DC - Savvas Savopoulos, family & Veralicia Figueroa murdered; Daron Wint Arrested #10

[HastingsChi]

It's not irresponsible because it is covered under the shield laws. Journalists are allowed to protect sources if the information they are reporting is considered to be for the greater good. But as a retired journalist, I can tell you that the main stream media have policies about who is allowed to be an an unnamed source. It has to be someone of very high rank who they trust when asked to be "off the record." The media can not conspire with LE but they certainly can work together. It is a very fine line and I have no doubt, both media and LE are walking it in this case.

JMO

(modsnip)

The information about the blood on the shoe should have received attribution in order to report. Why? The suspect is incarcerated and there is no danger to the community. The information is not critical to report using unnamed sources, it pollutes the jury pool and public opinion. The overuse of unnamed sources in situations like this completely devalue the use of unnamed sources for very important stories.

Then again, journalistic ethics seems to be rare these days... Gone are the days of double sourcing information and the very high standards that must be met in order to use anonymous sources; instead we have the news media that operates under the motto "It's more important to be first than accurate" which has only resulted in an endless amount of incorrect information being reported about every major news story.

 

[jjenny]

What are "acquired search warrants"???? I'm not sure how you can conclude JW is still just considered a witness when LE are releasing public documents right and left but maybe I missed something.

What should he be considered as? They searched his car and found nothing incriminating.
DW was arrested as soon as they got a match to his DNA on pizza crust.
They didn't wait around.
Makes me think that if they had anything on JW, they would have arrested him.

 

[MyBelle]

(modsnip)

The information about the blood on the shoe should have received attribution in order to report. Why? The suspect is incarcerated and there is no danger to the community. The information is not critical to report using unnamed sources, it pollutes the jury pool and public opinion. The overuse of unnamed sources in situations like this completely devalue the use of unnamed sources for very important stories.

Then again, journalistic ethics seems to be rare these days... Gone are the days of double sourcing information and the very high standards that must be met in order to use anonymous sources; instead we have the news media that operates under the motto "It's more important to be first than accurate" which has only resulted in an endless amount of incorrect information being reported about every major news story.

You are incorrect. The news media is under no obligation to reveal a source. You don't have to believe the source but the news media is allowed to not reveal it. You don't like it, tough luck. (modsnip)

JMO

 

[jjenny]

You are incorrect. The news media is under no obligation to reveal a source. You don't have to believe the source but the news media is allowed to not reveal it. You don't like it, tough luck. (modsnip)

JMO

It's not very convincing when information is attributed to anonymous sources.
Did LE find blood on DW's shoes? I have no idea as of now. If we get any official LE information released that will be a different story.

 

[bessie]

The thread is closed until morning.

Goodnight.

 

[Coldpizza]

Thread is open for posting again. Please post responsibly and be respectful of your fellow members.

Thank you

 

[Irisha]

I wish MSM would stop airing anything that has this Ficker talking!

Not going to happen, Nancy Grace now has him on speed dial. He was on last night. Discusting man. 1st Frank Taffee now this <modsnip> so NG can verbally spar with him. ICK:gaah:

 

[yepitsme]

I seriously doubt homicide detectives would spend hours showing Wint's attorney around the crime scene if there is proof the shoe print matches Wint. Instead, I think it likely they were examining the evidence of co-conspirators to motivate Mr. Wint to engage in a plea deal in exchange for information.

Three weeks since the bodies were found, Assistant U.S. Attorney Emily Miller, the prosecutor in the case, was back at the house looking for evidence Thursday. Members of the Public Defender service, who represent Wint, were also at the scene with their own team of crime scene investigators. They spent about two-and-a-half hours in and around the house taking pictures. They were escorted around by homicide detectives.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...Search-Personal-Assistants-Car-306224331.html

No, the defense lawyers are doing their jobs. They have a right to view the scene and an obligation to their client to do so.

