there is no movement of the children until the court can sort it all out.

Even then, courts will do everything they can to accomodate both parents without moving the children because the children shouldn't be moved away from one parent to the direct benefit of another parent seeking to punish the other parent.

This is the problem with the media's handling of the case too. Before any evidence was known, what did they do? They blamed Doug right out of the starting gate. Precious time lost to find Venus too. It makes me wonder if resources sent to Virginia to find her were all for naught when they should have been apllied in Michigan the whole time. I don't know.

[PickieChickie]

Originally Posted by Natal

And what if he doesnt show up on the video? Because if he stands up and says he didnt have the truck that is exactly what will happen.

Someone will show up on the Walmart video footage purchasing those four items. Do you agree about that?

[eyes4crime]

Originally Posted by Natal

And what if he doesnt show up on the video? Because if he stands up and says he didnt have the truck that is exactly what will happen.

If he stands up and says he didn't have the truck, he has now opened up the line of questioning for 'who did', right? Does he know the truck was stolen, and if so, why wasn't it reported? Vehicles were parked a couple blocks away (found) and can the prosecution prove he didn't use credit or debit cards for those days, and if he did, what vehicle did he use? If the debit card found in the truck is his, how did it get there? The vehicles were parked in the vacinity of his living - how did that come to be? Were there any thefts in the facility he usually parks the vehicles? Did he ever park the vehicles in the designated space? And if so, when was the last time? and did he know they were no longer there? on and on. moo

[mysticrose]

I am sure LE is dusting the truck for any and all prints in the truck .....along with the car moo....

[Natal]

Originally Posted by PickieChickie

Someone will show up on the Walmart video footage purchasing those four items. Do you agree about that?

Maybe, but it might not be someone they are expecting and so might not recognize what they see.

[BeanE]

Originally Posted by Natal

That presuposes that the vehicle was in his possesion at the time. If it was not, than there are alternative explanations for those things that may still involve the truck but not necessarily DS.

Remember, the vehicle was not located until two days later. And it was not hidden, it was parked on the street a few blocks from where he lived. Presumably it was placed there after Monday/early Tuesday since you would think that LE had searched the vicinity for it when they first started investigating, that being the logical place - and they didnt find anything. LE described him as not being helpful in that regard but he simply might not have known where it was.

If you assume that some unknown person had possession, that person could have visited the Ohio Walmart on the Sunday, been at Colon on Monday, and dropped the vehicle in Virginia on late Tuesday or early Wednesday. That would explain everything we know about the truck so far.

I don't know how things work in his apartment complex, but supposedly he had two reserved parking spots. Usually those sorts of parking spaces are behind some sort of security and are accessed by electronic keys. If an unknown person had possession of the vehicle it is probable that they wouldn't have a working electronic key and consequently would not be able to park it where you would expect to find it. That could explain why it was on the street, but nearby.

The problem with the truck is that we don't know for sure (and LE couldn't know that at the start of the case either) who actually had it. LE would have been initially acting on what VS's parents were telling them, and no doubt that is why they believed he had the truck. But it is possible that he may be saying something different. If that is the case, then LE would have to find evidence to support possession one way or another - they can't just go on the word of either party.

That would leave the truck as potentially an important source of evidence, but not implicating anyone in particular at this point, at least until certain questions have been answered.

Just something to think about anyway.

I'm trying to think of scenarios in which someone else would have been using DS's truck that would not implicate him.

Was DS's truck stolen? If so, I'm surprised we haven't heard about that, because in his situation, had my truck been stolen, I'd be on every newscast waving around the police report I'd filed about it, and expressing my shock that my truck had been stolen coincidentally with the abduction of my estranged wife.

Has he indicated that he voluntarily loaned it to someone? Again, if it were me, I'd be all over the media giving the name, address, and phone number of the person I'd loaned it to, along with all the details of when, where, and why I'd loaned it to them - what they'd said, why they needed it, their demeanor when asking to borrow it and when they picked it up.

But we haven't heard a peep of anything like either of those two scenarios. I can't think of any other scenarios in which his truck would have been used by someone else.

[BeanE]

Originally Posted by Natal

Again, you are assuming he had the truck. He may not have had it period.

Do you mean that sold it? If so, I'd think he'd be waving around the documentation for that on the news.

[Natal]

Originally Posted by eyes4crime

If he stands up and says he didn't have the truck, he has now opened up the line of questioning for 'who did', right? Does he know the truck was stolen, and if so, why wasn't it reported? Vehicles were parked a couple blocks away (found) and can the prosecution prove he didn't use credit or debit cards for those days, and if he did, what vehicle did he use? If the debit card found in the truck is his, how did it get there? The vehicles were parked in the vacinity of his living - how did that come to be? Were there any thefts in the facility he usually parks the vehicles? Did he ever park the vehicles in the designated space? And if so, when was the last time? and did he know they were no longer there? on and on. moo

He may not have had the truck for some time. Again, you are assuming HE had the truck. That is alleged, but AFAIK has not been proven.

[pufnstuf]

Originally Posted by Frank Black

Absolutely. See, it isn't about the parents. It is about the kids. But she made the decision for the court and that is why she only got temporary custody and not full custody. The court doesn't want one parent or the other taking kids away from one parent and moving them far away so the parent can't see them.

Wrong.

