DC - Savvas Savopoulos, family & Veralicia Figueroa murdered; Daron Wint Arrested #16

[BondGirl]

From same link:
"AIW has continuously operated since 1948. Our staff of over 200 persons ... Our bonding capacity is in excess of one hundred million dollars and is provided by F&D/Zurich...."
"AIW has a division we call "Special Projects". We operate from a cleared facility and have cleared personnel. Our Facilities Security Officer can answer any specific questions you may have."
"AIW's erection crews are from Iron Workers Local #5 and are the most experienced men and women in the union."

Does this ^ mean 200 AIW employees in home office/HQ plus union crews at work sites/projects?

Cleared facility? Cleared personnel? Stems from Executive Order 12829
http://www.dss.mil/isp/fac_clear/fac_clear_check.html
http://www.dss.mil/isp/fac_clear/per_sec_clear_proc_faqs.html
^ suggests cleared facilities do not just hire ppl off street corners. What else? Anything relating to case?

Where do welders fit into AIW's pix? Does any of this explain why DDW's past AIW employment is relevant,
other than his (presumed) personal ill-will re leaving AIW? Or others' past emp, if any?

Is there a union angle in here somewhere? Not saying any there's any connection, just walking in the weeds & looking for something that has not been discussed here before.

Wasn't there a union settlement to with a solitarily named company up in NYC around the time of the murders? I feel like it was on one of the past threads.

 

[TexMex]

The Chief is responsible for public safety and if she believed that Wint acted alone, she'd say so. Kinda hard to believe it if they found an unknown print on a water bottle.

JMO

IMO the print must have been matched to DW. They have had time to compare to those arrested with him and JW


"Assistant U.S. Attorney Emily Miller said Wint’s DNA was found on discarded pizza left in the room where the three adults were found dead.

She said police found a fingerprint on a water bottle at the house, and that prosecutors were seeking to compare it with Wint’s fingerprints."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...ce73c8-0187-11e5-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html

 

[rkf]

Within a day or so or deaths, LE said they believe more than just one person was involved, including a presser at which Chief of Police confirmed that thought. Did a S/Wrrt include a stmt to that effect?

What was the most recent date in which officials repeated 'more than one' or 'DDW had help' theory? Who? Thx in adv.

The last LE doc I have is the Ford/Chevy SW from May 22nd, where the affidavit says "Your affiant believes all four decedents were held captive by Mr. Wint and others until the $40,000.00 forty thousand was delivered..." BBM
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9to0rlv7t2g3c35/267779255-Return-After-Search-of-Ford.pdf?dl=0

Does anyone have a more recent document?

 

[al66pine]

What was the most recent date in which officials repeated 'more than one' or 'DDW had help' theory? Who? Thx in adv.

I've wondered if they thought that at the time because it was so egregious that they couldn't wrap their minds around a single killer. We "believe" is just as noncommittal as some of our theories. It's a safe word to use when you're pretty sure, but not sure enough or have evidence to support a declarative.

Yes, 'believe' can be non-committal. But LE saying it creates a sense of expectancy in minds of public, so why say that unless absolutely positively certain?
Does Def. atty stay awake nights thinking of ways to raise that at trial, during examination or cross of LEO: 'In the vid we just saw, you said [on date, to reporter from WXYZ] that you believed others helped Defendant X to commit [crime]? ...How many ppl have bn arrested & charged [w crime]?... Oh, none?...Did you change your mind?... Were you wrong about that?...' Probably sustainable objections to questions worded that way, but def atty may get that idea - LE was wrong about others, could be wrong about this def. - across in other ways.

I'm trying to figure out if/when officials started to omit ref's to others as participants or to soft pedal it, i.e., if officials have in fact changed theory about that. I know I've missed some announcements in past mo or so. Or are officials still convinced about others participating? IDK. Thx in adv.

 

[rkf]

Wasn't he arrested as Steffon for receiving stolen goods??

The arrest for receiving stolen property happened on March 23, 2015. He was assigned PDID #703-045 under the name Steffon Wint. So, the case should be showing up in the DC court records.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ykmjzm4c...on-Dellon-Dennis-Supplement-May-2015.pdf?dl=0

 

[rkf]

Wint is only charged with murder not with any other crime and nobody else has been charged. Your example of a bank robber does require the actual robbers to also be arrested. Otherwise driving a car isn't proof of anything at all.

