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

[Skigirl]

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...ch-warrants-cell-phone-records-306025611.html

I'm still puzzled by the fact that all that's been reported is that AS's and SS's physical phones were being sought but that no one seems to have seen any warrants looking for their VM, text and calling records. I don't know if it's sloppy reporting, and/or if those particular warrants just haven't been released, or what. I am sure there ARE warrants for the phone data, and I wonder what else are in those warrants. It would be very interesting to see those, and the inventories for the warrants for the house.

 

[jjenny]

This makes sense if you assume they thought the car was worth searching, but if all he did was take a manilla envelope with money in it and put it in the SS house, why would they have been interested in searching his car? It doesn't seem they did more than a cursory search of even the Savopoulos' other vehicles nor does it seem they tried to search anything belonging to NG, even though she was there at the dojo the night of the crime.

It seem rather obvious police initially suspected him. But sometimes police suspect wrong people.

 

[jjenny]

Hanover picked up on comments previously made by Ficker. IMO Wint wasn't telling Hanover anything. For example one of Hanover's first public remarks was about Wint being set up. On May 21, Ficker said that he was set up and then inferred that other employees at AIW were involved. Neither attorney's remarks actually quoted Wint.

http://www.people.com/article/dc-mansion-murders-who-is-daron-dylon-wint
http://abcnews.go.com/US/dc-mansion-murder-suspect-daron-wint-thinks-set/story?id=31825943

And who knows where Ficker got it from. Ficker was making all kind of claims, including that DW is a non-violent gentle person. Which we know is false, since DW stabbed at least one guy twice (among other things).

 

[facundo]

Range Rover, Land Rover and Audi
http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/2918504...adruple-murder.

Later, when fence was installed, family cars were driven away from the house. (No detail on exact cars.)
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2015/06...on-114545.html

Interesting that that didn't include the Mosler.

The Mosler is not mentioned. No need to take it away if it is locked up in the garage.

 

[popsicle]

I'm still puzzled by the fact that all that's been reported is that AS's and SS's physical phones were being sought but that no one seems to have seen any warrants looking for their VM, text and calling records. I don't know if it's sloppy reporting, and/or if those particular warrants just haven't been released, or what. I am sure there ARE warrants for the phone data, and I wonder what else are in those warrants. It would be very interesting to see those, and the inventories for the warrants for the house.

There were warrants for their phone data etc. Here is Amy's: http://www.scribd.com/doc/267776484/Affidavit-Amy-Savopoulos-Cell-Phone

 

[rkf]

Many posts analyzed JW's 'noted' 3 points, w some implicitly assuming JW's V.2 was truthful & accurate. Do we know that? Has LE concluded that and if so based on what? Does LE know who is telling the truth and if so, how?

Hypo, in which I/we azz-ume the following chronology, for sake of discussion.
- First, LE interviewed acct'ant before JW.
- AIW acct'ant gave Version.A, on the 3 points, different info from what JW later gave.
- Second, LE secured some e-trail w pix of currency in red bag, some texts, incoming & outgoing cell calls, VMs, BoA surv cam, etc. Maybe other forensics.
I'm trying to find neutral language to summarize JW's interview. How's this?
- Third, JW gave V.1 re the 3 points. After those 3 points, LE re-posed questions, showed $-pix, likely showed or told him info from other sources, likely acct'ant, then -
- JW gave V.2 re the 3 points.
Pls. ATM, let's disregard whether V.1 & V.2 differences were inadvertent misstatements or deliberate lies on JW's part.

Discussion
1. Does LE know acct'ant's Version.A of the 3 points is true and if so, how?
2. Does LE know acct'ant's V.A of other points/info is true and if so, how?

^My thought, jmo: LE wd know only if corroborated, w better/best corrob being e-trail or other forensics.
Other poss corrob =
-interviews w BoA emp's re actions they witnessed, but not inc. all 3 pts, b/c cd/not hv/seen.
-interviews w AIW emps re actions they witnessed.
What if ^ AIW emps participated in scheme to secure $$$ or kill S fam? Then not reliable as corrob.

3. Does LE know JW's V.1 of the 3 points is false &/or inaccurate & if so, how? What if acct'ant lied? Could V.1 be true?
4. Does LE know JW's V.2 re other info is true or false and if so, how?

