Found Deceased MI - Venus Stewart, 32, Colon, 28 April 2010 - # 1 *D. Stewart guilty*

[Calliope]

Sorry to quote myself - but please read about her fears and what was said to cause such fears.

You're right Calli - it could be anyone - it could be her father and/or children sleeping in the house at the time of her abduction - but until they are named, we can't sleuth. So for now, I will go with the most logical person to do Venus in - a man who has to take out his own restraining order in response to hers. To me, that's being one up and a control freak.

She WAS arrested for assaulting him.

 

[RubyRed]

True. It's not impossible, but unlikely IMO. Just the round trip drive is 24-26 hours. Then you have to factor in him waiting for her to leave the home (doubtful he arrived just as she stepped out to mail the letter), abducting her, taking her away, etc., which only adds hours to that time.

Where did VS work? What did she do in her spare time? Who were her friends? Had she been dating or recently met anyone since her separation? Are there RSOs in the area? Have there been any other mysterious disappearances, abductions, assaults, "peeping tom" reports, etc.?

I agree we need more info on both of them to get a better idea of what might have happened.

 

[Calliope]

I agree we need more info on both of them to get a better idea of what might have happened.

Does he have to be named a 'suspect' before LE can subpoena his bank and phone records and computer (work and home)? I'm hoping they're looking into all of that for evidence he may have hired someone. I'm not saying I don't think he's the prime suspect or that he's not involved at all .... I just don't think he did so himself. Perhaps his alibi (whatever that may be) is a little too neat, KWIM? But he's not going anywhere... look into his movements and records and all that, but focus on someone else that may actually have her (or had her )

 

[cluciano63]

I think that LE is saying that he appears to have been where he says he was on Monday...whether at work or wherever. They did not say, if I recall, that he was completely in the clear, so I am sure they are keeping him in mind as the person behind whoever physically took her/harmed her. Often police will find and arrest the actual killer/kidnapper and later bring charges against the person who caused the murder or abduction. They don't need to talk about that now, they need to try to find out who he was in contact with, etc...I would hope that just because his physical alibi is good, if it is, that they can still, based upon history between the parties, obtain cell records, bank records and computers to check out his contacts...that is how they will find anyone he may have hired and/or paid. IMO

 

[RubyRed]

“Once Doug loses all control over me he is going to hunt me down and kill me,” she wrote. “... Now that I don’t have my parents to protect me and if he finds out where I am at he is going to kill me. It’s only a matter of time.”

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2010/04/missing_st_joseph_county_woman_1.html

Now that she had left him she was in the most danger. Sadly, I think her fears came true.

 

[Calliope]

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2010/04/missing_st_joseph_county_woman_1.html

Now that she had left him she was in the most danger. Sadly, I think her fears came true.

I'm afraid you're right.

I've been there myself. It's utterly terrifying.

 

[RubyRed]

Does he have to be named a 'suspect' before LE can subpoena his bank and phone records and computer (work and home)? I'm hoping they're looking into all of that for evidence he may have hired someone. I'm not saying I don't think he's the prime suspect or that he's not involved at all .... I just don't think he did so himself. Perhaps his alibi (whatever that may be) is a little too neat, KWIM? But he's not going anywhere... look into his movements and records and all that, but focus on someone else that may actually have her (or had her )

I am sure a POI can have a subpoena served on them to look at cell. comp, bank records etc.

 

[Calliope]

I think that LE is saying that he appears to have been where he says he was on Monday...whether at work or wherever. They did not say, if I recall, that he was completely in the clear, so I am sure they are keeping him in mind as the person behind whoever physically took her/harmed her. Often police will find and arrest the actual killer/kidnapper and later bring charges against the person who caused the murder or abduction. They don't need to talk about that now, they need to try to find out who he was in contact with, etc...I would hope that just because his physical alibi is good, if it is, that they can still, based upon history between the parties, obtain cell records, bank records and computers to check out his contacts...that is how they will find anyone he may have hired and/or paid. IMO

Let's assume he was involved in her abduction. Given what LE has said, and the time/distance involved, I don't think he was the one who took her. Which means he had someone else take her.

Now he might not be the brightest bulb on the tree, but I would have to believe he would know he'd be the very first person LE would come after if anything happened to her.

So... pretending for a minute you're trying to get away with a hired kidnapping (and probable murder), how would you go about hiring someone to do this? (this kind of thing always confused me... I wouldn't know where to look for a 'hit man') VA Beach / Newport News area has a lot of crime. I suppose he could have hunted down some two-bit criminal and offered them money to abduct his wife. So has he been noted to be in the more sleazier parts of town? Hanging out in places known to be frequented by criminals and thugs?

Now, if that's the case, doubtful the hit man would have a vehicle to travel to Michigan... maybe that's why LE was searching for DS's vehicles? So would DS have given his vehicle to the hit man? With the remainder of the payment to be given when he returned the car? I'd think he'd have to offer more than the car was worth to keep the hit man from simply keeping the car? Something else that confuses me is why they're looking for a car and truck. Were there no tire tracks at the scene? Because they should be able to tell right away which vehicle was used (wheel base, size of tires, etc.).

How would he arrange this and what would he have to do to make himself appear innocent and uninvolved?

 

[RubyRed]

"You can see where there's a footprint or two," McComb said. "And my daughter's footprint was up on the tank here.

"So, they figure he parked his car there, snuck behind the woodpile, and when she came out to put the mail in the mailbox, he grabbed her. She didn't make it to the house."

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/sw_mich/Missing-mom-wouldnt-leave-on-her-own

I a thinking they might have a footprint and possibly where a car was parked, so hopefully a tire tread impression.