What is the evidence Wint was in that house at the time of the murders? Maybe he was caught on camera far away.

JMO

DNA on the pizza and other places. Victim(s) blood on his shoes.

ETA: I believe additional charges are coming.

 

[rkf]

What was the most recent date in which officials repeated 'more than one' or 'DDW had help' theory? Who? Thx in adv.



Yes, 'believe' can be non-committal. But LE saying it creates a sense of expectancy in minds of public, so why say that unless absolutely positively certain?
Does Def. atty stay awake nights thinking of ways to raise that at trial, during examination or cross of LEO: 'In the vid we just saw, you said [on date, to reporter from WXYZ] that you believed others helped Defendant X to commit [crime]? ...How many ppl have bn arrested & charged [w crime]?... Oh, none?...Did you change your mind?... Were you wrong about that?...' Probably sustainable objections to questions worded that way, but def atty may get that idea - LE was wrong about others, could be wrong about this def. - across in other ways.

I'm trying to figure out if/when officials started to omit ref's to others as participants or to soft pedal it, i.e., if officials have in fact changed theory about that. I know I've missed some announcements in past mo or so. Or are officials still convinced about others participating? IDK. Thx in adv.

When is the last time LE said anything on the record about this case? I'm not being snarky - I don't remember anything being said in the last month that wasn't from an unnamed source.

 

[FelicityLemon]

What was the most recent date in which officials repeated 'more than one' or 'DDW had help' theory? Who? Thx in adv.



Yes, 'believe' can be non-committal. But LE saying it creates a sense of expectancy in minds of public, so why say that unless absolutely positively certain?
Does Def. atty stay awake nights thinking of ways to raise that at trial, during examination or cross of LEO: 'In the vid we just saw, you said [on date, to reporter from WXYZ] that you believed others helped Defendant X to commit [crime]? ...How many ppl have bn arrested & charged [w crime]?... Oh, none?...Did you change your mind?... Were you wrong about that?...' Probably sustainable objections to questions worded that way, but def atty may get that idea - LE was wrong about others, could be wrong about this def. - across in other ways.

I'm trying to figure out if/when officials started to omit ref's to others as participants or to soft pedal it, i.e., if officials have in fact changed theory about that. I know I've missed some announcements in past mo or so. Or are officials still convinced about others participating? IDK. Thx in adv.

I agree with you that it creates expectations in us. I was hoping that we would learn more today as some evidence would have been presented if Hanover remained as his lawyer at least that was in one of the news reports. I was looking forward to tweets tweets tweets of all kinds of evidence.

Yes, DW seems to be a master at dragging out would should be some simple cases, so I can imagine what can come up to drag this out.

 

[AmazonianAbroad]

IMO the print must have been matched to DW. They have had time to compare to those arrested with him and JW


"Assistant U.S. Attorney Emily Miller said Wint’s DNA was found on discarded pizza left in the room where the three adults were found dead.

She said police found a fingerprint on a water bottle at the house, and that prosecutors were seeking to compare it with Wint’s fingerprints."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...ce73c8-0187-11e5-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html

But were JW and/or those in the motorcade ever actually arrested? My understanding is that they were merely brought in for questioning. I don't think we have confirmed they were processed and fingerprinted or swabbed for DNA.

There is a decent chance that some of the people prosecutors are certain to charge in the future could have matching prints or the like, but because they're locked up on other charges at this time, there has not been action yet.

Has there been a search warrant for anyone's DNA?

 

[al66pine]

....What is theevidence Wint was in that house at the time of the murders? Maybe he was caught on camera far away. JMO

bbm sbm

Agreeing - DDW could have bn caught on camera 10 mi away, sitting in a Starbucks from 8:00am to 3pm. IDK, though I suspect if it was that straightforward and simple, well, we/the public might have heard/read about that.

His DNA on pizza ordered at ~9:00pm the night before is consistent w his being there that eve., i.e., him, not a doppelganger (unless someone wants to follow theory that after deaths, DDW found pizza in garbage can, & while standing at driveway or curb, ate some, then mystery person moved pizza boxes, crusts, leftover slices from garbage can into home, where items were found by first responders).

What is evd of his being in S home at time of deaths? I believe we'll have to wait on more definitive info - from LE for now or at trial - many pieces from multiple sources, like ppl involved in Mr S' flurry of phone calls, phone records, vid from neighbors' & others' surv cams, phone-cell-tower pings, maybe GPS from autos, more not-yet-known info re currency movement(s), S home alarm system access-activity logs & maybe cloud files, etc.

Ppl can disagree w prosecutor's argument (I'm azz-uming at trial) that 10, 20, 50, 100, or 500 pieces of ^ forensic evidence corroborating DDW's presence at home at time of murder "prove" that he was there and also disagree that it proves DDW murdered Mr S (the only crime DDW is currently chg'ed w.). True for those of us on W/S, true for jurors.

JM2cts, could be all wrong, trying to keep an open mind.

 

[CoreyRocks]

So, Wint is not going to deny he was in the home.? He is going to deny he inflicted bodily injuries on the victims. He is going to name additional perpetrators.

Is this what his former attorney is stating? Or, am I a knucklehead? It is okay if you tell me I am misinterpreting his comments!:

In a huh moment...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am with you. This guy (DW) must be delusional. What is he going to say .. I just ate dinner and watched.

 

[al66pine]

From my earlier post: "....I'm trying to figure out if/when officials started to omit ref's to others as participants or to soft pedal it, i.e., if officials have in fact changed theory about that. ... Or are officials still convinced about others participating?...."

When is the last time LE said anything on the record about this case? I'm not being snarky - I don't remember anything being said in the last month that wasn't from an unnamed source.

Yes, ^what you are saying^.

 

[Peliman]

Try Vinelink for incarceration info. I'm curious if computer systems are glitching one another regarding daron/steffon. Search both in vinelink and check details.

https://www.vinelink.com/vinelink/initSearchForm.do?siteId=9900

or vinelink.com and start from the beginning.

 

[katydid23]

http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/loc...-in-court-for-mansion-murders-in-dc/29606581/


Thursday's hearing lasted just a few minutes, with no new evidence revealed in the murders. But Hanover hinted that he would have built a case on police statements, arguing that it's unlikely Wint could have held the family and extorted $40,000 from the wealthy executive alone.

Oh man. I wish Hanover was still Wint's attorney. He could do the prosecutor's job for him. How many ways is he going to say that his ex-client is GUILTY?

 

[katydid23]

But that's not a defense against felony murder! Crazy!

Not only is it 'not a defense'----it is actually an admission of guilt. :doh:

 

[katydid23]

Wint is only charged with murder not with any other crime and nobody else has been charged. Your example of a bank robber does require the actual robbers to also be arrested. Otherwise driving a car isn't proof of anything at all.

What is the evidence Wint was in that house at the time of the murders? Maybe he was caught on camera far away.

JMO

Blood on his shoes? DNA in the house. Ransom money in his possession?

 

[BellaVita]

Hanover's involvement has been odd from the beginning because he said Wint's family retained him but never said Wint agreed to it. It is similar to that previous outspoken attorney who let us know Wint doesn't like pizza and met with him but Wint didn't retain him. I have to wonder if Wint has a rock solid alibi that covers the time the video of man in hoodie with bucket was taken.
JMO

All have screws loose to say the least. IMO.

 

[TexMex]

But were JW and/or those in the motorcade ever actually arrested? My understanding is that they were merely brought in for questioning. I don't think we have confirmed they were processed and fingerprinted or swabbed for DNA.

There is a decent chance that some of the people prosecutors are certain to charge in the future could have matching prints or the like, but because they're locked up on other charges at this time, there has not been action yet.

Has there been a search warrant for anyone's DNA?

I know in the Arias case many friends and associates were asked to give fingerprint and DNA samples to LE. They complied, including Arias

 

[yepitsme]

Actually, it is a defense if only Wint is charged with murder. LE has said all along that they believe others were also involved. The prosecutor needs to make some more arrests.

If the defense has evidence in the unknown print from the water bottle and possibly has an alibi that covers the Porsche burning, the prosecutor has a heavier burden to prove DW held the ball bat and the knife and started the fire.

JMO

He doesn't need to prove DW held the bat, only that he was a part of the underlying felony, the break-in.

 

[yepitsme]

It doesn't matter. The Chief can't lie about something like that because the public has a right to know that they suspect others were involved. <modsnip>

JMO

I don't see where you are getting that the Chief lied. She's bee scrupulous. If they've changed their theory -- and there's no reason to think they have -- thats not lying. Plus the public doesn't have a right to know.