^My thought, jmo: same as ^. LE wd know only if corroborated, w better/best corrob being e-trail or other forensics.
Other poss corrob = same as ^

Has JW's V.2 re 3 points bn corroborated by e-trail or other forensics? By acct'ant stmts? Until LE reveals something to this effect, who knows if V.2 is accurate. Could be accurate, IDK. Does LE know who is telling the truth and if so, how?

Hoping others will respond & post their opinions on these ^questions. Thx in adv.

Really well laid out, al66pine! Thank you.
I assumed that LE had confirmation of one story over the other in order to know what JW told them was not accurate. But, to me, his first story about receiving the money, made more sense than the second! IDK which stories are accurate and which are not. I don't think, from reading the affidavit, we can be sure which versions LE believes/knows are accurate. LE doesn't specify that the last version is the corroborated one AFAICT. JMO.

 

[FelicityLemon]

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...ch-warrants-cell-phone-records-306025611.html

Well, one thing cleared up for me in this story, if we can believe it. It's so frustrating that so much misinformation has been disseminated at all via MSM. This is a clear and emphatic statement: "In fact, he was given four bundles of cash,"

I WILL NEVER understand a bank or the AIW employee just giving four bundles of cash without an envelope or even an an old Taco Bell bag.

 

[TexMex]

Well, one thing cleared up for me in this story, if we can believe it. It's so frustrating that so much misinformation has been disseminated at all via MSM. This is a clear and emphatic statement: "In fact, he was given four bundles of cash,"

I WILL NEVER understand a bank or the AIW employee just giving four bundles of cash without an envelope or even an an old Taco Bell bag.

The bank may have offered and the employee declined. It could fit into pockets...the employee knew he'd be handing it off very shortly.

For reference

 

[rkf]

IMO, LE had to have a reason to secure his car at the scene of the fire, perhaps even before they interviewed him. It was the same day as the fire, but it's not clear when it was "towed" relative to JW speaking to LE. Did the accountant call LE to relay the morning's events as soon as he heard about the fire?

I wouldn't be surprised to find that LE thoroughly searched the S family's and NG's cars. Maybe they didn't need SWs because they had permission, or maybe those SWs are still sealed. If LE received permission from JW or his mom to search the BMW, would LE still want a SW if they expected to find evidence? It seems like LE waited an awfully long time to conduct the search after the SW was issued. Why would they wait so long if they thought the car contained evidence? Doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.

This makes sense if you assume they thought the car was worth searching, but if all he did was take a manilla envelope with money in it and put it in the SS house, why would they have been interested in searching his car? It doesn't seem they did more than a cursory search of even the Savopoulos' other vehicles nor does it seem they tried to search anything belonging to NG, even though she was there at the dojo the night of the crime.

 

[rkf]

Really well constructed post. Thank you BellaVita!

Another reason I find it odd that JW forgot about Wednesday night's text from SS regarding the package is that JW responded to SS with a text of his own. Taking action on the matter would further ingrain the memory of receiving the text (for me anyway). If not for that, I would be more sympathetic of his mistaken remembering, as he could have initially missed it, saw it Thursday morning, whatever. But we know he read it Wednesday night because he responded. SS also called JW Thursday morning.

I have been assuming all along that the narrative LE laid out in the affidavit was constructed from interviews with numerous witnesses, not just JW. Since only 3 witnesses are named in the affidavit, does that mean only the information gleaned from those 3 is included? Does LE rely on additional unreleased information to build their theory of the case/write the affidavit? I realize those are 2 different things...

I still don't understand being so inaccurate about this recollection. Receiving a text on Wednesday evening is way different than getting a phone call on Thursday morning. A person should be able to recall that info. As an employee getting that text on Wednesday evening, I'd be making mental notes to myself about possibly having to re-arrange my schedule, setting my alarm clock for a different time, personal activities, etc. due to the unexpected request of my employer. I'd get up on Thursday morning knowing that I'd be handling the task requested of me the previous evening. Now, if police questioned me weeks or months later, I'd have to consult my phone records. But not if questioned a day later. Was there also a call from SS to JW on Thursday morning? Possibly. In both accounts, he was instructed to meet the accountant in Hyattsville.



Who is the assistant? I don't believe there is any such person in the affidavit. Maybe I missed it? The instructions to JW were consistent in both versions of his story: meet the accountant in Hyattsville. There didn't seem to be confusion on this point.

