DC - Savvas Savopoulos, family & Veralicia Figueroa murdered; Daron Wint Arrested #17

[Skigirl]

You asked "Are you thinking that LE was wrong and JW did not lie?" - although I realize you didn't ask me. :crystalball:
My response: I think LE was wrong and JW did not lie.

But...but...there were two versions of his story. I am not following.

 

[Skigirl]

Originally Posted by TexMex
IMO the inconsistencies were admitted right away and investigated by LE. LE must not think they hindered the investigation at all and the reason of the two different accounts being given made sense to them because JW has not been charged with any offense at all. LE knows much more than we do





I don't think JW lied. LE might have "had to spend valuable time" untwisting their own lies. It is difficult to remedy a tangled web of lies, especially if LE initiated the lies.

What lies did LE tell?

 

[FelicityLemon]

I wouldn't be ashamed for participating in a greeting that is customary in our culture. In France, it's "Ca va?" There is a big difference between saying "I am fine" and misleading authorities in a crime situation. You always seem to have very reasonable opinions, so what's your take? Are you thinking that LE was wrong and JW did not lie? Or that he actually believed each of his various stories until it was pointed out that could not be true? Or do you think he did lie but those lies have no relevance because lying is common? Or other?

IDK. To me, the lies seem significant in that he was fabricating his own story that was not in line with the truth, but maybe I am being too simplistic?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't mean to ignore your the rest of your comments, I was going to come back to finish and got sidetracked by ice cream. I honestly don't know what to think about the differing statements by JW. My first thought like everybody else, he lied and lying usually indicates an attempt to cover up for guilt of something. Usually, but not always. At the risk of sounding like I'm defending him again, I have also thought that it's possible he didn't give a free-flowing narrative statement or it was a combination of narrative in addition to questions and answers (that's most likely). I'd prefer seeing something directly written by JW or be able hear/see the actual interview or literal transcripts, we can decide what was really said.

Having seen skilled police interviews of both guilty and innocent people, it's apparent some people can be intimidated without much effort on the part of LE (I'm that way with authority figures of strong personalities even at my advanced age) and eager to please. It's subconscious, kind of agreeing with something they're asking or telling you and even though what they're saying isn't quite correct, you figure they know what they're talking about and you acquiesce assuming it will work out in the end . I have no idea if that's how JW responds to a situation like this. Some people don't even need intimidation or manipulation in order to agree with someone in authority.

Earlier in the threads, the question was raised as to how or why JW lied the way he did, given that <self snipped ouch>.

The counter would be that he behaved that way precisely because he has <self snipped ouch>.

 

[rkf]

Originally Posted by TexMex
IMO the inconsistencies were admitted right away and investigated by LE. LE must not think they hindered the investigation at all and the reason of the two different accounts being given made sense to them because JW has not been charged with any offense at all. LE knows much more than we do





I don't think JW lied. LE might have "had to spend valuable time" untwisting their own lies. It is difficult to remedy a tangled web of lies, especially if LE initiated the lies.

So you think it was LE's idea that the car was locked/unlocked, JW picked up a manila envelope/money directly from the accountant's hands? Given what we know about JW, why do you believe LE is lying and JW is not? Do you have more information about the detectives who interviewed him? Do they have a history of falsifying affidavits and reports? Do you think LE immediately took a dislike to JW and decided to embarrass him by writing in the affidavit that he lied to them? Do you think LE thought they wouldn't really need JW to testify in court later, so they wouldn't lose anything by handing the defense attorney a highly impeachable witness come trial time?

I worked on a film where LE not only lied, but were completely incompetent. The end result is that a man was executed when there was NO scientific evidence that a crime was committed. There wasn't even any circumstantial evidence - just bigoted cops (and his own defense attorney) who saw him as low life trash whose life didn't matter. (http://incendiarymovie.com/) I am not blind to LE's fallibility, but I think if a witness has proven himself to be a liar in other aspects of his life, and he tells more than one story of events leading up to a horrendous crime, unless I have reason to suspect LE of wrongdoing, I'm not going to assume LE is lying and the witness is not. LE gains nothing by suspecting and/or arresting the wrong person. It's a waste of their time, which they could use to track down the real perpetrator(s).

JW lying to LE and wasting their time does not mean he is guilty of involvement in the torture murders, or even a different crime that evolved into this blood bath. But I don't understand the cavalier attitude toward someone wasting LE time and resources when both are of the essence. I don't understand jumping to the conclusion that LE lied about what JW told them when we know that lying is a personality trait/characteristic JW has exhibited a great deal.

 

[Skigirl]

Here's an article that might be relevant: http://www.newyorker.com/humor/boro...ngered-by-new-strain-of-fact-resistant-humans

 

[FelicityLemon]

http://www.pdsdc.org/PDS/TrialDivision.aspx
I guess the Chief is on the case? Maybe because it's so high-profile.
I firmly believe in fair representation for all because it's the only way our system works.
However...good luck with that, Ago!