Shortly after the initial papers are filed seeking dissolution of a marriage, the family court will hold a temporary hearing and issue an order that controls legal aspects of the parties' relationship until it grants the final divorce decree. When custody is contested, the order creates a temporary custody solution. Unless there is evidence that doing so would not be in the best interests of the child, temporary custody is typically granted to the person who stays in the marital home. Temporary custody orders should have no bearing on which party will ultimately be awarded permanent custody. Depending on the circumstances, however, the temporary custody order may indicate which parent the court thinks is the more suitable. LINK

Originally Posted by Frank Black

Something didn't go Venus' way and she took the kids over it with the intention of making it very hard on Doug to do anything about it. The majority of child custody and divorce matters are handled in such a way that there is no movement of the children until the court can sort it all out.

First sentence is your opinion only. I'd like to see the statistics that you used to come to your "the majority" conclusion in the second sentence.

Originally Posted by Frank Black

Even then, courts will do everything they can to accomodate both parents without moving the children because the children shouldn't be moved away from one parent to the direct benefit of another parent seeking to punish the other parent.

Again, this is your opinion, hardly based on fact, and filled with assumptions.

Originally Posted by Frank Black

This is the problem with the media's handling of the case too. Before any evidence was known, what did they do? They blamed Doug right out of the starting gate. Precious time lost to find Venus too. It makes me wonder if resources sent to Virginia to find her were all for naught when they should have been apllied in Michigan the whole time. I don't know.

Actually, it wasn't the media that called Doug the sole person of interest. It was Lt. Mike Risko of MSP. The media only reported what the Lieutenant said. And lo and behold, the facts continue to support Lt. Risko's initial statement.

[pufnstuf]

Originally Posted by Natal

Maybe, but it might not be someone they are expecting and so might not recognize what they see.

Every transaction has an identification number and a transaction time and register location, which is seen on the security tapes as well as on the receipt. IT will be no problem for Walmart to match the receipt to the customer on video.

[RubyRed]

Originally Posted by cluciano63

I just hope that if DS did not commit this crime, it is not too late for law enforcement to go back and start over. They focused on him from the very start, even naming him as only POI on what I assume was based solely on motive. I can't help but wonder, if not DS, if someone from Venus' past came looking for her, hearing she had moved back to town.

.

sbbm

They released a sketch of someone else they wanted to talk to in her disappearance. They didn't brush off this sighting, saying they wouldn't consider it because Doug was the only poi.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...36-504083.html

[dnrslucky1]

IMO, All I have to say is she is the one missing, that alone speaks words! She was afraid he would kill her. IMO, he did it!

[BeanE]

Originally Posted by Frank Black

Absolutely. See, it isn't about the parents. It is about the kids. But she made the decision for the court and that is why she only got temporary custody and not full custody. The court doesn't want one parent or the other taking kids away from one parent and moving them far away so the parent can't see them.

Something didn't go Venus' way and she took the kids over it with the intention of making it very hard on Doug to do anything about it. The majority of child custody and divorce matters are handled in such a way that there is no movement of the children until the court can sort it all out.

Please provide a link to the source of information upon which you're basing your assertions that 'she made the decision for the court and that is why she only got temporary custody', and 'Something didn't go Venus' way and she took the kids over it with the intention of making it very hard on Doug to do anything about it'.

Thanks -
BeanE

[BeanE]

Originally Posted by Natal

He may not have had the truck for some time. Again, you are assuming HE had the truck. That is alleged, but AFAIK has not been proven.

What indications have you seen in news articles or LE documents that someone else had the truck?

[Natal]

Originally Posted by RubyRed

sbbm

They released a sketch of someone else they wanted to talk to in her disappearance. They didn't brush off this sighting, saying they wouldn't consider it because Doug was the only poi.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...36-504083.html

My understanding was that was someone acting oddly the day before, so he probably had nothing to do with this.

[RubyRed]

Originally Posted by Natal

My understanding was that was someone acting oddly the day before, so he probably had nothing to do with this.

They haven't located him yet.

[spamelope]

I don't think we get to pick and chose what vehicles were in MI or not based on our theories. Witnesses place both Stewart vehicles there, and since the neighbors in Schoolcraft are more than familiar with them, I'd say they are reliable. Didn't the person who saw crouching dude wait 5 days to report it? Hinky, but okay... That is 52 hours of driving time alone playing musical vehicles that someone would have to do by the time the vehicles were returned near DS's. That's a lot of time dinking around when you have the tedious job of killing someone. We know it wasn't Doug. His alibi is "solid" and "true". They are not taking his friends words for this, folks. This isn't a jaywalking case. He is smart enough to have an iron clad alibi, but stupid enough to let his hit man try to frame him. Because that's one incompetent hit man who leaves all the evidence pointing towards the person who hired him. Doug is disciplined enough to be a decorated Marine, but careless enough to leave the receipt for the items from the "4 Essential Things You Need To Commit Murder With Now Available at Wal-Mart!" handbook. BTW, they forgot the "Shaggy Haired Guy Wig" by Eva Gabor.
Who else could have access to things like the keys to the truck and the credit card? Who indeed.

[spamelope]

The truck is not Doug's so I doubt he could even report it stolen even if he knew for a fact it was gone.

[Natal]

Originally Posted by BeanE

What indications have you seen in news articles or LE documents that someone else had the truck?

The only reason we have to believe he had the truck AFAIK is because the parents said so. In trial that would not be enough, there would have to be independent corroboration. Otherwise the defence would suggest the obvious. Do we have that independent corroboration?

In order to charge him you would need to place him at the scene. Placing the truck at the scene doesn't help if you can't place him with the truck.