 

[privateaye]

Touche! Exactly. Why lie about this? But then how did LE know it was not locked? Or were they trying to trip him up? When he said the red car was locked, did they ask him where he got the key and where he returned it to? Could he not tell them, so he changed his story to say it was unlocked? Maybe he thought it would have been locked so he took a stab at that answer.
Once we stop accepting JW's versions, either of them, we are free to entertain another scenario.
The adults were being kept on the second floor in one room and young Phillip in his own room on same floor. They are all bound and taped up. Perhaps an accomplice is guarding them.
JW calls a perpetrator who is "manning SS's phone" and texts that he is 10 minutes away, giving that perp the heads up to station him/herself downstairs and unlock door for JW to deliver the money,coming through the garage.
They touch base, get stories together, count money, whatever. JW never goes near the Mosley.
Does he take his cut away in his red bag or leave red bag with DW and HIS cut? It seems that LE wonders.

Where to now? If he has taken half the money as his cut, he will have to hide it. LE could not find it in his car. But all of it was not found with DW and his crew either. JW has his 20 k.

After the drop-off (and a text to confirm, which goes straight to perp-accomplice, he has time to hide the money before appearing at Lowe's.

That's not what you wanted to know.
When he leaves the house, does he know DW plans to murder everyone and set the house on fire? Does he know what DW has been doing to SS and Philip and how the women have suffered? Does he care? No. He compartmentalizes. That part is not his job.
The difficult truth is not about DW. We already knew. We know evil people, brutes, girl-friend beaters, raging beasts born to a life of crime.
It's the JW's who are scary.
Such an upbeat, promising young man, articulate, good family, nice manners, well-groomed, not all wild haired and wild eyed.
JW is the real stuff of nightmares because you would have trusted him too.

JMO

I think your write up is the most plausible explanation I have heard so far. This very well could have happened.

 

[yepitsme]

According to the CD and SW three of the victims were removed from the house, but remained at the scene or at least that is the way I interpreted it. I'm sure eye witnesses watching the firefighters and EMS noticed this and knew there were fatalities even before it was made public. Word of the bodies being removed from the house would have been gossiped among the crowd and JW could have learned about the fate of the family this way.

JMO

No, my point was that they knew there were deaths but SS was not identified for a while. There was some speculation that the fourth body was an employee. And they certainly weren't identifying the bodies publicly at that point. JW probably knew there were deaths but did not know SS was one of them.

 

[thinksalot]

Doesn't it take a few folks on a panel in concurrence to net a nomination? (...I'm about to learn more obscure trivia, with which I will some day awe and annoy my loved ones.)

I found the bit I was recalling. It's just repeating gossip, though, from Jordan Wallace’s racing mentor Mike “Weedy” Weddell.

Whatever publication you work for can nominate you for a Pulitzer, so being nominated for a Pulitzer is no big deal. Being a finalist is a big deal because then you have been picked by the judges. I think there are usually three finalists in each category. Sometimes, though, the judges decide no work that has been nominated was good enough to pass muster for a prize and nothing is picked for a category.

 

[Elley Mae]

I think when these SW's were acquired, LE really had no idea the depth of this crime. They knew JW had received $40K in cash and gone to the house. He didn't help things by lying about what are, IMO, inconsequential details. They couldn't know that he didn't extort that money, go to the house and kill the family and set the house on fire.

So they treated him like Prime Suspect #1.

But again, IMO, their investigation pretty quickly showed them more of the crime...how it unfolded after talking to the other employees. Found the pizza and it's strange delivery instructions. Then found DNA from their now Prime Suspect #1.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that he was investigated. That being said, it is clear to me that their investigation didn't turn up anything. We know they found the DNA, and if there was anything in JW's car that gave them any idea he was involved, he wouldn't still be considered just a witness.

That is my explanation anyway.

Same here.

I see him as a victim of circumstances. jmo idk

For now.

 

[thinksalot]

Then it appears the criminals went for the more modest, grass-roots affluent than the upper stratospheres in which the level of surveillance, activity, personal protection might be more of a challenge. Perhaps they knew that this CEO would be able to liquidate assets with more ease, less layers of monitoring than others in the same area with more visible signs of largesse and thus more built-in protection, service people, staff working in the household in an office, pool cleaners, guests possibly, supplies being delivered...it appears that the SS family routine was compact, predictable, and by comparison with their "larger living" neighbors, they might have had less hub bub, fewer people attending them, and all together more laxity in regard to security. We have also been told that theirs was a particularly quiet, off the more beaten path patch. Sounds perfect.
This crime then was not about getting the most money, but was one of opportunity (that inside link again), not having to deal with a fortress, so no undue challenges for breeching, and a place perhaps less "observed."
From what those in the know say, if the criminals' objective was to haul the most loot away, they could have fished in a bigger pond. But if the objective was to have the best chance at getting away with a crime of theft where there were more "knowns" and more easily controlled variables, I'd think the smaller scale life style would have been the good bet.
i think bet the criminal/s did. But it strikes me now that the roulette wheel was carefully chosen for its accessibility. What made the SS house accessible? What made the odds in favor of getting in and getting out?
JMO that "link" talked up early in the case, that inside info. This was a crime that was presented; it cropped up; the perpetrator felt confident he'd meet with little or no resistance. Someone facilitated JMO. And I think this is LE's theory. Someone offered up this crime. Not in all its unfolding--that's down to the maniac allegedly in charge of the scene and the people. Someone made it sound doable.

I don't think the perpetrator thought out things as well as you have. As LE has said from the beginning, the perpetrator was connected with the victims. It appears to come down to the work connection. (I am thinking DW.)

 

[yepitsme]

I am surprised people keep their passports in the car. Thats a potentially valuable document and can be used for identity theft and nothing in your car is completely secure. I can understand if you have to frequently travel abroad or often need ID in addition to a driver's license, (or don't have a driver's license but that obviously doesn't apply) but I don't see that in JW's case.

I am agnostic on his involvement. I see three possible scenarios:

1. JW was involved, the link to DW, and this was a Fargo type situation where the muscle he brought on was far more violent than anticipated. I haven't seen anything to convince me of this and I haven't seen any link between the two men (the proximity of two large apartment complexes isn't enough for me). The lies, the passport and the scrutiny thats coming out now point to JW's involvement but I see compelling arguments to the contrary for all these things.

2. DW acted alone. This has the most support simply because he's the one known assailant. But wouldn't threading the needle on this crime take some serious planning and was he in a position to do that?

3. There is a whole different scenario than we know of and the LE leaks are designed to reduce the heat on the others. That is just a third guess with petty much no support.

 

[thinksalot]

The only reason I find his toys noteworthy is that he has a passion that is beyond his means, at least without a great deal of personal financial sacrifice. It seems that he'd go without toys like a GoPro if he needed money for things like a trip to Italy. I guess it feeds into my image of him as out of touch with the reality of his circumstances, who doesn't respect what it takes to earn what he wants to have.

Again, I'm not saying I think he his involved. But, I belive it would be hard to rule him out.

He does seem to live beyond his means. However, he probably used the GoPro videotaping racing, so he would justify it that way. Also, he uses the computer to make his racing videos. Maybe he writes this off on taxes as a business expense.

 

[Elley Mae]

I wonder if the employee who called JW to say the house was on fire is the same employee who went to the bank and withdrew the money. Just curious Now I wonder who called the employee at AIW to say the house was on fire. jmo idk

 

[HastingsChi]

You are incorrect. The news media is under no obligation to reveal a source. You don't have to believe the source but the news media is allowed to not reveal it. You don't like it, tough luck. (modsnip)

JMO

No one is asking them to reveal a source. I have no idea how you think that's what I'm suggesting. [modsnip]

 

[thinksalot]

I wonder if the employee who called JW to say the house was on fire is the same employee who went to the bank and withdrew the money. Just curious Now I wonder who called the employee at AIW to say the house was on fire. jmo idk

I think I read that a neighbor called AIW.

 

[popsicle]

Does anyone know what vehicle G7.5 is?

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/do...t-for-car-in-savopoulos-family-killings/1569/

 

[popsicle]

I think G7 is a BMW. Looking...

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/g-power/2006-g-power-g7-52-k-ar4123.html

It says "MOSL 25" 2004 I think?