I'm hoping it never comes to trial. Guilty plea.

 

[FelicityLemon]

Here's an article that might be relevant: http://www.newyorker.com/humor/boro...ngered-by-new-strain-of-fact-resistant-humans

Holy cr8p, like all excellent humor, it's sooo close to the truth, lol! :drumroll:

Great find Skigirl!

 

[facundo]

LE had a DNA match within three days. The killer was caught one week after the murders and LE just missed him prior to that in NYC.
If their investigation was hampered by JW they would have charged him with it IMO
JMO but IMO the prosecution will be able to clear up the situation for the jurors with a couple of questions.
JW will be a key witness and help put this vicious killer in jail for life with his testimony.
SS knew JW and trusted him. I trust those instincts.

I agree. JW didn't hamper the chase for Wint. They collected the pizza on 05/14 and sent it to ATF for DNA match immediately. They published a POI announcement for the person fleeing the burning car on 05/16, and obtained an arrest warrant on 05/19. JW was still under the microscope until his car was searched on 05/21. JW was interviewed in that same time period, likely more than once but he was never arrested. LE has not publicly cleared JW but I don't believe he is still on LE's radar.

 

[blessedlife]

I did like Skigirl's milk story.....worth reading.

 

[Skigirl]

I agree. JW didn't hamper the chase for Wint. They collected the pizza on 05/14 and sent it to ATF for DNA match immediately. They published a POI announcement for the person fleeing the burning car on 05/16, and obtained an arrest warrant on 05/19. JW was still under the microscope until his car was searched on 05/21. JW was interviewed in that same time period, likely more than once but he was never arrested. LE has not publicly cleared JW but I don't believe he is still on LE's radar.

I totally disagree that the lies were harmless, even if they didn't slow down the search for Wint. LE in DC handles what? thousands? of violent cases a year. Every minute spent trying to unravel a bunch of lies and writing, serving, and executing pointless search warrants is a minute not spent on rape, murder, burglary, and other crimes. I don't believe he lied for no reason, but even if he did, it's not a victimless crime. Try being a rape victim whose case has been deprioritized because LE is too busy and whose rape kit isn't tested because resources are being used elsewhere.

 

[SeesSeas]

After being shown the text, W-1 admitted the text was accurate and IT made a mistake about when It was first told to get the package.

W-1 admitted that IT had lied when lT stated the money was in a manila envelope when IT received the money from the other employee.

Furrhermore, W-1 admitted that IT lied when IT stated the vehicle was locked, W-1 stated the vehicle was unlocked and that IT left the envelope which contained the money in the vehicle.


BBM

If LE was just trying to make JW look bad by saying he lied, why wouldn't they have said he lied about when he was first told to pick up the package? They made a distinction between a mistake and a lie. That makes it seem less like they were just trying to railroad JW.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m0sbjtcn1j6vkpz/266278174-Daron-Dylon-Wint-Charging-Documents.pdf?dl=0

I think JW "made a mistake about when It was first told to get the package". I think that with busy lives, numerous texts, emails, calls from friends, family, racers, etc. the SS message to pick up the package wasn't accurate in his memory as to that timing.

From that point, I think the remaining events were confusing with the cash and the car. The supposed 'innocent' participants (JW, accountant, assistant, banker, and who knows who else) could have even changed their plans, which would have made recalling it all even more confusing.

Just an idea of what 'could' have happened... the accountant could have told his assistant to tell JW to meet at the bank to pick up the package; then he/she contacted JW a bit later and requested that JW instead meet the accountant at the office. At the office, the accountant could have pulled the cash from his pockets and handed the cash to JW; then the accountant decided it would be better to have the cash in a manila envelope, so the accountant grabbed a manila envelope from his desk drawer. JW or the accountant puts the cash in the envelope and JW leaves the office with the manila envelope filled with cash. Then the accountant quickly remembers that he has a handy bank bag in his drawer and thought that would be a better way to transport the cash, so he hurries down the office hall to give JW the bank bag, so the cash was again moved. DUNNO!

JW describing these events could have been misconstrued by LE as lies. It could be that his explanations were indeed inconsistent because everything was confusing and kept changing. AND, he could have even said the words "I lied", but meant “my bad” and "I explained that wrong. Let me explain again as I try to recall ALL the details."

 

[FelicityLemon]

There are plenty more charges to come, even if most of them go to DW.