.

Again, no reference to an assistant that I can see. There is a lot of unfounded speculation here. The details are in the search warrant. None of the above happened. Text from SS told JW to meet accountant at the office in Hyattsville. That was Wednesday night. In JW's 1st story, he said he first got those instructions on Thursday morning.




Again, nothing like that happened. It's in the warrant. It's very clear cut. JW met the accountant at the office and they each drove to BOA. JW did not receive the money at an office. There was no grabbing of a manila envelope by the accountant. Nor quickly remembering a handy bank bag. No hurrying down the office hall. JW received the money at the bank and then drove to the S home. It is other details clearly outlined in the warrant that do not match up.




Some were characterized as lies by the police. The inconsistency regarding the day of the text was characterized as a mistake by JW. An odd mistake to make, IMO. I don't believe things were all that confusing. It seemed rather straightforward to me.

 

[rkf]

I wonder what search warrants haven't been unsealed yet. Have we even seen a search warrant for SS and AS' cell and landline phone records? Don't they just cover finding AS and SS's actual, physical phones plus pings showing where they are located? Not VMs or call records?


I don't think we've seen SWs for JWs or DW's phone/text records. I have trouble believing that they didn't get a SW for DW's and JW's phones. Am I misremembering the SWs?

They released SWs for JW's, AS', SS' and VF's phones. I think they got 2 types of warrants for JW's because the actual phone was available. The other phones obviously weren't available initially, so SWs were for phone records and tracking/pinging IIRC. I will double check when I'm in front of my computer.

Definitely tons of sealed warrants, etc out there.

 

[rkf]

Did they tow all of the vehicles away, or just some of them? Do we know which ones if not all?

They towed the Range/Land Rover and Audi out of the driveway and another Range/Land Rover off the street. Mosler stayed where it was in the garage. Still haven't seen or heard anything on the Bentley!

 

[rkf]

Holy cow! If Hanover was relying on Ficker's public comments to craft his own responses to MSM, that's yet another reason for DW to get rid of him! What a low-rent circus! JMO

Hanover picked up on comments previously made by Ficker. IMO Wint wasn't telling Hanover anything. For example one of Hanover's first public remarks was about Wint being set up. On May 21, Ficker said that he was set up and then inferred that other employees at AIW were involved. Neither attorney's remarks actually quoted Wint.

http://www.people.com/article/dc-mansion-murders-who-is-daron-dylon-wint
http://abcnews.go.com/US/dc-mansion-murder-suspect-daron-wint-thinks-set/story?id=31825943

 

[rkf]

<modsnip>

ETA: Just had a thought. If the BMW is titled to JW's mom, maybe JW doesn't have the authority to consent to a search of it. So she could have said no to a search. Does anyone know?

Justification for the search warrant is an important point to consider. It is possible that during questioning at the scene of the crime, JW started to feel the heat of being a suspect by association and his involvement with the money. When LE asked "do you mind if we search your car?" JW had the presence of mind to recall what his father had told him. Never trust the cops to search your car without a warrant. If JW said "not without a search warrant," it would immediately paint him as hiding something in the eyes of the investigating officer. Then police would need to justify impounding the vehicle as well as inviting JW to the station for further interviews.

 

[facundo]

Misspeaking happens often - it's human nature. Even with JW. Even with LE.

You write "I don't know for sure what was said."
BINGO! I, too, don't know for sure what was said."
None of us on WS (to my knowledge) know for sure what was said.
Since we don't know what was said, we certainly don't know who is lying and who is telling the truth.
LE has power because they wrote the affidavit. JW didn't agree to the words in the affidavit, and until it was unsealed, JW would have not known what LE wrote about what he supposedly said or did.
Think outside the box. Just because LE wrote the report does not mean it is accurate. Did LE intentionally lie or mischaracterize. Hmmm, I don't know. But I personally KNOW circumstances where LE has lied under oath. Why? Favorable outcome.
My thoughts... the scenario with the $40,000 being transferred, transported, and delivered is SO KOOKY, that LE must have quickly decided that JW is guilty of something serious related to this horrific crime. Most people would think this (human nature). LE has the power to write their affidavit with a spin, slant, lie, mischaracterization (or whatever other word fits), to shape a view that would be in line with their thoughts... that JW is guilty of something. And, so here we are on WS debating about this.