 

[eyes4crime]

Does he have to be named a 'suspect' before LE can subpoena his bank and phone records and computer (work and home)? I'm hoping they're looking into all of that for evidence he may have hired someone. I'm not saying I don't think he's the prime suspect or that he's not involved at all .... I just don't think he did so himself. Perhaps his alibi (whatever that may be) is a little too neat, KWIM? But he's not going anywhere... look into his movements and records and all that, but focus on someone else that may actually have her (or had her )

No, a person doesn't have to be named a POI or suspect - but in order for LE to look at computer or bank records, or car or anything he has, they must have probable cause or permission from him. Let's say they want to search his vehicles for evidence of an abduction or murder - LE must have 'probable cause' to suspect the vehicle is involved and get a warrant signed by a judge. Our Constitution protects us from LE invasion. moo

 

[Calliope]

No, a person doesn't have to be named a POI or suspect - but in order for LE to look at computer or bank records, or car or anything he has, they must have probable cause or permission from him. Let's say they want to search his vehicles for evidence of an abduction or murder - LE must have 'probable cause' to suspect the vehicle is involved and get a warrant signed by a judge. Our Constitution protects us from LE invasion. moo

Seems to me there's enough probable cause, at least from what little we know.

I've not seen any mention that the FBI is involved. Is it possible they are and it's not been reported? Perhaps so as not to "spook" DS or the kidnapper? I'd think they would be, considering it is an abduction and you've got sole POI living in another state so they'd certainly have jurisdiction and it would cut down on the 'red tape' from having to separate state police agencies trying to investigate what happened.

The FBI would have jurisdiction to investigate this, in any case:

1035

FBI Assistance in Missing Persons Cases

In a missing person case, as a matter of cooperation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) will, at the request of a state or local law enforcement agency, make available the facilities of the FBI Identification Division and the FBI Laboratory.

Information pertaining to certain categories of missing persons, including missing children, may be entered into the missing person file of the FBI operated National Crime Information Center (NCIC) by the local law enforcement agencies and, since passage of the Missing Children Act (Pub. L. 97-272, amending, 28 U.S.C. § 534), by parents of missing children if the local law enforcement agency will not do so.

1036

24 Hours Rebuttable Presumption

The rebuttable presumption set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1201(b) does not create a presumption of kidnapping. Rather, it creates a presumption of transportation in interstate or foreign commerce in cases where an actual kidnapping has been established. The presumption was added to the statute to give the FBI jurisdiction to investigate. In a Federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1), actual interstate or foreign transportation must be proved. See United States v. Moore, 571 F.2d 76 (2d Cir. 1978).

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01035.htm

 

[cluciano63]

We may be giving ex-hubby too much credit, if he indeed hired someone to do this...lots of people who take out contracts on spouses, etc are caught...there are always trails, mostly phone or bank records. The one who hires has to get the money somehow and usually that involves a bank transaction and there will almost always be a phone trail...so I never assume that a person who would do something like this is too smart to have done it just because they are the obvious suspect.
And in LE, the most obvious suspect/scenario is true more often than not, they say.

 

[RubyRed]

Missing mom 'wouldn't leave on her own'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-pZWinOHDU&feature=player_embedded#!


It shows the scuffle marks in the driveway and what looks like a propane tank where a footprint was.

 

[PickieChickie]

Here is a better picture of the ex at FB

http://www.facebook.com/srch.php?in...d=100000853795358&hiq=doug,stewart&ref=search

 

[PickieChickie]

Scuffle - Evidence of Struggle - Abduction​

 

[PickieChickie]

Comment left on Wood TV 8 Article
I haven't looked up court records for Venus but will try to find them then make screen shots and post.

SOURCE: http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/sw_mich/MSP-Colon-Twp-woman-possibly-abducted

See comments from Trynot2Judge following this article.
​

 

[Calliope]

Whoa.

 

[RubyRed]

It still comes down to who took her.

 

[Calliope]

Of course.

But if what was posted is true (who is it who always posts criminal background stuff here.... I'm half asleep, can't remember... maybe they can help search for her records) then it would appear that DS wasn't filing for protection out of "spite".

And if true, she shouldn't have been kidnapped. She should have been in jail. Assault with a weapon?

 

[PickieChickie]

Of course.

But if what was posted is true (who is it who always posts criminal background stuff here.... I'm half asleep, can't remember... maybe they can help search for her records) then it would appear that DS wasn't filing for protection out of "spite".

And if true, she shouldn't have been kidnapped. She should have been in jail. Assault with a weapon?

It all boils down to what happened prior to the event. Perhaps she was trying to protect herself and the victim lied about what he did to cause her to behave the way she did.

As far as the sexual molestation allegations are concerned, countless women use this as a ploy to attempt to get full custody of their children.

If the husband did molest their daughter, and this was substantiated, there would be a case pending against him.

If the husband has a horrible temper as portrayed, the allegations of child molestation would most likely push him into a rage and it is clear, in my opinion, he either abducted Venus or was involved in her abduction by involving another person.

If you are that terrified of a man, and I know because I was in that position, no matter where you are, you don't want to go anywhere alone.

I didn't have children when I fled from an abusive man who tried to kill me and told me many times that I was his and no matter where I went, he'd find me.

Concealing the whereabouts of children from their parent, when a relationship has been established, is illegal in most cases. However, in this case, if the husband did indeed abduct her, she was foolish to go live with her parents where the husband could easily locate her.

I hope this case is solved soon. If the husband is responsible, I hope he spends the rest of his life in prison!