LE still believed (believes) DW didn't act alone after they arrested DW. When JW lied, he made LE's job much more difficult as they had to follow up on more than one story from him - and he's not the only witness. I think it's too early to think anyone is in the clear for the murders or lying to LE, as it hasn't even been made clear if the case will be tried in DC court or under Federal jurisdiction. That decision will affect the criteria for peripheral crimes, such as obstruction of justice. JW seems to be home free in DC, as obstruction of justice is primarily concerned with courts/juries. The federal charge has a much broader definition. JW should be worried about that, because his actions fall squarely within 18 U.S.C. § 1001--false statements and concealment of material facts before Federal departments and agencies
http://www.justice.gov/usam/crimina...offenses-related-obstruction-justice-offenses

Respectfully, I don't think LE wasted much time at all on this. I believe they already had the details from the accountant before they encountered JW. It may have been a matter of first letting him tell his narrative of his participation (which should have begun with the text from the night before, but...anyway) from beginning to end. He said what he did and then was confronted with something maybe like "are you sure the cash handoff happened like you said?" "Was it a red bag (whatever) or did the accountant take the cash from his pockets?" or vice versa "are you telling us the money was given to you as-is and not in a manilla envelope or other sealed container? Was it sealed?". There wouldn't have had to be much more time involved in this if it was all contained within the same interview. I don't know if phone calls were made in the interim, or if the accountant was in another interview room and LE took breaks to compare.

 

[facundo]

This was great! I actually watched the whole thing. The one thing I'm not sure about is suspect vs. witness. Is there a difference? If I knew I had nothing to do with the S family/VF murders, I'd be falling all over myself trying to be helpful to LE. It wouldn't even occur to me that I'd be seen as a suspect, so I could do damage to myself according to the guys in the video.

One thing that I found very interesting was the cop said he doesn't want to put innocent people in jail. But, he said, I usually try not to bring someone in to interview if I don't think they're guilty (I'm paraphrasing.) Where does that put witnesses that LE needs to help them reconstruct the days events, etc.?

IMO one thing Wint learned years ago is never talk to police. I think he has stepped up a notch to never talk to his attorneys either. He didn't rat out his cohorts who were with him when he was arrested and the PDA filed a subpoena for their names. Possibly the PDA didn't believe the phony names Wint told him or Wint wasn't talking.

 

[Sparky]

MOD ALERT

Is there a reason JW's family is still being talked about after "Several" warnings not too?

Stop!

 

[Skigirl]

Respectfully, I don't think LE wasted much time at all on this. I believe they already had the details from the accountant before they encountered JW. It may have been a matter of first letting him tell his narrative of his participation (which should have begun with the text from the night before, but...anyway) from beginning to end. He said what he did and then was confronted with something maybe like "are you sure the cash handoff happened like you said?" "Was it a red bag (whatever) or did the accountant take the cash from his pockets?" or vice versa "are you telling us the money was given to you as-is and not in a manilla envelope or other sealed container? Was it sealed?". There wouldn't have had to be much more time involved in this if it was all contained within the same interview. I don't know if phone calls were made in the interim, or if the accountant was in another interview room and LE took breaks to compare.

FelicityLemon, I love you, but the forensic processing and searching of a car is a non-trivial exercise.

 

[FelicityLemon]

After being shown the text, W-1 admitted the text was accurate and IT made a mistake about when It was first told to get the package.

W-1 admitted that IT had lied when lT stated the money was in a manila envelope when IT received the money from the other employee.

Furrhermore, W-1 admitted that IT lied when IT stated the vehicle was locked, W-1 stated the vehicle was unlocked and that IT left the envelope which contained the money in the vehicle.


BBM

If LE was just trying to make JW look bad by saying he lied, why wouldn't they have said he lied about when he was first told to pick up the package? They made a distinction between a mistake and a lie. That makes it seem less like they were just trying to railroad JW.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m0sbjtcn1j6vkpz/266278174-Daron-Dylon-Wint-Charging-Documents.pdf?dl=0

ooh, maybe the accountant said something LE couldn't believe. If a business accountant had $40k raw in his pockets and gave it to another employee without benefit of container - why that'd raise my eyebrows for sure. We want to know what the accountant said.

 

[FelicityLemon]

FelicityLemon, I love you, but the forensic processing and searching of a car is a non-trivial exercise.

No, of course not! But, I do believe they would have done that anyway given that it was how the money was transported.

He arrived at the home, talked to LE there, told him his part (exactly how much or what he said is up for grabs right now), told him where his car was parked, they took him in for questioning (natural) and took his car (natural).

 

[Skigirl]

ooh, maybe the accountant said something LE couldn't believe. If a business accountant had $40k raw in his pockets and gave it to another employee without benefit of container - why that'd raise my eyebrows for sure. We want to know what the accountant said.

I agree. No guilty plea for Wint!

 

[Skigirl]

No, of course not! But, I do believe they would have done that anyway given that it was how the money was transported.

He arrived at the home, talked to LE there, told him his part (exactly how much or what he said is up for grabs right now), told him where his car was parked, they took him in for questioning (natural) and took his car (natural).

But the grounds for the search involved his lies and potential involvement in the murders...didn't they?

 

[SeesSeas]

But...but...there were two versions of his story. I am not following.

But... two versions of his story does not mean he lied. He could have Made A Mistake in recalling (1st version) and then corrected to his best recollection (2nd version).