What he said verses what LE wrote down has no merit unless JW signed a copy of LE's interview notes or LE has a video of the interview. I doubt that LE would prepare an affidavit that could not be backed up by one of these.

 

[rkf]

W-3 is also included in affidavits. S/he saw the Porsche on New York Avenue Thursday afternoon.

Of course there are other people questioned who are not in this particular affidavit. However, the accountant and JW are surely primary in regard to that particular Wednesday/Thursday events as I don't recall anybody else except JW girlfriend being mentioned in any other warrants/affidavits including those issued for DW. They are most relevant by far, IMO. I know you were providing an "idea" of what "could" have happened but IMO, that speculation is not necessary because the BMW warrant and all subsequent warrants issued, even those weeks later, still lay out the same narrative as the original. JW met accountant at office, both traveled to BOA, JW delivered money to SS. That narrative has not changed so IMO, we DO know something. If original warrant was materially incorrect, later ones would have mentioned something to the effect of "in light of the new information learned".



If you believe the 2nd story of JW, then you at least think you know what happened. At least as to those particular details. LE writes the warrant as so-and-so stated for those points which can't be proven factually. Police can sometimes be imprecise but the warrant has to be filed in good faith that the details stated within are substantially true or thought to be true. It's not just a document filled with make-believe about what LE think MAY have happened. The biggest uncertainty about the warrant is whether what witness JW "stated" is true or not.



BBM: Agree

 

[rkf]

See post #1 in this thread. The list of SWs is there. You can see the phone SWs.

I'm still puzzled by the fact that all that's been reported is that AS's and SS's physical phones were being sought but that no one seems to have seen any warrants looking for their VM, text and calling records. I don't know if it's sloppy reporting, and/or if those particular warrants just haven't been released, or what. I am sure there ARE warrants for the phone data, and I wonder what else are in those warrants. It would be very interesting to see those, and the inventories for the warrants for the house.

 

[rkf]

What he said verses what LE wrote down has no merit unless JW signed a copy of LE's interview notes or LE has a video of the interview. I doubt that LE would prepare an affidavit that could not be backed up by one of these.

Thank you! I was wondering about that. I know a suspect has to sign a confession, but wasn't sure if a witness has to sign his/her statement. Of course, now that you've told us, it seems obvious, but that was really niggling me.

 

[facundo]

Justification for the search warrant is an important point to consider. It is possible that during questioning at the scene of the crime, JW started to feel the heat of being a suspect by association and his involvement with the money. When LE asked "do you mind if we search your car?" JW had the presence of mind to recall what his father had told him. Never trust the cops to search your car without a warrant. If JW said "not without a search warrant," it would immediately paint him as hiding something in the eyes of the investigating officer. Then police would need to justify impounding the vehicle as well as inviting JW to the station for further interviews.

<modsnip>
ETA: Just had a thought. If the BMW is titled to JW's mom, maybe JW doesn't have the authority to consent to a search of it. So she could have said no to a search. Does anyone know?

SW for JW&#8217;s BMW:
6. Members of the Major Crimes/Cold Case Homicide unit conducted an investigation into this offense and interviewed a person identified as Jordan Wallace..
7. Wallace stated he received a call from Mr. Savopoulos on Thursday morning, May 14, 2015 and was directed to report to the office..
8. As detectives continued to question Wallace, Wallace changed his account ..
It is not stated in the SW where the interview(s) took place. Was it at the scene of the crime? Was it at a police facility? Was the interview referenced in paragraph 6 at the scene of the crime and the continued paragraph 8 in the police facility? In either case there seems to be no logical reason for JW to lie about the manila envelope and the Mosler being locked or unlocked. By the same token, there is no logical reason for LE to omit reference to the time and place of the interview(s). We can only conjecture and form our own opinions of both.

 

[Skigirl]

<modsnip>

ETA: Just had a thought. If the BMW is titled to JW's mom, maybe JW doesn't have the authority to consent to a search of it. So she could have said no to a search. Does anyone know?

I don't think you have to be the owner of property to consent to a search, I think "control" of it is sufficient. At least that's what my 10th grade social studies teacher told us in his advice about what (not) to do when the police show up at your parents' house during a party. :angel: