Found Deceased MI - Venus Stewart, 32, Colon, 28 April 2010 - # 7 *D. Stewart guilty*

[Calliope]

DS is NOW coming after the children.

He requested custody or supervised visitation.

DS her husband was NOT in Viriginia at the time of her disappearance, but in between his home state of Va and Mi just hours before Venus disappeared.

Proof of that statement, please.

There are receipts of items purchased just hours before Venus went missing, which quite POSSIBLY have been used in the commission of murdering and burying VS.

Or planting potatoes. Just ask blackdog.

There is a reported sighting of DS's truck in the vicinity of where VS was last known to have been alive.

DS's truck? Link please.

There is no evidence of VS being alive since she disappeared.

No evidence she's dead, either.

Venus accused her husband in court documents, of sexually abusing one of the children

And her husband accused her in court documents of threatening and abusing him and the children.

There has been an interview by a "sexual abuse therapist," substantiating the sexual abuse charges.

Substantiating ??

TIA

 

[panthera]

I've been looking ~ but cannot find ~ anything about any of the items on the WalMart receipt found in DS's truck, such as have they been located? The shovel, anything? :waitasec:

 

[Calliope]

I've been looking ~ but cannot find ~ anything about any of the items on the WalMart receipt found in DS's truck, such as have they been located? The shovel, anything? :waitasec:

Or who bought them... who was on video... etc.

What size was the hat? Doug's got a large head. Serious question, not making fun of him.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I've been looking ~ but cannot find ~ anything about any of the items on the WalMart receipt found in DS's truck, such as have they been located? The shovel, anything? :waitasec:

Not that we have heard.
They did take some items from DS's parents home and are not saying what they were. But, they said they believe some of the things they took may have been involved in VS's dissappearance. (paraphrasing)

 

[grayjay]

I've been looking ~ but cannot find ~ anything about any of the items on the WalMart receipt found in DS's truck, such as have they been located? The shovel, anything? :waitasec:

IIRC, the search warrant listed finding the gloves by the right side passenger door. I thought that was interesting, because to me it suggested an accomplice.

 

[RubyRed]

http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/...s Stewart/?action=view&current=swsynopsis.jpg

 

[grayjay]

Yep. Front passenger floorboard. Since then, my picture is more that he had a messy truck. LOL.

 

[panthera]

Thanks everyone! So we possibly have the gloves but no shovel or tarp. And one very messy truck interior! I do wonder what was taken from the parents' house though, or if it will end up this stuff from WalMart not having any significance, except the tarp wrapper possibly being found in Venus' parents' driveway. MOO

 

[BeanE]

I thought he wasn't charged.... are they re-opening the investigation ? That's not clear.

No, he's not charged. They substantiated the allegations via the little girl's session with the therapist, and then the judge in this last hearing, found probable cause for the CPS petition. I'm thinking that substantiation was the probable cause for sexual abuse allegations. Because of the probable cause being found, they're having the hearing on June 17 on the petition.

I'm thinking CPS is going to complete their investigation between now and the 17th hearing. I'm not entirely sure what that hearing is for though - maybe for CPS to give their finding and a determination to be made as to what further action, if any, will be taken (e.g. continue no visitation, Doug go to therapy, kids go to therapy, Doug go to parenting classes).

I need to go back to those links on the CPS process in Michigan.

There aren't always criminal charges for these things. These threads are chock full of cases where CPS found there was indeed abuse of all different kinds, and no criminal charges were ever filed - they just made recommendations - child goes back to home, parents to counseling, child to counseling, child to foster care, whatever.

On another note, referring to our posts earlier today, I haven't found anything on Doug attending the custody hearing on April 19, or spending time at his parents' home. Maybe by 'report' Michelle meant a LE or court report of some kind that hasn't been publicly released, versus a news report (article), and that's why it's not coming up in news searches.

 

[cluciano63]

I have noted that Michelle S. can be a little "tricky" with her wording in the past on other cases, to make things sound more sensational...just saying...

 

[Calliope]

No, he's not charged. They substantiated the allegations via the little girl's session with the therapist, and then the judge in this last hearing, found probable cause for the CPS petition. I'm thinking that substantiation was the probable cause for sexual abuse allegations. Because of the probable cause being found, they're having the hearing on June 17 on the petition.

I'm thinking CPS is going to complete their investigation between now and the 17th hearing. I'm not entirely sure what that hearing is for though - maybe for CPS to give their finding and a determination to be made as to what further action, if any, will be taken (e.g. continue no visitation, Doug go to therapy, kids go to therapy, Doug go to parenting classes).

I need to go back to those links on the CPS process in Michigan.

There aren't always criminal charges for these things. These threads are chock full of cases where CPS found there was indeed abuse of all different kinds, and no criminal charges were ever filed - they just made recommendations - child goes back to home, parents to counseling, child to counseling, child to foster care, whatever.

On another note, referring to our posts earlier today, I haven't found anything on Doug attending the custody hearing on April 19, or spending time at his parents' home. Maybe by 'report' Michelle meant a LE or court report of some kind that hasn't been publicly released, versus a news report (article), and that's why it's not coming up in news searches.

Not to belabor the point... well, ok. I'm belaboring the point. Where does it state the charges of sexual abuse were substantiated. I'm beyond sleepy right now, so maybe I've missed it. But I swear all I've seen is that they've interviewed the children. Substantiated means they have proof, that it's been corroborated, verified. I've not seen that stated anywhere.

As far as him being in MI during the time of the first hearing, I have no idea where I heard or read that; maybe on one of the talking head shows lol. Maybe it's my senility shining through. I'll keep searching, but all I'm coming up with is articles on the most recent one.

 

[pufnstuf]

Okay maybe it's the custody hearing she was referring to then, and stretching it a bit. I just got the impression from what she said that it was closer than a week prior. Maybe he stayed on for a few days after the hearing to visit with his parents. Or maybe my idea of the days prior to a disappearance is different from Michelle's

I'll see if I can find anything else, but that really should have come up in my searches.

Thanks Calliope.

I haven't read anything that indicated that he was in Michigan for that hearing. I would like to know more about that, though.

 

[BeanE]

Not to belabor the point... well, ok. I'm belaboring the point. Where does it state the charges of sexual abuse were substantiated. I'm beyond sleepy right now, so maybe I've missed it. But I swear all I've seen is that they've interviewed the children. Substantiated means they have proof, that it's been corroborated, verified. I've not seen that stated anywhere.

As far as him being in MI during the time of the first hearing, I have no idea where I heard or read that; maybe on one of the talking head shows lol. Maybe it's my senility shining through. I'll keep searching, but all I'm coming up with is articles on the most recent one.

Vogel asked how the charges of abuse had been substantiated. Pond said that there had been an interview with a certified sexual abuse therapist.

http://www.threeriversnews.com/articles/2010/05/29/news/local_news/doc4c00448574b76080812437.txt

Vogel is Doug's attorney. Pond is a CPS worker.

When an interview with a child is the substantiation, it's not only the child's testimony, but the way in which the child tells it, the child's emotional reaction, etc, as assessed by the therapist that is used as substantiation. Or not - if the child's story keeps changing, and/or the child has no discernible emotional effects, etc, then it's not substantiated.

I'm not taking this substantiation as final "proof" at this point. It sounds like the judge was looking only for whether there was probable cause for the petition. There's nothing in any article about CPS's final finding on the allegations - no mention of 'finding' or 'sufficient evidence' or 'insufficient evidence' or any of the finding -related buzzwords. And the children are going to a psychologist, so I think the investigation is ongoing at this point.

I think the hearing on the 17th may be when CPS will give their finding, and meanwhile, it's still investigation. I'm taking the substantiation, the interview with the therapist, as showing some red flags that need to be looked at further, but no conclusions at this point.

I'm not even sure they'll have conclusions on the sexual abuse part of it as soon as the 17th - it could take months of therapy and evaluation for that, because the child is so young.

I'm just glad this little girl will be in therapy, in case anything did happen, so she will get the help she needs, and that she won't have to be around her father for a while, again, just in case anything did happen, she'll be protected and able to get the help she needs. In regards to these allegations, those are the two most important things to me - protect the child and get them the emotional help and support they need, and as soon as possible after the incident, just in case. The adults can sort everything else out, now that the child's potential needs are taken care of.

 

[BeanE]

I haven't read anything that indicated that he was in Michigan for that hearing. I would like to know more about that, though.

Darnit, puffy, I was hoping you had seen something. I've found that even documents that come out of family court aren't usually helpful to tell you who was physically there in the hearing. They show if the parties had an attorney there, but that doesn't tell you if the party was there, and family court minutes that tell you who said what (and therefore who was there) are typically sealed.

And even if he was there for the hearing on the 19th, that doesn't tell us how long he stayed in MI, let alone what he was doing and who he met with. Except that if he stayed with his parents, he surely met with them.

 

[Calliope]

Vogel asked how the charges of abuse had been substantiated. Pond said that there had been an interview with a certified sexual abuse therapist.

http://www.threeriversnews.com/articles/2010/05/29/news/local_news/doc4c00448574b76080812437.txt

Vogel is Doug's attorney. Pond is a CPS worker.

When an interview with a child is the substantiation, it's not only the child's testimony, but the way in which the child tells it, the child's emotional reaction, etc, as assessed by the therapist that is used as substantiation. Or not - if the child's story keeps changing, and/or the child has no discernible emotional effects, etc, then it's not substantiated.

I'm not taking this substantiation as final "proof" at this point. It sounds like the judge was looking only for whether there was probable cause for the petition. There's nothing in any article about CPS's final finding on the allegations - no mention of 'finding' or 'sufficient evidence' or 'insufficient evidence' or any of the finding -related buzzwords. And the children are going to a psychologist, so I think the investigation is ongoing at this point.

I think the hearing on the 17th may be when CPS will give their finding, and meanwhile, it's still investigation. I'm taking the substantiation, the interview with the therapist, as showing some red flags that need to be looked at further, but no conclusions at this point.

I'm not even sure they'll have conclusions on the sexual abuse part of it as soon as the 17th - it could take months of therapy and evaluation for that, because the child is so young.

I'm just glad this little girl will be in therapy, in case anything did happen, so she will get the help she needs, and that she won't have to be around her father for a while, again, just in case anything did happen, she'll be protected and able to get the help she needs. In regards to these allegations, those are the two most important things to me - protect the child and get them the emotional help and support they need, and as soon as possible after the incident, just in case. The adults can sort everything else out, now that the child's potential needs are taken care of.

I don't know if it's just me or the forum, but I'm having a devil of a time with it this morning. I'm not convinced his answer meant it was substantiated, but regardless, they're surely going to have more on this coming soon.

No how this turns out, if DS is guilty or not, if Venus is alive or dead, hoax or kidnapped ... those kids are going to be messed up for a long, long time.

 

[fran]

He requested custody or supervised visitation.

Proof of that statement, please.


Or planting potatoes. Just ask blackdog.


DS's truck? Link please.

No evidence she's dead, either.

And her husband accused her in court documents of threatening and abusing him and the children.

Substantiating ??

TIA

All of what I posted about yesterday is the conclusion that "I" came out to from reading the links provided on the pages of WS from the beginning of this case. Your questions basically prove the point on why LE has NOT made an arrest. Not enough, that we KNOW of, to convict.

LE is doing their job, investigating the case, and will make an arrest IF and when they're able to prove their case.

JMHO
fran

 

[Calliope]

All of what I posted about yesterday is the conclusion that "I" came out to from reading the links provided on the pages of WS from the beginning of this case. Your questions basically prove the point on why LE has NOT made an arrest. Not enough, that we KNOW of, to convict.

LE is doing their job, investigating the case, and will make an arrest IF and when they're able to prove their case.

JMHO
fran

I agree.

It sounded as if you were stating facts, that's all. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[BeanE]

Is there a Doug Stewart impersonator?
MSP wants help with April 25-26 timeframe
Updated: Tuesday, 01 Jun 2010, 12:24 PM EDT
Published : Tuesday, 01 Jun 2010, 12:24 PM EDT

police now want help determining if someone impersonated Douglas Stewart in Newport News, Virginia in that same timeframe.

The Michigan State Police is looking for anyone with information about "a person or persons who impersonated Douglas Stewart in the Newport News, Virginia area between" April 25-26. They're also looking for anyone who had contact with Douglas Stewart in that timeframe to contact them.

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/sw_mich/Is-there-a-Doug-Stewart-impersonator

 

[RubyRed]

I think the police have it bass ackwards. I think he was impersonated in MI.

 

[RubyRed]

This definitely is to Doug's advantage, reasonable doubt, and it shows his alibi is solid.